Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-07 Historic PacketCITY OF ,-ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda May 7, 2003 SONJA AKERMAN CITY OF ASHLAND II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in Community Development/Engineering Services Building (51 Winburn Way) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 2, 2003 CITY SOURCE DISCUSSION: Discussion with Ann Seltzer about articles for City Source PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING ACTION 2003-045 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a third residential unit attached to the existing duplex building on the property located at 230 and 232 VanNess Avenue. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05 DA; Tax Lot: 1600. APPLICANT: Serin Eggling and Sherri Morgan PLANNING ACTION 2003-035 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to operate a two-unit motel at the property located at 665 East Main Street. The proposal includes replacing the existing detached building at the rear of the property with a new, approximately 485 square foot building. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 AC; Tax Lot: 7900. APPLICANT: E. Kirk McAIlister OLD BUSINESS: Review Board ~ appointments/volunteers Project Assignments for Planning Actions National Historic Preservation Week ~ May 5-12 Cities, Suburbs & Countryside NEW BUSINESS A. Carnegie Library Restoration B. House Size Limitation COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS: The next Historic Commission meeting will be on June 4, 2003. Historic Preservation League Workshop - June 20th, in Ashland (tentative) IX. ADJOURNMENT IIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title1 ). o o C C Z Z Z ~zzzZZZzzzzzo oo~ m m m m m m m m m zz ~ oo ~~~ ~ ~ oo~ ~ > > z z m ~ O ~ ~ z m ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ z c ~ ~ m o m ~ m ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 m m c ~ ~ ~ m m o z z ~ 63 Z 0 m l t z ~ 0 < q m m m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m m m m m m m ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ °°°~o~~~@8o>R ~ zz mmmmmmm ~ ~~z~z R~ ~ > >z z < < ~ m m m m m m m o ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ m ~ 0 ~ oo~ ~ ~ oo ~§ooo ~~ ooo ~~ooo CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes April 2, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:05 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Joan Steele, Tom Giordano, Terry Skibby, Jay Leighton, Rob Saladoff, Gary Foil, Keith Chambers and Joanne Krippaehne. Also present were Associate Planner Maria Harris, Council Liaison John Morrison and Secretary Sonja Akerman. There were no members absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leighton moved and Chambers seconded to approve the March 5, 2003 minutes as submitted. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action 2003-035 Conditional Use Permit and Site Review 665 East Main Street E. Kirk McAIlister Harris reported this application is for a two-unit motel. The applicant is proposing that one unit be located in the existing house and the other unit in the new building he is proposing to construct to replace the detached structure at the rear of the property. Because the property is zoned Commercial, Harris explained the owner is not required to live on site. The owner is proposing to demolish the existing small building and replace it with a new 485 square foot structure that will not have any openings on the alley side, will use 1 x 6 inch ship lap siding and will use 4 inch trim on the doors and windows. Landscaping will only be necessary in the area that is disturbed by the demolition and construction. Although not specifically stated in the application, Harris stated she does not think there will be any exterior alterations on the existing house. Staff felt the application met the requirements and administratively approved it. Harris also mentioned e-mail was received from Tom Phillips, a neighbor across the alley, who is concerned that by requiring the paving of the alley, traffic use and speeds will increase, thereby putting more people at risk who walk and play in the area. He asked that the Commission recommend the alley not be paved. Skibby stated this is a unique alley and he agrees with Phillips. Giordano said only having windows on three sides and the setback of the new structure on the east side bother him. The plans that were submitted look as though the setback on the east property line will only be one foot. Because of building code issues, no openings would be allowed on this side, so there may be windows on only two sides. His concern is that if the plans change in the Building Permit process after review by the Historic Commission, the Commission would not be notified. Shostrom said he has a concern about the alley (north) elevation. The new building is essentially turning its back on the alley and that is not in keeping with the historic integrity of the alleyscape. On the other hand, he was at the site and was able to go into the building that is proposed for demolition. He feels it should be used for the second unit. It already has a stoop, and the walls and siding are straight. It could also be raised to add a foundation. He said in his opinion, it would be a shame to lose the building. Leighton agreed the existing building is quite wonderful and noted the alleyscape would be lost if the structure is demolished. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes April 2, 2003 SITE REVIEW 18.72.50 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny a site plan' All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met. Co The site design complies with the guidelines adopted by the City Council for the implementation of thismChapter. 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 ) Doyle Bdghtenburg and Teresa Zoll 545 'A' Street Ashland, OR. 97520 dbzdesign~bisp.net (541)482-6535 (541)552-9512 Fax 11 April, 2003 RE: A New Third Residential Unit 230 & 232 Van Ness, Ashland, Oregon (Map No. ;~9-1E-O5DA, Tax Lot No. 1600) Owner: Serin Eggling and Sherri Morgan Planning Staff and Commissione~, The proposal is to convert an existing Garage and Storage Buitding into a Third Residential Unit on an R-3 Zoned lot. The owners felt strongly about prese,¥ing the existing landscaping, and to enhance the aesthetics of certain areas of the project. 