HomeMy WebLinkAboutAshland_2220_PA-2012-00018 i
CITY OF
June 14, 2012
Urban Development Services
485 W Nevada St
Ashland OR 97.520
RE: Planning Action#2012-00018
i
Notice of Final Decision
At its meeting of June 12, 2012,based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the
Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a site review approval for the property located at 2220
Ashland Street--Assessor's Map#39 lE 14BA; Tax Lot 1700.
The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on
June 12,2012. The Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 13''day after the Notice of Final
Decision is mailed.
I
i
Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of
approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion.
Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and
evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community
Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way.
This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective
date of the decision and with the required fee($318), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A)of the Ashland
Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal shall be j
limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code,which is also attached.
If you have any questions regarding this decision,please contact the Community Development Department
between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm,Monday through Friday at(541)488-5305.
I
I
i
i
i
.cc: Summit Investment
Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax:541-552-2050
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY; 800-735-2900
www.a8hland.or.us
SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council.
A. Appeals of Type H decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator.
The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section
18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as
jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered.
1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission.
2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be
reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being
appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision
should be reversed or modified,based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity.
3. The notice of appeal,together with notice of the date,time and place to consider the appeal by the
Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting.
4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.B.
below,the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be
confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record
shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence,
exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record
before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when
available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and
conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and
the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if
any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding.
B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such
a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing
of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council j
appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated:
a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error,through no fault of
the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and
that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of
correcting the error; or
b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of
the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the
decision; or
C. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was
unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the
proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could
have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this
exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an
approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly
construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and
testimony is submitted to the hearing body.
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
POEM
www.ashland.or.us
Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of
additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of
evidence before the City Council.
C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall
be limited to ten(10)minutes for the applicant,ten (10)for the appellant, if different, and
three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be
permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written
arguments shall be submitted no less than ten(10)days prior to the Council consideration
of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues
clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be
confined to the substance of the written argument.
D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City
Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining
whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission,
or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in
any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal.
No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning
Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to
respond.
E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or
deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and
conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its
action. The Council. shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties
participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator,the Council may
elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council
elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise,
the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the
Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.B.5 .
F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as
the following:
1. The applicant.
2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure
to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right
of appeal to the Council.
3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive
notice due to error.
I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel:541-488-5305
51 Winbum Way Fax:541-552-2050
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.ocus
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12,2012
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION#2012-00018,A REQUEST FOR )
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,125 SQUARE FOOT )FINDINGS,
SINGLE-STORY RETAIL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE ) CONCLUSIONS
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2220 ASHLAND ) AND ORDERS
STREET. THE FORMER PIZZA HUT BUILDING IS CURRENLTY LOCATED )
ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW )
REQUIREMENTS AND THE PEDESTRAIN PLACES REQUIREMENTS. )
APPLICANT: SUMMIT INVESTMENTS )
-----------=-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #1700 of Map 39 lE 14 BA is located at 2220 Ashland Street and is zoned C-1,
Commercial.
2) The applicants are requesting Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single
story, retail building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street.
The former Pizza Hut building is currently located on the site. Site improvements are outlined on the
plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The application also involves the proposed demolition of the existing 2,135 square foot structure
to accommodate the proposed development. The demolition and relocation of structures is not regulated
through Ashland's Land Use Ordinance (AMC Chapter 18) or subject to land use approval, and must
instead be reviewed and approved separately pursuant to AMC 15.04.210-.218 which regulate the
demolition and relocation of buildings within the city. The approval of Demolition/Relocation Review
Permits is subject to review by the Building Official and/or the Demolition Review Committee.
4) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows:
I
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. j
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.
In addition, the criteria for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described
in 18.72.090 as follows:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 1
proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively
impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated
purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum
which would alleviate the difficulty or .
B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Standards.
(Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011)
Lastly,the criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows:
B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a
hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including
but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and
Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the
development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and
2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters,protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and
3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.
The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when 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.
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April 10, 2012
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This.hearing was closed and the record
was left open. The action was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May
8, 2012 at which time new information and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the
hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the j
appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 2
i
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 project complies with the Site Review standards for
commercial developments within the Detail Site Review Zone, including the request for an Exception to the
Site Design and Use Standards required Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and a Tree Removal permit. The
application proposes to construct a 4,125 square foot single story,retail building at the front of the property
adjacent to Ashland Street. Off-street parking is located to the rear of the building with automobile access
provided from Ashland Street via the common drive way which serves the larger shopping center properties
to the south and east. The site plan incorporate direct pedestrian access from Ashland Street to the main
building entrance. In addition, outdoor pedestrian plaza spaces will be developed at the front and east side
of the building, providing a shaded, sheltered environment for patrons as well as employees and public
transit commuters.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that proposal complies with the first criterion to be considered
for Site Review approval that, "All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the
proposed development." The Planning Commission further finds that development within the
Commercial (C-1) zoning district is guided by the site design standards found in Ashland Site Design
Review Chapter (AMC 18.72) and the city's Site Design and Use Standards, Sign Regulations, Off-
Street Parking and Tree Preservation&Protection chapters. j
i
The Planning Commission'finds that adequate parking is provided to meet the demands of the proposed
use as a 4,125 square foot retail establishment, particularly a paint store with half of the floor area
utilized for storage and mixing areas, off limits to customers. Nine parking spaces are to be provided at
the rear of the building accessed via a sidewalk along the rear of the structure and three parking spaces
are provided on the adjacent property to the southeast under the same ownership as the subject property.
The Planning Commission finds that the parking provided on the larger shopping center property is in
excess of that required by ordinance, which allows for providing a parking easement to the subject
property. Additionally, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed parking lot design complies j
with AMC 18.92.080.B and has been designed to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the
surface parking area.
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 3
The Planning Commission further finds that the proposed bicycle parking complies with AMC
18.92.040. The site plan provided illustrates four proposed covered bicycle parking racks near the rear
entry of the proposed building. The Commission finds that the proposed bicycle parking provisions are
consistent with the placement standards of the land use ordinance.
The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a tree inventory identifying six trees on the
subject property, one of which is more than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater.
Trees greater than six-inches in DBH necessitates Tree Removal Permits within the subject property's
C-1 zoning district in accordance with AMC 18.61. The five trees less than six-inches in diameter are
exempt from the land use requirements.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the second criterion for the
approval of a Site Review permit that, "All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or
will be met." Within the Site Review chapter, commercial developments requiring Site Review approval
are required to provide an "opportunity-to-recycle" site for use of the project occupants. The
"opportunity-to-recycle" site must be of a size equal or greater than the solid waste receptacle, and both
the waste and recycling facilities must be screened from view by adjacent properties and public rights-
of-way. The plans provided identify a recycling area on the west side of the building behind a wall and
landscape area screening it from Ashland Street and the adjacent business to the west.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the third criterion for Site
Review approval criterion that, "The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by
the City Council for implementation of this Chapter." The Site Design & Use Standards handbook
includes specific design standards for commercial developments. The Commission finds that the
proposed building, are to be reviewed under the basic and detail site review standards for commercial
projects. j
The Planning Commission finds that the Site Design & Use Standards generally seek to improve each
project's appearance while creating a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and
the streetscape to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel, lessen the visual and climatic impacts of
parking, and screen adjacent uses from any adverse impacts of development. To these ends, the
standards require that buildings have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas,
with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street,placed within five feet of the street
unless the area is utilized as a pedestrian plaza area, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk.
Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages, with automobile
parking and circulation areas not to be placed between buildings and the street.
I
In considering the initially proposed building designs in light of the Site Design & Use Standards and
Planning Division staff identified concerns with the sense of entry and orientation to the street of the j
building. Planning staff noted that in initial design submittals, the Ashland Street entry was not strongly ' .
articulated enough to establish a clear sense of entry and relationship to the pedestrian corridor to meet
the city's design standards. Staff had recommended that the building's sense of entry be better
articulated and emphasized by modifying the widows on the front of the building and modifying the
pedestrian plaza area between the building and the street. The Planning Commission found that the
building was oriented towards Ashland Street and not the parking lot, that there is a clear sense of entry
provided with the stairs, awning,windows and doors to emphasize the primary entrance of the building.
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 4
In response to the discussion at the March 13th hearing, the applicants presented revised site plans to
address both the pedestrian plaza area amenities and whether the proposed plaza area will function as
such and the larger site circulation issues raised during the Planning Commission hearing.
According to the applicant's site plans, significant modifications to enhance the Ashland Street
pedestrian corridor along the buildings frontage are proposed. These include standard five-foot width
commercial tree grates, street trees, eight foot sidewalks, and widened pedestrian circulation routes and
landscape treatments. The Planning Commission finds that, when taken in sum, these revisions greatly
improve the building's sense of entry and relationship to the adjacent streetscape, while also more
effectively addressing the buildings setback of more than five feet. The Commission finds that with
these revisions,the building and pedestrian plaza areas comply with the Site Design and Use Standards.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the final criterion to be considered for the approval of a Site
Review permit is, "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." Each of these
facilities is discussed individually below.
Water: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that there is an eight-inch water main
available to serve the project within Ashland Street, as well as a six-inch water main available in
Webster Street.
Sewer: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that an eight-inch sanitary sewer main is
available in Ashland Street; with the proposed development no modifications are necessary.
Paved Access: Ashland Street along the property's north boundary is classified as a boulevards
or arterial streets under the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Ashland Street is fully improved
with paving, curbs, gutters, and a five foot wide curbside sidewalk along the subject property's
frontage.
The applicant's proposal includes plans to reconstruct Ashland Street to full city street standards
for an arterial street. The Planning Commission finds that applicant's proposed street j
improvements comply with Ashland's Street Standards including a five-foot wide hardscape
park row and eight feet of sidewalk. A landscaped parkrow may be substituted for the five-foot
tree grates in some commercial areas where on-street parking is not in place.
i
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site circulation modifications will begin to
address some of the large site circulation issues and with the proposed directional signage and
pavement markings site circulation will be better addressed and that adequate transportation
facilities can and will be provided with the implementation of the improvements described
below. Located partially on the subject property is a wide common driveway which provides a
north-south connection from Ashland Street to the shopping center properties to the south and to
the west. This driveway provides circulation primarily to existing surface parking in place
behind the existing buildings fronting Ashland Street and between the Bi-Mart and Shop `N Kart j
buildings and the street. The applicant has proposed to modify the existing driveway with a
landscaped center median dividing the two travel lanes. The median is comprised of the existing
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 5
i
eastern parking lot buffer and the existing north / south driveway, the driveway will be divided
into a distinct south entrance to property and north exiting. The commission finds that the
revised, extended median is being expanded in part to protect the existing fire hydrant and
irrigation boxes. The commission finds that the proposed will also prevent north bound traffic
from making left turns into the subject site and Oil Stop adjacent once past the east / west
connection. The proposed median extension of 10-feet will offset the existing east / west
connection and a vehicle will have to make a slight diagonal driving movement to cross the 63-
foot wide driveway to enter the subject site or patronize the Oil Stop. The applicant's site plan
also provides painted directional arrows, curbing and traffic warning signs to provide more clear
direction to motorist and cyclists traversing the properties.
Storm Sewer: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that a 15-inch storm sewer line is
available in Ashland Street. The application materials further indicate that stormwater drainage
in the parking lot within the project area is to be collected and pre-treated in a landscape bio-
swale within the parking areas Engineering staff has indicated that the storm drain system
improvements proposed to be installed by the applicants as detailed in the application will be
adequate to serve the needs of the proposal, subject to final review and approval of civil
drawings.
Electric: Electrical facilities are available from all of the Ashland Street right-of-way, and city
Electric Department staff has indicated that these facilities have adequate source and capacity to
serve the project. The main transmission line for the area is along Ashland Street on the same
side of the street as the proposed development. There is a pole and electric cabinet at the front of
the property, the electric department indicated that the cabinet needs to be rotated so that it opens
away from the structure so to have adequate clearances for their equipment. A condition to this
effect has been included.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable criteria for
approval for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards requiring a minimum Floor Area Ratio
of.50 for the parcel due to the proposed building and pedestrian plaza area a total of 5,910 square feet
and an FAR of.3 2.
One of the primary reasons that the Floor Area Ratio requirements along Ashland Street were adopted
were to more effectively engage and complement the streetscape and to create more density along the
arterial streets in close proximity to shopping, public transit and other amenities. The applicants
explained that in the current market, a mixed use building with commercial rental space is not feasible,
and suggested that the development of the current proposal could help to create a market.for such a
building in the future by bringing a significant redevelopment of a large vacant site. Additionally, the
application states that a future second story may be added to the building which would in the future
increase the FAR along Ashland Street. The Planning Commission finds that the exception will result in
a design that better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards as the pedestrian
corridor is being brought up to current City Standards through the installation of sidewalks and that
pedestrian amenities and refuge is being proposed. The Planning Commission finds that the reservation
of a future second story building addition along Ashland Street for development in the future does not
constitute a shadow plan but does show how in the future the properties under the ownership of Summit
Investments /Peaks Ranch Development etc. are moving towards compliance with the Floor Area Ratio
requirements of properties in the shopping center complex.
i
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 6
The Commission finds that the building's proposed placement is appropriate, and that the building itself
is of a character and design that is appropriate to the Ashland Street streetscape. With the changes to the
Ashland Street pedestrian corridor and the plaza area proposed by the applicants to accommodate and
encourage a variety of uses, efforts were made in site planning to retain a strong relationship with the
Ashland Street by creating a human scale pedestrian corridor between the street and the proposed
building. The Commission further finds that the building design and associated site planning provide a
sense of entry that will engage the pedestrian streetscape along Ashland Street. The Planning
Commission finds that the revised pedestrian plaza area, including the provision of a food vendor
location, trees, benches as envisioned in the Site Design and Use Standards is supported by evidence in
the record and results in an overall design that better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and
Use Standards.
2.8 The Commission finds that the approval of a Tree Removal Permit requires the applicants to
demonstrate that: the tree proposed for removal are in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards; the 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; 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. In
addition, as a condition of approval for Tree Removal Permits, applicants are required to mitigate for the
removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to the requirements of AMC 18.61.084. The
Commission finds that the tree proposed for removal is within the proposed building footprint and
would not survive the proposed development. The Commission further finds that with the required
mitigation, the proposed removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The Commission finds that the
removed tree will be adequately mitigated with the proposed landscaping.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single-story retail building
associated site improvements including a tree removal permit to remove one 13-inch in diameter at
breast height tree is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action#2012-00018. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2012-00018 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.
i
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 7
3) That the areas previously paved and now proposed for planting shall have all base material and
.sterile soil removed to a minimum of 24-inches and disposed of off-site in accordance with the
proposed landscape plan. Additionally, structural soil and/ or mycorrhizae fungi could be added
to the tree well areas to aid and encourage the long term growth and survivability of the trees.
4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their April 5 , 2012 meeting,
where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the
Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
4) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to.installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet
the requirements of Chapter 18.96.
5) That prior to the submittal of a building permit:
a) That a stormwater drainage plan, including details of on-site bioswale for storm water
and necessary water quality mitigation, shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions. Post development peak flows shall be
demonstrated to be less than or equal to pre-development levels.
c) A final utility plan for the project shall be submitted for the review and approval by the
Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The
utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent
to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains
and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Utility
installations, including any necessary fire protection vault, shall be placed outside of the
pedestrian corridor, and necessary public utility easements on the property shall be shown
on the building permit submittals.
d) The applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all
other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning,
Engineering and Electric Departments prior to building permit submittal. Transformers
and cabinets shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, in those areas least visible
from the right-of-way while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
e) The building permit plan submittals shall include lot coverage calculations including all
building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. These plans shall
demonstrate that at least 15 percent of the site is surfaced in landscaping, and that at least
seven percent of the parking lot area is provided in required parking lot landscaping, as
required in the Site Design&Use Standards.
f) The approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review and associated permits and inspections
shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to demolition of existing structures. ,
i
g) That a revised Landscaping and Irrigation plan demonstrating compliance with the Site
Design and Use Standards shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff
Advisor prior to the issuance of the building permit.
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 8
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the proposed structure shall be engineered and constructed to withstand the
structural load, wind loading, snow load, etc. as adopted per State of Oregon Building
Codes for a two story structure.
b) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit civil design
drawings for the implementation of public right-of-way improvements provided for the
review and approval of the Public Works, Engineering and Planning Departments. These
civil plans are to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits, and
required improvements are to be completed according to the approved plan, inspected
and approved prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit. That a Public Pedestrian
Access Easement or Right-of-Way Dedication shall be provided for the sidewalk
improvements that are on the subject property.
c) The applicant shall provide the approved Landscape/Irrigation Plan which addresses the
Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies of the Site Design and Use
Standards, including irrigation controller requirements to allow multiple/flexible calendar
programming with the building permit submittals.
d) All exterior lighting shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit direct
illumination of any adjacent land. Lighting details, including a scaled plan and
specifications detailing shrouding, shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for review and
approval with the building permit submittals.
e) That the bike rack and shelter details shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Staff Advisor. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking design,
spacing, and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.I.
f) Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Ashland Street. The locations of
mechanical equipment and any associated screening shall be shown on the site plan and
elevations in the building permit submittals
g) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be satisfied, including that all
addressing shall be approved prior to being installed; that fire apparatus access be
provided and necessary fire apparatus easements identified and recorded; that adequate
fire flow be provided and maintained.
I
I
i
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 9
i
7) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
a) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance
with the Site Design and Use Standards.
b) All required parking areas shall be paved and striped.
c) All landscaping and the irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance with the
approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. That at the time of planting and prior to the issuance of a final
certificate of occupancy, not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf
landscaped areas in the developed area after the installation of living plant materials.
d) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the installation of
sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street lighting on Ashland Street shall
be installed to City of Ashland standards under .permit from the Public Works
Department in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff
Advisor.
e) That a minimum six-inch curb be provided along the southern most edge of the asphalt
east / west driveway access to the subject site and the Oil Stop site to prevent siltation
across driveway and trackout.
e) That a bench or benches similar in style to the existing bench at Taco Bell along Ashland
Street shall be provided as a pedestrian amenity. j
f) That required bicycle parking spaces according to the approved plan and in accordance
with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J, inspected, and approved by the Staff
Advisor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Inverted u-racks shall be used for
the bicycle parking.
i
8) That future land_ use applications for the properties located at 391E 14BA, tax lots, 1200, 1300,
1500, 1800 and 1700 shall address the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard. The applications shall
demonstrate how future development may be intensified over time to meet the required Floor Area
Ratio requirements.
I
9) That a site circulation plan demonstrating vehicular and pedestrian safety shall be provided with all
future applications.
10)That the selected street tree shall be a columnar type, high-branching species which complies with
minimum height requirements (13-foot clearance) over Ashland Street.
I
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA#2012-00018
June 12,2012
Page 10
PA-2012-00018 391 E11 CC 80004 PA-2012-00018 391 E11 CD 1200 PA-2012-00018 391 E11 CD 1100
BARCLAY SQUARE CORRIGAN LOVING TRUST ET AL DAY MARYANNA TRUSTEE FBO
CONDOMINIUM LLC 481 N MOUNTAIN AVE 552 EAGLE MILL
235 S OAKDALE AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
MEDFORD OR 97501
PA-2012-00018 391E11CD 1400 PA-2012-00018 391El4BA 1600 PA-2012-00018 391E14BA 1800
PREMIERWEST BANK REED COMMERCIAL SUMMIT INVESTMENT ET AL
503 AIRPORT RD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LL 375 LITH]AWAY
MEDFORD OR 97501 2262 ASHLAND ST ASHLAND OR 97520
ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018
Laurie Sager S&B James Construction Shawn Kampmann
700 Mistletoe Rd #201 Attn: Dave Thurston Polaris Land Surveying
Ashland OR 97520 8425 Agate Rd PO Box 459
White City OR 97503 Ashland OR 97520
PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018
Urban Development Services Summit Investment ODOT— District 8
485 W Nevada St Attn: John Zupan 100 Antelope Rd.
Ashland OR 97520 1117 E Jackson St White City, OR 97503
Medford OR 97504
PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018
SO Transportation Engineering RVTD RVCOG
Attn: Kimberly Parducci 3200 Crater Lake Ave PO Box 3275
112 Monterey Dr Medford OR 97504 Central Point OR 97502
Medford OR 97504
18
6-14-2012 NOD
2220 Ashland St.
I
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
CITY OF
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
May 8, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown,Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson,Associate Planner
Eric Heesacker Amy Gunter,Assistant Planner
Richard Kaplan April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Pam Marsh
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery,absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh welcomed Troy Brown Jr.to the Commission and noted his background in architecture and
redevelopment. She also explained the absence of Commissioner Miller and noted Miller has applied to be reappointed.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. April 10,2012 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan mis to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4.0.
[Commissioner Brown abstained]
PUBLIC FORUM
Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated he is disappointed to hear that Commissioner Miller has been removed from the
commission and stated he suffered the same fate and had to go through the reappointment process for his position on the
Transportation Commission. Mr. Swales stated there seems to be a new definition of what qualifies as an excused absence that
hasn't applied before. He stated he hopes the City Attorney will look at the rules and sort this out so that this does not happen
again.
Commissioner Marsh stated Miller's removal from the Commission was a surprise to all of them, and stated in the past notifying
the Commission chair ahead of time was all that was needed to constitute an excused absence.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION:#2012.00018
SUBJECT PROPERTY:2220 Ashland Street
APPLICANT: Summit Investments
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single story, retail
building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street.The former Pizza Hut
building is currently located on the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial;ZONING: C-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 14BA;TAX LOT: 1700.[Continued from April 10, 2092 meeting.Public Hearing is
closed.]
Commissioner Marsh noted the public hearing is closed and the Commission will not be taking further public input.
Ashland Planning Commission
May 8, 2012
Page 1 of 6
i
I
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the packet materials include new information, including a revised site plan from the
applicant, a staff memo that addresses the issues raised at the last meeting,the applicant's written response, and a staff report
addendum.
Ms. Gunter commented on the applicant's revised site plan. She noted at the last meeting staff raised concern with the
proposed median extension and how it would impact site circulation, and explained the applicant's are now proposing to not
extend the median as far and instead will add striping to the pavement. She added they are also proposing a rolled curb divider
and directional signage. Ms. Gunter stated another issue from the last meeting was the pedestrian plaza area, and explained
the revised site plan includes low seating walls, benches,colored and scored concrete, and a food vendor area. Lastly, Ms.
Gunter stated the Floor Area Ratio(FAR)was identified by the Commission as a significant concern, as well as whether the
applicants meet the exception criteria. She noted the staff report addresses this issue is further detail, but summarized the
proposed FAR is 0.35 and the functional FAR is 0.40. She stated the applicants have also provided a shadow plan,even though
this is not technically allowed. She explained they have proposed a building that will accommodate a 2,000 sq.ft.second floor
addition, and with that future addition the functional FAR would be 0.53. Ms. Gunter noted the applicants findings address the
demonstrable difficulty criteria and stated the multiple driveway locations and existing businesses could be seen as a case for
the exception. She added the findings also show the applicants have made significant efforts to meet the purpose of the Site
Design &Use Standards.
Ms. Gunter stated the proposed development would not negatively impact the surrounding sites,and would actually improve
them and could be a springboard for a master plan and improvements to the shopping center as a whole. She reviewed the
conditions of approval suggested by staff, and noted Condition#8 which states as the site develops over time, the applicants
must work towards meeting the overall FAR.
Questions of Staff
Ms. Gunter clarified the criteria for granting an exception to the Site Design &Use Standards is as follows:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards due to a
unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not
substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of
the Site Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; OR
B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design
that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards.
She added it would be helpful for the findings if the Commission could specify whether they believe one is more applicable than
the other.
Commissioner Marsh suggested better clarifying the phrase"under control of the applicant"in Condition#8. Staff agreed and
indicated this condition could reference the map and tax lot numbers.
Ms. Gunter clarified there are 20 excess parking spaces on the larger shopping center property, and this site could develop
further and still be able to accommodate the parking requirement. She added if a residential use was proposed for the second
story addition the parking requirement would not increase.
Comment was made questioning if staff had included the public sidewalk in the calculation for plaza area. Ms. Gunter clarified
the public sidewalk along the Ashland Street frontage is not included, however the sidewalk along the driveway,which is not
required, is included in that calculation since they are going above and beyond what is required.
i
Ashland Planning Commission
May 8, 2012
Page 2 of 6
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not want to turn down the application, but is not confident that the applicants have met
the exception criteria. Commissioner Dawkins stated this development will be a step in the right direction in the overall
development of the shopping center, however he encouraged the property owners to provide a way for nearby residential
patrons to cross over to this property. He added the subject lot size is only 3/10 of an acre short of qualifying for the shadow
plan option and does not want to halt the redevelopment of this area. Commissioner Mindlin stated she could be supportive of
this application if: 1) references to the shadow plan are removed from the findings and instead they acknowledge that they are
granting the applicants a lower FAR; and, 2)they modify Condition#8 to state:"That future land use applications shall address
the Floor Area Ratio standard and circulation plan...". Support was voiced for the modifications proposed by Mindlin.
Commissioner Marsh commented that this application illustrates the importance to dealing with this area in a comprehensive
manner and noted her desire to work and collaborate with the property owners. She also voiced her opinion that exception
criteria'B' applies to this project and stated this is the first step towards a larger redevelopment project that will move this
shopping center towards the desired FAR.
Staff requested clarification about the circulation plan component. Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not feel compelled to
make this more specific and believes the applicants understand what the Planning Commission is looking for. Ms. Gunter
indicated Condition#8 would be revised as indicated and would also specify the map and tax lot numbers as previously
discussed.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin mis to approve PA-2012.00018 with conditions as stated during discussion.
DISCUSSION: Ms. Gunter clarified the condition modifications include the revision to Condition#8 as discussed and the
addition of Condition#10 regarding the landscaping and irrigation plan. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Dawkins,
Heesacker, Kaplan, Brown and Marsh,YES. Motion passed 6.0.
B. PLANNING ACTION:#2012.00265
APPLICANT: Ashland Food Cooperative
LOCATION(S): C-1-&C-1-D-zoned portions of Ashland's"Historic Interest Area"
REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Ashland Municipal Code(AMC 18.32.035.E)as it relates to drive-up uses in
Commercial districts. Drive-up uses are currently a special permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, but only in the
area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou
Boulevard. Drive-up uses are currently explicitly prohibited in the Historic Interest Area as defined in the
Comprehensive Plan.The proposed legislative amendment is to provide exception language which would apply
only to existing drive-up uses within the Historic Interest Area and would allow them to relocate to a new site
elsewhere within the Historic Interest Area provided that they are located predominantly underground or otherwise
screened from view from the public right-of-way.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the request before the Commission is a proposal to modify the regulations in the
C-1 and C-1-D districts relative to drive-up uses in the Historic Interest Area, Mr. Severson reviewed the existing regulations and
stated drive-up uses are currently prohibited in the Historic Interest Area. He explained this proposal would modify Section
18.32.025.E to read:
"Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan;except that drive-
up uses already existing and located within Ashland's Historic Interest Area may be relocated to another property
or site within Ashland's Historic Interest Area subject to the following additional requirement.
A, Existing drive-up uses within Ashland's Historic Interest Area seeking to relocated to another site or property
within Ashland Historic Interest Area must be either underground drive-up uses or drive-up uses that are
predominately screened,as defined in Section 18.08.805.
Mr. Severson stated the applicants are also proposing to define underground drive-up uses as: "Underground Drive-up Uses are
located within the underground portion of a building where a majority of the drive-up facilities, such as the teller window or ATM
Ashland Planning Commission
May 8, 2012
Page 3 of 6
ASHLAND PLANNING IVI ION
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM
May S, 2012
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00018
APPLICANT: Summit Investments LLC
LOCATION: 2220 Ashland Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: March 21, 2012
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: July 25, 2012
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.32 C-1 Commercial District
18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
18.92 Off-Street Parking
REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single story,
retail building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street.
The former Pizza Hut building is currently located on the site. The property is subject to the
Detail Site Review requirements and the Pedestrian Places requirements.
L Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
The public hearing for this matter was opened and testimony taken at the April 10, 2012
regular meeting of the Planning Commission. During the hearing, staff identified issues
relating to building orientation and design, pedestrian plaza area, Floor Area Ratio and
site circulation which merited further consideration. A citizen speaking during the Public
Hearing requested that the record be left open in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(c).
Additionally, the applicants submitted a revised site plan at the meeting which staff had
not had an opportunity to review. Based on these factors, at the conclusion of testimony,
the Commission moved to close the public hearing but keep the record open. A memo
from staff to the file and a letter in response to the memo was submitted by the applicant.
No other additional information was submitted.
i
B. Detailed Description of Revised Proposal
A revised site plan provided by the applicant on April 10, 2012 is included at the end of
this report as Exhibit A. Staff wrote a memo to the file which addresses the new
j
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum.adg
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 1 of 9
i
information requested by the Commission and reviews the revised site plan, the Staff
memo is included at the end of this report as Exhibit B, and the applicants letter in
response to the staff memo is labeled Exhibit C.
1. Site Review/Pedestrian Plaza Area
During the course of the April 2012 Planning Commission hearing, in addition to
concerns raised in the Staff report, the commission identified the following issues as
needing to be further addressed:
• Floor Area Ratio on the whole property under the ownership of Summit
Investments
• Management of Parking
• Site Circulation
II. Project Impact
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
At the time of the application, the proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was .29. This area is
comprised of the proposed 4,125 square foot building and the approximately 1,200 square
pedestrian plaza and landscape area between the building and the sidewalk. The applicant
has also provided a wide hardscape sidewalk area of approximately 585 square feet along
the east side of the building which also will function as part of pedestrian plaza area.
Upon further review and discussion by the commission it was determined that the area
adjacent to the driveway along the east side of the building can function as pedestrian
plaza area. In the revised site plan, the applicant has provided a food cart vendor area to
compliment the plaza areas. This area previously counted as 585 square feet is 1,027
square feet. The addition of this area brings the total proposed FAR to 6,352 square feet
or .35 FAR.
Plaza area may be used to increase the FAR if provisions are provided to enhance and j
pedestrian environment and provides amenities to create an inviting space for employees
and the general public. The applicant's revised site plan improves the plaza area elements
and the applicant has provided additional amenities which comply with the city's
standards for public spaces from Section II-C-3b of the Site Design and Use Standards
including approximately 1,200 square feet of plaza area which equates to one square foot
of plaza area for each three and a half square feet of building area, which exceeds the
standard for one square foot of plaza area for every ten square feet of building area.
Additionally, the applicant contends that they are providing five pedestrian related
elements including sitting areas, a mixture of areas providing protection from the sun and
rain, trees and outdoor dining areas with the provision of a food vendor area. These
amenities are to improve the environment for walking, cycling and mass transit. j
Functional FAR
During the discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Floor
Area Ratio, the "functional FAR" of the site was discussed. The total lot area
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum,adg
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 2 of 9
i
proposed for development is 18,295 square feet. Of the 18,295 square feet, a large
portion, 2,622 square feet is dedicated to the entrance driveway for the entire
shopping center. This reduces the area for site development to 15,673 sq. ft. The
proposed building and pedestrian plaza areas (between the building and the street
and including the sidewalk area to the east of the building) are 6,352 square feet
or .40 FAR.
With the `shadow plan' second story addition of 2,000 square feet the total FAR
in the future would be, 8,235 square feet or .53 FAR. The future addition and
using the `functional FAR', the site would exceed the required minimum Floor
Area Ratio requirement.
Existing FAR
The existing building is 2,135 square feet and the current site FAR is .12 and the
proposal will increase the existing FAR significantly.
