[Council Communication]  [Planning Commission Denial]  [Administrative Approval]  [Staff Report]  [Planning Action Record] [Supporting Documentation]

Council Communication

Title:	Appeal of Planning Action 2002-106, 916 East Main Street
Dept:	Community Development
Date:	January 2, 2003
Submitted By:	John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Maria Harris, Associate Planner
Reviewed By: ........................	Brian Almquist, Interim City Administrator

Synopsis:	Planning Action 2002-106, a four-unit development located at 916 East Main Street, is in front of the City Council because the applicant appealed the Planning Commissions decision denying the request. The proposal is to construct three buildings containing a total of four, two-bedroom units. Two of the structures will be facing East Main Street with the building closest to the alley being a one-story cottage and the building on the east side of the parcel being a two-story structure. The third building will be located at the rear of the parcel and will be a one-story structure. The applicant is using the conservation and affordable housing density bonus points. As a result, one of the four units will be affordable under the City of Ashland's program. The required seven off-street parking spaces are shown at the rear of the parcel adjacent to the alley. A Variance is requested to reduce the setback between the buildings facing East Main Street to eight feet. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 24-inch dbh English Walnut and a 12-inch dbh Western Incense Cedar on the property.
Recommendation:	The Planning Commission denied the request for Site Review approval to construct four-units, a Variance to reduce the distance between buildings to eight feet and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees for the property located at 916 East Main Street.
Fiscal Impact:	No fiscal impact to the City of Ashland.
Background:	The application was administratively approved in September 2002. Subsequently, it was called up for a public hearing by three neighbors. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application on October 8, 2002 and November 12, 2002. The Planning Commission denied the application noting that the application did not meet the burden of proof for a Variance to reduce the distance between building to eight feet. The original application included a request for a Variance to reduce the front yard setback from 20 to ten feet. In consultation with the City Attorney, it was determined that this Variance was not required because section 18.68.110.A of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance allows an averaging of front yard setbacks on adjacent properties to be used in determining a new structures front yard setback. As a result, the decision of the Planning Commission does not include the Variance to reduce the front yard setback.

End of Document - Back to Top

BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 12, 2002

IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2002-106, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT/ FINDINGS, CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE DISTANCE CONCLUSIONS BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO EIGHT FEET, AND A TREE REMOVAL PREMIT TO AND ORDERS REMOVE TWO TREES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 916 EAST MAIN STREET.

APPLICANT: Ron DeLuca

RECITALS:

1) Tax lot 4000 of 391E 09AD is located at 916 East Main Street.

2) The applicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct three buildings containing a total of four apartment/condominium units. The application also includes a request for a Variance to reduce the special yard distance between two of the buildings to eight feet and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on the property.

3) The following approval criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070:

A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.

B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.

C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.

D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.

4) The following approval criteria for Variance approval are described in 18.100.020:

A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.

B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.

C. That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.

5) The following approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit approval are described in 18.61.080:

A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.

1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.

2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.

B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:

1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and

2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and

3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.

The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.

4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.

6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on November 12, 2002, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission denied the application, noting that the application had failed to meet the burden of proof for approval of the Variance

Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:

SECTION 1. EXHIBITS

For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used.

• Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
• Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
• Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
• Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"

SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS

2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.

2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to reduce the distance between principal buildings to eight feet does not meet the applicable criteria for a Variance described in 18.100.020.

2.3 The Commission does not find that sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the historic side yard setback pattern of the surrounding neighborhood justifies the reduction in the required distance between the proposed buildings.

SECTION 3. DECISION

3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed Site Review, Variance and Tree Removal Permit to construct a four-unit apartment/condominium complex is not supported by evidence contained within the record.

Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, Planning Action #2002-106 is denied.

End of Document - Back to Top

ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS & ORDERS
October 8, 2002

PLANNING ACTION 2002-106 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a four-unit apartment/condominium complex on the property located at 916 E. Main St. Variances are requested to reduce the front yard setback from 20 to 10 feet and to reduce the distance between buildings from 15 to eight feet. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on the site.

Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-2;

Assessor's Map #: 391E09AD Tax Lot #: 4000

APPLICANT: Ron DeLuca

On Wednesday, August 21, 2002 a meeting was held in the Planning Office to review this application. In attendance were Maria Harris and Mark Knox, Associate Planners and Senior Planner Bill Molnar serving as Staff Advisor.