7he Garage/Storage tSuilding requires removal because the concrete masonw wails are unstable and expensive to use. 7he new structure would be on the same footprint, with a few feet added at the rear (34 s.f.) Careful considerations are to be utilized to protect the large cedar 'tree at the rear of the building. This wilt be addressed in an attached letter from a Landscape Architect. A reciprocal easement agreement was made with the adjacent neighbor to allow common use of the side-by-side driveways for access and provide room enough for increased parking on- site. The owners have invested conside~ble time and money to create a nice environment already. We hope you agree with us that this proposal will complete that process by creating an attractive third unit. Regards, Doyle Brightenburg 1 1 ASHLAND PLANNING DEP,..~'MENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTA._ l'br Serin_~gglin~g and Sherri Morgan 23(i & 232 Van Ness, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 1 of 4 4/11/2003 SECTION 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. Ali requiremems of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies ~vith the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capaciW 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Stm~dards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) A. This proposal complies with or will comply with all applicable City Ordinances. B. This proposal meets or will meet all requirements for Site Review. C. This proposal complies or will comply with the Site Design Standard appropriate to this project. D. MI City facilities are on site for the existing two units. The necessary facilities arc adequate to service one more unit. The existing driveway concrete apron will be adequate to access the reciprocal easements that provide access to the (4) on-site parking spaces. 2003 ASHLAND PLANNING DEP&~I'MENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAI. t;br Serin Eggling and Sherri Morgan 230 & 232 Van Ness, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 2 of 4 4/11/2003 SECTION 18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and throngh the subject property. This proposal complies with R-3 Zoning District Standards: Density - 2,178 s.f./unit (required) 2,906.7 s.f./unit (proposed) Lot Dimensions - Depth 80 fl. (required) 110.8 fi. (provided) Yard Setbacks: Front- 15 fl. min. (required), 37 fi. (existing) Side- 6 fl. min. (required), 6' (proposed Rear- 10 fl./story (required), 10 fi. (proposed) Distance between buildings: The proposed unit addition is connected by roof to thc existing thereby considered one building. The existing or proposed structure is less than 35 ft. tall. The impervious surface area of the proposal is 67% (less than 75%, required) The rear yard supplies more than the 8% required (outdoor recreation space). B. (See Section 18.72.070 (D) above.) gPR 1 1 2003 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPt~.,FMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTA~ Pbr Serin Eggling and Sherri Morgan 230 & 232 Van Ness, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 3 of 4 4/11/2003 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: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity_ of facilities. Arcttitectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including thc generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to bc relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed 1. An existing garage and storage structure will be removed to provide a place for the additional unit. The new unit is approximately the same footprint as the existing garage/storage. The view from thc street will not change appreciably. 2. The proposed unit will add I V2 car unit's usage to the surrounding traffic. Bicycle usage will be encouraged by providing (4) sheltered bike parking spaces. 3. Architecturally, the proposed addition will be similar to the existing structure, and match the historic significance of thc existing structure. 4. No environmental pollutants will be generated by the new unit. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare will be controlled by thc appropriate fixtures, shades and screening. 6. The proposed project's use is consistent with the R-3 Zoning of this and adjacent neighborhood parcels. 7. The 5' landscaped buffer strip required between parking area and adjacent property is not called for because the reciprocal easement occupies both sides of the mutual property line. The 8'wide landscape strip required between parking and building is mitigated by thc triangular lm~dscaped areas APR1 1 2003 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPa,~ FMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL, /:"or Serin Eggling and Sherri Morgan 230 & 232 Van Ness, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 4 of 4 4/11/20(}3 use. at front of each parking space which is 1 O' max./5' min. from the building. 'ItPR 1 1 2003 Ken~i~ ~ En~in~n,~en'~l Landscape Architecture · Site Planning April 11, 2003 Reference: A New Residential Unit 230 & 232 Van Ness, Ashland, Oregon Existing Cedar Tree Issue Tree report for the above address and details to follow in a letter next week. _/_ ~J ! ,. lAId ~.0:~'~:: !.O £00~/I- I.t~'0 'DM(]'~t(]-£O~O~O-S! C:\cad projects~a ctive-db\Eggtlng-Morgan~VANNESS-0402 )3-DB DV~G, 04/11/2003 10:15:28 ANt N 25' 34' 25~' E / A NF:Iq THIRi~ RE.~tPENTIAL UNIT (IN ZONE R-:~) S~[f'~ E©GLING AND SHE~-.~I i'~O~GAN (PHONE- 5i0 ~50 1428) A THIRD RESIDENTIAL UNIT (IN ZONE R-3 ) SERIN EGGLING AND SHERRI MAORGAN (PHONE - 510 $30 'i428) (541) 552-9512 (fax) Doyle Brlghtenburg I Teresa Zoll ___J A THIRD RESIDENTIAL UNIT (IN ZONE R-3 ) SERIN EGGLING AND SHERRI MAORGAN (PHONE - 510 530 1428) A THIRD RESIDENTIAL UNIT (IN ZONE R-3 ) 230 & 232 VAN NESS STREET, ~HI.AN~ OREGC~ {LEGAL MAP - 3g-IE~A, TAX LOT * 1~C0) SERIN EGGLING AND SHERRI MAORGAN (PHONE * 510 530 1428) (541) 552-9512 (fax) VALVe5 NPS Form 10.900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: 7 Page: 28 Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR 62.0 Survey #738 SHEETS-ROSE HOUSE 243 LAUREL ST 20th Century American: Bungalow 1911 391E05DA 1400 Builder: Sheets William Historic Contributing William T. Sheets, a carpenter, purchased this property from Susan Helman in January 1911 and built this structure shortly thereafter, moving from the bungalow he was renting next door. In 1912 Sheets left Ashland and sold the house to Charles Rose, of Rose Brothers Confectionary. Rose retained ownership until 1924. Walter Mauzey is listed as residing here in 1948. The single-story Sheets-Rose House is a front facing bungalow form, with a projecting gable front porch. The house retains its original siding, glazing and trim. A compatible accessory unit was built to the rear north in 1999 by Medinger Construction. (Permit 9808015) The Sheets-Rose House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. 