Shopping Center FAR
The total area of the entire shopping center including the subject property but
excluding the area under separate ownership (2262 Ashland Street) is 8.95 acres
or 389,862 square feet. The approximate total square footage of all of the
buildings and plaza area owned by Summit Investments is 80,000 square feet. The
approximate FAR for the entire shopping center is .20. The breakdowns of the
FARs for the individual site/buildings making up the shopping center are below.
Floor Area Ratios
Subject Site=2,135/ 18,295 = .12
Oil Stop =3,639/ 107,593 = .033
S `n K& Yuan Yuan=34,440/ 114,127= .28
BiMart=36,000/ 133,293 = .26
Taco Bell=3,540/ 16500 = .21
With the proposed development the shopping center FAR would be increased to
.21.
i
Parking
Concern was raised that there is not adequate parking on the entire shopping center
complex to allow for the leasing of parking spaces from the complex to the subject
property. Utilizing aerial photographs there are 256 parking spaces on the various j
properties under the control of the applicant. Based on the approximate square footage of
the existing buildings 235 parking spaces are required, an excess of 21 spaces.
i
Additionally, the proposed use of the space as a paint store could be reviewed similar to
other paint/hardware store applications where the area that is off-limits to the customer
and is used as the storage for the retail component could have a reduced parking
requirement. In the case of this application the proposed total building area is 4,125
square feet, half of that is retail and the other half is product storage and the paint mixing
area. The required parking for a 4,125 square foot retail establishment is twelve parking
spaces. If half of the area was calculated as retail, six spaces required for the retail
portion, and three spaces for the warehousing portion, a total of nine parking spaces
would be required. Nine parking spaces are provided on the subject site, three are on the
i
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum.adg
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 3 of 9
I
adjacent parcel. As proposed the site complies with either 100 percent retail or a modified
calculation allowing for a portion of the building area to be calculated as warehouse for
the retail use.
Site Circulation
Staff raised concerns regarding the site circulation and how the modifications to the
subject property would affect the circulation of the larger shopping complex. Primarily,
staff concerns were about the extension of the existing parking lot buffer, creating a
center landscape median and how that would impact the vehicle movements on the large
east / west driveway which crosses the entire property to Tolman Creek Road. The
applicants submitted a site circulation plan showing the future east / west connection
shifting to the south and providing future access to the property located at 2200 Ashland
Street. This is not the proposal at present but was meant to address concerns about the
larger circulation issues on the properties. A commissioner had asked about requiring a
condition of approval which granted an access easement to the property located at 2200
Ashland Street for its future development. There does not appear to be a rational nexus
between the impacts of the proposed development and a need for a cross easement to the
neighboring property. In other words, the trips to and from the paint store do not need an
additional ingress/egress through 2200 Ashland Street to function properly.
The revised site plan reduces the median extension, provides painted directional arrows,
curbing and traffic warning signs to provide more clear direction to motorist and cyclists
traversing the properties. The reduced length of the median, the curbing, signs and
directional arrows appear to address staff concerns about creating a confusing driving
pattern through the previously proposed site modifications.
Possible Conditions of Approval:
Based on the discussion of the Planning Commission and the new information requested
during the meeting the following possible conditions of approval have been drafted by
staff. These are intended to address the concerns regarding the Floor Area Ratio and the
lack of a master plan for the entire subject development and how that affects this and
future proposals.
t) That future land use applications shall address the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard,
demonstrating how development may be intensified over time to meet the required
FAR for the entire site and for those properties under the control of the applicant.
2) That the selected street tree shall be a columnar type, high-branching species which
complies with minimum height requirements (13-foot clearance) over Ashland Street.
111. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 10.72.070 as follows:
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
I
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.
I
I
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum,adg
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 4 of 9
I
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 an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in
19.72.090 as follows:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and
Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use
of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate
the difficulty;or
8. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Standards.
(Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
The application requests Site Review, Exception to the Site Review criteria and Tree
Removal permit approvals to construct a new single-story 4,125 square foot retail space,
parking lot and associated site improvements at 2220 Ashland Street.
At last month's hearing, staff raised a number of issues including building orientation
towards Ashland Street, pedestrian plaza areas, floor area ratio and site circulation which
we believed needed to be further addressed before a decision could be reached.
The applicants submitted written details regarding the amount of pedestrian plaza areas
including the provision of additional pedestrian amenities as shown on the revised site
plan (Exhibit A). These include covered seating, low seating walls and benches, shade
trees, and an outdoor food vendor area. The applicant also demonstrates that the required
parking can be met on site and through an easement to the adjacent parcel as discussed in
the preceding section on parking. The applicants stated during the hearing and in their
written response that the property owners are striving to meet the standards of the Site
Design and Use Standards but are not able to reach the minimum .50 FAR standard with
any single development. They contend that the size of the adjacent parcels, the exiting
building configurations, site layouts, utility locations, traffic management issues, tenant
needs and economic viability are all factors in the design and site planning for this
development and that these factors area unusual and unique to these properties and that
the proposal is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Based on the discussion of the Planning Commission a finding can be made which
demonstrates that the proposed building complies with the Site Design and Use Standards
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum.adg
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 5 of 9
for orientation to street because the building can be found to be orientated towards
Ashland Street given the architectural details, and double, storefront style aluminum
doors, and primary orientation towards Ashland Street and not the parking area.
Additionally, the revised site plan with increased pedestrian amenities complies with the
standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for Pedestrian Plaza amenities by
providing an area of refuge for pedestrians, transit riders and cyclists on Ashland Street
and provides an area for patrons and employees of the proposed and future business
within the space for inviting outdoor spaces including possible food vending and dining.
The proposal complies with the required parking for a 4,125 square foot retail facility as
well.
It can also be found that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standards for
Floor Area Ratio requirement of.50 due to the unique and unusual aspects of the site. A
significant area of the subject site is dedicated to the common access area for the larger
shopping center and cannot be used for building development. The proposal will not
negatively affect adjacent parcels and with the site modifications and site circulation
improvements may have a positive effect on both the subject parcel and the larger
shopping center by providing clear direction, stop signs, directional signs and arrows.
The exception can be found to be the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty and
the applicants have shown through a phased possible second story addition and the
additional pedestrian plaza area amenities the future FAR of the site would exceed the
minimum .50. Lastly the proposed development can be found to have a positive impact
on the streetscape which will provide a positive environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
Additionally, the proposed parking area design can be found to lessen the visual and
climatic impacts of the areas by providing a landscape bioswale and visual screening.
With the additional information provided and modifications proposed since the April
hearing, staff believes the application can be found to meet the approval criteria and
applicable Site Design and Use Standards and the requested Exception and recommends
its approval with the following conditions attached.
1) That all proposals of the applicant -shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial
conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans
submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review
approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) That the areas previously paved and now proposed for planting shall have all base
material and sterile soil removed to a minim of 24-inches and disposed of off-site
in accordance with the proposed landscape plan. Additionally, structural soil and/
or mycorrhizae fungi could be added to the tree well areas to aid and encourage
the long term growth and survivability of the trees.
4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their April 5th,
i
2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and j
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum.adg
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 6 of 9
i
with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
4) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage.
Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96.
5) That prior to the submittal of a building permit:
a) That a stormwater drainage plan, including details of on-site bioswale for
storm water and necessary water quality mitigation, shall be submitted for
the review and approval of the Planning, Building, and Engineering
Divisions. Post development peak flows shall be demonstrated to be less
than or equal to pre-development levels.
c) A final utility plan for the project shall be submitted for the review and
approval by the Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions prior to
issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of
connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development,
including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and
services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins.
Utility installations,including any necessary fire protection vault, shall be
placed outside of the pedestrian corridor, and necessary public utility
easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit
submittals.
d) The applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering and Electric
Departments prior to building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets
shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, in those areas least
visible from the right-of-way while considering the access needs of the
Electric Department.
e) The building permit plan submittals shall include lot coverage calculations
including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas.
These plans shall demonstrate that at least 15 percent of the site is
surfaced in landscaping, and that at least seven percent of the parking lot
area is provided in required parking lot landscaping, as required in the Site
Design&Use Standards.
f) The approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review and associated permits
and inspections shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to
demolition of existing structures.
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the proposed structure shall be engineered and constructed to
withstand the structural load, wind loading, snow load, etc. as adopted per
State of Oregon Building Codes for a two story structure.
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum,adg
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 7 of 9
I
b) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit
civil design drawings for the implementation of public right-of-way
improvements provided for the review and approval of the Public Works,
Engineering and Planning Departments and Oregon Department of
Transportation. These civil plans are to be reviewed and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits, and required improvements are to be
completed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to
the issuance of a final occupancy permit. That a Public Pedestrian Access
Easement or Right-of-Way Dedication shall be provided for the sidewalk
improvements that are on the subject property.
c) The applicant shall provide the approved Landscape/Irrigation Plan which
addresses the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies of
the Site Design and Use Standards, including irrigation controller
requirements to allow multiple/flexible calendar programming with the
building permit submittals..
d) All exterior lighting shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit
direct illumination of any adjacent land. Lighting details, including a
scaled plan and specifications detailing shrouding, shall be submitted to
the Staff Advisor for review and approval with the building permit
submittals.
e) That the bike rack and shelter details shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Staff Advisor. The building permit submittals shall verify
that the bicycle parking design, spacing, and coverage requirements are
met in accordance with t 8.92.040.1.
f) Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Ashland Street.
The locations of mechanical equipment and any associated screening shall
be shown on the site plan and elevations in the building permit submittals
g) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be satisfied,
including that all addressing shall be approved prior to being installed; that
fire apparatus access be provided and necessary fire apparatus easements
identified and recorded; that adequate fire flow be provided and
maintained.
7) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
a) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed
in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards.
b) All required parking areas shall be paved and striped.
C) All landscaping and the irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance
with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That at the time of planting
and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum.adg
Applicant: Summit Investments I_LC Page 8 of 9
i
two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas in the
developed area after the installation of living plant materials.
d) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the
installation of sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street
lighting on Ashland Street shall be installed to City of Ashland standards
under permit from the Public Works,Department in accordance with the
approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
e) That a minimum six-inch curb be provided along the southern most edge
of the asphalt east / west driveway access to the subject site and the Oil
Stop site to prevent siltation across driveway and trackout.
e) That a bench or benches similar in style to the existing bench at Taco Bell
along Ashland Street shall be provided as a pedestrian amenity.
f) That required bicycle parking spaces according to the approved plan and
in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle
parking.
8) That future land use applications shall address the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard,
demonstrating how development may be intensified over time to meet the required
FAR for the entire site and for those properties under the control of the applicant.
9) That the selected street tree shall be a columnar type, high-branching species which
complies with minimum height requirements (13-foot clearance) over Ashland Street.
I
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report Addendum.adg
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 9 of 9
I
i
Lai
U
--1 m
LU
LLJ
-Toll
�-
a ,_�
...................
pi
-21
in
Lu
R7 ,
CO
LL
iih,
EXHIBIT B
RECEIVED CITY F
y Amy'Gunter at 4,54 pm, Apr 17, 2012 ASHLAND
-Memo,
DATE: 04/17/2012
TO: PA2012-00018 Record
FROM: Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
RE: New Information for the Record
This memo is intended to address the new information that was submitted during the April 10, 2012
Planning Commission Public Hearing and the information requested by the Planning Commission.
Pedestrian Plaza Areas
A revised site plan was submitted at the April 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, based on Staff's
pertaining the Pedestrian Plaza Area amenities and concerns raised that the plaza areas do not
adequately provide protection from the rain and sun. The applicants modified site plan by pulling the
planters that were between the building and the plaza area away from the structure and providing a
bench under the awning against the building. The landscape planters are now configured around a plaza
tree and will be seating walls. Benches have been added in a other locations as well. The applicant has
also proposed a food vendor area and colored, scored concrete plaza area surface.
I
Parking
Concern was raised that there is not adequate parking on the entire shopping center complex to allow for
the leasing of parking spaces from the complex to the subject site. Utilizing aerial photographs there are
256 parking spaces on the various properties under the control of the applicant, based on the
approximate square footage of the existing buildings 235 parking spaces are required, an excess of 21
spaces.
Additionally, the proposed use of the space as a paint store could be reviewed similar to other paint/
I
hardware store applications where the area that is off-limits to the customer and is used as the storage for
the retail component could have a reduced parking requirement. In the case of this application the
proposed total building area is 4,125 square feet, half of that is retail and the other half storage and paint
mixing area. The required parking for a 4,125 square foot retail establishment is 11.78 (12)parking
spaces (4,125 /350 = 11.78). If half of the area was calculated as retail, 5.89 (6) spaces required for the
retail portion, and 2.06 (3) spaces for the warehousing portion, a total of 9 parking spaces would be
required.Nine parking spaces are provided on the subject site, three are on the adjacent parcel. As
proposed the site complies with either 100 percent retail or a modified calculation allowing for a portion
of the building area to be calculated as warehouse for the retail use.
I
Department of Community Development Tel:541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 „
www.ashland.or.us
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was .29.
This entails the 4,125 square foot building, approximately 1,200 square pedestrian plaza and landscape
area between the building and the sidewalk, hardscape sidewalk area of approximately 585 square feet
along the east side of the building. Upon further review and discussion by the commission it was
determined that the area adjacent to the driveway along the east side of the building can function as
pedestrian plaza area; the applicant has provided a food cart vendor area to compliment the plaza areas.
This area previously counted as 585 square feet is 1,027 square feet.
The addition of this area brings the total proposed FAR to 6,352 square feet or .35 FAR.
Existing FAR
The existing building is 2,135 square feet and the current site FAR is .12, the proposal will
increase the existing FAR significantly.
Functional FAR
During the discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed Floor Area Ratio, the
"functional FAR" of the site was discussed. The total lot area proposed for development is
18,295 square feet. Of the 18,295 square feet, a large portion, 2,622 square feet is dedicated to
the entrance driveway for the entire shopping center. This reduces the area for site development
to 15,673 sq. ft. The proposed building and pedestrian plaza areas (between the building and the
street and including the sidewalk area to the east of the building) are 6,352 square feet or .40
FAR.
With the `shadow plan' second story addition of 2,000 square feet the total FAR in the future
would be, 8,235 square feet or .53 FAR. The future addition and using the `functional FAR', the
site would exceed the required minimum Floor Area Ratio requirement.
Shopping Center FAR
The total area of the entire shopping center including the subject property but excluding the area
under separate,ownership (2262 Ashland Street) is 8.95 acres or 389,862 square feet. The
approximate total square footage of all of the buildings owned by Summit Investments is 76,000
square feet. The approximate FAR for the entire shopping center is .20. The breakdowns of the
FARs for the individual site/buildings making up the shopping center are below.
Floor Area Ratios
Subject Site=2135/18,295 = .16
Oil Stop =3439/ 107,593 = .032
S'nK& Yuan Yuan=34,440/ 114,127 = .28
BiMart=36,000/133,293 = .26
Taco Bell=2880/ 16500 = .17 j
With the proposed development the shopping center FAR would be increased to .21.
Site Circulation
Staff raised concerns regarding the site circulation and how the modifications to the subject
property would affect the circulation of the larger shopping complex. Primarly, staff concerns
were about the extension of the existing parking lot buffer, creating a center landscape median
Department of Community Development Tel:541 488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us IF U A
and how that would impact the vehicle movements on the large east / west driveway which
crosses the entire property to Tolman Creek Road. The applicants submitted a site circulation
plan showing the future east / west connection shifting to the south and providing future access
to the property located at 2200 Ashland Street. This is not the proposal at present but was meant
to address concerns about the larger circulation issues on the properties. A commissioner had
asked about requiring a condition of approval which granted an access easement to the property
located at 2200 Ashland Street for its future development. There does not appear to be a rational
nexus between the impacts of the proposed development and the future development of 2200
Ashland Street.
The revised site plan reduces the median extension, provides painted directional arrows, curbing
and traffic warning signs to provide more clear direction to motorist and cyclists traversing the
properties.
Possible Conditions of Approval:
Based on the discussion of the Planning Commission and the new information requested during
the meeting the following possible conditions of approval have been drafted by staff. These are
intended to address the concerns regarding the Floor Area Ratio and the lack of a master plan for
the entire subject development and how that affects this and future proposals.
1) That future land use applications shall address Floor Area Ratio (FAR) objective,
demonstrating how development may be intensified over time to meet the required FAR for
the entire site and for those properties under the control of the applicant.
2) That the selected street tree shall be a columnar type, high-branching species which complies
with minimum height requirements (13-foot clearance) over Ashland Street.
i
(end)
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Department of Community Development Tel:541488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax:541-552-2050
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
i
i
EXH I BIT C
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
485 West Nevada Street Ashland, Oregon 95720
Ashland Planning Commission
Additional Testimony & Response
PA-2012-00018; 2220 Ashland Street(old Pizza Hut site)
Summit Investments,LLC
Submitted April 24'h,2012
During the April 10th, 2012 Planning Commission hearing for the proposed Site Review Permit for
the property at 2220 Ashland Street, the record for PA-2012-00018 was requested to remain open
for an additional seven days in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(c) followed by the applicants
request for an additional seven days to respond in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(e).
No additional information appears to have been entered into the record by the requesting citizen or
any nearby neighbors. A memorandum was submitted by the Planning Department staff on April
17th, 2012. A majority of the comments listed below are in response to the memorandum as well as
comments/questions heard from the Planning Commissioners during the April 10th, 2012 hearing.
Pedestrian Plaza Areas: Does the proposal comply with the City's "Public Spaces" standards
noted in Section I1-C-3b, which requires A) one square foot of plaza space for every 10 square feet
of building area (10016)AND B)shall include four of six pedestrian related elements?
A) The proposal includes a total of 4,125 square feet of building space and 1,135 square feet of
plaza space (27.5%) or one square feet of plaza space for every three and a half square feet
of building area.
B) The proposal includes five pedestrian related elements which include sitting areas to City
specifications, a mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade,protection from wind
by screens and buildings, trees in proportion to the plaza space AND outdoor eating areas,
including a food vendor designated area, for pedestrians and customers.
Overall, the application exceeds the City's standards for pedestrian plaza area and pedestrian
amenities. The applicants. believe the elements listed are sited to provide for a positive experience
and will help improve the environment for walking, cycling and mass transit. However, the j
applicants also contend the site is a small portion of street frontage that is generally understood to
be within an auto dominated environment and that it is unrealistic to expect any single parcel or
individual property owner to take on the burden of reversing 50+ years of auto-centric land use
planning. Instead, the applicants believe the City's various goals on human scale planning and
multi-modal transportation policies and standards must be incremental, methodical and financially j
prudent based on the ability of the market to absorb their associated costs (unless significant public
investment is included). That said, the applicants believe the proposal has exceeded the above
standards and have also prepared the application to eventually tie into future development scenarios
with the site's surrounding properties.
Parking: Does the proposal comply with the City's Off-Street Parking standards, Chapter
for the site AND shopping center? ra-104
i
P 5 20V
Yes. As explained in the April 17th, 2012 memorandum from City staff, there is adequate parking to
accommodate the required amount of parking spaces — on-site and within the shopping center.
However, it should be understood, the request to lease off-site parking spaces from the Shop-N-Kart
property should not be seen as a negative, but instead prudent planning that limits the amount of
impervious surface area to an amount equal to what is realistically needed for a paint store at this
particular site. The applicants would contend adding additional parking spaces to the site would be
excessive and not likely to be used. However, over time when the subject building converts to other
types of retail uses, the spaces may be necessary. Note: Based on a number of discussions with the
property owners, it is clear they desire to eventually submit new development and re-development
proposals on the shopping center's various parcels when and if the justification arises (tenant
demand, new lease arrangements, etc). As such, the subject parking spaces may be re-allocated
depending on the circumstances with the proposal. All such circumstances would be documented
and submitted to the City's Planning Commission for acknowledgement at that time.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Can the proposal eventually comply with the recently adopted .50 FAR?
Yes. The proposal has been designed to eventually comply with the recently adopted .50 FAR as
long as the site's "functional" area, the area excluding the entire shopping center's entrance
(approximately 2,622 square feet), is used as the base measurement. Further, the applicant's shadow
plan includes the ability to add "at least" an additional 2,000 square feet of second floor residential
area when there is market demand. In this scenario, the proposal would increase the current site's
FAR from .12 to .53.
In the interim, the applicants have attempted to meet the .50 FAR as follows:
Proposed Building: 4,125 sq. ft. (1St floor of building)
Proposed Plaza Space: 2,227 sq. ft. (all combined plaza space)
Future Second Floor: 2,000 sq. ft. (shadow plan area)
Shopping Center Entrance: - 2,622 sq. ft. (subtracted common area of adjoining properties)
Total Property: 15,673 sq. ft. (Tax Lot 391E 14BA 1700)
Floor Area Ratio: .53 (minimum FAR standard= .50)
Overall, the applicants believe they have submitted a plan that meets the intended purpose of the
Site Design and Use Standards and the recently adopted .50 FAR standard and at the same time is a
realistic phasing plan that takes into consideration market conditions, economy, financing
conditions and proportional capital outlay. By requiring the .50 FAR to be met without phasing, it
would be financially detrimental to the project and an unrealistic expense that was likely not
intended when the Pedestrian Places Ordinance was originally adopted.
Shopping Center FAR: What is the shopping center's FAR?
i
I
During the April 10th, 2012 hearing, reference was made to the shopping center's remaining FAR.
As noted in the memorandum provided by staff, the shopping center's FAR is currently at .20 and
the proposal would increase it to .21. A condition within the memo has been suggested that reads
� p
i 2 5 Z 012,
i
p t h k �4 land
1) That future land use applications shall address Floor Area Ratio (FAR) objective, demonstrating
how development may be intensified over time to meet the required FAR for the entire site and for
those properties tinder the control of the applicant.
The property owners are aware of this condition and understand as new development and
redevelopment is proposed, the shopping centers FAR and aesthetics will undoubtedly improve.
They have repeatedly stated they will continue to strive to meet the new standard wherever possible,
but may not be able to reach the minimum .50 standard with any single development. Further,
considering the size of the parcels, existing building configurations, parcel configurations,
reciprocal access easements, utility locations, traffic management (on-site and off-site), tenant
agreements, financing and unknown national economic issues, there will likely_ need to be an
understanding that such an objective can be extremely burdensome and some reasonable
understandings and exceptions may be necessary in dealing with some very complex matters.
Site Circulation: The site plan submitted during the April 10th, 2012 hearing and the memorandum
from staff addresses previous circulation concerns. However, during the hearing, one of the
Commissioners inquired about the possibility of granting an access easement to/from the old
Handyman Hardware property (2200 Ashland Street). The applicants agree with staff that there is
no rational nexus between the application and this possible condition, but it should be understood
by the Planning Commission that multiple discussions have occurred and will continue to occur
between the two parties as well as the City and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Simply
put, the owners do not have any particular concerns about a possible easement, but desire the
adjoining property owner to make certain improvements that are deemed both reliable and safe, and
acceptable to the regulating agencies,prior to any commitments.
In conclusion, the applicants believe the application meets the applicable criteria for a Site Review
Permit and hopes the Ashland Planning Commission not only concurs, but is equally excited about
the effort put forth to improve a prominently visible site in Ashland that has long been an area of
blight and in need of private capital investment. The proposal is hopefully the second phase of many
for the shopping center and surrounding properties that help improve Ashland's livability.
i
i
I
i
i
. ..i�� , x
4.
APR 2 '
Al
Zach Brombacher/Stated he is against infill and commented on the recent subdivision development near his home. He stated this
used to be a nice, rural area and voiced his displeasure with all the vehicles parked along the road. Mr. Brombacher also voiced his
concern with this development directing its drainage into Hamilton Creek; and stated this creek runs across his property and he is
worried about the increased flow.
Mr. Molnar clarified the City Council has already held the public hearing and passed first reading on the Historic District Design
Standards and the second reading is scheduled for May 1, 2012,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011.01523, Revised Historic District Design Standards.
Commissioners Mindlin/Heesacker m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action#2011.01523.Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 5.0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION:#2012.00018
SUBJECT PROPERTY:2220 Ashland Street
APPLICANT: Summit Investments
DESCRIPTION:A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot,single story, retail building
and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street.The former Pizza Hut building is
currently located on the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial;ZONING: C-1;ASSESSOR'S MAP:
391E 14BA; TAX LOT: 1700.
Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was reported; all of the commissioners indicated they are familiar with the site.
Staff Report
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter stated the applicants are proposing to construct a 4,125 sq.ft. retail building at 2220 Ashland Street
and the site is subject to the Site Design &Use Standards, basic and detail site review, and the recently adopted Pedestrian Places
requirements. The existing building is proposed to be demolished; and there are also landscaping, parking lot, and other site
improvements proposed to be modified. Six trees are proposed for removal, however only one is large enough to warrant a tree
removal permit. It was noted that all immediately adjacent properties are zoned C-1 commercial and are under the same ownership
of Summit Investments.
Ms. Gunter reviewed the site plan and stated the new building would be set back 12 feet from the sidewalk; and of the 12 required
parking spaces, 9 will be located at the rear of the building and the remaining 3 would be on the adjacent property to the east. She
explained the applicants are also proposing to create a streetscape entrance into the shopping center with sidewalks, street trees,
and a center median; and the Ashland Street frontage will be improved with an 8 foot sidewalk and street tree wells.
Ms. Gunter commented on the building design and landscape plan,and explained staff has raised issue with the following
elements: 1)building orientation and sense of entry to Ashland Street,2)the pedestrian plaza area lacks protection for rain and
sun, and lacks seating areas for pedestrian refuge, 3)the required floor area ratio(FAR) is required to be .50 and .32 is proposed,
and 4)site circulation could be an issue with the proposed median extension. Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation and
requested the Commission discuss these issues during their deliberations.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked for examples of how the applicant might achieve the .50 FAR requirement. Ms. Gunter stated a number of
scenarios were discussed with the applicant, including: 1) adjusting the lot line to reduce the size of the lot, and therefore increase
the building's FAR; however this does not conform with the intent of the code, 2)the applicants could increase the size of the lot in
order to become eligible for the shadow plan provision, or 3)the applicants could add a second story; however they have indicated
this is a financial burden they cannot afford.
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2012
Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Marsh stated this shopping center makes up a large portion of the pedestrian places overlay, and stated she is
interested to know how Summit Investments will incorporate the larger area and look in a comprehensive way about reaching the
desired density for this area.
Staff clarified the Tree Commission reviewed this application and recommended it be approved as submitted; however they had a
long discussion about the placement of the street tree wells and suggested a more columnar tree be used. Commissioner Dawkins
commented on the Tree Commission's recommendation and noted the importance of maintaining adequate site lines along Ashland
Street.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox, Laurie Sager, Dave Thurston/Mr. Knox addressed the Commission and commented on the area and the dilapidated
project site. He explained the proposed building will be built to accommodate a number of uses over many years, and this
application will have a positive impact on the streetscape. He stated the current building has a.12 FAR, and the proposed building
will have a.28 FAR; however if a second story is added in the future this will bring the FAR up to .40, and with the unaccounted for
semi-plaza spaces this development could reach a.499 FAR. Mr, Knox stated there is no way to reach the .50 FAR without moving
lot lines, and stated doing so would not achieve the intent of the code. He explained a second story would add$500,000 to the
project cost, and the applicant cannot afford to do this; however they can design the building to withstand a second story addition
and this could be added in the future when the economy and environment is right. Mr. Knox spoke to the plaza amenities and noted
they have submitted a revised plan that responds to staff's concerns. He stated Summit Investments is comprised of 37 different
owners, many of whom do not live in Ashland,and it has been difficult to reach a consensus; however they are slowly making
improvements to this site and they believe this development will have a positive effect on the area.
Mr. Knox clarified where additional outdoor lighting would be located, and comment was made that this would go a long way to
protect the existing fire hydrant. Commissioner Mindlin questioned the transportation elements including the parking situation and
site circulation. She raised issue with how the parking for a future second story addition would be addressed and asked if a formal
count has been provided to show that Shop N Kart has excess parking available to this development. She also indicated that the
circulation plan is somewhat confusing. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the site circulation as well, and requested an
easement be obtained to provide a connection from this shopping center over to tax lot 300. Commissioner Marsh commented that
it is clear this area warrants a master plan and would like to know how they will move towards the higher FAR and achieve the
desired urban design.
Public Testimony
Colin Swales1143 Eighth Street/Stated the major stakeholders of the Pedestrian Places project met with staff prior to these
standards being adopted, and would like to see the first development under these standards better comply. He stated the Findings
provided by the applicant are written to be"LUBA proof'and recommended staff go through these with a fine tooth comb. He
questioned the footnote on page 6, and also questioned if the applicants are interpreting pedestrian places to mean that because
the proposed building is only slightly bigger than the existing building,they only need to comply proportionally. Mr. Swales stated
this development will set precedence for the actions that follow and recommended the Commission follow staffs recommendation
and leave the record open to obtain additional written evidence.
When asked for clarification by Commissioner Marsh, Mr. Swales stated he is formally requesting the record be kept open.
Steve Reed/Stated he is the owner of Shop N Kart and has leased his property from Summit Investments for the last 24 years. He
mentioned the David Grubbs incident and stated it is important to him to have the entrance lighted and the shopping center's
ambiance improved, and welcomed the development and enhancements proposed by the applicant.
Commissioner Marsh noted the letter submitted into the record from Talent Irrigation District and read aloud the email submitted by
Chris Much,
Rebuttal
Mark Knox/In response to Mr. Swales'concern, he clarified they are not suggesting a proportional expansion, and rather are taking
a .12 FAR building and putting a .28 FAR building with all kinds of expansion opportunities in its place, He added the application
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2092
Page 3 of 4
has changed quite a bit since the original CSA Findings were created and clarified the footnote on page 6 was referring to the old
FAR standard that moved to the Site Design &Use Standards.
Questions of Staff
Commissioner Marsh stated they will honor the request to leave the record open and asked the commissioners to submit any final
questions.
Ms. Gunter commented briefly on the Findings prepared by CSA and clarified in other communities it is common for the applicant to
provide the Findings that are later adopted by the commission. She clarified in Ashland, however,staff writes their own findings and
the applicant's document is treated as their burden of proof.
The following questions and concerns were raised by the Commission:
• Regarding the FAR,comment was made that the commission is being asked to make an exception that is pushing the
envelope.
• Suggestion was made for the FAR of the functional area to be provided.
• Suggestion was made for staff to craft language that would link this application to an overall master plan for the site, and
with any applications that come forward in the future.
• Comment was made expressing concern with the transportation components of this application.
Mr. Molnar clarified the commission can continue this action to a date certain and take public input at the next meeting;or they can
close the public hearing, but keep the record open to written comments for 7 days and allow the applicants an additional 7 days for
written argument. Commissioner Marsh surveyed the group and they agreed to close the hearing, allow additional time for written
submittals as indicated,and come back for deliberations on May 8,2012,
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
i
i
i
I
i
i
Ashland Planning Commission
April 10, 2012
Page 4 of 4
i.
City of Ashland
From: Chris Muck [mailto:cmuck @millerpaint.com] LIDA anning Exhibit
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:35 PM I fi�o�u
To: 'council @ashland.or.us' ffC ' tTUT
Subject: Agenda April 10 2012 � r `
Dear council members,
It has come to my attention that on the docket this evening is a proposal to revamp the old Pizza
Hut building at 2220 Ashland St. It has long been rumored that the Sherwin Williams Paint
Company has coveted that, or similar, locations in Ashland from which to launch a
retail/commercial paint store to challenge us and our position as the only local, employee owned
paint store. While I do believe certain competition is good for our citizens, I also believe that
Ashland can only really support one paint store. It is not like having Shop n Kart, Albertsons,
and Safeway battling it out for our food dollars...