The application is to construct four multi-family units/condominiums. In addition to Site Review approval, two Variances and a Tree Removal Permit are requested. The project involves a parcel with a total area of 9,739 square feet (.22 acres). The parcel is zoned R-2, Low-Density Multi-Family Residential. The area directly surrounding the site is zoned R-2. The parcel is located in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District.

The site slopes gently to the north (toward E. Main St.) with an average grade of approximately three percent. There are two trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) on the site - a 24-inch walnut near the sidewalk on E. Main St., and a 12-inch cedar towards the rear of the property. The site is currently vacant. A house was recently determined dangerous by the City of Ashland Building Official and subsequently demolished.

The proposal it to construct three structures containing a total of four, two-bedroom units. Two of the structures will be one-story and one will be two-story. Each of the one-story units will contain one-two bedroom unit and the two-story structure will contain two, two-bedroom units. A one-story and the two-story structure will face E. Main Street with a one-story at the rear of the property. In Staff's opinion, the variation in stories and the size of the structures in the project is reflective of the eclectic mix of structures in the surrounding area. The applicant plans to initially make the units rental, but will construct the units as condominiums so that there is the potential to convert them to ownership units in the future.

A combination of a common open space area situated between the buildings in the middle of the property and private patios and decks result in a 15% of the total lot area devoted to usable open space, well over the minimum of eight percent required. The project will be result in a lot coverage of 60%, which is below the maximum coverage allowed in the R-2 zone of 65%.

Three street trees are provided in the planting strip along the frontage of the property. A landscape plan is provided designed using drought tolerant plantings. A variety of trees are shown throughout the site, as well as drought-tolerant plantings. A small lawn area is shown in the common open space. An irrigation plan is also provided. The Tree Commission had not reviewed the application at the time of writing.

Seven off-street parking spaces are required, and will be provided at the rear of the property. The parking will be accessed by a public alley to the west of the parcel. The alley is provides access for emergency vehicles to the unit at the rear of the property, and therefore must be maintained as a fire apparatus access road. The alley is paved and appears to currently meet this requirement, including horizontal and vertical clearance. Six sheltered bicycle parking spaces are required and are located near the vehicular parking. Pedestrian paths link the front doors of all units to the public sidewalk on E. Main St.

The two buildings facing E. Main St. have their primary orientation toward the street as required by the Basic Site Review Standards. All units have a covered, unenclosed porch. The exterior materials are six-inch horizontal siding and "shingles." The type of shingles used on the two front buildings is not identified. The roof material is composition shingles. Four-inch corner trim is shown on the elevations, but the size of the window and door trim is not identified. The windows are vinyl. The Historic Commission had not reviewed the application at the time of writing.

Public facilities are located in the E. Main St. right-of-way and have the capacity to serve the four additional units. Automobile, bicycle and pedestrian access to the subject property is provided via E. Main St. E. Main St. is a Boulevard and is improved to City standards, including continuous sidewalks.

A Variance is requested to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to the unenclosed porches and 15 feet to the face of the buildings. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) provides an exception to the required front yard setback "If there is a dwelling or accessory building on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with yards of less than the required depth for the district, the yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures" (18.68.110.A). The building on the property to the west is six feet from the property line adjacent to E. Main St., and the building on the property to the east is ten feet from the property line adjacent to E. Main Street. Under the above referenced provision of the ALUO, the structures would be permitted to be built nine feet from the front property line. The property to the west has a side yard parallel to E. Main St., and the property to the east has a front yard parallel to E. Main St. In the past, this provision of the ordinance has been interpreted to mean any abutting yard, whether it be front or side yard, can be used in the calculation. Staff believes this is how the provision was intended so that in historic neighborhoods such as the subject proposal with a wide variety of building types and sizes set back at varying distances from the street, properties are given the same flexibility in the vicinity. This also tends to result in continuos streetscapes, comprised of both old and new structures, that compliment and are compatible with one another. Because the language in the ordinance is not completely clear, Staff advised the applicant to apply for a Variance. Staff believes it is a unique circumstance because of the surrounding smaller front-yard setbacks, not only on adjacent properties, but also those across the street. The benefit of the proposal is that the new structures will be more compatible with the historic streetscape if built closer than 20 feet from the front property line. Finally, the setback pattern of the neighborhood was established well before the current proposal and is not self imposed.