63.0 Survey #808 MORRIS WILLIS HOUSE 212 VAN NESS AVE Other: Vernacular [l-House ] Abel Helman granted this property to his daughter Martha Jane in June 1876. Soon afterward Martha married John Carter, a painter, and the couple may have constructed this dwelling for their own use at that time. By 1880 Willis Morris bought the property for $200 and less than two years later sold it for $800, the significant increase likely indicating the house had been constructed. 1880c 391E05DA 1500 Historic Contributing The Morris House, oriented toward Van Ness, is built in the I-House vernacular form, with a small kitchen wing to the rear. Although somewhat modified with replacement windows, the dwelling retains original siding, trim and other detailing. The Morris House retains sufficient integrity to relate its period of construction. 64.0 STUBBLEFIELD, RAYMOND J & VERA HOUSE 230 VAN NESS AVE Modern Period: 1940s Era Cottage Raymond J. Stubblefield, and his wife Vera, apparently built this house just after their purchase of the property in 1945. Mr. Stubblefield was employed as a mechanic and lived at 178 Skidmore in 1942. City directories for 1948 show the couple residing in this dwelling, where they remained at least into the late 1970s. 1945c 391E05DA 1600 Historic Contributing The Stubblefield House is a locally unusual example of concrete block construction and retains its shallow pitched roof, small projecting porch stoop and broad multi-windows, all typical elements of the post-war housing built in the district during the 1940s. Attractively landscaped and well maintained, the Stubblefield House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. Additional information pertaining to the elevation changes will be presented at the meeting on this project. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIQ ARING on the following reques~ with respect to the ASHLAND L _,D USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on May 13, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, t175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon, The ordinance cdteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the applicati~ "documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable crileda ar~ iable 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 hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Dudng the Public Headng, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable cdteda. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the headng, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the headng. If you have questions or comments concerning this requesL please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Ptanning DepartmenL City Hall, at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on May 7, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commission on May 8, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Lithia Room) located at 51 Winbum Way at 5:00p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2003-035 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to operate a two-unit motel at the property located at 665 East Main Street. The proposal includes replacing the existing detached building at the rear of the property with a new, approximately 485 square foot building. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-1; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 AC; Tax Lot: 7900. APPLICANT: E. Kirk McAIlister SITE REVIEW 1_8.72.070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT8 ,18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria· A. That the'use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance 'with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State or Federal law or program. ' B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the ~ffect 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: 7 o Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other ~environmental pollutants. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS March 19th, 2003 PLANNING ACTION 2003-035 is a request for a Conditional Use and Site Review Permit to operate a two-unit motel at the property located at 665 East Main Street. The proposal includes replacing the existing detached building at the rear of the property with a new, approximately 485 square foot building. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l; Assessor's Map # 391E 09AC; Tax Lot # 7900 APPLICANT: E. Kirk McAllister On Wednesday, March 19th, 2003, a meeting was held in the Planning Office to review the application. In attendance were Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner, Maria Harris and Mark Knox, Associate Planners and Bill Molnar, Senior Planner serving as Staff Advisor. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review Permit to operate a two- unit motel and replacing the existing detached building at the rear of the property with a new, approximately 485 square foot building. The property is zoned C-1 (Commercial), but the primary structure on site was constructed in 1902(c) and has been used as a residential dwelling unit. The property is within the Railroad Historic District and is considered a "Historic Contributing Resource". Its historic name is the "Morris, J.W. B Rental House". The structure is a wood frame one-story hipped-roof cottage. The structure has retained its original siding, glazing and other details from its original construction. A second structure, located in the rear, constructed as a garage or storage area will be demolished and smaller structure constructed. Both structures will then be used as "Bed & Breakfast" units. Because of the commercial zoning, the property owner or their agent is not required to live on-site. However, a Conditional Use Permit is still required in order to minimize potential impacts to neighbors and to ensure the City the use and site are maintained with maximum integhty. Vehicular access to the property is served from a rear alley that runs from 5th Street to 6th Street. The applicant's site plan identifies the three parking spaces off the alley - adjacent to the new structure. Three spaces are required and only two exist. One parking space is required per unit plus one for a manager's space. Although the applicant's do not intend to have an on-site manager, the parking space is required. Staff's experience with these types of applications are that the manager/janitor is rarely on-site when tenants are present and that the designated parking space is either unused or used by tenants that have come in separate vehicles. The location of the spaces and their depth is consistent