HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-03 Historic Packet~ CITY OF
- SHLAND
HISTORIC COMMISSION CITY OF ASHLAND
Agenda
December 3, 2003
I. CALL,TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in Community Development/Engineering
Services Building (51 Winburn Way)
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 5, 2003
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
PLANNING ACTION 2003-152 is a request for Site Review and a Conditional Use Permit to construct an
approximately 715 square foot addition to the parish hall of the existing Trinity Episcopal .Church located at 44
North Second Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E
09 DB; Tax Lot: 3600.
APPLICANT: Trinity Episcopal Church
PLANNING ACTION 2003-149 is a request for Site Review to convert an existing accessory structure to a
second residential unit at the rear of the property located at 238 Eighth Street. A Variance is requested to permit
a second residence on a property of less than the required lot area, as well as a Variance to on-street parking
credit standards. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39
1E 09 AB; Tax Lot: 401.
APPLICANT: Janet Larmore & Tom Strong
PLANNING ACTION 2003-150 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new residence 25 percent
in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) established by City Ordinance on the property located at
22 Scenic Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map
#: 39 1E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 7401.
APPLICANT: T. Michael Ryan
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Review Board ~> appointments/volunteers
B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions
C. Possible National Register Nomination for Lithia Springs Property
D. Carnegie Library Restoration
V, NEW BUSINESS
VI, COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
VII, ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. The next Historic Commission meeting will be on January 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou
Room.
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 (T]'Y phone number is 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 Title1).
CITY OF
SHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
November 5, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:02 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community
Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Alex
Krach, Joanne Krippaehne, Jay Leighton, Rob Saladoff, and Sam Whifford. Also present were Council Liaison John
Morrison, Associate Planner Mark Knox, and Account Clerk Derek Severson. Terry Skibby arrived at 7:06 p.m. (Member
Keith Chambers is on sabbatical.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Krippaehne requested the following correction to the October 8th, 2003 minutes, in the fourth paragraph of page six:
'Krippaehne asked about using access for parking from the alley between the hot__.! existing parking garage and the
proposed building."
Whitford/Saladoff mis to approve the minutes of October 8th aS amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Krippaehne stated that in the fourth paragraph of page one, she would like to make the following change in the third
sentence: "For example, she cited Craftsman and Queen Anne styles as being completely different at the turn of the
century;" ......... .':.c;;-
......... , .............. --. CC."
Krippaehne/Leighton mis to approve the minutes of October 21=t as amended. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Action 2003-118
Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit
265 Glenview Drive
Sidney and Karen DeBoer
Krippaehne noted that she had a conflict of interest due to a professional relationship with the applicants and would be
removing herself from the meeting.
Knox recounted the background'of this application and noted that it had originally been granted staff approval but was then
called up to a public hearing. He noted three maps that had been posted to illustrate the site, and discussed the proposal.
Knox explained that the property is zoned R-1-7.5 and has an existing house that was built in the 1980's which is to be
removed. He added that the remaining parcel is 22,000 square feet with a roughly 11,000 square foot home proposed to
be built.
Knox reported that an addition was initially proposed for the 1910 Frank Clark-designed Humboldt Pracht house but that
plan was changed to the current design to address concerns expressed by this commission. Knox pointed out that multiple
architects had been involved in the project and that there had been numerous meetings between these architects and staff.
Knox further explained that the previously proposed addition to the Pracht house would not have required public review by
the Historic Commission. He stated that the changes in response to commission concerns lead to the current design and
this public review.
Knox noted that the design minimized the mass and scale of the structure given the large size. He added that he had seen
the evolution of the design resulting in the structure being setback into the hillside and mitigating the impact.
Knox discussed the nature of Physical and environmental constraints permit applications. He stated that they are a staff
permit and the applicable criteria do not address design within the historic district. Knox pointed out that the proposal is
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
CITY OF
SHLAND
located within the historic district but is classified as non-contributing due to its age. He explained that the proposal Was
to locate the new house thirty feet away and up the hill from the National Register-listed Pracht house. Knox reiterated that
that a Physical and environmental constraints permit review has no design controls within the historic districts. He added
that such controls were specifically omitted to avoid limiting typical design features of historic homes such as gables, steep
roof pitches, and masses. He emphasized that there were no design criteria to approve or deny the application, and further
explained the need to consider erosion control measure, cut and fill aspects, and tree preservation in the motion. Knox
stated that the applicants had employed a geotechnical engineer to address these aspects of the application.
Saladoff clarified that the lot containing the Frank Clark home was being reduced to 8884 square feet, and asked staff
whether lot coverage issues had been looked at. Knox confirmed that staff had looked at lot coverage and that the proposal
would barely meet the lot coverage standards by removing some elements such as a brick courtyard in order to address
impervious surfaces.
Saladoff questioned considering the attic as a half-story, and he noted that there was clearly living space above. He stated
that while the basement might not be considered a story he felt there was clearly a third story of living space. Knox
responded that the standard is for two-and-a-half stories and a maximum height of thirty five feet. He stated that the
bottom floor here, as seen from Vista Street, is by definition a basement as it is covered by earth. He explained that the
home consists of a basement, first and second stories and a half-story above. He added that the average height is.right
at thirty five feet.
Skibby asked whether only one structure was being replaced. Knox stated that the garage would remain and that only the
1980's house would be removed. He added that the house to be removed is three-and-a-half stodes, and that the proposed
structure is not as high. He stated that the new structure is similar to the garage but wider.
· Applicant Sial DeBoer/234 Vista Street thanked Knox for providing a history of the application. He stated that he finds
this proposal to be a better solution than the original proposal. He emphasized that the applicants do not want to damage
the town, and added that he feels that they have enhanced the town. 'He stated that the new home will one day be
historically significant. He emphasized that the proposal has a 4,000 square foot footprint. He explained that the original
design was more prominent and not set into the hillside, but after meeting with staff and the commission the decision was
made to set the structure into the hill and meet all of the standards.
DeBoer pointed out that the elevations do not illustrate the degree of coverage provided by the hillside in mitigating the
impact of the structure. He discussed how the design mitigates the impact; Karen DeBoer added that a new paint color
will be used to further lessen the impact.
Project Architect Ken Ogden, of Ogden Kistler Architecture/2950 E Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, emphasized that
if the house were built on the lawn area no review would have been necessary. He explained that the applicants desire
to nestle the structure into the hill out of respect for the neighbors lead to the need for this application. Ogden noted that
the proposed design emulated Greene and Greene-designed houses in Pasadena. He added that the trees on site will
screen the structure, and he suggested that the applicants' role in the community necessitates the inclusion of a large room
for events. He stated that at such events, they have valet parking at the nearby parking structure. DeBoer added that they
also sometimes have guests staying at the Ashland Springs Hotel and walking to their home for events.
DeBoer concluded that the applicants had compromised to the extent possible, and that they hope for the commission's
support. He emphasized that the project was not undertaken lightly.
Ogden showed color and material samples. Ogden added that engineers Amrhein and Taylor had worked to design the
stair-stepped cuts into the hillside in order to avoid destabilization, and that the structure would be appropriately founded
into the hill with appropriate retainage.
Ogden stated that the structure's being nestled into the hillside reduces its solar impact. He stated that it was fifteen to
twenty feet below the limit calculated under the solar ordinance, and would cast no shadow on the neighbors' properties.
He reiterated that the new structure is lower than the existing structure which is to be removed. He added that the
Demolition Review Committee had approved the demolition proposed, and the intent was to salvage materials from the
demolished structure if site constraints prevent it from being moved off-site. Ogden pointed out that the design as viewed
on-site will be less harsh than the two dimensional elevations as the elevations cannot adequately illustrate the way the
structure is setback and articulated. He explained that the grade at Glenview will lessen the structure's profile by reducing
its massing. He restated that it will appear less massive than the existing house.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
C ! T !' 0 F
SHLAND
Ogden stated that he was available for questions by the commission, and he commended the applicants for their efforts.
He stated that the proposal represents true architecture rather than mere gingerbread surface treatments. He stated that
the home's essence is a truism reflected in functional features such as the prominent exposed beams, and he suggested
that the home will be long-lived.
Morrison clarified that the new structure is roughly two-and-a-half times wider than the existing. DeBoer noted that this is
somewhat deceptive due to the amount of city street right-of-way nearby. DeBoer discussed the need to get space in the
new home for events without dominating the site. He added that muCh of this was accomplished within the basement area
which is not visible from the street.
Ogden noted that from Vista Street, some of the roofline would be visible. He added that the vegetation to remain will
screen the structure and a berm will be used to offset excavated areas.
Shostrom opened the public hearing'at 7:40 p.m.
Phii Selbyl spoke n favor of the application. He noted that he was a Iongtime Ashland resident and that his father had the
Chevrolet dealership in town when DeBoer's father had the Chrysler dealership. He stated that he has known the DeBoers
for years. Selby noted that when his father built one of the largest homes in Ashland in 1953 on Walker Street there was
a similar outcry from the citizens. He suggested that while it may bring envy and resentment, he feels that if the project
meets city standards and fits the site the applicants should be allowed to build it. He emphasized that the proposal meets
city requirements, and added that the applicants have done a lot for the community. He concluded by noting that criticism
of large houses occurred in the past as well, and those houses are now considered historically significant.
Bill Patton/Il0 Terrace Street stated that he lives directly above Glenview, and that he built his home there forty years
ago. He stated that he likes his site for the view, and he was concerned with the proposal initially. He explained that after
seeing the design, he is very impressed with how well it fits the site. He stated that it is lower than the present structure
and enhances the site. He suggested that it will be nearly unseen from the street. He commended the DeBoers for their
community work, and added that the house would be a community asset and an enhancement.
Chris Addemonl vista Street neighbor stated that he agreed with others in favor of the project, and added that it will be
magnificent. He stated that this is not a "show-me" house, and he added that he felt that jealousy and small-mindedness
had lead to the negative comments about the proposal. He pointed out that the community benefit from the house will
outweigh any personal benefit to the DeBoers in that the house will allow events in support of community resources such
as the hospital and the YMCA.
Bryan Holley/324 Liberty Street noted that he has been given testimony at public meetings for a long time and is
frequently told he must stick to criteria not irrelevant issues. He asked the commission, with all other issues aside, to
consider whether this proposal was a single family home or an entertainment center.
Bill Street/180 Meade Street asked for clarification about the commission's role. He noted that his feeling is that the
commission's role gives them the freedom to comment and express their opinions. He reiterated that commissioners
should be able to evaluate based on their historical expertise and comment. Street recounted that the DeBoers had moved
to the site ten or eleven years ago and had since demolished two houses that fit the neighborhood. He reiterated that the
commission's role was to comment in order to preserve the historic neighborhood. Street discussed local historian George
Kramer's call for a maximum house size ordinance in historic districts; he emphasized that this ordinance had been
approved by this commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council as a clear indication of the community's will.
He asked that the commissioners keep this in mind when making motions as this structure has no resemblance to any
historic pattern, and he added that the construction of such a structure would create a huge disruption for the neighborhood.
He restated concerns with the impact of the large home and its proposed role as an entertainment center with potentially
late hours on a small town historic neighborhood.
Joan Steele/332 Glenn Street asked commissioners to recognize that the DeBoers' philanthropy was not at issue here.
She added that Holley's analogy to an entertainment center was apt, and questioned what would happen to this home in
fifty or one hundred years. She stated that it would endure even though the DeBoers would be gone. She asked whether
there will be a need for a palace or entertainment center at that time. She added that a person can entertain in many
places, and she noted that DeBoer's brother was remodeling a large home outside the district. She stated that the
commission has a moral obligation to preserve the district and protect the character of the town.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
3
CITY OF
SHLAND
Colin Swales1461 Allison Street noted that he was a Planning Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. He added that
he would recuse himself from the Planning Commission hearing as he had been the one who called the demolition
application up to a public hearing at the request of concerned neighbors. He stated that he would be speaking as a private
citizen at the Tree Commission meeting and the Hearings Board hearing. He stated that the historic pattern was for smaller
houses, and the proposal represents a different pattern. He suggested that the Historic Commission should not be limited
to dealing with criteria and should instead be considering the historic district impact. Swales pointed out that the DeBoer
house was on the cover of the document George Kramer prepared inventorying historic district homes for the city. He
added that the new house will be visible from all around the city, and as such the view from the district, from downtown,
and from all over the city must be considered. He pointed out that the Humboldt Pracht house was the largest home in the
city at one time, and that the proposed home is four times larger. He urged the commission to consider LCDC Goal 5 and
the city's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the proposal involves cutting down the historic home's lot to the bare
minimum, and he suggested that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should be contacted for their ruling on the
impact of the proposed boundary line adjustment on the Frank Clark-designed home. Swales recalled the meeting where
the initial proposal of a 4,000 square foot addition was considered and suggested that this proposal is no better. 'Swales
added that his own inquiry about the Physical and Environment Constraints permit review requirements were all that brought
this item before the commission. He also stated that the house could not be built more to the front of the lot due to the solar
ordinance, and he suggested that it would be better in his estimation if houses were built to the front of their lots. He
suggested that the placement of five feet of fill on the lawn area was inappropriate.
Louis Leger/243 North Laurel Street explained that he owned a small home in the Skidmore Academy District. He
emphasized that the commission's role is not to carry out Planning Commission or City Council functions but rather to
provide historica expertise. He questioned how the proposal could be seen to fit in any historical concept. He added that
the hospital on Laurel and the swedifibdrg house on the SOU campus are the only structures that come close, and he
emphasized that neither were single family homes. He suggested that the only exception seems to be that there is always
one standout, prominent citizen, but he added that those homes are normally built within context. He stated that this
proposal is not in context for Ashland. He noted that it does not look like the Ashland of the past, and he challenged anyone
to explain the house in a historical context. He questioned the role and mandate of the commission. He pointed out that
as a citizen, he was proud of the small 1911 single family home that he had restored and he likes Ashland for that sort of
character. He stated that he did not want someone moving in and disrupting that character. He reiterated that he like the
districts and their small homes, shacks and garage, with some homes a little larger than others. He concluded that the
proposed neo-Greene and Greene is pretend, not Ashland.
Knox explained the role of the commission as listed in the Comprehensive Plan as protecting the historic district,
streetscapes and historic resources. He recognized that this home is to be the biggest in Ashland by his estimation. He
noted that staff and the commissioners have worked to list each district in the city on the National Register in order to
protect the homes and the city's heritage. He added that the city has adopted a maximum house size ordinance for its
historic districts, and that he and the commission co-authored this ordinance to limit the maximum house size within the
district at 3,249 square feet. He suggested that there was no intent on the part of the applicants to beat the deadline on
this ordinance as the process began two years ago.
Knox stated that the Historic Commission Review Board looks at single family home plans every Thursday afternoon, and
he explained that they have no "yea or nay' power only an advisory role. He reiterated that this application is narrowly
limited by the ordinance to address site issues as the historic district is intentionally excluded form the Physical and
environmental constraints permit review criteria. He stated that the ordinance criteria cannot be shifted midstream, and
he added that commissioners may comment on the design but should be clear to state whether their comments are based
on opinion or criteria.
Knox added that he had spoken to SHPO and that they basically support the commission's decision as a body recognized
for its expertise by the state and federal governments. He stated that the commissioners must base their approval or denial
on criteria.
DeBoer stated that they would avoid disrupting the neighborhood during construction. He noted that he owns two of the
neighboring houses, and added that there was no new driveway encroachment proposed. He pointed out that the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival already has events all night through the season, and his events would be planned on Mondays when
the Festival is not running. He concluded that in fifty years, the property would be donated to the Sid and Karen DeBoer
Foundation, and would likely be sold by the foundation with proceeds to be used to support educational charities in Southern
Oregon. He indicated that this proposal meets the criteria without hurting the neighborhood, and is not an entertainment
center but rather a two person single family home that will host an occasional party or event.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
4
· CITY OF
kSHLAND
Shostrom closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
Shostrom emphasized the criteria were the focus here, and noted that the commission would not even be hearing the item
if it had not been called up to a public hearing. He reiterated that historic district design considerations are specifically
excluded from the Physical and Environment Constraints ordinance. Shostrom suggested that the design is vertical as
recognized by the applicants, but he recognized that that is not a criterion for consideration here. He concluded that while
the issues of impact on the historic district are valid they are not at issue here.
Krach asked staff if there was any way for the commission to protect the district in this case. He stated that he was
disheartened that there was such a lack of protection and suggested that he feels that the commission's hands are tied.
Knox stated that this was unfortunate, but he added that he would not want to see an appeal filed over the commission
stepping out of bounds. Knox emphasized that the protections in place in Ashland are among the best in Oregon. He
pointed out that the maximum house size ordinance is the most imposing restriction in the state without limiting design, just
mass and scale. He explained that the Review Board's power of persuasion has been very effective in the past and that
he feels most projects reviewed have benefited. He stated that the powers of the commission are limited by the state, and
that there are no regulations on design review of single family homes within historic districts and even less review on new
structures. He noted that this may change down the road, but that changes are not in place now. He recognized the desire
for change that he hears from the community. He concluded that the commissioners could certainly state their opinions
and express their frustration.
Skibby reiterated that this was not a site review application. He added that it seemed to be an improvement over the
proposal that had the structure placed nearer to the street. He stated that the current placement lessens the impact and
is scaled down with less massing. He cited the reduced mass from Glenview. He recognized that the proposal is wider
than the existing house, but he added that it is also more set back. He suggested that the visual impacts are comparable
to the condominiums or apartments across the street. He also stated that the site is somewhat isolated, with newer homes
down the street, and as such it is in an area where it will have a lesser impact. He recognized that the home will be seen
from a distance, and that the windows suggest more mass, but he stated that the design had been scaled down. He
concluded that the area is different than if this were proposed for B Street or Siskiyou Boulevard.
Leighton stated that she did not feel that the commission was able to critique the design. She cited the huge mass, the
disruption of the street pattern, and the impact to views from the entire valley as areas of concern. She emphasized that
the commissioners were not skilled in areas needed to address the physical and environmental constraints review criteria.
Shostrom suggested that the projects engineers had addressed the physical and environmental constraints criteria. He
stated that he too was disheartened by the proposal, which he noted was six times the size of the average home and four
times that which would be allowed under the new maximum house size ordinance. He stated that while this is disturbing
it will be the last one and lead to the rally for the ordinance. He added that he feels for the neighbors who will have to deal
with the construction's disruptions and the size and massing.
Skibby emphasized that these issues could not be addressed tonight.
Shostrom asked if the commission was really in a position to vote on this; Knox responded that commissioners could
approve or deny based on criteria with a note of their opinions. He stated that he felt commissioners could review the
proposed design details and identify any specific concerns. He reiterated that he believed the commissioners could still
voice design concerns.
Whitford noted that he is a Greene and Greene fan, and stated that he feels the proposed home is beautiful and totally
inappropriate to the district. He recognized that this could not be addressed however, as the submittal predates the
maximum house size ordinance. He pointed out that the view from little-used Glenview will be beautiful, but he stated that
from Vista Street it appears more like a hotel with all of the decks and balconies.
Skibby suggested that perhaps the commission could speak to this in its decision and recommend lessening the impact
of the windows and decks while retaining their function. He reiterated that the proposal was quite an improvement over
the original.
Leighton agreed that the house was more visually interesting from Glenview, but she noted that the asymmetricity from the
Vista Street side was heavy on one side. She noted the massing by the chimney and in the area near the garage. She
questioned if the nearby garage would have the effect of increasing the massing.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
5
CiTY OF
. kSHLAND
Skibby pointed out how the lower railing was broken by a bay window. Ogden stated that the elevations were more broken
up into multiple planes than could be shown in two dimensions. Skibby suggested that some offsetting might lessen the
hotel-like appearance. Knox referred commissioners to floor plan sheets 3.1 and 3.2 in their packets as an illustration of
how offsets are being used in the design. Skibby stated that he felt the mass would be lessened when viewed in three
dimensions.
Saladoff noted that numerous planes are used to mitigate the mass. He agreed that in two dimensions, the elevations
seem hotel-like, but he stated that the floor plans help to clarify.
Shostrom stated that the architects had done a good job with what they were given to accomplish; he suggested that it
might be as good as could be done with such a project.
Saladoff stated that his concern was not with the design, it was with a 10,000 to 11,000 square foot home being built on
the hillside. He agreed that the project was nicely designed, and added that his objections are more philosophical. He
added that he had concerns with the size, scale, neighborhood patterns, and issues of sustainability. He questioned the
amount of waste material that would be produced by such a project, but recognized that this was not an issue that fell within
the criteria to be considered. He suggested that from a design standpoint, the applicants had come as far as they can and
any design comments would be minor.
Leighton questioned if the commission had previously simply passed on reviewing a project that fell outside of their purview.
Knox stated that this may have been done on a minor item before. He stated that the commission could opt to do the same
here, and he added that the physical and environmental constraints review criteria were clearly outside of the commission's
charter purview. He reiterated that members could simply opt to not make any recommendation. Leighton stated that
without being able to speak to the massing or design it leaves little room for a decision.
Knox suggested looking to craft a motion that managed to somehow express the opinion of commissioners as well as a
decision. Krach stated that he could see a motion that moved to approve based on criteria with an expression of concern.
Leighton stated that the decision needed is outside of the purview while design and scale are real concerns. Krach agreed
that the voice needed seemed to be powerless but was still there. Whitford stated that the laws are stronger now. Krach
suggested that the commission had influence with no real power.
Morrison discussed his experience that matters like this are seldom clear cut, and he suggested that the key was to find
a balance between the competing interests through the process. He stated that commissioners could certainly express
their opinions from their historic and design expertise. He cautioned members away from pessimism, and pointed to the
small victories achieved in retaining the Pracht house and finding the DeBoers responsive to earlier concerns. He added
that the applicants have chosen an area near the downtown where larger buildings are more appropriate. He emphasized
the need to find a balance through small victories. He added that members should make suggestions, and stated that he
found the applicants to have been responsive. He stated that this had lead to a design that was as compatible as it could
be. He recognized the difficulty that commissioners Were experiencing, and he encouraged them to find a way to express
this collective opinion.
Knox confirmed for Saladoff that the commission would see this application again at the building permit review stage.
Shostrom and Leighton suggested that the commission could move for denial based on the opinion that this decision would
best preserve the neighborhood.
Leighton/Whifford mis to deny Planning Action 2003-118 based on the purview of the commission set in the city
charter, reflecting the opinion that the structure does not fit the historic district by its mass, scale, and partitioning
of the site. Discussion: Members clarified that they were not recommending denial based on the Physical and
Environment Constraints permit criteria. Krach suggested that this was an honorable motion even though it
amounted to tilting at windmills. He recognized that the building was a beautiful design, but added that it was just
proposed for the wrong place. Voice vote: Krach, Krippaehne, Whitford, Leighton, and Saladoff, YES. Skibby, NO.
Motion passed 5-1,
Shostrom called for a brief break at 8:46 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:00 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
CITY OF
SHLAND
Planning Action 2003-127
Land Partition, Site Review, Variance, and Administrative Variance and Exception
212 East Main Street
Ed and Tanya Bemis
Knox noted that this item had been continued from last month, and he added that the discussion at that time had to do with
the lack of detail in the proposal. He explained that the Planning Commission had agreed that more information was
needed to resolve design comments. He stated that the applicants have since provided additional information to the Review
Board, and have attempted to eliminate all variances from the proposal except for the balconies. He stated that there was
one additional area of staff concern, and that he was seeking the commission's help to resolve it. He stated that this would
be a more formal discussion, with plenty of detail presented now including the cut-out's and renderings the applicant had
posted. He stated that the plans presented give some options while the packet information that was distributed speaks to
the prior comments.
Knox clarified that the two relatively minor issues identified by staff as remaining were: 1 ) the balconies and 2) the vertical
rhythms. Knox explained that the ordinance says that recessed or projecting balconies shall not be incorporated in a street-
facing elevation. He pointed out that the prohibition on balconies in the design standards came out of looking at the
downtown streetscape in its entirety. He stated that there are very few projections into the downtown streetscape, and in
establishing the standards the Martino's building was seen as very foreign due to its stepped-back, recessed balconies.
He clarified that the design standards intend to give the best guidance possible; he cited page 8 of the Site Design and
Use Standards where exceptions are illustrated as showing a balcony that does not dominate the building's apPearance
or deviate from the collective historic fa(}ade. He added that the Gen Kai building at 180 Lithia Way had recently been
granted an exception. He stated that staff feels that while the proposed design meets the intent of the ordinance it is still
technically a request for a variance.
Knox stated that the second staff concern had to do with the vertical rhythms. He explained that along Main Street,
properties are typically distinguished by color variations, material treatment, or vertical breaks. He added that in addition
to this pattern, buildings also typically step down with grade. He suggested that the architects need to establish these
patterns here to address staff concerns. Knox stated that staff feels that the application is complete and can now move
on to the Planning Commission with support from the staff. He added that he feels the design represents a wonderful
investment in the downtown Urban core with housing, hidden parking, and sustainable design. He stated that the minor
design elements could be resolved here tonight.
Shostrom opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Applicants Ed and Tanya Bemis and architects Ken Ogden and David Wilkerson of Ogden Kistler Architecture introduced
themselves. Ogden noted that the colored elevation displayed was based on the commission's comments from the last
meeting. Ogden discussed the previous design as a single mass with no breaks and lots of glazing. He pOinted out the
changes made to reduce the glazing, repeat vertical patterns, extend columns to the ground, articulate the column caps,
and separate the mass into a building, a core area, and another building wrapping around the side of Hargadine Street.
Ogden noted that the commercial area nearest the hotel would have steel-framed windows with divided lights, and the
central core structure would be slightly different. He stated that the more residential portion near Hargadine would have
wood-framed windows. He discussed the anchored central point, the arches, refined historic details, cornices, and use of
the base to anchor the structure. He noted that the proposal continued to read as one element due to the horizontal aspect.
Ogden presented a new suggested design with a more definitive element in the form of a go-away strip to divide the
structures. He explained that the central portion retains its sense of being the core through its different vocabulary, while
the portion nearer to Hargadine gives rhythm and continuity while remaining distinct. He explained that he attempted to
have each respond and communicate with the other, such as in the Use or arches, without copying details. He added that
the light fixtures, windows, and molding would be distinct.
Ogden stated that each building has a clear sense of entry, and he noted that the unit nearest Hargadine had its entry to
Hargadine. He also addressed the erosion of form on the Ashland Springs side of the development, noting that he was
proposing less stair-stepping and modifying the single depth arch element to a cube. He stated that the changes result in
a more powerful feeling of a streetscape with different buildings.
Ogden pointed out that the scale, massing and height are all within standards for the zone. He explained that while there
is some volume, the overall height is less than the Old Masonic building on the Plaza. He emphasized that the varied forms,
the level of detail, and the articulation and undulation were in direct response to commission comments. He stated that
Ash/and Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
CITY OF
SHLAND
while there are still six balconies in the proposal, the articulation of the primary face means that the balconies only Project
eight inches. He explained that this would soften the face from a pedestrian point of view, and noted that this change was
in response to Planning Commissioner Marilyn Briggs' concerns that the balconies conflicted.
Ogden reaffirmed that this was not the last time the commission would be seeing this design, and he stated that he would
be coming back to the commission as design options presented themselves. He suggested that the applicants, architects,
staff, commissioners, and city will be proud of the end result.
Skibby inquired about the First Street elevation entries. Ogden discussed the retail space and plaza entries, and the entry
on the core retail area. Skibby stated that this retail entry would be strengthened by double doors. Ogden suggested that
these could be recessed back for a more protected feel. Wilkerson noted that the design being shown was a notch up from
the packet materials as it had been redesigned today from staff input in a morning meeting. Ogden emphasized that the
form and imagery better separate the three units.
Knox stated that staff was very pleased with the changes presented. He noted that the Site Design and Use Standards
do prefer recessed entrances. Ogden accepted that this could be made a condition of approval.
