HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-0602 Historic PacketCITY OF
,ASHLAND
HISTORIC COMMISSION
Agenda
June 2, 2004
SONJA AKERMAN
CITY OF ASHLAND
II.
III.
IV.
Vi
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.- SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building, located at
51 Winbum Way
COMMISSION TRAINING: City Recorder Barbara Chdstensen and City Attomey Paul Nolte
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 5, 2004
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
PLANNING ACTION 2004-071 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a transfer of ownership and
addition of a seventh unit to the existing hotel (Traveler's Accommodation) for the property located at 438 North Main Street.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-l; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 05 DA; Tax Lot: 2800.
APPLICANT: Dermot O'Brien
PLANNING ACTION 2004-072 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit involving the transfer of o~vnership for the traveler's
accommodation located at 134 Second Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential;
Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BA; Tax Lot: 9100.
APPLICANT: Mary Nelke
PLANNING ACTION 2004-062 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a traveler's
accommodation (Ashland Main Street Inn) consisting of three guest units plus the owner's unit located at 142 North Main
Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09
BB; Tax Lot: 1300.
APPLICANT: Dennis & Alma Gay
PLANNING ACTION 2004-073 is a request for Site Review to permit a second residential unit on the property located at 215
Gresham Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39
1E 09 CA; Tax Lot: 7300.
APPLICANT: Katy Cowan
PLANNING ACTION 2004-081 is a request for Final Plan and Site Review approval for a four lot, 13-unit project at 954 B
Street. The project will consist of the existing single family residence and three, four-unit multi-family condominium buildings.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 AC; Tax
Lots: 2600 and 3001.
APPLICANT: Archerd/Dresner, LLC
PLANNING ACTION 2004-084 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a 1280 square foot storage building on the
north parcel of Mountain View Cemetery located at 440 Normal Avenue. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density
Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 10 DD; Tax Lot: 100.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Public Works Dept.
OLD BUSINESS:
A,
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Review Board / appointments/volunteers
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
Articles for City Source
Recap of National Histodc Preservation Week
Co-Sponsorship with Conservation Commission for Fall Workshop
Memo to Council Regarding Authorization for Multiple Listing Survey for National Register of Histodc Places
VI,
VII,
VIII,
IX,
G. Possible National Register Nomination for Lithia Springs Property
H. Final Camegie Library Restoration Work
NEW BUSINESS
A. Brown Bag Lunch Ideas - Old House Fair (Jay)
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. The next Histodc Commission meeting will be on July 7th, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance With the Americans with Disabilities Act. if you need special asSistance to participate in this meeting, pleaSe contact the
Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone number is 1-800-735,2900). NOtification 72 hours pdor to the meeting
will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35:102,35,104 ADA Title1),
c OC
F. m~
0 ~
z o
m
> 0 m
m o
m
>
ITl
E 8 8 8
C C C
----. m m m
0 m m m
, z
ill ill m
m 0 ~ 0
::E C ITl C
~ Z ~
Z ~ Z
~ m ~ m
0 z
~ m
z
m
0
z
0
c
m
>
· -r mrn
m
rtl
0
rn
m
m
111
m
z
z
m
o'~
o
m m m ~ m m z
~ ~ ~ c ~ z 6')
m
-0
m
zIZ
0
m
o o o
o o~ Po
0
m
0
c
m
8
o 0 o o o o o o o o
o o o ~ --~ o o I~ I~
o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Draft ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
May 5, 2004
Community Development/Engineering Services Building- 51 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room
Historic Commissioners Present: Keith Swink, Tom Giordano (left at 9:20), Alex Krach, Joanne
Krippaehne, Rob Saladoff, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, and Jay Leighton (who arrived at 8:50 and left at
9:15).
Absent Members: Dale Shostrom
Council Liaison: John Morrison (absent)
High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:05 p.m., Vice Chair Skibby called the meeting to order.
COMMISSION TRAINING
This has been postponed until the June 2 meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Whifford moved to approve the April 7, 2004 minutes as submitted. With a second by Saladoff, the motion was
approved with all voting aye.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Action 2004-018
Site Review
322 Pioneer Street
Al and Sandra Carlson
All members had site visits; none had ex parte Contacts.
Knox explained that although this application had been advertised as a public hearing, it was heard informally
last month due to issues that Staff had on parking. As a result, the application was delayed one month so the
issues coUld be worked out. The most recently submitted design consists of a 1,130 square foot addition that
has no upper stow and no deck; instead, it has a clerestory on top that has the potential to eventually
accommodate a full second stow. The commercial storefront includes three sections that can either be
entrances or windows. Knox stated Staff would like to see at least one of these areas recessed more. Parking
will be around the perimeter of the lot on Oak and "A" Streets and three off-street parking spaces will be provided
off "A" Street at the rear of the property. Staff is supporting this application with Historic Commission
recommendations incorporated into the Findings.
Gary Caperna, 2908 Hillcrest Drive in Medford, stated he represents the design team for Batzer, Inc. for this
project. He then explained the changes made since the last Historic Commission meeting. The addition now
consists of three equal volumes. Each of the bays is one large volume. These volumes give the proposed
addition an appropriate presence on "A" Street. By eliminating the upper stow apartment, the parking
requirements fit with the proposal. Skibby asked about the exterior lighting and Capema replied the light will be
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
May 5, 2004
CITY OF
- kSHLAND
behind a narrow fiat steel sheet and will project downward. He added the color scheme of the building will be
subdued; the CMU block will be a dark oak color. He then explained the three entry sections will be recessed
24 inches and the canopy extends four feet, so there will be a six foot protected entry. Capema explained he
wanted to design the building with longevity in mind, thus the potential for three separate openings. It will be built,
however, with only one opening at the beginning. The canopy will be continuous. The middle portion of the
alcoves can be either doors or windows; the rhythm would remain the same. The bronze anodized windows in
the clerestory will be non-operable and are the same as used in the existing building and the "A" Street
Marketplace across the street. He cladfied the ceilings will be 16 feet high and the addition will be built to
accommodate a second floor in the future. The CMU block is 8" x 16" and the grout will be the same color. The
base of the building will be fluted, and then the building will go into common bond on split face block. On top,
the cornice will be srnooth block.
Knox stated he would like to see at least one of the alcoves (middle would be best) further recessed to help
clarify the main entry. The door(s) will open onto the sidewalk and pedestrians walking by would have to be
careful.
As there was no one in the audience who wanted to speak, Skibby closed the public hearing.
Whitford stated he feels Knox's point about recessing the center bay is important for the look of the building and
for safety issues. Krippaehne and Saladoff both stated it would be difficult to 'identify the main entry, as it could
eventually change. Giordano remarked the flexibility would be taken away if one entry were to be designated
now. Ideally, all three bays would be recessed at least three feet. Knox responded the space is actually quite
small and the middle bay is the most likely one to be the main entry. The addition will likely accommodate only
one or two businesses. Giordano stated he would like to recommend all three be recessed.
Capema offered to set up the return walls in the entries (alcoves) so if the space is used for a window, it can be
forward and if used for a doorway, it could be recessed more. This would still allow for flexibility of the use. He
would comply with a condition of approval stating doors would need to be recessed and windows could remain
with a 24-inch setback. In discussing this further, Caperna and owner Al Carlson, agreed to recess all three
alcoves, noting more square footage could be added in the rear to make up for the loss of space. The
Commission concurred this would be the best solution.
Giordano moved to recommend approval of this application with the condition all three openings on "A' Street
be recessed a minimum of three feet. Krippaehne seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote.
Planning Action 2004-049
Conditional Use Perrnitrrransfer of Ownership
115 North Main Street
Jessica and Bruce C,app
All members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts.
Knox explained this application is for a Transfer of Ownership for a previously approved Bed & Breakfast.
Although there are rarely complaints, he clarified this process gives neighbors a chance to voice concems when
a traveler's' accommodation changes ownership. There are no interior or exterior changes proposed.
There was no one in the audience who wished to SPeak regarding this application.
Whifford moved to recommend approval of this application and Swink seconded the motion, which passed with
a unanimous vote.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
May 5, 2004
Planning Action 2004-043
Conditional Use Permit
530 Catalina Drive
Dr. William Rodden
CITY OF
ASHLAND
All members had site visits; none had ex parte contacts, although Skibby stated that while he 'was taking pictures
of the property, a neighbor offered his personal opposition to the proposed use because of the deer.
Knox reported this application is for the construction of a temporary parking lot across from Ashland Community
Hospital. The lot is currently vacant and would provide parking for the owner's patients and staff during the
remodel of the Catalina Medical Building and upgrading of the existing parking lot. (Dr. P, odden owns both
properties.) Knox explained a Conditional Use Permit is required because a parking lot should not be the
predominant feature on a street. The proposal is to use the temporary lot for a two-year period, at which time
the use will be reevaluated. The lot will be gravel with 16 spaces, a locked gate and perimeter landscaping,
which will incorporate a bioswale at the rear of the property to capture and retain storm water runoff prior to
pumping the excess water with a sump pump up to Catalina Ddve. In addition, Knox related the existing tree is
proposed to be saved while the property is a parking lot, but will most likely be removed when the lot is
developed in the future. Staff is supportive of this temporary two-year use.
Designer Mark Reitinger (385 Vista Street), representing the applicant, stated this is a straightforward
application. The property is zoned Health Care. He referred to the letter from Dr. Fried opposing the use and
stated there is no real cdteda for setting up a temporary parking lot so there is no clear cdteda. After he received
a copy of the letter, Reitinger submitted a letter to the Planning Department mitigating most all the points in the
letter that could be contentious. The dust will be alleviated with the use of a biodegradable solution that will
provide a temporary coating to the lot throughout the summer months, then would dissipate in the winter. He said
they are hoping the bioswale and sump pump will take care of most of the drainage problems, since historically,
the property drains downslope to the rear. Reitinger acknowledged there probably could be nothing that will
alleviate the glare from windshields; however, landscaping the perimeter will help. Krippaellne questioned the
parking configuration being in such close proximity to the tree and Reitinger responded that while the site plan
shows parking tight against the tree, it will most likely be reconfigured to keep cars away from the drip edge of
the tree. They may lose a couple parking spaces. He added that landscaping is only required against residential
properties bordering parking lots. Although adjacent properties to the north and south are not residences, these
borders will also be landscaped.
Krach asked if Reitinger had talked with Dr. Fried and he responded he had not talked with her but had
addressed her concems. Krach then questioned what the eventual use of the property woulcl be. Reitinger said
Dr. Rodden owns both pieces of property and may decide to build another medical office or he may decide to
sell the proposed parking lot property. Rodden does not want to limit any future use of the vacant property. His
intent is to use the temporary lot while construction is taking place on his existing office and parking lot. Reitinger
also noted the hospital currently has major construction taking place and parking spaces' are at a premium in
the area.