with other parking spaces in this block. The parking is buffered from the west property boundary by a five-foot landscape strip. The structure to be demolished at the rear of the property appears to have been used as an old storage building. The building is in questionable condition, as it appears to have lacked any on- going maintenance. A separate permit will be required for the building's demolition as the building is slightly over 500 square feet in area. The new building has been designed to not only be compatible with the existing house, but to be reflective of accessory buildings off an alley. The structure is relatively small and is 18' wide along the alley and 27' in depth. The entrance to the building will be on the south side with its door centered between two windows. The north side, facing the alley, will have no openings. The siding will be 1" X 6" shiplap and the roofing material will be 3-tab composition. Trim around the doors and window will be 4". It is the applicant's intent to have the new building match the primary structure. The property is landscaped but no irrigation system exists. It is the intention of the applicant to install and irrigation system and re-install landscaping in areas that are disturbed by the construction. As noted in the conditions of approval, the irrigation plan and the revised landscaping plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the Tree Commission prior to building plan approval. Installation will be at the time of the occupancy permit for the new unit. As noted in the applicant's findings, the use will have little impact to the immediate neighbors or the surrounding neighborhood. Considering the site's close proximity to the downtown, parks, shopping and other essential services, vehicle trips will likely be less than a comparably sized residential unit or most permitted uses found in a commercial zone. Considering the use is seasonal, the impact on City services and infrastructure is also minimized. Lastly, permitted uses such as a medical office, professional office, retail space, etc., in this type of structure (historic house) can be pretty damaging to its original architecture and/or floor plan. Because of building codes, these uses require significant changes for handicapped access, energy conservation, and/or seismic retrofitting. However, with the limited amount of units being proposed, these types of code improvements will not be noticeable. Overall, it is staff's opinion that a two-unit hotel generates fewer impacts than what most permitted uses would. In vehicle trips alone, the comparison is as follows: 2-unit hotel 8 table restaurant 1000 sq. fl. retail space medical office Total* 17.4 trips per day 95.6 trips per day 40.6 trips per day 34.2 trips per day 187 trips per day * The information above is based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 4th Addition. It should be noted the ITE numbers are based upon many samples in many different environments across the nation. In staff's opinion, the actual trips per day are much smaller than the ITE numbers because of the site's close proximity to the many services and destinations offered in the downtown. However, without actual counts, the numbers illustrate how the existing vs. proposed impacts compare. The criteria for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are as follows: A. That the use wouM be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 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. l'Fhen evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjaeent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. 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. Overall, staff believes the applicant has met all of the applicable Conditional Use Permit and Site Review Permit criteria for a two-unit hotel. Therefore, Planning Action 2003-035 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2003-035 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit, one street tree for every thirty feet of frontage shall be planted in the planting strip along East Main Street. 3) That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit, all site improvements, including landscaping, irrigation, bike parking, etc., shall be installed. All landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Tree Commission or staff liaison. 4) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, all recommendations of the Historic Commission shall be met. 5) That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit, all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department be completed, including the installation of residential fire sprinklers in the new unit or the installation of a fire hydrant. 6) That prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicants shall submit a storm drainage and alley improvement plan to the Ashland Engineering Department. All associated work shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit. If no appeal is filed, this request will become final when reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission on April 8th, 20031 Bill Molnar, Senior Planner Date E. Kirk McAllister Claudia C. McAllister 395 Strawberry Lane Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-3822 KirkMcA@AshlandCreek.net March 7, 2003 Ashland Planning Department Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re.: Submission for review: plans for demolition of shed at 665 E. Main Street and construction of cottage in its place. Gentlemen: We are submitting the enclosed plans for your review and consideration at your next meeting. We intend to convert both the existing house at 665 E. Main as well as the proposed new "cottage" to hotel/motel/travelers accommodations (pursuant to the appropriate approvals). There is presently insufficient parking in the existing parking area for even the existing house to serve as a "TA" since the area is less than the 22 feet of required width (one space for the guests, one for a manager, plus a planting area. We look forward to meeting with you on these plans. Sincerely E. Kirk McAllister Enclosures: Plans and summary documents for proposed new cottage at 665 E. Main. Summary Sheet McAllister Project 665 E. Main St. · Lot approximately 5000 Sq. Feet · Percent of lot covered by structures is approx. 25-30%. · Total Square Footage of all structures is approx. 1,380 sq. feet. · 3 Parking Spaces to be provided along with Bicycle Parking. · Total square footage of landscaped areas is approximately 2,900 sq. feet. Lot Structures Existing Proposed Total Impervious Parking Deck Bike Rack Total Landscaping (includes non-impervious walkways) Square Feet Square Feet Percent of Lot 5125 100.0% 898 486 625 190 36 1384 851 2890 27.0% 16.6% 56.4% MAR ? 