HomeMy WebLinkAboutAllison_400 (PA-2010-00992)
November 10, 2010
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Heiland Hoff
I 797 Anderson Creek Rd
Talent OR 97540
RE: RE: Planning Action # 2010-00992
Notice of Decision
At its meeting of November 9, 2010, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Conditional Use Permit and Tree Removal Permit for
the property located at 400 Allison -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE 09BD; Tax Lot 14200.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on
November 9,2010.
Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 13 days of the
date this notice was mailed and with the required fee ($304), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the
Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal
shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 ofthe Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department
between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305.
cc: Robin Bierman 505 N Glendora Ave Gendora CA 91741
Parties of Record
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~'
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type II decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section
18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as
jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision
should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the
Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
B.
Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.B.
below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record
shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence,
exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record
before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when
available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and
conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and
the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if
any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such
a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing
of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council
appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated:
4.
A.
a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of
the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and
that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of
correcting the error; or
b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of
the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the
decision; or
c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the
proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could
have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this
exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an
approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly
construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and
testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
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~'
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 9th, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2010-00992, A REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
FLOOR AREA (MPF A) WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT BY NINE PERCENT
OR 173 SQUARE FEET. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST
FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE EIGHT TREES SIX-INCHES
IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT (D.B.H.) OR GREATER.
APPLICANTS: Heiland Hoff, architect for owner Robin Biermann
RECITALS:
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
)
1) Tax lot #14200 of Map 39 IE 09 BD is located at 400 Allison Street, within the Siskiyou-
Hargadine Historic District and is zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2).
2) The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area (MPF A) within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet. The project consists
of demolishing the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic, non-contributing duplex building and
constructing a new two-story 2,041 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car
garage in its place. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove
eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. The proposal, including the
design for the proposed home, is outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104.050 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:
P A #2010-00992
August 10,2010
Page 1
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.
4) The criteria for approval ofa Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as
follows:
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant
demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is
likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is
located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private
facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage
alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an
existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment
or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval
of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard
if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including. but
not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental
Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be
staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative to the tree removal have
been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as
permitted in the zone, Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be
P A #2010-00992
August 10,2010
Page 2
reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,
the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives
continue to comply with the other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18,61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on October 12th,
2010 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission continued the matter to their regular meeting on November 9th, 2010 to allow the
applicants to prepare a modified design proJ'osal addressing issues raised by the Historic and
Planning Commissions. At their November 9 ,2010 meeting, the Planning Commission approved
the application for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A) within a Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet and for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater subject to
conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes 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 Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is a legal non-conforming lot as
it was created prior to current zoning regulations with a 4,917 square foot lot area that is less than
the current 5,000 square foot minimum lot area to accommodate less than two units in the R-2
district. With the removal of the duplex and its replacement with a single family residence, the
P A #2010-00992
August 10,2010
Page 3
property will become more compliant with the allowed density of the district. The Commission
further finds that the existing building on the site, known as the Eddie Hinger Duplex in the
Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District survey document, is considered to be "non-historic/non-
contributing" resource in the survey document.
The Planning Commission further finds that demolition of the existing duplex to construct a
single family home is subject to the regulations pertaining to the conversion of existing multi-
family dwelling units into for-purchase housing in AMC 18.24.040.L.7, and a condition has
accordingly been added to require that the applicants provide evidence of compliance with the
tenant rights provisions of Chapter 10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the property is currently served by an eight-inch
sanitary sewer main and a six-inch water main located in the Allison Street right-of-way; a ten-
inch storm sewer main in Gresham Street also serves the property. The Commission finds that
these existing facilities are adequate to serve the proposed home. The Commission further finds
that the Electric Department has indicated that there are no identified issues which would prevent
the applicants from converting the existing overhead electric services for the duplex units to a
single city-standard underground service for the new single family residence.
The Planning Commission finds that Allison Street, designated as a residential neighborhood
street, is currently improved with paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips in
place along the full frontage of the subject property. The Commission further finds that Gresham
Street, designated as a collector street, is also paved with curbs and gutters in place, but lacks
sidewalks along the subject property's frontage. The Commission finds that both of the subject
property's street frontages lack required street trees, however the applicants have proposed to
plant them with the application. The Commission has included a condition of approval to require
that the applicants sign in favor of future street improvements for Gresham Street, including the
installation of sidewalks.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that that the proposed single family home will generate
less traffic than the existing duplex, or other multi-family housing that is allowed within the
district, and will generate no more dust, odor or other environmental pollutants than would any
single family dwelling. The Commission finds that the proximity to the downtown, Southern
Oregon University, shopping and bus routes is likely to result in a reduction in vehicle trips over
what might be expected for a similar unit located further from the core of downtown. The
Commission further finds that the proposed home will not impact the development of adjacent
properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that Conditional Use Permit review calls for
consideration of the adverse material effects of the proposal on the impact area in comparison to
the target use of the zone, which for an R-2 zoned lot of this size would be the development of
the site with a single unit built to the allowed maximum permitted floor area (MPF A) of 1,868
square feet. The Commission further finds that in addition to the Conditional Use Permit criteria,
the ordinance also requires that properties seeking an overage to the Maximum Permitted Floor
P A #2010-00992
August 10, 2010
Page 4
Area are to be considered in light of the Historic District Development Standards, as noted in
AMC 18.24.040.K. These standards address compatibility with historic context in terms of
height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense
of entry, and imitation of historic architectural styles with a general focus of preserving historic
district streetscapes. These Development Standards seek a traditional architecture that well
represents our own time yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district.
Planning staff, the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission had raised a number of
concerns when reviewing an initial design proposal in October which involved a 17 percent
overage to the maximum permitted floor area (MPF A) including that the orientation of a large
gable end of the roof over the garage entry and repetition of similar windows on the gable end
seemed counter to the directional expression, sense of entry, and rhythm of openings in the
neighborhood and broader district and seemed to add emphasis to the home's mass, bulk and
scale on the Allison Street frontage. Under that design iteration, nearly 1,000 square feet of floor
area was dedicated to a great room with ceiling heights approaching 24 feet which the
Commission found to exaggerate the building's mass, scale and volume beyond what was
appropriate for the square footage proposed. The Commission further found that there needed to
be a stronger sense of entry for the proposed home.
In reviewing the design modifications made in response to the concerns previously raised, the
Commission finds that the proposed overage to the MPF A has been reduced from 17 percent to
nine percent. The Commission further finds that while the current proposal retains a gable over
the garage, the removal of a previously proposed turret element at the comer of the home,
hipping of the roof, and modification of the window type, pattern and placement has resulted in a
design that is more cohesive and which effectively deals with the square footage proposed in a
manner compatible with the neighborhood, the district and the design standards. The great room
area with high ceilings, previously an area of nearly 1,000 square feet which substantially
increased the massing and volume of the home, has been reduced to 231 square feet significantly
lessening its impact to the massing and volume. The Planning Commission finds that the
proposed home articulates a clear sense of entry from Allison Street; that the window type,
pattern and placement present a rhythm of openings which is compatible with the character of the
district; and that the hipping of the roof and placement and orientation of the gables provides an
appropriate and compatible sense of directional expression which places the highest part of the
roof further from the street thereby reducing the perceived height and massing.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that because the property is multi-family zoned and
contains an existing duplex, the removal of trees greater than six-inches in diameter is regulated
and requires a Tree Removal Permit. The application indicates that the site's trees have generally
been poorly maintained, and will be significantly impacted by demolition and construction, and
accordingly a Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a total of eight trees six-inches in
diameter at breast height or greater. These trees include four big leaf maples, an American
chestnut, the single deodar cedar, and two Portuguese laurels. In addition, a maple tree and crab
apple tree near the street comer are proposed the be removed; the Commission finds that these
P A #2010-00992
August 10, 2010
Page 5
two trees are located within the street right-of-way and their removal is therefore subject to a
Street Tree Removal Permit, which is not a land use decision. The Commission finds that there
are more trees on the small lot than the property can readily support, and that a number of fast-
growing specimens planted near the foundation walls of the existing duplex have begun to crack
the existing duplex's foundation and to impact the existing retaining wall. The Commission
further finds that one tree proposed for removal is a deodar cedar which is planted under the
electrical lines along Gresham Street. The Commission finds that the proposed tree removals
will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters,
protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, tree densities, sizes, canopies, or species
diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The application states that the remaining trees
on the property will be protected and preserved, and a tree protection plan has been provided.
The application notes that five trees are to be planted to mitigate the proposed removals, and that
the owner is willing to contribute to the tree fund to mitigate the removal of the remaining three
trees in lieu of on-site mitigation as provided in the ordinance, and conditions to this effect have
been attached to the approval.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) within a
Historic District by nine percent or 173 square feet, and for a Tree Removal to remove eight trees six-
inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater is supported by evidence contained within the whole
record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2010-00992. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2010-00992 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 herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 3rd meeting, where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
4) That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their October ih meeting, where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
5) That the applicant shall obtain all necessary demolition permits prior to commencing demolition, and that
any necessary demolition inspection approvals shall be obtained by the applicants.
P A #2010-00992
August 10,2010
Page 6
6) That the building plan submittals shall include:
a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar
Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar
Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow
producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and
circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent allowed in
the R-2 zoning district.
7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the tree protection measures shall be installed according to the approved plan,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, demolition, or
storage of materials.
b) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the future
street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow, curb, gutter and
storm drainage, for Gresham Street prior to the issuance of a building permit.
c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department that adequate fire flow shall be
provided shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be determined
based on area calculations using the final building plan submittals.
8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow along
both frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Street trees shall be
placed to accommodate future parkrow and sidewalk installation along Gresham Street.
All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in
accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use
Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
b) That the driveway curb cut on Gresham Street shall be closed, and the new driveway curb
cut on Allison Street installed, under permit from the Public Works Department. The
applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work within
the right-of-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly identified in the
building plan submittals.
d) That prior to the conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing through the
demolition of the duplex and construction of a single family residence, the applicants
shall provide evidence of compliance with the tenant rights provisions of Chapter 10.115
of the Ashland Municipal Code.
e) That the electric service shall be installed underground to serve the home prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The electric service plan shall be provided with
P A #2010-00992
August 10, 2010
Page 7
the building permit submittals for the review of the Building, Planning and Electric
Departments.
f) Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted on-site and irrigated
according to the approved plan, or payment in lieu of mitigation planting provided, as
proposed by the applicant.
VJff7l'll7a4!U
Planning Commission Approval by
Pam Marsh, Chair
November 9. 2010
Date
P A #2010-00992
August 10,2010
Page 8
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 10500
ASHCRAFT SANTINA
71 GRESHAM ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 14200
BIERMANN ROBIN TRUSTEE ET
505 GLENDORA AVE
GLENDORA CA 91741
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8900
GANGIT ANO FAMILY TRUST ET
44 AMETHYST WAY
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131
PA-2010-00992 391E09CA 1300
LEHMANN RYAN LlZOE D
477 FAIRVIEW ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 39lE09BD 10400
PATERSON THOMAS G
63 GRESHAM ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 8700
REYNOLDS D L JRlPHYLLIS B
64 GRESHAM ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8600
SHISLER LENORE
443 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 I 0-00992 391E09BD 8300
VAN DERZEE KIRT
469 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992
Heiland Hoff
I 797 Anderson Crk Rd
Talent OR 97540
PA-20 I 0-00992 391E09CA 1200
ASHLAND CHANTICLEER LLC
120 GRESHAM
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 I 0-00992 39 I E09BD 14000
DOYLE TERRY/CHIYEMI
462 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
P A-20 1 0-00992 391 E09BD 14300
KELLY TIMOTHY P
100 GRESHAM ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 13900
MOORE PATRICK J TRUSTEE ET
470 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391 E09CA 8101
. PRUFER SUSAN BROUWER
3051 WINSLOW DR
BEND OR 97701
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 10800
i SCHOLOM PETER M TRUSTEE ET
365 VISTA ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 I 0-00992 391E09BD 14100
STEWART JEANETTE
155 8TH ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 8500
WIGGINTON NANCY CAROL
453 ALLISON
ASHLAND OR 97520
//
P A-20 I 0-00992 .. //
Colin Swal~s .. /
143 EightI1St
Ashhfnd, OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 14500
BARTH RICHARD M TRUSTEE
91 GRESHAM STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 39lE09BD 8800
GADBOIS LAURIE A ET AL
54 GRESHAM ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-201O-00992 391E09CA 8100
LEDBETTER PROPERTIES LLC
112 NUTLEY ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 39lE09BD 13800
NORAAS MELODY
478 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 39lE09BD 10401
REITINGER MARK/BECKY
625 B ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8200
SEARLE COLLEEN D TRUSTEE ET
477 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8400
SWALES COLIN WILLIAM
. 143 EIGHTH ST
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 10300
WINCHESTER PATRICE A
3450 SACRAMENTO ST 507
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118
2fr,
11-10-2010
400 Allison
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 9,2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
None
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh noted the vacancy on the Planning Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit
applications to the Mayor's office. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the second workshop for the
Pedestrian Places Project will be held on December 8, 2010 at 7 p.m. at the Ashland Middle School.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. October 12,2010 Planning Commission Minutes.
Commissioners DotterrerlMorris mls to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES, Motion passed 8-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Colin Swales/143 Eight StreetlShared his concerns regarding the guest opinion written by Commissioner Marsh that was
published in the Daily Tidings regarding the AT&T action. Mr. Swales stated this article indicates prejudgment and believes
such strong opinions should have been .declared before the Planning Commission's deliberations as part of the ex parte and
bias disclosures. He added he was disappointed to see such a strongly worded statement from the Planning Commission
chair.
Commissioner Marsh clarified she does not have an iPhone, and stated she was speaking on her own behalf and nowhere in
the article did it mention that she is a member of the Planning Commission.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2010-00993
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street
APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
within a Historic District by 8 percent or 155 square feet. The project consists of demolishing the existing 1,144
square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,023 square foot
Ashland Planning Commission
November 9, 2010
Page 1 of 7
dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has tentatively approved the
demolition proposal subject to this land use approval.) The application also includes a request for a Tree
Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP
#: 391E 09 SD; TAX LOT: 14200
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and provided a brief recap of this action. He noted both staff and
the Historic Commission had recommended this action be continued in order to allow the applicant time to address concerns
that were raised. Mr. Severson briefly reviewed the changes that were made to the design. He stated staff believes the
applicant has done a good job of addressing the issues that were raised and are recommending approval with the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
Applicant's Presentation
Heiland Hoff/Applicant's Architect/Mr. Hoff thanked the Commission for allowing him to come back and provided a review
of the design elements that were changed. He stated their proposal has been modified as follows:
· Decreased foyer size by 175 sq. ft. and added 179 sq. ft of porch space.
. Decreased the size of the stairs and landing.
. Removed the hexagon tower.
· Large gables were replaced by smaller gables, and forms were broken into smaller, varied masses.
· Moved the kitchen to the back of the house and moved the pantry to allow windows along Gresham St.
. Created traditional front and back porches, and added a door to the back porch.
. Eliminated the door facing Gresham and moved the primary entry to Allison St.
Commissioner Rinaldi requested clarification about the Maple trees proposed for removal, and stated he does not see how
these would be impacted by construction. Mr. Hoff stated originally the only trees proposed for removal were those that
abutted the foundation, but when this action went before the Tree Commission, the Commission asked the applicant to
consider removing the Maple trees because they are unhealthy.
Commissioner Marsh noted the Historic Commission's recommendation for the windows in the garage to be squared off and
Mr. Hoff clarified he is fine with this. She also asked about the use of alternative pavers for the garage driveway and Mr. Hoff
stated they have discussed this possibility and would welcome a recommendation from the Commission.
Public Testimonv
Colin Swales/143 Eight StreetlStated the applicant did a good job addressing the concerns that were raised, but stated there
are still a couple things that should be looked at. Mr. Swales questioned how the grade change and gables would affect
compliance with the solar ordinance, and also questioned if the garage could be modified. He stated there are no other
garages or driveways on that street and recommended a reduction to the garage frontage.
Mr. Severson clarified the proposal does confirm with the City's Solar Ordinance.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Mr. Hoff stated the house is set 20 ft. back from the property line, so even in the longest day in June, a shadow will not be cast
on the neighboring properties.
Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing and the record at 7:45 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 9, 2010
Page 2 of 7
Del i berati ons/Decis i on
Commissioners Dotterrer/Rinaldi mls to approve PA-2010-00993, including the Historic Commission's
recommendation on the windows. DISCUSSION: The architect and owner were commended for the changes that were
made to their proposal. Dawkins stated the plan is considerably better, but still voiced concern with the garage and stated he
is saddened that the existing duplex will be taken out of use. Dotterrer stated this proposal meets the criteria, but this is not
the house the owner wanted and stated the new design is mediocre. Marsh echoed the praise shared for the architect's
changes and voiced her hope that they will look at other alternative materials for the driveway.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Miller, Blake, Dawkins, Mindlin, Rinaldi, Dotterrer and Marsh, YES. Motion
passed 8-0.
Commissioners MorrislDawkins mls to approve the Findings with the typographical change to the square footage.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2010-01239
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 59-85 Winburn Way
APPLICANT: Urban Development Services, LLC agents for Jonathan & Esther Phelps
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change from Single Family
Residential (R-1-7.5) to Commercial Downtown (C-1-D), Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit,
Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees, Site Review approval to construct a new 10,632 square foot
cafe/restaurant, and a Development Agreement for the four properties located at 59-85 Winburn Way.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; EXISTING ZONING: R-1-7.5; PROPOSED ZONING: C-1-D;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 09 BC; TAX LOTS: 2500, 2501, 3000 & part of #39 1 E 09 TL 100.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Mindlin, Rinaldi, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Morris and Marsh declared site visits. Commissioner Morris noted he is
working on a project with this project's architect, but does not believe he has a conflict of interest. Commissioner Marsh noted
she had participated last spring in two charrettes for this site, but this was prior to a submittal being developed and she
believes she is able to judge this application on its merits. Commissioner Dawkins requested the Sneak Preview article written
on this project be included in the planning action record.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and provided an overview of the proposal. He explained the
properties involved in the zone change request are the vacant lot adjacent to the City's Community Development building,
Pioneer Hall, the Community Center, the existing building at 85 Winburn Way, and the City parking lot that houses the ice
skating rink. He explained the proposal before the Commission is to rezone these properties from R-1.75 zoning (Single
Family Residential) to C-1-D (Commercial Downtown); demolish the existing building and accessory structures at 85 Winburn
Way; and construct a new 10,632 sq. ft. cafe/restaurant in its place. He stated along with the new cafe/restaurant building, the
proposal includes developing public plaza spaces, reconfiguring the City parking lot to gain additional parking spaces, plaza
space improvements to Pioneer Hall, and constructing a small building for the City's Parks Department that would house office
space, staking equipment, public restrooms, and the Zamboni machine.
Mr. Severson reviewed the three criteria for a Type III application and explained the Commission will need to compare the
benefits this application provides with its impacts. He stated two items in particular that staff recommends they consider are: 1)
the design of the structure, inclUding the impacts to the Winburn Way streetscape and the Granite Street properties, and 2) the
impact on area parking. In regards to the parking element, Mr. Severson suggested they consider an in-lieu of parking fee and
provided some additional information on this concept. He stated it is also important for the Commission to remember they are
dealing with historic properties and recommended they consider the potential for a transition of use and what might be
inappropriate uses for this site.
In terms of staff recommendations, Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending the zone change be limited to 85 Winburn
Way, and that the Commission determine if in-lieu of parking fees are needed, and if so to what degree. In terms of site
Ashland Planning Commission
November 9, 2010
Page 30f7
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
I) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
y
Agenda item number- OR
H 0 f::rhA~-\S'a.J
Regular Meeting
Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For:
Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespeciful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
November 9, 2010
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2010-00992
APPLICANT:
Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
LOCATION:
400 Allison Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Multi-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
September 29,2010
120.DAY TIME LIMIT:
January 27,2011
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.24
R-2 Low-Density Multi-Family
Residential District
Tree Preservation and Protection
Conditional Use Permits
18.61
18.1 04
REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A) within a Historic District by eight percent or 155 square feet. The previous submittal was to
exceed MPF A by 17 percent or 315 square feet. The project consists of demolishing the existing
1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story
2,023 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has
tentatively approved the demolition proposal subject to the applicant receiving land use approval for
a replacement structure.) The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to
remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
The application was considered by the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission at
their regular meetings in October. The Historic Commission raised a number of issues with
the proposed design, including:
1) Concerns with compatibility in terms of mass, bulk, scale and volume as the
proposed home had roughly 1,000 square feet offloor area where the average ceiling
height approached 24 feet. The Commission noted that if the home were traditionally
framed, with more standard ceiling heights, this would have added an additional
1,000 square feet or more of floor area, meaning that the volume proposed was more
akin to a 3,200 square foot home on a 4,900 square foot lot than that of a 2,200
square foot home. The turreted kitchen volume had a 12-foot plate height which
significantly increased its perceived volume, and the Historic Commission was
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 1 of 7
concerned that the overall design exaggerated the home's volume beyond what was
necessary to accommodate the proposed square footage in order to maximize views
and provide large, high-ceilinged great rooms in a manner counter to the intent ofthe
Maximum Permitted Floor Area ordinance and Historic District Design Standards.
2) In addition to the larger issues raised above, the Commission also had a number of
specific recommendations with regard to design details:
a) The Gresham Street entrance needed a stronger sense of presence to give
stronger cues for a sense of entry on Gresham. The Commission asked to see
side-lights added to the door at this entry and questioned the clustering of
utility meters on the most prominent wall and the lack of windows.
Commissioners recommended a consistent plate line and additional windows
be included in the design.
b) The windows on the Allison Street fayade, over the garage, had too great a
ratio of window area to wall surface and gave a very contemporary feeling to
this elevation. They indicated that this could have been better addressed with
a less gridded placement, more tightly grouping the windows in threes, with a
more simplified style and less variation in type (i.e. simple double-hung
sashes would be preferred). The Commission noted that a window placement
more like that noted on sheet A7.3 with a single casing and one crown over a
more tight grouping of three windows would be more compatible. The
Commission emphasized that a continuity of window sizes and plate heights
was important, and also noted concerns with the pinching of window crowns
into the gable.
c) In terms of trim, the corner boards and casings shown were too narrow to be
historically compatible, and more detail of historically-compatible exterior
trim was needed.
d) The turret element that provided kitchen space was not cohesive with the rest
of the design due to its plate height, shape and materials. The plate height
resulted in it dominating other elements of the design, and the Commission
recommended that it be reduced to a more compatible nine-foot plate height.
The Commission noted that a more cohesive plate height might allow a
simplification of roof lines on the Gresham Street fayade.