A second Variance is requested to reduce the setback between the two front buildings from 15 to eight feet. Originally, the proposal was to have the two front structures connected as one structure. Staff believed this would create a mass and scale that would not have been compatible with the surrounding historic structures. The setback situation is similar to the current front-yard requirement in that the distance between the sides of buildings in this historic area is often closer than the minimum of 12 feet. The benefit of separating the buildings is that the structures will be of a mass and scale more reflective of the surrounding area. Again, the setback pattern and architectural scale of the surrounding historic neighborhood were established before the current proposal and are not self imposed.

A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove the 24-inch walnut and 12-inch cedar on the property. The permit is required for removal of all trees over six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) on properties zoned R-2, R-3 and R-1-3.5 not occupied by a single-family home. Staff believes the removal of the 24-inch walnut meets the criteria for removal of a hazard tree. A letter was submitted with the application from a certified arborist verifying that the tree has root rot and is dropping limbs. In Staff's opinion, the removal of the 12-inch western incense cedar meets the criteria for removal of a tree that is not a hazard. The removal of the cedar is part of an application that meets the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards, will not affect the soil stability, water flow or adjacent trees, or the canopy within 200 feet of the site. The applicant has submitted findings verifying that the cedar will be replaced with a 1 1/2-inch caliper, 5-6 foot tree. Staff believes an evergreen should be used as a replacement, and a condition has been added to this effect.

The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 18.72 as follows:

A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.

B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.

C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.

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. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999).

The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100 as follows:

(1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.

(2) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.

(3) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.

The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61 as follows:

An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit.

A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.

1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.

2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.

B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:

1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and

2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and

3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.

The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.

4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit.

The application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City ordinances.

Planning Action 2002-106 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 2002-106 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:

1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.

2) That a drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building permit.

3) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met including, but not limited to installation of a fire hydrant to serve unit 4 or a residential sprinkler system, and maintenance of the alley as a fire apparatus access road, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

4) That all items (plant, fence, etc.) shall be limited to 2.5 feet in height in the vision clearance area adjacent to the alley in accordance with 18.72.120.C.

5) That all landscaping and irrigation including street trees shall be installed or bonded for prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit.

6) That an evergreen tree a minimum of 1 ½-inch caliper, five to six foot in height shall be planted on site for mitigation for the western red cedar that is removed. The landscaping plan shall be revised and submitted for review and approval for the Staff Advisor prior to submittal for a building permit

7) That the landscape and irrigation plan shall be revised to include recommendations of the Ashland Conservation Division with final approval of the Staff Advisor prior to submittal for a building permit.

8) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals.

9) That additional information regarding Ashland's Conservation Housing Density Bonus shall be provided at the time of Final Plan approval. Each unit to include a minimum of 15 points.

10) That one of the four units shall be affordable under the City of Ashland Affordable Housing program cost levels. If the unit is a rental, verification of the residents' income and the rental price shall be submitted to the Planning Division annually by January 31. If the unit is converted to a condominium for ownership, the buyer's income and the price shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The purchase of the condominium shall be processed through the City of Ashland's Affordable housing program.

11) That the building permit submittals shall show the location and dimension of the bike parking area and covering. The inverted u-rack shall be used and the bicycle parking area locations and design shall be in accordance with 18.92.040.I. The bicycle parking shall be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

If no appeal is filed, this request will become final when reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission on September 10, 2002.

Bill Molnar, Senior Planner

End of Document - Back to Top

ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
October 8, 2002

PLANNING ACTION: 2002-106
APPLICANT: Ron DeLuca
LOCATION: 916 East Main Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:

18.24 R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District
18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
18.92 Off-Street Parking
18.100 Variances

REQUEST: Site Review approval to construct a four-unit apartment/condominium development. A Variance is requested to reduce the front yard setback from 20 to ten feet and to reduce the distance between buildings to eight feet. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees.