It would be my hope that the years (including the Tim Bewley led Ashland Paint and Decorating)
I have spent servicing our local patrons would have some bearing on that decision. As Ashland
has been my home for over 30 years and the majority of°those have been spent helping customers
and supporting local businesses, I feel strongly that we should keep "big boxes" and"multi-
national" corporations out of our town. It has always been my position to shop and invest locally;
that is a position that the"boxes" are known for.
I look forward to seeing all of you soon at Miller Paint Company!
Regards,
Chris Muck
Store Manager
Miller Paint Company Ashland
2205 Ashland St#101
Ashland, OR 97520
t. 541 482 4002 c. 541 301 0918
www.millerpaint.com cmuck @millerpaint.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated 5/21/08
TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT
LAND USE AGENCY RESPONSE FORM
104 W. Valley View Rd. Phone: 541-535-1529
P.O. Box 467 Fax: 541-535-4108
Talent, OR 97540 Email: tid @talentid.org
NAME OF ENTITY REQUESTING RESPONSE: City of Ashland Planning_Department
ENTITY REFERENCE NUMBER: 2012-00018 R 'I V ®
MEETING REVIEW DATE: Apri110, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
MAP DESCRIPTION: 39-lE-14BA Tax Lot 1700 APR 10 ZQ1Z
PROPERTY ADD 55:2220 Ashland Street
❑ NO COMMENT ON LAND USE ISSUE (IF NOT MARKED, CONTINUE BELOW)
NO IF CHECKED
COMMENT COMMENTS
ARE APPLICABLE
® A. WATER RIGHT ISSUES
❑ 1. Water rights need to be sold to someone or transferred back to Talent
Irrigation District. Number of Irrigated Acres:
Comments:
❑ 2. Must have District approval for water rights to remain in place on subject
property.
i
Comments:
i
❑ B. EASEMENTS
DISTRICT EASEMENTS
® 1. Easement needs to remain clear. No permanent structures or deep rooted
plants will be allowed within the easement limits.
Comments: The District's YMCA Lateral runs from South to North along the
West property line of the tax lot. The lateral is 10" in diameter.
® 2. If facility is to be relocated or modified, specifications must meet the District's
standards and be agreeable to the District. A new written and recorded
easement must be conveyed to the District.
Comments: The existing 15'easement is 7 1/2 feet from the centerline of the
pipe and must be shown on the plat mqp
® 3. If a written and recorded easement does not exist for an existing facility, then
one must be provided in favor of the District.
Comments:
PRIVATE EASEMENTS
❑ 1. Property may have private facilities (ditch or pipeline) that the District does
not manage. Arrangements may need to be made to provide continued service
through the subject property for downstream water users.
Comments: j
City of Ashland
Planning Exhibit
VAFdlCi1T -`
PA al o 1'.-C(T)k >
shared/word/forms Talent Irrigation District Agency Response Form Page 1 of 2
Wo
of
Mi� 1 2
OM
LLJ
amm Ri
R
El rz
2
A
4-T
All
INIM
Lt
H
10
k
Cl)
.1a
,2g
JL
Q 5b
di
Ja 6d jR
LL--
9L
Mi
X),I
LL
Iz.
rt1—W Planning Department,51 Winb ay,Ashland,Oregon 97520 CITY
a 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-205u www,ashland,or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND
PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00018
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2220 Ashland Street
OWN E RIAPPLI CANT: Summit Investments
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single story, retail
building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street. The former Pizza Hut
building is currently located on the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial, ZONING: C-1;
ASSESSOR'S MAP:391E 14BA; TAX LOT: 1700
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on April 5,2012 at 6:00 p.m.in the Community
Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room)located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM,Ashland Civic Center
tu
v
�rLi l
Li ED
a �
\\\ SUBJECT PROPERTY
2220 ASHLAND STREET
39 9E 14 BA 1700
IJ
1 �
N
�n
0 35 70 140 Feet Property tines are for reference only, not scateable
I
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above.The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter,or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting.(28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division,541-488-5305,
G:\comm-dev\planning\Templates\NOTICE—Planning Commission_Type ILdoc
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application;
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. 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.
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
G:\comm-dev\planning\Templates\NOTICE_Planning Commission_Type II.doc
I
b I
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
#d '�•�..� 1111
Map Maker
°i5tF1 II ` °` Application
tl 191k Property Data Online Legend
Highlighted Feature
a I 1
t
theeuffer
7 theBufferTarget
C �I Tax Lot Outlines
I!$ El
T3< I, I _ Tax Lot Numbers
Mobile Home Parks
Apartments
r Buildings
d . 1
It � ',r •. t€
OI 9 8
`ISO,.,� t ggt
I �. �i1 ,. �t i ...,i t6�4 Sfifi►'�'{€ ....t ipC � 3
rr
E�=
' E
L Y
Ef
40 2L 0'�' �c°� "2'e� pN �� v� +€ wry'"•
`t,
1 �
g d 4dtp '
116 � m
tj
h
fi
' 018,4 �'
I r�. ���A'-� _, .1 t .,d,• .� d. , �< � t .,n �— JACKSON
COUNTY
T21" This map is based on a digital database
compiled b Jackson County From a varie
( of sources.Jackson Coun cannot acceptty€ � t j responsiblly for errors,omissions,or
rtdf 77f"77" 1 '
I 6171 positional accuracy.There are no
1 1J A warranties,expressed or Implied.
Please recycle with colored office grade paper Created with MapMaker Map created on 3120/2 01 2 12:33:46 PM using web.lacksoncounly,org
PA-2012-00018 391E11CC 80000 ;A-2012-00018 391E11CD 1100 .)A-2012-00018 391E11CD 1200
BARCLAY SQUARE CONDOMINIUM LLC DAY MARYANNA TRUSTEE FBO CORRIGAN LOVING TRUST ET AL
235 OAKDALE AVE 552 EAGLE MILL 481 MOUNTAIN AVE
MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-00018 391E11CD 1400 PA-2012-00018 391E1413A 1500 PA-2012-00018 391E146A 1600
PREMIERWEST BANK SUMMIT INVESTMENT ET AL ALLEN BARBARA A
503 AIRPORT RD 375 LITHIA WAY 375 LITHIA WAY
MEDFORD OR 97501 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520
PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018
Laurie Sager S&B James Construction Shawn Kampmann
700 Mistletoe Rd#201 Attn: Dave Thurston Polaris Land Surveying
Ashland OR 97520 8425 Agate Rd PO Box 459
White City OR 97503 Ashland OR 97520
PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018
Urban Development Services Summit Investment ODOT—Ian K. Horlacher
485 W Nevada St Attn:John Zupan 100 Antelope Rd
Ashland OR 97520 1117 E Jackson St White City, OR 97503
Medford OR 97504
PA-2012-00018 PA-2012-00018 14
SO Transportation Engineering RVTD 2220 Ashland St
Attn: Kimberly Parducci 3200 Crater Lake Ave 3-21-12
112 Monterey Dr Medford OR 97504
Medford OR 97504
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Jackson )
The undersigned being first duly sworn states that:
1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department.
2. On March 21, 2012 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to
each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on,this list
under each person's name for Planning Action #2012-00018, 2220 Ashland Street.
�z s�
-Siignatt,e of Employee
I
I
i
Gkomm-devlplanningTorms&HandouWAffidavit of Mailing_Planning Action Notice.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVI I
STAFF T
April 10, 2012
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00018
APPLICANT: Summit Investments LLC
LOCATION: 2220 Ashland Street
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: March 21, 2012
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: July 25, 2012
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.32 C-1 Commercial District
18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection
18.72 Site Design and Use Standards
18.92 Off-Street Parking
REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single story,
retail building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street.
The former Pizza Hut building is currently located on the site. The property is subject to the
Detail Site Review requirements and the Pedestrian Places requirements.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
In 1982 the subject property was developed as a Pizza Hut which was closed in 2005.
I
From approximately 2006 until 2008 the Heartsong Tea Company operated a "Chaff Hut"
out the business. The site has been vacant since approximately 2008.
There are no other land use application on record for the property.
i
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
The subject property is 18,295 square feet and is located at 2220 Ashland Street in
southeast Ashland. The property has a vacant 2,135 square foot building, formerly Pizza
Hut which closed in 2005 and will be demolished. There is also landscaping, parking lot
and other site improvements which will be modified as part of this proposal. Ashland
Street is paved with curb, gutter, and a five foot wide curbside sidewalk along the entire
frontage of the subject property. The property is zoned Commercial (C-1). To the east of
the subject property is a vacant commercial building space. To the south is a dirt parking
lot which is part of the larger parcel bound by the railroad tracks, Tolman Creek Road
i
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 1 of 12
i
and Ashland Street, under the same ownership as the subject property. The large property
is the location of Bi-Mart, Shop N Kart, two restaurants, and the Oil Stop. Across
Ashland Street is a bank, two mixed use residential/commercial spaces and two vacant
commercial buildings. All immediately adjacent property is zoned Commercial, the
properties to the south across the railroad tracks are zoned residential.
The subject properties have an approximately three percent slope to the northwest,
toward Ashland Street with a small, steeper slope from the front of the building to the
sidewalk. The site has a five small trees less than six-inches in diameter at breast height
and one Red Maple which is 13-inches in diameter at breast height, various other
shrubbery and minimal parking lot landscaping.
1. Site Review
The proposal includes the construction of a new 4,125 square foot single story
retail structure. The building is oriented toward Ashland Street. The building is
setback 12-feet from the sidewalk. The average height of the building is proposed
to be 19-feet to the top of the cornice and 22-feet to the top of the pilaster. The
applicant has also proposed to construct hardscape plaza areas on the front and
east side of the building. Double, aluminum, store-front doors are proposed for
the front and rear of the building with spandrel glass on either side of the door.
Nine automobile parking spaces are proposed to be provided at the rear of the
building and a shared parking agreement is proposed for an additional three
parking spaces in the three northern most spaces of the parking lot for the Shop N
Kart which is to the southeast. Four covered bicycle parking are proposed on the
east side of the building.
The exterior building materials includes, standing seam metal siding and awnings,
split face CMU base, cement plaster, cultured stone pilasters, sheet metal wall cap
and aluminum doors and windows. The colors of the exterior building materials
are greens, beige and brown.
2. Tree Removal and Landscaping
The applicant has proposed to remove six trees in total, one of which requires a
tree removal permit because it is larger than six-inches in diameter at breast
height. The proposal includes a detailed landscape plan. Eight percent of the
parking lot area is to be landscaped, including a bio-swale landscape planter on
the west end of the parking spaces. An additional 16 percent of the site is to be
landscaped with low ground cover, shrubbery and a mixture of drought tolerant
plant materials. The applicant has also proposed three street trees in five by five
tree wells along the Ashland Street frontage, one shade tree in the hardscape plaza
near the intersection of the site and the driveway and three trees in five by five
tree wells along the driveway.
3. Site Circulation Modifications
The applicant is proposing to create a streetscape presence into the larger complex
property from the driveway directly adjacent the subject property. The existing
parking lot landscape buffer between the subject property's existing parking area
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 2 of 12
and the driveway will remain and is proposed to be extended. The applicant has
proposed this median to become a center median of a reconfigured driveway. The
applicant has proposed to plant trees along a sidewalk on the east side of the new
structure to frame the south traffic lane of the driveway. The proposed driveway is
45-feet wide at the intersection of Ashland Street, utilizing the existing curb cut
and widens to 63-feet at the driveways intersection with the existing east to west
driveway through the property.
4. Street Improvements
Ashland Street which is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) street under the
Transportation System Plan (TSP) and a state highway is fully improved with
paving, curbs, gutters, and a five-foot wide curbside sidewalk. The curbside
sidewalk and lack of parkrow does not comply with current street standards. The
applicant has proposed to install thirteen feet of street improvements. These are
comprised of five-foot wide tree wells and eight feet of sidewalk. The applicant
has also proposed to install a Sternberg pedestrian scaled street light at the
intersection of the driveway and Ashland Street.
II. Project Impact
The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of a new
building in the C-1 zoning district. The property is subject to the Basic Site Review and
Detail Site Review requirements. The property is also in the Pedestrian Place Overlay and
is subject to the requirements thereof.
A. Site Review
Site Design and Use Standards
The building is proposed as retail / commercial which is a permitted use in the C-1 zone.
The subject property is located within the Basic and Detail Site Review Zones, and the
Pedestrian Place Overlay. The proposed building is designed with its primary orientation
toward Ashland Street. The Detail Site Review standards require a building to be setback
no more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian
activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. The applicant has proposed a hardscape
plaza area which varies in width but averages approximately eight-feet and is 832 square
feet of hardscape between the building and the sidewalk. There is an additional five-foot
of raised planter area between the building and the plaza area for a total setback of
approximately 13-feet.
The Basic Site Review Standards require the building to be primarily oriented to the
street rather than the parking area, and require building entrances to be accessed from the
public sidewalk. The building has entrances from the Ashland St. side of the building,
and from the parking lot side of the building. Though the building has a more prominent
entrance on the parking lot side of the building, the building could be found to be
orientated towards Ashland Street given the architectural details, and double, storefront
style aluminum doors. Aluminum storefront windows frame the Ashland St. doors. As
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 3 of 12
proposed there is an additional column of windows on the left side which gives the front
entrance a lopsided appearance. The floor plan of the space has restroom facilities at the
front of the building and an office at the rear. These restrooms appear to be the
controlling factor for the window placement. The floor plan and the locations of the
office space and the restrooms could be modified to allow for increased window area.
Staff Concern/Recommendation: The primary building orientation is directed to
the parking area rather than Ashland St., and the street entrance is less prominent.
Second column of windows adjacent to Ashland St. entrance create an off-center or
lop-sided appearance. The building floor plan, through an adjustment of restroom
location, could be modified in order to increase the window area facing Ashland Street
consistent with the City's design expectation for the primary frontage.
The front entrance is approximately three feet above the sidewalk level and will have
three to five steps up to a landing at the entrance. There are low landscape planters
adjacent to the plaza space and surrounding the power pole, transformer, telephone
cabinet and gas meter. The applicant has proposed to protect these utilities instead of
removing or relocating by building low walls and low growing ground cover plantings.
Between the building and the pedestrian plaza area there is a five foot wide planter on
either side of the entrance stairs, approximately two feet above the plaza area.
There is a four foot wide awning proposed for the front of the building over the walkway
from the sidewalk and plaza area over the landing for the entrance stairs. The awning
extends for approximately twenty feet on either side of the entrance stairs. The awning
covers just the landing of the entrance stairs and the planters between the building and the
sidewalk grade plaza area. This awning does not provide protection for pedestrians from
the rain and sun as required in the Detail Site Review.
Staff Concern/Recommendation: The current proposal does not adequately provide
protection from rain and sun for the pedestrian plaza area. The awning shown on the
building plans does not extend over the pedestrian plaza area. The application should
address this either by extending the awning and creating covered outdoor spaces
adjacent to the building and incorporating free standing trellis structures over outdoor
spaces as noted in the City's Design Standards.
height of 40-feet in the zoning district. Buildings within the Pedestrian Places Overlay are
exempt from the Solar Setback Ordinance.
Floor Area Ratio
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed development is .29. This area is comprised
of the proposed 4,125 square foot building and the approximately 1,200 square pedestrian
plaza and landscape area between the building and the sidewalk. The applicant has also
provided a wide hardscape sidewalk area of approximately 585 square feet along the east
side of the building which also will function as part of pedestrian plaza area. The addition
of this area brings the total proposed FAR to 5,910 square feet or .32. As proposed the
site is .18 below the current standard of .50 as required in Section II-C-2a of the Detail
Site Review Standards and the Development Standards. The applicant has proposed an
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 4 of 12
Exception to the Site Review Standards for an Exception to the required Floor Area
Ratio.
Staff Concern: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is required to be .50 of the lot area and is
proposed to be .32 of building and pedestrian plaza area.
Exception to the Floor Area Ratio
The applicant has requested an Exception to the Site Design Standards to allow a
Floor Area Ratio below the required minimum of .50. The criteria for an
Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are that there is demonstrable
difficulty in meeting the specific requirement due to a unique or unusual aspect of
an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception
will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use
Standards, and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the
difficulty; or that there is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific
requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or
better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards.
According to the applicant's findings, a variety of factors such as lot size, tenant
needs, parking demands and shared access easements serving adjacent properties
creates a difficult burden for the applicant. The applicant's findings also contend
that the requested exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty in
order to mitigate the exception requested.
The applicant had entertained the possibility of a lot line adjustment to reduce the
lot size to be low enough to the meet the code requirement. This would have
placed all of the required parking on the adjacent tax lot and would have
necessitated cross easements. The applicants didn't feel this was the intent of the
recently adopted code. The applicants had also entertained the idea of enlarging
the parcel to the minimum lot half-acre lot size that would have permitted the
utilization of a shadow plan to achieve the FAR. This posed another set of cross
easements for access to adjacent properties and didn't feel that this also met the
intent of the code provision. Also with the existing building being demolished the
shadow plan is not an outright permitted option.
The applicant has provided an approximately 2,000 square foot area of possible
second story addition. There is not a design or elevation of the second story
provided and the applicant has not provided a time-line for the future
construction. If this addition was added the FAR would increase.43. The future
addition does have some aspects which will be required to be addressed in the
initial design and structural engineering for the proposed structure. According to
the City of Ashland Building Inspector this entails at time of construction a more
substantial foundation and other structural elements such as roof beams that can
withstand the structural load that a second story requires. A condition requiring
the necessary engineering and construction to allow for the future addition has
been added.
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 5 of 12
The findings also state that the project Architect has deliberately designed the
building so that the greatest mass parallels Ashland Street and the plaza areas
provide articulation fronting the street instead of parking and landscaping.
There is an additional approximately 440 square feet of landscaping on the east
side of the building that could be converted to additional pedestrian plaza area.
This would increase the FAR to .45. The pedestrian places code modifications
discussed provision of outdoor seating areas and the creation of gathering places
to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. The ground floor of the
building could also be enlarged which would allow for additional FAR.
The subject site is at the entrance of one of Ashland main shopping centers, and is
served by an existing transit stop. The proposed development provides an
opportunity to set the stage for future development, and will provide a connection
to the large anchor stores and the public street. The proposal is using pedestrian
plaza area to justify the requested exception and staff is concerned that the lack of
definition of the pedestrian areas and provision of amenities will not result in a
functional plaza area. Additionally without a timeline for the future addition of a
second story, the proposed,shadow plan is lacking merit. The building design and
orientation has a stronger presence towards the parking lot and with the
modifications listed above the Ashland Street presence could be strengthened.
Staff Concern/Recommendation: The additional plaza space lacks the necessary
amenities to create an inviting space for employees and the general public, such as
seating, overhead covering to protect from rain or fun, seating walls to define the
space, etc. The plaza space needs additional amenities to qualify for Pedestrian Plaza
area and not be just a sidewalk adjacent to the driveway. The building orientation and
window placement could be modified to strengthen the street orientation as well.
Parking
The materials submitted note that based on a 4,125 square foot retail space, 12 parking
spaces are required. The site plan shows 9 parking spaces behind the building and three
parking spaces on the adjacent tax lot under the same ownership. These spaces are
approximately 160 feet away. The applicant has proposed two parking lot shade trees and
the parking lot landscaping complies with the requirements of the code. There is space
available on the subject site which would allow for additional parking if the building is
enlarged.
Site Circulation
Property Circulation
The applicants own the subject parcel as well as most of the surrounding eight and one-
half acres to the east, west and south. There is a circulation issue on the site and the
proposal seeks to remedy some of the issues. The applicant has shown a very conceptual
master site circulation plan for the property.
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 6 of 12
A driveway with a landscaped center median dividing the two travel lanes is proposed.
The median is comprised of the existing eastern parking lot buffer and the existing north/
south driveway, to divide the driveway into a distinct south entrance to property and
north exiting. It is Staff's understanding that the median is being expanded and extended
in part to protect the existing fire hydrant and irrigation boxes. The proposal will prevent
north bound traffic from malting left turns into the subject site and Oil Stop adjacent once
past the east / west connection. The proposed median extension of 20-feet will offset the
existing east / west connection and a vehicle will have to make a slight diagonal driving
movement to cross the 63-foot wide driveway to enter the subject site or patronize the Oil
Stop. Exiting the subject site drivers will,have to cross an opposing lane of traffic at an
angle which does not seem like a natural turning movement.
The proposed median extension may cause additional circulation issues and Staff
suggests that the median not be extended to the south until the circulation through the
larger site is addressed, including formal intersections and turning movements. If the
applicant wish to protect the existing fire hydrant and irrigation boxes staff is suggesting
the installation of bollards.
Staff Concern/Recommendation: The extension of the median creates an awkward
intersection with the primary east/west driveway through the larger parcel. Staff
suggests that the median not be extended until a larger site circulation plan is
developed and that bollards be used to protect the hydrant from vehicle traffic.
As evidenced in the attached staff exhibit, aerial photo, there is a large amount of run-off
and siltation from the dirt lot to the south of the subject site crossing the east / west
driveway to the Oil Stop which creates a track-out problem. Curbing along the edge of
the new and existing pavement would prevent the dirt from washing across the east/west
roadway. A condition to this effect has been added.
C. Landscaping and Tree Removal
One tree, greater than six inches in diameter at breast height is proposed to be removed.
This tree is located behind the existing sidewalk within the footprint of the proposed
building. The remaining five trees are less than six inches in diameter at breast height
and are exempt for the land use requirements.
The proposal will result in 16 percent of the site being landscaped with the additional
pedestrian plaza areas the proposal exceeds the 15 percent minimum landscaping
requirement of the C-1 zoning district. Eight percent of the parking lot area is to be
landscaped, including a bio-swale landscape planter on the west end of the parking
spaces, this also exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent landscaping. The
applicant has proposed six foot wide planters for the parking lot which will provide for an
adequate area for growth and establishment of the parking lot landscaping and shade
trees. The proposed landscape plan shows two parking lot shade trees, low ground covers,
shrubbery and a mixture of drought tolerant plant materials. The applicant has also
proposed three street trees in five by five tree wells along the Ashland Street frontage,
one shade tree in the hardscape plaza near the intersection of the site and the driveway
and three trees in five by five tree wells along the driveway. The project Landscape
Architect has provided specifications for addressing the soils under the existing pavement
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 7 of 12
which will be planted. The applicant may wish to utilize structural soil and/or the
application of mycorrhizae fungi to aid the establishment and growth of the new
plantings including the street trees since the site has been barren for a number of years.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows:
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met,
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter,
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. 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 an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in
18.72.090 as follows:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and
Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use
of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate
the difficulty; or
B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Standards.
(Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011)
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Staff has raised a few issues concerning the Basic and Detail Site Review Standards in
the body of this report that the Planning Commission will have to address in their
decision and findings. Though the proposed site development will enhance a currently
under-developed, blighted site and the addition of more building frontage along Ashland
Street will be a positive addition to the streetscape it is not clear that the proposal meets
the approval criteria for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to be below
the required Floor Area Ratio minimum.
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 8 of 12
Staff recommends continuing the application so the applicant can be revised to address
the issues of building orientation and resulting Ashland Street presence, pedestrian plaza
functionality, the Floor Area Ratio, Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards and
site circulation.
Staff believes that through floor plan modifications (relocating the office and restrooms)
the Ashland Street orientation could be strengthened by having additional flexibility in
window placement. The plaza areas could be enhanced by removing the landscape
planter between the building and the pedestrian plaza area and installing additional hard
surface and the width of the awning could also be increased as well. Free standing
awning structures and trees could be used to make the plazas more functional. The
Planning Commission may also chose to require that the applicant provide outdoor food
service connections such as a hose bib and electric outlets adjacent to the pedestrian plaza
area. The circulation through the site and how it relates to the existing businesses to the
southeast and west will also have to be addressed. The landscape median could be
reduced or removed until a larger master plan and site circulation plan is developed in
order to reduce the potential vehicular conflicts at a slightly modified intersection of the
reconfigured driveway and the east to west corridor.
Staff suggest the following conditions of approval should the Planning Commission
choose to approve the application.
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified here.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial
conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans
submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review
approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) That the areas previously paved and now proposed for planting shall have all base
material and sterile soil removed to a minim of 24-inches and disposed of off-site
in accordance with the proposed landscape plan. Additionally, structural soil and/
or mycorrhizae fungi shall be added to the tree well areas to aid and encourage the
long term growth and survivability of the trees.
4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their April 5tn,
2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and
with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless
otherwise modified herein.
4) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage.
Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96.
5) That prior to the submittal of a building permit:
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 9 of 12
a) That a stormwater drainage plan, including details of on-site bioswale for
storm water and necessary water quality mitigation, shall be submitted for
the review and approval of the Planning, Building, and Engineering
Divisions. Post development peal. flows shall be demonstrated to be less
than or equal to pre-development levels.
c) A final utility plan for the project shall be submitted for the review and
approval by the Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions prior to
issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of
connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development,
including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and
services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins.
Utility installations, including any necessary fire protection vault, shall be
placed outside of the pedestrian corridor, and necessary public utility
easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit
submittals.
d) The applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering and Electric
Departments prior to building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets
shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, in those areas least
visible from the right-of-way while considering the access needs of the
Electric Department.
e) The building permit plan submittals shall include lot coverage calculations
including all building footprints, driveways,parking, and circulation areas.
These plans shall demonstrate that at least 15 percent of the site is
surfaced in landscaping, and that at least seven percent of the parking lot
area is provided in required parldrig lot landscaping, as required in the Site
Design&Use Standards.
f) The approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review and associated-permits
and inspections shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to
demolition of existing structures.
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the proposed structure shall be engineered and constructed to
withstand the structural load, wind loading, snow load, etc. as adopted per
State of Oregon Building Codes for a two story structure.
b) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit
civil design drawings for the implementation of public right-of-way
improvements provided for the review and approval of the Public Works,
Engineering and Planning Departments and Oregon Department of
Transportation. These civil plans are to be reviewed and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits, and required improvements are to be
completed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant; Summit Investments LLC Page 10 of 12
the issuance of a final occupancy permit. That a Public Pedestrian Access
Easement or Right-of-Way Dedication shall be provided for the sidewalk
improvements that are on the subject property.
c) The applicant shall provide the approved Landscape/Irrigation Plan which
addresses the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies of
the Site Design and Use Standards, including irrigation controller
requirements to allow multiple/flexible calendar programming with the
building permit submittals.
d) All exterior lighting shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit
direct illumination of any adjacent land. Lighting details, including a
scaled plan and specifications detailing shrouding, shall be submitted to
the Staff Advisor for review and approval with the building permit
submittals.
e) That the bike rack and shelter details shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Staff Advisor. The building permit submittals shall verify
that the bicycle parking design, spacing, and coverage requirements are
met in accordance with 18.92.040.1.
f) Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Ashland Street.
The locations of mechanical equipment and any associated screening shall
be shown on the site plan and elevations in the building permit submittals
g) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be satisfied,
including that all addressing shall be approved prior to being installed; that
fire apparatus access be provided and necessary fire apparatus easements
identified and recorded; that adequate fire flow be provided and
maintained. 7)That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
7) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
a) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed
in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards.
b) All required parking areas shall be paved and striped.
c) All landscaping and the irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance
with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That at the time of planting
and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than
two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas in the
developed area after the installation of living plant materials.
i
d) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the
installation of sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street
lighting on Ashland Street shall be installed to City of Ashland standards
under permit from the Public Works Department in accordance with the
approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 11 of 12
e) That a minimum six-inch curb be provided along the southern most edge
of the asphalt east / west driveway access to the subject site and the Oil
Stop site to prevent siltation across driveway and trackout.
e) That a bench or benches similar in style to the existing bench at Taco Bell
along Ashland Street shall be provided as a pedestrian amenity.
f) That required bicycle parking spaces according to the approved plan and
in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. Inverted a-racks shall be used for the bicycle
parking.
i
i
S
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
Planning Action PA#2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 12 of 12
w
H
U
i
k
O
� N �
O
N
r }
N
g
N uj
Q Q
::D N
f 4 T 4
y,
�w
i
�
LL
7
i
( s s
tr� mss, 3 4 � i 00
LL
LL
4
C
vd a
i
I
t
I
C
E
E
I!�
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
ODOT Letter
I
-0—i
�
regon Ike art��ent of Transportation
Rogue Valley Office
John A.Kitzhaber,MD,Governor 100 Antelope Rd
White City,OR 97503-1674
(541)774-6299
FAX(541) 774-6349
December 22, 2011
City of Ashland Planning Department
Attn: Amy Gunter = }
ffi
20 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520 . JW
' s f .
Re: Commercial Site Review for 2220 Ashland Street(PL-2011-01625)
Dear Ms. Gunter,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consideration of a request for a pre-
application for a commercial site review for 2220 Ashland Street.
ODOT has reviewed the land use application and determined this proposal will not
adversely impact the state's transportation facility; therefore, these proposed land use
actions do not trigger ODOT's review under the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-
012-0000), however, the Access Management Rule under (OAR 734-051-0000) requires
the applicant to update their current approach to the state facility (Highway 66).
1. Please have the applicant coordinate with ODOT Permit Technician, Roger Allemand at
(541) 774-6360 to update their current access permit,
2. Any work done in the State Highway Right-of-Way shall need a miscellaneous utility
permit. Please contact Roger Allemand to coordinate and allow any work in the ROW.
Please enter this letter into the public record for the proposed project and send me a
copy of the City's final decision. Please feel free to contact me at (541) 774-6399 if you
have any additional comments or concerns.
A la spectfK. Horlacher
Development Review Planner
Cc: RVDRT
i
Applicants
Amended Submittal �
PA-2012-00018.f 2220 ASHLAND STREET; SUMMIT INVESTMENTS 9 ET. AL.
FINDINGS OF FACT ADDENDUM AND CLARIFICATION
March 12th,2012
In response to the Planning Department's letter of January 26th, 2012 regarding the Site Review
Permit application for Summit Investment, property owners of 2220 Ashland Street (old Pizza
Hut site), please find below the applicants' responses as well as clarification on any amendments
proposed by the applicants in hopes that the proposal will meet the applicable criteria, address
staff's concerns and clarify any outstanding issues. Further, attached are the project's various
plans that have been modified to address the comments and questions raised in the letter. Unless
otherwise expressed herein, the materials submitted are intended to be an addendum to the
original application's materials, including the Findings of Fact and Traffic Analysis.
Orientation and Scale:
As of November 15th, 2011, the new Pedestrian Places ordinance was adopted which required
commercial applications to meet a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of .5 (previously the
minimum was .35 and the .5 provision only applied to historic districts (Downtown, 4th Street,
etc.). The applicants are proposing 4,125 square feet of commercial building and 1,215 of plaza
space which equals a .29 FAR on the 18,295 square foot parcel. As such, the applicants are
requesting an exception to the Site Design & Use Standards, Section II-C-2a (Orientation and
Scale) as permissible under Section 18.72.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code with the following
criteria:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design and
Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of
a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent
properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design
and Use Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the
difficulty; or
B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site
Design and Use Standards.
The applicants have sincerely attempted to meet the newly adopted FAR, but due to a variety of
factors, there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design
and Use Standards as it relates to Section II-C-2a as it is not possible at this time and not on this
particular parcel as the use of the site, in relationship to its lot size, tenant needs, parking
demands and shared access easements serving adjoining properties creates a difficult and
burdening responsibility.
i
In the applicants' opinion, the upgrading of this particular property, as well as the efforts
expressed below and evidenced within the newly revised plan submittals dqm, nstq to c
proposal will not negatively impact adjacent properties and the approval of tl € �tt
consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards which is as follows:
M A R ?
