Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-03 Historic PacketCITY OF -ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda September 3, 2003 CALL TO ORD£R: 7:00 p.m. - SISKIYC)U ROOM in Community Development/Engineering Services Building (51 Winburn Way) II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 6, 2003 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING ACTION 2003-108 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 820 square foot accessory residential unit at the rear of the property located at 115 Church Street. Application includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove an existing apple tree at the rear of the property. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 08 AA; Tax Lot: 3800. APPLICANT: Nancy Seward & Tim Bond PLANNING ACTION 2003-110 is a request for modification of a previously approved Site Review approval to construct a third dwelling unit for the property located at 230 and 232 Van Ness Street. The request includes a Vadance to allow the applicant an additional on-street parking credit by utilizing the adjoining property's 20-foot wide street frontage. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39! E 05 DA; Tax Lot: 1600. APPLICANT: Serin Eggling PLANNING ACTION 2003-092 is a request for Site Review for a three-unit condominium project for the property located at 124 Alida Street, at the comer of Alida and Blaine Streets. The proposal involves moving the existing residence further to the south and a Vadance to the required distance between the existing and proposed buildings (18.5 feet required, 14 feet proposed). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 09 DA; Tax Lot: 1500. APPLICANT: Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov PLANNING ACTION 2003-111 is a request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Review approval for a three-lot, three- unit development under the Performance Standards Option for the property located at 259 N. Laurel Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to allow for the removal of two trees from the property. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05 DA, Tax Lot: 1100. APPLICANT: Nathan Sanford IV. OLD BUSINESS: Ao Review Board ¢~ appointments/volunteers Project Assignments for Planning Actions Possible National Register Nomination for Lithia Spdngs Property V. NEW BUSINESS Topics for potential goals Election of Officers - Chair, Vice Chair, Planning Commission Liaison and City Council Liaison VI. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Orientation meeting has been set for Wednesday, September 17 beginning at 5:00 p.m. The next Historic Commission meeting will be on October 8, 2003. The Goal Setting meeting has been set for Saturday, October 18 from 9:00 to noon. VIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ff you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY 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 meetina 128 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title1). F,~,~ __ ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes August 6, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:08 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winbum Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Alexander Krach, Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Joanne Krippaehne, and Keith Chambers. Staff present Mark Knox and Derek Severson. Members Terry Skibby, Rob Saladoff, and Sam Whitford, and Council Liaison John Morrison were unable to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 2, 2003 were approved as submitted by general consensus, with Chambers abstaining as he was not present at the last meeting. Shostrom questioned, and Knox cladfied that forms were available for audience members wishing to speak on any item. Audience members were asked to complete forms and return them to staff if they wished to comment on any item on the agenda. Shostrom noted that Planning Action #2003-092 for 124 Alida Street was being moved to the end of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action #2003-072 Conditional Use Permit 310 Oak Street Artattack Theater Ensemble Knox stated that this was a hOusecleaning item, and noted the background of the application in light of the recently changed city ordinance to allow the use in this zone. Knox emphasized that no changes to the building were proposed. Chambers/Leighton mis to recommend approval of Planning Action #2003-072. Discussion: Giordano noted that he would be abstaining as he was the project architect on the rest of the building, but not this specific project. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Planning Action #2003-090 Site Review 125 North Main Street Lynn Thompson Knox presented the staff report for this action. He explained that the building proposed is off of the alley in the back, and that it was a single story, two bedroom intended as an additional family dwelling for the family living in the main house. He noted that it is an attractive Queen Anne with reflective notes, and he added that the designer for the project was present. Knox pointed out that the project includes a few changes that were requested by the Review Board. Designer Michael McKee explained that the issue was the significance of the primary structure, but with the siting behind the main unit the new structure is removed and does not interact with the three sisters. He added that based on Review Board suggestions, the pedimenti had been removed and the brackets had been simplified to Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 three types. He pointed out that there would be painted shingles on the gable, and the color scheme and siding would be similar. He stated that the aim was to create a charming new structure that would relate attractively. He thanked the Review Board for their suggestions and stated that the client is happy with the result. Shostrom noted that he had made a site visit, and he stated that the garage is new. Shostrem added that it is a beautiful site and that the garage seems to fit. McKee noted that both the garage and the cottage being discussed are invisible from North Main Street. Chambers stated that the result is indeed charming, and the plans look beautiful. He noted that he likes the design and that he feels it is fitting, apt to the area and the city, and a positive addition all the way areund. GiordanolKrach m/s to recommend approval of Planning Action #2003-090. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Planning Action 2003-094 Conditional Use Permit 45 Wimer Street Paul Crafft Knox presented the staff report, and noted that the shape and volume were to be similar but a conditional use permit was required due to the non-conforming setback. He explained that the design was for a one-story/one car garage, and he noted that while there is not a lot of detail it is appropriate to this application. He added that the trees on the site and the curb cut and other circumstances made this the most obvious way to expand. Knox clarified for Giordano that the planning action was necessary only because of the non-conforming setback. Leighton expressed her appreval of the applicants desire to expand the garage rather than expanding the house. Chambers questioned the horizontal window being preposed for the East side. He indicated that he felt it was inapprepriate but added that it was not an issue given that it faces inward on the preperty. Giordano agreed and suggested that this be considered in the motion to be made. Chambers noted that he has an old window that would be better that he would be willing to give the applicant. Leighton noted that the window may relate to the interior layout. Shostrem noted that the existing structure has aluminum siding, and the applicants are preposing to use a siding that would match. He pointed out that it appears that they were proposing to use 2" comer trim. He recognized that it was hard to determine the age of the structure based on the siding, but he noted that the house had 4" trim and he would like to have the garage match the house. Chambers summarized that the issues here appeared to be that the commission would prefer a more vertical window on the East wall of the garage and 4" trim on the window and comer trim. LeightonlKrippaehne m/s to recommend approval with the added conditions that the siding and corner boards match the 4" spacing from the house and that the East window be altered to match that on the North or at least to be a double-hung with a more vertical aspect. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 2 Planning Action 2003-087 Ordinance Amendment Maximum House Size in Historic Districts City of Ashland Shostrom asked that comments be limited to three minutes, and that speakers try to avoid repeating what has already been said. He also asked that speakers try to stick to the subject. Shostrom read the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Knox noted the materials that were available for audience members near the door. Knox gave background information, and discussed the history leading up to the current proposal. He added that the matter would be considered by the Planning Commission next Tuesday and would then be passed on to the City Council in September. Knox discussed the local and national trend to increasingly larger homes to the point that they are out of scale for historic neighborhoods. He reported that the issue came to the city council and lead to a staff assessment of the issue. Council determined that the trend could affect the integrity of the historic districts. Staff evaluated various similar ordinances around the nation and drafted a hybrid to address Ashland's unique zoning, intended densities, and the desire for affordable housing. He emphasized that the ordinance proposed is an effort to address what is unique about Ashland. Knox discussed the changes to the ordinance that have been proposed since the May 3rd study session. He explained that there has been a change to what is counted as floor area, and that basements, detached buildings and attics with ceilings less than 7' are not to be counted. He clarified that main floors and half-stories are to be counted. Knox clarified the definition of a basement as having 50% of its perimeter at less than 6' high and no portion at more than 12' high. He added that the other proposed change was in providing for an exception to the formula. Knox clarified that the proposed exception would allow someone to exceed the allowed floor area by a maximum of 25% with a conditional use permit. Knox reported that the formula proposed was ardved at based on a random sampling of 50 houses in the Railroad, Siskiyou Hargadine and Skidmore Academy Districts by an intern. He explained that based on this sampling, the average house size within the districts was determined to be 1,850 square feet. Knox added that staff had surveyed another 56 houses, meaning that a total of 10% of all houses within Ashland's districts had been surveyed, and staff's numbers supported the intern's research about average house size within the districts. Knox pointed out that the formula numbers allow additions, and based on the 106 properties surveys, the 1,865 square foot average house could add an additional 852 square feet (not counting the 25% exception). Knox stated that he found this to be a flexible ordinance that reflects the committee and the community's respect for the histodc districts. Knox recognized that those making additions within the district make good efforts, but he stated that these are often out of scale for the districts. He explained that presently, it is difficult to challenge these applications based on size, and added that this is the basis of this ordinance. He emphasized that staff feels this to be a fair ordinance, and that of the numerous letters received the vast majodty are in favor of some restrictions on house size within the districts. Knox noted that the letter from the DeBoers to people interested in the issue has lead to them educating themselves. Knox reiterated that the ordinance has flexibility while respecting the historic districts' integrity. Knox pointed out that of the original sample of 106 houses within the districts, only 10 would exceed the standard of the new ordinance, and with the allowed additional 25% under a conditional use permit only 2 would exceed the maximum allowed floor area. He added that 1 of these 2 is a very big house on a small lot. He reiterated that the ordinance accommodates the vast majority of structures in the districts. Leighton asked how many of the houses looked at are historically intact. Knox responded that he was not sure as this had not been something that was tracked. He added that they had tded to look at overall mass, and he felt that the bigger houses were newer. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 3 Uona Nelson & Mel Bugg12707 Connell Avenue, Medford (owners of 133 Sixth St and 721 Oak St) asked that their written comments be read into the record. Shostrom read their comments to the audience. The comments indicated that Bugg and Nelson feel the ordinance amounts to a taking by limiting what they can do with their property and as such greatly diminishes the value of their property. They suggested that there was no justification for the ordinance given the numerous other ordinances limiting size and usage. Philip Lang/758 B Street noted that he owns 13 units in addition to his B Street residence, and stated that he manages these and one other property in the districts as affordable housing. He noted that he had previously commented on the proposed ordinance, and that his message tonight would be the same - that he advocates affordable housing but is opposed to any limitation on house size. He agreed that limitations on "monster houses" were desirable, but he added that legislation is only a sham which will be violated as soon as it serves the city's interests. He reiterated that regulations merely give the illusion of providing protection where none exists. He went on to state that he has been tracking city actions for 18 years, and he noted that many ordinances exist that are never enforced. Lang cited A Street Marketplace as one example, noting its "gadsh colors" within a detail site review zone are in direct violation of an ordinance that prohibits such colors, yet the colors were approved by the city. He also stated that a 1991 ordinance to address the "B&B-ification" of Ashland required pedodic review of B&B's. Lang stated that this ordinance was adopted and ignored, and that when it was called into question it was simply repealed. Lang suggested that the "Big Box" ordinance was another example of an ordinance viewed as a savior of the community, which was then violated and subsequently reinterpreted to suit the city. Lang explained that regardless of the ordinance there will be loopholes left in to get around it, and he added that ordinances can always be reinterpreted or violated and ignored. He stated that if it becomes an issue, an ordinance can simply be repealed. Lang raised the issue of the sidewalk ordinance as an important one for public safety, and he noted how the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) is in direct violation of the ordinance with bdcks that yield frequent injudes and which he claimed are entirely ignored by the city. Lang noted that a certain citizen had placed similar bdcks outside their home to echo the OSF bdcks, again only to be ignored by the city. Lang then pointed out the slippery tile outside the Community Development and Engineering Services Building in violation of the city's own standards. Lang concluded that any ordinance will be abrogated to serve corporate interests, government, moneyed citizens, or the OSF. Lang noted that he has repeatedly asked the city to follow-up on these violations, and he suggested that the lack of any enforcement makes a mockery of the ordinances. Giordano questioned if the affordable units that Lang manages qualify as affordable under the city's affordable housing standards. Lang responded that his rents are lower than required in the county ordinance under subsection 8. Bryan Holley1324 Liberty Street noted that he was a Tree Commissioner speaking on his own behalf. Holley noted that the volunteer efforts of both the Tree Commission and Histodc Commission are gratifying, and he urged passage of this ordinance amendment. He stated that he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Lang, and suggested that society is about vision, which is in tum about ordinances to constrain behavior for social