I. Relevant Facts

1) Background - History of Application:

The application was administratively approved in September 2002. Subsequently, it was called up for a public hearing by three neighbors. The letters requesting a public hearing are included at the end of the packet.

There are no previous planning actions for this site.

2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal:

The site is located on the south side of East Main Street between Dewey and Alida Streets. The property is 9,769 square feet in size. There is a public alley adjacent to the west side of the parcel. The alley runs parallel to Dewey and Alida Streets, and runs between East Main and Blaine Streets. The parcel is zoned R-2, Low-Density Multi-Family Residential, and the area surrounding the site is also zoned R-2. The parcel is located in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District.

The site slopes gently to the north with an average grade of approximately three percent. There are two trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) located on the site - a 24-inch walnut near the sidewalk on East Main Street and a 12-inch cedar towards the rear of the property. The site is currently vacant. A house was recently determined to be dangerous by the City of Ashland Building Official and was subsequently demolished.

Project Overview

The proposal is to construct three buildings containing a total of four, two-bedroom units. Two of the structures will be facing East Main Street with the building closest to the alley being a one-story cottage and the building on the east side of the parcel being a two-story structure. The third building will be located at the rear of the parcel and will be a one-story structure. Each of the one-story buildings will contain one unit and the two-story building will contain two units. The application states that it the owner intends to rent the units initially, but will construct the buildings to condominium standards so that the units can potentially be converted at a future date.

The two buildings facing East Main Street have their primary orientation toward the street. All of the units have a covered, unenclosed porch. The exterior materials are six-inch horizontal siding and "shingles". The type of shingles used is not identified. Four-inch corner trim is shown on the elevations, but the size of the window and door trim is not identified. The proposed windows are vinyl and roof material is composition shingles.

Seven off-street parking spaces are shown at the rear of the parcel adjacent to the alley. The alley is paved and appears to meet the width and vertical clearance requirements. Six sheltered bicycle parking spaces are located near the motor vehicle parking area. Pedestrian paths link the front doors of all units to the public sidewalk on East Main Street.

Sixty percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces and 40% landscaped. A combination of common open space situated between the buildings in the middle of the property and private patios and decks result in 15% of the total lot area devoted to usable open space. A small lawn area is shown in the common open space in the middle of the site between the buildings. Three street trees are provided in the planting strip along the frontage of the property. A landscape plan is included in the application that uses drought tolerant plantings. A variety of trees are shown throughout the site.

The application notes that all public facilities are in place in East Main Street to serve the project and are of adequate capacity to support the additional units. Automobile, bicycle and pedestrian access is provided by East Main Street. East Main Street is a Boulevard and is improved to City standards including continuous sidewalks.

A variance is requested to reduce the front yard setback from 20 to ten feet to the unenclosed porches and 15 feet to the face of the buildings. A second Variance is requested to reduce the setback between the buildings to eight feet. The required distance between principal buildings in the R-2 zone is one-half the sum of the height of both buildings and no less than 12 feet. In this case the required "special yard" would be 18.5 feet.

A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 24-inch dbh English Walnut and a 12-inch dbh Western Incense Cedar on the property. A report from a certified arborist was submitted addressing both trees.

II. Project Impact

Multi-family residential dwellings are a permitted use in the R-2 zone. The proposal is subject to Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. The base density of the parcel is 3.02 units (9,769 square feet/43,560 * 13.5 units per acre = 3.02). The applicant is requesting a 25% bonus density for providing an affordable unit and a 10% bonus density for using energy conservation building measures. The 35% total density bonus allows for the development of four units (3.02 base density * 1.35% = 4.077 units).

Site Review Request

Staff believes the proposal meets the requirements for multi-family development in the R-2 zone. Four units can be permitted using the affordable housing and conservation housing density bonuses. With the exception of the two requested variances for reduction in the front-yard and special yard between buildings, the minimum setbacks of the zone are satisfied. The project will result in lot coverage of 60% which is below the maximum coverage allowed in the R-2 zone of 65%.

Seven off-street parking spaces are required and seven spaces are provided on site. Six covered bicycle parking spaces are required and six spaces are provided near the motor vehicle parking area. The combination of the common open space in the middle of the site and the private patios and decks results in 15% of the total lot area devoted to usable open space, well over the minimum eight percent that is required. Adequate public facilities are in place and have capacity to serve four additional units. East Main Street provides access to the property and is fully developed to serve pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. The site is also within walking distance of the bus route on Siskiyou Boulevard.