Ogden discussed the Hargadine Street edge. He pointed out that there were a series of repetitive forms that steal
somewhat from the Hotel behind. He stated that the design had a solidified base with a solid mass and centered focal point,
broken up by planters, and fairly consistent with the original design but with increased loft area and windows over the stair
tower.
Ogden explained that the alley elevation would mirror the articulation of the new First Street elevation. He noted that where
there were previously diagonal diamond grills to screen the parking, he had now added half-height walls with a horizontal
pattern. He noted that the uphill door from the parking area would be an exit only. He stated that an awning at the
pedestrian plaza would be the only highlight from the alley edge.
Ogden reported that the pedestrian plaza edge had entry elements balanced back with an erosion of the fa(~ade and a
centered plaster reveal that presented a public art opportunity. He stated that the artistic elements were yet to be defined,
but he added that there would definitely be solid panels for the elevator shaft.
Knox questioned whether the applicants would consider offering this space up for the Public Art Commission to design.
The Bemis were agreeable to this request, and added that they felt that the hotel should be given some input as well given
the proximity and orientation.
Leighton question how the Hargadine stairwell would be defined. Ogden stated that he would love something besides
leaving it blank, and suggested that he could bring ideas back to a later session. He emphasized that he was eager to
discuss this item, and drew a proposal on the board with radiused roof forms and cabling to give an airier, open,
contemporary feeling. He stated that he was excited by the opportunity to create an architectural sculpture. Wilkerson
added that this would enliven the streetscape while letting light and air into the parking area. Ogden stated that it would
draw in pedestrians.
Saladoff stated that he felt the element was symmetrical, with the street all at one elevation. He agreed that the street read
as more of a single elevation from Hargadine and stated that he would not be opposed to something contemporary as a
break-up. Skibby stated that he was open to this idea as well.
Ogden explained that the horizontality was overcome by material differences, cap articulation and height variation to break
things up. Whitford asked whether the color changes reflected material differences. Ogden responded that they were
similar materials but with differences in the color, texture and finish. He noted that there was a transition from smooth
plaster to repetitious control joints that gave the appearance of stacked block and back to smooth plaster. Ogden added
that plaster seemed to be the pattern in the downtown. He noted that there would be some plaster moldings but that most
would be pre-cast. He stated that the cornice profile would be unique on each building.
Doug Neuman/951 Emigrant Creek Road noted that he was the owner of the Ashland Springs Hotel and had been
working a long time to bring this project forward. He explained that he had first intended to match the existing hotel
structure on the lot behind but had found that this would be less appropriate and might detract from the existing. He added
that he liked Portland Pearl District and it provided some guidance here. He noted that the last meeting's comments had
redirected the design to a truer sense of Ashland architecture. He emphasized how excited he was with the current design,
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
8
CiTY 'OF
SHLAND
which he feels is appropriate to both Ashland and the historic district. He stated that he was available for any questions
the commission might have.
Shostrom closed the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Leighton questioned the open layout development where each tenant would be able to determine the arrangement of
interior spaces rented. Wilkerson responded that spaces have been allotted to each use, and Ogden added that there was
a new matrix that had been prepared breaking out the allocations. He added that generally the upper two levels are open
for residential use but the commercial layouts are clearly defined. Bemis clarified that tenants will be able to configure their
units uniquely and it gives them the opportunity to design their own interiors. He emphasized that the flexibility was in
interior design details, not wall spacing.
Shostrom questioned the total gross floor area; Wilkerson responded that it was not the 90,000 square feet stated in recent
pieces in the Tidings and was closer to 80,000. Shostrom stated that based on the roughly 19,000 square foot footprint
and three levels it is roughly 60,000 feet. Wilkerson and Ogden concurred with that assessment. Shostrom expressed
his concern with the volume and scale, but noted that it was well-mitigated since the last meeting as the applicants had
addressed the eighty foot vertical rhythms.
Wilkerson responded that they had tried to address the design within an Ashland context and had tried to look to the Plaza
for similarities. Shostrom and Skibby agreed that this was moving in the right direction. Wilkerson reiterated that the
separation was based on comments to reduce the scale.
Whitford suggested that the applicant had made huge strides in two weeks, with the appearance of three separate, smaller
buildings. Ogden added that they were continuing on in that direction.
Skibby reminded the applicant to clearly define the entrances on the First Street elevation and added that the motion should
reflect this.
Krippaehne agreed that well defined commercial entries from the street side are important. She expressed her
disagreement with the arbitrary breaking up of the structure. She stated that this is a sham that does not make a better
building. ,She emphasized that the exterior should reflect what is going on inside and that in this case there was no reason
for the separation except for the standards. She agreed that the applicants had come a long way in getting to the standard.
She reiterated that the arbitrary separation was not her preference, but added that the applicant had done a lot to meet
the city standard.
Shostrom stated that he appreciated Krippaehne's comments, and he suggested that there had been so much change to
the design that the members did not have for the other three sides that they must interpolate. He stated that he was fearful
that the applicants' malleability could lead them in the wrong direction. Ogden stated that they could take a step back.
Bemis expressed his concern that a design by committee process could be nonstop. He emphasized that the design is
already generating calls from prospective tenants at this stage, and that he feels that the design presented tonight is "it."
He added that there did not seem to be a collective input being provided but rather a collection of individual opinions.
Krippaehne emphasized that she felt the applicants had done a great job in designing to city standard, and that she was
merely questioning the design standard as focusing on frosting. ,She stated that she has a philosophical disagreement with
the standard here, and she added that one building should not have to look like three separate buildings.
Saladoff explained that the project represents a type and scale that had not been seen when the standards were set. He
noted the community's resistance to the big box idea, and he added that his reaction is that he does not want the look of
one big box. He recognized the applicants' concern that the commission was not speaking with one voice. He stated that
the applicants' malleability could lead to getting mired in details, but he added that this is pushing the design to the
standards. Saladoff pointed out that historically development did not come all at once and the separation is a reflection of
that. He agreed that it can seem artificial on a project built from scratch, especially when done only to meet the code, and
he acknowledged Krippaehne's trepidation. He added that he likes the direction the design has taken.
Bemis stated that he feels the appearance is very pleasing; he pointed out that while the fire station demonstrates the
requested separation the library does not.
Ash/and Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
: CITY OF
: SHLAND
Knox noted that the standards were adopted to give the commission a "place to hang its hat" in decision making. He cited
the Bard's Inn as an example of a design by competing interests, and he agreed that this was unfair to the applicants. He
stated that the standards are fair in that they represent an objective goal post. He added that the standards represent a
commitment by the community.
Skibby stated that he likes the direction taken to date with the Site Design and Use Standards as a guide. He added that
he would not be for a single, solid structure and he finds the current design to be an improvement over last month.
Whitford suggested that the applicant has affirmed that approval will not end the commission's involvement, and he stated
his belief that the applicants are committed to true design collaboration.
Ogden stated that he had created appropriate imagery for Ashland and had shown on the elevation provided that he has
the technical ability to develop the other three elevations accordingly. He reiterated that he would run other design features
by the commission throughout the project. He suggested that commissioners look at the big picture, and rather than seeing
responsiveness as too malleable seeing it as being comfortable with working in a committee setting. Ogden added that
he is able to glean valuable input from group comment through his experience with designing schools and hospitals and
dealing with their committees and boards. He emphasized that the tools for a great design are here and he expressed his
hope for a little faith on the part of the commission.
Skibby agreed that the architects had established their credibility.
Shostrom clarified that his statements about malleability were meant positively.
Skibby added that having exterior designs were important to ensuring compatibility.
Morrison noted that the big box ordinance as recently clarified by the council intended to limit size while making allowance
for parking, as provided here. He suggested that this application meets the intent of the ordinance and that the applicants
were doing a very good job thrOugh their design. He added that he found the appearance of three separate buildings quite
pleasing. He noted that frosting is important, or more cakes would be sold without it, but agreed that the exterior
appearance should harmonize with the interior workings. He stated that he felt the applicants could articulate this through
their design, and he noted that there are other large buildings all around, some of which are huge and ugly. He concluded
that this proposal is a step up.
Whifford/Skibby mis to approve Planning Action 2003-127 with the understanding that there would be continued
collaboration between the applicants, staff and the commission throughout the remainder of the design process
to address recessed' entries to the commercial areas, clarify the stairway along Hargadine Street, work out the
plaza View elevator shaft treatments, and resolve other details as established.
Discussion:
Knox suggested that there would be a typical condition recommended by staff that the final design incorporate
all recommendations of the Historic Commission.
Saladoff questioned the process for addressing further detail on the remaining elevations if the action were
approved here and now. He asked whether those elevations were necessary prior to making a decision.
Whitford stated his trust in the architects' explanation that the other elevations would reflect the changes made
in the First Street elevation and added that he was comfortable that these changes could be carried out in good
faith.
Skibby concurred with Whitford and he added that there would also be additional opportunity for review of the
final design through the building permit approval process.
Knox pointed out that the applicant might be able to complete the remaining three elevations prior to next week's
Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that one member of this commission could attend and comment
of the final elevations.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
10
IIHI
CITY OF
SHLAND
Morrison stated that the concern expressed at the last meeting was that there was a lack of detail and he
suggested that the question now is whether there is enough. He emphasized that the issue muSt be whether
commissioners feel they have enough detail at this stage.
Shostrom expressed his reservations with granting approval at this stage based on the level of detail presented
here. He emphasized that he has confidence in the ability and responsiveness of the architects, but he stated that
he was fearful of granting approval without seeing all of the completed elevations.
Ogden briefly noted how the new First Street elevation related to the other elevations and would tie into the floor
plans.
Skibby reiterated his feeling that there was enough detail to move ahead at this point.
Skibby/Leighton mis to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Leighton/Saladoff mis to extend the meeting to 10:45 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Shostrom emphasized that he could not support approval with this level of detail. He added that he appreciated
the concerns expressed by Krippaehne and would like to have time to discuss and consider the issues they raised.
Morrison clarified that he was not being critical, and was simply asking members to consider whether they were
comfortable with the level of detail being presented.
Knox expressed his opinion that there was enough information to accept the application. He added that design
is a subjective process with the devil in the details. He suggested that the applicants should be told what more
is needed. He concluded that staff supports the commission in reaching a decision either way.
Skibby suggested that the commission had approved projects before contingent upon resolving details. Shostrom
clarified that this reservations had to do with working out details given the scale of this project. Saladoff noted
the information that was lacking last time. He recognized that some of the details would not be set for sometime
in the process, but he added that the commission still had not seen three of the four elevations in the detail needed
or how the floor plans relate to these elevations. He noted that the applicants had addressed the concern with
the balconies. He stated that he would be more comfortable with another continuance given the size of the
project. He emphasized that he was confident the applicants would get it right.
Ogden stated that he could prepare the other elevations to reflect the new revisions and to match the floor plans
by next week's Planning Commission meeting. He emphasized that he felt the applicants had addressed the
information requested by the commission, and added that they simply had not worked out all specific details as
they are not at that stage in the project yet. He emphasized that they were at the conceptual design stage at this
point.
Knox clarified for Skibby that this action would be considered by the Planning Commission next week at the
Planning Commission meeting on November 12th.
Ogden reiterated the architects' willingness to improve the designs through input from the commission over the
course of the project. Wilkerson emphasized the level of detail that had been added to the upper levels since the
last meeting as a good faith illustration of their willingness to incorporate commission input.
Bemis suggested that based on staff comfort levels and the proposed conditions that the commission allow the
project to move ahead. Knox added that staff would draft a condition holding the applicants to their commitment
to ongoing discussion with the commission over the course of the project. He added that this condition would
involve finding an acceptable level of design deviation that would trigger bringing the project back to more formal
review.
Ogden emphasized that they would be back throughout the project because of the intensity and scale involved.
Wilkerson noted that th6 architects would also continue to work under staff oversight. Skibby asked if staff could
Ash/and Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
11
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
provide verbal updates to the commission on the progress made in dealing with the applicants as the design
develops further.
Shostrom noted that an approval at this level of detail would set a precedent. Knox reiterated that staff was
comfortable at this point, but he emphasized that the commission must be comfortable with the design too. He
added that the applicants are putting themselves on the line in committing to Ongoing collaboration throughout
the project.
Wilkerson emphasized that the architects were not trying to alter the process or set precedent. Knox noted that
the process usually involves one building, and he added that normally only small details are left to be resolved
on follow up. He clarified that designs are typically at 65% complete or more when they reach this point in the
commission's review, and he explained for the applicants that normally details being looked at would involve
plans with scalable trim and other specific detail.
Shostrom questioned what format an ongoing collaborative process would take. Knox suggested that there could
be recurring off-agenda items as needed. He added that he felt the scale of the project was too much for Thursday
review board consideration.
Ogden stated that he believed they would be bringing in material samples. Krippaehne suggested that this could
be done organically at an appropriate point in the process.
Leighton stated that it might be too early for a decision in her view.
Krippaehne explained that the commission may be expecting an inappropriate level of detail for a site review. She
agreed with the need to have things come back through the design process. She emphasized the need for an
organic coming-together of the design, and she stated that the design here was understandable with refinements
to follow.
Morrison stated that this will be a large building that he felt would be a credit to the community, but he added that
with the scale of the project comes an increased level of scrutiny. He suggested that commissioners must be
scrupulous in their decision. He emphasized that if commissioners were not comfortable he would suggest taking
more time rather than truncating the process given the degree of scrutiny expected.
Skibby clarified that the commission normally has finalized plans at the point of when they make a decision. He
added that there was a motion on the floor yet to be voted upon.
Voice vote: Krach, Krippaehne, Skibby, and Whitford, YES. Leighton and Saladoff, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
LeightonlKrippaehne mis to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board - Following is the November schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at
least 3:30 p.m. in the Community Development & Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way:
November 6th
November 13th
November 20th
November 26th
Skibby and Krippaehne
Skibby, Krach and Leighton
Skibby and Whitford
Skibby and Saladoff
NEW BUSINESS:
Lloyd Haines and Architect Dave Richardson informally presented a proposed design for new building located at 88 North
Main.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 11:07 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
November 5, 2003
12
The Ashland Planning DePartment preliminarily approved this request
on November 19, 2003. This action will be reviewed by the Ashland
Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. on November 12,
2003 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this review
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 20 East Main Street, prior to 3:00 p.m.
on December 1, 2003. The written request for the public hearing must
Include )'our name, address, the file number of the planning action and
the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or
modified, based on the applicable criteria. ~
.SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and
date stated above, there will be no public testimony
If you have queslJons o~ comments conoemlng INs request, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at Ihe Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041.
11~1_..
If a headng is requested, it will be scheduled for the following month,
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. ~
The ordinance atte~ applicable to lhis application are attached to this notice. Oregon
by letter, ~ failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the daCtslo~ maker an
of Appeals (LUBA) on Ihat issue. Failure to spadfY which ordinanoe altorion lhe objection
is based o~ also precludas your Hght of appeal to LUBA on lhat cfltedon. Failure of the
wilh suf~lent specl~ to allow this Commission to respond to Ihe Issue precludes an
action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of Ihe applicalJon, all documents and evidence relied up<m by the applicant and
applicable criteria are available for InspectJo~ at no cost and will be provided at
seven days ~ to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall. 20 East Main
Street, Ashland. O~egon 97520.
Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on December 3, 2003, 7:00
p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
NOTE: Public comment concerning the project's landscaping plan will be taken on December 8, 2003 between 2:30
and 4:00p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winbum Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-152 is a request for Site Review and a Conditional Use Permit to construct an
approximately 715 square foot addition to the parish hall of the existing Trinity Episcopal Church located
at 44 North Second Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's
Map #: 39 1E 09 DB; Tax Lot: 3600.
APPLICANT: Trinity Episcopal Church
SITE REVIEW
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or
deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the
proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be
met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by
the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. 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.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,
paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
C. 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. 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:
Se
7 o
Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact
area.
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other ~environmental
pollutants.
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
ARCHITECTURE
LAND PLANNING
PROJECT NARRATIVE/FINDINGS
3 NOVEMBER 2003
PROJECT NAME: Trinity Episcopal Church, Parish Hall Addition and Remodel
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Site Review Approval (Chapter 18.72) and a
modification of a Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 18.104) for an addition and remodel to the
parish hall of a church located in the C-1-D Zone District (Chapter 18.32).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant:
Donna Ritchie, Senior Warden
Trinity Episcopal Church
44 North 2~ Street
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-482-2656
Architect/Agent:
Tom R. Giordano
2635 Takelma Way
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-482-9193
Surveyor:
Hoffburh & Assoc.
3155 Alameda
Medford, OR. 97501
Contractor:
Medinger Construction Co. Inc.
P.O. Box 702
Ashland, OR. 97520
541-482-3961
RECEIVED
NOV 0 7 2003
2635 Takelma Way e Ashland, OR 97520 e Phone and Fax (541) 482-9193
2
Project Address:
44 North 2nd Street
Legal Description:
39-1E-09 BD Tax Lot 3600
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Downtown Commercial
Zoning Designation:
C-1-D
Site Data:
Area of property 24,000 S.F. (three lots)(.58 acres)
Paving (Parking/Walkways/etc.) 1000 S.F.
Landscape/openspace 14,047 S.F.
Total building Foot Print (addition & existing) 9304 S.F.
Parish Hall 4,353 S.F. existing
5,067 S. F. with addition
100%
49%
38%
Parking:
None required, 2HC provided
BACKGROUND:
In February 1994, a Site Review was approved (PA 94-051) allowing for an exterior
change to the church sanctuary which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
see overall Site Plan. In April, 1998 an 860 S.F. addition of the parish hall to
accommodate the church administrative offices was approved; however, the remaining
portions of the proposed master plan was not approved due to insufficient information
provided by the applicant.
The proposed garden/columbairum design was approved in November 2002 (PA 2002-
125). This garden is located at the comer of Lithia Way and Second Street, see overall
Site Plan. Recently, the original design has been modified and received recommended
approval from the Historic Commission.
In the near future, the sanctuary will be up-graded structurally and a new HVAC system
will be installed. No exterior modifications are expected.
RFC IVED
JIUL
3
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Land Use/Zoning-
The subject property is located in Ashland's Downtown (Downtown Commercial Zone District)
where established (two and three story) retaiL/commercial development exists. Most of the
existing buildings in the downtown have been built with zero side yard setbacks and little to
front and rear yard setbacks.
Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning are:
North - Lithia Way and one story service station/car wash & office; Zoned C-1-D
South - Two story bank; Zoned C-1-D
West - Second Street and two story retail commerciaL/office/and public parking;
Zoned C- 1-D
East - Alley, parking lot and one story offices; Zoned C-1-D.
The intent of the downtown commercial (C-l-D) Overlay Zone District is to enhance and
encourage the development of retaiL/commercial activities within a compact urban environment.
The C-1-D District also allows for greater building height (55 feet with CUP) than the
retaiL/commercial Zone District (40 Maximum Height). Further off-street parking and loading
areas are not required, except for hotels.
The subject property is within the Downtown Historic District and new construction is reviewed
by the Historic Commission and City Staff. Further, the design of the project must comply with
the City's Downtown Site Review and Historic Standards. A CUP currently exists; however, it
must be modified due to the requested increase of square footage. The church property consists
of three tax lots (3800, 3700, 3600); however, the parish hall is located on tax lot 3600.
Access -
The subject property has public access on three sides (Second Street, Lithia Way and the alley),
see overall Site Plan. Existing sidewalks are on both Second Street and Lithia Way. A public
parking lot is located across Second Street. There are a few parking spaces on site, offthe alley.
Bicycle and public transportation is located on East Main Street and Lithia Way.
NO¥ 0 7
4
Physical Constraints -
The Trinity Episcopal Church activity (two buildings) is located on three tax lots. There
is also a 1,195 S.F. non-church related office building on the property, see overall Site
Plan. The church related buildings consist of a 3,657 S.F. sanctuary and a 4,353 S.F.
parish hall/administrative offices. The sanctuary is on the National Register List of
Historic Buildings and the parish hall is a Secondary Contributor, which will require
Review by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), for any modifications.
There is existing landscaping and an irrigation system located between the sanctuary and
parish hall. A proposed garden/columbairum is to be located on the comer of Second
Street and Lithia Way, see PA-2002-125 file.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION -
Request -
The church wishes to provide a modest expansion (714 S.F. approximately) to the parish
hall. The purpose of this expansion is to provide additional meeting space and
storage/restrooms. The expansion will occur toward the alley (east) and the existing
office building(north), see overall Site Plan. In addition, the church desires to accomplish
an interior remodel to the existing parish hall, library, kitchen and storage areas. Further,
the existing windows are to be replaced with energy efficient, historic replicas.
Land Use/Zoning -
The proposed use is permitted in the Downtown Retail Commercial District with a CUP,
as well as Site Review, detailed Site Review and Historic Site Review. No additional
auto parking is proposed. Existing trash/recycling is serviced from the alley.
Architecture -
It is the intent of the applicant to create an Exterior Design Concept that matches the
historic character of the existing building, see Exterior Elevations. The proposed exterior
material and windows for the addition will also match the existing character, see
Photographs. The proposed design has been reviewed by the Historic Review Committee
and received a favorable reaction, see Historic Log for 25 September 2003.
RECEIVED
NOV 0 7 2003
SITE REVIEW (Chapter 18.72)
The Planning Staff/Planning Commission can approve a Site Review when the following
Criteria have been addressed:
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
developmeng
Chapter 18.32 (Downtown Overlay), Commercial District, allows a variety of
Commercial Uses such as office, retail, eating, drinking, entertainment and theaters. The
proposed addition is in concert with the above Uses, by providing both office and meeting
activities; However, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required in all Zone Districts for a
Church Use, see CUP Findings. The applicant, (church), is requesting an addition of 714
S.F. for an expansion of the meeting room, restrooms and storage areas. Further, the
proposed addition meets or exceeds the requirements of Chapter 18.32 regarding set
backs, height of buildings, solar set back (none required in the C-1-D district), parking,
lot coverage, and landscaping. Compliance is substantiated with the Drawings and the
Narrative/Findings provided by the applicant.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be meg
The applicant is providing a written Narrative and Findings as well as a Site/Floor Plans,
City Topographic Survey, Aerial Photograph and Building Elevation Drawings. This
information is provided in the Application Package and addresses the Submittal
Requirements of Chapter 18.72.060.
Landscape Standards -
No landscaping is required in the Downtown Zone; however, there are existing street
trees along Second Street and the City has scheduled sidewalk improvements along Lithia
Way.
Parking -
No parking is required in the C-I-D Zone District. There are however, existing public
bicycle racks located through out the downtown as well as a public parking lot located
across Second Street.
RECEIVED
NOV 0 ? ~00~1
6
Recycling -
The applicant has existing trash/recycling facilities within the existing building.
Light and Glare -
Any new wall mounted lighting will be directed down.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for the implementation of this Chapter.
Due to the location of the proposed project, it is subject to the following Design
Standards:
1. Basic Site Review;
2. Detail Site Review;
3. Street Tree;
4. Downtown; and
5. Historic.
In general, the proposed project meets all the City Design Standards except for the
Downtown District; Therefore, an exception to this Standard will be requested, see
Findings below.
II-C-1. BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS
Approval Standardt D~nn~opmtat in all tomm~'tlal and mpio~na~t ton~ ahall toahrm to
the foilowlltR devdopm~at Mandatd~t
H-C-la) Orientation and Scale
Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area.
Building entrances shall be functional, and shall be shall be accessed from a public sidewalk.
Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street frontage.
Buildings that are within 30feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly
from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and
functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
RECEIVED
NOV O? 2005
These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as
warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service uses such
as service stations and tire stores.
As mentioned in the Project Description, the addition to the Parish Hall building, will
occur at the rear of the lot, adjacent to the existing alley. The existing building currently
is oriented toward Second Street and has pedestrian access fi.om the existing sidewalks.
II-C-lb) Streetscape
1) One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30feet of frontage for
that portion of the development fronting the street.
See, Street Tree Standard.
II-C-lc) Landscaping
Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90%
coverage occurs after 5 years.
Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water deciduous and evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering plant species.
3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least lO feet in
width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened
from view form adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities
shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land.
4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as
possible.
Not applicable. There is no landscaping required; however, the applicant is providing a
garden at the comer of Lithia Way and Second Street, see PA 2002 - 125.
II-C-ld) Parking
1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
8
2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-
residential uses and screened from non-residential uses.
Not applicable. There is no parking required.
II-C-lc) Designated Creek Protection
Designated creek protection areas shall be considered design elements and incorporated
in the overall design ora given project.
Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in the adjacent to the creek to enhance
the creek habitat.
Not applicable. There is no creek associated with the subject property.
II-C-10 Noise and Glare
I) Special attention to glare (AMC18. 72.110) and noise (AMC9. 08.170(c) & AMC
9. 08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these
standards.
The proposed Use ,(meeting activity), will occur inside and not generate noise. The
applicant is proposing wall mounted lights on the addition. These lights will be directed
down.
II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
1) For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site
must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion,
e.g., if the building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to
the standards required by this document.
See, Downtown Exception Findings.
II-C-2.
DETAIL SITE REVIEW
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to
complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following
standards:
R C IV, ED
NOV 0 7 2003
9
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
I) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ration of.35 and shall not exceed a
maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and
pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum floor
area ratio.
Not applicable.
2) Building frontages greater than 100feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have
other distinctive changes in the building facade.
Not applicable. This addition is located at the rear of the property. Further, the front
facade is only 24 feet wide.
3) Any wall which is within 30feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shah
contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or
doorways. Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian
entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30feet of the street are prohibited Up to
40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if
oriented toward loading or service areas.
The addition is located at the rear of the.property adjacent to the public alley and not
fronting on a street.
4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface of finish to give
emphasis to entrances.
Not applicable, see Downtown Exception Findings.
5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged
and desirable.
This addition is, an infill-project, at the rear of the property and adjacent to the public
alley, and therefore desirable.
6) Buildings shah incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awning that protect
pedestrian from the rain and sun.
See, Exception Findings.
R CI IVED
NOV 0 1' 2003
10
II-C-2b) Streetscape
1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample
materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or
combination of the above.
The applicant is providing a large public garden/openspace at the comer of Lithia Way
and Second Street.
2) A building shall be setback not more than 20feet from a public sidewalk unless the
area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than
one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall
be with 20feet of the sidewalk.
Not applicable.
II-C-2c) Parking & On-site Circulation
1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more
spaces or more than l OO feet in average width or depth.
2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided
by landscaped areas or walkways at least lO feet in width, or by a building or group of
buildings.
3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation
plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the
system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian
walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the
building.
The above Findings are not applicable.
II-C-2d Buffering and Screening
1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located betWeen incompatible uses on an
adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and
must be compatible with proposed buildings.
2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from
~10¥ 0 ? ~003
IIIlL ......
11
residentially zoned land.
The above Findings are not applicable.
lI-C-2e) Lighting
Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light
standards or placements of no greater than 14feet in height along pedestrian path ways.
The applicant will provide wall mounted lights which will be placed no greater than 14
feet in height at the entrances of the addition.
II-C-20 Building Materials
1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted
masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area.
The applicant is providing Exterior Elevations of the propOsed addition. These elevations
show compliance with the Historic District, see Findings below.
2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use
are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
The proposed color (white) for the addition will match the existing parish hall and
sanctuary.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL 8TAM)AM); All development frentln~ en publle or p~K a~ ~all ~
~ul~ ~ phnt 8~ ~ In a~an~ wl~ ~e ~llowl~ 8Mnda~s end ~ ~m
· e ~mm~d~ iht of 8t~t ~ ~und h ~b ~n,
Location for Street Trees
Street trees shah be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated
planting strip in the right of-way, or the sidewalk is greater shah include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community
Development.
