Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout150 Church Street CITY OF ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2004-110 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NE"" SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 150 CHURCH STR~EET WITH A PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA FOR THE PARCEL IS 3,249 SQUARE FEET, WHILE THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS 3,557 SQUARE FEET OR 9% GREATER THAN ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 11E 08 AD; TAX LOT: 3901. APPLICANT: ROBERT M. SALADOFF 12-01-04 11-1 0-04 11-18-04 Undated 11-12-04 11-12-04 11-12-03 10-27 -04 10-27-04 10-12-04 Undated 11-9-04 10-12-04 10-12-04 10-12-04 9-23-04 9-23-04 9-23-04 9-8-04 9-7 -04 9-7 -04 9-1-04 8-26-04 8-26-04 8-26-04 8-6-04 8-6-04 Additional Information provided by the Applicant A-" - A-23 Notice of Land Use Appeal of PA2004-11 0 1 <~ Letter from Lew Nash to John McLaughlin 4-'? Photos of the property 8-1 0 Notice of Public Hearing before Council & related criteria 11--12 Affidavit of Mailing & mailing list 13--15 Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing before Council on 12-07-04 16 Findings, Conclusions & Orders for PA2004-11 0 17..20 Findings mailing list 20/\ Hearings Board Minutes 21-24 E-mail from Derek Severson regarding call from Bill Emerson 25 E-mail from Jim Williams to Lew Nash 26 Planning Department Staff Report 27.,32 Applicant's additional submittals at Hearings Board 33-.37 Letters from Neighbors submitted at Hearings Board 38-48 Notice of Public Hearing before Hearings Board and related criteria 49-50 Affidavit of Mailing & mailing list 51-52 Newspaper Notice of Public Hearing before Hearings Board on 10-12-04 53 Historic Commission Minutes 54-58 Letter from Mark and Cici Brown 59 Letter from Lewis Nash and Kate Thill requesting a public hearing for P A2004-11 0 E-mail from David Hoxie Notice of Hearings Board meeting, related criteria and mailing list Newspaper Meeting Notice for Hearings Board on 9-14-04 Newspaper Public Hearing Notice for Historic Commission meeting on 9-8-04 City of Ashland Planning Application for PA2004-11 0 Applicant's Findings 60 61-62 63-166 67 68 69-'70 71-'125 ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITECT II II II December 1,2004 Mayor Alan Deboer Ashland City Counsel Re: Supplemental Testimony for CUP Application Project: Saladoff Residence (New Residence) 150 Church Street Ashland, Oregon Assessor's Map 391E08AD Tax Lot 3901 Zoning: R-I-7.5 Applicants: Robert and Susan Saladoff The following materials provide supplemental testimony and documentation related to the previously requested Conditional Use Permit (Section 18.24,.040 K) for exceeding the MPFA (Maximum Pennitted Floor Area) for dwellings within the Historic District. We believe that our original findings and testimony, as well as these supplemental materials provide overwhelming substantiation for approval under the new Maximum House Size Ordinance. Background: We purchased the land at 150 Church in July 2003 after searching Ashland for several years for the perfect location. We feel very fortunate to be able to become part of this great historic neighborhood. With Robert as the architect, we worked carefully throughout the last year designing a house that would fit aesthetically and into the neighborhood, be energy efficient and healthy, and meet our functional needs. The property has both serious constraints 545 A Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.482.3772 A-( fax 541.552.9512 salarch@mind.net (numerous old trees, a sloping site, and water run-off issues) and great opportunities (views of Mt. AsWand, southern exposure, and numerous old trees for shade and beauty). In addition, the house needed to present itself to Church Street, even though we will enter the property off the rear easem4~nt from the alley. After many months and numerous site layouts and house configurations, we believe the current design meets our needs and will bl4~nd into the neighborhood. In addition, the AsWand Planning Staff, the Historic Conunission, and the Planning Hearings Board have all previously approved the application fOjr our proposed house under the CUP. Design and Site Standards: See findings and previous documentation. Sustainable Design: The proposed house design incorporates a wide-range of sustainable design strategies that helps limit the impact on this property and the environment. 1. Energy Efficiency: The project design uses both passive and active systems to reduce the energy usage of the house. The passive strategies include maximization of the southern exposure of the house, deep overhangs, landscape shading, higb-efficiency windows, super-insulation of the exterior walls and roofs, whole house ventilation, and a reflective barrier in the roof. The active systems include a solar-heated water heater, in-floor hydronic heating system, a high-efficiency furnace with zoned thermostats and controls, and a whole-house exhaust fan. 2. Healthy Products and Materials: The proposed house design will also incorporate many building and finish materials that limit harmful emissions into the house and atmosphere. Some of these are listed below: Building Materials and Systems: a. Soy-based spray-in insulation b. In-floor hydronic heating c. Whole-house ventilation system with fresh-air intake ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITECT . . . Ar~ Finishes: a. Low or No-VOC stains and paints b. Wheat board carcasses for cabinets c. Natural stone flooring d. Soapstone and limestone countertops 3. Environmentally friendly systems and materials: The design of the proposed house also includes several environmentally friendly materials including FSC (certified) structural lumber, reclaimed wood flooring, drought resistant plantings, and locally produced materials when possible. Also during construction, most waste materials will be sorted and recycled and/ or brought to composting facilities. Response to Appellant's Objections (The following summarizes appellant's objections to the proposed project along with the applic:ant's detailed response): September 7.. 2004 Criteria C-1 Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage has not been met. The appellant believes that "size creep" will destroy the character of his neighborhood. The issues of scale, bulk, and coverage have both quantitative and qualitative elements and the new Maximum House Size Ordinance: reflects the City's acknowledgement of each in detennining what is appropriate for a given neighborhood. The basis of the ordinance allows an increase in house size for larger home sites, up to a maximum limit of 3249 s.f. The new ordinance, however, provide:s a way to allow a "safety valve" for both existing and new construction. While lot coverage is addressed in the City's existing land use laws~l neither scale nor bulk are described in quantitative terms, leaving this to a more qualitative review by the historic and planning commissions. We believe the bulk and scale of the proposed house is consistent with other single family homes in this neighborhood, by breaking up the volumes, varying the roof heights, setting the house back off the street, using a variety of organic materials, and stepping the house down towards the rear of the property. (See ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITLCT . . . ,11-3 Findings for more detailed descriptions and see attached perspective drawings for views of the house in context) Criteria C- 5 Livability of the impact area: Generation of noise, light, and glare. The extra size of the proposed house has pushed the location of the planned swimmingpool to within 50' of a neighbor's second story window and negatively affects the neighbor with unwanted smells, lights, pumps, and nighttime noise. Regardless of the size of the house, 3557 s.f. versus 3249 s.f., the location of the pool would remain unchanged. The pool's location was determined because of existing natural features (topography, lot width, and location) and parking restrictions and requirements (parking accessed from alley). The applicant will abide by all other relevant city ordinances with regard to noise, light, and glare. Criteria C-7 Livability of the impact area: Other factors: Objections to large parking lot, a large swimmingpoo~ and a large bathhouse, the suiface water mn-off will dramaticallY increase. Parking lot: The lot is designed to meet the minimum requirements of three parking spaces and adequate back-up space and nothing more, as required by the city's ordinances. Swimming pool and pool house: The pool size (14' x 40') is actually small for a (2) person lap pool and is similar in size to oth(~r neighboring pools. The pool house is only 290 s.f. and houses both bath facilities and mechanical and pool equipment. The pool house is also similar in style and detail to the main house. Surface water run-off: All roof and impervious surface water run- off will be carried underground via a new storm water pipe at the alley and to a connection on Pine Street (This was approved under the land partition application submitted by Mr. Jim Williams). Criteria C-7 Appellants are upset at the removal of the mid-yard 150 black oak tree. Although we recognize the emotional connection that the neighbors have made with many of the large trees along Church Street, the removal of the oak tree at 150 Church was because of safety issues regarding the new house and its residents, and not an ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHIT~CT . . . ;/-'( arbitrary decision. In addition, it was initiated at the recommendation of two highly-recognized arborists and completed_ in accordance with all Ashland tree ordinances. (See attached tree report by Tom Myers) October 12. 2004 CUP Criteria B: Adequate Transportation: Public alley is too narrow to handle any more transportation to the parking area behind the proposed properry development. All parking, traffic and transportation issues were reviewed and approved at the time of the land partition initiated by Mr. Jim Williams that created the lot at 150 Church Street. CUP Criteria B-2: Adequate Transportation: Proposed project will additional traffic to alrea4J dangerous Church Street. All traffic issues were reviewed and approved at the time of the minor land partition initiated by Mr. Jim Williams that created the lot at 150 Church Street. Miscellaneous: Applicants are upset that owners at 150 Church received unequal treatment when inquiring about the CUP process in a historic district~ Although the sequence of events outlined by Mr. Jim Williams concerning his potential CUP application is unfortunate, it in no way should have any bearing on this application. Criteria C-l : Similarity in Scale, Bulk, and Coverage: Allows breach of the size limit by over 9%, gives priority to design consideration at the expense of bulk and scale, and CUP is not supported by compelling reasons. The additional 90/0 is not a breach of the ordinance, but allowed by a CUP under the new ordinance, if the proposed project is consistent with the bulk and scale of the neighborhood and historic district as a whole. Again, the issues of bulk and scale are qualitative in nature, and we believe the proposed house fits into the neighborhood context. ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITECT . . . A -$ Miscellaneous: The overwhelming majority of neighbors oppose the oversized house. This statement is untrue. The applicant has also produced a minimum of 20 neighbors and other city residents who are in support of the project. (See attached Petition in Support and Letters in Support) However, the CUP does not require neighborhood approval for any project. The Conditional Use Permit process appears Jlawed, unfairlY administered, an~d undermines the intent of the size limit ordinance. We believe that the CUP process regarding our house has been administered properly. In addition, the proposed project should not be delayed any further because other citizens are unhappy with the existing ordinance or with city officials. Unequal treatment by planning staff in administering the conditions of the Maximum House Size ordinance and the subsequent CUP process. As stated earlier, the reported events outlined by Mr. Jim Williams concerning his potential CUP application are unfortunate, but they should have no any bearing on this application. These concerns should be brought to the attention of planning staff, the city council, and the city attorney as a separate concern. Correspondence with Neighbors: Since purchasing the property in July 2003, we have had several contacts -with neighbors about impending work and the project in general. One of the first contacts was about the removal of one of the old black oak trees on our property. We sent a letter to several neighbors, and later a copy of the arborists report, advising them that we unfortunately will need to remove the tree. We informed them that we were removing the tree at the suggestion of two vvrell- known arborists because of extreme decease and decay, and not because of design issues. For the most part, the neighbors have preferred to express concerns through appeals and petitions. Except for Doug Widney and Jim Williams, we have not heard directly from any other neighbors. ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITLCT . . . A-ft> After the first appeal, we sent letters to the (4) neighbors who spoke in opposition to our project at the Historic Commission and the Planning Hearings Board to offer a chance for an open-dialogue on the proposed ~;vork (see attached letters), only to receive a sarcastic response from the group as a whole (see attached letter). Petition of Support: We have attached a copy of a petition in support of the proposed project from neighbors within 2 Yz blocks of our property. Letters of Support: - Mark Knox (attached) - Bob Kuenzel (previously submitted) - Neil Sechan (previously submitted) - Dan Maymar (submitted separately) Respectfully, /14 5d'/{/ Robert and Susan Saladoff EXHIBITS: Perspective Drawings Tree Report Correspondence with Neighbors Petition in Support Letters of Support ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITLCT . . . A-I " \-, /,;' j,~_J_\<:, I /',).( (~\ I (/ /'"b~""::<: \ \ ~/'/ 'd.:.' ~ .~;.') I ':, ..:\ - ,~:_ '2J4~~~:' '. .;}~ '. ". ,I --'-'~ ,;::'".:: .! ...~ ..~ ."~ ,..;...~. ,,;< .. !t) 1.. r' '~..y ~',:' .t" . .'. . \ / / . . f ./ X '. ,/ ":'.,.i : I ' \ / j/ \.. ( .....r. .---'. ... ......-:. '-::-.:.~ .. . . ..~:." ., " '0 ,.::: J. ~,.,..._...--.--" .' _ _.._. ._..<:':... ~R'~ . .;-..... '" - .......--_.. - -......- -...~.. "i~("; ....... ........ /. . ~..,-;. .' / ..//' 4--8 , . I \ \ \ 1\ ., \ \ ' Jr:''"tTtJ,~ 't .', hW ~",;j! '~ O\r) .. ~'1 : !"! r- ", ~L iiJl':' j.t V'} ~QllJ/~ \ I \ i \ \ \ '\ \.,"\ \ \ u-->, ;,\ tlJ /~,:p;._-~ /' i ' J , /... v I 1-."_. ..J! /l/ !C='1~ . \.~'. . fC-c ~f-'~ \~: . ---"1, ' i// [---'] ~ ~,~ t~~~~J:' ,'", ''<><r \ I \,/ ." . ...._.."'".,;,~>,~' o! -....", f ' h""'V~ '"\ 1/1. \iY rr I' l , "1- \ '\ (\.t' \ '1 '~ \. '\ , " , .'__'-""''- I' .~:..~._~.~' - - .~~j..." .C' '.. ..,' '-';'1' ~",,_..,'OJi, A- r RPR-20-2004 12: 17 FRot1: Tot1 t1YER~; 5414884126 TO: 5415529512 P.004 Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-482-3667 April 20, 2004 Attn Rob 5alidoff 150 Church St Ashland, Or 97520 Hazard Tree Report for 160 Church The 42-inch diameter Black Oak at 150 Church street is in decline. It has a canopy radius of 30 feet and a height of 48 feet Although this tree could exist in a vacant lot for years without presen1ing a hazard, once a house is on the property. the tree must be considered hazardous. There is a 25 inch wide cavity on the south side with associated root decay in the buttress roots on that same side. Further signs of root decay can be evidenced by the abundance of deadwood in the canopy (~nd the general thinning of the canopy_ There is a connecting decay column above the trunk wound lon one of the main scaffold limbs. The tree was topped in the past $0 that many of the scaffold limbs have hollows with associated decay. This tree could have a catastrophic failure of either the trunk ()r the root system, I must consider this tree hazardous and recommend removal. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me. Tom Myers, Certified Arborist :h-.- DBA Upper Umb-it I" ,.... . A-tO RPR-20-2004 12:'16 FRO~1: TO~1 MYERS, ' 5414884126 ' TO: 5415529512 P.001 . 7RiiitAiAliD EVALUATioN iOliif;~ ~Won &W~ I ~o (lAUrc-\..... ~ \- ~ o..nm: putit ptivat8 v. uoknown DIIa: ~ ( t q (d4J~ -r~A ~'t: ~~ D* oIlaSllnspedion: =~\I~<';C.I.!" \c.<! Uo n~ i _ ~ . of ""*" t IblIIIIot .4 i I .,....,...:.3Q.. ftpI: 0 gII1ttIDy symmetriC mfuInor ~ 0 maior uymmetrf 0 stump sprout 0 ~ c:n. ~ ~ir1anI O~ Cis\ttfmedi8le O~ lJ.aCSWIIIIG: --'.i- % Age class: Oyoung 0 scmHnature Omatute ~ PnGIaII bt*r. 0 CfO'M\ cleaned 0 exrzssi\dt miMt4i t'Q1bpped 0 CtOWR rdd 0 poI1atded 0 crown reduced 0 tkJ.5h ClJtl 0 ~ o none 0 multiple pnminQ ~ Appmx. dattS l,edal YIbIr. 0 specimen 0 ~ric C wiId11fe 0 unusual 0 sireel ba 0 screen l11'shadc nalnc1genoUS C prottcted by p. aganey tWMD IW1I&G: II attIer ... __+___t_-~ Fdure .. Size .. '1hnIcn · PotenIiaI of part Ramo _ tmmedi:at1;actiClCI needed _ NaOOs fwtt\er if~ _ Dead 1TOO Huant Ra1inQ - l tREE IIEAL11I hbac ceIar. (J(noonaI 0 chlDJptiC 0 neel'Olic Epic*IDIcI? G N f01laoe de8Stly: 0 oonnal ~se ..... tiz8: 0 nonnaI ~ AaIUaI SIMJal powtJr. 0 excellent tirbe,. c poCI( Twtt otebtc*? V N ...........mem: O~ ~ 0 po<< 0 none VII<< dm; 0 eaDcnt 0 MI1Qe 0 fair Z poot lllajof,..,meaes: sm COIIDmONS SUI CUddlr. ~tdence C commen:iaI ~ ~ = paR O.n space 0 na1ufaI 0 WOOC1IWN~re$t w~ type: 0 parovay ~ JIbed bed = tOOtainer !:J mound B1f~ .0 shrub bOC'dtr 0 wind ~( IniptIeQ: 0 none ty(""~~ 0 ~ :J exCdSIVI .=. trunk we1Ucd Recad UtI dtsturbtaa? ''f f!) 0 cons1nlt1XJR :: soil dtStUft)ance C pie ctIange 01ine deamg 0 ~ clelting % dripIlRe pend: @ 1().25% ~ 5Q.1S% 75--100'4 "",,''''d? '(C~.:) .,. ...._ w' fin soH: o-t. 1o-2s-:. 25-50% 50-75' 75-100% % dftJIlIII grade ....: 0% 10-2.5~ 2S-~ 50--75~ 75-100% SOU pcob*- 0 dfai1aQe Cl shaDow QCOmpadlld 0 drOUQhty 0 saIrle 0 alkaline 0 aclck 0 sma!I volume 0 dislQSl ccnW 0 history of tail o day 0 mcpansM 0 sto,c - · ISped: O~ 0 lights 0 siQnaoe Oline-of-s9d DviaW 0 ~ lne$ 0 undelQfound utiQtla 0 UilfflC 0 adjlC8nt veo. 0 &paan "wbIC: tDlingIe tree 0 bdow canopy 0 abtM canopy 0 ftI(;adIy exposed 0 windward. canopy edge Cl an:a proN to wiAdtnrow PrwaUlnG wind .irIdUMI: ()ccurTenCe of lnIMfa ~ 0 never i:hddom 0 ~ 4 GIGWlb~ o ~ 0 wiret'tia a sigAS a cableS o~nt o guards o othar TARGET lbe Uftdef In.: 0 building 0 pPIng 0"* 0 pcdeStNft 0 r1ICtQtton 0 landscape 0 ~ 0 lint. funJre$ 0 - iRes CIA.tIIJtt De mow" Y N taD ute .. ~ Y N 0ccupaIty: 0 occaionat use 0 intennbw\t US1 0 trequent uu 0 COf'&1Jnt use The IntematioNI Sode1y of ArbOricutWre assumes no ~Iity tor toodu$ions Dr ~ dafMld from use of tiS tonTI. No \e: 'T\o..c..'f<.. \6 Co ~V"\: ~. ~.-e..' Specimen: TllEE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM~ Page 1 A-( ( APR-20-2004 12:15 FROM:TOM MYERS f!' l t j1- I . . ,. ~ . .. 'i- ,,'. 5414884125 TO: 5415529512 P.003 TREE DEF~ ROOT DEFECTJ: Su.,.a met 1Ot:(j) N Mdttro~,.aut y Q!) 10: EQoaed _all: 0 stVefe Omodel* ~ ~ 0 SMA Om0dend8 ~ Root prIM4: ____ cfistar1ce from tnInk Reed.. afIedH: _ % IIUIrea woaaadtll: {j N Wben: Z-- Rostrictt. .... 1m: 0 SMrt 0 modeq1a. 0 loW PGtutmIIGt I1l8l fIUuN; 0 SMI1 ~ modenlte 0 low LfAII: _ deg. from vtt1lcaI ~ 0 UfINIur1ll O~ $aU.....-e: y N D"'Y II ptal of Ian: (j ~ RIOtIItrtbn Y N Sol cqdge: Y N ~iq faaors: lM..-nr: 0 SMfI 0 mO(ierata 0 tow CRtJW1IIJERiQ$:. Indicate presence of indMduaI defeds aoo ra1e IheIr ~ (I oS ~. m . modell1I.ls Iowl Dmcr ROOT CRO\VII TRUMI SCAFFOlDS lafWtCttES Poor t:aDeI' Bow. sMeO COdomlnJntslforks MuItfoIA IttJI:tnnent!l locIuded ~ ~end~ Hanoers GirdlinG w,unds/aeam -~ ()C(iV ,--5 cs- CiVIiY' 5 < CAri:sImushroomslbracket bw looscIcr3clced baric .c:.. lW.. Htstina ho18lbn ewe OeacrwoodIstubs Y'Y\ ~ ~rsI PrMM taillltl JV1 HAZARD RATING Tree pen most &dy to fail: -. Y'\.M. ~ 0 (" t'1::O ~ tnspection peOOd; annual...iC..- biaMuaI _ other Failan PoIeftUal + SIze of Part... Wget Rating II Hmnt Rating 3-',- + '-f + -L. -9- HAZARD ABATEMENT PnuIt: 0 I8mCNI ddadM part 0 r1duce end weI9ht [J uawn daft 0 ttJfn ~- ~ he: <!J N RepIat.? Y N .. __ Y N 0IhIr: Elleet III...... hu: ~ 0 MIuab: tlGUlIl.rJc 0 owner CI manager 0 gomnlng agency DaI8: COMMENTS s~~ a..~W Ccu~ \~\;\.:.v Faibe pOtential: t. low: 2 .. medIun,; 3 - high; 4 . severe ~ d pan: 1. dr (15 em); 2 - &.-ur (1s-.i5 an); 3 . 18-W (4S-7S an); ., . >3Q- (75 em) 'fqet rJting: 1. occuionaI use; 2 irdermJaent use; 3. ~ usa;. . Q)Mbnt use o raise I3ftOP'i 0 CRMlm redlQ 0 RlStlul:~ 0 shape Iapect IIItMr. 0 rwt trOWI't 0 detay 0 aQJ Cl MOQitor Specimen: TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM, Page 2 A-/;( Susan and Rob Saladoff 1290 Ivlunson Drive AsWand, Oregon 97520 (541) 482-1593 (home) 482-3111 (Susan - work) 482-3772 (Rob- work) October 18, 2004 Melody and Jeff Jones 79 Pine Street AsWand, Oregon 97520 Dear Melody and Jeff: We were sorry that you left the meeting so early last week. We wanted to apologize to you for not providing the information to you about the oak tree in advance of its removaL vV' e did send letters to all our adjoining neighbors on Church Street and those across the street and the neighbors on Baum. We didn't realize that we should have included those of you on Pine as well. It was not our intent to exclude you. We were saddened by the report from the two arborists about the oak tree, and would not have considered removing the tree if we had not gotten the reports that we did. You heard the report from Tom Myers, read at the Planning Commission. He called the tree "hazardous" and recommended that we remove it. We brought in another arborist from Grants Pass, without telling him of Tom's report so that we could get an independent analysis, and he said the same thing. We love trees, and did not remove it simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new trees, which won't replace the beautiful oak, but will hopefully provide the neighborhood with some new beauty. We also recognize your concerns about the alley, and the increased traffic. Considering that the alley will be our primary access to our property, we too are concerned about safety. We did not . have a choice about how to access our property; it was the City's decision that we enter from the rear and off the alley. We know you questioned whether we could really be good neighbors at the Planning Commission. We have always had good relationships with our neighbors, and when we bought the property, the first thing we did was knock on our neighbors' doors to say hello. We realize that it must be difficult for you, having lived in your house for so many years, to have the neighborhood change and the lot filled with a house. We would like to reconcile the hard feelings that obviously exist. Regardless of w.hether our house has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to be neighbors, and it would be much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and share the proverbial "cup of sugar." We would still like to see if that is possible with both of you. Perhaps we could meet and get to know each other without talking about the property. We would like you. to meet our two daughters. Rebecca is 16 and a junior in high school; Dana is 14 and a fi'eshman. We don't even know if you ;4-t3 have children and might need a babysitter. :Nfy hope is that maybe we could start fresh. If you are willing to meet with us and reconcile our differences, we would be grateful. If you feel that we need a neutral third party to help smooth things over between us, we would be willing to'do it that way as well. Our email addressesareSsaladoff@aol.comorSalarch@mind.net. Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at home or work. We hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, ~ and Rob Saladoff A- 'VI Susan and Rob Saladoff 1290 Munson Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 482-1593 (home) 482-3111 (Susan. work) 482.3772 (Rob. work) --October 15,2004 Kate Thill and Lewis Nash 88 Baum. Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Kate and Lew: We have always thought of ourselves as good neighbors, and tried to convey that by coming to meet you right after we bought the property . We were saddened by the report from the two arborists about the oak tree, and would not have considered removing the tree if we had not received the expert-reports that we did. You heard the report from Tom Myers, read at the Planning Commission. He called the tree "hazardous" and recommended that we remove it. We even brought in another arborist from Grants Pass, without telling him of Torn's report so that we could get an independent analysis, and the second professional arborist said the same thing. We love trees, and did not remove the dying oak simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new trees, which woil't replace the beautiful oak, but which will hopefully provide the neighborhood with some new beauty. We would like to reconcile the hard feelings that presently exist. Regardless ofwhether our house ultimately has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to build a house, and will still be neighbors, and it would be much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and share-the proverbial "cup of sugar." We would still like to see if that is possible with both of you. Perhaps we could meet and get to know each other without talking about the property. We would like you to meet our two daughters. They are both 4.0 students and, when you meet theIlll., hopefully you will see that they are not the types to have wild and loud parties. We don't even lmow if you have children or grandchildren in the area. My hope is that maybe we could start fresh. We obviously have done things that have upset you, and we apologize. If you are willing to break bread with us and reconcile our differences, we would be grateful. If you feel that we need a neutral third party to help smooth things over between us, vte would be willing to do it that way as well. Our email addressesareSsaladoff(ll).aol.comorSalarch@rn.ind.net. Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at home or work. We hope to hear from you soon. ~mC~IY, ~") . r)~ucnfi ~~ l1~an and Rob Saladoff , ( A-IS Susan and Rob Saladoff 1290 Munson Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 482-1593 (home) 482-3111 (Susan- - work) 482-3772 (Rob- work) - .October 18, 2004 . Cynthia and Mark Brown 1 71 Church Street AsWand, Oregon 97520 Dear CYnthia and Mark: We were saddened by the report from the two arborists about the oak tree, and would not have considered removing the tree if we had not gotten the reports that we did. You heard the report from Tom Myers, read at the Planning Commission. He called the tree "hazardous" and recommended that we remove it. We brought in another arborist from Grants Pass, without telling him of Tom's report so that we could get an independent analysis, and he said the same thing. We love trees, and did not remove it simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new trees, which won't replace the beautiful oak, but will hopefully provide the neighborhood with some new beauty. We recognize your concerns about the alley, and also want to make sure that the intersection between Church and the alley is safe. Considering that we will be using that alley as our primary -, access to our honse, that c.oncern is equally important to us as well. As you heard at the Planning Commission, we did not have a choice about how to access our property; it was the City's decision. We would like to reconcile the hard feelings that obviously exist. Regardless of ~,hether our house has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to be neighbors, and it would be- much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and share the proverbial "cup of sugar." We would still like to see if that is possible with both of you. Perhaps we could meet and get to know each other without talking about the property. We would like you to meet our two daughters. Rebecca is 16 and a junior in high school; Dana is 14 and a freshman. My hope is that maybe we could start fresh. If you are willing to meet with us and reconcile our differences, we would be gratt~fu1. If you feel that we need a neutral third party to help smooth things over between us, we would be willing to do it that way as well. Our email addressesareSsaladoff({!).aol.comorSalarch~v.mind.net. Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at home or work. We hope to hear from you soon. /0. ~;~~ Susan and Rob Saladoff A-fh Susan and Rob Saladoff 1290 Munson Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 482-1593 (home) 482-3111 (Susan - work) 482-3772 (Rob- work) - 'October 18, 2004 Mr. David Hoxie 174 Church Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear David: We heard your letter read at the recent Planning Commission hearing, and wanted to see if you would be willing to me(~t with us to discuss your concerns in greater detail. With re~spect to the run-off issue, we have an easement to drain our water under the adjoining property to Pine Street. With respect to traffic in the alley, we have a similar interest in making sure that the alley is safe. We did not have a choice about how to access our property; it was the City's decision that we enter from the rear and off the alley. We don't know if you too have hard feelings about the oak tree. Many of the other neighbors are very upset iliat we cut down the oak. We were saddened by the report from two arborists about the oak tree, and would not have considered removing the tree if we had not gotten the reports that we did. Tom Myers, from lJpper Limb-It, called the tree "hazardous" and recommended that we remove it. We brought in another arborist from Grants Pass, without telling him ofToml's report so that we could get an independent analysis, and he said the same thing. We love trees, and did not remove it simply to make room for our house. We plan on planting many new trees, 'which won't replace the beautiful oak, but will hopefully provide the neighborhood with some new beauty. We would like to reconcile any hard feelings that you may have. Regardless of w'hether our house has an additional 308 square feet or not, we are still going to be neighbors, and it would be much nicer to have neighbors whom we can say hello to, and share the proverbial "cup of sugar." If you are. willing to meet with us, we would be grateful. Our email addresses are Ssaladoff(lV,aol.com or Salarch(a),mind.net. Otherwise, you could reach us by phone at hOlme or work. We hope to hear from you soon. rincerely, D r4{t!i;/~ fi {ok> Susan and Rob Saladoff .:/ A-f7 Rob and Susan Saladoff 290 Munson Dr. Ashland, OR 97520 November 9, 2004 To the Saladoffs: The Jones' , the Browns, Lew Nash & Kate Thill all have received your letters about neighborhood harmony. We prefer to respond as one' voice. Jim Williams has received no communication from you. This is to let you know that we plan to appeal the issuance of your Conditional Use Permit to the City Council. We consider the ordinance and it's application to be flawed and we want a fair hearing. About your desire to reconcile with the neighbors, we too are concerned that your actions to date have left very little sugar in the neighborhood's cup. An effort on your part to make amends with Jim Williams \vould be helpful. We hope that the resolution of these issues will create a better neighborhood climate. \~N~ Lew Nash ~- ~~~~ Mark Brown A-IS PETITION IN SUPPORT We are in full support of the proposed residential project at 150 Church Street in AsWand, Oregon. The project is beautifully designed, adheres to the guidelines of As Wand's design standards and the new maxirnum house size ordinance, compliments the existing historic neighborhood, and minimizes the impact on the existing historic neighborhood by using sustainable principles. NO. NAME SIGNAUJRE 1. ::kNItT~,J L#GC .~ //' ADDRESS / 9 'f lot:; ~ 2J1i(" 4. " '~ 5.__~-ivr )>E~/~ 311 S'(fJ'V(L ~ LI s,4. $T4.GIL I 7. t\~...,Q.- b 0 ~ I 8. ~~t.f{r:r KIAEN~ ~ G. (..,.." !\. 9.t{j((~ ~ ~\){;\\) 10. Wt1~ rclZ ~. "K-G'f tel NU.:f/~ b\ ~~\c..rS~. 2..15 IV U7-LGY 11. CItR.I,S /tg(;Jo""-P-rm~ ~ ~ :2-15 Nut-l~'i U. M. G:. (r4.~\;J ,,\!) F,; <1FR, .j f?, hI, f. (u?J,-.;. }~~. b 3 ,PuS il ST: 13 /i "L/ ~'-.' ;' (' '9 i ' . C>C LJ;. t:: A :.. 0' J:",o:... r!r N (!--c-<-..c?-<I-:>-_) (~~-<-/i/, ~'-r"./ / ~ J~. ,/ <'T UJ_.-J V i,':'; ~I' ..J F 14. 15. A -{ l' PETITION IN SUPPORT We are in full support of the proposed residential project at 150 Church Street in AsWand, Oregon. The project is beautifully designed, adheres to the guidelines of As Wand's design standards and the new maximum house size ordinance, compliments the existing historic: neighborhood, and minimizes tlu~ impact on the existing historic neighborhood by using sustainable principles. NO. NAME SIGNATURE 1. r;&'^p~~J~ 2. L eS[le.. e~..- ~ 3. 'DDn n Q Rh. ee 4. :5 AMt3 P ~-A- 5. r2~t\.~ p~~ ADDRESS ItS- 5ce&-\ r c.,.. 7) ~- .. ~r. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. u. 13. 14. 15. It-;Lo Dee 01 04 09:1Sa p.2 PETITION IN SUPPORT We are in full support of the proposed residential project at 150 Church Street in Ashland, Oregon. The project is beautifully designed, adheres to the guidelines of Ashland's design standards and the new maximum house size ordinance, compliments the existing historic neighborhood, and minimizes the impact on the existing historic neighborhood by using sustainable principles. NO. NAME 1. 1)Q U{t tL ADDRESS 5' c; t2N-/rT Ii S~. As H JArJO J ~ ni/~ 5/ I fJ.s1/e-c/ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. A-~, November 30th, 2004 Ashland City Council 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Letter of Support; Saladoff House I'm writing this letter in support of Rob and Susan Saladofrs Conditional Use Permit application. I've seen the Saladofr s house plans and believe the design is attractive and contextually compatible with the neighboring houses and will one day be a contributing resource for the Skidmore Academy Historic District. I've had the opportuni~y to be involved with a few similar applications, pre-applic:ations or inquiry meetings involving proposals to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A). I also had many conversations with the Historic Commissioners as to what policies and thresholds should be considered with such applications. During these opportunities, it was believed that minor exceptions (1 - 10%) should be granted on the basis of architectural design and neighborhood compatibility. Requests from 10%, to 25% were held to a much higher standard. In these cases, the applicants would need to base their findings on not only architecture or contextual compatibility with the neighborhood, but also physical constraints of the property such as steep slopes or access constraints. In the Saladoff's case, the percentage over the MPF A is minute and the house compatible and attractive. Lastly, I understand th(~ ordinance is complex and has caused some frustration at times with the public. However, the ordinance is working as it was intended. The ordincillce has eliminated "monster homes", discouraged "scrape offs" and has required applicants to thoroughly evaluate th(~ir ideas so that the best plans are on the table.. The City's Historic Districts are an asset for all of us and deserve this level of protection. In the Saladoffs case, they likely could have redesigned their home to meet the !vfPFA and thereby could have: avoided the expense of the filing fee, eliminated "all public/staff discretion" and design(~d an incompatible residence. They chose the more difficult route because they need the additional space for their family and more importantly, believe in their design. The Council should reward them for their actions and grant the Conditional Use Permit as did the Historic Commission and Planning Commission. Sincerely, ~?f~" Mark Knox (" -----........-- ~ ~ A-;L;;( Page I of2 Robert Saladoff From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: <Kuenzel@aol.com> <mclaughj@ashland.or.us> <seversod@Ashland.or.us> Sunday, Odober 10, 2004 2:24 PM Planning Action No. 2004-1110 Re: Project by Robert and Susan Saladoff, property at 150 Church Street, Planning Action No. 2004-110 Dear Mac: I had actually hoped to be able to come to the hearing scheduled for this matter on Tuesday, but a federal judge in Eugene ordered everyone involved in one of my cases to a mandatory settlement conference there that day. I hope that providing you with a few of my thoughts by email will be an appropriate way to share my input on this matter. To begin: My family and I live at 98 Pine Street, and are neighbors of the affected property. On a good day, I think I could probably throw a ball from my property to (well, I'm getting older, maybe almost to) the nearest part of th~~ Saladoff property. And in coming back home from business around town, we drive up Church Street and down Hoxie's Alley (riglht by the property) every day, often numerous times. I am also far from insensitive to the issue of having new building in our neighborhood fit in appropriately - as you know, the huge De Boer project on Granite Street is literally right below our home and yard, and we have thus had ample reason recently to think, and to talk among neighbors, about the importance of using the City's infill policy in a way that is consistent with the values and "feel" of the neighborhoods affected. All that said, I have a difficult time understanding the concern apparently expressed by at least one neighbor about this project. From what I understand, the proposed design will fit very well into our historic neighborhood, uses some of the best features of craftsman design, works with existing grades to blend into the hillside, breaks up the volumes involved with numerous set-backs, etc. from Church Street, and will employ natural materials and textures to blend well with the landscape. Although it is somewhat larger than the immediate neighboring homes, it seems to me that a house of this size (approximately 3500 square feet) is hardly inappropriate for a contemporary family of four. If I understand the numbers correctly, the requested incremental space to be allowed as against the normal entitlement is only 300 square feet. That increment, of course, is very modest. And from any neighbor's perspective, it would certainly be less intrusive than a small outbuilding - which could nonetheless be much larger than the 300 square feet at issue here -- pushed back to the setback line. Finally in this regard, as someone who loves open space, and can well understand (remember the Granite Street project) the instinctive sadness of a neighbor who must see what has been a vacant lot turn into someone else's home, I still have to say that there is open space - and there is open space. Considering the appearance of this particular empty lot" the overall site design proposed, including an attractive house, with patios, stone walls, and pool, seems likely to improve the appearance of the neighborhood, measured against the "open space" that is there now. Finally, though I don't know how pertinent these facts may be to the planning action at issue, it seems appropriate to note that I have known the Saladoffs from the days of their exploration of the possibility of moving to our city. They came here, as have so many of us, because they loved the community feeling and values of Ashland, and wanted to be part of it. And that they have: both Robert and Susan have become active contributors to our community, through their religious congregation and in numerous civic activities. Both of them (and their two lovely daughters) are wonderful people, and, frankly, we loolk forward to having them become a part of our neighborhood. If you think that there may be anything else helpful that I can provide you or the Commission, or if there is some better way to communicate my thoughts, I very much hope that you will email me back or call me at my office (552-0142), sometime before I head off to Eugene on Tuesday morningl. Best regards, Bob Kuenzel 4~~J 11/30/2004 C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title of planning action: oil . J~) ,e-&o~ ~}.;&-O LJ- \ 1 0 ~+t,4 ~() f-T- }\ u~) :~~ D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party (For each person listed above in Box A, check the appropriate box below.) The person named in ~ I am the applicant. Box A.1. above 'i!)articipated in the public hearing before the planning qualifies as a party commission, either orally or in writing. because: ~ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not Ireceive notice due to error. ~ I am the applicant. ~ I participated in the public hearing before the planning commission, either orally or in writing. ~ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Attach additional pages it others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a party. The person named in Box A.2. above qualifies as a party because: E. Spe~ific Grounds for Appeal " .. 1. The first specific ground for Which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): s~~ A1\~ ~b\y.J ~ ~ ~f\s This is an E~rror because the applicable criteria or procedure in the. Ashland Municipal Code ~ or other law in ~ re~quires that (attach additional paoes if necessary): 2. The second specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municiipal Code ~ or othe~r law in ~ roquires that (attach additional pages if necessary): 3. The third specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): This is an error because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code ~ or other law in ~ requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): I 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that WE~re violated.) Appeal Fee With this notice of appeal I (we ) submit the sum of $ ~ b C( which is the :appeal fee required by ~ 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: ~~ \;Y-A,--, \. \)) d-tJO ~ Signature(s) o~ person(~) filing appeal (attach a1dditi,qnal pages if necessary): ~~. ~",--ry~~' C~.1-- )~~)dt. ,'.,.' {, I .IH~ ~~Icl ~<4k(C'Ci) <. /~.7/L ~j/ /f,J- ~ Note: 'r,,;s ~ of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002, prior to the effective date. of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.108.070. ;'A Names and Addresses of Petitioners Action 2004-110 Name A,ddress Qualification Ordinance # Lew Nash & :KateThill 88 Baum St. In Public Hearing 18.104.050 8v.-c l{ .., t\ 0 Mark & Cici Brown 17 Church St. In Public Hearing C P Criteria B Jeff & Melody Jones 79 Pine S t. In Public Hearing cutCri~ri~tB Jim Williams 160 Church St.In Public Hearing CUP intimidated 2 ---) NOV 1 8 2004 John McLaughlin, Direc:tor Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 November 18, 2004 Re: Saladoff Permit Dear Mr. ]McLaughlin: Attached is a copy of our appeal to the City Council that outlines our reasons for rnaking the appeal. During the Historic Conlmission meeting of September 8th you stated that "the Staff needs to r~eview the CUP process" and to "identify specific criteria" to deal with the new size limit. You also stated that you considered the CUP as a safety net, and we agree. We understand that ther,e should be a reasonable "safety net" for practical difficulties, hardshipsl' or for results at-odds with the intent of the law. In our view however, the Saladoff proposal does not satisfy any of these. To justify his over-sized house, Mr. Salidoff gave the following reasons: 1. A family of four (including 2 teenagers). 2. The "strong possibility" of a senior relative moving in within 5 years 3. That they entertain often and have frequent visitoJ;s requiring extended stays 4. That the conforming house design makes the additional size unimportant. We find these arguments unconvincing, at odds with the intent of the size limit ordinance, and not compelling enough to over-ride size creep concerns in the Historic District. In our view a Conditional Use Permit is a modified Variance and should be treated in much the same way. The Staff takes a different approach. One Staff member (Molnar) stated that the CUP is a softer and more "free flowing" process than a Variance, but I can find nothing in the ordinance~ that allows this. Is there any justification for this "softening"? It appears that the looselly written ordinance and Staff interpretations are causing unfairness and confusion. Comments made by Staff and Commissioners during the October 12th Planning hearing confirm this - (taken from the minutes). 1. "Each application is a little different and it will be a struggle to make a decision." (~1olnar) 2. "Square footage doesn't address the bulk and scale at the street. This is a bulk and scale ordinance but directed toward square footage. More guidelines are needed for this ordinance." (Morris with Dawkins' agreement) 3. "Size creep is the only issue. The (size cap) ordinance is generous and (I) can't approv1e (the permit) without a hugely compelling reason." (Dawkins) 4. "The 25% overage must be coming from our elected officials but (I) don't know what should or could ever allow for a percent increase." (Douma) 4 !VOV 1 8 t The hearing minutes add: "Morris said if the Council really wants to identify bulk, scale and coverage, they can't really be identified in this ordinance. He would hate to have an appeal to clarify the ordinance. He is afraid the Council will not clarify it, and we will go through it again. There are no criteria that seem to be valid based on our CUP that apply to this ordinance". The neighbors and I are appealing this case because we are angry that this loosely written ordinance has allowed the easy breaching of the size limit, the unfair issuing of permits, the appan:mt arbitrary Staff interpretations, and the impossible adjudication by Commissioners, such as who gets to exceed the limit by 9%,25%, or 0 %. The City of Ashland Conditional Use Permit Handout states that a permit requires: a response to each of the following criteria, and in item #1 it says "That the use would be in conformance with ALL standards within the zoning district - - - -" ( capitalization mine). One of the standards for the Historic District is the new square-foot size limit. The logical response is that Saladoff's application is not in conformance and therefore must be denied. If so, why was the permit issued? During the September 8th Historic Commission hearing, Commissioner Saladoff "recused" himself, walked around the table to make his own presentation, then returned to his cOlllmissioner's seat -or close to it -for the rest of the discussion and vote on his project. lIe did not VOtf~ but, as verified in the minutes, he participated in those proceedings by asking a question. His presence and action gave the appearance of insider influence and favoritistn. This is significant because the Commission's recommendation influenced Douma's swing vote at the Planning hearing later. What does "recuse" mean in such a public hearing? Still unresolved for a number of us in the neighborhood are: traffic issues along IIoxie Alley and the dangerous intersection at Church & Scenic; the City's rigid adherence to sidewalk and driveway access rules in the Historic District in contrast with the "fluid" house size ordinance, and the likely damage to Doug Widney' s tree roots next door at 147 Chur.~h Street by the proposed house foundations. We understand that these side issues may not be appropriate for the City Council hearing, but how do we get them resolved? As neighbors, we find ourselves paying $269 for a hearing before the City Council to defend its own defective ordinance against a permit that probably should not havt:~ been issued in the first place. What recourse do we have to correct this? Our City Council hearing is scheduled for December 7th so I would appreciate a timely response. My email addressis:nashthill@opendoor.com. ~~, tv a.1{", cc: City .Attorney Mike Franell Lew Nash ~ \ \j \ \~~-> ~.~ \\ e \)01\\ G \ l--- NOV 1 8 2004 Grounds for Reversal Planning Action 2004-110 of October 12. 2004\ Saladoff permit Section 18.104.050 Criteria C-l Lew Nash & Kate Thill 88 Baum St. Similarity in Scale, Bulk and Coverage: We contend that the Planning Commission staff has improperly issued a Conditional Use Permit, that specific code conditions have not been met, and that the staff has arbitrarily, and without public input, decided which code provisions apply in this case. We contend that the criteria for bulk and scale have not been addressed because this permit: Alllows a breach of the size limit by over 9%. Gives priority to design considerations at the expense of bulk and scale. The ordinance lists square footage as the primary factor for controlling house size, not de:sign considerations. Is not supported by compelling, or even convincing reasons. The overwhelming majority of neighbors oppose the oversized house - 15 by the latest count. We ask that this permit be denied and/or returned to the Planning Commission for further review The Conditional Use Permit Process: The history of this case demands a discussion of the permit issuing process itself. Without such a discussion this, and other potential projects, cannot be fully addressed. These issues have resulted in pitting neighbor against neighbor, and city against citizen. We intend to show that: The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process appears flawed, unfairly administered, and undermines the intent of the size limit ordinance. That the CUP is essentially a variance and thus the test should be the sam(~ - "compelling and convincing reasons". There is nothing in the ordinance that describes the CUP as being more ""free flowing" as stated by the Staff, or stating that a CUP is different than a Variance. By issuing CUPs without compelling and convincing reasons, and then supporting the CUPs through the hearing process, the Staff is exceeding its discretionary powers and is setting public policy. Such advocacy actions by the Staff foster unequal treatment. As representatives of the City, the staff should be either neutral or taking positions to support the ordinances. ,/ ~L NOV 1 8 2004 Issuing the CUP in effect shifts the Burden of Proof from defending the linrrit to defending the permit; from the petitioner who wants to breach the limit to those who want to defend it. Neighbors should not have to be defending a city ordinance. While the Planning staff gave one neighbor no hope for a successful permit application, a second neighbor was issued a CUP unsupported by compelling or even convincing reasons. This gives the appearance of a preferential system with different standards. We ask tl1at you take the following steps: 1. Use the same or similar criteria for CUPs as for Variances 2. Make the issuance of the CUP an open, transparent system whE~re all parties are treated equally. 3. Direct the Planning Commission staff to support existing ordinances or at least not take advocate positions, 4. Deny this CUP so that no precedent is set and these issues can be addressed. Lew Nash Kate Thill 1 -- ~ ,f .....,.~. ,8 \ ;- _'lR.~. ~ L II If .. I I ---' .t1"" b '\ } r ~ .... ;'J , I' "" -. ..... I I I I ' I ,~ , , ) ,'"- -- '" '" " -.. - 1 "". I I I f I I I I " " I I I .. ~ .... .. ~~ r ~ I . . .' I . ~ I " ,\ I } I I . I * I 1 I I I 0; ( \ I \1 I .~~ l I , " I .*~ ," ~l '''J IF I ;J i' .' lJ&J' 00 -:r " 'If I "4 .. ~ \ I ~ t~ , I .. -r II. I ~ " \ i' .. 'V""~ I; .. , r 4 ." I .J~ II I' J 1 - , I ., .. . , . . ;} . I I I ,. I . t >" ~~ " ~l r - / L.Ili'~__ L- ___ J ) -'3 " t.i ~ \:.'. \"(.. 'It, "';, '''i " .,. ;, I~ ,,1 ~" ~ oj I fl , 'I. I .. u ,. i"" " of .. . . t::; ~~ , J .. ~ Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HE,.....,ING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on December t", 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure Ito 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 oln also precludes YOUlr right of appeal to lUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approva I with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy o~theapplication, ...ocuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are aViailable 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 tlD the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Mayor shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Mayor shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion ofthe hearing, tho record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, at 541-552-2041. Our 1TY phone number is 1-800-735- 2900. PLANNING ACTION 2004-110 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 3901. APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff I I CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authorilty 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 considerE~d 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. Incn~ases 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 ~~nvironmental 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 be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. I':l- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF lDREGON County of ,Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East IMain Street, Ashland, Oregon 97!520, in the Community Development Department:. 2. On Nn\lArYlhAr 1?, ?004, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a ...( '...,...-Ll'/ ,-" . _<-F /1/1//;17 / / v.~ .l ~ .- c-- (. l. Ie t{ 'j ~ ( sealed env,elope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached FiRrllngs to II -'1: ~d I It]lc each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on . '0 this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2004-110 . s'~~~'~~:;[-~g Secretary SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 12th day of NO\lember, 2004. ~( f&.nA-J,0 Nary Pub IC for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: q-I ~ ....t1 7 f- .- OFFICIAL SEAL ." '. '. NANCY E SLOCUM .\: ... . ! NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON I . COMMISSION NO. 371650 .~ . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2n07 ~WlMi__ . 'rla ~" Comm-Dev\Planni ng\ Templates 13 391E08AA, 5100 PA #2004-110 ARCHER & DRESNER LLC 117 ALMOND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5300 PA #2004-110 BROWN MARK K/CYNTHIA 0 171 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E08AA, 4800 P A #2004-110 HOLLANDSWORTH D D/SUSAN J 55 PINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4101 PA #2004-110 MAAS DAVID/CANDACE BURTON 96 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 7101 PA#2004-110 MA YMAR DANIEL TRUSTEE 115 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3901 PA #2004-110 SALADOFF ROBERT TRUSTEE ET AL 1290 MUNSON DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 7100 PA #2004-110 SECHAN NEIL - TRUSTEE 101 SCENIC ASHLAND, OR 97520 J91E08L\D, JSOO PL.... #200~ STL\RK JERRY IIELIZL\BETH D ~1 CR..\NITE ST L....SHLL..aND, OR 97S20 391E08AA, 5400 PA #2004-110 WHITTEN J LORRAINE 175 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3902 PA #2004-110 WILLIAMS JAMES L 3105 HOL YROOD DR OAKLAND, CA 94611 391E08L"~"'" S101 PL.... #200~ 110 L\RCHER & DRESNER LLC 117 L\.Ll\fOND ST ASHLL\..~D, OR 97S20 391E08AD, 3600 PA #2004-110 CHAVEZ TOM TRUSTEE 63 PINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4000 PA #2004-110 HOXIE DAVID A TRUSTEE FBO 174 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3200 PA #2004-110 MACFARLANERM 429 EIGHTH AVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 391E08AA, 7200 P A #2004-110 MIKESELL PENELOPE 2431 ERIE DR CONCORD, CA 94519 391E08AA, 5200 PA #2004-110 SCHEIN STEVEN NP ATRICIA A 167 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4100 PA #2004-110 SJOGREN MARGARET LEIGH 180 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3301 PA #2004-110 TOEVS CORALIE 170 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3800 PA #2004-110 WIDNEY DOUGLAS 1619 KING ST SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 ,-- I {.- r r.( 1..{~ ,,(': 2 .j I + 391E08AA, 4900 PA #2004-110 BARRY JON/JENNIFER JONES 134 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 3400 PA #2004-110 DELLER DAVID W TRUSTEE 200 GRANDVIEW ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3300 PA #2004-110 JONES TRUSTEE JEFFERY R 79 PINE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4102 PA #2004-110 MADDOX RAOUL G TRUSTEE 186 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3700 PA #2004-110 NASH LEWIS H TRUSTEE FBO 88 BAUM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 J91E08L\......, S201 PL\ #200~ 110 SCHEIN STEVEN LVP L\ TRICIL\ L\ HJ7 CHURCH ST ASHLL\ND, OR 97S20 391E08AD, 3400 PA #2004-110 STARK JERRY I1ELIZABETH D 41 GRANITE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5000 PA #2004-110 WELCH LOUISE A CO-TRUSTEE 147 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3900 PA #2004-110 WILLIAMS JAMES L 160 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 :.; t::t f (.~. ('I c/!( I C C~/ r. ( pc- ~ .I\/C 1-( C c: c f: (!e {.( /; (! l I lie. C., ~i ( ~..) I ;;' /7 / r <j t Vi~-:{ ( ( ~'") (.,( /1 //2. /0 <I" ~ ~~j It~+ j L' t' .~.