The landscape plan includes a variety of trees and shrubs, and is designed to meet the coverage requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards. Drought tolerant plants are the majority of those used in the plan. Street trees as well as trees to shade the parking area are included in the plan as required.

The two buildings fronting on East Main Street are oriented to the street as required by the Site Design and Use Standards for Multi-Family Residential Development. The site is in the Siskiyou-Hargadine Historic District, and therefore the proposal must meet the Historic District Design Standards. There is an eclectic mix of structures in the surrounding neighborhood including variety in sizes, heights, and masses, as well as in age of the buildings.

Through the use of window placement, roof style and porches, the fronts of each building exhibits a strong sense of entry to the street, complimenting the residences in the neighborhood. In addition, through the use of dormers, hipped roofs, covered porch extensions, and lower and upper decks and balconies, building mass has been broken up into attractive volumes compatible with the area.

Variance Requests

A variance is requested to reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet to the face of the buildings and ten feet to the unenclosed porches. The required front yard setback in the R-2 zone in the historic districts is 20 feet. Outside of the historic districts in the R-2 zone, the minimum front yard setback permitted is as shown in this proposal - 15 feet to the face of the building excluding garages and ten feet to an unenclosed porch.

In Staff's opinion, the circumstance is unusual because the setback that would be required on the site is more stringent than the existing yards of adjacent properties and of the front yards in the surrounding neighborhood. The benefit of the proposal is that the new structures will be more compatible with the streetscape if built closer than 20 feet to the front property line. The setback pattern in the neighborhood was established well before this application and is not self imposed.

The Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) provides the following exception to the required front yard setback "If there is a dwelling or accessory building on both abutting lots (even if separated by an alley or private way) with yards of less than the required depth for the district, the yard for the lot need not exceed the average yard of the abutting structures" (18.68.110.A). In this case, the building on the property to the west is six feet from the property line adjacent to East Main Street, and the building on the property to the east is ten feet from the property. Under the above referenced provision of the ALUO, the structures would be permitted to be built nine feet from the front property line.

In the past, the front yard setback exception has been interpreted to allow any abutting yard, whether it is a front or a side yard, to be used in the calculation. In this case, the property to the west is a side yard and the property to the east is a front yard. Staff believes the front yard setback exception was intended to use any type of abutting yard so that in historic neighborhoods with a wide variety of building types and sizes at differing setbacks newly developed properties blend into the historic streetscape and are given the same flexibility as surrounding properties. This approach is supported by Standard IV-C-4 of the Historic District Design Standards which reads "Maintain the historic façade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plan as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic façade line."

A second Variance is requested to reduce the setback between the buildings, the "special yard", to eight feet. Originally, the proposal was to have the two front structures connected as one building. Staff suggested separating the structures to create buildings of a mass and scale more similar to the surrounding neighborhood. In Staff's opinion, the setback requirement for a special yard between buildings of 18.5 feet is more stringent than is typical of the historic development pattern in the neighborhood. The aerial photograph of the area shows side yard setbacks within a 100 feet of the site to range from 4 to 26 feet with an average distance between buildings of 11 feet. The benefit of the proposal of using detached structures is that the buildings will respect the scale of the historic structures in the surrounding area. The side yard setback pattern and architectural scale of the historic neighborhood was established before the current proposal and therefore the circumstances are not self imposed.

Staff believes the criteria for the variance for reduction in the front yard setback and reduction in the special yard between buildings are met. In both cases, the proposed change in the setbacks will result in buildings that are more compatible with the neighborhood than if the standard requirements were used. Furthermore, Staff believes the variances will result in a better development than if the applicant had chosen not to use this approach and had proposed one large structure setback twenty feet from the front property line.

Tree Removal Permit Request

A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove a 24-inch dbh English Walnut near the front property line and a 12-inch dbh Western Incense Cedar in the southeast corner of the site. Under the new Tree Preservation and Protection chapter, a permit is required for removal of trees over six inches dbh on properties zoned R-2, R-3 and R-1-3.5.