good. Holley stated that the issue being considered is not one that is unique to Ashland, and he cited a recent San Francisco Chronicle about grassroots efforts to limit house sizes in a historic neighborhood. Holley again urged passage, and he emphasized that citizens needed to be made aware that this proposal would only affect the Histodc Districts, not the whole of Ashland. He discussed the process of creating the Tree Ordinance and how it involved redefining the vision of the Tree Commission as one whose scope extended beyond merely street trees. Holley suggested that perhaps a new Historic Ordinance might be drafted by looking at the charter and municipal code and attempting to readdress this commission in light of today's issues and concems. Holley added that to his surprise, developers seem to favor ordinances as they present a level playing field where everyone knows what to expect. Holley concluded that if this commission were to choose to follow his second suggestion, they should expect to be called many things for their vision, but he urged them to remember that they are working for the common good. Paul Mensch1451 North Main Street agreed with Lang. He stated that there has been no determination about the effect such an ordinance would have on property values, and he feels the ordinance proposed is subjective and fuzzy. He suggested that the height issue is arbitrary and that the floor area ratio (F.A.R.) calculation is interesting if non-standard. He noted that attached garages and walls are counted, but no detached garages or tall accessory structures. He added that the formula is too complex, and the exception permit is an expensive permit based on non-quantifiable factors that amount to fluff. He pointed out that while this commission does not dictate design, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 they did make design suggestions on a previous application this evening. He suggested that the sampling doneJ to ardve at the ordinance was neither random nor statistically valid, and he reiterated that this ordinance is not' needed. He suggested that it all comes down to the June 2"d discussion of limiting people's incentive to consolidate lots, and he added that he might be agreeable to something that simply addressed that issue. He concluded that the ordinance as it is seems poody wdtten, and amounts to an ordinance in need of a problem. Bill Street/t80 Mead Street discussed room layout as a tension-creating element for public meetings. He noted that he was a Mead Street resident, living in Ashland since 1985. He stated that he bought his lot on Mead Street for $19,000 and built an 1,152 square foot home that was average for the time. He discussed how neighboring properties have been demolished or burned and replaced with more and larger homes. He suggested that these new homes have made dramatic changes and that the histodc character of the neighborhood is disappearing. He added that size is the factor driving these changes. He stated that smaller homes have a charm that lead him to seek out and live in Ashland. He explained that smaller homes are common in Europe, where history is still valued. Street questioned how this commission's recommendation would be conveyed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Knox responded that this would be done through the minutes and staff report, and he noted that in some instances in the past the commission has also sent some members to convey their recommendations in person. Street urged that the commission present their recommendation in person, drawing on members' knowledge and expertise to educate. He also asked that the changes made to the proposed ordinance since the DeBoer letter be made clear, and that it be pointed out that the letter is outdated and misinforming. Street questioned the exclusion of basements from floor area calculations and asked that the philosophy behind this exclusion be explained. He noted that the DeBoer basement on Vista Street is exposed and is much more like a full story. He suggested that if a basement faces the street it should be counted as floor area for its impact on the street's character. Giordano asked if a house with an existing basement were making a conversion how would it be viewed under the ordinance. Knox responded that as long as the basement was a basement by definition it would not be a factor. George Kramer/386 Laurel Street North stated that he was glad to see that the discussion was over details rather than debating the idea of the ordinance. Kramer noted that he had 3 points to make: 1 ) He would like to see the ordinance return to the 0.38 factor rather than the 0.42 which was done in attempt to reduce the number of non- conforming structures. He suggested that these are substandard lots or newer homes, and he emphasized that the 0.38 factor gets to the point of the proposal; 2) He feels that the 25% exception allowance needs to be revised. He explained that this exception could be seen as allowing for 25% beyond whatever is existing which would mean that people would be rewarded for overbuilding. He urged a limit set at 25% over the maximum floor area for the lot tied to CUP approval standards and flatly stating that beyond that someone simply cannot build. He agreed that the exception should not be a one-time option, but rather an allowable exception to 25% over the maximum allowed floor area; 3) He suggested that a simple, absolute maximum house size was needed to discourage lot consolidation. He stated that this could allow for an increase in density and scale. He cited Lake Oswego as a similar community with more restrictive standards, and he noted that they limit the lot size used in calculations to 15,000 square feet regardless of the actual lot size beyond that. He suggested that this ensures appropriate scale while remaining somewhat open. He encouraged the commission to recommend this amendment to the Planning Commission. Knox responded to public comments, noting that staff concurred with Kramer's comments relative to the 25% exception and had no issue with the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42. He noted the 0.42 factor came out of suggestions for more flexibility and to make more of the existing units conforming. He agreed that the 25% exception provided a measure of flexibility. Knox added that based on permits issued in 2001, Ashland's average new home at 2,658 square feet is 400 square feet larger than the national average of 2,255 square feet, and he noted that in 1955 the average was 1,140 square feet. Knox explained that the ordinance is complex but not difficult, and that a maximum house size can be determined based on the lot size, number of units proposed and the zoning. He suggested that this is complicated only in trying to address lot density, and he stated that the ordinance is an attempt to address mass and scale. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 5 Knox suggested that while new ordinances may be difficult to enforce, in this case the calculation is part of the plan review and approval and as such it should be much less difficult. Kdppaehne asked why, if only one number was needed to calculate floor area, a simple table could not be presented as part of the ordinance. Knox suggested that the majodty of projects were one unit and could be done with a table, but he explained that the R2 and R3 zones would require multiple tables to address varying unit numbers. Knox added that to lessen the complexity, he would leave things as is with the formula for calculation. Kdppaehne suggested looking at any opportunity to make things less cumbersome. Chambers indicated that the calculation was an easy one, and Shostrom added that it was of comparable complexity to other existing ordinances. Chambers stated that he was willing to return to the 0.38 factor. Giordano stated that he supports this ratio in concept, citywide, but he has some concems with the ordinance. Giordano went on to noted that under Oregon land use law, the intent was to keep county lands free of houses while developing more densely in urban areas. Giordano emphasized his agreement with this idea as a way to preserve the state's natural beauty while developing as densely as possible in urban areas. He suggested that the ordinance as proposed does not do enough to address multifamily zones. Giordano stated that some a limitation is needed for the R1 zone, and he agreed with some level of limitation in the R2/R3 zones, but he stated that too much limitation could jeopardize intended densities. He emphasized that he supports the current review process and the Site Design and Use Standards, and noted that he has done projects which exceed city requirements for landscaping, open space and etc. yet that would not work under this ordinance. He stated that this seems contradictory. He also noted that he would like to see some means of addressing suitable design, and he suggested that a design can be compatible with the historic district or not irrespective of its square footage. Giordano expressed his agreement with the ordinance as it is proposed for single family zones, but stated that he would like to adjust it to better deal with multifamily zones and to address suitability of design. Shostrom responded that the exiSting process addresses design. Giordano stated that it address mass, bulk and scale as well. Shostrom noted that there have not been a lot of large projects in the R1 zone, but he suggested tfiat a wave of hotel-sized homes on small lots could be coming. Giordano reiterated his concem that the ordinance runs counter to land use goals and raises concerns about density. Knox responded that he believed the ordinance supports the state and city policies for infill, and he added that it has other positive attributes as well. He cited the Archerd project on Holly Street as an example, and suggested that under the ordinance it may not be possible to build single family residence-scale homes in multi-family zones. He emphasized that this may lead to more opportunity to create rental units. He stated, that the ordinance would likely bdng things more into scale. Giordano stated that he did not disagree with Knox's assessment, but he suggested that a lot of people have no use for an 850 square foot unit. He noted that more square footage is needed to address today's families, and that he would like to see increased density. Knox responded that the ordinance would result in more detached garages, smaller units, and fewer units to get more square footage per unit. Leighton noted that a lot of single people have difficulty affording today's 3-bedroom, 2,000 square foot units, and she noted that the recent school closure reflects this trend. She suggested that there was a need to serve this population as well. Shostrom pointed to the Holly Street and Scenic Ddve projects as big contracts, and he suggested that those who live in the districts want some assurance that the ambience will be assured. He emphasized that a demolition replaced with a "new castle" could completely alter the character of an entire block. Giordano echoed Lang's concerns and suggested that he wanted to see greater density and less exclusivity. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 t Leighton noted the contrast between the 1970-style apartments near the Rogue Valley Roasting Company and the, Scenic Ddve project, and she suggested that the scale, mass and height are contradictory to the districts. She stated that she liked the idea of allowing the 25% exception to be continued perpetually. Knox cladfied that the discussion was to allow continued additions until the full amount of the 25% exception was reached. Shostrom responded to Mensch's comments, and noted that detached units are more traditional in the districts and have less of an effect on the overall scale of buildings on a site. He suggested that the allowance for detached accessory units reflects this histodc tradition. He added that the issue of lot consolidation could be addressed by setting an absolute maximum house size that could not be exceeded based on what would be allowed on a 15,000 square foot lot. There was discussion of the 0.38 factor versus the 0.42 factor and after looking at several examples members determined that the 0.42 factor allowed about 10% more floor area. Giordano reiterated that he would still like a restriction on single family residences with less of a restriction on multi family uses. Chambers stated that there would have to be a full study across all zones, but he stated that he did not feel that the same adjustment factor was needed across all zones. Chambers agreed with Giordano's concerns about density issues. Kramer questioned whether the calculations should address zones or use. Giordano stated that he would like to see the factor used determined by use rather than just zone. Kramer agreed that aiming the calculation at the usage was more appropriate. An audience member with a grandfather duplex in the R1 zone agreed that looking at usage rather than just the zone was a better idea. Chambers stated that among the charges of the commission are to protect histodc structures being renovated and to look ahead to the future. He agreed that gradually increasing house sizes are changing the nature of the districts. He suggested that something must be given up for the greater good to preserve scale within the district, and he agreed with Holley's suggestion to take a visionary stance. Leighton asked that the 0.38 factor be used rather than the 0.42, and Chambers agreed. Shostrom noted that the 25% exception allows for more than adequate flexibility. Giordano stated that he had no problem with this for single family zones, provided that something is done with the factor or a larger allowed exception for multi family zones. Knox stated that staff would need to look at numbers to address unit size for multi family zones. He asked that any motion include direction to staff to explore a greater adjustment factor or a larger CUP exception for multi family zones. He added that while the Historic Commission serves only as a recommending body in commenting on additions, the CUP to allow for the 25% exceptions will give them more of a say in the review process. He stated that staff would discuss these issues further pdor to the Planning Commission meeting, and would look at how the ordinance meshes with the city's comprehensive plan. Chambers questioned whether Giordano would be agreeable to a higher exception through the CUP process for multi family zones. Chambers suggested that the CUP process is a better means to address this in his view. He also agreed that the factor to be used should be based on use rather than merely zone. Knox cladfied that this was currently addressed by taking the number of units proposed into account as part of the formula. Shostrom stated that a 15,000 square foot lot would be allowed about 340 more square feet as multi family than it would as single family, and he suggested that this will mean more bulk and scale, and will encourage multi family units to go bigger, bulkier and less historically compatible. Giordano responded that a CUP would still be required, and a finding would be required that the project fit the neighborhood. Shostrom stated that the issue was that increased bulk and scale would make a structure less compatible. Giordano stated that he had more concern with encouraging density. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Knox noted that the histodc districts compdse approximately 15% of the city's total acreage. Shostrom suggested that the city could aim for density in the other 85%. Holley emphasized that the goal here is to protect the character of the district, and he suggested that the social order can be addressed elsewhere. Giordano stated that he is concemed with preserving the character of the districts, but he added that one must also consider the dynamics of modem life. He stated that he would like to fine tune the ordinance to stop large houses without diminishing density. Knox responded that the ordinance is an attempt to make things fit in and to stop extremes. He stated that staff will consider if exceptions can be formulated to address the concerns that have been raised here tonight. Giordano stated that a CUP exception for multi family of 30-40% might work for him. Leighton responded that she saw no need for 2,000 square foot 9-unit developments in a histodc district. Knox stated that staff would try to bdng things into focus; he recognized that many city plans are based on the allowed density. Chambers asked if it would be best to move forward by determining if there was general agreement to the 0.38 factor, the CUP exception as an allowance that continued perpetually until 25% was reached, and staff to revisit the density issue. Knox noted that a vote was necessary tonight, but he agreed that something could be formulated by item to better allow staff to work on issues. He recognized the need to weigh the density that the city encourages versus the historic districts' character and find a balance. Chambers asked about a maximum house size cap. Knox stated that this hadn't been looked at. Shostrom stated that he likes the idea of basing the cap on a 15,000 square foot lot, and he added that this was another demonstration that the 0.42 was too high. Shostrom suggested at looking at the proposal by item. Krippaehne stated that she did not like going back to the 0.38 factor, and she noted that she had a very large family in a small house. She explained that while she hated to romanticize the past, people historically lived in a smaller home and added on as they could afford to. She suggested that many houses in the district reflect this. She emphasized that standards change and that we need to expand to address them. She stated that she liked the 0.42 factor. Leighton noted that the 25% exception allowance with a CUP compensates for the 0.42 factor. Chambers pointed out that larger homes are rarely for larger families anymore. Krippaehne asked if the CUP allowance would apply to new construction as well. After discussion, Kramer suggested that the wording simply state that structures within the histodc distdct may exceed the maximum by 25% with a conditional use permit. Shostrom, Chambers and Giordano stated that they were for the 0.38 factor with the 25% exception by CUP. Shostrom suggested looked at the cap on house size, and basing it on a 15,000 square foot lot at the 0.38 factor. He noted that this would allow for a 4,065 square foot home as the absolute maximum within the districts, not including detached accessory structures. Giordano stated that he was willing to have a cap on single family residential uses but not on multi family. Knox asked to clarify that members were looking at an absolute maximum and that no matter what house size within the districts could not exceed 4,065 square feet. Members agreed that this was what they were suggesting. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Kramer stated that this did not really address the consolidation issue, except that no matter how large a lot was the- house would have to be built as though the lot were 15,000 feet. Kramer suggested capping the adjustment factor at 0.57 and the maximum house size as a 15,000 square foot lot with that 0.57 factor. Giordano reiterated his opposition to a maximum house size for multi family. Kramer responded that not much is being built in the R2 and R3 zones that is truly multi family. He agreed that there was a need for increased density, but he added that he did not want to ruin the districts by trying to be everything. He suggested that builders could build as they wish in other multi family zoned areas within the city, but he emphasized that they should be compatible when building within the districts. Giordano noted that the CUP findings ensure that compatibility can be addressed. Kramer questioned whether a lot of what is being built in the R2 and R3 zones in the districts is appropriate. Shostrom cited 8th-9th Street alley as an example, where 18-20 homes were built that would have been incompatible had they been oriented to the streetscape. Shostrom suggested discouraging bigger, denser multi family growth within the districts and encouraging it elsewhere. A majodty of those presence indicated that they could accept a 0.38 factor on all R1, R2 and R3 zoned properties with a 25% CUP exception for single family and a 35% exception for multi family. Leighton stated that she would like a cap on multi family zoned lots. Giordano noted that there is more scrutiny in the R2 and R3 zones anyway. Chambers stated that he would like to cap both but increase the factor for multi family zones. Giordano agreed with Chambers, and noted that he would like to change the one time exception to a perpetual one. Chambers/Leighton mis to express the strong support of the commission for this ordinance amendment and recommend approval of PA #2003-087 with the following recommendations: 1) 2) 3) 4) That the adjustment factor for single family residences be changed from .42 to .38 That the allowance for conditional use permit exceptions up to 25% over the maximum house size be altered to include both existing houses and new construction and the "one-time" exception clause to allow continued perpetual additions up to the 25% allowed exception. That a maximum house size for single family residences be set. (Commission recommendation was to cap the house size as the maximum allowed on a 15000 square foot lot, so that lots over 15000 square foot could not build any larger than the maximum allowed on a 15000 square foot lot. With the 25% exception allowed by CUP, this would make the maximum allowed single family house size within the district 4065 square feet.) That staff be directed to consider a higher FAR adjustment factor or CUP exception (35%) in multi-family (R2-R3) zones within the districts. The commission recommends that these options be looked at in order to balance the need to encourage density with the need to preserve the character of the districts. The commission also recommends looking at a maximum house size within the district for multi-family units. DISCUSSION: Shostrom wanted it to be clear that the commission was recommending a .38 adjustment factor as the 25% exception was more than generous. Knox clarified that staff would prepare an addendum to the ordinance addressing the commission recommendations. Shostrom added that he found the exception allowance more than generous in light of the exemption for detached structures. Knox clarified that the proposed maximum size for single family homes was intended as 4065 square feet with detached accessory structures allowed. Voice vote: Krach, Leighton, Giordano, Shostrom, and Chambers, YES. Krippaehne, NO. Motion Passed 5-1. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Planning Action 2003.092 Site Review 124 Alida Street Kirt Meyer & Vadim Agakhanov Giordano noted that he had a conflict as he was the applicants' agent on this project. LeightonlKrippaehne m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Knox presented the staff report. He noted that the proposal was for a 3-unit condominium development at the comer of Alida and Blaine Streets. He explained that the applicants propose to relocate a 1905 home to the south of the property, and that they also propose to relocate a 10" blue spruce tree on-site. He added that in addition to the 1905 home, the development will consist of two new units in a duplex. Knox noted the streetscape and discussed the side and rear elevations. He pointed out that access would be to a rear garage off of Blaine Street. He stated that one unit would be approximately 1300 square feet including the garage, and he explained that the condominium development would consist of four total lots governed by CC&R's. Knox stated that the design was an attempt to address the context of the area, and he noted the applicants' attempt to set the second-story volume of their proposal back from the street. He discussed project details: a 6/12 roof pitch, 6" hardi-plank siding, and 4' trim. Knox noted that there was also a variance proposed to the required distance between buildings, as the ordinance would require approximately 18.5' between the buildings with only 14' being proposed here. Knox stated that this followed a pattern established in the neighborhood and demonstrated on the applicants' "Map A' exhibit. Knox noted that there would be sidewalks and parkrows included on the Blaine Street side, and he stated that the applicants would be using a new surface treatment to allow air and water to the existing trees' reot zones. Knox stated that this application had been called up to a public hearing by a neighboring property owner, but he added that the applicants may have since addressed the neighbor's concerns. Knox stated that he would need to see a specific request from the neighbor rescinding the request to call up the application. Knox added that his feeling was that the neighbor would withdraw the request for hearing. Knox noted that there had been some other inquiries as to the mass and scale of the project, and he recognized the applicants' efforts to minimize the building heights. Knox stated that staff deferred to this commission on design issues, and he added that the applicants had met with the Review Board previously. Applicants Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov introduced themselves to the commissioners. Meyer noted that the design as presented sprang from staff suggestions through the initial pre-application conference, the suggestions of the city's Site Design and Use Standards for development within the histodc districts, and two meetings with the Review Board. Meyer noted that the main issue was compatibility with the neighborhood, and he explained that the structure appears to be single-story when viewed from Alida Street in order to minimize the impact on the streetscape. He noted details in the side elevation that attempted to articulate the wall as viewed from Blaine. Agakhanov discussed the scale of the buildings. Meyer pointed out design features, and emphasized the applicants' attempts to eliminate fiat, continuous walls and to make the structure look like a single family residence. He added that the offset entries helped to this end. Agakhanov noted that the Blaine Street parkrow will effectively screen that side of the project when the trees mature, and he added that he felt the design was consistent with the prevailing patterns of the nearby streetscape. He added that the average spacing between buildings is 11 feet in the surrounding neighborhood, and the applicants are proposing 14. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 l0 Agakhanov stated that the footprint is not too massive, and he noted that there were more bulky apartments in the' neighborhood near Siskiyou Boulevard. He distributed photos to members, and noted that some houses nearby are 16-18' high single-story structures. He added that the proposed structure is to be 21' versus the existing structure's 16'. Chambers questioned the roof pitch. Meyer responded that the existing house to be moved has an 8/12 pitch. Knox noted that in looking at the design, it appeared that the actual building heights were 21' and 24'. He clarified that this would require an actual spacing between buildings of 22.5'. He explained that this was greater than the 18.5' previously stated, so the 14' requested represents a greater variance. Knox emphasized that staff felt it was clear that this distance was acceptable based on the findings relative to the patterns within the neighborhood and the fact that the applicants could merge the buildings for more mass to meet the minimum. Chambers asked why the applicants were moving the existing histodc home rather than building the new structures to the other side. Meyer explained that their feeling was that the proposal would blend better with the existing streetscape. He added that this also helped to address solar access issues, and he stated that the moved structure would be fully restored. He reiterated that the applicants felt the streetscape looked better with the larger structure on the comer, and he added that it helps with the single-family style appearance. Chambers questioned taking a significant home tied to an Oregon pioneer and moving it. He stated that even with a good deal of care and renovation, the home would still lose its histodc context and negatively impact its character. He stated that he would need to be convinced that this move was necessary before he could grant his approval. He added that if the structure were renovated in place, the city's historic inventory would be protected. He recognized that the house was modest and in need of work, but he added that it was well-designed and a pristine example of its era. He stated that this relocation would be a hard sell for him, and he suggested that the new structure would dwarf the relocated house despite the thoughtful design. Meyer explained that the house currently sits in the middle of the lot and is in disrepair. He added that new utilities are needed. Meyer noted that the proposed design exceeds city standards for landscape and lot coverage. Members discussed the proposal in contrast to what would be allowed were the previously discussed maximum house size ordinance in effect. Knox explained that under the proposed ordinance, and noted that only 3,750 square feet of floor area would be allowed. He added that taking off the 1,000 square feet of the existing structure, only 2,750 would be allowed between the two new units. Knox emphasized for members that this application could not be considered under the standards of an ordinance that has not been adopted. Shostrom noted that while the footprint of the structure may appear compatible on paper, he found it to be less so from the ground. He suggested that the structure was 3-4 times as large as any of its neighbors. LeightonlKrach m/s to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Shostrom added that he had visited the site and the setback from Blaine and Alida was 32'. He proposed that the structures be moved 10' closer to the sidewalk. He discussed the applicants' photos, and noted the example from B Street actually detracts from the streetscape and could've been done more sensitively. Shostrom agreed that the articulation proposed to mitigate the design was well-done, but he explained he found the volume pushed to the Blaine Street side was just too large. Shostrom cited more of the applicants' photo examples as means to mitigate volume concerns, and noted how some design features cascaded to lessen volumes. Knox asked what specific elements of the city's Site Design and Use Standards were not being met. Shostrom responded that the need for similar setbacks and similar volume were both missing on the Blaine Street side. He suggested using the historic house as the corner to shield the 2-story structure, but he emphasized that the best option would be to leave the histodc home where it is and develop the remainder of the lot. He added that if it were moved, the house should be 10' closer to the sidewalk. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 Leighton concurred, and added that she would prefer that the house not be moved. She noted the need to somehow bring the mass down. She pointed out that the top bay window does little to change the articulation. Chambere stated that the histodc home serves as an anchor, and he suggested that moving it is a drestic change despite the care and expense to be taken. He emphasized that he did not feel approving this action as preposed would meet the standards that the commission is charged to uphold. He added that he would at least like to see some compromise, and he suggested looking more to the intedor without undermining the corner. Krech recognized the difficulty of this situation, and he stated that while he liked the overall design and the care being taken, the idea of moving the house made him pause. He noted that other projects allowed on Alida might make this proposal fit for a compromise and he added that it may be on the dght path, but he suggested that it was not there yet. Krech noted that he could see the design working as it is if the move were necessary, but he emphasized that he did not want to see the house moved. Chambere noted that the bad apartments nearby were allowed and now set a precedent by negating the streetscape. Knox explained that if the commissioners were leaning toward requesting that the hearings board call this application up to a headng before the full Planning Commission, they should be specific in their motion. He noted the concerns expressed had been with the need to meet the intent of the Site Design and Use Standards for setbacks, mass, scale and volume. He added that the action may already have been called up by the concerned neighbor. He pointed out that the applicant might also want to request a one-month extension. Chambers stated that there was additional concem in that the proposal would call for the moving of a valued histodc structure. He added that other key criteda had been violated, but he stated that he thought something could be developed here around the great design that was at the core of the proposal. Krech cladfied that the appropriate path here was for quasi-judicial review of the Site Design and Use Standards through a full public headng before the Planning Commission hopefully leading to some additional design work to address the concerns that had been expressed. Chambers/Leighton m/s to recommend that the Hearings Board call this item up to a full public hearing due to the massing on the Blaine Street side which was found to be inconsistent with the typical massing along Blaine and Alida due to the 2-story facade, scale and setbacks. Discussion: Members discussed whether moving the existing structure to the corner as an anchor would work better than having the new building there at twice the size of any other nearby structure. Voice vote: All AYES, with Giordano abstaining as project architect. Motion passed. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the August schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: August 7th August 14th August 21 st August 28th Skibby and Kdppaehne Skibby and Giordano Skibby and Krach Skibby and Whitford Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 12 Knox noted that there would be a site visit tomorrow at the comer of Pioneer and B Street for a project that is being considered. He stated that members would meet on-site at 4:30 p.m. and that project information would be distributed at that time. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjoum the meeting at 11:00 p,m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 6, 2003 13 The Ashland Planning.Department preliminarily apprOved this request on August 20, 2003.· This action will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Headngs Board at 1:30 p.m. on September 9, 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 September 2, 2003. The written request for the public hearing must include your 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. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above, there will be no public testimony permitted. If a hearing 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 crlteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection conceming this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufrmlent specificity to affon~, the decision maker an of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance c~terlon the objection is based on also precludes your fight of appeal to LUBA on that ndterion. Failure of the with suflicient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages tn circuit courL A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the headng and will be provided at reasonable cost, if raquestod, NI materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. If you have questions or comments concerning this requesL please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. N NOTE: Public comment concerning the project's landscap~mg plan will be taken on September 2, 2003 between 3:00 and 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winbum Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 3, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winbum Way. PLANNING ACTION 2003-108 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 820 square foot accessory residential unit at the rear of the property located at 115 Church Street. Application includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove an existing apple tree at the rear of the property. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 08 AA; Tax Lot: 3800. ' A,.PPLICANT: Nancy Seward & Tim Bond I lllll~l ~ONDITIONAL USE PERMITR' 38.104.050 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: e 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. SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. ~The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot .reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have 'a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property~ The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been. considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit. (Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002) IIIIIILJ .. . ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For Nancy Seward and Tim Bond 115 Church Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 1 of 11 8/6/2003 18.104.050 Approval C.:'iteria 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 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in A. The proposed use conforms with all standards within this zoning district. B. The City facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate this proposed Accessory Residential Unit. Co 1. The proposed Accessory Residential Unit, complies with the requirements related to scale (one story), bulk (broken wall plane in street facade), and coverage is less than 50% of principle residence. 2. The increase in vehicular traffic is a small impact on available transit facilities. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL Page 3 of 11 For Nancy Seward and Tim Bond 8/6/2003 115 Church Street, ASHLAND, OREGON primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA. 4. Additional parking shall be in conformance with the 4. The additional parking is supplied by areas in front of the off-street Parking provisions Accessory Residential Unit and street parking credit. for single-family dwellings of the Title. 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City A. The City ordinances applicable to the development will be met. ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the B. Site Review Chapter requirements will be met. Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development C. The Site Design Standards are complied with by this proposed complies with the Site Design Standards adopted development. by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. B. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT II-B-1. ORIENTATION lI-B- I a) Residential buildings shall have their Il-B-la) The Accessory Residential Unit is more than 30 feet from primary orientation toward the street. The orientation is toward the street also. the street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street. II-B-lb) Buildings shall be II-B-lb) The Accessory Residential Unit is setback from this street set back from the street 43 feet. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For Nancy Seward and Tim Bond 115 Church Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 5 of 11 8/6/2003 II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses. II-B-3f) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. Refer to Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards for more detail. II-B-4) OPEN SPACE II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development. H-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do not provide a suitable surface for human use my not be counted toward this requirement. II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. II-B-5) NATURAL CLIMATE CONTROL II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth. II-B-3e) Existing large canopy trees will shade the off street parking a rea. II-B-3f) See Irrigation Plan II-B-4a) With 68% of the lot landscaped, a play area larger than 8% of the lot supplies open space for r~creation and play. II-B-4b) The recreation areas are either grass or hard surface. II-B-4c) Patios are integrated into the open space requirement. II-B-5a) South side of proposed building is partially shielded from the sun by existing building. The remaining area will be paved for parking. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For Nancy Seward and Tim Bond 115 Church Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 7 of 11 8/6/2003 a) Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 % feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. 0 Trees 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 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 a) There are two existing street trees. Adding additional trees to the streetscape is not feasible, as there is a mature existing landscape in this area. b) The existing trees comply. c) N/^ d) N/A e) N/A f) N/A ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For Nancy Seward and Tim Bond 115 Church Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 9 of 11 8/6/2003 C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS In addition to the standards found in Section Il, 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-c- 1) 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 in 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 fagade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic fagade line. IV-C-l) The new structure compliments the height of the primary residence as well as the neighboring houses. IV-C-2) Size and proportions of the new Accessory Residential Unit complement other structures on the street and through the variation in the front wall plane and roof surfaces, the massing is controlled and moderated. IV-C-3) See above IV-C-4) The front setback exists relative to the primary residence, therefore does not conflict with other street facades. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For Nancy Seward and Tim Bond 115 Church Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 11 of 11 8/6/2003 represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. 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. Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: D. That adequate capacity of D. City facilities are directly adjacent to the property, in the street, City facilities for water, and are adequate ~o se~ice the new Accessory Residential Unit. 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. 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) KenCaim~ Environfnerrral ,Kerry KenCairn - Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planninfl I Illll~ . .. MEMO Date: July 18, 2003 Project: Bond/Seward Residence 115 Church Street Ashland, Oregon After reviewing the proposed building plans, several landscape issues were identified. The removal of one 12" caliper apple tree, to accommodate the expansion of the proposed unit. The apple tree is located 8' from the existing garage and the canopy of the tree reaches over the roof. a. The proposed building plan moves the building wall within 3 feet of the trunk of the existing Apple tree. This will require excavation, and a retaining wall to be built within the drip line of this tree. This proposed site work will potentially damage the root structure of the apple tree and will destabilize the tree. I recommend that the apple tree be removed prior to start of construction and that a fast growing canopy tree be planted on site after construction to mitigate the loss. L~ K, L~ The use of two on-street parking spaces for one parking space credit. On-street parallel parking code requires that each space measure 24' with uninterrupted curb, contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires parking. Cairn Em/ffonmental tscape Architect One on-street parking space to the West of the driveway measures 23' with the adjacent driveway measuring 17'(see attached diagram). An existing concrete wall (in good condition) running along the drive limits moving the driveway to accommodate the required 24' parking space. Moving the wall will be cost prohibitive, and excavation to do so could pOtentially harm the two large, established canopy trees in the front landscape. I recommend leaving the wall and allowing for on-street parking in the existing 23' space, using the 17' driveway entrance as back up space. A second on-street parking space can be accommodated in the 39' curbed area to the East of the driveway. Design 545 'A' Street, Suite 3 Ashland, Oregon 97520 voice (541) 488-3194 fax (541) 552-9512 m PARKING DIAGRAM BOND/SEWARD RESIDENCE 115 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND, OREGON KENCAIRN ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, ASLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 51~5 'A' STI~ET, SUITE ~, ASHLAND, OREOON 97520 PH. (5&l)/,SB-310~,, FAX (5&l) 552-9512 PERENNIAL 5 - RHODODENDRON PERENNIAL REMOVE TREE (N) RETAINII' ENNb PROPO~ UNI1 118 S.F.) - RHODODENDR~ (E) LANDSCAPE (N) WALKWAY (E) RESIDENCE TO REMAIN (1,644 S.F.) RETAINING (E) GRV!. DRIVEWAY PEDESTRIAN PATH ~ (E)~ I I II11~ \ ' \ 'I:T 'HY z~:9T:[! ~"001./90/~0 ~L The Ashland Planning. Department preliminarily approved this request on Augus~ 20, 2003. This action will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 p,m. on September 9, 2e03 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 September 2, 2003. The written request for the public hearing must include your 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. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARIN(~ by the time and date stated above~ there will be no public testimony permitted. If ~ou have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. If a hearing 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 criteda applicable to this application are attached to INs notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning INs appr~cation, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufrmlent specificity to afford, the decision maker an is based on also precludes y~Jr ~tght of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available fix Inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the Staff Repo~ will be available for inspection seven days prior to the headng and will be IXOvtded at reasonable cosL ff requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main St~eeL Ashland, Oregon 97520. Our TrY phone number is 1-.800-735-2900. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 3, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winbum Way. PLANNING ACTION 2003-110 is a request for modification of a previously approved Site Review approval to construct a third dwelling unit for the property located at 230 and 232 Van Ness Street. The request includes a Variance to allow the applicant an additional on-street parking credit by utilizing the adjoining property's 20-foot wide street frontage. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi- Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 !E 05 DA; Tax Lot: 1600. APPLICANT: Serin Eggling IIIIIE SITE REVIEW 18.72.50 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny a site plan: Ao All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met. The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for the implementation of this'~hapter. Do 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 VARIANCF The critera for the approval of a Variance 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. 2'775, 1996) Doyle Bdghtenburg and Teresa Zotl 545 'A' Street Ashland, OR. 97520 (541)482-6535 (541)552-9512 A~ust8,2~3 Department of Planning Staff Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR. 97520 Re: 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, Existing Garage Demolition Dear Planning Staff and Commission, This proposal is a modification of a previously approved site review with a variance to allow an on- street parking credit by utilizing a portion of the adjacent properties frontage. This use of the neighboring frontage requires a variance in that the ordinance requires that on-street credits only be provided for contiguous frontage. By removing one off-street parldng space, the landscaped ama between the off-street parking and the new structure increases. The owners would like to take advantage of this by moving the south wall of the new structure 3 feet toward the street. In these findings, we will present the reasons for your approval of this variance. Regards, ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMI~AL _For SERIN EGGLING & SHERRI MORGAN 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page lof3 8/8/2003 18.92.025 Credit tbr On-Street Automobile Pm'king A. The amount of off-street 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. B. On-street parking ~hall follow the established configuration of existing on- street, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be allowed with the approval of the 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 crab. 2. 45 degree diagonal, each 13 feet of uninterrupted curb. C. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires the parking. D. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking A. This proposal is to lessen the off-street parking from (4) to (3) spaces. This requires that (2) parking spaces be supplied by on- street spaces. The on/off street ratio for credit is 2/1. Therefore, (4) on-street parking spaces are required. By removing one off-street parking space, the landscaped area between the off-street parking and the new structure increases. The owners would like to take advantage of this by moving the south wall of new structure 3 feet toward the street. 1. A compressed parallel parking configuration is proposed in which the spaces are 20' and each (2) spaces have a 4 foot isle for backing or moving fonvard. 2. N/A C. This is the part. of the ordinance that we would like a variance from. The lot needing parking, has a contiguous curb measurement of 79.92 feet as shown on the attached drawings. This supports (3) 20 foot spaces, two back up isles, and a 9 foot space for the drive to utilize. D. N/A ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For SER1N EGGLING & SHERRI MORGAN 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 2 of 3 8/8/2003 configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State. 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. 2836 S14, 1999) F. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO G. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that nsc, but shall be available for general public use at all times. No signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street 18.100.020 Application The owner or his agent nm)' 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 circ,,mslances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. E. The paved street is 36'-8" (F.O.C.), which is wider than required for a neighborhood collector street. Credit for off-street parking is provided. F. N/A G. No specific designation of the spaces will occur. A. The concerned lot has an adjacent lot to the north. The northerly ~ot is a flag ~ot with the pole (20 feet wide) adjacent to the east side of the concerned lot. The pole of the flag lot is used by pedestrians and as an extension ofthe concerned lot's yards. The flag lot has (4) units on the flag portion of the lot. The units are accessed only by an IIIIIILI _ ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUI~MrITAL SERIN EGGLING & SI-1F. RRI MORGAN 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 3 of 3 8/8/2003 alley. It appea~a that the pole of the flag will not be used for access, only utilities if needed. Thus, the curb contiguous to the pole portion of the flag will remain as public street parking. Therefore, due to configuration of the 20 foot wide curb to the 80 foot width of the concerned lot, a 1OO foot street parking length could be considered. B. That the pmpo~l's B. This variance provides the ability to use less area of the site for l~nefi~ will I~ g~atcr than any ncgaliv¢ impacts on thc parking and more area for landscaping. This can happen while dcvclopmcnl of thc adjacent complying with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan of uses; and will further the the City. purpo~ and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 SI, 1987) C. That th~ or conditions have not been C. The space for placement of the parking was not created by the willfully or pu~o~ly ~lf- owners. ,impo~. (O~ 2775, 19%) 18.100.030 Effect No building or zoning Fifteen days after the approval of the variance, the building permit will pcrmitshallbci~u~dinany be available if no appeals are ~*led. ca~ where a variance is required until fifteen days after apl~oving of thc variance by the Commission, and then only is accordance with the terms and conditions of said approval. An appeal from the action of the Commission automatically stay the issuance of the building or other permit until such appeal has been completed and the Council has acted thereon. In the event the Council acts to grant said variance, the building or zoning permit may be issue~ immediately thereafter, in accor~ce with such terms and conditions as may have been imposed on said variance. Carl Wright 1192 Colestein Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Carl, August 4, 2003 In follow-up to the voice mail I left, here are the details of our request to you. Sherri Morgan and I, co- owners of 230/323 Van Ness, are applying for a City permit to build a small cottage on the footprint of the previous garage structure. The city requires us to have five parking spaces for three units (these would be 230, 232 and the proposed cottage). In the current design, we can only fit three off-street parking spaces in the existing driveway. (We share that driveway with our neighbors Herb and Marye Sweeten, and must leave an unencumbered 5' buffer from the property line.) The Planning Ordinance pertaining to parking (Section 18.92.025) provides allowance for two off- street parking spaces in 96 feet of uninterrupted curbing. If you have no objections, the city would consider counting the 20 feet of curbing that fronts the tongue of land belonging to you, as part of the uninterrupted street parking. The total curbed footage would be 20' plus an additional 71' that fronts our property, for a total of 91 feet. The variance we would ask for is the ability to count your 20 feet of curb space and 5 feet of our driveway as part of the required 96 feet, (the driveway portion to be considered as back-up space). The current walkway access through your property will not be impeded at all, and we do not propose any changes to the landscape, except an enhancement of the automatic watering system, to provide the shrubs and trees with better care. The Planning Commission will need to know you do not object to the proposed variance before they will consider our request. If you have no objections to the use of your street frontage for the purpose of this variance, please sign below and forward this letter to Doyle Brightenburg, our Building Designer who is acting for us in the variance filing and review with the Planning Commission. I am enclosing a stamped addressed envelope for that purpose. Feel free to amend the statement in any way you wish. If you have access to a fax, you could fax him a copy on 552-9512 and mail the original. We are trying to meet a Planning Commission date of Friday Sept. 8th for the variance submission. The cottage will be an attractive addition, with a design echoing the present house. We believe it will be a significant enhancement to the neighborhood. I can be reached on 510 768-6811 during the day and 510 530,1428 in the evening. Shem Morgan can be reached on 510 339-8143 if you want to ask any questions or discuss this further. Thank you for your attention to our request. S~rin Eggling "I have no objection to the variance for a building permit at 230/232 Van Ness, which would allow credit for the curbed street frontage of the portion of my property extending out to Van Ness, and co~g~ous w~~Tage of 230/232 Van Ness)~ Signed: Date: IIIIIIL] .. I :~0 ..... T~IIII11 ¢,~-:,,,1 :~NOZ NI) .I. INfl 'l'9"l.Lhl~Cllg~;~ll Cl~IIH.L m~ ~' IIIIIILI (g;~t'l, ~ 01.~ - aNOH¢I) ~IOVIN I~=JH9 GNI~ GNIIDD:I NI~I~S ( £'a ~NOZ NI) /INn '~¥1.I.N=IQIS=Ia OalHJ. ¥ The Ashland Planning Depariment.preliminari~,, approved thisreque~t '. If-ahearing is requeste-~ it will be scheduled for the f°llowi'ng month. on July 2~3, 2003. This action will be ~ ~d by the Ashland Unless there is a c~/ Planning Commission Hearings Board at ..,~ p.m. on August 12, conclusion of the hi...,~ the record shall remain open for at least 20,03 at lhe 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 August 4, 2003. The written request for the public healing must include your 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..If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time an~, ,date stated above~ there will be no public testimony permitted. Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, at 541-552-2041. ,~ce, if a participant so requests before the seven days after the hearing. The ordinance criteria applicable to this applicalton are attached to this notice. Oregon by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an is based on also precludes your ~ight of appeal to LUBA on that cattedon. Failure of the wilh sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to Ihe issue Ixecludes an action for damages In circuit courL A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are availa~ for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days ~ to Ihe hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, If requested. NI materials are available at the Ashland Planning DepartmenL City Hall, 20 East Main StreeL Ashland, Oregon 97520. Our TrY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. E~terlor Eteva6oal NOTE: Public comment concerning the project's landscapi~ plan will betaken on August 4, 2003 between 3:00 and 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering building located at 51 Winbum Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on August 6, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. PLANNING ACTION 2003-092 is a request for Site Review for a three-unit condominium project for the property located at 'I 24 Alida Street, at the corner of Alida and Blaine Streets. lhe proposal involves moving the existing residence further to the south and a Variance to the required distance between the existing and proposed buildings (.18.5 feet required, .14 feet proposed). Comprehensive Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R~2; Assessor's Map #: 39 .1 i= 09 DA; Tax Lot: 3500. APPLICANI: Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov SITE REVIEW 18,72.050 ~Criteria for Approval. deny a site plan: - The following criteria shall' be used to approve or 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. ' T.hat adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer', paved access to-and throug~ 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 VARIANCF The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as follows: 1) 2) That there are unique or unuSual circumstances which apply to this site which do not apply elsewhere. 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 andthe 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) ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING August 20, 2003 Mark Knox, Planner Community Development Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR. 97520 RE: Alida Street Residential Development Dear Mark, This letter is written to both amend the Site Review Application and provide additional information for the proposed residential project located at 124 Alida Street. This response was instigated by City Planning Staff and the Historic Commission review and comments. AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN Due to concerns raised by the Historic Commission regarding the size and location of the proposed duplex, the following adjustments have been made to the Site Plan and Exterior Elevations: 1. The applicant has reduced the square footage (291 S.F.) of the proposed duplex from 3,761 S.F. to 3,470 S.F. The total project square footage (including 988 S.F. of the existing house) is now 4,458 S.F. Since the maximum house size ordinance is still in process, an accurate calculation cannot be determined; however, if the draft ordinance proposed by the Historic Commission is used the proposed project is very close in conforming to the ordinance (10,600 x .44 = 3,171 + 35% = 4,281). It must be noted that the project is not subject to the proposed maximum house size ordinance. Further, the project exceeds the landscape requirement by 17°/,o (52% proposed landscape area minus 35% minimum required area). 2. The applicant is also proposing additional landscape between the sidewalk and new duplex by shifting the 5 foot wide sidewalk next to the 6 inch curb, see Street Standards Exception below and the amended Site Plan. The landscape distance from the edge of the sidewalk to the building face would be 14.5 feet wide. 3. It is the belief of the applicant that by placing the existing house on the comer of 2635 Takelma Way Ashland, OR 97520 · Phone and Fax (541) 482-9193 "AU 2003 Alida and Blaine Streets would have a greater adverse impact on the streetscape and neighborhood compatibility. This belief is based upon the size, mass and bulk of the existing house versus the more articulated proposed duplex units. As shown on the amended Site Plan and Map A, as well as the Size Comparison Drawing, the existing house is significantly longer and more massive than the duplex (38 feet long versus 29.4 feet long) which has the wall mass broken up by varied wall setbacks and roof heights. Further, the overall height of the existing house is 23 feet for the total length of 42 feet (roof) while the duplex is 24 feet high for a length of 28 feet, see comparison drawing. It is also the applicant's belief that the new duplex is more compatible next to the street and the non conforming duplex (one block long) located directly across Blaine Street (see photograph), while the existing historic home would be more sympathetically located next to the existing historic home, to the south. 4. As shown on the amended Exterior Elevations the reduction of square footage has allowed a reduction of the wall length (along Blaine Street, 10 foot setback) from 34 feet to 29 feet. Further, the amended design shows a greater articulation of the Blaine Street facade with a variety of heights and wall setbacks. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION As requested by City Planning Staff, the applicant is providing additional information regarding the Street Standards Exception and the space allowed between buildings on the same lot: Street Standard Exception - As discussed in the original Narrative and Findings dated 11 July 2003, there is an existing 5.5 foot wide sidewalk and a 11.5 foot parkrow strip on Alida Street and there is no sidewalk presently on Blaine Street. The normal standard for Blaine Street would be a 6 inch curb, 7 foot wide parkrow and a 5 foot wide sidewalk. Due to existing conditions along the length of Blaine Street this standard is not feasible. These conditions include an existing 31 foot curb to curb width on Blaine Street (see photograph), no existing sidewalks the entire length of Blaine Street and most importantly improvements (mature landscaping and fences) made by property owners next to the existing curb. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a 5 foot wide sidewalk next to the existing curb. This will minimize the impact on existing improvements along Blaine Street if sidewalks are extended in the future. In addition, a 4.5 foot wide landscape area can be added to the 10 foot side yard setback (14.5 foot total width). This extra landscape width will provide greater setback and buffer from the sidewalk to the building face. Distance Between Buildings - The distance between buildings (setback) on the same R-2 zoned lot is one half the sum of the height of both buildings (12 foot minimum). The revised required distance between the existing house and the duplex would be 19.5 feet. (23 foot height of existing house plus 16 foot, the average height of the new duplexes, divided by 2 = 19.5 feet of separation). It is important to average the height of the duplexes since the height of the roof peaks are 13.5, 15.25, 21, 22.5 and 24 feet. Further, two thirds of the existing house is adjacent to the 15.2 foot high portion of the duplexes' roof peak. The applicant is requesting 14 feet of distance. As also mentioned in the original Narrative and Findings, the justification for the variance request is based upon the development patterns (unusual circumstances) and street rhythm of this historic district and neighborhood. The average distance between buildings in this district and neighborhood is 11.8 feet, see Map A and original Findings. .--I m m .-I .