Based on these issues, the Historic Commission recommended that review of the application
be continued by the Planning Commission to their November meeting to allow for design
modifications to address these issues. The Commission indicated that design modifications
were needed to dramatically reduce the volume of the home including lowering the plate
height in the turret-element of the kitchen to no more than nine feet, simplifying the lines of
the building, looking at the gable alignment and the use of dormers for some upper level
windows, and generally diminishing the volume, bulk and scale of the home to a degree that
would render it more compatible with the neighborhood and district. They also asked that the
application come back to both the Historic and Planning Commissions for review in
November.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 2 of 7
At their October meeting, the Planning Commission generally concurred with the issues
raised by the Historic Commission, however the Planning Commission indicated that the
building needed to establish a better relationship to the Allison Street streetscape through a
stronger sense of entry and suggested that the entry configuration as proposed was confusing
and detracted from the building's relationship to either street. The Commission also
expressed some concern with the turret element as it related to the remainder of the design,
and with the impacts of placing a large great room's mass over a two car garage on Allison
Street. The item was continued to the November by the Planning Commission, and now
comes back with a substantial redesign which the applicants hope has addressed the issues
raised last month.
II. Proiect Impact
A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
Conditional Use Permit review calls for consideration ofthe adverse material effects of the
proposal on the impact area in comparison to the target use of the zone, which in this case
would be the development of the site with a single unit built to the maximum permitted floor
area of 1,868 square feet. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit criteria, the ordinance
also requires that properties seeking an overage to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area be
reviewed in light ofthe Historic District Development Standards which address compatibility
with historic context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of
openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. with a general focus aimed a
preserving historic streetscapes. For new construction, these Development Standards
generally seek a traditional architecture that well represents our own time yet enhances the
nature and character of the historic district. For projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit,
the authority exists in law for the Staff Advisor or Planning Commission to require
modifications in design to address these standards. In these cases, the Historic Commission
advises both the applicants and city decision makers.
Based on the Commissions' comments last month, the applicants have submitted a redesign
ofthe proposed building for Commission consideration. As proposed, the redesign involves
the following changes to the previous proposal:
o Removal of the hexagonal turret element for the kitchen. The kitchen has been
relocated within the home and a more traditional porch added in its place.
o Reorientation of the primary roof ridge to East-West rather than the previous North-
South, hipping some of the roofs to de-emphasize the gables which remain. While the
building height as measured by code - to the midpoint of the roof- remains essentially
the same, the ridge height has been reduced by approximately three feet.
o The overall request to exceed MPFA has been reduced from 17 percent to only eight
percent. The previous design proposed to exceed the MPFA by 315 square feet; the
current proposal is only 155 square feet over the allowed 1,868 square feet.
o The great room area which resulted in approximately 1,000 square feet of empty space
at the second floor level and greatly increased the perceived volume in the previous
design has been reduced to 231 square feet. The applicant notes that if the current
proposal were traditionally framed and the great room area turned into second floor
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 3 of 7
living space it would still fall within the allowed 25 percent over MPF A.
o Windows are now primarily a simple double-hung type more common to the historic
districts, and have been grouped more in keeping with typical patterns found within the
districts. The ratio of glazing to wall areas has been reduced.
o The main entry has been clearly articulated to Allison Street, with a covered porch near
the corner and stairs and walkways to both fronting streets.
The applicants contend that they have significantly improved the design in response to the
Commissions' comments, and that it represents a modern dwelling that is comfortably
compatible with the historic environment matching the neighboring buildings in height,
scale, massing, setback, roof shape, rhythm of openings, platforms, directional expression,
and sense of entry without resorting to an inappropriate imitation of styles from older
periods.
In staff s assessment, the redesign has effectively addressed the areas of concern identified
last month by staff, and by the Historic and Planning Commissions. A clearer sense of entry
from Allison Street has been articulated, the turret element which both Historic and Planning
Commission questioned in terms of its cohesiveness with the overall design has been
removed, the window type and pattern has been shifted to a less contemporary arrangement,
and with the hipping of the roof the remaining gable over the Allison Street garage entry no
longer emphasizes the volume on that frontage.
Because this staff report is being prepared for distribution prior to Historic Commission's
review of the revised drawings, a condition has been recommended below to require that the
recommendations of the Historic Commission, where consistent with applicable standards
and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, become conditions of approval for the
application. The Historic Commission's recommendations from their November 3rd meeting
will be distributed for Planning Commissioner review at the November 9th Planning
Commission hearing.
III. Procedural - ReQuired Burden of Proof
The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.104.050 as
follows:
A.
C.
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.
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.
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:
B.
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 40f7
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.
In addition to the criteria above for Conditional Use Permit approval, the standards noted in Section
IV of the Site Design and Use Standards (see pages 40-47 of the document which is available on-line
at: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/SiteDesign-and-UseStandards.pdf) are also to be considered when
evaluating the request.
The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.61.080 as follows:
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it
is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree
that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards,
including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical
and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint
of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 5 of 7
The City shall grant an exception to this. criterion when alternative to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.
In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
In staff s view, the proposed redesign has addressed the primary concerns that we raised last month:
that the orientation of the gable end of the roof over the garage entry and repetition of similar
windows on the gable end seemed counter to the directional expression, sense of entry, and rhythm
of openings in the neighborhood and broader district and seemed to add emphasis to the home's
mass, bulle and scale on the Allison Street frontage; and that there needed to be a stronger sense of
entry for the proposed home. While the current proposal retains a gable over the garage, staffbelieve
that the removal of the turret element, hipping of the roof and modification of the windows have
resulted in a design that is more cohesive and which effectively deals with the square footage
proposed in a manner compatible with the neighborhood, the district and the design standards.
Should the Planning Commission concur with staff and determine that the application merits the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area and Tree
Removal Permit, staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part ofthis application. Ifthe plans submitted for the building permit are
not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application
to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their November 3rd meeting,
where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall
be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
4) That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their October ih meeting, where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
5) That the applicant shall obtain all necessary demolition permits prior to commencing demolition, and
that any necessary demolition inspection approvals shall be obtained by the applicants.
6) That the building plan submittals shall include:
a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with
Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required
Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 6 of?
highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and
circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent
allowed in the R-2 zoning district.
7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the tree protection measures shall be installed according to the approved plan,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, demolition, or
storage of materials.
b) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the
future street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow, curb,
gutter and storm drainage, for Gresham Street prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department that adequate fire flow shall be
provided shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be
determined based on area calculations using the final building plan submittals.
8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow
along both frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Street trees
shall be placed to accommodate future parkrow and sidewalk installation along
Gresham Street. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List
and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the
Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
b) That the driveway curb cut on Gresham Street shall be closed, and the new driveway
curb cut on Allison Street installed, under permit from the Public Works Department.
The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work
within the right-of-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly
identified in the building plan submittals.
d) That prior to the conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing through
the demolition of the duplex and construction of a single family residence, the
applicants shall provide evidence of compliance with the tenant rights provisions of
Chapter 10.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
e) That the electric service shall be installed underground to serve the home prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The electric service plan shall be provided
with the building permit submittals for the review of the Building, Planning and
Electric Departments.
f) Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted on-site and irrigated
according to the approved plan, or payment in lieu of mitigation planting provided, as
proposed by the applicant.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum
Page 7 of 7
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
October 22,2010
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR. 97520
Re: Supplemental Written Findings: Conditional Use Permit
Biermann Residence
400 Allison Street
Dear Derek:
Weare confident you will agree that we have addressed all the issues of concern
expressed by the planning department staff and the historical commission. These issues include
massing, rhythm of openings, directional expression, and sense of entry.
A. Massing
At both the historical commission meeting and the planning commission meeting, there was
significant resistance to our hexagonal kitchen, especially the 12'-0" plate height and the use of
shingles instead of the siding used elsewhere on the building. Without raising the plate height
above the rest of the roof, it is not possible to construct a full hexagonal roof, so we abandoned
the hexagon altogether and moved the kitchen to the back ofthe house, placing a traditional front
porch where the kitchen had been.
This dramatic change allows the entire roofto be rotated, orienting the primary ridges East and
West rather than North and South. Reorienting the ridges greatly decreases the bulk and scale of
the building. Moreover, we chose to hip most of the roofs, rather than employing a predominant
use of gables as in our previous design. Simply changing the direction of the ridge without
converting the gables to hips would have made the Allison Street elevations less bulky at the
expense of the Gresham Street elevations, which would have become more bulky. Using hipped
roofs eliminates the problem. The two gable roofs that remain are much smaller than the gables
we had before.
Because the remaining gables are smaller and placed higher on the building, the height of the
building as measured by the planning ordinances remains approximately the same; the midpoint
ofthe highest remaining gable is nearly as high as the midpoint ofthe large gables we had before.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 1
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
However, the ridges have dropped substantially. The actual height of the tallest ridge is nearly
three feet lower than it was before.
Using the hexagon to eke out every available square inch of the Northwest comer allowed a
maximization of the footprint size. Since we have now changed all the comers ofthe buildings
to 90 degree angles, we have lost a lot of available square footage in the comer where the lot
converges at a 60 degree angle. Putting an exterior porch where the kitchen had been further
diminished our floor area. Our previous design was 17 percent over the MPF A. At 2023 square
feet, our new design is a mere 8 percent over the 1868 MPF A. In other words, our previous
design was 315 square feet over the MPF A, while our new design is only 155 square feet over.
We would be eligible for a Type I conditional use permit if we had not already started the Type II
process.
Even more importantly, the empty space over the great room has been drastically reduced. One
of the biggest concerns expressed at the historical commission meeting was that there was 1000
square feet of empty space at the second floor height. In terms of building massing, this gave the
appearance of a building that was 1315 square feet over the MPF A, because one cannot see from
the outside whether or not this empty space is actually a full second floor. We have addressed
this concern by reducing this empty space at the second floor level to 231 square feet, including
wall thicknesses. It should be noted that even if all the empty space was second floor, we would
still have only 2254 square feet, which is significantly less than 25 percent over the MPF A.
Whereas before there were high, blank walls rising all the way up to the ridges of the gables
facing Allison Street, now the walls surrounding the remaining empty space are set in from the
street and placed behind hipped roofs, greatly reducing their visual impact.
B. Rhythm of Openings
In our previous design, we had quite a few different types of windows that were more or less
evenly distributed across the face of the building. There was also a relatively high ratio of glass
to solid wall, because the windows were too large. It was pointed out that this was not an
historical interpretation. We have addressed these concerns in several ways.
First, we have eliminated most ofthe different window types. In all the prominent wall faces, we
have placed simple double hung windows that match the principal window type displayed
throughout the historic district. High in the walls, where it is not possible to reach up to operate
a double hung window, we have placed a few awning windows. This is consistent with the
awning windows displayed in dormers and high walls throughout the historic district. (There is
still one casement window in the upstairs bathroom, but it is concealed in such a way that it is not
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 2
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
easily visible from the street.) Since the historic commission didn't approve of our craftsman
style bipartite and tripartite glazing divisions, we have eliminated those features, dividing the
panes only where necessary for the operation ofthe window.
Second, we have changed the distribution of windows across the wall face. As directed by the
Historic Commission, we have grouped the windows, placing them in the center of walls as is
common in historic houses on this street.
Third, we have greatly reduced the ratio of glazing to wall area by making all the windows
smaller. In general, our Rhythm of openings now represent a much more historically relevant
approach.
C. Directional Expression
As described under the heading Massing, we have re-oriented the prominent roof lines to run
East and West instead of North and South. This relates the character of the new building to the
predominant directional expression of nearby buildings.
D. Sense of Entry
From the beginning, there has been some disagreement about whether the main entrance should
face Allison or Gresham Street. In our previous design, we chose to put our main entrance on
Gresham Street, with a separate entrance facing Allison, as well as a third entrance facing the
back yard. Because there were so many entrances, there was some confusion about which
entrance was the main entrance. This lack of clarity was not well received by the Historical
Commission.
In our new design, we put the main entrance in the most prominent face ofthe house: the comer
of Allison and Gresham. The entrance is articulated with a real covered porch on a raised
platform. There are stairs and walkways leading from this porch to both Allison and Gresham.
The actual front door faces Allison, but whether one approaches from Allison or from Gresham
there can be no mistake about where the main entry is.
There is also a back porch, with a back door between the pantry and the back yard. There is a
path leading from Gresham to the back porch, but both the porch and the door are oriented to the
back yard and not to Gresham. The back porch has also been raised on a platform to create more
of a traditional back porch rather than the covered patio we had before.
In conclusion, we hope you agree that we havc significantly improved our design and that it now
represents a modem dwelling that is comfortably compatible with the historic environment,
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 3
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
matching the neighboring buildings in height, scale, massing, setback, roof shape, rhythm of
openings, platforms, directional expression, and sense of entry, without resorting to an
inappropriate imitation of styles from older periods. We anticipate and appreciate your support
and the support of the rest of the planning staff in presenting our new design to the historic
commission and ultimately to the planning commission.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. You may reach me at (541)
944-9639.
Sincerely,
Heiland Hoff
Principal Architect
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 4
I.~ ,tiP ~ ,\~CT
t.@ ~ ~
W 'i ~:5
wj ~ ~
aJ't 9. ~
IBlf '0 =
'11, % ~
Ai" ;SJ,JJtI
tIllIllIIml!l[[ 1Ill)qll1Jl
JOj lfum<lh\p h\a1I
iU)
Wi
~
~n~
l~dI tJOO ymro~W1!lI{1):,) ~ ~ :ll
'" :z;
g~ ~
y==j
NVlcdr NOllJErlO~cdr aErnJL . <
~~
NVlcdr ONaG j i I ~
uoBaJo '\JlIIlI1iBV
-s uosmv oov
!
u
z
~
I
~
111
@
~ ~ ~
iii iii iii
!!l !!l !!l
j[ i[ ii:
~ ~ ~
i ~ ~
w i i
I I j
@ @ @
~
~
~
iji
m
I
-1
~
~
ll.
i
tV
~
-;/::--
1/ '......
!
I ,
I "
I '
\ '
, '
, '
,/)<----_//
7
/'
/'
,
, /
, ,
,
I ,
I
I
\
\ ,
, , -
------- -",
.J.::a:!llS~~
~ ~ !
~ ~ ~ ~
~ u
~
~ ~ m ~ ~
L ;;; L
~ ~ I- ~ ~
u
\!! i
111 ~ ~ 111
@ @ @l @ e
~ III
S! ~
~2~
=\'S~
ii!!!!5x
Of'Y~
LZZ
woo
nzz
i
i
z
j
@
a
~
ii!
~
L
&l
~
~
i
z
I
@
D<!.
<lJl~
'I t>!l
.."1"'<17 G v
.,.~ 'ij<O.8~ J'~
Cl. V:t>~Q
9
"
"
.
~
Itl ,AiJA F
~ \.~~
Ii I il i II
II i I hill
j I~i; ~~ i I
~U m !! ~ Ii
) i I h j w~
1.1 Ii III
il~ l!>~ !~im ~
l!>1~lj III f5
IIllil ~;ii I
~11~dlh!~ ~
~I ~L~~i~~t.i
Hn~ ~,\~,CT IVOc2 1~~; ooSaTO 'p11mJqRy ~~~d ~:m nW1]~llP1!lI1]:) ~r~
Hf~@ ?j~ g<~ 1'10-118 uosmv OOV ;:l z
'I ' ~ :::; ~ 0 !lfh ~ ~ ~
t )1 ~ ::z::: g
,1,1,J ~ ~ ~ ';=='j
IBII ~= ~ a <
~~ 1I!IIl1llIDI,)!8: lII!GlO1l[
111' ~~ 0.:~ III ~ $~
Iht ,f/j3tI S' ~jfi roJ 511lffiGlMP JMVll NVldrEWS ! i J 1
tt
'\1
~til
EI=
('{-
II II
),i),i
\)\)
4:4:
IQIQ
.L:mllS H~ lM lM
>-&
D!a
8ln
til,
..!.('{
zz
xx
1--1--
~~
/ "" ,"', 4: 4:
, ~:>/" .~&?( Ii! Ii!
, -k/1>'<;i{",', < <
It / U/ ~S"'" "
#, e?V:;' %j;', " ~
' ~/ '-<~""
/ 1/)' GiS',.,
'!..t ~ _() / ........,.......... // ~qn..:
~ ' ~/ -k 0 /-';ok 0 ,,.;::c-
,,'" /;.,"'i U .:!'/ .; ~<
!(JS ,f.:.' /)"Ztb' / f!J "'~"
.() U' O;s;./ -r-/ ~~- '~/"o. .....,
?!/ ~/ I/) .() / fiY.()~' 'Q
,,;-} I.f.' _Q J..' -QJ..' I'
*-'u' / ~,~/ ~k/
fj'" / J..",,,O/ J.."'"O/ ,-
J.::. / ~",f/)I/ ~~~/ I
/ _/U'\{(l:- / i'f(l:-/ , D!
I ,/ Q:'"I.(O /' Q::'k,Oj/ I fr b
/ \-~""""",~-"""~1"7L_l~~~
I \ / / / I 9' r<.(lU
I \ / / / / 9 lUm.ii,
L_____..L...:..___________-'--__--'-__--/_ I" a
I .L(P m:ln'J O_L in lM \)
3'JN'o'.LSIQ HnHINlv~
.0-.00
....,59
-,
t\l
li:i ~
Ie\!)<
UJ\!)
Ii! a I--
<Clm
=><2
~li!lM
I-- *<i1j
III <ci~D!
IL_ -.\)aa
Ill. ~j(1-
OC II Z
<D! d:lCl~
~H~ ll\jll~
Ill\) aE:;:
!::~ X~lll
~~d:l!::~l'::
4:UJ(ll~2=>
&!~till=>"6
4:~Il<~~
I-ciD!lt~1--
.94:~26~
~.
9
~~
-~
{~~
un i >>,\~CT Ai?2 ~ LO"a 1 ~~,
tlff~ ~ ~ ~ 4% :.......~ f 1 HI
[.~l H ~ z 1'--0 '\81 H~~
....1 ~ <C w 0 JIB'-'=-
iii' ~() ~ ~ ~ I; !t ~
i; J OJ ~\;. @J ~ .~
~u! /)3tr S \. El ~ 1m
\
\
\
~
uo~ 'pmI(l[BV
_8 uosmv 00t
t!lIIIlUU.m!1I lII!l1IO'Il[
.IDJ jllffit'lA\P ~
Ifn~ ~,\X}cr lV02~ iUI uoiaro 'Jl1mI1ISV ~~d (;1m n1PlUOllQlWUij~ ~ ~ ::l
If'@ & g~ ~s lWSJI\V 01>> <<Z
'I i ~ ~ ~ 0 8~ ~
I )1 -0:: '" ~
u'! p ~ """' -WI v==I
181t ~ ~ ~ a '! NVlrdr SffiJV 1IDffiS I <
~iil ~~ jU ~ ImI1!IIJJIIJ[:l!alll!q~
ill' ;:(,'" j- d
~h~ JijJH s'\ \:. ~jh JIOJ illlffi:l&P &:Ill EIl3VEIlVirnffiOO ! ! ~ i
d;
p
If)
l
"
-.J
?'
IU~
\!lID
~m
<(Ill
\!li1j
8!c
}-\!l
~ ~~
~ ~6
a ~2
\ \ !
"-....
'''-.,
'''-.
,
ill
u
rift
Gill
Gz
~2
~!{
~~
&U
:S~
u..:
ul
't
OJ
N
II
It'
W
Ii
o
U
:Lu.;
<Ifl
I't
1fl1fl
~-;;-
~---
zz
00
.\D.\D
_L.J
_L.J
-<<
11............... IflIU
I-Ifl}-}- .NU
wwOJ<<n.~<
1L(1)3::3::IflNIL
(1)';;/.';;/.1fI1I~
W---1--1N
1t1l~~~~1fl
~!z II W~
G",DDz!!-~
IfllLZZOlf:j'l.
r--\!:<<Ii. I-IU
\rOlLlL~lfl&
'tOOO'l.ww
<ILOO}-lLlL
W\!)I-I-<<:L
OCzlfllfl3::U-
<lS}-}-WIfl--1
1--1~~~~~
OSzzli.<o
'~,lfl w w D --11-
6"-."
"-.,
')
,
,
/
,
,
/
,
,
/
,
,
__J
I-
o
--1
IL
o
I-
Z
IU
U
Ii.
IU
lL
't
lJ)
u.i
U
<
lL
Ifl
Z
o
1=
<
w
Ii.
U
~
Ii.
o
o
1-8
O:J
--10
tl5u..:
I-ul u.i
Zo U
Wo <
~'t 9i
~~ 6
~:L 111=
't1U Ifl<
II ~ .Rj~
u..:dlun.l[u
ulzWlflw~
-ILNI-
~-1W~lflli.
lJ)-1li.NwO
N;f<lIlLO
IIlfl~Ifl~8
Ifl Ifl Ifl Ii. lfl :Jo
<<OwD
WlUol[ZI-
~~'t~:Sfrl
DD.\Dlfl+1L
!!l!!l<!!l<~
U-U-WU-W<
<<Ii.<Ii.:J
~~<~<G
DDZDZIfl
zz3::z3::N
<<(<(<(<(~
--1--1--1--1--1~
u..:
ul
(1)
,l:)
~
N
u.; II
~
n..
~
~
w
~9
~~
~;
_lil
~&~
~'\Dz
Hit ~ ~'\'tCT
Jl.t. @ fS "-
~U' ~ "-
IUl ~ ~
J~.1 q z
is-. ~ ~
fll~ % ~
Jht J'1,"JJtr
uo8OJ() 'p1mJ1I8V
-8 uosmv OOV
lpuIlOOd[ ~!m Krgl!J[O~Wl!J[<D~
9 :ll
~
.
~!a:U!qGll[
.IDj llum:llillp 1t\:l1lll
~
lNillNHSV~ ~
A- ~
NVl<ill'lOON ! i j J
.hGG
.blG ,~
D
I ~
I
I ~
I ~
I Of!
I ~F
I ~~
....i,."'.
,--.J
j> I 0
in I
I
I
I .G-.L. I ill
\)
I I <(
!i- I ~I Il.. g !I
I 111
~. I 1 t T ~
I l ~
I i ~ Of!
I I '!!::
I I \)
.01-.1: I
I
I ~
-----
~ g>
d:)
j-.
<0
j> gl~1 i>
d:) ~ .,
j;
l
,o-,L .o-IL .L-,vl ,0-19
.~-,~v
~in~ ~'\'tCT lVOc2 1~~1
11fi@ ?S.... 0';2
~ ~ ~~ 19
fiJl ~ :c ci ,Wi
H~.1 q @ z iOL<
;est rA :5 ~ co
~w ~~ )HI ~
fll~ ""':c
Jht ;Yl,~rm s'\~ ]Ui
.Oh~
1----
r/
1 /1
r-----;::,.-c..-l
I //1
I---~ // I
I // I
I // I
/ I
I // 1 /'
)/ /'
----/-./...:~ y
// \~/'
/ ~ y-"
/// ~~//
I // ~y
1........./ ", ,,'"
//1
// I
// I
// I
/ I /
~ I /'
....... 1-"
.......~
I
I
~I "
~I mt ~t
o fuQi-1Qi
II': I -1111 ~ IJ'\
I ~ll) ~d:\
f~ !52
I
I
l
.......