I
I
Purpose and Intent, AMC 18.72.010. The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to regulate the
manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on
surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is
safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the
environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and ensure that high quality development
is maintained throughout the City.
Further, the applicants' contend the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate
the difficulty and in order to mitigate the exception requested, the applicants have gone to
significant expense and effort to increase the FAR which include:
1) Adding additional plaza area where possible. The project's landscape plans have been
amended to capture as much "hardscape and softscape" areas that would legitimately be
considered as plaza space for a total of 1,215 square feet. Not included in this number is
an approximate 1,876 square feet of sidewalk and planting area directly adjacent to the
site's primary driveway entrance (east side of building). The intent of this area is to create
a "streetscape" presence with a sidewalk, pedestrian scaled lights and street trees planted
every 30' on center.
2) Engineering the proposed building to accommodate a future 2,000 sq. ft. second floor for
possible future office or residential use (i.e., shadow plan). The applicants are willing to
accept this proposal as a condition of approval and will include such information with
future building plan submittals. The combination of the 2,000 sq. ft. future second floor
and the 1,876 square feet of plaza area adjacent to the driveway (unclear as to how this
space is to be defined by staff and thus not included in plaza calculations), would increase
the project's FAR to .503 and thus meet the new standard. Unfortunately, because the
standard is somewhat subjective, the applicants would prefer to move forward and simply
request the exception up-front in order to avoid costly litigation, increased consulting fees
and lost time.
3) The project's Architects have deliberately designed the building so that its greatest mass
parallels Ashland Street which in turn attempts to accomplish a number of the goals of
the City's Site Design & Use Standards, including the FAR. In doing so, the proposed
building and plaza spaces will have more articulation fronting the street instead of surface
parking and meaningless landscaping (see photo below).
j
S �
� g
+3Xr . t
Subject Site: Photo best illustrates a worst-case building orientation along Ashland Street where the
existing building's street frontage is 35' and the replacement building's frontage willib0'
4_
U:,
r I
i
Note: It should also be understood that additional efforts to increase the FAR were considered,
but after additional analysis some were not deemed feasible. These included:
a) Reducing the lot area in order to increase the FAR. Besides the fact this option would add
significantly to the surveying and application costs, it's irrational and would not achieve the
FAR's intended purpose. In this particular case, the required FAR would at least be realistic
if it could exclude common driveway areas such as the entry drive off Ashland Street. As
codified, it doesn't recognize such circumstances which was likely not the intent when
adopted, but should justify why an exception is necessary.
b) Increasing the building's square footage "now" with current proposal. The applicant and
property owners are attempting to redevelop the subject property within not only their
financial means, but also the tenant's known business needs. By adding additional floor area
on a second floor, such as second floor residential units, would impose additional project
costs the project is not financially capable of supporting. Further, by adding additional floor
area to the ground floor, it would not only increase project expenses, but also put additional
demand on parking which in turn would increase the size of the parcel which in turn
increases the necessary FAR. In fact, the applicants are already requesting to "lease"
available parking spaces from the adjacent parcel in order to keep the subject lots lot size to a
minimum. Overall, the applicant's contend the application meets the intent of the minimum
FAR standard.
Building Elevation facing Ashland Street:
The attached plans, specifically Sheet A-201, have been revised in an attempt to emphasize the
building's front elevation facing Ashland Street. The building elevations, as well as the plaza
space improvements, should clearly "read" as the front of the building. The applicants desire to
better engage Ashland Street in order to provide an attractive and inviting street fagade and at the
same time meet the tenant's needs for crucial display area. Overall, the applicants contend this
standard is being met and remain excited about replacing the existing building and further
enhancing Ashland Street.
r
i
I
y
Subject Site: The above photo illustrates the existing building's dilapidated condition, linMd, s r ts'ce
presence and auto-centric site planning. The proposed building, as illustrated on Sheet A-201, will be a
significant improvement for the property and drastically enhance the Ashland Street st e8'4 r
i
I
II-C-2b 2. Streetscape:
A building shall be setback no more than S feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for
pedestrian activities such as plaza or outside easting areas....
A new sidewalk is to be installed along the frontage of the parcel. The sidewalk will be 13'-7" in
width and accommodate "new" street trees in tree wells covered by specified grates. The
proposed building will be approximately 12' from the new sidewalks edge, but the majority of
this space is designed as plaza space. It should be noted the current building sits more than 25'
from the back of sidewalk, which is also substandard in width and that the site is burdened by not
only a main power line, but also a pedestal and transformer that sits directly in front of the
building. The applicants and design team have made a significant effort to reduce the impact of
those facilities by designing and landscaping around them. A short "retaining curb" wall,
identified on plans, is approximately 6" higher than sidewalk grade which is intended to retain
the ground cover and landscaping around the utilities so as not to erode onto the public sidewalk.
Discussions with the Ashland Electric Department have occurred regarding the height and
spacing of the wall/utilities with no concern as access and safety will remain paramount. The
applicants contend the application meets this standard.
18.92.080 B.S.b Parking,Access and Circulation:
i. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with
landscape medians and swales.
The parking lot has been designed to accommodate a mechanical storm water filtration unit as
well as via the landscape median located adjacent to Parking Space #1. The current property
offers no on-site filtering system and storm water drains into the main storm lines without
filtering or any mitigation reducing storm water volumes which is a secondary benefit to the
purpose and intent of this criterion. Overall, the parking area has been designed to minimize the
adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material
selection and the applicants contend the application meets this standard.
ii. Landscape Medians — Landscape medians should be at least six to seven feet in width to
accommodate large stature shade trees with a tree bole at least two feet from any curb or paved
area in order to provide for tree growth.
1
The resubmitted plans show the site's landscape medians (parking lot medians) to be at least six
feet in width in order to meet this standard. Trees within the medians have been chosen by a
local Landscape Architect and Arborist familiar with Southern Oregon climatology and urban
planting environments and have chosen specific trees and groundcover that will meet this j
standard. Further, it should be understood that the center driveway median as identified on the
plan exceeds the minimum standards noted herein further attempting to meet the City's Parking
Area Design requirements noted under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, Section 18.92.080 B.5
as well as Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards under the Site Design and Use
Standards, Section II-D. However, if for any reason the parking lot's design, a$ it r0,4tcs to-,the,z
for mentioned land use code and standard, the applicants suggest the decision6.1h �6&'d' d= a
condition to the application in order to address the specific regulation (Just v. Linn County,
1997).
M A
J
vt
rii w< A
18.92.080.C.2 and 18.92.090 Access and Circulation:
At the time of the initial application submittal, the applicants' intended to address the City's
various Site Design and Use Standards by adding a second future building at the rear of the
property labeled Building "B". Building "B" was specifically added onto the plans in order to
address the minimum .5 floor area ratio standard even though the applicant's had no user for the
building nor could they feasibly finance construction of it at the same time the subject building
was constructed. Instead, Building "B"s inclusion was intended as a "shadow plan" illustrating
that at some point in the future, a possible building could be accommodated and thus address the
FAR. In addition, the building was placed in a location that rightfully raised circulation concerns
with staff as it interrupted an existing driveway isle serving the Oil Stop business to the west.
Nevertheless, Building "B" has since been removed from the plan submittals and the shadow
plan(idea of) is now shown as a second floor addition to the proposed building.
Also included in the addendum (attached) is an overall circulation plan for the entire shopping
center (Tax Lots 1300, 1500, 1800), as well as the parcels that are not owned by the applicants,
but have access easements to and through the property (Tax Lots 1200, 1600 and 1700). The
circulation plan is intended to illustrate the areas general circulation pattern.
i
i
i
Site's Surrounding Tax Lots !
I
Finally, the applicants are aware of the City's and ODOT's access management standards and
desire for on-site circulation between parcels where possible in order to incr a e'c paeio n
rights-of-way and reduce conflict points. However, it should be understood the"`applicants are
willing to grant in the future to the adjacent parcel, Tax Lot 300 - old Handyman site, ark a 6s
easement to and through the subject tax lots (1300, 1500, 1700 and 1800), but thy: /t�i�islp r ' n
is a private matter and will likely include an agreement with provisions for mutual ,re ipro �
i
N131, � i
I
i
i
access, maintenance provisions and financial reimbursement for not only the intended use, but
any conditions that may be imposed on the subject property owners due to any added impacts
caused by their development proposal. The timing of the agreement is yet to be known as the
property owners involved have yet to discuss the needs of Tax Lot 300 relating to their vehicular
counts, access locations or the basic design concepts.
Nevertheless, the applicants contend the subject application meets AMC 18.92.080 C.2 as the
expected traffic on the site (Tax Lot 1700) can be easily accommodated and also includes street-
like features within the development as described in AMC 18.92.090 A.3.b, including medians
with trees, sidewalks with trees, pedestrian connections on the subject site and sidewalk
connections leading to the adjacent properties where practical. The Ashland Fire Department has
evaluated the proposal, including the extended median within the driveway in order to protect the
proposed median's existing fire hydrant and to safely direct vehicular access.
Pedestrian scaled street lights on Ashland Street:
A Sternberg light pole and fixture will be installed along Ashland Street, near the driveway's
entrance, in compliance with AMC 18.92.090.B.5. Additional pedestrian scaled lights, although
a different model, will be added to the lights along the driveway.
Seating wall surrounding electric vault and pole:
As previously mentioned, there is not a seating wall surrounding the electric vault and pole, but
instead a short curb, approximately 6" in height, that surrounds the vault and pole so that its
landscaping and groundcover does not erode onto the sidewalk. The curb does not interfere with
the operation of the vault or pole as confirmed by the Ashland Electric Department.
I
Other items to be noted since original application:
Parking: The previous submittals proposed a total of 19 parking spaces which no longer applies
since Building "B" has since been removed. As such, the proposed retail store requires a total of
12 parking spaces. A total of nine parking spaces, including handicap space, are identified on site
and an additional three parking spaces are to be provided on the adjacent lot, Tax Lot 1500, via a
lease agreement. This provision would be in.concert with AMC 18.92.080 A.1. which allows for
required parking to be provided from another parcel. It's expected the use of the spaces will be
temporary until Tax Lot 1800 develops and the three parking spaces will be relocated on site, via
a Lot Line Adjustment, or in a slightly different location. Evidence of such lease will be provided
at time of building plan review.
Shopping Center Master Plan: At the present time, the shopping center's many property owners
do not have any master or conceptual plans that have been agreed upon. The representatives of
the ownership group clearly understand the importance of master planning and have various
"general" ideas of what additional uses the property can accommodate and where future
additions would likely occur. But, without truly understanding the needs of the tenants and future
market conditions, the owners have yet to agree to a master plan, let alone a conceptual plan.
Nevertheless, the property owners believe the proposed building site and use, based on its j
previous use as a high-turnover restaurant and findings from the project's Traffic-En as
well as discussions with the Oregon Department of Transportation, will not have an irripabt to the` £
vehicular circulation patterns within the public rights-of-way nor on-site within the shopping
center. MAR .k % r
i
Lot Line Adjustment: As noted, the original application (Page 16) included Findings for a Lot
Line Adjustment, but the current proposal is to retain the existing lot configuration and obtain
easements where necessary.
Tax Lot 1800: Throughout the original application, the neighboring property (Tax Lot 1800) was
referenced throughout primarily due to the inclusion of Building `B" which has since been
dropped from consideration. As such, no property lines or driveway modifications will be
needed.
Traffic Analysis Letter: Exhibit 14 of the original application considered transportation related
impacts associated with two proposed buildings consisting of 4,000 square feet of retail space
and 2,200 square feet of professional office space. The current application proposes 4,125 square
feet of retail space and a potential of an additional 2,000 square foot second floor of which the
use is yet to be determined. Because the square footages are generally the same as analyzed and
the uses likely to be similar or even less trip generating, the applicants contend the analysis'
summary remains the same.
Environmental and Microclimatic Impacts: In accordance with AMC 18.92.080 5.a.i, the
applicants propose to use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar
Reflective Index(SRI) of at least .29 in order to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of
the parking area surface (see Civil Plans). Further, the applicants have attempted to minimize the
amount of additional surface paving, including leasing three existing off-site spaces, in order to
address this standard.
i
Conclusion:
The submitted application and its various revisions are a result of many hours of work by �
numerous consultants. The property owners believe the final outcome will be a positive
development for Ashland Street as well as the rest of the shopping center. As with the Taco Bell
redevelopment, the new building will be a significant upgrade to what exists today and be
completed in a manner that is methodical and financially prudent for not only the sites various
property owners,but also tenants.
Attached Resubmitted Exhibits:
i
A-001 Demolition Plan and Vicinity Map j
TS-001 Topographic Site Survey
A-101 Site Plan
A-101.1 Leased Parking Space Plan
A-201 Exterior Building Elevations
C-101 Drainage and Utility Plan
L-101 Tree Protection and Removal Plan
L-102 Conceptual Planting Plan
Shopping Center Circulation Plan(existing)
4 '1... f
MAR 1 2 ?
JE'i.t
�z
i> W
WE-
� � Sa� �assasaa a e Sm° �.
�a a
_ Q
OD
w In Hn,
F hw �aao. $
qqo �:$ 3 sE % 7 �$s€Fggges a 9 rcvol e
V 5 Z 5
��
lc w 3 a 0
\T\ P
L i�c 0 a, I m�waa•s_.®®S» , F. $aea ���� rc x
m
i
1 � 1
'W 1
\
zn
, y E2
6m�"_ l m
a ' ! e Q
Lq
\ w
Il
I
_ -
w
°
0,
Rn M
2
moao'°J me 14 S,
E
101 A
I will
C2
ON
M5
Wo
w"I
��� _ - Lo z3 O -
IN
A a al - Mw
Hill 5 Ml
V 07
is 1
11 ul lips
NNu Em .............
LIN H
Wr I
idilah, a 1111A1111 oluld IM a I h H 1 J;11
WANAMM.1M.dd WE 0 &M- �wwqmmxa
So
m"imMod Mod 1 nw A—ma WwA Ww mmmm �2
o
<
O
..........
L 21
cn
old, o> r K WOf
x.
h- PH-p
IN1011
STOP I STOP
Lu
Lu
co
U!
x8
bm
tl
l
rg$ I i HMIN—H x W
J
Q
Ti ITITTf TTITll1
a
LL
I _
a
� � N
x
w�
� c
x
, Z
Z
O
4"2 ALL PANELS ECTI+CCN PILASTER 'OLESS C
iAcGcNT
T O PILASTER p
FIKED CANOPY Fv -
FRE-FINISE@o STAMM&
SRAM IMTAL ROOF(M-00
SPLIT FACE COW-RCTC ELOCtCRAISF' }0 ��
®)N TFd ELEVATION THCOWIn eN'Tw� a' b yv R °
fwIt.� f pp
SCALE:1/4"=1'-lY'
I lye la
PILASTER n
lgx
�[� a
T1.8 o 3,�
�e e � p,1
Fv dozy a � �p $m n 4
➢ 3 m Z o a I
f
I
I
!I
I
l
3i
i
j
f
I
7
7
I
mo
ol
Fp
i
<
�4
CO
LLI
Lu 0 m
z <
LL
LLi r 0-
LU
0 U) 7 0
:!t LL co
C)
co CO
10
10
-STOP
..........
.5-7
E --------------
7Y
O
J
e 3 a
s } 99
L- k 4 s3�3 C/)
LLI
HE
Mig
E He
aV
3 u 3
i a 3
O 00 �O �og.�3,gdk
np
{x
s � £
xe. - STOP _
H.
x
3
S
s
..n
00 I
IIT III � �4 L
O�
e Z
7
g 43
LU
t 'Id t i
2 P
all
M H
i-A �fN---IMM
t R
M-P
Won
NW,
Iq I I I
�STOP
Aip;,
-R-
99
o � �
> W
(� __ 3,s ✓ �. _ tW `ry".— Ill
m� [ z
t n
L 4
a P ", l
--�
(31 e Ci
�. VIM. - ,,I
t'
IR
,-x 01�- r
vy `
�. Y r
r
t
�+ 1 ,
�---------- - ��-�------__ter,
if
j a
R(FCEIVED
FRI Planning Division ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
W a
51 Winburn
CITY OF Q* of F
ASHLAND 541-488-5305 o
Vand ILE#
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED@ Certification? ❑YES ❑ NO
A
,
Street Address
Assessor's Map No.39 1 E. --JA 6 A J 00 Tax Lot(s) i 0 0 1 o 0
Zoning. Comp Plan Designation w&,t e
APPLICANT
Name �kl_4N Nsvalplo,f- q�6 0 7 -E-Mail Cl?( r
f
Address JA) AI&V dg: t "i City r - zip
/
PROPERTY OWNER
I
Ifl".
Name Phone 7 7 7-0 E-Mail
Address—j-/j aL City zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER,ARCHITECT,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,OTHER
I
Title Name _!a4- Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application,including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility, I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate;and further
4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in not qpJy_the,_reqvpst being set aside,but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be removed at my expense, If I have any o6 I am advise6o seek competent professional advice and assistance.
Applicant's Signature Date
Aso f the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
ner.
2-/j-12--
rop rty Ow'ner's Si quired) Date
[To be completed by City Stab)
Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee
NW
OVER 11,110
/V r Y, X-4 e e
-
C:\Documents and SettingsQucasa\Desktop\Zoning Permit Application.doc
February 17th, 2012
City of Ashland
Attn:Amy Gunter,Associate Planner
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Subject: PA-2012-00018; 2220 Ashland Street,Agent Authorization Withdraw
On behalf of the ownership group of Summit Investments, property owners of the subject property
located at 2220 Ashland Street,we would like to rescind our agent authorization given to Craig Stone &
Associates (CSA) and Jay Harland, Principal Planner with CSA to provide land use planning services on
the ownership's behalf for the subject property.
Further, attached is a revised application,signed by Mark Knox, Urban Development Services, LLC
(Applicant) and myself(Property Owner's Representative).With the assistance of Urban Development
Services, LLC,the Summit Investment group desires to amend the application materials where necessary
in order to comply with the January 26, 2012 Incompleteness Letter.
If for any reason there is a question, please feel free to contact Mark Knox at 541-821-3752 or myself at
541-779-6520.
Sincerely,
John Zupan
Summit Investment
Ownership Representative
4
I
I
i
R ED
i
I �L_z= /,
ltd of Ashland a
Memorandum CSA Planning, Ltd
4497 Brownridge,Suite 101
Medford,OR 97504
To: Ashland Planning Department Telephone 541.779.0569
Attn: Maria Harris, Planning Manager Fax 541.779.0114
Jay @CSAplanning.net
Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner
CC: John Zupan
Date: February 20, 2012
Subject: Paint Store Project (Planning File No. 2012-00018)
The ownership of the property on the above captioned project has elected to discontinue
further work with our firm at this time. For this reason, all Powers of Attorney on the
above captioned project have been terminated by the mutual consent of the parties. CSA
Planning Ltd. is no longer the agent of record for the subject application. Our
understanding is that this memo follows a conversation between John Zupan and Bill
Molnar in advance of this formal transmittal.
At this time, CSA requests further communications for the subject application be
transmitted to John Zupan at the following address, unless and until the ownership
specifies otherwise:
SUMMIT INVESTMENT ET AL
375 LITHIA WAY
ASHLAND OR, 97520
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
CSA Planning, Ltd.
Jay Harland
Principal
cc. File
RECEIVED
t
i
I
j
i
FLU 2 1
City of Ashland
i
i
i
CITY OF
SHLAND
January 26, 2012
CSA Planning
Attn: Jay Harland
4497 Brownridge
Medford, OR 97504
RE: 2012-00018,Property located at 2220 Ashland St.
Incompleteness Determination
Dear Mr. Harland:
I have reviewed your application received on January 6, 2012 for a Site Review for a new commercial
building located at 2220 Ashland Street. After examining the materials presented, I have determined that
the application is incomplete because the information listed below was not provided or needs additional
information. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with ORS 227.178. The
application cannot be further processed and deemed complete until the missing information is submitted
or the applicant indicates that the missing information will not be provided.
The following items should be addressed by February 13, 2012, if the application is to be included in the
March Land Use Application processing.
1. Findings addressing the following criteria and/or standards:
a. II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale:
i. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of.50... According
to the submittals the proposed FAR is .39 which is less than the minimum of.50.
In order to permit the reduced FAR an Exception to the Site Design and Use
Standards in accordance with 18.72.090 will be necessary. The criteria for the
Exception are as follows:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the
Site Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not
substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use
Standards; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the
difficulty; or
1
Community Development Dept. Tel:541488-5305
20 E.Main Street Fax:541488-6006
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or,us
d. Access and Circulation:
It is unclear how the proposed site improvements will impact vehicle and
pedestrian circulation in the surrounding shopping area and neighboring
properties. A circulation system that accommodates the expected traffic including
interconnection between this site and the larger shopping center is required in
accordance with 18.92.080.C.2 and 18.92.090.
Staff is concerned about the landscape median separating the lanes of travel in the
driveway. Specifically, the prevention of left turns into the parking lot of the site
from the north bound lane of the driveway. Ashland Fire and Rescue stated that
the placement of the hydrant in the median would need some sort of protection
from being hit by trucks. Additionally,the height of it may need to be raised to
meet the clearance requirements under Oregon Fire Code. I have included the Fire
Departments comments with this document.
Additionally,the placement of Building B appears to be located in the current
East—West driveway that connects to Tolman Creek Road. Though the
construction of that site is not happening with this application the future
connectivity should be addressed.
Interconnected walkways throughout the development should be addressed in the
application,primarily,pedestrian connections to the most adjacent properties,
such as the Oil Stop and Shop `N Kart. The proposed site improvement plan does
not appear to have pedestrian connections between those most adjacent uses.
(18.92.090)
e. Pedestrian Scaled Street Lights on Ashland Street:
L Pedestrian scaled light fixtures are required to be placed along Ashland Street.
The City of Ashland lighting standards would require one Sternberg at the
intersection of the driveway and the street(V-B-4) and(I 8.92.090.B.5).
f. Seating wall surrounding electric vault and pole:
L According to the City of Ashland Electric Department the proposed wall around
the transformer and pole are a potential problem. In no case can the pole be
located within a wall. The electric vault is required to have eight (8) feet of
clearance on the door side and aerial clearance (8' to any overhang). The vault is
`un-energized' and could easily be relocated or rotated to shift the opening.
3
Community Development Dept. Tel:541-488-5305
20 E,Main Street Fax:541.488-6006
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Applicants
Original Submittal
' I
BEFORE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
FOR
ASHLAND, OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE )
REDEVELOPMENT OF TAX LOT 1700 )
WITH TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, )
AND TO ADJUST THE COMMON )
BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN TWO ) PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
ABUTTING PROPERTIES.SUBJECT ) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PARCELS ARE IDENTIFIED AS TAX )
LOT 1700 and 1800 IN TOWNSHIP 39 ) Applicant's Exhibit 2
SOUTH, RANGE 1 EAST(WILLAMETTE )
MERIDIAN), SECTION 14BA WITHIN )
INCORPORATED BOUNDARIES OF )
THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON )
Applicant/Owner: Summit Investment,et al )
Agent: CSA Planning,Ltd. )
I
NATURE, SCOPE AND INTENT OF APPLICATION
Applicant proposes a redevelopment project that will result in constriction of two
commercial buildings with a total of 6,200 square feet to replace an existing 2,135 square
foot restaurant building on Tax Lot 1700. Tax lot 1700 fronts on Ashland Street (Oregon
Highway 66). The property is in the C-1 Retail Commercial zone and is subject to two
overlays—the Detailed Site Review and Pedestrian Places. A property line adjustment is
proposed to relocate the property lines to include only the buildings and the central
parking lot. The adjusted acreage will be .44 acres.
Page 1 of 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
I I
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION
Applicant has submitted the following evidence in support of the land use application:
Exhibit 1. Completed Property Line Adjustment Application with limited Power of
Attorney for CSA Planning, Ltd
Exhibit 2. The proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this document)
which demonstrates how the application complies with the applicable
substantive approval criteria as set forth in the Ashland Land Use
Ordinance (ALUO)
Exhibit 3. Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Standards
Exhibit 4a. Zoning Map on Aerial
Exhibit 4b. Zoning Overlays Map
Exhibit 5, Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit G. Current Assessor's Plat Map
Exhibit 7. Site Photos and Key Map
Exhibit 8. Preliminary Map for Lot Line Adjustment, prepared by Polaris Land
Surveying, LL,. Januaq 4, 2012
Exhibit 9. Proposed Design Plans:
A-001 Project Information, General Notes & Site Demolition Plan
A-101 Site Plan
A-201 Building A Elevations
A-202 Building B Elevations
C-101 Site Utility Plan & Drainage Plan
L-1.0 Tree Protection and Removal Plan
L-2.0 Conceptual Planting Plan
Project Color Boards
Exhibit 10. Proposed Site Plan Overlaid on Aerial Photo
Exhibit 11. Initial Development Memo with Plan,Januaq 6, 2012
Exhibit 12. Memo regarding Water Conserving Landscaping, prepared by Laurie
Sager, registered Landscape Architect, January 6, 2012
Exhibit 13. Sherwin Williams Hazardous Waste Disposal practices
Exhibit 14. Transportation Evaluation Letter,prepared by Kimberly Parducci, PTOE
Exhibit 15. Deed Information for 39S lE 14BA, Tax Lots 1700 and 1800
i
i
Page 2 of 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
III
RELEVANT SUBSTANTIVE APPROVAL CRITERIA
The criteria, under which a property line adjustment and private way must be considered,
are set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). The relevant criteria are
recited verbatim below and in relation to conclusions of law included at Section V which
follows:
ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE(ALUO)
18.32 Retail Commercial District
18.32.010 Purpose
This district is designed to stabilize, improve and protect the characteristics of those areas providing
commercial commodities and services.
18.32.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Professional,financial, business and medical offices,and personal service establishments such as
beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations.
B. Stores,shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services,such as a department store,
antique shop, artists supply store,and including a regional shopping center or element of such center,
such as a major department store.
C. Restaurants. (Ord 2812, S2 1998)
D. Theaters, but not including a drive-in.
E. Manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such manufacturing or assembly
occupies six hundred (600)square feet or less, and is contiguous to the permitted retail outlet.
F. Mortuaries and crematoriums.
G. Printing,publishing, lithography,xerography,copy centers.
H. Temporary tree sales,from November 1 to January 1.
I. Public and quasi-public utility and service buildings,and public parking lots, but excluding electrical
substations.
J. Kennels and veterinary clinics,with all animals housed within structures.
Nightclubs and Bars. Except as provided in 18.32.030, however, no nightclub or bar is permitted within
the Historic Interest Area unless it is located in the°D" Downtown Overlay District. (Ord 2812,S2 1998)
18.32.040 General Regulations
A. Area, Width,Yard Requirements.There shall be no lot area,width,coverage,front yard, side yard, or
rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and Solar Access Chapters;where required
or increased for conditional uses;where required by the Site Review Chapter or where abutting a
residential district,where such setback shall be maintained at ten feet per story for rear yards and ten
feet for side yards. (Ord 2859 S1, 2000)
B. Maximum Building Height. No structure shall be greater than 40 feet in height.
18.68.030 Access
Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty (40) feet upon a public street (other than an alley). This
requirement may be decreased to twenty-five (25)feet on a cul-de-sac vehicle turn-around area. Except with
an approved flag partition, no lot shall abut upon a street for a width of less than twenty-five(25)feet.
18.76 Partitions
I
I
Page 3 of 17
I
I
( (
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment Luc.etal.
1VJO.14o Lot Line Adjustments
The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary,where the number of parcels is not
changed and all zoning requirements are met,shall be accepted by the City, provided the requirements of
Sections 18.76.090 through 18.70.130 are satisfied, in addition toSection 18J0,1TU.where the lot
adjustment causes access hubo changed toen exterior unimproved street.
18.72.V5U Detail Site Review Zone
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to
Section 18.72.080.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted
pursuant to this chapter,which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width,
shall be reviewed according m the Type 2procedure.
C. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the
Detail Site Review Zone shall conform»o the following standards:
1. Buildings sharing a cornmon wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as
one building.
2. Buildings mhe|| not exceed o building bckphn1 area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the
exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior
Courtyard means u space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not aroof.
1 Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space,
roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas,with the following exception..
Automobile parking amen located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
4. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet,
ioJ2.07O Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall ho used 0c approve nr deny onapplication:
A. All opp|iwah|o City ordinances have been met or will be mot by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been me1or will bnmet.
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 18.8V. Performance Standards Options. (Ovd. 2655. 1991; Ord 2050G0.
1999)
18.108 Procedures
i0J08.020 Types mfProcedures �
There are three general types of procedures: 1)ministerial actions;2)planning actions, and 3)legislative
amendments.When u project proposal involves more than one application and more than one type nf �
procedure, the applications shall be reviewed together by the same decision body and follow the highest �
level procedure applying to any one of the applications. �
A. Ministerial Actions.The Staff Advisor shall have the authority to review and approve or deny the following �
matters which shall ho ministerial actionn-
5. Boondary|inendjuo\mentn. (1878140) �
18.1O8.025 Consolidation Review Procedures
Page 4ox1r
( |
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment Luo.otal.
An applicant may apply at one time for all permits or zone changes needed for a development project.The
consolidated procedure shall be subject to the time limitations set out in ORS 227.178.The consolidated
procedure shall follow the most restrictive procedure in the development project.
18.10O.O4O Type| Procedure
A. Actions Included.The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type I Procedure:
1. Site Design Review. The following developments that are subject to the Site Design Review
Standards outlined in1872 shall follow the Type | permit procedures.
a� Downtown Design Standards Zone.Any development which ia less than 2.5VV square feet orten
percent of the building's square footage, whichever inless.
b. Detail Site Review.Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone, as defined in the Site
Review Standards adopted pursuant Chapter 18.72,which is less than 10,000 square feet in
gross floor area.
o. Commercial, Industrial and Non-residential Uses
i All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones, not within the
Downtown Design Standards zone,that do not require new building area in excess of 20%
ofon existing building'e square footage nr1O.00O square feet of gross floor area,
whichever isless.
5. Partitions and Land Divisions.
u. Partitions which require on variances or only variances subject tu Type | procedures.
Page smn
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
IV
FINDINGS OF FACT
The City of Ashland Ends the following facts to be true with respect to this matter. The
below Conclusions of Law are supported by the facts provided herein.
1. Property Location:
The subject property is located on the South Side of Ashland Street (Oregon Highway
66) between the railroad overpass and Tolman Creek Road within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Ashland.
2. Subject Property Description, Ownership:
The subject property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Plat 39S lE 14BA
as Tax Lot 1700. The property line adjustment is to occur between the subject
property and the adjacent Tax Lot 1800. Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 are owned as with
undivided interests by Kenneth Jones, Louise Jones, Charles and Jean Rice Thompson,
Peak's Ranches Ltd, and Summit Investment, LLC.
3. Zoning: Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 are currently zoned C-1, Retail Commercial. The
properties are also located in a Detail Site Review Zone and the Pedestrian Places
Overlay'.
4. Comprehensive Plan Map: Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 are designated Commercial on
the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map.
5. Property History and Lot Legality: Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 were partitioned from
the parent parcel. Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 were created in their current configuration
through a minor land partition,Plat No. 9382
6. Lot Line Adjustment Facts:
The following table provides details on the changes to each tax lot following the
property line adjustment:
I
The Pedestrian Places Overlay are not addressed finther in these findings because the actual development standards
that apply within that zoning overlay are delimited to residential zoning districts;the standards developed through the
Pedestrian Places Overlay legislative project were incorporated directly into the Detail Site Design Review
requirements which are addressed in detail in Exhibit 3.