-{- P A2004-11 0 <2((' u.. n l " I Robert M. Saladoff hi cr ct' l r I~- 150 Church Street , ~2~{ 1 / C t.J Planning CQn"I1nl ~~1 on-li;i.BGH:lgs .1/. mailed 10/27/04 III t'< (('d i ,/Iii~J MARK & CICI aROW1~ 171 CHURCJ:l"STREET ASHLANYOR 97520 JEFF & MELODY JONES 79 PINE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 EDWARD SICKELS 170 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 MARGARET~OGRE~N 180 CHU~eH STREET ASHLA)ID OR 97520 CURRENT RESIDENT (10/27/04) 95 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL EMERSON 90 FIFTH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT M SAUDOFF /' 1290 MUNSON DRIVE ASHL~ OR 97520 LEW NASH KATE THILL 88 BAUM STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 T. WELCH 147 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 /' DAVID MA;\S 96 SCENJC/DRIVE ASHLf-ND OR 97520 MARK MADDOX 186 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 NEIL SECHAN MATT MESSNER 101 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT BURSTEIN (No address given) PCI}! I~ c-f~ DAVID A H~E 174 CHU)lCH STREET ASHLJ(ND OR 97520 JIM & JANESE WILLLIAMS 160 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 LORRA YN~HITTEN 175 CHjJ}(CH STREET ASH)dAND OR 97520 SANDRA CHAVEZ 63 PINE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 MARGARET MA YMAR 115 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 BOB KUENZEL 98 PINE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ATTN: JODY-CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the followin~~ items with respect to the Ashland land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting. Request f,or a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Barbara Christensen City Recorder Publish: 11/27/04 P. O. No. 65437 i.-/ V~{/ r;roJ ll~ rv\ tJY /,6 CITY OF ASHLAND October 27,2004 Robert M. SaladoiI 1290 Munson Drive Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #: P A2004.-11 0 Dear Robert M. Saladoff: At its meeting of October 12, 2004 the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Conditional Use Permit for thc;~ property located at 150 Church Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE 08 AD, Tax Lot 3901. The Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, adopted at the October 26, 2004 meeting, is enclosed. Please note the fOll~ems: 1. A fmal map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. 2. A fmal plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. ~ Q There is a 15-day appeal period that must elapse before a building permit may be issued. All of the: conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met before an occupancy permit may be issued. . Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. L-- cc: Property Owner, People Who Testified, People Who Submitted Letters DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488.5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 r... , I rl I .. BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD October 12th, 2004 APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) ) ) IN THE MATTER OF PLA1~ING ACTION #2004-110, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDEN'CE 9.47 PERCENT IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA ESTABLISHED BY CITY ORDINANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 150 CHURCH STREET. RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 3901 of 39 IE 08AD is located at 150 Church Street and is zoned R-I-7.5, Single Family Residential. 2) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new residence 9.47 percent in eXCt~SS of the maxirnum permitted floor area for dwellings within a Historic District established by City Ordinance 18.20.040.G. 3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104 and are as follows: 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: 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 If 4) Air quality, including the 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 be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 2) The Hearings Board, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on October It\ 2004 at which ti:me testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application as presented subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Hearings Board of the City of Ashland finds, condudes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, "Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Hearings Board finds that it has received all infonmation necessary to make a decision based on the Application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Hearings Board finds that the proposal to construiCt a 3,557 square foot dwelling, 9.47 percent in excess of the maximum permitted floor area, complies with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in Chapter 18.104. Specifically, the Hearings Board finds that the proposed home is compatible in terms of bulk and scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The design reduces the mass of the structure presented to the street using features including a low-sloped roof, a front yard setback in line with the existing adjacent Victorian to the west, multiple building offsets and bump-outs responding to site conditions and providing texture to the building envelope, a covered porch, a bay window, and large roof overhangs. The single story rear volume steps down to minimize the mass at the street and is concealed using the topography so that only the front volume of2,157.square feet will be seen from Church Street. /1 2.3 The Hearings Board finds that all public facilities such as sewer, water, electric, storm drainage and fire protection are available or will be installed as per the conditions listed below to serve the site and proposal. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Hearings Board concludes that the proposal to construct a single-family residence which exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 9.47 percent is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2004-110. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2004-110 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2. That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the speeifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. 3. That all conditions of the Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to the requirement to provide an alternative (hydrant, sprinklers, etc.) for review and approval by the Fire Department if fire flows are inadequate for the size of the structure. / tJ ~ Z{; --& '7 / D1ate ju PA2004-110 Robert M. Saladoff 150 Church Street Planning Commission Findings mailed 10/27/04 MARK & CICI BROWN" 171 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JEFF & MELODY JONES 79 PINE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 EDWARD SICKELS 170 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 MARGARET SJOGRE~N 180 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 CURRENT RESIDENT (10/27/04) 95 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 BILL EMERSON 90 FIFTH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT M SALADOFF 1290 MUNSON DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 LEW NASH KATE THILL 88 BAUM STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 T. WELCH 147 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 DAVID MAAS 96 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 MARK MADDOX 186 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 NEIL SECHAN MATT MESSNER 101 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ROBERT BURSTEIN (No address given) ~6A DAVID A HOXIE 174 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JIM & JANESE WILLLIAMS 160 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 LORRA YNE WHITTEN 175 CHURCH STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 SANDRA CHAVEZ 63 PINE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 MARGARET MA YMAR 115 SCENIC DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 BOB KUENZEL 98 PINE STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 IV. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION 2004-110 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 150 CHURCH STREET WITH A PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA FOR THE PARCEL IS 3,249 SQUARE FEET, WHILE THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS 3,557 SQUARE FEET OR 9% GREATER THAN ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE. APPLICANT: ROBERT M. SALADOFF Site Visit or Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by all. ST AFF REPORT Severson said this application was initially approved as a Type I. Two letters were received calling the action up for a public hearing. Staff believes the initial approval should stand and the additional 308 square feet is justified. The design uses the topography well, limits the mass to the street, steps the remainder of the building down slope and conceals the remaining mass behind the building. The scale works with the lot and the additional area is concealed to the degree it preserves the streetscape. The Historic Commission reviewed it last month and their discussion centered on the fact the applicant could have constructed a 3,249 square foot structure at the street and instead proposed 2,157 square feet of mass in order to preserve the streets cape in the historic neighborhood with the remainder down slope. The alley is the primary access for the project and is a requirement of the partition creating this lot. Two letters were received in support of the application. The removal of the oak tree occurred under a properly processed Tree Removal Permit. With regard to the run-off concern, building code will require that the applicant not direct run-off to neighboring properties but will have to go into the storm drain system. Staff recommends approval with the attached Conditions. PUBLIC HEARING ROB & SUSAN SALAIDOFF, 1290 Munson Drive Rob noted two points of the maximum house size ordinance. One purpose of the ordinance is creation of a graduated scale that can accommodate larger homes on larger lots. He did a survey (copy to Commissioners) that looks at all the residential properties within a quarter mile radius of their house. The documentation lists all the properties. He found the average floor area ratio (FAR), ratio of house size to lot size, on an acre basis in the neighborhood average was .19 and their proposed development is .20, slightly above the average. There are more properties with a higher FAR ratio in their quarter mile neighborhood than their proposal. Saladoffbelieves they meet the ordinance to exceed the maximum house size because they have a 27 foot setback from the front property line. They have used a mix of materials. They have used low sloping and deep overhanging rafters, and a number of bump outs and recesses that give modulation to the fa<;ade. The front volume composes about 2500 square feet of the whole house an is connected in the back with a one-story volume that turns toward the sun and picks up views ofMt. Ashland and is set quite a distance off the street. It helps break up the elevation from the street. The overall height of the house is 27 feet, the maximum is 30 feet. They are in the sloping line coming down Church Street, looking at the tops of roofs. There will be a parking area in the rear for three cars off the alley. There will not be a garage. They will gain access to the house through the back or the side. Susan said they tried with the design of this house to have a house that fit nicely into the neighborhood. The lot has been empty for a long time and they realize the neighbors are going to miss the empty space that is there now. They are not blocking their side neighbor's view ofMt. Ashland. They wanted to preserve the 100 year old oak tree. One tree has been cut down because two arborists told them if they built this house, the tree would fall down on top of it. The location of the pool is not relevant to this action. They are taking care of the storm drainage with an easement with the neighbor. Their lot is 17,000 square feet. The house will be in proportion to the lot size. Dawkins said at some point in time, we need to look at how big houses are. It is important how it blends in with the neighborhood. He doesn't feel the other house sizes are relevant because they were built before the ordinance went into effect. Susan said this house design fits with the intent of the ordinance. Rob said that was an issue at the Historic Commission. Susan said the ordinance has the exception. BILL EMERSON, 90 Fifth Street, is speaking on behalf of Doug Whidney, the neighbor to the east. Whitney has already stated he is in favor of the application. He likes the size and believes the streetscape works. He handed out a photo. There is a tree on Whitney's property. The drip edge is just to the edge of the house. The landing for the basement is about two and one-half to ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 ~I three feet below grade. The concern is the root system of the tree. An arborist said the roots were more on the uphill side. Could a small part of the basement be cut away with post and pier construction and the landing placed a little further from the tree? The tree has a 24 inch diameter. JIM WILLIAMS, 160 Church Street, lives next to the Saladoff property. In general, he believes the design is fine. He is opposed to the CUP because of traffic congestion on the alley. He is upset the existing oak tree was cut down. And, the applicant should designate a tree planting area in the location of the drip line of the fallen oak. His related his experience with the remodel of his Victorian house. He said a planner told them their 17 percent request for an increase in the maximum house size would never be approved. He wants the ordinance to be administered fairly. MARK AND CICI BROWN, 151 Church Street, read a letter from David Hoxie, 174 Church Street. Mark said the Engineering Department wrote that the Church and Scenic intersection is the most dangerous intersection in Ashland. The Browns will be impacted by any additional vehicle trips. They are directly across from the entrance to the alley. Cici said the timing of the removal of the oak tree was of concern to her. The wood from the tree was not milled, but cut into firewood. The applicants have justified exceeding the square footage saying they entertain a lot. That means more cars going up and down the alley. It seems more appropriate for access to be from the roadway rather than the alley. LEW NASH, 88 Baum Street, said the lot size is not an issue. The rear appendage of the proposed house is over 1900 square feet. They are asking the Commission to hold the Saladoff s to the limit as established. The application is flawed. There was a certification on an application that the factual information was adequate and supported the excess size. Nash submits that is not true. On the initial application they listed ten properties as samples of the neighborhood norm. He calculated the average house size of2,932. The sample omits properties that are very small. After doing his own survey, he came up with 1,708 square foot as an average home size of the ten homes in the same block as the proposed construction. These are just the houses on Church Street, Scenic and down High Street. The average of 23 houses is 2,116 square feet. Is the limit appropriate for this kind of neighborhood? It is more than generous. The house is massive in scale and is well oversized and should not be allowed. He submitted a petition of 15 neighbors opposed to the application. MELODY AND JEFF JONES, 79 Pine Street, lives next to the alley. Melody said the maximum house size ordinance is based on thought out criteria. By asking for an increase in size, it diminishes the integrity of the ordinance. It took the L TM truck four tried to get up the alley this morning. If construction trucks can't get up, she doesn't know how the alley can withstand more traffic. Jeff said he never got one word ofa house or a tree being cut down. He is concerned with alley access especially if they entertain. The increased traffic will create a more dangerous situation for his child. He requested they deny the request for the additional size and that the access be moved back up to Church Street. ROBERT BURSTEIN said he had two other arborists look at the oak tree. There were so many spikes driven in it, that it would have been very dangerous to cut it into wood. That was a big concern of the Saladoffs. Rebuttal Saladoff said the parking was dictated by City requirements. It is posted No Parking even front of their house. It was part of the partition requirements. They are planning to do a lot of landscaping and plantings. Staff Response Molnar said the Street Standards direct opportunities for access from an alley in conjunction with a partition. The access is not part of the application. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Severson noted there is a report from Upper Limb It (arborist) stating the tree was decayed and would recommend removal. The tree removal is not part of this application. Molnar said under the CUP, they could entertain changes to ensure the health of the neighboring tree. The Commissioners had considerable discussion and confusion about the criteria to follow for the maximum house size. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 3 :J.~ Molnar explained the Conditional Use Permit directs the Planning Commission to relate the application to the "impact" area. That is generally defined as the notice area (200 feet within the boundaries of the subject parcel), On appeal, if it was raised, that would be the relevant area. Dawkins said the only issue for him is "size creep." He is very much in favor of size caps. He's watched this town creeping for 58 years. Last month they had their first hearing for maximum house size. He found evidence to be somewhat compelling to allow the CUP, but he had huge reservations. He believes the ordinance is generous. ~lhen you are looking at the scale of the entire neighborhood, he can't really look at lot size. It is a good design but he can't approve it and will say no unless it is hugely compelling to approve it. His hope is that they will stand firmly together on size limitations in Ashland. Morris said this is the second time we have seen the maximum house size request. The issue he has with the ordinance is that it is a bulk and scale ordinance but it directed toward square footage. He cannot correlate square footage to bulk and scale. The square footage doesn't address the bulk and scale at the street. You can take square footage out and end up with a much bulkier building or a building that does not fit. To allow the CUP to go up to 25 percent larger has to fit with how the building fits in. The Historic Commission reviewed this according to how it appeared from the street and it fit in on the streetscape. He believes more guidelines are needed for this ordinance. Dawkins agreed. It is not clear to Douma what the ordinance is trying to accomplish other than leaning toward size. Does it fit in (to the impact area)? The applicant has done a good job of designing into the landscape. Molnar said the intent of the ordinancl~ was to establish a figure and then give a relief valve (CUP) and it is compared with the target use for the property. In this case, it is a single family residence at 3,250 square feet. Does the extra 308 square feet have an adverse impact on the livability of this neighborhood when looking at bulk, scale and liOt coverage? Each application is a little different and it will be a struggle to make a decision. The Historic Commission focused on the two standards with specifics toward streetscape. They are required to look at the criteria and forward their recommendation to the Planning Commission. They have given a fairly clear recommendation. Molnar added that "compelling reason" is usually more for a Variance situation. CUP's are a little more free-flowing. Should this application be heard before the full Commission? Straw Vote: Dawkins voted "yes" and Douma and Morris voted "no. " The Commissioners had a difficult time knowing what decision to make. Should it be heard before the full Commission? Should it be denied? Should it be approved? Is the applicant willing to extend the 120 day limit? The Commission did not want to hold the appJlicant up in the process. Dawkins moved to deny P A2004-11 O. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Morris moved to approve P A2004-11 O. The motion failed for a lack of a second. They asked the applicant if they were willing to extend the 120 day rule. Molnar said the Findings could be ready to adopt at the meeting in two weeks. The Saladoffs did not wish to extend the 120 days. They asked that the Commissioner's decision not be prejudiced and make a decision based on the merits of the project. Douma stated he doesn't have a reason to vote against the proposal. That is assuming that having up to 25 percent must be coming from our elected officials thinking there are reasons why an additional size is allowed. He doesn't know what should or could ever prevent a percent increase. The reason for his vote is to move the process forward. He is hoping an appeal is not onerous for those that wish to appeal. If we vote to approve the project to move it forward that it will not prejudice anyone at any level to think this was a 2:1 vote in favor. Douma/Morris m/s to approve PA2004-110. Dawkins will vote to deny based on the criteria 1 - similarity in scale, bulk and coverage. Douma would not have concurred with Dawkins' statement if the Historic Commission had not already weighed in with an ordinance that came out of their impetus. Severson asked if the Commissioners wanted to address the tree. Dawkins feels it is important and hoped the Saladoffs would take it into consideration. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 4 ~~ Morris said if the Council really wants to identify bulk, scale and coverage, they can't really be defined in this ordinance. He would hate to have an appeal to clarify an ordinance. He is afraid the Council will not clarify it and we will go through it again. There are no criteria that seem to be valid based on our CUP that apply to this ordinance. Voice Vote: The motion carried with Douma and Morris voting "yes" and Dawkins voting "no." PLANNING ACTION 2004-114 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE REVIEW TO CONVERT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AT 659 LIBERTY STREET INTO AN ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) WHILE CONSTRUCTING A NEW 2 % STORY 2,32S SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ENTRY PORCH UPON HILLSIDE LANDS (I.E.<25% SLOPE). APPLICANT: Philip Weiss Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Site visits were made by Dawkins and Morris. STAFF REPORT Molnar eXplained the: request as outlined in the Staff Report. The proposal is to construct a larger residence at the back of the property and access it from a new driveway and the CUP request is to allow for the existing residence to function as an accessory residential unit and the primary residence located at the rear of the property. It is a little unusual because of the sequence of construction. Similar applications have been approved. However, the Planning Commission denied a similar application in 1991. The Commission believed the reference to the primary residence meant the existing residence at the time of application. This Hearings Board can judge this application on its own merits. Staffs guidance to the Hearings Board is to apply the CUP criteria on the project as a whole and the surrounding property. There are some issues raised by the neighbors (included in packet). Some issues refer to scale, lot coverage and architectural compatibility. The project is a little larger than the rest of the neighborhood, but within the target use of the zone on an oversized lot. The highest point at 27 feet complies with solar access. It was the applicant's intent to make the building architecturally unique. He has tried to divide the house up into different volumes. Is the primary residence out of character? Is building the primary residence behind the existing structure appropriate? There is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints permit. They have had a geological investigation of the property and it is stable. The report suggests long-term erosion control measures. Should the Commission choose to approve this proposal, eight Conditions have been added. PUBLIC HEARING RICK VEZIE, 208 Oak Street, Suite 204, project designer, said the points brought up by the neighbors were addressed in the application. He noted that on Page 3 of the Staff Report, that Staff preliminarily approved the application. Vezie met with Staff in January of 200 1 and they designed the existing front house so it would be an accessory residential unit. Staff never implied approval was guaranteed. The project was not created in a void. It was created with Staff input and a great deal of sensitivity to the site. Unusual accessory residential units happen. The term primary residence is not defined in the Land Use Ordinance. AMC 1.04.020. Grammatical Interpretation - "Use of word and phrases not specifically defined shall be construed according to the context and approved usage of the language." The dictionary first defines the word "primary" as first or highest in rank, quality or importance; principle. The intent of the ordinance is clearly meant to define "primary" as first or highest in rank, quality or importance. There are no other references in the ordinance to construction sequence. What possible difference would it make if one: structure were built four years before the other? All references in the ordinance distinguish from a primary residence by size of the structure. The subject lot is larger than the surrounding lots. They felt a more contemporary house would be built to the rear of the lot and not be as visible to the neighborhood. They have tried to be architecturally compatible with the site. The lower floors are notched into the hillside due to grade. Architectural compatibility can be difficult to quantify especially in a neighborhood with such a broad range of architectural styles. The applicant chose to build a more traditional home along Liberty Street and his larger more contemporary home on the rear portion of the lot. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 12, 2004 5 ~q l Derek severson - 150 Church Street Page 1 I From: To: Subject: Derek severson Derek severson 150 Church Street Spoke with Bill Emerson, calling on behalf of his client Doug Widney, who is a neighbor to the project. He requests that staff clarify the minutes for council relative to Widney's request to address the large oak on his property to ensure that Saladoff's construction does not adversely effect its rootzone. Specifically he wants to be sure that it is clear that the references to Upper Limb-It recommendation to remove an Oak was for the previously removed Oak on Saladoff's property, NOT the Oak on Widney's. He would also like to make clear that the Planning Commission's intent was that the applicant would work with Widney to address tree protection for the Oak on Widney's property in a mutually satisfactory manner. He would prefer a condition from council which formalizes this requirement and provides an enforceable means to protect this significant tree. Suggested that he send memo/letter to file for inclusion in packets. !~,5 From: Jim Williams <post2jim@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Salado'ff still Date: November H, 2004 3:30:48 PM PST To: nashthill@opendoor.com Reply- To: jimw@lette/'sandarts.com From Jim Williams: I am remodeling an 18~ms Victorian adjacent to the proposed Saladoff projHCt. lve been working to get the building permit for nearly a year. Remodeling a large Victorian is nothing like building a new home from scratch. To preserve the historic character of the house, our only real choice is to add square footage, not to go in and tear down the existing oversized rooms. In our first casual design review with the city, Brint Borglit of Nautilus desi~~n showed our plan for an addition to the Victorian which would require a variance of approximat1ely 17%. We hoped to leave as much of the original structure as possible intact. Associate planner Mark Knox told us flat out it would never pass. So we spent several thousand dollars more in the design process cutting away pieces of the addition until it was underneath the cap. We went through the Historic Commission rE~view process and they lauded us for the degree to which we maintained the historic nature of the home. Mark Knox attendee! this meeting. We complained to Marl< that the size reduction had created too much awkwardness and irregularity in our floor plan and that we would find great relief in a variance as small as 1-9%. His words to us were, "Dont even try it". He told us that the variance was a.n untested part of the new restrictions, with only 1 or 2 applications at that time (approximately June of this year). He said that the planning commission was likely to enforce the cap since the ordinance was so new. Based on this specific lack of support from planning staff, we decided that it would be a waste of our time to pursue the issue further. ###################### --- nashthill@opendoor.com wrote: 0-t.t\t~'- ~bY ~ \ (0 9..& ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 12, 2004 PLANNINGrACTION: 2004-110 APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff LOCATION: 150 Church Street, 391E 08AD; Tax Lot 3901 ZONE DESIGNATION: R-I-7.5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.20 R-l Single-Family Residential 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.70 Solar Access 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: A request for Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum P,ermitted Floor Area (MPF A) allowed within an Historic District by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 90/0 greater than allowed by ordinance. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background - History of Application: In August of 2003 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review PLANNING ACTION #2003-087, an ordinance amending single family zoning ordinance f()r the subject property as established limits on maximum house sizes in Ashland's Historic Districts. This ordinance was subsequently adopted by the Ashland City Council (ORDINANCE #2901) and w1ent into effect on October 23rd, 2003. The subject property is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District and as the proposed dwelling exceeds the maximum permitted floor area (MPF A) established by ordinance, it is subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. The lot itself was created through a partition, PLAN1\fING ACTION #2002-130, which was approved on December 10, 2002. Since the lot's creation, a tree removal permit, PLANNING ACTION #2004-085, was approved on May 2ih, 2004 to remove a hazardous California Black Oak tree. I) ,.., \'Ji., / Planning Department Staff originally approved the proposal as a Type I Planning Action on August 25th, 2004. After the mailing of the public notices, two letters were received appealing staffs decision and requesting a public hearing. The Historic Commission reviewed the application on September 8, 2004 and voted 6-1 to approve the submittal as presented. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal: Site: The property is a vacant lot located at 150 Church Street, within the Skidmore Academy Historic District, between Scenic Drive and Baum Street. The lot is 17,304 in size and irregularly shaped. It is 85' in width to a depth of 115' from the front of the property, and then narrowing to a minimum of 35' at the rear. The total lot depth is 208', as approved under the partition Plamling Action #2002-130 that created the lot. The property has east-facing slopes that range from 11-16%. There are three existing mature trees on-site: a 48" diameter oak near the street at the northwest comer, a 12" maple near the street at the northeast comer, and a 16" oak along the north property line. No tree removal is proposed as part of this application. Conditional Use Permit Proposal: The zoning for the subject parcel is R-1-7.5 with 7,500 square feet being the minimum lot size. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residence to front on Church Street. The proposed design features: a low-sloped roof; a front yard setback in line with the existing adjacent Victorian house to the west; multiple building offsets and bump-outs responding to site conditions and providing texture tiO the building envelope; a covered porch; a bay window; a one-story rear volume that steps down to minimize the street volume while making use of the existing topography; and large roof overhangs. Solar calculations have been provided demonstrating that the proposal is in compliance with the Solar Access ordinance. Access is to be off of the alley with an easement over the lot to the south as required by city Street Standards and the partition approval creating this lot. Parking will be located to the rear of the proposed residence. The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to construct this new house at a size 9% larger than permitted by the recently adopted Maximum House Size Ordinance. The lot size is 17,304 square feet and the proposed house size is 3,557 square feet. II. Proi4~ct Impact Historic District and Maximum House Size The Skidmore Academy Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Plact::s and the subject property is located in the southern portion of the district, near its western boundary. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area provisions of the R-1 zoning ordinance apply to Ashland's Historic Districts to address the mass and scale of new structures and to protect the historic architecture of existing buildings through the ;'~ '6 regulation of floor area. The ordinance also incorporated a provision allowing for a 250/0 increase to the limits established when it can be demonstratt:d through the Conditional Use Permit process that the additional floor area would not have an adverse impact on the architectural compatibility with the historic neighborhood. In reviewing the historic pattern of developnlent in the immediate vicinity of the subject property staff found that three parcels remain vacant, thirteen are contributing historic resources, one parcel is considered historic, non-contributing, and six developed parcels are considered non- contributing, non-historic (See Staff Exhibit A). As noted, the project was initially approved as a Type I Administrative decision, but was later appealed by neighbors. The appeal letters (attached) expressed concerns: that the proposed structure's size would not fit the historic character of the neighborhood; that a 152-year old Black Oak tree had been removed; that the location of a pool near a downslope neighbor's window would generate smells, lights, pumps, and nighttime noise leading to conflict; and that the proposal's parking area, pool and bathhouse would dramatically increase run-off and threaten downslope properties. In reviewing the design in light of these concerns, staff ft~els that the applicant has succeeded in reducing the visual impact of the mass, scale and bulk to a degree that fits the streetscape and historic character of the neighborhood. From Church Street, only the front volume of 2,157 square feet will be seen. The tree in question was removed under permit from the Planning Department, with required public notice, based on a licensed arborist's recommendation that the tree posed a threat of catastrophic failure. The issue of the pool is outside the scope of the criteria for the MPF .A.. ordinance, and could be permitted over-the-counter at anytime without public notice. Lot coverage is within that allo\ved for the zone, and building code prohibits the applicant from directing run-off to adjacent properties" The ]\1PF A ordinance provides for up to 250/0 more floor area than is outright permitted with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The applicant here is requesting to exceed the outright permitted amount by 90/0. Staff felt the application vias justified because of the shape and larger size of the lot, the fact that the street profile conforms to other homes in the area (See Staff Exhibit B), and the additional square footage is not visible from the public right-of-way. III. Procedural - ReQuired Burden of Proof The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are as follows: 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. !--, (., I (':fo<.,. I 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 ejlect 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 adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7) Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. IV. Condusions and Recommendations Overall, Staff believes that the applicant has proposed a design that effectively reduces the mass of the home from the street, thereby preserving the streetscape of this historic neighborhood. The proposal makes good use of the site topography in keeping the additional square footage from being visible from the street. The proposed volume does not appear to be overwhelming when compared to the other structures in the area, as many are 2 or 2-12 stories and have steeper roof pitches. Staff believes the applicant's proposal is justified and that all applicable criteria have been met. Staff recomluends approval of the application and recommends that the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That street trees, 1 per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance vvith the specifications noted in S{~ction E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. 3) That all conditions of the Fire Department shall be met, including but not limited to the requirement to provide an alternative (hydrant, sprinklers, etc.) for review and approval by the Fire Departrnent if fire flows are inadequate for the sizt:: of the structure. ""'" ,..:.. ~- .,-} . STAFF EXHIBIT A HC - Historic Contributing VAC - Vacant NH/NC - Non-Historic, Non-Contributing H/NC - Historic, Non-Contributing NH/NC ~VAC C H/~ ~ 7 N A 100 0 100 200 Feet ~_ I I/I",! .1" = j OQ . \." f Property lines provided for information only, not scaleablE~ CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF EXHIBIT B / 2488 sJ. 0.28 acre 3467 sJ. 0.40 acres ~ N A 100 0 100 200 Feet ~- ~ ~~ 1" = j 00 ...'J I""-~ Property lines provided for Information only, not scaleable CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICANT' S SUBMITTALS 10/12/04 3~ 'c. . ~ ,. .\ i \ ii I. , '~:- ._.J -! I .",?' '-I ~_~.' ,~.r' 't"- ;"~.}'~~. :,l t' tf,I,1 ( ,- ,! " .' .~.~ ~' ;" ..if . 1 ~, i \ '7"'-} ~ k ./.;...,-~. ~. .1 '. "" I :'v=:I: .",'. ", ~ .,-' - .' } ') .\"' _r ~. co ""'" c;:. c:::. ~.: ~-,;. ~.. .... .-u <...>0 Co> tr:iff.,. '- t~ ~! i, .....'" "j " . " 'j ~; ;_r "'; +f; .~!W i ); I j . .",./~, l ,,~~ ,.'.... \.., ~ . t:.... ,,-""~ I ;: ,~. ,"..,- ~,>"'\ "\. l' fl . I", ". 1 ~. (~./: I t.L ~i '~: \ \ \ \ "- \~,~~ .... I ') i"! k~--' U&.. ." ..rr--' -----,..-, ;' v 11-..... ..,jl IL" -.'--'0:=1. . ~,---:-ii. : '7/ ,. ----. ~ \ \\$f -' .- "!.~. -", "- )(1-----\ /' ) f)o-"-',--' ~ : ././' I "--T-" , / // (~c;::::::-::-"::'~l' k~'~ . -- ....j, ,,' ;,.1 rr--,i () .\ \ ". ]jJ ~\'-. '.< \ \~ '\ /', ,:t t \ ' \ " "\ / . ,~. . \/ ) f 6:;/ . . ",~\,/:' \ ._--~; , '\ "x:.,: '. / V ":t- <<) )\ , i n ,'../1 ,/ (\ ,\\: '-4'J v. 'lL- . +- ;!; ~r \ ('" ~~l' I- "tl~ W .. ~ W l:g, <: c:: 0; g, e li! ! I- &>0 E' 1l j~ ! I j'O >0 .. ~: S! III t '0 !j ~ J'l '" J'l ! J: ii '" E ~ <: '1:t 51: = ~n, ~ S z ~ ~ ~~~ u " <5 ::J ~.. f [ c:: 5al 'i3 V'lZ" ~~~h al ;( -~ ::G ::J :' => c3~ ~ " l:' ~ ~~ ~ iH!l ~ J: ~ ~ l3 0 uo- g u ;:;UC <0 <0 ~ ~ II u jllO iHH = Q HI\ ~"I"~ 1\ III . . H!~~ s .... g,U::I'" .. ~ BIn !~ H i / .1/ l- f t.--"<" ( -/1/(/ '7.L J ........' \ ..7 . ;c /Sl'/,-~", ,) ,;(:\" l (; /'b'f--. ~., \ \ /:.,/'d,:' ,'~j;l ~~ .....\ ~"...{ -k ~ ._..0~:_ ,_ :::'~~G-J-;l r~ ,.Il, C_-/I I' --- " ,~ ...-: Ii; .,/1 .r / c, ! .:... i i' ..J-...... -. ~-~~:- . ",.J ,.J- ; \ \ \\ .~~- "'.... ." -" ';::-"~~..... ,----' /. /' -,. ~~ >-- u o ~ <'() STAFF EXHIBIT A M\.j - HIStonc l,;Ontnbuting NH/NC - Non-Historic, Non-Contributing VAC - Vacant . . n------ '\ H/NC - I-hstonc, Non-Contributing I I \ '\ \ i ' ,,'/ /' \ \ '~~ ~, I \ /~) 'O~');/\ \\ \. \ YX II ,I \ I \ /;:// ~~\ \\ \\ \\ ~\ y/ /' \\ 111 I \ I \ ~/ .//~ \ ... \"'\ \ ~\ \// I ! , /' '" /' \ \ \\ \ \ \ ' , III -,~ ~ \ \ \\ ~\ \\ \ :::. \\ -\ I' I i I~/ ~/ ~~ ~\\ \\ \ 0 \ \ ~-^\/ \\jl I I / ~/\\ \ \, -/~/\ J \ \ /' \ I II / // \ ':"t7 ' ,// \, " \ I L-- // ~:;::/"" \ ~~ \r-: \ \. \.-----'i' \ \ \ \ I \ II.. '------- ~ \ //. \~ '-? '- ~ \ \ (~.~\\ 7/A '\.170 / \ Y /-'0 \ ';, \ ~ \ ~bGCV\\ 'v '~ f(' \ \~\~~\\~~/~..1~ ,,~\ \~\~i ,I ~\ ~ /".'" C )G\\'( I"~ \~H/~A~ /'. "" ~/ \ ,\\~l~ )v~/ ~.._ \ / A \ VAC '"" //' \\\ \\ IU\\ H/9~/- A HIe ' I / /' \ \ // \ \ \ H/C ~ ~ '\.a !I It/( \... \~ 4'1'2 \\ \;::'/ / H/C \ D/~ \ \~ t2)\ /~~ ~ NH/NC \'62G' \ ,I \'1, \~ I . \ ..., \ H!9-? //~\'~ LJ." \\ ' I \ ~~~I\ \ /~~ ~\ "'J2 \ ///~ \~.. \ \NH/~V7 \\ ~S' ~\ /\- I \'''.1 \ H/C//~~_~-~\SUBJECT \ J(, \~V ... I" . \ //4P ~ \. <', ~ I , \ H/~ // H/C 'lSSiJ//'~\ 'r"'-A /~I Ii H/C/~-> /~- 17L^ ~ f\lno'/~~~ ~" II!I II <' "-<~,/ ~~-. \.~'" V" ~ \\ 'll 1 ,'/--.........-::':::.~.=~~ / / 11 'I '-......- ~~" ~""""" ","'--., \ " .....,,=.::-....-.... I..... / I II /~/ ~ -,~,." / '.,.... \ / JI. I) ~ Ii il /-'(>/ H/C ~~';::~~~, . /' "'--,-"" /)..........,'- / oI(}~LI.'i 7~'::---... II . rf::------ , ~ &hl ~~~'-- / v AC "', ./, '~'~,,_ If f '~l,1 ; !.'r<:~,-~, -., /N~,., ,,(~, D, "3.,1' (i', ,1.1 ;i !NH/NC ,......."..:.."'~:~.....". ,/ -~~..,:/ """,_ I~' II ! I .,....,-.....J~"-~~~:~",..,." // a'f '7 ~~~~ q ,~."........_.."" J.....,. .1;/"-'---...."."-. -..... ,II ! I ;1 '''-. '..z... II .........'.,':::.:.:.-... / ~ " H I ' I -........... ..... " '. . '.. / ;.....J ; I I....... / ,.,-....., .....--........... ,/ .........:.<,>. /:.-..,,, 1,1 I. ....... I " ......... "'~ ~ " -', Ii' ) , ! /.... ......... "....' // "" ... :I I ~........ - I ! "-"", / ""~ "-.:::......" W,I, / "'........ / II I" /.......,. ~,/ .' ....., I I II ..''-.......... / I --.......! 17 ......7:,- "'" ,,Ii Ii ......<.~... ,/ 1,1 110 ,:' .,....,,-...../1 11 }~t .~. :: I' '" { "- n" 11 ' ~ Ii I "- / 1 ........." ~ /.. .....,-. ; ......il 1/ -'....... I / !'''' I I /", ">- I 1/. ...... , i'-5i2.LL\'1r'~t~,~/_~ QI e~!I!~-~ N 100 ~ __~ A I · --; Feet ASCH1 TLYAONf D . . .1" = j OQ 6 7 Property lines provIded for Information only, n6t scaleable oel 1 . J ~{lr'lJ , ~~..W~ LETTERS FROM NEIGHBC~RS 10/12/04 3 .~' Statement of Concern Planning J~ction #2004-110 150 Church St. Ashland, OR 97520 As property own~~s of residences. affected by the above proposed construction, we oppose thle CondItIonal use PefIDlt that allows a 9% increase above the M . P . d F1 ' ' aXlmum e~nl1tte oor Area. We believe that size creep destroys the character of the neIghborhood and request that existing size limits for this Historic District be enforced. I l ~VV\ j iJ A" ~l ~<t r?I~ UW- {J 1 j,;! J Ii .1 J~(f 0 DneS ,CJ P//W, Sf c,(c:; 10 y -3 ~~~i~ fA) fr (-G(I 1'-+ 7 UtJp)(1 J ~ 1/ ,s,:/O,lf 4 ~ o-~ C'jAl41tiu ().{3li'cJW.u I '11 ~1.4L{V'~l.1 S{. 1/)/OY ./' J ~ I ')\ o~ ~ . J \ \ 6_ ~e \l)~^ J6e\1~d~I(:\fJi-\\-r\~~ (rf)rl-fJs\)~1+S~o/rIDL{ b _ ~~ .-4.U J>J/~)~;:;5~, /~l- /7<:/ (' ii/ /-07 ;/?/Li; ( ,?JI~" / 7" / j ---- \ fL ~ ; r :-. \ 7~ ) .1 , ,/ '\ , ),. ... _ _ .--\ - )"1 .I'/A' (.J I ~ . -.. .. /-1 ""_ ,dq;.;t--. ',---,-~<-E. I_.".<~-, V-:. . -L. '~c::.-_~-J ", ~ l./ .'- 0.'. '-' ~ L/.c;V1~ 1"1L~ j)o-_v.}'&M~~~ s(,~ 1~0-o4 - 9 ~')CLv\clN2Cl\W11. ,~CAY\C\V~ CbiJVC? b.\ PH\(! sf q-Io-0tf {O ~ /r" . .' A L_ r'/W~-( SJO(~O c ffu&i:L c:r-I'?-OY fI , thvi( / fltj;; tt1~J JI!tfJC(ti-_,_~cllrl;cJt~,-loj7/0t 11_i~fJ1L---- J~"",- LJr)le<--.s thO C kf/<rc. k - !O-lO--O ( r~ ~f~ /'1 ~-y/ .:;.L ~ f5 Sce0IC J)/Z-. , tv\o. r~ r -iL + /~r,~{J.!J) . f\!\Clji'nLl~ \ L5 ,."A 1,-) I i i- \ 7/ dvU\~ -----..- .. , )t)-jD -oc.; 10 /W~ I / -Stel"l ~, / 0//2./ etl, o p-. \ \}-R- Gel , '.,,',) ~?,nl ., ~~J"?" Mark and Cici Brown 171 Church St. Planning Action 2004-110 of October 12. 2004\ Saladoff permit CUP Criteria B - traffic Criteria B:: Adequate Transportation Hoxie's alley is too narrow to handle any more transportation to the: parking area behind the proposed property development. Different parts of the alley narrow from 18 feet to 11 feet, back to 12 feet, then down to 10 feet. Trucks cannot turn down the alley either from very steep Church Street or from Pine Street at the bottom of the alley. A 10 foot wide alley is not adequate for either truck or increased volumes of regular traffic. Criteria B -2 Because of the steep grade on Church Street, the City has a resolution that states that Church Street is at a "traffic capacity". A memorandum written in August 1991 by Jim Olson statles that Church at Scenic is one of the 10 most dangerous intersections in Ashland. Because the Saladoffs justify the excess floor area by stating that they intend to entertain often, the result will be rnore cars using upper Church Street and turning into Hoxie's Alley, and that turn is in close proximity to the dangerous intersection. The Planning Commission did not adequately address this dangerous situation. We ask that you return this Permit to the Planning Commission for a more careful review of the traffic problems related to this development. Mark Brown rvt ~l fr( I~J Cici Brown C\c; O.'~ 1-~ Jeff and 1\1elody Jones 79 Pine St.. Planning Action 2004-110 of October 12. 2004\ Saladoff permit CUP Criteria B - traffic Criteria B: Adequate Transportation We live at the bottom of Hoxie's Alley at the intersection of Pine Street and the Alley. W,e are concerned about increased traffic up this very narrow alley and past our house. While we expect some increased traffic from this new development we are concernedl that Saladoffs intent to entertain often will overload the alley. We think that other traffic solutions have not been carefully considered. We also feel that there has been a lack of fairness to existing Victorian home-owners who were denied - by the Planning Commission staff- the opportunity to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. This unequal treatment of similar projects by the Staff has caused a lot of anger in the neighborhood. We think it is caused by the lack of understanding of this vague ordinance and its unequal application by Planning Commission staff. We ask you to deny this permit and to return this traffic problem to the Planning staff. ~ff-- ~t.ly (HVL-U Melody Jontf'. () 41 t Lew Nash & Kate Thill 88 Baum St. Grounds for Reversal Planning Action 2004-110 of October 12. 2004\ Saladoff permit Section 18.104.050 Criteria C-l Similarity in Scale, Bulk and Coverage: We contend that the Planning Commission staff has improperly issued a Conditional Use Permit, that specific code conditions have not been met, and that the staff has arbitrarily, and without public input, decided which code provisions apply in this case. We contend that the criteria for bulk and scale have not been addressed because this permit: Allows a breach of the size limit by over 9%. Gives priority to design considerations at the expense of bulk and scale. The ordinance lists square footage as the primary factor for controlling house size, not dt:~sign considerations. Is not supported by compelling, or even convincing reasons. The ovenvhelming majority of neighbors oppose the oversized house - 15 by the latest count. W'e ask that this permit be denied and/or returned to the Planning Commission for further review The Conditional Use Permit Process: The history of this case demands a discussion of the permit issuing process itself. Without such a discussion this, and other potential projects, cannot be fully addressed. These issues have resulted in pitting neighbor against neighbor, and city against citizen. We intend to show that: Tl1e Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process appears flawed, unfairly administered, and undermines the intent of the size lirnit ordinance. That the CUP is essentially a variance and thus the test should be the same - "compelling and convincing reasons". There is nothing in the ordinance that dt~scribes the CUP as being more "free flowing" as stated by the Staff, or stating that a CUP is different than a Variance. By issuing CUPs without compelling and convincing reasons, and then supporting the CUPs through the hearing process, the Staff is exceeding its discretionary powers and is st~tting public policy. Such advocacy actions by the Staff foster unequal treatment. As representatives of the City, the staff should be either neutral or taking positions to support the ordinances. 1/ )..., , } A Issuing the CUP in effect shifts the Burden of Proof from defending the limit to defending the permit; from the petitioner who wants to breach the limit to those who want to defc~nd it. Neighbors should not have to be defending a city ordinance. While the Planning staff gave one neighbor no hope for a successful pe~rmit application, a second neighbor was issued a CUP unsupported by compelling or even convincing reasons. This gives thE3 appearance of a preferential system with different standards. We ask that you take the following steps: 1.'Use the sarrle or similar criteria for CUPs as for Variances 2. Make the issuance of the CUP an open, transparent system where all parties are treated equally. 3. Direct the Planning Commission staff to support existing ordinances or at least not take advocate positions, 4. Deny this CUP so that no precedent is set and these issues can be addressed. .~ ~AY ~\) (N~. Lew Nash fd74 Kate Thill /! ,..\ "1- -:l I Derek severson - Planning Action No. 2004-110 Page 1 ] From: To: Date: Subject: <Kuenzel@aol.com> < mclaughj@ashland.or.us> 10/10/04 3:25:07 PM Planning Action No. 2004-110 Re: Project by Robert and Susan Saladoff, property at 150 Church Street, Planning Action No. 2004-110 Dear Mac: I had actually hoped to be able to come to the hearing scheduled for this matter on Tuesday, but a federal judge in Eugene ordered everyone involved in one of my cases to a mandatory settlement conference there that day. I hope that providing you with a few of my thoughts by em ail will be an appropriate way to share my input on this matter. To begin: My family and I live at 98 Pine Street, and are neighbors of the affected property. On a good day, I think I could probably throw a ball from my property to (well, I'm getting older, maybe almost to) the nearest part of the Saladoff property. And in coming back home from business around town, we drive up Church Street and down Hoxie's Alley (right by the property) every day, often numerous times. I am also far from insensitive to the issue of haviing new building in our neighborhood fit in appropriately -- as you know, the huge De Boer project on Granite Street is literally right below our home and yard, and we have thus had ample reason recently to think, and to talk among neighbors, about the importance of using the City's infill policy in a way that is consistent with the values and "feel" of the neighborhoods affected. All that said, I have a difficult time understanding the concern apparently expressed by at least one neighbor about this project. From what I understand, the proposed design will fit very well into our historic neighborhood, uses some of the best features of craftsman design, works with existing grades to blend into the hillside, breaks up the volumes involved with numerous set-backs, etc. from Church Street, and will employ natural materials and textures to blend well with the landscape. Although it is somewhat larger than the immediate neighboring homes, it seems to me that a house of this size (approximately 3500 square feet) is hardly inappropriate for a contemporary family of four. If I understand the numbers correctly, the requested incremental space to be allowed as against the normal entitlement is only 300 square feet. That increment, of course, is very modest. And from any neighbor's perspective, it would certainly be less intrusive than a small outbuilding -- which could nonetheless be much larger than the 300 square feet at issue here -- pushed back to the setback line. Finally in this regard, as someone who loves open space, and can well understand (rHmember the Granite Street project) the instinctive sadness of a neighbor who must see what has been a vacant lot turn into someone else's home, I still have to say that there is open space -- and there is open space. Considering tl1e appearance of this particular empty lot, the overall site desi~ln proposed, including an attractive house, with patios, stone walls, and pool, seems likely to improve the appearance of the neighborhood, measured against the "open space" that is there now. Finally, though I don't know how pertinent these facts may be to the plannin~1 O C s 1 ';.;~~~'.', I' 4. t h,( 'A lJLJ I Derek severson - Planning Action No. 2004-110 Page 2 I action at issue, it seems appropriate to note that I have known the Saladoffs from the days of their exploration of the possibility of moving to our city. They came here, as have so many of us, because they loved the community feeling and values of Ashland, and wanted to be part of it. And that they have: both Robert and Susan have become active contributors to our community, through their religious congregation and in numerous civic activities. Both of them (and their two lovely daughters) are wonderful people, and, frankly, we look forward to having them become a part of our neighborhood. If you think that there may be anything else helpful that I can provide you or the Commission, or if there is some better way to communicate my thoughts, I very much hope that you will em ail me back or call me at my office (552-0142), sometime before I head off to Eugene on Tuesday morning. Best regards, Bob Kuenzel cc: <seversod(~ashland .or .us> 4-5 0(' T 1 1 ~.T~:;;;; ,\, \, . I Derek severson - Re: 150 Church St., Planning Action 2004-110 Page 1l From: To: Date: Subject: <NHS1109@aol.com> <mclaughj@ashland.or.us> 10/9/04 7:43:47 AM Re: 150 Church St., Planning Action 2004-110 Dear John, We are writin~l in support of the variance requested by Rob and Susan Saladloff for the home they are buildin~l at 150 Church St., around the corner from our house at 101 Scenic Drive. We are aware of the plans for this house, and feel that it will be a great addition to the neighborhood. The craftsman style will fit well with surrounding homes including ours, and the colors, materials, setbacks, and layout on the site will minimize any impact of the house on smaller homes in the vicinity. The additional square footage the Saladoffs are requesting is minimal and can easily be accomodated on the lot in a totally unobtrusive way. What the Saladoffs are requesting is not some monument to excess but rather a liveable home for a family of four that will esthetically improve the block and surroundings. We have known the Saladoffs for about five years now through Temple Emek. Shalom, and feel that Rob, Susan and family will be great neighbors who will take an active interest in their surroundings. We look forward to welcoming the Saladoff family to our neighborhood and hope that their request for a variance will be granted. Sincerely, Neil Sechan and Matt Messner cc: <seversod(~ashland .or. us> 'I ' I---f-- b ,- OCt 1 n~:i~ October 4,2004 Ashland Planning Commission Hearing Board 1175 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 OCT - 5 2004 RE: Planning Action 2004-110 150 Church Street Dear Cornmission, Thank you for allowing me to address the Commission via a letter and I apologize for not being pre:sent personally, as I am out of town on business. My major concern is the alley that connects Church Street to Pine Street. The traffic that is presently using the alley and the increase due to additional devellopment, the Saladoff s new home and one additional lot that fronts on the alley are going to cause a very dangerous situation. There art;: presently four houses that use the alley to access their driveways. The narrowest point is 13' ,vide between two immovable objects, an oak tree and a rocklblock wall. Tht;: dedicated area for right of way expansion has the fore mentioned oak tree, a fire hydrant and two additional oak trees that block any opportunity for widening the alley due to traffic congestion. Per city standards and the partition of the Williams property, all ne:w development must also have: driveway access from the alley which accounts for two rnore houses that will use the alley. Per Derek Severson, Assistant Planner, "A "typical" SFR is assuDled to generate ten vehicle trips per day". I would have to say that roughly sixty trips per day for this very narrow alley is an understatement and has the potential for a hazardous situation not only for local residents but for ernergency vehicles also! One other additional item I would like to add as to the amount of traffic that uses the alley; Baum Street is not paved between Church Street and Pine Street. There are numerous residents that live on Pine Street and others use the alley to avoid Baum Street or bypass congested collector streets. The Williams Partition approved by the City only required that a pedestrian walk way be added to the upper part of the alley for safety purposes, but where are the cars going to go when they meet? Or where are pedestrians meeting automobiles going to go? Making the alley a one way thoroughfare has been previous dismissed. H'I s { One consideration that would eliminate a minimum of ten vehicle trips per day for a "Typical''' SFR would be to use the existing driveway access on Church Street to the Saladoff s property that the City built when they rebuilt the street. Reversing the hammerhead driveway that is presently proposed would allow the traffic from the driveway to enter headfirst on to Church Street. In closing, the Ashland Planning Commission Board has the opportunity to pro actively eliminate a dangerous situation for both motorists and pedestrians by redesigning the access to the Saladoff future home now. Respectfully, OCT .. 