.......
~
!!l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
.....
<(
IL
~
~
JSl
o
I--
Z
ill
<(~
ll,!~
<(
~~
8t
iC('j
-1111
~'f
8g
I >ll
I~I
I~I
<( IWI
Ill..... 11111
<(0., 1~I!i
~~2 I<(I!
ol--::i 1)-
o~0_ 1--1
iC~:t ~ 191
D!::!:: Iltl
~~~ I I
'f Ii:: t:: I I
ffi('j('j I I
Il..Il1IJ'\ I I
~:RlR I 1
I!Ql!1 I I
I I
i
;;jy\oa\f aNIN'o'ZZ:3H
T--f-i
I I
I I
I I
- r ~~9J.as ~v;: aalS - --,
I I ~ ,
1 I ~ 0
I I 03
1 I 31L>l
I I IL~\)
I I ~3~
I I u::lli{W I
I I" D ,~
1 J >l>l~
I i-II ~~~ /
I, ~~.j\l
" lliill' i
]11 ~~3 'f
II )- )- ~ ,
II >l>l'.J;l J
II \)\)~
" ;f<(O
~rJl\)
I ;///,
II // ,
..}I/
/j-l
I
I
I
I
I
I -"
/'
m&o 'pllilJllBV
_8 lI09JI\V oov
llfWJI~d[~!m n1El!J[O~Wl!J[<D~!, :ll
~I
1lI1II'IlIIlmll!8: lIl!llIGll[.
.!llj illImaM]!l It\:lll!
lHAHl NJr'ifJV\I
NVl<<1I'IOOlill
.lblG
:::IN11 ..u~:::ld~d
~
;
/'
/'
/'
<;===j
o
I A- d ~
, z
!' i j J
I
/'
)
:z:
~
r7~ ~
~<1} ~
lin~ 0,,\~,C:r iVO,2 . ~im uo8OJ() 'p1mJ1I8V lpuIlOOd[ ~:m nWO~wl!J[O~ 9 :l!,
'" I
If'@ ?S.... g~ 1lXUIS uosmv OOV ~ I
~t ' ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
I Jl ~ :c g
,,~.l q @ iOL< dlifi ~
Is-t ~ ~ ~ co . 7 lHAHl '1Hd[d[fi
~ ~ His. ~!a: tl!qGll[
flU %~ =>{> ]" _I !:l- ID] lmm:lMp MOO A- ~
J'1,~1il G: 1tfl NVld[ '100lill ! ].j J
h. S
-I
~~ ~t
~~ ~Qi
z [J 111
~lR lt~
I:'t =>U\
~
~
~
~
I
w
-I
JSl.
wI--
-IlL
~~
&m
=>N
~
IL
IL
I
lri
>
o
I--
Z
w
<(?l
Ill~
<{"
oc":
Cll--
OIL
-I'
ILS!
:;ill)
I--N
8g
<(
Ill.....
<(0., .
Ii ~~ ~
Cll-::i
3G\l
i~~ ~
ftt::
~ . Qi
~~1l1
x~lR
f!Ql!1
~
.
!::
,-t---------~~---------~I
I
I
I
I
I
I i,
I
I
~
IL
~~
o
I
I
I
I
I
wX I
: ~I I J-VI ii
~~~, 111
-m
~
o (j
, ,
I
! I I
.
~.
b
-.
:Q
~
~_.
~
~ ~
l'l
r7~ ~
~~
1 ;;1~
'JB~
1\8:
-9~-
~~
ii, =i:
, . =:J::]=1:::j, :Jd.::J=
11/1; :::P=J~
" I ""='::::r:::J":=b
I =J- '---1==:J.=:r'---
=
~
=!= I~ I
~ttl,:,.l:1
, ::!:J
I
Ii
, i
::j
i II
III
II II
hiW', ~~ i
=r=
I "'=
~"
1=1
-C.
P=i
='
1= ,
.,
I~/I h9"
.9-11
lin~ ~,\~}CT 1102_ 1~~1 uo8:uo 'p1mJ1I8V
1900lS lI09JI\V OOV
If.@ ?S.... g~ ~19 <;===j
~ ~ ~ 0
dJi ~ :c g
q @ iOL< ,j.lifi
,,~.1 w co -,.
ust ~~ 0 ,!i~ ~
z 1JIUIlIRIDI!Jla!8: II!!qo~
fll~ ~~ 3~ fie! IDJ :mmaMp 1t\:l1lI NVl<ill illOO'l
J'/o,iJtI s'\~ -a~!
Jht !If=
'L
\)
~Il1W~
~~lilllU-IQ:t
z<(~Il1~~~
OIU-I~ -
IU. ~ ~. <(
:t!Qc<(~-l:l1l1
I--ZIll)-l-lnlU ~.
!!:l<(j'1U o<(~ .
-I:tI-Q-Iw-l1l1
~!::WIl1-1-1>lJSl '?
S::~~<(!i:~<( n..:~
-1<(1--' ~IU ~;
!!:l~!tlz'.J;lll,! ~
jl: IllO:]<({Wl'I .O-J~
Io-I~ \ t
~
....~E
ii,
III
~
III
~
III
r
I I
~..=:;;:-..=:;;:-..=:;;:-
~;;J
It .
IU-I C'j
~b~~~~
O\)-I ot
~1l1~1l1:t1U
{W'.J;l~~ll1ilj
~~3fu~t5
hn~ ~'\'tCT 1102 ~inl uo8OJ() 'plIilJllBV llfWJI~d[ ~!m n1El!J[<D~wl!J[<D~
i1fi@ ?S.... 0';2 lS3I1S 1IOSJJJV OOV
~ ~ ~~ <;===j
fiJl ~ :I: g rr-:
d~.1 q @ ~ '.'Wl
w co
ISlt ~ ~ 0 -<
~W ~~ !Hi ~ 1lUWl.J:l!8: tl!q[Gll[
ill~ ""':c
Jht J/jJll (\"" W; JOj ~II!lyaA\p 1t\:l1lll
S ,h
f
\!)
z
u::
o
~
IUZ
=olO
~E
II':~
Il..
XI
~3
r
I
~
~
It!
z
~!
\) .
o 9
~ ~
-I -
<( ~
III _ ~
) >~
~
C;
iii
>l
~
ii
~
<(
X
FI
~2
ll11:n
~3z
n<(<(I
z~\!)-
~Cl~~
noc2n
o~<(o
OX-IO
3:1U\l3:
IU
n
J <(
~
! ~I 1i U;I
IL
l 1
I I~
" -<(
Iflt~ :\'tCT f(O" a i~~1 m>8OJ() 'p1mJ1I8V llfWJI~d[ ~g1l1l ~WO~WIDI<D~ :ll
If'@ ~... o~ JOOIISlIOS!lIiV oov
~ ~ ~~ ~~! dh NJ
IIJ1 ~ :<: ci ~
aJ~.1 = @ z iOL<
w co <
Is1t ~~ '"
fll~ ~,~ ~~ ~m~ 1IIIl1lWJ:}!8: 1I!!!UGll[
~IA <f/j311 S\~ ~jfi Jllj illlffiaMp It\:lU
~
, I" I I
I Ii 11111 i I
II i 11111 'I
I: I',: I::: I
III 111'11
1111'111'1'
111111 i ,II
1111111 i I
: 1:1: ,I
II ill
, ~ I I
IL
0
0
It
f-
111
~ IU
\!l ~
'j' I
IL
0 0.: 1 \!l
I-- c) ! 1 IU U;I
z r:1 \!l
0 = ~ lL
Il.. ~ 1
D '?JSl
'f 10<(
.Q-/K,
Hn~
H,.@..
Hi'
Jl
a~.1
is1t
fU~
hit
llfWJI~d[ ~!m pl!J[O~Wl!J[o::J !i ~ :ll
~ ~
~,\~DT
r~
~*
~ '"
q @
~ :j
~.,. w
'VI'"
0'/;')311
iVo,J,.,.
g 7-7>
~'0
ci
z ~
~. a
~~
S'\:~
tro8aJo 'p1mJ1I8V
lOOIIS lI09JI\V OOV
i~)
,un
I] ~
=ii]
<C'<'1
If'-
<
1IIMIJIUa!8: lI!GlGllr
IDj lmmaMp A\:lU
f
('t
I
t
>!)
~I
f. ~~j\l f:
IL _, <( IL
_ U\~ _
o I!) 0
~I Iw ~I
~
JSl
<(
I!)
z
JS
in
>l
z
<(
-I
Il..
i
x
~~
~~
ll:!~
>:il
wz
=' ()
1Lj::
Oin
~()
Il..Il..
XI
I!)()
XU
1 1
lilt ~ 0,'\'tCT J(O,2_ 1~~1
If'@ ?s.... g~ ~19
Q:::; ~ ~ 0
IIJi ~ '" g
'" iOL< dlifi
'J~.l ~ ~ ~ co
Isat ~w ~~ 78 ~
fll~ "",'" ~q ~
Jh! {0','JJIl ;\~ 1111
S
IL f
()
0
~
I-- ~I
111 I
IU i--
x
\!I N
'i':
1L
\!I 0
Z I--
is Z
ill ()
Il..
>l n
Z 'f
<(
j[
~
x
trolOJ() 'Jl1miIlHV
-s uosmv oov
llfWJI~d[ ~:m pl!J[O~Wl!J[<D~ ~. ~ :ll
~ ~
~!8: lI!<lGll[
.IDj jllffi:lMP A\OO
~
~
".<
... :i!
SNOllVAH1H ! i j J
f
r
w-
I
\!I
Z
u::
o
~
IUZ
:!o
t5E
ll!:\J)
Il..~
XI
\!I 0
'i':\)
1
o
<i
~~
~~
!Y~
>:il
o3.adeJspUEjUJ!e:Jua)!@N.Ja}{ 6S99.L09'1 P9:1198
VlSL6 BO 'PUEI4SV l.,6.lSS.IYS :>Ed
la"IS V srs ,61,.88'.1 tS :Ia~
'"
""
J;-
~
i5
OZ9L6 N083ClO 'ONV1HSV
"1.S NOSIllV 0017
NNVt'IlCl318 NI80Cl
~N1113Ma M3N
t.umJJl!IPlV ad8:)SjJIIB'1
UJIB8UG)I
gttl 0 ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ffi ~B ~~~ ~~~ ~~~@
a~~ ~~w~lli~g~~~~ ~~~~
w~~ rrz~oc~~OO~r~m~~w
~~~8~g~ffi~i9~~~~6~~~~
roffi~~~~~~lli2~~m85~~~[:~lli
clffi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ffi
,..
w
~ ill ~
g ~ ~~ ~ ~
ffi ~ ~[~g a ~ -
~m ~ ~ <~~~~~r~w~ ~
g~o~b~~ ~~5~~8~~~~5~
@g~~~~~~~g~~~~6~~~~~
~~~~~~~g~~3~j~~g~~~p
~~Wwm~~w-~~oo~~z~<~<
~o~oo~~~z~z~ffi~~~~oo~~6
~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~3K~~
~<<m0000~~III~Z~~OO>N
"''''
w",
'-w
w,,-
w,,-
o:w
",..
",'"
<!z
tlili
ws
3tu
""n
'"
w
'"
"
D
Z ~
~ tj
f-
=:)
Z
--.J
<(
5:
" ~Q 0 W >
~w~w ~o~ <oOO~~~Q~
wowxffi~~~~ ~~~>Z~Wd@g
~~~~QBo~~~~~~~~~~~>~
~~
~
0::
0::
<(
LL
<(
~
LL
(L
m
::>
0::
C'J
..:, (L
<( m -' :2
-' en n: --.J
u 0 en
W
'"
w
o
u
o
~
I
-I
Z
<(
w...l
c..c..
<(0
UZ
Wj::
CZ
Z<(
<(...I
...Ic..
t9
"'~"-
, , ,
o::rade:JSpueIW!2JUIDI@.o\UBJj 6S9g"tOg' ~ tg:jIB:J
OCSL6 HO 'pu'14'Y US6.ZSS.'ts:xe"
laeJJS Y SVS t61€.S9nrS :Ial
<)JUlJ:Jl!IPIV adeJsrma'I
UJIB~U8)I
I ", 0
~~~~i'tio~
UUHUi
-'
~
"
'J
Ii'
z
'"
"
f-
LlJ
f-
:J
o
ii'
w
~
"
w
)
('
H
"
~~
l5
~
'\.~
WATER
wh ,ern
~~ ~~ , I tJ
f'J(:IB5~
~.~.~~ <
~~i ~. '. ~
:J h ~
'w ,) ~
~~ ~
<:m =
---------_.~---
.,...,.~:::::"--=:":=-::::=:::
..... ~":;:;-,
','..
<\"
~~{-BP '
1,!". ,.'U'L':,:~'
'-;
\... j
II
~
..
~
~
OZ9L6 N083ClO 'ON\ilH8\i
"1.8 N081ll\i DOt
NN\il^JCl318 NI80Cl
9NIl13MO M3N
! ~ t ~~1 <= ~ !l~
i 11 ! ~~ t.;o" ~.":lo. ,. ~
~L ~:l,..-!.._ ' .. g" -"
2.' b ~ !iii ~
I~~~J ~:f1~i!! i
~ ~ . H! ~ ~ HM ~
!!j ~ 12 ~ ~
U~ w ~f~ w
nt ~li
f'
..
.>
,.
i!:!~
~
~
w
"
w
z
:J
a.
ii'
"
~
'"
()
"'
"
z
:5
. , l~ ~
8.~ ~
"
E!li! W
]~ "
ji "'
<l'
~
~i "
w
;;
w
z
:J
a.
ii'
"
~ ~ '"
" ~ > j~
" g ~ ,
~ ~ ji
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g;ffi
"" I
~ , lIJi .t n
0 " I~ j
z ~ j " ~
w ~
(9 ~ e u i ~~
w 1 :3 ~ ~~ , f~
...J ~ " >- ~
Ul :]
z E i ~ '"
0 < " 1: ~ ~ ~i i z ~ .,; j~
~ ~ 5 l' )! ~ " 0 ~i
f= .m 08
n '" ~~
(9 c; B ,. CJ j~
0:: cj 0 I'iiI []] [[] ! - ~ U iY It .?;o.s:
0: Q; i'J"~
Q:; !~ s.
~o ~i
'0 .'::g~
'0
~~ ~~]l
~ ~ jIi
::~
N
..:
~
m
o
o
o
N
I
--I
z
<(
...J
a.
Z
o
~
Cl
~
n::
t9
tl
H~
i~~
~~~
~i~
'"0
i~~
l]j
1il2
] !
. ,
U
H
n
jj
","
Itl
'\,
\
/' ;/
/"/'
I
;;
t
"
0;
"
~
~tt
~!!
Iii
1!ll
un
II!!
~
Ii
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
October 12, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Larry Blake
Michael Dawkins
Dave Dotterrer
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Mike Morris
John Rinaldi, Jr.
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
Eric Navickas, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Council's deliberations of the AT&T appeal will take place next
Tuesday, October 19. He also commented on the Interchange Area Management Plan (lAMP) and noted staff had submitted a
letter indicating the lAMP does not comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated staff would be meeting with ODOT
about this and there may also be a presentation before the City Council. Mr. Molnar also noted October is National Planning
Month and stated staff will be leading a walking tour of downtown projects at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 29.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. August 10, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes
2. September 28, 2010 Study Session Minutes
Commissioners Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all Ayes. Motion passed a-o.
PUBLIC FORUM
Colin Swales/143 Eight St/Stated he is a member of the Transportation Commission but is only speaking on his own behalf.
Mr. Swales commented on the Pedestrian Nodes project and voiced concern with how this is being marketed. He noted the
name change from Pedestrian Nodes to Pedestrian Places and stated he does not believe this project is focused on
pedestrians and the creation of new plaza spaces. On the contrary, he stated this project is focused on transit oriented
development and stated the Commission should be clearer about what this project entails.
Commissioner Marsh noted the Transportation and Planning Commissions would be meeting for a joint study session on
October 26 and this could be discussed by the larger group at that time.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2010-009.93
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street
APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
Ashland Planning Commission
October 12,2010
Page 1 of 4
within a Historic District by 17 percent or 315 square feet. The project consists of demolishing the existing 1,144
square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,183 square foot
dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has tentatively approved the
demolition proposal subject to this land use approval.) The application also includes a request for a Tree
Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP
#: 39 1 E 09 SD; TAX LOT: 14200
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Blake, Dawkins, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris and Rinaldi declared site visits. No ex parte contact was
reported by any of the commissioners.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and stated this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to
exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a historic district by 17% (315 sq ft.). He stated the proposed
dwelling is 2,183 sq ft. with a daylight basement and a two-car garage. Mr. Severson reviewed the site location and noted the
existing duplex structure on the lot has been tentatively approved for demolition. He provided an overview of the applicant's
site plan and highlighted the applicable Historic District Design Standards, including massing, scale, rhythm of openings,
directional expressions, and sense of entry.
Mr. Severson stated there are elements in this project's design that staff has concerns with, and stated the Historic
Commission reviewed this application and they have concerns as well. He noted staffs recommendations are captured on
page 8 of the Staff Report, and the Historic Commission's Recommendations were handed out at the beginning of the
meeting. In summary, the primary concerns focused on the mass and volume of the proposed home, including the height of
the turret and interest in de-emphasizing the volume over the garage, and the sense of entry on Gresham St. Mr. Severson
clarified both staff and the Historic Commission are recommending this action be continued to the November meeting to allow
the applicant to do some additional design work that addresses the concerns raised.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to elaborate on how the primary entrance location is determined. Mr. Severson clarified this is typically based
on the neighborhood pattern, and in this instance staff feels it is more appropriate to have the primary entrance on Gresham.
Commission Dawkins noted 91 Gresham does not have an entry on that street and instead takes access of the alley; he also
voiced concern with visitors to this home parking on Gresham and feels this will exasperate the line of site problems at that
location. Mr. Severson stated while the sense of entry on the Gresham frontage is a concern for staff, the Commission can
determine this is not an issue for them. Commissioner Miller voiced agreement with staffs concern and stated the proposed
front entry design on Gresham is not adequate.
Mr. Severson comment on the MPFA and clarified how the square footage is calculated. He stated living space and potential
living spaces are included, however unenclosed porches, basement areas, and detached garages do not go into this
calculation. He added the MPFA does not give a square footage specific to volume, but it does talk about the volume and
mass of the building in the Design Standards. Commissioner Marsh suggested this may be something they want to look at in
the future.
Mr. Severson clarified the parking requirements andstated a single family home is required to have two off-street parking
spaces; however there is no requirement for covered parking, and the off-street requirement can be reduced to one if there
are two on-street parking spaces.
Applicant's Presentation
Heiland Hoff/Applicant's Architect/Mr. Hoff addressed the Commission and provided a presentation. He explained the
driving force behind this project has been the odd shape of the lot and explained how this has impacted the design. He noted
this is a corner lot and there are setback requirements on all four sides. He also explained in 1950 the back piece of this lot
was pieced off and as result they do not have access to the alley (which is where most of their neighbors park), and they are
Ashland Planning Commission
October 12,2010
Page 2 of4
also lacking the square footage of the surrounding lots. Mr. Hoff noted the square footage, lot sizes, and bulk and scale of the
surrounding homes, and noted there are three-story homes on either side of this lot. He commented that the other homes on
Allison have a garage off of the alley, but because they do not have similar access the only valid location for the parking was
under the house. He noted this is a common design in Ashland and displayed several photos of homes with garages located
under the main structure. Mr. Hoff stated he is willing to take another look at some of the design elements, but noted some of
these concerns came as a surprise to him given the amount of time he has spent working with the Historic Review Board.
Commissioner Marsh asked if he considered a single car garage. Mr. Hoff stated this home was designed for the way most
people live and the owner who is building the home would like a place to park his two vehicles. Marsh also expressed concern
with the 24 ft. ceilings and questioned the historic compatibility. Commissioner Miller asked about the 6 ft. ceiling clearance on
the upper level and questioned the compatibility of a one-bedroom home. Commissioner Rinaldi asked about the public
entrance off Gresham and stated he is confused by this since there is a door and a garage on the Allison frontage.
Commissioner Mindlin asked about porches and questioned why this was not a stronger element in the design. Commissioner
Marsh expressed concern with the main entry on Gresham and felt this was done in order to have the expansive garage
space off Allison and does not know if this is justifiable.
Public Testimonv
Colin Swales/143 Eight St/Stated he was a member of the Planning Commission when they adopted the maximum house
size ordinance and stated larger lots were given a smaller multiplier, and the smaller lots get a fairly generous multiplier. Mr.
Swales stated when you compare this house to its neighbors, which sit on lots that are substantially larger, this house is
massive and out of proportion with the neighborhood for a lot that size. He noted the maximum house size ordinance only
deals with square footage of the actual floor area and thinks this is a flaw in the ordinance, and commented that the high
ceilings in this house really exaggerate its size.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Mr. Hoff agreed that this is a large house for the lot, but noted they are allowed exceed the MPFA by up to 25% and they are
only requesting to go over by 17%. He stated this house has less square footage than the homes on three sides and is shorter
than the houses to the left and right of it.
Advice from Le~al Counsel/Staff
Mr. Severson commented that while the ordinance does not have a numerical figure for permitted volume, it does explicitly
refer to massing as one of the design standards that should be looked at. He added the ordinance process it set up
specifically to look at this issue in terms of the compatibility of the house with the neighborhood and surrounding historic
district.
Comment was made that it would have been helpful for the applicant to provide an elevation that shows what the house will
look like from the street level with the two houses on either side. Mr. Severson clarified if this action is continued the
Commission could request that the applicant provide this.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Del i berati ons/Decis ion
Commissioner Marsh noted both staff and the Historic Commission are recommending this action be continued to the
November meeting in order to allow the applicant to make modifications. Recommendation was made for the commissioners
to share any final comments or direction to the applicant. The following is an outline of the key comments and suggestions that
were shared:
· Request was made for the applicant to address the front of the home on Gresham St., and to have an Allison
presence that does not conflict as severely as what is proposed.
· Suggestion was made to perhaps change the orientation and/or height of the gable in order to improve the Allison
fagade.
. Comment was made that while the owner wishes to have views from his second floor mezzanine, the architect
should consider the use of dormers or some other mechanism to provide these views.
. Comment was made that the Allison frontage is awfully tall.
Ashland Planning Commission
October 12,2010
Page 3 of 4
· Comment was made questioning why the octagon shaped kitchen needs to be so tall, and opinion was given this
hexagon form on the corner will look out of place.
· Comment was made that the biggest problems with this house is lack of a historically compatible porch and the bulk
of the fagade facing Allison.