~ =~ Alida Street Residential Development [~/1'© ~ 124 Alida Street . I lliilL~ . - l t I ,ti ~ ' T~TIIIll 0 SCALE: t" = '100' 25 50 100 150 200etFe TAXLOT PosmoN$' GENERATED BY JACKSON COUNTY GIS DEPT. AND BEAR NO WARRANTY OF ACCURACY, OTHER DATA SETS ARE TYPICALLY WITHIN IM OF ACTUAL POSITION. T~111111 ARCHITECTURE LAND PLANNING PROJECT NARRATIVE/FINDINGS 11 JULY 2003 PROJECT NAME: Alida Street Residential Development TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for Site Plan Review (18.72) for a three unit condominium residential developmem, utilizing the Performance Standards Option (Chapter 18.88) for the property located on Alida and Blaine Streets in the R-2 Zone District (Chapter 18.24) and a Variance (Chapter 18.100) to allow two unattached units to be closer than the required distance. PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: Kirk Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov 678 Park Street Ashland, OR. 97520 541-944-6586 ARCHITECT/AGENT: Tom Giordano 2635 Takelma Way Ashland, OR. 97520 541-482-9193 SURVEYOR: Hoffbuhr and Associates, Inc. 1062 E. Jackson Street Medford, OR. 97504 541-779-4641 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Kerry Kencarin 545 A Street Ashland, OR. 97520 541-488-3194 2635 Takelma Way e Ashland, OR 97520 e Phone and Fax (541) 482-9193 2 PROJECT ADDRESS: 124 Alida Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 39-1E-09DA Tax Lot 1500 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN: Low density multi-family residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-2 (P overlay) DENSITY: Allowable: 3 (.24 acres x 13.5 du/acre = 3.24) Proposed: 3 LOT STATISTICS: * Total Area * Open Space/Landscape - Common - Private (Decks, patios and porches) * Private Drive/Walkways 1,852 * Building Footprint 3,238 10,592 S.F. 6,230 S.F. 700 S.F. 670 S.F. S.F. .24 acres 100% 52.% 17.5% 30.5% PARKING REQUIRED/PROVIDED: 4 Covered (garages and carport) 2 On Street Credit (7 available) 6 Total SITE DESCRIPTION: Land use and zoning - The subject property is bounded by both Alida and Blaine Streets, See Vicinity/Zone Map. In general, the neighborhood is single family in character; however, there are some multi family complexes reflecting the R-2 Zoning. Map A, provided by the applicant shows 1, 1 ½ and 2 story structures along Alida and Blaine Streets. Some of the one story homes are tall due to steep roofs and high platforms, see Photos. Most of the existing homes have a traditional architectural theme, see attached photos. Ashland High School is located one block to the East (Morse Avenue). Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning are: 3 North - Blaine Street and One story duplex residential; Zoned R-2 South - One story single family residential; Zoned R-2 East - One story duplex residential; R-2 West - Alida Street and one story single family residential; Zoned R-2 Access - Auto access to the subject property is from both Alida Street and Blaine Street. Both Alida and Blaine Streets are classified as neighborhood (local) streets with 70 and 50 foot wide ROWs respectively. Within the right-of-way on Alida is an existing 5.5 foot wide sidewalk, and an 11.5 foot wide parkrow strip. Blaine Street has a 31 foot wide paved width (curb to curb) and no sidewalks. In fact, many residents have planted trees and shrubs adjacent to the curb, see Photo. A major bus route is located one block to the south on Siskiyou Boulevard. Ashland's Downtown Plaza is located approximately.a half a mile to the west of the site in easy walking distance via existing sidewalks. Physical Constraints - The .24 acre site slopes down to the north approximately 3.7%. There are four existing trees on the site, sec Site Plan and Tree/Landscape Assessment provided by the Landscape Architect, below. Existing Tree Assessment - The site contains 4 mature trees, and a perimeter hedge of evergreen shrubs. The existing hedge will not serve the proposed future development, and its removal will create the opportunity for a more open and aesthetic relationship to the street. All of the existing trees have been impacted from recent (this year) lack of water, all but one are trees that are not native, and require summer water to stay out of stress. Along the back property line, on the adjacent property, are two trees in good condition. There should be tree protection measures implemented during excavation of the applicants' property to ensure no damage within the drip lines of these trees. Tree Inventory - (Graphic for the tree inventory follows at the end of the Findings). 1) 15" Sorbus aucuparia, Mountain Ash - Dead through lack of summer water lllll[l. _ 4 2) Multi-tmnked (3 ~ 4") Fraxinus spp., Ash - This tree looks like it was cut down when it was young and has a stump sprouted into a multi-stemmed "shrub". The tree is healthy, but will never be a good street tree, and that is what its current location would suggest it be. I recommend removal of this tree and replacement of its loss as part of the street tree planting. 3) 14" Picea pungens glauca, Blue Spruce - This tree is browning out due to lack of summer water. Through irrigation it could be saved, but is currently very stressed. 4) 10" Calocedms decurrens, Incense Cedar - This is a young Incense Cedar in good condition and should be preserved. Tree Inventory - neighboring property to the east: 1) 30" Acer platanoides 'Crimson King' - Good condition, should be protected. 2) Multi stemmed Sorbus aucuparia - Good condition, should be protected. There is an existing older home located on the northwest portion of the property, see Historic Designation remarks below. There are two structures (garage/carport) located offBlaine Street (northwest comer), see Aerial Photo and Site Plan. Historic Designation - The existing single story home is located within the Siskiyou/Hargadine Historic District and was built after 1904, see attached Historic Survey. It is designated as a Contributing Property for this district. The original house is one story and 1,000 S.F. (approximately) in size, see Site Plan and Photograph. This simple bungalow/craftsman is comprised of a smaller offset gable over the porch. Its approximate height (finish grade to the mid point between the eave and the roof peak) is 16 feet. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request - The applicant desires to build a three unit apartment/condominium complex on the subject property. The applicant will rent the apartments. However, in order to provide as much future investment "flexibility" as possible, the applicant will separate the units by condominium ownership. This is an "in-fill" project in keeping with the development patterns of the neighborhood and the R-2 Zone Designation, see Aerial Photograph, Map A and Parcel Map. It has been a general policy of the City of Ashland as well as the State of Oregon to encourage in- fill projects within the City limits. This policy is based upon minimizing auto related transportation trips and the preservation of rural land. Further, because existing services and utilities are within established urban neighborhoods, the expensive cost of extension of new services and utilities are not necessary. This site is also near the City's Downtown Commercial area, High School, Elementary School and SOU. The project conforms to the requirements of Chapter 18.24 (R-2) regarding, lot coverage, height, recreation area and parking, see Lot Statistics. The proposed new duplex units will comply with lot) setbacks. The existing the Historic D~smct s 2 foot front yard and 10 foot side yard (comer house will be re-located (see below) to the south portion of the property and have its historic original setback of 17.5 feet. The house on the adjacent lot to the south is approximately 15 feet from the front property line. The proposed carport is allowed to be six feet from the rear property line since it will be 50 feet from a public street and less than 10 feet high. The applicant is also requesting a Variance (Chapter 18.100) to allow units one and two to be closer together than what is required by the R-2 Zone District, see Variance Findings. The required distance is 18.5 feet and the applicant is proposing 14 feet. Allowable Density - The allowable density for the subject property is 3.24 dwelling units (13.5 x .24). The applicant is requesting three D.U. Relocation of Existing House - The applicant intends to relocate the existing historic home on the subject property, see Site Plan. This new location is in the southwest comer of the property. As mentioned above, the applicant will keep the same historic front yard setback (17.5 feet). The new side yard setback will be 6 feet (per Ordinance). Paved vehicle access to the development will be from Blaine Street, see Site Plan. No additional curb cuts will be necessary. The required auto parking is six spaces (2 garages and 2 carports) and two on-street credit spaces. There are seven on-street spaces available, see Site Plan. As required, six covered bicycle spaces will be included in the garages and carports. Public transportation is located on Siskiyou Boulevard, one block to the south of the development. Bike lanes are located on Siskiyou Boulevard (one block to the south) and East Main Street (one block to the north). The development is also within walking distance of the downtown and associated commercial activities. Utilities and Services - Electricity, CTV, water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lines are located within the ROW of Alida and Blaine Streets. The additional two units will not significantly impact these utilities. Efficient water use fixtures will be used per City of Ashland Standards. Police protection is 6 provided by the City of Ashland within the City limits. Fire protection is available to all portions of the site from both Alida and Blaine Streets. A fire hydrant is located across the street (Alida) from the subject property. A ten foot wide PUE will be provided along the street frontage per Public Works Standards. Landscape/Openspace - The applicant is providing 52% of the site in landscape. This landscaping will be used to accenting proposed buildings, provide screening and create openspace. The Site Design shows a mix of one (existing) and two (proposed) two story structures with landscaping generously located throughout the site. One existing tree ( blue spruce) will be relocated on site, see Landscape Design. The Landscape Design will utilize low water plant material and irrigation system per the City of Ashland requirements. An open space area (over 700 S.F.) is located at the center of the site (between units one and two) for recreational purposes. Units 1, 2 and 3 will have private patios and porches, see Site Plan, units 2 and 3 will have second story decks for a total of 1,370 S.F. This is a total recreation/openspace area of over 13% (8% is required). The Streetscape Design will comply with the City's requirements regarding street trees every 30 feet within the 11.5 foot wide existing park row strip on Alida Street. The 5.5 foot wide sidewalk is also existing. The applicant will either install a new 4 foot wide sidewalk and a 5.5 foot wide park row strip or sign in favor of future improvements since there are presently no sidewalks on Blaine Street. Site Design and Architecture - Within Historic Districts and established neighborhoods, Architectural and Site Design Compatibility is very important. This importance is expressed in the City of Ashland's "Site Design and Use Standards". Specifically, the Historic District Standards, recommend the following elements be consistent with neighborhood appearance; height, scale, massing, setback, roof shapes, rhythm of openings, platforms, directional expression, sense of entry and imitations. Every attempt has been made by the applicant to provide a Site and Architectural Design which is consistent with these elements of the Historic Design Standards. The following response substantiates the consistency of the project design with the neighborhood: Height - As mentioned in the Site Description section of the Narrative, although there are many one story structures in the vicinity of the subject property, there are also a number of 1 ½ and 2 story homes, see Map A and Photographs. Further, some of the one story homes are tall (16 to 20 feet) due to steep roof pitches and high fn'st floor platforms, see Photographs. The applicant is proposing a mixed one and two story duplex. The first story is located along the frontage of Alida Street and is 12.5 feet high while the second story is located to the rear with a 7 21 foot maximum height, see Exterior Elevations. This is not a tall building when considering that the existing house presently on the site is 16 feet high. As a reference, the applicant is providing a photographs of a recently approved house on 4th and "B" Streets for a visual comparison. This one house has a similar foot print size as one of the proposed duplex units. The proposed duplex is 22 by 60 feet while the 4t~ and "B" Street house is 24' x 54'. The 4th and "B" house is 24 feet high and mostly two story with a small one story in the rear. The proposed duplex is a maximum of 21 feet high with at least 1/3 of the front (Alida Street) building mass being one story (12.5 feet high). Scale - As defined in the City's Design Standards, scale is the relationship of size and proportion to adjacent buildings. The photographs of homes within the immediate vicinity of the subject property, (both old as well as recent additions), show a variety of traditional styles and building forms. When these photos are compared to the proposed development, there is a distinct similarity in scale. The one story (12.5 feet high) building mass along Alida provides a similar scale to the existing homes along the street. Also, when comparing the Building Footprints of the proposed project with other existing buildings in the area, (see attached map A), the footprint is similar in size and form. Further, the development patterns of the area (lot size, setbacks, space between buildings) are consistent with the proposed development, see Parcel Map, Aerial Photo and Map A. The applicant has also oriented the front porch of the duplex to direct one entrance to Alida and the other toward Blaine. This strategy gives the visual impression ora single family home on both Alida and Blaine Streets. Massing - Complementary massing is an important design element in insuring Historic Neighborhood Compatibility. The applicant's design shows the duplex broken up into smaller, varied masses. These include separate porch elements, first and second story building heights, a varied gabled roof form and articulation of the building walls (in and out), and a variety of building setbacks. Further, the massing of the duplex steps up from the street and then down in the rear to keep from looking "box like." The photographs of existing homes in the area show similar varied massing. Setback - As mentioned above, the applicant is relocating the existing Historic Structure on the site. For consistency the applicant is keeping the historic front yard setback of 17.5 feet. The existing home on the adjacent property to the south is 16 feet. The new units will conform to the 12 The landscape architect has designed a plan which will have 50% coverage within one year and 90% coverage within five years, see landscape plan. This plan also shows a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and flowering plant species. The existing trees will remain except the blue spruce which will be relocated on the site. The front yard setbacks will be buffered by landscape. The Site/Landscape Plan shows that the garages and carports are screened from Blaine Street by large canopied deciduous and evergreen trees. Further, the landscape architect has added other plant material to screen the garages and carports from the common and private openspace areas. The irrigation system will also comply with the city of Ashland Standards, see notes on the Preliminary Landscape Plan. II-B-4) Open Space II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development. II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other groung covers which do not provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this requirement. II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. The applicant is providing 13% of both common and private recreation openspace for the development. The private recreation/openspace areas include the front porches, patios, and second story decks. The common recreation/openspace area is the turf area between units one and two, see calculations in Lot Statistics and Finding A, above. II-B-5) Natural climate control II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth. Deciduous trees have been located on the south side of buildings, see Site Plan. H-B-6) Building materials: II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors shouM be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are unacceptable. 13 The colors selected by the applicant (body, trim and windows) will be earth tones. Sample colors will be presented to the Historic Commission for review and approval. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS: Note: The Sits Design and Architecture Section of the Project Description should also be reviewed with the Findings below. IV-C-I) Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and across the street. The applicant is providing a mix of one and two story units, see Site and Architectural Design section in Narrative for complete description. The applicant will also move the existing historic one story home to the south. IV-C-2) Relate the size and proportions of new structure to the scale of adjacent buildings. The total three unit complex is a mix of one and two story building massing which is indicative of the neighborhood, see Site and Architectural Design section in the Narrative and photographs of buildings in the neighborhood. IV-C-3) Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most buildings from the historic period. The exterior elevations of the proposed units depict a traditional design. The applicant is providing front porches, dormers, variable building massing and wall plane setbacks. Also see Site and Architectural Design section of the Narrative. IV-C-4) Maintain the historic facade lines of slreetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. The facade lines of the existing adjacent building to the south is 16 foot setback as shown on the City aerial map and Site Plan. This front yard setback, of the existing buildings, is closer to the street than what is allowed in the historic district, see City Aerial and Topo Maps. The applicant is proposing a 17.5 foot setback for the relocated existing home (same dimension as existing location) and 20 feet setback for the new units. IV-C-5) Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. The applicant has selected a traditional design theme for the proposed buildings, see Exterior Elevations. The roof form of these proposed buildings reflect the roof form of historic buildings in the neighborhood (see photographs) by providing similar gable roof forms, dormers and similar roof pitch. 14 IV-C-6) Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the facade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade. The Exterior Elevations depict a traditional design theme. The traditional style has a respect for the alternation of wall areas with the door and window elements in the facade. IV-C-7) The use ora raised pla(form is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older building in Ashland All front porches will be elevated at least one foot above finish grade. A minimum of two raisers will be required, see Site Plan and Exterior Elevations. IV-C-8) Relate the vertical, horizontal or nondirectional facade character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. See Site and Architectural Design section in Narrative, Exterior Elevations and photos of existing buildings for verification of the above Finding. IV-C-9) Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, patios, and other pronounced architectural forms. All proposed buildings have articulated main entrances. This is expressed by the covered porches (7.5 x 12), connecting walkway to the sidewalk, and the door and window treatment, see Exterior Elevations. IV-C-lO) Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used The applicant has utilized the traditional style for the design of the proposed new buildings. However, the design shown on the exterior elevations are not replicas of historic buildings. The applicant utilized the traditional form, massing, proportion, and design elements ( roof, door, windows, trim, etc.). D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS: Approval standard: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section include areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading shall be landscaped and screened as follows: In general these Findings do not apply to the proposed project since all on-site parking will be in garages or carports. 15 H-D-l) Screening at required yards 1) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches or higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining walk Not applicable, there are no surface parking areas; however, the carports will be screened from view, see Landscape Plan. H-D-2) Screening abutting property lines 1) 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 and additional requirement. H-D-3) Landscape Standards: Parking lot landscaping shall consist ora minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of l tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. 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. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2feet from any curb or paved area. The land~caped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years. Lank'caped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip abutting parking stall 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 16 the interior parking stalls. Not applicable. II-D-4) Residential Screening Parking areas adjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. Not applicable. Hedge Screening The required hedge screen shall be installed as follows: Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4 years. 2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shah be planted such. that 100% coverage is achieved within 2 years. Not Applicable. H-D-6) Other Screening 1) Other screening and buffering shah be provided as follows: Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained with the refuse area. The applicant is providing a six foot high masonry wall and gate to screen the trash/recycle area from view, see Site/Landscape Plan. Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Not applicable. Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. 17 All proposed wall mounted lighting (front porches, decks and patios) will be directed away from adjacent residential properties. 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. Location for Street Trees 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 shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of community DevelopmenL The applicant is providing street trees within the existing 11.5 foot wide park row strip on Alida Street and at a minimum, street trees on Blaine Street. As shown on the Landscape Plan, these trees will be irrigated, have root barriers and conform to the City Standards. wtr-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees 1) 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 the rate of one tree for every 30feel of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variation to the spacing permitted for specific sit limitations, such as driveway approaches. b) Trees shall 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 shall not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than l O feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20feet distant. d) 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. e) Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. 18 f) Trees shah not be planted within 2feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shah 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 hearth 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 trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. The Landscape Plan, prepared by the Landscape Architect, shows compliance with the above Standards. ReplacementofStreetTrees 1) Existing street trees removed by development projects shah 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. The blue spruce will be relocated on site, see Landscape Plan. The Mountain Ash is dead and will be removed. The multi-trunked Ash will be removed and replaced per the recommendation of the Landscape Architect. The Cedar, and the trees on the adjacent property, will be protected during construction, see Landscape Plan notes. Recommended Street Trees 1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The Landscape Architect has selected street trees from the list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. D. The 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. In general the is an "in-fill" project with minimal impact on existing city facilities and utilities. There will be only two, three bedroom units added since there is an existing home located on the site. Further, during the Pre-application Review of the project, no concerns were raised by City Staff. 19 Water. - There is an existing 4 inch line in Alida Street. There is sufficient water from this line to service the two additional units and the site landscaping. The existing fire hydrant is on the southwest comer of Alida and Blaine Streets and is within 250 feet of all structures and has been approved by the City's Fire Department. Sanitary Sewer - There is an existing 8 inch line in a portion of Blaine Street. This line is sufficient to service the two additional units. A 6 foot wide utility easement has been provided along the east property line to serve the units. Urban Storm Sewer - There is an existing 12 inch line, plus curb inlets in Alida Street and a 15" line with inlets on Blaine Street. Runoff will collect in gutters and downspouts on the buildings and directed either underground or on the surface to the existing City drainage system. Paved Access - Vehicle access to the garages and carports is from Blaine Street, see Site Plan. Pedestrian and bicycle access is from both Alida and Blaine Streets. Electrici _ty/CTV/telephone - Existing overhead services are located on Alida and Blaine Streets. Services from the existing poles will be connected to the proposed buildings (underground). Adequate Transportation - The proposed development (2 new units) will generate approximately 15.2 daily vehicle trips (7.6 x 2). This is not significant since Siskiyou and East Main Streets are located near the site, one block either direction. Further, walking and bicycling is an alternative to the auto since the city's downtown is close to the site and sidewalks/bike lanes are located on both East Main Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. The applicant is proposing either a 4 foot wide sidewalk and a 5.5 foot wide park row for Blaine Street or sign in favor of future improvements. These widths will match the existing curb to curb dimensions along Blaine Street (existing 31 feet wide curb to curb). As the photograph of Blaine Street shows, there are no sidewalks on either side of the street and many home owners have planted trees and large shrubs next to the curbs. VARIANCE REQUEST (Chapter 18.100) The Planning Commission/Staff can grant a Variance for the minimum setback distance between buildings on one lot when the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. The distance between buildings (setback) on a single lot in the R-2 Zone District is one half the sum of the height of both buildings (12 foot minimum). The required distance between unit one and units two/three would be 18.5 feet (21 foot height of the duplex, plus 16 foot height of the existing house, divided by 2 = 18.5). The applicant is requesting 14 feet. 20 The justification for this Variance is based upon the development patterns (unusual circumstances) and street rhythm of this Historic District. These development patterns direct the Building and Site Design. Map A shows the building footprints along Alida Street. The average setback distance between buildings is 11.8 feet. The proposed distance between unit one and units two/three is 14 feet which is greater than the average distance along Alida Street, regardless of property line location. The normal side yard setback in the City of Ashland is 6 feet. When two homes are built along a common side property line the total separation is 12 feet. This twelve foot distance is also less than what the applicant is proposing (14 feet). This Separation Ordinance was meant for large high density complexes not modest three unit developments within Historic Districts. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed three unit development located within this Historic District, complies with the character of this district. This is a unique circumstance which applies to this site and is not typically applied outside the Historic District. 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. (Ord. 2425 gl, 1987). The proposed development will provide the City with two additional moderately priced housing units close to Ashland's Downtown Commercial area. Further, the requested Variances will not adversely impact the development pattern of adjacent properties or the building rhythm of the Historic Districts, see Finding A above, Map A, and Aerial Photograph. A further benefit to the community in granting this Variance is that the development will be compatible with the mass, bulk, and scale of the area and the historic home can be saved in its historic context and not physically coupled with the new duplex unit. Most important, granting of this will not degrade the amount of proposed landscape (52% proposed vs 35% required). In conclusion, the City can find that the benefits of the project greatly out weigh any adverse impacts on the development of adjacent uses, the intent of the Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan. IZ That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed (Ora[ 2'775, 1996). The proposed Site Design conforms to the existing development patterns and street rhythm of adjacent properties and this Historic District. The setback distance between buildings and the Architectural Scale of this Historic Neighborhood was established before the current project proposal and therefore it can be found that the circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed, also see Finding A, above. UOI~eJO 'puelqsv leeJ~,S ep!l~ 1~: L ~ ~ luetudole^eo le!luep!se1:l leeJ1s ep!IV ~ ~ F ~ L J L J L J L J ~: ~ 133~1S ValqV m z o · = =~ Alida Street Residential Development ~, ~m124Alida Street ~ ~ Ashland, Oregon ~JUL g g 2003 Oc~Z~ ALIDA STREET :till l I'ICZ,'Z,L $¥Rt:E RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALIDA AND BLAIN STREET ASHLAND, OREGON Z ITl II I11 I'rl KENCAII~I ENVIRONHENTAL DESIGN, ASLA L/a~OSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & E;~VIR0~tENTAL PLANNINg J~L ~ ~. ?nn~ ~PS Form 10-900-A United States Department of the Intedor National Park Service OMB J~i:proval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: ,,.7_ Page;. 95 Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District, Ashland, OR Reedy's are listed at this address in 1948. By '1964 the house was owned by Alvin M. and Ruth Throne, who's fiamily remained here for many years.~ The Reedy House is a large and sprawling single-story ranch design w~th two projecting gables (one a garage) that form a 'U" arotmd the primary gable volume. Modest "Cape Cod" details oTpi~l of the period survive and although it .is possible that the Reedy House as been augmented since its original development the overall result retains sufficient integrity to relate its appearance during the period of historic significance. 251.00 MER~rYN AND ETHEL CHASTMN ['lOUSE 249 HILLCREST ST STYLE: MODERN PERIOD: SPLIT LEVEL 1946 391E09CA13600 HISTORIC CONTRIBUTING This house, on land owned by 'the Cat~,er Land Company as late as 1920, ~ probably built in circa 1946 after its purchase by Meryvn and Ethel Chastain (JCD 266:300). The Chastain's do not appear to have remained at this address very long, according to available cixy directories. Balferd B. Buckles owned and occupied the house in 1964. The Chastain House is a single story clipped gable volume at the comer of Hillcrest and Iowa streets with a garage facing Iowa and the primary entrance facing Hillcrest~ A small clipped gable canopy covers a second entry, on Iows. Horizontal siding, fixed and double hung windows, decorative Ubargeboard" details and other elements appear original. A projecting'bay window on the Hillscrest elevation may be a more recent alteration. Although somewhat modified, the Chastain House retains sufficient integrity to relate its appearance during the period of historic significance. 252.00 STEPHF2qS HOUSE 1970 936 BLAINE ST 391E09DAI400 ST~t.E: NEO-ECL£C'HC: BUNGALOW NoN*HISTORIC/NON-CoNTRIBLrI'ING Divided from the James A~ Viola Young property that extended to the corner by 1949, this gable VOlume was built in 1970 according to the As. sessor's office and was owned and occupied by William F. Stephen in I986 according to city. directories. 253.00 s~,./#4so THOMPSON-HARGADINE HOUSE [GF. OItGfl HAR~,tO~N~. HSe III' 1905C 124 Al. IDA ST 391E09DA1500 STYLE; LAn'Il 19qH/20TH C. AM£PaC, AN Mov.: BUNGALOW, ClZnI:'rSMAN HI5TORIC CONTRIBUTING Probably built after 1904, when Jacob Thompson and George Hacgadine were parties to a ~ransaction involving these lot.% the exact construction of this house is uncertain. Clearly it was standing on the site by 1910 when the structure is document by the County Assessor on :he site, owned by Jacob Thompson (JCD ! 