The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLithia_160_PA-2012-00740 r CITY OF August 15, 2012 ASHLAND DRRAM L.L.C 4100 Newport Place Drive #400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Planting Action #2012-00740 Notice of Final Decision At its meeting of July 10, 2012, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way Assessor's Map # 39 lE 09 BA; Tax Lot 10800. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on August 14, 2012. Tile Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 13"i day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 1 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 ($325), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 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. cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 549-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 FRIA +rnmashland.or.us i 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 Pee 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. I. 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 altcl COl]CILISiOnS. 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 deterniines prior to the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has dennonstratcd: 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, -,vlien 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 nets 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tet 541488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2800 www.ashlarid.orms ~ f 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 COLInCil 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 18.108.070.13.5 . 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 87520 TTY; 800-735-2900 www.ashland.ows BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD August 14, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-00740, A REQUEST ) FOR SITE REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL ) FINDINGS, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 13,800 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY } CONCLUSIONS MIXED-USE BUILDING IN THE VACANT, PRIVATE PARKING LOT } AND ORDERS LOCATED AT 160 LITHIA WAY. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES ) REQUESTS FOR A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED 40 FEET IN } HEIGHT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF IN THE } FACADE, AN EXCPETION TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS ) WITH REGARD TO PLAZA SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND A TREE } REMOVAL PERMIT TO REOMOVE TEN TREES GREATER THAN SIX ) INCHES IN DIAMETER-AT-BREAST-HEIGHT. ) APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L.C. (Doug and Divine Irvine) ) RECITALS : 1) Tax lot 10800 of 391E09BA is located at 160 Lithia Way and is zoned C-1-D (Commercial Downtown). 2) The proposal involves a request for Site Review approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel. units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the fagade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use. Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at- breast-height. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. PA 2012-00710 160 Lithia Way Page 1 I 4) The criteria for approval of an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in AMC 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. 5) The criteria for a Conditional Use Perinit are described in AMC 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 6) The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC 18.61.080: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warf ants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 2 f facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning, 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. I 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on July 10, 2012, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented, The Planning Commission approved the Site Review, Conditional Use Permits, Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards and a Tree Removal Permit application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. i l 3 i PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 3 f Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds the project includes a mix of residential, hotel and commercial uses consistent with the underlying C-1-D zoning designation. Residential units are a special permitted use within the district, hotels are conditional uses, and commercial uses including retail and restaurants are outright permitted. The. C- 1 zoning regulations require that a minimum of 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building be used for permitted or special permitted uses other than residential units. The proposal designates approximately 68 percent of the ground floor for commercial, an outright permitted use, with the remainder taken up with parking to serve the hotel units on the second floor. The C-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The property is subject to the Arterial Street Setback Requirements of AMC 18.68.050, which provide for a setback on an arterial street of no less than 20 feet or the width required to install city-standard sidewalk and parkrow improvements, whichever is less. The building placement as shown accommodates the installation of city standard sidewalk and parkrow improvements, and the applicants have proposed to install a ten-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot commercial parkrow consistent with City standards. The building's mass reaches approximately 42 feet in height along the Lithia Way frontage. The C-1-1) district allows for buildings up to 55 feet in height, provided that those higher than 40 feet obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. Accordingly, the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately six-foot high decorative parapet element PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 4 which exceeds 40 feet in height. Within the C-1-1) district, there is no outright landscaping requirement. However, the application includes a preliminary landscape plan which identifies the required street tree plantings, and the landscape materials to be placed along the walkway corridor on the cast side of the building. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the public utilities have capacity to serve the development and the proposed development meets the Ashland Street Standards. There are adequate facilities are in place within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended to serve the site by the applicants. Public facilities and utilities in place to service the project or to be installed as part of the improvements include the following: o Electrical Service: The application identifies existing transformers, electric boxes and vaults in place along Will Dodge Way which serve existing buildings along Lithia, Will Dodge and East Main. The applicants' draft Site Utility Plan indicates that the transformer at the southeast corner of the site will be replaced with a new, upgraded 600 KVA transformer to serve the proposed building. The application notes that the electric meters and main disconnect are to be placed on the southwest corner of the building, with access from Will Dodge. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, it was noted that state law requires separate electric meters be provided for each of the residential units and the final electrical service plan must indicate this requirement will be addressed. o Sanitary Sewer: The property is currently served by a six-inch sanitary sewer main within Lithia Way. The draft Site Utility Plan indicates that a new four-inch sanitary sewer lateral will be extended to serve the proposed building. o Storm Drainage: The property is currently served by a six-inch storm sewer main in the north central portion of the tax lot; a 15-inch storm drain line is also in place within Lithia Way. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, it was noted that the existing six-inch storm sewer main may lack sufficient capacity if the proposal ultimately results in an increase in impervious area on site with the removal of existing landscaped areas, and would then necessitate on-site detention with new underground facilities. It is also noted that an oil/water separator and some type of storm water detention will be needed at the front (lower) end of the parking stalls. o Easements: It was noted that existing sewer and storm drainage facilities cross this property in serving buildings along East Main Street, and that some of the existing electrical equipment on the site is located outside of easements or rights-o-f way. New public or private easements will need to be created, or these facilities re-routed, to accommodate the proposed new construction. o Water: The property is currently served by a four-inch water main in Lithia Way, with an existing %-inch water service and meter in place in the sidewalk available to serve the project. The application notes that 70 feet of new four-inch ductile iron fire sprinkler line will be extended from Lithia Way to the building's riser room. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plain, it was noted that the existing 3/4-inch meter is insufficient to serve the project by itself, and have indicated that an additional new commercial water service will need to be PA 2012-00710 160 Lithia Way Page 5 included in the final Utility Plan. The application also notes that Fire Department requirements including fire sprinklers and a Fire Department Connection (FDC) valve and vault will be identified in the building permit submittals. Given the potential impacts of an FDC and vault to the pedestrian streetscape, these elements are required not be placed within the pedestrian corridor. o Paved Access and Adequate Transportation: Lithia Way is an arterial street and state highway that is currently paved with curbs, gutters, on-street parking, bike lanes, and automobile travel lanes, and an eight-foot width sidewalk in place along the subject property's full frontage. The applicants propose to provide ten-foot width sidewalks and five-foot commercial hardscape parkrows to comply with the City street standards. Will Dodge Way is a 12-foot wide public alley that is currently paved. The project transportation engineer completed a trip generation analysis based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) standards, and made the determination that the proposal was below the threshold levels which would trigger a full traffic impact analysis. Based on this information, the Commission finds the proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts on the downtown transportation system. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds all requirements of the Site Review Chapter will be met. The required street trees and additional landscaping and irrigation will be provided; trash and recycling areas will be provided and appropriately screened through placement within the building; and lighting will be down-directed or shrouded to avoid concerns with glare and comply with applicable standards. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, the Detail Site Review Standards, the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects, the Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Design Standards. The proposed building design meets the Basic Site Review approval standards. The building's orientation is to Lithia Way, with pedestrian entrances directly from the public sidewalk and vehicular parking located within the building footprint and accessed from the Will Dodge Way alley. Streetscape and landscape amenities are being provided. Detail Site Review approval standards have also been addressed. All new buildings are now required to meet a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.50, which on the subject 7,000 square foot lot would require a building of at least 3,500 square feet. The proposed building square footage is 15,276 square feet and significant exceeds the minimum FAR. While the building frontage is less than 100 feet, the building does provide distinctive changes in the fagade including a recessed entrance, windows, vertical pilasters and horizontal bands. The building face incorporates storefront windows along the ground floor, and three fixed canopies adjacent to the sidewalk to provide pedestrians with protection from sun and rain. The building design incorporates a recessed entrance, and architectural treatments- which break the building's width into three vertical masses and a sense of entry emphasized by the central parapet element. The PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 6 I I recessed entry and outdoor seating area will have a different surface treatment in color and pattern to emphasize their role as "people areas." The building is also subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects as it is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and has a floor area greater than 10,000 square feet. As noted above, the design has broken the building's length into three more vertical elements emphasized by the proposed central parapet, and includes canopies over the pedestrian entries to shelter pedestrians and create a more human scale relationship to the strectscape. The building does not exceed the maximum square footage of 45,000 square feet. The building meets the Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Development Standards. The proposed building is a multi-story, Main Street-style building. The building extends from side lot lime to side lot line, with the exception of a side setback from the existing pedestrian walkway originally created with the development of the adjacent Jasmine Building, and incorporates large street-level windows and transparent doors. The building incorporates horizontal and vertical rhythnis through divisions on the facade as required by the standards. The upper floor windows are vertical. The-building incorporates an architectural base, as is typical in historic buildings in the area. The roof is generally flat, and includes a cornice but its length is broken by the proposed central parapet. The building's mass is roughly three feet taller than the adjacent Kendrick Building to the west, and slightly lower than the Jasmine Building to the east, in keeping with the height standards which seek a slightly dissimilar height in maintaining a staggered streetscape. The frontage of the building is primarily brick, with a stone base to give the building a sense of strength to anchor it within the streetscape. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds the application meets the requirements of an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to reduce the required amount of plaza area. Within the Detail Site Review Zone, the Site Design and Use Standards require buildings larger than 10,000 square feet to provide at least one square foot of plaza space each ten square feet of floor area, As proposed, the 13,500 square foot building would require 1,380 square feet of plaza area. The application provides 822 square feet of plaza space (558 square feet less than required) between a small outdoor plaza area to be provided at the northeast corner of the building's front facade and additional space along the southeast side adjacent to the breezeway extending froril Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way. The Commission finds there is difficulty in meeting the plaza requirements in this location because adjacent developments have been built to differing sidewalk width standards along a curved right-of-way. The physical conditions on either side of the proposed building create a need to balance installing the wider sidewalk improvements required in the downtown to accommodate high pedestrian volumes and positioning the building in a historically sensitive manner in the context of the Lithia Way streetscape. If the building were setback another five feet to provide the requisite plaza space, the building would be 12 feet behind the existing sidewalk and out of sync with the historic building placement on the corridor and thus counter to both the Historic District (IV-C-4) and Downtown (VI-B) Design Standards. The proposed building placement, related plaza spaces and sidewalk improvements create a smooth transition PA 2012-00710 160 Lithia Way Page 7 f between the varying building facades and sidewalk widths on either side so that the building fits well in the streetseapc context. The Commission finds that the combination of the plaza areas at the northeast corner of the building and the expansion of the walkway area between the proposed building and ISO Lithia Way to the east will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties, and rather will create a elegant transition between the buildings oil either of the subject property. Additionally, the Commission finds plaza area at the northeast corner of the building appears to be highly functional and well designed. Finally, the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards of having a positive impact upon the streetscape. 2.7 The Planning Conllnlsslon finds that the proposal satisfies the requirements of a conditional use permit to exceed the 40-foot height limitation. Buildings in the C-I-D district may exceed 40 feet in height, with allowances for heights up to 55 feet possible through Conditional Use Permit review. The proposal is to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the facade in the form of a decorative parapet in the center of the front facade. The Commission finds that the approximately six-foot high parapet will give the building a stronger identity and sense of uniqueness along Lithia Way. Furthermore, the added height of the parapet will break up a relatively wide facade into tlu•ee distinct vertical elements while strengthening the building's sense of entry in a mariner in keeping with historic downtown designs and the initial reconuniendations of the Historic Commission. 19 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height. The trees are not native to the site and were planted previously as parking lot shade trees. All of the trees are to be removed in order to allow development of the site in a manner consistent with applicable standards and requirements of the C-1-D district. The trees were evaluated for retention by both the project's architect and arborist, but due to the nature of the proposed development and its close proximity to the trees, and the intent to provide a "Main Street" type facade in keeping with the Historic District and Downtown Design Standards it was determined that the removals were necessary. The removal of the trees will not have significant negative impacts to the site's erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees, existing windbreaks, tree densities or sizes, canopies, or nearby species as the property will be built upon and landscaped with full development of the site. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds the proposal for a hotel meets the requirements for conditional use permit approval. The proposal includes five hotel units on the second floor. In the C-I-D district, hotel uses require Conditional Use Permit approval, and require that off-street parking be provided in conjunction with the hotel, The hotel will be in conformance with all standards of the C-1-D district. Compared to the target retail use of the zoning district, the five hotel units will generate little noise, fewer vehicle trips (41 trips for the five hotel units versus 835 trips for a department store of the same floor area) PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 8 and less demand on services than would retail use. Guest parking is perhaps the most noticeable impact for hotel use, and the C-1-1) district accordingly requires that one off-street parking space be provided for each guest room and an additional space be provided for the manager. The proposal is to provide the six required spaces and a seventh ADA-accessible space on the ground level with access from the alley to address these requirements. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the application for Site Review approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story nixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the fagade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2012-00740. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Plartning Action #2012-00740 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 herein. 2) The windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building 3) That the front entrances adjacent to Lithia Way shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 4) That prior to tree removal, site work, storage of materials, staging or building permit issuance, a Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree identification and protection measures installed, inspected and approved on site by the Staff Advisor. 5) That mitigation for the ten trees removed shall be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.61.084 either through replanting oil-site, replanting off site, or through payment in lieu of replanting. The building permit submittals shall identify required mitigation. 6) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Lithia Way shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of ten feet in width with five-foot commercial hardscape parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, parkrow with street trees and grates, and street lighting, shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of PA 2012-00710 160 Lithia Way Page 9 i i Ashland Street Standards, and the applications shall provide evidence that requisite permit approvals have been obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) prior to the issuance of permits by the City of Ashland or work within the Litbia Way right-of way. If necessary for aligrunent of frontage improvements, area for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way. The right-of-way dedication shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland. 7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) 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, b) That a landscaping and irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies and showing parkrow improvements shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. c) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission's July P, 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall become conditions of approval and be incorporated into the building permit submittals, d) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of any new signage, and all signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 1896. e) All public and private easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals, including but not limited to any easements required to, acconunodate existing utilities which cross the site. t) That a final storm drainage plan, including any necessary measures for on-site detention or water duality mitigation, shall be submitted at the time of a building permit for review and approval by the Engineering, Building, and Planning Divisions. g) A final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved 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. Meters, vaults, fire department connections, and other utility equipment shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the utility providers, h) The applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall identify separate services/meters i PA 2012-00740 160 Litbia Way Page 10 ~ E for each of the residential units, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building and Electric Departments prior to building permit issuance. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department, i) Any mechanical equipment installation shall be screened from view from Lithia way. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. j) Exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals along with appropriate shrouding to demonstrate that there will be no direct illumination of surrounding properties. k) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. Exterior building colors shall be muted colors, as described in the application. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. 1) The inverted a-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. in) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission's July Sty', 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall become conditions of approval and be incorporated into the building permit submittals. Street trees for planting on Lithia Way shall be selected from the "Lithia Way Reconnnended Street Tree List." n) That a revised site plan shall be provided with the building permit which better addresses the space along the existing walkway to include "people-friendly" landscape treatments, details of pedestrian scale lighting design and placement, and a better connection between the walkway corridor and the front plaza space and/or entry to the side stairs, possibly to include steps of a height to accommodate occasional use for seating. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the four requisite plaza elements to be provided within the proposed plaza spaces and sidewalk pedestrian corridor, o) That the two required bicycle parking spaces shall be identified in the building permit submittals and installed prior to occupancy. The bicycle parking shall not be located in the building unless it can be demonstrated that the building meets the dimensional requirements for two bicycle parking spaces and all requirements of 18.92.060 including but not limited to that the bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of a well-used entrance and not farther from the entrance that the closest motor vehicle parking space. 8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscape, landscaping, irrigation, parking, bicycle parking, walkways, sidewalks, street PA 2012-00710 160 Lithia Way Page I I trees, street lights and pedestrian scale on-site lighting shall be installed according to approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) Required bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and racy standards in 18.92.040.1 and 3 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, provision and maintenance of adequate fire apparatus access and access approach, adequate fire flow, fire hydrants and requisite hydrant clearance, a fire department connection (FDC), and a key box shall be satisfied. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor. d) An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with the Recycling Requirements of AMC 18.72.115.A. c) That the parking spaces provided shall be signed for hotel guest use only. f) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalks, commercial hardscape parkrow with street trees, and city-standard street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupancy. Planning Conunission Approval Date ~I i I i PA 2012-00740 t60 Lithia Way Page 12 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11200 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11101 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 70002 116'C' STREET INC 141 LITHIA WAY LLC 145 MAIN STREET LLC BLOOMBAUM MILTON PO BOX 1018 24 CROCKER ST 1510 WOODLAND DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 391 E09 BC 600 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10300 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BC 700 BANKE THEODORE HILOIS E BROWN ERIK/NORTH JAMIE CONNOLLY ALLEN 150 E MAIN 15 FIRST ST N 142 MAIN ST E ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10800 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11100 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10100 DRRAM LP D R R ASSETT EAST MAIN COMMERCIAL LLC ET AL FIRST PLACE PARTNERS LLC MANAGEMENT INC 515 E MAIN ST 815 ALDER CREEK DR 4100 NEWPORT PL 400 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PA-2012-00740 391E09BA 10500 PA-2012-00740 391E09BA 11201 PA-2012-00740 391E09BA 10301 GARLAND GERALD G TRUSTEE HAMMOND FAMILY LLC KENNEDY KATHERINE M TRUSTEE 921 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CIR 125 E MAIN ST 132 GREENWAY CIR ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2012-00740 391 E098A 10600 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11701 PA-2012-00740 391E09BA 80001 KEY BANK OF OREGON PREMIERWEST BANK REMINGTON ENTERPRISES INC 1 ST AMERICAN TAX VALUATION PAT PEASLEY 645 HOLLY ST PO BOX 560807 PO BOX 40 ASHLAND OR 97520 DALLAS TX 73556 MEDFORD OR 97501 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BC 500 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11400 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10900 SCHWEIGER JOHN C TRUSTE FBO SINGH SUKHDEV TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRUSTEE 1644 ASHLAND ST 984 NEWCASTLE ST 2310 QUAIL POINT CIR ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2012-00740 391E09BA 11300 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BC 200 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10400 THOMPSON BRENT TRUSTEE ET AL WILLIAMS FAMILY LLC YAMAOKA RONALDICARRIE P 0 BOX 201 5500 COLVER RD 2422 33RD AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 Urban Development Services So Or Transportation Engineering Doug & Dionne Irvine 485 W Nevada St 112 Monterey Dr Irvine Industries Ashland OR 97520 Medford, OR 97504 2113 Emigrant Creek Rd Ashland OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 Kistler, Small & White Laurie Sager & Associates Oregon Dept of Transportation Kristy Siders 545 A St 700 Mistletoe Rd Ste 201 100 Antelope Rd Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 White City, R 97503 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 Rogue Valley Transportation District Rogue Valley Council of Governments PA-2012-00740 Attn: Paige Townsend Attn: Vicki Guarino Dr. Vanstan Shaw 3200 Crater Lake Ave PO Box 3275 180 Lith[a Way #208 Ashland Medford, OR 97504 Central Point, OR 97502 , OR 97520 I PA-2012-00740 Randy & Barb Lovre 160 Lithia Way 180 Lithia Way #301 8115112 NOD 22250 SW 551h Ave 31 Tualatin, OR 97062 I located at 1155 East Main Street. Re-opening of the hearing will allow consideration of new information with regard to the accessibility of the entry walkaway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment, ZONING; E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 10; TAX LOT 900. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Mindlin noted she was not present for initial hearing but has reviewed the materials and feels confident participating. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the existing condillons regarding the entrance to the building. He stated as originally proposed, the applicants showed a stepped walkway; however during the Planning Commission's deliberations a condition was approved for no stairs to be added. He stated the concern was that stairs would be an impediment for wheelchair access. Following the Planning Commission hearing, the applicants approached staff and asked for reconsideration of this element. Mr. Severson stated it has been determined that the removal of the steps would require either a ramp with switchbacks, or a sloped ramp that does not meet ADA standards. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar clarified this issued has been discussed with the City's building official and the existing accessible route does meet the requirements. He added a sloped ramp would be okay as long as they understand the slope is too great for this to be a second ADA ramp. Mr. Molnar stated staff does not support a switchback design for the ramp. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Miller voiced her support for retaining the stairs. She stated the stairs look nicer and a ramp out front is not essential since they already have an ADA accessible route from the building to the parking lot. Commissioner Kaplan stated he is also in favor of the steps. He stated if the ramp cannot meet ADA requirements it should not be installed, and they should not be enticing persons in wheelchairs to use an unsafe ramp, Commissioner Brown stated when he proposed this condition he did not know the slope was that great. In light of the new information, he voiced support for the steps and agreed with Kaplan that if it looks like an accessible ramp, people will use it as such. Commissioners MillerlKaplan m/s to remove the ramp condition and incorporate the proposed grading plan design. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Heesacker, Brown, Marsh, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7.0. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012.00740 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Lithia Way APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L.C. (Doug & Dionne Irvine) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the fagade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial; ZONING: C-1-13; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391E 09 BA; TAX LOT #:10800. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Heesacker reported a site visit. Commission Dawkins reported a site visit and clarified he attended the Tree Commission hearing on this item. Commissioners Marsh, Kaplan, Miller and Mindlin noted they are familiar with the site. Staff Associate Planner Derek Severson stated the application before the Commission is a request for site review and conditional use permit approval to construct a 13,800 sq.ft. three story, mixed use building at 160 Lithia Way. He stated the proposed building will have commercial space on the first floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residences on the third floor, He stated Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2092 Page 2 of 5 the applicants have requested one exception pertaining to the plaza space requirement; one conditional use permit for the hotel use; one conditional use permit for the building height; and a tree removal permit to remove all 10 trees on the site. Mr. Severson provided more detail of the application and reviewed the applicant's plan submittals. Regarding the conditional use permit for the building height, Mr. Severson explained there is an outright 40 ft. height allowance and applicants can go up to 55 ft. with the conditional use permit. He added the 6 foot parapet at the top of the building was specifically requested by the Historic Commission to emphasize the sense of entry. Mr. Severson commented on the applicant's request for a partial exception to the plaza space requirement. He noted the current standard and stated the applicant's have proposed to provide 60% (or roughly 800 sq.ft.) of the required plaza space with this development. Mr. Severson reviewed the proposed outdoor seating area and commented on the plaza space that would be provided along the existing corridor between the Jasmine Building and this site. He stated the applicants assert, and staff agrees, that if you were to increase the plaza space along the frontage of the building, it would push the building out of line with the facades of the other adjacent buildings. However he requested the Commission discuss whether the proposed design meets the intent of providing people-friendly spaces, and he provided an example of the plaza space area in the Clear Creek Development. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is supportive of the application with the proposed conditions of approval. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the adequacy of parking. Mr. Severson explained there are typically no parking requirements in the downtown, except for hotels, motels and hostels. He stated the proposed parking spaces at the back of the building meet the parking requirement and will be utilized by the hotel. Comment was made that Will Dodge Way is often used as a delivery route, and it was questioned how this development might impact that alleyway. It was noted that delivery vehicles block off the alley at times, and people parked behind the Kendrick and Jasmine buildings must wait for the vehicles to move before they can get out. Comment was made questioning the plaza space requirement when no one else downtown is required to do this. Mr. Severson explained large scale developments (buildings over 10,000 sq. ft. in size) are required to provide 10% plaza space and the intent is to mitigate the impact of large buildings and provide interface and space for human engagement. He clarified the Jasmine building, which is adjacent to this site, was required to provide plaza space and is the only building over 10,000 sqX that has been built downtown since this requirement went into effect. Mr. Molnar added when this standard was looked at in the early 1990s, they were primarily looking at spaces outside of the downtown along major arterials, since most of the lots downtown are narrow and will not hit the 10,000 sq.ft. threshold even if they build to the maximum height allowance. Comment was made suggesting this one-size fits all requirement for plaza space might need to be evaluated in terms of how to apply this downtown. Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox, Applicants Representative/ Mr. Knox thanked staff for their thorough presentation and noted the obstacles with this site, including the utilities and curvature of the road. He stated they have been working on this project for one and half years and believe they have produced a very nice building. Mr. Knox noted the City's policies and standards for infilling parking lots, and stated since this property was previously owned by the City it became a catchall for new development utilities along Lithia Way. He explained all of the nearby buildings utilities (storm drainage, sewer lines, etc.) extend through this lot without easements, and it has been complicated to work through this. Mr. Knox stated the design of the building was evaluated by the Historic Commission and they were very supportive of this application. He commented on the plaza space requirement and stated these standards have a good intent, but sometimes they create a situation where they don't produce the desired results. He stated meeting the 10% plaza requirement would have really manipulated the design, and they believe their proposal meets the intent and is better product. Jerome White, Project Architect/Mr. White clarified the height of the building is 40 ft. to the cupola, and they are asking for an exception for the center portion above it. He commented on the public space design along the side of the building and stated Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 3 of 5 they have incorporated most of the elements displayed on the Clear Creek example. In regards to the plaza space out front, Mr. White stated be believes the large portion of front sidewalk could be counted towards this requirement. Mr. Knox added the 15 ft. sidewalks this building is providing allows for sidewalk tables and dining, which is exactly the definition of public space. He stated if you count this area they exceed the 10% requirement. He stated there was discussion early on in this project about whether to build two buildings on this lot instead of one in order to avoid these standards, but the property owner wanted this building to be right and was willing to apply for the additional variance requests. Mr. Knox stated they have created something that looks better, is better for the business to function, and hopes the Commission realizes this. Doug Irvine, Property Owner/Mr. Irvine stated he wanted to create something beautiful and something the community could be proud of. He commented on the proposed use and explained the first floor will be a tasting room and gourmet market for local wineries and artisans to sbll their products. He added the wine industry and tourism is growing in Southern Oregon and they are trying to create opportunities for the shoulder season. He noted the small boutique hotel on the second floor and residential units on the third, and stated their goal was to create a fun, unique, beautiful building that the community would be proud of, and believes they have succeeded. Questions of the Applicant Comment was made questioning if they could do something with the pedestrian environment out back to make it better. Mr. Knox commented on the design of the back of the building and stated they wanted to provide an attractive facade. He noted the imbedded sidewalk and enclosed trash enclosures, but wished there could have been more they could have done with the utilities. He explained they looked into merging these, but the City does not have the equipment to accommodate that size of transformer. He added while the residences have entrances in the front and back, the front door for the residences and the hotel is on Lithia Way. Comment was made questioning if it is possible to provide more plants at the back entry. Mr. White stated it is tight back there and while they did include landscaping, the location of the transformers was an issue. It was questioned if the applicant will ask the City to designate a loading zone in front of the building on Lithia Way. Mr. Knox stated they would like to talk with the Public Works Department and the Transportation Commission about this. He stated in addition to being a hotel guest check-in, mid-block is a good location for a 10-minute loading zone. Comment was made that this fits in with the alleyway issues mentioned earlier. The applicants were asked to comment on the round element in the walkway. Mr. White stated the landscape architect recommended the offset in the circular seating area between this building and the Jasmine building and believes it gives it more intrigue, as well as getting it away from the corner of the building. Comment was made suggesting the architect run the central pilasters all the way up to the top of the building, and to raise the seating wall height to provide for a better seating area. Public Testimony Dr. Vanston Shawf180 Lithla Way, #208/Stated he is the president of the condo association for the Jasmine Building and has a balcony that will face this building. Dr. Shaw voiced his support for the building as proposed and thinks it is a nice design. He explained his concern is regarding the alley access and stated the only saving grace the Jasmine Building residences have had is being able to use the existing parking lot as ingress and egress, as the alley is often blocked on both ends. He stated this might be an enforcement issue, but believes the hotel parking in back will be a problem. He stated the delivery vehicles impact him as a resident, will impact the hotel and everyone else that parks in the alley, and recommended there be a comprehensive look at this. Dr. Shaw commented on the plaza space along the side of the building and noted he currently maintains the Jasmine Building's walkway. He voiced his support for the design features on the walkway and stated he is not bothered by the offset circular seating area. Applicant's Rebuttal Mark Knox/Stated when the City owned this property the intent was to sell it as an affordable housing project. Mr. Knox stated the design took access off Lithia Way and down into a sublevel parking lot, and while this would have worked it would have Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 4 of 5 . ~ t been disastrous. He noted one side of the building has to act as the back, and noted the need for utilities and trash enclosures as well as parking for guests. He stated it has been challenging to provide all the best urban amenities and recommended the function of the alley be looked at comprehensively and at the leadership of the City. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing and the record at 8:30 p.m Questions of Staff Commissioner Dawkins stated he is troubled by the delivery situation and asked if there is any way they can resolve this. Mr. Molnar provided some history and explained the City previously went through a process in which the property owners, fire department, building official, and police department looked at what could be done to improve the environment. He stated the City Council issued a directive to make the alley one-way and to limit where deliveries could occur. He stated it sounds like the deliveries are still a problem and this is an enforcement issue. Mr. Molnar stated the plan has always been to infill this site and stated this would be a good time to reinstitute neighborhood discussion about what options could be reviewed. He added the Transportation Commission has expressed interest in loading zones along Lithia Way and this would be a good time for them to bring this back up. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Marsh mis to approve Planning Action #2012.00740 with conditions as presented by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Marsh asked if this includes a condition for a loading zone out front. Commissioner Dawkins stated he strongly suggests this be done, but it is not their purview to require this. Commissioner Brown requested a friendly amendment to add a condition for the seating wall height to be increased and also for the two pilasters to run all the way up the building. Commissioners Dawkins and Marsh stated they are more comfortable directing the architect to look into this, rather than including it as a condition of approval. Commissioner Marsh stated this is a beautiful building and will positively change the feel of Lithia Way, and recommended the plaza space requirements for downtown buildings be looked at. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her support for the building design, but stated she would have liked to have seen something more for the public spaces. She stated it would have been nice for the residences to have more outdoor space and stated the public space at the opposite end of the building is a long ways away, Commissioner Marsh noted the hotel guests will be coming and going through the alley and the owners will have an interest in making sure the alleyway is as comfortable and convenient as possible. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Kaplan, Dawkins, Heesacker, Brown, Marsh, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7.0. Commissioner Dawkins recommended they look into requiring energy savings measures on future building applications. OTHER BUSINESS A. BI-Annual Attendance Report (January June 2012) Informational item only. Several commissioners voiced concern with the Transportation Commission/Planning Commission joint meetings counting towards their absence record. It was stated the regular and study session dates are established at the beginning of the year and the commissioners can plan their travel around these, but they were not told about the joint meetings very far in advance. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor i Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 5 of 5 UOBE)JO `puelysy A8M eiyl!1 091 - au!n Gq I SleiaaIe JOlaaJx~j ®OOM N 17777 SMOGNIM CIV10 ®OOM SONINM`d 1331S 031VOO 213MOd °°si7 ani¢4 9i PusIAsY 30 61?0 _ >IORiB „6 C ~ a► ~ SONITVIJ 1331S ®31VOO ~J3MOd S2J000 SSd10 ONIMS-NI -W- 1HOI1 ®3®UU® OVIO ®OOM - SONINMt/ 1331S G31VOO 1:13MOd J NOIH9 ~ ~ I - SONFIIVd !l 1331S 03-LVOO 2EMOd I - N SNOOG SSV10 ONIMS-NI 1HJI1 ®3®IAI0 GVIO ®OOM _ NoNg - _ ; >IOIb18 331NI-I00 31323ONOO 1SVO ..z Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name Z~' ~ . (please print) Address (no P.O. Boa) g0 I fi 1 a W . c Pholle 1,2) -'57 1-7 Email U ~'t o In Z f Y1 4', • C O w Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number VV OR Topic for public forum (Moll agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias if you are challenging a member (planning commissioner-) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will'address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. / r Written Comments/Challenge: CUyt u rr.~-c~ e. a ~ ~ J '3L Y- [-2-e Cc The Public Meeting Lmt, rc~ ~qtv~~ that al h)7 mee tags are open o thee public. Oron law sloes not always require that the public be permitted to speak. Tite,4shlattd Plcrtttririg Cottttttissiott geriet•crll)' invites the public to speak on agenda items and durtugpublic foruttr on non-agencla items artless time cottstraiitts lrrlitl ptlblac testtrrtotty. No per'sott lifts ail clbsolrtte 1'tglrt io sI)ecik or pcv'(tctp(tte r)t ei,er)' ph(rve g f a proceeding. Please respect the order ref procee(li tgsfior public hearings and strictly follow the directions gf the preshling gffrcer. Behavior or actions which are tntreasonahly loud or disruptive are fli.srespeclfrtl, acrd trtay constitute disorderly conduct. Offenflers will be requested to lemw the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Derek Severson From: Derek Severson [seversod@ashland.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:49 AM To: hmiller@jeffnet.org Cc: Derek. severson@ashland.or.us; bill. moinar@ashland.or.us;'April Lucas' Subject: FW: 160 Lithia Way questions Debbie, In terms of a square footage comparison, Paddington Station is listed as 7,800 square feet on a 4,400 square foot lot so the ground floor there is pretty close. Earthly Goods has about 14,469 square feet on a 7,500 square foot lot - that includes about 8,000 square feet for the older part of the building and 6,500 for the addition, including basement, that was added at the rear in 2002. The Grove is about 8,000 square feet, and the Community Development Building at 51 Winburn is about 10,000 in a single story. The proposed building has about 5,000 square feet for each of its three floors and the lot is a bit over 7,000 square feet. The plaza space requirement came into play for the Jasmine Building next door to the subject property - there's a space at the front of the building and along the walkway between the properties which met the requirement in 2002 and 2004. The Kendrick building on the other side dial not exceed 10,000 feet - it was about 5,650 - and didn't require plaza space. in and around the downtown, plaza space was part of the proposed building project across the street (the "Northlight" site) and the Storyville Coffee building across from Lithia Park, but neither of those were ever built; plaza space was also part of the proposed building that was denied behind the Ashland Springs hotel. The bulk of the development downtown has either pre-dated the plaza space requirements, or has been on sites/projects that don't trigger the large scale development standards. The Columbia Hotel is probably the best comparison for the use downtown... As noted, parking is not required for the commercial or residential components of the use within downtown, only for the hotel units. The residents would need to find parking off-site either in on-street parking, parking lots or the parking structure, or find non-automotive transportation options. 1ghile this was intended more to emphasize the pedestrian character of the downtown and the historic built environment - versus requiring large areas of asphalt for parking and circulation - it certainly also serves as a discouragement to car ownership. The standards call for plaza space to provide four of the following six required elements: 1) at least one sitting space per 590 square feet of plaza space, 2) a.mixture of areas that provide both sun & shade, 3) protection from wind by screens and buildings, 4) trees at a minimum of one per 500 square feet of plaza space, 5) water features or public art, and 6) outdoor eating areas or food vendors. I think the applicants identify all of these in various locations of their proposed spaces. I included a condition asking that they identify in their plans which of these were to be met clearly - as part of their exception, they indicate some of these (i.e. seating, outdoor dining, shade, trees, sun and shade, and wind protection) could be met with sidewalk dining on the frontage, and if that was to be part of their proposal I wanted it to be made clear what was being proposed where so it would be clear for instance that sidewalk dining was intended... I hope that helps; I'll pass this out to everyone tonight. Derek Severson, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 1 i i 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 975,.. PH: 541-552-2040 FAX: 541-552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 E-MAIL: derek.severson@ashland.or.us This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2040. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Howard Miller [mailto:hmiller@jeffnet.