· Suggestion was made for the main entry issue to be corrected.
· Comment was made that the big double garage on Allison totally overwhelms that frontage.
Staff commented on why they are recommending this application be postponed, rather than denied. It was noted that the
applicant's architect has continually worked with staff to address concerns, and staff believes they should be given the
opportunity to modify the design.
Commissioners Morris/Dotterrer m/s to continue this to their November meeting. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Blake, Rinaldi, Mindlin, Morris, Miller, Dotterrer, Dawkins and Marsh. Motion passed a.o.
ADJOURNMENT
Before adjourning Commissioner Marsh noted not everyone is able to attend the January Retreat and suggested they
consider holding this during a regular meeting where there are no planning actions scheduled. Commissioner Dawkins
recommended in the future they pick the same weekend every year to hold the retreat. Marsh recommended the group email
her their input on this.
Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
October 12,2010
Page 4of4
Planning Commission
Speaker Request Form
1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to
speak about.
2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone.
3) State your name and address for the record.
4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes.
5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record.
6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak.
7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement.
Regular Meeting
Agenda item number
Topic for public forum (non agenda item)
Land Use Public Hearing
For:
Against:
Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias
If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write
your. allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The
Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do
not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal
order of proceedings.
Written Comments/Challenge:
The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not
always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally
invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time
constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase
of a proceeding. Please respect the order o.f proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the
directions o.f the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are
disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room.
Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council,
City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland.
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
October 12, 2010
PLANNING ACTION:
P A-201 0-00992
APPLICANT:
Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
LOCATION:
400 Allison Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Multi-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
September 29,2010
120.DAY TIME LIMIT:
January 27,2011
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.61
18.1 04
R-2 Low-Density Multi-Family
Residential District
Tree Preservation and Protection
Conditional Use Permits
18.24
REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A) within a Historic District by 17 percent or 315 square feet. The project consists of
demolishing the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and
constructing a new two-story 2,183 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car
garage. (The Building Division has tentatively approved the demolition proposal subject to the
applicant receiving land use approval for a replacement structure.) The application also includes a
request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height
(d.b.h.) or greater.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background. History of Application
There are no other planning actions of record for this site.
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Gresham and
Allison Streets, in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District and the R-2 (Low Density Multi-
Family Residential) zoning district. The property is irregularly shaped, with an area of
approximately 4,917 square feet and is considered to be a legal, non-conforming lot as it was
created prior to current zoning regulations and thus has an area which is less than the current
5,000 square foot minimum lot size in the R-2 district.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 1 of 9
The existing building on the site is identified as the Eddie Hinger Duplex in the Siskiyou-
Hargadine Historic District survey document, which notes that the single-story wood framed
modern ranch-style structure was reportedly built in 1964, the same year that the lot was
partitioned from 100 Gresham Street (Tax Lot #1100). The existing home is considered to
be "non-historic/non-contributing" in the survey document, and is proposed for demolition
with this application. Currently, vehicular access to the site is from Gresham Street to a
gravel parking pad at the rear of the duplex.
General topography in the area slopes down Gresham Street to the north, toward downtown,
at approximately 11 percent, however the existing duplex sits on a relatively level area of the
lot which is retained by a low retaining wall directly behind the Allison Street sidewalks.
The application includes a tree inventory identifying 17 trees on the site, eight of which are
proposed to be removed to accommodate the re-development of the site.
The application involves demolishing the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-
contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,183 square foot dwelling
with a daylight basement to contain a two-car garage. This requires a Conditional Use
Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) within a Historic District by
17 percent or 315 square feet. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater.
II. Proiect Impact
Residentially zoned properties located within Ashland's Historic Districts are subject to a
Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) limitation based on the lot size and number of units
proposed. This limitation is intended to preserve the historic character of Ashland's National
Register historic districts by insuring that development is architecturally and historically
compatible with historic development patterns and fits well into the fabric of these well-
established historic neighborhoods. The ordinance establishing the MPF A limitations
provides for applicants to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 percent when they obtain a
Conditional Use Permit; this is a discretionary approval intended to provide for a higher level
of review of proposed structures in the context of Ashland's Conditional Use Permit
approval criteria as well as the Site Design and Use Standards' "Historic District
Development Standards".
The overage to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area proposed here is 17 percent, well within
that allowed through the Conditional Use Permit process. Because this proposed floor area
represents an increase of more than ten percent over the existing floor area ofthe duplex, and
involves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new structure, the application is
subject to a Type II procedure which requires a decision by the Planning Commission
through a public hearing process.
A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to Exceed Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
As previously noted, the subj ect property is a legal non-conforming lot as it was created prior
to current zoning regulations with a 4,917 square foot lot area that is less than the current
5,000 square foot minimum lot area to accommodate less than two units in the R-2 district.
With the removal of the duplex and its replacement with a single family residence, the
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 2 of 9
property will become more compliant with the allowed density of the district.
The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main and a six-inch water
main located in the Allison Street right-of-way; a ten-inch storm sewer main in Gresham
Street also serves the property. The Public W orkslEngineering Department has indicated that
these facilities, which already serve the existing duplex, are adequate to serve the proposed
home. The Electric Department has indicated that there are no identified issues which would
prevent the applicants from converting the existing overhead electric services for the duplex
units to a single city-standard underground service for the new single family residence.
Allison Street, a residential neighborhood street, is currently improved with paving, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips in place along the full frontage of the subject
property. Gresham Street, a collector street, is also paved with curbs and gutters in place, but
sidewalks are lacking along the subject property's frontage. Both frontages lack street trees;
however the applicants have proposed to plant them in the landscape plan provided with the
application. A condition of approval has also been recommended below to require the
applicants to sign-in favor of future street improvements for Gresham Street including the
installation of sidewalks.
Conditional Use Permit review also calls for consideration of the adverse material effects of
the proposal on the impact area in comparison to the target use of the zone, which in this case
would be the development of the site with a single unit built to the maximum permitted floor
area of 1,868 square feet. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit criteria, the ordinance
also requires that properties seeking an overage to the Maximum Permitted Floor Area be
reviewed in light of the Historic District Development Standards which address compatibility
with historic context in terms of height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of
openings, directional expression, sense of entry, imitation, etc. with a general focus aimed a
preserving historic streetscapes. For new construction, these Development Standards
generally seek a traditional architecture that well represents our own time yet enhances the
nature and character of the historic district.
For projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit, the authority exists in law for the Staff
Advisor or Planning Commission to require modifications in design to address these
standards. In these cases, the Historic Commission advises both the applicants and city
decision makers. In this instance, the staff report is being prepared for distribution prior to
Historic Commission review, and a condition has accordingly been recommended below to
require that the recommendations of the Historic Commission, where consistent with
applicable standards and with final approval by the Advisor, become conditions of approval
for the application. The Historic Commission's recommendations from their October 6th
meeting will be distributed for Planning Commissioner review at the October 1ih Planning
Commission hearing.
The applicant's submittal notes that while the proposal exceeds the MPF A by 17 percent, it
would be possible to exceed their proposed scale, bulk and coverage while complying with
the MPF A. They note that the home is four feet shorter than allowed in the district, and that
ifthe entire MPF A were constructed on a single level it would exceed the bulk and coverage.
The applicants also note that the proposed square footage is less than that of the homes on
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 3of9
three sides, and that the home is shorter than the three-story homes on either side of it.
The application explains that the applicants have worked with the Historic Commission's
review board to arrive at an architectural style that is compatible both with the highly-
decorated Victorian across the street at 91 Gresham Street and at the same time able to blend
with the elegant simplicity of the historic buildings on Allison Street. They note that the
design thus borrows some common elements including the 8: 12 roof pitch, the mix of hips
and gables, the multiple layers of roof planes, and the window size, shape and spacing.
Beyond that, the application notes that the applicants have tried to replicate the simplicity of
the Allison Street neighborhood but have added ornamental swing-out carriage doors for the
garage, craftsman-style arched corbels with layered barge boards at the rakes, half-round
copper gutters and downspouts, and custom windows employing a combination oftri-part
and bi-part craftsman style glazing divisions. The application goes on to explain that since
91 Gresham Street has the oldest and most magnificent house in the immediate
neighborhood, they have tried to mirror its directional expression on a smaller scale by
providing a primary front porch facing Gresham with a smaller side porch facing Allison
Street.
The applicants note that the proposed single family home will generate less traffic than the
existing duplex, or other multi-family housing that is allowed within the district, and will
generate no more dust, odor or other environmental pollutants than would any single family
dwelling. They also indicate that the proposed home will not impact the development of
adj acent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. In staff s view, the generation
of traffic seems likely to be consistent with that of the impact area, and less than is generated
by the existing duplex. In addition, the proximity to the downtown, university, shopping and
bus routes may indeed result in a reduction in vehicle trips over what might be expected for a
similar unit less centrally located.
In reviewing the proposal, staff have discussed with the applicant that the proposed
placement of the garage off of Allison Street, with a substantial cut and retaining wall to
accommodate placement of the garage at the basement level, seems somewhat inconsistent
with the established rhythm of openings and sense of entry in the vicinity, although staff
recognizes that the topography changes as one nears the intersection of Gresham and Allison
Streets and already necessitates a retaining wall along the frontage ofthe subject property. In
staff s view, the alignment of the roof gable directly over the garage opening, the glazing
placement and the high ceilings increase the perceived height and mass of the home as
viewed from the Allison Street streetscape. Staff have questioned whether a garage
placement behind the structure might better address these issues while being more consistent
with the established neighborhood pattern on this block of Allison Street.
In response to these issues raised by staff, the applicant notes that if it were possible to place
the garage on the main level and take access from Gresham Street it would be their
preference as the alternative placement with a basement garage is more costly, however they
note that certain efficiencies are gained by placing the garage beneath the living space with
access from Allison Street. They explain that on this small corner lot, constrained by an
irregular shape, topographical issues, and standard setbacks and lacking the alley access for
parking that many neighboring properties enjoy, placing the garage on the ground level
would not leave adequate room for habitable space and would require larger upper floors,
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 4 of 9
consequently increasing the scale, bulk and height ofthe building as well. In addition, they
note that controlled access standards for a collector street such as Gresham Street require
placement of the driveway curb cut at least 50 feet from the intersection, which would put the
driveway outside of the building envelope while a garage off of Allison Street complies with
the lesser separation required between the intersection and the driveway on a neighborhood
street. The applicants thus propose to utilize the garage off of Allison Street and to eliminate
the existing driveway curb cut off of the higher order Gresham Street.
The applicant also notes that the property owner has concerns with taking vehicular access
from Gresham Street given visibility issues, the proximity of a Gresham Street driveway to
the intersection with Allison Street, and the need for an angled approach, and they have thus
opted to take access from the lesser order Allison Street which also accommodates placement
of a garage within the basement, beneath the living space.
The submittals indicate that in terms of the gable height and alignment as they relate to the
Allison Street garage entry, they initially proposed a lesser roof pitch, but opted for the
current 8: 12 after discussions with the Historic Commission's review board, and they have
attempted to mitigate the additional gable height by bringing the top plate ofthe second floor
down to only six feet above finished floor, which they find to be as low as practically
possible while maintaining a functional interior space. The applicant also notes that the roof
has been broken into smaller gables to increase visual interest while shortening the building.
Similarly, they note that the gable orientation was a choice made to help shorten the building
while still providing for better views with the gable end windows.
For staff, it seems that placement ofthe garage on the lesser order Allison Street is merited in
terms of controlled access standards and for the design efficiencies gained in having the
garage beneath the living space, however we continue to have concerns that the orientation of
the gable end of the roof over the garage entry in combination with the use of a more
contemporary style repetition of similar windows on the gable end of the home seems
counter to, and thus not architecturally compatible with, the directional expression, sense of
entry and rhythm of openings in the neighborhood and broader district and seems to add
emphasis to the home's mass, bulk and scale on this street frontage. In addition, while the
applicant notes that they intended to have a primary directional expression and sense of entry
to Gresham Street to mirror on a smaller scale that of the Victorian home across the street at
91 Gresham Street, staff believes that additional emphasis is needed in the form of some
additional windows, a more strongly defined porch element or other architectural treatment if
this entry is truly to be given primacy over the Allison Street entry. While we are generally
supportive of the garage placement and the efforts ofthe applicant to work with the Historic
Commission review board to arrive at a compatible design, we believe that these two issues
merit additional design attention before we can recommend approval.
In response to the initial noticing, one neighbor has provided written comment on the
proposal, indicating that while the plans are well-presented and the proposed home represents
a significant improvement over the existing non-contributing duplex, he has concerns both
with the size of the home given the relatively small lot, and with traffic difficulties tied to
visibility at the intersection of Gresham and Allison Streets due to the angle of the corner.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 5 of 9
B. Tree Removal Permit
Because the property is multi-family zoned and contains an existing duplex, removal of trees
greater than six-inches in diameter is regulated and requires a Tree Removal Permit. The
application notes that there are more trees on the small lot than the property can support, and
goes on to explain that a number of fast-growing specimens were planted near the foundation
walls ofthe existing duplex and have begun to crack the existing duplex's foundation and to
impact the existing retaining wall. Additionally, one tree proposed for removal is a deodar
cedar which is planted under the electrical lines along Gresham Street. The application
suggests that the site's trees have generally been poorly maintained, and will be significantly
impacted by demolition and construction, and accordingly a Tree Removal Permit is
requested to remove a total of eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater.
These trees include four big leaf maples, an American chestnut, the single deodar cedar, and
two Portuguese laurels. The application states that the remaining trees on the property will
be protected and preserved, and a tree protection plan has been provided. The application
notes that five trees are to be planted to mitigate the proposed removals, and that the owner is
willing to contribute to the tree fund to mitigate the removal of the remaining three trees in
lieu of on-site mitigation as provided in the ordinance.
III. Procedural - ReQuired Burden of Proof
The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.104.050 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 transporlation can and will be
provided to and through the subject properly.
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.
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 properlies as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 6 of 9
In addition to the criteria above for Conditional Use Permit approval, the standards noted in Section
IV of the Site Design and Use Standards (see pages 40-47 of the document which is available on-line
at: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/SiteDesign-and-UseStandards.pdf) are also to be considered when
evaluating the request.
The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.61.080 as follows:
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the
applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it
is likely to fall and injure persons or properly. A hazard tree may also include a tree
that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or
private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the
damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of
the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of properly
damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be
alleviated by treatment or pruning.
2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of
approval of the permit.
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards,
including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical
and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint
of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit
application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of sutiace waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks;
and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject properly.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative to the tree
removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the
properly to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that
the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone.
In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or
placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the
impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other
provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 7 of 9
condition of approval of the permit.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff are generally supportive of the relocation of the driveway access to Allison Street, and of the
applicant's efforts to work with the Historic Commission's review board to arrive at a compatible
design. However, in our view two relatively significant issues remain:
1) The orientation of the gable end of the roof over the garage entry and the use of a repetition
of similar windows on the gable end of the home seems counter to the directional expression,
sense of entry and rhythm of openings in the neighborhood and broader district and seems to
add emphasis to the home's mass, bulk and scale on the Allison Street frontage.
2) While the applicant notes that they intended to have a primary directional expression and
sense of entry to Gresham Street to mirror on a smaller scale that of the Victorian home
across the street at 91 Gresham Street, staffbelieves that additional emphasis is needed in the
form of some additional windows, a stronger porch element or other architectural treatment if
this entry is truly to be given primacy over the Allison Street garage entry.
Should the Planning Commission concur with staff, we would recommend that some specific
direction be provided to the applicants with regard to design modifications which could address these
two areas of concern, and that the matter be continued to the November meeting of the Planning
Commission to allow for consideration of the design with modifications.
However, should the Commission believe that the proposed design has adequately addressed all
standards and merits the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted
Floor Area and Tree Removal Permit, staff would recommend that the following conditions be
attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with
those approved as part ofthis application. Ifthe plans submitted for the building permit are
not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application
to modify the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3) That all recommendations ofthe Historic Commission from their October 6th meeting, where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
4) That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their October ih meeting, where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
5) That the applicant shall obtain all necessary demolition permits prior to commencing demolition, and
that any necessary demolition inspection approvals shall be obtained by the applicants.
6) That the building plan submittals shall include:
a) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with
Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height-16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required
Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 8 of 9
highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and
circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than the 65 percent
allowed in the R-2 zoning district.
7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the tree protection measures shall be installed according to the approved plan,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, demolition, or
storage of materials.
b) That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the
future street improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow, curb,
gutter and storm drainage, for Gresham Street prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department that adequate fire flow shall be
provided shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire flow requirements are to be
determined based on area calculations using the final building plan submittals.
8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the parkrow
along both frontages prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Street trees
shall be placed to accommodate future parlaow and sidewalk installation along
Gresham Street. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List
and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the
Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
b) That the driveway curb cut on Gresham Street shall be closed, and the new driveway
curb cut on Allison Street installed, under permit from the Public Works Department.
The applicant shall obtain all necessary Public Works inspection approvals for work
within the right-of-way prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties. Light fixture type and placement shall be clearly
identified in the building plan submittals.
d) That prior to the conversion of existing rental units into for-purchase housing through
the demolition of the duplex and construction of a single family residence, the
applicants shall provide evidence of compliance with the tenant rights provisions of
Chapter I 0.115 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
e) That the electric service shall be installed underground to serve the home prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The electric service plan shall be provided
with the building permit submittals for the review of the Building, Planning and
Electric Departments.
f) Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted on-site and irrigated
according to the approved plan, or payment in lieu of mitigation planting provided, as
proposed by the applicant.
Planning Action PA # 2010-00992
Applicant: Heiland Hoff
Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report
Page 9 of 9
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Derek Severson
Colin Swales
Derek Severson
10/12/2010 1:21 PM
Re: Citizen Letter for 400 Allison?
TCrec.doc; Allison_ 400_PA-201O-00992_HC Recommendations.doc
Colin,
I'm attaching the comments from Historic Commission, as you requested, along with those from the Tree Commission. I'll
pass your suggestion along to the Planning Commission tonight to see if they want to request additional elevation
perspectives.
Thanks,
- Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520
(541)552-2040 or (541)488-5305, TTY: 1-800-735-2900
FAX: (541) 552-2050
This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records law for
disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541)552-2040. Thank you.
>>> Colin Swales <colinswales@.)qmail.com> 10/8/201012:39 PM >>>
Thanks Derek,
It would be very useful if the architect could provide some elevation
drawings that show his client's proposal compared to its immediate neighbors
- with a comparative ground floor level etc.
I know that the slick programs used nowadays can easily generate a 3D
perspective or even walk-through/drive-by movies from anywhere. ( Rememeber
the Northlight presentation when Olena Black asked for street-level view
instead of the proffered birds-eye? - Applicants usually pick the most
flattering ! )
It would be interesting to see this project from eye-level on Allison, say
from the Frank Clark opposite, or from the adjacent sidewalk, to really see
the impact of the double driveway/garage and the massive front gable
elevation. The current "*View from Allison*" perspective is shown viewed
from a very tall person with an eye-level at about 22 ft.on their drawing -
or perhaps viewed by a normal person standing of the roof of Santini's home
cattty-corner from this site.
Colin
October 11, 201 0
Building Department
City of Ashland
To whom it May Concern
The proposal for a new building at 400 Allison, the corner of Allison and Gresham, is of
some concern to me. My property is at 446 Allison, the adjacent lot.
That lot at 400 Allison was divided years ago; the house on the back of it has proven to
be quite invasive to my back yard. The person who is there needs to come onto my
property when he works on certain parts of his as his house and his deck runs along my
property line. He is set up to use my yard as his view. Adding another huge structure to
that property will have quite a significant impact on the density of building to land ratio
as well as to crowding in on my space.
While appearance is a matter of taste, personally I think such a tall building right on the
corner, where the hill already is gaining elevation may not look very attractive. The
houses on Allison are of a fairly simple design and across Gresham, where they are more
ornate and tall seems to me to be a rather different neighborhood.
Also, I don't quite understand how variances are granted for additional square feet to a
house. Last year, in a ditIerent part of town, the city was very strict with me about the
ratio of livable space allowed in an ADD despite the fact that the structure was already
there and no change was proposed to the existing footprint.
My last concern, and surely one addressed by the engineers is, will building underground
affect the natural water flow in that area. I would not be very happy to have the new
structure create flooding under my building.
TlJ.ank you for addressing my concerns.
S-
J ie Stewart
155 81h St.
Ashland
ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION
PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW
October ih, 2010
PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00993
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street
APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
(MPF A) within an Historic District by 17 percent or 315 square feet. The project consists of demolishing
the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-
story 2,183 square foot dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has
tentatively approved the demolition proposal subject to this land use approval.) The application also
includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height
(d.b.h.) or greater.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 09 BD; TAX LOT: 14200
Recommendation:
1) When working within the tree protection areas, tunnel under the roots rather than
trenching when placing utilities and infrastructure.
2) Add one or two native trees to the planting list
3) Plant a hardier, thick-trunked species on the Gresham side of the parcel to ensure
longevity and health.
4) Commission has reviewed and is supportive of the removal of 10 trees, protecting 7,
planting 6 mitigation trees, and paying in lieu of mitigation plantings for 4 trees as
modified by the applicant. This includes removal of a Maple and Plum at the
intersection of Allison and Gresham Streets, which are not identified on the tree
removal/protection plan as submitted. Mitigation to be addressed either through
mitigation planting on-site, planting off-site, or payment into the Tree Fund in lieu of
mitigation planting for the trees being removed in accordance with AMC 18.61.084.
Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5350
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY OF
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION AS H LAN D
Type II - Recommendations to Planning Commission
October 6, 2010
PLANNING ACTIONS: 2010-00992
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street
APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPF A) within a Historic District by 17 percent or 315 square feet.
The project consists of demolishing the existing 1,144 square foot non-historic/non-
contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,183 square foot dwelling
with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has tentatively
approved the demolition proposal subject to the applicant receiving land use approval
for a replacement structure.) The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential;
ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 09BD; TAX LOT: 14200
Commission Recommendations:
1) That the application be continued to allow for design modifications to address the issues listed
below and that the application come back to the Historic Commission and Planning Commission in
November.
2) In terms of its mass, bulk, scale and volume, the proposed home has roughly 1,000 square feet of
floor area where the average ceiling height approaches 24 feet. If the home were traditionally
framed, with more standard ceiling heights, this would add an additional 1 ,000 square feet or more
of floor area, meaning that the volume proposed is more akin to a 3,200 square foot home on a
4,900 square foot lot than that of a 2,200 square foot home. In the kitchen, there is a 12-foot plate
height which significantly enhances the perceived volume of the turret element. The Historic
Commission is concerned that the overall design exaggerates the home's volume beyond what is
necessary to accommodate the proposed square footage in order to maximize views and provide
large, high-ceilinged great rooms in a manner counter to the intent of the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area ordinance and Historic District Design Standards. The Commission recognizes that the
prominence of the corner lot is accentuated by the topography and makes effectively concealing
the home's volume difficult, and noted that the architect has done a good job of incorporating
Historic Commission input to date. However, the Commission believes that design modifications
are needed to dramatically reduce the volume of the home including lowering the plate height in
the turret-element of the kitchen to no more than nine feet, simplifying the lines of the building,
looking at the gable alignment and the use of dormers for some upper level windows, and generally
diminishing the volume, bulk and scale of the home to a degree that renders it more compatible
with the neighborhood and district.