Page 6 of 17
i
l
I
| <
Findings of Fact and Conclusions ofLaw
Site Plan Review and Pmpe
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
Iwo:=EM.MNIMM!1!
Existing
.42 152.92' 114.92' 152.33' Contains access
riveway on
Ashland St.
Property is
adjusted so that
the driveway
becomes part of
TL 18W
Resulting .44 108.83' 171.83'
114.92 Access
easement to
driveway on
Ashland St.
Zoning Per section 18.32.040,there is no minimum Complies Complies
Compliance lot area,width,coverage,front yard,side
yard,or rear yard required in the C-1 zone.
Existing 2.47 200.08' 279.80' 266.64'frontage is Only access is
on ODOT right from ODOT right
way on west side of-way on west
side
Change -.02 0.01 +17.84 Adds+37.41' Add access
frontage on driveway on
Ashland St. Ashland St.
Two access
Resulting 2.45 200.08' 262.16' 37.41'frontage on
Ashland St, plus points
266.64'fronta
ge on
ODOT right-of-way
Zoning Per section 18.32.040,there is no minimum Complies Complies
Compliance lot area,width,coverage,front yard,side
yard,or rear yard required in the C-1 zone
7. Existing Site Development and Use:
There is a vacant building that is approximately 2,135 mquu,c feet on the site. This
building was originally constructed to serve u Pizza Hitt restaurant use. The building
was later home to the Cho/ Hut which was u tea-house restaurant that discontinued
business operations approximately three years ago.
8. Existing and Surrounding Land Use: Land uses in the surrounding area consist of
the following:
e
18.68.030 Access-Each lot shall abut a minimum width of forty(40)feet upon a public street(other than anaxor).This
requirement may be uoomaoau to twenty-five <on> met on a cu|'oe*oo vehicle mm~omunu area. Except with an
approved flag partition,no lot shall abut Upon a street for a width of less than twenty-five(25)feet.
Page 7ov1r
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
West: Immediately to the west is an Oil Stop that provides oil changes and similar
quick-service automobile maintenance; the Oil Stop use is located on Tax Lot 1800.
Further to the west is Tax Lot 300 which is a 1.2 acre triangular parcel owned by John
Schweiger that is also in the C-1 zone. Further to the west is the Central Oregon and
Pacific(CORP) rail line which is used by the company.
North: Uses across Ashland Street to the North include a bank, offices, and a vacant
building that most recently housed a bakery/restaurant. Beyond these is the Ashland
Family YMCA. To the northwest is a mixed use building that includes retail and
multi-family housing. To the northeast is a vacant commercial property and across
Tolman Creels Road is the Albertson's Shopping Center.
East: To the east of Tax Lot 1700 is a small vacant office building that most recently
housed a dentist office. Beyond that are commercial properties with uses including a
Chinese restaurant and a Taco Bell.
South: The property due south of Tax Lot 1700, Tax Lot 1800 wraps both the south
and west sides of Tax Lot 1700 and is mostly vacant, except for the Oil Stop to the
west and the CORP railroad right-of-way beyond. Across the rail lines are single
family housing units that are zoned R-1-5; houses in this area were generally
constructed from 2000 to 2005. To the southeast are the Bi-Mart and Shop'n Kart
buildings.
This property is owned by the same consortium that owns Tax Lots 1800, 1500, 1300
and 1200 including the Oil Stop, Chinese restaurant, Taco Bell, Bi-Mart and the
Shop'n Kart properties.
9. Topography: The property slope varies from 2% to 3% from the Ashland Street
right-of-way line up to the southern property line. See Exhibit 8.
10. Natural Hazards: This property has no identified natural hazards.
11. Fire District: The property is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland
Fire Department.
12. Public Facilities:
a. Sanitary Sewer: Page 7 of the Pre-Application report for the project states the
property is currently served by an 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Ashland Street.
b. Water: Page 7 of the Application report for the project states that an 8-in water j
main exists in Ashland Street to serve the project. j
i
c. Storm Drainage: Page 7 of the Pre-Application report for the project states that
the property is currently served by a 15-inch storm water main in Ashland Street
and that no additional improvements/requirements to the City Infrastructure are
necessary to serve the project provided the post-development peak flow is less
than or equal to the peals flow for the site as a whole as it currently exists.
I
Page 8 of 17
i
i
I
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
13. Transportation:
a. Functional Classification: The project fronts on Ashland Street which is also
known as Oregon Highway 66. Highway 66 is controlled and maintained by the
Oregon Department of Transportation. The Ashland Transportation System Plan
(TSP) classifies Highway 66 as a Boulevard which is Ashland's highest order
street. Boulevards are planned to carry 8,000-plus trips per day. Highway 66 is
classified under the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan as a District Level Highway,
ODOT's lowest level of fiinetional classification which allows for the lowest
speeds and highest levels of property access.
b. Trip Generation: Kimberly Parducci, PTOE, Principal of Southern Oregon
Transportation Engineering, prepared a transportation evaluation letter for the
project. See, Exhibit 15. That letter demonstrates that the trip generation from the
proposed development will be no greater than the prior restaurant use.
c. Access: Tax lot 1700 fronts on Ashland Street. Tax Lot 1800 currently only has
frontage on the ODOT right-of-way to the west. However, Oil Stop customers
typically access the shop by driving across Tax Lot 1700.
This application proposes to deed the driveway portion of Tax Lot 1700 to Tax
Lot 1800 and provide an access easement allowing Tax Lot 1700 to continue to
use that approach. This solution is practical for the entire site because it is
anticipated that Tax Lot 1800 will be redeveloped in the future as a larger
shopping center and it is more appropriate for the main access to be located on
one of the main shopping center parcels.
14. Project Description and Summary: The project includes two commercial buildings
on the reconfigured Tax Lot 1700, Building A will be a retail building to house a
paint store and Building B will be built as a professional office building (typical
tenants for this sort of space would include insurance and real estate agents). The
Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) has several design requirements and standards
that apply to the redevelopment project.
ALUO Site Design and Use Standards in Section II-C-1 applies to all development in
commercial and employment zones; those provisions in Section II-C-Ig lay forth a
proportional compliance to which expansions of existing sites and buildings must
satisfy to meet the Site Design and Use Standards requirements. This standard
requires compliance with the current detail site review requirements to vary in direct
proportion to the extent of the building expansion. For the subject property the
existing building is 2,135 square feet. The resulting buildings will be 6,200 square
feet. Therefore, the resulting "site" must be at least 66% compliant with the current
Site Design and Use Standards.
The application of this standard is relatively straightforward when it is applied to
standards associated with the buildings themselves.
Page 9 of 17
i
i
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
For the standards that apply to site layout, the proportional compliance standard
becomes more complicated for this particular project. If"the site" were interpreted to
be all of Tax Lot 1700 and Tax Lot 1800 combined then the analysis would include a
significant undeveloped area for which only a small amount of new development is
planned as part of this project. Moreover, all the building square footage that
currently exists is located on Tax Lot 1700 and all of the resulting building square
footage will be located on the reconfigured Tax Lot 1700. This would be an absurd
application of the ALUO II-C-lg3 standard to require 66% compliance with all the
Detail Site Review Standards on Tax Lot 1800 where no new building development is
proposed and considering it is actually the larger of the two parcels. Instead, the
Applicant proposes that a reasonable, but conservative application of the standard to
this particular situation is to evaluate compliance with the Detail Design Review
Standards that apply to "the site"in the following two ways:
• First, demonstrate at least 66% compliance for Tax Lot 1700 as "the site"
consistent with an application of ALUO Site Design and Use Standard II-C-
1 g.
• Second, provide substantial evidence that no part of the proposed non-
structural development on Tax Lot 1800 would reasonably be expected to
prevent future structural development in compliance with the city's standards
on that lot.
Consistent with the above analysis and interpretation, the below table provides a
summary of the key standards for "the site" (the reconfigured Tax Lot 1700):
Maximum 5' Front Yard Building 16'to 20'-0""from 15'to 19'-0""with plaza filling between Complies
Setback the ROW line the building and the ROW line
.............._............................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................
.........................................................._................................................................................
Plaza Area ; None 1,205 sf NA
....................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................:.............................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
Parking Count 20 j 19 Complies
...............................................................................................................................................................
i......................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
Parking Surface Design Asphalt Asphalt and Pervious Asphalt I j
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
............................................._.........................................................................................................................................................
........................�.
.....................................................................................................................................
FAR .05 39% Complies
........................................__................................_................................................................_........_.............__..............................
............................................._......._................................................................._..................................................
Landscaping 16%
21% Complies
_..............................._..................................._............_...............................................................;. _..........................._._................
......._....................;..._............................_...__._..._...__...._.._._..._..............................................__.._........................................................
.................................................................................................................................
Ashland Street Improvements 5'Sidewalk/gutter Add plaza, street trees&street furniture Complies
.........._......................................................................................................................................................................................
. . __
Building Orientation To Parking Lot Toward Ashland Street Complies
............................................................................................................................-.........................................................
..........._..............................................................._...............
Pedestrian Connections No walkway to the ; Adds well connected and landscaped ` Complies
Center's Interior walkways throughout
__...........................................................................................__...................................................._________________________.......................
.._________________________......................_........................._......_..._..............................._................................................................................
........_........_........................................................................................._........................................
Parking Lot Landscaping 3% 7.3% Complies
3 The Applicant performed research and found no relevant and binding case law on the matter from LUBA or the Court
of Appeals.
I
Page 10 of 17
i
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
15. Architectural Design: The project includes two commercial buildings as follows:
Building A : Retail Paint Store
The exterior design for this building uses materials, colors, fenestration, changes in
the wall planes and changes in the roof line to create architecture that is compatible
with the pedestrian scale. The entrance on Ashland Street is surrounded by raised
planters which serve also as seat walls, and plaza space around the building to create
an inviting and welcoming environment for customers and pedestrian alike. The
raised planter also serves to create visual base for the building on the Ashland Street
fagade. The project location at an existing RVTD bus stop provides riders a place to
wait comfortably.
Standing seam metal awnings above the entries provide cover for customers entering
and leaving the store. It is also an architectural feature that provides contrast and
balance with the warm colors of the cement plaster walls and cornice and stone
veneer pilasters. Balanced with windows and door glass at sensible locations.
The store will utilize gas for heating and electrical power for cooling. At this early
stage, it is our intention to use two rooftop packaged 1 VAC units, estimated to be
five tons of cooling each. They are expected to be no taller than three-feet six inches
tall and will not be visible by pedestrians from the street.
The issue of handling of paint spills is addressed Sherwin William's safety training
and accident protocols which are attached to the document as Exhibit 13. No floor
drains are planned in paint mixing and staging areas.
Building B: Office Building
The exterior design for this building uses sympathetic materials to the proposed paint
store but begins to make a design transition to the interior of the larger site. Since this
building is intended for professional offices, the design has been made as flexible as
possible and provides both a common lobby on the north side and a plaza entry on the
south side.
The design of this building provides a more sophisticated approach to the use of
materials and fenestration. The building exterior envelope has a split face concrete
block base with integral color cement plaster walls with aluminum reveals which
follow the lines of the main fenestration elements around the building. The main
lobby has a generous amount of glass and natural daylight which is appropriate for its
north facing orientation.
A central core includes restrooms and utility space for mechanical equipment and
storage, rooftop HVAC units will also be located in this area and will be screened
from view by the taller parapet wall elements at the center of the north and south
facades. The exterior windows have fixed metal awnings for shading. All windows
will have a natural aluminum frame and high performance glazing. The building
�` Page 11 of 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
proposes to use a limited amount of"zincalume" nu-wave vertical metal siding on the
building as an accent element to contrast against the cement plaster walls.
This building will also utilize gas for heating and electrical power for cooling. Given
the smaller size of this building, it is estimated that the building will require a single 7
ton unit. Again, this unit is expected to be a maximum height of three-feet and will be
screened from pedestrian view by surrounding parapet walls.
16. Landscape Design: The proposed plan provides landscaping on 15% of the total
developed lot area. In addition, 7% of all the parking lot area is proposed to be
landscaped with a mixture of deciduous trees, shrubs and groundcovers, including
one tree per seven parking spaces. The parking lot planting provides the required
vegetated buffers between the parked cars and adjacent properties. The proposed
plans identify plantings that will provide the required vegetated coverage to the
landscaped areas within five years. There will be a total of three columnar street trees
installed, per City requirements, which will provide vertical scale, vertical clearance
and vision clearance to the project. These trees set into 5'x5' tree grates, will
also provide a safe buffer along Ashland Boulevard for pedestrians.
All areas proposed for planting shall be irrigated with an automated system which
will provide head to head coverage. The proposed plans provide a mix of drought
tolerant, low maintenance plant material and provides numerous street trees, parking
lot trees and additional trees surrounding the buildings, which will bring shade and
scale to the buildings and the proposed hardscape areas.
I
I
i
i
i
C
I
Page 12 of 17
I
i
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
V
CONCLUSIONS F LA
The following conclusions of law and ultimate conclusions are based on the findings of
fact contained in Section IV above and the evidence enumerated in Section II. The below
conclusions of law of the Planning Director are preceded by the approval criteria to
which they relate:
Site Review
The Conclusions of Law demonstrating compliance with the site review criteria rely upon
the configuration of the property lines in accordance with the lot line adjustment
submitted concurrently with the site review application.
Criterion 1
18.72.030 Applicability
Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below.
A.Applicability.The following development is subject to Site Design Review:
1.Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses:
a.All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM,and M-1 zones.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The proposed project includes two new structures in
the C-1 zone. Therefore, based upon the Findings of Fact in Section IV and the Evidence
in Section II the Planning Director concludes the site design standards apply.
Criterion 2
18.72.050 Detail Site Review Zone
A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to
Section 18.72.080.
B. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted
pursuant to this chapter,which exceeds 10,000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width,
shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure.
C. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the
Detail Site Review Zone shall conform to the following standards:
1. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as
one building.
2. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the
exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior
courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof.
0 Page 13 of 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
3. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space,
roof top parking,and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count
toward the total gross floor area.
4. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Detail Site Review zone applicability standards
apply as follows:
A. The project is located within a Detail Site Review overlay area.
B. The total square footage of the buildings is less than 10,000 square feet and neither
of the buildings exceeds 100 linear feet. The project can be processed as a Type I
site review.
C. The buildings conform to the Detail Site Review standards, as follow:
I.- The buildings are not touching
2.- No building has a footprint that exceeds 45,000 square feet
3.- No building exceeds 45,000 gross square feet
4.- No building exceeds 300 feet in length
Therefore, based upon the Findings of Fact in Section IV and the Evidence in Section
11 the Planning Director concludes that Criterion 2 has been met.
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
Criterion 3
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The proposed project can and shall meet the applicable
city ordinances as apply to the C-1 zone. Based upon, the Findings of Fact in Section IV
and the Evidence in Section 11 including Exhibit 3- Demonstration of Compliance with
Applicable Standards - herewith incorporated and adopted, the Planning Director
concludes that Criterion 3 has been met.
Criterion 4
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based upon, the Findings of Fact in Section IV and the
Evidence in Section 11 including Exhibit 3- Demonstration of Compliance with
Applicable Standards - herewith incorporated and adopted, the Planning Director
concludes that Criterion 4 has been met.
Criterion 5
Page 14 of 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: Based upon, the Findings of Fact in Section IV and the
Evidence in Section II including Exhibit 3- Demonstration of Compliance with
Applicable Standards - herewith incorporated and adopted, the Planning Director
concludes that Criterion 5 has been met.
Criterion 6
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)
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: With respect to water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer
necessary to serve the project, the Planning Director herewith incorporates and adopts the
Findings of Fact in Section IV regarding water, sanitary sewer, and urban storm drainage.
Based upon those findings, and upon the opinion of the Ashland Public Works
Department referenced therein, the Planning Director concludes adequate capacity exists
for water, sewer and urban storm drainage.
With respect to adequate transportation capacity, the Planning Director herewith
incorporates and adopts the Findings of Fact in Section IV and the evaluation letter in
Exhibit 14X prepared by the Applicant's engineer Kimberly Parducci, who bears a
Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) certification. The analysis therein
demonstrates the project has access to the City's highest functional classification street
and the project will generate no greater vehicular trips than the existing permitted use.
The existing use was present at the time the 1998 TSP was adopted and the TSP
identified no capacity deficiencies in this immediate area during the planning horizon for
the segment of Ashland Street between Tolman Creels Road and the CORP overpass.
Thus, a project that will not increase the amount of traffic beyond that generated in the
most recent TSP analysis will not create a capacity issue where one was not previously
forecasted to exist. On the basis of this reasoning and the evidence in Exhibit 14, the
Planning Director concludes adequate transportation capacity exists to serve the project.
With respect to transportation improvements, the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88
include a reference at 18.88.020(K) the street standards handbook which provides the
relevant standards for the subject application for street improvements on Ashland Street.
The existing curb-to-curb width of—70 feet is consistent with the width required by the
street standards handbook for a 5-lane boulevard. The applicant is proposing to construct
and dedicate sufficient right-of-way for a 5-foot hardscape parkrow and 8-foot sidewalks
as part of the project consistent in all ways for a frontage improvement standards at �
ALUO Chapter 18.88.
On the basis of the above findings, the Planning Director concludes the application
satisfies all aspects of Criterion 6.
MEPage 15 of 17
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
Lot Line Adjustment
Criterion 9
18.76 Partitions
18.76.140 Lot Line Adjustments
The adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary,where the number of parcels is not
changed and all zoning requirements are met,shall be accepted by the City, provided the requirements of
Sections 18.76.090 through 18.76.130 are satisfied, in addition to Section 18.76.170,where the lot
adjustment causes access to be changed to an exterior unimproved street.
Discussion; Conclusions of Law: The Planning Director concludes the lot line
adjustment does not create any new parcels and the adjusted lots will continue to meet all
zoning requirements as demonstrated in the Findings of Fact Section IV Item 6. The
Planning Director further concludes the requirements of Section 18,76.90 through
18.76.130 can feasibly and will be met,based upon the following:
1. 18.76.090 - The Applicant proposes appropriate improvements and dedications to
Ashland Street and the same can and will be made conditions of approval.
2. 18.76.100 — The Applicant can feasibly and intends to complete the lot line
adjustment within the 12-month period specified.
3. 18.76.110 — The Applicant can feasibly and will engage an Oregon Registered
Land Surveyor to supply a final map with all the final map requirements specified
at ALUO 18.76.110.
4. 18.76.120 — The Applicant's surveyor can feasibly and will not have any of the
conflicts of interest described in ALUO 18.76.120.
5. 18.76.130—The code standard is prescriptive regarding Staff action and therefore
the standard by its nature can feasibly and will be met.
Based upon the Findings of Fact in Section IV and the Evidence in Section II and Exhibit
3, the Demonstration of Compliance with Applicable Standards, the Planning Director
concludes that future development on both lots can feasibly meet all applicable zoning
requirements for the C-1 district with the adjusted lot configuration. See, Exhibits 3 and
8.
i
Page 16 of 17
i
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Applicant:Summit Investment LLC,et al.
VI
ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Planning
Director ultimately concludes that, the case for site development plan review and
property line adjustment has been shown to conform with all of the relevant substantive
criteria with reasonable conditions imposed to assure compliance with applicable
standards.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of Applicants:
CSA Planning, Ltd.
Jay Harland
Consulting Planner
i
i
i
I
i
y Page 17 of 17
I
I
APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The findings of standards compliance detailed in this document relies upon the
configuration of the lots in accordance with the lot line adjustment application filed
concurrently with site plan review analyzed herein below. The findings of standards
compliance detailed in this document relies upon the plans submitted by the Applicant
with the application and all such plans are herewith incorporated and adopted as the basis
for compliance determined herein. The standards compliance also relies upon the
interpretation proffered in Applicant's findings that Tax Lot 1700 is the "development
site" for purposes of standards compliance. With respect to the non-structural
improvements on Tax Lot 1800, the Applicant demonstrates that none of the proposed
improvements will limit the ability of future structural development on Tax Lot 1800 to
satisfy the requirements specified herein.
18.32 C-1 Retail Commercial
18.32.040 General Regulations
A. Area,Width, Yard Requirements.There shall be no lot area,width, coverage, front yard, side yard, or
rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and Solar Access Chapters;where required
or increased for conditional uses;where required by the Site Review Chapter or where abutting a
residential district,where such setback shall be maintained at ten feet per story for rear yards and ten
feet for side yards. (Ord 2859 S1, 2000)
B. Maximum Building Height. No structure shall be greater than 40 feet in height.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director herewith incorporates and
adopts the compliance findings below with respect to off-street parking and solar access
and the Site Review Chapter, and based thereupon, that all area, width and yard
requirements are satisfied.
Findings of Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director herewith
incorporates and adopts the compliance feasibility findings for Tax Lot 1800 below with
respect to off-street parking and solar access and the Site Review Chapter, and based
thereupon,that all area, width and yard requirements are satisfied.
18.70 Solar Access
18.70.040 Solar Setbacks
WHERE:
SSB=the minimum distance in feet that the tallest shadow producing point which creates the longest
shadow onto the northerly property must be set back from the northern property line.
H =the height in feet of the highest shade producing point of the structure which casts the longest shadow
beyond the northern property line.
S=the slope of the lot, as defined in this Chapter.
B. Setback Standard B.This setback is designed to insure that shadows are no greater than sixteen (16)
feet at the north property line.
Buildings for lots which are classified as Standard B,or for any lot zoned C-1, E-1 or M-1, or for any lot
not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be set back from the northern lot line as set forth in the
following formula:
SSB= H- 16'
0.445+S
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that the property slopes
down at approximately 2% from the south boundary to the north boundary that fronts on
Ashland Street. The property is bounded on the north by Ashland Street which has a
right-of-way of—70 feet. Using the formula for Setback Standard A, calculations for this
building is as follows:
SSB = 23' — 16' = 1' = 2.15 feet
0.445+.02= 0.465
Therefore the building needs to be set back at least 2.15 feet from the northern property
boundary. The proposed paint building which fronts on the northern boundary is set back
5 feet from the right-of-way line which meets the solar setback standard as noted above.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds there is adequate
room on the vacant portions of Tax Lot 1800 to site buildings that comply in all ways
with applicable solar setback standards.
18.72.110 Landscaping Standards
A. Area Required, The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: CA 15%
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that the calculations
demonstrate that the lot area is 19,200 square feet and the landscaped areas equal 4,095
square feet which equals 21% of the development site area and complies with the
requirements.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds that the plan
includes landscaped area on Tax Lot 1800 in locations and quantities that would
reasonably be expected for the affected area to serve future structural development of Tax
Lot 1800. The Planning Director further finds that there is adequate vacant and
undeveloped land to provide the required landscaping percentage when structural
development is proposed and site review authorized for Tax Lot 1800.
18.92.030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required
Uses and standards are as follows:
B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
3. Business, general retail, person services.
General -one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances
-one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area.
5. Offices.
...General -one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area.
F. Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces
provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the required
number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces provided on-
street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-
structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply
towards the maximum number of allowable spaces.
I
2
i
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that the calculations
demonstrate the standards are met. The proposed buildings include 4,000 square feet of
general retail (paint store) and 2,200 square feet of general office. This calculates to 12
required spaces for the general retail and 5 required spaces for the general office use or
17 spaces in total and no more than 2 additional spaces. The Applicant proposes 19
spaces which is the maximum number of parking spaces permitted.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds the remaining
vacant and undeveloped portion of Tax Lot 1800 is adequate to feasibly supply needed
auto parking for potential uses permitted in the C-1 zone.
18.92.060 Bicycle Parking.
A. All uses,with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-1-D zone, shall
provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one
bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up
to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the
weather.All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord 2697 S1,
1993)
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director Finds that each building is
required to have two sheltered bike parking spaces and Per Section C the office building
is required to have one space and the paint store is required to have 3 spaces. The
Applicant proposes two sheltered spaces for the office building and 3 sheltered spaces for
the paint store building.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds the remaining
vacant and undeveloped portion of Tax Lot 1800 is adequate to feasibly supply needed
bike parking for potential uses permitted in the C-1 zone.
18.92.080 Parking,Access and Circulation Design Requirements.
A. Parking Location.
1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities may be located on
another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve.The
distance from the parking lot to the use shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest
parking space to an access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian
path separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be evidenced by a
deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing such use,for the duration of the
use.
2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required
front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that all required
automobile parking is located on the parcel where the uses are located and no parking is
located with a front or side yard setback area.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds because no
buildings are proposed on Tax Lot 1800 there is no corresponding parking requirement
and that any future buildings could feasibly be located to allow parking be arrayed in a
manner consistent with the standard.
3
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
B. Parking Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following
standards and dimensions.
1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet.
2. Up to 50%of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact
cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or
the space painted with the words"Compact Car Only."
3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-two (22)feet, except
where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that all spaces are 9 x 18
feet. This dimension includes the 2 foot overhang on the north side of parking lot. The
back-up maneuvering space is 23 feet wide.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds because no
buildings are proposed on Tax Lot 1800 there is no corresponding parking requirement
and that any future site review could feasibly meet the above described parking area
design requirements.
5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts
of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking
spaces shall meet the following standards.
a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking
underground.
i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance(Solar Reflective Index
(SRI) of at least 29)to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area
surface.
ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50%
pervious for a minimum of 50%of the parking area surface.
iii. Provide at least 50%shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five
years of project occupancy.
iv. Provide at least 50%shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis
structures over the parking area surface.
b, Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff
with landscaped medians and swales.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds the proposed parking area
will be using permeable paving under all parking spaces which comprise more than 50%
of the parking area. In addition the paving will be light colored with a sri of 29.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds because no
buildings are proposed on Tax Lot 1800 there is no corresponding parking requirement
and that any future site review could feasibly meet the above described parking area
design requirements.
C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The intent of this section is to manage access to land uses and on-
site circulation, and to preserve the transportation system in terms of safety, capacity and function.
2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that
accommodates expected traffic on the site.All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-
like features as described in Section 18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including
4
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must
conform to the provisions of Section 18.92.090.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds the site circulation is
provided to accommodate the new building and parking layout and to provide continued
access for the adjacent businesses Oil Stop and Shop `N Kart. The Planning Director
herewith incorporates and adopts the findings of compliance below addressing Section
18.92.090.A3.c, and based thereupon, finds pedestrian connections on the site, through
the site, between sites and adjacent sidewalks are provided.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds the site circulation
is provided to accommodate the new building and parking layout and to provide
continued access for the adjacent businesses Oil Stop and Shop `N Kart. The Planning
Director herewith incorporates and adopts the findings of compliance below addressing
Section 18.92.090.A3.c, and based thereupon, finds pedestrian connections on the site,
through the site, between sites and adjacent sidewalks are provided. The Planning
Director further concludes that site circulation improvements on Tax Lot 1800 can
feasibly serve structural development for ultimate development of the remaining vacant
portion of Tax Lot 1800.
3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or
from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street' s
classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP).
a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing
or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM or M-1 zone
shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access
easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can
be made from one or more points.
c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall be limited to the
following:
1, Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets- 100 feet;
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets- 100 feet;
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds the TSP contains no more
specific minimum spacing requirements applicable to the development. The Planning
Director finds the proposed development will utilize an existing access point and will not
increase the trip generation for that access. The Planning Director further finds that the
distance between driveways is well over 100 feet east and west.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds that no significant
changes to access spacing, location and trip generation are occurring, therefore, this
application will not affect access to Tax Lot 1800 (except by virtue of its new frontage as
a result of property line adjustment). The Planning Director further finds that future
development of Tax Lot 1800 is likely to exceed ODOT and City trip generation
W-- 5
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
thresholds and future build-out of that site may require full transportation impact analysis
of this and other shared project driveways.
D. Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall
conform to the following provisions:
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or
turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width
and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site,with due regard to pedestrian and
vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven
spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12 feet in width,
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that the parking area has
more than seven spaces and that adequate aisles are provided to such that all vehicles
may enter the street in a forward manner. The Planning Director further finds that the
site will be served with a shared driveway on Tax Lot 1800 of at least 20 feet in width
and that the access is configured with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety
appropriate marking and definition.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds that the existing
shared driveway will be improved to meet the above standards and can feasibly serve
future development on the site.
4, Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum
vertical clearance of 13'6"for their entire length and width.
Findings of Compliance: There are no obstructions that reduce the required vertical
clearance. The project complies.
D. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set
forth in Section 18.68.020.
i
Compliance with Standards: Development can and shall comply with the vision
clearance requirement 18.92.070.D.
E. Parking and Access Construction.The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply
in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved with
concrete, asphaltic, pervious paving, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file
in the office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage.All required parking areas, aisles, and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for
the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks,
public rights-of-way, and abutting private property.
3. Driveway approaches.Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to
standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and
clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops.Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in
length.They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal
wear.Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines,
buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
6
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Findings of Compliance: Development can and shall comply with the development and
maintenance requirements contained in section 18.92.070.E(1-5). All parking and
circulation areas are to be asphaltic paving. Storm run-off is handled through a catch-
basin system that filters through a storm filtration unit. All spaces will be marked and
provided with wheel stops or curbs.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen
of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to
and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such
size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation, The
area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped.All vegetation shall be
adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be
maintained in good condition.The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for
free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones,where parking facilities or driveways are located
adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-
obscuring fence,wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet
high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said
wall,fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within
10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen
plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12
months after installation.Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls,fences or
plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas.
Findings of Compliance: The proposed project does not have any parking along the
street frontage. The project is not adjacent to residential or agricultural zone or school
yards or similar institutions. Therefore the requirements of this section do not apply.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less
than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the landscaping required in
subdivision 6(a)above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking
area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may
consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material.A minimum of one tree per
seven parking spaces is required.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds that all required parking
lot landscaping is provided consistent with the following calculations Parking Lot
Landscaping= 385 square feet = 7.3%
Parking Lot size= 5,236 square feet
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds because no
buildings are proposed on Tax Lot 1800 there is no corresponding parking lot
landscaping requirement, but any future buildings could feasibly be located to allow
parking lot landscaping be arrayed in a manner consistent with the standard.
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into
or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly
visible from abutting residential property.
7
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Findings of Compliance: The parking area for this project is more than 100 feet from
any residential zone, therefore this requirement does not apply.
SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation.
A. Site Layout and Design. To ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian circulation,all
developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and accessory uses and structures, shall
provide a continuous walkway system. The walkway system shall be based on the standards in
subsections 1-4, below,
1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and
connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks,
trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may
also be required to connect or stub walkway(s)to adjacent streets and to private property for this
purpose.
2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway
connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets, based on the following
definitions:
a. Reasonably direct.A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route
that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users.
b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and provide a reasonably
direct route of travel between destinations.
c. "Primary entrance"for commercial, industrial, mixed use, public, and institutional buildings is
the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street
connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance,
3, Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall be provide connections as
required in subsections a-c, below:
a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable,
b. Connect all on-site parking areas, recreational facilities and common areas, and connect off-
site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable, Topographic or existing development
constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections, as generally shown in
Figure 1; and.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds that a continuous walkway
system has been designed for the development site and for the adjoining improvements
on Tax Lot 1800 to the extent practical, based upon the following:
• There is a direct walkway from Ashland Street to the Paint store door entrance on
Ashland Street. This is a staircase walkway because of the topography and
associated grade change from Ashland Street and the other requirements for the
street frontage (plaza space, landscaping etc.).