NOV 0 ? 5003
12
Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
.0 All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such
as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff
Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as
follows:
Street trees shah be placed the rate of one tree for every 30feet of street frontage. Trees
shah be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for spec~c site limitations,
such as driveway approaches.
b) Trees shah not be planted closer than 25feet from the curb line of intersections of streets
or alleys, and not closer than lO feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of
the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles.
c) Street trees shah not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards. Except for public
safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than lO feet to any existing
street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20feet distant.
d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2h feet from the face of the curb except at
intersections where it shall be 5feet from the curb, m a curb return area.
e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not
interfere with those lines.
JO Trees shall not be planted within 2feet of any permanent hard Surface paving or
walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger
cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and
add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered
by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks.
g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8feet of clearance above
sidewalks and 12feet above street roadway surfaces.
h) Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the
development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation
may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor.
II-E-3)
Replacement of Street Trees
0 Existing street trees removed by developmentprojects shah be replaced by the developer
with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shah be of size and species
similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor.
NOV o 7 5003
13
II-£4)
Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
As mentioned in the Project Description, there are existing street trees in the parkrow
strip along Second Street. Further, the City will be installing sidewalk improvements on
Lithia Way.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION VI
DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS:
For the following Standards, see Exception to Standards and the CUP Findings below.
VI-A) Height
O Building height shall vary from adjacent builds, using either "stepped" parapets or
slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" street scape
appearance. An exception to this standard wouM be buildings that have a distinctive
vertical division/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent building.
2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown.
VI-B) Setback
1) Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a
zero setback from the sidewalk or property line. Areas having public utility easements or
similar restricting conditions shah be exempt from this standard.
2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to
create a "sense of entry" through design or use of materials.
3) Recessed or projection balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground
level on existing and new buildings shah not be incorporated in a street facing elevation.
VI-C) Width
1) The width of a budding shall extend from side lot line to'side lot line. An exception to
this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space,
dining space or rear access for pedestrian walkways.
14
2) Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the
downtown area by incorporation a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's
design.
VI-D) Openings
I) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportions of
transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area.
2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and
relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features
shall be visually compatible with the original architectural character of the building.
3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than
width).
4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building.
5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent.
6) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians sUCh as decorative columns or
decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to
a public sidewalk is prohibited.
Horizontal Rhythms
0 Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's street-front shah be
maintained.
2) A clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper
floors.
3) Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of
the lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building
a "sense of strength ".
VI-F)
Vertical Rhythms
I) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either
through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect
R I' /ED
NOV 0 ? 2003
15
the underlying historic property lines.
2) Storefront remodeling or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural
system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and
surface detailing.
VI-G) Roof Forms
1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless
visually screened for the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front
shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations.
VI-H) Materials
1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the
downtown area including block brick painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone.
In order to add visual interest, buddings are encouraged to incorporate complex
"paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to created
multiple surface levels.
VI-I)
Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters
1) Awnings, marquee or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building
and shall not obscure the building 's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom
windows exist, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom
windows where feasible.
2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed
below the pilasters.
3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's
street, front shall be maintained by their respective sidewalk coverings.
VI-J) Other
0 Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations.
Rear and sidewalls of buildings should therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block brick
stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows.
2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding
NOV 0 ? ~003
16
building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers,
the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices and, and other primary structural and
decorative elements.
3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever
possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered
over.
4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to Design and Use
Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards). An
exception to this standard wouM be paths required for handicapped accessibility.
5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades,
alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where
possible and feasible.
6) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as .service stations, drive-up windows,
auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its
discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although
improvements to existing facilities may be permitted.
VI-K)
Exception to Standards:
An exception to the Downtown Design Standard is not subject to the Variance
Requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with
respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all the following circumstances are found to
exist:
I) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter
due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the
site;
2) There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose
of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or
superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical precedent.
3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of
meeting the Downtown Design Standards.
As mentioned in the Site Description Section of the Narrative, the Church property
NOV 0 ? 2003
JltlL
17
consists of three tax lots and three buildings. The "Morgan Building", located along
Lithia Way and the alley ,(see Site Plan), has recently been remodeled and functions as a
Designer's office. The exterior design complies with the Downtown Design Standards
and does not reflect the design of the Sanctuary or Parish Hall.
The Sanctuary Building is a significant example of a church structure built in the early
1900's. This structure is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and
locally designated as a Primary Contributing Building within Ashland's Historic Districts.
The triangular shaped portion of land on the comer of Lithia Way and Second Street, will
become a "columbarium" and will function as a meditation garden. This recently
approved project (PA 2002 - 125) will become a significant plaza/openspace feature in
downtown Ashland.
The Parish Hall Building functions as both Administrative offices and meeting space, and
supports the religious function of the church. In 1998, an addition to this building, which
fronts on Second Street, was approved. Other additions to the building were built in the
1950%. The church is proposing an addition to the Parish Hall, to expand the meeting
space, increase the storage area and provide restrooms. The 714 S.F. addition will be
located at the rear of the building, along the public alley, see Overall Site Plan and Floor
Plan.
The Design approach used by the Architect, is to blend the addition with the two existing
styles (original "craftsman" and 1950's). The proposed addition will utilize similar size,
scale, portion and form as well as matching color, trim, detailing and windows/doors, see
Exterior Elevations. The approach will compliment the Sanctuary but not compete with.
the Historic quality of this structure. Further, the addition will occur at the rear of the
property (behind the Sanctuary) and will not be seen from Lithia Way or Second Street,
see Overall Site Plan.
The Episcopal Church, over the past five years, has experienced an on-going growth in
the number of members and needs the increased square footage to support the religious
functions. Along with the addition project, the church will remodel and upgrade the
kitchen and library spaces (interior only).
The Parish Hall is locally designated as a Secondary Contributing Building in the Historic
District. Also, its location to the Sanctuary required Review by the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO).
Both the existing Sanctuary and Parish Hall as well as the proposed addition, do not
D__.
18
comply with the Downtown Design Standards; However, the following information is
provided to justify the Non-Compliance, with these Standards:
1. This site has been used as a Religious Institution for at least 80 years. This is a unique
situation when considering the usual commercial activities found in Ashland's
downtown. The commercial building design standards are not consistent or compatible
with either the church's long established use or the existing historic design of these
buildings.
2. Commercial design concept for the addition would not be consistent or desirable when
considering the local and State Historic Designation of these existing building buildings.
3. The proposed 714 S.F. addition will occur at the rear of the property adjacent to the
alley. Further, the addition is screened from Second Street and Lithia Way by existing
buildings.
C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the
Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures
within the Historic District.
IV-C4)
Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and across the
street. Avoid construction that greatly varies in height (too high or too low)from older
buildings m the vicinity.
iv-c-2)
Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. Avoid
buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale of the area.
IV-C-3)
Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most
building from the historic period. Avoid single, monolithic forms that are not relieved by
variations in massing.
IV-C-4)
Maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the
NOV o ? 2O0;]
..... J IIIL
19
same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. AvoM violating the existing setback pattern by
placing new buildings in front or behind the historic facade line. Avoid replicating or imitating
the styles, motifs, or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if
well done, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical area.
For the Historic District Findings, see the Site Review Standards and the Exception to the
Downtown Design Standards, above.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, adequate transportation
can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
As mentioned in the Project Description and the above Findings, this is a modest
addition, (714 S.F.), to an existing downtown building. The addition will have minimal,
if any, adverse impacts on the City's existing utilities and services which are located in
the ROW of the streets and public alley. There is both on-street parking as well as a
public parking lot in the immediate vicinity of this site.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) - (Chapter 18.104)
The Planning Staff and/or Commission can approve a Church Use when all the following
criteria have been met:
A. That the use wouM 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.
All City Zone Districts require a CUP for a Church. See Finding A - Site Review and
Exception to the Downtown Design Standards, above.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation
can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
See Finding D - Site Review, above.
C. That the Conditional Use will have no greater adverse material effect of the livability
of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. 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
REC IVlED
20
target use if the zone:
0 Similarity in scale, bulk, coverage.
See Exception to the Downtown Design Standards, above.
2) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
The project is located within the Downtown Commercial District where sidewalks, transit
'lines and bike lanes readily exist, The 714 S.F. addition will not significantly impact the
street system since the church activity is used primarily on Sunday morning when
commercial activity in the downtown is minimal.
3) Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
See, Exception to the Downtown Design Standards, above.
4) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environrnental pollutants.
A Church/Parish Hall does not significantly generate more dust, odor or other
environmental pollutants than commercial uses.
5) Generation of noise, light, and glare.
See number 4, above. Also, any new exterior lighting will be directed away from adjacent
properties.
6) The development of adjacent properties are envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The site is surrounded on three sides by public streets and an alley. An existing two story
bank building is located on the fourth side.
7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
A religious institution has been located on this site for over 80 years.
NOV 0 ? 200
NOV 0 ? ~003
I ~' I I
/!
/
/!
--.
I
I
L
uopdppv II~H qs.u~d
uo6a~O 'puelqsv
~,S puooes q~oN 1~ i!
qo~nqo ledoos!d~/q!uu1 =.~
/
/
/
I
I
Ii".
\
/
' I
NOV 0 ? 2003
II[IL.
uo!~!ppy
uo§eJO 'puelqsy
~.~,S puoo;~s q~oN td~ ~. ]
~loJnq~ ledoos!d=l/q!u!J~ ~;
NoV 0 ?
Notice is hereby given that a PUBUC HEARING on the following
request With respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will
be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS
BOARD on December 9, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC
CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this no~ce. Orego~ law
states that failure to raise an objection coflcemdng this application, either in person or by
letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an oppodunity
(LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterk~ the objection Is based o~
constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval wilh suf~ent
specificity allow this Commisslo~ to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages
in circuit court.
A copy of the application, alt documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provic~-~:l at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection
seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Dudng the Public Headng, 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 c,dteria. Unless
them Is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion o~ the headng,
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
phone number is 1~800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on December 3, 2003, 7:00
p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-149 is a request for Site Review to convert an existing accessory structure to
a second residential unit at the rear of the property located at 238 Eighth Street. A Variance is requested
to permit a second residence on a property of less than the required lot area, as well as a Variance to on-
street parking credit standards. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-
2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 AB; Tax Lot: 401.
APPLICANT: Janet Larmore & Tom Strong
SITE REVIEW
Criteria 'for Approval, The following criteria shall-be used to approve or
deny a site plan:
All applicable'City 'ordinances have been met and will be met by the
proposed development. °
All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
The site design complies with the guidelines .adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chap.ter.
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access
to-and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage-,, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) " ' '
.CRITERIA FOR VARIA'NCF
The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as
follows:
1!
That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site
which do not apply elsewhere.
2)
That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the
development' of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of
this ordinance and the COmprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1
1987) ,
3)
That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purpOsely
self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996)
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR:
JANET LARMORE & TOM STRONG
Prepared for:
JANET LARMORE & TOM STRONG
248 Eighth Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Prepared by:
RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES
208 Oak Street, Suite 204
Ashland, Oregon 97520
November 6, 2003
RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES
208 Oak Street, Suite 204
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-1453
FINDINGS OF FACT
November 6, 2003
REQUESTS:
· Approval of Application by Janet Larmore & Tom Strong for Site Review for an existing
Accessory Residential Unit on property adjacent to their home and located at 238 Eighth
Street, Ashland.
Approval of a Variance to Chapter 18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential
District Section 18.24.040 A. 1. Base Densities b. to allow 2 units (both existing) on a lot
less than 7000 sq. ft.
Approval of a Variance to Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking to allow a reduction in ratio
requirements for 1 on-street parking credit as found in Section 18.92.025 Credit for On-
street Automobile Parking. The requested ratio is 1'1 instead of the usual 2 on-street
spaces for 1 off-street parking credit.
PROJECT:
ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR:
JANET LARMORE & TOM STRONG
APPLICATION BACKGROUND:
The Accessory Residential Unit Application for Janet Larmore & Tom Strong is an application for
approval of an existing structure and an existing use. The structure for which the applicants
seek approval was built in the late 1970's. A building permit for the structure was granted in
June 1978. There is no record indicating any building inspections were made. Research
indicates that the unit has been inhabited as a dwelling unit at least as far back as 1993. Two
additional tenants prior to the 1993 date have been identified, but not contacted. It is probable
that the unit has been inhabited as a dwelling unit since its construction.
The applicants purchased the property in November 2002 by sealed bid. The.primary reason the
applicants purchased the property was to help insure the existing character and livability of the
neighborhood and to insure that inappropriate development would not take place on the
property adjacent to their home. The property was in poor condition and there were concerns
that someone might purchase the property and demolish the existing structures. After
purchasing the subject property, the applicants spent seven months completely restoring the
existing front 2 bedroom home and the existing Accessory Residential Unit to the rear of the lot.
Additional site and landscape improvements have been made to the site also (see Additional
Site Improvements below).
The realtor for the applicants expressed confidence that the accessory unit was a legal dwelling.
As the applicants have lived next door to the subject dwelling unit since July 1994 and because
it has been consistently occupied as a dwelling unit, they were also confident that the unit was a
legal dwelling unit. The separate 100 amp city electrical service and separate city water meter
further substantiated this opinion.
2
Upon performing inspections for improvements on another structure on the property, it was
discovered that the subject dwelling unit did not have a Certificate of Occupancy and was not an
approved use under the current land use ordinance. This discovery prompted the applicants to
seek approval for the requests indicated above.
OWN ERS/AP P LICAN TS:
Janet Larmore & Tom Strong
248 Eighth Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 482-1610
AGENT:
Richard Vezie, RICHARD VEZIE & ASSOCIATES
208 Oak Street, Suite 204, Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541) 488-1453
SITE DATA
PROJECT LOCATION:
238 Eighth Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Assessor's Map Number: 39-1E-09AB
Tax Lot Number: 401
ZONING:
R-2
HISTORIC DESIGNATION:
This project lies within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District and is evaluated as a
Compatible/Non-Historic/Non-Contributing structure.
LOT SIZE:
5762.96 sq. ft. (0.13 acres)
LOT AREAS:
Landscaping: 3914.96 sq. ft. (68%) (35% required)
Coverage By Structures: 1269 sq. ft. (22%)
Existing Primary Residence: 672 sq. ft.
· Existing Studio: 240 sq. ff.
Existing Accessory Residential Unit: 357 sq. ft, (subject structure)
Coverage By Paving & Walks: 120 sq. ft. (2%)
Total Coverage By Impervious Surfaces: 1389 sq. ft. (24%) (65% allowed)
OFF STREET PARKING:
Off-street parking requirements were calculated as follows:
(1) Primary dwelling unit = 2 spaces
(1) Accessory unit under 500 sq. ft. = 1 space
Total required off-street parking =
3 spaces
.... 11[11_,
Total off-street parking spaces provided =
3 spaces (including 1 off-street credit
if approval is granted for the 1:1 on-
street credit requested by Variance)
ADDITIONAL SITE IMPROVEMENTS:
Applicants have completely re-landScaped the front yard of the subject lot. Bdck pavers have
been installed to provide a new surface for the existing driveway in the area closest to the street.
SITE REVIEW:
SUMMARY:
This request for Site Review seeks approval for an existing Accessory Residential Unit at the
rear of the property.
While the unit for which approval is being sought is an Accessory Residential Unit, it is '
essentially a single family dwelling and an outdght permitted use in the R-2 zone under
SECTION 18.24.020. A. The unit incorporates at least three of the two required design features.
These features include gables, eaves (min. 6" projection with 18" provided) and offsets in the
building face or roof (min. 16" with 5' 8" provided).
As stated in the Application Background above, the unit was built in the late 1970's and has
been inhabited as a dwelling unit at least as far back as 1993. Any negative impacts on the
neighborhood have been negligible.
Positive impacts on the neighborhood are assured by the fact that the applicants will meet the
affordable housing standards established by resolution of the City Council and guarantee the
unit remain affordable through procedures contained in said resolution.
The proposed project falls well within all area requirements for impervious surfaces, landscaped
area and outdoor recreation space. A Variance is being sought to meet the off-street parking
requirements (see Variance below).
'CRITERIA:
The criteria for approval of a Site Review are found in 18.72.070 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as follows:
18.72.070
application:
A.
Bo
property.
Criteda for Approval. The following cdteria shall be used to approve or deny an
All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
Ail requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject
(Ord. 2655, 1991)
4
FINDINGS:
18.72.070 A. Ail applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
The existing Accessory Residential Unit for which approval is being sought is an outright
permitted use as a single family dwelling in the R-2 zone.
The permitted base density for the R-2 zone is 13.5 units/acre. Actual density for the subject lot
with 2 units is 15.15 units/acre. The applicants are seeking bonus density points under
Affordable Housing, which allows a maximum increase of 25% to the base density of the zone.
One percent of density increase is allowed for each percent of the development, which are
affordable. As 50% of the units are affordable, the 25% maximum increase is achieved. The
allowable density for the lot with the Affordable Housing density bonus applied is 16.875
units/acre. This existing development, with the Affordable Housing density bonus, conforms to
the lot density requirements.
Minimum lot size requirements for this use are found in Chapter 18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple-
Family Residential District Section 18.24.040 A. 1. Base Densities b. Variance is being sought to
meet the minimum lot size requirements (see Variance: Base Densities below)
Off-street parking requirements for this use are addressed in 18.92.020 A. 1. Calculations for
Off-street parking requirements are addressed above and are part of this application. A
Variance is being sought to meet the off-street parking requirements (see Variance: Off-street
Parking below).
18.72.070 B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
The necessary plans and information required by 18.72.060 Plans Required have been
submitted, including Exterior Elevations for the existing Accessory Residential Unit, a Site Plan
and a Landscape Plan representing existing conditions.
18.72.070 C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
The existing Accessory Residential Unit for which approval is being sought is located behind
and detached from an existing single family dwelling. This project will comply with or exceed all
requirements of the Site Design Standards. This compliance includes landscape standards and
coverage (68% - 35% required) and allowable coverage by impervious surfaces (24% - 65%
allowed).
The Site Design Standards applicable to this application are addressed as follows:
18.72.110 Landscaping Standards.
A. Area Required. The fo/lowing areas shall be required to be landscaped in the
fo/lowing zones:
R-2 35% of total developed lot area
This existing lot with existing structures has extensive, well maintained landscaping in
place. Existing landscaping has been recently enhanced at the front yard as indicated on
the Landscape Plan. 68% of the lot is landscaped.
B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public fight-of-
way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in
those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space
uses, shading and wind buffefing, and aesthetic qualities.
The recently enhanced front yard landscaping provides a more aesthetically pleasing
view from the public right-of-way providing an additional asset to the neighborhood.
5
18. 72.070 D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be Provided to and through the subject
property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
Water for the existing Accessory Residential Unit for which approval is being sought is supplied
by the existing service on Eighth Street. This service supplies domestic and irrigation
requirements. The existing sewer is provided by connection to the existing system on Eighth
Street. Paved access to and through the proposed development is existing as the property is
served by Eighth Street and the. Electricity supplied by the existing utility pole connection and
the existing meter base. Existing storm drainage is handled on Eight Street. Adequate
transportation is provided by Eighth Street and the newly improved Eighth Street sidewalk.
VARIANCE: Base Densities
SUMMARY:
This request for a Variance seeks approval for an existing use for an existing Accessory
Residential Unit. As the unit for which approval is being sought is less than 500 sq. ft., the
minimum lot area requirement is typically reduced from 7000 sq, ft. to 6500 sq. ft.
The subject lot has an area of 5762.96 sq. ft. and falls short of the normal minimum requirement
by only 737.04 sq. ft.
The approval of this requested Variance should be granted because the existing Accessory
Residential Unit for which approval is being sought has been in existence since the late 1970's
and has been utilized as a single family residential unit at least as far back as 1993. During this
period, no negative impacts from this unit have been realized by the surrounding neighborhood.
This unit has however, provided a valuable asset to the neighborhood and community by
providing an additional affordable housing unit.
CRITERIA:
The criteria for approval of a Variance are found in 18.100.020 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as follows:
SECTION 18. 100.020 Application.
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the following cimumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (0rd. 2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
6
FINDINGS:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
The subject lot is located in a neighborhood more closely resembling an R-1 Single-Family
Residential District than an R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District. If the subject lot
was located in an R-1 zone, the unit for which approval is being sought would be allowed as a
Conditional Use Accessory Residential Unit, subject to the approval criteria. Most lots are within
zoning districts that more accurately reflect the character of the immediate neighborhood. This
constitutes an unusual circumstance and does not typically apply elsewhere.
Additionally, the unit for which approval is being sought is an existing residential unit and
therefore involves circumstances, which apply to this site, which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (0rd. 2425 S1, 1987).
The benefits of affordable housing units are outlined in the City of Ashland Affordable Housing
Action Plan, which was adopted by the City Council. The existing Accessory Residential Unit
provides a benefit to the neighborhood and community by providing an additional affordable
housing unit. No negative impacts on the development of adjacent uses have been realized as a
result of this Accessory Residential Unit. The applicants will insure that the positive benefits to
the neighborhood and community will continue by meeting the affordable housing standards
established by resolution of the City Council and by guaranteeing that the unit remains
affordable through prOcedures contained in said resolution.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
The Accessory Residential Unit for which Variance approval is being sought was in place prior to
purchase of the prOperty by the applicants. Prior to purchase of the property, the applicants
believed the existing Accessory Residential Unit was an approved and legal dwelling unit. The
applicants have done nothing to willfully or purposely self-impose any of the existing parking
conditions or circumstances for which a Variance is being sought.
VARIANCE: Off-street Parking
SUMMARY:
This request for a Variance seeks apprOval for an existing parking condition for an existing
Accessory Residential Unit. This request does not seek a reduction in the number of off-street
parking spaces required. This request seeks a variance to the ratio by which on-street parking
spaces are credited toward off-street parking spaces.
The applicants are requesting a Variance to allow the application of one on-street parking space
to credit one off-street parking space instead of the normal two on-street parking spaces to
credit one off-street parking space.
ApprOval of the requested Variance is warranted by the fact that the existing Accessory
Residential Unit for which approval is being sought has been in existence since the late 1970's
and has been utilized as a single family residential unit at least as far back as 1993. During this
time, parking loads for the neighborhood have remained relatively constant and no adverse
impact has been realized as a result of the existing unit for which approval is being sought.
There are generally ample on-street parking spaces available within the immediate vicinity of the
subject property.
Lot width for the subject property is 50' parallel with the curb and is typical of the Railroad
District. This condition would typically allow two on-street spaces of the required 24' length,
which would allow one off-street parking credit for the majority of lots within the Railroad District.
Normally this could be achieved because most lots within the Railroad District have alley access
to the rear of the lot and therefore do not require direct driveway access to the street. This
typically provides 50' of uninterrupted curb for on-street parking.
The subject lot does not have alley access. Off-street parking and access for 'this lot are
provided by means of an existing driveway, which is accessed directly from Eighth Street. The
driveway consumes at least 12' of curb space and therefore produces a shortage of available
curb space adjacent to the lot. This condition is not typically found elsewhere in the Railroad
District and produces an inappropriate restriction for the subject lot.
CRITERIA:
The criteria for approval of a Variance are found in 18.100.020 of the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance as follows:
SECTION 18. 100.020 Application.
The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be
accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show
the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and
evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (0rd. 2425 S1, 1987).
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
FINDINGS:
A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do
not typically apply elsewhere.
The subject lot does not have alley access. Alley access is typical to most other lots in the
Railroad District. Off-street parking and access for this lot are provided by means of an existing
driveway, which is accessed from Eighth Street. The driveway consumes at least 12' of curb
space and therefore produces a shortage of available curb space adjacent to the lot for on-
street parking. This condition is not typically found elsewhere in the Railroad District and
therefore constitutes a unique and unusual circumstance for this lot.
B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the
development of the adjacent uses;~ and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and
the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (0rd. 2425 S1, 1987).
The existing Accessory Residential Unit provides a benefit to the neighborhood and community
by providing an additional affordable housing unit. The benefits of affordable housing units are
clearly outlined in the City of Ashland Affordable Housing Action Plan, which was adopted by
the City Council as Resolution No. 2003-18. No negative impacts on the development of
adjacent uses have been identified during the time the existing Accessory Residential Unit has
been in place. Positive impacts on the neighborhood and community are assured by the fact
that the applicants will meet the affordable housing standards established by resolution of the
City Council and guarantee the unit remain affordable through procedures contained in said
resolution.
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-
imposed.(Ord. 2775, 1996)
The existing ^ccessory Residential Unit and existing parking conditions for which a Variance is
being sought were in place prior to purchase of the property by the applicants. Prior to purchase
of the property, the applicants believed the existing Accessory Residential Unit was an approved
and legal dwelling unit. The applicants have done nothing to willfully or purposely self-impose
any of the existing parking conditions or circumstances for which a Variance is being sought.
JILIL
NOTE: The following application refers to the "Hillside
Ordinance" and "Hillside Development Standards".
Unfortunately, information related to this ordinance has not
been submitted and has been determined incomplete.
However, the information necessary for a Conditional Use
Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPFA) is complete. Please do not consider any of the
Hillside Development Findings at this time, as the permit
for a Hillside House will come back to the Commission at a
later date.
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 HEARINGS
BOARD on December 9, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC
CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon Iow
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 allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages
in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
appiicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cosL if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection
seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
roateriais are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main
Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those
in attendance concerning this request The Chair shall have the right to limit the length
of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable cdteda. Unless
there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the comflusion of the hearing,
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
If you have questions or comments conceming this request, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY
phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
o ;ubject Pro
STRAWBERRY LN
N
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on December 3, 2003, 7:00
p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2003-150 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new residence 25
percent in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) established by City Ordinance on the
property located at 22 Scenic Drive. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential;
Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 7401.
APPLICANT: T. Michael Ryan
.CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS'
$8.104.050 Approval Criterir. A conditional use permit shall be
granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. 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 th'at are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,.
paved, access to and through the'development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property.
C. 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. 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:
Similarity in scale, bulk, and*coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact-
area. :
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent Properties as
envisioned in the ComPrehensive Plan.
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
Findings of Fact
For
Conditional Use Permit
Application for exceeding the MPFA
in the Historic District
Subject Property:
22 Scenic Drive
AsSessor's Map 391E08AD Tax Lot 7401
Submitted to:
City of Ashland Planning Department
Submitted for:
Michael Ryan
Prepared by:
Carlos Delgado
Carlos Delgado Architect
545 A Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
11/07/03
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddv?
Conditional Use Permitt exceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
11/07/03
Planning Commission and
Ashland Planning Department
City of Ashland
Re:
Site Review, Conditional Use Findings of Fact
Project:
Ryan Residence (New Residence)
22 Scenic Drive
Ashland, Oregon
Zoning: R-1-7.5
Applicant: Michael Ryan
This request is being submitted for a Conditional Use Permit (Section
18.24.040 K.) for exceeding the MPFA (Maximum Permitted Floor Area) for
dwellings within the Historic District. Concurrently, this application
demonstrates compliance to Development Standards for Hillside Lands
pursuant to Section 18.62.080
The relevant Ordinance Sections and Design Standards for Conditional
Use Permit are described in the following 'Findings of Fact'.
Findings by the Applicant/Agent are inserted immediately following each
section of the ordinance.