3) In addition to the larger issues raised in #2 above, the Commission also had a number of specific
recommendations with regard to design details:
a) The Gresham Street entrance needs a stronger sense of presence to give stronger cues
for a sense of entry on Gresham. The Commission would like to see side-lights added to
the door at this entry. In addition, the Commission has concerns that the clustering of
utility meters on the most prominent wall and the lack of windows detracts from the
home's presence in the streetscape, and recommends that a consistent plate line and
additional windows be included in the design.
b) The windows on the Allison Street fagade, over the garage, have too great a ratio of
window area to wall surface and give a very contemporary feeling to this elevation. This
could be better addressed with a less gridded placement, more tightly grouping the
windows in threes, with a more simplified style and less variation in type (i.e. simple
double-hung sashes would be preferred). The Commission noted that a window
placement more like that noted on sheet A7.3 with a single casing and one crown over a
more tight grouping of three windows would be more compatible. The Commission
emphasized that a continuity of window sizes and plate heights was important, and also
noted concerns with the pinching of window crowns into the gable.
c) In terms of trim, the corner boards and casings shown are too narrow to be historically
compatible, and more detail of historically-compatible exterior trim is needed.
d) The turret element that provides kitchen space is not cohesive with the rest of the design
due to its plate height, shape and materials. The plate height results in it dominating other
elements of the design, and the Commission recommends that it be reduced to a more
compatible nine-foot plate height. The Commission noted that a more cohesive plate
height might allow a simplification of roof lines on the Gresham Street fagade.
us
c::
0
~
<(
0
0
"<t
('I)
0'>
0'>
0
0
0
.....
0
N,
.. <(
a..
o
.....
o
~
~
o
.....
o
.....
o
~
~
o
.....
o
.....
o
~
~
.....
o
.....
o
~
~
o
.....
o
o
~
~
'<""
o
..-
o
~
CD
a
..-
o
.....
o
~
!e
o
..-
o
..-
o
~
!e
o
..-
u5
c:
o
~
<l:
o
o
'<t
M
0>
0>
o
o
I
o
.....
o
('\/1
~
o
..-
o
~
o
..-
o
..-
o
~
o
..-
o
..-
o
~
o
..-
o
..-
o
~
o
..-
...;
(J)
c
o
Jg
<(
o
o
'V
('I')
0)
0)
o
o
I
o
..-
o
('\I,
<(
a...
o
....
o
~
!Q
o
....
II)
0>
c:
:2
'5
.0
Itl
~
Itl
>-
.0
m
c:
o
..-
o
~
!Q
o
....
o
....
o
~
!Q
o
....
....
en
c:
o
,!!l
~
o
o
"<t
C")
0>
0>
o
o
I
o
....
o
N1
<(
a..
o
....
o
~
!Q
o
....
CITY Of
AS LAN
Planning Department, 51 Winl.._., I vvay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
PLANNING ACTION: 2010-00992
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff, Architect for owner Robin Biermann
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)
within an Historic District by 17 percent or 315 square feet. The project consists of demolishing the existing 1,144
square foot non-historic/non-contributing duplex building and constructing a new two-story 2,183 square foot
dwelling with a daylight basement and two-car garage. (The Building Division has tentatively approved the
demolition proposal subject to this land use approval.) The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal
Permit to remove eight trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNA TlON: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 BD; TAX LOT:
14200.
NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 7, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winbmn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Fnopt!:rty lin"" o.r~for~ftrtn.ce onlll. not .sea/eablt!:
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 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 on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court,
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.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing,
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting, (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I),
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning DiVision, 541-488-5305.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18,104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the
imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria,
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in
conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property,
C, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development
of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of
livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
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.
TREE REMOVAL
18.61,080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal- Staff Permit
An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's
report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.
A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and
warrants removal.
1, A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A
hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or
services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or
location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such
hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning,
2, The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18,61.084. Such mitigation
requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. '
B. Tree that is Not.a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the
following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance
requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental
Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the
permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of sutiace waters, protection of adjacent
trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200
feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, Nothing in this section shall require that the
residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.
4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such
mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.
(ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002)
G:lcomm-devlplanninglNotices Mailed\20 1 0\20 1 0-00992.doc
Easy Peel@ Labels .
A Bend along line to ~ AVERV@ 5160@ 1
Use Avery@ Template 5160@ Feed Paper expose Pop-Up Edge™
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 10500 PA-201O-00992 391E09CA 1200 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 14500
ASHCRAFT SANTINA ASHLAND CHANTICLEER LLC BARTH RICHARD M TRUSTEE
71 GRESHAM ST 120 GRESHAM 91 GRESHAM STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 14200 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 14000 PA-20 I 0-00992 391E09BD 8800
BIERMANN ROBIN TRUSTEE ET DOYLE TERRY/CHIYEMI GADBOIS LAURIE A ET AL
505 GLEN DORA AVE 462 ALLISON ST 54 GRESHAM ST
GLENDORA CA 91741 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8900 PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 14300 PA-2010-00992 391E09CA 8100
GANGITANO FAMILY TRUST ET KELLY TIMOTHY P LEDBETTER PROPERTIES LLC
44 AMETHYST WAY 100 GRESHAM ST 112 NUTLEY ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09CA 1300 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 13900 PA-2010-00992 39lE09BD 13800
LEHMANN RYAN L/ZOE D MOORE PATRICK J TRUSTEE ET NORAAS MELODY
477 FAIRVIEW ST 470 ALLISON ST 478 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 10400 PA-2010-00992 391E09CA 8101 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 10401
PATERSON THOMAS G PRUFER SUSAN BROUWER REITINGER MARK/BECKY
63 GRESHAM ST 3051 WINSLOW DR 625 B ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 BEND OR 9770 I ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 8700 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 10800 PA-20 1 0-00992 391E09BD 8200
REYNOLDS D L JRlPHYLLIS B SCHOLOM PETER M TRUSTEE ET SEARLE COLLEEN D TRUSTEE ET
64 GRESHAM ST 365 VISTA S1' 477 ALLISON ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8600 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 14100 PA-2010-00992 391E09BD 8400
SHISLER LENORE STEW ART JEANETTE SWALES COLIN WILLIAM
443 ALLISON S1' 155 8TH S1' 143 EIGHTH ST
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-20 I 0-00992 391E09BD 8300 P A-20 10-00992 391 E09BD 8500 PA-201O-00992 391E09BD 10300
V AN DER ZEE KIRT WIGGINTON NANCY CAROL WINCHESTER PATRICE A
469 ALLISON ST 453 ALLISON 3450 SACRAMENTO S1' 507
ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94118
P A-20 I 0-00992
Heiland Hoff
1797 Anderson Crk Rd
Talent OR 97540
25
~-1.8~4
400 Allison
Etiquettes fadles a peler
Utilisez Ie qabarit AVERY@ 5160@
.A
Sens de
I
Repliez a la hachure afin de I
reveler Ie rebord Poo-Un™ !
www.avery.com
1.Rnn.f.iO.AVFRV
...........-....-...-..
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 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On September 29, 20101 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action
notice 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 #2010-00992, 400
Allison Street.
G:\comm.devlplanning\TemplateslAffidavit of Mailing_Planning Action Notice,doc 91291201 0
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
September 2,2010
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR. 97520
Re: Supplemental Written Findings: Conditional Use Permit
Biermann Residence
400 Allison Street
Dear Derek:
This letter addresses comments from your letter regarding incomplete items in our
Conditional Use Permit application package.
A. The use will 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. 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. Our application package included a map of
existing City utilities. The proposed single family dwelling will consume less resources than the
existing duplex.
C. 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.
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Our proposal exceeds the MPF A by 17
percent. However, it would be possible to exceed our proposed scale, bulk, and
coverage and not exceed the MPF A. Our proposal is 4 feet shorter than the
maximum allowable building height in the historic district. If the entire MPF A
square footage were proposed on one level, with high ceilings, it would be
possible to exceed our proposed bulk and coverage and still not exceed the
MPF A. As we discussed in our written findings, under the heading "Scale and
Bulk", the proposed dwelling will be less square footage than the houses on three
sides. The two story house we are proposing will also be shorter than the three
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 1
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
story houses on either side of it.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Our single family
dwelling will generate less traffic than the existing duplex, or the multi-family
housing permitted under the target zoning.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. As we discussed in our written
findings, under the heading "Architectural Compatibility", the proposed dwelling
will be compatible with the surrounding community.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants. The single family dwelling we are proposing will not generate more
dust, odor, or other environmental pollutants than are permitted under the target
zomng.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The single family dwelling we are proposing
will not generate more noise, light, or glare than are permitted under the target
zomng.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed single family dwelling will not impact 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. We will address other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing
Authority for review of the proposed use as they are brought to our attention
Historic District Design Standards
Some of the concerns raised by staff in the pre-application remain; in particular, we are still
proposing to put the garage in the basement. If it were possible to put it anywhere else, it would
be desirable to not put it in the basement purely from a cost standpoint, since that is the most
expensive place to put it. The owner is very concerned about the cost impact of this
configuration. However, we have been working on this plan since last April and have carefully
considered all our design options, and this is the only configuration which provides the client
with the square footage he requires.
Since lot coverage, scale and bulk are important considerations, one must consider how much
larger the house would look if the garage was on the first floor instead of in the basement. The
first floor would have to be bigger, and we are already pressing the lot coverage limits imposed
by the setbacks on four sides. On a small comer lot with so many setbacks, carving the garage
out of the first floor doesn't leave adequate room left over for much habitable space. It would
thus require building a larger second floor in order to obtain the desired square footage, since so
much of the building footprint would be taken up by the garage. This would increase the scale
and bulk as well as the building height.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 2
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Even if the City permitted us to grandfather in and use the existing non-compliant curb cut,
putting the garage off of Gresham Street so close to the intersection is dangerous and undesirable.
There is a fence at the property line that obscures traffic coming down Gresham Street. The
elderly Owner isn't comfortable backing his car onto a heavily trafficked street with his vision
obscured by the fence.
Placing a garage on the existing curb cut would require a sharply curved approach to the garage
in order to fit within the 2-story rear yard setback. This isn't an issue with the current duplex
because there is no covered parking; the tenants park in the rear yard setback area.
There is no historic precedent for putting a garage on a busy arterial street when a quiet
residential street is available. We have submitted substantial evidence that this meets the
historical precedent set by similar properties within the historic district. We have worked closely
with the Historic Commission to develop a plan that is compatible with the historic standards of
the surrounding community.
Putting the garage in the basement solves all these problems. The layout we are proposing would
be permitted by the zoning if we did not exceed the MPF A.
Derek's letter makes reference to the gable height and alignment. This is a function of the roof
pitch. We started out with a 4:12 roof pitch, but went to an 8:12 pitch on the recommendation of
the Historic Commission. To mitigate the additional gable height that results from the change in
roof pitch, we have brought the top plate of the second floor down to a mere 6'-0" A.F.F.; it is not
practical to lower it even further, since there are bathroom mirrors to be considered, and the
owner doesn't want the feel of living in an attic. We have broken the roof plan into many small
gables, not only to increase visual interest, but also to shorten the building.
Our original design also had the ridge running the other way. We changed it in order to shorten
the building; a gable is shortest when the ridge runs in the long direction. There are also view
considerations: the views of Grizzly Peak can better be appreciated through gable end windows
than through dormers.
Tree Protection Plan
A list of the documents which together make up the tree protection plan package can be found in
my letter dated August 3, 2010 with the heading Re: Tree Protection Plan, which was submitted
with our original CUP application. ill our original CUP submittal, the canopy of tree 16 shown
on Sheet Al.l did not match the tree protection zone described by the arborist. This has been
corrected. Fencing placement has been added to our revised Sheet Al.l.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 3
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Lot Coverage
A new sheet, Sheet AlA, was added to the CUP drawing submittal set. This sheet breaks down
the different types of impermeable surfaces by square footage, and includes the landscape
steppers as well as the Allison walkway and stoop, the Gresham walkway and stoop, the stoop in
the backyard, the driveway apron, and the building footprint. The gravel pave area was changed
to lawn to create more permeable surfaces. The landscape areas including lawn now equal 46
percent of the lot. Please note that the calculations shown on Sheet AlA do not include the
landscaped areas and walkways along the street, which are outside ofthe property lines.
The irrigation plan and planting plan were revised accordingly.
Functionality of Recreation Space
The gravel pave area was removed from our plan and replaced with lawn. New Sheet AlA
shows that the lawn exceeds the required area for outdoor recreation space. The irrigation plan
and planting plan were revised accordingly.
Applicant's Statement of Completeness
We have reviewed and filled out the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form.
We look forward to discussing this project with all interested parties. If you have any questions
or concerns, please feel free to contact me. You may reach me at (541) 944-9639.
Sincerely,
L
\~\~~~~
~_.
Heiland Hoff
Principal Architect
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 4
~fn ~ ,~,\~S~T
Ilf~@ (Su..
.~ '" ~ u..
In1 ~ ~
J'! = :z:
IslI ~ ~
t!I' ~., ~
AiM d I,'):]II
!tp~ ~
~ ~ E5 i
~ ~ eel
~ a ~
~ ~ ~
~~ @J
S E5
l!~!
tH!
I ~!!u
- A'iil!!-"'-
IHI ~
~tt=
uoiaIo 'pIim[1ij8y
I900lS 1IOSJ\\V 1M>>
~1lWJ~d[ ~oo ][fPilOlOnwlOlO:J ~. ~ ~
"!z
i~
~
o
tIIIIIVBIIllllJ!a:'lil!qO'lJ[
.I'(lJ illllffi~AW iM1Ill
~
N.Vld NOllJEflOi(J[d Hffill : $ ,; <
N.Vl<<lI ONHiOI ~ i A i
XUJ
~~
<{~
LUJ
()Ill
I-UJ
@~ :x: :x: :x:
III . ~ ~ ~
~~~
Cl -1 iii iii iii
<{<{D.. ~ ~ ~
Q~lH~ ii: ii: ii:
~ ~ UJ
ill - ~
~~~@ I i z
<()IllCl ~
5 <ElUJ ~ ()
~ -M!!llt Ii
~ UJ-1UJ UJ ill
~ ~~~ ~ ti l- I-
~ ~ ~ @
oJ ~
~
~ @ @
<( I
~
~
@
\
<;>
g
.
5
i
~ i
i I
~
! ~
e @
~
ftI t1'L!H
~ \.W~
:x:
III
~
z
UJ
~
@
~
.J.33:oilS HV~ ~ \!l ~ !I
Sl ;;!; ~il~ ~I
~ t~~ L
~ ~ ~ =Q~ i I ~ ~ I; I ~
~ @I-Z
~ L Q ~3~ i;
UJ ill In ~ @ ~!:!...I Z I P il ' !
~ Z oJ UJQQ~ ~ ,)
~ <( <( It '5! nzz I~ I ~s i I
~ I <( ~
g ~
<( Ii! i~ ! d a h
1: oJ iii w <(
l- I- l- n 1: @ ~ ! g ~I ~ i~
oJ oJ @ '5! '5!
~ ~ i Q g I ~ ~ ~g
~ ~ I p. pi
@ @ @I @ @J i. r h
~I ~i ~>,gm z
~~I I~ ~m~ ~
II~III I!~I ~
hlUlldl1 w
w
I!:
~I ~g..~~ !t.i
lin~ ~'\'tCT /l0Ji- ,in) uoiro() 'poB[qBy ~1f1DIlOOd[ ~!l1lil1[mX\OPW1!JI\O~
.lt~@ ~"- g~ _8 lI09!IJV OOV
~ ~ ~ 0 ~
fill ~ :r: g
aa~l p li1 ""'" iJPi
Isll ~ ~ ~ c:::::, . . NVldl SErJV.fID1S
I~I~ ~iil 3~ Hl~ lI1JlIBIJlIlJ:l!1!l[ "lIl!'llll[
~:r:
Ii" J'l/)Jltr s'\ \. ~a~! JOj ~~Ml.p ~1Il Erl~EIrffiErd[]M
5!.n
u.i
\)
<(
lL
Ifl
Z
0
i=
<(
W
l- Ii.
0 \)w
-' w\)
IL Ii<(
0 lifu
I- Oz
Z 1-~S2
W
I.) o=>!{
Ii -'ow
w
u.: lL tS .Ii
IL\)
1Jlu.: ('{) I-IJlW
('{)1Jl m zOIi
!::!m II wOIi
II ~'to
--.11 W .0
lLZCl
LZ -&)I!;
<(0
ili.lD 'two
II ClII
W-' =>
Ii-' . -' l-
i=: . I!) <( ll,\)W
IUz IL................ Iflzw
IllIU 1-1Jl}-}- ,,-IL
~~ wm<(<( llJ-'w ~
<(Ill N-'Ii
Ill<( N~<(
ol!l 1I1fl~
1-1-
:r:
}-I!l IDID ~C)
~~ <(<(('{)
II WW't
~<( lili't ~
_D <(<(
ll!z ClCl~
Dc
... ww<(
... ILlLw W
'..... ... <(<(Ii
tf; ... '-.... ~~<( ~j
If ... ClClZ
... zz3: ()
f't
II) <(<(<( "
l -'-'-l ;e
... ~
if ~
G~F
;~~
'i<'.;
.L3~S H'o'HS:::RI9
ill
v
ll!~
o III
Oz
~2
~!{
z&'
:S::v
:5&'
OZ9L6 N083tJO 'ON'v'lHS'v'
~ ".is NOSIll'v' OOt
-< NO ~
~ NN'v'V\ItJ318 NI80tJ ~ .
~ i -I
~N1113Ma M3N
f!
ZZZZZ.-I ZZ~ ZZ Z ZZ 0
~~~~~~ 00-< ~~ 9 ~~ "-
jj? :c
~~~~~~ ..;(<"r << '" << "
~~~ '''' " "" ~
N~ ~
o:radrospuefUJ!e:JU~~@\I~lla)j 6GGS- ~09. ~ vs-:naa
OcSL6 ~O 'pu"ltlsV Z~S6'c9SnS ':reo
laallS 'rJ ~VS t6~s:.g8V' ~t9 :]81
Olrl:PJ1!lfJJV ;JllnJSrmWI
UJJB~Ug)l
I
o
C(
in
(')
2
I
(')
=>
<<:
~ 0
~w ~ g
Qw 0 J: :2:
~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
~ffi ~~ !~~ ~~~ ~~ lliwffi
~~~ g~ ~@5~w~~~ m~ ~
~~ga~~~g5~!~~5~~~~ ~
~o~8~6~~wzoz5~~z~> g
~ffi~~~~~~~~~~~86~~~ w
~~~g~~~~ffi~~~~~~~~~ ~
>-
w
~ ~
-< w-<
g ~ ~~ ~ ~
C2 Ei :)~f29 ~~
W w r ~~~o <.JW
~~ ~ ~~ <~~~j~r~~
000 wbwm ~z6wwO<m~=
~~@ffi~3~~~~~~~~~~~~ m
~~5~~~~8~~~~~~~8~~ ~
~~~wOO~ffiWoo~4003<m<= ~ <
~~~g~~~~~~~~~m5~~~ ~ z ~
~~~~5d5~~fr~~~~~~fu5 ~ ~ ~
I'-
0:: (!)fD= :Ja.o ~~ 55 ~I-Il..
0:: w<.Jlll~ffl~<(Il..~:;;:::1:g~5Zcr:~~
<( ~~~~uof3~Lt:fE:e~~:)=tg:fu>
u..
:;;:
...J
mW
(')2 0
'" '" 2<<: (/J
;::;;:: ~
m n. (/Jill ill
...J xf!! I
(/) 0::
i3 (/) ill(/)
~~
N
I
~
...J
~
<<:
IY
u..
Z
<l:
W..J
a. a.
<l:~
t)Z
Vli=
Cz
Z<l:
<l:..J
..Ja.
~
~ ~
I'-
o
n.
<<:
o
=>
m
IY
<<:
. ,
11 '::: ~ , .i:l?", Hi
~ i il ..-EJi
~ IIi
~ !~ ~ 111 ri ~
" w :;:
w ~~ 0 i;j z
0 <0 "- tUhi ::s
w "" if ~ 0 ~$
z ~I w w
:J t:: w a.
"- '"
ii" .~' ~f ~ f-
0 ffi z
w ;: "- 0
"- . ' ~ ,
() " g> ~]= - ~-. w "' i=
z '"
~; if> o iii :J w c(
0 "- t::
z c.:l
" ::; ii" "
r~ 0 w 12
0::
o::radEJSpUEJU1!EOU8)j@Jil16>)j 6S9S'W9' ~ PS :US8
00S/6 BO 'pU'llJSIf 0~S6'oSS'Ir;; ""d
]Sal]S\fSVS V6Lf;.efW~t5 :161
JJnlJ'lIIIOJV JdeJspue'j
UJjB8UQ)!
iHHi m
~
~
w
o
g
Ii'
z
'"
"
f-
~
J-
:J
o
ii"
w
G
>'-
"
w
n
~!
jl
~
'I
..
WATER
~~g S1R3
~~i.~
O~~~C~ 0
'~~ .
l>l~ .. ~
" ~g; ~
VB~
" ,
~~ ~
<Om =
~
!.
~ I
o ~
6: ~
I ~ ~
.... -.'_'=' i
- ~ g
j ~ & 8
~
~
N
~
~
~
~
~
"
~ ~
~ ~
- J-ff
~ ~i l
~ j~ j
u ~ ~~ ~._~
0: ~ i~ ~
iL ~ ~~ !
~ B "'"iHID [I] I
n
- - u
~
.,
~
g
OZ9L6 NOB3~O 'ON'ItlHSV
'J.S NOSlllV DOt
NNVV\J~318 N180~
~N1l13Ma M3N
.;
~
~
N
.
....J
~
f
';!l
~~
~i
.;6([;
1i
'E
fi
<;;2
4~
H
f
o-
n
.~
~t32-
tif
~8g
~~;
fH
iU
,m
$wo
1ii1!
~~
i~
!~
'gg
~~
ji
Ii
iu:
~!
ih
I
.
~
~
I
II
nO
~<
iU
>-
W
'"
Z
o
~
ii"
Q;
~
~~
~t
""s
0,
~i
.:2Q
Ii
~i
~~
~g
,~
if
II
iiai
n
~~~
Hi
~I
\~
\
I
iI
/}
/1
/ ./
~!!