• There is reasonably direct pedestrian access from Ashland Street to both of the
building entrances that face the parking lots using the sidewalk adjacent to the
access driveway. This same access driveway sidewalk provides access between
buildings.
• There are additional opportunities for pedestrian connections from the
development site and the associated improvements on Tax Lot 1800 to tie in with
8
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
future development on the vacant portions of Tax Lot 1800 when structural
development is proposed for that site.
B, Walkway Design and Construction.Walkways shall conform to all of the standards in subsections 1-4,
as generally illustrated in Figure 2:
1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation, Except for crosswalks(subsection 2),where a walkway abuts a driveway or
street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway/street.Alternatively, the
decision body may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the
walkway is protected from all vehicle maneuvering areas.An example of such protection is a row of
decorative metal or concrete bollards designed to withstand a vehicle's impact,with adequate minimum
spacing between them to protect pedestrians.
2. Crosswalks.Where walkways cross a parking area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting
paving materials (e.g., light-color concrete inlay between asphalt), which may be part of a raised/hump
crossing area. Painted or thermo-plastic striping and similar types of non-permanent applications may be
approved for crosswalks not exceeding 24 feet in length.
3, Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other
durable surface, and at least five feet wide. Multi-use paths(i.e. for bicycles and pedestrians) shall be
concrete or asphalt, and at least 10 feet wide in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards in Section
18.88.020.K.
4, Accessible routes,Walkways shall comply with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)and
State of Oregon requirements. The ends of all raised walkways,where the walkway intersects a driveway or
street shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and walkways shall provide direct routes to primary
building entrances.
5, Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian facilities,
Findings of Compliance: Walkways on site are separated vertically from the driveway
elevation by a 6" curb except at corner curb ramps to provide handicapped access to the
crosswalk and at accessible spaces adjacent to the building. All cross-walks will be
constructed of either contrasting paving materials or thermo-plastic striping because they
do not exceed 24 feet in length. All walkway surfaces and widths can feasibly and will
comply. All routes are ADA accessible except the stair route from Ashland Street to the
north entrance due to topography of the site, but ADA access is still available from that
location to the south building entrance. Pedestrian lighting will be provided by building-
mounted fixtures.
ASHLAND SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
II-C-1 Basic Site Review Standards
APPROVAL STANDARDS
Development in all commercial and employment zones shall
conform to the following development standards:
II-C-1a)Orientation and Scale
1. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area.
Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public
sidewalk.Where buildings are located on a corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the
higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be
provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be located as close to
the intersection corner as practicable. (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance#2900)
9
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds the development complies
based upon the following:
• The building fronting on Ashland Street has its primary entrance on Ashland
Street and there is direct access from the public sidewalk.
• The second building at the south edge of the site is proposed to have to entrances
one that is oriented toward Ashland Street (and the parking area by virtue of its
location) and the other entrance is at the corner of the interior east-west
circulation for the entire shopping center and the main and direct pedestrian
entrance to the Center from Ashland Street.
• The Applicant is proposing to construct a new public side walls and hardscape
planter row and dedicate the associated improvements and right-of-way as part of
the project. The building is not located on a street.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds the remaining
vacant and undeveloped portion of Tax Lot 1800 is not currently located on the street
(except for the developed Oil Stop portion) and this application will not change this
condition except for the creation of an access strip from Ashland Street. It is still feasible
to orient future buildings on Tax Lot 1800 toward Ashland Street when structural
development for that site is proposed but neither before or after the project will it be
feasible to locate additional buildings in close proximity to Ashland Street.
2, Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are
required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration,
designs where a greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings,
such as shopping centers,where this standard is met by other buildings.Automobile circulation or
parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right-of-way.The entrance shall be
designed to be clearly visible,functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours.
(Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance#2900)
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds the development complies
based upon the following:
• The building fronting on Ashland Street has its primary entrance within 20 feet of
the Ashland Street Right-of-Way (following pedestrian improvements and
dedication). No auto circulation or parking is proposed between the building and
the right-of-way. The Ashland Street entrance has direct access from the public
sidewalk and it is clearly visible, functional and designed for use consistent with
business operations.
• The second building at the south edge of the site is proposed to have be subject to
the internal exception to this standard because the building is part of a shopping
center where the standard will be met by the paint store building described in the
above bullet; this exception is interpreted to apply to this entire standard and
encompass the auto circulation and parking prohibition between the office
building and Ashland Street. This building has two entrances. One that is
oriented toward Ashland Street (and the parking area by virtue of its location) and
10
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
the other entrance is at the corner of the interior east-west circulation for the entire
shopping center and the main and direct pedestrian entrance to the Center from
Ashland Street. These entrances will be clearly visible, functional and used
consistent with business operations.
® The Applicant is proposing to construct a new public side walk and hardscape
planter row and dedicate the associated improvements and right-of-way as part of
the project. The building is not located on a street.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds the remaining
vacant and undeveloped portion of Tax Lot 1800 is not currently located on the street
(except for the developed Oil Stop portion) and this application will not change this
condition except for the creation of an access strip from Ashland Street. It will not be
feasible to orient new future buildings on Tax Lot 1800 within 20 feet of Ashland Street
either before or after the project, but such future buildings would continue to be part of a
shopping center where the requirement is met by other buildings along Ashland Street
(such as the paint store proposed herein) and may, therefore avail future development to
the internal exception to this standard.
3. These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians,such as
warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations.
(Amended September 23,2003 Ordinance#2900)
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director finds the proposed paint store
and office can feasibly be accessed by pedestrians and therefore the standard applies.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds no building
development is proposed on Tax Lot 1800 and so it is neither possible nor required at this
time to determine whether a future proposed use may be subject to this use based 14 aiver.
II-C-1 b)Streetscape
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that
portion of the development fronting the street.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds, based upon Applicant's Exhibit
9, sheet L-1,that four street trees from the street tree list are planned for the 110 foot
frontage on Ashland Street.
II-C-1c) Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50%coverage occurs after one year and 90%coverage
occurs after 5 years.
2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous and evergreen trees and
shrubs and flowering plant species.
3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width,except
in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent
public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when
adjacent to residentially zoned land.
4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible.
11
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds, based upon Applicant's Exhibit
9, sheet L-1, that the site landscaping has been designed by a registered professional
landscape architect to comply with all the above requirements and that future
development can feasibly and will comply with the landscape requirements contained in
section II-C-1 c).
II-C-1d) Parking
1, Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and
screened from non-residential uses.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds the parking area is located behind
the Ashland Street Retail Building and also behind the "main circulation" in the center
for the office buildings. The parking area is planned to be shaded by deciduous trees; the
parking area is not adjacent to any non-residential uses will only be visible from the Oil
Stop use which is owned and controlled by the owners of the project and is part of the
shopping center.
II-C-1e) Designated Creek Protection
1. Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design elements and incorporated
in the overall design of a given project.
2. Native riparian plan materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek
habitat.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds that no creeks are present within
or near the subject property.
II-C-1f) Noise and Glare
Special attention to glare(AMC 18.72.110)1 and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) &AMC 9,08.175)shall be
considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards.Ashland Site Design&
Use Standards 19
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds the Applicant owns all the
surrounding property and lighting is part of the overall center lighting. No direct
illumination outside the larger shopping center will occur. The Planning Director finds
that the uses planned for the site are not expected to be sources of any of the prohibited
noise sources in AMC 9.08.170 and all mechanical equipment will be permitted through
the building permit review process.
II-C-1g) 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 comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion,e.g., if a building area is
expanded by 25%, then 25%of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this
document.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds that the existing Pizza Hut
development site does not comply with the site design and use standards with respect to
' This reference appears to be hnproper as 18.72.110 has nothing to do with noise and glare, but 18.72.140
does and it is this code section the Applicant asserts is the proper cross-reference.
12
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment,et al.
setbacks, landscaping, building orientation etc. The Planning Director finds that this
standard is specific to sites and not buildings. The project proposes to expand the
building area of the site by 66% (=1-(2,135/6200)) and therefore all site design and use
standards must attain at least 66% compliance for the redevelopment of the site for all
standards in the Site Design and Use Standards document where compliance is
demonstrated herein.
II-C-2 Detail Site Review
APPROVAL STANDARDS
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the
standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards:
11-C-2a)Orientation and Scale
1. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio(FAR)of.5. Plazas and pedestrian areas
shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. Projects including existing
building or vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum
FAR, or provide a shadow plan (see graphic)that demonstrates how development may be
intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR.
Development Site Compliance: Pursuant to II-C-lg above, this requires at least 66%
compliance with the .5 FAR standards which calculates to not less than a 33% FAR. The
Planning Director finds the site is 19,200 square feet (0.44 acres) and is proposed to
contain 6,200 square feet of building and 1,295 feet of plaza space which calculates to a
FAR of 39% which satisfies the requirements.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds no building
development is proposed on Tax Lot 1800 and so the FAR is not relevant to Tax Lot
1800 at this time provided adequate remaining vacant land area is reasonably available to
accommodate buildings of sufficient size (approximately 50,000 square feet) to meet the
FAR requirement.
2. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets,jogs, or have other distinctive
changes in the building fagade.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds no buildings are proposed with
frontages longer than 100 feet.
3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza 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
view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30
feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40%of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted
for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas.
Development Site Compliance: Pursuant to II-C-lg above, this requires at least 66%
compliance with the 20% display area, window and doorway requirement which
calculates to at least 13.2%. The Planning Director finds that the north wall of the
Ashland Street Retail Building is the only wall within 30-feet of a public space and that
faces a street rendering it subject to these requirements. This wall is 1,456 square feet in
area and has 292 square feet of windows and doorways which calculates to 20% of the
area of the wall. No blank walls within 30 feet of the street are proposed.
13
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds no building
development is proposed on Tax Lot 1800 and so this standard is not relevant but any
future buildings can feasibly comply.
4. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to
entrances
Findings of Compliance: Based upon the elevations depicted in Exhibit 9, sheets A-201
and A-202 the Planning Director finds that both buildings incorporate lighting and
changes in mass that accentuate the entry locations.
5. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable.
Development Site Compliance: The Planning Director concludes the project will
demolish an existing building and use space devoted to parking lot on the east and west
sides of the existing building that was adjacent to the public sidewalk for the new
Ashland Street Retail Building.
Tax Lot 1800 Compliance Feasibility: The Planning Director finds no building
development is proposed on Tax Lot 1800 and there is no existing parking lot in this area.
6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians
from the rain and sun.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director concludes both buildings incorporate
awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.
II-C-2b)Streetscape
1. Hardscape(paving material) shall be utilized to designate"people"areas. Sample materials could
be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
2. A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for
pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility
easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots, If more than one
structure is proposed for a site, at least 65%of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20
feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23,2003 Ordinance#2900)
Development Site Compliance: Planning Director finds:
1. the proposed hardscape includes materials that designate "people areas"
i
2. that 94% of the aggregate building frontage along Ashland Street is within 20 feet
of a public sidewalk, with 6 % if the building frontage 135 feet from the public
sidewalk. See Figure 1.
i
i
i
i
14
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
ASHLAND STREET ASHLAND STREET
5'-
4O%Oi FRONTAGE eO%OF,rRONGOE 6%OF FRONT/:E 94%OF FRONTAGE
— F —
j
I f � I I ail plN�� I
I i I I I I
I I I I I I
r- I
I � I
s ,
Example-Does NOT Meet standards Project as proposed-Meets standards
Aggregate frontage 20'or less from sidewalk is<65% Aggregate frontage 20'or less from sidewalk=94%
Figure 1. Diagram showing Building Frontage Calculations
II-C-2c) Buffering and Screening
1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot.
Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with
proposed buildings,
2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially
zoned land.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds that there are no incompatible
uses on adjacent lots requiring buffering. The Planning Director further finds that the
parking lot is buffered from Ashland Street by the building and there are no cross street
or residentially zoned land near the site requiring buffering.
II-C-2d) Building Materials
1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases,fenestration,fluted masonry,for
at least 15%of the exterior wall area.
2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited.
Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds the building design includes
stone pilasters and base which comprise more than 15% of the exterior and no bright or
neon paint colors are used extensively nor is glass a majority of the building skin.
15
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
II-D-1 Screening at Required Yards
1. Parking abutting a required landscaped front yard or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight
obstructing hedge screen into the required landscaped yard.
2. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area,
except for required vision clearance areas.
3. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials.
4. Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining walls.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds no parking is proposed in a
required yard.
II-D-2 Screening Abutting property Lines
Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5 foot landscaped strip. Where a buffer
between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and
will not be an additional requirement.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds the parking does not abut any
property line except at the entrance to the parking lot from the main access drive and this
standard cannot reasonably be applied to such a condition because or else it would be a
design impossibility to actually get cars to the code required parking areas. No buffer
between zones is required in this instance.
II-D-6 Other Screening
Other Screening and buffering shall be provided as follows:
Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by
placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse
materials shall be contained within the refuse area.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds a refuse container screen is
proposed on the plans and plans depict a stucco material (which is a form of masonry
material) that matches the building. The refuse area is of sufficient size to accommodate
expected refuse generation and can feasibly be contained therein.
Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service
corridors shall be screened. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse
effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds the service corridor is adjacent to
stacking aisles for an Oil Stop which is not a residential use so no screening is required.
However, the site plan does include planting on this boundary that will shield much of the
paint store service corridor from view.
Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce
direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets.
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds no residential properties are
adjacent to the site and therefore no additional light glare screening is required; the site
plans do show landscaping well positioned in relation to lighting arrangements to confine
lighted areas to the project area.
ME16
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
II-E-1 Location for Street Trees
Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip
in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 8 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root
barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Department of Community
Development
Findings of Compliance: The Planning Director finds the sidewalk is greater than eight
feet and street trees are proposed to be located within the 5-foot hardscape park strip as
specified in the City's Street Standards Handbook.
II-E-2 Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees
All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may,for reasons such as safety, affect
the decision.Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and
approval.The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follow:
1. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage, Trees shall be
evenly spaced,with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway
approaches.
2. Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and
not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk),fire
hydrants, or utility poles.
3. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety no new
light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree,and preferably
such locations will be at least 20 feet distant.
4. Trees shall not be planted closer than 2'/z feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it
shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area.
5. Where there are overhead power lines,tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those
lines.
6. Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk
cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are
encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of
the tree.Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with city specifications.
7. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet
above street roadway surfaces.
8. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will
kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street
trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. II-E-3 Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees
removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved
street tree list.The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved
by the Staff Advisor.Ashland Site Design& Use Standards 32 II-E-4 Recommended Street Trees Street
trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission.
Findings of Compliance: Based upon the landscape plan in Exhibit 9, sheet L-1, The
Planning Director finds the Applicant's landscape architect has designed a plan that
meets all design requirements and can feasibly and will meet all standards herein.
17
Applicant's Exhibit 3
DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Site Review(see Exhibit 2 for Lot Line Adjustment)
Applicant: Summit Investment, et al.
SECTION III
Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies
Mandatory Policies
The City has established the following policies for use whenever water conserving landscaping is required
by ordinance, by a condition of approval of a planning action, in consideration for a density bonus or other
development incentive, or in consideration for reduces systems development charges.These policies have
the weight of law, and landscapes installed and certified as water conserving must be maintained according
to these guidelines, or will be in violation of the Municipal Code.
Findings of Compliance: Based upon the landscape plan in Exhibit 9, sheet L-2.0, and
the Exhibit 12 memo from Laurie Sager detailing how this section is met.. The Planning
Director finds the Applicant's landscape architect has designed a plan to address the
mandatory water conserving landscaping provisions.
SECTION V
Ashland Boulevard Corridor
V-B Sidewalk*
V-13-1) A two foot wide minimum area for street tree placement is required,
V-13-2) Trees shall be drought tolerant and hardy, placed with root barriers and either bricked in
plantings, tree grates, or on landscaped strips with ground cover.
V-13-3) Six foot wide, textured or scored concrete sidewalk in addition to the street tree area (total
widths would be a minimum of eight feet).
V-13-4) Pedestrian scaled light fixtures place in the street tree strip.
V-13-5) Specially designed street name signs.
*NOTE Some of these standards are superseded by standards described in the adopted Ashland Street
Standards—A Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets
V-C Special Pedestrian Areas
V-C-1) Pedestrian refuges protected from weather shall be placed near transit stops, or at intervals of
400 feet in the corridor if no transit stop is nearby.
V-C-2) Textured concrete or unit masonry paving shall be used in these areas to differentiate them
from other areas.Ashland Site Design& Use Standards 49
V-C-3) Street furniture(benches, drinking fountains, new racks, etc.) shall be included for the comfort
and convenience of the pedestrian.
Findings of Compliance: Based upon the landscape and site plans, The Planning
Director finds the Applicant proposes to make improvements to the Ashland Boulevard
Corridor right-of-way. The Applicant proposes to make improvements consistent with
the above requirements, except where superseded by the Ashland Street Standards
Handbook, subject to agreement by the Oregon Department of Transportation for
acceptance of dedication and associated maintenance.
i
i
i
is
i z, ffi. V 1 1 1 tm y w
ff� u
� r
ik
.
QV
4pz a� r� 1
Hut
11
Alt 11
Jot
� i
ww� �
a
1 S �i
75
ti
rr
W
1
N
Photo Key Photo Key Map
Photo number,location &direction W E
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Subject Properties Summit Investment et al
Adjusted TL 1700(Proposed) 39-1 E-14BA-1700 & 1800 s
0 Tax Lots 100 50 0 100 Feet
—+—e Railroad
2010 Aerial CSA Planning,ltd.
a
5 0.
r
OView of the Existing Pizza Hut O View north along entry drive
east fapade from entry drive
I
} 3
4
r l
u
ORear of Pizza Hut and west O View from west parking lot
parking lot, southeast toward Shop `N Kart
Oil Stop on west side
Legend Property Exhibit 7
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Ashland Street Retail & Professional Office Development
O Photo ID 39-1 E-14BA-1700 & 1800
Number
i
CSA Planning, Ltd January 6, 2012
{ Y a
1• 1�
f'I�
w r
elf
OView of utilities at northwest O View from Pizza Hut frontage
corner of Pizza Hut east along Ashland Street
` l f
ya' 3
F v.
r
s
1
Existing Ashland Street frontage
Ashland Street frontage
7 adjacent to Pizza Hut between Pizza Hut and Oil
Sto
Legend Property t Exhibit 7
Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Ashland Street Retail & Professional Office Development
O Photo ID 39-1 E-14BA-1700 & 1800
Number
i
CSA Planning, Ltd January 6, 2012
EXHIBIT a
r }
VIA
M
"AND STS �
f
x
k" ---
C-1
I
At
V,
"" 1
w
y
E'
7
v
r
i °-
�k
1 fi
W J,
r
�z.
Legend N
Zoning Aerial
_ j Subject Properties W E
Adjusted Tr.1700(Proposed) Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Summit Investment et al S
Tax Dots 39-1 E-14BA-1700 & 1800
Railroad
100 50 0 100 Feet
Zone Outline
2010 Aerial CSA Planning,ltd.
EXHIBIT
AUDRY CR
5 , /
(P
VILLARD
BIRCHWOOD LN -
J
.y N�
1 N�
W
W
V ASHLAND ST
a
i (7
/ l Z
fU)
F
MICKELSON WY
/ Z
r,0.
•c/ / / / r i /'! // / ///U)
�LWILI
LL
/ r r /r w
TAKE WYn � /
.G
W
-a c�S
w
DR
M GRIZZLY.
Legend Zoning N
j Subject Properties
Adjusted TL 1700(Proposed) W E
j Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
0 Tax Lots Summit Investment et al S
—+--� Railroad 39-1 E-14BA-1700 & 1800
0Z.A. Pedestrian Overlay Area 400 200 0 400 Feet
Site Design Area CSA Planning,ltd.I Em
EXHIBIT
UFR
rj//r !�%/i !/ /%/// rrr. �jfrY //i/ .'r,f. / !/ :;rr .'i r
/ %"/ %// /'�!/,; r �.r'
irff� r r
SHLAND rr r7 r/
. A
��/Lr,Yi
,/
!;�,,f/• /r, / / /i / // <' r r/ / /r r/r r/y./ / / /r r rrir',r/rr //;r/f /.
%!ii ✓/� r//, r/: �lrf�
/ /
;'//,/��ff•/frli/%�/�'%%�Y i'�r ,�� �/i.�j
/
l��� rrri r <, !%` :,//r// i ,✓r.i 1 /!i '///r - ��).,�i/r �;,/. rr�!'ri/i '.i% / / � �//f%�%;�/%r I' rrj!//,i
r,;r,,,/!//�irr /! r r //r / r / .rii r/r/:, r /,y ' rr r'rr/�r/ rrir Li ri // j/`//<�ri/ /fir r✓ /f,�'
i�ri, ;r
� %
rf!��,;//fir
r
%
iLl/�l�% i;i/�`/'%•lr/`/`,r��� �!/r/r i// ./i`i / I/''::r r/ ,;:��jl%., /r /-,/;%ir,!, %`; .,r15 / �%/,rr ///��r r r�:.///'r,/
,
,� r:�
�
/
, rr
/
/,
/f'%r -`€� rY"rr %
,//ij�r /f / ,<l jr, / i/ r r;' f
/ /�-f // / r r % r�r / r //!/ r /r �,/,rj r /Y
�' i irri;?/,/
11,r/ /r
ri,�//�
��
li�/rr'/
/i /
% ✓/� //i
� rr/ �"
N��'rr i�i/
x/Y,�
��.✓�� r rf�.,r.//i r//�/.ri /' � it //r //!i / r// rr ✓�� / /.r//. / / / ,/, ..
/r
2ii
/ 'N
i.:
%�,/,��
��%'��C��/'r %/i�fi //�L/r /%/, r,r///rr%���ir i^/% ;/r!//�i i; j!//j;>✓j/ / ✓'//r / //� ��f
///
/
`/r
/r /
rrr
///rr/,,f/rii
ij
/
SFRr
�r�!y
W r /
,/ //
/i' r /i////�X/F
M1 TL K
f/i
J Subject Properties jv
Adjusted TL 1700(Proposed) Comprehensive Plan Map
Tax Lots W E
Railroad Site Plan Review and Property Line Adjustment
Comp Plan Summit Investment et al s
%/// commercial 39-1 E-14 BA-1700 & 1800
Single Family Residential 100 50 0 100 Feet
Multi-Family Residential
C5A Planning, Ltd.
2010 Aerial
GIs DATA
08/31/2010 2:82:30 PM:JohnsoWH
f
1
V
V SEEMAP 39 1 14EH
�z
-1✓ � V' ✓s `� i I
1
>OJ.0 ---- \� �% moo° � v �✓ pips K$ F q n q O --
v
,�
m � e1O g g
g•4 z a
1 e TOLMAN
o _ _ CREEK v ROAD k Z n
h 5 JI
\� r°
11\,yUy]l\\ \\U11LVU]�y,y` \yU]�U1\11 r.»n�rw
WASHINGTON STREET s D
p 11 tiEE MAP J9 I F 14A13 A 9
p
�4
px 0
a
uj
^6 Z �
='pz , v da
Ada
EXHIBIT
PRELIMINARY MAP
PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT
REGISTERED LOCATED AT
PROFESSIONAL p 222 Ashland Street
LAND SURVE
1�1 Ashland, Oregon
Q LYING SITUATE,LYITHIN
OREGON NORTHWEST QLIARTER OF SECTION 14,
L ULY 14'19- TOWNSHIP.39 SOUTH,RANGE 1 EAST, W.M.
HAWN HA
S KAMPMANN
2863 LS JACKSON COUNTY,OREGON
RENEWAL DATE: 6/30/2013 FOR
Sulmnit Investment SCALE: 1" = 60'
1117 East Jackson Strcet
Medford,Oregon
7, RCP <_a / O SO
I
v 12"RCP
o
ASHLAND CONCRETE T R A F F I C ISLAND. S T R E E T
8 DIP o l l I 8"DIP
J J 1 J ) )
G G 0 G C G
---,�2 30' 7.70
83 30 �' 3 FIRE
/ a ADL 1,
o
I T �
ASPHALT
0 O R
EX1S
pJ 7 PROPER u °n
1I\ 1, _ TArY LOS"1700 ( LINE -our m
a
0.42 ACRES (EXISTING)
0.44 ACRES ADJUSTED
\ /
Is ASPHALT I EDGE OF ASPHALT2000-
v,
ADJUSTED ; x10.33'
PROPERTI' �I� i �
NI
� I
GRAVEL
1800
1\-P �� 2.47 ACRES (EXISTING)
2.45 ACR_ES�[ADJUSZEDj- —
GRAVEL
TEMPORARY
\ KLWANIS ` n
°p \. \\ �ILDING
FH
SURVEYED BY: \b 1
POLARIS LAND SURVEYIN LLC
P.O. BOX 459
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
(541) 482-5009 \� I
DATE: JANUARY 4, 201\ \\ �0 \� F
PROJECT NO. 682-11
\ 1,
Assessor's Mop No. 39 )E 14 BA, Tox Lott 1700 & 1800q p
POLARIS LAND SURVEYING
N O
w 7
uj
Rp
���
�m v iE 9 �� �U E2W–WidC
3 a s 33 e QQQ4000QQQ4 [ a o w m°o e i=°
� a –w O' ° 133M1S NO1'JNIHStlM
sooHIM
6°_ H
im�a u N avOa N33i1]NtlWl01 [�
z
c zF 8
o u
m
u oa aQ � VO
�F
o mm W W
of
3�1iJ4 4V V
W n w11 =l x `z y a y ova z
O `a2� zo ka w _<
Pon ag�`go o BUR
OIL
1 aim 11
HE
g'S sc'n 1,11 z j jf, ...
a �3 f1k,16 g� § 3 E g €1:�g m1 n ab� .as.��3.ks m , 1h ¢€:3�a�,�.z,'!
Y � 6
.......a.E,,.�.a9.... � ..... .. .E.:c a rs4rsU58
�X .. �
f � § E 9Cy 2� 3 " �
� °�a '�§ all �aY�e'ea���%€ Y3#5��3a.ad aka€13€F33£€ s�� : 1� i8 m3 LIZ �$
sNa„.rs,.x,MA ww ads$aaMo as .,n .€c 1gm.<ee m,_°_Ig.,A—.Tom,,
, � n
Oil
a x Q y
g g 3 _
,E
M g p 77 && e o
a333$��0��33 t eai��3�@xl 3_i_.�.:x .�G =CP .353_.h,..:.E
.._x.3s.€PY.aSP§3§: } c G 5 - \ o Z
vo
.._ee._________ m 333a°°€a3oos.,n isveb§3;rE'= _'.'.et!e.i9�v-,x..SPn�_333=s'^:e,.r` Z � .......� ..-.. Z
Zn O
Z Z
O
m p F
°� ss$`s sasii:x is a€�z55333�§5$:a$ .�+.e968e�i5 eSt S=.3P�fr8S eacfisi¢,.m.as;'sa:t3',esisc E;6� ....__;i3?4..E33E (n w
mx.s
a
a
y
r
0
oil I
Fie?I
i_J Wo
e p bH,R �dH yy pp g399 ggqqgg Z Q�Q
Q
a.
RI
x e
m
sx
jj L17 11
�a i xaas s§;�$s6e o 111
V
I � u
p I
1 � � e � ate_]I z LL �• . I
e J
A l l •�9
I
r
O
--
_ Ewa o
a amw <�;
w x a sae g m° �oF
Hait
J
oa wo...,
I �
,2
pfl
LL
c w s
Up
I
� r
I i I
C
n r
F
so
I � y
LU
LL
LLE 0 0
_ IIL_
�
TE F1111",
I
�.c wE g
- I I
❑�._..
❑ ❑� �� }
�'I f J
IL E-
Z.
❑
E
0
I g x� —
_ '� I <
� r
—
o
Y
1
w � w
w 4 w 9
OQ o ❑ ❑ a o
�
� 'o
e xe€.
J
Q
H
m
Cn
LU
Ll
v
LLI
g� 3x z
n� Z
I Q
i d
�t
i
L
R
o
:_,. ❑ -
-t:
❑
a.
Q
I i r Fa I
o p
o
�a m
h
❑ �IIII �� �� ❑ o
LIFIl
r
o
I a
I [� I �� o
`d- U
Ip j
1 ❑
2
I
Z
2
_ Z
J W
o h
I
W
zo
fm°
a
3
GF
Q Z 8
S Q j m p O i
a e �LU r W
me �4-LL¢ J z U
0'
ad' Z
Cl)¢ 4~ 1,v
s
` I
Z Yel
°
Z _
X I
a
�I z it, I i
:
' w ST9P.
cc
S :^
3
�I
o ° Iir
u1 -
° a tj
°
N I
1. .. fr
! U)
cc I
MOTS
W
Z
P 1
p I
F ao \ boa i
a
4 I o �g
_
W W
°_ w
0 o °� i N
n /
x I //moo I — — — — LL
S2 p w
X Z
W
z
z§ I .. c F °� 0Q
g
LL
fig
®Z
g.
i {{ftp
6 EMPHI s a e
>e
�
8 _g
� I
a
s .
�s
NMI a
hm
I
e€
I
5�4fi,C...
dols
I �g
"
I
�o
u�
'I
R4 0
tL
0
4
59M
9 iH
HER,
NI
X
E 0. ff
70
0 0
-T
fi
Ron
sTop ti` 3g
EV
dos j
chg<9 a ~2�
Wo
°�a € 4 a 5 4 a ffi d a a sffi d d�a e o 3
Q
I—
H
m
U)
LU
II I I W
I �
I �
g
I I e
!
1 i
I OF
F
q f / T
❑
- a
I 9 ❑
� U
W p
N
Q K
d
_ s
ww -
L_ Q a
0
r�
Jmm � r
D m` mm >133UD NHWIOl '?IS ONVlHS`d M33N33 0 ®ddOHS®Nv7HSV
LU
�3` < ® ®lVY If7SV ° w op
o
amp U w
U& ~ o
lr+"'
e^
mow'` L
S }. tom*
Ift
l
gg _J i f
k{.l Cf)
4 A
i 1
QRi
Q
O .d
LU
La
r
{
r
3 _ 6
t
^,l
�s
i � i
i
! r ,
vat,
e, ;v loops
lot> :
al;
hp
�� °m
11� 1 � ,
Iff
so- - dw
f"N "
NJ
r
,,.
a
° — —
pq Ell
N
l •�� {�
Y
r2 fl p
MRIP
Q
of
d
O
t U
"r
W
d
c
r
n 3
w
33 r
EXHIBIT 11
Initial Development Memorandum CSA Planning, Ltd
4497 Brownridge,Suite 101
Medford,OR 97504
To: Ashland Planning Department Telephone 541.779.0569
Date: January 6, 2012 Fax 541.779.0114
Subject: Initial Paint Store Development Jay @CSAplanning.net
The Building 2 (Office Building) and associated improvements were added to the project at
the request of the City for purposes of increasing floor area ratios and intensifying the level
of development. However, because of the large trucks associated with the paint store use
and ultimate site circulation needs for the larger center the project now includes
considerable circulation area and other improvements that are not absolutely necessary to
construct and initiate the paint store use from an operational standpoint. The ownership
anticipates finding a tenant for the office building in the reasonably foreseeable future
which will associate full build-out with appropriate levels of development financing risk.
i
Please find the attached initial Paint Store Development Drawing. This drawing depicts the
necessary level of site development the Applicant requests be approved for issuance of the
Paint Store building permit. If the City is willing to honor this request it will allow the
project to move forward expeditiously and get the much needed Ashland Street boulevard
improvements and the Paint Store Building completed in due course following land use
approval. The Applicant welcomes further discussion on this matter to reach common
agreement.