Skibby asked about the temporary fill at the rear of the property. Reitinger said he suspects that that area would
be filled no matter what the future use will be. Swink asked who would most likely use the lot and Reitinger
replied half of the first year would be used mainly by staff for the Catalina Medical Building.. When the existing
parking lot is being brought up to current standards, the temporary lot would likely be used for valet parking
because most of Dr. Rodden's patients are geriatric.
When asked by Saladoff if the Catalina entrance is the only access to the lot, Reitinger responded it is. Saladoff
said the bottom three spaces will be difficult to use and Reitinger agreed, stating they will probably lose them
in the reconfiguration. He added there is an existing curb cut that will be used, but staff may require it be moved
when the lot is developed in the future because of its nearness to Dr. Fried's property.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
May 5, 2004
CITY OF
kSHLAND
Kdppaehne wondered Why the applicant is making such an effort to save the tree when probably in two years,
a tree permit will be submitted to remove it for development. She stated' the tree has not been maintained and
looks like a mess. She could understand the efforts if it was a good specimen and didn't impede the
development of the property.
Skibby closed the public hearing as there was no one who wished to speak.
Skibby stated there was a similar application a few years ago for the lot on the comer of Catalina and Maple pdor
to the construction of the now existing medical building. He sees the same process in the development of this
property and commented a building on the site will impact both the lot and the tree. It is inevitable.
Kdppaehne stated she personally feels it would be beneficial to make the most efficient use of the property and
that includes mitigating for the possible loss of the tree.
Krfppaehne then moved to recommend approval of this application with the recommendation that If: the tree
presents an impediment to the most effective use of the temporary parking lot, the Historfc Commission supports
its removal and if that is the case, that the removal of the tree be mitigated elsewhere. Giordano seconded the
motion and it passed with a unanimous vote.
OLD BUSINESS
Review Board - Following is the May schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00
to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
May 6th
May 13th
May 20th
May 27th
Skibby and Giordano
Skibby, Krippaehne and Swink
Skibby, Whitford and Krach
Skibby, Swink and Saladoff
Project Assignments for Planninq Actions
PA #2000-120 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) Shostrom
PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) Leighton
PA #2003-005 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) Krippaehne
PA #2003-092 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) Krippaehne
PA #2004-017 364 Hargadine Street (Ken Kolar) Krach
PA #2004-026 81 Central Avenue (Wes & Lucinda Vail) Giordano
PA #2004-018 322 Pioneer Street (Al & Sandra Carlson) Swink
PA #2004-043 246 Catalina Drive (Dr. William Rodden) Krach
Articles for City Source - Krach volunteered to write an article about historic preservation.
National Histodc Preservation Week- Knox encouraged all members to attend the award ceremony on Friday.
He also pointed out there would be three more walking tours - Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Spri.ngs Property- The tour that was held on April 22nd was
discussed, as well as the Parks Commission decision to study the Gun Club proposal and impacts the lease
renewal would have on the site. Skibby stated one of the Parks Commissioners is still under the impression the
Lithia Springs Property is listed as "surplus" and could be sold. He requested that someone notify the Parks
Commission that it has been removed from the surplus list.
Carnegie Library Restoration - There was nothing new to report.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
May 5, 2004
!
ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
CiTY OF
SHLAND
Kdppaehne related she had two items to discuss with the Commission. The Conservation Commission (of
which she is also a member) quarterly sponsors educational events. Looking ahead to ne,'d, winter, she would
like the Historic Commission to co-sponsor a workshop on how to build storm windows for histodc windows.
She feels this is a good topic to mesh the interests of the two commissions. North Mountain Park Nature
Center hosts these events and also advertises them in the newsletter. The Histodc Commission agreed this
is a good idea and is willing to be a co-sponsor.
Krippaehne stated she lives on Terrace Street, which is on a ddge where there are old orchards. There are
still small historic farmhouses standing but they are in jeopardy. A house dating back to 1865 just sold on
the street and there are several other lots for sale in the vicinity. She wondered if there are ways the Histodc
Commission could appeal to the buyers to save these homes. The pressure for people to have large homes
threatens the existence of the small historic houses with demolition or abuse because the buyers are paying
a huge amount of money for the property. Giordano stated both he and Shostrom are, on the Demolition
Board and they carefully scrutinize these applications. Krippaehne said that to her, it seems too easy to meet
the economic justification criteria in order to receive approval for demolition. Knox said the applicant needs
to prove it would cost more to tear down a house and construct a similar one (including size) than to
renovate it. The Demolition Board tries hard to look at the preservation of buildings as the most viable option,
but he agreed that historic houses outside the Histodc Districts are in jeopardy. He suggested the significant
histodc homes be documented as eligible for National Register status. Kfippaehne commented there ought
to be a way to do some outreach to educate the purchasers of these properties on tile value of historic
homes. She would like the Historic Commission to brainstorm ways to accomplish this without relying on
more regulations, but appealing to their interest.
(Leighton arrived at this time.)
Giordano stated owners would need to be notified prior to the sale of historic homes, but it would be tough
to convince them. Krippaehne asked about the process of creating a list of structures outside the District.
Knox responded someone would be hired to go through the City's resources; however, Council approval
would be required first.
Kdppaehne moved for development of a memo to the City Council to request authorization for a multiple
listing survey to place structures outside the existing four histodc districts on the National Register of Historic
Places. Krach seconded the motion with the stipulation the memo be reviewed by the Commission prior to
submitting it to the Council. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Leighton announced she would like to see the Historic Commission members at the Oregon Heritage
Conference and encouraged them to attend. She noted daily fees were $20 for Thursday and $25 each for
Friday and Saturday. She also stated she had a limited number of free passes to Governor Kulongoski's
speech. (She left at 9:15 p.m.)
Designer Bill Emerson presented proposed plans for an addition to the Unitarian Church on Fourth Street.
Giordano stated he is working with Emerson on this project and felt it would be inappropriate for him to
participate, therefore, he left the meeting at .9:20 p.m. Emerson stated the existing church will remain as it
is, including the pinkish vertical block. The existing basement portion with a one-story shed will be removed
on the north side of the building and replaced with a larger addition. He showed elevations of the proposed
addition from all sides.
Krippaehne said that while the design is a competent one that is a traditional style, she personally thinks it
would be a mistake to add something that is reminiscent of a house. She would like to get away from
imagining the past because it doesn't reflect the culture of our time and it robs the buildi~ng of meaning. She
does not feel new buildings should be made to look old. Whitford stated that while he doesn't always agree
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
May 5, 2004
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
with Krippaehne, he does with this. He doesn't think the addition is in harmony with the existing church and
said he feels the two should be more similar.
Emerson said his intention is to have both buildings look separate, even though they will be connected. He
also noted he use,ri elements of modern architecture in the design. Saladoff remarked this is not just about
the style. There is a hierarchy of what is the use and what is needed in the neighborhood. The features on
the proposed addition are residential in nature and the design fits into the neighborhood. Other options would
be to match the existing building that was constructed in the 1960s or to make the design more
contemporary. Whitford commented there are two churches that come to his mind. The historic Trinity
Episcopal Church has a recent addition that matches the existing church. The Methodist Church on North
Main Street has a separate building in the back that is a completely different style. They don't match, but they
harmonize.
Skibby related he likes the proposed design. Swink and Krach said they could go either way with the design.
Krippaehne pointed out she is not advocating mimicry with the new addition, rather a more contemporary
design. Krach added this is a tough site and a tough call. He advised Emerson to gather the opinions of the
Historic Commission members and then go with his heart, as he doesn't feel the members will see eye-to-
eye on this project. Saladoff invited Emerson to come to the Review Board no matter which way the design
goes.
Saladoff presented preliminary plans for his own house, which will be located at 150 Church Street. He
stated the house is proposed to be larger than the maximum house size by 10% so it will be coming back
to the Commission as a planning action. Before he goes further with the design, however, he requested input
from the Commission. Saladoff said he thought it was important to design the house to fit the street as well
as the needs of his family.
(At 10:00, Kn'ppaehne moved and Swink seconded to extend the meeting until 10:15. The motion passed with
a unanimous vote.)
In discussing the design, the Commission felt Saladoff should basically proceed with his proposed design.
ADJOURNMENT
With a motion by Kriplpaehne and second by Whitford, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to
adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commi,.;sion Minutes
May 5, 2004
The Ashland Planning Department prelimir *", approved this request
on May 19, 2004. This action will be ~wed by the Ashland
Plan,ling Corr,mission Hearings Board at 1:30 p..m. on June 8, 2004
at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175'East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
No public testimony is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right'to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
June 1, 2004. The written request for the public hearing must include
your name, address, the file number of the planning action and the
specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified,
based on the applicable criteria. If you do not SPECIFICALLY
REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above~
there will be no public testimony permitted.
If you have questions or comments concerning this requesL please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning DepartmenL at 541-552-2041.
If a hearing is reque-' 4, it will be scheduled for the following month,
Unless there is a cc Jance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shalll remain open for at least
seven daYs after the hearing. ~'
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection concerning lhis application, eilher in person or
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity Io afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to lhe issue, precludes y~)ur rtgh~ of appeal to the Land Use Board.
of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion Ihe objection
is based on also precludes y~ur right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the
applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating ilo 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 Sen/ices, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Our TrY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland HiStoric Commission on June 2, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-071 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review for a transfer of
ownership and addition of a seventh unit to the existing hotel (Traveler's Accommodation) for the properly located
at 438 North Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-l; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E
05 DA; Tax Lot: 2800.
APPLICANT: Dermot O'Brien
[I
18.72.070 Criteria.fo, .,~pproval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or
deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or Will be met by the
proposed dev. elopment
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be
met.
C. · The development complies with the site Design Standards adopted by
the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capac'~ of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development,' electricity, urban storm drainage, and
adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the
subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991)
CONDITIONAL , US.E PERMITS
..
~8..104.050 '.ADproval critert~. 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"~ith 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:
.
·
·
·
·
Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, .and mass transit Use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact
area.
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other.~environmental
pollutants.
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive. Plan.
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following:
Title 18 Chapter 18.24
.
That all residences used for traveler's accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-ownershall be required
to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the traveler's
accommodation location being the pdmary residence of the owner dudng operation of the accommodation. 'Business-
owner" shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered
into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operalJon of lhe accommodation. Such lease agreement
to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the
accommodation, and that the business-owneris wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation,
and has actual ownership of the business. (ORD 2806 S1, 1997)
2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All
spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
.
That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 square feet maximum
size be allowed. Any extedor illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential
structures adjacent or nearby the traveler's accommodation in violation of 18.72.110.
4. That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria:
1,
That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of
the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the
number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of
accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved traveler's accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial
streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved traveler's accommodation with primary lot frontage on
designated collector streets; or for traveler's accommodations not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200
feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall
be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial.
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy, there must be at least 400 square feet
of gross interior floor space remaining per unit.
.
That the primary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The primary residence ma~y be altered and adapted for
-traveler's accommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may' be allowed to accommodate
additional units, but must be. in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages of the underlying zone.
.
Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and
subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteria of this section. All traveler's accommodations
receiving their initial approvals prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming
uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership.
Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section.
7. An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted as required by the laws of Jackson
County or the State of Oregon. (Ord. 2776 S1, 1996)
.8.
That the property on which the traveler's accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collectoror artedal street
as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site
from the collector or arterial. (Ord. 2613 S 1, 1991 )
12. Hostels, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three (3) years, after which time the
Planning Commission may approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. (Ord. 2353 S2, 1985)
Doyle Bdghtenburg and Teresa Scott
545 'A' Street
Ashland, OR. 97520
(541)482-6535
(541)552-9512
May 7, 2004
To: City of A.~land
Department of Community Development
20 East Main
Ashland, OR. 97520
Attn: Planning Department Staff
Re:
Modification of a Conditional Use Peri. it at the Bayberry Inn
438 N. Main Street, Map 39-1E-O5DA, Tax Lot ~r2800
Dear Staff,
This proposal is to remodel an existing garage structure into one additional unit, at an existing six unit
Travelem Accommodation Inn business. The new traveler's accommodations unit would occupy an
existing structure which is labeled q'he Carriage House". The remodel would be entirely within the
existing structure. Therefore, the extedor spaces and landscaping will remain as is.
This tax lot is located between North Main and Lod Lane. The front is on North Main. The front,
approximately one third of the lot, is in the Historic District. The rear, two thirds, is outside the Historic
District. The borderline between the two Districts goes approximately through the ¢~nter of the
pdndple Inn structure. This situation is shown on the Site Plan drawing. The findings address the
circumstances that are related to this cont'~juration.
This proposal is a minor modification to the Conditional Use Permit. We believe that the change will be
minimal impact on the utility resources and the neighborhood character, besides complying with the
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ashland. We hope you agree and vote
approval of our proposal.
Doyle Brig
AS~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien.
438 N. Main SI., ASHLAND, OREC_~N
Page lofll
517/2004
18.104.050
Conditional Use
Permit- 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
condilJons, with the following
approval criteria
/L 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 capadty
of City fadlities 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
matedal 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.
/~ The proposed use conforms to all standards within this zoning
district.
B. The Cit~j facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate this
proposed addition of one unit to the existing traveler's -
accommodations.
G!
1. This proposed project will be accommodated entirely within an
existing structure. This existing structure is a previously expanded
carriage house. The scale, bullq and coverage will not change with the
change of use.
ASHLANDPIAtNNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBM1TrAL ·
· For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St., ASHLAND, OREGON
Page 2 of 11
5/712004
2. Generation of traffic and
effects on surrounding
streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are
considered beneficial
regardless of cal:ecity 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 propedies as
envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors ~3und to be
relevant by the Hearing
Authority for review of the
proposed use.
18.72.070
Site Review
Criteria for
Approval
be used to approw.· or deny
an application:
A. All applicable City
ordinances have been met or
will be met by thc prolx)sed
development.
B. All requirements of the
Site Review Chapter have
been met or will be me[
C. Thc development
complies with the Site
Design Standards ~dopted
by thc City Council for
implementation of this
Chapter.
2. The increase in vehicular traffic is a small impact on available
t~ansit facilities. The lot is accessed on the north and south by
streets and on the west by aM alley,
3. The architectural style will not alter significantly from the existing
structure. Garage doom will be replaced by people Scaled doom and
windows.
4. No environmental pollutants, that effect air quality, will be
generated by this project.
5. Noise, light, and glare will be controlled to not be objectionable.
6. The adjacent properties will be able to be developed-according to
the comprehensive plan.
7. N/A
/~ This proposal complies with or will comply with. all applicable City
Ordinances.
B, This proposal meets or will meet ali requirements for the site
review chaFter,
C. This proposal meets or will meet all Site Design Standards
adopted by the City Council for implementation of the chapter,
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT sUBMHTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St, ASHLAND, OREGON "
·
Page3 ofll
51712004
D. That adequate capa~ty
of City facilities for water,
sewer, paved access to and
through the &velopmen~
electricity, urban storm
dro_inage, and adequate
ttanspe~on can and will
be provide to and through
the subject property. All
improvements in the sm:et
right-of-way shall comply
with thc Sheet Standards in
Cho_pter 18.88, P~formance
Standards SpOons. (Or~t
1999)
H..C-1. BASIC S1TE
REVIEW STANDARDS
H-C-la) Oriemafi'on
Scale
1)
Buildings shall have
their ~
oriemafion toward the
street rathe~ ttmn the
oriented toward the
street and sh,~_li be
accessed from a public
sidewalk. Public
sidewalks shall be
provided adjacent to a
public street along the
street frontage.
2)
Buildings that are
within 30 feet of the
street .~nl~_ll have an
entrance for pedesttiang
directly from the street
to the building interior.
This entrance sho_ll be
designed to be attractive
and functional, ond
slm!l be open to the
public during all
business hours.
3) These requirements
may be waived if the
D. Existing.
1. The existing primary residential strucl~re faces North: Main Street.
The existing carriage house, ~hich is proposed to be cony'erred to a
travelers accommodations, is to the rear of the parcel and adjacent
to an alley. The entry to the new traveler's accommodation unit is
oriented toward the yard and main residence to facilitate the
continuity of the commercial control and to capitalize on the pleasant
aspects of gardens and yard. On-site sidewalks ~ill p~ovide access
from the pa~ing, North Main Street sidewalks, and alley way.
2. The pedestrian access is primary to the existing residence that
has all of the required amenities required by the Standards. The new
unit ~ill share the positive aspects of the existing street acceSs.
3. N/A
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMIT[AL
For .Dermot 8: Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St, ASHLAND, OREGON
Page 4 o£ 11
5/7/2004
building is not ~
by pedestr~s, such as
warehouses and
without attached
offices, and automotive
service uses such as
stores.
H-C-lb) StreetscaI~
One s~et tree chosen
from the s~t free list
shall be placed for each
30 feet of frontage for
the portion of the
development fronting
II-C-lc) Land.ping
1)
Landscaping shall be
designed so that 50%
coverage occars after
one year and 90%
coverage occms after 5
y~lrs.
2)
landscaping design use
a variety of low water
use d~ciduous ~
evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering
3)
streets shMi be buffered
by landscalzd areas at
least 10 feet in width,
except in the Ashland
Historic Dis~ic~
Outdoor storage areas
shall be screened from
view from ac{jacent
public ri~t.~-of-way,
except in M-1 zones.
buffered when adjacent
to n~/denfially zoned
4)
Irdgalion systems shall
be installed to assure
landscaping ~ccess.
5) Effo~ .shall be made to
II-C-lb) All ~tre.~cal~ elemerrr, s are existin0 and will not, be alt~re~
by this proposal.
II-C-lc) All landscape elements are existing and will not be altered by
this proposal.
1) Existing
2) Existing
Existing
4) An i~igation system is in place.except.for timing valves which will
be installed by the Owne~.
5) All trees and shrubs are existing.
AS~ PLANNING DEPARTMERT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St, ASHLAND, OREGON'
Page $ ofll
5~q/2004.
save as many existing
healthy trees and shrubs
on the site as possible
1)
Parking areas ~all be
located behind
buildings or on one or
both sides.
2)
Parking arms shail be
shaded by deciduous
tre~ buffeted from
adjacent non-tesidemial
u~ and ~ned from
non-tesi~l uses.
u-c-tO r~~ creek
Protection
1)
Designated creek
protection areas shah be
considered positive
design elements and
incorlmrated in the
overall design of a
~.n project
2)
Native riparian plant
n~__~_¢rials shaH be
plant_ed in and adjacent
to the creek to enhance
the creek habitat
H-C-lf) Noise and Glare
Special attention to
grate (AMC ~.72.1~0)
and noise (AMC
9.08.170(c) & AMC
9.08.175) shall be
considered in the
project design to ensure
compliance with these
H-C-Ig) Expansions of
Existing Sites and Buildings
For sites which do not.
conform to these
requirements, an equal
percentage of the site
must be made to
II-C-ld) Parking is existing and complies with off street parking
standards.
II-C-lf) Special' consideration as to glare and noise will b'e addressed
to assure compliance with these Standards.
il-C-lg) There is no expansion of existing sites or buildings.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, · FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
43~ N. Main SL, ASHLAND, OREGON
Page 6 of 11
$n/2oo4
comply with' these
standards as, the
percentage of the
building extmnsion,
e.g., ff building area is
to expand by.' 25°/'0, then
25% of the site must be
brought up Io the
standards required by
this document.
1I-C-2. DETAIL SrFE
REVIEW
II-C-2a) Orientation and
Scale
1)
Development shall have
a minimum Floor Area
Ration of .35 and
not exceed a maximum
Floor Area Patio of .5
for all areas'outside the
Historic DistricC Plazas
and pedestri,~ areas
shall count as floor area
for the purposes of
meeting the minimum
floor area ratio.
2)
Building fromages
greater than 100 feet in
length shall lmve
offsets, jogs, or have
other distinctive
changes in the building
facade.
3)
Any wall wifich is
within 30 feet of the
street, plma or other
public open space shall
contain at least 20% of
the wall area facing the
street in display areas,
windows, or doorways.
Windows must allow
views into working
areas or lobbies,
pedestrian entrances or
display areas. Blank
wall.~ within 30 feet of
the street are prohibited.
Up to 40% of' the length
of the building
perimeter can be
exempted from lhi$
standard ff oriented
1) Due to the configuration of the lot, FaCial Historic District
designation, the porl~on outside the historic District must comply
~th the .35 (minimum), .5 (maximum) F.~R. Approximately 2/3 or
12,600s.f. of the total 20,O00s.f. lot must comply. This calculates
to between 4410s.f. and 6300s.f. V~h the p~opos~, change of 'use
of the Carriage House, the total structu~l floor area will be apprOx.
2795s.f. (22%). The remainder required ~ould be 1615s.f. (13%). The
pedestrian plaza and gardens satisfy this F.~I~ reqUirement (approx.
2,000s.f., 16%).
2) There are no 100 foot long or greater walls in this project.
5) Since this proje~ is an interior remodel, the exterior will 'not be
modified in any way.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OFFACT SUBMITTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St, ASHLAND, oREGON
Page 7 of 11
5FII2004
toward loading or
service areas.
.4)
Buildings .dm_ll
incorporate lighting and
clmnges in
surface or finish to give
cmplm__sis to entrances.
5)
lnfili of buildings,
adjacem to pubic.
sidewalks, in existing
parking lots is
encouraged and
desirable.
Buildings shall
incorporate arcades,
roofs, alcoves, po~
and awninL~n lha!___ protect
pedes~_ ns from the
II-C-2b) Streetsca~
1)
ms!erial) .6all be
utilized to design~a_~_e
"people" areas~ Sample
m~_eriaLs co~d be unit
colored concrete,
grasscrete, or ·
combinations of the
2)
A building shall be
setback not more ~han
20 feet from a pubic
sidewalk unless the area
is used for pedeslrian
activities such as pi~os
or outside eating areas.