.g~~
8.'
d~
I!!l
ill!
OJ2~B
~]~~
il!l
Date Received
(to be completed bv staff)
Applicant's Statement of Completeness
(To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Planning Division)
Re: PA #2010-00993,400 Allison Street
Date Application Expires: January 30, 2011
Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, I, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elect one of
the three options below by initiating:
(~
(Initial if elected)
1. Submit All of the Missing Information
I am submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter.
Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information
within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete, I understand that this 3D-day review
for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it
be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: the 12D-day period for the City
of Ashland's final determination of compliance with applicable criteria does not commence until the additional
review for completeness period is completed,)
(Check if desired)
D I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the
information submitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of
whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff toe be incomplete,
I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the
material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given, If material information is missing
from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met and the
, application will be denied.
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversod{1D.ashland .or. us
CITY OF
ASHLAND
August 20,2010
Heiland Hoff, Architect
1797 Anderson Creek Road
Talent, OR 97540
Re: P A #201 0-0099~ for the property located at 400 Allison Street
Incompleteness Determination
Dear Mr. Hoff,
I have reviewed the August 3, 2010 submittals for your application for a Conditional Use Permit to
exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPF A). After examining the materials presented, I have
determined that the application is incomplete because the information listed below was not provided.
Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The application cannot
be further processed and deemed complete until the missing information is submitted or the applicant
indicates that the missing information will not be provided.
Findings Addressing the Conditional Use Permit Criteria in AMC 18.104.050 While the application
provides narrative addressing a number of applicable items, there needs to be a complete written
response to each of the following criteria for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit:
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.
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.
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversod!1i!ashland .or, us
\
Historic District Design Standards The Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) limitation is intended
to preserve the historic character of Ashland's National Register historic districts by insuring that
development is architecturally and historically compatible with historic development patterns and fit well
into the fabric of these well-established historic neighborhoods. As such, in addition to the Conditional
Use Permit approval criteria listed above, applications are also required to address the Historic District
Development Standards in terms of compatibility with the historic neighborhood context in terms of
height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof shape, rhythms of openings, directional expression, sense of
entry, imitation, etc. For projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit, the authority exists in law for the
Planning Commission to require design modifications to address these standards.
While staff concur with the Historic Commission Review Board that the design modifications since the
pre-application have moved the design in the right direction, some of the concerns raised in the pre-
application remain. The placement of the garage off of Allison Street, with a substantial cut and
retaining wall, does not seem consistent with the established rhythm of openings or sense of entry in
the vicinity, and the alignment of the roof gable directly over this garage opening, glazing placement
and high ceilings seem to significantly increase the perceived height and mass on the Allison Street
frontage. Staff believes that a garage placement behind the structure would be more consistent with
the neighborhood pattern, and if that option were pursued the existing driveway location could be
considered to be grandfathered and thus not subject to the normally required separation from the
intersection. As currently designed, staff are not certain that we would be able to support the requested
Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area in the hearings before the
Historic and Planning Commissions.
Tree Protection Plan No Tree Protection Plan has been provided. The Demo Plan identifies the trees
by number corresponding to the arborist's report, however the canopies shown do not in all cases
correspond to the tree protection zones described by the arborist, and the placement of tree protection
fencing is not shown. Fencing placement needs to be clearly shown both to allow the Tree
Commission's review in determining that the proposed protection is adequate and complies with the
standards, and for staff' to verify proper installation of protection fencing at a "Tree Verification"
inspection prior to any sitework. Tree protection fencing will need to take into consideration how
fencing is to be placed on the property, considering the protection zones as they relate to sidewalk
circulation, adjacent property lines, etc.
Lot Coverage As defined in AMC 18,08.160, lot coverage includes the total area of not just buildings
and driveways but other coverage including parking areas and other solid sutiaces that will not allow
normal water infiltration to the ground, Landscaping which does not negatively impact the natural water
retention and soil characteristics of the site isn't considered to be lot coverage but virtually all other
sutiace treatments are considered coverage. The proposed "Gravel Pave" area and the "landscape
pavers", as well as stairs and walkways, need to be included in lot coverage calculations in
demonstrating that the proposal complies with the allowed 65 percent maximum lot coverage for the R-
2 zoning district.
Functionality of Recreation Space A minimum of 393 square feet of functional recreational space is
required to satisfy the eight percent required by the Site Design & Use Standards. The application
proposes to address this through the use of a combination of a landscape paver area and a "Gravel
Pave" system. Because "Gravel Pave" is unfamiliar to Planning Commissioners - with only one known
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversod{iilash land .or. us
IF.'
Ashland installation for a parking area - the application should provide documentation that the surface
is suited to recreational use. Staff is uncertain that the combination of an injection-molded grid system
and gravel will be seen as a "suitable surface for human use" without supporting information.
To continue the Planning Department's review of your application, you must select and complete one of
the following three options:
1. Submit all of the missing information;
2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division
written notice that no other information will be provided; or
3. Submit written notice to the' City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no other
information will be provided.
Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the application submittal
date (August 3, 2010) will result in your application being deemed void. The application will be
deemed void if the additional information is not submitted by January 30, 2011.
I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Applicant's Statement of Completeness". Please review the
enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application
will not be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and
received by the City of Ashland Planning Division.
If you have questions or if I can provide any further information, assistance or clarification, please
contact me at 552-2040 or seversod@ashland.or.us.
Sincerely,
Derek Severson
Associate Planner
Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness
Cc: File; Owner
Planning Division
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-552-2040
Fax: 541-552-2050
TTY: 800-735-2900
seversodC1v.ashland .or. us
>>> Terry Doyle <terrydarc@yahoo.com> 8/16/20103:53 PM >>>
Thanks, Derek.
The applicants have done a great job in presenting their plans. Two concerns.
First, have the views for traffic been considered? Like pulling onto Gresham from Allison, trying to see uphill?
Second, my general impression is that it's a major improvement overall but there is a little concern that it's
maybe a bit large for the lot size.
-Terry Doyle
-462 Allison
-Ashland, OR
/ /
// /I /
// // j /
/ / //~~
/
/
/
/'
///rj/;
/ / t;
I / /
/ / /1;.
'; I 1;
/ / //t/;
/// II, /
/ ; /
/ / /1 /
' II
/ / ; / / / I( / )
/ i, I / / 1/ / I\i,', ('
i \ ( ~ l // I ~I \ j /
S; ,IB/ 'rt ',/ / ~ / / 7 /
/ ,I ( I ! I / I J / ,/ ///'
j " , I I <, < I / ,-/
, " \ \ , ./' , I
-==-' ----::::-' ./ ~ -' ~ -~ ..---J ~ _ ~ / /~_
~/r 0J/f;V/~ (~/J=:>'/ /J~(~~ e .
/ / ill: // ( // / I / illl!
// )II'! / I; / /// ~ ///(/1 /
/(1/ /'//' 11/1,/
~ ii/ / j (/ //I,/~ //il/ / I ;
//"/ ---.---' /11 / / 1 / /~' I~ I, i / /
// ;/ /1/ / / /1 / / ~ I ,I. //1/ / II / _
I) / / I I i I j \1 1 ~ I / /
I ~ 11' / II I! /1 / II' / ~'!I;' / ~
/1 / /1/ // , i / J I I /,' /(11 / / I!)
I ;' V // ~/ / 11/ / I~ I, / /' 1'---
/ / / 1 ( / ~II ); i ~ ~
/ /~j(il;( P/p/ /'111/~/~~y,/1 : f0 -
! ' !II ' I / I II II I I I /;' /
I j ),1;' "i ,./, / ~/ ,II, I JI I / ~I J~~y / ~ -
, / II ' I , /1 1/./ /" / ~ /I~
/~ / ,I I ,: ,I / I ,I 1/ I /' I '/ /jl
~ J) I J I / ,// { // / 1/ / r1 ././ / / I -
~l ~ / 1,/'/,/ / // /1 / __ I ; / .//
/ if I / /" /,/ //
'1/ I ii I / I / I 1/ ~ 0-
/ /'" ,/ / f/ i / / '
-E'
III
g.
<t
Q5
(J)
u..
o
I!)-
~
Jfn~ 0,,\~CT iVo,) ~ iUI ~"'O 'p""I'I"V ~lfWJ~d[ ~::;n Il'ffilIlI((j)~Nli\I][((j):il ~.~ ::l
nl~@ &"- g%: @ 1"<\IIS Ull8!IIV oot -"
~ :5 '" (/ E5 ~ ~ <;==j
UJ1 ""G "" g 'B JPi
Q ~ <;==j
~~'i H z w a I -<
ill. ~ ~ 0
~()~ ~~ ~ mIDPIl:!I'.lI:l~I8['iX!!J.O"l $-;l!
~hl 0!j81I S'\~ @J JIOJ lmm:lJlllp JIII:ll!l! NVl<ill OJNilla ~ ~. j ~
E5
t oj ~
.1331>llS HlfHS3<:l9 Sl ~ !'(
I:; ;p1~ I
III () ,)-
~ ~ ~ =~~ .~.~
II! => l!!lnr5x
III I <( () oH':l H"'O
~ ill Ii} ~ ;z
& l!! :L:ZZ{L ~\"....
;z () wOc):::' :~.-()
<( <( II! ~ DzzQ '"I':!
III it ~
~ ~ III ':l ~ ~
0 n. III n.
I () in III <( @
n I
l- I- t) ~ ~
() ~
\':! \':! ~ ~
~J ~ III llJ
@l@ @J @i @
~
!I!
()
;z
<(
()
ii!
~
<(
~
I
ll!
I3J
~
:J: :J: :J:
~ ~ ~
ill ill ill
\!) \!) \!)
i .,~i'~:;i
~ .':--- ~ --~::~~
~ .::~ (.~
~-~~ ':_~
ia ~;"'w 1 ii
t):::'\;) t)
j':!'.!'! \':!
~ ~ [
~ @ @
(
~
~
-I
III
III
~
lr
lJ;'
~
llJ
~
~
ili
::;
\!)
;z
III
t)
l':!
~
@
-I
ltt ill
< j[
-I <(
III I
III )-
~ ,~
~:!:. ~
n. f' I-
~/~
~ ~
e @
~
<C.
! '?
n...g
Q;'.
y..
~~
t1'&F
\.~~
')
I
/
I
I
/
I
o::tadBJspueJl./,lreOUa)(@MJe~ 6999' lOS" ~11g ~1i;l'J
OZSLo ~O 'pu"l4'V <~S6'GS5'IVSi ::"',
~as'ISVSl>S r6IS'BWrrS :ral
Dlnp01!4DlV .deO;'jlU8'1
ulQe8Ug)!
:r:
o
rY:
jjj
Cl
Z
I
Cl
:::J
<{
'"
..
~
!
'"
I-
~~ ~
cBc1i ~
NM "
SS999~599~~ggg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l!)T'""IOC'"lIO".........C'"lN".......................,....
.....
~ 0
QH1 0 ~ ~
~~ ~~ 2~~ ~ ~ ~
~ffi ~5 ~~~ ~~~ ~2
~~~ g~ ~m~~w6m~ ~~
ili~~o~~~~~~~~~~~s~~
~g~o~6~~gz~~O~~z[~
~~~~32~~m55~~85g~Q
~~~~~~~~ffi~~~~~~g5~
~
~ ~
<( w..
U WCI.l 0 0
~ ~ ~~~~ ~gs
~ ~ ~ 8::~~5 ~t1j
~~ ffir~@ ~~gmm~r~~_
~sg~~~~ ~~~~~g~~~~
~fww~~~~~~~~~IO~~~ w
~~5~~~~8~~~~~~~g~~ ~
~~~ww~ffiwro~~~OB~ill<~ ~
~g~~~Q~~~~~~~mQ~~~ g ~
~~~~ndg~~~~~~~~~fu5 ~ G
rY:
rY:
<{
u..
G~~CI.l 3~o~~~ ~ ~~~
wuwxffis~~~ ~g2$Z~~@
~~~~5u5~~~~~~~~~fu>
>-
~~
rY:0..
O<{
Z:;<
J-
rY:
<{
a..
LJ
..... ::: '?
~
en'
'a..
o<{
..J:;<
w<{
II
~ .
;;: :::
..J
mW
ClZ Cl
"' "' Z~ C/)
i=rY: ;;:
<ll a.. C/)w w
..J x!Q :r:
C/) n:
u C/) wC/)
OZ9L6 N083tlO 'ON\ilH8\i
'1.8 N081ll\i 00'17
NN\iVlltl318 NI80tl
~Nn13M(J M3N
~'"
w~
a.w
wa.
Wa.
~w
01-
0:'"
<(z
I-'W
i~
~
W
0:
<(
:0
o
'"
~
~lli
g~
G~
,,5;
<!!~
,,-m
",M
~*ttl
"'mW
~~~~
c:(ti::<cw
~.~g~
o~.......~
~g~~
Wm.:(CI)
U"<tWo
ii!i1i~re
oO:::w!l
~~~~
a~ill~
~ i~~~
N
:r:
?(
...J
~
u..
~
~
~
-.:-
.
-I
z
<!
..J
11.
W
l-
ii)
W
11.
<!
u
II)
c
z
<!
..J
~
en ~
.....
o
a..
<{
Cl
::J
'"
rY:
<{
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
July 15, 2010
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR. 97520
Re: Conditional Use Permit
Biermann Residence
400 Allison Street
To whom it may concern:
Our project consists of demolishing an existing 1144 square foot non-historic, non-
contributing duplex building, and constructing a new 2183 square foot single family dwelling.
The project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order to exceed the Maximum
Permitted Floor Area (MPFA). Based upon the size of the lot, the MPFA is 1868.46 square feet.
These calculations are shown on Sheet A 1 of the CUP drawing set. Our 2183 square foot
proposed dwelling exceeds the MPFA by 315 square feet, or 17%.
Maximum Permitted Floor Area
The MPF A limitation, and the accompanying CUP process allowing discretionary
approval to exceed the MPFA, are both intended to preserve the historic character of Ashland's
National Register historic districts by insuring that development is architecturally and historically
compatible with historic development patterns and fits well into the fabric of these well-
established historic neighborhoods. It is our goal to provide a new dwelling that meets these
criteria while still providing for the housing needs of the property owner who will be living there.
We have been working closely with the Historic Commission to assure that our proposal
tastefully blends into the existing historic neighborhood.
The MPFA is based upon lot size. Our lot was originally 0.16 acres, but in 1950 the back
0.05 acres of it was carved off and sold, leaving our property with significant street frontage, but
without any access to the back alley. With the exception of the tiny lot that was carved off of
ours, the neighboring properties are much larger than ours. Ours is 0.11 acres; the immediate
neighboring properties are 0.44 acres, 0.14 acres, and 0.15 acres. These lots contain houses of
4951 square feet, 3465 square feet, and 2235 square feet respectively. Even though our lot is
smaller, we suggest that a modest 2183 square foot house would not look out of place, since it
will be smaller than the houses on three sides.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 1
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Allison Street Garage Entry
City ordinances require new houses to provide two spaces for off-street parking.
Our property is the only one on the street or within the immediate vicinity that does not
have access to an alley. All the other houses on the block have their garages in the back facing
the alley. We don't have this option, since we have no alley access.
We must either put our garage facing Gresham or Allison. Since Gresham is a main
arterial street, the minimum distance from the intersection to the closest driveway is 50 feet. That
would put the driveway outside the buildable envelop allowed by the building setbacks. (See
Sheet A1.2.) Allison is a quiet residential street, so it would make sense to locate the garage
facing it. On residential streets like Allison, the minimum distance from the intersection to the
closest curb cut is only 35 feet, which means the driveway will fit within the buildable envelope.
Based upon minimum curb cut distances and minimum building setbacks, the only place where
city ordinances allow covered off-street parking on this lot is facing Allison, at the Northeast
corner of the property, exactly where we are proposing to put it.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 2
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
It should be noted that the existing curb cut is off of Gresham street. This is neither safe
nor aesthetically desirable. It is not in compliance with city ordinances, since it is less than 50
feet from the intersection. This creates a traffic hazard by making cars back into a main arterial
street much too close to the intersection. The other houses at that intersection do not have garages
opening onto this busy arterial street; they have garages facing alleys or quiet residential streets
such as Vista.
The existing curb cut services a gravel parking area that is up against the South property
line. A new garage cannot be built there, because it would be outside the allowable rear setback
line. Thus we are asking to abandon the existing curb cut.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 3
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Putting the new curb cut on Allison presents a problem, because the earth rises sharply
from Allison Street, gaining approximately eight feet in twenty. This is much too steep for a
driveway. The garage must therefore be submerged in the ground. None of the other houses on
our block have basement garages; all of their garages face the alley in the back. However, since
Ashland is a hillside community, there is a lot of precedent for submerged garages within the
historic district. They take two forms. In the first form, the garage is detached from the house,
usually right up against the property line, with the house behind it.
This form occurs only where the garage was constructed prior to current setback
ordinances, because it is no longer allowed to build a garage within the 20 foot setback area.
Under current city ordinances, we would not be allowed to build this kind of garage.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 4
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
The other historical method of submerging a garage is to put it in the basement under the
house. This is the only type of garage that we can build on our site and stay in compliance with
city ordinances. Thus, of the three possible types of garages, we have chosen to put the garage in
the basement under the house.
Scale and Bulk
As we discussed under the heading Maximum Permitted Floor Area, the proposed
dwelling will be less square footage than the houses on three sides. Only the 800 square foot
house on the tiny 0.05 acre lot behind us will be smaller, and this will blend historically because
that lot was originally the coach house for the adjoining property. At 26'-2", the two story house
we are proposing will also be shorter than the three story houses on either side of it.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 5
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Architectural Compatibility
We met several times with the historic commission to help establish the architectural
style for our proposed dwelling. The challenge was to find a level of ornamentation that would
look compatible with the highly-decorated Victorian mansion across the street (91 Gresham) but
would still blend with the elegant simplicity of the other historic buildings on Allison.
Some common elements we
borrowed for our design include the
8: 12 roof pitch, the combination of
hips and gables, the multiple layers of
roof planes, and the window size,
shape, and spacing (rhythm of
openings). Beyond that, we mostly
replicated the simplicity of the
Allison Street structures, but added
ornamental swing out carriage doors
for the garage (as opposed to roll-up
doors), craftsman style arched korbels
with layered barge boards at the
rakes, half-round copper gutters and
downspouts, and custom windows
employing a combination of tri-part
and bi-part craftsman-style glazing
divisions. (See elevations.)
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 6
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Setbacks and Directional Expression
Situated on the corner of Gresham Street and Allison Street, our lot is an odd shape
because Allison intersects Gresham at a 60 degree angle. Any angle less than 90 degrees
presents special design challenges for the architect. The property is surrounded by roughly
rectangular houses on roughly rectangular lots. Our lot is roughly triangular, so it is inevitable
that our proposal will look a little different than our neighbors. Because a hexagon is based upon
60 degree angles, it was only natural that we fit a hexagonal room into the acute angle formed by
the setback lines. (We also noted that the letterhead of the historical commission features a
beautiful old house with a hexagonal tower of approximately the same size and shape as our
proposed kitchen turret.)
Behind the kitchen, we used a series of stepped-back walls to roughly follow the setback
line along Gresham. The multiple layers of walls and roof heights create visual interest.
In determining the directional expression of our entry, we followed the precedent set by
the three other corner houses at that intersection. All of them have their primary entries facing
Gresham Street. Of course, all the other houses on Allison have their primary entries facing
Allison, but that is because they are not corner lots. 91 Gresham, the Victorian mansion across
the street, has its primary entry facing Gresham and its garage doors facing Vista. (Vista and
Allison are essentially the same street; it changes names when it crosses Gresham.) Since 91
Gresham is the oldest and most magnificent house in the immediate neighborhood, it seemed
logical to emulate its directional expression by mirroring it on a smaller scale.
The sense of entry of all the historic homes in the vicinity is expressed by a front porch.
They also may have a side porch and a back porch. We have our primary front porch facing
Gresham, with a small side porch facing Allison and a back porch facing the back yard.
The least-attractive side of our proposed house is the East elevation, which is right up
against the sideyard setback on the East property line. This elevation contains only six small
windows (see Sheet A 7.4). This wall faces another tall blank wall, the three story West wall of
446 Allison, a three unit apartment. It should be noted that the tenants of that apartment house
will be no more eager to have us looking into their windows than we are eager to have them
looking into ours. Thus it is beneficial to have only small, high windows used primarily for
bringing light and fresh air into the bathrooms.
Controlled Access/Number of Curb-Cuts:
In the Pre-ap application materials, we requested a new curb cut on Allison for our new
garage driveway, but it was not clear what we intended to do with the existing curb cut on
Gresham. If we kept it, an additional curb cut would require an Exception to Street Standards.
We do not wish to retain the curb cut on Gresham, so no Exception to Street Standards is
requested or required.
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 7
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
Demolition
The existing structure located at 400 Allison Street cannot be rehabilitated or reused on
the site. The existing single-story structure is an 1144 square foot duplex rental with no
historical or aesthetic value. The structure was constructed in 1964 using low quality materials
and low-end construction techniques. A separate demolition permit application is being filed to
allow its removal.
Tree PreservationlProtection and Tree Removal
There are presently more trees on the lot than the property can support. A number of fast-
growing trees were ill-advisedly planted within inches of the foundation walls of the existing
duplex; the roots of these trees have contributed to apparent structural spalling around the
perimeter of the foundation. The trees have been poorly maintained and do not present an
attractive appearance; they also demonstrate apparent health problems. Demolishing the existing
duplex will destroy the root systems of the trees, and even if the trees survived and thrived, the
roots would damage the foundation of the new dwelling. These trees will have to be removed. A
Tree Removal Permit is required for the eight trees with diameters exceeding six inches.
Except for the trees that were planted too close to the duplex foundation, we will save the
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax.(541)535-3588
hei land@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 8
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
remaining trees on the property. In addition, there are several trees on the neighboring property
that will require protection during construction. We will submit tree preservation plans to
ensure that these trees are protected during all site disturbances.
Trees that are removed must be replaced in kind. Five new trees will be planted on the
property to replace the eight that are being removed. These trees will be far enough away from
the new foundation so that the foundation will not be damaged by the roots. The owner will
contribute to a fund to plant the remaining three trees at some other location within the city.
Tenants Rights
We are in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 10.115 of the Ashland Municipal
Code, and tenants in the existing duplex have been furnished with copies of their tenant rights.
Landscaping and Impermeable Lot Coverage
A maximum of 65 percent of the lot may be covered with Impermeable surfaces. At least
35 percent of the site is required to be surfaced in natural landscape materials which permit the
infiltration of water into the soil below. At least eight percent of the site is required to be outdoor
recreation space. Weare in compliance with these requirements.
We look forward to discussing this project with all interested parties. If you have any questions
or concerns, please feel free to contact me. You may reach me at (541) 944-9639.