2003 McAllister Project @665 E. Main St. March 7, 2003 · Vicinity: Located centrally between 5~h St. and 6th St. fronting E. Main St. Proposed new building to be located on back side of lot fronting on Alley between E. Main and "C" St. (North end of lot). · Purpose: to replace existing falling-down shed with new livable space for planned hotel/motel "Travelers Accommodation." · Zoning: Commercial / Historic · Notes: Utilities to be tied into existing house - water, electric, gas, sewer. Sewage to be directed to existing sewer lines via sewage ejector pump at new building. Lot is already fully landscaped. A small un-landscaped section will be created by moving the existing fence adjacent to alley parking. Landscaping in this section will be consistent with the rest of the lot. Automatic sprinklers will be installed. Three parking spaces will be provided (two 8' spaces and one 9' space plus a 5' planter strip) in the area adjacent to the alley. New fence to include bicycle parking space (dimensions according to codes). New fence to be 25' from alley (existing fence is at 32' from alley) All construction to comply with standard building codes and laws - (wooden). Lot is almost flat at proposed building site. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. The demolition of the old shed and construction of the new living area will result in an increase in living sites (units) with no reductionto landscaped areas coupled with a reduction in total building square footage on the subject lot. (see plans for details) B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. · See enclosed plans for details. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. The plans are consistent with the commercial zoning and are consistent with the land use of immediately adjacent lots on the block. Indeed, the subject property would have fewer units than either of the adjacent properties to the west. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. · Owner will pave alleyway from Sixth Street to subject property. We intend to connect with existing storm drain system at intersection of alley and Sixth Street. g. 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. · The proposal to use the property as a hotel/motel travelers' accommodation is consistent with the status of the 2 closest properties on each side of the subject property. 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. · We intend to connect drainage for the new structure to existing storm drains at the East End of the alley. We will pave the East End of the alley per city requirements. Access to the property overall will improve through the addition of 2 additional parking spaces (presently only one space) as well as bicycle parking. 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: · The conditional use is consistent with neighboring lots. a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. The proposed new structure actually represents a slight reduction in the total square feet occupied by structures on the subject lot; the proposed structure is 24 sq. ft. less than the existing structure. b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. · A modest increase in foot/bicycle traffic is expected since the location is within easy walking distance to the theatres and downtown shopping and restaurants. c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area The proposed structure has been designed to be similar to the exiting main house on the lot. d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. There should be a significant reduction of dust due to the paving. Changes in other factors should be negligible e) Generation of noise, light, and glare. No material changes in existing levels of these factors is expected. J) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. lhe property will be brought into line with the existing development status of adjacent properties. g) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 2003 FLC~DP-- I~LkN // 1)F_.TAIL SFIE, ET E'AGT h.,IAl~J- AGHLAhJD I~AR %,,, FOU, N'PA% 10 I',,1 PLAN I'~" ALL I ~TER, PR,03' E'C'F ~ I ![ ~ [ ~ ELEVATIONS GHEET ,.~ ~J . ,i,.~c AULI STEP-. PIz. O2'EC:T ~ NAR ~ 2003 z -,~ E~T HAIN- ASHLAND NPS Form 10-900-^ United States Department of the Interior National Park Service OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Amended-March 2002 Section Number: 7 Page: 93 Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, Ashland, OR ID # ID# week...on Main Street." (Tidings, 7-Oct-1888) Shultz, part owner of the Ashland Depot Hotel, sold the property to Arthur F. Hunt in 1899. Mr. Hunt, a stockraiser, keep the house until 1909 and from .1910. un. til 1942 the house occupied by the Thomas Cox Family. The house was used as a rental, with three tenants, by 1948. Joe A. Millard owned and occupied the home in 1964. There is some ind.ication that Shultz's 1888 home was either remodeled or replaced by the pre,sent, stmcture.c~r_ca 1895, d_uring Sc. hultz's ownership. In either instance the house retains nigh integrity and ell~ctively relates its historic period of development. 322.0 Survey #117 MORRIS, J. W. B. & CYNTHIA HOUSE 1900c 649 MAIN ST E 391E09AC 7800 Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing This wood frame gable volume was built circa 1900 and shows with the added north wing in the 1928 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map in essentially the same footprint as now. The original-owner was John W. B. Morris who in 1910 transferred the house to his wife Cynthia after his .sentencing to aprison, term. (JCD 75:184) By 1940 Lenna B. Spindler owned the property and later, w~ joinedon the title by Raymond D. Abel. (JCD 226:327) While the original front porch ot the Morris House has been incompatibly enclosed with large glass panels, the house otherwise remains fairly intact and retains sufficient integrity to relate its historic period of development. 323.0 Survey #118 MORRIS, J. W. B. RENTAL 1902c 665 MAIN ST E 391E09AC 7900 Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing This one-story hipped-roof cottage was built as a rental for John W. B. Morris, who liv,ed with his family.n, ext d6or. The Morris Family retained ownership until 1910 when John s wife Cynthia sold the home after her husband had been sentenced to a prison term. Used as a rental, the house was occupied by Frederick E. Walters, a fireman with the Southern Pacific. In 1942 the Morris Rental was occupied by Noel E. Taylor, also a fireman with the railroad, and his wife Iva. The Taylors remained at this address into the 1970s. The Morris Rental House retains very high integrity and effectively relates its historic period of development. 