Respectfully,
Carlos Delgado
Architect
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddv~~ ,
Conditional Use Permit f,. ~xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Following are the Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
sections of the Design Standards deemed applicable, in whole or in part, to
this Site Review & Conditional Use application:
ORDINANCES
18.20 - Single-Family Residential District
18.20.040.E. to H. - Establishing Limits on Maximum House
Sizes in the Historic District
18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection
18.62 - Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.62.080 - Development Standards for Hillside Lands
18.68 - General Regulations
18.70 - Solar Access
18.72 -Site Design & Use Standards
18.92 - Off-Street Parking
18.104 - Conditional Use Permits
Page
4
6
9
12
14
27
30
32
36
42
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
Section II -Approval Standards and Policies A. Ordinance Landscaping Requirements
D. Parking lot Landscaping and Screening Standards
E. Street Tree Standards
Section III- Water Conserving Landscaping
Guidelines and Policies
45
45
47
49
EXHIBITS: '
Site Plan Sheet AS1.0 ·
Elevations Sheets A2.1, A2.2
lllJl.,
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive C-
Conditional Use Permit f~, )Xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Chapter 18. 60- Single Family Residential District
· 18.20. 010 Purpose
The purpose of the R-1 district is to stabilize and proteCt the suburban characteristics of
the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life
18.20. 020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Single family dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to
provide visual relief along the front of the residence:
1. Dormers
2. Gables
3. Recessed entries
4. Couered porch entries
5. Cupolas
6. Pillars or posts
7. Bay window (min. 12"projection)
8. Eaves (min. 6"projection)
9. Off-sets in building face or roof(min. 16") {Ord. 2612 S2, 1991)
Complies: The proposed use is for a single-family dwelling including the following
features; stepped back second floor creating "dormer like" second floor, a recessed
covered porch entry, multiple offsets responding to site condition, and 36" eaves.
18.20. 040 General regulations
A. Minimum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-1 zone shall be five thousand
(5, 000) square feet, except six thousand (6, 000) square feet for comer lots. R-1 areas
may be designed for seventy-five hundred (7,500}, or ten thousand (1 O, 000) square foot
minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary.
Permitted lot sizes shall be indicated by a number following the R-1 notation which
represents allowable minimum square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows:
R-1-5 5, 000 square feet
R- 1- 7. 5 7, 500 square feet
R-1-10 1 O, 000 square feet
Complies: The lot is zoned R-1-7.5 and is 8,569 s.f. in area
B. Minimum lot width:
Interior lots 50feet
Comer lots 60feet
All R-1-7.5 lots 65feet
All R-1-10 lots 75feet
4
Ryan -22 Scenic Drive/'
Conditional Use Permit f(~ ~tceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Complies: The lot is odd shaped (refer to site plan) with north/south lot width of 10.89'
@ Scenic Drive to a north/south lot width of 73.39' at the east lot line averaging to a
width of 42.14'and a peak width at a triangular section of 106.36'
C. Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80)feet, and a maximum
depth of one hundred fifty {150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further
development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply to
lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its depth,
and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150}feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord.
2425 83, 1988)
Complies: The lot depth ranges from 171.00' to 41.50' in its odd configuration with
an average depth of 106.00'. The lot width average of 76.00' is less than the lot
depth.
D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15feet excluding
garages. Unenclosed porches shall be permitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or
the width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front
property line. Alt garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20'
from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a comer lot abutting a
public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story
in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18. 70 which
provides for Solar Access. {Ord. 2097S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995}
Complies: The proposed Front yard is triangular shaped and averages 50 feet in
direct line to the garage entrance doom. The property frontage along Scenic Drive is
askew more than 45 degrees from the garage entrance doom creating a conforming
garage setback condition for 15 feet (front yard setback of 15 feet pertains to sides
of garages). Site access restrictions due to slopes greater than 40% along the
Scenic Drive restrict access to proposed driveway as submitted (Refer to site plan).
The proposed side yards are a minimum of 6'-0" on the north and south side. The
rear yard is 10'-0" to the main house structure on the ground level and 22'-0" to the
second story level. See Solar Access setbacks in the findings that follow for solar
setbacks.
E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35)feet or two and
one-half(2 1/2) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the Historic
District shall not exceed a height of 3O feet.
Complies: The structure is 24'-0" high at the highest roof ridge and 24'-0" at the
highest second story hip roof eave These measurements are taken from the natural
grade directly below the high points of the roof. The structure is 2-stories in height
(see East Elevation on sheet ^2.2).
F. Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50%)percent in an R-1-5
District, forty-five (45%)percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (40%)percent in an R-1-
10 District.
Ryan -22 Scenic DriveI --
Conditional Use Permit fd kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
r~
Complies: The total impervious surface lot coverage proposed is 3,693 s.f. This
amounts to 43% of the lot area of 8,569 s.f. This is less than the 45% requirement
for the R-1-7.5 District.
G. Maximum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. The
maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the Historic District shall be
determined by the following:
1. The maximum permitted floor area shall include the totaI floor space of all floors
(gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the
building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the
structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not
include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached
accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory
residential units shall be separated from other structures by a minimum of 6', except
that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures may connect the structures.
2. The following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPFA), provided however, that regardless of lot size, the MPFA shall not exceed 3,249
sq. ft.:
Lot area x Adj. Factor -- Adjusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPFA
(from Table 1)
TABLE I Adjustment Factor Table
i A~j
0-2500 i I 20
25Ol-
3000 ,, 1. ] 6
'Adj. ! Adj.
LotArea iFactor ILotArea Factor ILotArea
6501- i: 11001-
7000 0.88 11500 0.66 15501-16000
7001- ~i ] 15o 1-
7500 i0'85 ]12000 064 I16001-16500
7501- 12001-
8000 i 0.82 12500 0.62 16501-17000
8001- i 12501-
i O. 79 O. 61 ] 1 7001-1 7500
8501- i 13001-
iO. 77 O. 60 1 7501-18000
9000 i 13500
9OOl- 135Ol-
i O. 75 0.59 118001-18500
9500 14000
9501- i 14001-
10000 0.73 14500 0.58 118501-19000
i[ :5o i 0
.57i 00 - 500
10501- i[ i ] 9500 and
11000 i~ 0.68 ]500]- i0.56
15500 , greater
3001-
3500 i1'12
35Ol-111o8
4000 i ·
4001-
5oo i
45o]-
5000 ~l1'00
5oo]- :^] ~_
........
.60°0'l .i .........
6oo]-i .....
6500 i0'91
Factor
0.55
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.47
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive, '~
Conditional Use Permit fc~ ~ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
MPFA calculation: The total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary
dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building is 2661 SF. The attached
garage floor area is 473 SF.
The total floor area including the attached garage: 3,134 SF
Lot area of 8,569 SF with adjustment factor .77 per table 1:6,598 SF
MPFA -- adjusted lot area of 6,598 SF x 0.38 FAR: 2,507 SF
The 3,134 SF total floor area including the attached garage exceeds the 2,507 SF
MPFA by 25% (MPFA + 25% = 3,134 SF)
H. New single family strUctures and additions to existing single family strUctures within
the Historic District shall not exceed the MPFA unless a Conditional Use Permit is
obtained. In no case shall the permitted fIoor area exceed 25% of the MPFA. In addition
to the f~ndings for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of' the Site
Design and Use Standards shall be considered in the request.
This application is requesting a conditional use permit for exceeding the MPFA by
25%. There are four primary factors contributing to this request. They are as
follows:
1. Garage design; setback and site access limitations. The odd triangular lot
shape, access to the site, and the required garage setback from Scenic Avenue
force the following conditions: A) The garage to face Scenic Avenue; B) The garage
to be attached to the residence. Under subsection G.1. the attached single story
garage structure is required to be included in the overall floor area. The applicant
and architect have considered other design options that would detach the garage
(pending the process of a front yard setback variance), yet argue that the final result
would be a compromise in the design and be counteractive with the intent of this
ordinance. This application presents an attached garage design that effectively
appears as a detached garage in all elevations (refer to sheets A2.1 and ^2.2). With
the garage structure remaining as a garage with no living space above, the massing
on the site is inviting from Scenic Avenue and has been designed with attractive and
appropriate garage doors that give a sense of entry to the site under the forced
condition to place the garage in it proposed position (refer to West Elevation sheet
A2.1). It is the intent of the maximum permitted floor area to have a maximum
permitted square footage based on massing and scale. By virtue of the attached
garage, the overall coverage on the site is less (less than a detached garage with an
enclosed breezeway). Please refer to findings following this section that address
Historic District Development under Section IV in the Site Design and Use
Standards.
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Conditional Use Permit fd~ meeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
2. Overall massing and height. The lot drops off from Scenic Drive to the
buildable area an average of 15%. The garage roof ridge is approximately 8" above
the street elevation of Scenic Drive. The second story roof ridge is approximately 3
feet above the street elevation of Scenic Drive. With the development primarily
below the elevation of the street, the massing and height with respect to the street
frontage is effectively dependent on the visibility of the roof of the development. The
roof design variegates the massing by creating a series of 5 inter-relating roof planes
(refer to South Elevation sheet A2.2) with a primary hip roof at the center of the
residence.
With respect to the downhill side of the site (refer to East Elevation sheet A 2.2 and
North Elevation sheet A2.1), there is variation of scale and massing with the second
floor recessed back into the first floor (there is only one 6 -1/2 foot section of two
story wall at the exterior envelope). Also refer to site plan and observe the second
floor roof to demonstrate second story setback on all downhill slopes.
3. Conformance to Section IV (Historic District Development Standards) in
Site Design and Use Standards. The general design considerations of the project
carefully consider the following standards under this chapter:
A) Height - the residence is appropriately stepped back from the first floor roof eave
at 16 % feet to grade on the downhill slope side to a maximum height of 24 feet to
grade at the second floor roof ridge.
B) Scale -the size and proportion of the proposed residence (residential
conditioned floor area is 2,661 on a .20 acre lot) is within the scale of other existing
residences in the neighborhood:
Tax Lot # Lot Area Area of Residence
7500 (.23 acre) 2,234
6102 (.21 acre) 2,704
6700 (.22 acre) 3,051
100 (.21 acre) 2,562
2401 (.22 acre) 3,209
SF residence
SF residence with garage attached below
SF residence with 685 SF accessory unit
SF residence
SF residence with detached garage
C) Massing - The massing (as stated previously) is broken up with variations in the
wall step backs, heights and roof planes The step back of walls and roof are
complimentary to the style and historic period of the neighborhood.
D) Setback - The combination of the setback and drop in slope from Scenic Drive
create a street setback that does not contribute nor detract from the existing street
scape.
E) Roof Shapes - The "prairie" style roof (i.e. Iow slope, large overhangs, hipped)
with its step backs complement the various roof styles of the surrounding
neighborhood.
F) Rhythm of Openings - alteration of wall area with windows and doors in all
visible facades are compatible to the style of the proposed residence. Special
consideration to the main elevation of the garage has incorporated "carriage" style
doors with glazed upper panels to mitigate the required entry dooms to face the
approach to the house from Scenic Drive.
G) Platforms - The "base" of the residence is accentuated by a water table detail
and wide trim board at the floor level. The base of the building on the downward
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~'
'~onditional Use Permit fot .;Ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
slopes with be constructed with split face concrete block to break up the stemwalls
from grade to the first story level, The maximum height in these areas is 5-1/2 feet.
H) Directional Expression - The proposed residence on the odd lot shape adheres
to the contours of the site and expresses view and openness toward the view. The
design relates the vertical and horizontal facades "omnidirectionar' to the other
adjacent sites and views.
I) Sense of Entry - As stated previously,due to the site conditions, the entry is the
fa(;ade of the garage. Due to the treatment of the garage doom, the entry to the
residence is strong for vehicular traffic. The design makes effort in site grading and
path treatment to lead people to the north side of the garage where a roofed
entrance patio leads to the entry door.
J) Imitations - The design neither replicates or imitates any particular historical
style (with exception of the roof). The design is successful in dealing with the
stringent site constraints (site access, solar access to the property to the north, site
setback standards, and hillside standards). As a result, the project successfully
addresses the site well and is of a compatible design for situating itself on the site.
The proposed detailing, quality of construction, variation of wood siding, variation of
mass and scale speak to qualities of the historic nature of the neighborhood and
ultimately enhance the overall character of the neighborhood
4. Appeal to development hardship in midst of due process in the adoption of
Land Use Ordinance limiting maximum house size in the historic district.
The applicant approached planning staff numerous times in August and September
with Land Use questions related to the site with no knowledge of the effective date of
the adoption of the house size limitations. The applicant was not made aware of the
pending adoption of the new ordinance nor of its effective date during meetings with
planning staff. It is the applicant and the architect's understanding that the
Conditional Use Permit application process is in place to address this condition
(being one of the first applications limited by the newly adopted ordinance). In
addition, these findings stated previously demonstrate the alternative strategies
(including the possibility of applying for a setback variance) to mitigate the area
exceeding the current limits, yet the solutions demonstrated are counteractive to the
intent of the ordinance.
Chapter 18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection
18.61.010 Purpose
The City of Ashland recognizes the importance of trees to the character and beauty of
Ashland as well as the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and
welfare. The City has therefore determined that reasonable regulation of the removal of
certain trees is necessary and that this regulation of trees is based upon the following
general guidelines:
A. The City recognizes that trees can provide soil stability, noise buffering, and wind
9
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve f~
Conditional Use Permit fo{ )ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
protection benefits. The City of Ashland greatly values trees for their ecological
importance, temperature mitigation, enhanced wildlife habitat and aesthetics.
B. The City recognizes the special significance of heritage and distinctive trees, and
values the contribution, which such trees make to the beauty and quality of life of
Ashland.
C. The City recognizes that because of the known benefits of trees, development
property should be protected from unregulated removal of trees prior to the approval or'
development plans. Trees on such properties should be preserved so that they may be
considered for incorporation into development plans.
D. The City recognizes that residents in single family zones should have the freedom to
determine the nature of their private landscaped surroundings.
E. The City recognizes that city-owned property and properties located in multi-family
residential zones often have special landscaping circumstances, and that these special
circumstances have the potential to affect significantly larger numbers of persons if
unregulated. Because of this, such properties require reasonable regulation.
18.61.030 Regulated Activities
A. All tree removal and tree topping activities, unless exempted below, shall be carried
out in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
Complies: One tree greater than 6" in diameter are to be removed and the removal
will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
B. No person who is required to install or maintain tree protection measures pursuant
this chapter shall do any development activities includi'ng, but not limited to clearing,
grading, excavation or demolition work on a property or site which requires a planning
action without approved tree protection measures properly installed and maintained
pursuant to this Chapter.
Complies: Tree protection plan will be submitted with the building permit application.
No work will begin until approved tree protection measures have been installed.
Applicant requests that Tree protection plan be made a Condition of Approval.
18.61.035 Exempt Tree Removal Activities
The fotlowing activities are exempt from the requirement for tree removal permits:
A. Those activities associated with the establishment or alteration of any public park
under the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. However, the Ashland Parks and
Recreation Department shall provide an annual plan in January to the Tree Commission
outlining proposed tree removal and topping activities, and reporting on tree removal and
topping activities that were carried out in the previous year.
Not Applicable.
10
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~
Conditional Use Permit foi, ,~eeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
B. Removal of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18. 52.
n Not Exempt: The Project proposes a single family dwelling. Project is additionally
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance.
C. Removal of trees in multi-family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single
family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as otherwise
regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18. 52).
Not Applicable: Project is not in a multi-family residential zone. Project is subject to
regulations contained in the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (see
findings that follow).
D. Removal of trees less than 6" DBH in any zone, excluding those trees located within
the public right of way or required as conditions of approval with landscape
improvements for planning actions.
Not Applicable:
E. Removal of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school lands, Southern Oregon
University, and other public land; but excluding Heritage trees and street trees within
the public right of way.
Not Applicable: Property is not on any public school land.
F. Removal of trees within the Wildfire Lands area of the City, as defined on adopted
maps, for the purposes of wildfire fuel management, and in accord With the
requirements of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter- 18.62.
Not Applicable: Property is not within the Wildfire Lands area of Ashland
G. Removal of dead trees.
Not Applicable: No dead trees are to be removed.
H. Those activities associated with tree trimming for safety reasons, as mandated by the
Oregon Public Utilities Commission, by the City's Electric and Telecommunication Utility.
However, the Utility shall provide an annual plan to the Tree Commission outlining tree
trimming activities and reporting on tree trimming activities that were carried out in the
previous year. Tree trimming shall be done, at a minimum, by a Journeyman Tree
Trimmer, as defined by the Utility, and will be done in conformance and to comply with
OPUC regulations.
Not Applicable: No tree trimming is proposed as part of this application.
11
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~-
Conditional Use Permit fo( ~ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Chapter 18.62- Physical and Environmental Constraints
18.62. O10 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of
districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural
features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration
of, any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas that are
constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant
natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land,
natural drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural
and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural
vegetation.
(Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997)
18.62.050 Land Classifications
The following factors shall be used to determine the classifications of various lands and
their constraints to building and development on them:
A. Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The
following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland
Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the
Council as provided for in section 18. 62. 060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past.
Not Applicable: Property is not within the designated Floodplain Corridor lands.
4. All areas within 20feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian
Preservation in 18. 62. 050. B and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as
provided for in section 18. 62. 060.
Not Applicable: Area of development is not within any creek designated for Riparian
Preservation.
5. Ali areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on
maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian Preservation.
Not Applicable: No drainage channels are within area of development.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Floodplain Corridor Lands are also designated
for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as listed on the Physical
and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen,
Ashland, Nell and Wrights Creeks.
12
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drivei '
Conditional Use Permit f~.. ](ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
f
11/07/03
[] Not Applicable: Area of development is not within any Flood plain Corridor Lands.
C. Hillside Lands - Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from erosion
and slope failure, and include areas which are highly visible from other portions of the
city. The following lands are classified as Hillside Lands:
1. All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and
which have a slope of 25 percent or greater.
[] Applicable: The property contains slopes that are greater than 25 percent (see Site
Plan, sheet AS1.0 with shaded areas greater than 25 percent).
D. Wildfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as
Wildfire Lands:
1. Alt areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map.
Not Applicable: Property is not within the areas defined as wildfire lands.
E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which
generally limit normal development. The following lands are classified as Severe
Constraint Lands:
1. All areas which are within the fioodway channels, as defined in Chapter 15.10.
n Not Applicable: Area of development is not within a floodway channel.
2. All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent.
[] Applicable: The property contains slopes that are greater than 35 percent (see Site
Plan, sheet AS1.0 with shaded areas greater than 35 percent).
F. Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect
and, if a parcet of land falls under two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the
regulations of each classification. Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those
portions of the land being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel.
[] Applicable: Project is classified under the 'Hillside' classification.
A. The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the above identified areas.
Substantial amendments of these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure.
B. Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors when the amendments are
intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria contained in this chapter or in
the findings of the Council in adopting an official map may be processed as a Type 1
procedure.
18.62. 070 Development Standards for Flood plain Corridor Lands
[] Not Applicable.
13
IILJI.I
Ryan -22 Scenic Drive/
Conditional Use Permit fL Jxceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
18.52.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands
r~ Not Applicable.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands
It is the purpose of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide
supplementary development regulations to underlying zones to ensure that development
occurs in such a manner as to protect the natural and topographic character and identity
of these areas, environmental resources, the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of
lands, and the public health, safety, and general welfare by insuring that development
does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding
problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of these development standards
to encourage a sensitive form of development and to allow for a reasonable use that
complements the natural and visual character of the city.
A. General Requirements. The following general requirements shall apply in Hillside
Lands:
1. Ail development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater
than 35% shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Variances may be
granted to this requirement only as provided in section 18. 62. 080.H.
a. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% shall be
considered buildable for one unit.
b. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35% cannot be
subdivided or partitioned.
Complies: Lot was created prior to adoption of this ordinance. The lot does have
'buildable' area less than 35%. The footprint of the structure does not encroach into
the area that is greater than 35%.
2. Ali newly created lots either by subdivision or partition shall contain a building
envelope with a slope of 35% or less.
Not Applicable: Lot is a pre-existing lot created prior to the adoption of this
ordinance.
3. New streets, flag drives, and driveways shall be constructed on lands of less than or
equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions:
a. The street is indicated on the City's Transportation Plan Map - Street Dedications.
Not Applicable: Scenic Drive is an existing street. No new streets are being created.
b. The portion of the street, flag drive, or driveway on land greater than 35% slope does
not exceed a length of 100feet.
14
Ryan 22 Scenic Drivef'-
Conditional Use Permit f~.. J(ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Complies: Proposed driveway, a small portion being on created on land greater than
35% slope (at driveway entrance, is 62'-0" long.
4. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lands involving subdivisions
or partitions, the following additional information is required:
[] Not Applicable: No subdivision or partition is proposed
B. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as hillside
shall provide plans conforming with the following items:
1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for
development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All cuts,
grading or fills shall conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Erosion control
measures on the development site shall be required to minimize the solids in runoff from
disturbed areas.
Complies: All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans are
conceptual as of this application and will be designed Mark Amrhein of Amrhein
Associates.
2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all grading,
drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur from May I to
October 31. Excavation shall not occur during the remaining wet months of the year.
Erosion control measures shall be installed and functional by October 31. Up to 30 day
modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day modification to the May 1 date may be
made by the Planning Director, based upon weather conditions and in consultation with
the project geotechnical expert. The modification of dates shall be the minimum
necessary, based upon evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary
project goals.
[] Not Applicable: Property is a single family home on an individual lot.
3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lands involving partitions and
subdivisions, and existing lots with an area greater than one-half acre, an area equal to
25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the average slope of the total
project area, shall be retained in a natural state. Lands to be retained in a natural state
shall be protected from damage through the use of temporary construction fencing or the
functional equivalent.
For example, on a 25,000 sq. fl. lot with an average slope of 29%, 25%+29%=54% of the
total lot area shall be retained in a natural state.
The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage required
here is encouraged.
[] Not Applicable: Property area is less than one-half acre (.20 Ac) and does not
involve a partition or subdivision.
15
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive[
Conditional Use Permit f~. ~kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
1 ILII.J
4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands, the following
standards shall apply:
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of materials of which
they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit the total area exposed to precipitation
and erosion. Steep cut slopes shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or
functional equivalent to control erosion and provide slope stability when necessary.
Where cut slopes are required to be laid back (1:1 or less steep), the slope shall be
protected with erosion control getting or structural equivalent installed per
manufacturers specifications, and revegetated.
Complies: Cut slope angles to be retained by structural walls are to be 1/2:1 (H:V)
maximum or as determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of excavation.
Stacked rock walls ("rockeries") will be used to retain exposed steep cuts and will be
cut to 1:6 (H:V). Cut slopes laid back are not to exceed 2:1 (H:V).
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway accesses, or yard areas,
greater than seven feet in height shall be terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall
not exceed a maximum height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three
feet to allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total cut slopes shall
not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15feet. (See Graphic)
Complies: Driveway cut slope is to be retained by a structural retaining wall and will
not exceed a height of seven feet on the downhill side. Cut slopes in yard areas are
to have stacked rock walls not exceeding a height of five feet and will be terraced at
the light well on the south side of the building if required.
The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be located a minimum
setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from the nearest property line.
Cut slopes for structure foundations encouraging the reduction of effective visual bulk,
such as split pad or stepped footings shall be exempted from the height limitations of
this section. (See Graphic)
Complies: Stacked rock walls are to be located a minimum setback of one-half the
height of the cut slope.
c. Reuegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a planting plan,
introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of irrigation if necessary. The
vegetation used for these areas shall be native or species similar in resource value
which will survive, help reduce the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing
long term slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type
plantings may be appropriate.
Complies: Applicant requests a deferred submittal of landscaping plan as a
condition of approval.
5. Grading -fills. On all fill slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands, the following
standards shall apply:
16
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive/
Conditional Use Permit f6 kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
a. Fill slopes shall not exceed a total vertical height of 2O feet. The toe of the filI slope
area not utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the nearest
property line.(Ord 2834 S6, 1998)
Complies: Proposed fill slopes will not exceed 5 feet and will be greater than 6 feet
from the property line.
b. Fill slopes shall be protected with an erosion control netting, blanket or functional
equivalent. Netting or blankets shall only be used in conjunction with an organic mulch
such as straw or wood fiber. The blanket must be applied so that it is in complete
contact with the soil so that erosion does not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or
blankets shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations.
n Complies: Proposed fill slopes will be protected by erosion control netting.
c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities shall not be located or installed on or in fill
slopes. When determined that it necessary to install utilities on fill slopes, all plans shall
be designed by a geotechnical expert.
n Complies: Utilities will be located in retained fill slopes on the uphill side of the
structure. Amrhein Associates will design this utility placement.
d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or vegetation similar in
resource value and which will survive and stabilize the surface. Irrigation may be
provided to ensure growth if necessary. Evidence shall be required indicating long-term
viability of the proposed vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed
areas.
Complies: Fill slopes will utilize vegetation to meet this requirement.
6. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required revegetation
of cut and filt slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy,
signature of a required survey plat, or other time as determined by the hearing
authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially
established within one year of installation.
Complies: Fill slopes will utilize vegetation to meet this requirement.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control,
including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, and landscaping, shall be
maintained in perpetuity on all areas which have been disturbed, including public
rights-of-way~ The applicant shall provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place
to ensure maintenance of measures.
Complies: Owner agrees to maintain these features in perpetuity.
17
1'11111
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive/
Conditional Use Permit fi ?Xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
b. Security. Eoccept for individual lots existing prior to January 1, 1998, after an Erosion
Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and prior to construction, the applicant
shall provide a performance bond or other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of
the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial
guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond shall be approved by the
City Attorney. The financiat guarantee instrument shall be in effect for a period of at
least one year, and shall be released when the Planning Director and Public Works
Director determine, jointly, that the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the
security retained by the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the
one year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the site has not
been sufficiently stabilized against erosion.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hillside Lands shall be reviewed considering
the following factors:
a. No terracing shall be allowed except for the purposes of developing a level building
pad and f or providing vehicular access to the pad.
Complies: All terracing is proposed only for the purposes developing a level building
pad and for driveway access.
b. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.(Ord 2834, S2 1998)
Complies: No area of site has been deemed unstable or hazardous. The proposed
location of development attempts to avoid the area of slopes greater than 35%.
Some encroachment in this area is proposed only with the driveway construction,
and an administrative variance is requested for this pursuant to this section of the
Ordinance.
c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the structure and a
reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis courts, swimming pools and large
lawns are discouraged. As much of the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in
the natural state of the original slope.
Complies: Building pad is approximately 2391 s.f. Design attempts to minimize the
grading of the site (approximately 57% of the site is to be retained in a natural state).
9. Inspections and Final Report. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City,
signature of the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for individual structures, the project geotechnicat expert shall provide a final, report
indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were
installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections, as per
18. 62. 080.A. 4.j were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically
throughout the project.
Not Applicable: No subdivision is proposed.
18
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~
13onditional Use Permit f~[ ~(ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall conform
to the following standards:
1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to be constructed
on the site and according to the following requirements:
a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems associated with street
construction, facilities for accommodating drainage from driveways, parking areas and
other impervious surfaces, and roof drainage systems.
Complies: Drainage from driveway is to be captured in a 'trench' drain at the garage
and at the bottom of the 15% and 10% slope driveway. All driveway, roof, area and
perforated drains to be tight lined to P.U.E leading to Montview Street.
b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements, shall be, to the
greatest extent feasible, the first improvements constructed on the development site.
Complies: Main line to Montview Street will be installed at time of initial excavation.
All storm water will be temporarily collected and placed into this line until final hook-
up can occur.
c. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or
sloping surfaces of a fill.
Complies: Surface water is diverted away from stacked rock walls and the building
face at a slope of ¼"/foot at paved surfaces and %"/foot at landscaped areas. The
patio on the south/uphill side will also slope to an area drain on the south end of the
patio.
d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as possible, in their
natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from increased storm drainage..
Complies: The existing drainage to the down hill side of the building will remain. Any
opportunity to develop swales that lead to a drain that will be taken.
e. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge berms, shall be used
where practical to minimize increases in runoff volume and peak flow rate due to
development. Each facility shall consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to
safely carry any overflow water to an acceptable disposal point.
Complies: Patio on uphill side has been designed to allow overflow water to go into
relief drain prior to a flood condition reaching floor level
f Stormwaterfacilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that
will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties.
19
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drivel~
Conditional Use Permit f6 kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
I-i
Complies: Storm water facilities will be designed and will be constructed and
maintained with an emphasis on erosion control and to prevent storm water run-off
onto adjacent properties.
g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems, detention ponds, and leach
fields, shall be designed by a registered engineer or geotechnical expert and approved
bY the City's Public Works Department or City Building Official.