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:13 AM To: Derek Severson Subject: 160 Lithia Way questions Hi, Derek, I have a couple questions regarding the application for Lithia Way project we will discuss tonight. I apologize for not submitting these sooner, but we were out of town attending a wedding, so I did not start reading the packet until yesterday. If you don't have time to reply, I will understand. Perhaps these questions willbew covered in the staff report anyway. p. 2 of 17 Square footage--to which other stores does the 3,116 sf of first floor commercial space compare? ( I am trying to get an idea of the size--Paddington Station, Earthly Goods?) I don't want you to spend time searching square footage, but just an estimate so we can visualize the room. p. 2 of 17 Plaza space--I know this requirement was recently adopted. Do you know off hand of other examples downtown where this plaza space has been provided? p. 9 of 17 Hotel use--Would this use be comparable to the impacts associated w/ the Columbia Hotel? That is the only smaller lodging facility I know of downtown. As noted in the last paragraph, no parking spaces are required for the residential units. The number of spaces needed is usually a function of the zoning or square footage of the unit, I believe. What will the tenants do for storing vehicles, or is car ownership discouraged! p. 16 of 17 Could you refresh our memories about the 4 requisite plaza elements. Thanks, Debbie Miller i 2 i ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET July 5, 2012 PLANNING ACTION:' PA-2012,074o SUBJECT PROPERTY. 160 Lithia Way APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L. C. (Doug & Dionne Irvine) DESCRIPTION• A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed- arse building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor; five hotel units on the second floor; and f ve residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the fagade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d. b. h.). , COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION. • Downtown Connnercial; ZONING: C-1- D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391E 09 BA; TAX LOT 10800 Recommendation: 1) The Tree Commission recommends approving 2 Red Oaks and 1 Zelkova as street trees as presented. 2) The Commission also recommended that the applicant either mitigate the remaining trees on another property commonly held by the applicant or pay into the tree fined at $400 per tree. Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5350 CITY OF 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 'r "LAND Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2300 -ASH ~~rvw. ashland.or. us CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes July 3, 2012 Community Development/Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING, 6:07 pm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano, Ally Phelps, Sam Whitford, Allison Renwick, Terry Skibby, Victoria Law, Commission Members Absent. Kerry Kencairn Council Liaison: Greg Lemhouse, absent High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner: Amy Gunter; Clerk: Billie Boswell APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 2, 2012 Historic Commission meeting were reviewed. Mr. Whitford made a motion to approve them. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: No one in the audience wished to speak. (Melanie Smith came into the meeting later and Public Forum was reopened after the public hearing concluded). COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT; None PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00740 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Lithia Way APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L,C. (Doug & Dionne Irvine) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor, The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the facade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09 BA; TAX LOT #:10800 Ms. Gunter reviewed the proposal and the Commission's concerns from the PreApp meeting including defining the pedestrian area. It would be a mixed use building with the same footprint as originally submitted. Mark Knox, planner, and architect, Ray Kistler explained how the pedestrian area would be incorporated. They also went over the facade materials and pointed out that the parapet would be 6' above the max building height. They said the owner preferred brick for the column bases and planned on using wood-clad windows. Kitchens are planned for the residential units but the details weren't yet done. There being no further questions and no one in the audience to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners liked the design and felt it would finish off the block nicely. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3/2WO13 CITY OF -ASHLAND Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval of the project as presented. Mr. Swink seconded the motion. Chairman Shostrom called for discussion on whether or not to add a condition that the applicant be required to return to the full Commission to present a materials board and more specifically call out the details of the brick, fenestrations, colors, mullions, and other specifics of the cornices, bases, etc. to meet the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards prior to submitting for the building permit. There was discussion about what level of detail should be required and when it should be submitted. There was consensus that the Staff advisor would make sure the building plans met compliance and they would be reviewed by the Historic Review Board prior to issuance. The motion was restated to recommend approval of the proposed plans with the following recommendations: 1) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate material and relief compliance with section I1-C-2d of the Site Design and Use Standards for the brick, fenestrations and mullion details including the width, depth and size of materials for the cornices, columns, bases, arches etc, for review and approval of the Staff Advisor and the Histodc Commission Review Board. 2) That brick shall be used for the column base and not stone or stucco, 3) Exterior lighting details demonstrating compliance with the Site Design and Use Standards and shall be designed in a manner which does not produce direct illumination onto the street. 4) That a material board shall be provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and the Historic Commission Review Board. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: Melanie Smith of Star Sushi explained to the Commissioners that they are in the process of adding a Type 1 kitchen hood in the back of the building at 293 East Main. She reviewed with them the various options they had for venting and felt coming out the back wall under the upper deck was their best option. Mr, Skibby was concerned about smoke and fumes blowing back into the windows. Ms. Smith commented that access for cleaning the vent was also necessary. The majority of the Commissioners agreed to the plan, i i I OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule Jul P Terry, Keith, Kerry Jul 12th Terry, Allison, Victoria Jul 19th Terry, Dale, All Jul 26th Terry, Tom, Sam Au ust 2nd Terry, Kerry j August 91h Terry, Keith, Sam I E I s Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3/28/2013 CITY OF -ASHLAND B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions BD-2011-00436 426 A St (Sidney Brown) Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano BD-2077-09029 400 Allison RobinBiermann NewSFR (Ready to issue) Whitford/Renwick BD-2019-09079 934 Terrace Allman) New SFR (issued 2-17-12) Whitford BD-2091-00621 89 Oak St (Amorotico) New fagade on building under construction Shostrom PL-2012-00434 843 B St Holzshu) ARU Renwick PL-2012-00440 27 N Main McKechnie Comm Site Review Shostrom DISCUSSION: Ashland Historic Plaza Ms. Gunter gave a summary of the public meetings where the 3 design options were presented. There was consensus to enlarge the hardscape with a radial design paving (colored) and create a stage area with curved, low wall seating. The Commissioners liked the designs and supported the changes as long as the Plaza Fountain, "Iron Mike", Lithia Water fountain and other historic features were retained. Mr. Skibby spoke of multiple redesigns of the plaza over the past 900 years as the uses changed and the facilities were improved to meet the needs of the public. Ms. Law suggested a series of plaques placed along the low wall outlining the history of Ashland. The Commissioners were very supportive of that idea. ADJOURNMENT: It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 1 f Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3/28/2013 • ` Planning Department, 51 Winburri way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y F L41 541.488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00740 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Lithia Way APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L.C. (Doug & Dionne Irvine) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithla Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the facade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 09 BA; TAX LOT 10800 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission Nyill also review this Planning Action on Tuesday, July 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM hi the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on July 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: July 10, 2012 at 7.00 Pfd, Ashland Civic Conner ' t fA #2012.00740 160 LITHIA WAY i 'v4 ' SUBJECT PROPERTY N_ 0' SD 20 dl F[tt Pr:~aaj k:<n w¢ firrep~eme o-.y, nu ucr-a4fe 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 f 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. 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 W14 the Street Standards In Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted If the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the Imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance %Mth all standards within the zoning district in which the use Is proposed to be located, and In conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 8. That adequate capacity of City facilities for wafer, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the Impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the Impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered In relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity In scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases In pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 1 Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, lncluding the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7, Other factors found to be relevant by the Rearing Authority for review of the proposed use. EXCEPTION TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.090 An exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72,080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 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 time exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. (Ord 3054, amended 1211612011) TREE REMOVAL 18,61,080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it Is likely to fall and Injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that Is located within public rights of way and Is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning, 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. K 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 vadfication 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 free w it not have a significant negative Impact on the free densities, sizes, canopies, and speclos diversity within 200 feet of the subject properly. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted In the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone, In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4, The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit, (ORD 2953, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002) GAcamm-dWp1anninST1anrdng ActioflSVAs by StwALNUthia WaylLithia_WTA•2012-007400012-00740 M UW& T2 Notimdocx 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 June 20, 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 i under each person's name for Planning Action ;2012-00740, 160 Lithia Way. i ,y Signature of Employee i G:kor rdeJptanninglTEr~a;e51TEF?PLl?T NFAT ofMOng_PlanningActionHofca,dot611912012 121[ • • qq~y 12100 IRFCRMATION TECHNOLOGY 1Zr00 V '~RL4V~ l ~r r,. AMap Ma s er ii4{~0 r` pplica ion ` Property Data Online Legend 12440 12340 12440 Highlighted Feature a r ' ~ t11eBulfarTar e! 1141FD ~ ~ ~ 12540 Tax Lot Outlines r Tax Lot Numbers 14 s!)t} i 170 i 1Uiw 11601 114(w 15fktt?;l 11200 11101 i 13{x{! 7000D , 7002 i 12U1 1 OU00 111013 f 80Q11 i 1 out) 1$1fir - #IW1412 _ , 80-UUt1 _ 101300 i0~01 114(1° - _ 7 V JU~ 5~4 goo 1 t1b411 j 904 104 a13 390 it 740 i 050 000 SO tdy{) r' 4600 g~yod [4iril r e r - -7.c,.. ~ I 201 4440 4[}11 1!!0 JACKSON COUNTY 300 ~ NO o re g 0 it 4[? ThTs map Is based o a dlg!al database 7 400 ~ m,,pPed by dacksan Caury From a variety of raurces. 3acksort Cpuny Carvrot acceP[ i respors'bTj for errors, orrlss!ens, or rr r A , v D pos'n31 accuracy. Rere are no 4690 v,-W'es, eq,wed cr kr.p!Ted. Please recycle v<?h a'cred orkA grade Pape, Created with MapMater Map created an VIOW1241,Q4,02 AM uengwebjaclsanwuny.efg Randy & Barb Lowe own a condo (space #301) at 180 Lithia Way and world like to be included in all the noticing for this project. Their mailing address is: 22250 SW 55th Ave Tualatin, OR 97062 ftefflockTm Technology Patent Pending www.avery.eom A ' s164TM Use AveryO TEMPLATE 5164TM ~ 1-800-CO-AVERY (".w t PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11200 ,"A-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11101 A-2012-00740 391 E09BA 70002 116'C' STREET INC BLOOMBAUM 141 LITHIA WAY LLC 145 MAIN STREET LLC MILTON PO BOX 1018 24 CROCKER ST 1510 WOODLAND DRIVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BC 600 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10300 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BC 700 BANKE THEODORE HILOIS E BROWN ERIK/NORTH JAMIE CONNOLLY ALLEN 150 E MAIN 15 FIRST ST N 142 MAIN ST E ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10800 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11100 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10100 DRRAM LP D R R ASSETT EAST MAIN COMMERCIAL LLC ET FIRST PLACE PARTNERS LLC MANAGEMENT INC AL 815 ALDER CREEK DR 4100 NEWPORT PL 400 515 E MAIN ST MEDFORD OR 97504 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10500 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11201 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10301 GARLAND GERALD G TRUSTEE HAMMOND FAMILY LLC KENNEDY KATHERINE M 921 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS CIR 125 E MAIN ST TRUSTEE ET AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 132 GREENWAY CIR MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10600 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11701 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 80001 KEY BANK OF OREGON 1ST PREMIERWEST BANK REMINGTON ENTERPRISES INC AMERICAN TAX VALUATION PAT PEASLEY 645 HOLLY ST PO BOX 560807 PO BOX 40 ASHLAND OR 97520 DALLAS TX 73556 MEDFORD OR 97501 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BC 500 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11400 PA-2012-00740 391 L09BA 10900 SCHWEIGER JOHN C TRUSTE SINGH SUKHDEV TEITELBAUM ALBERT TRUSTEE FBO 984 NEWCASTLE ST 2310 QUAIL POINT CIR 1644 ASHLAND ST MEDFORD OR 97501 MEDFORD OR 97504 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 11300 PA-2012.00740 391 E09BC 200 PA-2012-00740 391 E09BA 10400 THOMPSON BRENT TRUSTEE ET WILLIAMS FAMILY LLC YAMAOKA RONALDICARRIE AL 5500 COLVER RD 2422 33RD AVE P O BOX 201 TALENT OR 97540 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 Urban Development Services So Or Transportation Engineering Doug & Dionne Irvine 485 W Nevada St 112 Monterey Dr Irvine Industries Ashland OR 97520 Medford, OR 97504 2113 Emigrant Creek Rd Ashland OR 97520 PA-2012-00740 PA-2012-00740 26 Kistler, Small & White Laurie Sager & Associates 6-20-12 NOC 545 A St 700 Mistletoe Rd Ste 201 160 Lithia Wy Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 ~svi~965 AOAV-09-008-l. ~w$94S Wt?4 6 01 zeslian tuna AA0AWAAAAAA a;ua;}e ua a ftloug:)9I ap;anate W.L)13019anji f ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT July 10, 2012 PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00740 APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L.C, Doug & Dionne Irvine LOCATION: 160 Lithia Way ZONE DESIGNATION: C-1-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: July 2, 2012 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 30, 2012 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18,32 C-1 Retail Commercial District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design Review 18,92 Parking, Access and Circulation 18.104 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the fagade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six- inches in diameter-at-breast-height. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application There are no other planning actions of record for this site, B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site The subject property is a generally rectangular parcel located on the south side of Lithia Way between North First Street and North Pioneer Street. The property has 99 feet of frontage Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 1160 Lithia Way Page 1 of 17 along Lithia Way, a state highway designated as an arterial street or boulevard in Ashland's Transportation System Plan, and its 98-foot rear property line abuts Will Dodge Way, a public alley. The subject property was formerly a public parking lot under city ownership, but was sold to the applicants in 2008. The property has remained a quasi-public parking lot with paving and associated perimeter landscaping, including parking lot and street trees, still in place. The parcel is generally flat, with an approximate five percent slope down to the north, toward Lithia Way. The property is between the Jasmine Building at 180 Lithia Way and the Kendrick Building at 150 Lithia Way, which are zoned C-1-D, and is directly across from the previously approved First Place commercial subdivision, which is zoned C-1: The subject property itself is located within the C-1-D Downtown Commercial zoning district and the Ashland Downtown Historic District, and development of the site is subject to basic, detail and large scale Site Review standards, as well as the standards for downtown and historic district development. Pr. oposal The proposal involves a request for Site Review approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed Main Street-style building's ground floor will consist of 3,116 square feet of commercial space which could accommodate commercial uses including restaurant or retail and 1,476 square feet of parking; the 5,092 square foot second floor will include five hotel units; and the 5,092 square foot third floor consists of five residential apartments. The building's north and east facing facades, which will be visible from Lithia Way, are to be constructed in brick with a cast stone base and will include wood clad windows. Because the proposal includes five hotel units, a Conditional Use Permit is required. The applicants have also requested an additional Conditional Use Permit because the proposed building exceeds 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the fagade in the form of a decorative parapet. An Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements is also requested. For buildings greater than 10,000 square feet, the Site Design and Use Standards require that one square foot of plaza space be provided for each ten square feet of floor area. As proposed, the 13,800 square foot building would require 1,380 square feet of .plaza area. The applicants propose an Exception in order to provide only 822 square feet of plaza space (558 square feet less than required) to be provided along the front of the building's northeast corner and along the southeast side adjacent to the breezeway extending from Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way. Finally, the application includes a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height. All of the site's trees are to be removed with the proposal in order to allow development of the site, and new trees are to be planted, or alternative mitigation provided, to comply with city standards. Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report.dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 2 of 17 i IL Protect Impact The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of a new building in the C-1 zoning district. In accordance with Chapters 18.72, 18.104 and 18.108, the application is required to be reviewed under the "Type 11" process with a public hearing because the project is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and the size of the buildings is greater than 10,000 square feet, and because the proposal involves Conditional Use Permit approvals associated with a new building. A. Site Review The requested Site Review approval is to allow the construction of a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed Main Street-style building will consist of 3,116 square feet of commercial space which could accommodate commercial uses including restaurant or retail and 1,476 square feet of parking on the 4,640 square foot ground floor; five hotel units on the 5,092 square foot second floor; and five residential apartments on the 5,092 square foot third floor. The building's north and east facing facades, which will be visible from Lithia Way, are to be constructed in brick with a cast stone base and will include wood clad windows. The first criterion for Site Review approval is that, "All applicable City ot•dinances have been met or will be met by the proposed developinent. " The project proposes a mix of residential, hotel and commercial uses consistent with the underlying C-1-D zoning designation. Residential units are a special permitted use within the district, hotels are conditional uses, and commercial uses including retail and restaurants are outright permitted. The C-1 zoning regulations require that a minimum of 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building be used for permitted or special permitted uses other than residential units. The proposal designates approximately 68 percent of the ground floor for commercial, an outright permitted use, with the remainder taken up with parking to serve the hotel units on the second floor. The C-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The property is subject to the Arterial Street Setback Requirements of AMC 18.68.050, which provide for a setback on an arterial street of no less than 20 feet or the width required to install city-standard sidewalk and parkrow improvements, whichever is less. The building placement as shown accommodates the installation of city standard sidewalk and parkrow improvements, and the applicants have proposed to install a ten-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot commercial parka-ow in keeping with the recently-widened standards. The application notes that the building's mass reaches approximately 42 feet in height along the Lithia Way frontage. The C-1-D district allows for buildings up to 55 feet in height, provided that those higher than 40 feet obtain Conditional Use Permit approval, and the application has accordingly requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately six-foot high decorative parapet element which exceeds 40 feet in height. Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithla Way Page 3 of 17 Within the C-1-D district, there is no outright landscaping requirement. The applicants have however provided a preliminary landscape plan (see Sheet L2.0) which identifies not only the required street tree plantings but also landscape materials to be placed along the walkway corridor on the east side of the building. The street trees identified include oaks and zelkova from the Recommended Street Tree Guide; however staff would note that specific trees have been recommended by parkrow width for the Lithia Way corridor. For five-foot parkrows on Lithia Way, Trident Maple and Bigtooth Maple are the primary street trees recommended. As this staff report is being written, the Tree Commission has yet to review the application, Staff has accordingly recommended conditions to make the Tree Commission recommendations conditions of approval, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, and to require street tree selections from the Lithia Way recommended street tree list. The second Site Review criterion is that, "All requirements of the Site Revie», Chapter have been rnet or will be met. " The application notes that required street trees and additional landscaping and irrigation will be provided; that trash and recycling areas will be provided and appropriately screened through placement within the building; and that lighting will be down-directed or shrouded to avoid concerns with glare and comply with applicable standards. The third approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implententation of this Chapter. " The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone, the Downtown Design Standards Boundary, and the Downtown Historic District. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Downtown Design Standards and Historic District Design Standards. Additionally, the building is greater than 10,000 square feet in size, and therefore the development is considered a large scale project and is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. The full Historic Commission reviewed preliminary building design at the pre-application stage, and made a number of recommendations, however as this staff report is being prepared, the Historic Commission has not yet reviewed the submittal materials. As such, a condition of approval has been recommended below that the recommendations of the Historic Commission, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, be made conditions of approval, The proposed building design appears to meet the Basic Site Review approval standards. The building's orientation is to Lithia Way, with pedestrian entrances directly from the public sidewalk and vehicular parking located within the building footprint and accessed from the Will Dodge Way alley. Streetscape and landscape amenities are being provided, Detail Site Review approval standards have also been addressed. All new buildings are now required to meet a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.50, which on the subject 7,000 square foot lot would require a building of at least 3,500 square feet. The proposed building square footage is 15,276 square feet and significant exceeds the minimum FAR, While the building frontage is less than 100 feet, the building does provide distinctive Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Ads Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithla Way Page 4 of 17 i changes in the facade including a recessed entrance, windows, vertical pilasters and horizontal bands. The building face incorporates storefront windows along the ground floor, and three fixed canopies adjacent to the sidewalk to provide pedestrians with protection from sun and rain. The building design incorporates a recessed entrance, and architectural treatments which break the building's width into three vertical masses and a sense of entry emphasized by the central parapet element. The recessed entry and outdoor seating area will have a different surface treatment in color and pattern to emphasize their role as "people areas." The building is also subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects as it is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and has a floor area greater than 10,000 square feet. As noted above, the design has broken the building's length into three more vertical elements emphasized by the proposed central parapet, and includes canopies over the pedestrian entries to shelter pedestrians and create a more human scale relationship to the streetscape. The building does not exceed the maximum square footage of 45,000 square feet. Large Scale approval standards also require one foot of plaza or public space for every 10 square foot of gross floor area. Per Section II.C.3.a, the gross floor area does not include parking area located underneath the building area. In this case the above ground area is 15,276 square feet and the parking area within the footprint of the building is approximately 1,476 square feet. The gross floor area used for calculating plaza space requirements is 13,800 square feet, requiring 1,380 square feet of plaza space. The applicants have proposed to provide only 822 square feet of plaza, primarily in the form of an outdoor seating area near the northeast entrance and adjacent to the existing pedestrian corridor originally created with construction of the Jasmine Building to the east. The applicants have requested an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards in order to provide less than the full amount ofplaza space, noting constraints posed by adjacent developments which have been built to differing sidewalk width standards along a curved right-of-way and the need to respond to these constraints in a historically sensitive manner in the context of the Lithia Way streetscape. The applicants also assert that the substantial additional right-of-way necessary to comply with recently increased sidewalk width standards exacerbate the development constraints, and that the sidewalk width to be provided will serve many of the same functions intended by the plaza space requirement. This Exception is discussed in further detail below. The building is subject to both the Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Development Standards, and the applicants have addressed these standards in their findings. Aside from the requested exception, the applicants have included design features to address these standards. The applicants have proposed a multi-story, Main Street-style building, The building extends from side lot line to side lot line, with the exception of a side setback from the existing pedestrian walkway originally created with the development of the adjacent Jasmine Building, and incorporates large street-level windows and transparent doors. The building incorporates horizontal and vertical rhythms through divisions on the facade as required by the standards. The upper floor windows are vertical, The building incorporates an architectural base, as is typical in historic buildings in the area. The roof is generally flat, and includes a cornice but its length is broken by the proposed central parapet. The proposed multi-story building's mass is roughly three feet taller than the adjacent Kendrick Building to the west, and slightly lower than the Jasmine Building to the cast, in keeping with the height standards which seek a slightly dissimilar height in maintaining a staggered streetscape. The Planning Action MW2-00740 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report Ads Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithla Way Page 5 of 17 I i frontage of the building is primarily brick, with a stone base to give the building a sense of strength to anchor it within the strectscape. The final Site Review approval criterion 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 tit,ill 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. " The application materials provided include a draft Site Utility Plan (see sheet A1.2) and indicate that adequate facilities are in place within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended to serve the site by the applicants. Public facilities and utilities in place to service the project or to be installed as part of the subdivision improvements include the following: o Electrical Service: The application identifies existing transformers, electric boxes and vaults in place along Will Dodge Way which serve existing buildings along Lithia, Will Dodge and East Main. The applicants' draft Site Utility Plan indicates that the transformer at the southeast corner of the site will be replaced with a new, upgraded 600 KVA transformer to serve the proposed building. The application notes that the electric meters and main disconnect are to be placed on the southwest corner of the building, with access from Will Dodge. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, the Electric and Building Departments have noted that state law requires separate electric meters be provided for each of the residential units and asked that the final electrical service plan make clear that this requirement will be addressed. o Sanitary Sewer: The property is currently served by a six-inch sanitary sewer main within Lithia Way. The draft Site Utility Plan indicates that a new four-inch sanitary sewer lateral will be extended to serve the proposed building, o Storm Drainage: The property is currently served by a six-inch storm sewer main in the north central portion of the tax lot, a 15-inch storm drain line is also in place within Lithia Way. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, Public Works and Engineering staff have noted that the existing six-inch storm sewer main may lack sufficient capacity if the proposal ultimately results in an increase in impervious area on site with the removal of existing landscaped areas, and would then necessitate on- site detention with new underground facilities. They've also indicated that if the parking spaces follow the existing topography of the site, which falls approximately four feet from Will Dodge to Lithia Way, an oil/water separator and some type of storm water detention will be needed at the front (lower) end of the parking stalls. Engineering Division staff will need to review a final engineered Storm Drainage Plan which addresses these items and demonstrates that post-development peak flows will be less than or equal to pre-development peak flows for the site as a whole prior to issuance of a building permit, and which include necessary storm water quality mitigation measures as part of the design. o Easements: It has also been noted that existing sewer and storm drainage facilities cross this property in serving buildings along East Main Street, and that some of the existing electrical equipment on the site is located outside of casements or rights-o-f= way. New public or private easements will need to be created, or these facilities re- routed, to accommodate the proposed new construction, Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Ads Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 6 of 17 i o Water: The property is currently served by a four-inch water main in Lithia Way, with an existing %-inch water service and meter in place in the sidewalk available to serve the project. The application notes that 70 feet of new four-inch ductile iron fire sprinkler line will be extended from Lithia Way to the building's riser room. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, Public Works and Engineering staff have indicated that the existing %-inch meter is insufficient to serve the project by itself, and have indicated that an additional new commercial water service will need to be included in the final Utility Plan to be reviewed and approved by Planning, Building, Public Works and Engineering staff prior to building permit issuance. The application also notes that Fire Department requirements including fire sprinklers and a Fire Department Connection (FDC) valve and vault will be identified in the building permit submittals. Given the potential impacts of an FDC and vault to the pedestrian streetseape, a condition of approval has been recommended below to require that these elements not be placed within the pedestrian corridor. o Paved Access and Adequate Transportation: Lithia Way is an arterial street and state highway that is currently paved with curbs, gutters, on-street parking, bike lanes, and automobile travel lanes, and an eight-foot width sidewalk in place along the subject property's fiill frontage. The applicants propose to provide ten-foot width sidewalks and five-foot commercial hardscape parkrows to comply with the recently- increase arterial street standards. Will Dodge Way is a 12-foot wide public alley that is currently paved. The application materials provided include a letter from Kim Parducci of Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering L.L.C. This letter indicates that a trip generation analysis was completed based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) standards with the determination that the proposal was below the threshold levels which would trigger a full traffic impact analysis, and that the proposal could be approved without any adverse impacts on the downtown transportation system. Conditions of approval have been recommended below to require that the applicants provide civil drawings and utility plans addressing the items above for review and permitting by the City of Ashland's Building, Planning, Public Works and Engineering Divisions prior to the issuance of permits or any work within public rights-of-way, and that the applicants also provide evidence that requisite permits have been obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of permits by the City of Ashland. B. Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards Within the Detail Site Review Zones, the Site Design and Use Standards require buildings larger than 10,000 square feet to provide at least one square foot of plaza space each ten square feet of floor area. As proposed, the 13,800 square foot building would require 1,380 square feet of plaza area. The applicants propose an Exception in order to provide only 822 square feet of plaza space (558 square feet less than required) between a small outdoor plaza area to be provided at the northeast corner of the building's front facade and additional space along the southeast side adjacent to the breezeway extending from Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way. Planning Action PA2012.00740 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report Ads Appilcant; The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithla Way Page 7 of 17 The application explains that the existing sidewalk width along the property's frontage is only eight feet, and there is no additional right-of-way available to accommodate widening of the sidewalks to meet the recently adopted sidewalk and parkrow widths for an arterial street. In constructing city standard sidewalks and parkrows, the applicants assert that they will be providing an additional 730 feet of public space along the full building frontage which, if considered in combination with the proposed 822 square feet of plaza space would more than satisfies the plaza requirements. The application goes on to explain that without an Exception, the building would need to be redesigned with a greater setback from either the front or side property line which would alter the floor area, design, function, and relationship to the streetscape. The application further explains that if the building were setback another five feet to provide the requisite plaza space, the building would be 12 feet behind the existing sidewalk and out of sync with the historic building placement on the corridor and thus counter to both the Historic District(IV-C-4) and Downtown (VI-B) Design Standards. The application materials point out that the combination of a mix of old and new buildings built to varying sidewalk width standards and the angled curvature of the right-of-way has lead to a mismatched appearance for the corridor. The application suggests that historically, buildings did not shift as dramatically as seen on this block, and tended instead to address these factors with slight shifts and subtle adjustments. The application suggests that a drastically different building placement here to accommodate a wider sidewalk and additional plaza space along the street frontage would exasperate the issue, and that the requisite public plaza functions such as outdoor dining can be carried out within the wider sidewalk corridor, With regard to the space adjacent to the walkway, the application asserts that increasing the plaza space provided there would necessitate the removal of two residential and two hotel units and force the applicants to look at building separate buildings to avoid the plaza requirement entirely, and conclude with a request that the added sidewalk area necessary to meet city standards along Lithia Way be considered to offset plaza space requirement. In considering the request, staff recognizes that the property is one of the few vacant lots available for infill within the district, and that the project will be the first to develop according to the new arterial street standards which require a ten-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkiow, The property's frontage is relatively wide, the relationship to the right-of-way is angled, and the buildings to either side have developed according to differing sidewalk width standards which all pose issues to be addressed through the design. In staff's view, the proposed building placement seems to effectively balance these issues while providing the full required sidewalk width and creating a smooth transition between the varying sidewalk widths to either side and placing the building to fit well into the streetscape context. The Downtown Design Standards (VI-B) call for construction of buildings to the back of the sidewalk and to the side property lines (VI-C), although Exceptions can be requested to provide walkways or public space. In staffs view, the proposed design seeks to respond directly to this standard within the context of the Lithia Way streetscape, and sufficient evidence has been provided that the front plaza space in combination with the new wider sidewalks to be constructed along the frontage, substantially beyond the existing right-of- way, result in a public space which, with the inclusion of the requisite elements, will at least equally achieve the intent of the standard. For staff, the bigger concern is in insuring that the narrow corridor to be provided as plaza space along the existing walkway at the east property Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report,dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Uthia Way Page 8 of 17 i i line enhances or at least maintains the functionality and "people-friendliness" of that existing space. To that end, a condition has been recommended below to require that a revised site plan be provided with the building permit which better addresses the space along the existing walkway corridor to include retention of the "circular" form of the seating area (rather than offsetting the two halves of the existing circle), "people-friendly" landscape treatments, details of pedestrian scale lighting design and placement, and a better connection between the walkway corridor and the building, its front plaza space and/or the side stairway entry, possibly to include steps of a height to accommodate occasional use for seating. Staff would also recommend that the Planning Commission consider a condition to require that the building permit submittals include a clear identification of the four requisite plaza elements to be provided within the front plaza space and widened sidewalk corridor. C. Conditional Use Permit for Hotel Use The proposal includes five hotel units on the second floor. In the C-1-D district, hotel uses require Conditional Use Permit approval, and are the only uses to require that off-street parking be provided within the downtown. The application notes that the hotel will be in conformance with all standards of the C-1-D district and with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed hotel units are within the core area of the downtown and are approximately 200 feet from the nearest residentially- zoned property, and the applicants assert that hotel use is likely to be no more noticeable within the impact area than the residential condominiums proposed for the third floor which are a special permitted use within the district. The application further explains that all required utilities are to be provided by the applicants with the proposal from the adjacent rights-of-way, and that a traffic analysis by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering L.L.C. determined that the proposed hotel use would not cause any capacity or operational issues. The application materials conclude that when compared to the target retail use of the district, the five hotel units will generate little noise, fewer vehicle trips (41 trips for the five hotel units versus 835 trips for a department store of the same floor area) and less demand on services than would retail use, which would also require nine more parking spaces. For staff, hotel use within the downtown seems relatively benign, and as suggested by the applicants the proximity to restaurants, theaters, shopping and other attractions is likely to further minimize the necessity for vehicle trips and associated impacts. Guest parking is perhaps the most noticeable impact for hotel use, and the C-1-D district accordingly requires that one off-street parking space be provided for each guest room and an additional space be provided for the manager. The applicants propose to provide the six required spaces and a seventh ADA-accessible space on the ground level with access from the alley to fully address these requirements. Given that the building is also to contain residential units and additional commercial space, which do not require that off-street parking be provided in the downtown, staff would recommend that the Commission consider a condition to require that the parking be signed as for hotel guest use only prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. i Planning Action PA2012-00790 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report Ads Applicant; The Vino Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 9 of 17 J i D. Conditional Use Permit for Building Height The applicants have also requested an additional Conditional Use Permit because the proposed building exceeds 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the facade in the form of a decorative parapet. Buildings in the C-1-1) district may exceed 40 feet in height, with allowances for heights up to 55 feet possible through Conditional Use Permit review. The application notes that the building's mass reaches approximately 42 feet in height along the Lithia Way frontage, and goes on to explain that the additional height requested is not for the building's mass, but rather for an approximately six-foot high parapet to give the building a stronger identity and sense of uniqueness along Lithia Way. The application also suggests that the additional height allowance in the code was to provide for just this Solt of unique, whimsical element to avoid the potential for monotony that might otherwise result if all buildings were to strictly adhere to the design standards. At the pre-application level, the Historic Commission reviewed an initial design proposal and suggested that the building looked flat and lacked a strong sense of entry and street presence. Historic Commission recommendations at that time included strengthening the building's base and anchoring it with a flared cap, creating greater variation in the front facade, or adding a raised parapet on the center section in order to break-up the linear roof-line. In staff's view, the added height of the parapet tends to emphasize a more vertical rhythm in what is a relatively wide facade for the downtown and helps to break the width into three distinct vertical element while strengthening the building's sense of entry in a manner in keeping with historic downtown designs and the initial recommendations of the Historic Commission. B. Tree Removal Permit The application includes a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height, and explains these trees are not native to the site and were planted previously as parking lot shade trees. All of the trees are to be removed in order to allow development of the site in a manner consistent with applicable standards and requirements of the C-1-D district. The trees were evaluated for retention by both the project's architect and arborist, but due to the nature of the proposed development and its close proximity to the trees, and the intent to provide a "Main Street" type facade in keeping with the Historic District and Downtown Design Standards it was determined that the removals were necessary. The application indicates that the removals will not have significant negative impacts to the site's erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees, existing windbreaks, tree densities or sizes, canopies, or nearby species as the property will be built upon and E landscaped with full development of the site. The application materials conclude that there is no reasonable alternative to retain the subject property's trees while developing the site in keeping with applicable standards, and note that if necessary the applicants will pay to mitigate the removals through off-site planting in lieu of on-site mitigation. A condition requiring mitigation in a manner consistent with the Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report Ads Applicant: The Vine Retaii, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 10 of 17 i i requirements of AMC 18.61.084 (i.e. replanting on-site, off-site, or payment in lieu of replanting) has accordingly been recommended below. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for approval of an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in AMC 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. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department Slaff Report Ads Applicant; The Vine Retail, Motel & Residences at 160 Lithle Way Page 11 of 17 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Otherfactors found to be relevantby the Nearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC 18.61,080: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, 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 Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report Ads Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 12 of 17 3 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believe that the application has satisfied the applicable criteria for Site Review approval to construct a 13,800 square foot, threc-story mixed use building; an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to reduce the plaza space requirement; Conditional Use Permits to allow five hotel units and to allow the building to exceed 40 feet in height; and Tree Removal Permits to remove all ten of the site's existing trees in order to develop the property according to the standards and requirements of the C-1-D district, The propped building satisfies the applicable standards for Basic Site Review, Detail Site Review, and Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments, Historic District Design Standards, and the Downtown Design Standards, and evidence has been provided in support of the Conditional Use Permits for the five proposed hotel units and the additional height requested for the central parapet element. The application makes clear that the trees proposed for removal are in order to allow the site to develop in keeping with the standards of the district. In staff's view, the requested Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to reduce the plaza space requirement from the 1,380 square feet required to the 822 square feet proposed was perhaps the component request requiring the most consideration. The applicants have requested the Exception in order to provide less than the full amount of plaza space, noting constraints posed by adjacent developments which have been built to differing sidewalk width standards along a curved right-of-way and the need to respond to these conditions in a historically sensitive mamler in the context of the Lithia Way streetscape and applicable design standards. The applicants also assert that the substantial additional right- of-way necessary to comply with recently increased sidewalk width standards exacerbate the other conditions, and that the additional sidewalk width to be provided will allow many of the functions intended by the plaza space requirement to be served in the sidewalk corridor. j While staff does not believe that providing required sidewalks in itself should be a basis for Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report Ads Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 13 of 17 an Exception to the plaza space requirement, the fact that the property is one of the first to be developed according to the new requirements for wider sidewalks while also needing to have the building placement in keeping with that of other buildings on the block developed according to lesser standards on a curved right-of-way pose a unique set of design constraints which seem to be well-addressed along the Lithia Way strcetscape with the building's placement and design. For staff, allowing the lesser amount of plaza space comes down largely to ensuring that the treatment of the walkway corridor adjacent to the Jasmine Building on the subject property's eastern property line allows this space to maintain an attractive, functional, people-friendly space. A condition to provide revised drawings to better address this corridor and its relationship to the building and front plaza space has accordingly been recommended below. Staff believe that the proposed building has been thoughtfully designed in response to the unique context of the Lithia Way streetscape and will make a positive contribution to the corridor. We are supportive of the application, and recommend its approval. Should the Commission coneur with the staff recommendation and approve the application, staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) The windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building 3) That the front entrances adjacent to Lithia Way shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 4) That prior to tree removal, site work, storage of materials, staging or building permit issuance, a Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree identification and protection measures installed, inspected and approved on site by the Staff Advisor. 