5 2004 David A. Hoxie 174 Church Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541 )482.-0400 dhoxie@,Qwest.net if! Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC H ..JG on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before thE! ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on October 12, 2004 at 1 :30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon 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 c,n 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 approva I with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the applicatio cuments and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are u vClllabie for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requestEid. 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 .lIre available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, thl~ record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates atthe Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041. OurTTY phone number is 1-800-735-:~900. 150 Church Street PLANNING ACTION 2004-110 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or '9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 3901. APPLICANT: Robert IVI. Saladoff J-l c; CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS . 18.104.050 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted i.f 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 elll 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 c~ty 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 qrea1:er adverse material effect on the livability of the impac1: area when compared 'to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect oj: the proposed use on the i~pact area, the following factors of livability of the i.mpact ar,ea 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, <:apacity of faci.lities. 3. Architectural compatibility ~ith 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 adjacent propertiE~s as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan., 7 · other factors found to be relevant b~' the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. ,-", ~:) :. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of ,Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97!520, in the Community Development Department:. 2. On SeptembAr ?3, ?OOd, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2004-110. (?~ ~' , 4-----.0' <:'.c. '. . \..A .:....). L l. Signature of Ernployee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 23ui day of SAptember, 2004. OFFICIAL SEAL NANCY E SLOCUM NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 371650 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 18. 2007 [, , '5ZMhA'1~ .-J No ry Publi for State of O~gon My Commission Expires: :'/-'-/J"':' -()") Comm-Dev\Planni ng\ Templates SI 391E08AA, 5100 PA #2004-110 ARCHER & DRESNER LLC 117 ALMOND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5300 PA #2004-110 BROWN MARK K/CYNTHIA 0 171 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 4800 PA #2004-110 HOLLANDSWORTH D D/SUSAN J 55 PINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4101 PA #2004-110 MAAS DAVID/CANDACE BURTON 96 SCENIC DR ASHLAND; OR 97520 391E08AA, 7101 PA#2004-110 MA YMAR DANIEL TRUSTEE 115 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3901 PA #2004-110 SALADOFF ROBERT TRUSTEE ET AL 1290 MUNSON DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 7100 P A #2004-110 SECHAN NEIL - TRUSTEE 101 SCENIC ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08.:\D, 3500 P...& 1f10Q4-lt.O STARK JERRY IlELIZABETH D 1tl CRANITE ST ASHLAND, OR 97510 391E08AA, 5400 PA #2004-110 WHITIEN J LORRAINE 175 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3902 PA #2004-110 WILLIAMS JAMES I., 3105 HOL YROOD DR OAKLAND, CA94611 391E08...~.&, 5101 P......1f2004 110 ..\RCHER & DRESNER LLC 117 ALl:\iOND ST ..\SHL..A~~D, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3600 PA #2004-110 CHAVEZ TOM TRUSTEE 63 PINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4000 PA #2004-110 HOXIE DAVID A TRUSTEE FBO 174 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3200 PA #2004-110 MACFARLANERM 429 EIGHTH AVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 391E08AA, 7200 PA #2004-110 MIKESELL PENELOPE 2431 ERIE DR CONCORD, CA 94519 391E08AA, 5200 PA #2004-110 SCHEIN STEVEN AlP ATRICIA A 167 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4100 PA #2004-110 SJOGREN MARGARET LEIGH 180 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3301 PA#2004-110 TOEVS CORALIE 170 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3800 PA #2004-110 WIDNEY DOUGLAS 1619 KING ST SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 5(~ 391E08AA, 4900 PA#2004-110 BARRY JON/JENNIFER JONES 134 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 3400 PA #2004-110 DELLER DAVID W TRUSTEE 200 GRANDVIEW ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3300 PA #2004-110 JONES TRUSTEE JEFFERY R 79 PINE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4102 PA #2004-110 MADDOX RAOUL G TRUSTEE 186 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3700 PA #2004-110 NASH LEWIS H TRUSTEE FBO 88 BAUM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08...~.&, 5201 P..A...1f200i 110 SCHEIN STEVEN ..\JP..\TRICIA..\ 1'7 CHURCH ST ..\SHL..\ND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3400 PA #2004-110 STARK JERRY IlELIZABETH D 41 GRANITE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5000 PA #2004-110 WELCH LOUISE A CO-TRUSTEE 147 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3900 PA #2004-110 WILLIAMS JAMES L 160 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items wi1th respect to the AsWand Land Use Ordinance will be held before the AsWand Planning Commission Hearings Board on October 12, 2004 at 1 :30 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, AsWand" Oregon. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Request 1for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Request 1for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence located at the front of the property at 659 Liberty Street into an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) while constructing a new 2 Y2 story 2,325 square foot residence at the rear of the property. A Physical Constraints Permit is required for the construction of a portion of the driveway and entry porch upon Hillside lands (Le. <25% slope)i In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TrY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.:1.04 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Director John Mclaughlin Publish: 10/2104 Date e-mailed: 9/23/04 PurchasEl Order: 65420 L3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes September 8, 2004 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Alex Krach, Rob Saladoff, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton Absent Members: None Council liaison: ,John Morrison Hiah School liaison: None Appointed SOU liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director, Billie Boswell, Administration CAll TO ORDER At 7:05 p.m., Chairman Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Skibby pointed out that the National Register Nomination for the Lithia Springs Property was removed from the "Old Business" section of the agenda and should be reinstated. Skibby moved to approve the August 8, 2004 minutes as revised. With a second by Krach, the motion was approved with all voting aye. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Action :Z004-11 0 Conditional Use Permit Robert Saladoff 150 Church StreE!t Rob Saladoff recused himself from the Commission as the owner of the subject property. Most members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts. McLaughlin clarified that Historic Commission members may not represent a client for a fee in front of the body in which they sit, but Mr. Saladoff can present this action because he is the property owner and it is his own project. McLaughlin related that the City had received a letter from Mark & CiCi Brown of 171 Church Street, an email from Dave Hoxy of 174 Church Street and a letter from Lou Nash and Kate Thill of 88 Baum Street. The letter from Lew Nash and Kate Thill requested that the project be called up for a public hearing in front of the Hearings Board, probably in October. McLaughlin explained that the Saladoff's are proposing a new residence on a vacant lot. The owners propose to construct a house with total floor area in excess of of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel 3, 249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feE3t or 90/0 greater than allowed by ordinance. The ordinance provides for up to 250/0 more floor area with an approved Conditional Use Permit. City staff felt the application is justified because of the shape and larger size of the lot, the fact that the street profile conforms to other homes in the area and the additional square footage is not visible from the public right-of-ways. 5~ CITY OF ASHLAND Skibby confirmed that the access to the property would be off an easement alley rather from the front of the home off Church Street. Skibby also confirmed that the connector between the two portions of the house was included in the square footage. There being no further questions of City staff, the applicant shared additional information regarding the design proposal including the overall height and massing of the house, the access, size and shape of the lot and functionality for their family. Skibby asked the applicant if the lack of access from the front and the requirement for the second entry put the house over the maximum size. Saladoff explained no one item caused the overage, but it was a combination of the overall desi~ln limitations and the requirements for their family. Leighton pointed out the connector portion has a flat roof connecting the sin~~le story section in the rear and is not visible from the right-of-way. Shostrom clarified that the square footage of the neighbor's house as listed in the Saladoff's application does not include a proposed addition. There being no further questions of the applicant, Shostrom opened the meeting for public comment. Lew Nash of 88 Baum St, felt some of the criteria presented by the applicants were not factual and the scale and impact of the'home would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Saladoff asked Mr, Nash if his calculations took into consideration of the ratio between the house and lot sizes. Mr. Nash confirmed they did not. There was no further public comment. In rebuttal, the applicant stated there was no intention to mislead. Of 27 homes in his study the ratio of house to lot size was 17.11 % where his house is 20.40/0. However, the scale for the size of the lot and the impact to the neighborhood was minimal. The public hearing was closed and the Commission discussed some of the criteria issues as they related to the Salad off's proposal. Skibby moved to recommend approval of this application as presented. Whitford seconded the motion and it passed in a roll call vote with Giordano, Krach, Shostrom, Skibby, Swink, and Whitford voting aye and Leighton voting nay. Planning Action :2004-115 Conditional Use Permit Dave & Jamie Kalufman 724 Iowa Street Most members had site visits but no ex-parte contact. Chairman Shostrom said he had a conflict of interest due to being employed by the owners early in the project. As a result, Shostrorn recused himself and Vice Chair Skibby took over as chair of the meeting. McLaughlin explained the applicants had already been approved for a building permit to slightly expand the footprint of the first floor and to add a new partial second story on their 7,137 square foot lot. This application would add an additional 197 square feet to the second story above the garage that would cause the total square footage of 1858 (including attached garage) to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 8.20/0. Although Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 5, 2004 2 ','5 ; ". " ..; CITY OF ASHLAND the addition adds mass to front of the house, it is stepped back 50 feet from Iowa Street and 38 feet from the front of the home and is minimally visible from the street. City staff's opinion is because of the smaller size of the lot in relationship to the relatively modest size of the proposed project, the mass and bulk of the home will be comparable to tlhe existing mix in the neighborhood. There being no further questions of City staff, Larry Medinger, the owner's representative, shared additional information regarding the design proposal and how it relates to the existing neighborhood. Leighton asked the owners to clarify the footprint of the original house compared to what was being added both in the approved addition and this proposed addition. Whitford asked the owner's to explain the reasons for two front entries. The owners said that both entries were part of the existing house, but the secondary entry, closest to the garage, was set back significantly from the main entry at the front of the house. Krach felt the desi~Jn had a contemporary look similar to those found on modern townhouses. Medinger said because the existing home is so small, they incorporated various hip roofs and gables and offset the second story to add square footage to what currently is a modest craftsman design. There being no further questions of the applicants, and no one in the audience to speak, the public hearing was closed. Leighton reminded the commission that the original application for the first addition was turned down by the Hearing Review Board due to the design being unbalanced and inconsistencies between the two entry designs. Whitford commented that with the second addition above the garage, the design was much more balanced. Whitford moved to recommend approval of Planning Application 2004-115 subject to a redesign of the main entry to match the secondary entry. After discussion, Whitford amended the rnotion to recommend removing the proposed pergola .and adding a porch roof similar to the design of the other entry and presenting the revised design to the Historic Review Board for approval. The motion was seconded by Giordano and passed in a roll call vote with all participating members voting aye. ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA The Commission discussed reviewing "phased" projects when the full scope of the project is unknown. McLaughlin stated that staff needs to review the process and, possibly, require a written statement from the applicant that they are willing to take the risk that approval of the final phase and overall design could be denied. McLaughlin also stated that communication with the applicant should be improved when a design is denied by the Historical Review Board. He recommended that these decisions be recorded in the City's computerized permit tracking system, Eden, so Staff can review the concerns with the applicant and give them the opportunity to submit a revised design to the Board before issuance is approved. Shostrom recommended the form used by the Historical Review Board be improved to provide a better record of concerns and decisions. Skibby agreed and suggested the copies of thE~se forms be organized in a file or notebook that can be available. to the Board or Commission as needed. Discussion followed regarding design requirements necessary to begin identifying specific criteria needed to make a good decision on Conditional Use permits with regard to the new Maximum Permitted Floor Area ordinance. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 5, 2004 3 50 CITY OF ASHLAND OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the September schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: Sept 9th Sept 16th Sept 23rd Sept 30th Oct yth Skibby, Leighton, Krach Skibby, Swink, Shostrom Skibby, Giordano, Leighton Skibby, Whitford, Krach Skibby, Swink, Saladoff Proiect Assiqnments for Planninq Actions P A #2000-120 PA #2002-100 P A #2003-005 P A #2003-092 PA #2004-017 P A #2004-026 PA #2004-018 P A #2004-043 P A #2004-100 PA #2004-102 PA #2004-110 PA #2004-115 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) 364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar) 81 Central Avenue (Wes & Lucinda Vail) 322 Pioneer Street (AI & Sandra Carlson) 246 Catalina Drive (Dr. William Rodden) 80 Wimer (Tom & Kathy Petersen) 832 "A" Street (Ilene Rubenstein) 150 Church St (Robert M. Saladoff) 724 Iowa St (Dave and Jamie Kaufman) Shostrom Leighton Krippaehne Krippaehne Krach Giordano Swink Krach Whitford Saladoff Whitford Swink Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop - McLaughlin will have Staff discuss the Historic Commission's desire to develop historic requirements and Conservation compatibility in the form of an educational pamphlet or booklet and report their priorities and response back to the Commission. They will also inform the Conservation Commission that a Historic Commission member(s) will attend their October meeting. (A motion was made by Leighton to extend the meeting for an additional jr 5 minutes. Swink seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously). Memo to Council Reqardinq Authorization for Multiple Listinq Survey for National Reqister of Historic Places- Houses or areas outside of the Historic Districts will require individual nominations as a Special Designation. Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Sprinqs Property - McLaughllin said the Parks Director indicated the lease extension is on hold until it is known whether or not pursuing a National Historic designation would affect the Gun Club existence. Additional discussion with Parks needed to determine specific information they need to make their decision. Brown Baq Lunch Ideas - Old House Fair - Leighton will follow up. Sinqle Familv Residential Desiqn Standards - A sub-committee may need to be appointed to start developing standards. NEW BUSINESS Krach will review mail and share with the Committee any items of note. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 5, 2004 4 .51 CITY OF ASHLAND McLaughlin informed the Committee that training is being developed to streamline meetings to minimize the time commitments of all of the commissions. This information will be shared with the Commission in the near future. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Historic Commission meeting will be on October 6,2004 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Skibby and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes August 5, 2004 5 sa SEP ." 7 2004 .. Planning Commissi.on SE~ptember 7, 2004 We would like to challenge Planning Action 2003-110 Criteria C-7 (7) The historic nature of the neighborhood. The proposed larger home does not fit the historic character of our neighborhood. Instead of added square footage, the neighborhood would benefit from new champion oak trees replanted where the oak was removed. Since Church Street is known for its majestic old oak trees. Jim and ~ranese Williams, the former owners of the property and the Saladoff's talked about the health and perserving the oak trees for over 1 year (go to the notes in the planning commision meeting). After a year's discussion about the health of the oak trees and perserving them, all of a sudden they decide to remove the tree right before they ask for a conditional use permit. It was a SAD day for our historic neighborhood to witness the removal of this 152 year old Black Oak tree Mark and Cici Brown 171 Church Street Ashland ~! I J.... _ _ '~, I ~""-- /vltUk K. l5rvu/lvf\-/ "(",' "- c.. .\' J ~Y,~' ~,... .. C~\' ~€ "\ '\.~~\ ~~ \) ~o / -'r"v\ 51 Planning Action 2004-110 150 Church St. Ashland, OR SEP 7 2004 Lewis Nash 88 Baum St, Ashland telephone 552-9111 To the Ashland Planning Commission As property owners of a residence adjacent to the proposed construction we request a public hearing on the~ above Conditional Use Permit. We base our request on the following approval criteria under section 18.104.050. Criteria C-l. Similarity in scale, bulk and coverage While well designed and conforming to the landscape, the proposed structure is 9% over the maximum permitted floor area in this Historic District. The proposed size (3,557 square feet) is somewhere between half-again-as-large and twice-as-large as most of the residences in the neighborhood. This is not the "somewhat higher than the average" size as stated in the proposal. To exceed the already generous Historical District size limit of 3249 square feet is unjustified. We believe that "size creep" will destroy the character of this neighborhood, as it has done in so many places. We request that the existing size limits for this Historical District be enforced. The planning staff has already turned down at least two recent requests for house size expansion in this neighborhood - at least informally - and this request should be turned down as well. Criteria C-5 Livability of the impact area: Generation of noise, light, and glare Our house is down-slope from, and within 30 feet of, the shared property line. The extra size of the proposed house has pushed the location of the planned swimming pool to within 50 feet of, and at the saIne level as, our second story master bedroom widow. This is the window that we sleep with op(~n all year for cross ventilation. This is a quiet neighborhood where sound clearly carries far. While we~ understand that closer neighbors will mean more noise, the position of the pool with its smells, lights, pumps, and potential nighttime noise ahnost assures continuing conflict. The Livability of our home would decline drastically. Criteria C-7 Livability of the impact area: Other factors With plans for a large parking lot, a large swimming pool and a large bathhouse, the surface water run-off will dramatically increase. That water will flow through several properties down-slope, including ours, and flooding with corresponding water damage can become a yearly threat. Please seriously review this proposed construction in light of the above issues. " I ',~\/---- /. I '~ .. . i \ V \.J ( 'y \ /,/. r')' , ., ,1 0/~'cO- :t ,/.i i /; It'll.- 0/" /i1...t ( ) Kate Thill Lew Nash {;D From: To: Date: Subject: Derek severson Dave Hoxie 9/7/04 11 :54:56 AM Re: PA#2004-110 150 Church St. >>> "Dave Hoxie" <dhoxie@qwest.net> 9/1/04 1 :02:58 PM >>> September 1, 2004 Derek, This morning I reviewed the application in your office for the above mentioned project and would like some clarity on a few items before deciding weatller to request a public hearing or not. If you could reply back to me in a timely manner, giving me enough time to gather my thoughts on weather to request the hearing would be greatly appreciated. 1) How many trips per day will this house generate to the existing 10' wide alley that the driveway will enter? Not to Church St. but to the alley. A typical SFR is assumed to generate 10 vehicle trips per day. Primary vehicle access is to be from the alley (as required by city standards and the partition creating this lot) so I believe the bulk of these trips will be to the alley. 2) Will the driveway be paved from the property line to the alley? Upon completion of this project or future development? The applicant indicates that his parking area and the easement driveway will be paved so this should occur- with this project. 3) Where the driveway enters the alley, which is not shown on the plans, there is an oak tree that will fall into the Visual Clearance safety of the intersection. Can you inform me as to how this will be addressed for safety assurance? City vision clearance standards apply to intersections of streets and alleys, rather than where driveways enter an alley. Given that it is an existing situation with an established tree, the city would not require removal of the tree. 4) There was mention of an open ditch to remove surface water but not where it was to terminate. Will this ditch allow water to just dump on to the surface of the alley which has no storm drain system? The trench drain is described in the applicants submittal as being to collect sheet flows from the driveway andl parking area to prevent water from flowing onto sidewalk.s, public rights of way or abutting properties. Typically, these types of drains empty into the storm sewer system and that should be th.~ case here, too. 5) Pool House: What is the correct square footage of the building? One location states 213 sq. ft., it measures out at 225-1/2 sq. ft., and the last location states it will be 352 sq. ft. I believe. From the plainS, the 352 sq ft number appears to be what was used in the impervious surface calculations by the landscape architect. The poolhouse itself scales out close to the 213 mentioned by the applicant and I believe the additional square footage is a covered patio area in I front of the p,oolhouse. This square footage does not come into play for the maximum permitted floor area calculation and lot coverage is not an issue, so the discrepancy can be resolved at building permit submittal. Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving your reply. Dave Hoxie 174 Church 81:. Ashland, Oreglon 97520 482-0400 home 821-7455 cell ~(~ The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved this request on August 25, 2004. This action be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Doard at 1 :30 p.m. on September 14,2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. No Dublic testimonv 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, 51 Winburn Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on September 7,2004. 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 modifi~d, based on the applkable criteria. If YOU do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC HEABING by the time and date stated above. there will be no Dublic te!;timony Dermitted. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free-to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-55272041. If a hearing is reque"'+~!d, it will be scheduled for the following month. Unless tt 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 criteria applic,able to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failur<e to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, Qlr 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 Boardl 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 critedon. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. 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 hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. Our TTY phone.oUl1lber is 1-800-735-2900. PA #2004-110 150 Church Street NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the AsWand Historic Commission on September 8,2004, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Deve:lopment and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. PLANNING ACTION 20104-110 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct at new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or ~~% greater than allowed by ordinance. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential; Zoning: R-1-7.5; Assessor's Map #: 391 E 08 AD; Tax Lot: 3901. APPLICANT: Robert M. Saladoff ~3 -asn pasodo~d aq~ }O ~alAa~ ~OJ A~l~oq~nv 6ul~~aH aq~ Aq ~u~Aala~ aq o~ puno} S~O~O~} ~aq~O .L .u~ld aAlsuaqa~~mo~ aq~ ul pauolslAua s~ sal~~adoid ~uao~~p~ JO ~uamdolaAap aq~ .9 .a~~t6 pu~ '~qDlt 'aslOu JO UOl~~~auaD .S .s~u~~nltod t~~ua~o~lAua ~aq~o ~o 'S~OpO '~snp }O uOl~~~au~D aq~ 6uIpntoul 'A~lt~nb ~lV ., : .~a~~ ~o~dml aq~ q~lA ^~ltlql:}~dmoo t~~n:}o~~lqoXV .C .sal~ltlo~JJ6 ^~10~d~o '}O ssatP~~Da~ t~lolJauaq pa~aPlsuoo a~~ asn ~lsu~~~ ~s~m pu~ 'atoAolQ 'U~l~~sapad uT sas~a~oUI .s~aa~~s DU1Puno~~ns UO s~oaJJa pu~ olJJ~~~ JO uOl~~~auaD .Z .aD~~a^oo.pue '~tnq 'at~s ul A~l~~tlmlS .t :auoz aq:}. }O asn ~~)D~~~ aq~ 0+ UOl~~ta~ ul pa~aPlsuoo aq tt~qs ~a~~ ~o~d11l1 aq~ JO ^~lllq~Alt JO s~o~o~J 6ul~OttoJ a~ '~a~~ ~o~dml aq+ uo asn pasodo~d a~ JO ~oaJJa aq+ 6ul+~nt~Aa uattM .auoz aq+ JO asn ~a6~~+ aq~ q~lA ~ot.~oa~qns aq+ JO ~ualIIdota^,ap aq+ o~ pa~'ed\Uoo U~)q/o\ ~a~'e ~o~dUl"J: aq~ JO A~ltlq'eA1t aq~ uo ~oaJJa t'el~a~~Ul a~~~aAp~ ~a~~a~.6 ou aA'eq ItlA asn t~u01~JPuoo aq~ ~'eq~ .0 .^~~ado~d ~oa~qns aq~ qDno~q4 pu~ o:} paP1Ao~d aq 1(t1/o\ pu~ u~o uOl:}~~~odsu~~:} a:}~nbap~ pu~ 'aD~U1~~P nuo~s u~q~n I iC~Tol~~oata ':}uautdOtaAap atn qDnO~tn pu~ o~ ssaool:! 'paA~d ./~a~as "~a~~Jl\ ~O} sal~ltTo~,J A~l~ JO ^:}lo~d~o a:}~nbap'e :}~q~ _g .m~~6o~d ~o Jt\~t T~~apa~ :[0 'a~~~s '^~T~ ^u~ Aq pa~uamatdml ~ou a~~ ~~q~ sa1oTtod ' U~ld aATsuaqa~dmo~ ~u~Aala~ q~l/o\ aOU~~oJuoo ul pu~ 'pa~~oot aq o~ pasodo~d sT asn att~ qOlttJl\ u1 ~Ol~~slP 6Ulu02 aq~ u1q:}1~ Sp~t?PU~~S tt~ tt:} TJl\ aou~m.:IoJuoo ul aq Ptno~ asn aq+' :}'eq~ - V .'el~a~l.xo t~Ao~dd~ 6U1~OttoJ aq+ q~TJl\ 'suol:}lPUOO JO UOl:~lsodm1 aq~ qono.xtt:} m.xoJuoo o:} ap~ut aq u~o .:IO 'sm.xOJuoo asn p~~sodo~d aq:} +~q~ sPU1JA~1.:loq+n-e t-eAo.:ldd-e aq:} J1 pa+u'e~6 aq 11~tts :n:uuad asn l-euol~lPuOO V .'Ql.:ta~l.J:O t'eAO.:tClCl'l 050-)'0"'[-8"[ . S~IHEad aso ~~NOI~IaNOO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS . 18.104.0S0 Approval Criteria. A conditional use permit shall be granted i.f 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: . 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 ~ith 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 adjacent properti(~s as envisioned in the Com~rehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. J./- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of ,Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97~i20, in the Community Development Department. 2. On AIO"~t ?6, ?QQd, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed env1elope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Findings to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2004-110 . ~YJ31A,~ Q Q Signature of Employee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 26th day of AIIQlIst, 2004. r.~" OFFICIAL SEAL '. '. NANCY E SL.OCUM ~ i \ ! NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON it ....':.. ...... COMMISSION NO. 371650 L~_" MV COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 1& 2007 . ~ t, [] (<) ~ Nary Pub IC for State of Oregon My Commission Expires: Q-lg"Ot7 Comm-Dev\Planni ng\ Tempi ates &6 391E08AA, 5100 PA #2004-110 ARCHER & DRESNER LLC 117 ALMOND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5300 PA #2004-110 BROWN MARK K/CYNTHIA 0 171 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 4800 PA #2004-110 HOLLANDSWORTH D D/SUSAN J 55 PINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4101 PA #2004-110 MAAS DAVID/CANDACE BURTON 96 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 7101 PA #2004-110 MA YMAR DANIEL TRUSTEE 115 SCENIC DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3901 PA #2004-110 SALADOFF ROBERT TRUSTEE ET AL 1290 MUNSON DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 7100 PA #2004-110 SECHAN NEIL - TRUSTEE 101 SCENIC ASHLAND, OR 97520 J91E08AD, JSOO p~.4~ #200~ STARK JERRY IJELIZ.~.4':BETH D il CR...4.......~ITE ST ~.4...SHL~.4~~D, OR 97S20 391E08AA, 5400 PA #2004-110 WHITTEN J LORRAINE 175 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3902 PA #2004-110 WILLIAMS JAMES L 3105 HOL YROOD DR OAKLAND, CA 94611 J91E08..4~.4&, S101 p~.4& #2004 110 ~.4...RCHER & DRESNER LLC 117 ~\IJ\IOND ST .\SHL~.4~~D, OR 97S20 391E08AA, 4900 PA #2004-110 BARRY JON/JENNIFER JONES 134 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3600 PA #2004-110 CHAVEZ TOM TRUSTEE 63 PINE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391 E08AA, 3400 P A #2004-110 DELLER DAVID W TRUSTEE 200 GRANDVIEW ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 4000 PA #2004-110 HOXIE DAVID A TRUSTEE FBO 174 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3300 PA #2004-110 JONES TRUSTEE JEFFERY R 79 PINE ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3200 PA #2004-110 MACFARLANERM 429 EIGHTH AVE MENLO PARK, CA 94025 391E08AD, 4102 PA #2004-110 MADDOX RAOUL G TRUSTEE 186 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 7200 PA #2004-110 MIKESELL PENELOPE 2431 ERIE DR CONCORD, CA 94519 391E08AD, 3700 PA #2004-110 NASH LEWIS H TRUSTEE FBO 88 BAUM ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5200 PA #2004-110 SCHEIN STEVEN AlP A TRICIA A 167 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 J91E08~.4~\, S201 p~.4... #2004 110 SCHEIN STEVEN ~.4~~\TRICI~.4& ~.4& Hi7 CHURCH ST ~\SHL~\ND, OR 97S20 391E08AD, 4100 PA #2004-110 SJOGREN MARGARET LEIGH 180 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3400 PA #2004-110 STARK JERRY I1ELIZABETH D 41 GRANITE ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3301 PA #2004-110 TOEVS CORALIE 170 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AA, 5000 PA #2004-110 WELCH LOUISE A CO-TRUSTEE 147 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 391E08AD, 3800 PA #2004-110 WIDNEY DOUGLAS 1619 KING ST SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 391E08AD, 3900 PA #2004-110 WILLIAMS JAMES L 160 CHURCH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ;~. ?, A TTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY) MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HER.EBY GIVEN that the Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved the following requests. The actions will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1 :30 p.m. on September 14, 2004 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. No public testimony is allowed at this review. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to make a written request for a public hearing before the Ashland Planning Commission prior to 3:00 p.m., September 7, 20104 to the Planning Department, 51Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Request to divide the existing property into two parcels (Le. two-lot land Partition) for the property located at 1095 S. Mountain Avenue. The application does not involve any -Development" as defined in 18.62.030 D. at this time. Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to convert the existing residence located at the front of the property at 659 Liberty Street into an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) while constructing a new 2 % story 2,325 square foot residence at the rear of the property. A Physical Constraints Permit is required for the construction of a portion of the drivE~way and entry porch upon Hillside lands (Le. <25% slope). Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a one-unit traveler's accommodation located at 407 North Main Street. In compliance with thE! Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the Oty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin Publish: 9/2/04 Date e-mailed: 8/26/04 Purchase Order:: 65413 C: 1 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (JODY) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Historic Commission on September 8,2004 at '7:00 p.m. at the offices of Community Development and Engineering Services (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. Request 1for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new single-family residence on the parcel located at 150 Church Street with a proposed total floor area in excess of the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. The Maximum Permitted Floor Area for the parcel is 3,249 square feet, while the proposed residence is 3,557 square feet or 9% greater than allowed by ordinance. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the total floor area of an existing single-family residencE~ located at 724 Iowa Street, 9.2% beyond Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) allowed by ordinance. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the aty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Director John McLaughlin Publish: 8/30/04 Date e-rnailed: 8/26/04 Purchase Order: 65413 ,'" ~A) /- " 1, "/:.- ,: .~,,~ ~ .., f.,-... CITY OF'~SHLAND PLANNING APPLICATION / Type -7QO<.( --/1 () 7q2 File No. h ~ Filing Fee . (J' <,,0 r") (( \ {j 6176' <-C:7!hL04 Date Received Zoning . . Comp Plan Designation Receipt # D Minor Land Partition o Outline Plan (# Units ) o Zone Change D Variance o Final Plan o Comp Plan Change ~nditional Use Permit o Site Review .- 0 StaffPennit D Boundary Line Adjustment o Annexation o Solar Waiver APPLICATION IS FOR: Application pertains to chapter, section, subpart of the Ashland Municipal Code. APPLICANT Name ROUi2lt /ll, Sl( (acfDf( - Phone LfS-2~J772 Address /2 'i{) f11U,1 ~url PROPERTY OWNER Name S QjY\1L- Phone Address SURVEYOR. ENGINEIER. ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (may need to use back page) Name Phone Address 'DESCRIPTION OF PR.OPERTY Street Address ISO CnurcJ1' sf- _ Assessor's Map No. 391E <61/ D Tax Lot(s) . 39() I !tt,CJ 20 () "3 v When was the above described property acquired by owner? On - a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of property or improvements contemplated, as well as YC'lrd set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire. ' FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findinas criteria and the evidence which sUProrts it. 61 'sa!lllUn fo uou~auuo~s!P .lo/puvuoUn:Jaso.ld ul11nsa.l AVUI. SNOI.LJI70IA ououaldUl.o~ a.lnSU3 01 palsod uaaq sv'l puoq a~u1)uu(if.,iad tUol~VfS1Jvs v SS:ff7Nfl U01SS!Ul.Ul.O;) ZU!UUVld a'll Aq pasodUl.! SUOU!PUO~ puv S/uaUl.tJ.I!nba.l ZU!l!oz llv fo uoualdUl.O~ a'll aNY' uOlS1A1a ZU1PUnU a'll Aq t0uvdn:J~O fo alroYU.la;) v fo a~urjnsSJ a'll 01 .101.ld S3Ull!1n . .fo,asvala.l V;.I0 2u}Punq v fo huvdn:J~o a'll S1!q!'lO.ld apo;) IvdJ~!unJf PU1)l'lSY a'll fo OpzopO'~ 1 uO!1~as ::ffDUON / /5 cy 'f'r? ~l'ea t -JaUMO ApadoJd e se aw oJ sa:Juanbasuo:J sl! pue UO/lea//dde aJa/cfwo:J aLlJ pOOISJapun pue peaJ al\eLl / 'JsanbfU S!L11 u/' pal\/oI\U! AJ,iadOJd alll)O iaUMO sv .' ~l~a. A'Oj 'o/-cP , :l.IlQmnl!S SJUeo!lddV . / ~a::>ueJs/sse pue aO/l\pe /euo/ssajoJd JuaJadwo:J >fa as 01 pas/I\pe we l'sJqnop Aue al\eq 1 jl oasuadxa AW.Je pal\owaJ aq 01 paJ/nbaJ Bu/aq uoaJaLll a:Jue!laJ U! lJ!nq Bu!aq saJnJ:JnJls Aue U! Alq!ssod oS/e 1fIq 'ap!se las 6u!aq IsanbaJ aliI AluO IOU U! A/aJ/!IISOw ynsaJ 111M ple6aJ S!1I1 U! aJnl!e;j -punoJ6 aLII uo paJe::>ol ApadoJd aJe slUawal\oJdw! JO saJnl:JnJJs lie JeLlJ (y JaLll1n) pue :aJenbape aJe aw,{q paLls/wn) l:Je))o sBu/puy aLlJleLlI (t !JsanbaJ al./J jO BU/lueJ6 aLII saYllsn[ pal./s!wnj loej jO sBu!puy aLlJleLlJ (l :Jsanb~3J s!I./JPoddns oJ 6ufJeaqaLlIJe aouap/I\a lenlOF;1j Jua/oljJns paonpoJd 1 Jel./J (~ :qs!lqeJsa 01 aw uo aq II!M uaflJnq aLlI'paJsaluo:J ,{/1uanbasqns s/ lSanbaJ S!L11 j! leLll pUelsJapun Jallllnj 1 oAI!l!q!suodsaJ IInj sawnsse JaUMO aLfI 'lOaJJo::>u! aq 01 puno) uone::>o/ J!aLfl JO UMOljS IOU ale su/d aljJluaA9 aLfI u/ ououaadsu/ alls uodn e/q!s/I\ pue s6u/Melp eLfl uo UMoLfs eq lsnw su/d ApedoJd lie JeLfI puelslapun / OIOF-' '0::> pUB aruJ slaadsaJ lie u/ aJe 'loej r... ,sl5u/puy paJ!nbaJ aliI pue sf5U!MeJp pas%ue aLf16ulpn/ou/ 'uou\, ide s/1I1 U! pau!eluo:J UOnewJoju/ p... .)luawalels al./l1el/l AJ/pao AqaJaq I :\' ..;" . , ""f. . 04. .. . .::"-1~i,:':~. ;~"'.;~ t,4 :~; ~ _.,1 . I hereby certify that the statements 'd information contained in this apr 'tion, including the enclosed . drawings~and-the required findings" J fact, are in all respects true and COI j dCt. I understand that a1l property pins must be~ shown on the drawings and visible_upon-s,ite inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. ~. .": i ~, .. ,<' . t :' \- ~ wt, "~' l"-.'~ '.'1 t?,.OJ ,: ..;~:{ ....~;;~::.~7~,.. ~ ,'-"... ~- 'L.. :': ~ ': "":,' :\.~: ~ "'" ,"'..._ -A:;- I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1} that I plioduced sufficient fa'clual evidence at the' hearing to support this request; 2} that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; :3} that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4} that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard 'will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in any structures being built in ffjliance thereon being required to be removed afmy expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. -- --- . -IJI- : APPlican, sSignature ._ -- . As oWfJer: of the prop~~rtY involved in this r~quest, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to rne as a property owner. - .~ Owner's Signa~ ~ft~y / Date NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or'a release-of: ': utiliti~ prior to the issu{lnce of a Certificate of Occupq,ncy by .the Building Division.AND the completion of all zoning requirements and condi'tions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result inprosecutionand/o.r disc(Jnnection ofu/ililies. '10 ~. ;- APPLICANT'S FINDINGS 8/6/04 7/ ROBERT SALADOFF ARCHITECT II II II August 4, 2004 Planning Commission and Ashland Planning Department City of j\shland Re: Conditional Use Findings of Fact, Site Revie\.\' Project: Saladoff Residence (N ew Residence) 150 Church Street AsWand, Oregon Zoning: R-1-7.5 Applicant: Robert and Susan Saladoff TIlls request is being submitted for a Conditional Use Pemut (Section 18.24.040 K.) for exceeding the MPFA (Maximum Permitted Floor Area) for dwellings within the Historic District. The relevant Ordinance Sections and Design Standards for Conditional Use Permit :are described in the follo"ving Findings of Fact. Findings by the Applicant/Agent are inserted immediately following each section of the ordinance. TIlls application is being filed concurrendy with an application for site design approval ~der Chapter 18.72. Rei7ectfull(). t il/}) m 1 Rooert SaladO~ Architect f!~ 545 A Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.482.3772 fax 541.552.9512 salarch@mind.net AU6 0 6 2004 Findings of Fact For Conditional Use Permit Application for exceeding the MPFA in the Historic District I Site Review Subject Property: 150 Church Street Assessor's Map 391 E08AD Tax Lot 3901 Submitted to: City of Ashland Planning Department Submitted for: Robert and Susan Saladoff Prepared by: Robert Saladoff Robert Saladoff, Architect 545 A Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 1"1 .r / .po AUG 06 2004 Following are the Chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and sections of the Design Standards deemed applicable, in whole or in part, to this Site Review 8~ Conditional Use applicatio!l: ORDINANCES Page 18.20 - Single-Family Residential District 18.20.040.E. to H - Establishing Limits on Maximum House Sizes in the Historic District 18.61 - Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 - Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.68 - General Regulations 18.70 - Solar Access 18.72 - Site Design & Use Standards 18.92 - Off-Street Parking 18.104 - Conditional Use Permits SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS Section II - Approval Standards and Policies A Ordinance Landscaping Requirements D. Parking lot Landscaping and Screening Standards E. Street Tree Standards Section III - Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies EXHIBITS: G::>ver Sheet Site Plan Floor Plans Exterior Elevations Sections Llndscaping Plan A1.1 A2.1 A3.1,A3.2,A3 .3 A4.1,A4.2 A4.3 L-l Photographs: Site and neighborhood ~14 1 3 7 10 12 15 17 21 25 29 29 31 32 AUG 0 E 2004 O1apter 18.20: R-1 Single-Family Residential District 18.20.010 Purpose The purpose of the R-l district is to stabilize and protect the suburban characteristics of the district and to promote and encourage a suitable environment for farrllly life. 18.20.020 Pennitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A Single family dwelling, utilizing at least two of the following design features to provide visual rehef along the front of the residence: 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries S. Gtpolas 6. Pillars or posts 7. Baywjndow (min. 12" projection) 8. Eaves (min. 6" projection) 9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16") (Ord. 2612 S2, 1991) · (})mplies: The proposed use is for a single-family dwelling that includes the fi~llowing features: lOUJ-sloped roof and donners minimizing height of the second floor; front yard setback in-line with existing adjl.1Cent Victorian house to west; multiple building offsets and bump-outs responding to site conditions and providing texture to building en1Xlope; c01Xred porch, bay (window, one-story rear wlume steps down to minimize street wlume and rnaking use of existing topography; and large roof o1Xrhangs. 18.20.040 General regulations A Minirnum lot area: Basic minimum lot area in the R-l zone shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, except six thousand (6,000) square feet for comer lots. R..1 areas may be designed for seventy-five hundred (7,500), or ten thousand (10,000) square foot minimum lot sizes where slopes or other conditions make larger sizes necessary. Permitted lot sizes shall be :indicated by a number following the R-l notation which represents allowable minimuln square footage in thousands of square feet, as follows: R-1-5 R-I-7.5 R-1-10 5,000 square feet 7,500 square feet 10,000 square feet Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 7~ 150 Church Street AUG 0 E 2094 2 · Complies: The lot is zoned R-1-7.5 and is 17,304 SF in area. B. Minimum lot width: Interior lots Comer lots All R-1-7.5 lots All R-1-10 lots 50 feet 60 feet 65 feet 75 feet · Complies: The lot is irregularly shaped, but is 85'-0" in width to a depth of 115'-0" from the front of the property, and then narrows to a minimum of 35'- 0" at the rear of the property. C Lot Depth: All lots shall have a minimum depth of eighty (80) feet, and a maximum depth of one hlmdred fifty (150) feet unless lot configuration prevents further development of the back of the lot. Maximum lot depth requirements shall not apply to lots created by a minor land partition. No lot shall have a width greater than its depth, and no lot shall exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in width. (Ord. 2052, 1979; Ord. 2425 S3, 1988) · Complies with special conditions: Existing lot depth is 208~0"(approred per Planning Action 2002-130 Land Partition), but lot width at rear of property (.35 ~O" precludes the derelopment of the rear of the lot. D. Standard Yard Requirements: Front yards shall be a minimum of, 15 feet excluding garages. lJnenclosed porches shall be pennitted with a minimum setback of eight feet or the width of any existing public utility easement, whichever is greater, from the front property line. All garages accessed from the front shall have a minimum setback of 20' from the front property line; side yards, six feet; the side yard of a comer lot abutting a public street shall have a ten foot setback; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70 which provides for Solar Access. (Ord. 2097_ S5, 1980; Ord. 2121 Se, 1981, Ord. 2752, 1995) · C;omplies: A1ain House: The proposed front yard (north) is 27'-0"to the house and 20~0" to the edge of the corered porch. The side yard setbacks are a minimum of 10~0'~ but typically 14~0"to the east, and a minimum of26~0"to the west. i1Je rear yard setback is approximately 120~0'~ Pool House: The proposed pool house sits behind the main house approximately 60'-0" and has an east side yard setback of 40'-0" and a west Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 1'7 I .tJ 150 Church Street AU6 0 6 2004 3 side yard setback of a minimum of 6'-0". It is setback from the rear property line approximately 52'- O'~ See Solar Access setbacks later in these findings. E. Maximum Building Height: No structure shall be over thirty-five (35) feet or two and one-half (2 1/2) stories in height, whichever is less. Structures within the Historic District shall not exceed a height of 30 feet. · Complies: The stmcture is 2-stories in height and is 27'-O"in height at the highest ridge. This measurement is taken from the natural grade directly below the highest point of the roof Maximunl Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (500/0) percent in an R-1-5 District, fony-five (450/0) percent in an R-1-7.5 District, and forty (400/0) percent in an R-1-10 District. · Complies: The total impervious surface is 45%. G. Maxin:lum Permitted Floor Area for dwellings within the Historic District. The maximum permitted floor area for primary dwellings within the Historic District shall be determined by the follo,ving: 1. 'll1e maximum permitted floor area shall include the total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building, including but not limited to exterior walls, potential living spaces within the structure with at least 7' of head room and attached garages. The floor area shall not include basements, detached garages, detached accessory structures, or detached accessory residential units. Detached garages, accessory structures, or accessory residential units shall be separated from other stnlctures by a minimum of 6 " except that unenclosed breezeways or similar open structures tpay connect the structures. 2. 'll1e following formula shall be used to calculate the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA), provided however, that regardless of lot size, the MPFA shall not exceed 3,249 sq. ft.: Lot area x Adj. Factor = Adjusted lot area x 0.38 FAR = MPFA (from Table 1) Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Pennit 150 Church Street 77 AVG 0 6 200~ 4 . TABLE 1 Adjustment Facto.r Table -,-,"'~"'--' -----...-,,' .--~-~.-------.- !-------.-.'----- ,--..----.....- r:------ r-------------c '----....--'-.----1' fLot I Adj. IL ^_ [Adj. IL ^_ !Adj. 11 ^- I Adj. I" i I ot ruea i otruea ! i .ot ruea I Area IFactor I Factor I I Factor ! Factor I !....'...................-.............I.......................,,,....................... [..................._.........~.............. ... I.......... ........-.......'..............-c '..11'00'1=............,......, r............................................- [.......................-......................................'.. 'I............................................. "'\ 10-2500 11.20 \6501-7000 10.88 111500 10.66 115501-16000 0.55 I ! I I! I 1 \2501- --"I-I-~--C 111501- r I r:-- 13000 11.16 17001 7500 \0.85 \12000 1.064 \16001-16500 10.54 I ~13001- -",---11 ~ 112001- i 1.16501-17000 ,-\ ,3500 11.12 17501-8000 ,0.82 112500 10.62 I 10.53 I I~~~~- 11.0SF01-S500 r-79- I~;~~- 10.61 r7001-17500 10.52 ~I [:~~--F~~----'r~~~~-~~ [~:;;------Iff~r--[~~~~---- F;~~~~;~-[~~.~-----I ~1~~~-l.~--~~01-95~ -r;:;~-~-i ~~~~- --r. 0-.5;--~I~sool-1s5oo 110.;---1 i I Iv.1 I! I . I 15001-----1 19501- 1'--!i4001- I I .. I II 15500 10.97 11000010.73 114500 10.58 ....... 11.8501-19000 10.49 I ~~~-I~~-~~~~-----r~.;~----I ~~:=---'I 0.5~~;~1-195;;;-[O.4;----1 ! ! I I , , , ! I I~~~:];.;~-~:~--._.-I;:~~................_.-r~~~~~:...-- [~.~~----.._.-l~~~~r~d--I;:~;-.] MPF A calculation: The total floor space of all floors (gross floor area) of the primary dwelling measured to the outside surfaces of the building is 3,557 SF. This excludes the basement, cO'rered porch, and detached pool house. 'The total proposed floor area: 3,557 SF Lot area of 17,304 SF with adjustment factor of .52 per Table 1: 8,998 SF JMPFA = adjusted lot area of 8,998 SF x.38 FAR 3,419 SF _Maximum allowable SF in historic district: 3,249 SF The proposed 3,557 SF total floor area exceeds the 3,249 SF mtlximum by 9%, or 308 SF. . . , Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 150 Church Street 7 ."1 ;( AUG 0 6 20n4 5 H New single family structures and additions to existing single family structures within the Historic ])istrict shall not exceed the MPF A tUlless a Conditional Use Permit is obtained. In no.case shall the permitted floor area exceed 250/0 of the MPF A.In addition to the findings for a Conditional Use Permit, the standards noted in Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards shall be considered in the request." · 1Dis application reques ts a conditional use penn it for exceeding the MPF A by 9%. There are four primary factors contributing to the jus tification for this reques t. 1., Orerall Massing and Height: The height of the proposed house is 27~0" from the natural grade to the high point of the ridge of the roof. The slope of this site is relatircely consistent with the other sites up and down Church Street. Subsequently, the proposed new house appears to ~~teps-down" Church Street, minimizing its apparent height ercen furtber, (see attached Church Street section drawing for more infonnation) The width of the house fitcing ClJurch Street is just 36~0'~ consistent with the nl~ighboring homes. JDe massing is broken up into two connecting wlumes, a two-story main house wlume facing the street, and a single-story family room and master bedroom suite at the rear of the house. This '~eparation"reduces the visible n'lassing at the street. To enhance this effect, the rear single-story wlume also takes admntage of the sloping site, and ~~teps-down"away from the street. The front two-story wlume is 2,157 SF, with the rear one-story wlume tbe remaining 1,400 SF. IDe visual height and massing of the house is also minimized by the generous front year setback of27~0"; the low sloping second-story roof; the rtlultiple bump-outs and recesses along its facades; and the mix of exterior suiface materials that provide added texture to the house. 2. Confonnance to Section IV (Historic District Dercelopment Standards) in Site Design And Use Standards. The general design of the project carefully considers the following standards under this chapter: lA~ Height- The height of the proposed house is 27~0"from the natural grade to the high point of the ridge of the roof, under the maximum height limit of 30~O"for historic districts. b) Scale- The size and proportion of the proposed residence (residential conditioned floor area of 3,557 on .40 acres) is somewhat higher than the t.l'rerage, but within the scale range of other existing residences in the neighborhood. From Church Street, howercer, only the front wlume of2,157 can be seen. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit /(/ 150 Church Street AUG 0 6 200~ M'ap# 391E08AD Tax Lot # 3900 4000 4101 3800 3301 5300 5201 5200 5000 4900 391E08AA Lot Area .52 acre ~40 acre .28 acre .29 acre .40 acre .27 acre .40 acre .36 acre .43 acre .30 acre 6 Area of Residence 3,156 (proposed) 2,564 2,488 2,536 3,467 2,642 2,851 with 1,042 accessory unit 2,597 2,492 4,532 with 1,026 accessory unit c)- The Massing (as previously stated) is broken-up with wriations in the wall setbacks and bump-outs, wrying roofheights, and the visual separation of tbe front two-story wlume from the rear one-story wlume. From the street, only the 2,157 two-story wlume can be seen. ~)Setback- The setback from the street is 27'-0" to the front of the house, and 20'-0"to the co~red porch is consistent with the existing house to the west and is significantly greater than the minimum requirement of 15 '-0" to the house. e)RoofShapes- The ~traftsmen"style roofs (i.e. low slope, large o~rhangs, exposed rafter tails, and numerous setbacks) enhance the streetscape with tbis infill project and are consistent with se~ral other existing homes up and down Church Street. f) Rhythm of Openings- The alternating pattern of wall area with windows and doors in all 'risible facades is consistent with the style of the proposed residence. Special attention to the street elewtion presents a ~tlassic" craftsmen style with segmented windows and detailed f{1)ood front door and sidelights. g) Platfonns- The base of the proposed residence is anchored with a sloping u?dge stone co~ring the full width of the street far;ade and is capped by a 'lJ.'}ood water table trim board at the floor le~l. The base wries in height from approximately 1'-0" at the uphill side to approximately 6'-0" and the downhill side. h~Directional Expression- The proposed residence makes use of its wried site conditions including: the main two-story wlume presents itself to the street; tbe house opens-up to the uphill (west) and rear (south) landscapes with increased glazing and doors to make use of the great views and priwcy; the ~ear one-story wlume steps-down with the sloping landscape towards the rear of the property. The residence includes rear and side entrances for the homeowners entering the property from the rear(~hiculareasement and parking rear of property). ~)Sense of Entry- As stated previously, the proposed residence presents a classic center-hall entrance to Church Street, maintaining the pattern along ~his street. Howe~r, since ~he main ~hicular access to ,the site is provided by a side and rear easement from a side alley, there are additional side and rear entrances for more functional connection between ~'.X?hicles and bomeowners . Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit r:,~ 150 Church Street AUG 0 6 2004 7 i)Jmitations- The design neither replicates or imitates any particular historical style, but rather incorporates the bes t qualities of the crafts men tradition, 'while providing for a contemporary living style. More specifically, the design c.rddresses the opportunities of the site (street presence, circulation, solar c.rccess, and views), makes use of a wrying palette of materials and textures to relay a desired organic image (stone, wood, stucco, cedar shake), and expresses the traditions of fine craftsmanship (high quality wood doors and 'lvindo'WS, exposed rafter tails, authentic stucco and cedar shake siding, dry- stacked ledge stone garden walls, exposed rafters in sereral rooms, and clear stained vintage wood floors and trim. All this is presented in a sublime tnanner to prodde consistency with the texture of the existing neighborhood. 