324.0 Survey #119 LONG, ELIZA RENTAL HOUSE 1909c 675 MAIN ST E 391E09AC 8000 Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing A .fine single-story hipped-roof cottage, this structure was built around 1909 as a rental for Mrs. Ehza Long. In 1910 she sold the property to Henry Andrews who owned and rented the house until 1920. By 1948 the house was occupied by Rodney Merriman and the 1964 city directory shows the house as vacant. The shed roof addition at the NE rear was built by 1910. Anna Stockstill lived here in 1948 and retirees Louis H. and Anna Pankey owned and occupied the house in 1964. The Long House retain sufficient integrity to relate its historic period of nt. ID Cf 325.0 Survey #120 685 MAIN ST E 391E09AC 8100 Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing This one story wood-frame dwelling was apparently built in 1909 after the site was purchased by Gilbert R.. Slingerland in November 1908. Slingerland, an employee of the Carson-Smith Lumber Company, retained the house until July 1910 when he sold to Henry Andrews, who had ASHLAND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SURVEY FORM COUNTY: JACKSON IDENTIFICATION: Hist. Name Morris, J.W.B. Rental Common Name: Address: 665 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon Owner: _Smith, Mary Ward ~49 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon T/R/S: 39S 1E 9AC Map No: ~ Tax Lot: 7900 Addition: _ Railroad (1884) Block: R Lot:l~l~Quad:~ Date of Construction: Original Use: Residence Present Use: Residence Architect: Builder: Style: Vernacular x Bldg, 'Struc. Dist. Ranking~ "' Secondary. THEME: ' 1902 (est.) Obj. Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties Theme~ Archaeology Agriculture Commerce __Exploration and Settlement Industry __Military Politics/Government ~Religion 6d. __.Mining Social/Education Transportation Other DESCRIPTION: Plan Type/Shape: Square w/addition (west)No. of Stories: One Foundation Material: Wood skirting Basement(Y/N): Crawl space Roof Form and Material: .Hip, shed on addition; composition shingle Wall Construction: Frame Structural Frame: Primary Window Type: One-over-one double hung sash Exterior Surfacing Materials: Horizontal drop siding Decorative Features: Other: Pro~ectinK rafters, square cut Condition: __Excellent x Good __Fair Poor 'Moved(Date) Exterior Alterations/Additions (Dated) elevation Noteworthy Landscape Features: Shed-roofed addition, west Associated Structures: Known Archaeological Features: Negative No: Slide No: Roll 26-18 Recorded By: Clay/Atwood Date: ,27 April 1984/14 November 1988 SHPO Inventory No: 118 ASHLAND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SURVEY FORM Name: .. Morris, J. W. B. Rental T/R/S: 39S 1E 9AC Address: 665 East Main Street Map No: 9AC Tax Lot: 79D0 Quadrangle: A~bl'~nd (1953) Ashland, Oregon Negative No,.: Roll 26-18 Slide No.: '~ ~" ' N s L ___ ~ . ..~_ ~ ~ ~q, - ....... , ........................ Graphic and Photo Sources: City of Ashland Topo~ra~hi'c Jackson County Assessor Map 39S 1E 9AC SHPo Inventory No.: 118 Ma~i~' ~a~ris': Historic ~°mm From: To: Date: Subject: Tom Phillips <tmpsworks@yahoo.com> <cat@mind.net> 4/2/03 9:11AM Historic Comm. Dear Keith (and Terry) and the Hist. comm., This is a request for you to review dealing with a improvement along East Main between 5th and 6th. I do not have the planning # in front of me, but my concern is a simple one. There is an alley at the back of this property which is the main access to it for business use. It is typical that the alleys are getting paved as such improvements are made. This creates increased traffic speeds and endangers as people as these vehicles enter and exit (with poor visibility of the sidewalks) out of the alleys. Also, we have a secondary alley T-ing off at this location going down to C st.. I consider this 'interior' intersection to be an even more dangerous situation as drivers do not know or expect any other traffic than what they see in front of them. I know there are some drainage concerns at this location, but I do not think that paving is necessary. Look at the "Ali's Well" motel (two lots) right next door, they have created a nice parking area without paving, and there are other better examples as you know. Keep in mind that once this new structure is built and the improvements made that ALL the homes along this block of East Main will be travelers accomodations. These visiting drivers do NOT know our neighborhood or the kids, walkers (to Safeway), and other traffic users. Paving will only put more people at risk and change the mood of these quieter paths. Please say NO to Paving this Alley and Others. Thank you for your 'ear' and your help. I am sorry not to be available for the meeting, and would appreciate it greatly if you could print a copy of this for the other members to read and submit to the planning department as well. We must treasure our open spaces and protect them for paving... Tom Phillips: 60 5th st. Ashland, call me at 482-4829 if I can do anything more on this. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com CC: <trskib@aol.com> From: Mark knox To: Kirk McAIlister Date: April 18, 2003 2:09PM Subject: Re: 665 E Main Kirk, as we discussed in the field the other day, for Planning purposes, the "economic feasibility report" or a "structural assessment" is not "as necessary" for Planning, but that it is a requirement for the demolition permit. However, considering one of the primary concerns of the Historic Commission was based upon the fact the building should be saved AND that you will need to eventually provide such a report(s), why not provide it now - at the Hearing. Also, I do think its important that you meet with the Historic Commission prior to the hearing. One option is to meet with the Review Board (3 members) on Thursday afternoons or wait until the full Historic Commission meeting on May 7th, 2003. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. at our offices at 51 Winburn Way. I hope this is helpful. - Mark >>> Kirk McAIlister <Kirkmca@ashlandcreek.net> April 18, 2003 11:26:36 AM >>> Mark, My schedule got in the way for meeting with the historical comm. this week, and I'll be in Portland Thurday-Saturday next week. Should I have Claudia go in to meet them on the 24th or would a meeting on the 1st of May be sufficient lead time for the May 13th Planning Commission meeting? I met with D. Boldt at 665 yesterday. To roughly paraphrase, his response was: "why would you even want to save it?" In addition to the roof being completely and unsalvageable, he felt that the siding would have to all be pulled and then reinstalled to achieve water tight conditions, and wall framing would have to be completely replaced because it's not to code either (no lateral reinforcement -- I think). The old siding would be inferior to new. If we were to try to save it (and, after the above, rm not even sure what "it" is that we're saving), he said that it would be a minimum of 25% more than replacing it with new construction. The 25% figure would be much higher if the building began to break up in the process of jacking it up. Basically, he's pretty uninterested in even doing an estimate for the salvage portion of the job. He said he'd make some phone calls to members of the commission. I also asked him if he'd be willing to write a letter indicating his views of the structure to present to the Planning Commission -- he said he would. I recognize that this isn't what you suggested (no comparable estimates), but I really can't blame him for being reluctant to waste his time. We also had the same reaction a couple of years ago when we talked to Jim Green about remodeling the existing outbuilding -- "what's the point, it would be much cheaper to build a new building." In a nutshell, do you recommend that I continue to try to contact other contractors replacing/remodeling estimates, or is it conceivable that a letter from Mr. Boldt and Randy's "structural analysis" of the existing structure could be enough to establish a basis for replacing the outbuilding. Thx for your time, REVIEW BOARD for MAY 2003 May 8th Terry_, May 15th Terry_, May 22nd May 29th Terry, ~. erry, .~ ;'l CURRENT PLANNING ISSUES Fhe following article is the first in a series :lesigned to highlight some of the key plan- ,~ing issues and questions being discussed ~oday. This article focuses on the emerging meenon of "smart growth." ems that "smart growth" is ~eping the nation. Virtually every organization in the country remotely interested in community plan- ning issues has a smart growth policy or program, and every media account of planning issues seems to use the term. The first thing to understand about smart growth is that it means different things to different people and organiza- tions. It is a catchy phrase that has been used as a rallying cry and an endorse- ment for an array of positions and per- spectives on community growth and planning issues. An internet search yields over 200,000 hits for "smart growth." Numer- ous organizations such as the Smart Growth Network and Smart Growth America exist solely to promote smart growth principles. Thousands of other agencies and organizations have their own smart growth programs, including the federal government, virtually every state, countless regional and local gov- ernments, and private organizations. A quick review of the literature on smart growth reveals a large diversity of issues that are brought under its umbrel- la: urban sprawl, farmland preservation, mixed land uses, big box retail, light rail, brown fields, green fields, grey fields, the "evils" of cul-de-sacs, the elimination of urban blight, first ring suburbs,, pedestri- an orientation, battlefield preservation, open space, traffic congestion, traffic - calming, town centers, Main Street ... he list goes on and on. With all of this diversity of perspec- ,ive, what then is smart growth? Is it PLANNING COMM Smart Growth C. Gregory Dale, AICP helpful for planning commissioners? Or, has it become so broad and diluted as to be meaningless? In my opinion, the answer to these questions is that smart growth can offer valuable guidance and serve as a rallying cry for good planning. On the other hand, when you hear other people use the term smart growth, you need to understand what they mean by it. Like- wise, if you are going to discuss smart growth, you should have a basic under- standing of what it means to you. A good encapsulation of the main- stream consensus of smart growth is offered by the United States Environ- mental Protection Agency. Their ten smart growth principles seem to embody the ideas that have the most commonali- ty among the array of smart growth ideas promoted by various organizations.' The following are those principles, along with my observations. 1. Mix land uses. There are many in the planning community who believe that the 20th century trend of segregating and separat- ing land uses has created many of our current planning problems, not the least of which is the over-reliance on the auto- mobile. Many of the reasons for original- ly separating land uses (i.e., maintaining 1 EPA's smart growth principles are listed at: <www.epa.gov/smartgrowtlVabout_sg.htm> separate zones for residential, commer- cial, and industrial uses), such as protect- ing residents from noxious industrial fumes of early industrial processes, no longer apply Many planners believe that careful design of a mixture of residential and commercial uses can create more liv- able communities with less reliance upon the automobile. 2. Take advantage of compact building design. This is essentially the "anti-sprawl" position. By promoting a more compact regional development pattern, with new development clustered tightly at higher densities around existing development and infrastructure service areas, we can create more efficient infrastructure and service delivery patterns, while minimiz- ing urban sprawl and loss of open space. One big plus: cost savings to government (and taxpayers) in having to build fewer roads, water and sewer lines, and other public facilities. The down side: many people object to higher densities and pre- fer the prevailing low-density suburban pattern. 3. Create a range of housing. opportunities and choices. There is concern that too much of our new residential growth, particularly in high growth areas, is limited to single- family detached residences. With chang- ing demographics, including an aging population, there is legitimate concern that we need to provide more housing diversity and affordability to offer a range of opportunities for all persons. Some argue that removing exclusionary zoning practices and developing a more mixed land use pattern (see Principle 1) will promote increased housing diversity. 4. Create walkable neighborhoods. Many planners, as well as a growing number of public health advocates, want continued on page 4 ISS1ONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 50 / SPRING 2003 Smart Growth continued from page 3 to encourage more walking, bike-riding, and outdoor exercise. The connection to land use planning is that many of our neighborhoods and business districts do not lend themselves to pleasant or safe pedestrian use, and too many pedestrian systems do not connect to areas outside of their particular development. The answer, according to smart growth advo- cates, is to pay more attention to provid- ing linked networks of sidewalks, paths, and trails. 