5) That mitigation for the ten trees removed shall be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.61,084 either through replanting on-site, replanting off-site, or through payment in lieu of replanting. The building permit submittals shall identify required mitigation. 6) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Lithia Way shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of ten feet in width with five-foot commercial hardscape parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, parkrow with street trees and grates, and street lighting, shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of Ashland Street Standards, and the applications shall provide evidence that requisite permit approvals have been obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) prior to the issuance of permits by the City of Ashland or work within the Lithia Way right-of-way. If necessary for alignment of frontage improvements, area Pianning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report,dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 14 of 17 { for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way. The right-of- way dedication shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland, 7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) 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. b) That a landscaping and irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies and showing par1crow improvements shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. c) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission's July 3rd, 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall become conditions of approval and be incorporated into the building permit submittals. d) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18,96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of any new signage, and all signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. c) All public and private easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals, including but not limited to any easements required to accommodate existing utilities which cross the site, f) That a final storm drainage plan, including any necessary measures for on-site detention or water quality mitigation, shall be submitted at the time of a building permit for review and approval by the Engineering, Building, and Planning Divisions. g) A final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved 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. Meters, vaults, fire department connections, and other utility equipment shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the utility providers. Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Motel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 15 of 17 z h) The applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall identify separate services/meters for each of the residential units, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building and Electric Departments prior to building permit issuance. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. i) Any mechanical equipment installation shall be screened from view from Lithia way. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. j) Exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals along with appropriate shrouding to demonstrate that there will be no direct illumination of surrounding properties. k) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. Exterior building colors shall be muted colors, as described in the application. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. 1) The inverted a-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 1$.92.0401 m) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission's July 5"', 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall become conditions of approval and be incorporated into the building permit submittals. Street trees for planting on Lithia Way shall be selected from the "Lithia Way Recommended Street Tree List." n) That a revised site plan shall be provided with the building permit which better addresses the space along the existing walkway to include retention of the "circular" form of the seating area (rather than offsetting the two halves of the existing circle), "people-friendly" landscape treatments, details of pedestrian scale lighting design and placement, and a better connection between the i walkway corridor and the front plaza space and/or entry to the side stairs, possibly to include steps of a height to accommodate occasional use for seating. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the four requisite plaza elements to be provided within the proposed plaza spaces and sidewalk pedestrian corridor. Planning Action PA2012-40744 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report .dds Applicant: The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 16 of 17 o) That the two required bicycle parking spaces shall be identified in the building permit submittals and installed prior to occupancy. The bicycle parking shall not be located in the building unless it can be demonstrated that the building meets the dimensional requirements for two bicycle parking spaces and all requirements of 18.92.060 including but not limited to that the bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of a well-used entrance and not farther from the entrance that the closest motor vehicle parking space. 8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscape, landscaping, irrigation, parking, bicycle parking, walkways, sidewalks, street trees, street lights and pedestrian scale on-site lighting shall be installed according to approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) Required bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, provision and maintenance of adequate fire apparatus access and access approach, adequate fire flow, fire hydrants and requisite hydrant clearance, a fire department connection (FDC), and a key box shall be satisfied, Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor, d) An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with the Recycling Requirements of AMC 18.72.115.A. e) That the parking spaces provided shall be signed for hotel guest use only. f) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalks, commercial hardscape parkrow with street trees, and city-standard street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit fiom the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupancy. i Planning Action PA2012-00740 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report dds Applicant; The Vine Retail, Hotel & Residences at 160 Lithia Way Page 17 of 17 HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of July 3, 2012 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00740 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Lithia Way APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L.C. (Doug & Dionne Irvine) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the facade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees'greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 09 BA; TAX LOT 10800 Recommendation to Planning Commission: Recommend approval of the proposed plans recommendations: 1) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate material and relief compliance with section 11-C-2d of the Site Design and Use Standards for the brick, fenestrations and mullion details including the width, depth and size of materials for the cornices, columns, bases, arches etc. for review and approval of the Staff Advisor and the Historic Commission Review Board. 2) That brick shall be used for the column base and not stone or stucco. 3) Exterior lighting details demonstrating compliance with the Site Design and Use Standards and shall be designed in a manner which does not produce direct illumination onto the street. 4) That a material board shall be provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor and the Historic Commission Review Board. i Department of Community Development Tel: 541.488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541.552.2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w~vw.ashlancf.or.us I f- -<1 0 ? s f} o Department of Transportattoti N : `spa , r ;fix Rogue Valley Office John A, Kitzhaber, Nil), Governor 100 Antelope Rd White City, OR 97503-1674 (54-1) 771-6299 March 22, 2011 PAX (541) 771-6349 City of Ashland Planning Division Attn: Derek Severson, Associate Planner 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Ro: Pro-application for "The Vine," a proposed mixed use development at 160 t-ithla Way, Ashland, OR. Dear Mr. Severson, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed mixed-use development at 160 Lithia Way, in Ashland. The proposal would redevelop the current parking lot into a wine tasting bar, a hotel units, and 7 similar sized condominkums, and a shared outdoor space, ODOT has reviewed the pre-application site plan request and determined this proposal will adversely impact the state's transportation facility (OR 99) as its current use as a parking lot will change to a more intense use, with the new building proposed, thus triggering ODOT's review under Access Management (OAR 734-051-0045). We, therefore, recommend the following conditions: 1. Must provide proof of a valid ODOT Roacd Approach Permit prior to City authorization of development permits; 2. Must provide proof of an ODOT Misceltaneous Permit for any work completed within fire State Highway right-of way prior to City authorization of development permits; 3. Based upon the 2001 AASHTO standard for minimum sight distance and the posted speed limit of 25 mph, the applicant shall maintaln a clear vision sight triangle of 215 feet; We encourage the applicant to continue to coordinate with the City of Ashland and ODOT to help with the ongoing design and planning of the proposed facility to help mitigate any safety, mobility and operation issues which may adversely impact the state's transportation facility. i If you have any questions of comments, please feel free to contact me at (541) 774- 6399. Respectfully, man I<. Horkacher Development Review Planner Cc: Ray Kistler, Kislrer+ small +white Architects RVDRT i PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A VACANT LOT ALONG LITHIA WAY "OLD CITY PARKING LOT" FOR A SITE REVIEW & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MIXED-USE BUILDING n v r, d (-~i eR S, 4, V z 1 .r l {as _'it~j fiy t_ I2 ~ {7 { f y \ { Zvi 1 ~ 2 I + _ j z [ r r Yet ~.r _ 4 4 g i r c 2 f i SUBMITTED TO i i CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON I SUBMITTED BY i URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, 485 W. NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 June I't, 2012 ,JUN 20 1 I ' I. PROJECT INFORMATION: PLANNING ACTION: The applicants are requesting a Site Review & Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,500 square foot, three-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the ground floor (restaurant), five hotel units on the second floor and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application includes a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40' in height in order to provide the street facade with some architectural relief. The subject property is located at 160 Lithia Way (old City parking lot). ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 160 Lithia Way, 391E 09BA Tax Lot 10800 OWNERS: ARCHITECTS: Doug & Dionne Irvine Kistler, Small & White Irvine Industries 545 "A" Street 2113 Emigrant Creek Road Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 541.488.8200 LAND USE PLANNING: PROJECT AR13ORIST: Urban Development Services, LLC Laurie Sager & Associates 485 W. Nevada Street 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-.821.3752 541.482,5009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown ZONING DESIGNATION: C-1-D LOT AREA: Total Area: 7,000 square feet RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: AN 1 2012 Permitted:.16 acres X 60 units per acre = 9.6 units Proposed Residential Density: 5 residential condominium apartments ; BUILDING DATA: First Floor: 4,640 sq. ft. (3,116 cornmercial/retail & 1,476 sq. f1. parking) Second Floor: 5,092 square feet Third Floor: 5,092 square feet PARKING: Required: One (1) parking space per "hotel" unit plus one for Manager, otherwise parking is not required in C-1-D zone Proposed; Seven (7): One per hotel unit (5), one for Manager, one Handicap 2 i APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: C-1 Retail Cornrnereial District, Chapter 18.32 "D" Downtown Overlay District, Section 18.32,050 Tree Removal, Chapter 16.61 Site Design & Use Standards, Chapter 18.72 Administrative Variance from Site Design & Use Standards, Section 18.72.090 Site Design & Use Standards (Design Standards) Basic Site Review, Section II Detail Site Review, Sections II & III Street Tree Standards, Section II Historic District Design Standards, Section IV Downtown Design Standards, Section VI Off Street Parking, Chapter 18.92 Conditional Use Permits, Chapter 18.104 ADJACENT ZONINGIUSE: WEST: C-1-1); Commercial Downtown EAST: C-1; Commercial (First Place Subdivision, vacant) SOUTH: C-1-D; Commercial Downtown NORTH: C-1-D; Conunercial Downtown SUBJECT SITE: C-1-D; Commercial Downtown IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Introduction: The applicants, Doug and Dionne Irvine, local Ashland residents, are requesting approval for a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building on their vacant parcel located at 160 Lithia Way - previous City parking lot located between the Jasmine Building (2004) and the Kendrick Building (2008). The applicants desire to construct a 3,316 square foot restaurant on the first floor, a five-unit hotel on the second floor and five residential condominiums on the third floor. The design of the building, as further described below, is fitting to the "main street" street facade that has been slowly occurring along Lithia Way over the last 30 years. A written narrative and findings of fact as well as a Site Plan, Utility Plan, Building Elevations, Wall Sections, Landscape Plan and Tree Removal Plan are enclosed. This information is provided in the application materials and addresses the submittal requirements of Chapter 18.72.060, Further, below is a narrative description of the proposal in an attempt to thoroughly explain the property's attributes and to address the applicants' current and long term goals for the property. Site: The subject property at 160 Lithia Way is primarily known as the "old City parking lot" located between the Jasmine Building and Kendrick Building and directly across the street from the vacant First Place Commercial Subdivision. Since the sale' df the property U ?01? 3 from the City in 2008, the parking lot has been leased by the Yogurt Hut and tenants of the Jasmine Building, but overall, has remained open to the public with little to no enforcement. The property extends from Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way (existing alley) and is generally rectangular in shape measuring 7 i' (average depth) X 98' (average width) with an approximate 5% slope to the north. Other than perimeter trees and landscaping, planted at the time of the parking lots improvements, the majority of the site is paved. Will Dodge Way, Will Dodge Way parallels the site's southern property line. The alley is a 12-foot right-of--way and is paved. Will Dodge Way is identified in the adopted Downtown Plan (1988) as an area for pedestrian activity. Although not codified, the plan mentions buildings having frontages on the alley to add interest. Additionally, the plan calls for "at least two stories in height are required along Lithia Way in order to enclose the alley and give it an intimate atmosphere." This plan vision must be balanced with the Downtown Design Standard which states "llton-street or alley facing elevations are less sigiaificaiit tliaii street facing elevations. Rear and sideu alks of buildings should therefor be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, wason y clad, with or without windows." Downtown Commercial District: The property is within the C-1-1) zoning district (Chapter 18.32, Retail - Commercial, Downtown Overlay District) which is intended to provide a more urban development pattern. The property is also located in the Downtown Design Standards overlay which is intended to guide development in the downtown to be designed in context with its surroundings, and in general, a "Main Street" type of development pattern as exists on East Main Street and within the Plaza Area. The C-1-D zoning allows for a variety of commercial uses such as office, retail, eating, drinking, entertainment, and theaters as well as residential. Hotels are permitted uses, but through a Conditional Use Permit process where it is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate, based on the City's substantive approval criteria, that the use can co-exist within the zone without adverse effect on its neighboring properties. In the applicants' opinion, the proposed development and desired uses are in concert with the Downtown environment. Further, the proposed development meets the requirements of Chapter 18.32 such as recycling, light, glare, landscaping, etc. This information is substantiated with the drawings and the Findings of Fact provided herein. Architecture: The applicant's have attempted to identify the area's design characteristics as they relate to new development in the Ashland Downtown Historic District by closely following the Downtown Design Standards and to design a building so that its architecture is contextually compatible with other buildings found in the downtown area, but not to the degree that it mirnics a specific building or architectural period. In the end, the proposed building has a strong sense of pedestrian orientation with plenty of ground level glazing to offer pedestrians a glimpse of the indoor activities. The building's north and east facing facades (visible from Lithia Way) are brick with a cast stone base. The doors and windows are wood clad for a more authentic and traditional character. ,JUN 0 1 2012 E i f i 1 The building's mass is roughly 42' in height from the Lithia Way frontage, but its overall height by definition is slightly under 40' (as measured from mid-point of each wall's finished grade). However, as permitted in the C- I -D zone, the code allows up to 55' with a Conditional Use Permit which is primarily necessary in order to incorporate the building's decorative parapet which the architect believes is a distinguishing architectural feature and helps provide a "non-unified" and more natural rhythm of building heights as desired by VI-A Height, of the Downtown Design Standards. Lithia Way Elevation: As noted, the design approach to the Lithia Way elevation was to respect the scale and proportions of historic buildings in downtown Ashland while incorporating modern materials and details. The design acknowledges historic traditions while offering a contemporary interpretation that is compatible within the historic district. The elevation builds on a strategy of expressing a basic post and lintel construction while providing a variety of recessed and projecting areas to create surface relief and visual interest. Window areas are proportioned vertically and are,kept to less than 50% of the total surface area. The ground floor windows are a larger area to reinforce their commercial nature. Overall, the applicants, local Planner and Architects believe the proposed building is well designed and fits perfectly into the Lithia Way streetscape that has been slowly transforming from an auto dominated environment to a multi-modal environment. Although still in process, this slow transformation, with both public investment (Fire Station #1) and private investment (Jasmine Building, Kendrick Building, Trinity Church open space, etc.) illustrates how Lithia Way is progressing with only a few key lots remaining (Elks, First Place, City Parking Lot, Wells Fargo). Will Dodge Way Elevation: The Will Dodge Way elevation is a simplified elevation due to its orientation along the alley, but its design remains respectful to this multi-modal corridor. In fact, the alley's design attempts to address recent suggestions offered by the City's transportation consultants (OTAK) during the City's Transportation System Plan update where this corridor was being evaluated for additional pedestrian enhancements. The suggestions included: I) Maintaining a mix of uses with one or more entrances onto 11,711 Dodge Way, including residential. The applicants concur with this suggestion and have incorporated its intent into the building's design as residences and hotel guests provide the best 2417 natural surveillance and "eyes on the street" security. 2) Encourage the use of breezert)ays to maintain the sense of inter-connection between the alleyway and the siders~alks and storefronts of E. 1111ain Street and Lithia II'ay. The site and landscaping plans illustrate the incorporation of the existing breezeway on the adjacent lot which was initially planned with the understanding the subject lot would be developed. 3) Minimize the arrrount of blank walls along the alle"i ay. The majority of the ground level elevation is dedicated to parking, but the cantilevered upper floor areas have wood clad doors and windows with planter boxes overlooking the alley. 4) Develop a comprehensive exterior lighting style and provide incentives for outdoor planters and seating areas. This suggestion is generally directed at the City to incorporate a comprehensive lighting plan, but has yet to be adopted or implemented. Nevertheless, the applicants are providing outdoor planting areas and seating areas. The applicants are also proposing pedestrian scaled lighting along the alley as well as the adjacent pedestrian corridor with final details being provided at time of the building permit. The front of the building,will have four light fixtures mounted 12' in height level. f JUN V~G ~ I Side Elevation: The side elevation facing the open pedestrian corridor will be in brick to match the front fagade. The side of the building has an enclosed fire stairwell and a couple of matching windows that help minimize the wall's non-descript appearance. In general, this wall has very limited visibility, but it does retain some basic design elements that merit consideration for its location. Previous Design Efforts: It should be noted that prior to this application's submittal, two previous preliminary plans were generated that included direct vehicle access off of Lithia Way which would have created a massive "void" in the building as depicted in the Downtown Design Standards, Illustration 3. That design concept was originally conceived when the property was being looked at as an affordable housing site by the City of Ashland and was primarily due to the fact the site's physical configuration and northeast sloping grade allowed for underground parking, but only if accessed from Lithia Way. Fortunately, this idea was discarded by the current applicants as it would have had a severe impact on the Lithia Way streetscape, conflicted with pedestrian mobility and literally would have under-minded many years of effort by the City staff, Historic and Planning Commissions who worked diligently over the last 25 years to "slowly" reverse Lithia Way from an auto- centric bi-pass through Downtown Ashland to a human scaled, multi-modal, pedestrian friendly streetscape similar to E. Main Street. Plaza Space Exception: The applicants are requesting a "partial" exception, under AMC 18.72.090 criterion "B" (above), to the Site Design & Use Standards, Section 11-C-3(b) where the zoning code requires buildings within the City's Detail Site Review Zone and when greater than 10,000 square feet in area, one square foot of plaza or open space to be provided for every 10 square feet of the project's gross floor area - less the area dedicated for parking that is within the building's footprint. In this case, the subject building area, less parking area within building footprint, is 13,800 square feet requiring a total of 1,380 square feet of plaza or open space. The application proposes 822 square feet (558 sq. ft. exception amount) of plaza space to be located along the front of the building's northeast corner and along the southeast side where it abuts with the plaza I breezeway extending from Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way. The applicants believe there is some demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirement for a "full" 10% plaza area without some understanding by the hearing authority and some reasonable interpretation of the codes and that the additional dedicated and improved sidewalk area, to be used for sidewalk dining, can also be considered as part of the applicants plaza space. Note: The irony with this particular issue is that if the application is approved without the exception request and the sidewalk is installed and dedicated to the City by the property owners, the owners would then have to pay the necessary fees to the City to use that "same" portion of sidewalk for sidewalk dining under Ordinance 42881 (sidewalk cafes, 410212002), but cannot consider it in their plaza space even though it meet' all of the necessary standards? jJ . 