If more than one
structure is proposed for
a site, at least 25% of
the aggregate building
frontage mhall be wi{hin
20 feet of the sidewalk
H-C-2c) Parking & On-site
Circulation
1)
walkways shsll be
installed through
parking areas of 50 or
more spaces or more
4-) Exiatin0
5) Existing
6) Existing
1) Existing
2) Exis~ng
I!-C'2c)
1) N/A
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMII~AL
For · Dcrmot & Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St, ASHLAND, OREGON
Page 8 of 11
5/7/2004
2)
3)
than 100 feet in average
width or deptk
Parking lots with 50
spaces or more shall be
divided by landscaped
areas or alkw ys at
least 10 feet in width, or
by a building or group
of buildings.
Developments of one
provide a p/xiesuian _and
bicycle circulation plan
for the site. On-site
must be lighted to a
level where the system
can be used at night by
employees, residents
and customers.
PedesaSan walkways
shall be directly linked
to entrances and the
internal circulation of
the building.
H-C-d) Bufferin_g and
1)
Londscape buffers and
screening shall be
located between
incompaUl~!¢ uses on an
adjacent lot. Those
buffers can consist of
either plant material or
building mateaials and
must b~ compatible
with proposed
2)
P_arking lots shall be
buffered from the main
streeL cross streets and
screened form
residentially zoned lan&
II-C-2e) Lighting
Lighting s~ll include
adequate lights that are
scaled for pedestrians
by including tight
standards or
placements of no
greater !~n 14 feet in
height along pedestrian
2) Exio~in0
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMHTAL
For Dermot & Sally. O'Brien
438 N. Main St., ASHLAND, OREGON
Page 9 of 11
5/7/2004
H-C-20 Building Materials
l)
Buildings shall include
chan~es in relief such as
fenestration, fluted
mamnxy, for at least
15% of the exterior wall
2)
Bright or neon paint
colors used extensively
to attract attention to the
building or use are
prolu~oitccL Buildings
may not incorporate
gla~ as a majority of
the buildin~o akin.
H-C-3. ADDITIONAL
STANDARDS FOR
LARGE SCA!-F.
PROJECTS
H-C-3a) Oriem~mi_'on nnd
Scale
1)
Developments dali
divide large building
m~__.~es into heights and
sizes that mime:to
hmnan scale by
in building ma~ or
direction, sheltering
roofs, a distinct pattern
of divisions on surfaces,
windows, trees, and
small scale lighting.
2)
No new buildings or
contiguous groups of
buildings ~li exceed a
gross square footage of
45,000 square feet or a
combined contiguous
building length of 300
feet. Any building or
contiguous group of
buildings which exceed
these limitations, and
which were in existence
in 1992, may expand up
to 15% in area or length
beyond their 1992 area
or lenglh.
1) Existing
ll-C-3a)
1) Existing
N/^
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FIND~GS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
43g N. Main St, ASHLAND, OREGON
Page 10 of 11
5/7/2004
3)
Buildings not connected
by a common wall shall
be s~parat~i by a
distance equal to the
height of the tallest
building If t~ildings
are more than 240 feet
in length, the separation
shall be 60 feet.
4)
All on=site circulation
sysmm, shah
incorporme a
suee~ which
includes cm~,
sclc ug~ mnOa~.
II-C-3b) Public Spaces
1)
One ~ foot of
plaza or public ~mce
shall be required for
every 10 square feet of
gross floor area.
2)
A 1)~ ~' lx,blic space
shall incorporate at least
4 of the 6 following
elemems:
a)' Sitting Space - at
least one sitting
space for each 500
square feet shah be
included in the
pl~a Seating shall
be a minimum of
16 inches in height
and 30 inches in
width. L~g¢
benches shall have
a minimum depth
of 30 inches.
b) A mixture ofareas
that provide both
S,,might & ShacI~.
c) Protection from
wind by screens
and buildings.
d) Trees - provided in
proportion to the
space at a
minimum of 1 tree
per 800 square feet,
at least 2 inche~ in
3) Existing
4) Existing
1) There exists 3847s.f. of living space. The added "Can4age House"
unit,497s.f., would require 510s.f. of Plaza or Public space, since
there is appro~ 2000s.f. of existing Pedestrian Plaza and Garden
areas, this requirement is fulfilled.
2) The Pedestrian Plaza and Garden areas contain all six elements
required for a Plaza or Public Space.
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL
For Dermot & Sally O'Brien
438 N. Main St, ASHLAND, OREGON
diameter at breast
Water features or
public arc
Outdoor Eating
Areas or Food
Vendors.
II-C-3c) Transit Amenities
Transit amenities, bus
shelters, pullouts and
d~signated bike lanes
acco~_snce with the
City's Transportation
Plan and guidelines
established by the
n-C-3d) Recycling
Recyc~ areas .sh~, be
provided at all
developments.
i!-C-3c) Transit amenities are easily accessible from this location.
Bus se~ice is available on North Main Street. Bicycle routes are
accessible on the norbh boundary street.
!i-C-3~1) A recycle center will be Frovkled and maintained on site,
under the rear wood deck of the Main House. The deck has lattice
skir~s which will screen the recycle center also.
X
!I
#
o:
·
m_:_
®o
The Ashland Planning Department preliminarily approved this request
on May 19,. 2004. This action will be reviewed by the Ashland
Planning Commission Hearings Board at 1:30 p.m. on June 8, 2004
at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
No public testimony is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
June 1, 2004. The written request for the public hearing must include
your name, address, the file number of the planning action and the
specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified,
based on the applicable criteria. If you do not SPECIFICALLY
REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above~
there will be no public testimony permitted.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041.
If a headng is requested, it will be scheduled fOr the following month.
Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing. '
The ordinance cdteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion lhe 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 cdteda 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 wilt be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All
materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development
and Engineering Services, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning ActiOn will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on June 2, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Sisldyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-072 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit involving the transfer of ownership for the traveler's
accommodation located at 134 Second Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential;
Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BA; Tax Lot: 9100.
APPLICANT: Mary Nelke
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 pian
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 Iivability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to .the target use of
the zone:-
·
·
.
Similarity in scale, bulk, and~coverage.
Generation of traffic and effects on
Surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass' transit use are
considered beneficial regardless of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibilitY with the impact'
area. ~
Air quality, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants·
Generation of noise, light, and. glare·
The development of adjacent properties~as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use.
Ko
Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following:
Title 18 Chapter 18.24
le
That all residences used for traveler's accommodation be business-owner occupied. The business-ownershall.be required
to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the traveler's
accommodation location being the primary residence Of the owner dudng operation of the accommodation. 'Business-
owner' shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered
into a lease agreement with the property owner(s)allowing for the opera!ion of the accommodation. Such lease agreement
to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the
accommodation, and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation,
and has actual ownership of the business. (ORD 2806 S1., 1997)
.2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All
spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements.of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
,
That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 square feet maximum
size be allowed. Any exterior illumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential
structures adjacent or nearby the traveler's accommodation in violation of 18.72.110.
4. That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria:
'1.
That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of
the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the
number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of
accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved traveler's accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial
streets. The maximum number of units shall be-7 per approved traveler's accommodation with primary lot frontage on
designated collector streets; or for traveler's accommodations not having primary frontage on an arterial and within 200
feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall
be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial.
.
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy, there must be at least 400 square feet
of gross intedor floor space remaining per unit.
That the pdmary residence on the site be at least"20 years old. The pdmary residence may be altered and adapted for
· traveler's accommodation use, including expansion of floor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate
additional units, but must be. in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages o~' the underlying zone.
,
Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subject to all requirements of this section, and
subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteda of this section. All traveler's accommodations
receiving their initial approvals pdor to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming
uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership.
Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section.
7. An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted as required by the laws of Jackson
County or the State of Oregon. (Ord. 2776 S1, 1996)
8,
That the property on which the traveler's accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collector or artedal street
as designated in the City's comprehensive Plan.' Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site
from the collector or arterial. (Ord. 2613 S 1, 1991 )
12. Hostels, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three (3) years, after which time the
Planning Commission may approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. (Ord. 2353 S2, 1985)
Ro~ ~oo ~
[I.
The Ashland Planning Department preliminad!y approved this request If a hearing is reque~sted, it will be scheduled for the following month.
on May 19, 2004. This action will be. '~wed by the Ashland
Planning Commission Headngs Board'at 1 ..,o p.m. on June 8, 2004
at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street,. Ashland, Oregon.
.No public testimony is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning'
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
June 1, 2004. The written request for the public hearing must include
your name, address, the file number of the .planning action and the
specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed br modified,
based on the applicable criteria. If you do not SPECIFICALLY
.REQUEST A PUBUC HEARING b~the time and date stated above,
there will be no public testimony permitted
If you have questions or comments concerning this reqUest, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041.
Unless there is a c uance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the tf~_.,ng, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that far, ute 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
of Appeab (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection
is based on also precludes your fight of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure 'of the
with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an
action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and
applicable criteria are available 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 WinbUm Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Our T'I'Y phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTICE REVISED TO INCLUDE HISTORIC COMMISSION REVIEW
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic COmmission on June 2, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51
_~ Winburn Way. - .
PLANNING ACTION 2004-.062 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a transfer of ownership for a traveler's
accommodation (Ashland Main' Street Inn) consisting of th'tee guest units plus the owner's unit located at 142 North
Main Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: 12-2; Assessor's
Map #: 39 1 E.09 BB; Tax Lot: 1300.
APPLICANT:. Dennis & Alma Gay
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 tothe 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.
K.
Title 18 Chapter 18.24
Traveler's accommodations, subject to the following:
.
That all residences used for traveler's aCCOmmodation be business-owner occupied. The business-ownershall be required
to reside on the property occupied by the accommodation, and occupancy shall be determined as the traveler's
accommodation location being the pdmary residence of the owner dudng operation of the accommodation. 'Business-
owner" shall be defined as a person or persons who own the property and accommodation outright; or who have entered
into a lease agreement with the property owner(s) allowing for the operation of the accommodation. Such lease agreement
to specifically state that the property owner is not involved in the day to day operation or financial management of the
accommodation, and that the business-owner is wholly responsible for all operations associated with the accommodation,
and has actual ownership of the business. (ORD 2806 S1., 1997)
2. That each accommodation unit shall have 1 off-street parking space, and the owners shall have 2 parking spaces. All
spaces shall be in conformance with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking section of this Title.
That only one ground or wall sign, constructed of a non-plastic material, non-interior illuminated of 6 square feet maximum
size be allowed. Any exteriorillumination of signage shall be installed such that it does not directly illuminate any residential
structures adjacent or nearby the traveler's accommodation in violation of 18.72.110.