Complies: Storm water facilities will be designed and will be constructed and
maintained with an emphasis on erosion control and to prevent storm water run-off
onto adjacent properties.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. Ail development on Hillside Lands shall
conform to the following requirements:
1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the project site plan
shall be prepared, which locates alt trees greater than six inches d.b.h~, identified by
d.b.b~, species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In addition, for areas proposed to be
disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall
be identified. Groups of trees in close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other}
may be designated as a clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number
and average diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall have an accuracy of plus or
minus two feet. The name, signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for
the accuracy of the survey shall be provided on the tree survey.
Complies: Tree inventory is shown on architectural site plan sheet AS1.0.
Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development need not
be included in the inventory.
Complies: Whole site was surveyed.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the inventory of
existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for conservation. When
required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be conducted by a landscape
professional. Factors included in this determination shall include:
a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of development than non-
vigorous trees.
All surveyed trees (Pines and Cedars) on site are healthy though stressed from lack
of water and care.
b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or substantial defects are more likely to result
in damage to people and property.
Not Applicable.
2O
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive,,r-
Conditional Use Permit f~ Jkceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
c. Species. Species vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and damage to their
environment.
Pines and Cedars are very dependent on their consistent lifetime water supply,
whether wet or dry. The water regime of this hillside was altered when Scenic Drive
was installed.
d. Potential longevity.
[] All surveyed trees (Pines and Cedars) on site are healthy though stressed from lack
of water and care.
e. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages.
All surveyed trees are a combination of Pine and Cedars.
f Size. Large trees provide a greaterprotectionfor erosion and shade than smaller trees.
None of the trees on site provide adequate protection for erosion or shade.
3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d. b. b~ or greater conifers and
1' d.b.b, or greater broadleaJ~ shall be protected and incorporated into the project design
whenever possible.
[] Applicable: Significant trees exist on this site (of special note: 30" dbh pine) All trees
shall be protected and incorporated in the design.
a. Streets, driveways, buildings, utilities, parking areas, and other site disturbances
shall be located such that the maximum number of existing trees on the site are
preserved, while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands.
b. Building envelopes shall be located and sized to preserve the maximum number of
trees on site while recognizing and following the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands.
c. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan shall avoid disturbance of tree
protection areas.
[] Complies: Severe site restrictions limit the location of the structure to an area that
creates no hazard to existing trees.
4. Tree Protection. On all properties where trees are required to be preserved during the
course of development, the developer shall follow the following tree protection
standards:
a. All trees designated for conservation shall be clearly marked on the project site. Prior
to the start of any clearing, stripping, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving
or change in ground elevation, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all
trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be
21
T'II~II
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~
Conditional Use Permit fc~ ~ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
established at the perimeter of the dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits,
the fences may be inspected and their location approved by the Staff Advisor. {see
graphic)
Complies: All trees to remain will be fenced at their drip line and no grading will take
place within the drip line of the trees.
b. ConstrUction site activities, including but not limited to parking, material starage, soil
compaction and concrete washout, shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances
within tree protection areas.
Complies: All trees to remain will be fenced at their drip line and no activities will
take place within the drip line of the trees.
c. No grading, stripping, compaction, or significant change in ground elevation shall be
permitted within the drip line of trees designated for conservation unless indicated on
the grading plans, as approved by the City, and landscape professional. If grading or
constrUction is approved within the dripline, a landscape professional may be required
to be present during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective
measures to protect the roots.
Complies: All trees to remain will be fenced at their drip line and none of these
activities will take place within the drip line of the trees.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection areas shall be
minimized. Excessive site rUn-off shall be directed to appropriate storm drain facilities
and away from trees designated for conservation.
Complies: Soil hydrology was severely impacted at the time of construction of Logan
Drive. There shall be no excessive site run-off directed towards the trees to be
saved.
e. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which causes irreparable
damage, as determined by a landscape professional, to trees, the project plan shall be
revised to compensate for the loss. Under no circumstances shall the developer be
relieved of responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Complies: Trees damaged during construction will be replaced with a similar stature
tree as determined by the City of Ashland Tree Commission.
5. Tree Removal. Development shall be designed to preserve the maximum number of
trees on a site. The development shall follow the standards for fuel reduction if the
development is located in Wildfire Lands. When justified by findings of fact, the hearing
authority may approve the removal of trees for one or more of the following
conditions:(Ord 2834 S3, 1998)
Complies: Severe site restrictions limit the location of the structure yet no damage
nor removal of any tree is occurring.
22
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive --~
Conditional Use Permit f~[ ~(ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
n Not applicable. No trees exist within proposed building envelope.
b. The tree is located within a proposed street, driveway, or parking area.
[] Not applicable. No trees to be removed for proposed driveway construction.
c. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other pubIic utility easement.
[] Not Applicable: No trees are within any easements.
d. The tree is determined by a landscape professional to be dead or diseased, or it
constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property when evaluated by the standards
in 18.62.080. D. 2.
[] Not Applicable: No trees have been determined to be dead or diseased on this site.
e. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills that are deemed
threatening to the life of the tree, as determined by a landscape professional.
[] Not Applicable: No trees are within any areas of cut or fill.
6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of trees removed
because they were determined to be diseased, dead, or a hazard, shall be replaced in
compliance with the following standards:
a. Replacement trees shall be indicated on a tree replanting plan. The replanting plan
shall include all locations for replacement trees, and shall also indicate tree planting
detaits.(Ord 2834 S4, 1998)
[] Not applicable.
b. Replacement trees shall be planted such that the trees wilt in time result in canopy
equal to or greater than the tree canopy present prior to development of the property. The
canopy shall be designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas,
reduce surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree locations shall
consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control plan. The hearing authority shall
have the discretion to adjust the proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-
specific evidence and testimony.
[] Not applicable.
c. Maintenance of replacement trees shall be the responsibility of the property owner.
Required replacement trees shall be continuously maintained in a healthy manner. Trees
that die within the first five years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after
which a new five year replacement period shall begin. Replanting must occur within 30
23
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive -~
Conditional Use Permit fd[ fceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
days of notification unless otherudse noted. (Ord 2834 S5, 1998)
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
7. Enforcement.
a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree removal and
replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation shall be removed without prior
approval of the C~ty of Ashland.
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
b. Should the developer or developer's agent remove or destroy any tree that has been
designated for conservation, the developer may be fined up to three times the current
appraised value of the replacement trees and cost of replacement or up to three times
the current market value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is
greater.
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
c. Should the developer or developer's agent damage any tree that has been designated
for protection and conservation, the developer shall be penalized $50. OO per scar. If
necessary, a professional arborist's report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be
required to determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss of
appraised value greater than determined above, the higher of the two values shall be
used.
Complies: Owner agrees to these conditions.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas proposed
for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the following
standards:
1. Building Envelopes. All newly created lots, either by subdivision or partition, shall
contain building envelopes conforming to the following standards:
a. The building envelope shall contain a buildabIe area with a slope of 35% or less.
b. Building envelopes and tot design shall address the retention of a percentage of the
lot in a natural state as required in 18.62.080. B. 3.
c. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree conservation as
required in 18. 62.080. D. 3. while recognizing and following the standards for fuel
reduction if'the development is located in Wildfire Lands
d. It is recommended, that building envelope locations should be located to avoid
ridgeline exposures, and designed such that the roofline of a building within the
envelope does not project above the ridgeline.
Not Applicable: The property is a pre-existing lot. No new lot is being created.
2. Building Design. To reduce hillside disturbance through the use of slope responsive
design techniques, buildings on Hillside Lands, excepting those lands within the
24
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive~~ -
Conditional Use Permit fo~ iceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building design and
indicate features on required building permits:
a. Hillside Building Height. The height of all structures shall be measured vertically from
the natural grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge or peak, wall, parapet,
mansard, or other feature perpendicular to that grade. Maximum Hillside Building
Height shall be 35feet. (graphics available on original ordinance)
Complies: The structure is 24'-0" high at the highest roof ridge and 24'-0" at the
highest second story hip roof eave These measurements are taken from the natural
grade directly below the high points of the roof. The structure is 2-stories in height
(see East Elevation on sheet A2.2).
b. Cut buildings into hillsides to reduce effective visual bulk.
Complies: Building has been cut into hillside to reduce the visual bulk (see Elevation
Sheets)
(1). Split pad or stepped footings shall be incorporated into building design to allow the
structure to more closely follow the slope.
Complies: Stepped footings are incorporated in this design. There are 3 steps
relatively evenly distributed throughout the proposal - 3.5 ft., I ft, and 1.5 ft. This
layout closely follows the slope of the site.
(2). Reduce building mass by utilizing below grade rooms cut into the natural slope.
Complies: Building is developed close to steep slope (greater than 40% grade)
which effectively appears to be set into the hillside from the street side. Maximum
driveway slope of 15% limits the ability to set building into hillside lower than
proposed.
c. A building stepback shall be required on all downhill building walls greater than 20
feet in height, as measured above natural grade. Stepbacks shall be a minimum of six
feet. No vertical walls on the downhill elevations of new buildings shall exceed a
maximum height of 2O feet above natural grade. (see graphic)
Complies: Building has downhill walls measured to natural grade of 16'-6" on the
north end (downhill side). The second story walls are stepped back on all downhill
slopes.
d. Continuous horizontal building planes shall not exceed a maximum length of 36 feet.
Planes longer than 36feet shall include a minimum offset of six feet. (graphic available
on original ordinance)
The downhill wall plane is broken up 26 feet to a 6 foot setback, 16 feet 4 inches
with a 10 foot setback, 14 feet 8 inches with a 17 feet setback to 14 feet 6 inch face
(refer to plans). The color and texture of the second floor siding below the window
l'llll I
I ILIL~
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~ -
Conditional Use Permit f([ kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
sills is to match the base of the building and be distinct from the upper body. This
will further the sense of breaking up the wall plane.
The uphill wall plane is continuous and broken by windows setbacks in the wall
planes similar to downhill side. Also, the true uphill 'plane', as viewed from the
sidewalk, is the roof as indicated previously. The roof 'plane' is broken up by
variegation in the massing by creating a series of 5 inter-relating roof planes
e. It is recommended that roof forms and roof lines for new structures be broken into a
sedes of smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of the surrounding
hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines are discouraged. Large gable ends on downhill
elevations should be avoided, however smaller gables may be permitted. (graphic
available on original ordinance)
Complies: refer to findings in previous section d.
fl It is recommended that roofs of lower floor levels be used to provide deck or outdoor
space for upper floor levels. The use of overhanging decks with vertical supports in
excess of 12feet on downhill elevations should be avoided.
Complies: The main deck has vertical supports less than 8'.
g. It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the
predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the
structure and the natural environment
n Complies: Colors will be selected to comply with these requirements and will be
presented to Staff and the subdivision's design review committee for approval.
F. All structures on Hillside Lands shall have foundations which have been designed by
an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience. A designer,
as defined, shall not complete working drawings without having foundations designed
by an engineer.
Complies: Structural engineering for this project is to be performed by KAS and
Associates in consultation with Carlos Delgado Architect and the recommendations
of the geotechnical consultant, Amhrein Associates.
G. All newly created lots or lots modified by a tot line adjustment must include a building
envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope of sufficient size
to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line
adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes.
Not Applicable: Lot is pre-existing and is not to be modified by a lot line adjustment.
26
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ,~-
' Conditional Use Permit fo{, ,~eeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Chapter 18. 68 - General Regulations
18. 68. 010 Fences
Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards:
A. In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half(3 %) feet
in height.
[] Not Applicable: No fences, wall, hedges or screen planting are proposed in the front
yard.
B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half(6 ~} feet in
height.
Complies: No fences, hedges or screen planting are proposed in the rear or side
yards.
C. The height offences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public
street shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10)
feet of any public street except an alley.
[] Not Applicable: No fences or walls are proposed in the rear or side yard abutting any
public street.
D. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's
property, except where fences are jointly constructed.
[] Not Applicable: No fences are proposed.
E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the uertical plane no greater than five (5%)percent.
In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the
Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem.
The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or
on its own action.
[] Not Applicable: No fences are proposed.
18. 68. 020 Vision Clearance Area
Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the follOwing distances establishing the
size of the vision clearance area:
A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25)feet or, at
intersections including an alley, ten (1 O)feet.
[] Not applicable: Proposed driveway exceeds distance to intersection.
B. In all other districts except the C-1 and E-1 districts, the minimum distance shall be
fifteen (15)feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10)feet. When the angle of
27
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive .~-
Conditional Use Permit f(J. iceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the
distance shall be twenty-five (25)feet.
Exempt: Property is in an R district.
C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or
temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half (2 ~) feet in height,
measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be
located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight
(8) feet above the grade.
Complies: No plantings, fences, walls, structures, or obstructions are planned within
the vision clearance area.
D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2505, S1, 1990)
Complies: No variance is requested to the vision clearance standards.
18.68.030 Access
Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty (40)feet upon a public street (other than an
alley). This requirement may be decreased to twenty-five (25)feet on a cut-de-sac vehicle
turn-around area. Except with an approved flag partition, no lot shall abut upon a street
for a width of less than twenty-five (25)feet.
Complies: Lot has 170.147' frontage on Scenic Drive.
18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements
To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on
streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual
widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof,
shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line
separating the lot from the street.
Street Setback
East Main Street, between City
limits and Lithia Way 35feet
Ashland Street (Highway 66) between
City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65feet
Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty
(20)feet, with the exception of the C-1-D district.
Not Applicable.
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures
28
,Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ?
Conditional Use Permit f(~ !ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with ail requirements for the principal
use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following
limitations:
A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district.
u Not Applicable: No accessory structures are proposed for this property.
B. A quest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided
there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the quest house.
Not Applicable: No guesthouse is proposed for this property.
C. Mechanical equipment shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Such
equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street
adjacent to a front or sideyard, and every attempt shall be made to place such
equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Any installation of
mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. (Ord. 2289 S4, 1984)
a Complies: No mechanical equipment is to be located between the main structure on
the site and any street.
D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential
district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3)feet for an accessory structure
erected more than fifty (50)feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure
is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (I O) feet or more,
and is no more than fifteen (15)feet in height. (Ord. 2228, 1982; Ord. 2289 S3, 1984)
Not Applicable: No accessory structures are proposed for this property.
18.68.160 Driveway Grades
Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of
the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the criteria of the Ashland
Public Works Department and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
new construction. If required by the C~ty, the developer or owner shall provide
certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. All vision clearance
standards associated with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to
the Variance section of this title. {Ord. 2604 S2, 1990; Ord. 2663 S3, 1992)
Complies: Driveway grade proposed is 15%.
Chapter 18. 70 - Solar Access
18.70.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Solar Access Chapter is to provide protection of a reasonable amount
of sunlight from shade from structures and vegetation whenever feasible to all parcels in
T'IrTII'
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ,~-.
Conditional Use Permit fo{, )ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
the City to preserve the economic value of solar radiation failing on structures,
'investments in solar energy systems, and the options for future uses of solar energy.
18.70. 030 Lot ClasSi~cations
Affected Properties. Ail lots shall meet the provisions of this Section and will be
classified according to the following formulas and table: FORMULA I:
Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula I = 30' 0.445 + S Where: S is the decimal value
of slope, as defined in this Chapter.
FORMULA .II:
Minimum N/ S lot dimension for Formula II = 1 O' 0.445 + S Lots whose north-south lot
dimension exceeds that calculated by Formula I shall be required to meet the setback in
Section (A), below.
Not applicable: By observation, solar standard B applies to this property.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula I, but
greater than that calculated by Formula II, shall be required to meet the setback in
Section (B), below.
Not Applicable: Solar standard B applies to this property.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula II
shall be required to meet the setback in Section (C), below.
Not Applicable: Solar standard B applies to this property.
18.70. 040 Solar Setbacks
B. Setback Standard B. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater
than sixteen (15)feet at the north property line.
Buildings for lots which are ctassi~ed as Standard B, or for any lot zoned C-1, E-1 or M-
1, or for any lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be set back from the
northern lot line as set forth in the following formula:
SSB = H- 16' WHERE:
SSB = the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which
creates the longest shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the
northern property line.
H = the height in feet of the highest shade producingpoint of the structure which casts
the longest shadow beyond the northern property line.
S = the slope of the lot, as dejqned in this Chapter.
Not Applicable: See item B.
B. Setback Standard B ....
Complies: By observation, solar standard B applies to this property
3O
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~-~
Conditional Use Permit fo(. ~ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
C. Setback Standard C ....
n Not Applicable: See item B.
D. Exempt Lots. Any lot with a slope of greater than thirty percent (30%) in a northerly
direction, as defined by this Ordinance, shall be exempt from the effects of the Solar
Setback Section.
Not Applicable. Lot slope is not greater than 30% in a northerly direction.
E. Lots Affected By Solar Envelopes. Alt structures on a tot affected by a solar envelope
shall comply with the height requirements of the solar envelope.
Complies. Building is shown to comply on sheet AS1.0, Site Solar fence lines
indicated on plans. Solar elevations shown were created by projecting and
calculating the solar angle based on the contour intervals intersecting with the north
property line.
F. Exempt Structures.
1. Existing Shade Conditions. If an existing structure or topographical feature casts a
shadow at the northern lot line at noon on December 21, that is greater than the shadow
allowed by the requirements of this Section, a structure on that lot may cast a shadow
at noon on December 21, that is not higher or wider at the northern lot line than the
shadow cast by the existing structure or topographical feature. This Section does not
apply to shade caused by vegetation.
Not Applicable. No existing structures exist.
2. Actual Shadow Height. If the applicant demonstrates that the actual shadow which
would be cast by the proposed structure at noon on December 21, is no higher than that
allowed for that lot by the provisions of this Section, the structure shall be approved.
Refer to Table D for actual shadow lengths.
Complies: Applicant has shown, on sheet AS1.0- Site Solar fence lines, the alternate
"Solar Limits for 16' Shadow @ Property Line" indicated by the solar elevation lines.
18. 70.050 Solar Access Performance Standard
Not Applicable.
18.70.060 Variances
Not Applicable: No variances are requested for this property.
18.70.070 Solar Access Permit for Protection from Shading by
Vegetation
31
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Conditional Use Permit fc~, )~ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
18. 70. 080 Hearing Procedure
18. 70. 090 Limits On Solar Access Permits
18.70.100 Entnj of Solar Access Permit Into Register
a Not Applicable: No Solar Access Permit is being requested.
18. 70.110 Ejfect and F. nforcement
11/07/03
IILILJ
Chapter 18. 72 - Site Design & Use Standards
8. 72.040 Approval Process
The application for this project requires a Type I procedure due to the request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow exceeding the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MFPA) in the Historic District
18. 72. 050 Detail Site Review Zone
Not Applicable: The project is not within the Detail Site Review Zone.
18.72. 070 - Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
Complies: The proposed development meets or exceeds all the requirements of the R-1
district. See findings for Chapter 18.20 R-1 Single-Family Residential District of these
findings.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
[] Complies: All applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been or will
be met. See 'Site Design and Use Standards' findings that follow.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
[] The development complies with the applicable Site Design Standards outlined in
Chapter 18.72 Site, Design & Use Standards. See findings that follow.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation
32
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Conditional Use Permit f~, Xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the
street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88,
Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
Complies: Adequate facilities will be provided as per the following:
1. Water: The water meter will be installed within the right-of-way on Scenic Drive.
2. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewage will pass through a 4" line from the building
downhill to the existing sanitary sewer stub out on the lower southeastern portion of
the property. An existing 10' P.U.E. to Montview Street is located at this lower
eastern portion (see sheet AS1.0 Site Plan).
3. Electricity: Tie in to be to existing underground tie-in from the Scenic Drive right of
way.
4. Urban Storm Drainage: Storm drainage will be directed through tight line drain lines
to the 10' P.U.E. to daylight to Montview Street.
18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use
Standards
An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with
respect to the requirements of the S~te Design Standards adopted under section
18. 72. 080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of
the following circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site;
B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;
C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and
Use Chapter; and
D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty.
Not Applicable: No administrative variance is requested.'
18.72.115 - Recycling Requirements
All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in
18. 72. 040, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants.
A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide
a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste
receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under
its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle
site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping
such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
Not Applicable: Not a commercial development.
B. Multi-Family Residential. All newly constructed multi-family units, either as part of an
existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle
site in accord with the following standards:
33
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive/
Conditional Use Permit fS. Xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
1. Multi-family developments NOT sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall
provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the
development.
2. Multi-family developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide a
site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the common solid
waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee
under its residential on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the
opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by
fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-
of-way.
a Complies: Recycling containers will be made available to tenant and Owners and will
be placed within the garage.
18. 72.120 Controlled access
A. Prior to any partitioning of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-I, E-1 or M-1 zone,
controlled access standards shall be applied and, if necessary, cross easements shall
be required so that access to atl properties created by the partitioning can be made from
one or more points.
Not Applicable: No partitioning is proposed with this application.
B. Access points shall be limited to the following:
1. Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets - 100feet;
on collector streets - 75feet;
on residential streets - 50feet.
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets - 100feet;
on collector streets - 50feet;
on residential streets - 35feet.
n Complies: Distance between existing driveways is greater than 50'.
C. Vision clearance standards.
1. No obstructions greater than two and one half feet high, nor any landscaping which
will grow greater than two and one half feet high, with the exception of trees whose
canopy heights are at all times greater than eight feet, may be placed in a vision
clearance area determined as follows:
The vision clearance area at the intersection of two streets is the triangle formed by a
line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an
intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting
points ten feet along the alley and 25feet along the street. When the angle of
intersection between the street and the alley is tess than 30 degrees, the distance shall
be 25feet. No structure or portion thereof shall be erected within ten feet of the
driveways.
34
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive
Conditional Use Permit f~ ~(ceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Not Applicable: No intersection of streets, or streets with alleys, occurs adjacent to
this property.
2. State of Oregon Vision Clearance Standards. The following stopping site distances
shall apply to all State Highways within the City with the prescribed speed limits.
Vertical stopping sight distance to be based on distance from three and one half feet
above pavement to a point six feet above the pavement. {0rd. 2544 $1, 1989)
30 mph2OO feet
35 mph225 feet
40 mph275 feet
45 mph325 feet
55 mph450 feet
o Not Applicable: Logan Drive is a City of Ashland Street and is not a State Highway.
3. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the
variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605 S2, 1990)
D. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments.
1. Ail multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of
250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the
development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
a Not Applicable: Project will not generate more than 250 vehicle trips per day.
2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88. 020. G, is prohibited.
(Ord. 2544 S2, 1989; Ord 2836 S7, 1999)
Not Applicable: No streets are being created as part of this project.
18. 72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards
There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in
any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-l, SO, or HC lot.
Complies: Lighting will be shielded and located so as to limit the direct illumination
on the adjacent residential properties.
18. 72.160 Landscaping Maintenance
A. All landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed-free condition.
B. All landscaped areas required by this Chapter must be maintained according to the
approved landscaping plans. (Ord. 2228, 1982)
35
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~--
Conditional Use Permit f~[ kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Complies: Owner agrees to maintain all landscaped areas according to these
requirements.
Chapter 18.92 - Off-Street Parking
18.92. 010 Generally
In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected,
enlarged, or the use is changed, off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in this
Chapter.
18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following
for accessory residential units:
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.-1 space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger-l.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2. O0 spaces/unit.
2. Multi-family dwellings.
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.-1 space/unit.
b. I-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units--2. O0 spaces/unit.
e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater-One space per unit.
Complies: Two parking spaces are required for the primary dwelling and are
provided for in the two-car garage.
B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Property is not intended or zoned for any of the Commercial Uses
indicated in this section.
C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Property is not intended or zoned for any of the Industrial Uses
indicated in this section.
D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses .... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Property is not intended or zoned for Institutional or Public Uses.
E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for .... (portions deleted).
36
Ryan - 22 Scenic Ddve/
Conditional Use Permit f( kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Not Applicable: Use is specifically defined in this section.
F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces
provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required
number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-
street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-
structure parking, or in mutti-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply
towards the maximum number of allowable spaces.
Complies: Parking provided is equal to the parking required.
18.92.025 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking
A. The amount of off-street parking required shall be reduced by the following credit
provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street
spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space.
a Not applicable: All off street parking space requirements have been met.
B. On-street parking shall follow the established confu2uration of existing on-street
parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of t
he Public Works Director, taking into account traffic flows and street design, with the
parking spaces designed in accord with the standards on file with the Public Works
Department. The following shall constitute an on-street parking space:
1. Parallel parking, each 24 feet of uninterrupted curb.
Not applicable: All off street parking space requirements have been met.
2. 45 degree diagonal, each 13feet of uninterrupted curb.
Not Applicable: No 45-degree diagonal parking is proposed or exists.
C. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the
parking.
Complies: Parking shown is contiguous with the property frontage.
D. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20feet measured along the curb
of any comer or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking con~guration
that violates any taw or standard of the City or State.
Not Applicable: Parking shown is not adjacent to any alley or street.
E. Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the
arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by the Street
Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord 2836 S14, 1999)
37
I ILII.~
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive~~
Conditional Use Permit It Jxceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
n Not Applicable: Parking shown is located on a residential street.
F. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200feet of a C-1-D or SO zone.
Not Applicable: Parking shown is located on a residential street.
G. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used eXclusively by
that use, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions
limiting general public use of on~street spaces shall be permitted.
n Complies.
18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places
a Not Applicable: Project is not commercial and therefor is not required to provide
Disabled Person Parking.
18.92.040 Bicycle Parking
A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-I-
D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
Not Applicable: Project is a detached single-family residence.
B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage,
shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows:
Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2. 0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
[] Not Applicable: Project contains a garage for bicycle storage.
18.92.050 Compact Car Parking
Not Applicable: No compact car parking is proposed.
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive ~-'
Conditional Use Permit fA..kceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements
A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the
parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9
x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with
18.92.050 and shall have a 22foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
Complies: Proposed parking spaces are a minimum of 9 x 18 feet and have a back-
up space of more than 24 feet.
B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to
parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a
shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12feet.
Complies: Proposed driveway is 12'-0" wide at its narrowest dimension.
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with
adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that ali vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
Not Applicable.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20
feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due
regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked
and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12
feet in width.
Not Applicable.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor
land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with
streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case
shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or
proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
Not Applicable.
b. Plans forproperty being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family developments
shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the
use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements.
Not Applicable: The property is not being partitioned, subdivided, or intended for
multi-family development.
c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway
39
' rllll I
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive~,~
Conditional Use Permit f~ Jxceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed
development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or
sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering
Division.
Not Applicable: No existing curb cuts or driveway approaches currently exist to the
property.
C. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6"for their entire length and width.
Complies: This 13'-6" vertical clearance will be maintained for these areas on the
property.
D. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet
in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the
triangle formed by a line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines.
In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a
line connecting points ten (10}feet along the alley and 25feet along the street. When the
angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the
distance shall be 25feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be
erected within ten (10}feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one-half
feet in height. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject
to the Variance section of this title.
n Complies: This 13'-6" vertical clearance will be maintained for these areas on the
property.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided
below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file
in the office of the City Engineer.
n Complies: Proposed driveway paving is to be asphalt paving.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions
made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of ~uch waters
onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property.
Complies: One 'trench' drain will serve to collect the sheet flow of water from the
driveway. No water will flow onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way or abutting
properties.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed
to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
Complies: Approach to conform to City standards.
4O
, Ryan - 22 Scenic Drivel--
Conditional Use Permit f~ Jxceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have alt spaces permanently
and clearly marked.
[] Not Applicable.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and
six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to
withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces
abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public
right-of-way.