CSA Planning, Ltd.
/�, -A— a- —
J4 Harland
Principal
cc. File
i
i
1
k
I
1
i
i
EXHIBIT 1
LAURIE SAOFR iw `> ±wit I tapst i r o-:rair t Iran.
,,r, „s,i=rzr F ,c 'tiure r�r _<rx n
DATE:
JANUARY b, 2012
PROJECT:
Ashland Street Retail& Professional Office Development
Ashland Street
Ashland, Oregon
The following is a summary outlining how the proposed landscape plans for The Ashland Street
Retail & Professional Office Development meet the City of Ashland Site Design and Use
Standards, Section III Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies.
The design for the landscaping on the above referenced project, utilizes drought tolerant plant
species for the majority of the planting. This design does not incorporate lawn in any areas. The
plant material proposed for the project that requires additional water has been shown on the north
and east sides of the proposed buildings. This exposure will provide shade to these plants,
helping to limit watering requirements in these areas. All proposed plantings will be grouped
according to watering needs and after planting is completed, all areas will be mulched with 3”of
bark. This treatment will provide protection to the plant root zones, and will provide moisture
retention to the soil. All irrigation proposed for the project will be controlled with an automatic
timer/controller. The watering schedule will be managed and modified by a professional
landscape service throughout the seasons. In addition, a pressure regulating device will be
incorporated into the irrigation design if water pressure in this area is found to be high.
The conservation measures outlined above are in accordance with the advice and
recommendations outlined in the Water Conserving Landscape Guidelines and Policies.
LAURIE SA &
01S TER
4{ STAT"FO
I OI UONa
r c 952
�1 1.9driu= age j
f) ovIIA,I
fPE AR4
ji
I
i
I
i
I
PHONE 541 488 1446 FAX 541 488 o636 WWW.IAURIESAGER.COM
I
EX! '31T 13
Hazardous Waste Disposal l .ge Page 1 of 1
Hazardous Waste Disposal Page
The single most important part of waste classification is waste identification because all other
requirements hinge on this one decision. Accurate waste profiles are the key to defining the generator's
responsibilities and the regulator's authority(and response)with respect to the waste.
A"waste" is a material that has been used or has otherwise served its intended purpose and,for
whatever reason, can or will no longer be used. Standardized hazardous waste profiles have been
developed to ensure proper handling and disposal. These profiles should be used for the majority of
disposals at the store.
Waste must be properly packaged for disposal. Click on the Hazardous Waste Packaging for Disposal
Link for additional information.
All waste must be disposed through an Approved Waste Vendor.
Light bulbs and universal waste must be properly disposed. Click on link for proper handling and
disposal of Universal Waste.
These profiles are for use in all states except CALIFORNIA- see the California
Waste Disposal page on the State Specific Web.
Waste Type Hazardous Waste Profile Waste Shipping Procedures
Latex and Water Based Paints PSC Latex&Water Based Paint
Waste Profile
Latex Based Paint contaminated PSC Latex Based Paint
solids Contaminated Solids Waste
Profile
PSC Solvent Based Paint Waste Solvent Based paint shipping
Solvent Based Paints and labeling procedures for t-
Profile allan cans and 5-gallon ails.
Solvent Based Paint PSC Solvent Based Paint Solvent Based Paint
contaminated solids contaminated solids Waste Contaminated Solids 55 gallon
Profile labeling
Aerosol Cans PSC Aerosol Can Hazardous Aerosol can shipping and
Waste profile labeling procedures
Epoxy Hardeners PSC E oxv Hardeners Epoxy Hardeners shipping and
(polyamines/polyamides) ( olyaminesf olyamides) labelinc procedures for t gallon
hazardous V&Itej2rofile cans and 5-gallon pails.
Urethane Hardeners PSC Urethane Hardeners Urethane Hardeners ship in
(diisocyanates) fdiisocyanates} hazardous waste and labeling procedures far 1
rofile gallon cans and 5- anon ails.
Empty Drums that held solvent PSC Em t Drum hazardous
based paint waste rofile
Zinc Dust PSC Profile for Zinc Dust
If you have an unusual waste stream that does not fit in one of these categories, contact Stores Safety
& Environmental for assistance at (216) 515-7850 or(216) 566-1710.
I
htta://cnapol.sherwin.com:81/safety/haz waste disposal vage.htm 1/5/2012
Paint Stores Group WORK
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. MM,
STORES SAFETY 8 FNV1R0NMWrAL. Hazardous Waste Packaging
Segregate, count and record total gallons of both hazardous (oil and solvent based
paint)and non-hazardous waste (latex and waterborne paint). The total amount of
waste to be disposed is needed to determine the generator status.
If disposing of more than 200 gallons of hazardous waste contact Stores Safety &
Environmental to ensure compliance with State Specific Rules. When you call
stores safety for assistance you must have manifests from the last hazardous waste
disposal or know the date and amount of waste that was previously disposed.
Waste Profiles:A hazardous waste profile is needed for each type of material that is
being disposed. Generic waste profiles have been developed and are available on the
Environmental link of the SOURCE. Waste profile categories are:
• Latex and Waterborne Paint
• Solvent Based Paint
• Urethane Hardeners(Solvent based material that contains diisocyanates)
• Epoxy Hardeners (Solvent based material that contains polyminies/polymides)
A waste profile must be developed that is unique to your store. Contact an approved
hazardous waste vendor to complete the profile and provide them with the amount of
waste to be disposed in each category. (Example: 5 5-gallon pails of solvent based paint
and 43 1-gallon cans of solvent-based paint). An accurate count is needed to be able to
print up shipping labels.
Prepare the waste for shipment:
UN shipping containers must be used. One-gallon
paint cans are not approved for shipping hazardous
waste.
r
UN approved shipping boxes that can be used for 4-1 gallon cans
�s
of paint can be obtained on Resolve P/N 4000457 or by calling
ULINE 1-800-958-5463 (P/N S-7372) j
3
For larger shipments of one-gallon cans or for containers that have been damaged use
an approved Questar shipping box(Resolve P/N 4000462) or Questar part number
HHWBox or HAZBox at(419)340-2222.
i
General Packaging Requirements
For Latex paint record total number of containers and total gallons, shrink wrap, and
write these totals on TOP of each pallet. DO NOT SHIRNK WRAP SOLVENT PAINT
because each container must be labeled.
I
Each waste stream should be placed on a separate pallet and must be
properly labeled (Hazardous Waste, Corrosive, Flammable, etc).
i
All containers must be clean (no spills, drips, holes or leaks and must
have lids that properly fit. Containers must be UN-approved with no
- ry rust, leaks, bulging or damage present.
Revised 11/26/08
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. Paint Stores r
STORES SAFETY A ENVIRONMENTAL Hazardous Packaging
Use a 5-gallon pail or overpack for leaking one-gallon cans and an approved Questar
box or 55 gallon drum for leaking 5-gallon pails or a large amount of 1-gallon cans.
Hazardous waste containers must be staged with the labels pointed outward, no more
than two drums wide.
5-gallon pails must be stacked no more than 2 pails high with no more than 16 total on a
pallet. All hazardous waste and warning labels must face outward.
Contact Stores Safety& Environmental at(216) 616-7850 or(216)666-1710 for
technical assistance regarding the above information.
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
Revised 11/26/08
EXHIBIT 14
\ |2 Monterey Drive| Medford, Or, 97J04 | Phone 54|.94|.4|48 | Fax 54l.535.0873 | Emui|: Kvvkp}06[),umn
January 2, 2Ol2
Ashland Planning Commission
| |75 BmJ Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Sherwin VViUimnuK}ffiooDnvn|opmont
800duxn Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared o traffic xnxkmio |mUor for the �
replacement of an existing 2,135 square foot(SF) restaurant with a 4,000 SFretail paint store and
approximate 2,200 3P single tenant office building on Township 39S Range |B Soohun 1413/\`
tax |o( 1700 in /\eNund, Oregon. The proposed development in |ouuLm] along the south side of
8xh|uod 8tn:oL (OD 66) hu{pmoo Clay Street and Tolman Crook Road. The proposed
redevelopment does not include land use change nor trigger the Tmnopo,Ntion Planning Rule
([PK), but does require Division 51 findings kor o ohunQo of use of an approach to u State
highway. &nu|yaou were prepared in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (O/\R) 734'
05|'004j. The following analysis goes Co that issue:
Baekj_,round and Analysis
Ali existing 2,135 SF building on the property originally operated as a Pizza FILIt and changed to a
km house restaurant use in subsequent years. The trip generation for the existing use, in
accordance with the Y}/p Generation, is estimated 0n range between 56'87 trips during the
P.M. peak hour depending upon varying land oaon. The proposed m(ui| paint store and oOioo
building is estimated to moAe between 23-56 trips during the P.M. pcuk hoor, and on:o(o u
reduction of 22'31 P.M. trips to the transportation system. Redevelopment, dhenufio/e, is not
shown to increase the number ofpeak hour trips hnm that o[dho Property's pduruoo.
0/kR73440611-0845
w|Use mf'-m "�p1vnx1411
|) l'Ny ndo qpp|iu, (o privo!u nppmx(flms oxis|inl') ond,, u vu|id |`onni( (o Up*o1c mid
�u/x|Cu|hmrcx|qpmmuhoy.
Z) �x o,ed ill this nJc� -U041) ^pook |nu/l" n|, Uu yi|u mcons dm hour JurinA whioh the bigmxi
vnk/mc on|omuxJuxikiheproperly olypiuu| wuuk�
]) & dmn�un[oxuo[nn upp/nmch occuns", unJ on np|Jico!ion mux( hvmuhmiUoJ, w|'uu nu ooiiun
uruv�x/ idcmd6cd in m.�su�|ion (n) ny(hisxuc ion` nouho in xn oDcc iJoniihcd in Subsection (b)
nf|hiy sou inw
(./[ 7oxx POP nnm0-L xwN i:--tmo //( | Junuary2.2012 | Sherwin Williams/Office Traffic Letter| I
/
(a)ne I)c naricrit play review an <rpproach at be ihoe of an action shell as:
(A) %;tmhq or I an ame( dine(it desigmation clinnges;.
(B) Construction ornew btiddiltgs,
((') (door space o€ exis(ing buildings increase
(I I)ivis% orconsolidAor( orrux pert, boundrrie.s;
OQ ('hanc(;es in be chavrestcr orilml A using be apfrroach
(F) Internal site c irwilatio€t deign or inter-paroel cimulation changes, or;,
(G) fie-establishment of a propm"A usC after discontinuance Ior Tour years of-
11101'(".
(b)An application plus( be m0miml wheri an action in suhscciM (a) oPthis sectkni may
resrlll: in any orthe wdh winr;:
(A) The riunlber(W peak hMW trips Werwises by 50 trips or more. Prom that of die
properly's prier use mid To increase rcpresunk a 20 perce,nt or greater Wers se in
the number oP peak how triter; Rom that or the grope dy's prior uac.
(H) Ile n€_mlber or fries on a typical day increases by S00 (rips of more; Cron) that
or dic l rope.riy's llrior use mid the increaw igwc;swds a 20 percent or greMu,
increase in ow numbu or trips on a typical clay from that or the propc,(ty"s prier
(!tit'.,
n (3I)(yr demonstmtes (teat Safety or operation'tl problclus rclatcd to the
,rrij)roach are occuirmij,
(t)) Ile approach does n(9 meet To stopping sight distance; reirni'enlclif
(measured in rest) or It) Hnws (fro Imsted spent or the roadway (Measured in
miles per hour) or 10 times the (SYl' 1wrcernile Iwe'd or (lie roa(kvoy where the;
Of pc,rcomilo sped is higher or Over than the posted sI>r o& The, peen kwc limy
porkmn a sm(ly to daerminc Hine 80 peracs(rtilc; spin is hIl7 er or Wr draft
€hc posted slrccd. IN ,silYH distance mumurcmcnt and the study to determine- the
11yll peer c irlile, sI)ced !,hall be rwrfor(rre,d Iccordilq'. to Imblishe°d I)epart.melrt
proccd((rem by or umkx (he supervision of an crrgincor registand in the slate, of'
()rcwa 1,
(IQ Ile daily use of an approach ine:: awes by i0 or nuiro Vehicles with a gross
vehicle weigh( rating,oP26,000 potluck err presto.
i
6. 1. nairrtnorrrnrronncrn��;rrrnc, Cf.0 January 2,2012 1 Sherwin Williams/Office Traffic Letted 2
i
I
FINDINGS: With respectto(1)-(3)of this criterion,the Applicant offers the following findings:
(1)The access in question is a private approach existing under a valid Permit to Operate.
(2) The peak hour of the day for purposes of this analysis has been shown to occur during the
P.M. peak hour between 4:00-6:00pm. This peak hour coincides with the peak hour of both the
generator and adjacent street system,
(3) A change of use of an approach is shown to occur as a result of proposed redevelopment or
construction of new buildings that result in an increase of floor space, which meets the
requirements of(Q)and (C) under subsection (a).
(b) Ali application is not shown to be required based on none of the actions in subsection
(a)triggering any of the following(A)—(E)of subsection (b).
(A) The number of-'peak hour trips for proposed redevelopment does not increase
by 50 trips or more from that of the property's prior use nor represent a 20
percent or greater increase in the number of peak hour trips from that of the
Property's prior use.
(B) The number of trips on a typical day for proposed redevelopment does not
increase by 500 trips or more from that of the property's prior use nor represent a
20 percent or greater increase in the number of trips on a typical day from that of
the property's prior use.
(C) Safety or operational problems related to the approach have not been shown
to be occurring.
(D) Minimum stopping sight distance (SSD) for the approach has been
determined to meet ODOT requirements, in accordance with published
Department procedures by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, L l-,C.
(F,)'file daily use of the approach will not increase by 10 or more vehicles with a
gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or greater as a result of proposed
redevelopment.
III
I
I
5.0. �rrnrrft�nrrrrrrroN f nGrn�rarnc, 1.L( � January 2,2012 1 Sherwin Williams/Office Traffic Letter 3
i
Summary and Conclusions
The findings of the analysis conclude that the proposed replacement of an existing 2,135 SF
restaurant with a 4,000 SF retail paint store and approximate 2,300 SF single tenant office
building will not create adverse impacts to the transportation system nor trigger additional
analyses for a traffic impact analysis by meeting any of (A)—(E) of OAR 734-051-0045 (3)
subsection (b).
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Kimberly llarducci, P.E. PTOE 0633��200PE RQ,r�s�
aur.rt.r nN 1�.t�-�:<�m .ur��svnrrar1aNnconc.E �NC, 1 L C N�� ion%P Cc: Karl Johnson,Ashland Public Works �
Brandon Goldman, Ashland Planning Department OREGON
Michael Wang, ODOT 0. 4ti
Ian Horlacher, ODOT
Roger Allemand, ODOT �FRl y PP
Jay Harland,CSA Planning, Ltd, RENEWS;12/31/12
Client
Attachments: Speed Study, Sight Distance Analysis
1.0. �rflnfi Onrfrriun-1 ncin.c_c irrnc, I ff I January 2,2012 1 Sherwin Williams/Office Traffic Letter( 4
Date: 1/03/12
Roadway: Ashland Street at site driveway(vehicles coming from the east)
Direction of Travel: Westbound Traffic Time: 10:30-11:30am
Speed Vehicle
Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Sum
50 0
49 0
48 0
47 0
46 0
45 0
44 0
43 0
42 0
41 0
40 0
39 0
38 1 1
37 1 1 2
36 1 1
35 1 1 2
34 1 1 2
33 1 1 1 1 4
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 85%
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
29 1 1 1 1 4
28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
24 1 1 1 1 1 1 g
23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
22 1 1 1 3
21 1 1 2
20 1 1
19 0
18 1 1
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 0
Total 103
85th Percentile speed is 32 miles per hour(MPH)
Westbound (from Tolman Creek Road direction)
�I
Date: 1/03/12
Roadway: Ashland Street at site driveway(vehicles coming from the west)
Direction of Travel: Eastbound Traffic Time: 10:30-11:30am
Speed Vehicle
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P�13 14 15 Sum
50 0
49 0
48 — 0
47 0
46 0
45 0
44 1 _ 1
43 1 1
42 1 1
41 1 1 2
40 1 1 1 — 3
39 1 — — 1
38 1 1 1 3
37 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 85%
36 1 1 1 1 —4
35 1 1 1 1 1 5
34 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g
32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g
29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
28 1 1 1 1 1 5
27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
26 1 1 1 1 1 5
25 1 1 1 1 1 5
24 1 1 2
23 1 1
22 0
21 0
20 0
19 1 1
18 0
17 0
16 0
15 0
14 0
13 0
12 - 0
11 — 0
10 0
Total 107
85th Percentile speed is 37 miles per hour(MPH)
Eastbound (from Clay Street direction)
Sight Distance Measurements (ODOT)
Height of Driver's Eye: 3.5 feet
Height of Object: 2 feet(AASHTO—Stopping Sight Distance)
Height of Object: 6 inches (ODOT HDM - Stopping Sight Distance)
Case B I: Left Turn fi-om Stop
AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance for design speed 35 MPH = 390 feet
AASHTO Stopping Sight Distance for posted speed 35 MPH =250 feet(minimum)
ODOT Stopping Sight Distance for 85"' Percentile Speed (37 MPH)= 370 feet
Case 132: Right Turn from Stop
AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance for design speed 35 MPH =335 feet
AASI-ITO Stopping Sight Distance for posted speed 35 MPH =250 feet(minimum)
ODOT Stopping Sight Distance for 85t" Percentile Speed (37 MPH) = 370 feet
Sight Distance Measurement Location: Site Driveway/Ashland Street(OR 66)
Case B1: AASHTO Intersection Sight Distance for 35 MPH = 390 feet �
AASHTO Stopping Sight Distance=250 fleet(minimum)
ODO'I'Stopping Sight Distance for 85`1' Percentile Speed (37 MPH) =370 feet
Measured Sight Distance=870 feet to west,>900 feet to east
Conclusion: Adequate
Case 132: AASI-ITO Intersection Sight Distance for 35 MPH = 335 feet
AASHTO Stopping Sight Distance=2:50 feet(minimum)
ODOT Stopping Sight Distance for 85`x' Percentile Speed (37 MPH) =370 feet
Measured Sight Distance=870 feet to west,>900 feet to east
Conclusion: Adequate
I
EXHIBIT 1
i
i
i fa.rA- (�
80-04949 BAR^AIN AND SAFE DEED
V
f KNOW ALL AIEN BY THESE PRESENTS,Thar...S.UIRILT...INA.ESTPII:N.T.._CQ;iPANY,._an...Ore on...............
s
ji corporation............................. ..............................._......................................................,hereinaftercalled ranter,
f for the consideration hereinafter stated,does hereby grant,bargain,sell and convey unto.-...&AiRiZ f..�NY.i S.CMGNT.S..•
an Oregon limited partnership
hereinafter called grantee,and unto grantee's heirs,successors and assigns all of that cartain real property with the
tenements, heredilamenis and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining,situated in the County
of........... iftgX n.............•,•.....State of Oregon,described as follows,to-wit:
PARCEL I: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 66 in
:) Section 14, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County,
j Oregon, which point is 90.0 feet South and 1080.0 feet East of the northwest corner of said
11 Section; thence West 390.0 feet; thence South 5.94 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way
line of the Southern Pacific Railroad; thence South 55°25' East, along said line, 473.70
f feet; thence North 0°10' West 85.19 feet to a point which is 100.0 feet distant at right
angles Northeasterly from the center line of the original constructed main tract of said
fright-of-way at Engineer's Station 1067+75.71; thence South 55°25' East 295.87 feet; thence
:..3 ( South 0°22' West 60.46 feet to said Railroad right-of-way line, which point is 50.0 feet
f distant at right angles from the main tract center line; thence South 55°25' East, along
said line, 775.2 feet to the west line of Tolman Creek Road; thence North 0°08' West, along
said line, 918.02 feet to the southerly right-of-way line of said Highway No. 66; thence
West, along said line, 696.0 feet; thence South 2°43' East 152.0 feet; thence North 89°27'
West 190.20 feet; thence North 90.0 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: Beginning at
"?r a point on the south right-of-way line of Old Pacific Highway in Section 14, Township 39
South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, which point is
r! 1080.0 feet East of and 30.0 feet South of Section corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14 and
`€5 15, said Township S Range; thence South 150.0 feet; thence South 89°27' East 190.20 feet;
" > thence North 2°43' West 152.0 feet; thence West 183.0 feet to the point of beginning.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM premises described in deed to G. H. Peterson and Dean Neilson, a co-
„`i?".. 'partnership, recorded 6-26-67, Instrument No. 67-06127. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that j
zrr portion thereof lying within the boundaries of.the State Highway.
To Have and to Hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs,successors and assigns forever. !'
The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer,stated in terms of dollars,is$ NO .............
._....
MHowever, the actual consideration consists of or includes other property or value given or promised which is ;. .;-
"'xF'�.(i: th°whole p,
consideration(indicate which). (The aentenca between the symbols OO,if not applicable,should be deleted.See OR59?.010.)
In construing this deed and where the context so requires,the singular includes the p1'%''Ogalb grammatical
his? vv 5>.:
� changes shall be implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to cot rations anti.•tgg?n, "r1i,`r JL�,- w i i
• ':: 5'aI In Witness Whereof,the grantor has executed this instrument this.l:.....h day of_„'-...S7fl............."?......+9'-BQ...i
i j .
if a corporate grantor,it has caused its name to be signed and seal affixed by its of{iCeY 1tj)y aut�loriz4,'ttlrsrlo by
t
order of its board of directors. SUMMIT INV TMEN�,. '�rif'Ot gbpE•earpora on,I
U -
. _t _ -
:t
BY� .... ..... o i
... �ti✓v�; ..•............ .. ......-.. ..f�.:•.`•,r P
-- '-i ' a�;•-�j:�F�f.esida, t
I.Op sn•• :.: .ercvi,
' #i: elf rEr.vled bye<erpaelien, 'i. rr, '
Illx w,perotr crop '
• C OF OREGON,
.................................. STATE. at hR oPpearedoun,t9f-80 eocAeO Zupa71•.__.-....__,.a'...end f
3kl'# ATE N )� '
k
n�
...._.........................._•,
19............. pFlise.ai�.•Myers.................... i'I"" duly sworn, i-'
o ty Dt -_........_...... 6 gyp)
each for himself and not one forte uthe)[Wl My,t7f brlgrmer is the
• "'' Parsonally ap ared the above named.._........_.......-.... _ 1 r
4.'�. ...Vice....... presldenb�h n r is the
„ Itf
__.................-....-._... r
'3•�, ............................ ..................................... .,t,,l
-___ __.-.'....___7..........
............................................. TT
............................................... ...... ment__Com an......... ..{ : - •`'�rL<: ! t'.�.'`.
P. yd. _-J 14-2 a dotpotetionj
...and atka—1 ad the foregoing mitre. "�"' -' -"--'r"'"
a d that the reel alftse to the I.Ae`oiti msfmmen!is t a r
mend to be-.................................... untary act and deed, of said corp...II.n and that said i--f,.&;,t w�eig`ned and—ded iE be �
(*L halt of said...p...It..by authority of Jli 64r �Ql�i((eeforlf;an¢�@ah of
• '" -F (ham acknolvdgod aeid Inatrumenl Yo 68 75 4o1un16ry ftict ands Sd.
yl Rate,.me:
(OAL7CIAL ....................................................._ .._....... ...
$1 Glory j f
it I . rs•O`F�FJCJAL I
f•' ;•. :`"'S'- NoferY Pu61ic for Oregon
Notary P.M.for O Oregon
y mndsion a ph.a .......................... MY cornadsalon aspires: .•.••
M /jam/! -
.............. _........_...__.._....___............................._......... STATE OF OREGON,
....._.._.........._.........._.....-..........................—._.._.._....._......___...... �55. �.
i.
- �e
i'
ep.trnops MANE ANO AOapFSS !
H� I
pANTE['SN NE AND ADDPF6a ePAc
. OLL♦V/r1L SLf
• ': � ' f'j� AIM,nrerdinp rnvm lo: ° 3
... `?i.. _........._Lawyer,s__T ......�o.KP....._..._...._ .E...DEp: MAR 131980
. ADS
a:.
r
......__......_...... 9:S1
W1LLbENE TERRY� I
31 q�
AOOncsa.z iP..._................_......................_. E�
' y Until o Eh°np,n ngvrn,d all for noNmrnN fhail br unf fs Ih,lollewiny adds,,. �IIL
f
°f
-.r. _.. ............... ._....._._. ..
f:
' i 1 MAN[,ADDp Eee.Z,P
' .3A
Jackson (6untyTltle
896°'065'75 Division of Continonlol land Title Co,
602 WEST MAIN STREET•P.O.BOX 21a•MEDFORD,OREGON 07001 •IE071 77a•'t011
r, WARRANTY DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,That LAURA B. JONES TRUSTEE
hereinafter called the Grantor,
((o ehh c n ffderation hereinafter stated,to Grantor paid by PEAK'S RANCHES LTD A CALIFORNIA LTMT7ED
NARTeNERSfHIP
hereinafter called the Grantee,does hereby gtant,bargain,sell and convey unto
the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs,succeesssors and assigns,dthat the certain real property,Jaeksontenements,
heredilaments
and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining, ;
State of Oregon,described as follows,to-wit: d
AN UNDIVIDED 8.325% INTEREST IN AND TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIDED PROPERTY;
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
I a
` This instrument is being re—recorded to correct the property description.
TO HAVE AND TO HO LO the same unto the said Grantee and Grantee's heirs,successors and assigns forever.
And said Grantor hereby covenants to and with said Grantee and Grantee's heirs,successors and assigns,that Grantor is
lawfully rig`htaand granted
rights of way e r
of record;en except
encumbrances, leases, and financing
statements of record
f and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the said premises and every part and parcel thereof against the lawful claims
and demands of all persons whomsoever,except those claiming under the above described encumbrances. 000.00
THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION paid for this transfer,stated in terms of dollars,is S85, —•
Hnwyu xkaxoawxlHCOZ d�>eiarx�oclticmmix<czx riezaklearooaeafdt pzxadxzgaorxaxpr»xttsa�x nixl�+xinsvt atewhi h)
[hexo>t�dara0itxnt
WHERE THE CONTEXT SO REQUIRES,the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to
f make the provisions hereof apply equally to individuals and to corporations. T� March 19$2;if a
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the grantor has executed this instrument this �� day of
corporate grantor,it has caused its name to be signed by its officers,duly authorized thereto by order of its board of directors.
"This instrument will not allow use of the property described in this instrument in violation of applicable land use laws and
regulations.Before signing or accepting this instrument,the person acquiring fee title to the property should check with the ap-
propprriate city or/c'�ounty planning department to verify approved Ures."
/� �rH,.. `lie,,.e�.1L
aura . on r s ee
STATE OF OREGON (INDIVIDUAL) STATE OF OREGON iCORPORAIEI
COUNTY OF Jackson COUNTY OF
The for�eyggoing instrument was acknowledged before me this The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of March 19 89 by day of 19—,by
Laura B. Jones president,
�l and by
secretary of —
` .. .; A corporation,on behalf of the corporation.
ti.
�reg �8• O Notary Public for Oregon
Piracy:' My commission expires
�a�kt3 n„.Crounty Title
NAOE,AOUiESS,IIP
Until a cheep is sequnttd dl los slstements shNl tk sMl to the haa•inr oddses>,
Grantee
i
1800 Roque River Dr.
Eagle point OR 97524
monEStne
LA-36189 EXHIBIT A
TRACT A: Commencing at the Section Corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14
and 15 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in
Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 89°54106" East, following the
northerly line of said Section 14, a distance of 1479.80 feet, thence
South 0 105154" West a distance of 43.325 feet to a point lying on the
southerly right-of-way line of the Relocated Green Springs Highway,
d right-of-way line, 221.115 feet
thence South 89°52'39" East, along sai
to the true point of beginning; thence South 89°52'39" East, following i
said right-of-way line, a distance of 107.50 feet; thence South 0 102119"
South 89a54n06SaEastiandistance ofn150 00 feeteto a point 3lyingtonttheCe
westerly right-of-way
line of Tolman Creek Road; thence South 0°02119"
East, following g said right-of-way line, distance line
a £ 6disOtancetofthence
North 89°54106" West, leaving said right-of-way , a
261.00 feet; thence North 0°02119" West a distance of 428.495 feet;
thence South 89°54006" East a distance of 3.50 feet; thence North
0°02119" West a distance of 147.58 feet to the true point of beginning.
(Code 5-1, Account #1-74847-9, Map 4391E14B, Tax Lot #706) i
TRACT B: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14
and 15 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in
Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 89°54106" East, along the section
line common to Sections 11 and 14, a distance of 1958.315 feet to the
intersection of said section line with the northerly extension of the
westerly right of way of Tolman Creek Road, as said Road has been
resurveyed and monumented, thence, leaving said section line, South
00°021-19" East (deed record South 00°03'00" East) along the westerly
right of way of said road and the northerly extension thereof, 619.50
feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing South 00°02'19"
East, along the right of way of said Tolman Creek Road, 270.89 feet to a
5/8" iron pin situated 100.00 feet Northeasterly thereof, when measured
at right angles therefrom, the centerline of the existing Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks; thence North 55°12'03" West and parallel to the
centerline of said railroad tracks, 317.99 feet to a 5/8" iron pin;
thence, leaving said railroad right of way, North 00°02119" West and
89.86 feet; thence South 89°54106"
parallel to said Tolman Creek Road,
East and parallel to the section line common to Sections 11 and 14, said
Township and Range, 261.00 feet to the true point of beginning.
(Code 5-1, Account #1-74920-7, Map #391E14B, Tax Lot #707)
TRACT C: Commencing at the northwest corner of Section 14 in Townso ipon9
South, Range 1 thence South 89E54t50 £ Willamette
East, alongtheMnortha Jackson
line of said Section, a g
P.
i
i
@x°065'75 I
LA-36189 (continued)
distance of 1958.59 feet, thence South 0°03'00" East 30.00 feet to the
intersection of the south right of way line of Oregon State Highway No, 66,
and the west right of way line of Tolman'Creek Road, for the true point of
beginning; thence South 0 103'00" East, along the said west right of way
line of Tolman Creek Road, 125.00 feet; thence North 89 154150" West 150.00
feet; thence North 0°03'00" West 125.00 feet to the south right of way line
of said Oregon State Highway No. -66; thence South 89°54150" East, along
said right of way line, 150.00 feet to the true point of beginning,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the State of Oregon, by and
through its State Highway Commission, by deed recorded as No. 72-08561 of
the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon.