4. That the number of accommodation units allowed shall be determined by the following criteria:
That the total number of units, including the owner's unit, shall be determined by dividing the total square footage of
the lot by 1800 sq. ft. Contiguous lots under the same ownership may be combined to increase lot area and the
number of units, but not in excess of the maximum established by this ordinance. The maximum number of
accommodation units shall not exceed 9 per approved traveler's accommodation with primary lot frontage on arterial
streets. The maximum number of units shall be 7 per approved traveler's accommodation with primary lot frontage on
designated collector streets; or for traveler's accommodations not having pdmary frontage on an arterial and within 200
feet of an arterial. Street designations shall be as determined by the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall
be measured via public street or alley access to the site from the collector or arterial.
b. Excluding the business-owner's unit and the area of the structure it will occupy, there must be at least 400 square feet
of gross intedor floor space remaining per unit.
.
.
That the pdmary residence on the site be at least 20 years old. The pdmary residence may be altered and adapted for
traveler's accommodation use, including expansion of fioor area. Additional structures may be allowed to accommodate
additional units, but must be. in conformance with all setbacks and lot coverages of the underlying zone.
Transfer of business-ownership of a traveler's accommodation shall be subjeCt to all requirements of this section, and
subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and conformance with the criteda Of this section. All traveler's accommodations
receiving their initial approvals pdor to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered as approved, conforming
uses, with all previous approvals, conditions and requirements remaining in effect upon change of business-ownership.
Any further modifications beyond the existing approvals shall be in conformance with all requirements of this section.
7. An annual inspection by the Jackson County Health Department shall be conducted as required by the laws of Jackson
County or the State of Oregon. (Ord. 2776 S1, 1996)
.
That the property on which the traveler's accommodation is operated is located within 200 feet of a collectoror arterial street
as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Distances shall be measured via public street or alley access to the site
from the collector or arterial. (Ord. 2613 S1, 1991)
12. Hostels, provided that the facility be subject to an annual Type I review for at least the first three (3) years, after which time the
Planning Commission maY approve, under a Type II procedure, a permanent permit for the facility. (Ord. 2353 S2, 1985)
cONDITIONAL USE PERMITS'
~8.104.050 'A~DPro.val 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 th'at are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program.
B. That adequate capacity of citY facilities for water, sewer,.
paved, access to and through the development, electricitY, urban
storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
Provided to and through the subject propertY·
C. That the conditional use will haVe no greater adverse
material effect on the livability of th. impact area when
compared to the development of the subject lot with the target
use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use
on the impact area,.the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of
the zone: "
·
·
·
.
similarity in scale, .bulk, and'coverage·
Generation of traffic and effects on
surrounding streets· Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit'use are
considered beneficial regardleSs'Of capacity
of facilities.
Architectural compatibility with the impact
area.
Air quality,, including the generation of
dust, odors, or other environmental
"pollutants.
Generation of noise, light, and glare.
The development of adjacent properties as
envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
-7. Other factors found to be relevant by the
Hearing Authority for review of the proposed
use..
April 28, 2004
To: City of Ashland
From: Dennis L. and Alma F. Gay
We, Dennis and Alma Gay am applying for a transfer or new conditional use permit for
the Travel Accommodation located at 142 North Main Street, currently named Ashland
Main Street Inn. I have read the existing documents and below am items of which I am
aware:
I am aware of the Conditional Use Permit criteria for traveler's accommodations
and have reviewed the planning .file.
· The Inn will have three suites with one occupied by owner on ground floor.
We are the sole business owners and will live on the premises.
Each unit will have one off street parking space for each unit.
· The business owner will have two parking spaces.
· Annual inspections by Jackson County Health Department.
Any changes in ownership subsequent to the Gay's ownership will require these
steps to be completed again.
Thank you for:your time and consideration,.
Alma F. Gay
Date:
Time:
/
Ro~ ~o ~
.,
The Ashland Planning Department prelimir~ approved this request
on May 1~, 2004. This action will be ~ ~wed by the Ashland
Planning Commission Hearings Board at '1:30 p.m. on June 8, 2004
at. the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
No public testimony is allowed at this review.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request,.AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
June 1, 2004. The written request for the public hearing must include
your name, address, the file number of the planning action and the
specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified,
based on the applicable criteria. If you do not SPECIFICALLY
REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING by the time and date stated above~
there will be no public testimony permitted.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to COntact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-552-2041.
If a hearing is reque~t,~d, it will be scheduled for the following month.
Unless there is a cc :ance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the h~a,,,~g, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the headng.
The ordinance cdteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon
law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or
by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your dght of appeal to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance cdtedon the objection
is based on also precludes your dght 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 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Our TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900.
NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on June 2, 2004, 7:00 p.m.
in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Sisldyou Room), located at 51
Winburn Way.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-073 is a request for Site Review to permit a second residential unit on the property
located at 215 Gresham Street. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning:
R-2; Assessor, s Map #: 39 1E 09 CA; 'Tax Lot: 7300.
APPLICANT: Katy Cowan
SITE REVIEW
18.72.50
Criteria'for Approval, The following cdteria shall be used to
approve Or deny a site plan:
,
^. All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met
by the proposed development.
B~
All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
The site design complies witl'i the guidelines adopted by the
City Council for the implementation of this'~hapter.
D!
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,
paved access to and ~through the development, electricity,
urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord.
2655, 1991)
o.
_ .
~q, ~ 7'
/
_
"):)AY 0 ? 200~
o.
APPLICATION:
Site Design Review for
Second Residential Unit
DATE:
Location:
May 7, 2004
.-
215 Gresham Street
Legal: 39 1E 09 CA
Tax Lot 7300
Applicant:
Katy Cowan
215 Gresham Street
Ashland, OR 97520
482-1666
Lot & Improvements:
Zoning;,
Lot square footage 8,021
50 feet width, 162 feet depth
House square footage 1,828
Proposed 2na unit square footage 494
R-2, Low Density
Multi-Family Residential
Historic District
Lot Coverage:
Maximum Permittotl
Floor Area:
Iml~ervious surface: 34%
Maximum for two units: 2,534
Proposed: 2,322
PrOject Overview:
The applicant proposes to add a second residential unit in the existing garage off the
alley at the back of 215 Gresham Street. This additional use is permitted outright
within the R-2 multi-family residential zone, subject to staff approval.
RECFIVED
FINDINGS OF FACT
City of Ashland Municipal Codes
Chapter 18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple Family Residential
Section 18.24.010 Purpose.
This district is designed to provide an environment suitable for urban living..The R-2
district is intended for residential uses and appurtenant community services. This
district is designed in such a manner that it can be applied to a wide range of areas due
to the range of residential densities possible. In addition, when appropriately located
and designed, professional offices and small home-oriented commercial activities
designed to attract pedestrians in the Railroad District are allowed.
Section 18.24.020 Permitted Uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outfight:
B. Multi-family dwellings.
FINDINGS: This application includes a proposal for a second residential unit to be
added on the lot of an existing single-family residential unit within the Historic
District.
Section 18.24.040 General Regulations.
A. Permitted Density.
1. Base Densities. The density of development shall not exceed the density
established by this section. The density shall be computed by dividing the total
number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the
public. Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density.
Base density for the R-2 zone shall be 13.5 dwelling units per acre, however, units of
less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the
i lPurposes of density calculations, with the following restrictions:
:b. Minimum lot area for 2 units shall be 7,000 sq. ft. with a minimum width of 50'
and a minimum depth of 80'.
FINDINGS: The area of the lot is 8,021 sq. ft. (.18 acre) with dimensions of 50 feet
in width and 162 feet in depth. The permitted density is 2 units (.18x13.5), therefore
the proposal of 2 units meets the limits of the ordinance. The dimensions of the lot
remain unchanged by this proposal, and meet minimum standards.
D. Standard Yard Requirements - Within the Historic Interest Area:
Front yard, 20 feet; side Yards, six feet; rear yard, ten feet plus ten feet for each story
in excess of one story. In addition, the setbacks must comply with Chapter 18.70
which provides for Solar Access.
FINDINGS: The existing house is set back 23'-6" from the front property line. The
proposed second dwelling unit already exists and meets all setback requirements.
E. Special Yards - distances between buildings:
1. The distance between any principal building and accessory building shaft be a
minimum of ten (10) feet.
RECEIVED
FINDINGS: The distance between the existing house and the propOsed new dwelling
exceeds 10 feet, as Shown on the plans.
F. Maximum height: Structures within the Historic District shall nOt exceed a height
of 30 feet.
FINDINGS: The height of the existing building that will house the 2nd unit is 21 feet..
Maximum Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seventy-five percent (65%).
FINDINGS: The proposed lot coverage is 2,308 sq. ff., divided by the lot square
footage of 8,021 equals 29%. The coverage breaks down as follows: existing home
pl,828 sf; footprint of the 2~ unit = 480 sf.
H. Outdoor Recreation Space: At least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to
outdoor recreational space and shall be part of the overall landscaping requirements.
FINDINGS: The required outdoor recreation space is 642 sq. ~. (.08 X 8021= 642).
Recreation spaces on the site total over 5,000 sf.
CHAPTER 18.70 SOLAR
SECTION 18.70.030 Lot Classifications.
Affected Properties. All lots shall meet the provisions of this section and will be
classified according to the following formulas and table:
FORMULA I: Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula I = 3070.445 + S.
Where S is the decimal valUe of slope, as defined in this Chapter.
Formula II: Minimum N/S lot dimension for Formula II -- 1070.445 + S.
Those lots whose north-south lot dimension is less than that calculated by Formula I,
but greater than that calculated by Formula II, shall be required to meet the setback in
Section (B).
FINDINGS: The minimum north-south lot dimension under formula I =
30/.445-.05 = 76 feet. The minimum north-south lot dimension under formula II =
10/.445-.05 = 25 feet. This lot has a north-south lot dimension of 50 feet, less than
formula I; but greater than formula II. Therefore the lot is required to meet Setback
Standard B (SSB).
Section 18,70.040 Solar Setbacks.
B. Setback Standard B. This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no
greater than sixteen feet at the north property line. SSB = H-1670.445 + S.
FINDINGS: The existing structure that will house the 2na residential unit was
permitted in the mid 1990's and met the solar ordinance at that time. The addition of a
proposed deck on the north side of the building will not create a new solar shading
point for this project.
RF. CEIVED
0 ? 200t,
CHAPTER 18.72 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
Section 18.72.040 Approval Process.
A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval
under the Staff Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be process as a Type 1
permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor.
1. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as
defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater
number or parking spaces.
2. Any addition less than 2,500 square feet or ten percent of the building's square
footage, whichever is less, to a building.
3. Any use which results in three or less dwelling units per lot, other than single-
family homes on individual lots.
FINDINGS: A staff permit is required for approval of this project. The proposal will
add a residential unit less than 500 sq. ff., and will change the occupancy to a more
intensive use, requiring the addition of one parking space (3 total required, see site
p~an).
Section 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval.
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application.