Sincerely,
Heiland Hoff
Principal Architect
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 9
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
August 3, 2010
City of Ashland Planning Department
20 E. Main St.
Ashland, OR. 97520
Re: Tree Protection Plan
To whom it may concern:
This tree protection package includes the following:
1. An 11x17 demo plan showing which existing trees are to be protected and which existing
trees are to be removed. The plan shows
a. The location, species, and diameter of each tree on site and within 15'-0" of the
site.
b. Location ofthe drip line of each tree. (This determines the location oftree
protection measures to be installed.)
c. Location of existing structures.
2. An 11x17 landscape plan showing:
a. Location of proposed structures
b. Location of proposed plantings.
c. Proposed impervious surfaces
3. An 8-1/2" x 11" Utility Plan showing the location of existing and proposed roads, water,
sanitary and storm sewer, irrigation, and other utility lines/facilities and easements.
4. An 8-1/2" x I" Tree Protection Plan from Beaver Tree Service. Beaver Tree Service is
the arborist who will be responsible for implementing and maintaining the approved tree
protection plan.
5. Tree protection measures to be installed per AMC 18.61.230:
a. Except as otherwise determined by the Staff Advisor, all 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 activities,
including landscaping and irrigation installation.
b. Chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall with steel posts placed no farther
than ten feet apart shall bc installcd at the edge ofthe tree protection zone or
drip line, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of any open space tracts,
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 1
HEILAND HOFF ARCHITECTURE
specializing in winery, commercial, and residential projects
riparian areas, or conservation easements that abut the parcel being developed.
c. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade.
d. 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.
e. 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.
f. The tree protection zone 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.
g. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning or other activity shall occur
within the tree protection zone unless approved by the staff advisor.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. You may reach me
at (541) 944-9639.
Sincerely,
/
1--)
1~ t:!J ttLF'
Heiland Hoff
Principal Architect
1797 anderson creek road, talent, oregon 97540
tel. (541) 944-9639 fax. (541 )535-3588
heiland@heilandhoffarchitecture.com
page 2
'/ ~:/
/'" '..,/
/
/
400 Allison St
391 E09BD 14200
June 4, 2010
~ Hydrant
- Sanitary Sewer Utility features
- Electric features
- Storm Water Utility features
- Water Utility features
o Taxlot Identified
E22"~ Public Utility Easement
[ J Taxlots
Streets
Building
Contour
2 ft interval
,r"_j 1 0 ft interval
&
1:360
1 inch = 30 feet
Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy.
All features, structures, facilities, easement or roadway locations
cohn"'''' h,.. 1_..J____...J_._'O'I. ,.. .. .-. ~
AND
BEAVER ~
TREE SERVICE n:m..
VOICE OF TREE CARE
MEDFORD 779-7072 CENTRAL POINT 664-1614 ASHLAND 488-0802
Tree Protection Plan
Below is a list oftrees that are on site or within 15 of the site. The trees are either slated for removal or
protection as noted. For each tree to be protected a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) will be created as
determined by Ashland Municipal Code 18.61.200. For singe-trunked trees, the size ofthe TPZ is
area equal to one-foot radius from the base of the tree trunk for each inch of trunk diameter at breast
height (DBH), e.g. a 10" diameter tree will have a circular TPZ with a 10' radius. Multi-trunked trees
often have a DBH that exaggerates the size ofthe tree. In such cases, the drip line of the tree is a better
measure of the size ofTPZ needed to protect the tree.
1. Trees to be removed.
1. Acer macrophyllum - bigleaf maple
DBH: 28"
Location: North-east comer of property along Allison Street.
Reason for removal: The tree is unlikely to survive the project. In addition, it is already tearing
up the retaining wall and pushing it into the right-of-way.
2. Acer macrophyllum -bigleafmaple
DBH: 20"
Location: North-east corner of house.
Reason for removal: The tree has to be removed to pour the new foundation. It is also directly
against the current foundation and causing it to crack.
3. Acer macrophyllum - bigleaf maple
DBH: 26"
Location: In front of the building near the center.
Reason for removal: The tree has to be removed to pour the new foundation. It is only 21"
from the current foundation and is causing it to crack.
4. Castanea dentata - American chestnut
DBH: 21"
Location: At north-west corner of house.
Reason for removal: The tree has to be removed to pour the new foundation. It is only 2 1/2
feet from the current foundation and causing it to crack. In addition, the top third of the tree is
already dead.
270 Wilson Road, Central Point, OR 97502 · www.beavertree.net CCB Number: 173614 · Tax ID Num{;~~:i2&l~63~QS~
FAMILY
BEAVER ~
TREE SERVICE EREECARE™
MEDFORD 779-7072 CENTRAL POINT 664-1614 ASHLAND 488-0802
5. Acer macrophyllum - bigleafmaple
DBH: 13"
Location: Offwest side of house near bay window.
Reason for removal: The tree has to be removed to pour a new foundation. It is only 2' from
the current foundation and is causing it to crack.
6. Cedrus deadara -Deodar cedar
DBH: 6"
Location: Along Gresham street, west of house.
Reason for removal: Although this is a healthy tree, it is the wrong tree in the wrong place.
Deadar cedars are large, fast-growing trees and should not be planted under the power lines, as
this one is. If not removed, this tree will be directly in the service lines and high voltage wires
in just a few years.
7. Prunus lusitanica - Portuguese laurel
DBH: 14"
Location: In back of property, near south-east corner of house.
Reason for removal: This tree will not survive the pouring of the new foundation.
8. Prunus lusitanica - Portuguese laurel
DBH: 16"
Location: At east side of property, near north-east corner of house.
Reason for removal: This tree will not survive the pouring of the new foundation.
II. Trees to be Preserved and Protected
9. Acer macrophyllum - bigleafmaple
DBH: 25"
Location: North-west corner of property.
Radius ofTPZ: 14'. This is a multi-trunked tree so the DBH - the sum of all the diameters of
the learders - exagerates the size of the tree. For this tree, the extent of the drip line - an area
with a radius of 14' - defines the TPZ. The tree should be well protected with this size TPZ.
10. Malus spp. -Crabapple
DBH: 6"
Location: In north-west corner of property, just south of tree II 1.
Radius ofTPZ: 6'
270 Wilson Road, Central Point, OR 975020 www.beavertree.net CCB Number: 173614 Tax ID Number: 20-5639553
FAMILY
OWNED
BEAVER ~
TREE SERVICE TCm..
VOICE OF TREE CARE
MEDFORD 779-7072 @ CENTRAL POINT 664-1614 ASHLAND 488-0802
11. Ulmus pumila - Siberian elm
Location: On west side of property, near curb.
DBH: 11"
Radius ofTPZ: 6'. This is also a multi-trunked tree so the DBH exagerates the size of the tree.
For this tree, the extent of the drip line - an area with a radius of 7' - defines the TPZ. The tree
should be well protected with this size TPZ.
12. Juglans regia - English walnut
Location: On east property line, roughly in center of property
DBH: 6'
Radius ofTPZ: 6'.
13. Acer platan 0 ides - Norway maple
Location: Directly on east property line.
DBH: 15"
Radius ofTPZ: 10'. This is a double-trunked tree with a DBH that exaggerates its size. A TPZ
with ala' radius should protect this tree.
14. Betula pendula - European weeping birch
Location: 446 Allison, in front yard
DBH: 8"
Radius ofTPZ: 8'
15. Betula pendula - European weeping birch
Location: 446 Allison, in front yard,
DBH: 9"
Radius ofTPZ: 9';
16. Betula pendula - European weeping birch
Location: 446 Allison, in front yard,
DBH: 12"
Radius ofTPZ: 12'
17. Acer platanoides - Norway maple
Location: At 100 Sherman Street, just over property line.
DBH: 9"
Radius ofTPZ: 9'.
270 Wilson Road, Central Point, OR 97502. www.beavertree.net. CCB Number: 173614 Tax ID Number: 20-5639553
un~ 0.'\ 'tc:r /Vo,y ~ """" -1U) uoiaJO 'ptiI8(qSy ~~d[ :Jmi.1[OO\G)~WlOl\G)~ !~ ~
Ilf,@ ~u. :g~ lOOJIS lIIOS!llV 001>
~I ~ ::$:5 15 i &\0." ~ ~ <0==1
I J1 v 0
~ :c g 'is '&~"t ijii 0
Q ~ <0==1
aJ~1 H :z: a I .~. <
Isll ~3 0
~ k-' ~m ~ ~!s: Ill!IilO][ ~i~
f~l~ ~:c r -
Aht {f!,2311 s'\ \. @J ~ d~! .IDJq~~lIJ NVl<ill ON'illO !l fa "",
~ mi
",\,}
:J: :J: :J:
Ii Ii Ii
iii iii iii
\ll \ll \ll
i z i
j[
UJ
~
Z Z z i
..( ..( i
~ ~ ~ -' ~ -(.
~ ~ III '?
I- ~ 0..:0
!I! UJ ~ 2 :;( o~
\J ~ ~ t t I- ~ -' ..(
z \J UJ 9! ~ x-
~ ~ ~ ~ ill ill UJ ~ w~
oc ~ ~ & :::i & Q2
~ ~ @ @ ~ !J) 0 ~
JU
~ ( l- lL ~A~
I ~ ~ I-
\J \J
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~
&! &!
~ @ @ to @
')
,
/'
//
,
Ii' ~
.L33l:U.S W""HS~9 . !J)
~ - ~
~ UJ a ;f~~ ~
~ It 12 ~~~
~ ..( ~ !!lox 0
UJ UJ -' @ o:J:\JJU Z
~ & UJ UJ :@ ifi;.L.l:([ ~
z ~ ~~~ll
UJ ..( ..( ~ ~
~ ~ oc ~ ~ ~
~ III 0 ~ Il!
\J iii UJ @
l- I- I- ~ ~
\J \J \J ~ ~
I':' ~ ~
~ ~ ~ &!
e @ €I @ @
oo'>d,:>spU1lJU~.:JUa1@^'Ja11 OSS9' LOg' ~v, :11"0
O~,Lo ~O 'PUBI4SV ~ISo'09,'~Y9::"'j
,aa4S V,., r6lB'Benvs :181
ro
>-
~~ ~
<< 0
~(9 ~
NM '"
o.lnjJJjlq:JJV JdBJBpUR'[
UJIB:)Ug)l
'"
<<
~
~
OZ9L6 N083~O 'ONVlHSV'
'1S NOSlllV' 0017
NNV'VIJ~318 N180~
~N1113Ma M3N
0r-
B
-I
ZZZZZ...J Z .....I6zZ
99999<3 ~ f5jgg
:;i4!:;i:;i:;i~ <( ~(3:;i:;i
~~~~~~ G ~~~~
I
o
0::
10
C9
z
I
C9
::J
~ 0
~tl1 0 ~ i
Q~ w8 g:cg ~ i1l
~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ffi~ ~ ~
<(~~ 09 ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~
~~~ ~~w~~~~~~~~ ~~ 5
~~~oG~~~5~~~g5~~~~ ~
~2~8~g~~~~9z~~~5~~ ~
8ffi~~~~~~~~g~m86~~~ 3
a~~~ffi~~~ffi~~~~~~g~g m
~ <(
~ ill t:
g ~ g~ ~ ~
~ 0:: :5~~9 ~~
ill CI) >- 0..0.....J0 ow
~~ ~ <(~ <(~~~~~~~~
OW WGW@ ~ZBWWO<(CI)~=
~~@ffi~3~~~~~~~~~~~~ ill ~
~~5~~~~g~~~~~~~g~~ ~ ~
0~~~m~ffi~~~~o85<(m<(~ ~ ...J ~
~~5~~Q~~~R~~~m~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~~dg~~~~~~~~~fu5 g G ro
I'-
0::
0::
Lt
GW~ ~o..o ~~ ~ ~~o..
wum~ffi~<(o..~ ~g~5~O::~~
~~~ffioo5~~~~~~~z~~>
?;:
3:':1
O::CL
0<(
z::;;
::;;
.-J ~
Cow
C9Z 0
<0 z:"'; (j)
CL 1=0:: ::;;
[IJ (j)LU LU
.-J xffi I
(j) 0:
(3 (j) LU(j)
~
~
'"
'"
:'\
g
~
~~
>-~
0'"
>-"
fa~
ag
~[;;
roM
j::1I1-
"'''''''
"'~'"
~t:i~1-
4:~<Cw
~~g~
ga~~
~~llO
Wa:>o:(CIl
t)..q.wo
~ifi~~
orrwll
wo:(>..;(
~S~~
@-.J~ffi
~g~~
001-(,')0..
~
I
~
;;
:<f
~
z
<(
...J
ll..
W
I-
ti.i
w
ll..
<(
<.)
(J)
o
z
<(
...J
~
~ co ~ I'-
C9 0 ::J
LU CL [IJ
[IJ <( 0::
<( 0 <(
~
u..
liUi ~'\tCT ~O 14.iJD m&o 'PJDllll9V ~~d ~OOl1[1mO~WlJJlO:} ~I~ ~
Jfi@ 6>~ o~ _s 1IOS!IIV 00; - z
~:5 ~qs ~.~
RJ1 """C '" g "' i ~!ijfi v==l
Q ~ F1
d~J H :z =
ISII "'" "'" 0
~~ ~~ ! ~U!~ UIDlIIW.J:I!S[ lIl!lIllll[ i$ ~
f~l~ roJsum~~ IHffi1[S HUU
AiM D10ga s'\~ @J b~' ~Ii! !
e9 ,m
<( z
I
III >
Z ~
i=
() ~
.~~
I- Z ![!
IL W
.\llX Z
Gzw 0
\ll0\ll i=
"t()<(
:!Olll ()
-ZI- ~
1ll<(J:
Z .I!l \ll
lii~~ Z
0
~9~ ()
W
zjfi<( j!:
<( J: 0.:
IllXI-
zW- =>
x~~ ~ 0 I-
\ll=>1!l \!) @
-Oz 0
-l -
Olll-l i N
ti~~lli :! X
D Ii&lD
Oifiol!l III
IL~ ,~ => tt" <(~<(
o t<( () 0 ~()~
() W
\llZ .\!) 0 ii' ~ !h\l:!~~
:nOGIt m m \lxUJIIl
~ _\l\ll<( I <(~g: ~Ii&lrtt"d:l
\ll1:m'Jl It.
ZOd:l .= ~rr It \ltt"md:l
3Z('iN ![!~ 0 Z ii'd:l IL<( Z,alll
~ Zo<(tfi 1C1L~0'f1\l
1-0">-<( I!l\ll <(~(),a ILlLlQlll"tlll
()jtltlll z- ~ ~w~~ '.00 &l"tlR
~ !lJ0~~ 3~ 0 W-l ,a t)J:J:2O~::::-
~ ~:n\ll~ ~Z Z iiilllON \l:!~~<(!i;1;~
-1<( 02 <( Itlzzo~
fNI- !J;liiilllill.. x<(<( w=.,
wz~z ~~ IL \l..J..Jr::i.:i~
Cd j!:~!J;l3 <( ~02-l~ It--tt"
a:&::l X Olt III <('i!'i!t:I-\l:!1L
~
~ ~
~ ~
OO~
~
8Q
@ '"
OR "Q
~ ~
<~
Q~
~<
~
!
~
OH
00
!QQ) ~
~OH
~
~ g
~~
~
~
00
~
08
<;====j
<;====j
~l
~~
(~i
tin ~ ~,\l,c'T
~lf~@J is...
1111 ~!
lIa~J p z
18 It ~ ~
fII~ ~ ~
JIM <S'/j:J1I
uollOI() 'J>a8Ill8V
_s 1ID8!IIV llOF
~~ ~lm ][Wij~W1UlOO ~ ~ :ll
<; z
!;i! ~
~
SlEIOON ~
z.~
~ J j !
UlII'BlIlI.m!i!I II!qG-m
JOJ lmrn:lliip lJI.:llII
o~rade:JSpueIUJleJua)j@ilJa"l 699S'lOOOttg:jjao
Oc5L6 ~O 'puol4'V G ~56'c5'.ntS 'lQlj
taaJIS 'if gpg v6~t:'WIr'lP9" :181 I
W
I-
~~ ~
(]t1J ~
NW ..
amPJ)!lplV ~d"JSPUWI
UJIB8 UQ)]
~
~
w
~
5
OZ9L6 N083~O 'ONV'lHSV'
".is NOSIllV' OOt
NNV'VIJ~318 N180~
~N1l13Ma M3N
zzzzz...J
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
gg~~gggg
...J...J_ .:(...J...J...J...J
.:(.:(~0<(<(<(<(
~~~~~::~~
I
o
cr:
iii
(')
z
I
(')
::J
<(
o
S'lltl 0 ~ g
za::: 0 0 0 ~ i:5
~~ mo Ji:@!:: ~ ~ ~
$2~ ~~ ~~~ ~ffi~ ~
<(~~ 5~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~
~&~ ~~w~ltl~~m~~~>~~
~gt8g~~~~~~~g~~~~~
fu~~o~grffi~~5~Sb~~wo
g~~~~~~~~~~~~~88g~
~worom~r~0<(.:(~oor~ro~o
~
~ w ~
~ ~ ~~ a? ~
~ ~ ~~~9 3i2
~ ~ ~ &~;;t~ ~~
g~ ffi>~~ ~~gffim~~~~-
~gg~g~~~~5~oc~g~~~Q ffi
~f~~~~~o~~~~~zo~...J~ ill w
~~~~~~~8~~~~~5~gS~ ~ ~
G~3ooro~illww~.:(oo~<(ill<(~ ~ <(
~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
~%~~nd5~~~~~~~~~fu5 ~ ~ ~
"w
w"
"-w
w"-
w"-
"w
01-
"w
~z
I-W
~~
"
,
0::
0::
<(
lL
G~~W -3~oa:::S~ @ ~~~
wUroxffi<(~~a:::~~g~5za:::~@
~~~ffi5do~~~~~~5~~~5
::;:
-' :;::
<ow
(')z 0
co co z<( U)
i=0:: ::;:
'" lL U)W W
-' x91 I
U) il:
U U) uJU)
~~
~
w
"
'3
8
~
;'bt:i
~w
>On.
OW
1-"
>-=>
wO:
08
~~
wM
i=1I1-
~~lli
~tLi~1-
<i:tJ:<(w
~~6tJ:
Zc:(Ulll1
~g~~
O:::~HO
wO;<eCl)
U"<tWo
~i1i~~
oO::wll
w<C><i:
~g~~
@...Jwo::
~g~~
co~(9~
N
J:
~
-'
::;;
<(
0::
lL
'"
~
~
I
..J
z
<(
..J
a.
w
I-
en
W
a.
<(
(.)
en
c
z
<(
..J
~
"' ~
(') 0
W lL
'" <(
<( 0
~
'"
0::
<(
::radE:tSpUE1W]"e:Jua}\@J\.ua}j 6999' ~09' ~ "\19:116:)
009L6 ~O 'pueiY'V 0.,6'oS9'~rs:""
t68JIS'v'SvS t6JB'BBr'Lpg :181
~
~
~
J
01:9L6 N083HO 'ON\tlHS'if
'.is NOSIll'if 0017
NN'ifl^Jtl318 NI80H
~N1113Ma M3N
;),rnpaljlplV JdHJSPUWI
UJ!B8U~)I
,HBI iiI
-"
~
o
':J
Ii'
z
<(
"
I-
"1
I-
:J
o
i'2
ill
&J
>'-
"
ill
II
!:Ji
~~
.
~i
.,
~t
.
-, ]~ ~
'--:~f'!;! H-"
=2\ UI~ ~~ H ~
~ j n ~
~~ ~
'"" ~~ ~
I~
j Plj
g -s,~
.;! tl !l:g ~ TI ~.h
! ~,~ lo ' . 'c~~,'!
~ .' m ~ Hi HB
r~g~' !h ! l~l/~
~ ~ I ~!, ~ ~......
t.q ~
~h UJ
I!!~ ~
g g-!
-"
~
ill
o
ill
Z
::;
0-
i'2
o
ill
0-
<(
o
w
o
z
:'i
~
\,
ji
ill
Z
::;
0-
i'2
o
re
~
N
.
...J
-"
~
ill
o
I-
j
0-
'"
ill
0-
W
'"
~
"
ill
z
<C
-I
C.
Z
o
j::
<C
c.:>
C2
~
~ ~ <- ~
[ ~ J i! " jl ~.2
I eO .
~ i g'< ~i
~ ~ ~ ~ .=~ B H H ~i
" III
0 ! ~ i H i ~ 11 :i
" i
z " " ~ ~ ..<
ill ~ ~ ill 'to
c.'J w 00 i J " i zi ~ eE ~ '2]:
ill "" . ~i
--' '" i & Ii >- i ~ ri~ H
j; w
Z " ~ '" ~ .'
0 ~ " j <g z ~ Z . n~
~ ~ !i .Q
i= ~ ~ & 0 m 0 iJ~ ~g ~
<( ~ ~8 it n
c.'J (j B I n Cl !~ ~~ ~~~ Ii
a:: d " I"Iil lID [[] - c i'2
ex: 0: U Q; ~~ ~-i ja II! €~
j~ I~ ~i
~~ il H
". a." !:~~
~~ II :;: ~~ .9~ Hi
!I ig;g ~ii m~~
~8~ jgm,g
&~ ~ "' 3:Jl.:!J
WATER
1!I~iro^~
~~~u~~ 0
~~ ~
0' J
c. Xx il
~)~~
~~ !
"""eo> ~
II
$
~
~
~!~
~~g>
8~1
ti~
B"'
Ht
~~~j
Iml
~~1~~
~~~~l
lin~ ~,\~CT iVOc2~ 1~~1 uo8aro 'Jl1mI1iBV ~puw~d[ ~SItil R'!lillijI{lWlillOO ~ ~ :il
11W. ~~ g~ t"" _8 lI08JllV 00i' - z
~~ \I' 0 ~~ v===l
1111 ~ g ci 0
d,1 q !if z ~ .. iF v===l
w a ii!~ <
ISII ~~ 0
z ~!8:1Il!q~
Ill' %~ g~ i'lli ~ ]o~
li~ ;Y/;'),'?tr S'\ \.. jtfi JGJ Sum9MJ!1' MllllI NV1<<lI ORilla ~ i j ~
~ :c :c
Ii Ii
iii iii iii
oll oll oll
; ; ;
z ~ ~ i
.(
~ i ~ ~ -' ~ 5>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii
~
\l ~ ti ti ti ~ -' -'
z I I I I ll!
.( ffi w ~
\l ~ i
I :::i
~ @ @ ~ Q
III z
x ti ll- l-- ~A~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ...~~
&l &l &l ili ~ ' ....,.'