5:542). Bo~h Thompson and Hargadine families were early Ashland pioneers, and may have been related somehow. Thompson lived on North Main Street that year and Hargadine, who listed his occupation as "Farmer" is listed at this address in t~he Polk County Directory. By 1920 Thompson retained title, although the field books also note Beatrice Hargadine, George's wife. By NPS Form 10-900-A United States Department of the Inte6or National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet OMB ~.eroval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) Section Number: 7 Page: 96 Sisldyou. Hargadine Historic District, Ashland, OR 1949 the property had been divided, with James A. Viola Young having purchased this corner ($CD 223:454). George and Beatrice Hargadine, via a life estate, still retaining ownership of the smaller corner facing Morse, now Tax Lot 1400. The Thompson-Hargadine House is a small simple bungalow fbrm comprised of a main gable and a smaller offset gable over the porch.. Siding, windows, and porch detailing all remain from the original construction period and the house is set on a prominent corner, enhanced by mature landscaping. The Thompson-Hargadine House effectively relates its original design and appearance during the period of historic significance. 254.00 H~RY & MYRTLE MAYBERRY HOUSE 1924C 140 ALIDA ST 391E09DA1600 STYLE: L~a~ lffr~'20m C. AMF. mC/~ Mov.: BUNC~ALOW Hlb~ro~c CONTRIBUTING This volume was built circa 1924, after Henry Mayberry purchased the lot from William Wennec (JCD 149:506) Mayberry, like so many residents of this area, worked for the Southern Pacific Raih'oad company. He and hi~ wife Myrtle retained possession for many years,. As late as 1956 Myrtle, by then a widow, is.still listed at tl~ address in city directories. A single-story gable volume with a full width front porch, the Mayberry House was re-sided prior to 1989 and has had some additional alteration. While modified, the house retains sufficient integrity to relate its appearance during the period of historic significance. 255.00 A. C. MELLINGER HOUSE 148 ALIDA ST STYLE: I~z 19~-b'2Om C. AM~m~ MOV.: 1906c 391E09DA1700 HISTORIC CONTRIBUTING This gable bungalow was built about 1906, after Jacob Thompson sold the lot to A. C. Mitlinger (JCD 57:100). J. Hiratn Mellinger, a carpenter, may have built the structure. In 1909 the house was sold to Charles R. and M. J. Beardsley, who kept it as a rental (JCD 71:477) In 1920 William Wermer purchased this and the adjacent lot and the following year sold the house to T. A. Cole (JCD 155:213). Claude and Thelma Cole, who owned and likely developed several properties in this area (see below) lived at this address in the 1940s and 1950s. Thurber A. Cole apparently retained possession and was listed as the owner-occupant in 1964. I~ The Mellinger House is a small structure notable for 'the open board work of the gable end. Simple window trim, wide bargeboards, large eaves and other typical elements of the style re~rmin. The Meilinger House retains sufficient integrity to relate its appearance during the period of historic significance. Although not at documented, the Cole and Collins family were likely related somehow, as several properties in this area were repeatedly transferred back and forth between them,, as in often typical of generation-to- generation real estate activity. ~ ~ARED FOR ' ~ ONLY JACKSON COUNTY APPROX. V~e co~. 54.00' I 62 11829 4200 Ol E. SI~ ~ ~9 1E gAD lDO' 3200 ~t00 3OOO 7900 0.~5 AC. CITY PARK 215' C,~LC. 1500'0" 1400 5~,TE_. cs _ ,o6' 54' 12 1600 1700 1600 1900 2000 2100 22;300 2200 ;, lOO 12.21 AC. J I I 25 I 24 22 VAC. OliO. 1529 i, I .,c. OR~). ,52, ~/ '~"JS'~ 'N915:i0 qV/N-:INNO~IAN::J N~I~gN~J NOgBUO 'ONY'IHSY I':l:~rdj.$ NIY'IB aNY var'lY ..LN~,~O'I::I~O 'IYLI.N::iOIS::I~I ::l':i~. .,~ -g / ~')$~ 'N91S3C] I¥/N3NNOtJlANq N~)N3~ NO~3~IO '(3N¥'IHSY I J.33bLLS NIV'I8 aNvYarlv I IN31~IdO13A30 'IVIJ.N3alS3B 33bLI.S e15111~$1S i m i,1 NoUce is.hereby given that a PUBUC HEARING' on the' following ^cow°f~ ' ' · "' ' ' request wf~ respect to ~e ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will app, ca~ c~eda are ~vallable f~x Inspec~on at no cost and will be provided ,t be, held before lhe ASHLAND PLAHNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on September 9, 2003 at t:30 p.m. at Ihe ASHLAND CMC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. .re~sonable cost, If requested. A ex)P/of the Staff Report w,l be available fur impe~ion seven days IXkX to ~ hearing and vd{ be provkind at reasonable ~ ff requested. HI materials are available at the Asfdand Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main. Skeet, Ashland, Oregon 97520. the feco4'd shM remain open for at least ~even days afWr lhe hemtng. Susan Yate~ at ~e Ashland Planning Depafl~ Ci(y Hall, at 641-552-2041. Our TrY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. N NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on September 3, 2003, 7:00 ' p.m. in thc Community DeveloPment and E~g Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winbum Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by thc Ashland Tree Commission on September 4, 2003 in the Community Development and EngineeringServices building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way at 5:00p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2003-111 is a request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Review approval for a three-lot, three-unit development under the Performance standards Option for the property located at 259 N. Laurel Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to.allow for the removal of twO trees from the property. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05 DA, Tax Lot: 1100. APPLICANT: Nathan Sanford Outline Plan / Final Plan Narrative The narrative provides the following information: 1. Type of project 2. Project information (i.e. owner, legal description, density, etc.) 3. Background information 4. Site description 5. Project description Project name: 259 Laurel Street · Type of Planning Action: A request for Outline Plan/Final Plan approval under the performance Standards option (18.88) to construct two connected town homes and create three separate tax lots. Project Information: Project Address: 259 N. Laurel Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Owner/Applicant: Nathan Sanford 2726 Takelma Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 ConstruCtion by: Sanford Design and Renovation LLC 599 Wilson Road Ashland, Oregon 97520 Surveyor: Hardy Engineering Legal Description: Tax Lot No. 1100 Sec391E5DA Comprehensive Plan Design: Multi-Family Residential Zoning Designation: R-3 Density: Proposed three separate tax lots, (1) single family and (2) connected townhouse residences. Street Tree Standard Proposed street trees are to be planted on Laurel Street to meet this requirement. Two additional street trees are going to be added to the public alley to increase the existing Canopy and aesthetics of the alley; see landscape plan. Historic District Development The proposed project is located within the City of Ashland's Historic District. Other historic homes in this area are being restored and it is SDR's intention to rest°re this historic home under the guidelines defined by the Nation Historic Registry and under the guidance of the Ashland Historic Commission. Being an R-3 zone there are other multi- family dwellings surrounding this property. It is SDR's goal to develop this parcel to its full potential by building two townhouses that combine scale and historic character to blend into the surrounding neighborhood. Height and Solar Setback The existing house located at 259 N. Laurel Street is a story and a half-high structure with a $/12-pitch hip roof. Though the proposed townhouses will be taller than the existing structure they .are located well behind the existing house off the alley. The visual impact on Laurel St. will be minimal especially with existing mature trees screening the rooffines. The proposed structure meets all solar setback requirements in regards to the adjacent property directly to the north. The property is classified Standard B with a slope of 4% to the north. The shadow point of the building is located 19t~ above ambient grade atthe comer of a 5/12 pitch roof. This point is setback 8t~ fi.om the property line, which meets the solar setback requirements. Prolect description Land Use The proposed project will use the City's Performance Option that allows for a planned community development. This project is comprised of three units, one existing single family and two attached. The allowable density for this parcek The lot size of this property qualifies for three units or more, rather SDR is requesting that only two units be built and be attached to maximize space on the property and save a large existing Walnut tree. Circulation/Access/Parking Driveway access for on-site parking requirements for the existing single family and the two proposed townhouses are located offthe public alley, no additional curb cuts are needed on Laurel Street. Parking for the project will be provided by a combination of on and off street parking and covered parking. A total of(6) spaces are requked for the three individual dwellings: LandseaPe The existing and proposed building sites have existing mature trees which will all remain except two, see tree protection plan. Every effort, will be taken to ensure the survival of all remaining trees see landscape and irrigation plans. Architectural/Site Design Compatibility SDR has taken every opportunity to provide a site and architectural design that is compatible with the adjacent properties and neighborhood. SDR has reduced the potential density to conform to this' character as well as saving as many existing trees as possible. This assures the height; mass and scale of the proposed building is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Several architectural elements haVe been carried over from the existing structure to ensure compatibility. To achie;~re this, the same 5/12- pitch hip style roof is being used as well as similar cedar shingles and window trim. Findines The following findings are provided to address criteria for Site Review under the Performance Standards Option Outline Plan. Criteria for A Outline Plan 18.88.303 The planning Commission shall approve the Outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: ,4. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. In general, the development will meet or exceed aH applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. SDR has provided the City with an application package consisting of drawings, Narrative and Findings. This application package is provided for review of the general public, City Staff; and City Commissions (Historic, Tree and Planning). The Application consists of the follOwing items: Drawings: 1. Existing Conditions and vicinity map 2. Tree Protection Plan, showing existing trees and structures to remain and be removed. 3. Site plan delineating lOt layout, setbacks, building envelopes and use coverage. 4. Irrigation Plan showing how the existing and proposed landscape will be sustained by an irrigation system. 5. Irrigation legend 6. 'Landscaping Plan, showing proposed street trees and landscaping for the existing and proposed development. 7. Elevations of the proposed structure that indicate material, color, texture, shape and other architectural elements. additional traffic trips per day. The proposed development is near the entrance to the public alley and Laurel Street is considered a lateral cOllector street. The two proposed units would not be a significant impact to the existing traffic flow in this area of Ashland. The proximity of the proposed development lends itself to walking or biking to downtown or the railroad district thus, .reducing the use of automobile traffic. According to representatives from all city facilities during the pre-application process the proposed units will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The Existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc. have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the 'open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. All efforts have been made to preserve existing mature trees that are the significant features as defined in the tree protection, irrigation and landscaping plans. C. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the comprehensive plan. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed in anyway. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. Ail landscaping will be installed prior to issuance of final occupancy. The development will be completed in one phase and will be completed within one year. E. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density stand____.ards established under this chapter. The proposed project is within the allowable number of units defined by the R-3 criteria. No bonus density is requested. F. Manner offinancing Sanford Design and Renovation LLC is financing this project. minimum irrigation Standards are met. Historic District Design Standards: The restoration of the existing structure as well as the design of the proposed townhouses are in line with the expectations of both the Historic Commission and the Historic Districts Design Standards. That adequate catnzcity 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 B, Outline Plan Approval. Tree Inventory August 8, 2003 l'roj eet Address: 259 N. Laurel Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Owner/Applicant: Nathan Sanford 2726 Takelma Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 Common Apple Maluspumi/a. This tree is in good health and not a hazard tree. It is to be removed for its proximity to the proposed townhouse foundation. It will be mitigated on site, see landscape plan. Bo English Walnut Juglans regia. This tree is in good health and not a hazard tree. It is to be protected, see tree protection narrative by arborist. C. Cherry Tree. This tree is in good health and not a hazard tree. This tree will not be removed and will not be affected by construction activity; no additional protection measures are needed. D. California Incense Cedar Calocexints decurrens. This tree is in good health and not a hazard tree. This tree will not be removed and will not be affected by construction activity; no additional protection measures are needed. E. Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesiL This tree is in good health and not a hazarded' tree. This tree will not be removed and will not be affected by construction activity; no additional protection measures are needed. F. California Incense Cedar Calocedrus decurrens. This tree is in good health and not a hazard tree. This tree will not be removed and will not be affected by construction activity; no additional protection measures are needed. Chinese Juniper Juniperus chinensis. This tree is in good health and not a hazard tree. This tree will not be removed and will not be affected by construction activity; no additional prOtection measures are needed. Almond Tree. This tree is in good health.and dOt ahazard tree. This tree will not be removed and will not be affected by construct~ ~:l~ity; no additional protection measures are needed. '~: "' '" .O-,Oq .O-,Oq [_ L.~U~L STRLFET · !: S ep t~ 2003 Re~~ Bo~d September 4th Terry, September Terry, September 18`h Terry, September 25~Terry, Historical Open Houses in Southern Oregon September 2003 Roy & Edna Entler House Burton King House W.E. Newcombe House Hanscom Hall George & Dora Gates House Ulrich House Prudin-Davis House William & Anna Gates House Carl J. & Clara Brommoer House Tayler-Phipps Building John Banks House Joseph L. Scott Building 342 W. Chapman September 4th 9:00-1:00 Roseburg 586 "C" Street September 1st 9:00-1:00 Ashland 117 Nob Hill Street September 2nd 9:00-1:00 Ashland 201 Talent Avenue Talent 830 Minnesota Avenue Medford 839 Minnesota Avenue Medford September 13th September 21 st September 21 st 10:00-2:00 noon-4:00 1:00-5:00 21 Geneva Street September 21 st 1:00-5:00 Medford September 21 st 31 Crater Lake Avenue Medford 821 Minnesota Avenue Medford September 21 st 1:00-5:00 1:00-5:00 221-225 East Main Street September 24th 10:00-2:00 Medford 132 Fifth Street September 28th 9:00-1:00 Ashland 129-133 S.W. "G" Street September 4th 10:00-2:00 Grants Pass NOTE: The monthly open house list for the State of Oregon is now available on the State Histodc Preservation Office website. To look up other open house sites in the state, go to www.shpo.state.or, us, then click on the Historic Open House Schedule on your dght.