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
FINDINGS: We hope to show with these written findings and the attached plans, that
all applicable City ordinances have been met.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
FINDINGS: All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
FINDINGS: The development does comply with the Site Design Standards as
described in these findings and shown on the drawings.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All
improvements in the street fight-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
FINDINGS: Please see the site plan for fire hydrant, water, sewer, storm and electric
utility locations. The electrical service will be brought in underground, water, pipe
size will be upgraded, and the storm water will be collected on site and tight lined to
the alley behind Gresham Street. Adequate capacity of all of these City facilities does
exist.
Section 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. · .
Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the
following zone: R-2 - 35% of total developed lot area.
FINDINGS: The required landscaping area is 2,807 sq. ft. (.25 x 8021 = 2807). The
existing landscape totals 4,976 sq. ft., or 62% of the total developed lot area.
B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public fight-of-
way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in
those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses,
shading and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualities.
FINDINGS: The front landscaped areas is visible from Gresham Street. Three large
conifers exist between the proposed 2nd unit and the alley and are in the proximity of
the rear parking space. The rear yard provides open space for the occupants of both
new dwelling and the existing home, and provides a landscape buffer between the two
structures.
C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be maintained
and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property
owner shall replace them.
FINDINGS: The landscape is mature and in excellent condition, and the applicant
believes that imposing an irrigation system at this time would be detrimental.
Therefore an irrigation system is not planned as part of this application.
D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such
landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that
all of the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen
ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees.
FINDINGS: The two parking areas (front and rear) arc less than 200 sf each, by code
requiring only 15 sf of landscape. The existing landscape more than adequately meets
this requirement.
E, One street tree per 30 feet of frontage shall be required on all projects.
FINDINGS: The front yard of 215 Gresham Street has two mature trees, a 12" conifer
and a 12" deciduous. The landscape strip between the sidewalk and street is planted
with grass. This planting strip is not an appropriate place for street trees because at
one time it was paved as part of the asphaltic surface of the street and therefore does
not have a deep enough planting bed for a tree.
Section 18.72.115 Recycling Requirements.
All commercial and multi-family developments, requiting a site review as indicated in
18.72.040, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project
occupants.
B. Multi-Family Residential. All newly constructed multi-family units, either as part
of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-
recycle site in accord with the following standards:
R CEIVED
KAY 0 ?
1. Multi-family developments NOT sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall
provide an individual eurbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the
development.
FINDINGS: The two dwelling units will be provided with recycling containers that
will be stored in the workshop area of the existing garage.
Section 18.72.160 Landscape maintenance.
A. All landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed-free condition.
B. All landscaped areas required by this chapter must be maintained according to the
approved landscaping plans.
FINDINGS: All landscaped areas will be maintained in a weed free condition and
maintained according to the approved landscape plan.
CHAPTER 18.92 OFF-STREET PARKING
Section 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required.
Uses and standards are as follows:
A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces
are required.
2. Multi-family dwellings.
a. Studio units or 1,bedroom units less than 500 sq. ff.-1 space/unit.
c. 3-bedroom units- 2 spaces/unit.
FINDINGS: The proposal for this site is for one 3 bedroom unit, and one 1 bedroom
unit that is less than 500 sq. ff., with a total parking requirement of 3 spaces. The
existing house is "grandfathered in" with one space provided in the driveway off
Gresham and one space provided on street. The final off street parking space is
provided for the 2~ dwelling unit off the alley in back, beside the unit.
Section 18.92.040 Bicycle Parking.
B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a
garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-family residential: 2
sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit, and one space per studio or one bedroom unit.
FINDINGS: Three bicycle parking spaces are required on this site, all three will be
stored in the workshop of the existing garage.
Section 18.92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements.
A Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with
the parking layout chart at the end of this chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum
of 9 x 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with
18.92.050 and shall have 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled.
FINDINGS: The front and rear parking spaces meet the standard and either back into
Gresham Street or the alley.
E. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided
below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
RECEIVED
o ?
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, tumarounds and driveways shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on
file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and tumarounds shall have provisions
made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such
waters onto sidewalks, public right-of-way, and abutting private property.
FINDINGS: Paving is not planned for either parking area. The parking space at the
front of the historic house, to the applicants knowledge, has never been paved. The
alley between Gresham and Meade Streets is not paved, therefore the parking space
off the . alley is planned to remain pervious as well.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing
constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
FINDINGS: The driveway approach is constructed of concrete in accordance with
City Engineer's standards.
SITE DESIGN & USE STANDARDS (handbook)
Section II - Approval Standards and Policies
B Multi-Family Residential Development
Approval Standards: multi-family residential development shall conform to the
following design standards:
II-B- 1) Orientation
II-B-la) Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street
when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street.
FINDINGS: The existing building is oriented to the street.
II-B-lb) Buildings shall be set back from the street according to ordinance
requirements, which is 20 feet.
FINDINGS: The existing building conforms to the Ordinance.
II-B-1 c) Buildings shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas
shall not be located between buildings and the street.
FINDINGS: The existing building is accessed from the street and sidewalk. The
parking area has historically always been to the side of the house.
II-B-2) Streetscape
II-B-2a) One street tree for each 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street tree list,
shall be placed on that portion of the development paralleling the street. Where the
size of the project dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape
with street trees is required.
FINDINGS: Existing street trees are located in the front yard.
II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential
neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use.
Pl=P.k-,'IVED
~AY 0 7 200~,
FINDINGS: Existing landscaping will remain and is similar to the surrounding
neighborhood.
II-B.3)
II-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year
of installation and 90% landscaping coverage.
FINDINGS: The landscape is fully mature and well maintained.
II-B-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees
and shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the local climate.
FINDINGS: The landscape meets this criteria.
II-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably
feasible.
FINDINGS: All trees on the site will remain.
H-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least
10 feet in width.
FINDINGS: The existing house is setback from the street more than 10 feet, and is
buffered with front landscaping.
II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be
adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses.
FINDINGS: No additional trees are planned as part of this application. The existing
trees do shade the parking spaces.
II-B-3f) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. Refer to
Parking Lot landscaping and Screening Standards for more detail.
FINDINGS: The applicant feels that an irrigation system is not necessary for the
mature landscape, and so one is not planned.
II-B-4 Open Space
ii-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space
for recreation use by the tenants of the development.
FINDINGS: This proposal provides for over 5,000 sq. t~. of recreation space, as
previously noted.
II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do not
provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this requirement.
II-B4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play
areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to
include families.
RFOI=IVED
FINDINGS: Proposed areas include lawns and new decks.
II-B-5) Natural Climate Control
II.B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on
the south sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade
and winter warmth.
FINDINGS: Existing mature trees shade much of the property.
II-B-6) Building Materials
II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the
surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which attract
attention to the building or use are unacceptable.
FINDINGS: The proposed 2nd dwelling unit will be in the existing garage and the
materials and colors are compatible with the surrounding area.
D. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards
II-D-l) Screening at Required Yards
II-D-l-l) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall
incorporate a light obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
II-D-l-2) The screen shall grow to at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of
the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas.
II-D-I-3) The screen height my be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and
plant materials.
II-D-I-4) Elevated parking lots hall screen both the parking and the retaining wall.
FINDINGS: This criteria has been addressed previously in the findings for the Site
Design and Use Standards (handbook). See the site plan for details.
II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines
Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' landscaped strip. When a
buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required
buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement.
FINDINGS: The required screening exists.
II-D-3) Landscape Standards
II-D-3-1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total
parking area plus a ratio of 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy
effect.
FINDINGS: See findings for Section 18,72.110 in this application.
II-D-3-2) The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shal '"-
be selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and bl/~¥ 0 ? 200!~
damage from droppings to parked ears and pedestrians.
II-D-3-3) The tree shah be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree hole is at
least 2 feet from any curb or paved area.
II-D-3-4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground
cover to assure 50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years.
II-D-3-5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area
and parking perimeter at the required ratio.
II-D-3-6) That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip
abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping, but
only for those stall abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant
material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior
yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior landscaping required' for
interior parking stalls.
FINDINGS: Landscaping and street trees are part of the existing landscape.
II-D-4-1) Parking areas adjacent to residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8
feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen.
FINDINGS: The applicant feels that the existing parking spaces meet this
requirement.
II-D-5) Hedge Screening
II-D-5-1) Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is
achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4 years.
II-D-5-2) Living ground cover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100%
coverage is achieved within 2 years.
FINDINGS: Existing.
II-D-6) Other Screening
II-D-6-1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follow:
Refuse container screen; Service Corridor Screen; Light and Glare Screen.
FINDINGS: Refuse containers will be stored in the workshop of the existing
building.
E. Street Tree Standards
FINDINGS: Street trees meet the standards of the ordinance.
SECTION III - WATER CONSERVING LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES AND
POLICIES
FINDINGS: The existing landscape on this lot in the Historic District was designed
prior to the water conservation requirements; however, the homeowner/applicant will
make every effort to adequately maintain the landscape with water conservation as a
priority.
C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS
W-C-l) Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic perior
on and across the street. Avoid construction that greatly varies in height (too high or'
too low) fi.om older buildings in the vicinity.
FINDINGS: The historic home at 215 Gresham Street is not being altered by this
application. The existing garage that will house the new residential unit is 21 feet in
height and is located at the back of the lot off the alley. It cannot be seen from
Gresham Street.
IV-C-2) Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent
buildings. Avoid buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale
of the area.
FINDINGS: The only design changes to the existing garage (proposed 2~ unit) are
two decks, one that is off the first floor level between the house and garage, and the
other off the north elevation at the second floor. Neither deck will significantly alter
the size and proportion of the building, or take it out of scale with surrounding
structures.
IV-C-3) Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are
common on most buildings from the historic period. Avoid single, monolithic forms
that are not relieved by variations in massing.
FINDINGS: Again, the garage exists and was permitted in the 1990's.
IV-C-4) Maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of
new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating
the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic
facade line.
FINDINGS: The garage (proposed 2nd unit) is offthe alley between Gresham and
Meade Streets, therefore the streetscape is not affected.
IV-C-5) Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area, Avoid
introducing roof shapes, pitches, or materials not traditionally used in the area.
FINDINGS: No roofs will be altered as part of this application.
IV-C-6) Respect the alteration of wall areas with door and window elements in the
facade. Also consider the width-m-height ratio of bays in the facade. Avoid
introducing incompatible facade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings
established by the surrounding sm~ctures.
FINDINGS: The proposed deck offthe north elevation will break up the existing
"flat" wall facade and should enhance the appearance of the building.
0 ? 200/
IV-C-7) The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of
the older buildings in Ashland. Avoid b .ringing the walls of buildings straight out of
the ground without a sense of platform.
FINDINGS: The garage structure exists, and the platform will not be altered.
IV-C-8) Relate the vertical, horizontal or nondirectional facade character of new
buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. Avoid
horizontal or vertical facade expressions unless they are compatible with the character
of structures in the immediate area.
FINDINGS: The garage structure exists, and the expression of facade will not be
altered.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant feels that this proposal meets City standards and ordinances required by
Title 18 Land Use of the Municipal Code. This proposal will enhance the livability of
the property and will provide a needed new unit for the rental market in Ashland.