[] Not Applicable: No wheel stops are proposed.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge
screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established
parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall
be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after
installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. Ail
vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said
wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall
be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
[] Not Applicable: No parking abuts upon a street. Proposed parking is on street and
within the garage.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities ... (portions deleted).
Not Applicable: Zoned single-family.
7. Landscaping. In alt zones, all parkingfacilities shall include landscaping to cover not
less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping
required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed
throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or
raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related
material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required.
Complies: The existing parking area and backup space (on subject property)
comprises approximately 1170 s.f. of surface area. This requires, at 7%, an area of
landscaping totaling 82 s.f. This area is more than accommodated in the adjacent
landscaped areas.
8. Lighting of parking areas within l OO feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element
shall not be directly visible from abutting residentiaI property.
41
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive/- '
Conditional Use Permit ~ Jxceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
Complies: A shielded garage light will direct light downward. Two Iow wall lights will
be inset into the retaining wall on the uphill side of the site facing the driveway and
will be Iow voltage lighting.
Chapter 18. 104 - Conditional Use Permits
18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally
Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter
provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits
are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use
may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use
permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
This Conditional Use Permit application for allowing exceeding the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic District (Section 18.24.040 K.)
18.104.030 Procedure
An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the
subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied
by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the
requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter
18.108 of this Title.
18.104. 040 Plan Requirements
A. The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following
information:
1. Vicinity map.
2. North arrow.
3. Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property.
4. Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of ail lot lines.
5. Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and
schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures.
6. Location of alt parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic
circulation for the subject property.
7. Schematic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed.
8. A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or tess.
9. Approximate location of alt existing natural features in areas which are planned to be
disturbed, including, but not limited to, ail existing trees of greater than six inch dbh,
any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of
rocks or boulders.
Complies: See drawings provided with this submittal.
B. An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently
42
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive¥~-.
Conditional Use Permit IL ~xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18. 72. The
provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan
requirements of Section 18. 72. 040 for site design approval.
This request for a Conditional Use Permit application for allowing exceeding the
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic District (Section 18.24.040 K.)
is being submitted concurrently with a request for review of conformance to the
Development Standards for Hillside Lands pursuant to Section 18.62.080.
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the
proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions,
with the following approval criteria.
A. 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.
Complies: The proposed use is in conformance with all standards within the R-1-7.5
zoning district.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation
can and will be provided to and through the subject property.
Complies: Adequate capacity of City facilities exist as declared in section 18.72.050
D. of the Site Design and Use section of these findings.
C. That the conditional use wilt 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. 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:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
n Complies: The floor area is compatible with the typical residences in this
neighborhood. Refer to findings under Chapter 18.20.040.H. in these findings.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
Complies: The existing street is approximately 20'-0" wide. This development of a
single family residence is an intended use off of Scenic Drive and is close within
Ashland Street standards defining a 'Residential Neighborhood Street, Parallel
Parking One Side' as requiring 22' of pavement. Given the density and lot sizes of
43
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive~~ '
Conditional Use Permit k... ~xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
adjacent properties, and the non-requirement for on street credits for this
development, no further impact on street parking is incurred.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
Complies: The residence has been designed in a style complementary to some of
the surrounding homes. From the street side, the house has a 'cottage' look and is
Iow and predominately horizontal. The house nestles as much as practical into the
hillside. The applicant believes that the house conforms to the requirements of all
ordinances that regulate the design of the home, in particular the 'Hillside' ordinance.
The findings contained herein and under Chapter 18.20.040.H.describe the criteria
and how this criteria is being met.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
Complies: Air quality will not be imPacted, except during construction, to any greater
extent by the addition of this accessory unit, than by a single-family residence.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Complies: Noise, light, and glare will not be increased to any greater extent by the
addition of this accessory unit, than by a single-family residence. Entry lights for the
accessory unit will be located under the veranda in the two foot fa(~ade setback and
therefor will have minimal impact on the adjacent neighbors.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Complies: Future development of adjacent properties will be of like nature in-
response to site conditions and use.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
18.104.060 Conditions
The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but are not limited to
the following:
A. Regulation and limitation of uses.
B. Special yards, spaces.
C. Fences and walls.
D. Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and
bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such
improvements.
E. Regulation of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress.
F. Regulation of signs.
G. Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features.
H. Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase
compatibility with adjoining uses.
44
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drivq~ ;
Conditional Use Permit t~.. exceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
I. Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances.
J. Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities.
K. The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed.
L. Duration of use.
M. Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space.
N. Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design.
0. Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in a orderly
and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this ~tle.
18.104.070 Revocation; Abandonment
Unless a longer period is specifically allowed by the approval authority, any conditional
use permit approved under this section, including any declared phase, shall be deemed
revoked if the proposed use or phase is not commenced within one year of the date of
approval. A use or phase shall not be considered commenced until the permittee has
actually obtained a building permit and commenced construction or has actually
commenced the conditional use on the premises. If the permit requires site design
approval under Chapter 18. 72, the permit shall be deemed revoked if the use or phase is
not developed within one year of the date of site design approval. A conditional use is
deemed void if discontinued or abandoned for a period of six consecutive months. (Ord.
2228, 1982; Ord. 2656, 1991; Ord. 2775. 1996)
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
SECTION II-APPROVAL STANDARDS & POLICIES
A. ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the
Site Design and Use Standards.
R-l: 45%
Complies: The total pervious natural and landscaped area equals 4,876 s.f. on-site,
or 57% of lot area. This exceeds the 45% requirement for R-1 zones.
B. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPROVAL STANDARDS: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the
following design standards:
Not Applicable: This development is not a multi-family residential development.
D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS
II-D-l) Screening at Required Yards
II-D-l-I) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate
a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
45
T'III111
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drive' !
Conditional Use Permit k ~.xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Complies: The retaining wall on the south side of the parking area is approximately 3
feet in height at the Garage. This wall, in conjunction with the plantings above,
serve to obscure the parking/driveway in conformance with this requirement.
II-D-I-2} The screen shall grow to at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the
parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
Not Applicable: Retaining wall serves as screen.
II-D-I-3) The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and
plant materials.
Not Applicable.
II-D-I-4) Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
Not Applicable: Driveway is sunken, not elevated.
II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines
Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped strip. Where a
buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required
buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement.
Not Applicable: No parking abuts a property line.
II-D-3) Landscape Standards
II-D-3-1} Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7 % of the total parking
area plus a ratio of I tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect.
o Not Applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be
selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and
damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians.
Not Applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least
2feet from any curb or paved area.
Not Applicable: No parking lot is proposed.
II-D-3-4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover
to assure 50% coverage within I year and 90% within 5 years.
Complies: The landScape has been designed to meet this requirement.
46
Ryan - 22 Scenic Driver ~
Conditional Use Permit~, . ~xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
II-D-3-5} Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and
parking perimeter at the required ratio.
Complies: Landscape areas are on two sides of the proposed driveway.
II-D-3-6) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip
abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but
only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant
material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior
yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior landscaping required for
interior parking stalls.
Complies: Landscape areas are counted toward required parking lot landscaping.
II-D-4-1) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8feet
from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
Complies: On-street parking is greater than twenty feet from the building. Two
spaces are contained within the enclosed garage.
H-D-5) Hedge Screening
H-D-5-1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is
achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4 years.
Complies: The landscape hedge screening is evergreen and has been designed to
meet this requirement.
II-D-5-2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100% coverage
is achieved within 2 years.
n Complies: The landscape living groundcover has been designed to meet this
requirement.
II-D-6) Other Screening
II-D-6-1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follow:
Refuse Container Screen, Service Corridor Screen, Light and Glare Screen:
Not Applicable: Refuse containers will be located within the garage.
E. STREET TREE STANDARDS
APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets
shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards
and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section.
II-E-l) Location for Street Trees
47
Ryan - 22 Scenic Driv~~[
Conditional Use Permit~. &xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where
there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is
greater than 8 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers,
and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of
Community Development.
Complies: Two existing street trees are located behind the sidewalk in the right-of-
way. Existing trees are to be irrigated.
II-E-2} Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may for
reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition
shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement,
spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows:
Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30feet of street
frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing
permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches.
Complies: Two existing street trees along the frontage are spaced 62' apart (170'
feet of Scenic Drive street frontage (170/30=6). The applicant agrees to plant 4
additional trees accordingly to this ordinance chosen from the approved Street Tree
list.
bo
Trees shall not be planted closer than 2$ feet from the curb line of
intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than l Ofeetfromprivate
driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants or
utility poles.
do
Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards.
Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned
closer than lO feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such
locations will be at least 20feet distant.
Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 ~ feet from the face of the curb
except at intersections where it shall be 5feet from the curb, in a curb
return area.
Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that
will not interfere with those lines.
~Prees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface
paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least
10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow
48
Ryan - 22 Scenic Drivq~'- ~
Conditional Use Permit ~ · ~xceeding MPFA - Findings of Fact
Compliance with Development Standards for Hillside Lands
11/07/03
additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the
tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by
permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand,
or paver blocks.
g. ~Prees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance
above sidewalks and 12feet above street roadway surfaces.
Complies: Applicant agrees to comply per landscaping plan.
ho
Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from
the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable
width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to
approval by the Staff Advisor.
Complies: Location of existing trees is such that no intense construction will occur
around the trees.
II-E~3) Replacement of Street Trees
Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the
developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees
shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff
Advisor.
Complies: Owner agrees to replace any street trees removed or damaged during the
course of construction in accordance with this section.
II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees
Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree
Commission.
Complies: The proposed street trees have been selected from the street tree list.
SECTION III- WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
POLICIES
Complies: Owner agrees to select plants to drought tolerant. Also, the proposed
irrigation for this project is to be designed to minimize inefficient use of water and will
be reviewed.
49
l'l~ll
Z
32~97'
S IX)' 33' 54' E
SIDE YARD
-~ i~-~ ~, .~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A R C H I T E C T
" ASSESS0-~ ~ T--~--~-~NO. 7401 541.552.9502 541.55~.9S12 fax
carlo~mind.net,
PROPERTY UNE
Z
~ ~ i~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A R C H I T E C T
· ' ".. A88E88~ T---~'"~--NO. 7401 541.552.9502 . 541carlosC]imtnd.552.9512 netfax
rn
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ ' e
I I
I I
/
/
/
/
/
/
8'-11
'17'-2'
II
I
I
01' 21' E
Z
o
NEW RESIDENCE
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
22 SCENIC DR.
ASHLAND OR 97520
ASSESSOR'8 MAP NO. 391E 08 AD TAX LOT NO. 7401
NO0°I
I /
DESCRIFTION
r-
· Ox[-
!
ARCHIT ~ ~.~
545 A Street oAshland Oregon 97520 "no~). j~-o
541.552.9502 541.552.9512 fax
~arlosJ~imind.net
Rev Board
December 4th
December 11~
December 18~
December 24~
Terry,
Terry,
Terry,
Terry,
December 25~
December 31 s,
MERRY CHRISTMAS !
Terry, ~ ~7~
January I~ HA PPY NEW YEAR !
PRESERVATION PLANNING
An Introduction to Historic Preservation Planning
oss the country there are
a renewed interest in our
communities' historic resources.
Abandoned, vacant, and underutilized
historic buildings are being creatively put
to new use. Neglected, but once spectac-
ular, theaters are being restored as new
performance spaces. Historic residential
districts and neighborhoods are being
reinvigorated. As these transformations
take place, historic preservation is being
seen as providing tangible benefits to
communities large and small.
Many of us have taken time to visit
places noted for their historic character,
whether larger cities like Savannah,
Georgia; San Antonio, Texas; or New
Orleans, Louisiana, or smaller communi-
ties like Natchez, Mississippi; Virginia
City, Nevada; Port Townsend, Washing-
ton; and Quincy, Illinois. Virtually every
one of us has undoubtedly spent time
pleasantly walking through historic Main
Street and residential districts. The
appeal of these areas is universal. Reflect-
Lng this, a growing number of communi-
ties have been incorporating historic
preservation into their comprehensive
plans, downtown revitalization strate-
gies, neighborhood improvement plans,
and zoning ordi-
nances.
This article is
intended to provide
a brief introduction
to historic preserva-
tion planning. You
will read about
some of the benefits
Elaborate iron gates of preservation, and
are common in find information on
Charleston, South how communities
Carolina's, historic
districts, are implementing
local preservation
policies. Resources are also listed for
those of you who want to learn more
about preser3ation planning.
by Amy Facca
Charleston, South Carolina, established
the nation's first local historic district.
Preservation no lOnger concerned itself
just with individual structures, but also
took into account the historic value of
groups of buildings, districts, and even
whole communities.
View of President Thomas Jefferson's home,
Monticello.
PRESERVATION IN AMERICA
The first interest in preserving his-
toric structures can be found in the mid-
19th Century efforts to acquire and
restore the homes of famous Americans
like George Washington's Mount Vernon
and Thomas Jefferson's Monticello.
Beginning in 1927, the scope of historic
preservation expanded dramatically with
the start of John D. Rockefeller's restora-
tion of Williamsburg, colonial Virginia's
capital city. The next, and perhaps most
important, step in the preservation
movement was taken in 1931 when
Vacant for many years, the Rice Building in down-
town Troy, was redeveloped by a partnership of
the Troy Savings Bank, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, and the Troy Architectural Program, Inc.
The building is now fully occupied and used as a
high-tech ~incubator. "
The main waiting room in New York's
Pennsylvania Station, demolished in 1965.
But major losses also acted to ener-
gize the preservation movement. As
planning historian Larry Gerckens has
noted, "The demolition of New York
City's Pennsylvania Station in 1965, one
of the nation's most magnificent railroad
stations, shocked many New Yorkers, as
well as citizens across the country. Out-
raged by the fact that there was no legal
recourse to stop the ~lemolition (the
building was privately owned by the
nearly bankrupt Pennsylvania Railroad),
New Yorkers responded by enacting later
that year a comprehensive landmarks
preservation law." See "H is for Historic
Preservation,' in PCJ #46, Spring 2002.
continued on page 4
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
"Preservation does not mean merely
the setting aside of thousands of
buildings as museum pieces. It means
retaining the culturally valuable
structures as useful objects: A home
in which human beings live, a
building in the service of some
commercial or community purpose.
Such preservation insures structural
integrity, relates the preserved object
to the life of the people around it,
and not least, it makes preservation a
source of positive financial gain
rather than another expense."
- Lady Bird Johnson, from Foreword to
With Heritage So Rich (1966).
Historic Preservation Planning
continued from page 3
Historic preservation became federal
policy with the adoption of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in
1966. This law was enacted following
completion of With Heritage So Rich, a
comprehensive report undertaken by the
U.S. Conference of Mayor's Special Com-
mittee on Historic Preservation in
response to the substantial loss of his;
toric and cultural resources brought
about by urban renewal and construction
of the interstate highway system.~
Among other things, the NHPA
authorized creation of a National Regis-
te~.istoric Places, directing the U.S.
Secretary of Interior to maintain a list of
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects significant in American history,
architecture, archeology, engineering
and culture. Indeed, within twenty-five
years of its passage there were over 8,000
historic districts listed in the National
Register.
1 This was no ordinary Committee. It was chaired by
Alabama's Albert Rains (who had been an influential
member of Congress until retiring in 1965), and
included then U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie; Vermont
Governor Philip Hoff, and Gordon Gray, Chairman of
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, among
others. A number of distinguished historians and
planners alsO) contributed to the Committee's report.
The NHPA also authorized the estab-
lishment of historic preservation offices
in each state, and mandated the creation
of standards and guidelines for various
preservation activities, such as how to
identify historic resources. The survey
process and criteria for evaluating poten-
tial historic resources are important com-
ponents of preservation planning
because they help to distinguish what
is historic from what is merely old.
~ Identifying Historic Resources.
In recent years, historic preservation
has continued to expand its focus, with
new interest in preserving and enhancing
the distinctive character of communities,
and even regions.
BENEFITS OF HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Since the 1970s, mounting evidence
has shown that historic preservation can
be a powerful community and economic
development strategy. Evidence includes
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
statistics compiled from annual surveys
conducted by the National Trust for His-
toric Preservation and statewide Main
Street programs, state-level tourism and
economic impact studies, and studies
that have analyzed the impact of specific
actions such as historic designation, tax
credits, and revolving loan funds. Among
the findings:
· Creation of local historic districts stabi-
lizes, and often increases residential and
commercial property values.
· Increases in property values in historic
districts are typically greater than
increases in the community at large.
· Historic building rehabilitation, which
is more labor intensive and requires
greater specialization and higher skills
levels, creates more jobs and results in
more local business than does new con-
stnlction. ~
· Heritage tourism provides substantial
economic benefits. Tourists drawn by a
community's (or region's) historic char-
acter typically stay longer and spend
more during their visit than other
tourists.
· Historic rehabilitation encourages
additional neighborhood investment and
produces a high return for municipal
dollars spent.
· Use of a city or town's existing, historic
building stock can support growth man-
agement policies by increasing the sup-
ply of centrally located housing.
PLANNING FOR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
Elected and appointed officials often
face difficult and controversial decisions
that affect the character of their commu-
ni[ies. Many of these decisions relate to
2 This is not to say that protection from adverse feder-
al or state actions is unimportant. For example, when
projects involving federal funds (e.g., highway con-
struction) affect structures or historic districts listed
in the National Register, the federal government must
consider these impacts and, at least, try to address
them (e.g., by considering alternative approaches
which might have less harmful impacts). This can be
of great value in ensuring the protection of a commu-
nity's historic resources.
Listing in the National Register also provides
access to public and private sector financial incen-
tives. Many communities use the survey and listing
process as a first step in downtown or neighborhood
revitalization. Historic districts are also popular desti-
nations for tourism activities, and can serve as cata-
lysts for commercial development.
older and historic buildings, ngighbor-
hoods, and commercial districts. Exhm~
ples include:
· Demolishing an old building or group
of buildings to make way for new devel-
opment such as a chain drugstore or "big
box" retailer.
· Constructing a new addition on an
existing building.
· Constructing a new building in an
older neighborhood.
· Replacing historic building elements
such as windows, doors, porches, roofs,
or original siding materials.
When making these decisions, elect-
ed and appointed officials look to their
community's long-range plan, zoning
ordinances, and related land use regula-
tions. In many communities, these docu-
ments provide little guidance in terms of
historic preservation. While plans or
ordinances may reference (often in an
appendix) those buildings or neighbor-
hoods listed in National and State Regis-
ters of Historic Places, this information,
in and of itself, is of minimal value to
decision makers. Without more, simply
being listed in the National or State Reg-
isters only provides limited protection
from federal or state actions that may
adversely affect historic resources?
Preservation planning is key to estab-
lishing public policies and strategies that
can help prevent the loss of historic
resources. It provides a forum for discus-
sion and education about issues related
to historic resources and development.
This includes important questions such
as when and where it may be appropriate
continued on page 6
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
Historic,Preservation Planning
continued from page 5
to demolish historic buildings, and what
resources must be protected to maintain
the community's historic and architectur-
al character.
Preservation planning usually results
in the preparation of a formal planning
document by professional planners,
historians, or architects specializing
in historic preservation. This can be a
stand-alone planning document such as
a historic preservation plan, or a compo-
nent of a long-range planning document
such as a master plan, downtown revital-
ization plan, or neighborhood improve-
ment strategy. Information about a
community's historic resources and his-
toric preservation efforts can also be
incorporated into vari°us sections of
"As more and more of the existing phys-
ical fabric becomes eligible for preserva-
tion, the issue of what should be pre-
served and the struggle with the forces
pressing for change become sharper."
- Kevin Lynch, Good City Form (MIT
Press, 1981).
community planning documents, such
as sections relating to housing, commu-
nity character, downtown revitalization,
and economic development.
Preservation planning, like most
planning processes, typically includes a
long-range vision, goals and objectives,
and recommended implementing actions
(such as adoption of a local preservation
ordinance). A well-conceived preserva-
tion planning process serves to:
· Establish a basis of public policy about
historic resources;
· Educate and inform residents and oth-
ers about their community's heritage and
its value;
· Identify opportunities for economic
growth based on the community's his-
toric and architectural character.
· Ensure consistency among various
local government policies that affect the
community's historic resources;
· Lay the groundwork for adopting a
local historic preservation ordinance or
strengthening an existing one;
· Eliminate uncertainty or confusion
about the purpose, meaning, and content
of a community's preservation ordinance;
· Inform existing and potential property
owners, investors, and developers about
what historic resources the community
wants to protect as it grows;
· Create an agenda for future preserva-
tion activities; and
· Facilitate compliance with federal and
state historic preservation and environ-
mental quality laws.
1. Preservation Plans
Preservation plans can build on infor-
mation developed through historic
resource surveys and lay the groundwork
for the formal designation of individual
properties or districts. As noted, for
example, in the Carbondale, Illinois, His-
toric Preservation Plan, preservation
planning "gives focus and direction to a
community's efforts to. protect and
enhance its historic resources. [It] works
toward making preservation decision-
making a normal function or element of
land use decisions rather than an excep-
tional one, thus making historic preser-
vation proactive rather than reactive."
While there is no prescribed format
or structure for a preservation plan, it
typically includes a description of a com-
munity's preservation efforts and sets out
goals, policies, and specific actions relat-
ed to the continuing identification, pro-
tection, and enhancement of historic
resources. It may also include an expla-
nation of the legal basis for preservation,
and supporting information such as
National and State Register listings,
architectural styles, preservation organi-
zations, and other information.
Preservation plans serve several pur-
poses:
· educating elected and appointed offi-
cials, municipal staff, property owners,
investors, and others about the status of
historic resources within the community
and the economic benefits of preserva-
tion;
· formally documenting existing condi-
tions, issues, opportunities, and chal-
lenges;
· providing information on tax and other
incentives for preservation;
· offering discussion and analysis regard-
ing preservation of historic resources,
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
and establishing a roadmap for future
efforts;
· setting out the roles and responsibili-
ties of the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors with regard to the preservation of
historic resources.
Preservation plans also play a critical
role in providing the supporting ratio-
nale and framework for developing a
local historic preservation ordinance.
2. Preservation Ordinances
One of the biggest misconceptions
local officials may have is the belief that
listing a structure on the National Regis-
ter of Historic Places (or on a comparable
State Register) protects the structure
from demolition or significant change. In
fact, it is precisely because listing only
provides limited protection from federal
and states actions, and does not prevent
building demolition, that many commu-
nities have enacted local preservation
ordinances.3
A preservation ordinance typically
includes a statement of purpose, a permit
process requiring a certifiCate of appro-
priateness or approval, and rules regard-
ing building demolition, maintenance,
and economic hardship (not unlike zon-
ing variances). Preservation ordinances
also generally establish a historic preser-
vation commission (sometimes called a
heritage commission or an architectural
review board) to review applications.
continued on page 8
3 Model historic preservation ordinances are general-
ly available from statewide historic preservation
offices and statewide not-for-profit preservation orga-
niza tio"fls~
"We do not use bombs and powder
kegs to destroy in'eplaceable
structures related to the story of
Ame~icag civilization. We use the
corrosion of neglect or the thrust of
bulldozers .... Connections between
successive generations of Americans
- concretely linking their ways of life
- are broken by demolition .... Why
then are we surprised when surveys
tell us that many Americans, young
and old, lack even a rudimentary
knowledge of the national past?"
-from Preface to With Heritage So Rich
(U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1966).
SAVANNAH, GEORG/A:
ns preservation
One of the most remarkable historic
preservation stories is that of the Savannah
College of Art & Design ("SCAD"), a pri-
vate institution. SCAD has accommodated
an amazing amount of growth - from 71
students at its opening in 1979 to 5,800
today- through the planned restoration
and adaptive reuse of more than fifty his-
toric structures. Between 1987 and 2000,
SCAD invested some $51.4 million in the
restoration of historic properties. The
school has built only two new facilities.
While the school's rapidgrowth has
not been without some friction, SCAD has
clearly been a major factor in the revitaliza-
tion of downtown Savannah and several
nearby neighborhoods.
SCAD's economic impact on Savannah
and Chatham County has been enormous.
A 1997 report by the Bureau of Business
Research & Economic Development at
Georgia Southern University found that
the college and its students pumped
betWeen $70 and $90 million dollars annu-
ally into the Countyg economy And that
students or from the 20.000 prospective
each year. As the report further noted,
"Clearly, SCAD's investment in redevelop-
ment complements and enhances Savan-
nah's image as a destination for heritage
tourism and historic preservation."
Just as the city has benefited from the
college, the COllege has benefited from
Savannah. Students and faculty take advan-
tage of the city's numerous historic squares
as an alternative tothe traditional college
green. While most Of the schoolg facilities
are located within walking distance of each
other, shuttle buses also regularly circulate.
jngs provide state-of;the.art classrooms
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
Historic Preservation Planning
continued from page 7
Often, the ordinance will provide that
decisions of the preservation commis-
sion can be appealed to the local govern-
ing body
Procedures for designating buildings
and districts as historic are also usually
set out in the ordinance. A number of
communities require at least 50 percent
of affected property owners to consent to
the establishment of a historic district. It
is also not uncommon for the planning
commission to be responsible for review-
ing a historic preservation commission's
recommendation for a historic district
designation. Typically, the local govern-
ing body has the final say on these deter-
minations.
Preservation ordinances will often
establish a historic "overlay" district in
the local zoning code. As explained by
attomey Elizabeth Garvin: "This overlay
would apply to designated historic prop-
erties or to specific areas (or streets)
within the community The historic over-
lay zone regulations might address issues
such as building materials, colors, facade
requirements, and other items identified
by the community as important to main-
tain the historic nature of the structure or
area. This approach is sometimes
referred to as a 'mandatory requirement'
overlay, indicating that the restrictions
identified in the overlay are mandatory
prerequisites to development or redevel-
opment. Each property within a historic
preservation overlay zone - as with any
overlay zone - would also be subject to
the requirements of the underlying zon-
ing district in which it is located." From,
"Making Use of Overlay Zones," PCJ
#43, Summer 2001.
To be most effectivk, local 13reserva-
tion laws should include design guide-
lines or criteria about appropriate and
inappropriate alterations to historic
buildings. These spell out what property
owners can or cannot do in terms of
alterations to a designated historic struc-
ture, and cover questions such as win-
dow replacement, additions, new roofs,
porch construction, application of syn-
thetic siding materials, and related
issues. So, for example, if property own~
ers wanted to add a porch to their house,
they would need to review the historic
preservation ordinance and design
guidelines. This would enable them to
develop a porch design consistent with
the style of the house or the character of
the historic district it is located in. Com-
munities can also provide advice to prop-
erty owners through staff assistance or by
way of informational brochures.
,~ Responding to Questions, p. 15
It is important to stress that preserva-
tion ordinances are not intended to
"embalm" properties and prevent owners
"Historic district zoning is frequently
controversial, but it almost always
has a beneficial effect on property
values, commercial revitalization,
business investment, and increased
tourism."
- Edward McMahon, "Preservation Boosts
Local Economies,' p. 20
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
from making any changes or improve-
ments. Again, the goal is to ensure that
proposed changes are in keeping with
the style of the house or character of the
district. And, it is worth repeating, local
ordinances cannot require that privately
owned properties be open to the public.
While local preservation ordinances
do restrict owner actions, we should
keep in mind that local zoning regula-
tions also restrict owner actions. Both
also typically provide safety valves to
deal with legitimate cases of economic
hardship presented by property owners.
Historic preservation ordinances
share a common goal with zoning: to sta-
bilize and enhance property values in the
community. The question is one of bal-
ancing community-wide interests with
those of individual property owners.
Certainly, this is a legitimate area for
public discussion and debate, and the
line will be drawn differently from com-
munity to communiW.