2 ` 6 Tree Removal: It's unfortunate, but all of the site's trees will be removed and new trees will be planted in areas that are in compliance with the City's planting and selection standards. None of the trees to be removed are considered significant or heritage trees as they were planted at the time the parking lot was installed by the City when it was under their ownership. Nevertheless, the site's trees were evaluated for their retention by both the project Architect and Arborist, but due to the general nature of construction, close proximity and the intent of the City's Do,,vntown Design Standards to provide "main street" street facades, similar to those found within the Plaza, the trees are proposed to be removed, but mitigated if required with off-site planting per 18.61,084 B. Parking: Seven parking spaces are proposed off the rear alley (Will Dodge Way). Although vehicular parking is not required within the C-1-D zoning district (18.32.050 A.), it is required for hotel uses - one per unit and one for the manager's space. As such a total of six parking spaces are required for the five hotel rooms and the applicants are proposing seven spaces with the seventh space being a handicap parking space. The seven parking spaces sit within the building's rear footprint with the upper floors cantilevering over. Further, two additional on-street public parking spaces will be created along the Lithia Way street frontage due to the elimination of the existing curb cut. III. FINDINGS OF FACT: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the required findings offact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the Site Design & Use Standards as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Section 18.72, Site Design & Use Standards (Design Standards Booklet, adopted August 41n~ 1992) and Conditional Use Permit criteria as outlined in (AMC), Section 18.104.050. For clarity reasons, the following docianentation has been formatted in "outline" form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. 141so, there are a manber of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings offact are cor?yplete. CHAPTER 18.72.070, SITE DESIGN & USE STANDARDS: A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. To the applicant's knowledge all City regulations are or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. As noted below, all requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter (18.72) have or will be complied with. Specifically, the landscaping will be irrigated and. maintained (three 7 street trees), the trasll/recycling area will be screened and light and glare concerns will be addressed with down lighting and screening where necessary. The applicant will be providing tree grates (per City Standards) for the new street trees in front of the building. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. As noted below, all requirements listed in the Site Design Standards (booklet) have or will be complied with except as noted. Specifically, the applicants have addressed the pertinent requirements of the Basic Site Review Standards, the Detail Site Review Standards, Street Tree Standards, Historic District Design Standards and the Downtown Design Standards. 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. All utilities associated with the development of this property will either be directed towards Lithia Way or via the alley. Adequate public facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way. The applicants have worked with the various utility companies to ensure both existing and proposed utilities are available to provide the necessary services. At no time has there been any indication by these service providers that services will be unavailable or exceed capacity. An Electric Utility Plan will be developed in consultation with the City's Electric Department, Dave Tygerson, to ensure not only capacities can be accomrnodated, but to also minimize aesthetic impact to the proposed building. All electrical services will be provided from the rear alley area where the transformers now exist. All electrical work will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Electric and Building Departments. A traffic analysis was provided by Kim Parducci, Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC, to determine the vehicle trips generated by the proposal would not cause any capacity or operational issues (attached). Further, all improvements within the adjacent rights-of-way, including construction detouring, will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Engineering Department and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Applicants have addressed or will address at the time of the building permit all code issues relating to the Ashland Fire Department, including an FDC valve along the front of the building. A fire hydrant is within 150' of the property boundary (directly ill front of the adjacent property) with adequate pressure to service the building. All work will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Building and/or Fire Departments. JUN 2012 -F II-C BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS: As noted previously, the project applicant, architect and land use planner walked the Downtown and reviewed the Downtown Design Standards in an attempt to generate the proposed design. All of these individuals are local residents who have a very solid understanding of the Downtown's context, design regulations, comprehensive plan policies and overall intent of urban development within Ashland's Downtown core. As such, a primary point of concern was to make sure the building's architecture, mass and rhytlun of openings were contextually compatible with other buildings found in the downtown area, but not to the degree that it mimics a specific building or arclutectural period. Overall, it is the applicant's belief the proposed design and use of materials will help the building "read" as a compatible Main Street building constructed in the year 2012/2013. II-C-la) Orientation and Scale Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be functional, and shall be shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street frontage. Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 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 uses such as service stations and tire stores. The submitted building elevations show the primary orientation facing Lithia Way. The main entrance is on Lithia Way with secondary entrances off of Will Dodge Way (alley). A new 15' public sidewalk will replace the existing sidewalk and provide pedestrian access to the building. The building's entrance off of Lithia Way is attractive, functional and will remain open during business hours. II-C-lb) Streetscape 1) 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. Three street trees are proposed along the frontage of Lithia Way which were chosen from the City's Street Tree List. The trees will be planted in accordance with the specifications shown on the attached plans. II-C-le) Landscaping ,JUN 1 2017 ~ i 1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2) Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water 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 form 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. Although landscaping is not a requirement within the Downtown Design Standards area, landscaping is proposed along the side of the building where its purpose is to "snatch" the existing landscaping associated with the Jasmine Building and ensure a safe and pleasant connection through the properties. As noted, the site's trees and shrubs were evaluated in comparison with the building's footprint, construction staging conflicts, sidewalk standards, Downtown Design Standards and Tree Ordinances, but all conflicted due to their location and would have severely limited the building's design and its compliance with other applicable standards as understood under AMC 18.61.080 B.1. 1I-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. Parking is located behind the building and within the footprint of the building providing shading. It-C-le) Designated Creels Protection 1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in the adjacent to the creels to enhance the creels habitat. Not applicable. There is no creek associated with the subject property. JUN 2012 10 II-C-1f) Noise and Glare 1) Special attention to glare (AMC18.72.110) and noise (AMC9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these Standards. The proposed uses (restaurant, hotel and residential) will not generate noise beyond what is legally permitted or typically generated with such uses. The applicant is proposing wall mounted lights for the project. These lights will be directed down toward the sidewalk along Lithia Way, Will Dodge Way alley and pedestrian corridor on the side of the building in an attempt to provide a sense of security and increased comfort level to pedestrians. II-C-1g) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings 1) 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 the building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. This standard is not applicable as the site is currently vacant and used as a private parking lot. II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW: 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: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale 1) Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum floor area ratio. Not applicable as the site is within Downtown Historic District. 2) Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building facade. Not applicable as the front facade is less than 100 feet. However, the building does have distinctive changes in the building facade. The architecture incorpoTate~,a tidnr bet• of distinctive elements such as a recessed entrance, windows, ve~11eal j ilAters ' and horizontal bands. JUN 2 11 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 views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. The proposed building has its walls directly adjacent to the Lithia Way right-of-way consistent with the other buildings along the street. The submitted elevations show this standard is being complied with. 4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface of finish to give emphasis to entrances. As shown on the elevations, the applicant is providing a recessed entrance, change in material along the front fagade as well as surface material changes to give emphasis to the entrance and architectural interest to the building. 5) Infill of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. This project is exactly what this standard is attempting to do; replace unattractive surface parking lots with attractive buildings along the sidewalk that encourage pedestrian activity and mobility. 6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awning that protect pedestrian from the rain and sun. The proposed design incorporates two recessed entrances and three fixed horizontal canopies adjacent to the sidewalk that provides rain and sun protection to pedestrians. 11-C-2b) Streetscape 1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasserete, or combination of the above, The recessed entrances as well as the small sidewalk/cafe area along the front and side of the building will have a slightly different surface pattern and shade than what will exist with the new public sidewalk along Lithia Way in order to delineate property boundaries and "people" areas. However, as stated previously, a portion of the sidewalk, specifically the area directly adjacent to the front of the building, will be used for sidewalk dining during seasonal hours, 2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless ,JUN 2017 12 } f i the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. The proposed building is directly behind the public sidewalk along Lithia Way as encouraged with the Downtown Design Standards, Section VI-B 1. II-C-2c) Parking & On-site Circulation 1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 100 feet in average width or depth. 2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 3) Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the building. Not applicable as the project is proposing only seven parking spaces located directly behind the building and accessed off the existing public alley. II-C-2d Buffering and Screening 1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot, Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Not applicable as the proposed building will be occupied solely by tenants who have uses that are permitted or conditionally pennitted within the C-1-D zoning district. 2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross sheets and screened from residentially zoned land. The proposed parking is located directly behind the building and accessed off the existing public alley. All adjacent lands are zoned C- I -D. II-C-2e) Lighting Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrjahs'by ''I" A'1-'n light standards or placements of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways. JUN ?.W 13 E The applicant will provide wall mounted lights which will be placed no greater than 14 feet in height along Lithia Way, Will Dodge Way and the adjacent pedestrian corridor. All lighting will be down-lit to reduce light and glare onto adjacent properties and limit light pollution. II-C-2f) 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. The submitted elevations show a building fagade with changes in relief greater than 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. Bright or neon paint colors are not proposed as part of the building's exterior finish. The building does not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. II-E, STREET TREE STANDARDS: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section. 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 shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development. The application identifies three street trees along the Lithia Way frontage. The planting of the trees will include root barriers, staking and irrigation to ensure their survival. The proposed street trees have been chosen from the City's adopted Street Tree List. 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 follows: a) Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street J M 14 i frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. The proposed application includes three street trees along the Lithia Way frontage. Their placements were based on the placement of the existing trees in front of the two adjoining properties tree locations. The trees provide adequate separation and continuity along the Lithia Way streetscape. b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. Not applicable as the building is approximately 200' from the nearest intersections (Pioneer Street or First ,Street). c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. There is an existing street light approximately 6' from an existing street tree and no additional street lights are proposed. Such light is located directly in front of the pedestrian breezeway. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2i/ feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. All street trees to be planted will be at least 2%z feet from the face of curb. The street tree planting and grate style will be consistent with the other styles found along Lithia Way. e) Where there are overhead powerlines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. No overhead power lines exist on Lithia Way or are proposed with the development. The applicants' Landscape Architect has chosen trees from the City's Street Tree List that will grow and canopy over the subject sidewalk as desired and not interfere with adjacent buildings or automobile movements. .l) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or wallovay. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 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. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by permeable non permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks. All trees to be planted will have a tree grate around its perimeter that is at lea Ib nar 15 I feet and in no case will the tree's trunk be within two feet from any hard surface area. The tree grate will be similar with the material and design of existing tree grates found in the Downtown area. g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least S feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces, According to the project Arborist and Landscape Architect, the proposed street trees will comply with this standard. The trees have been chosen trees from the City's Street Tree List that will grow and canopy over the subject sidewalk as desired and not interfere with adjacent buildings or automobile movements. h) Existing trees may be used as sheet 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. Not applicable as the site's trees will- be removed. Regardless, the site's trees would be severely impacted by the proposed building in order to comply with the various Site Design & Use Standards and potentially cause damage to the proposed building and/or weaken the trees. II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees 1) 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. No street trees are proposed to be removed with this application, H-E-4) Recommended Street Trees 1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The project's Landscape Architect has chosen three street trees - a Zelkova Serrata, two Quercus Rubras from the Street Tree List. The trees chosen are appropriate to the urban environment of the area in species, size and canopy to other trees found along Lithia Way. VI DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS: VI-A) Height 1) Building height shall vary from adjacent builds, using either tepyll Jul 012 16 j parapets or slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" streetscape appearance. An exception to this standard would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical division/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent building. The proposed building's main body of mass is approximately 3' greater than the building to the north (Kendrick Building, 2006); but slightly lower than the building to the south (Jasmine Building, 2004). The difference in height provides the desired "stepped or staggered" transition of buildings found in the downtown area as requested by the Downtown Design Standards. 2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. The proposed building is three stories with commercial space on the ground floor, hotel space on the second floor and residential space on the third floor. 3) VI-B) Setback 1) Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line. Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard Except for the building's recessed entrances, the proposed building will sit directly adjacent to the expanded sidewalk along Lithia Way, 2) Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry" through design or use of materials. The proposed building incorporates three entry doors that will allow the building to recycle into other uses overtime and thus provide an important conservation element to the proposal. With this thought, two of the building's entrances are recessed with the entrance on the north side being the primary entrance to the proposed use and the entrance on the south primarily dedicated to indoor / outdoor activity related to the restaurant. The center doorway is intended to be flush with the buildings front facade, but with covered awnings. The design of the three entry doors is well balanced providing clear delineated entry points. 3) Recessed or projection balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. No balconies or other projections/recessed elements are located along the Lithia Way facade. The second and third floors for both the Lithia Way and Will Dodge Way alley, have full height doors that are operable, but do not break the plane of the building. This standard was originally intended to discourage balconies similar to building housing the Macaroni's Restaurant near the Plaza. Nevertheless, the design is intended 'to create a JUN 0 2012 17 i "sense of presence" for pedestrians and motorists along the two facades. VI-C) Width 1) The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line. An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access for pedestrian wallavays. The width of the building extends from side property line to side property line, except for the area where it abuts the existing pedestrian breezeway that traverses between the property and the adjacent property to the south. The breezeway area is also intended to be enhanced by the proposal in that its plaza space is intended to abut the adjacent property's plaza area creating a more comprehensive public space and inviting environment. Note: In the evening hours, the subject breezeway has limited lighting and possibly too much vegetation creating a sense of insecurity, but with the proposal to add the building and provide soft lighting fixtures, the breezeway's envirorm-lent should become more inviting and safer. 2) Lots greater than 80' in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporation a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. The building's design incorporates three vertical volumes that respect the traditional width of buildings found in the Downtown area and as described in Illustrations 5, 6 and 10 of the adopted Downtown Design Standards. The building is 95' in width with three equal volumes of 28' in width creating a balanced rhythmic division in the facade. VI-D) Openings 1) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportions of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the pattern found in the downtown area. The Lithia Way elevation has storefront windows similar in size to other storefront widows found in the Downtown. The proposed building provides transparent storefront windows and doors on the ground level facing Litliia Way. The store front windows provide pedestrians the opportunity to view products on display or other activities inside the building. This opportunity works vice versa allowing tenants of the building to share in the active street environment Ashland is attempting to create in the Downtown. 2) Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the original architectural character of the building._ Not applicable as the building is new. JUN 0 2012 3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). The second and third floor windows are frill-length doors providing a strong vertical presence and unique design characteristic. 4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building. The second and third floor doors only open "into" the building and thereby do not break the front plane of the building. 5) Ground level entry doors shall be primarily transparent. As evidence on the elevations, the building's ground level entrance doors will be primarily made of glass. The doors will be transparent allowing visibility into the building. 6) Windows and other, features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbelling shall be provided adjacent to the sidelvalk. Blank walls adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited. The proposed building provides transparent storefront windows and doors on the ground level facing Lithia Way. The store front windows provide pedestrians the opportunity to view products on display or other activities inside the building. As noted above, this opportunity works vice versa allowing tenants of the building to share in the active street environment Ashland is attempting to create in the Downtown. The elevation facing Lithia Way does not have blank walls adjacent to the sidewalk. VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms 1) Prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street 's street front shalt be maintained The proposed building has a traditional commercial storefront character without attempting to mimic any one building or architectural theme found in the Downtown area. The submitted elevations show a mixed-use building with prominent horizontal lines being retained between the subject building and its adjacent buildings. 2) A clear visual division sbail' be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. The proposed building elevation shows a clear visual division between the. ground floor and the upper floors. The division is created due to the horizontal elements,such as the contrasting base material, horizontal awnings, brick band and consistent window pattern. JUN 0 1. ?'W' i f. 1; 19 I 3) Buildings shall provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength'". The proposed building incorporates a "base" giving the building a "sense of strength". The material proposed for the base is intended to be stone distinguishing it from the building's predominately brick facade and columns, VI-F) Vertical Rhythms 1) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines. The elevation drawings show a mixed-use building with a prominent vertical line between the subject building and the adjacent buildings. The change in material, height and style creates an obvious distinction between the buildings which clearly depicts the location of the historic property lines. 2) Storefront remodeling or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. Not applicable as the proposed building is new. VI-G) Roof Forms 1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened for the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations. The elevation drawings show a parapet wall with a defined "cornice" consistent with other buildings found in the Downtown area, The building also includes a well defined parapet in the building's central bay as a unique architectural element that gives the building's horizontal mass a distinctive vertical element within a, very symmetrical facade. Trt the Architect's opinion, the parapet provides the building some individuality along the Lithia Way streetscape. VI-H) Materials 1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. All materials to be used are consistent with traditional building material's including brick, J a~ 20 i.]! 1 i current, stone, steel, plaster, aluminum and glass. 2) In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to created multiple surface levels. The proposed design incorporates multiple surface materials for added visual interest as well as framed bays, brick detailing, transom windows, storefront windows, etc. VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters 1) Awnings, marquee or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to tine building and shall not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. The proposed design incorporates horizontal awnings that are proportionate to the building and do not obscure the building's architectural details or windows. 2) Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between the pilasters. The proposed building does incorporate a fixed horizontal awnings (similar to a marquee) located between the building's pilasters so as not to obstruct their vertical plane. 3) Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's streetfront shall be maintained by their respective sidewalk coverings, The proposed design incorporated awnings that are at similar levels and are not overwhelming to the building's prominent horizontal features. VI-.n Other 1) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings should therefore be fairly simple, Le., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows. The rear or alley facing elevation of the proposed building is relatively simple compared to the Lithia Way facade. However, the facade still respects the fact that Will Dodge Way is used as a corridor for not only refuse pick-up and unloading of goods, but also for pedestrians taking "short-cuts" through the downtown area or to access rear apartments or nearby businesses. As such, the design incorporates second and third story rear balconies acid planter boxes that provide a more interesting facade and a "sense of security" to pedestrians. 2) Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or JUN 1 ?T12 21 ii j I adding building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices and, and other primary structural and decorative elements. Not applicable as the property is currently vacant. 3) Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. Not applicable as the property is currently vacant. 4) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to Design and Use Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards). An exception to this standard would be paths required for handicapped accessibility. The project does exactly what this standard is attempting to create; replace unattractive surface parking lots with attractive buildings along the sidewalk that encourage pedestrian activity, 5) Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. The proposed building has two recessed entry points and projecting awnings that provide shelter to pedestrians. In addition, the sidewalk area will be upgraded with a new and wider sidewalk and the existing curb-cut replaced to limit typical impediments and provide additional public street parking. b) Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. The proposal does not include any uses that are automotive in nature. The site's seven parking spaces are required as a stipulation of the use, but parking is not a prohibited use in the Downtown area. The subject spaces are placed behind the building and not visible from the primary corridor. VI-I-C) Exception to Standards: An exception to the Downtown Design Standard is not subject to the Variance requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and maybe granted with respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all the following circumstances are found: JUN . 2012 22 rj i t r 1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this Chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site; 2) There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this Standard or historical precedent; 3) The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. Not applicable. There are no requests for exceptions to the Downtown Design Standards. IV-C HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS In addition to the standards found in Section 11, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District. NOTE: The following standards appear to be "residential design standards" and not applicable to this mired-apse "connnercial" project. However, ill order to insure compliance and avoid procedural error, the applicants have submitted the following responses to the standards. 1) Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and across the street. Avoid construction that greatly varies in height (too high or too low) from older buildings in the vicinity. The subject building is similar in height as other three-story buildings found in the Downtown area. The proposed building does not vary in height too greatly beyond what currently exist and creates a staggered appearance as typically found in the Downtown. 2) Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. Avoid buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale of the area. The subject building has a similar proportion in height, width, and mass as other buildings found in the Downtown area and specifically along Lithia Way such as the new Jasmine or Kendrick Buildings, 3) Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most building from the historic period. Avoid single, monolithic fortes that are not relieved by variations in massing j2 v 23 „H i The proposed building design does not have large masses or monolithic box-like forms that have little to no relief. 4) Maintain the historic facade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic facade line. The Downtown Design Standards specifically request new buildings be built directly behind the sidewalk or at a "zero" setback in order to maintain a predominate front facade alignment as typically found in the Downtown area. 5) Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. Avoid introducing roof shapes, pitches, or materials not traditionally used in the area. The roof shape appears "flat" similar to the many other roof shapes found in the Downtown area. A short decorative parapet wall screens the roof and mechanical equipment and provides arelutectural relief and building identity. 6) Respect the alternation of the wall areas with door and window elements in the facade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the facade. Avoid introducing incompatible facade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings established by the surrounding structures. The building has been designed to be a "main street" type of building complying with the Downtown Design Standards. The design respects the window-to-height ratios found in the Downtown area; large square store front windows on the fist floor and tall vertical glass doors on the second and third floors. 7) The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristics of most of the older buildings in Ashland. Avoid bringing the walls of the building straight out of the ground without a sense of platform. The proposed building is designed with a heavier base giving the building a platform. The building's colunms rise out of the platform and not out of the ground. 8) Relate the vertical, horizontal or non-directional facade character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. Avoid horizontal or vertical facade expressions unless they are compatible with the character of structures in the immediate area. The directional expression of nearby buildings predominately face Litbia Way. The building has three entrances paralleling Litbia Fay creating a clear visual clue of where each entrance is. As previously stated, the building has been designed to recycle into different uses and different size interior spaces overtime which enhances the building's sustainability. 9) Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms. Avoid facades ivith no strong sense of entry. ,1 2017 24 ~i 3 3 The front entrance is well articulated in form so that it creates a strong sense of entry from Lithia Way. The entrance is recessed from the main body of the building and articulated by both a vertical and horizontal framed entrance. 10) Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For ne`v construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. Avoid replicating or imitating the styles, motifs, or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if well done, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical area. The design of the building is fitting to the "main street" street facade that has been slowly occurring along Lithia Way over the last 30 years and does not attempt to mimic any specific building or styles found in the Downtown. The applicants believe the proposed building is traditional in synnlictry, volume, rhythm and setting, but has certain contemporary elements that will reflect positively on the Lithia Way street facade. Unlike the front facade, the applicants have designed the buildings' alley facade to be more different in an attempt to distinguish it from the front - commonly done throughout the Downtown area. AMC 18.72.090 EXCEPTION TO DESIGN STANDARDS (plaza s ace 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards An exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 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 are requesting a "partial" exception, under AMC 18.72.090 criterion "B" (above), to the Site Design & Use Standards, Section II-C-3(b) where the zoning code requires buildings within the City's Detail Site Review Zone and when greater than 10,000 square feet in area, one square foot of plaza or open space to be provided for every 10 square feet of the project's gross floor area - less the area dedicated for parking that is within the building's footprint. In this case, the subject building area, less parking area within building footprint, is 13,800 square feet requiring a total of 1,380 square feet of plaza or open space. The application proposes 822 square feet (558 sq. ft. exception JUN . 2012 25 6. i I amount) of plaza space to be located along the front of the building's northeast corner and along the southeast side inhere it abuts with the plaza / breezeway extending from Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way. The applicants believe there is some demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirement for a "full" 10% plaza area without some understanding by the hearing authority and some reasonable interpretation of the codes. In the applications case, the new sidewalk standard within the Downtown area is 15' (Ord. #2959, 7/2008) - 10' of sidewalk area and 5' of tree grate area. The existing sidewalk is only 8' and no additional public right-of-way exists for it to be widened. As such, an additional 7' of the applicant's property will need to be improved and dedicated to the City by the applicants. This widened sidewalk area to be dedicated is roughly 730 square feet in area and when combined with the provide plaza space, exceeds the 10% requirement. Without the exception, the building would need to be either redesigned with a greater front or side setback which would severely alter the building's design, function, floor area and streetscape perspective as each one foot of "ground" floor plaza space is equal to three square feet of multi-story building space. Specifically, the front setback would be increased an additional 5' which would be counter to the Downtown Design Standards (VI-B) and would create an odd 12' void or exaggerated step-back from the existing building patterns along Lithia Way. In fact, this issue would create an odd visual and physical barrier as an additional 5' setback, in combination with the additional 7' of dedication, would create not only a 12' off-set from the current buildings along Lithia Way, but more importantly, it would create the appearance of a 5' wall protruding into the sidewalk as the Kendrick Building's setback is now only 15' from the face of the curb and the building would be 20'. In fact, because there is a combination of old and new buildings, old and new sidewalk standards and combined with a right-of-way curvature, the buildings along this block of Lithia Way appear "miss-matched" (best viewed going north on Lithia Way). Historically, buildings along curved rights-of-way do not "shift" as dramatically as seen here as they tend to have slight off-sets and minor adjustments not as perceptible as what is occurring and exaggerated due to other factors. But, because the sidewalk standards have increased over the last 12 years, from 8' to 12' to now 15', and three new buildings added during these different periods, this "miss-matched" alignment has been exasperated. In the applicants' opinion, an additional off-set for the fourth and final building would further exasperate this issue, especially when the functions desired from a typical plaza space are still being provided. In regards to potential increased side yard step back, the area necessary to dedicate the additional 558 square feet would likely eliminate 40% of the proposed units (2 residential and two hotel) as the building's depth is only 50 meaning at least 10 additional feet would be required to be removed and thus eliminate the units planned for the second and third floors. If this was proposed, the applicants would likely have to rethink the design JUN MZ 26' { and instead build two buildings each under 10,000 square feet (without plaza space) in order to accomplish a result that is financially feasible. Instead, the applicants desire a reasonable interpretation the area of the added sidewalk along Lithia Way can be considered as part of the applicant's plaza space calculations in order to meet the 10% requirement. Note: The irony with this particular issue is that if the application is approved without the exception request and the sidewalk is installed and dedicated to the City by the property owners, the owners would then have to pay the necessary fees to the City to use that "same" portion of sidewalk for sidewalk dining under Ordinance #2881 (sidewalk cafes, 4/02/2002), but cannot consider it in their plaza space even though it meet all of the necessary standards? AMC 18.104.050 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA (Hotel Use) 15.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. In addition to the first floor restaurant and third floor condominiums, the proposal includes five hotel units on the second floor requiring Conditional Use Permit approval. Although usually a benign type of use in Ashland, hotels / motels and traveler accommodation units in Ashland are all subject to a Conditional Use Permit due to the location or nature of the business which could possibly generate unforeseen issues such as noises that go beyond typical nuisance laws. Under a Conditional Use Permit, an applicant's permit could be revolted under certain conditions and procedures which the applicants believe has not occurred since inception of the code. Nevertheless, the applicants believe the proposed five-unit hotel will be in conformance with all standards within the C-1-1) zoning district and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. The proposed hotel is within the core area of the downtown and approximately 200' from the nearest residentially zoned parcel. The use is likely to be no more noticeable than the third floor condominium units which are permitted in the C-1-D zone out-right. The use is in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is located, and in conformance with all relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by City, State, and Federal law or programs. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate 27 transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. The subject property has adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation facilities to serve the proposed use. All utilities associated with the development of this property will either be directed towards Lithia Way or via the alley. The applicants have worked with the various utility companies to ensure both existing and proposed utilities are available to provide the necessary services. At no time has there been any indication by these service providers that services will be unavailable or exceed capacity. An Electric Utility Plan is to be developed in consultation with the City's Electric Department, Dave Tygerson, to ensure not only capacities can be accoimnodated, but to also minimize aesthetic impact to the proposed building. All electrical services will be provided from the rear alley area where the transformers now exist. All electrical work will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Electric and Building Departments. A -traffic analysis was provided by Kim Parducci, Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC, to determine the vehicle trips generated by the proposal would not cause any capacity or operational issues (attached). Further, all improvements within the adjacent rights-of-way, including construction detouring, will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Engineering Department and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Applicants have addressed or will address at the time of the building permit all code issues relating to the Ashland Fire Department, including an FDC valve along the front of the building, A fire hydrant is within 150' of the property boundary (directly in.front of the adjacent property) with adequate pressure to service the building. All work will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Building and/or Fire Departments. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, In the applicant's opinion, the proposed hotel use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area (C-1-D zone) when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. In this case, the use would compare its dedicated floor area (5,092 sq. ft.) to a those items listed under 18.32.020 B: Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional slopping center or element of such center, such as a major department store. The applicants contend the proposal would be more closely similar to the five "permitted" residential uses on the third floor which generate little noise, trip generation or demand on services when compared to a typical major department store which of similar size would generate 15 parking spaces (AMC 18.92.030 B3.) vs. the proposed seven parking spaces (six required). Further, according to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 8t1' Edition, a similar size department store would generate .835 daily vehicle trips vs. the 41 trips associated with a five unit hotel. Overall, it is the applicant's opinion N 0~~ ~ 1? 28 the proposed use is really a positive element in the Downtown area that has limited impact on essential services and at the same time provides needed accommodations to visitors that support local businesses and help maintain an active urban street environment. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulls, and coverage. The proposal is similar in scale, bulk and coverage to surrounding buildings found in the Downtown urban core as evidenced in the attached photos. The proposal addresses all of the required Downtown Design Standards which essentially attempts to address compatibility of scale, bulk and in some instances building coverage. The application complies with this standard. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. As previously stated above, the proposed hotel units would generate approximately 41 vehicle trips in a typical day which is significantly less when compared to the zone's designated target use (department store). Further, because the location of the hotel is located within Ashland's urban core which includes pedestrian amenities and essential services within close walking distance, the average daily trips (ADT) are likely to be significantly less than 41 due to the fact that visitors to Ashland generally complete most of their local trips on foot while trips associated with regional excursions (Crater Lake, local wineries, Mt. Ashland, etc.) are generally limited to only a few vehicle trips due to their distance or typical activities times. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. The applicant's have attempted to identify the area's design characteristics as they relate to new development in the Ashland Downtown Historic District by closely following the Downtown Design Standards and to design a building so that its architecture is contextually compatible with other buildings found in the downtown area, but not to the degree that it mimics a specific building or architectural period. In the end, the proposed building has a strong sense of pedestrian orientation with plenty of ground level glazing to offer pedestrians a glimpse of the indoor activities. The building's north and east facing fagades (visible from Lithia Way) are brick with a cast stone base. The doors and windows are wood clad for a more authentic and traditional character. The building's mass is roughly 42' in height from the Lithia Way frontage, but its overall height by definition is slightly under 40' (as measured from mid-point of each wall's finished grade). However, as permitted in the C-1-D zone, the code allows up to SS' with a r 201 29 Conditional Use Permit which is primarily necessary in order to incorporate the building's decorative parapet which the architect believes is a distinguishing architectural feature and helps provide a "non-unified" and more natural rhythm of building heights as desired by VI-A Height, of the Downtown Design Standards, The design approach specifically to the Lithia Way elevation was to respect the scale and proportions of historic buildings in downtown Ashland vdi le incorporating modern materials and details, The design acknowledges historic traditions while offering a contemporary interpretation that is compatible within the historic district. The elevation builds on a strategy of expressing a basic post and lintel construction while providing a variety of recessed and projecting areas to create surface relief and visual interest. Window areas are proportioned vertically and are kept to less than 50% of the total surface area. The ground floor windows are a larger area to reinforce their commercial nature. Overall, the applicants, local Planner and Architects believe the proposed building is well designed and fits perfectly into the Lithia Way streetscape that has been slowly transforming from an auto dominated environment to a multi-modal environment. Although still in process, this slow transformation, with both public investment (Fire Station #1) and private investment (Jasmine Building, Kendrick Building, Tlinity Church open space, etc.) illustrates how Litlua Way is progressing with only a few key lots remaining (Elks, First Place, City Parking Lot, Wells Fargo). The Will Dodge Way elevation is a simplified elevation due to its orientation along the alley, but its design remains respectful to this multi-modal corridor. The side elevation facing the open pedestrian corridor will be in brick to match the front fagade, The side of the building has an enclosed fire stairwell and a couple of matching windows that help minimize the walls non-descript appearance. In general, this wall has very limited visibility, but it does retain some basic design elements that merit consideration for its location, 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. The proposed conditional use permit will not have any discernable increases of environmental impacts including those related to air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The proposals will not have any discernable increases of noise, light and glare, b. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed conditional use permit will not have any material effects on the adjoining properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is zoned commercial (C-1-D) allowing a variety of uses that would be much more impacting, but still in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and its various elements and JUN 0 30 { policies. Overall, the proposed five-unit hotel has a limited impact when compared to the zones target use (department store) and instead is similar to a more benign and beneficial use such as the third floor's five residential housing units. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The applicants are not aware of any other factors that may be found to be relevant by the hearing authority, but if there are factors found to be relevant, the applicants would like the opportunity to clarify and answer questions of the hearing authority prior to a final decision. AMC 18104.050 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA (Height of Building) 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. Buildings within the Downtown are permitted to exceed 40' in height, up to 55', with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposal is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 40' height regulation, but not for the building's mass or heated floor area, but instead for an architectural element (parapet) the project Architects and owners contend gives the building identity and uniqueness along the Lithia Way street frontage. The subject parapet is approximately 6' in height. The applicants are aware the hearing authority has the ability to impose conditions to in order to make the height conform and remove the parapet from the design, but the applicants not only contend the building's design is enhanced with it and that because Lithia Way's most recent developments are starting to become a little too similar and pattern specific, the parapet helps contradict the pattern and create a whimsical element that is often seen in other blocks of the Downtown (Alex's projecting balcony, the Ashland Spring's Hotel height differential, the Claycomb Building's lengthy horizontal mass, etc.), Overall, the applicant's believe the C-1-D's height restriction of 40' was intended to be occasionally increased for the reasons as described. In doing so, the streetscapes remain unique or natural and less monolithic or too planned. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, server, paved access to and JUN 1 2012 31 f , through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, anti adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property, Not applicable as the proposed parapet has no associated impacts with City services or infrastructure. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. Not applicable as the proposed parapet has no associated impacts with the, above criterion. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use otx the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. The proposal is similar in scale, bulk and coverage to surrounding buildings found in the Downtown urban core as evidenced in the attached photos. The proposal addresses all of the required Downtown Design Standards which essentially attempts to address compatibility of scale, bulk and in some instances building coverage. The application to include an approximate six foot parapet to provide architectural interest to the Lithia Way streetscape complies with this standard. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Not applicable as the proposed parapet has no associated impacts with transportation related matters. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. As stated, the building's mass is roughly 42' in height fi•orn. the Lithia Way frontage, but its overall height by definition is slightly under 40' (as measured fioxn mid-point of each wall's finished grade and without subject parapet). However, as permitted in the C-1-1) zone, the code allows up to 55' with a Conditional Use Pennit which is primarily necessary in order to incorporate the building's decorative parapet which the architect believes is a I distinguishing architectural feature and helps provide a "non-unified" and more natural rhythm of building heights' as desired by VI-A Height, of the Downtown Design Standards. 1 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Not applicable as the proposed parapet has no associated impacts with air quality related JUN ~ X017 32 ; matters. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. Not applicable as the proposed parapet has no associated impacts with noise, light or glare related matters. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed conditional use permit to exceed the zone's 40' height limitation with an parapet intended to architecturally enhance the fagade and provide for a more natural rhytlnu to the Lithia Way streetscape will not have any material effects on the adjoining properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The applicants are not aware of any other factors that may be found to be relevant by the hearing authority, but if there are factors found to be relevant, the applicants would like the opportunity to clarify and answer questions of the hearing authority prior to a final decision. AMC 18.61.080 CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. 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 The trees are to be removed in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, mainly those listed under the Site Design and Use Standards. Nevertheless, the site's trees were evaluated for their retention by both the project Architect and Arborist, but due to the general nature of construction, close proximity and the intent of the City's Downtovoi Design Standards to provide "main street" street facades, similar to those found within the Plaza, the trees are proposed to be removed, but mitigated if required with off site planting per 18,61.084 B. JUN 0 201? 33 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 The removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on the site's erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks as the property will be built upon and landscaped with vegetation that is comprehensively designed as part of the building, 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 removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies and species within 200 feet of the property as they are not natural trees and were planted as parking lot shade trees. 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 malting 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. In the applicants opinion and based on the City's various development standards, there is no reasonable alternative that exists to retain the subject trees and allow the property to be used as permitted in the C-1-1) zone, The trees are parking lot trees and were f specifically planted for that purpose. Nevertheless, the applicants are aware of the above condition (#4) and are willing to mitigate through a condition of approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. i i JUN 0 J 2012 34 , fourly-um 112 Monterey Drive - Medford, Or. 97504 - Office 541.648.9823 - Cell 541.949.4148 - Eniail: Kwkpl@Q.eorn May 30, 2012 Mark Knox, Planner Urban Development Services 485 W Nevada St. Ashland, Oregon 97504 RE: Traffic Letter for `The Vine' Hotel and Condominium Development Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a trip generation analysis for a proposed 13,800 square foot (SF) 3-story commercial building, referred to as `The Vine', in downtown Ashland, Oregon. The development is proposed to include a hotel on the first and second levels and condominiums on the third level, The development building front will face Lithia Way to the north and take vehicular access from Will Dodge Way in the back to the south. Pedestrian access will be from Lithia Way or through a midblock pedestrian access to the east. Refer to the attached site plan f:or further reference. A traffic analysis is required by the City of Ashland to evaluate traffic impacts to the transportation system, proposed land use actions, new development, and/or redevelopment accessing a State higliway/boulevard, directly or indirectly (via collector or local streets), are required to provide a traffic impact study if it is shown that any of the following thresholds are exceeded. 1. Trip Generation Threshold: 50 newly generated vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the adjacent slrect peak hour, 2. Mitigation Threshold: Installation of any traffic control device and/or construction of any geometric improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting the highway. 3. Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation Threshold: 20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the day. Trip generation calculations for the proposed hotel and condominium development were prepared utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 7i•ip Generation, 8"' Edition. Rates were used for land use code 232 - High-Rise Residential Condominhirn/Townliouse. and 310 - H High . Hotel. rise condominiums are defined as units located in buildings that have three or more levels (floors). Hotels are defined as a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants; cocktail lounges; meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities; limited recreational facilities; and/or other retail and service shops. For purposes of this report, all trips generated for the proposed hotel and condominium uses are considered new vehicular- trips. It is noted, however, that the number of vehicular trips for this development will likely be less than estimated based on the development location (downtown in the central business district) and mix of uses within 3 the building. These conditions tend to attract a higher percentage of pedestrian trips, Refer to Table 1 for a summary of vehicular trip generations. Refer to the attachments for ITE sheets. Table I -The Vine Development Trip Generations Land Description Unit Size ADT AM Pealtllour Pill PeRI(Hour Use Total (111) (but) Total (hr) (0110 310 'I'sle Vine Roonis 5 d 1 3 2 1 3 2 l 1lotel 232- I111D Ville Dwelling 5 21 2 0 2 2 1 1 Condos Units 't'otal 62 5 2111 3 Ont 5 3 In 20111 Analysis Results 1. The proposed development is estimated to generate S trips during both the a.rn. and p.m. peak hours, which is well below the trip generation threshold for a traffic impact study. 2. There is neither a plan to install a new traffic control device as a result of this development nor make airy geometric improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting the highway, 3. The proposed development is estimated to generate 62 average daily trips (ADT) to the transportation system. Of the new daily trips, one heavy vehicular trip per day is estimated for deliveries, which is well below the heavy vehicle threshold that would require a traffic impact study. Conelusions Based on the traffic findings, it is concluded that none of the thresholds that would require a traffic impact study for (lie City of Ashland are shown to be met. The proposed hotel and condominium development can be approved without creating adverse impacts to [lie downtown transportation system. 'JUN 0 Please let nee know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Sincerely, 109 PROfiF Kimberly Parducei, PE PTOE w 6320OPE tttrr~r-r rtr trr rift n..rr►rtr~rl„ratrr~rrr -rrUrrr.~arrrr~, R~~ (ryJ-. OREGON OD Cc: Client FRj Y ?N Attachments: Site Plan; ITE Trip Generation sheets R1 nit ws; 1:2 .tt. Irfit, s"ta t fill"r !;'vor}: i rrlstc. 9_d ( IMay 30, 2012 IThe Vine jrip Generation Lefler Analysis 12 Land Use: 232 High-Rise Residential Cond® in!u 1 T ownho se Description High-rise residential condominiums/townhouses are units located in buildings that have three or more levels (floors). Both condominiums and townhouses are included in this land use. Residential condom iniumltownhouse (Land Use 230), low-rise residential condominium/ townhouse (Land Use 231) and luxury condominium/townhouse (Land Use 233) are related uses, Additional Data The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. The sites were surveyed in the 1980s and the 1990s in the metropolitan areas of Richmond, Virginia; Washington, DC; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Vancouver, Canada. Source Numbers 168, 237, 305, 306, 390 r 1 - i i i Trip Generation, 8th Edition 420 Institute of Transportation Engineers High-Rise Residents Condominium/Tow house (232) Average Vehicle'Trip Ends vs, Dwelling Units On a. Weekday Number of Studies: 4 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 543 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Bate Range of Bates Standard Deviation 4.18 3.91 - 4.33 2.08 P, Data Plot and Equation Caution - Use Carefuuy - Small Sample 1317e 7,000 T- 6,000 ; , 6,000 4,000 .3 j 3,000 : 2,000 . { 1,000 . 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Pitied calve Average Rate 20 Fitted Curve Equation: T ® 3.77(X) + 223.66 R2 ~ I.00 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 421 Institute of Transportation Engineers igh- dose ResWent'W C Colo anigulmirro nhousc, (232) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units ®n a: Weekday, Peaft Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between I anal 9 ami. Number of Studies: 4 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 543 Directional Distribution: 19% entering, 81 % exiting 'd'rip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Hates Standard Deviation 0.34 0.31 0.4£3 0.58 Data Plot and Equation ~ Caution - use carefutiy- Small sample wxe 60o - 400 r,~/. h 300 - 1 - ' , _ , - 2©0 x ; : too : 100 200 300 400 800 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 X Number of Dweiiing Units X Actual Rata points 171ited Curve ` Average Hate Fitted Curve Equation: T` m 0.29(X) + 28.8E iT2 d O.fit3 Trio Generation, 8th Edition 422 °l: i "tn ifft}te of Transportation Engineers High-Rise Resoodan W Condom in aurin/Town house (232) Average Vehicle Trip )tends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street `traffic, One Dour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 5 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 444 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Hate Range of Rates _ Standard Deviation 0.38 0.34 - 0.49 0.62 a Data Plot and Equation Cautlnn - Use Carefully - Sinall Sample Size 1300 500 c 400 . , ui 300 i 200 ' . • itl0 . -'X 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1340 1400 1600 X*-- Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve AveraOe Rate Fitted Curve Equatlow T e 0.34(x) + 15,47 R2 M 0.gg Trip Generallon, 81h Edltloo 423 institute of Transportation Engineers - ® - - - - - - Viand Use o 31 0 HOW Hotels are places of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants; cocktail lounges; meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities; limited recreational facilities (pool, fitness room); and/or other retail and service shops. Same of the sites Included in this land use category are actually largo motels providing the hotel facilities noted above. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320) and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses. Additional Wa Studies of hotel employment density indicate that, on the average, a hotel will employ 0.9 employees per room.' Thirty studies provided information on occupancy rates at the time the studies were conducted. The average occupancy rate for these studies was approximately 83 percent. The hotels surveyed were primarily located outside central business districts in suburban areas. The sites wore surveyed between the late 1960s and the 2000s throughout the United States, For all lodging uses, it is itnportarrt to colloct data or) raccupled roorns as well as total rooms in ardor to accurately predict trip genoratiora characteristies for the site. Source hlumbe s 4, 5, 12, 13, -18, 55, 72, 170, 187, 254, 260, 262, 277, 280, 301, 306, 357, 427, 436, 507, 577 r I s Buttko, Carl 11. Unpublished studies of building employment densities, Portland, Oregon. UN i) 1 2012 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 570 institute of -transportation Engineers Rote (3 1 d) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Rooms: 476 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Tripp Generation per Room Average Rate Flange of Rates Standard Deviation 8.17 3.47 ~ 9.58 3,38 Data Plat and Equation 18.000 : X 17,000 . _ . . 16,000 . . ; . 16,000 14,000 13,000 , _ ; 12,000 / X - - . - F- 10,000- 9,000 . Jl. 6,000 . : • . . 7.000 t4 6,000 - l ; ; ' - 4,000 r _ . . 3,000 2,400 X J 1,000 ; . . . . 100 200 300 400 600 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MOD 1600 1700 1800 1900 X =Number of Rooms X Actual Data points Fitted Curvo Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation, T = 8.35(X) - 373.16 t l12 ~ 0.90 Trip Generation, 8th Edition 580 JUN 0 i stiW2o' t Transportation Engineers HaW (31 Q) Average Vehicle 'rip Ends Vs: Roams On a: Weekday, Peale Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Metween 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 20 Average Number of rooms: 240 Directional Distribution: 61% entering, 39% exiting Trip Generation per room Average Hate Flange of Rates standard Deviation 0,56 0,20 - 1,03 0.78 Data Plot and Equation 500 - T _ x 400 X Lit ~ F 30D U nr 200 / Q Y X. ' XX X i00 X..-...-. X X -X~ r x X X ; 01 100 200 300 400 600 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Date Pelnts Fitted Curve Average Rate A N Fitted Carve Equation: Ln(T) -1,24 Ln(X) - 2.00 R2 a 0,75 Trip Generation, 8th Editlon 581 Institute of Transportation Engineers HOW (314) Average Vehicle Trip End& vs. Rooms On a. Weekday, Peale Hour of Adjacent Street `traffic, One Hour Mefween 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 25 Average Number of Rooms: 224 Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 47% exiting 'drip Generation per Room Average Bate Range of Rates Standard Deviation - 0.59 021 - 1.03 0.80 Data Plot and Equation x : ADO- . ttr CL F 3D0 X x x 200 ;x- .x...........!.... . X: 7 : : x 100 r..X..= x x ; lx JX X x X X 0 100 200 300 400 600 X = Number of Rooms X Actual Data NoInts Average Rate Fitted Curve Equallon: Not given rrlp Gonvratron, 8th Edition 592 ihsiltute of Transportation Engineers i 1 J r' i~ t f k- ~ INFORVATION TECHNOLOGY i A T' i24 00 Map Maker Application < ° r ~ r , property Data Online L*gond ~ : ~~1 ~ 1~~} ~ f - Hlghtlghted Feature 14~ t Tax Lot Outlines r f ° Tax Lot Murilbets ~t 1 f/j- 14 Buildings } ~ itFt{I{F ~r I IWO Y 14 1.,£ t F~if~~ J~ •f '0.^`• 've F /I tVV - L * :7RtdIFVLl $rF X12-0 1{7yi } r ~ I e tir. i i J it • N C 142U4} 110. +x ie, 94 0 0 3m 7GO '>"`~~~11d} i` X4111 10 ell r . 2(11 444141 J , \ 43414) 0 'JUN 44141 too JACKSON COUNTY HINA"D t> > e g o fl ti ` ~3 dN1 5301 y}r~ ~ ~ Ths map is tried Ort adg tat data6asg i41 I J i 4llf . t•11,,~~ ~ _ '~I'irM1f _ rJ oomp,ted by Jackson Co Oy From a Weiy f !ry r I' ~ ~ J ~fi ~ } ,¢y( ofaa,=ces. Jackson COmnontacaopt J66}, ~?rylll Bp05'b;ytat CrrarS. 01R : 5 sie6Aa5.OF S"},y`rF s e't,'! Y~ ~~.?'ll {ryt ~i t} 43.2{141 pos:xoOl aocUmcy. Theraare no ~1 VV VV }j}} LJ v,art tes. oxX sled or imp':ed. P:iase ree,2le cakted Oka roper Created cn'~.th Nap.'.'aker lJap ueated on WWM22.38'.42 PM us:ngveb.jadesoncovniy.org t5',h gar'.. i 117 ` tp I \ N O The Vine Hotel ®160 Lithia Way + fY S~. c-2 7l t]j1f . } Y , i r 3 i t y w fy W!'17 ay 7 t 1 w. }f fr S} tai ~ f.= e, a 1 i E - - t r p a ~ y 4 .^,1' !~'~i ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ 'i.+a• rb', ~''a`^ e~ 1F F . t n e r II t t i 1 ~ i 1.' Irr 1 i I i _ 3 f JUN ?Oil CRY of 'A' 8 -1 i ` i l I t /'t r 31v - . . I N c a b I ~ I', Of= = r - J' r I i - r- ~ L -r z ' _ I LT`S _r_ - - ?r i y37'~i.i mFrr~yy f il3 t rl y yy 1 i. ~ r 5 f ~ •:5F MIT fi,X f 1~ : Y 3 I A 2. ~ 1 'kj J1 ~ t Y t - 1 Neighboring Building to the South (Jasmine Building) Sidewalk along Lithia to be replaced j 2012 ~ d an +I ro ~ f. r, f 416 - t S~ r Building to north (Kendrick Building) 99 F ` i - I a i _ , r ~ ~ Irk ~ s ~ ~p a _ 7 ~f ON- Will Dodge Way (adjacent alley) JUN 2,01. an i'', I E Public pedestrian path between buildings (to remain). >r1 ~ . Y {f f sy~~' fypq P , r ?F dy~f f ~ 41, L k lk Zr 5 ~ r~li,t. V i 4r~t 44 a E Ufi k~': ~ _ _ 'Z1 l d ~_~Z P~ 6 •:t ~tpf l1~ r\ _ s s+, fj MW I. Pill, Site's existing electrical transformers and utilities adjacent to rear alley (to remain behind proposed builci)ng) + ,JUN .l,,v zr 'rr Sri :1 3 JT~ ~ 5 f AST, to - ~ ~ JFY i '~k a = r t P _ ~ J 1 r~ I[ i. I N v ~1 N y y ~ y 4 14 I = I 7 ~ { y J+ gl- fit. 7' Q SFT,p` - I I' I Tn9' 1. I i ]Y3jJif F 1 s. 7 f # i IL ~ s~ F [fig L l :y~ y 1 5 10A 7 e x y w r ~ /s~ r a I ~sI I - 1 I t ~ ~ 4 - ,1.7 ~ 3~ 1 - r r P I f ? -r ~y P.. 7F 4 t'Y~r h Y I I i yea L~_-h. rf 9 E N N F~r~yf I ikiw s i a { . 44, k- f ~ { i + I _ aT ti ~M1 11 N 'N 1 445+ _ ~ { C J CD~ Q ~r I { - ~CA ~ ~ rl E 1 FJr \ y I tr ~ 4,; 1 l 5 [112,: f 3 r. 'k k~ w e t` L, I cN E E , ^ ~ T+ I 4 t s [u r' T fi 1 3 f _ p { ^j 5t" p. S~f 4 q ors P l _ ✓ - ,R k ~ti c ~r k r- h~ o~. nv ' ~ w j ter' ~ ~.f ~ ~ ~J 7.;35 • ~P ti ~ 5 ~y ~y a r "So 4' x r ti ,$I ~ r I . ti y~a~ YJ ~ j F +3 f 1 I p ~ d r11 i 1 i i Ili 4 - Y t, r ! na® rrt ( f t I ! a f W y' I o ~F 1 l 'V ~I - ill ~ V 1 f~~ 1lA J ~ ~ rf V \ Y~ ~ - ( t flf pf ~ N 'f YYyyr~'~ ' 'I Ile, 1 h V I , I i t , t y k r. ' N rc N g , u ¢ uo6arp 'puelysy '!em e!4 3!l 09L y Z =Y 'u k auw1 uoid +g 6noo o a S mffo S30N341S3ZJ 8 1310H `llV13b w 3 N I A 3H1 a„ ~'I I I' II I ~ 2 I~ ❑ a m ❑ O ~ _ 0 0 CJ . \ \ I W.~Y III I l~...\ [ L m 1 r I ~,.w I€ I ~ I =J ~~1~ L i i 0 ~ I ~ ` IIII 1 I ~ I o I I • I I 1 o i Imo. ~ ~ Q~~I .I tfo- ~ ~ m; , , - _ \ i r L_ ~ 1 ~ ~ • 9 M.6Z.0£CCS I 1 ~11 I! I s'C. am r ~o'e 1 1 Z o z 65 aka w a = w a ~~zm <C < o g-'`-'- =a U >a~ °sa o ~°az °❑o w rc~ ~•KS w o°d w°'oo ~M w° a a o°~o W go a xwo Z Po w ° aww <o- o" ¢ x~S~n rc ,~so Z °oo r Kg~ iC❑ i°~ g~oa LLKa i o swLL~~ o Loa g"~ Q w W ~~5 Z ,o oc`ewa °da cNo °zLL°a a Fwd o°Syttp CL Utz O ° m _s a h w w¢ u066J0'puelysy'/eMe!Ul!-l09L a ?vLLgos >k au!njluo!pS 6n0p z, K w o Jz Nam w~' S30N341S32i '8 1310H `lldl32i ~g a 3 N I A 3H1 ~ III I I k ~ II z I I II 1 Q o I I a I I ° III I ° d w I I t I I I I -4 I ui I ,O6'G9 3 •SI,OLY. N I I ~Q '-'-rv z ® - I II M xo Ko Z \ \ I I 4 G o ! u , `/I 1 m\ Ilm I N r 1 m\ i I II i I I ss o I \1 I I I I I I 1 ~ I I /lll~,. I I E ~1 11 I \~u~J` I~ 1 I 1 Imm ~ G m ire 11 cowl ° ❑ 1tl-'lf I p.l'm 1 I < I <Nw ~ I I 1 1 ~n 1 ~o 11 lobo I I I ~ I ¶~<al 1 l I I I I~o~ I II I 1 \ m ~ I I I / 111 1 Q yr - I I I, i II ~ ` 1 .I I h I 1u ~,I ~osl I. II ~ I I 'I 1 I \ \ 11 ~I J I o E N ~ \1,!~ I ~I11 i~ `~\'n ml WI I I I S> I Im I 11 \~~~I 1 r~1 + II ~ 1 3 ~ m l~l N ~ \ I d~ I I III ~ \~I 1 1\, I ~ ~ I wpw ~ " I \ I ON I ~ ® I \ ~ \ J \ V I ~ I >v F I I I I I M I Y 'I i; gW8 I I U I I I I °I 1 I I I ~ ~I 1 II I O~ p uo6810 'Pue14sb 'ReM ei °s w¢ 4x.1094 awnfl uoi0+g 6no0 ° ZZ a °os ski S~~N~aIS32i V 1~110H `1Ib1~2i wa El NIA 3H1 11 1 'I~,1 II ~I~ I 11 I z 4 4 r I li~1' I Q ~g w U) d't'`- I ~`P q3 1 d1 iI I ! f t o \ I ~uu 4, I I I I m II Inl' i > ,g a m I I, I r Ohl ~ 11 ~qq ~ II IN \ ~ I ~ I I I 1~ 1 Q~~ ~ I ~II I l II ~1 ~ vl I I II I I f ~ ~ ~3'£ 11 I ' I I S: - ~'1 I I I III I, I ! 1 ` l III II < ( p 1~ ~I~ I I I 09 Ell rh rat I, I I~ l , a ~I 1 r I~ i I 1 r --"o, X1,1 I'I,11 I u I~I,1, 1 I'I 1 I ~J o a wg wQ uo6e10'puelysy 'leMellill09L o - aul gg.°ow m wm' S3ON~®IS~~I '8 310H `IIVI3i1 -1 rc-88 a - El N I A 3 H I I i w~~ I ado ~I I ,I Iv. 2 ` I t .06'£9 3.Bl.OL9C N I-----'"'-- u s n O LLI i ICI ~Y~ Pry, \il\\ \I\\ II Nx,~\ i I In I I w z z I r"v. 00 ~ 1111 r J W O 8 Z ~ 00000 '~r;~ OLSL6 N09321O 'ONV1HSV ? q LOZ 3IMS'OVO~ 3O13liSl Vq OOL NOOR3 o 'ON'IIHSy ONE S1J31IHDNV 3dVJSONVI S31VD0SSV ONV AtlM tll Hlll ^1 S37N3OIS3~' 4'1310WIIV-9a 3NIA 3H1 _ a3~vs alanv~ vl~l~~ c` ~ ~ J \ $55 I \ ~I 5 I I ~ III z I I \ d`~m ° u ~ IIM1 ~II I w= I ~ o e ly ~~o z I I~ s I ;o_ ~W X51 0 o; 0 11 U4 rW q p ~a Sao -l ~ a w„m N ~w ~p~ ~ e3 €aw~ ~ 1 a°°o -I~ ~s F ~ w ° ^o o Waar J~a._°N° by w ozSLb NoE)no 'ONVIHSV LJ: o q LOL UMS 'OVOb 30131151 W OOL x YC y:_ ~ 9v - mNunO 'aNrIHS d a tl[Hill ONE S10311H08b' 3dVJSONVj S3IVIOOSSV ONV ^ _ ~ - oh o- "M I' o S3ON301S3N T'1310H '11tl13a 3NI^ 3H-_ S r- i13EJVS31N(ltl]Ji~ L icy _ n Z S O I ~ sxm s -PQ P ~aaa eo ~ o U, I ~ 'V F 5 ~~~u 3 ~ R i o SW W o QRpk 2i 2i w~a T\ .x 1 +30 o >S5 LL awl w < uoBaio'puelgsv 'AeM e143!1 o96 0 2s° ~G= au!niI uo!ag6noa o oZ g ~~w $a~~ m u_g S33N3(1IS3N 'R -IA10H `llb1321 ~d 3 N I A 3H1 a= I U ~ - ° _ I I o-e. \ ~ ~ III o I F, I I w w I U) kr 7 I ~ad ~ ~ ~I li a~ ' I Y y ° 1 zo ~ ~x - C] - 1 j Cl) r i I ~m o aw uy wV^wuvw Inv~IVUOAV4Wlw wm,ww„yw41F*~PNOtl~wpo,IUU~o,4~'uu,nupVr,upnni o4 o~~eu v, euv avViu:vugl~y+-uu~u-4~n rio pweu 4~~ ewu~i iwuuuou.w, vgauy poi~~+«L-~. nuw~w wu v. x~pw ,wv.iuoyg4l uo69jO'Pue14sd '%eM e4 o _ i1.i1 096 w a ¢ z°~ $ >~z aulnJ uoi Eno °z A~w s w~ a omy0~ -S S3ON3aIS32~ 8 -1310H `lIH1.3Z1 og \ - zl n`-o-p y V at w ~ II ~ a z v I °x U a 'a , i 1 J N t, I tr a I O 7- ILL, u N tr - I , e - I I` .r -IT 3 i a I - _ E: 11 F-1 Y IL JLJ O 1, - f I! i - ? o i- \ 1 ` I'1 unuupyvuu,iy I. ++niYl ,t 4WIw mtw W,twalx+to~vL W+o N+u.q yuaµm py Wu Wttw,, CUexpuilu. tlw In uw.+uGuMloAypLaa y,, uo,uw., Ye+o4,otuo ~v iwa+u,ww pou,+ai+mu, w.uup puu .uup, ay, pw+w~~~ronn ~,yy r ya wa uo6a'p'puelU `AeMe!U3!1096 0 z o Z a S G. au!nll uoip 5nocl S3ON341S321 'R -1310H 'lldl3~l °a 3 N I A 3 H 1 a w ~ 4 4 4 a I i I J C, 1 'I \ r~~ ~ I III w w i - n- I I , N i 11 > it ~I \ \ 7 ~ a c uoB@10Pue14sd 'ABM el41I o i 'JJ~ ~~~'o w~ w¢ .109E y ~ - z LL w~ c auwl uold g 6no0 h z ° x o` s W=_ S'~ION~I®ISB?d Q 1DlOH `-Ilb'13?J &g - 3 N I A A H 1 aw I ~ 0 I ~ U I\~I~\. ~ \ I'll W U ¢ Z U I I I ~~~aa 2 U ~ I ❑J000 _I I Z - I -J -i ,_I ! ~(I II ~`I a- E2 °o s I I co I _ ~ ~ I IIII I I I , i l x I y, I - m~-II~ its I I I l C, ~ ~I 11 ll, I v 9_ I L~ "IMP ,17 LL -,i Ll" V ~ ----III 11,1 e ~ ( I ~I l,l I I I j I I~, o~rm p4wv t4 +Ilvua 0+l louopurvuy,nu uvpwa~Iro4lw pWmtl+~yp SUll+0l Vuawnup4••w•puw WOli IV Vawpu- Ilv 4wsr+upulry Wn4•+Zwn uVl ~~I'uayov lvuoluuolw0lolwwwvw uvuu•u~wu4 Wl~'+oGwul-Wlw-G Wur:uopl o410uu •wuwvop vn+l ° : r w w ¢ uo6a~p'pue14sy 'ABA& el4l!1 094 z w auwi uolQ 6noa $ o o g $ w omzms gym= S3ON~3 (1ISD2i V I~l lOH `-IIVJ-Ad I w ado 3 N I A 3 Hl ~ ww F$ gm g'Q S I I jl I i 1 (V r ly W f /f ~ W I- U) Q W 1 I li , li .l [~j l li 1 f 1 =Ll S { •v~ya i;4y~;4+:.Ilwvu~+ONX+v pry pv a+puvuy;~.wy;v. vvyatl:ny,o.(uvm(y~euau;vyx w'Wmv4 o; ~vuvl WUaPU+lywv u;;wn.yuwx~npvly+e RyuJaUay+ul'~~~v..vu;uiw;c~w;aJ~v iuvwv;ou; uv cv•v;wny po;i.:uNO~ui:uJwup puv r:wpi oy~~uu ~uwunavv vui Y _ gg g wq wQ uOGaJO'pue!ySV'fleM eM!l 09L y z MW > k = auw! uo!Q ,g 6n00 0 . 9 L - ~emz ~ab wm' S30N30IS323 '8 -1310H `IIV13H w w 3 N I A 3 H 1 ow Q I F4 - o W 8 J a~ u.! N H - ! ~IlI MEI ~ ; ® G9 G9 G9 uo6alue (e e Z t l gpeU~ O P 14sv M 4 -log6 y auyul uoid +g find o 00 "g $ ~ w gym` S3~N~®IS321 '8 -1310H `IIVI-ia w ~w aw ~ X HNIA 3Hl ww ~Ia ~r ~s gl ~~~w sw ~`w w J _ i m °y Z Emma Q W ill iI ow Z) o p i Fp i vpuwv~iw.yM1wN p+q lu urylv~syino u.mu 4tlnoy~V•Wfwd~uWOtuuw~4uv ui~o.riwinwrou:nwa~iawpvu axwiw:uewn,...ixvu+...iunnixae~V..ava v~v~.i ~vuai ~~~we~ervvvw~vui ~vv ivyp ~uoai ~ i.•V wv gavi auv iuuw wpvi4i .80"506 6< 6 2iOOld 1S?Jld 710218 SMOGNIM 4V10 LOOM SSNINMV 1331S a31VOO a3MOd C J2 0 T 710219 I .66'OZ66 ' 2iOOld aNOO3S SSNI11V21 1331S a31VOO 213MOd 1 I N S21000 SSV1S SNIMS-NI 1HSIl o, A 43aVVa OV1O QOOM SSNINMV 1331S 431b'OO 213MOd i c- 7101218 SZ'ZS66 210014 O211H1 SSNI11V2l 1331S 431VOO 2i3MOd- i S2JOOa SSV1S SNIMS NI 1HSIl 43O1n1a aVIO BOOM KRA V W 301N2100 313210NOO 1SV0 z NIV~ 13dV21Vd dO dGs. ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division cIrr OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5345 Fax 591-488-6006 FILE # ~S>F-[LAN D DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? _ YES ONO t Street Address r'''~ t~ et ~e %,v C Assessor's Map No, 39 9 E 0 9 5 k -fax Lot(s) ( 0 e~ Zoning - Comp Plan Designation C'n ; l~ c `rte APPLICANT Name Phone 1 .4 3 . E-Mail 0 Q`/ Y\A 00 Address P } 1~ ~ City ('14 Zip 1 i 7Z- L7 PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone E-Mail f2- 2_ k `t f iFG~Fi~ a~~ City G 4 3 C Zip ~7'73•L 0 Address SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHERi jitle Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip f hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in of/ 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. l 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 tact furnished justifies the granting of the request, 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further ; 4) that at/ structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. i Failure in this regard will result most likely in.not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If 1 haveany"doubts, ! am aVisod to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's .,Sig atur Date "As owner of the prope y involl d-in°t fs_~ st, ! have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owne Pr er y Owneris gnature (required) Date Date Received `J Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 4 C kDacumenls and SelEi p luca is Dc*tgp Zoning Permit Application.doc - i E y1r Job Address: 160 LITHIA Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: A C P Owner's Name: DRRAM LP DRR ASSET MGMT INC O' Phone: Customer 06795 N State Llc No: P DRRAM LP DRR ASSET MGMT INC T City Lic No: Applicant: 4100 NEWPORT PLACE DR R Address: 400 A C - NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 C Sub-Contractor: A' Phone: T Address: N Applied: 06/0112012 Q; Y Issued: Expires: 11/28/2012 R Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E09BA10800 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Comm Site Review & CUP for a Mixed Use Building Valuation is $1.656 million VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Commercial Site Review (type2) 10,208.00 Variance (Type 1) 963.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 mvw.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 C I T Y OF -ASHLAND