[ EC IVED
~AY 0 ? 200~
-T
RECEIVED'
~ '
._- r
I
ARCHERD & DRESNER, LLC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AND FINAL PLAN APPLICATION
FOR THE PROPOSED
CARRINGTON COURT
954 B STREET
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ASHLAND, OREGON
SUBMITTED BY
ARCHERD & DRESNER, LLC
P.O. BOX 699
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(~4'~) 48:~-88~e
RECEIVED
FINAL NARRATIVE AND FINDINGS
FOR TWELVE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
LOCATED BEHIND A EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 954 B STREET
14 MAY 2004
PROJECT NAME: Carrington Court, a Four-Plex Planned Unit Development
TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for site review and outline plan approval for three four-
plex rental units located behind an existing single family residence located at 954 B Street. The
project will be platted as a PUD with each four-plex on a separate tax lot and the single family
residence on an additional tax lot. The individual units within each four-plex will not be platted
as condominiums.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Archerd & Dresner, LLC
P.O. Box 699
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 482-8856
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/SITE PLANNER:
John Galbraith
Galbraith & Associates
145 Holly Street
Medford, Oregon 97501
Tel: 770-7964
ARCHITECTS'
John Turman
Design Residential
P.O. Box 8062
Medford, Oregon 97501
Page 1 - Carrington Court
RECEIVED
Jerome White & Associates, Architects
545 A Street, Unit #3
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 488-2830
Tel: 608-3956
SURVEYOR:
Shawn Kampmann
Polaris Land Surveying
P.O. Box 459
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Tel: 482-5009
ENGINEER:
Michael P. Thornton
Thornton Engineering
1236 Disk Drive, Suite 1
Medford, Oregon 97501
Tel: 857-0864
PROJECT ADDRESS:
954 B Street
Ashland, Oregon
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
39 1E 09 AC, Tax Lot 2600 & 3001
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Multi-Family Residential District
ZONING DESIGNATION:
R-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential District
LOT STATISTICS:
Total Site Area:
0.53 Acres (23,038 square feet (+/-))
ALLOWABLE DENSITY:
10.6 Units
Page 2 - Carrington Court
REQUESTED DENSITY:
13 Units (Six units under 500 square feet, 15% density bonus for conservation)
PARKING PROVIDED:
18 on-site spaces, 1 credit for off-site parking.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is located on the south side of B Street between 8th Street and
Emerick Street. The site has approximately 52.4 feet of frontage on B Street and is roughly
triangular in shape. The site has an average depth of approximately 250 feet. It is approximately
0.53 acres in size and provides a good view of the surrounding mountains to the north. The site
is nearly level with an average slope of less than 5%. There is an existing single family residence
located on the site which will be partially retained as part of the project. The plans are attached
to this application showing how the single family residence will be remodeled. A permit has
already been approved for the remodel of the house and has passed the historic review for
building Permits in this area. Most of the renovation work on the existing residential unit has been
completed including total repair, new siding, and a new front porch restoring the home to its
original character. The older two-story historic front section of the residence has been preserved.
The rear section which was a much later addition has been removed and is being replaced with
a smaller addition. All of the older garages and sheds have been removed as part of the
development of the project. There are a number of large caliper existing trees on the property.
A tree inventory was completed as part of the outline plan and is referenced in this application.
A number of the older trees are in poor condition. The tree inventory indicates trees noted for
preservation and those noted for removal. John Galbraith, a landscape architect and site planner,
has completed this tree inventory on our behalf. In addition, a meeting was held with Robin
Pearce with the City of Ashland Tree Commission prior to the submittal of the outline plan. Robin
and John Galbraith reviewed the trees noted for preservation and those needing to be removed.
A letter and findings is attached from John Galbraith detailing the trees which are greater than
6 inches in diameter that will be removed and the reasons why removal is required. This letter is
intended to meet the requirements of Section 18.61.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Recommendations of the Tree Commission were included in the revised landscape plan. It is
important to note, that the entire site will be extensively landscaped and the applicant intends to
mitigate the removal of existing trees by a more than one-for-one replacement with additional 1
~ inch or greater caliper specimen trees.
The applicant has met with Dave Tigerson with the City of Ashland Electric Department to discuss
a new electrical layout for the site. After the submission of the final plan, the applicant will work
with the electrical utility to complete the design of the electrical layout.
Page 3 - Carrington Court
D
NAY .[ 4 200~
The site is located adjacent to vacant land to the south and east with an older restored single
family residence and guest cottage is located to the west. The remainder of the neighborhood is
a combination of single family and multi-family dwellings. The zoning in the neighborhood is a
combination of both R2 and R3, Iow density and high density multi-family.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Carrington Court is a 13 unit planned unit development which
consists of three four-plex two story buildings and an existing single family residence. The four-
plex buildings are designed as rental units. Each building contains two, two-bedroom units and
two, one-bedroom units. Each of the one bedroom units contains less than 500 square feet (see
attached plans). The older two-story single family residence is nearing the end of a complete
renovation. The building plans are attached for this remodel and the building plans have been
approved by the Building Department. A permit has been issued and representatives of the
Historic Commission have reviewed these plans as part of the building permit process. A total
of 18 spaces of open parking will be provided as part of the project. This site qualifies for an
additional space of on-street credit.
While each of the new buildings is designed as a four-plex, the units will have individual character
and from the front elevation they will be compatible with the railroad historic district. Primary
attention will be focused on breaking up roof lines to avoid large building masses. The entire
project is designed as a village with a variety of historic elements incorporated into each
elevation. The project will be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the railroad
district. The exterior character of the buildings is traditional with lap siding or shingle siding and
architectural composition shingle roofing. All units will feature "super good-sense" or equivalent
energy conservation measures and water conservation strategies per the city of Ashland
standards. Copies of the proposed elevation drawings are attached to this document.
The project is designed as a planned unit development with each four-plex located on its own
individual tax lot and the existing single family residence located on its individual tax lot. The
remaining site is common open space, parking, and landscaped areas. Each building owner will
have undivided interest in these common areas. It is important to note, that each four-plex
building is designed as a rental property. No further division of the units within each four-plex to
condominiums is proposed. Creation of open space areas are provided and will meet the City of
Ashland code requirements. Each first floor unit will include a first floor patio and each second
floor unit will include a deck. Several landscape areas are also included to provide areas for
outdoor activities for residents of the project. See the attached site plan and landscaping plan
which identify these areas more completely. A total of 59% of the site will be landscaped with is
in excess of the 25% required by Code. Approximately 32.4% is dedicated as recreation space.
Page 4 - Carrington Court
A new common access driveway will be created along the property's east boundary line. This will
be a common access driveway for the subject project as well as the property adjacent to the east.
An agreement has been reached with Sally Crumme, the owner of the adjacent tax lot, to create
a 20 foot wide common driveway. A copy of this Common Access Easement is attached to this
plan. This will require the removal of a small building at the south end of the adjacent property.
The maintenance of the private driveway will also be address in the CC&R's for the development
and will provide for adequate maintenance of the section of road not under public ownership.
Pedestrian access is also facilitated by a sidewalk extending from B Street to the eventual
extension of Eureka Street along the west side of the 20 foot wide common driveway. This
sidewalk will be recorded as a public pedestrian easement from B Street to the rear of the
property. This will facilitate the eventual pedestrian connection to Eureka Street when the
property to the rear of the subject is developed. Until such time, the applicant agrees with the
Staff recommendation from the Pre-Application Conference that the pedestrian path should be
"temporarily" fenced at the property line.
Bicycle parking will be provided adjaCent to each building. All on-site utilities will be located under
ground. A new off-site drainage system will be designed that will connect to the existing City storm
drainage system in B Street (see attached utility plan).
The performance standard option is used to allow for common open space and preservation of
most of the exiSting trees. The building envelopes are located to protect trees and allow views
to the north.
A bonus density is requested. This bonus density request is based on 15% for conservation.
Each of the units will be an energy efficient dwelling utilizing the following conservation measures:
High efficiency gas water heaters will have a 40 gallon capacity and
an energy factor of 0.61 or better .............................. 2 Points
· 0.35 U value for all windows .................................. 3 Points
· Water conservation (see below) ............................... 5 Points
All units will also conform to the water conservation standards. The project is a multi-family
residential development and has less than 30% lawn area. All non-lawn landscaped areas will
be installed according to the city of Ashland's water conservation guidelines.
~AY J 4 200~,
Page 5 - Carrington Court
Each of the units will be heated with a central forced air gas heating system and cooled with
electric air conditioning. Lighting will be provided by both ceiling mounted and recessed
incandescent fixtures, as well as flourescent tube fixtures.
The project will be financed with a conventional development loan from a local banking source.
The construction will begin after approval from the City Planning Department, and will continue
for a period of nine to twelve months.
Density for the project has been calculated as follows: Base density for the R3 zoned is 20 units
per acre. The site has 0.53 acres, therefore, the base density of the site is 20 units per acre times
0.53 acres, this equals 10.6 units. A 15% bonus density is allowed for conservation features.
Adding 15% to 10.6 equals 12.19 units. The project consists of one, two bedroom house, six, two-
bedroom units, and six, one-bedroom units, each of which is less than 500 square feet. Units
less than 500 square feet count as 0.75 units per the Ashland Planning Code. Therefore, the total
density for the project is 12 units, slightly under the requested base and bonus density.
Unit Type # Units Factor Total
House 1 I 1
Two Bedroom 6 1 6
One Bedroom 6 0.75 4
(less than 500 sf
in size)
Total 11
FINAL PLAN APPROVAL:
The submitted final plan proposal is essentially the same design as that submitted at outline plan
with a few minor modifications.
1)
2)
One additional on-site parking space has been added to comply with the parking standards
required for the development.
Recommendations from the Historic Commission have been incorporated into the design
of the four-plex buildings. In particular, these include the addition of additional windows,
and the incorporation of an interior staircase. The previous design included two exterior
Page 6 - Carrington Court
RECF ./ D
~y 14 20Q~
staircases to serve the upstairs units. Now, one central staircase serves both second floor
units. This allowed the design to become more compatible with historic buildings in the
area.
3)
Recommendations from the Tree Commission have also been incorporated into the final
plan.
4)
Minor modifications of the sidewalk and utility plans have been made to facilitate the future
development of the adjacent property owned by Sally Crumme. As noted above, the
common driveway will eventually serve as access to development on the property to the
east.
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL:
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL UNDER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTION
18.88.03013
a)
The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those
shown on the approved outline plan. but in no case shall the number of
units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
The number of dwelling units is the same as those indicated on the outline plan.
The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than
ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan. but in no
case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established
within.
The yard depths and distances between the main buildings vary no more than 10%
of those shown on the approved outline plan.
The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on
the outline plan.
The open space varies no more than 10% of that provided on the outline plan.
Page 7 - Carrington Court
The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline
plan by more than ten (10%) percent.