3. Enhancing Historic Resources
The preservation planning process
can also help communities identify other
actions that will improve their historic
areas. These actions may be implement-
ed by municipal staff, by the planning
commission, by an existing housing,
community, or economic development
organization, or by an organization
established specifically for that purpose,
such as a local historic preservation orga-
nization, Main Street~group, or a business
improvement district.
Improvement strategies typically
include both public and private invest-
ments. For example, public investments
might include sidewalks, curbs, lighting,
signage, information kiosks, and street
furniture in historic districts. Many com-
' munities have grant or loan programs to
stimulate private investment, often
aimed at facade improvements or build-
ing rehabilitation. Grant and loan fund-
ing is also often available from various
federal or state agencies, as well as from
local institutions such as hospitals, uni-
versifies, and banks.
Because these programs generally
emphasize the importance of good
design and high quality materials, they
often also include some form of design
assistance to property owners. Indeed,
one of the "selling points" of historic
preservation to property owners (and
developers) should be the fact that it can
open the door to financial resources that
would otherwise be unavailable.
Among the most important incen-
fives available for historic building reha-
bilitation are federal tax credits.4 Jointly
administered by the National Park Ser-
vice and the Internal Revenue Service,
this program provides a 20 percent tax
continued on page 10
4 For details on federal tax credits, go to the National
Park Service's web page: <www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/tax/~
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
Historic Preservation Planning
conti~ued ~fr~ra page 9
credit for the rehabilitation of income-
producing buildings that are designated
as National Historic Landmarks; listed in
the National Register of Historic Places;
or "contributing" buildings in a National
Register-designated historic district. A
smaller 10 percent tax credit is available
for the rehabilitation of non-historic
buildings built before 1936.
To qualify for the tax credit, property
owners must complete a three-part appli-
cation, with all work formally certified
by the National Park Service. Park Ser-
vice staff determine whether the rehabili-
tation work complies with the Secretary
of the Interior's "Standards for Preserva-
tion Plar~ning.' Similar state and local tax
incentive programs are increasingly com-
mon. ,~ Financial Incentives, p. 8. Additional
information about tax incentives pro-
grams which might be available in your
area can be obtained from your state
historic preservation office. ~ Resources.
4. Educating the Public
The preservation planning process
also plays a critical role in educating
community residents, business owners,
and elected officials about the economic
value of the community's historic
resources, and the benefits of historic
preservation. Indeed, any preservation
plan should be designed with this educa-
tional purpose in mind. Information
should also address common misunder-
standings, such as the idea that buildings
liste~in the National Register must be
opene~to the public once a year, or that
historic preservation is only beneficial to
wealthy residents. Unless potential con-
cerns are addressed, and the values of
preservation clearly articulated, it will be
difficult to generate support for actions
like developing a local preservation ordi-
nance. ,~ Responding to Questions, p. 15.
5. Sources of Assistance
Many individuals and organizations
can assist planning commissioners and
others interested in learning more about
their community's historic resources,
preparation of historic preservation
plans, incbrporation of historic preser-
vation into other community planning
efforts, and economic benefits of preserv-
ing historic buildings and neighbor-
hoods.
At the local level, sources of assis-
tance include local historians, historic
preservation professionals, planners, and
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 /
"Don't it always seem to go That you
don't know what you've got Till it's
gone. They paved paradise And put
up a parking lot."
-from Joni Mitchell's song, "Big Yellow
Taxi."
FALL 2003
architects. Many communities have his-
torical societies, local nonprofit preserva-
tion organizations, or arts organizations
whose mission includes historic preser-
vation. Smaller communities can also
often draw on the services of regional
preservation organizations.
Sources of assistance at the state level
include the state historic preservation
office (SHPO) and, in many states, a
statewide nonprofit historic preservation
organization. SHPOs are authorized
under the National Historic Preservation
Act to implement historic preservation
programs at the state level. They also pre-
pare statewide historic preservation
plans. These plans provide valuable
inforn~a~ about historic resources and
statewide efforts to protect, enhance, and
promote those resources.
SHPOs can provide useful technical
assistance to communities, and help with
local preservation planning efforts,
including public education. Statewide
preservation organizations complement
the work of the SHPOs and perform an
important advocacy role.
Most SHPOs, and some statewide
preservation organizations, offer grant
programs for preservation projects.
One example is the Certified Local
Government program, through which
local governments that adopt a historic
PLANNING COM
preservation ordinance meeting federal
standards are eligible for grants to assist
with preservation planning and related
project implementation. The SHPOs and
statewide preservation organizations
usually hold conferences, maintain web
sites, publish newsletters, and offer a
variety of training opportunities. Most
have staff that travel to communities to
provide assistance.
At the national level, the two main
MISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
II!
sources of assistance are the National
Trust for Historic Preservation (N'fHP)
and the National Park Service. Both
maintain extensive web sites with a
wealth of infOrmation and numerous
publications available to order or down-
load. ~ Resources.
SUMMING UP:
Across the nation cities and towns of
all sizes are recognizing the benefits
preservation can bring. Historic build-
ings, commercial districts, and neighbor-
hoods help give communities their
distinctive character. Their loss damages
the fabric of a communi~. Their preserva-
tion is more than just an aesthetic issue, it
is a matter of sound economic policy. ·
Amy Facca is a consultant specializing in
preservation planning and research. For the past
ten years she was a principal planner with River
Street Planning & Development in Troy, New York.
Facca has worked on a broad range of historic
preservation, waterfront, and downtown revital-
ization projects. She holds a Master's degree in
Architectural History and Historic Preservation
from the University of ~r~nia. You can reach her
at: afaccalCgOnycap.~com.
Our thanks to the following individuals for
reviewing drafts of this article: Susan Henry
Renaud, Ilene Watson, Patricia Pitzer, Lee A.
Krohn, Sharon Wason, Christine Mueller, King
Leonard, Mark Hiester, Wendy Grey, Glynis Jor-
dan, Barbara Sweet, and Amy Munro.
PRESERVATION PLANNING
Historic Preservation is Smart Growth
by Donovan D. Rypkema
The following is a slightly modified version
of a talk given by Donovan Rypkema at the
National Audubon Society of New York's
1999 Conference on Smart Growth. We are
grateful to Mr. Rypkema for granting us
permission to publish his remarks, since
they provide an excellent summary of how
historic preservation is integral to the prin-
Growth."
~ect for many of you "his-
preservation" is the local
group' of retired librarians writing
letters to the editor and struggling to
raise funds to save the mansion of the
local rich, dead white guy. Well thank
god for those activism, those letters to the
editor, those fund raising events, and
even for those rich, dead, white guys,
because the properties that have been
saved are an important component of
understanding ourselves as a people and
constitute an irreplaceable collection of
the art of architecture and landscape
architecture that has been created in our
country's relatively short history.
But that part of historic preservation
- saving old mansions - represents an
insignificant percentage of preservation
activities today. In fact, in the last two
decades, historic preservation has moved
activity whose goal was an end
- save old buildings in order to.
save old buildings - to a broad based,
multifaceted group of activities that uses
our built heritage not as an end in itself
but as a means to broader and, frankly
more important ends. Across the country,
that has meant historic preservation as a
means for downtown revitalization,
neighborhood stabilization, attraction for
tourism, job creation, film industry pro-
duction, small town revitalization,
affordable housing, luxury housing, edu-
cation, transportation, and many other
purposes.
I want to suggest that historic preser-
vation, in and of itself, is one of the most
important tools in the entire Smart
Growth movement. Allow me to provide
you with twenty reasons why Historic
Preservation is Smart Growth.
Reason One: Public infrastructure.
Almost without exception historic build-
ings are where public infrastructure
already exists. No new water lines, sewer
lines, streets, curbs, or gutters required.
That's Smart Growth.
Reason Two: Municipalities need
financial resources if they are going to
grow smart. Vacant, unused, and under-
used historic buildings brought back to
life are also brought back as tax generat-
ing assets for a community. That's Smart
Growth.
Reason Three: New activities - resi-
dential, retail, office, manufacturing - in
existing historic buildings inherently
reinforces the viability of public trans-
portation. That's Smart Growth.
Reason Four: If we are to expect citi-
zens to use their cars less, and use their
feet more, then the physical environment
within which they live, work, shop and
play needs to have a pedestrian rather
than a vehicular orientation. One of the
most predominant characteristics of his-
toric areas - residential or commercial -
is their pedestrian orientation. That's
Smart Growth.
Reason Five: Another element in the
drive to encourage human movement by
means other than the automobile is the
interconnection of uses. Based on the
foolishness of post World War II plan-
ning and development patterns, uses
have been sharply separated. Historic
neighborhoods were built from the
beginning with a mix of uses in close
proximity. Cities with the foresight to
readjust their zoning ordinances to
encourage integration of uses are seeing
that interconnectivity reemerging in his-
toric areas. That's Smart Growth.
Reason Six: As a strong proponent of
economic development I am certainly
glad the phrase is Smart Growth as
opposed to no growth. Smart Growth
suggests that growth has positive bene-
fits, and I would argue that is true. At the
same time we cannot say we are having
smart growth - regardless of how well it
is physically planned - if at the same
time we are abandoning existing assets.
The encouraged reinvestment in historic
areas in and of itself revitalizes and re-
values the nearby existing investment of
both the public and private sector. That's
Smart Growth.
Reason Seven: Across America people
are indeed moving "back to the city." But
almost nowhere is it back to the city in
general. In nearly every instance it is
back to the historic neighborhoods and
historic buildings within the city We do
need to pay attention to market pattems,
and if it is back to historic neighbor-
hoods to which people are moving, we
need to keep those neighborhoods viable
for that to happen. That's Smart Growth.
Reason Eight: Smart Growth ought to
imply not just physical growth but eco-
nomic growth. And economic growth
means new jobs. But who is creating the
net new jobs in America? Not General
Motors, or IBM, or Kodak. 85% of all net
new jobs in America are created by small
businesses. And for most small business-
es there are few costs that are control-
lable, but there is one - occupancy.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
Older and historic buildings often pro-
vide the affordable rent that allows small
businesses to get started. That's Smart
Growth.
Reason Nine: Business districts are
sustainably successful when there is a
diversity of businesses. And that diverse
business mix requires a diverse range of
rental rates. Only in downtowns and
older commercial neighborhoods is there
such diversity. Try finding any rental rate
diversity in the regional shopping center
or the so called office park. You won't.
Older business districts with their
diverse rents are Smart Growth.
Reason Ten: Smart Growth also ought
to be about jobs. Let me distinguish new
construction from rehabilitation in terms
of creating jobs. As a general rule new
construetion is 50 percent labor and 50
percent materials. Rehabilitation, on the
other hand, is 60 to 70 percent labor.
While we buy an HVAC system from
Ohio, sheetrock from Texas and timber
from Oregon, we buy the services of the
carpenter and plumber, painter and elec-
trician from across the street. They sub-
sequently spend that paycheck for a
haircut, membership in the local Y and a
new car, resulting in a significantly
greater local economic impact dollar for
dollar than new construction. The reha-
bilitation of older structures is Smart
Growth.
Reason Eleven: Solid waste landfill is
increasingly expensive in both dollars
and environmental quality. Twenty four
percent of most landfill sites is made up
of coition debris. And much of that
waste comes from the razing of existing
structures. Preserving instead of demol-
ishing our inventory of historic buildings
reduces that construction waste. Preserv-
ing instead of demolishing our inventory
of historic buildings is Smart Growth.
Reason Twelve: Its critics have pointed
out that the so called New Urbanism is
neither new nor urban. I would argue
that New Urbanism reflects good urban
design principles. But those principles
have already been at work for a century
or more in our historic neighborhoods.
The sensitive renewal of those neighbor-
hoods is Sm~rt Growth.
So are you
starting to get the
picture? Let me be
briefer with the
rest of the list.
Reason Thirteen:
Smart Growth ad-
vocates a density
of use. Historic res-
idential and com-
mercial neighbor-
hoods are built to
be dense.
Reason Fourteen:
Historic buildings
themselves are not
liabilities as often
seen by public and
private sector demo-
lition advocates,
but are assets not
yet returned to pro-
ductive use.
Reason Fifteen:
Strong preservation
efforts are fundamental
to Brattleboro, Vermont's
(pop.8,300) vibrant
downtown. Recent suc-
cesses include the
restored historic Latchis
Hotel and Theatre.
The rehabilitation of older and historic
neighborhoods is putting jobs where the
workers already are.
Reason Sixteen: Around the country
historic preservation is the one form of
economic development that is simulta-
neously community development.
Reason Seventeen: Reinvigorating his-
toric neighborhoods reinforces existing
schools and allows them to recapture
their important educational, social, and
cultural role on a neighborhood level.
Reason Eighteen: No new land is con-
sumed when rehabilitating a historic
building.
Reason Nineteen: The diversity of
housing sizes, qualities, styles, and char-
acteristics of historic neighborhoods
stands in sharp contrast to the monolith-
ic character of current subdivisions. The
diversity of housing options means a
diversity of human beings who can live
in historic neighborhoods.
Reason Twenty: Historic preservation
constitutes a demand side approach to
Smart Growth. The conversion of a his-
toric warehouse into 40 residential units
reduces the demand for ten acres of farm
land. The economic revitalization of
Main Street reduces the demand for
another strip center. The restoration of
the empty 1920s skyscraper reduces the
demand for another glass and chrome
building at the office park.
Historic Preservation is Smart
Growth. In fact, I would suggest that a
Smart Growth approach that does not
include historic preservation high on the
agenda is not only missing a valuable
strategy, but, like the historic buildings
themselves, an irreplaceable one. ·
Donovan D. Rypkema is the author of numer-
ous articles and publications, including The Eco-
nomics of Historic Preservation: A Community
Leader's Guide (National Trust for Historic Preser-
vation). Rypkema is Principal of Place Economics,
a Washington, DC-based consultingfirm specializ-
ing in the economic revitalization of downtowns
and the redevelopment of historic properties.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
PRESERVATION PLANNING
Historic Preservation Ordinances: Frequently Asked Questions
historic preservation ordi-
the primary method by
which towns, cities, and counties
can protect historic structures and dis-
tricts. Most ordinances establish a historic
preservation commission and a process
for consideration of proposals to alter or
demolish historic properties or properties
located within designated historic dis-
tricts.
According to a 1998 report prepared
by the National Alliance of Preservation
Commissions, the 'number of historic
commissions (or comparable bodies)
grew from 578 in 1978 to 2,368 in 19987
While authority to enact local preser-
vation ordinances exists in all states, indi-
vidual differences necessitate legal
oversight. Planners and local officials
should obtain legal advice in developing a
preservation ordinance.
What is a "Historic Preservation
Commission"?
A historic preservation commission or
review board is a local body usually estab-
lished under a historic preservation ordi-
nance. Appointments are typically made
by the Mayor or the local governing body.
The commission's members often have
expertise in related fields such as architec-
tural history, history, architecture, archae-
real estate, and so forth. Historic
ation commissions are primarily
responsible for: (1) identifying historic
properties and districts for designation
and, (2) reviewing and acting upon appli-
cations to alter or demolish properties
protected by the historic preservation
ordinance.
How are historic properties identified?
Historic properties are generally iden-
tified through a survey process, conducted
by the historic preservation commission.
1 The United States Preservation Commission Identi-
fication Project (1998). For information, contact the
National Alliance of Preservation Commissions at:
706-542-4731; napcCwuga.edu
by Julia H. Miller, Esq.
In many cases, the National Register of
Historic Places or a state register provides
a useful starting point for identifying his-
toric structures. But national and state
register listings should not substitute for
local survey work.
While variations exist from jurisdic-
tion to jurisdiction, applications for desig-
nation are typically initiated by the
property owner or the preservation com-
mission, upon completion of an architec-
tural survey. Designated properties should
be listed in the local ordinance.
What are "historic districts" and
"landmarks"?
Most jurisdictions designate historic
districts and individual landmarks. His-
toric districts are geographically defined
areas often comprised of significant con-
centrations of historic structures or sites
that share common historic events, archi-
tectural features, or physical develop-
ment. Landmarks are typically individual
properties or sites of historic value.
Properties located in historic districts
are generally labeled as either contribut-
ing or non-contributing. Contributing
properties typically have a character that
is consistent with the architectural style of
the district. Non-contributing properties
are either: newer structures; older struc-
tures that have been substantially altered
and are no longer consistent with the
overall character of the historic district; or
vacant parcels. Proposed changes to con-
tributing properties are likely to receive
closer review under a local preservation
ordinance than changes to non-contribut-
ing properties.
What criteria are used to designate
historic properties?
The criteria Cand process) for designa-
tion are set out in the preservation ordi-
nance. A preservation ordinance, for
example, may seek to protect districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects
that are associated with historic events,
"that embody the distinctive characteris-
tics of a type, period, or method of con-
struction," or "that represent the work of
a master."
Who designates historic landmarks
and districts?
Once a preservation commission has
determined that a specific property or dis-
trict meets the criteria for designation, it
may recommend or nominate that proper-
ty or district for designation. Individual
properties or districts are most often des-
ignated as historic resources by the local
governing body, after holding a public
hearing. In the case of districts, some ordi-
nances require that a petition supporting
the designation be signed by a certain per-
centage of affected property owners.
Many preservation ordinances provide
interim protection for historic resources
while applications for designation are
pending. This prevents a property owner
from demolishing the structure before the
preservation commission or local govern-
ing body has had time to act on the appli-
cation.
How are historic districts and
landmarks protected under a
preservation ordinance?
Most often, owners of property subject
to a preservation ordinance must submit
an application to the preservation corn-
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
IIII111~
mission for permission to alter, move, or
construct additions or new buildings.
These applications are evaluated based
upon standards for review set forth in the
ordinance. The commission will issue a
formal decision, making specific findings
of fact and conclusions of law. Permission
is typically granted in the form of what
may be called a historic area permit or cer-
tificate of appropriateness.
Despite the wide range of actions
which are subject t° historic commission
review, the vast majority of applications
for certificates of appropriateness are ulti-
mately approved.
How do local governments protect
historic properties from being
demolished?
Most localities having preservation
~rd~nances allow for the demolition of
historic properties only in cases where:
(1) retention of thc structure will cause an
extreme burden on thc property owner
and thc structure cannot be rehabilitated
or sold, or (2) the property poses a safety
threat duc to damage from a fire or some
other type of natural disaster. This is the
best way to ensure that historic resources
are protected.
Some communities, however, permit
property owners to demolish historic
properties after a specific waiting period,
during which time the local government,
along with private preservation groups,
can explore alternative actions to save the
building. Some localities also condition
the issuance of a demolition permit upon
a showing that a new building will be con-
struc~ on the site and that this building
will be c"empatible with other historic
properties in the area.
What standards of review are used to
guide commi~sious in acting upon
property owners' requests?
Many preservation commissions uti-
lize the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation to guide the
review of permit applications. Because of
the national applicability of these stan-
dards, they are somewhat general in
nature. For example, the Secretary's stan-
dards provide that "deteriorated archi-
tectural features shall be repaired,
wherever possible," and "in the event that
replacement is necessary, the new material
should match the material being replaced
in composition, design, color, texture, and
other visual qualities."
Localities considering adoption of the
Secretary's standards should be careful to
ensure that the standards correspond to
local needs and, if necessary, make addi-
tions or modifications.
In addition to legal standards of
review, which must be set forth in the
preservation ordinance, many communi-
ties also adopt advisory design guidelines.
These are used not only to guide the com-
mission, but also to assist property owners
in understanding what types of actions
may or may not be appropriate. A number
of communities have also established
informal processes to encourage property
owr~e~r..s to consult with the preservation
commission or its staff before embarking
on a major project.
Do historic preservation ordinances
impose maintenance requirements on
property owners?
Routine maintenance work (such as
replacing tiles on a slate roof) is generally
excluded from commission review. How-
ever, many ordinances require that 'desig-
nated property be kept structurally sound,
and empower the local government to
make repairs and seek reimbursement in
instances where a property is essentially
being "demolished by neglect."
How should a community address
special situations such as undue
hardship?
Many ordinances provide for the con-
sideration of "economic hardship" claims.
Economic hardship provisions typically
authorize a "variance" in situations where
property owners demonstrate they would
otherwise be denied "all reasonable or
beneficial use of their property.' Such pro-
visions provide assurance that relief is
available if the impact of a particular
action proves to be exceptionally harsh. ~
Julia A. Miller, Esq., is Editor of the Preserva-
tion Law Report~ published by the National Trust
for Historic Preservation. Assistance in establish-
ing or amending historic preservation ordinances
is often available from state historic preservation
offices, state-wide historic preservation organiza-
tions, and local preservation organizations. See the
Resources sidebar on page 11 of this issue.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
Ill
PRESERVATION PLANNING
Preservation Takes Center Stage
of the most dramatic
ts historic preservation can
have is through the restoration of
the grand movie palaces and opera houses
that still stand in the heart of many
communities.
First, and most obviously, theaters
bring people (and dollars) to downtown.
Second, and perhaps not as often men-
tioned, historic theaters do a tremendous
The Tabor Grand Opera House was perhaps Denver's
most magnificent theater.
by Wayne Senville, Editor
job in educating the public about the ben-
efits of preservation. There's nothing like
sitting in a beautifully restored theater,
and enjoying a concert, dance, or movie,
to gain a first-hand view of what preserva-
tion can offer.
Over the past two decades hundreds
of historic theaters have been reborn. But
first, just a reminder of what we've lost.
The bright lights didn't just shine on New
"Perfection.:"
Built by Vermont-born and
Maine~bred silver mining mag-
nate Horace Tabor, the Tabor
Grand Opera House opened to a
crowd of thousands on Septem-
ber 5th, 1881. According to
author Duane Smith: "Called to
the stage amid 'vociferous
applause,' ... Horace called Den-
ver, with a bit of understandable
chauvinism, the 'finest city on
the American continent': 'I said
if Denver is to have an opera
house it should be worthy of the
city. Here is the opera house, I
shall leave it to your judgment if
I have done my duty in this
respect.' ... 'PERFECTION!'
headlined one Rocky Mountain
News article.'''2
The opulent Opera House,
demolished in 1964, lives on in
Douglas Moore's 1956 opera The'
Ballad of Baby Doe. The opera
recounts the life of Horace
Tabor and his affair with Eliza-
beth McCourt "Baby" Doe. The
Ballad of Baby Doe's final scene
takes place on the stage of the
Opera House, with the chorus
singing the words that adomed
the theater's massive curtain: "So
fleet the works of man / Back to
the earth again / Ancient and
holy things / Fade like a dream."
York's Broadway. They also lit up down-
town main streets across America - per-
haps nowhere as dramatically as in
Denver. All of the theaters shown in the
photo of Denver's Curtis Street were
demolished in the era of "urban renewal."
While Denver butt a brand new perform-
ing arts center in the mid-1970s, as Col-
orado historian Thomas J. Noel notes, it is
just "an echo of Denver's old Curtis Street
'Great White Way.'"a
Fortunately, as the benefits of preser-
vation have been increasingly recognized,
the pace of demoliti.on has abated -
though it is still a real threat in far too
many communities.
continued on page 18
1 Thomas Noel, "The Mile High City," available at:
<www.denvergov.org/AboutDenver/history_narra-
tive_9.asp>.
2 Duane Smith, The Ballad of Baby Doe: "I Shall Walk
Beside My Love' (Univ. of Colorado Press, 2002). His-
torian Tom Noel's fascinating description of the mag-
nificent Tabor Grand Opera House can be found at:
<www.denvergov.org/AboutDenver/history_narra
tive_2.asp>. Noel has also written about Denver and
its history in Denver: The City Beautiful & It Architects
(Historic Denver, Inc.).
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
' ~111111
Crowds in front of Denver's now demolished Orpheum
theater, 1950.
Since the 1980s, Denver has made an about-face and
embraced historic preservation. Ironically, one of the
strongest proponents of preservation is the Denver
Urban Renewal Authority.
A Demolition Derby
"During the post-World War II
boom, Denver experienced a demoli-
tion derby like the 19th-century
building boom. In addition to private
developers razing sites, a public
agency, the Denver Urban Renewal
Authority, systematically leveled
much of the urban core. Block after
block of downtown disappeared
under a rising sea of black asphalt
parking lots ....
Some found downtown's disap-
pearance distressing. Old-timers
grew confused and alienated with the
loss of familiar landmarks and desti-
nations. For longtime residents, it
sometimes seemed that a trip down-
town was like a trip to a foreign city."
- ThomasJ. Noel (historian), "The Mile
High City.'
View of the demolition of Denver's Broadway
Theater jn ~_~ 55.
Curtis Street, 1973
On Urban Renewal:
"Congress launched the federal urban redevel-
opment program in Title I of the Housing Act
of 1949, and during the next two decades,
planners, mayors, journalists, and the public
dreamed of grand schemes to revitalize the
nation~ cities. Artists' renderings of slick glass
and steel skyscrapers set in sunny plazas
appeared in metropolitan newspapers and city
planning reports, and nurtured hopes of a gold-
en future. With the aid of Uncle Sam, cities
were supposedly to be cleansed of their ugly
past and reclothed in the latest modern attire."
-Jon C. Teaford (historian), "Urban Renewal and
Its Aftermath,' in Housing Policy Debate, Volume
11, Issue 2 (2000).
"Our cities lie destroyed all around us, and...
the terrible thing in American society and poli-
tics is that the communities of the center of the
city were destroyed with them."
- ~ncent 5cully (architectural historian), ~The
Civilizing Force of Architecture,' Humanities 16,
no. 3 (May-June 1995).
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
PreserVation takes Center Stage
continued from page 16
From coast to coast (and in between)
historic downtown theaters are coming
back. The 1,200 seat Elsinore Theater
has helped anchor Salem, Oregon's
downtown revitalization. Originally a
vaudeville house, then a first run movie
palace, the gothic-style Elsinore had fall-
en on hard times. But that changed with
its reopening in 1993. Since then renova-
tions and other improvements have con-
tinued. According to theater director
Gail Ryder, the Elsinore is in the midst of
a $3 million "return to grandeur" project,
and has received substantial financial
Exterior and interior views
of Salem, Oregon's Elsinore
Theater.
support from both the city and Marion
County. Besides having an active perfor-
mance calend_~r¥~the Elsinore, Ryder
notes, is a popular loca-
tion for receptions,
meetings, and even mar-
riage ceremonies!
You really ought to
give Iowa a try, especial-
ly if you're interested in
visiting grand, restored
theaters. Shawna Lode
Opening night at 'the restored Orpheum in Sioux City, Iowa.
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
JOURNAL / NUMBER
Itl
52/
Poster of Orpheum
Circuit and for Mark
Twain's Puddn'Head
Wilson.
FALL 2003
of the Iowa Department of Economic
Development reports that many down-
town theaters are opening their doors
again, sporting complete makeovers and
state-of-the art technology One of the
most recent examples is the $13 million
restoration of Sioux City's 2,500 seat
Orpheum Theater (part of Vaudeville's
famous Word War I-era "Orpheum Cir-
cuit'). As Lode notes, the magnificently
refurbished theater includes "gold leafed
and stenciled ornamentation, several
crystal fixtures, over 20 magnificent
chandeliers, and a hand painted pat-
terned dome.'
Other reborn Iowa theaters: the 1880
Keokuk Grand Opera House; the 1910
Regent Theater in Cedar Falls (now the
Oster Regent); Davenport's 1926
Orpheum (reborn as the RiverCenter
Adler Theatre); the 1889 Grand Opera
House in Dubuque; and Iowa Falls' 1899
Metropolitan Opera House.
But you don't have to be in a big city
in Iowa to enjoy a historic theater. The
1916 Art Deco style Hardacre Theatre, in
the small town of Tipton (pop. 3,000),
was renovated in 1991. Today it is an
active movie theater, and even hosts an
annual film festival. And there's more to
come, as restoration of Iowa City's his-
toric Englert Theater is underway
On the East Coast, the City of Nor-
folk, Virginia, has seen its downtown
come back to life, in large measure due to
activity generated by restored theaters. In
the heart of downtown, the 1926 Loew's
Theater was purchased by Tidewater
Theater maretuees are once again lit in downtown
Norfolk, as they were in this 1949 view.