5. Foster distinctive, attractive com- munities with a strong sense of place. This is a more difficult concept to come to grips with, because it involves the aesthetics of design and subjective judgment. However, many people are concerned that new development looks the same, regardless of where it occurs in the country. The widespread use of stan- dardized development practices and franchise architecture, in this view, has led to the loss of individual community identity 6. Preserve open space, farmland, and natural beauty in critical environmental areas. Farmland preservation is often linked to strengthening regional and local eco- nomic self-sufficiency, as well preserving an area's traditional character (a benefit also being promoted in a number of regional tourism efforts). Open space and natural area protection is connected to the goal of maintaining an area's char- acter and beauty, while affording recre- ational opportunities such as hiking, biking, and skiing. Smart growth propo- nents also often speak of the need to pre- serve our natural environment for the benefit of future generations. 7. Strengthen and direct development toward existing communities. This issue is related to the compact building design principle discussed above (Principle 2) with a focus on encouraging "infill" development and redevelopment. It is particularly con- cerned with utilizing existing infrastruc- PLANNING COMM ture and expanding that infrastructure in a rational, gradual way, rather than pro- moting leapfrog, sprawling development patterns. 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices. The vast majority of our modern "transportation" occurs via the automo- bile. The use of the personal automobile has increased at a dramatically greater rate than the growth of population. Many people feel that we have become too dependent onthe automobile, and on the imported oil essential to its use. Our low- density, segregated land use pattern, however, makes reduction of auto use difficult. This smart growth principle looks at ways of shifting to a less auto- dominated environment, by promoting transportation alternatives such as public transit, light rail, bicycle, and walking. Again, achievement of this principle is closely tied to several of the other smart growth principles. 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. There is concern that too often the pursuit of better quality planning and development brings with it increased b.ureaucracy and less certainty in the development process. This principle embodies the idea that smart growth principles should be encouraged within the framework of reasonable and pre- dictable outcomes for the development community. Smart growth advocates, including many developers, also argue that adherence to smart growth princi- ples (such as more compact development patterns) will result in lowering the over- all costs of development. 10. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. Decisions that affect the community ought to be made in an open, inclusive, and participatory process. Citizen partic- ipation continues to be important in any planning process, as is the input from major stakeholders. A variety of ways to gain public input should be encour- aged to get all perspectives. While this ISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 50 principle is not unique to smart growth it is a consistent part of the agenda o those advocating smart growth. With an understanding of thes~ principles, what can smart growtt achieve for communities and regionsi The following are some of the potential positive results: · Less traffic congestion · A cleaner environment · More preserved open space · Healthier urban cores · Efficient expenditure of tax dollars for infrastructure · Stronger community character and sense of place 'Preserved farmland · More affordable and diverse housing opportunities · Better public and individual health SUMMING UP: Many planners will argue that "smart growth" is nothing more than the kind of good community planning that has long been advocated. However, one of the rea- sons smar~ growth has taken off as an idea is that it provides a coherent frame- work for pulling together a range of good planning practices. This has allowed not just planners, but residents of cities and towns across the country, to better see the connections between planning and development policies, and the future of their individual communities. But remember: "smart growth" can mean dif- ferent things to different people. Make sure your planning commission clearly articulates what smart growth means to your community ~ C. Gregory Dale is a Principal with the plan- ning and zoning firm of McBride Dale Clarion in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dale manages planning projects and also regularly con- ducts training for planning officials throughout the country. He is also a former President of the Ohio Chapter of the American Planning Association. / SPRING 2003 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING TIMES Meets 1st Wednesday of the month, at 7:00pm (The Wednesday prior to the Planning Commission Meeting) Siskiyou Room in Comm-Dev/Engineering Services Bldg., 51 Winburn Way TERM LIMITS Members serve 3-year terms expiring April 30th of each year. STAFF LIAISON Mark Knox, Associate Planner Phone: 552-2044 Email address: knoxm @ ashland.or, us COUNCIL LIAISON John Morrison Phone: 261-2401 E-mail address: imorrison @rvcog.org MEMBERS Keith Chambers 715 Pennsylvania Phone: 482-3179 or 552-6338 email address" cat @ mind.net Term Expires: 04/30/2004 Robert Saladoff 545 A Street, Suite 2 Phone: 482-3772 email address: salarch @ mind.net Term Expires: 04/30/2004 Terry Skibby 611 Beach Street Phone: 482-2805 entail address: terryskibby321 @ msn.com Term Expires: 04/30/2004 Tom Giordano 2635 Takelma Way Phone: 482-9193 email address Term Expires: 04/30/2005 Joanne Krippaehne 520 Terrace Phone: 482-6548 email address: madrona@mind.net Term Expires: 04/30/2005 Jacqueline Leighton 206 Cambridge Phone: 482-9876 email address: iaybruce @mind.net Term Expires: 04/30/2005 Samuel Whitford 355 Scenic Drive Phone: 482-3450 Email address: Term Expires: 04/30/2006 Dale Shostrom 309 N Pioneer Phone: 482-9761 Email address: Term Expires: 04/30/2006 Alexander Krach PO Box 471 Phone: 488-4385 Email address: Term Expires: 04/30/2006