In Staff's opinion, the removal of the walnut meets the criteria for removal of a hazard tree. The report from the certified arborist establishes that the tree has root rot, has lost and will continue to lose large branches and over half of the tree is dead. Since the tree branches over the sidewalk, the issue of dropping branches is a public safety hazard.

Staff believes the removal of the cedar meets the criteria for removal of a tree that is not a hazard. The site is relatively flat and the removal of the tree will not negatively impact erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or existing windbreaks. The aerial photographs show a variety of conifers within 200 feet of the property. Finally, Staff believes the overall project design including the site layout and sizes of the three buildings is an important part of making the proposal compatible with the historic neighborhood. The benefit of having a well designed project not only for the future residents but for the surrounding neighborhood needs to be balanced with saving the tree. The alternatives of reducing the size of the rear building to preserve the tree or constructing one large building on the front two thirds of the property seem to have more negative impacts than benefits. The applicant has submitted findings verifying that the cedar will be replaced with a one and one-half caliper, five to six foot tree. Staff believes an evergreen should be used as a replacement and a condition has been added to this effect.

III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof

The criteria for Site Design and Use Review approval are as follows:

A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.

B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.

C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.

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. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999).

The criteria for a Variance are as follows:

(1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere.

(2) That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City.

(3) That the conditions or circumstances have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.

The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are as follows:

A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal.

1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning.

2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.

B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:

1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and

2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and

3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.

The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance.

4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

In Staff's opinion, development of the site is challenging because it is situated in a historic neighborhood that is for the most part fully developed. Staff believes the applicant deserves credit for trying to design a project that is compatible to the neighborhood in layout and building design knowing that it would involve a more complicated application involving two variances. The overall project design including the site layout and sizes of the three buildings is compatible with the historic neighborhood. Staff believes the combination of the two one-story cottages and larger two-story structure reflects the variety of buildings found in the surrounding area. Finally, the units will be rentals and one of the units will be part of the City's affordable housing program.

In Staff's opinion, the application meets the criteria for Site Review approval, a Variance for reduction in the front yard, a Variance for reduction in the special yard between buildings and for the Tree Removal Permit. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following attached conditions:

1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here.

2) That a drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a building permit.

3) That all requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be met including, but not limited to installation of a fire hydrant to serve unit 4 or a residential sprinkler system, and maintenance of the alley as a fire apparatus access road, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

4) That all items (plant, fence, etc.) shall be limited to 2.5 feet in height in the vision clearance area adjacent to the alley in accordance with 18.72.120.C.

5) That all landscaping and irrigation including street trees shall be installed or bonded for prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first unit.

6) That an evergreen tree a minimum of 1 ½-inch caliper, five to six foot in height shall be planted on site for mitigation for the western red cedar that is removed. The landscaping plan shall be revised and submitted for review and approval for the Staff Advisor prior to submittal for a building permit

7) That the landscape and irrigation plan shall be revised to include recommendations of the Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor prior to submittal for a building permit.

8) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals.

9) That additional information regarding Ashland's Conservation Housing Density Bonus shall be provided at the time of Final Plan approval. Each unit to include a minimum of 15 points.

10) That one of the four units shall be affordable under the City of Ashland Affordable Housing program cost levels. If the unit is a rental, verification of the residents' income and the rental price shall be submitted to the Planning Division annually by January 31. If the unit is converted to a condominium for ownership, the buyer's income and the price shall be submitted to the Planning Division. The purchase of the condominium shall be processed through the City of Ashland's Affordable housing program.

End of Document - Back to Top

RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2002-106
916 EAST MAIN STREET

REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR-UNIT APARTMENT/ CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 20 TO 10 FEET AND TO REDUCE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO 8 FEET. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO TREES ON THE SITE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ZONING: R-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1E 09 AD; TAX LOT: 4000.

APPLICANT: RON DELUCA

The unlinked supporting documents listed above are available for viewing in the following PDF file:

Planning_Action_2002-106_Documentation.pdf (6257.3KB)

The above document(s) are Adobe® Acrobat® PDF files and may be viewed using the free Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™. Most newer web browsers already contain the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader™ plug-in. However, if you need it, click on the "Get Acrobat® Reader™" icon to download it now.