Community College. The College
restored this former vaudeville house
and movie palace to its original opu-
lence. Renamed the Roper Performing
Arts Center, it offers a sumptuous set-
ting, with gilded box seats, glass chande-
liers, and hand painted architectural
details; Since reopening in 2001, it has
hosted a wide range of performances,
including local theater and dance compa-
nies, and the Virginia Symphony
The NorVa, also in downtown Nor-
folk, opened in 1922 as a movie palace.
After extensive renovations, it has
reopened as a concert hall. Also con-
tributing to Norfolk's active downtown
theater, scene is the restored New Wells
Theatre (built in 1913). ·
An excellent resource for information about the
restoration of historic movie theaters is the Cine-
ma Treasures web site, with its online database of
over 1,000 theaters: <www. cinematreasures.org>
Wayne Senville is Editor of the Planning Com-
missioners Journal. He regularly enjoys perfor-
mances at the beautifully restored Flynn Theater
in downtown Burlington, Vermont.
Interior of the restored Loew's Theater (now the
Roper Center) in Norfolk.
Still a familiar sight in many cities and towns: a
downtown theater waiting to be restored (here,
Proctor's in Troy, New York).
The restored Oster-Regent Theater in Cedar Falls, Iowa (above and right).
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
" PRESERVATION PLANNING
Preservation Boosts Local Economies
district zoning is fre-
controversial, but it
almost always has a beneficial
effect on property values, commercial
revitalization, business investment, and
increased tourism. This was the finding
of a wide ranging 1995 study by the
Preservation Alliance of Virginia.
According to David J. Brown, Executive
Director of the Alliance, "Historic preser-
vation is economic growth and the reali-
ty is, ~that preservation means dollars in
the pockets of Virginians."
The Virginia study addressed four
aspects of preservation's economic
impact: tourism, job creation, property
values, and downtown revitalization. On
tourism, the study found that historic
preservation visitors are a major portion
of the state's $9 billion a year tourism
industry. Seven out of ten first time visi-
tors come to the state to visit historic
sites, museums, and battlefields. The
study also found that history minded vis-
itors stay longer and spend more: two-
and-a-half times more money than the
amount spent by other visitors to the
state.
The second issue the study examined
was job creation that resulted from the
rehabilitation of some 900 historic build-
ings ~'i~rVirginia pursuant to the federal
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. This
program created over 6,600 jobs in the
construction trades and over 6,000 in
spin off areas. Construction related his-
toric preservation activity resulted in a
total of $275 million in household
income in Virginia: $153 million for con-
struction workers, and $122 million for
employees in other fields.
The study also examined the impact
of Virginia's Main Street Program.
Between 1985 and 1995, the 20 small
communities in the Main Street Program
- whose goal is downtown revitalization
by Edward T. McMahon
within the context of historic preserva-
tion - netted more than 1,100 new busi-
nesses, spurred the rehabilitation of
1,622 historic buildings and resulted in a
net gain of 2,170 new jobs. In just one
small town, Bedford, $3.4 million was
invested, 234 buildings rehabilitated,
and 52 new businesses employing 116
people created.
As for property values, the study
found that property values appreciated
more in historic districts than in other
areas of the cities. These results are simi-
lar to those of a separate independent
study conducted by the Government
Finance Officers Association's research
center. This study found that property
values in the historic districts in Galve-
ston, Texas and Fredericksburg, Virginia
grew 1.5 to 5 times faster than compara-
ble areas not in historic districts.
The marketplace increasingly recog-
nizes both the short and long term eco-
nomic value of historic properties. Just
compare almost any neighborhood or
commercial area that has embraced his-
toric preservation with those that have
not. Historic preservation and economic
development represent an effective part-
nership - as a growing number of com-
munities and businesses have come to
realize. ·
Edward McMahon is
Vice President of The Con-
servation Fund and a noted
speaker on land use topics.
The above is excerpted
from, "Historic Districts
and Property Values," in
PCJ #23 (Summer 1996).
The studies cited by
McMahon: Virginia's Economy and Historic
Preservation: The Impact on Jobs, Businesses, and
Community; and The Economic Benefits of Pre-
serving Community Character, Case Studies:
Galveston, Texas and Fredericksburg, Vir~nia, are
available from the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, <www. preservationbooks.org>.
P£ANNING
COMMISSIONER
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 52 / FALL 2003
IIII111~
Hardiplank Survey Results
As preservation commissions around the United States grapple
with the appropriateness of hardiplank (cement fiberboard), many
are asking, "What have other commissions decided"? Last year,
the Arlington County Historical Affairs and Landmark Review
Board (HALRB) surveyed over 100 preservation commissions in
27 states to learn how they had handled applications for the use of
hardiplank. The survey led to the creation of guidelines for the use
of (cement fiberboard) in Arlington's Maywoed Neighborhood
Historic District. The guidelines are featured on page 20.
The ,N'lington County Historical Affairs and Landmark
Review Board (HALRB) has been asked by several recent
applicants applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(CoA) for exterior changes to their homes if Hardiplank
could be used on their projects. The HALRB reviewed and
approved these applications noting the use of matching
wood siding to their homes with the proviso that the HALRB
would do a study on Hardiplank and, if approved as a sub-
stitute material to wood siding, these projects could then
use this material. The HALRB staff was asked to do a
Hardiplank study and report back its finding with a recom-
mendation to the HALRB.
During the month of July 2002 the HALRB staff conducted
an informal survey on the uses of Hardiplank. A telephone
survey was conducted with 105 historical review boards in
27 states being contacted and asked whether they had
approved of the use of this matedal in their historic districts.
The~survey asked specific questions including whether
Hardiplank was allowed on the historic structure itself, on
additions or just on outbuildings; whether it was allowed on
new structures within histodc neighborhoods; what type of
tdm and detailing materials were used; and the intervie-
wee's overall experience with Hardiplank.
Of the 105 review boards consulted, thirty (30) approved
the use of Hardiplank unconditionally, fifteen (15) approved
its use with reservations and did not encourage nor recom-
mend it, fifty-three (53) said it could be used only on new
construction within an histodc district, and seven (7) reject-
ed it altogether. Of those fifty-three (53) respondents per-
mitting its use on new construction, twenty-nine (29) said
they would allow Hardiplank only on new freestanding build-
ings and twenty-four (24) said they would allow it on addi-
tions but not the odginal historic building itself. Not many of
those surveyed specified the material to be used for trim
Example of Hardiplank
Source: www. rhsmithco.com
and detailing. Of those who did respond to this question,
twenty-one (21) insisted on wood and five (5) allowed
Hardiplank.
Overall, those who approved Hardiplank claimed it was not
ideal, but it was a preferable alternative to other replace-
ment sidings available as long as the difference from the
original material was not noticeable to the casual observer.
It has a more authentic look than other synthetic materials
and more closely resembles wood. Nearly everyone asked
said they preferred it to vinyl. Fifteen (15) specified they
only allowed the smooth surface because of the fake
appearance created by the wood grain. When the smooth
boards are painted they offered a reasonable imitation of
wood siding that many thought was appropriate within their
historic districts. Seventy-four (74) of those who assented
are located in the Southeast where a hot and humid climate
promotes rotting wood and termites. Six (6) claimed
Hardiplank to be a preferable alternative to wood since it is
durable enough to resist these types of damage. Another
advantage sited in the survey was the relative Iow cost of
Hardiplank when compared with other materials from a his-
todcal appearance perspective and in life cycle costs. Six
(6) respondents approved it specifically for the cost benefit
in their Iow-income neighborhoods. The Wilmington
Delaware Department of Planning claimed that in order to
preserve the viability of historic districts as livable neighbor-
hoods it is necessary to provide options to the residents
that they can easily maintain and afford, such as
Hardiplank.
Those review boards that approved Hardiplank on all con-
struction tended to be from areas whose historic districts
were either very small or very new and did not have well-
defined guidelines or restrictions on materials: Likewise,
those who allowed its use but had reservations, usually
20 NEWS from the NATIONAL ALLIANCE of PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS
,, Alternative Materials
came from districts that had no authority to enforce regula-
tions. Those who argued against using Hardiplank on an
addition to a histodc structure, but on new buildings,
claimed that the new matedal would not match with the
odginal structure and design of the house. One respondent
claimed that when used on an addition, the replacement
material would be noticeable and the overall effect would
not work. This view was not universally held. Almost half
of those surveyed felt that Hardiplank makes a new home fit
in very well within a historic district. Since the exposure of
the boards can be adjusted and wood trim can be used,
new houses sided with Hardiplank can conform to the
guidelines of the histodc district while still being discemable
from the odginal structures.
The largest criticism to Hardiplank was the lack of shadow
and depth created by the boards in comparison to tradition-
al wood siding. Nine (9) respondents observed that the
material displayed a flatness that reduced the character of
the original building and was incongruous with the rest of
the neighborhood. One respondent expressed that to accu-
rately preserve a building it must have all its historic parts
and the same materials must be used for preservation. If
different materials are used, the shape and the texture will
be different. For this reason it was felt that Hardiplank
couldn't compete with the original. Other Criticisms included
that the boards can take on a "wavy" appearance and con-
sequently should only be installed on a sub-surface. Some
also cited problems coming up with contractors because the
material is difficult to install and special tools may be need-
ed. Three (3) respondents observed that when the matedal
has a fre~Qent contact with water it can crumble or deterio-
rate faster and not hold paint as well.
The HALRB staff will be recommending the use of
Hardiplank be permitted in Arlington County's locally desig-
nated Historic Districts for only new freestanding construc-
tion and outbuildings. The recommendation will be for only
the smooth finish material and that the allowable lap cannot
be more than six (6) inches. It cannot be used over another
siding material and all trim elements (comer boards, door
and window trim, cornice, fascia, etc.) must be wood. The
use of Hardiplank on additions will be permitted, but with
additional guidelines. These projects would be required to
have a distinct physical and visual break between the his-
toric resource and the proposed addition, and that when
allowed the Hardiplank must match the historic siding in
size, profile, scale, finish and articulation.
TAR Jan/Feb Mar/Apr 2003 9.1
IIU[I~I
By Teresa Deuglass and Phil 'lbemasen
Liquid Siding is the latest miracle product on the market
which claims that you will "never have to paint your
house again." Advertising and marketing for this prod-
uct have been concentrated in the Southeast, and promotion
of this product is spreading nationwide. Questions have been
raised recently about liquid siding that make use of the prod-
uct debatable particularly on historic homes. Manufacturers
and dealers of the ceramic-based coating claim that it pro-
vides a minimum of 25 years of maintenance-free protection
and can save owners up to 40% On energy costs. Recent stud-
ies, however, reveal that the product might not be all that it
claims to be.
The product is manufactured by Kryton International Inc., of
Vancouver, British Columbia, and is distributed in the United
States by Kryton Coatings International in Knoxville,
Tennessee. Formally known as Multi-Gard R-20, liquid sid-
ing is applied by independent dealers under the name
ProCraft. The siding is a thin ceramic based coating that is
applied in a three-coat process, each of which is sprayed on.
A sealer is followed by a second insulating coat, which con-
tains ceramic platelets and volcanic perilite. Ads for the prod-
uct compare this "space-age NASA technology" to that used
on the space shuttle and claim that it provides insulation
equal to seven inches of Fiberglass batting. The third or top
coat is said to be a coating developed for Canadian Coast
Guard Lighthouses to withstand extreme weather conditions.
Cost of the application averages over $10,000 for a residence.
The product is touted as the most durable siding option avail-
~-able and is guaranteed not to chip, crack, blister, or peel for
25 years. The manufacturer claims that liquid siding elimi-
nates the need to paint and its "super insulating 'Ceramic
Microspberes'" provide sufficient insulation to reduce energy
consumption up to 40 percent. The product can be applied to
practically any surface, is custom tinted, and is "guaranteed to
look freshly painted everyday, for the next 25 years."
Independent lab tests are' quoted as proof of these claims.
However, in October 2000, the Nashville Tennessean report-
ed that the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National
Laboratory reviewed two of these tests and found that neither
demonstrated that the product had significant insulation prop-
erties. One test did not comply with recognized national stan-
dards. The other test was actually done on another product,
and in the report a decimal was misplaced, which made for a
substantial overstatement of the product's insulating ability.
The report mistakenly states that the product has an insulat-
ing value of R-24, but in actuality the value is R-0.024 or
about the same insulating value as a piece of linen cloth.
Oak Ridge lab officials have contacted the Federal Trade
Commission's Division of Enforcement to suggest that it
obtain documentation to support Kryton's claims of superior
~idsulating qualities. The Better Business Bureau of Middle
Tennessee has also requested information to substantiate
these claims. Those that have used the product have varying
opinions of its performance. The Seattle Housing Authority
used liquid siding on one of its buildings in 1978 and has
since had to paint two or three times because the Kryton prod-
uct had begun peeling off in sheets. Canadian Coast Guard
spokespersons also note that lighthouses coated with the
product also were repainted in recent years. Several
Tennessee homeowners who have recently used the product,
however, are pleased with the product so far.
Regardless of its insulating quality, liquid siding is not rec-
ommended for use on historic buildings. Louis Jackson, tax
credit coordinator at the Tennessee Historical Commission,
states that the product is inappropriate for a number of rea-
sons. Foremost, the product is non-reversible; it cannot be
removed without damaging the historic fabric of a building.
The application process itself is also damaging as it requires
sandblasting, which causes further damage. Therefore, the
Tennessee Historical Commission does not recommend the
use of liquid siding on historic buildings. Because of the
sandblasting requirement and questionable adhesion proper-
ties, the use of liquid siding is not appropriat6 for historic
properties.
Phil Thomason has been Principal of Thomason and
Associates, Preservation Planners since 1982. They are
based in Nashville and provide preservation services
throughout the country. Teresa Douglass is a Preservation
Planner with the firm and has worked with them since 1998.
They regularly work with Preservation Commissions on
design guidelines, training and workshops, and overall com-
m unity preservation plans.
TAR ]an/Feb Mar/Apr 2003 27
g
,~?.'?., .Iook attFie:prosand cons of wnvl~sldEncl and Dolvwnvl:chlonde
'erhaps no other issUe in'custOm-home building isas hotly tics Pure PVC is 57% chlorine by Weight; the rest is hydrogen
debated as vinyl siding; Is it.a q~li~ pr~Uct? D~s it and ~r~n. , .: ...
· i~prove ~r'eh~-~fi:ihe:'~~'6fa~h°me? Sh6uld it- ~; ~.. ~rly'~m&rdal prMuction °fpVCWas ~a~rdOm~ M~rcu~ was:
~ avoided fr°m an ~nvirofi~eh~l g~'fi~int?:Or~arcthe Iow~.; ~.~ m'~te Chloride from ~ium Chloride, ~d o~nvan~Were'.~
~ a~ many ~ ~m ~h~3ymyl I~ ~h~d ofw~ ~ ~.: :-"7 mdhon tons.were ~ m No~ ~en~ m
market l~der in residen~l giding; whY'vinyl windoWs continue to and siding, To ~ used in these' wide,ran~ng appli~tions, PVC is
~n market share agaimt w~,'why v~l fl~fingh'm'~pular aM : mixM with' various additiv~ in a Pr~e~ ~IIM ~unding~
why PVC pi~ and wire sh~thing a~0unt for the vast majori~ of additives include plastici~rs, s~bilizers, inert fillers, pi~ents and
~eir r~five marke~. Pol~inyl chloride; commonly referred to ~ bi~id~. HaM PVC prMucn, such as ~hedule40 PVC pi~, may
PVC Or vinyl, is a highly ver~file matefialiu~! in a wide ran~ ofas much as ~% PVC, and rafter, more flexible PVC pr~uc~, such
building appli~tiom: erecting from rind drainage pi~ to highly ' as vinyl'fl~rlng, vinyl Siding and vinyl shower curtains, may con-
flexible dectrical-wire sheathing m'wixxl'grain siding. PVC is rugged,
with buried structural pipe able re'withstand high compressive load:
lng and PVC roofmembranes able m carry 25-year warranties. PVC
is Iow-maintenance, with vinyl siding requiring virtually no mainteo
nancc for:decades; wood siding~it6eds paint or stain as frequently as
tain as little as 35% PVC.
What's wrong with PVC?
PVC's'envirOnmental drawbacks fall into five categories:
1. Pollution emissions from manufacture. Despite dramatic im-
e~ery five.years: PVC is inh~rendj/:f~e, resist~t~i~ting'to its highchlo~ : provemcnts, thc manufacture of PVC and its precursor compounds
fini~ ~tent. PVC iS.~ven ~dabl~:(d~iigli little postcomumer PvC' ~: still r/teases pollutants. The U. S. Environmental ProteCtion AgenCy ~:..' ~
ig:'aetUallY 'u;s/Xl"tOday);:: Fii~all);~ p,VC j~ :!~iv~q~mvidin~ ~'.a f~'~ :::. hai:j~t r~leased figure~ for 2000'Showing emissitns of vinyl Chlorid~ :!!ii. ?:- ,,- -
ftrdablealternauve t°"trad~u0~!~matertals~:wheiher w~sidmg; .5 :'(°ni~ of the primary pollutants) totahng 817,000 lb. (approximately
C~t~ir0n dr~hi~iPe, br btfiit ~fi~:'~fi rig ~enik:;~;.,:!~::~,i:;:i'i..~` i-i.::ivi;~i~:i'i!~.~%~?:~;i :: i0~ 12:lb~:' Per tonof PV c produced)i FUrthermore,' some evidence ex $i'~
.. ......... ~..? ........ ........ - .~ ........ ...~,,7%~. .... ~,~:...~g~3,.:.,-~?v~e ,.,~ ..... ,~ .? .... tsts that dtoxms can be roduceddurm oneofthePVC.manufac
-~ ~'~ ,~.e,'-:.~.- ;~'r ~'~:~' -'"' :'::~ "':":' :~.'' . : . ' , '.: P g .:..-
What · xa~l¥ 15 PVC?.'~q::;:~::~¥~.-?.~,~':?;:V.-'.:;~%.c'. :': :-'~ -' · ' --. ....... · .... ' ·
...... ~,,:,.,:-~-. ..... ~:,~- ~,-:..~ e, .... - ~ ~- _" tunn rocesses; D~oxms, a famd ofchlonne-contammg chemicals,
PVC ts'a Plastic. To be' speeifi~i~it:i~'fhe' ~fiolymeri~d form of Vinyl are amOng the most deadly toxins, with a wide range ofeffei:ts 6h hu-
chloride; chemists refer tO it as poly (vinyl'chloride), or polyvinyl mans and ecosystems.
chloride, PVC is often referrtd to as vinyl, but vinyl more correct-Although U. S. industry has done a good job:of cleaning up its act
I refers to a chemical radical ...... with PVC production, not ali
(CH CH) used ~n many or
· !. ~- "' ' ,'-' :'?ili4:i? ?:?i:i:,-~:'~!.'A~sh0Wer CUrtain loses our PVC products are pro-
ganic ~compounds, sUch~,as': :.;.i ',.:~'c: ...... . _
duced
here.
To
save
money~
vinyl acetate, a common in;.,:~i:abouthalf'of'~ts weight over the course of
more and more U. S. manu-
redi~ntin' 'int.. :, ~.~ ~ ,~3',-:!2i'~· .,,- ~ t ~ ' . . ·
g , pa '~;'..:-5:,~%.~'.,~?L~?i~:~....,- (%:' ':"- '.' \, '..' .' ';1 ';'. /~1 :'. ~ , 1 : ., facturersaresetungupoper-
,:py¢is.:produced in~-~.ii~:i(~;i!,~%.a,,~e~ years as.me pntnatate piasuc~zers .tio., 'in : third-world
ustc rocess that revolves ~ , . ~
Co bi i ..... ' ,..':' .: ': ' se out. That s the d~suncuve ·
m n ng cmortac ttrom'i~:'~:ii;¥(~.?:, ~ :~:~,,.: ..: ~,;--:~:,'~"i ...... · :,. - . .... . .. mental regulations are often
brihe:~.solutiOn
~of:common~!i;3?i~'~:~?i:::i':-.'srn~ll,ofshoWer, cUrtains.:: ·.,- far less stringent.: ,.,,.~:'~. ,
........ Y ~'~.71.'.,,? .".?;~' 5~';'"': :":'. :::, ~ v:'::'' .: , ~,',~,: -';'~.:, ." - .................... ~
natUral'g~) to produce vinyl i:hloridi,;This vinyl chloride then is cineration or accidental fires. For people not involved in its manufac-
AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2002
enough hydrochloric acid th&t some (but not all) firefighter organii ~:::' treated lumber, which was brought about largely by the Envir0nmen-
zations have lobbied against the use of PVC roof membranes because
hydrochloric acid can be emitted before visible smoke is produced.
Burning PVC under reduced-oxygen conditions, such as in a poor-
ly controlled municipal incinerator or through backyard burning, also
can create dioxins. Far more toxic than hydrochloric acid, dioxins last
a lot longer in the environment and can accumulate in food chains by
'being stored in body fat. Even if manufacturing emissions are elimi-
nated, an organic polymer containing up to 50% chlorine always will
remain a risk as long as poorly controlled incineration or accidental
fires are possible. '
:.113. Release'of plasticizers. In the past several years, the plasticizers that
make PV(~ more flexible have generated almost as much cOncern aS
PVC'itS~lf. The most c~mmonly used plasticizer, DEHP'(di-2-
ethylhexul phthalate), identi-
fied as a suspected carcinogen
in 1987, also is believed to be
an endocrine disrupter. En-
docrine disrupters mimic nat-
ural hormones and, even in
minute quantities, can inter-
fere with sex-organ develop-
ment in fetuses. Phthalate
plasticizers can be'released
during manufacturing, but'
also over time from flexible
PVC products; These com-
pounds are widely used in
vinyl siding, flooring, roof
membranes, electrical-wire
sheathing and wallcoverings;
the more flexible the PVC
product, the higher the quan-
tity'.of plasticizer. A shower
~' :?' ' .curtain, for example, loses about half of its weight over the, course of
'.'?:?~?:.::'.:!a feWyeafsas the' phthalate plasticizers diffuse out: That s the dis-
'. .tinctive smell of shower curtains.
· ' ' .- 4. Contamination of recycling stock. Another concern with PVC is
'~ the fact that even a small quantity of PVC plastic in a batch of other
plastics being recycled can contaminate everything. PVC melts at a
lower temperature than the PET used in most plastic bottles and the
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) used in most plastic bags.
· ' '5. Use of a nonrenewable resource. A significant raw material used
in producing PVC is natural gas, a nonrenewable fossil fuel. (For what
it's worth, because of the high percentage of chlorine in PVC, the
' ' 'j sil4uel content is actually a lot lower than in most other plastics.)
tal Working Group {www. ewg.org) and the Healthy Building Net-
work. Or look at the impact Greenpeace has had in getting The Home
Depot and other building-product suppliers to embrace certified wood.
The efforts of these environmental groups should not be under-
estimated. But when it comes to raising public awareness about the
risks of PVC, the greatest driver of change could be something dif-
ferent: innovation in the plastics industry. During the past ten years,
there have been tremendous advances in metallocene-catalyzed poly-
olefin chemistry. Polyolefins (polyethylene and polypropylene) are
con~ sidered by many to be the "cleanest" plastics. They contain noth-
ing but carbon and hydr0gen~ the~ ?~ ..easily recydable,~d they can
Proponents say that jna few yearsl metallocene polyolefins will
.be used to produce a'variety
of building products (siding,
roof membranes, flooring,
wire sheathing, window
frames, etc.) with properties
that equal or exceed those of
PVC products. Such compa-
nies as Exxon, Dow Chemical
and DuPont have invested bil-
lions of dollars in the technolo-
:gy. When a lawsuit between
Exxon and Dow over metal-
' iocene patents was settled in
"1999, products finally began
: reaching the marketplace.:
What's the bottom line:
Should you use PVC?
In some product categories,
.either alternatives to PVC are
not widely available, or tradespeople skilled in installation are diffi-
cult to find. With drain piping, alternatiyes toPVC include ABS(an-
other plastic--but one that doesn't'C°ntain ~chlorine) andcast iron.
In some parts of the country, almost everyone uses PVC drainpipe,
and obtaining ABS or finding a plumber willing to install cast iron
can be difficult. Finding electrical wire sheathed with something oth-
er than PVC is virtually impossible, except by special order.
For product categories where PVC alternatives are readily available,
my suggestion is to go with the greener alternatives. With windows,
choose ali-wood, aluminum-clad wood or fiberglass products. With
siding, choose wood or fiber cement--and incorporate a'rain-screen
detail to extend the life of the material and to reduce the frequency et'
· ~ ....... ,. repainting (FHB #137, pp. 86-91). With wall Coverings, stick with paint
.L0o~!ng in~o., the cry~tal ball ' or a paper product. With resilient flooring, consider natural linoleum,
t s hard to'say where the current controversy over PVC will end ult.: cork or the new chlorine-free Stratica floonmz from Amuco Inter-
?.ii.T.heP~'industry is huge (over $20 billion per year in the United ~ .:national (www~strafica.com). With 19w~slope roofiag~'opt.fo~ a mod-
'?Stat~),. ~d so far at least, concerns aput health and the environment:
;?,':'.:~:i~!~?':?i~.haV~ noti~.ignificanfly affected PVC s use by the construction indus~i.j '.' '
':'~7':)':i!:?~:i~q~jTh~:t~arket share 0fvinyl siding, for example, continues t0grow. ~: '- 'Alex Wilson is the f0ufider and executive editor of Environ-~
On the other hand, the environmental groups attacking PVC are mental 8uildin~ News in Brattleboro, Vermont. More detailed
smart, tenacious and deeply committed to their cause~and they have information on PVC can be found on his Web site:
:i-:~'go°d track record of bringing about change. Consider the recently www.buildinggr,e,~n.com. Search for the article 'Should We
'-'(; i ~.'~.' ~ ~',?ann°unclM phaseoUt of chromated copper arsenate (CCA)pressure- Phase Out PVC?
' ,'.'.":"'~: '~ ' ' 'i- '..: i , :
,~?~?:~i~¢~)75~,,90 '. ':~ FINE HOMEBUILDING - ,
':::~ ~?~i'7~-~,~:,' ...-,,:'7% ,': ' . " ·
0 0 0 0 0 0
Z Z Z Z Z Z
m m 0
z z c
rn rn ---i
--I Ill -I
"r ~,
m ~ ill
m 'T m
~ m
~' ~ -r ~ t-
m ~' ::> m 0 --
o ;0 ~ -r 0 o
~ o > ~ m
0 ~ ~- ;0 --
o ~ o ~ ~
m E ~ ~ ~ rn
;0 z ~ " ~ 0
-< --I ITl
- ;0 'r -r :;0 Z Z
~ ~ 0 0 ~ o
0 r c c .~ m
c "n ce 03 0
cn ~ m rn z
O'
rn rn ~ rn
> m
I"
I--
c: .1- o
:J: 0
m ~
z m r- z
rn m rn m ~ ~
> z ~ ~ rn'- '-rn
z ~ <>
m ~
ce c~ rn m
· 'r ~ ffi
0 0 ¢:D 0 0 0 CD 0 C:) 0 0 0 0 0
CD 0 0 0 0 ¢::3 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0
'T
C
C
'T
C:
Z
ITl
z
m
c:
m
'l-
z
Ill
Z
ITl
o ~_
m ~ o
.r' ~ C:
· 'r ~ Z
0 --
U::
m
o > > >
-r 0 0 0 0
~ z z z z z
ill
~ m.' m
m
I IIlll~
m
c
ITl
Z
m
~ z~ z o z o
~ '~ ~ o ~ g o ~
'r O~ Z Z
'o
.la.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
G~ ~ f.~ ~.1 (a,) ~.1 fa,) G~, C~1 (,~ f.~ G,.1 ~ ~ (~1