@ @ @ IV @
')
//
,
/
,
~ oll ~
~s "'VHS3'1:l9 Sl ;!; ~
III ~ ~.Q~ ~
~ ~ I ~ =~~
~ i!!!Q6x
3 .( ~ QT'?~ ~
~ [ III @ ~ l!! :Lz:z~ ti
8QQ
~ .( ~ ~ ~ zz I
.( ~ ~ B ~ x
X \l Iii .8 .( &l @
x
i i i ~ ~
~ ~
@ @ @J @ @
lini ~'\bcr /102 iU) uollaJo 'p1JeI1pv l~ ~S1til1[1~1Im9W1!lI{)~ ~r~
Hf'@ (S~ g"~ Jll'lIIS uosmv oov ;; z
~I 'j ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
t )1 ~ '" g un
II~I p ~ ~ . ~
Islt ~ :j 0 a <
~~ z d lJIll1IlIIIml!a 1I!!l01l[
f!l~ ~k' ~ j-~
~} S'\:?;. Hi .!OJ lJum~ ~ NV1[dr 'BIllS
Ai" I,Yc1tI Li j 1
.L33l:US ~"'~
~~o~
" "'" '..
/ "'-, /...........
\,' , .. 'S~oz
, ....:i~"............
/ di ~~"" ..............
, 1ll'V ~b>, ....
, 1;;';' '-< ,~>, ..........
I ~I Q'/s",,,,,,- 1.,.......0.
Ul{J ,.IJ/ ", / -......:: "0","
''<!:' ,~ I.. r!) ~'I_ "..
" / ,"(/ (f ~ / (J,;p,'
J..:. AI '0"'" ,,/ 'f,'Y'-~'"
!OS, ,,/ Dl'!i;I / Dl' <;V ""
.() U' ~/ ,f:.~~.' I.V!!" ,
J:/iJ/ t/),/ riY .() / riY .()~' 'O;a '
I;:; fk' (( , _IJ A I _IJ A I 'I
*(}, / ~;~ / ~.lt':/
/X' / A" ,,0/ AT('" ,,0/ "
J.:::. / <t'" r;(J)/, .q.-- ~/ /
/ 4!r. / r ':1 / OC
/ .it'1 !l) !k; , () I-
" \ / /{.u;/ lY1(9/ ' 1L ()
/ \--wo;~-"'O"""'-"'''~;''''''--,;,-----l ~ ~ ~
, '/ / / ,,9}-<(1U
L' \ / / / / Q u.ttn~
_______~_________________~__~_____1_ _wO
1.n?~? 01. III III v
3?N'V1.SIQ HnHINIH
,O-,oz;
.0-,0$
.b-,sq
~t
lL
'13
2lll
-F
!:J-
l'I-
II II
,,-"-
VV
<<
IQIQ
u.tu.t
llllll
}-~
~o
8l;i
lll,
..!.l'I
ZZ
~~
~~
<<
lltllt
-(-(
--..,
u.t
II)
Iii "J
u.tlLlll1
u.t'"
lltOI-
-(Dill
~-(L
lllllt~
.sI-(-(
I- '<l:~m
III 1ll0~
lL .sIOO
llt" ~iCl-
-(~ "Dill
~8 ~!l!lli
Illv oE-(
!:~ xim
~I-~J-u.to..u.t
z....i5' D
-(u.tltl"'L:>
llt~ti,,:>cl
-(~,,-(~~
1-~~ll::~1-
3-(~L~~
~iD-f
-~-
!{ - ~
llt \0 :il
v
llt'L&F
I- ~ ,~ ~
o 0
-II-~
lLO:>
0-10
I-lL .
ZOlL
u.t1-1Ii
~zO
u.tu.to
o..~'<t
~~~
lIltlL
~~~
III :>
",lC-I
l'IlIi:i
~ltl:::;
"l/;:;t
llll'lX
lUlltJ)
vllllll
-(<(-(
~lltllt
lll-(<(
u.tDD
ffi~~
<<(<(
x~~
ffi!i!i
0..<(<(
~...I...I
Hn ~ :;",\~,\~T
:llt.@ (:;; ~
~t' ~ ~
I J1 "'G ~
a~J ~ z
isl! """ ~
fIn ~,~
!iU. :,sJ;'JJIl
J[~2_ ~ al 1 ~~!
~ ~ 8 lH!
~ ~'BI Ufi'1i
~ a 19 -
ffi '" ~ ~
!:l ~ ~ Ii ~
S'\~ g J Un
uolb.ro '!J1m\qsv
-s uosmvOOl>'
~1ffilDOOd (jS1tq1EU01R\W1lllOO ~ I ~ :ll
;z
:il ~
~
v==I
...<
.... ~
dVWOillOI ~ j l ~
I
/
/
/ .
1/ 1//
I 11/
/ ; II/I
/11;//1'
/ / 11/ 1//
///1/.//
/ //:// ;/;/ /
I ./;:</;:<~/ /
. . ,#~,<(/~// / / ~,"~,'.:; iE
V(;/;>s//~ ~~~
, ::f{;ff*X"', /// /
wK/ //"'"" //
I ,Ire! I /51"
-1///. I ! I /
y/; / ! I I I "
(I! I I I I 1
/IJ!i I,
Ii-I \\ /,
,I!:-J ',\" \ t/I
/ hi ii:!\, L, ~ \Il' \t ~ Q "
/, ~ :! ,\P\ ~\ ~ ~ i\ ~/ /
II L_; 11"1 ~~~~~\- ~\l7"--_::~------,Y
/ /,!\ \\\~'~~\/ (
/ 1----
/ / / / / / /
/ I / / 1/ / II ' I
/ / / /" / II ,/
/ / I .. / ~sw...~.. /
;/ I / / ,1/ ,I II / I
I / ,/ / /
.. ! / " / / / /
/! I I I I I I I
, I I / I ( I /
! I I I! I I
/ / / I I i / /
:d ti tli ~ ~I tl ~ tl tl
('11 (1')1 "'t" U\I 'U 1"", cOl ~I 81
~\ I\ ;:\, I\ I\, ~\ ~\ I\ g\
\ \ \ \ \.
\, \ \ \ \
'\ ' \. \\. \\ \\ \ \ \ \
\. \. \. \. \. \.'
~/' ~~\ ~ ~,..) ./) --------,) ~ /....---\ /\
~!alll!q01l[
.If(lJ :mm~ AWlJl
~.
.c(5'
~
0.:'.
~
~~
fin i 0,'\tCT
Ilf.@ (:;; "-
~i I ~ ~
lu) '""Z; ~
.I.1~l ;::::; z
;811 ~ ~
f~i~ Q,,~.
~:U {) /23i:I
rn
rn
!Ps'/^ ~ ~ I 1 ~~J
:g ~ Ej- ti~
~ 0' ~ ;! ~
~ ~ 'is I ...... ~ . Ii
w a ':::1![
I~ I dllr
t':.\~ @I ~ ~~~,
;:J El .€;; .if!
uoaa.o 'pmq1jBy
llWIS uosmv 001>
~~dl ~oo ][w(P!lW'iJl(P~
'IIlIl'iIIrOOm: lI!lIl~
JOJ ll'1IlHI:lhl.P .t.MlII!
IN'BDN'BrSVlffi
NVl<ill "lOO'H
.9-,9S
~
lR
.h16
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,--...J
I IT!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
~
!i-
ID
.91/1>11-0'1>1
UJ
I
I
I
------@]
j>
...
w
~
lL
III
--1
~
<(
II!
\)
~ f
!r
....
.v16 1:-,9
.v16 1:-,9
llh9
.9-.bG
.rlS
~
:;e
w
\)
<(
lL
III
:l::
<(
II!
\)
:;-
~
~
5-
ID
tt-
...
~ l;> ::l
~~
- 0
is :..
'< ~
$~ <
~ j j ~
%
@~
~
m
ItUli ~'\1S~T iVOcJ uo80J0 '\JllBi1Isv 1~rl[ ~~1til K~1ill{}lQlW1illGl~ :ll
Hf3@ /::$ o'~ 1=18 """!JIV OOV
"I ~ ~~ ~~ <;==j
I )1 ~ '" ci
aJ"~ ~ ~ z ~
1811 ~ ~ ~ a lffiAtlIl NJIVW
ill" ~~ ~~ ll1lIIIlUllIlJl!lE[lIl!q~
<I); s'\~ JIlJ ium:l&]P .M1Il NV1~ "HOO11l
Aht { /),1(1
.01-.<: .Ihl€ nt-IS
:aNn )....l<!l3d~
--1
--1-11J'
~lL: fulL:
1lJ ti --1 ti
--1 III OC III
~lI\ OJ <l:l
<{ Iii ll: a
X_ ::>-D
T -t-/
I I
I J
----------------- 11 f
-:i)i '7'9l.3S ~'i';: ~QIS- --,
I lOCI
~ 1 oca
I I a~ I
j I ~1L1l
I[ I 1L20
I[ [ ln3~
IL- ---,I ~OJOJ
lLolllll
I [/ I 'n
[I 1l1l OC
I ';{';{~
j IQIQIS:
[I \H \H in
Ii ~~l:i
Ii <{<{--1
I[ }-}-oc I
II 1l1l~ I
~00OC
<(<{a
J lUlU 0
I I ;;;; I
I I/'I
, I--~/r~ )
I [ // I
I .-r/ J
I ['"" _ _ _ /,.J-.-.:::' ..J I
[ I/'I I
[ V/'/' I I / ::z
[ /' [ 1/ .c(
[ ,__/""-:::...J 1 y
I - ~~I /' /' J ./'
()" ~/,;;;r y / /
I "" // // ,..;!t/
I "" / / /' / -0 Y/
I /~~/'~~)/
I /'/' <!fJY
[/,/' //
//[
//' I
....... // [ //
....... /'// : /
~ : //
.......,~
<{
~
<{
oc
8.-:
--11L
~2
;!m
a!!:!
I-l'I
I I
I I
[ I
<{ ., [ I
~--, '&[ I
<{ Il., [I
oc=!--, I I
a01l.,
aI-=! I I
--1::>0
IL a:r: I
n i!=!: 1,,[
\I:I~~ ....
1=""': I';{[
xtlL: I~I
III ti ti loll[
D-<fioll I I
x~lR . I~I
f!!:!~ ~I~I
"'11-1
191
Iltl
I
I
I
~
I
L____________
:aA09'o' :!NIN'tZZ:aH I
I
L_
x
a
a
oc
!:i:
~
III
I
I!M
Ii
If
OJ
z
::J
t
oc
OJ
D-
a
If
l
~
.
~
/
fl/2 ~
~~
~tn~
Hf~@
.~ ,
IU1
11.1
;811
f~I'
~I"
~,\'{,c:r
&~
~ ~
~ '"
c::o ~
~~
''{; '"
J'/j,'1'J
!VO
0:.&
~~
ci
:z ~
::: 0
~~
S\,
I'" iU)
'B I . lffi14
'.-
1"7
I Hi~ ~
@J ! -.
E9 0 .ffi
troiaIo '\JlIBI1ISV
lOOIIS 1IOS!\IV OOV
lpowr~d ~~1t1l nW<<lY1w\1lI<<l:)
'!Illl1B1lIlI'>~'ll[ U!<llllI
JIlJ i1Ilm9A'\l!l M1IIl
13Affil (8[ffid<<ill
NVld (8[OOlill
I
I
I
I
g I
~ I
,--1
I
I
I
I(!)) I(!)) --1
.1 ~ ~~
lUll..
--1(j
II! III
~d:l
I:) D...I:)
~...
2
"
~
~
II
@J~
C;<
""
Il..
I:)
II:)
~II!
-II!
D...W--'
('l:;:::D...
--;;I:)~
((\--1~
I:)
--1
1M
z
~
~
.11-.91
).:~Oj,9~3i? ~3W'<!:IOQ
.0-;';
5-
N
.:::.:::J
. D...
5'~
N~
HUll C'I' j10 in) uolImo '\J1I8\lisv ~lfW.lI~d ~glril nlPi1UO]fHjpl1U{j)::l ~~:ll
::",\~"
nf~@ :~ o~ 1=18 1Ill8JIIV Ol>> -,z
'I ~ ~~ ~~ ~'~ v==l
I )1 ~ '" ci 0
Q Z ~ ;Wi Ili?')
aJ'~ ~ ~ ~ a
1811 ~w ~~ lm~ ~!iJ[lIl!q~ <
J~I' :;(..,'" f~
~i" J/;')8t[ s'\~ Uti JOlJ Jum~ ~'III NVlcd[1l[OOlr ~ J ~ j
G ~ ~ liJ5:i.d!~ .o-I~
1.
~ .o-;~. ~
UJ
~ I I Iii! n -F-
IfI , 'II
IfI II IIII I I I i ~jn
I I I n ,
IfII- nl nT
ILz
ClClIfI leI. Illfi'nl ,
ftlflll. I Ii II
II
UJCl rill I " Iii n
Ii}~ft III I III ,
..JZ::J: 1m II III
IllI\) TflI ,I
<{1fI1- , I
\!)::J:j[ n I
tl'!=N .LJ ~' I
UJI:- r+ ,
ll::z.ii I I
::>I:'!,! ~ II
::l~<{ , ,
<{~::J: I I II' 'I'~'f I!
, I
1111 I I I
'II IIII
11,'11 I I
I n n, n
I r IIn II I I
::J: I I 'II III '~
, I ~tl' , ' I
j[~ zr I
I Ntl' UJCl
;;:;8 ll.....J ~
Qltl
)"~O.L~31? ~aw~OQ
/ c----~= I~ "
~l~ ~ IIC-----
I I III
=jl IIJ
IL~~===_:!JJ ~
- Iff ---
~ """
III ~ ~~~z~
I:IfIN I \ ft~..J~6t
~~~~ ~ w~~~.~
IfIClUJ "~ ~/ 1fI<{ <{~1fI
IfID~ '';: ::::;" ~..JClll... z
6~1fI "" ~ 1-ll.....JIfI<{Cl
DI:z
),l
~ ill
llllflUJ>
}-!llIflFO..J9~
..J>_W..J1fI
Z<{..JIfI<{zD
ClUJ..JClI:-z
UJ" <{tl'IC <{
::J:~I:<{W~1fI
I-ZIfI}-i!:lnW
~<(IUJCl<{~ .
..J::J:1-9..JUJ..J1fI
~!=WIfI..J..J),l'!,!
I:IfIUJ<{I-\)<{
..J~::J: <{<{UJ
1fI~\)l-ui~~
~
<C.
9
~i
~
zUJCl
~L..J
I-<{..J
<{1fI<{
::J:~I:
I-I-~
j1!~i!:
~<{~
iUI
Wi
~
uo8aJo 'pllll!1l9V
1QQ1lS UOS!IJV OOV
~~ ~:m ][WiOP1flP1!lIiO~ ~ ~ :ll
;; z
:i! ~ <===J
~
",<
b" :l!!
SNOllJEIS ! i ! ~
1Jl1JJlIlIlIIr.!!3[ 1l!lIllll[
.IO} lJillill:l1lll.P iI\:lll
t
~
1
..c.
z2
0:
i=~
~~
~I
~
'1.
I'i
, n"'il
nlllllj~
== .I-III~
~IIIIIIII-III
==-.' .1' -j II~
I 1- . -:--1 -
II' . . ~_'
, 11-11-
.0-,<::1
~
.'J/60hl.
.9-,01
.'0-,1> ,#6 10-,6 .'0/1. v-,b
~I
J
! ~I :8 u.;,
IL
t 1 1
lin~
df~@
'J i
IUI
,11,l
1811
f~I'
~iU
~"
;\.,\Vl
(!;u-
~ ~
~ '"
<=> rii!
~ ~
%w
V0'"
01,J3tI
\'l \'l j!::I:
~ ~ ~2
\ii \ii ~~~
!y lJ. o::;l<(
.... z CI "- :I:
~ ~ ~~~~
Il) Clii8C1
~ o~<( 0
:i: ~ ~~d~
1~~~
ltji
~~f
. i V a-;::.
~
uo8aTo 'pDllJllSV
-8111lS!11V OOV
~~ ~S1ITl1[W<<}P1f1P1!JI<<}:'i ~ ~ :ll
;;Z;
:i! ~
lIIlmmlJ':j!8: U!lIlOl[
ro.JflillIffi:lAl.PAl.llll!
SNOJIlV Ailllill
r
~
1
~
ffi~
illi1:
z
~IL
lJ.0
0~
Oil)
lt~
~p
&1~
~
ill
-l
m
<(
\'l
10
!l!
\'l
r
1L
o
I-
z
a
D..
CI
X
i
~
1
u.)
1L
!
u:;[
1L
1
.lH'5lI3H '5lNIQllf19
.1:/1 <:-,9<:
<==='l
o
If-
".~
"'- ~
~ j! !
~in~ ~'\ 't'\~ T IVO in) uoSaJo 'p1mJIIBV lPUW~dI ~oo ImJ[Ol][llWTJIOl~ ~ ~ :!l
Itfr~ ~u. o~ 1""'IS lIOS!IlV oov
Q;;' l5 ~~ ~ ~ ~
HJ1 ~ :c
d"l A ~ g I'=< fifi ~
ISII 0 a <
~. =' ~~ mlI1Il1lIXl':l!1B[ UfGlOlr
UI" ~~ ~ ]-~
~i" Slj8tr s'\ \. 1OJ.I lmm:llAp AWlll SNOllVA31ill ! i ~ ~
1 f
-' I
tI
~2
~~D IU
IUZ D
()-1Z I~
='() ~<(<(I I I I
~E Ii\!)- 1 1~
It:~ ~()~~ 1
DOCDD
:c~ ()f!!~()
\!)() ~@cl~
:i:u I I ~
- - <(
lilt ~ ~'\'tS~T i~1 uo&ro 'p1IllI(lIBV ~lUlJW~d ~!l1tllllWI1))1PJ.Wl!J[I1)):li ~] ~
!ii,
If' @ ~ "- 1=18 uosmv 001' ""i
~t 'I q;;; ~ ..ttfh ~ ~ ~
I Jl "'<; ~ 0
I~~ H :z IE"-
fBI! ~ ~ -]i" <
ill ~ w li!i ~ lIIIIl1ll!JJ:l!8:1ll!QOl[ $:l!
.ll ~ ~'" .IDJ ~Mp MOO
J h,j 'J'j ,9,?tI ~j.] SNailV AllEr ~ jJ J
. ;.
.i:J1 <:;-,9<:;
r t r r ~
\!l
Z ~~
is ~I 1r 0
iii !QI -, I I
'L ~~
Z I
<( ~t
j[ >~
~
<(
X
~
u::
0
~
IUZ
dO
tE III
Jl!:1ll Z
IL~ .I is
XI iii
III 0 IU
xI) 'L
<(
IL X
cil III
1 ~
X
=in~ ~,\~~T !VO ~4" iU! m&o 'plmJIISV l~d ~fltril nW(\)!lW1!l[(Q):) ~rll
Uf~@ (5;,,- o~ )a<UlS oosmv oov 0; z
~ ~ ~~ [5 Ii! ,.' II ~ ~ ~
HJ1 '""t; :J: g ~ ~ '&'!31 Wi
Q ~ IT:"'-
"..I ~ :5
ISII w a I ~.. <
~w ~~ @ ~ Jill ~ lIIIlm1lItI.I:lm~~
f~I" ~:J: .roJ Jum"'.Ii&.1t>.Ii&.Ql1IIl f:ij
~hj /'J,'lftl C\~ [5 ! ~n] SNOllV Affilffi ~ iJ !
s
III
z
D
ill
';l
z
<
j[
~
<
:t:
r r
1 1
~
f1 r
_ 9 ~
- =oc 0
_, Jill -'
" UlUJ 0
i ~ i
~
!g
III
z
iL
o
~
~z
_0
~E
oclll
ll..O
ll..
:t::L
III 0
xu
': ': ': ': I
,,', ',, "
,,!' " "
,,' " "
" " "
" ! " "
" " I,
" " I,
" " I,
" " "
" " I, I
" " "
: I ':: I
" " ,1,'
" " ,','
" " ,,,,
I' " ,,,,
,,, " ,,,,
I ! ',, " ' "
I " " "
Ii IIII 11'1 II
,,,,, " ','
I, ,,, " "
" " "
I " "
" " "
" " "
': : I I:
"
" i: I
,,,,,,,
.~....'.'.,'....'",,'a:.:""",'~"',' I
...... . ,.} .'.
,,'" '....'.:-
..\.,Phmning Department
C I T YOF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520
ASHLAND 541488-5305 Fax 541488-6006
Z(,. .ING PERMIT APP.LICATION
FILE # PfJ- - ,;}.610 -. tJ /) 993
DESCRIPl'IONOF PROJECT
CAJv p- ._~ Q~JI
I
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address 4tPO AlL / '1::GAl ~
Assessor's Map No. 3.9 1 E t::> tf fb t.J
~tlLMO i t!;7/CF-AZ?AI
/
Tax Lot(s) /4:1..0D
Zoning
((2
Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT . I. <I ~
f\ e j 'e;?J!\.(. I r I
Name \1:htW\NO \-\-e'~ Phone~' - <=J4A - Le7(033 E.Mail h~tb~Jh.o 2r4A.,'te(+~~
Address l191 ~k \\?6R5'a/N (J~:CtJ( ~O . City .n Lt::NT . Zip ~\ 1-- sA D
PROPERTY OWNER
Name' f&:>)$IA-I.(6/~.e-MJJ.:AIA/ Phone
Address ~/?G N. 4L~,eA..AVE.
.."t;t:J/Epn/$lN A)
.tf;,~ - q~~ -.~tl qq E-Mail (i....~1r.A(;L;lJf1...Ni;;r
City e,LhJfAiP/ZA- Zip !1}1+/
SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT. LAND$CAPEARCHITECT..OTHER
Title ~QG\.\\~(\ NameIAh\\~NO' t\-~Fr- Phone
Address c:S~'\^J".k l\ S ~ ftpL \ e:~ " City
E-Mail
Zip__
Title
Name
Phone
E-Mail
Address
City
Zip__
I hereby certify that the statements andinfQrmatlon contained in this application, including/he (Inclosed drawings and the required findingsoffact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all propeftypins mast be shown on the 'drawings and visible aponthe site Inspection. . In the event the pins are no! shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if thIs request Is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hflaring to support this request;
2) that the f;ndlnQsof!att furn/shedjustifiesthegralltlng,of the request;
3) that the findings oUact fumished by me are aclequate; and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this rega will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon,being required to
be removed at m xpense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
~L .~ '0(3/(0
Applicant's Signature Date I
As owner of theproperty involvedln thIs request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me ~IS a property
owner.
-
Pro arty Owner's Signature (required)
.
'1-/26/\0
Date
Date Received
ghJ/O
I (
[To bo completed by Cily Slam
~-
Zoning Permit Type .J.,
(7 ,"-/
Filing Fee $~7 0 /,
MT...........l__ ^_.&l__ T....._
Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
Sub-Contractor:
Address:
Phone:
State Lie No:
City Lie No:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
20 East Main 51.
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: 541-488-5305
Fax: 541-488-5311
TTY: 800-735-2900
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080
CITY Of
ASHLAND