While building envelopes for individual units are substantially the same as those
shown on the approved outline plan, minor modifications have been made. The
floor plans of the proposed buildings have been modified slightly to incorporate an
internal staircase as noted above. This was completed based on the recommenda-
tions from the Ashland Historic Commission.
e)
f)
The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan.
The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose
and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan.
That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus
points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan
with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to
in the outline plan will be achieved.
The bonus points awarded in this application have been detailed earlier on pages
5 and 6 of the application.
Attached to this application are the following documents: A Site Plan, Landscaping Plan,
Irrigation Plan, Building Floor Plans, Building Elevations, engineering drawings, utility layout,
Easement Agreement, and draft CC&R's for the development.
Page 8 - Carrington Court
ADDENDA
Carrington Court
SITE PLAN
Carrington Court
2'6" X 4'0" SH
W/24"VENI
0'-'
OX
(DX
CD=
I I I
O/X ,,O.Z X ,,0~
6'0" X 4'0" DBL ~H
I
I
2'6" X 4'0"
W/24"VENI
z~
I i
....
INCA ,,1~ L//'A
HS ,,0.~ X ,,0.~'
HS l~la ,,0.~. X ,,0.9
2'0" × 3'0" SIt
6'0" × 4'0" DBL SH W/18" VENi'
2'0" ×/O
or~
:Z
1N3'A,,'I~Z'//~
HS ,,O.1~ X
J l I
HS l'i]a ,,O.~ X ,,0.9
JN3-A,,'I~Z//~
HS ,,O.~ X ,,9.Z
~,~~Ii !i'~~' ' ~:~ CARi~iNGTON C~
]~I j ~. ,m__ B ST AS;HLLkND R
'~ ~<
~o
The Ashlan, d Planning Department approved this request with
applicable conditions on May 24, 2004.
Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT
NO CHARGE, a public hearing before the Ashland Planning
Commission on this action.
To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in
the Planning Department, 51 Winbum Way, prior to 3:00 p.m. on
June 2, 2004. The written request for the public healing must
include your name, address, the file number of the planning
action and the specific grounds for which the decision should be
reversed. If you do not SPECIFICALLY REQUEST A PUBLIC
HEARING by the time and date stated above~ there will be no
public testimony permitted.
If a headng is requested, it will be scheduled for the following month.
Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the
conclusion of the headng, the record shall remain open for at least
seven days after the hearing.
The ordinance cdteda applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law
states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by
letter, or failure to provide sufficient specifici~, to afford the decision maker an opportunity
· to respond to the issue, precludes your dght 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 & Engineering
Services Building, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact
Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department at 541-552-2041. Our TTY phone
number is 1-800-735-2900.
PLANNING ACTION 2004-084 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a 1280 square foot storage
building on the north parcel of Mountain View Cemetery located at 440 Normal Avenue. Comprehensive Plan
Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 10 DD; Tax Lot: '100.
APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Public Works Dept.
SITE REVIEW
18.72.50
Criteria for Approval. The following criteda shall be used to
approve Or deny a site plan:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met
by the proposed development.
B.
Co
All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met.
. .
The site design complies witl'i the guidelines adopted by the
City Council for the implementation of this'~hapter.
De
That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer,
paved access to and through the development, electricity,
urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord.
2655, 1991)
Applicant:
Dan Nicholson
Ashland Public Works Department
20 EaSt Main Street
Ashland OR 97520
(541 ) 552-2355
Application for:
Staff Permit / Site Review Permit
Project Name'
Mountain View Cemetery Storage Building
Legal Description:
39 1E 10DD, Tax lot 100 (440 Normal Avenue)
Zoning Designation:
R-2
Introduction:
This is an application for a Staff Permit under the Site Review Ordinance Chapter 18.72
and the Site Design and Use Standards. The proposed storage building would be
placed in the north parcel of the Mountain View Cemetery property and would be
located next to an existing metal storage building and storage yard. The "storage yard"
is located 480 feet from the public right-of-way on Highway 66 and 475 feet from Normal
Avenue. The existing yard is buffered with hedges and mature trees. The building
would be used to store cemetery landscaping maintenance equipment and City
document archives.
Project Description:
The Mountain View Cemetery, established in 1904, comprises two parcels separated by
Highway 66. The proposed building would be located on the north parcel (14.23 acres).
Normal Avenue bounds this parcel on the west, the southern Pacific Railroad right-of-
way (and the city corporate limits) on the east and commercial development lies to the
south along the highway. Residential development characterizes the areas to the west
and north of the cemetery. Besides its use as a cemetery, a popular bicycle and
pedestrian path traverses the parcel. Public vehicles are permitted only on the
roadways and designated parking areas: cemetery maintenance is the only exception.
The ongoing maintenance of Ashland historic cemeteries is an essential element in
assuring usability of the site, access to the burial plots, and continuing the role of the
cemeteries as community open space. Great care must be taken to ensure that the
fragile nature of the cemetery's built features including a mausoleum and natural
landscape elements are not compromised by modern maintenance techniques. Thus
the volume of maintenance equipment and the required storage needs are great. The
existing metal buildings are currently used for hand tools, mowers, and backhoes.
G:\pub-wrksXeng\03-20\Site Review Planning Application. doc Page 1 of 4
Portions of the existing buildings are also used for the short and long-term storage of
official records and the short-term storage of office furniture. State and federal laws
dictate how long city documents must be stored. Existing storage capacity for both
maintenance equipment and archives has been exceeded.
This application will demonstrate the following criteria for approval:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
The applicable ordinances consist primarily of the Site Review Chapter (Chapter 10.72)
and the Site Design and Use Standards. Both ordinances are addressed below and
within attached exhibits. The application meets or will meet all applicable .City
ordinances.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
The submittals required in order to determine the proposed project's compliance with
this chapter are contained within this application or the attached exhibits.
Landscaping Standards: Within this southerly Mountain View Cemetery parcel zoned
R-2, 95.5% (462,742 sq ft) of the lot is covered with mature landscaping and is well
maintained as one of the City of Ashland's historic cemeteries. Mountain View
Cemetery is planted with grass. Mature trees, both native and introduced specimens,
provide a relatively dense canopy over much of the burial grounds. Trees on this parcel
include Douglas fir, Siberian elm, Ponderosa pine, Norway maples, Buckeye, European
birch, incense cedar, linden, hawthorn, Mountain ash and willow.
The proposed building is located at least 475 feet from any public right of way and is
buffered from adjacent uses. The adjacent storage building is landscaped with a
vegetative hedge and four flowering pear trees. Landscape Irrigation is already in place
and there is no parking lot associated with this project.
Recycling Requirements: Not applicable.
Controlled Access: Not applicable.
Light and Glare Performance Standards: No lighting will be placed on the outside of
the proposed building.
Conservation: Low energy florescent lighting will be used. No heating or cooling will be
installed.
G:\pub-wrks\eng\03-20\Site Review Planning Application.doc Page 2 of 4
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
Design considerations have been made to assure that the development is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood and as part of the Ashland Boulevard Corridor. A
bicycle and pedestrian path (connecting Highway 66 and Normal Avenue) meanders
throughout the cemetery and past the storage yard, to the north and east of the
proposed building lies a natural drainage way overgrown with blackberry bushes.
Building Orientation: N/A- The building is located 480 feet from Highway 66 and 475
feet from Normal Avenue. In addition, the proposed building is not for public use
Streetscape: N/A- The proposed building is located approximately 480 feet from
Highway 66 and 475 feet from Normal Avenue. There is an existing vegetation buffer
located between the storage yard and the bike path and cemetery plots.
Landscaping: Mountain View Cemetery is planted with grass. Mature trees, both native
and introduced specimens, provide a relatively dense canopy over much of the burial
grounds. Trees on this parcel include Douglas fir, Siberian elm, Ponderosa pine,
Norway maples, Buckeye, European birch, incense cedar, linden, hawthorn, Mountain
ash and willow. The existing buildings immediate adjacent to the proposed building is
screened with vegetation and four flowering pear trees
Open Space: N/A- The proposed building is located on cemetery grounds, an inherent
community open space.
Natural Climate Control: N/A- the proposed building will not be occupied and will be
used for storage only. Fluorescent lights will be used. No heating or cooling will be
installed.
Building Materials: The metal building is similar to and compatible with the adjacent
buildings and the nearby mausoleum. The 1280 square foot building was originally
located at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and disassembled during recent remodels
there. There is an existing foundation at the proposed site. (See Exhibits J, K, L.)
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All
improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
Please refer to the attached site plan and utility maps. There will be no improvements to
the street right-of-way.
G:\pub-wrks\eng\03-20\Site Review Planning Application.doc Page 3 of 4
EXHIBIT LIST
DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT
Project Site Plan ................................................................................
A
Topographical Map ............................................................................
B
Area Zoning Map ...............................................................................
C
Plat Map .....................................................................................
D
Utility Map (Public Right of Way) ................................ ~ ......................
E
Site Utility Map ...................................................................................
Elevation Photos ................................................................................
g,h,I
Existing Foundation Photos ...............................................................
J,K,L
G:\pub-wrks\eng\03-20\Site Review Planning Application.doc Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
- SHLAND
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CEMETERY
R-1-7.5
SCALE: 1" = 100' ~,
·TAXI, OT POSITIONS GENE.Al'ED BY
JACKSON COUNTY GIS DEPT. AND
,,~.A. r~o WA..A,~rr~ or .cct~.ACY,
OTHER DATA SFT~S ARE TYPICALLY
WITllIN IM OF ACTUAL POSITION.
i
EXHIBIT E
SS -MH
IODD-O04 ~.
I
WATER
..... STORM
SANITARY
E, ..... ELECTRIC
:7101
'-E~.5-,~
~0UNT,~.rN V~EW CE~F_TER"r'
~ ~ IODD-O07 Ill
~ 111/O1
I ~oo
~ I
I I~TAT~ON
~~ / I~~
~.~ " ~D~P~ ~ .... ~ .....
'~'~~ ...........
~oo _~~--~ ..... ~_~~ ~~'~-~
~. 15-
3~6 -AAC
25-
H7828
Stot i on 1882
~ 2 1896
UTILITY MAP (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)
EXHIBIT G
FRONT ELEVATION (WWTP LOCATION)
!
EXHIBIT H
SIDE ELEVATION (WWTP LOCATION)
EXHIBIT I
SIDE ELEVATION (WWTP LOCATION)
EXHIBIT J
EXISTING FOUNDATION AT MOUNTAIN VIEW CEMETERY
EXHIBIT K
EXISTING FOUNDATION AT MOUNTAIN VIEW CEMETERY
EXHIBIT L
EXISTING FOUNDATION AT MOUNTAIN VIEW CEMETERY
4"W
8"SS
(cost)
1948
8 "SD
8"SD
24"SD
m
XV~HDIH ~I~V~I
'HoD ~A
'XO~ldd¥
L-q
I
001,
~.I.NnO0
'bO:) 9
'XO~lc
i?
/ /
~ /
\
)
/
/
Z