3. Functional and Life-Style Requirements- The homeowner's household consists of an actiU? family offour(including 2 teenagers), with a strong possibility of an additional senior relatiU? moving into the home within the next 5 years. The homeowners entertain often and haU? frequent visitors requiring extended stays, and belieU? the proposed residence is needed to 1neet their functional and family needs. C'hapter 18.61: Tree Standards 18.61.010 Pmpose The atyof Ashland recognizes the importance of trees to the character and beauty of AsWand as well as the role that trees have in advancing the public health, safety and welfare. The aty has therefore determined that reasonable regulation of the removal of certain trees is necessary and that this regulation of trees is based upon the following general guidelines: A All tree removal and tree topping activities, unless exempted below, shall be carried out in accolidance with the requirements of this chapter. · tComplies: No trees greater than 6"in diameter will be remoU?d. B. No person who is required to install or maintain tree protection measures pursuant this chapter shall do any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation- or demolition work on a property or site which requires a planning action without approved tree protection measures properly installed and maintained pursuant to this (bclpter. · Complies: A tree protection plan will be submitted witb the building penn it .application as shown on the attached Landscape/Site Plan. No work will begin until approU?d tree protection measures harre been installed. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit ,P~' i 150 Church Street ,AUG 0 6 Z004 8 18.61.035 Exempt Tree Removal Activities The following act~vities are exempt from the req~lirement for tree rerrLoval pe~ts: A those activities associated 'With the establishment or alteration of any public park under the Ashland Parks and Recreation Q)lnmission. However, the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department shall provide an annual plan in January to the Tree Conunission outlining proposed tree removal and topping activities, and reporting on tree removal and topping activities that were carried out in the previous year. · IVot applicable B. Renloval of trees in single family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as othetwise regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62. · }'lot Exempt: The Project proposes a single family dwelling. The Project is not regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance. C. Rernoval of trees in multi-family residential zones on lots occupied only by a single family detached dwelling and associated accessory structures, except as othetwise regulated by the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (18.62). · l'lot applicable: The project is a single-family dwelling. D. ReJuoval of trees less than 6" DBH in any zone, excluding those trees located 'Within the public right of way or required as conditions of approval 'With landscape improvements for planning actions. · lvot applicable: the property is not in a multi-family residential zone. E. Relnoval of trees less than 18" DBH on any public school land'), Southern Oregon University, and other public land; but excluding Heritage trees and street trees within the public right of way. · IVot applicable: the property is not on any public school land. F. Relnoval of trees within the Wildfire Lands area of the City, as defined on adopted maps, for the purposes of wildfire fuel managenlent, and in accord with the requirements of the Physical and Environme!1tal Constraints Chapter- 18.6? · lVot applicable: the property is not within the Wildlife Lands area of Ashland. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 150 Church Street 8:3 . J'# '\ i'. ~--l_ AUG 0 6 2004 9 G. Rernoval of dead-trees. · l\Tot applicable: no additional dead trees to be remored. H Those activities associated with tree trimming for safety reasons, as mandated by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, by the Gty's Electric and Telecommunication Utility. However, the Utility shall provide an annual plan to the Tree Commission outlining tree trimming activities and reporting on tree trimming activities that were carried out in the previous year. Tree trimming shall be done, at a minimum, by a Joumeyman Tree Trimmer, as defined by the Utility, and will be done in conformance and to comply with OPUC regulations. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) · (})mplies: All tree trimming will adhere to Ashland city ordnances and utilities and be prefonned by a registered arborist. 18.61.200 Tree Protection Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building pemut. A Tree Protection Plan Required. 1. A Tree Protection Plan approved by the Staff Advisor shall be required prior to conducting any development activities including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work on a property or site, which requires a planning action or building pennit. 2. In order to obtain approval of a Tree Protection Plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and! or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following: a. Location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15 feet of the site; b. Location of the drip line of each tree; c. Location of existing and proposed roads, water, sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/ facilities and easements; d. Location of dry wells, drain lines and soakage trenches; e. Location of proposed and existing structures; f. Grade change or cut and fill during or after construction; g. Existing and proposed impervious surfaces; h. Identification of a contact person and! or aroorist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree protection plan; and I. Location and ~ of tree protection measures tc? be installed per AMC 18.61.2}0. 3. For development requiring a planning action, the Tree Preservation Plan shall include an inventory of all trees on site, their health or hazard condition, and recommendations for treatment for each tree. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 150 Church Street I~UG 0 6 2004 10 B. Tree Protection Measures Required. 1. Except as otherwise de!ennined by the Staff Advisor, ~ll required tree protection measures set forth in this section shall be instituted prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 2. Chain link fencing, a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, shall be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone or drip line, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts, riparian areas, lOr conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed. 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 4. Approved signs shall be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 5. No construction activity shall occur within the tree protection zone, including, but not limited to dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 6. The tree protection wne shall remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids such as paints, thinners, cleaning solutions, petroleum products, and concrete or dry wall excess, construction debris, or m-off. 7. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pnming or other activity shall occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. C. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and! or grading pennit has been issued by the City. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) · lComplies: All tree trimming will adhere to Ashland city ordnances and utilities and be prefonned by a registered arborist. Chapter 18.62: Physical and Environmental Constraints 18.62.010 Physical and Environmental Constraints Purpose- and Intent The purpose of this dlapter is to provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for sens.itive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic conditions and significant natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Pennit gi 150 Church Street .AUG 0 6 2004 11 drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation. (~d 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) . 18.62.050 Land dassifications The following factors shall be used to detennine the classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on thenl: A Flood plain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are classified as Flood plain Corridor lands: 1. all land contained within the 100 year Flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency Managenlent Agency, in maps adopted by O1apter 15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 2. All land within the area defined as Flood plain Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council ~lS provided for in section 18.62.060. 3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the historical past. 4. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated for Riparian Preservation in 18.62.050.13 and depicted as such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060. 5. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as Riparian Preservation. B. Riparian PreseIVation - The following Flood plain Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian Preservation for the pmposes of this section and as listed on the Physical and Environrnental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, day, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks. C. Hillside Lands - Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from erosion and slope failure, and include areas which are highly visible from other portions of the city. The following lands are classified as Hillside Lands: 1. All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map and which have a slope of 25 percent or greater. D. WIldfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are classified as Wlldfire :Lands: 1. all are(1$ defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay map. E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics which generally limit non:nal development. The following lands are classified as Severe Constraint Lands: 1. all areas which are within the floodway channels, as defined in O1apter 15.10. 2. All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent. F. Oassifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumulative in their effect and, if a parcel of land falls under two or more classifications, it shall be subject to the regulations of each classification. Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those portions of the land being developed and not necessarily to the whole parcel. (Ord 2808, Added, 12/02/1997) · l'lot applicable Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit ~-- ;x; f4....... '.' __l 150 Church Street .~U& 0 6 200~ 12 Cllapter 18.68-General Regulations 18.68.010 Fences Fences, vv-alls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards: A In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one- half (3 ~) feet in height. · C;omplies: Proposed dry-stacked stone garden walls 'Will be limited to less tban 3 -!. 6" in height. B. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half (6 ~) feet in height. · (})mplies: Proposed dry-stack stone garden walls will be limited to less than 3'-6"in height and side yard fencing will be limited to 6'-0" or less. No bedges are propos ed. C. The height of fences or walls in rear or side yard setback areas abutting a public street shall be forty-eight (48) inches or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public street except an alley. · IVot applicable D. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's property, except where fences are jointly constnlcted. · ('J)mplies: The frames of any newly constrncted fence along the east and south property lines 'Will face the builder's property. Fencing along the property lines to the west are addressed in a previous maintenance agreement between the affected parties. E. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (50/0) percent. In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning Depattnlent, the property owner shall be notified, in writing, of the problem. The Planning Depattnlent shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action. · 4Complies: New fencing will adhere to this requirement. 18.68.02:0 Vision Oearance Area Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the size of the vision clearance area: Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit '..'" 150 Church Street ~\JG {\ 6 7904 13 A In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at intersections including an alley, ten (10) feet. · flot applicable: Vehicular traffic frOtTl this property is provided by existing public alley to the west and currently used by several existing homes. No new driU!ways are propos ed. B. In all other districts except the C-1 and E-1 districts, the minimuln distance shall be fifteen (15) feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty- five (25) feet. · lvot applicable: Property is in an R distn'ct. C The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or temporary or pennanent obstructions exceeding two and one- half (2 ~) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight (8) feet above the grade. · ())mplies: No new fences or walls are proposed at the alley abutting the street. D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605, S1, 1990) · C;omplies: No mriance is requested. 18.68.030 Access Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty (40) feet upon a public street (other than an alle~. TIlls requirement may be decreased to twenty-five (25) feet on a cul-de-sac vehicle turn-around area. Except with an approved flag partition, no lot shall abut upon a street for a width of less than twenty-five (25) feet. · ('JJmplies: Lot has 87.38'frontage on Church Street. 18.68.050 Special Setback Requirements To pennit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured fro,ill the special base line setback:s listed below instead of the lo~ line separating the lot from the street. Street Setback East Main Street, between City Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 150 Church Street ~\JG 06 200' 14 limits and Lithia Way 35 feet Ashland Street (Highway 66) between City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard 65 feet Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the C-1- D district. 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures AccessolY buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: · (;omplies: Apool house is proposed with this project and will comply will all a~spects of this section. The pool house will include pool equipment, sauna, bathroom, and changing areas. A A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district. · lVot applicable B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single- family dwelling provided there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house. · lVot applicable C. Mechanical equipment shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. Such equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. (Ord. 2289 S4, 1984) · c:Omplies: No mechanical equipment is to be located between the main s:trncture on the site and any street. D. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory st]ucture erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. (Ord. 2228, 1982; Ord. 2289 S3, 1984) · l'vot applicable: Proposed accessory unit will not take admntage of this condition. 18.68.160 Driveway Grades. Grades Jor new driveways in all zones shall not exceed a grade of 200/0 for any portion of the driveway. All driveways shall be designed in accord with the criteria of the Ashland Public Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 150 Church Street lUG 06 2004 15 Works [lepartment and approved prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. If required by the Gty, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a lic~nsed land surveyor. All vision dearance standards associated :with driveway entrances onto public streets shall not be subject to the Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2604 S2, 1990; Ord. 2663 S3, 1992) · ())mplies: All proposed driveway and parking grades will be less than 10% Chapter 18.70 Solar Access 18.70.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Solar Access O1apter is to provide protection of a reasonable amount of sunlight from shade from structures and vegetation whenever feasible to all parcels in the City to preserve the economic value of solar radiation falling on structures, investments in solar energy systems, and the options for future uses of solar energy. 18.70.030 Lot Classifications Affected Properties. All lots shall meet the provisions of this Section and will be classified according to the following formulas and table: FORMUlA I: Minimrun N/S lot dimension for Formula I = 30' 0.445 + S Where: S is the decimal value of slope, as defined in this O1apter. FORMULA II: Minimrun N/S lot dimension for Formula II = 10' 0.445 + S Lots whose north-south lot dimension exceeds that calculated by Formula I shall be required to meet the setback in Section (A), below. Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula I, but greater than that calculated by Formula II, shall be required to meet the setback in Section (B), below. Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula II shall be required to meet the setback in Section (q, below. · By calculation, Solar standard A applies to this property (actual N/S dimension of 208.0' exceeds 75 j 18.70.040 Solar Setbacks A Setback Standard A This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than six (6) feet at the north property line. Buildings on lots which are classified as Standard A, and zoned for residential uses, shall be set back from the northern lot line according to the following formula: SSB = !-I- 6' 0.445 + S WHERE: Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit ., 150 Church Street ~UG 06 2004 16 SSB = the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which creates the longest shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the northern property line. H = the height in feet of the highest shade producing point of the stnlcture which casts the longest shadow beyond the northern property line. S = the slope of the lot, as defined in this Chapter. · By calculation, solar setback is 47.2' (II =27'-0". The north property line, however, is frontage along Church Street and the calculated solar setback does not apply (house setback of27'-0"plus street width of 40'-0" exceeds minimum requirement of 47.2' B. Setback Standard B. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than sixteen (16) feet at the north property line. Buildings for lots which are classified as Standard B, or for any lot zoned C-1, E-1 or M-l, or for any lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be set back from the northern lot line as set forth in the following formula: SSB = H- 16' 0.445 + S · ]\lot applicable: Solar standard A applies to this property. C Setback Standard C. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than twenty-one (21) feet at the north property line. Buildings for lots in any zone whose north! south lot dimension is less than Standard B shall meet the setback set forth in the following formula: SSB = H- 21' 0.445 + S · l-lot applicable: Solar standard A applies to this property. D. Exelllpt Lots. Any lot with a slope of greater than thirty percent (300/0) in a northerly direction, as defined by this Ordinance, shall be exempt from the effects of the Solar Setback Section. · ]'vo-t applicable: Lot slope is not greater than 30% in a northerly direction. E. Lots Affected By Solar Envelopes. All structures on a lot affected by a solar envelope shall cornply with the height requirements of the solar envelope. F. Exerrlpt Structures. 1. Existing Shade Conditions. If an existing structure or topographical feature casts a shadow at the northern lot line at noon on December 21, that is greater than the shadow allowed by the requirements of this Section, a structure on that lot may cast a shadow at noon on December 21, that is not higher or wider at the northern lot line than the shadow cast by the Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 10 150 Church Street AUG 0 6 2004 17 existing structure or topographical feature. This Section does not apply to shade caused by vegetatton. · l'lot applicable 2. Actual Shadow Height. If the applicant demonstrates that the actual shadow which would be cast by the proposed structure at noon on December 21, is no higher than that allowed for that lot by the provisions of this Section, the structure shall be approved. · l/ot applicable 18.70.050 Solar Access Performance Standard · lvot applicable 18.70.060 Variances · lvot applicable: No mriances requested 18.70.070 Solar Access Permit for Protection from Shading by Vegetation · lvot applicable Chapter 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.72.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to regulate the manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for walking) cycling, and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. 18.72.040 Approval Process A Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Staff Pennit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor. 1. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy) as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. 2. Any addition less than 2)500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square footage, whichever is less, to a building. 3. Any use which results. in three or less dwelling units per lot, other than single- family homes on individual lots. 4. All installations of mechanical equipment in any zone. Installation of disc antennas shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.160. Any disc antenna for Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit (/ / 150 Church Street AUG 0 E 2004 18 commercial use in a residential zone shall also be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (18.104). (Ord. 2289 S5, 1984; Ord. 2457 S4, 1988).5. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of Section 18.72.180, in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: (See image at bottom of page) 6. Any exterior change to any structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places." (ORD 2802, S2 1997) B. Type I Procedure. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Type I procedure: 1. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial as defined by the zoning regillations of this Code. 2. Any residential use which results in four dwelling units or more on a lot. 3. All new structures or additions greater than 2,500 square feet, except for developments included in Section 18.72.040(A). · The application for this project requires a Type I procedure due to the request jor a <:Onditional Use Pennit to allow exceeding the Maximum Pennitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic District. 18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone · lVot applicable: The project is not within the Detail Site Review Zone. 18.72.09D Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards · lVot applicable: The No mriance is requested. 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: R-1 - 450/0 of total developed lot area R-2 - 350/0 of total developed lot area R-3 - 250/0 of total developed lot area G 1 - 150/0 of total developed lot area G 1- D - None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the landscaping and screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use Standards. E-1 - 150/0 of total developed lot area M-l - 10010 of total developed lot area (Ord. 2825 53, 1998) · Complies: Property is R-1-7.5 and will haU! 45% of total deU!loped lot area. B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualities. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit (1-;'" !-~........ 150 Church Street AUG 0 t 2004 19 · Complies: The landscaping plans meet all of the aboU! requirements. See Sbee~ L-1 for complete design. C Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property owner shall replace them. · C:Omplies: AJllandscaping 'Will be inigated. A full inigation plan will be submitted 'With the final building plans. D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of the landscaPed areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees. · Complies: The parking area and back-up space comprises approximately 1160 SF of surface area. This requires, at 7%, approximately landscaping totaling 81 SF. this amount of space is more than accommodated in the adjacent landscaped areas. E. One street tree per 30 feet of frontage shall be required on all projects. · Complies: Two new and one existing street trees are part of the landscaping p~m and meets the above requirement. 18.72.11.5 - Recycling Requirements · lVot applicable: The proposed project is not a commercial or multi-family development. 18.72.120 Controlled access A Prior to any partitioning of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone, controlled access standards shall be applied and, if necessary, cross easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the partitioning can be made from one or more pomts. · lVot applicable: No partitioning is proposed with this application. B. Access points shall be limited to the following: 1. Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on'residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit (I ~~ , 150 Church Street ~UG 0 E tu04 20 on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. · Alot applicable: No new access points are proposed. C. Vision clearance standards. 1. No obstructions greater than two and one half feet high, nor any landscaping which will grow greater than two and one half feet high, with the exception of trees whose canopy heights are at all times greater than eight feet, may be placed in a vision clearance area detennined as follows: The vision clearance area at the intersection of two streets is the triangle formed by a line connecting points 25 feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting points ten feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. No structure or ponion thereof shall be erected within ten feet of the driveways. · !\Tot applicable: No intersection of streets, or streets with alleys, occurs adjacent to this property. 2. State of Oregon Vision Clearance Standards. The following stopping site distances shall apply to all State Highways within the City with the prescnbed speed limits. Venical stopping sight distance to be based on distance from three and one half feet above pavement to a poinlt six feet above the pavement. (Ord.2544 51, 1989) 30 mph200 feet 35 mph225 feet 40 mph2l5 feet 45 mph325 feet 55 mph4S0 feet · },Tot applicable: Church Street is a City of Ashland street and is not a State lrighway. 3. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605 52, 1990) D. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. 1. All muJti- family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle nips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transpoltation Engineers. · l'lot applicable: The project will not generate more than 250 rehicle trips per day. 2. Creating an obstructed str~et, as defined in 18.88.o20.G, ,is prohibited. (Ord. 2544 52, 1989; Ord 283657, 1999) · llot applicable: No streets are being created as part of this project. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit f . I ./ ...._-~ 150 Church Street ~UG 0 E 200' 21 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-1, SO, or He lot. · Complies: Lighting will be shielded and located so as to limit the direct illumination on the adjacent residential properties. 18.72.160 Landscaping Maintenance A All landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed- free condition. B. All landscaped areas required by this d1apter must be maintained according to the approved landscaping plans. · Complies: Owner agrees to maintain all landscaped areas according to these requirements. Chapter 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required Uses and standards are as follows: A Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Single family dwellings. Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory residential nnits: a. Studio units or 1- bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft.--1 space/ nnit. b. i-bedroom nnits SOO sq. ft. or larger--1.50 spaces! nnit. c. 2-bedroom units--1.75 spaces/unit. d. 3- bedroom or greater units-- 2.00 spaces! unit. · Complies: Three offstreet parking spaces will be provided. B. Coffilnercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. · lV6t applicable: The property is not intended or zoned for commercial development. C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. · lVot applicable: The property is not intended or zonedfor industrial development. . . . D. Institutional and Public Uses. For institutional and public uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit ._1 I : f'''''~''~ 150 Church Street AUG 0 E 2004 22 · f\.rot applicable: The property is not intended or zoned for institutional or public use derrxlopment. E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be detennined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. · /l/ot applicable: The property is not intended or zoned for this type of derrxlopment. F. Maxinlum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required number of spaces: provided by this ordinance by more than 100/0. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximUIn number of allowable spaces. 18.92.025 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking · lvot applicable: No credits are requested. 18.92.030 Disabled Person Parking Places · lVot applicable: The property is not commercial and therefore is not required to provide Disabled Person Parking. 18.92.04D Bicycle Parking · lVot applicable: The property is a detached single-family residence. 18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirenlents A Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet, except that 500/0 of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050 and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled. · O~mplies: Proposed parking spaces are a minimum of9x18 feet and have a ba:ck-up space of more than 22 feet. B. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and tum-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for ~ single dwelling shall have a l-riinimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit (1~~ 150 Church Street AUG 0 E 2004 23 · Complies: Proposed drireway has a width of 15 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a fOIWard manner. · Not applicable 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet in width. · Not applicable 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottonl of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. · Not applicable b. Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. · Not applicable c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed developlnent. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. · O.mplies: The existing curb-cut on Church street will be remored. c. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 '6" for their entire length and width. · Not applicable D. Vision aearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the triangle formed by a line connecting points 25 feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an int.ersection involving an alleyan1 a street, the triangle is forme~ by a line connecting points ten (10) feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected within ten (10) Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit :f 1/" ~"~ 150 Church Street C\fP 06 _ 24 feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one- half feet in height. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. · Not applicable E. Development and Maintenance. The develoPlnent and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, tum-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. · Complies: The proposed parking area and easement drireway will be pared with concrete or concrete parers. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-around shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. · Complies: A trench drain will serre to collect the sheet flow of waterfrom the drireway and parking area. No water will flow onto side'li)alks, public rights-of way or abutting properties. 3. Drive"~ay approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standard; on file in the office of the City Engineer. · Not applicable 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces pennanentlyand clearly rrlarked. · Not applicable 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be finnly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand nonnal ,vear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. · Not applicable 6. Walls and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street ~e shall be landscaped. All veg~tation shall be adequately maintained by a pennanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit {' / 150 Church Street ~fP 0 (! 2104 25 maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. · Not applicable b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight- obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged. by vehicles using said parking areas. · Not applicable 7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 70/0 of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be unifonnly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. · Complies: The parking area and back-up space comprises approximately 1160 SF of surface area. This requires, at 7%, approximately landscaping totaling 81 SF. this amount of space is more than accommodated in the adjacent lands c aped are as. 8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. · Complies: Shielded parking lights will direct light downward. All other path lighting will be part of retaining walls and paths near the parking area and will be low-mltage lighting. Olapter 18.104: O:>nditional Use Pennits 18.104.010 Conditional Use Permits Generally Certain uses are permitted in each zoning district only as conditional uses. This chapter provides substantive approval criteria by which applications for conditional use permits are to be evaluated and describes applicable procedures. No conditionally permitted use may be established, enlarged or altered unless the city first issues a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit ,. f, I I f I ' 150 Church Street ~, i 5. c. r- ZUOr'i f"~": ~;.,~.~ tJ' 26 , This Conditional Use Pennit application is to allow the proposed project to exceed the Maximum Pennitted Floor Area (MFPA) in the Historic.District (Section 18.24.040K) 18.104.030 Procedure An application for a conditional use permit shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or authorized agent on a form prescribed by the city and accompanied by the required filing fee. The application shall include a plan or drawing meeting the requirements of Section 18.104.040 and shall be processed as provided in Chapter 18.108 of this Title. 18.104.040 Plan Requirements A The plan or drawing accompanying the application shall include the following infonnatlon: 1. Vicinity map. 2. North arrow. 3. Depiction and names of all streets abutting the subject property. 4. Depiction of the subject property, including the dimensions of all lot lines. 5. Location and use of all buildings existing and proposed on the subject property and schematic architectural elevations of all proposed structures. 6. Location of all parking areas, parking spaces, and ingress, egress and traffic circulation for the subject property. 7. Scherrlatic landscaping plan showing area and type of landscaping proposed. 8. A topographic map of the site showing contour intervals of five feet or less. 9. Approximate location of all existing natural features in areas which are planned to be disturbed, including, but not limited to, all existing trees of greater than six inch dia., any natural drainage ways, ponds or wetlands, and any substantial outcroppings of rocks or boulders. , Complies: See attached documentation. B. An application for a conditional use permit may, but need not be, made concurrently with any required application for site design approval under Chapter 18.72. The provisions of paragraph (1) above are not intended to alter the detailed site plan requirements of Section 18.72.048 for site design approval. , Not applicable 18.104.050 Approval Criteri~ A conditional use pennit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use confonns, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 150 Church Street / De' ~. : ~.'" (", -: '"~r,i. , . < ''''I ' .' .} -'" ... c':.'.~ tJ:' ,.00"20.."....... ;l 27 following approval criteria. A That the use would be in confonnance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in confonnance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any Oty, State, or Federal law or program. · Cmnplies: The proposed use is in confonnance with all standards within the R- 1-7.5 zoning district. B. That adequate capacity of Oty facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the developnlent, electricity, mban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. · Co:mplies: Adequate capacity ofOty facilities exist as declared in section 18.72.050 D. of the Site Design and Use section of these findings. See Site Plan for more infonnation. 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. · Complies: The floor area is compatible with the typical residences in this nelghborhood. Refer to findings under Chapter 18.20.040H in these findings. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. · Complies: The existing street is approximately 40'" 0"wide. This development Oft.l single family residence is an intended use on Church Street and is within Asbland Street standards defining a ~'residential neighborhood street, parallel parking one side ". No on-street parking credits are required for this de'r;elopment, and therefore, no further impact on street parking is incurred. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. · Complies: The proposed residence has been designed in a style co;rnplementary to some of the surrounding homes. From the street, the house has a ucraftsmen"style and is consistent in scale and bulk to the other houses on the street. See Section 18.20.040 H of this application for a further description of the architectural qualities of this new residence. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. · Complies: Air quality will not be impacted, except during cons trnction. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit Ie I 150 Church Street ; ~ ,r. (1 ~"~ ~". ~,~ tJ ~"., "nfH ; t ~1t;' .._v'! 28 · Conlplies: Noise, light, and glare will not be increased to any greater extent by the ,addition of a single-family residence. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. · Cornplies: The future dercxlopment of adjacent properties will be of like nature in response to site conditions and use. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 18.104.060 Conditions The conditions which the approval authority may impose include, but: are not limited to the following: A Regulation and limitation of uses. B. Special, yards, spaces. C. Fences and walls. D. Dedications, including the present or future construction of streets and sidewalks and bonds for such construction or irrevocable consent improvement petitions for such unprovenaents . E. Regul,ltion of points of vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress. F. Regulation of signs. G. Regulation of building materials, textures, colors and architectural features. H Landscaping, including screening and buffering where necessary to increase compatibility with adjoining uses. I. Regulation of noise, vibration, dust, odors or similar nuisances. J. Regulation of hours of operation and the conduct of certain activities. K. The period of time within which the proposed use shall be developed. L. Duration of use. M Preservation of natural vegetative growth and open space. N. Any condition permitted by Section 18.72, Site Design. O. Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Title. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit / C 150 Church Street .~. n (~ ~.i~~1 !' t *1pf}}. f.mJ t 29 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS SECTIC)NII - APPROVAL STANDARDS &POLIOES A (>RDINANCE LANDSCAPING REQUIRE11ENTS The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use Standards. R-l = 450/0 · Co,mplies: The total pervious natural and landscaped areas equals 7,812 SF or 4596 of the tatallot area. B. 11UL1l-FAMILYRESIDENTIALDEVELOP11ENf Approval Standards: Multi-family residential development shall conform to the following design standards: · Not applicable: This development is not a multi-family residential de'rxlopment. C. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS II-D-l) Screening at Required Yards II-D-l-l) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incoIporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. · Complies: Retaining walls and landscape screening will be provided at the perimeter of the parking area on all sides except where it connects to the easement driveway. II-D-1-2) The screen shall grow to at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas. · Complies: The provisions of this section will be met. See attached landscape pLtn. II-D-1-3) the screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. · Not applicable II - D-1-4) Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall. · Not applicable: The parking area is not elevated II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit 103 150 Church Street ;~'~Ufj f~ n 2301t 30 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 wilInot be an additional requirement. · Not applicable II-D-3) Landscape standards II-D-3-1} Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 70/0 of the total parking area plus a ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. · Not applicable: No parking lot is proposed. II-D-3-2) the tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected Jrrom the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. · Not applicable: No parking lot is proposed. II-D-3-3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet frolll any curb or paved area. · Not applicable: No parking lot is proposed. II-D-3-4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and! or living ground cover to assure 5()0/0 coverage within 1 year and 900/0 within 5 years. · Complies: The landscape has been designed to meet this requirement. II - D- 3- 5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. · Complies: Landscape areas are on two sides of the proposed driU!way. II-D-3-6) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffers strip or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met, Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be subrr~tted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls. · Q)mplies: Landscape areas are counted toward required parking lot landscaping. II- D-4-1) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8 feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. · Not applicable: Off-street parking is greater than 25 feet from the main residence. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit I () '-/ 150 Church Street r;. 1 t~. r' c' ~nn' ;.\UtJ r:;~) I..U:.J(t 31 II- D- 5) I-Iedge Screening II-D-5-1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 500/0 is evergreen of the desired screening is a~hieved within 2 years, 1000/0 within 4 years. · Complies: Any landscape hedges will be designed to meet this requirement. II-D-5-2) Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 1000/0 coverage is achieved within 2 years. · Complies: The requirements of this section will be me. II-D-6 C>ther screening II-D-6-1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follow: Refuse container screen, s<ervice corridor screen, light and glare screen. · Complies: A refuse screen will be provided @ the east side of the house @ the basement level. D. S1REET ThEE 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 reconmlended list of street trees found in this section. II- E-1) Location of Street Trees 1. Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 8 feet vride. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development. · Q,mplies: The 5 foot sidewalk will be placed at the curb per approval of PltJnning Action 2002-130 Land Partition. The new street trees U'ill therefore be pLtced beyond the new sidewalk. II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and the Pruning of Street Trees All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows: a. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spacecL with variations to the spacing pennitted 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. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit /o:j 150 Church Street \, .~ ?OOl " ,r..., 1 32 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 Y2 feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet fro the Club, in a curb return area. e, Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interlere with those lines. f. Trees shall not be planed within 2 feet of anypennanent hard surlace paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 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 surlace may be covered by pemleable non-pennanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks. g. Trees, as they grow, shall be pnmed to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. · Complies: Applicant agrees to comply per landscaping plan. h. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. · Complies: A tree protection plan will be in place during cons tmction to prevent any damage to the tree. II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. · <'JJmplies: The existing street tree will be maintained. II- E-4) Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the AsWand Tree Commission. · C;omplies: The existing proposed street tree list approred by the street tree lis t. SECTIC)N III - WAlER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES & POLIOES · C;omplies: The app.!icant agrees to select drought tolerant plans. Also, the. proposed de~lopment will include sustainable building practices including ttn inigation plan that minimizes water usage. Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit II; I~- v X:,"" 150 Church Street if, ? sr' C; ~ ~ ~)nOli h\;~'(1 ~, .... .t': pro ~' ,.~~ ..~~ '0 --;-~~D O-lva1-\ <0\12.E:t::r 01?PUcArVlS p12o~'() ~. r^ , '~'I ~ i I , . /:\l'G ~ 6 200; i I~ , . . ..r;." ~~:bfJ'.'':/'' -.'" , ,- /0/ ' " ./,...><"/ r-" t\U6 0 6 2004 ....1'l;':l t*'m. 1\ If 't.'i - ~~&:~ ~&'),~ ~ ~ Q2~~ (i)~.~~ ~ <: Q ;:t C;; "i ~~a~ t.lJ>)')' ..... ~~~~ III 5' ~~~fir Ql 'iu- Q) ar ~ Q)::f~ ~ ~~o{g: ~ .2 !l. ~ ~ ~ CO III 0 ~'1.' lilo-Iil~ lil~~~ ~\9. ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ _ g . fJ) ~~'g~ 'to. ~ 6cil~ ~ ~~ ~i~ w ~Ct ~i 8 ~. ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ otil~~ ~~l1;'~ ~ 1L;::, ~ {~ ~~ ~;; g '<: lI) ~ l~~~ Cl:3C/)Cl: g ~ iilHiP sr f;1 ::)CI)~::::: ~ ~,~ % r-- '" () III III :3 ~ i5mf} !t~~~ Ql -~ 1,~~ ~::)>~o II' )::.. ~ ~ ~ OJ Ql ~ < ~ ~ VI . . ~ q I - 0-.-'-'1:.11 , . ' . ~ 0) ~~tt ~tij<Jj~ c). a ~UUl ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ 53 2 "-:l U) C) e :ti ~ ""-l L. C Z ~ ~ ...., :::> :::> ~ r--.. ~ ::>-):. III ::> CI) _. 0-::> <ll <:: <ll <ll ::> ::> "tl0' 0-< ~~ 0.. ~. ~, ~ ~<Q ~~ ~ ~ "tllll III :::s ill 0.. <Dill R~ t::"tl 3 Ci3 <ll CI) ::> <ll ,...< Ql 8' ::> "tl QJ ::> Qi'O Q) 3'(.1) cs:""'t 5.[~~~;~ ~.!l>:E()g:g:~ ~~~?Slllg !b~ C!<llgg: Q:;!::>-'<: ::>"tl 5'CDSQ~~~ <QCI)Ci3O~::>- (b~~g<ll~ ~a1s~~~ CI)(;l<ll-.:go ~~~~~c2 ~;:~~8'~ (.1)(1)0_- 0' ~. ~ :i? ~ ~ ~ 6i ~. ~ S ~ ~~~~s~ so..Q.<llo:::s g~~gcg.-g cg.ss.~~~' M-<DE::: :3 lt~s~;!Q, (ij' 0 '<: <ll S g.ca g. ~ <ll <Q::>-:E~{5 ss.~~ <ll =::: (;! -. 0' s~ g;! s ~. * a.. <ll ~ 3. a ~ ~ ~'2:Eg:E <ll g: ~.<Q !!!. ~. :3 :::::: S Q.. ~~g-~~ cu ~~. a i;= ; <ll <2'~ (ij' ~~CD~.~ 16 a- ~ ~ ~. ~3s~~ ~~~~~ ::t"tlQl:::SCl) ~C:t:r:::': .g 0' 0 CI) ~ ~ !5 ~. ~'~!g ~&. ~ -o-;!o.. ~~~s CI) <ll <ll ~~:E~ cu" Q) Ci)' g.3 g. ::t <Q ):.~ ()O ()~ men en' . ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ):. ~ en o 111 ~ r- ." ~ (j) WILLIAM JDARTITION 160 CURCH STF?EET ASHLAND, OREGON h'l1- ",it ~~ <ii~ KENCAIRNI ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, ASLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE B ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNIN / II- 545 'A' STREET, SUITE 3, ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 PH. (541) 488-3194, FAX (541) 552-9512 (\:cP) ZLS6-ZSS-ltS (JJ!OA) ZLLt'-lBt-l'S lJU'PU!W@IPUf'S OZSL6 !':OD3C10 'aNVlHSV '~3ll)uS v S'S ~ -LJd-LI~J~\1 ddOGVTVS ~lIHgOlI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o III ~ tgf "'30- ~-i [ 7. ~O:'< ~g~ "'L~ X}-O- w-o< ~~~ run! \ :lFi; Ib---!.~ . I -------, i cs , ; ; 1 OC ID!~ l!:::JJ I r[~:J', it-~i~ !'-II~ 1,[J]i.~ :,[. J]'ic L-------.J I ~===.J ~ OZSL6 N093:lIO 'aNV1HSV .L3:trn.LS H:)lIflH:) OS I H:)NHGrSffiI H~VArnd co . "'t <( - c::I c::I c-...I ~. c::.;. ~ < z 0 ~ Iii () w ~ en :t: l- V W ~ W V 0:: @ I- ~I :t: en .... J:~ 0 ~ ()II ~ 0::' U w ::l" W ~ J:~ en U C> B 'i ~ (); 0 - " ..J ::) OJ I~ ~ C~ ~ I: a: ~ IE ~ z ~ ell :t: ~ W z ~ (Xtp) lt~6-lS"S-lt.S (;);)!::lA) lLLt'-lSt-lvS J;)u'PU!W@i.pnrU Ol,c6 ~093110 'O"''V'lHSV .~33~1US V,1S OZSL6 NODffiIO 'aNVIHSV l'.3:ffiIlS H)(li1H) OS I -L'JdJ_IH'J)l'\( ddOQ\TIVS ~1I3g:0t[ ~ ~ 3:JN3QIStnI 3~VArnd ~ ~ ~ "I ~i ~! !, gl ~! ~I ~i ~! ~i ~, ~I ~I ~' i ej i i ~ i 1 <, ~ tit ~i i! ;! ;i ~Ij ~! ~: ~i i ~ ~! i, ~i ~i ~I -I 0' I': ;: ': Ij II ~r- I:! i I ! i ~~ !I I 2 ii' EGerl I' ~' i ! " ~ !' I 1 . i ~ ~ I I i 1 VA I i;n ~liji II\~ D: i U' \~ D ! I ! I ", , ! .~, I '~"ll II ,,~'";"F \\H~ ====::j 1r==91 I" ~ =: i I~i : '~::J 5'::'0- :~ IT~- III~;~ iI.] L.:- I E:n ~~ /' ~._ , -~---jr IF~ / / r v',,~ I~~' ~~ , .. I r:5~"" - ~# .. ( I 0 ~j~[ w ~ ~ ~ i ~~_I t:i ~ ~ 0 I ,uN ;cLUj: ~n h ,fa =~ .,I~: ~- il! =~ Wli · i@:= .~ ill::::J " , , ~~I~;' ~ . ~ ~.,~ J'~ - , --I ~ ~ i ,.-=i,'c~."",' ,ilTI i,I , . ~~~ ~:h' , ..\ =~~ .::= ;: -=-~~ ~;i~ I" ~~=: ~ ///' <>-~~j 7( ~ ~~ -;/-;7, ,'-:_ ~ '. 1 ~ -!lfl G 2 ~~ ~ ~W>-0(8 ~/ WI>-O( >, .. 0 i 2 ":/ ,-, .O<~") _ ~O(~O( /1; ^ ~~I: ~ Q 'i:; fi ~~~~ !;(/;/ ,- > ;:[:' ~; w. i=~ g~ 8 ! '~ ~i m ~= =" ::;; ~T ::!i: :::c= I~~, ~ill~c l':=J~~' ~ r. Z IlJ e~ ~~ "w ~~ 00...1 ~3~ ~ bl ~, gl ~i ~, ~I ~i i ~~:c., ! 1 ~~_ iii, :'--'..= i I~ I~: ..! illJ~~ I ~ Imk ~ = ...11\ ' 'jIi~''-': I! ==~, ~ :=::,1'= ,,= ~ _ n::l1 ::::,1' ....... ~ '=::!':-- .......f---~ - =::':'- :\-:::":= '1:= = :JT~,i =, ,- r ~'=" ~~.~~ I \(,- IIR II I =[:9' ~ [JI" 111111:." D-.J Ilbd: ~ 10 I~ h 1 8:]! 1 II l [[J Ii II , i ': I I :If I !:::,!:!: ~: I! i Ii, I! I:;' i! : :11 li.II"~I,ii'!1 I: i I ; I : I Iii I! ii' I., 'il yJ: ,:'!': '}III VI I I I II, j 1 II : ': i I I, ~! ~' CCJ \'. "' ~ II ~~~ I t1- '\ ~ ~, ~,.~~~' "~~i~ ~ ~~0Cc - =~= "-li~-j~ ;: ~'f=i , ~ :=::,iT= ~iT~EJ! 8~:'= =~~~~ G~@;=~ ~~:;~* I::=,,:::::! '= !:=:::!:: ::, ~~~~ ;=;=;~~: ==-, 1:::1 : I: ::: ",-' 'I:::, : 'i: Cf~~~: = '..J'_;1 =, =:1:=,"=',1= :':=': I, '==.' =, ,:::1':::: ,=,. ,,,: ::::: ":::::,, = "=' '="'~ =1 =, :=';,= '::.= '::::; = '~~~= =i'C~=':_'- 'T;' ==' ,=" ==, -: i~~::::El ~':=:= IC::::J ~,~~~ c~=~ i1~~h: =!"u _ ':::::il, ,- =',,= =,=, '-' ="- -, ::::,,=, =1 - = = ,= = :'= ,c_:=!..L: ~~==::_- c~;:; ~= = ~~Ti :;:..:.'== - =-,,=- ~~:===~~= i::,==~: ~'" ,='!;,=:'i:::: '-1'::::':,= ~;~~~ ~=~~ ~j= IEJ 16_ I, I [ ,~ III I N ~ <( -:, '::> .'-' ~ <.0 => ...:( "-- \~ ',- z o ~ <( > W ...J W l- ll) < w 0) (Xlp) llS6-ZSS-lFS (;).J QA) ZLL(-Z8rlFS 1;)u'PU!W@4.JJIII'~' 001"6 !'o:093110 'O!'o.'V1HSV '1.33.1ll.LS V Irl OZSL6 N09trnO 'ONVlHSV ~'3:trn~S HJ(Il1HJ OS L ~ -LJd_LI~J}j\f ddOCIVIVS ~"}ltIg:011 ~ ~ tI:) NtI CIISffiI tI~ V AnId i' ~i w ii o! ~i J ~i I.l .. ~I .' ~' < ~! ~' ~! .1 ii fu~ ~' ~I j! ~I "I ~! ~~ ~i .1 "j "' ~~ ~, ~i ~, 2! aD i f-Z 1 ~, ~I .n< i [I [i i I ! ' i i I , i I i I i i i I I j I 1 i I' i i I i - 0" ~'l1.Idl""",.~r ~ ~ ~ ~ "I J, ~I i! .1 ! ~ ~ ~ Z I: ~ < ~ ~ x ~ ~ " I J~ fj2/ = D , ~~J !I \~ -~D ~~~~ = ----.:... ~ ,I ~ i II ~ 11~,li,'!i,;;i" \::,) Iii ~ ; , I i l_~", :~=I~ ~ ? I e !~ @ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Itll wit ~w 96 t ~i ~i Ii I 1 ~'/ _~_~ ~i /" i iill ~, - , 'j il \ I ~~, "'Y)" '~ ~_ - Wi 'i : H ~ ~ i : ~:!1 -~ 0 ~ / 1 ~ ~ ~ ::: :~I!I ~~ II @ II = ~ ~ ii:-Jii:; -~ =F ~' r-.,~ %1-! ,~ ~~~[R :I~ ~ ~. ~ H::wTI ~'iP, L~ ,,;'=:: cr~ ~ ~,~ , p ~ 'j - 1m ['=: I!i= .:k~ I ....::::::::::: 1 ~ ~ !~ , CD :11! ~Gillill~5;: ~ II II ~ --, '" I , ! ! i '= == 'r - V".ci ~2;~ cr=; I 8 I I " - ~ ~ ="-- i i 1,IJ;==ii'i':::':- ~ - I~ ilai"" \~~'~I~,~i"H(!J]1 : "'" . /' .Ii _co" -::, j- i IL!.! ."'8~ / ~ ~::H*"...qt-;.~ !. CD ~;~ t, ~~:t ~ I~~ ~ .i> ~H/~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ · <ID~. \, :;:" =~~ /~. ~ :~~'o Lb I ~ ~:~ ~~fJ "1 I:: it ~~:~ ;~k~: ; ~ \'~ V' / ~ ~~ ' ~ ,u;t ,~=t:=. G V ~~ / ~U=i=~ ;-~ \' ~ ~~ iT 1:11 \ ~~ =', =.=~ '-'~ ~ ~ i -= ~ :::::::::::: - ~ ~; == a-.d :::::;:: ;:.:; ~~ ~ ~Ut3 r' ~ u ~~ <c 1 . i ~i ~' " 1 ii, ~ ~ . "\t <( ..,. ~ ~ C"-.I C& c::.;. t!) ~ oe.:t z, o \l i= " <( ... >,"- w<;< ...1;'- w' ....: CI)" w-' :=~ B '"3 ZlS6'ZSnrS ZLL,.Z8r'lrS lOU'PUlW @'Pl"I"' OZSL6 NOD3<IO 'CNV1HSV '~33<I~S v SrS .lJd_LI~J}lV ~ ddOaVl\TS 1.1:1:39:01:1: ~ i @ @ ~ ~l~ \@l @ 1.1 @ N0931IO 'ONV'1HSV .13311.1S HJ1IDHJ OS I tIJNtIOrStIlI ddOOV'1VS C'<) - c= c= C'<) c-..I <r:: C&I CJ CD => ct @ L ~l; @ fl J@I ,I I @ ~ I -+Il , . I ~@I I I i I I }i 11 ,l'-- " ~ , ~\ r @ i.j @ '"3 ZL56'ZSS"11'5 ZLLnSnl'5 l'U'PUlW @'P"I" OZ5L6 N09,1110 'ONViHSV '.133KLS V 51'S N08ffiIO 'aNV'1HSV l'tr.3:1IlS HJlIOHJ OS 1 tI)NtIGrStnr ddOGV1:VS l.Jd_l.l~J}!\1' ddOaV'TvS L1I3HOli N ('<) -< ~ ;) =:. .'"oJ :$:I o cJ> ~ ~ '- "-- Xl'J Z 1 S6 .ZSS'[ tS UL ,'ZSP' LvS l'U.pUlW @ YJJtl"' OZSL6 NO~3<10 'ONV1HSV '.133<1J.5 V SvS N08:3:1IO 'ONV'1HSY l:3:'tmlS HJ1IOHJ OS I tIJNtIGrStIlI ddOGV1VS ...,. C) C) ~ C"-J n (C c..; ~ <.!:l :=. <( -LJd.l..l~J}lvr ~ ddOaV'TVS .11I89:011 i ~ ~ ~/ I I I I ~ ;~ ~ ;i~ r I --+---,.- I i I d , ! ~ t- ~ 4 r~ Jl I I : I T ~ L- r'ifH} \ . , : ~'" ~ I I I I I L__J t'- '-- ........... (Xl!p) ZIS6-ZSS-It'S (:)::>10.\) ZLLf-Z8to-ltS 1:)U.pU!W@lpJl~re5 O,I~(, ~O:El~O 'CNV'IHSV '~,EUlLLS V Irl ~ -LJd-L>IHJ~V' b ddOGV1\lS ~lItIgOlI ~ ~ ~; 5~ tIJNtIGrStnI tI~V AnId ~( OZSL6 N09trnO 'aNV1HSV .l3trn.lS H:)'di1H:) OS t ~ - - - 'Nii"iiIDM>l ~'NIl.~'>. t 1./ w"' ~ ~~ :;/ i J ~ ~~ L u - -;;N;:;-:;'Y~O;;-l~O;;)A~Y- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - (xep; ZtS6-ZSS'ltS (.:1:)\0,') n':'('Z'Bv'ltS 1;)U.PU!W@4;)Jl:I!S OZ,L6 NO:J:'lllO 'UNVlHSV '~33~1I~S V 'V, OZSL6 N09trnO 'aNV1HSV l3trnlS HJlIflHJ OS I ~ -LJd--L.IHJ~\/ ddOOVT\TS ~1I3S:01I ~: 3:>N3orSffiI 3~VArnd x w o z o z s: ~ (Y: o ~ ~ >- (Y: <( ~ ~ ~ (j) (9 z z z ~ -.J a... "oj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~>~~ ~~ ~~~~~WO~~ ~~~~~wo ~ ~G~~~g~~~~~~ojg~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~g~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~ h~ ~~~ ~~@ ~ ~~9rr~ <ww!::t: ;:;:;:;:;: >- 0::: ~ ~ ~ :::> (j) (9 Z o -.J :::> CO " " .0:0 ... g!l< ~ ~~~!~~~~g~~~~~~~~ ~:s~ ~~h~g ci ! w~ fa ~w ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~w ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ &! ~g ?-~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~,,"'~5~~~G~ ~~i ~~~~ !~~~~~i ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ oi ~ 8 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ :ij i!l (j) g~~ ~goa ~~~~~~~ z Q ~ ! ~ ~L <( ~ is ~~ :; ~w~,,~~ w ~~~:13~ 0::: """13",, gg ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ <( ~~~~~~g~~~ ~ ~ ~~n~ ;:~!t~~~~~~~ hn~!gg~~ z ~ ~ ~5~ ! ~!t~ ~~~;l~ ~g~ ~~~~~ ~ :d eJ~o:!0 ~~2~2 (j) ~ ~ ~ Z - ~ <( ~ -.J ~ (j) z o u z .. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~w~~~ ~i~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ 9~~ffi~~~~ Q~~~~~~~$~~~~ffi ffi~~w8 ~~~~~g~; ~~~~~~~@~~~~~s ~~~~~ w o ~ o ~ u ~ (9 ~ z ~ o ~ -.J ~ ::> 5 CO l5 ~ @ ~ is 5 'I' ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~g~~~~~~~8 ~~~~~ i ~8 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 8 ; z ~~~~~ffi5 ~ ~ w~ B~ ~,,~~;~~ ~ ~~ ~~ffi~~~~ ~g ~~~~ii~ ~~~S ~~~~g~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~a~~ ~d~d8~~ ~J~ ~ ~ <( .... ~ ~ (Q c c::> ~ c:( (j) -.J o CO ~ >- (j) Ii " I ~ r~l !i ~ L;:, ~) ~ ~ ~ " " ~.o ~ ~ ~ i; ~ ~ ~ wrl ~ i ~ '" i ~ ~ ~ ~:!i ~ ~ t\ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~... Z U lEI U '- !g~. ~~ -:~~~~2~~i . ;mUp 1 .\ ~ :1 I, ~ ~ c c ~ ~ ~ i ~ ZIS6'(~SS (I'7S) :(V;j ''761~.BB"l (I"lS) '/4d U058JO 'PU814S\{ l88JlS qOJn48 a:>uap!Sa~ yopelS ~ . ...J .. OZSL6 1>i:193l:l0 'ONn-t~ '( 3~lns '!33~lS .V. S'7S 'JNI SlJ31IHJCJ\7 3dIJJSONIJl CJ39IJS NCJIIJ]N3).j l :"/!. .n LU <t (/) ....: ....: 1.lJ => vi vi ':.9 r ~~ ....: N ;~ ell vi "":T'" 1.lJ Co <&> rJl v)~ LJ.J .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :> II <.9 8g, 0 ~ ,;.) ~ g-~~g~Uli "". C1l 1- .... r-- ... LJ.J ~~~;:~~ ~ ~ 0 > -l 0 ~as~ ~a;~ -,0 -l U ~ ..... 88~~~~ ~~ '- 0 '0'0 :J -' ll.ll.ll.ll.J:u.. .......... -4" ~ = ~ c::.; ~ ...... ('.J \ \ N A 100 I __ o 100 200 Feet 1" = 1 00 J~ t CITY OF ASHLAND _I rovided for information only, not scaleable ~. N 40 0 40 80 Feet A ~. I 1" = 40 , '1~ ! :>:: ~-) CITY OF ASHLAND