(Code 5-1, Account #1-8094-9, Map #391E14B, Tax Lot #702)
TRACT D: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14
and 15 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in ,
Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 89°54'06" East, along the section line
common to Sections 11 and 14, a distance of 1479.80 feet, thence, leaving
said Section line, South 00°05154" West 43.325 feet to a point in the
southerly right of way of the relocated Green Springs Highway as shown on
that Oregon State Highway Division Drawing No. 9B-8-22, for the true point
of beginning; thence South 89°52'39" East, along said southerly right of
way, 122.615 feet to the westerly boundary line of that tract of land
described in Instrument No. 73-18155 of the Official Records of Jackson
county, Oregon; thence, leaving said southerly right of way, South
00 102119" East, along the westerly boundary line of• said tract of land and
parallel with Tolman Creek Road, as said road has been resurveyed and
monumented (Deed Records South 00°03100" East) 147.625 feet to the
southwesterly corner thereof; thence South 89°54'06" East and parallel to
the north boundary line of Section 14, and along the southerly boundary
line of said tract of land, 95.00 feet to a point in the westerly boundary
line of that tract of land described in Instrument No. 71-10071, said I
Official Records; thence South 00°02'19" East, along the westerly boundary
line of said tract of land and parallel with Tolman Creek Road, as said
road has been resurveyed and monumented (Deed Records South 00°03'00" East)
387.00 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence, leaving said tract of
land and continuing South 00°02119" East and parallel to Tolman Creek Road,
as set forth herein, 131.36 feet to a point 100 feet Northeasterly thereof,
when measured at right angles therefrom, the centerline of the existing
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks; thence North 55°12'03" Wdst and parallel
to the centerline of said railroad tracks, 264.385 feet; thence, leaving
said line parallel to said railroad tracks, North 00°02119" West 364.595
feet; thence North 08 144131" West 152.75 feet to a point in the southerly
right of way line of the relocated Green Springs Highway; thence South
89°52139" East, along said right of way, 22.50 feet to the true point of
beginning. EXCEPTING. THEREFROM the following: Commencing at the section
corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15 in Township 39 South, Range 1
East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County, Oregon, thence South
89°54106" East, along the section line common to Sections 11 and 14, a
distance of 1479.80 feet, thence, leaving said section line, South
00°05154" West 43.325 feet to a point in the southerly right of way of the
� / II
•n<�;'�4:;:�. a .�"'
I
LA-36189 (continued)
relocated Green Springs Highway, for the true point of beginning; thence
South 89°52'39" East, along said southerly right of way, 122.615 feet to
the west line of that tract described in instrument recorded as No.
73-18155 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon; thence, leaving
said southerly right of way, South 00°02'19" East (Record South 00°03'00"
East), along the west line of said tract, and parallel with Tolman Creek
Road, 147,625 feet to the southwest corner thereof; thence, leaving that
tract of land as hereinabove mentioned, North 89°54106" West and parallel
to the north 08*44131" Section
toltheatruetpoint oflbeginnningt thence North
(Code 5-1, Portion Account #1-8092-2, Map #391E14B, Portion Tax Lot #700)
ALSO: Commencing at the section corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14 and
15 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson
County, Oregon, thence South 89°54'06" East (Deed Record South 89°54'50"
East), along the section line common to Sections 11 and 14, a distance of
1479.80 feet, thence, leaving said section line and normal therefrom, South
00°05154" West 43.325 feet to a 5/8" iron pin situated in the southerly
right of way of the relocated Green Springs Highway, as shown on that
Oregon State Highway Division Drawing No. 9B-8-22, thence South 89°52'39"
East, along said southerly right of way, 221.115 feet to a 5/8" iron pin,
for the true point of beginning; thence, leaving said southerly right of
way, South 00°02'19" East (Deed Record South 00°03'00" East) 147.58 feet to
a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 89°54106" West and parallel to the northerly
boundary line of section 14 (Deed Record North 89,54150" West) 98.50 feet
to a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 00°02119" West and parallel to Tolman
Creek Road, as said road has been resurveyed and monumented (Deed Record
North 00°03'00" West) 147.625 feet to a 5/8" iron pin situated in the
southerly right of way line of the relocated Green Springs Highway, as
hereinabove set forth; thence South 89°52'39" East, along said southerly
right of way, 98.50 feet to the true point of beginning.
(Code 5-1, Account #1-8092-2, Map #391E14B, Tax Lot #700)
TRACT E: Commencing at the Section Corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14
and 15 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian in
Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 89°54106" East, following the
northerly line of said Section 14, a distance of 1479.80 feet, thence South
0°05154" West a distance of 43.325 feet to a point lying on the southerly
right-of-way line of the Relocated Green Springs Highway, thence North
89°52139" West, along said right-of-way line, 22.50 feet, for the true
point of beginning; thence continue North 89°52139" West, along said
right-of-way line, 90.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence continue along
said right-of-way line, South 84°46'28" West 62.335 feet; thence, leaving
said right-of-way line, South 00`07'21" West 109.19 feet to a 5/8" iron
pin; thence South 89°52'39" East 170.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence
North 08°44131" West 116.39 feet to the true point of beginning.
(Code 5-1, Account #1-70375-6, Map #391E14B, Tax Lot #705)
a'
I
i
89-065`7 5
LA-36189 (continued)
TRACT F; Commencing at the Section Corner common to Sections 10, 11, 14
and 15 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East Of the Willamette Meridian in
Jackson County, Oregon, thence South 89°54106" East, following the
northerly line of said Section 14, a distance of 1479.80 feet, thence South
0°05154" West a distance of 43.325 feet to a point lying on the North
right-of-way line of the Relocated Green sprin112Highway, to a 5/8" iron
89°52'39" West, along said right-of-way line,
pin, thence South 84°46128" West, following said right-of-way line, a
distance of 62.335 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continue
along said right-of-way line, South 84°46128" West 83.305 feet to a 5/8"
iron pin; thence, leaving said right-of-way line, South 00°07121" West
16.515 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 25°58137" West 68.795 feet to
a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 00°07121" West 45.00 feet to a 5/B" iron pin;
thence South 45°07123" West 84.855 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence North
89°52139" West 51.50 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 00°10121" East
41.19 feet to a 5/8" iron pin set on the northeasterly line of the Southern
Pacific Railroad; thence South 55°12103" East, along said Railroad right of
way, 295.87 feet (record South 55°25 East 295.87 feet); thence
along said right of way line, South 55°12'03" East 191.57 feet to a 5/8"
iron pin; thence, leaving said right of way line, North 00°02'19" West
364.595 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 08°44131" West 36.36 feet to
a 5/8" iron pin; thence North B9°52139" West 170.00 feet to a 5/B11 iron
pin; thence North 00°07121" East 109.19 feet to the true point of
beginning.
(Code 5-1, Account #1-70253-4, Map #391E14B, Tax Lot #704)
I
Jackwu Count ovegon
Recaded
GADS
9:oo APR 3• �¢,�,
"THLEEN S HECUVT
CLM and AECMEA
,
4 . ..
I
II
Jacks ,ourity niticlal Recor 2009®00666
�Re,ardin Reangtt R-TR,
Cnl=1 Stn=3 MoR 09 08:42:48 AM
`> 1.Yenneih H.Jones $25.00 510.00$ . 0$11.00 7otal:$51.00
305 Meadow Wood Drive -
Phoenix OR 97535 Jockson County official Records 2010-006505
ran When Recorded Mail To: R R®ALONZOKM 02/25/2010 08:56:03 AM
Jack Davis $25.00$10.00$5.00$11.00$15-00 l`otal:$56.00
515 E.Main Street
Ashland,OR 97520
�+t
Mail Tax Statements To;
01415555201000065050050055
10 IZenneth H. Jones 1,Christine Walker,County Clark for Jackson County,Oregon,certify
'—i 305 Meadow Wood Drive that the Instrument identified herein was recorded In the Clerk
Phoenix OR 97535 record:. Christine Walker-County Clerk
Louise C.Jones
TRUSTEE'S DEED
Kenneth H. Jones and Louise C. Jones, Successor Co-Trustees of that certain Trust established
September 13, 1974,of which Laura B. Jones was the original Trustee, she being now deceased,hereinafter
H referred to as "Grantors" convey unto Kenneth H.Jones and Louise C. Jones,tenants in common in equal
shares, all of that real property situated within Jackson County, Oregon more fully described as follows:
0
The Trust's undivided 16,23% interest in the real property described on Exhibit"A"attached.
Kenneth H. Jones will own an undivided 8.115%interest and Louise C. Jones will own an undivided
w 8.115%interest.
v, M This conveyance is made to the beneficiaries of this Trust and there is no money consideration
0 eo
therefor.
v BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,THE PERSON TRANSFERRING
FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS, IF ANY, UNDER CHAPTER 1,
OREGON LAWS 2005 (BALLOT MEASURE 37 (2004)). THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW
USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE
LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT,
THE PERSON ACQUIRING THE FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE
8 o APPROPRIATE CI'TY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT"I O VERIFY APPROVED USES
AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES
H AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING
y PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY,UNDER CHAPTER 1, OREGON LAWS 2005 (BALLOT MEASURE
37 (2004)).
DATED thi&day of , 2009.
w� a �
Ke et H. Jones, Co- ustee ouise . Jo Co-Trustee
STATE OF OREGON )
COUNTY OF JACKSON )
On theta day of ZkQ L 2009,personally appeared the above-named Kenneth H. Jones,Co-
Trustee of the above-named Trust, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act. Before
me:
� r
Notary u ` is for Oregon
My Commission Expires 4*, M F!P,
STATE OF OREGON ) . CN
) , § T q
-O
COUNTY OF KLAMATH ) e,2013
On they day of , 2009,personally appeared the above-named Louise C, Jones, Co-
Trustee of the above-named-WrU,and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be a voluntary act.
Before me:
Notary Public for Oregon.
My Commission Expires: S 4•go 14�
OFFICIAL SEAL
DONNA M.HOFFMAN
` NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
" COMMISSION NO,A405676
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 24,2010
46 4 '.0: 4 RECORDER'S MEMO,'. .. ...
' POOR RECORD'IS DUE TO'
WALITY OP ORDINAL DOCUMENT
TR
wx "ft
$foui;tom noli i; I w bi Said 86ct- : di taxuwe'
BA �CiIS a ti . tt� fo b, t; ` �.: at� :+ .:
fiat ' S 0b:way O-. 0.f t,i`arid t#is wae� 'r��3it o�':way "�� �,' cf. To.! rnaia Cry
� • pa3xi :a : � sr . south. O 103':Q�Q, � i b ue �4 y{,�c ' wad
YiL'1 La' 1tt L rF >�? #?lti CEf C.is ' iiwli �.4T6kt... vk`F71�'' +5 C3'�.tl'3 �.� L Il� fir'
ff� Y`
86. 6Er`4 taimidi 6�.4#050:t&fl�x i tt:: � �4k ffat'
'.�6f ai*0A'. 'Uk .t At ' g t�,- by do*a 'sober 0a Vo:..
19.9'-0:9,961 of of ,TAq*60x% GQUaity, rJ o*A.
z
�s 04 tk a � t S yr..�. rid . t s err ' �#s 4, x aiid' lt, fi, u i3 s• 'ti
aiael . aii e s a e : iiii tfte- M6vi Itaa. # Zack"� Crsirxrtsy.r. thbrice,
.. r.
A.
.�:� ,:64° ���tiik� t�� e €3aii '• �"�'��%.��'N ����� '�� df��t�ri�s�'.�� +k�',.3.�'S ���G ��. a �i�x�� •i�i�+� =`
oi% t116 .ivutht gay- eight. df.�W,aY llile :ot:thii 0-tgb : j � tt���`;; 'tiue6k.
6i At a: 0915:2130" ad-d ,• axrsarj $ai$ • .aqua;psy3nt cr; .
��G�fi' 7t�4�`•�`• •:� %��'� 1�,�� '�'��'��"r'��" �$��. :Lp�;.�.f.�la+'�?614,�,:, ae,4�:;� z'�gl�'t':�o�`':vi$�'�:;i'�`s'e`, .� t1��'.t�>�Tl,C�
Y 't4ft-t ch ' fit. ave ;.#��si� '�3+�t�:�ro:�����.1�x(!�:l. a: c�ata�rio� a
': ' `..,: 1 *x• t5y `aE.'#<Far : .;: ;f ? t> i.50., ' .�3t�. 1t+Y. t'
.. ....�
' .: . r x:40 � �",.4'. ::5 11 t s'
. nw3ng p4$- ght�n sway r a : i::
.444%,.t`46 ° ;wes.'t J cav ng• cad r h -of-rr4—w4 ; r Orr 4 ,."
iyxtki. a° ' "• 4P .11 t aY# e 9 42 x410 wgb'l. � 4�'�;�a�r $9a���pfi:� ':�oRfi �
c i :Q' f, 73,. : > fout gt g; d at-once 'A Y97.SB le�� Via' tih�
. �. :`
(Cdde 5.�07C:, l iiti •:f; . ' ', ` '�: 3 33 1?i'� x:3b`03: y
CtStiltCl �lC 3? ,4hr •,tla-q� oei' - ,.6 cxlYltf1C# S ' soot,*-004, 1,I-0, 'I-i, :3,:4' 'aoa a,tz; Tot#3#lll -i
#3Ct... • �o' sa. i } . rn ids ;i7akaort'.Gouzst , t} agagh
# t' '""' " . s 1 v� g i ca i 3. 'a sa s � 14, a diq, .&zoo caf k
tb 04,44-0 �4y 4. d pt w i4 fit. tto a; POltli *#q-
! au�7�sxxy i _ai? wa* f.n o the xax404b.'
I����•: 9Q�2�8:�" w���•a��axx� :e�.ic�'.x�.�xt-af:�ura�? 3.�:x�;�'� •�:�li::�:��F? .:��Z� � ��;�� ���
ra .� t L Paztb .a ;? �' r , ' a c : � ► .'a >wrs t ,6: 9 0
a
Wi
A 4-3-35 0. :: Ei40.1- ' 3 :.kk '-trsiriacCYI
�:��:�' i.�CF �•b'./'B'". 'is��bYx i��:i'1'Y. "f:�7Ts�• �i�t3��3•k'�9?.�'.;'':�9,'0 .I�'�d.�F� �:'�'�.::'�{3:� ':�i�ft��"i�t `��3� .���,��9� '�t•�''b3Y '�1�3!'3
oo: woetYt }�f:"'�F '' . � w-ot". ,'` � $,,toot to: two tt tvoi e- of ����
Q: r. t � °'QT0 -E?y. Pip, '. *4�Ay .dot #'1.7Q0.
y.
:
as'Tz as t t �v�ati � drn . _.n< :r .....,_.. rnSv ak �3a x 1 < _ .
RECORDER'S MEMO
POOR RECORD IS DUE
QUALITY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
ell
vw-`;p.MM.%r:P0.44WO.",
.e 4t: e.,-'sodtion corn Wool It'. 11., dTl 1,t, To*aihip -3-9
.0 P
...... ,ma- OV
1A. P-44;
_1 0 , qith ooe t. 43 34 tqo
f thelm6c leavima o;kld 1 .01
tie'AoAzh
-r__Wv� A
.0
1� ioito -fi 4 ,
be 2 Sly ig 't
ot wfi
13-4`4100- bf th*- -or 4�egarii th4na w Uavl W44-
k4k4-MIM-1y,0i 40V '000,02419`1- ftftl: 'A 0h tzh4 Of
th Toltan ax. ltbO., Aa 'a 4
mok. .'*1 rO b4s 'bOgib,
S' t :(d' tribi#rzmtirrit (D" - a-47,0',2 s Son to thin
a b
..t ye# c th", Sftth 110-94e-P.Iff '940 #ndpaX411rj
4;r 404 `W*X% 4, A
p
1 y od'or 0
"A
taud, p�q tax ycl�-quu# �.�inw
t
-ft !k h mat A-lov,
A
g4 0.00 AA
... .........
vfv6obi4 wit-lafia-wo
'jA.
'tJz-.5 .1. "yo I.J..
tfioik" kn V 1 3! 0 t',od 4 w"'d
dint -in t4b X941.4-t
i"Id
104
0`( -go m go m ja 1,4.*!1kuo_ ,.. .t.. mw
ow 1 a
og cA oao 1.
.0, tZoi 09-041. e-4cft Spw:
4C*j 14 -4 -dii3
ovg s -tt': w
6 . �L-. . ..,4' .,., t. k. ` 'i *
-A, A k.ft ,tu'A '
iO4 f b w* t4d .tt�
0 "w4y.?
tit of,wo=-A- d1biv #646�Aji aght.. f
*zA:"oXff 40ot to tho i4ot vwt. -vtAcv `ui uktxim t
ff
WAq%A%-- iot :okxk vf fu-A a "'oot" ojo:-4"u� owor, oreop:; ale z"o1wq oux,
q mg 004
illomolho.14y v W4,'o f, wo., �oduvh-:-iv'wif- .1� t90,00'r.-:8.0up-h 3,
wol"'. x i-nffi 0%, 4434•-t.*va44:,. ind OrmOk 4044, Wl.�v4z%.Ago to tho
OVA_
tO.
i4t.Pit- 5. errtt !zz cif 1arini .
ion
1"AV -4 f bdid
0_*.i�_21-.Sl ft4u tb, a B.'1V
"'It -'r. U 01 -04 90:1,4-A& M, 4.'*wa' im
MCA god.. *uv
goV`
wom orosoo Ato: 4..N- 00w of.l otoxf,
lipwizig. 004 Vt Poe! varf,
p, t.b. -vb*o f 6* I I
-;rqn
_
�Wpat ;aod. par�' i�l �o. the, 144
ftxth 1011'04'�. y. il�e o
!4 q"o:,oq)pth .4a A r-pn- ;o%v,,
a.
..... ........
pi�k,02 A,
f
r
RECORDER'S MEMO,
° POOR RECORD IS DUE TO
QUALITY OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
: ► �" (: a LCfi1? d ru k 3-0,0 000 v��o+ .1,47. .g'nn
'✓ gs ! l+n
a,'� �� ;��� � ��. ti,.�asce�eQUth 139'a5�` 9'�.'�t�i�� �z�I�':•.# d• '�;c7�t �+�� �:�I?� 'off:
(> ci 5.. 1•fscitti *d0 €I9 � �
sap o#3314".1 -Tax zot #1. 0 `}' TZ
%r�.if'..s.�*1 0. I4ii%P .�hVf A^'Ek ''�K I� RikA .L'i�'�i �r. �Q. �.�..:lr ,'�' 3:^�/•i 'y.�•'.'�i :R.'tA •l'. ^i�ei' b11. f;mj, i 4
it F .� @ L iw '41 ;L� l:t •k4 t � i '• lT:c�$ET1^ S7ia' `�GS l ! Jr" '. � 90.0
w !` Yo���!`.:�?�;!`•,:� �rr. ���„i��r��t�iY
W�a'�:�v;�.�" '� Y,k�i�G, ��' .'Q:•°�b��'•,�t?���� �. t• 'a3i` :C��:iJ,��tYlCtF' 2'S�",!a'd,':.�J`,+���' � �• '�� �r; �;� �''��'�:
:uvw X4, off;rho atiopat.04--gro.0od gpririgf: utowlit.,f0w4o. ..
0 -way
4fwui g , , 9 d, y i
'r'�"" i °" :. '�.•.k7:ttr .r, �n�'; Y'. .i4nta rte'.'
�'i' ��:��4�+z��� �l� .r��'130�' ���iM;:���°;a.:. ;�iF�� � •�'i.#�'� tea. ��ar!�. , �a:f:�t �3;����;r�`��;�aa,�
t44
ftet to a•:�/Wlr "eon pin.f theziG 7 h»h (t ' �` '+' 4' .•Q'D Zeet to a•a✓:�"
u": On, the 04th 4.S'00712$11 Went. Rk�$$5 ��e� tb S'd .}�°��'�' �xAn -0444; 1:,�Ik'1cg. tTpr h
#r3. y 3•g n. S�+g>' 5 1:5.0 �G to, 4 s f a'? , that .' ipiG�x 0E�'?�t}:•g�" � � �s,�g i1
>sn >~'I . � Z� � �:y l�t��:.(�i�•� scssirl~#i,��:ri ':ea�I'I'�3�` ���1�a�.r��.
h to a°x 4'Joa ' :_ ; aaat E sdar3 l l i� ''ara +.
cs4Lrhlx 5 n , It%] 40. .0�t�nu�
��5"'�2"Yx3� �[�'� X�1,�7'�`��t', ��'''a •�� "' �.G¢Y :p3; I:� '�, �:�:'#�. ���. x�.y�i� t1� xva� •1tat�,
�?4;�:f Ia�?tcae � h• 'QQ"Q•'?''21." ��;�E 1�9,.�� .��•`� ;� G�'�t•�'�a���' G�� ���: '. �z:
2i � + csurit. #1",-.070Z53-4.1 Map. #j'918't,491a;
�•S
i
f
: a
t
ti.
�a 4yv�fJat!.
r..
.a1.YrNi,r. . � t t'v..v.»._.�¢.7:G]6a.u:r..,.eSt:ii`:.. r .,....waxu.i._.... �r.,.,,. �.,n•... ... ,
I MINIMUM
66-01»Q3 WARRANTY
l
THIS INDENTIJR'.1i; wiTNP,-SSZTII; That I,
KARL IV, IVINI)BIOl.ER, a widower,
for and in consideration of the aura of e'en Dollars, and other good and sufficient considera-
tion,ha v bargained and sold,and by this instrument do hereby grant,bargain,sell,
convey and confirm unto
SUMMIT INVESTMENT COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, its successors and
assigns, an undivided 37-1/2% interest, J,11,J., INC., an Oregon cor-
poration, its successors and assigns, an undivided 25% interest, and
CHARLES N. THOMPSON and JEAN RICE THOMPSON, husband and wife, their
heirs and assigns, an undivided 37-1/2t interest, in and to
a4AgWg>5tjSC the real property situated in the
i County of Jackson, State of Oregon, particularly described as,follows,to wit:
PARCEL- I;, Beginning at a point on the southerly right-o£-way line
of F[Tiivay, No, 66 in Section 14, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of
the Willamette Meridian in ,Jackson County, Oregon, which point is
90,0 feet $ouch,and 1080.0 feet East of the northwest corner of said
Section; ;thence tVest 390.0 feet; thence South 5.94 feet to the North-
i easterly_Tight=of-way line of the,Southern Pacific Railroad; thence
(
South"55625' East, along said-line, 473,70 feet; thence North 0°10'
j West 85.7.9 feet to a point which is 100,0 feet distant at right angles
Northeasterly from the center line of the original, constructed main
I tract of':said right-of-way at Engineer's Station 1067+75.77; thonc,6
j South 55'25''East 295.87 feet; thence South 0°22'.West 60.46 feet to
said Railroad right-of-way line, which point is' 50.0 feet distant at
right angles from the main tract center line; thence South 55°25' East
i along said line, 775.2 feet to the west line of Tolman Creek Road;
I 1 I thence North 0°08' West, along said line, 918.02 feet to the south- j
erly right-of-way line of said highway No. 66; thence hest, along said
line, 696.0 feet; thence South 2°43' East, 152,0 feet; thence North
II " 89°27' West 190,20 feet; thence North 90.0 feet to the point of be-
ginning. i
PARCEL 11: Beginning at a point on the south right-of-way line of Old f
acid if c way. in Section 14, Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the
Willamette Meridianin Jackson County, Oregon, which point is 1080.0
feet Bast o£°the 30.0 feet South of Section comer common to Sections a
10, 11, 14 7 and iS, said Township and Range; thence South 150,0':feet; I i
thence 'South 89 027' East.190,2Q feet; thence North 2 043' West 152.0
feet; thence..}Vest 183.0 feet to the point.of beginning.
SUBJECT Lo existing easements of record or visible on the ground.
1 yy i SUBJECT;to' .the effect of said premises lying within the confines of <'
ithe Talent, Xirigation District.
,TQi�IAVEAN7J TO HOLD,the above described premises together with the tene-
ts and appnztenanc�, ertainingthereto,unto the said grantees, their i
res ectiv,e,suceessors, heirs 6 gos,•forever.
..The grantor herein do es covenant with said grantees,their respective successor
heihd assigns'''that he is the owner in fee simple of the above describ-
ed premises,and that same are Pree from aB ancumbrances -except as above stated
and that he will and his heirs,execuEors and administrators,shall warrant
and defend the title to said premises
against the lawful claims and demands of all persons j
II whomsoever,
I i I I o/
WITNESS' my hand and seal this // day of July 19.66.
x .` ��� .,:(SEAL)
K' art 1V. Windbzgl r
j V ............................... (SE GAL)
i I
I
1. � ' . , . • � - . .
...
66-0179q3
STATE OF-----------QUQQ.1;.......
..........
County o£,............JacksQ
as.
BE IT RE=i mBEnm),*That on this.......... ...-..day of----------.Sul}t........A.D.,10.8.6
f before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State,personally ap-pearedthewithiinnamed...KAR,-_1L,•IVXNDAIGLU a wid-iv
---.1......................---
- -
:--•..............................................._ _...,,.......................—...- ..who.......is----known
I to me to be the identical individual.... in and who executed the within 1nsLrument
and acknowledged to me that;......;._1?e..............executed the same freely and voluntarily.
1 ::•4�':`G': " W TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I have hereunto net my hand and of- �s
��•' ; flcial aea t And year s above written. j
SOU,Ry y... . --- f
PUSII� No P Cilia for Ore-g- i
Ily Commission Expires:.
y '•�% .........
M6.dL'l, IA Pty J 14
CLERK M-K P.,.CMND
:..,..
' -..-_I-...-__�-ice_�—.—;�_�N_.�„.�� i,�^�--� �• ��•
U5d5
W •ai i o ice . p 4
d)i
JI
1 M!" U4 �y
I �j G4
2 A o ! d lv I 1
i ! I o l
Wi X o
t
i
N ? o'
cxioIxW '� t o HO
STATE OF-=- I
as I
County•o .............
......•
I BE IT MENI,OMBEXED,That on this._..:...----- day of--------------------------A.
• before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public:in and•for said County and State,'personally ap-
peared the within named.......---_...._,
_- ......................`...:......t,.,...........:.._...°-
I --------------------------------- ------...,--...........................................
------------.................. ------------------------------------------------------------who ---------known
i
G to me to be the identical individual..,.-described in and who executed the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that, executed the same freely------ -•• y and voluntarily. I f
IN TESTIMONY WREREOF,I have'hereunto set my hand and of-
ficial Seal the day and year last above written, i
�.
i Notary.Public. - i
MY Commiesion Fxpires:..-
_ ...._... _. . .... .......... . ..
ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION
Planning Division /q
51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR 97520 FILE# Co
C1 Ty or 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006
-ASHLAND
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT TYPE 1 - SITE REVIEW COMMERCIAL AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT 4-
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED@ Certification? ❑YES KI NO
Street Address 2220 Ashland Street
Assessor's Map No.39 1 E 14BA Tax Lot(s) 1700
Zoning C-1 Comp Plan Designation Commercial
kK= AGENT
Name CSA Planning Ltd/Jay Harland Phone 541-779-0569 E-Mail jay @csaplanning.net
Address 4497 Brownridge, Ste 101 City Medford Zip 97504
PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT
Name Summit Investment , et al Phone 541-779-0569 —E-Mail izupan@windermere.com
Address 1117 E. Jackson Street City Medford Zip 97504
SURVEYOR ENGINEER,ARCHITECT,LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,OTHER davidthruston@sbjames.com
TitleArchitect Name David Thrusaon Phone 541-414-1313 E-Mail
Address 8425 Agate Road City White City Zip 97503
jhigday @hea—inc.com
Title Surveyor Name Jim Higday Phone 541-772-6880 E-Mail
Address
PO Box 1625 City Medford Zip 97501
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application,including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact,are in alt respects,
true and correct. 1 understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility.I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested,the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate;and further
4) that all structures or improvements are proper located on the ground.
Failure in this regard will result most likely in n only request being set aside,but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to
be remove t y expens f 1 hav ny do s,l a advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance.
AIA
January 6, 2012
A,Ppm gSi natu e -Agent Date
CS Planning Ltd/Ja yHar and
As owner a the property involved in this r questad and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
January 6, 2012
Property Wn is S gnatu a (required) Y CSA Planning Ltd,Authorized Agent Date
(To be completed by City Staff)
Date Received F Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee$
OVER �®
G:\conun-deviplannine\Forms&Handonts\Zonine Permit Application.doc
ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
❑ APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner.
❑ FINDINGS OF FACT—Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or
findings of fact and supported by evidence, List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it, Include
information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document.
❑ 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11"x17". Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape
details. (Optional— 1 additional large set of plans, 2'x3', to use in meetings)
❑ FEE (Check, Charge or Cash)
❑ LEED®CERTIFICATION (optional)—Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall
provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps:
• Hiring and retaining a LEED®Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and
construction of the project; and
• The LEED®checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued,
NOTE:
• Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis,
• Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s)AND property
owner(s), all required materials and full payment.
• All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance
with ORS 227,178,
• The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission
meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board,which meets at 1:30 pm,or the full Planning Commission,which
meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St).
• A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns.
• If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions,
I
'i
i
G:\con"u-dev\pinuuing\Fon s&Handonts\Zoning Pennit Application.doc
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the undersigned owner of real property described as
Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 on Jackson County Assessor map 39-1E-14BA.
LET IT BE KNOWN that CSA Planning, Ltd. (CSA) is the duly authorized representative of
Summit Investment, the owner/applicant of the above described real property, and, by this
instrument, do hereby authorize CSA to perform all acts procedurally required to obtain land use
and development applications and permits as may be required by and through the City of Ashland
as legal prerequisites to actual development of the described real property.
i
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the
undersigned applicant and shall expire on January 31, 2013 but may be extended by the mutual
consent of the parties.
Done and dated this 4 A day of January, 2012,
SUMMIT INVESTMENT
s
Jo".A. Zupan, A . Representative
i
i
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the undersigned owner of real property described as
Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 on Jackson County Assessor map 39-1E-14BA.
LET IT BE KNOWN that CSA Planning, Ltd. (CSA) is the duly authorized representative of
Peaks Ranches, LLC the owner/applicant of the above described real property, and, by this
instrument, do hereby authorize CSA to perform all acts procedurally required to obtain land use
and development applications and permits as may be required by and through the City of Ashland
as legal prerequisites to actual development of the described real property.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the
undersigned applicant and shall expire on January 31, 2013 but may be extended by the mutual
consent of the parties.
Done and dated this ///?day of January, 2012.
_l
PEA S S LLC
is r
I
Donald Blaser, Authorized Representative
I
LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the undersigned owner, of real property described as
Tax Lots 1700 and 1800 on Jackson County Assessor map 39-1 E-I4BA.
LET IT BE KNOWN that CSA Planning, Ltd. (CSA) is the duly authorized representative of the
Estate of Jean Anne Tbompson, deceased, South Valley Bank and Trust, Personal
Representative, as to an undivided 37.5% interest in the above described. real property, and, by
this instrument, do hereby authorize CSA to perform all acts procedurally required to obtain land
use and development applications and, permits as may be required by and through the City of
Ashland as legal prerequisites to actual development of the described real property,
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited
and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any
interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner.
THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the
undersigned applicant and shall expire on January 31, 2013 but may be extended by the mutual
consent of the parties.
Done and dated this day of January. 2012.
SOUTH VALLEY K&TRUST � O "
'r
WANE DOMBRA , r t VI
t i
Print Name
i
Title
i
i
r �
Job Address: 2220 ASHLAND ST Contractor:
ASHLAND OR 97520 Address:
A C.
P Owner's Name: SUMMIT INVESTMENT Q Phone:
Customer#: 06595 State Lic No:
P SUMMIT INVESTMENT City Lic No:
L- Applicant: 1117 E JACKSON ST
Address: MEDFORD OR 97504 A
C Sub-Contractor:
,A Phone: (541) 779-0569 T Address:
N Applied: 01/06/2012 0',
T Issued:
Expires: 07/04/2012 Phone:
State Lic No:
Maplot: I City Lic No:
DESCRIPTION: Commercial Site Review,Variance&Land Partition for Ashland Street Retail & Professional Office Dev
VALUATION
Occupancy Type Construction Units- Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description
Total for Valuation:
Mt6ANICAL
E
ELECTRICAL ,
STRUCTURAL,
s
I
PERMIT FEE DETAIL.
Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount
Commercial Site Review 4,838.00
I
CONDITIONS OF APPRQVAL
i
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland,OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashiand.or.us
Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY F