Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
East Main_1155_PA-2012-00575
I CITY OF July 25, 2012 -ASHLAND Ashland Police Department 1155 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Planning Action #2012-00575 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 approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements to bring the site more into compliance with the current standards including additional parking, landscape and hardscape improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street Assessor's Map # 39 lE 10; Tax Lot 900. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, our July 24, 2012. The Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 131r' day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of one year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($318), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal sliall 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. i cc: Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft I I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Te1:54i-088-5345 51 Winbu rn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 mmashland.orms I ! SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type II decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered. 1, The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting, 4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13. below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council appeal rearing that the requesting party has demonstrated; a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if lie or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. I i I i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 mv- Wand.orms 1 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 lirnited 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 argumcrrt if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than tell (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 tine notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Connnission 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 rennand 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 Connnission 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 tine Cornrell. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. E [ E t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-9885305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 AiN www.asbla nd.or.us i BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 24, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-00575, A REQUEST FOR } SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 3,016 SQUARE FOOT } ADDITION AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BRING THE } SITE MORE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS ) INCLUDING ADDITIONAL PARKING, LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE ) IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT LOCATED } FINDINGS, AT 1155 EAST MAIN STREET. THE ADDITION IS THE FIRST PHASE OF A ) CONCLUSIONS MULTI-PHASE PROJECT, WITH A SUBSEQUENT PHASE TO INCLUDE ) AND ORDERS ANOTHER 1,975 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND ASSOCIATED SITE ) IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TNA10 TO FIVE YEARS. ) APPLICANT: City of Ashland } . RE, I) Tax lot #900 of Map 39 1E 10 is located at 1155 East Main Street and is zoned E-1, Employment. 2} The applicants are requesting Site Review approval to constfuct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements to bring the site More into C0111pliance With CFlrrent standards including additional parking, landscape and liardscape improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first please of a multi-phase project, with a subsequent please to include another 1,975 square foot addition and associated site improvements within two to five years. Site improveMents are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18,72.070 as follows; A. All applicable Citi, ordinances have been met or ii4l/ be met by the p)•oposed clevel opat)er)t. R. All requirements of the Bite Review Chapter hai e beer) met or will be met. C. The demlopment complies with the Site Design RStarrdards adopted by the City Council ,for implementation of this Chapter. D. That rideguate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, payed access to and through the tlemlopment, electricity; urban storm drainage, and adegurate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All irrmrovements in the street right- o f-way shall comj)ly with the Street SOndar(Is in Cheaper 18, S8, Performance Standards Options. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, lield a public hearing oil June 12, 2012 at which tine testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to (lie closing of (lie hearing and the record, (lie Planning Co121mission approved the application subject to a number of conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. PA 112012-00575 July 24, 2012 Page 1 5) Subsequent to the Commission's approval of the application, but prior to the adoption of findings, the applicants approached the Staff Advisor with some concern that strict adherence to the letter and intent of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission with regard to the removal of steps from the design to allow wheelchair accessibility of the front walkNvay could substantially alter the character of fine improvements between the building and the street, as a series of switchbacks would be required to provide an accessible grade for the walkway. Because findings had not yet been adopted, the Staff Advisor provided proper public notice for a limited re-opening of the hearing to consider the treatment of the front walkway in light of the concerns expressed. G) The Planning Conunnission, following proper public notice, re-opened (lie public hearing oil July 14, 2012 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following testimony, the hearing and the record were again closed, and the Planning Commission amended their prior approval of the project to allow the walkway design with steps as originally proposed by the applicants, rather than consuming a substantial additional area at the front of the site with ramp switchbacks to achieve an accessible grade. Tile Cornlnission noted that an existing accessible route was already in place under the covered breezeway from the entrance to the nearest accessible parking space and would continue to serve in providing required accessibility. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of file City of Ashland finds, concludes and reconnnnends as follows: SECTION I. EXTIIBITS 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 Nvith 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 or] the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. E 2.2 The Planning Convnission finds that the project complies with the standards for Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial, Employment and Industrial Developments in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. The application proposes to construct a 3,016 square foot addition at the rear of the existing Ashland Police Department building at 1155 East Main Street as the first phase of a multi-please project. Off street parking is located to the rear and side of the existing buildings with automobile access provided from East Main Street via existing driveways which serge the Police Department, Municipal Court, Council Chambers, Public Works facilities and the Grove community center. The site plan incorporate direct pedestrian access from East Main Street to the main building entrance, and includes improvements to the existing pedestrian access and the creation of an entry plaza to strengthen the existing building's sense of j entry as it relates to the East Main Street pedestrian corridor. l PA #2012-00575 Jelly 2d, 2012 Page 2 i 23 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the first criterion to be considered for Site Review approval, that "all applicable City ordinances hai,e been met or rt,ill be met by the proposed demlolmment." The Commission finds that the Employment (E-I) zoning district is intended "to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail, or manufacturing in an aesthetic envii•orrrrrent and having a minimal inipact on surrounding uses," Outright permitted uses include "public and quasi-public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots..." The existing and proposed uses are consistent with these allowances, and the site is specifically identified in tlic Cotnprehenslve Plan as accottnrrodatirrg public facilities. There is no minimum lot size or width requirement within the E-1 district, and the only yard requirements are that when rebutting a residential district a side or rear yard of ten feet per story must be provided. As proposed, the property abuts residentially zoned property to the west and with a setback of 48 feet, substantially more than the required ten-foot per story= side setback is provided for both the existing building and proposed addition. The Commission further finds that the height limitation in the E-I district is 40 feet, and the proposed building addition is only approximately 25 feet in height at the ridge's peak, Solar Access requirements apply within the f;-I under Standard B which limits any shadow cast by a building on the property to no more than would be cast by a 16-Toot fence on the subject property's north property line, As defined in the Solar Ordinance the north property line would be on the opposite side of the railroad right-of-way to the north of the parent parcel, approximately 600 feet north of the proposed addition arul providing ample separation to allow compliance with this standard. The Commission finds that neither the Ashland Municipal Code's Off-Street Parking Chapter (18.92) or the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation manual identify a specific parking requirement associated with police facilities. With regard to "unspecified uses", AMC 18,92 provides. that where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined, such requirements are to be determined based upon the most comparable use specified in this section and other available data, In considering the parking required for the proposal, the applicants have noted that the parking requirement is somewhat unique in that staff, officer and police vehicle parking must all be maintained separately from public parking, and in addition there is often the need to accommodate both impounded vehicles and vehicles which may be being held as evidence in active cases. The applicants have accordingly provided the following breakdown of their identified parking demand based on these operational requirements, 5peciliccl Psfi~c Ifs: 5`l<acc 5 Hegiii er3v. Staff Parking (Ifemplo ae on largest ,shift) 18 Parkin for Masked Police Vehicles 8 Detective Vehicles 4 Deputy Chief Vehicle I Traffic Patrol Vehicle I Volunteer Vehicles 2 Community Service Officer Vehicle t Impounded Vehicles 5 Public parking for the Police Department, Municipal Court and (lie Grove Community Center is already in place on the subject property, and no increase it demand for parking for the general public is 1 PA #2012-00575 July 24, 2012 Page 3 i anticipated in conjunction with the current request. Based on the operational requirements of the department, the Commission finds that the parking proposed is sufficient to address the identified operational requirements for Police Department use, The Commission firrther finds that with 40 parking spaces to be provided, a mininnum of eight bicycle parking spaces must also be made available and one-half of these spaces must be covered, svitb all bicycle parking designed according to the rack, dimension, and coverage standards of AMC 18.92,010. These bicycle parking spaces must also be located as close to the primary public entrance as the nearest automobile parking spaces. The Commission finds that the applicants have identified six new bicycle parking spaces to be installed, in addition to the four spaces now on site which more than complies with the requirement for bicycle parking. A condition has been included to require that the final building permit submittals demonstrate compliance with the requirements of AMC 1892,040 in terms of the number of bicycle parking spaces, their placement, and coverage, The Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the second criterion for the approval of a Site Review permit that, "rill requirements of the Nfe ReWerr, Chapter home been rues or will be met." The Commission finds that developments w=ithin the E-1 coning district must provide at least 15 percent of the subject property in landscaped area, and at least seven percent of parking areas must be provided in landscaping. As proposed, the application retains approximately 31.4 percent of the Phase One site area in landscaping, and the calculations provided note that approximately 18 percent of the proposed parking area will be provided in landscaping where only seven percent is required. Trash and recycling facilities are already in place elsewhere on site to serve the various city functions already established, and are not to be altered with the current request. A condition of approval has been included to require that all new lighting fixtures be identified in the building permit submittals, and that details of any necessary shrouding and screening be provided as well, to insure that the Site Review chapter's prohibitions on direct illumination of adjacent properties will be satisfied, 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the third criterion for Site Review approval criterion that, "The development coml)fies iNth the Site Design Standards c0opted by the Cite Council for iml)1emenicillon of this Chaptei,." The Commission further finds that the Site Design and Use Standards do not have separate requirements for public buildings, and as such the proposed addition is subject to Basic Site Reviews Standards for Commercial Development. The Basic Site Review Standards place a strong focus on addressing a building's sense of entry and relationship to the adjacent pedestrian strectscape, and With fe-,v exceptions call for the placement of buildings no more than 20 feet from the street. In this case, the existing building is at approximately 50 feet from the street, and the placement of the proposed addition at the rear of the building, which in itself does little to improve compliance with the standards. The application materials suggest that the site's topography necessitated tine building's original placement, and that placement of the proposed addition at the street now would prove difficult due not only to the topographic constraints, but to the need to relate to the existing building's interior spaces and to the project's limited, forfeiture-dependent budget. In lieu of placing the addition to bring the existing building and site more into compliance with these standards, the applicants have proposed to modify the hardscape and landscape treatments in the entry area between the two buildings and East Main Street in order to enhance the two buildings' sense of entry by creating a more inviting, people-friendly space near the two entrances that better relates to East Main's pedestrian streetscape. f PA 112012-00575 hily 24, 2012 Page 4 f The Commission finds that the enhancement of this space would be a substantial benefit and greatly improve the sense of entry and functionality of both buildings. However, where the application materials suggest that replacing the existing turf areas at the front of the site - which are generally discouraged in the Site Design and Use Standards "Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies" - with lower water use plantings, the Commission finds that the existing greenspace provided by the lawn area provides an important public. function in providing an area for citizens to comfortably assemble in conjunction with public meetings held in the Council Chambers. The Commission accordingly finds that the existing lawn area between the Council Chambers and East Main Street should be maintained in a people-friendly greenspace. (either as lawn or as a similar, but lower-water usage vegetative treatment) to provide an area which can comfortably accommodate public assembly while at the same tinne softening the building's appearance from the street and relating to the nearby greenspace at Garfield Park, A condition to this effect has accordingly been attached. i The Commission finds that the parking lot landscaping and screening standards require that seven percent of the parking lot area be provided in landscaping, that one parking lot tree be provided per each seven parking spaces, that the landscaping be distributed throughout the parking area, and that a minnimunn five-foot width landscape buffer is provided at property lines/boundaries to buffer adjacent properties or uses. Subsequent to the, initial public notice for the hearing, a neighbor residing in residentially zoned property to the west of the addition raised concern that the existing landscape buffer on the west side of the drive be maintained. The application notes that this buffer, which is approximately 12 feet in width where only five feet is required, is to be maintained and enhanced with new landscaping to ensure adequate screening of the addition from the adjacent residences. The Commission further finds that Z.lnile the application materials provided include a request for Exceptions to the Site Design and Use Standards to address existing non-conformities with the current site's development, including; 1) the existing building's sense of entry an(] relationship to the Main Street streetscape is not consistent with basic site review standards; 2) that the existing site landscaping is not consistent with the landscaping standards; and 3) that the existing parking lot is not consistent with the parking lot design, landscaping and screening requirements, site improvements to address each of the neon-conformitics are proposed as part of the overall phasing timeline. The Commission finds that the Site Design an([ Use Standards in Section 11-C-1g actually allow for existing none-conformities to be addressed incrementally to a degree proportional to the percentage of the addition proposed, and because the application is identifying the existing none-conformities and seeking to address them consistently with II-C-1g, no Exceptions are necessary. The Commission recognizes the value of the proposed addition in improving the functionality of the existing public facility and the vagary posed by the funding source, and has accordingly included conditions to ensure that these non-conformities are proportionally addressed through the project's phasing. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the final criterion to be considered for the approval of a Site Review permit is, "That adequate capaelty of Citl, facillties ,for water, sewer, paiJed access to and th)-ough the (levelopinerrt, electrleil); urban star-)n drainage, and aelequrrte ti-anspo37ation can and will be pro0led to and through the subject proper(y, All impron)ewents in the street right-q1-*wa}, shall conq)l)~ with the 81reet Sfan(lcwds in Chapter 18.88, Perfo)-niance Starnclal-clr Options," The Planning Commission finds that the application materials provided indicate that city facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through (lie development, electricity and urban storm drainage are already in place to serve the existing building and are adequately sized to continue to service the proposed expansion. PA 92012-00575 July 24, 2012 Page 5 I i However, the Commission further fads that during the course of the public hearing, staff noted that there are potentially significant issues with the existing electrical services to the Ashland Police and Municipal Court buildings, According to the Building Official and the applicant's engineers, both buildings are eurrently served by a common transformer and a propane-fueled back-up generator, and as such, changes to the Police Department will impact both buildings. The existing generator is fated to carry 347 Amps, but the Electric Department recently recorded maximum currents of 269 Amps and 210 Amps for the Police and Courts buildings respectively. Therefore the existing generator is riot rated to carry the combined loads of both existing buildings in their present configuration, even before the propose([ addition. In addition, the existing 400 Amp transfer switch serving as the service entrance to both buildings is not listed or proper for this function, and a main service discorllrect is not installed. As with the generator, the switch is undersized for the electrical loads of the existing buildings, without taking the added load of an addition into consideration. Finally, the feeder from the generator in the Police building is not rated to carry the anticipated load of the new addition, The anticipated total load is 475 Anrps for the existing buildings and two additions proposed. The feeder has been verified by the Electric Department as consisting of two parallel feeds of ft300 aluminum -which is rated for only 460 Amps. The feeder from the generator to the Courts building is similarly at its maximum capacity, with a measured load of 210 Amps being carried on a single set of #300 aluminum rated for 230 Anips. The Building Official has rnet on site with the applicant's project team rncludmg engineers from local firm Marquess & Associates, Inc. and the following approach to resolving these issues has been identified: the existing transformer will need to be replaced; a new electrical service will need to be provided for the Police Department building; the old Police Department main panel will serve as a distribution patrel, and a 100-Amp panel will need to be eorurected to this distribution panel to serve select loads; the existing generator will continue in service, but will need to be modified to provide service disconnect and overcurrem protection; and emergency power will be provided to designated emergency egress lighting by retrofitting battery back-up ballasts which will enable the transfer of power from the normal source to the battery back-up at the fixtures in both buildings. The Building Official has indicated that this proposal could provide an acceptable means to resolve the identified issues subject to approval of a final engineered design as part of a final electrical service plan, and the Planning Commission has accordingly attached a condition to require that a final electrical service plan addressing these issues be provide(] with tine building permit submittal for the review of the Building, Platming, Public Works and Electrical Departments. The Plaiming Commission finds that Engineering staff has also indicated that while the proposed first phase does not involve all increase in impervious surfaces because the proposed addition is to be constructed over already-paved areas, with the second phase more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface could be created with the removal of a lawn area and construction of additional parking areas. The City's Engineering Department will ultimately need to review and approve a final, engineered storm drainage plan and determine that the post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a ivlrole, and that storm water quality mitigation is addressed through the final design. This new parking, area is also subject to current design standards found in AMC 18.92.080.E which include specific requirements to address parking lot drainage while minimizing environmental and rnicroclimatic impacts through site design and material selections by using light colored paving materials, porous solid surfacing or open grid paving, or providing shade via tree canopy coverage, solar generating carports, canopies, or trellises for at least 50 percent of the parking area, and capturing and treating run-off on site in landscaped medians or swales. The application materials provide(] indicate that the new parking area is to be installed entirely in permeable PA 112012-00575 July 24, 2012 Page 6 i material, arid with this type of installation the Engineering Division will not likely require on-site detention. A condition has been included to require that the site plans be modified to include required swales in the new barking area to comply with current standards prior to the submittal of a building permit. Tile Planning Commission finds that East Main Street is a city street classified as a Boulevard or Arterial within the current Transportation System Plate, and is currently fully improved, with two paved travel lanes, bike Ianes, curbs, gutters, storm drains, curbside sidewalks and street trees in place, and that no further street improvements are required. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that tree inventory and tree preservation plan have been provided identifying 51 trees oil the area of the subject property proposed to be disturbed. Of these 51 trees, eight trees greater that six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b,h.) are proposed to be removed over the course of the two phases of the project. As a city-owned property, only the removal of trees defined as "signif"icant" by having a diameter greater than 18-inches d,b.h. triggers Tree Removal Permit requirements, and in this instance node of the trees to be removed are large enough to be considered significant or require permit review. The Planning Commission further finds that in reviewing the proposal, the Tree Comininion had recommended (hat Tree 1150, a ten-inch d.b.h. Maple in poor-to-fait` condition which is proposed to be removed to accommodate parking lot improvements be preserved and protected, and that two additional trees be provided within the landscape buffer strip on (he western boundary of the property between the existing driveway and adjacent residential uses, In considering the retention of Tree 950, the Commission noted that during the hearingthe applicants explained that the tree was incorrectly located on the original drawings and that it was in a location where it could not be retained while providing required parking and circulation areas according to the applicable standards. 'Tile Commission considered requiring the planting of additional trees within the required landscape buffer, however in visiting the site with the applicants and a number of neighboring residents it was noted that the existing hedge within the already-substantially-larger-tlratr-required landscape buffer was well established and provided a very effective screen to buffer the uses. Tile concern was expressed that tile sight-obseuring nature of the hedge would need to be altered, lessening its effectiveness, in order to accommodate tile, planting and maintenance of additional trees. As such, the Commission felt that the plantings already in }dace and established served to provide an effective buffer between the uses and adequately already more than adequately addresses the parking lot Iandscaping and screening requirements in this location. 2.8 In considering concerns raised by neighbors during the licaring as to the placement of mechanical equipment on the west side of the addition, near the neighboring residences, and the potential creation of a "noise corridor" with the placement of a long, uninterrupted wall adjacent to the driveway which could reflect sound from the driveway to the neighbors, the Planning Commission finds that the nicellanical equipment needs to be relocated interior to the site to avoid the potential acoustic impact to neighbors, It was noted during the sheeting that the Cqutpnlent could be accommodated on (lie east side of the proposed Please II addition and could be appropriately screened to minimize any adverse impacts to users of (lie Police Department or Council Chambers. A condition to this effect has been attached. I 1 3 3 PA #2012-00575 July 24, 2012 Page 7 i Tine Commission also finds that to avoid the creation of a "noise corridor" and avoid adverse impacts from driveway noise being reflected toward the neighboring residences, that the material treatment of the west wall of the addition be modified to use different materials or articulation to break-up the long, uninterrupted wall and iniiliinize the reflection of sound to the neighbors. SECTION 3, DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Conuilission concludes that the proposal for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department at 1155 East Main Street as the first phase of a multi- phase project is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. '1'lnerefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2012-00575. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2012-00575 is denied, The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval; 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including that new parking areas shall be installed and maintained in permeable materials. 2) That 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, including any applicable requirements to provide adequate vision clearance areas. 3) 'That the plans submitted for tile, 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 tine Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) That, if deemed necessary by (lie Building Official, a Demolition/Relocation Permit approval shall be obtained from (lie Building Division prior to issuance of a demolition permit or commencement of demolition work for the existing carport on site. 5) That construction) hours for the project shall be limited to between 8;00 ami. and 4;30 p.m. to minimize disturbance to neighboring residents, as proposed by the applicants. 6) That construction be staged from the east side of tile proposed Phasc I addition, and that all construction traffic use a temporary construction access out to the existing public parking lot rather than using the existing gated driveway oil the west side of the Police Department building. 7) That the building permit submittal materials shall include; a) Identification of all casements, including but not limited to public and private utility casements. b) Phase One building permit submittals shall include revised landscape and irrigation plans which address the landscape and hardscape treatments proposed along the frontage of the Police Station and Municipal Court buildings to create an enhanced entry plaza and public assembly space for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. The treatment of [ this area shall maintain a people-friendly greenspace in lawn or a similar (but lower- hater use) vegetative treatment to soften the building's appearance, relate to the nearby greenspace tit Garfield Park, an([ provide an area adjacent to the Council Chambers which I PA i12012-00573 i Ady 24, 2012 Page 8 I f can comfortably accommodate public assembly, These improvements shall be completed according to approved plan within two years of completion of the first please building addition, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.' e) Phase One building permit submittals shall include revised parking lot design drawings reflecting the requirements to include drainage sivales within the landscape medians as required in the parking design standards. The improvements associated with the parking lot expansion shall be completed according to approved plan prior to submittal of a land use application for Phase Two, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. (1) 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 must be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit, Electrical services shall be installed underground, and any transformers or cabinets shall be located in areas least visible franc streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. e) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the existing structure and surrounding area, and sample ex(erior' building colors shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. f) That the location and final engineering for required storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre- development peak flow for the site, and that storm water quality mitigation, if deemed necessary by the Engineering Division, has been addressed through the final design. g) That a final utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering, Building and Planning Divisions. 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, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment, Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department, h) That Phase I building permit submittals shall be revised to include the following modifications for final review and approval by the Staff Advisor; i) ]Modified material treatment on the west wall of the Phase I addition. Modifications shall include a different material treatment and articulation to break-up the wall and thereby= minimize the creation of a "noise corridor" which would otherwise reflect sound toward the adjacent residential neighbors, ii) Modified placement of mechanical equipment. The mechanical equipment shown for placement near the driveway adjacent to nearby residences be relocated interior to the site, on the east side of the proposed Phase II addition, and appropriately screened to minimize visual and acoustic impacts to users of the Ashland Police Department and Council Chambers buildings PA #2012.00575 July 24, 2012 Page 9 8) That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including building demolition, storage of materials, or permit issuance. Tile Verification Permit is to inspect file identification of the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the other trees that are to be retained on the subject property. The tree protection shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18,61.200,13 and the approved T►•ee Protection Plan, and shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including demolition, storage of materials or permit issuance, 9) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) In addition to the two existing "inverted U" racks already in place, six bicycle parking spaces shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and the design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and d prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Inverted ii-racks shall be used for (lie bicycle barking, and the building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. b) That any improvements to the sidewalk or adjacent public right-of-way, including but not limited to the new walkway from the sidewalk providing connection the enhanced plaza space, sliall be installed to City of Ashland standards cinder permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) That all hardscape improvements, landscaping, and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to ti►e issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10) That prior to the commencement of Phase Two: a) That the proposed Phase One parking expansion shall be completed according to the approval plans, inspected and approved by (lie Staff Advisor. b) That the applicants shalt obtain Site Review and building _permit approvals f6r Phase Two. Planning Commission Approval Dte ~f i f II I PA 42012-00575 July 24, 2012 Page 10 I PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 1100 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 600 PA-2012-00575 391 E 10 900 ASHLAND ACADEMY OF ART LLC BLUE IRIS PROPERTIES LLC COMMUNITY WORKS INC 222 LANILOA WAY PO BOX 338 900 E MAIN ST HAIKU HI 96708 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7200 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60003 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60002 CONKLIN JIM TRUSTEE COOMBS MARY IRENE CRUZ SANDRA PO BOX 246 1420 BRICKELL BAY DR 1505 72 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 MIAMI FL 33131 ASHLAND OR 97520 SON 5 391 N TR 7400 DONA PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5409 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5416 ONALDSON J ROBIN TRUSTEE DYKSTRA JAMES D JRIMARIA E FRANKS VERNON LOUIS TRUSTEE DONALDSON JA 1238 ROSE LN 555 SHERIDAN ST 114 GRANITE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7100 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5407 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5414 GERSCHLER KENNETH GILINDA E GOTTLIEB HEIDEN E GRAHAM ROSEMARY 1125 MAIN ST 1218 ROSE LN 1288 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 100 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7300 PA-2012-00575 391 E106C 5413 GRAWOIG MARTE LOGAN HAIL RICHARD/HALL SAMANTHA M HEALEY KIMBERLEY 2305-C ASHLAND ST PMB 433 40 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVE 1278 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60004 PA-2012-00575 391 E10 800 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 601 HIGH PRISCILLA TRUSTEE ET AL HODGINS ROBERT DALE TRUSTEE HOFFMAN MARIE BELLE REV LIV TRUST 2709 CLAY CREEK WAY 165 TIMBERLAKE DR 61 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391E10BC 2901 PA-2012-00575 391E101000 PA-2012-00575 391E09AD 7600 HOWE OLIVE J TRUSTEE JACKSON CO SCHOOL DIST #5 JACOBSON SEPORA MAYIM P 0 BOX 336 885 SISKIYOU BLVD 1031 PAKINGTON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 VICTORIA BC V8V382 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2800 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5422 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60005 KRADLE ARIEL MARIA R LEWIS-RAYMAN KATHY M MAIR WILLIAM CIJOANN 23 GARFIELD ST 1254 ORCHID ST 1156 IDAHO ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN JOSE CA 95126 PA-2012-00575 391E09AD 60007 PA-2012-00575 391E10BC 8900 PA-2012-00575 391EIOBC 2803 MARSHIK LINDA NORTHCUTT JACK DfBETTY A PEARSON ADAM JICHRISTINA A 41518TH ST 1340 E MAIN ST 33 GARFIELD ST I NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7L 2Y1 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 700 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5420 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5406 PEOPLES BANK POE PATRICIA L TRUSTEE FBO POWELL JEANNE H TRUSTEE ET AL 750 BIDDLE RD 27 DEWEY 1208 ROSE LN MEDFORD OR 97504 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 Ell 013C 5410 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2802 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5408 PRESKENIS DANIEL JIAMY I REDDING LINDA J ROSENTHAL RICHARD S 1248 ROSE LN 31 GARFIELD ST 1228 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 El 08C 5419 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60008 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AA 1700 SCHOROVSKY SANDRA B SCHREIBER ARTHUR HIJANET C SPENCER NANCY S TRUSTEE FBO 1285 ROSE LN 64 MOUNTAIN AVE 167 N MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2900 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 603 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 201 TAYLOR STEVEN WIWANDA THOMASHEFSKY ALLEN J THOMPSON BRENT TRUSTEE ET AL 32 LINCOLN ST 64 3RD ST P 0 BOX 201 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391E10BC 5411 PA-2012-00575 391EIOBC 5415 PA-2012-00575 391E10BC 5412 TOEWS ERIC H/CASSANDRA S TSCHANN DENISE M TYGERSON DAVID GIKELLY A PO BOX 85 659 FORDYCE ST 5072 S OLD HWY 99 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60006 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60001 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5417 WAXMONSKY STEVENIJENYA WOLF STEPHEN H YOUNG SALLY 0 TRUSTEE FBO 1 MANDALAY PL 909 74 N MOUNTAIN 2300 TAYLOR AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 ASHLAND OR 97520 YREKA CA 96097 PA-2012-00575 PA-2012-00575 PA-2012-00575 Straus & Seibert Architect LLP City of Ashland KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1175 E Main, Suite 2E Dale Peters 545 A STREET Medford OR 97504 20 E Main ASHLAND, OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 City of Ashland Police Dept 1155 E. MAIN Chief Holderness 7125112 NOD 20 E Main 49 Ashland OR 97520 i i CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES July 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Eric Heesacker April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Richard Kaplan Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar updated the Commission on the plaza improvement project. He slated a preferred concept plan was presented at the second series of public workshops and the City Council is scheduled to review the plan at their July 16 study session. He stated the plan outlines more hardscape pavement and sealing will be increased significantly, and while some trees need to be removed, the overall number of trees is increasing. Mr. Molnar also announced the City Council will be discussing the potential legalization of vacation rentals at their August study session, and they are likely to defer this item to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. June 12, 2012 Regular Meeting. 2. June 26, 2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Kaplan/Miller mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7.0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2012.00573, RPS Legislative Amendment. Commissioners Marsh/Brown mis to approve the Findings for PA-2012-00573. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7.0. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1155 East Main Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing on a request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2092 Page 9 of 5 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 walkway. 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 conditions 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 Miller/Kaplan mis 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 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 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 i Commercial; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 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 j Commission hearing on this item. Commissioners Marsh, Kaplan, Miller and Mindlin noted they are familiar with the site. Staff Report 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 i Planning Department, 51 Wind, Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y OF 'r 541-488.5305 Fax; 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 9955 East Main Street OWNERIAPPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing on a request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 9155 East Main Street, Re-opening of the hearing will allow consideration of new information with regard to the accessibility of the entry walkway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 10; TAX LOTM 900 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: July 10, 2012 at 7:04 Ply, Ashland Civic Center 4 ~Z ~.~F f 3T, t3al 1235 L l z2~ ark [s tf 24s iArtCT` 1fY-I/ ~~1.2`i3. 124s L5 d2G9 1237 j+F `L_J~1 13 ST _ ORCHID ST L r 1 54 ]64 )2M 4 + ~ I ~ I tl d a' 1 PLANNING ACTION #2012-00575 'AB~ 1 r~ T _ lz5a 11 1155 EAST MAIN STREET 1 I~ ? ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT fi a fsa SUBJECT PROPERTY t- r J T 2 _ T sf {r' i F a is 7 1I er' ° r f) 75 r I L25i _ - { 1078 ~ I I 1 - ~ ~ _ F II I ~.i a . i f -11 wJ l I 40 tl ,n ~ 7g 1` I A. r-; Property linen are for reference only, riot scaleable rl2R1R M Feet Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specifywhich 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 appfcable 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 Administrators 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. Wcomm-devlplanningTlanning Actfims otidng FolderLNla W Xutices & SignN01212012-00575 RE\QIICE.docx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72,070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development, B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met, C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18,88, Performance Standards Options. ~I I Wcomm-dnti pianninplanning ActiomWoticing Foldei~Nlalled Notices R Signsk2 01 21201 2-005 75 RENOTICE.docs I ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM July 10 2012 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00575 APPLICANT: City of Ashland Ashland Police Department LOCATION: 1155 East Main Street Map 39 1E 10, Tax Lot #900 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment (E-1) APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 3, 2012 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 1, 2012 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-1 Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design Review 18.92 Parking, Access & Circulation REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements to bring the site more into compliance with current standards including additional parking, landscaping and hardscaping improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first phase of a multi-phase project, with a subsequent phase to include another 1,975 square foot addition and associated site improvements within two to five years. It has been requested that the Planning Counnission re-open the public hearinz on this application to allow consideration of neiv information with regard to the accessibility of the entry rva.lkway. I. Relevant Facts A. Background . History of Applications The Planning Commission approved the application with conditions at the June 12, 2012 regular meeting. The conditions of approval included that the walkway to the newly created entry plaza not include steps in its final design in order to remove potential barriers to wheelchair accessibility. Subsequent to the meeting, the applicants contacted staff with concerns that the site would not be able to accommodate wheelchair access without switchbacks in the ramp which would disturb significantly more of the area between East Main Street and the existing Council Chambers than had been envisioned in the approval and E E that the functionality of the proposed plaza space would be impacted by the required ramps. E Planning Action PA # 2012.00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff ReporLAddendum #1 Applicant: APD Expanslon (Re-Opening) Page 1 of 3 € f Because findings had not yet been adopted, staff re-noticed the application to allow a re- opening of the public heating to consider this issue. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The applicants have provided a revised sheet E-1 which explains that with the site modifications proposed, the slope of the existing ramp would be increased from its current eight percent to nine percent, which exceeds ADA accessibility requirements. The current ramp's eight percent is the maximum slope allowed for accessible access. 11. Project Impact As noted above, the applicants have raised the issue that if stairs are not to be provided in order to remove potential barriers to wheelchair access, the creation of an accessible route from the sidewalk to the building entrances will require a ramp with switchbacks across the area between the Council Chambers and East Main Street and will alter the character of this space, The existing ramp has an eight percent slope, which is the maximum allowed for accessibility, and with the reconfiguration and creation of plaza spaces it would steepen the ramp to a nine percent slope which exceeds that allowable for accessibility. The applicants also suggest that the ramps necessary would impact the usability of the plaza space to be provided. In discussing the matter with the Building Official, he has indicated that the existing accessible route is from the ADA-accessible parking spaces now in place to the entrance via the existing covered walkway, and there is not a requirement that an additional accessible route be created. The applicants could install stairs and they would not be considered a barrier to accessibility because an accessible route has been provided. However, if the Commission's desire was to provide an accessible route from the sidewalk to the enhance, the slope of the steepened walkway would pose a concern and necessitate the switchbacks and additional ramping. The applicants are seeking clarification of the Commission's intent, and want to ensure that the commission is aware of the potential complications to accessibility and to the site plan fesulting from the improvements proposed. Ill. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The applicable criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows; A. All applicable City ordinances have been rnet or }will be met by the proposed development. I3. All requirements of the Site Revieiv Chapter have been met or tivill be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adapted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, server, paved access to and Planning Action PA # 2042-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report-Addendum #i Applicant: APD Expansion tRe-Opening) Page 2 of 3 i through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and ivill be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply 1vith the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Per forrnance Standards Options. IV, Conclusions and Recommendations The Planning Commission approved the application with conditions at the last meeting. The issue at hand is limited to clarifying how the Commission wishes to address the accessibility concerns raised by the applicants: allowing the walkway to be modified with stairs as originally proposed, retaining the condition and making the front entry area wheelchair accessible with the addition of necessary switchbacks and ramps, or simply clarifying that the Commission's intent was to retain a sloped walkway without stairs but not to require the creation of another accessible route and associated ramps. i i I Planning Action PA # 2092-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report-Addendum 49 Applicant; APD Expansion (Re-Opening) Page 3 of 3 wma0mspuvLwm~ua~'.ww WasatlesSpuejuA:pua~@NlaH 6939•1CS'l4S:1190 azn90oalgo.Fv2dCO8puEZ--- Yoyr I~~IaSes~ ~Z4S«5eZ~SS '4h~55:x:~e~ 1. N nwq ~ "°v ~ E z m~o ~ ~ o s d OZSL6 N003Z0 `aNVIHS6V UJIBDUOx 133211S NlW •3 55 ozs[680 wys LA 9SG m L~ a NOUVIS 33170d ®NV*IHSV 4 r U 1 C7 ~ Y .°L-.fL 1 Q fl. T ~ 41 38-10' 1 Z U N a Y a Q O m 1 CD Q E m o. 'S ,J\\ p Y a o i W \ m o as m F l Z `m `~Z \ O m ai3ymW f c 3 z= o m - - w o L o o a c JID '51 a m \\\\~\\\o _ p~ e m~wLCO~oy m c •o a~ N O N t0 'p C EL c . \ N ~ o \ m ci •o o' c O \ ~ \ \ \ N Y ~ Y L ~ a N O 1 c° o- '0 3 c~ y o J \ -..0- N V Q"O 0 s V ID C to N O N y fq U .L= L L B V U n- \ Q Q I- F H m Q 0 y \ o 1 a 1 z w co m m w Y fl ` o3 o 110'-0" z ° 3~oc \ C7 0 _o m \ z m ~N ° c rwi° t o~N'c O 3 c 3 ami O O yo. CAN C a E c N d a v Q o n m o 0 n~n3~ O~\\ 1 00 0 n t ~UOivo _ U LL_- N E U (6 (6 o a m c -o 1 ~ r ~ o 6 ~ N \ O Q n \ Q Q m a o d o \ ~ < N N C C \ W i> CT U X N CA 3Eoa C7 c NYC .aa° l O 3 ~ o\w 3 ~ _ x rncY a.° o LLI c 4 t. i o m m ~ Ln a c 0 6 W Y ~ \L.. ~.VC N N N O E a EQ 2 ao~ \ m °0 1 °N oQ 3 `o o E orn ~o°m EY c o- m\\ L) 9 y -p - Q 0.- 0 a 1 xo u U V N N N N a W QI-H o l- Q PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 1100 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 600 PA-2012-00575 391 E10 900 ASHLAND ACADEMY OF ART LLC BLUE IRIS PROPERTIES LLC COMMUNITY WORKS INC 222 LANI LOA WAY PO BOX 338 900 E MAIN ST HAIKU HI 96708 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7200 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60003 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60002 CONKLIN JIM TRUSTEE COOMBS MARY IRENE CRUZ SANDRA PO BOX 246 1420 BRICKELL BAY DR 1505 72 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 MIAMI FL 33131 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7400 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5409 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5416 DONALDSON J ROBIN TRUSTEE - DYKSTRA JAMES D JR/MARIA E FRANKS VERNON LOUIS DONALDSON JA 1238 ROSE LN TRUSTEE ET AL 114 GRANITE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 555 SHERIDAN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7100 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5407 PA-2012-00575 391 El 013C 5414 GERSCHLER KENNETH GILINDA GOTTLIEB HEIDEN E GRAHAM ROSEMARY E 1218 ROSE LN 1288 ROSE LN 1125 MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 100 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7300 PA-2012-00575 391 E 10BC 5413 GRAWOIG MARTS LOGAN HALL RICHARD/HALL SAMANTHA HEALEY KIMBERLEY 2305-C ASHLAND ST PMB 433 M 1278 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 40 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60004 PA-2012-00575 391 E10 800 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 601 HIGH PRISCILLA TRUSTEE ET AL HODGINS ROBERT DALE HOFFMAN MARIE BELLE REV LIV 2709 CLAY CREEK WAY TRUSTEE ET AL TRUST ASHLAND OR 97520 165 TIMBERLAKE DR 61 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2901 PA-2012-00575 391 E10 1000 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7600 HOWE OLIVE J TRUSTEE JACKSON CO SCHOOL DIST #5 JACOBSON SEPORA MAYIM P O BOX 336 885 SISKIYOU BLVD 1031 PAKINGTON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 VICTORIA BC V8V382 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2800 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5422 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60005 KRADLE ARIEL MARIA R LEWIS-RAYMAN KATHY M MAIER WILLIAM CIJOANN 23 GARFIELD ST 1254 ORCHID ST 1156 IDAHO ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN JOSE CA 95126 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60007 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 8900 PA-2012-00575 391 E1 OBC 2803 MARSHIK LINDA NORTHCUTT JACK DIBETTY A PEARSON ADAM J/CHRISTINA A 415 18TH ST 1340 E MAIN ST 33 GARFIELD ST NORTH VANCOUVER BC V71- 2Y1 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 700 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5420 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5406 PEOPLES BANK POE PATRICIA L TRUSTEE FBO POWELL JEANNE H TRUSTEE ET 750 BIDDLE RD 27 DEWEY AL MEDFORD OR 97504 ASHLAND OR 97520 1208 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5410 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2802 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5408 PRESKENIS DANIEL JIAMY I REDDING LINDA J ROSENTHAL RICHARD S 1248 ROSE LN 31 GARFIELD ST 1228 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391E 10BC 5419 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60008 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AA 1700 SCHOROVSKY SANDRA B SCHREIBER ARTHUR HIJANET C SPENCER NANCY S TRUSTEE 1285 ROSE LN 64 MOUNTAIN AVE FBO ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 167 N MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391E 10BC 2900 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 603 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 201 TAYLOR STEVEN WMIANDA THOMASHEFSKY ALLEN J THOMPSON BRENT TRUSTEE ET 32 LINCOLN ST 64 3RD ST AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 P O BOX 201 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E 10BC 5411 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5415 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5412 TOEWS ERIC HICASSANDRA S TSCHANN DENISE M TYGERSON DAVID GIKELLY A PO BOX 85 659 FORDYCE ST 5072 S OLD HWY 99 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60006 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60001 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5417 WAXMONSKY STEVENIJENYA WOLF STEPHEN H YOUNG SALLY O TRUSTEE FBO 1 MANDALAY PL 909 74 N MOUNTAIN 2300 TAYLOR AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA ASHLAND OR 97520 YREKA CA 96097 94080 PA-2012-00575 PA-2012-00575 Straus & Seibert Architect LLP City of Ashland 1175 E Main, Suite 2E Dale Peters Medford OR 97504 20 E Main Ashland OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 City of Ashland Police Dept Renotice on 6/27/2012 Chief Holderness 20 E Main Ashland OR 97520 i AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson } The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On June 27, 2012 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2012-00575, 1155 East Main Street. dM442 Signal re of Employee Woomm-devlpfanningTorms 8 Handouls4Affidavii of Mailing-Planning Adon Nofte,doc Planning Commission Speaker Request Foa•rn 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. b) 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. -i 0 Name 1 v ( (pleasprint} i t Q y 01A1 j~ Address (no P.O. Box)_ Phone Email Tonight's Mectirrg Date Regular Meeting Agenda item numbe OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning cominissioner) 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 Nvith the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written ContmentslChallenge: The Public Aleeting Lair, r•equil'es that all city meetings am open to the public. O7•egon lmr, does not ahvays require that the public be permitted to speak. The Alshl(irtd PlclitrTllrgCoT1rr117ssio7t gettel•all)~ hwites the public to speak on agerlcla items arrcl clll/•i7lgpllblic fo7•trrr7 on non-agen(la items unless time co71sli-ai)1ts ltrlt7t pttblic iestlrtlol7y. No pe7'son has an absolute eight to speak ol" participate in eve7y phase of a pl'oceecllug. Please respect the or'(lel' L)fl)r'Oceedlilgs,fo]' public heaiings and strictly follow, the directions of the p1'esldlllg Of~lcel'. Behav7o7' or• actions which are uttl•easonably loud o7• d7st'llpttve a7'e clisr espectftrl, ClllCllllay constitute disor der ly corrclucl. Offeaelel•s will be r'egllested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or tine City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary pr'ior to the discussion of the item you Nvish 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 continents 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 (please print) Address no P.0:.1w3ox Phone Email Tonight's Meeting Date 1~ Regular Meeting Agenda item rtumbet•v l I OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias if you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Lrnv requires that all city trteetings are open to the public. Oregon lain does trot always require that the public be permitted to speak. The rlshlctttd Plctttttittg Cotttntissiott generally invites the public to speak on agenda ttettts caul Chwing public for'tr n on non-agenda items unless tune cott.strautt.s lttritt pttblic iestttttotty. No person has an absolute right io Speltk or pCtt'ttclpate tit every phase q1'a proceeding. Please t•eapect the order ofproceediugs fior public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. 13e{utviar or actions which are urn easorrably laud or di,sr'uptive are disrespectful, and ruay constitute disordet•ly couducl. Offenders nt ill be requested lo leave the rnnIn Corments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. i The Commission voted to approve the Ashland Police Department application, with the conditions recommended by staff and the following amendments: k--,"1) That the mechanical equipment placement be moved interior to the site, on the East side of the Phase 11 addition and appropriately screened. 2) That construction hours for the project be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 430 p.m. - 3) That construction phasing be on the East side of the Phase 1 addition and all construction traffic use a temporary construction access out to the existing public parking lot rather than the existing gated driveway on the West side of the Police Station 4) That the material treatment of the West wall of the Phase I addition be modified to use different materials and articulation to break-up the wall and thereby minimize the creation of a "noise corridor" which would reflect sound to the adjacent residential neighbors. 5) „That the walkway to the newly created entry plaza area not include steps in its final design. 6) That Condition #4 making the recommendations of the Tree Commission requirements of the approval be stricken. _ --7).. That the low water use landscaping plan for the area between East Main Street and the existing ,_-7)' Council Chambers be modified to maintain a people-friendly green space (in the form of existing lawn or a similar low-water use vegetative treatment) to soften the buildings' appearance, relate to the nearby Garfield Park green space, and provide an area which can comfortably accommodate public assembly. II.Y t Zimbra Page 1 of 2 Zimbra severs ad@ashland.ar.ur + Font Size - FW; Ashland Police Department Vest Exterior Wall Treatment From : Ogun Arslan <OArslan@ssarchllp.com> Mon, Jun 18, 2012 03:02 PM Subject : FW: Ashland Police Department West Exterior Wall Treatment ) I attachment To : bill molnar <blll.molnar@ashland.or.us> Cc : planning@ashland.or.us, holdernet@ashland.or.us, David Straus <DStraus@ssarchllp,com> Bill, I had sent this email to Derek but I understand he will be out of the office. Could you please review these drawings and give us a direction on the west wall treatment issue? Kindest Regards, Ogun Arslan, NCARB, LEED AP Straus & Seibert ARCHITECTS, LLP 1175 E. Main Street, Suite 2E Medford, Oregon 97504 P. 541-779-4363 F. 541-779-3891 oarslan@ssarchllp.com -----Original Message----- From: Ogun Arslan Sent; Monday, June 18, 201214:55 To: 'Derek Severson' Cc: David Straus;'holdemet@ashland.or.us' Subject: Ashland Police Department West Exterior Wall Treatment Importance: High Derek, In response to the west wall material treatment requested by the Planning Commission, we developed several design options with respect to aesthetic, functional and budgetary considerations while producing an optimal solution that works for both the community/ neighbors and the Police Department. The attached Is the final proposed solution that resolves the issues raised by the planning commission In best way. We propose a vertical facade treatment with triangular cross sectioned wood battens spaced @ 1'-0" O.C. along the west wall in groups. These wood batten sections are easily created by slicing 4"X4" lumber with quarter cuts. Triangular cross sections work effectively to create textural quality In the long facade. This ultimately helps to differentiate the facade. The triangular battens also break up the sound waves and reduce the undesirable traffic noise (please see page 2 of the attached). Wood as a material Is excellent in absorbing the sound. Wood treatment also works with the existing and proposed structural system that has to withstand seismic loads. We had to be careful not to compromise seismic performance of the west exterior wall. Therefore, we chose wood battens In this material treatment. Please note that we relocated the mechanical equipment to the east side, Equipment noise Is totally eliminated. We also proposed second site entry on the east side. Therefore, the traffic load on this side is also considerably reduced. With this treatment, we believe that we addressed both the visual and noise Issues. These battens can be stained to match the existing color of the facility. The vertical battens also work with the rest of the facility by easily Integrating with the existing vertical cedar siding and proposed Till textured plywood siding. In summary, this solution creates visual differentiation and helps to reduce noise and enhances the existing exterior treatment. We wanted to share our approach with you to get your feedback, If you could provide us a feedback (hopefully a positive one), It would I tremendously help us to hit our tight deadlines. Our CDs are scheduled to be completed by June 22nd,2012, Any expedited feedback would be appreciated. Best Regards, Ogun Arslan, NCARB, LEER AP Straus & Seibert ARCHITECTS, LLP 1175 E. Main Street, Suite 2E http://zimbra,ashland, or.tis/1dprintmessage?id=57250& 1 6/25/2012 Zimbra Page 2 of 2 Medford, Oregon 97504 P. 541-779-4363 F. 541-779-3891 oarslan@ssarchlfp.corn 535C-112061813590.pdf El 2 MB I I € 1 http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=57250&1 6/25/2012 V7 Y 4YV4/OY/' co 15 a z z cn • c? z CO O N I ~ I Q N J z ZE, z LLI o----- - o rt, U N w m Of o z O ~1 - - - - _ : CO -I 2 G--81~- 0 -r° I- W ' X431 ,zeal Z ~ LLI = Z o Lli J Ko w a (Y = o Z I co co I ~I W 0 . ~ o I o - Z ~ a 0 - w Rw ~ ' o tz I - o I { ~s { V s ml g ~I w LL d ~ w4 w` ~I ~o C, h W° ~ ~ b V ~ ~'m Q 06 VD i t.t lA w ll CLI Z _ V 4V t Z C1 r 11 t - f i, Y S s Y i IL -2 21 LL; +a:y N 7- A 1 i J Ir I financial institutions; and also for uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer to be deemed expired after unused for 6 months, instead of 12. Kaplan stated he is divorcing this proposal from the Co-op's needs and sees this as an opportunity to give financial institutions the opportunity to do something that would be better for the City. Staff clarified this proposal would provide more flexibility for the four bank locations to redevelopment and add the ability for them to relocate. Dawkins spoke against the motion and voiced support for Ms. Shaw's comments. He stated things worked just fine before there were drive-ups in town and it is a convenience of our auto-centric society that we support things like this. He stated the City should be trying to eliminate all drive-thrus and have people get out of their cars. Marsh stated she resonates with Ms. Shaw's description for how the downtown was developed, however downtown should have been made retail only and there is no likelihood of these banks leaving anytime soon. She voiced her support for the motion and stated it could motivate these businesses to redevelop and would also reduce crossings, reduce the number of drive-up lanes, and improve the environment. Commissioner Marsh noted her desire to address the screening and visibility issue, and motioned to amend the recommendation at the top of page 4 of the staff report to read: `That with relocation or redevelopment, drive-up uses only be placed in a basement or on a non-street facing (other than an alley) secondary building elevation, only accessed from art alley or driveway ante-wmpenens-of the releeate&gdevele structure, 'esk, wirtdew er ' Ewing lanegbut net-Me a~r+veway eompen Ono maybe la fpm adja~er-thaw"Brown seconded this and accepted It as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Kaplan recommended they remove the word "basement" from the above recommendation. Brown seconded this as a friendly amendment. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Kaplan, Brown, Heesacker, Miller and Marsh, YES, Commissioner Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 54. Commissioner Miller asked if they could submit concerns to Council along with the recommendation. Staff noted the Findings and Minutes will be provided. Commissioner Marsh stated it is inappropriate for commissioners to submit personal comments and instead the Council should be encouraged to watch the taped recordings. B. PLANNING ACTION: #2012.00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1155 East Main Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first phase of a multiphase project over the next five years; subsequent phases will include a 1,975 square foot addition, additional parking, and site improvements to bring the site more in line with current standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment, ZONING: E•1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 10; TAX LOT 900. The Commission took a short recess and performed a site visit. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact All commissioners attended the site visit; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and noted the subject property is located behind the Police Department and Council Chambers. He explained this application is for site review approval to construct a 3,016 sq, ft, addition to the police station, and this would be the first phase of a multi-phased construction project. Mr. Severson provided an overview of the site plan, building elevations, project phasing, tree protection plan, and landscape plan; and noted staffs recommendation for the sense of entry to be improved to make it a more people friendly space through the use of landscaping and hardscaping. Mr. Severson listed the recommendations from the Tree Commission to supplement the existing hedge buffer with two additional trees and for tree #50 to be retained and protected. He noted the nearby neighbors spoke at the Tree Commission meeting and requested measures be taken to soften the exposure to the existing ratio antenna, parking, and building roof to the extent possible. He stated the other concerns that have been raised by the neighbors include: 1) the placement of the addition, Ashland Planning Commission Jane 92, 2092 Page 4 of 7 the placement of five new compact parking spaces along the driveway, and the removal of the existing berm pose a noise concern which neighbors feel could be mitigated through relocating the parking and mechanical equipment to the interior of the site and landscaping the adjacent driveway to soften the building wall, 2) concern regarding the construction hours and construction staging; the neighbors suggest that if the new parking on the northeast of the building were added and new gate installed in Phase I, construction could be staged farther from their residences, and 3) that all site lighting should come into conformance with current standards, have downward directed fixtures, and reduced pole heights. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and requested the Commission address the following issues during their discussion: 1) the use of landscape and hardscape to enhance the sense of entry and creating a space for people to congregate, 2) the two recommendations raised by the Tree Commission, and 3) the impacts raised by the neighbors, Applicant's Presentation Dave Strauss, Kerry Kencairn, and Police Chief Terry Holderness/Mr. Strauss commented on the staff recommendations. He stated they are open to the City's and Commission's direction regarding how the public area out front should be developed, and addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors. He stated the berm needs to be removed, however the new mechanical equipment will produce significantly less noise and the compact parking spaces will be used by the office staff (one trip in, one trip out per day) and the impact on neighbors in terms of car noise will be considerably reduced. Mr. Strauss commented on the standards of the National Police Association, including the need for two ways out of secured parking areas and for staff vehicles, police vehicles, and impounded vehicles to be kept secured. Landscape Architect Kerry Kencairn noted the location of the new bike parking and also commented on tree #50. She clarified the location of this tree and stated it is not possible to save it and still meet the parking requirement. She added the additional trees they have proposed will outweigh the impacts of the trees being removed. Regarding the trees to supplement the hedge buffer, Ms. Kencairn stated they can install these without damaging the hedge, however they are willing to do whatever the neighbors want. Chief Holderness added the radio antenna will be removed, so there is no need for mitigation measures. Ms. Kencairn responded to the commissioners comments and clarified there is currently no landscaping proposed along the west side of the building. When asked if the five compact spaces could be removed, Mr. Strauss clarified there is no set parking requirement and instead it is established by need. He stated 40 spaces appears to be the right number for the police station and this is the number they provided for on their plans. He added the police station currently has 34 spaces. Comment was made questioning if the department foresees adding staff in the future. Mr. Holderness stated the extra spaces serve an economic and convenience need. He explained some days they have more staffing than others, and at times employees have to park in the public lot. He added the department seizes cars and they would prefer to keep these in the secure lot rather than paying to have them stored elsewhere. Concern was expressed regarding the removal of the green lawn. It was noted this is a public space, and occasionally there are protests, and it would be beneficial to retain space for this use. Comment was made suggesting a landscape maintenance budget be established to maintain whatever landscape design they agree on. Regarding the trees in the hedge buffer, comment was made suggesting these be removed from the plan. The applicants were asked to comment on whether there are alternatives to removing the berm. Mr. Strauss answered it needs to be removed and they believe the impact to maintain it is not appropriate. When asked if the mechanical equipment could be relocated, Mr. Strauss stated they could look at this, but it would then need to be placed in the public area. Comment was made that disturbance to the neighbors is more of an issue than disturbing the people who come to meetings in the council chambers. i Comment was made suggesting the applicant break up the materials along the west side of the building to break up the sound. Additional comment was made questioning why the applicants are proposing stairs on the new entry and that a ramp would be better suited for ADA standards. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins mis to extend the meeting to 9.30 p.m. Voice Vote; all AYES. Motion passed 6.0. Ashland Planning Commission Jane 12, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Public Testimony Arthur Schreiber/64 North Mountain/Stated he lives directly behind the hedge bush that separates the police station driveway from the townhome complex, and they can hear everything. He stated he supports the expansion, but would like for the impacts to the neighbors be mitigated. Mr. Schreiber stated he will be able to see the new building from his second floor window and would appreciate anything the Commission can do to improve the aesthetics of the building on this side. Regarding the noise concerns, he explained sound is currently buffered by the berm, and the applicant's proposal is to remove it and install four new machines. He stated the noise will be significant and requested the Commission do anything possible to have these moved to the other side of the building. He also commented on the noise that will be caused by the constructive vehicles and stated this will be very disruptive to the nearby residences. Mr. Schreiber asked if the construction could have a start time of no earlier than 8 a.m., and also requested the two trees proposed for the hedge not be installed. Steve Wolf/74 North Mountain/Thanked staff for addressing his concerns and clarified his home office looks out on this building and the proposed addition. Mr. Wolf stated the placement of the mechanical equipment is his biggest concern, but the staging of the parking lot and having the construction teams access the site from the east side instead would be very beneficial to their livability. He commented on the number of parking spaces and believes the police station can meet their needs without placing the compact parking near the residences. He stated the berm and trees currently buffer the sound from the police cars and mechanical equipment, but if you remove this the noise will be an issue, even with the installation of quieter equipment. Applicant's Rebuttal Dave Strauss/Agreed that there are alternate options regarding the placement of the mechanical equipment, and he agreed to remove the two trees in the hedge buffer from the plan. Regarding the construction noise, he stated they could specify start and stop times with their contractors, and suggested 7:30 a,m. to 4:00 p.m. He clarified this project would have a 5-6 month construction period, but the biggest percentage of noise would be generated in the first 3 months, and in the later months most of the work will be done inside. He also stated they could direct the construction traffic through the back lot if the City is comfortable with keeping this a gravel access, and stated they cannot guarantee they will have the funding necessary to complete the lot in phase one. Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins stated if they eliminate the five parking spaces and relocate the mechanical equipment, that would leave an area than could be landscaped along the building, He added if this building were located anywhere else, the Commission would make the applicant soften the side of the building. Dawkins voiced his concern with the entry of the building and stated the City Council should find the necessary funding to bring this up to city standards. At a minimum, he would like to see the west wall broken up. Commissioner Miller agreed with Dawkins and voiced support for including a modification of the west side wall in their motion. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins mis to approve Planning Action #2012.00575 with amendments. DISCUSSION: 1) Location of Mechanical Equipment Recommendation was made for the equipment to be moved to a location other than the side near the residences. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. 2) Construction Times: Recommendation was made for construction work to be limited to 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment, 3) Materials along West Wall: Recommendation was made for the use of different materials along the west wall or articulation to address the noise issue. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. 4) f=ront Walkway Entrance: Recommendation was made for no stairs on the walkway out front and for ramps to be used instead. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment. i Commissioners Miller/Dawkins mis to continue meeting past 10.00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6.0. Ashland Planning Commissioll June 92, 2092 Page 6 of 7 5) Compact Parking-Spaces/Landscaping: Commissioner Miller voiced her preference for the five compact parking spaces to be removed and to install landscaping along the west side. Commission Dawkins agreed and stated he would rather remove those spaces and install landscaping. He stated he is comfortable with maintaining the same level of parking and noted the public parking lot could still be used when needed. Commissioner Brown noted they will not need to require articulation of the building if trees are planted along that wall. Commissioner Marsh stated she is not as concerned with the five spaces and believes there will be minimal coming and going. She stated the major impact will be moving the equipment to the other side of the building and believes they should do the best they can to cushion the impact of this noise. Commissioner Brown stated he supports leaving in the parking the police department needs. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to amend motion to remove the five compact parking spaces and substitute landscaping. Voice Vote: Commissioners Miller and Dawkins, YES, Commissioners Heesacker, Brown, Kaplan and Marsh, NO. Motion failed 4.2. 6) Construction Traffic: Commissioner Marsh stated she feels strongly that they should use the east access. Miller agreed and stated she does not want the construction vehicles using the narrow driveway near the residences. Brown recommended that construction phasing be on the east side of the Phase I addition and for all construction traffic to use a temporary access out to the existing public parking lot rather than the gated driveway on the west side of the police station, The Commission agreed to incorporate this into the motion. 7) Trees in Hedge: The Commission agreed to strike the recommendations from the Tree Commission regarding the planting of trees in the hedge buffer and the retaining of tree #50, 8) f=ront Landscaping: Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for leaving the lawn area as it is and stated fescues and ground cover are not an inviting treatment. He added they should encourage the City Council to help enhance the entry to this building and this should not be placed on the shoulders of the police department. Commissioner Miller voiced her support for maintaining the green lawn and stated it softens the impacts of this building. Commissioner Brown added the lawn mirrors the park across the street quite nicely. Commission Marsh stated she feels strongly that public spaces should be used actively and anything they can do to draw people into this space and make it welcoming should be encouraged. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Brown, Miller, Kaplan, Dawkins, Heesacker and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 6-0. C. PLANNING ACTION: #2012.00573 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Not property-specific ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new "Chapter XV - Regional Plan" element to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan ("the RPS Plan") and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's population, but before the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not identified urban reserves as the city's existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves.) Due to lack to time, action was continued to June 26, 2012 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor i Ashland Planning Commission June 12, 2012 Page 7 of 7 77 .go w ~ _U9 of ~°"~at i g cu m E L C- CU r co V E O CL Q OU ~ ~ C6~1 U bq J G ' ~ y C C ~ ~ s J W O Q C N p V p N Z i d a Q U a 0 41 co j' u O r_ a L = R Q L Q O N ®1 > u W C U ® N v IZ Y N 3 O 7 w- R m Q 7 AM! N Y > 0 N N LL fa i V T s 7 a V9 0 u _ m m O_ m co d O to N y -O t vOi p. > R N= ® _ T O u ui Q p®~ N N = C V O 4 4) W U O=~ N= Oi = > N N i rn \ Z= H = N a o= c a is ° v8 a a c ~ £ m aNi = ai E Z I- i y N U Q O E y o °e s L a > v~ Q d- 1A W bo Q' N L Q w U v1 Q N o x C) ~o .a ci -a ai Q- w Q Z w U w O 'e .e ci LL 'a o N N M i1' 'n to 1, W Gi N CN" ti N 'O 9 ® ti ~ d Y Z C t6 d y N cOi ? O vi s E L N •O V t Y N E Q G/ to Q= N N N Ol O= G ~ da a~ d Y.f6 C7 d ~ Q Y N U= Ul ~ N 1' ~ u~ y G [0 > a ou a~ O o y J C O > ti d E > Y V 00 U U L 2 4 5. C U z :t! O N y U U~ U _U ® U = U d Ol F- f6 7 d Z ti M s tO c E 3 iJ Q L = Ql Q= o N G= o 16 a N ml U O. N y N N R U Y u T w N ® .2 16 O •O. d .Q E Y Y d a U to N N :E = Gl f6 m i U :k' °T•' a V OU l6 O. aL•+ N l0 _ y -a N t m V s 3 U L 0 W i "O 0£ N cc 3 1 0_ O' C Y? C O o N Y L G _ +t+ N "a v~ U m~ N L~_ m L ,~r E O C I- t 3==Y O v> = f0 = o E Q Q o a d m o E o y° E E m E v o m no v O0, s m E a N v s v W co (.7 o x U wt6- m +O' m CL r- W p y a > a m E° m Y o i o 3 s c J O N c s O a m y- d c t O o m ® S N N d y d O V E v N b=O C ® c 0 3 v m y E c°'i as £ m z t u_ C r N m o m N 3 J ® a d o c E 3 E m' v .2 g Q CL m R S 0 ass _ i cs o u-~ `m o c m 3 y 3° t Q 3 Q no o a m °-'s v y m o 3 Y d m ^ ..~..a O E a a o L = D m u as = v O H.$ a Y E N O E N is i N Q W 7 0 j N pp (.l N U ON I Q. R>£ ui 0 (L) CL a 0, -0 0 -C m E ro ~a o N d co V a 7 N C U N n N O N O > sLL m Q s m LL O CL d 2 o L C7 C C C) a Q n W v C (q m6 r ~ 0 a v > o 5 a c d v, c ¢ 5 a m- LU t- 'm ~n a a c CD C* a CM 00 1w LO UDI I- co w N 05 C 111 O H m 04 - L N O a) 3 N N :53 N ca U - EL m IW- co 00 O_ N LL Tom" aas--~I'1n ctrc-c-Oc- c-MM CQ M = O i~ 7 N C ~ 3 w ~ U Q O O U O N rN Q f6 0 p O _LO (6 ) Y o Q v CO •a O L N U L6 0) 41 U U _ E Y U UU)Q m N i C G U 12:11 i d N OJ `.L O E N N o>? N C N N N L6 O U) N Q o F U) w w o G UaA2A 0) t)o0¢~ :3 U ~-aL 6°)i O cc o'o' ~~6E m L o o o y C.) aE E 0) 2~ o o~ c~ E _0 o c°~ ~ Z a O •o N •a •O a) N> 76 16 2 N U O 4) N O i 3 d ILcl< 0 a d(.hUU)0 W > N i- co N y 7 p O C a J L6 w N :N O a. 0 LNL N N V O 2 T H N N N p> C N •L6 lN.! 3 m LL .:3 a) 0) m -5 O CL 'C v E V •N O Y d O_ 'C w aN. u- IL m ca -E O. L6 > R fA a r ~ N M Q = d m W F U) m i I o t t6 N ®0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q F-' N 3C. m r N M Lo co r- Go W OT F H 634 Z WZ24/9 I T 1 z -j n N O N a 0 0 _ ICI LL ~ II o 1 II 11 I, ~ I zg i - p LWC®LN ST. ~ I i I; m 0 i ` ~yI i o Z ~ s O - o / xZ ~Im o ~ J ~ Y I I o 1 I I. F ; , o _ _x it - M /1 °P I I w w I~w^ I ~ - ~ I I1 N c 11 r 3 1 9W- 6W - ~ p ~ I ~y i ~ \ _w F L Sl..~ 1 - _ ~ Y 1 1 V J 2 ~ e _ ~ I ~Nwtlvdz G I . Z L ~ ~ - '1 1 ~fA. M3 m ? ( I PVC r(p _ j - I - 21 V I a I re ~ ~o O ~ - III ~I - - - 06 I J ea aaNOZ a dJ cz 6Z: L Z LOM L/9 Q J N O N a 0 i 1 i 4 1 1 ❑ 1 1 1 A ~ 11 1 1~ ~ 1 11 - + 1 11 w 1 Z -see 4n)~ -nw- T-sw- - cvawtM~ \~~I I 1 ~ 1 ~1 ul g w U 4 1' N 11 ~ i i-'~ ~ 3 z i ❑:;u I 1 ~ 1~ ~ Q 1• o~ u°,w , 1 r Iw i w ~ a _ Y 1 ire I 0 1 11 / _ ggql ~ J T ~ = 7 1 1m ~ I - ~ i 91 1 11 ~y 1 1 1 V i N ~ Y r ,r q o ozl~ r ~m i- 11' V o v I ; r osz (n .bo ~ I~nl 06 0 x- A6- - - - w J 1' _ - wR ~-1"~' 6Z: L Z MM U9 I zg .1 I N O a 0 ' o - I 'I 1 ' e I - - ~ ~ 1 ~ 11 a 1 11 - ui I 1 J 1 t 11. Z 1 11 ~ x 1. 1 1~ it ~ 1 1 11 - ~ 1 1 11 tw1 L l~1 1 , Ire 1 1 1, t I P W 1 ~ 1 - i I - , 1 1 g 1 1 I CL _ I o I ~ I ~i ~ 1 1 ¢ 1 i W 11 4J _ za~j~ I ~I, N 11 4 0 X Z 01 LLI _ ~ 1 •Q1, 1 1 I _I 1 1 I ~ I r _ _ I ~ _ ~ 11 r I 3 ~ ~ 1 1 rx- sw 1 1r ~ I 11 i 1 3a s~ y~~ a i I ~.osz c,»i cWI % .se I ~ 3 _ II 1 I w ~i _ _ ~ ea aarloz ~ ~ W w y o We AOZ/ZN9 Q 0 Z ^J LL N O 10Im ~ CB O A ( i I m t Q6 U i- $ C~-I O ~ a M! z I J 3q' -/I 3,13_ K a - ~J! s CO o a JJ Z - O- j~~ I rii a 3 OE CCC 6 s. I i a Hi w4 - - - - m ~ ~a c9 I ~l 1 a I ~ - ~I I ~ ~ id I - cn 2- air , 06 w~ U) L U) 40.'£ MZZU9 LO Q 1 Z n N O a o Ws ffi~ N 3'~ s, aiw ~ m 3 m it O ~ III ~ z o f ~ O F py~, pQpy~~~ z gy ~,oo 0 JJJ I ~ I _ ig~ ~a glC g~O g 1~ ~ W' 3n I Q e i 1' K 2 - W l Z O Z a i Q 06 ca U) Zimbra Page 1 of 1 ZImbra seversod@ashland.or.u! * Font Size - TREE NUMBER 50 From , Kerry Ken Cairn <kery@kencairnlandscape.com> Mon, Jun 11, 2012 03.07 PM Subject: TREE NUMBER 50 1 attachment To :'Derek Severson' <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>, `David Straus` <DStraus@ssarchllp.com> Reply To : kerry@kencairnlandscape,com While I believe in the agenda of the tree commission, I believe that the ability to create continuous growing areas for new trees along the north property line far out weighs the removal of this tree. The proposal removes two trees from future paved areas and provides room for nine new shade trees along the parking area edges. The tree proposed for removal is maple in fair to poor condition. We do not believe that the tree commission recommendation is valid in light of the overall project design, Tree # 50 exhlb[t.pdf ref 119 KB i N, http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=56927& 1 6/11/2012 uxo'ede~spu~lw!puaH~ l ssss't~'~os~naa aaaiaaijgwvadeaspam ~ 7 i0 rrr a OZ9L6 N0032j0 `aN~1lHSy r ozstsdo'weusr z~sszssws Udlb'JIIax xo>e - = ~aaasdscs os esav'~ros rei / F ~g < m 133alS NIVVA "3 596 6 z d q NOIl`d1S 33110d ®Nd1FISV a J~ uLA ,OSG LL n z Q J $ a z O H U W h- V o a iL N ) w \ Lu Nt CN LL, 13 a I, \ \ CN w w Cpl Qfrn 11 z 2 0 a- co xD i ~ Z J I O •z \ \I O \O 00 LO LO X , v z o W 04 W U W U 0<. W - < - C i 0 Q w \o ~ cD LL a Q W 0 Z I W U z \ i (Z LLI Z) LL w / Z c9 w as Z w Z w w o 9 U~ ` 0 C) C3 Q " W of ~a wmz=Q \ < cf) U) CO a a ° O Q O o- i HzUa LL] ¢ w 2E z U) ~ O Q U` o U I x L - U = ¢U) ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET JUNE 7, 2012 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1155 East Main Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first phase of a multi-phase project over the next five years; subsequent phases will include a 1,975 square foot addition, additional parking, and site improvements to bring the site more in line with current standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 lE 10; TAX LOT 900 Recommendation: 1) The Commission recommended that tree #50 be preserved 2) The Commission also recommended that a two more trees be planted in the western planting strip abutting the residential zone to the west. i Department of Cammunify Development To[: 541A88-5350 C I T Y ® F 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 'LAN D"Al Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 -Asri www.ashland.or.us Zinlbra Page 1 of 1 r Zimbra seversod@ashiand.or.u: + Font Size - N. Moutain condos PA From : Maria Harris <harrism@ashland.or.us> Mon, Jun 11, 2012 09:00 AM Subject : N. Moutain condos PA To :'Derek Severson` <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Derek, FYI - the planning approval for the condos at 66 N. Mountain, PA 2005-411, had the following condition attached, That a hold harmless agreement for noise from city operations shall be signed and recorded for the condominium units prior to Issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Maria Harris, Planning Manager City of Ashland, Dept, of Community Development 20 E, Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 541.552.2045 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission Is official business of the City of Ashland, and it Is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message In error, please contact me at 541.552.2045. Thank you. ICI I littp://zimbra.ashland.or,tis/h/printmessage?id=56867&1 6/11/2012 June 10, 2012, To: Ashland Planning Division Re: Application #2012-00575 Phase I expansion of Ashland Police Dept at 1155 East Main St IEroin: North Mountain Homeowners Association #58 to 74 North Mountain Ave Several features of the proposed expansion of the Police Department site as currently designed may have significant impact on the livability of our 8 townhouses that adjoin the parcel on the west side. In accordance with its power to amend plans per Section 18.72.100, we request that Planning Commission and staff consider amendments to the proposed development in order to mitigate detrimental effects of this multi-phase development project on our continued peaceful and quiet enjoyment of our residences. Our most urgent concern is the increased noise impact on our adjoining property as outlined in items 1 & 2 below. 1. Proposed relocation of outdoor mechanical units and consequent increase in noise. Mechanical units are presently located at the north end of the building, around the northwest corner, and buffered by a berm. The proposal is to remove the berm and place the mechanicals outside along the west wall of the expanded building. This high 74 foot-long outer wall of the new building will amplify noise and bounce it back to our residences, increasing noise levels in all our living areas including bedrooms, decks and patios. The current proposal entails both a change in the location of these mechanicals and a substantial increase in their capacity. Note that these HVAC mechanical systems will run 24 hours a day 7 days a week. 1 3 Requested Amendment: Instead, relocate these mechanicals to the east side of the new building so that the building itself serves as a buffer. 2. West side traffic corridor and parking and consequent increase in noise. The noisy driveway gate on the west side driveway will open and close more frequently day and night, seven days a week due to increased activity.- The addition of 4 parking spaces on the west side corridor is not needed to meet the city parking requirements and will exacerbate the noise of the enh ~d sound corridor. This could mitigated by landscaping. Requested Amendments or Alternatives: a. Remove the 4 parking spaces on the west side and replace with landscaping to help absorb and reduce noise of the expanded noise canyon. This would reduce the proposed spaces to 46, which still exceeds by 6 the city requirement of 40 parking spaces. Note: 73 additional public parking spaces are already available in the lot to the east, b. Include the northeast Phase 2 parking in the Phase 1 development and use it to mitigate noise of construction, reduce trips past our residences, provide staging areas for construction activity and encourage alternate traffic routes into and out of the site. Or, at a minimum, require construction of an access route through this Phase 2 parking area. We have not been provided any guarantee that Phase 2 will be built. Important note: Since construction is allowed to take place on weekends, using the Phase 2 parking area as a construction area is essential to mitigate the deleterious impact on neighboring residents. 3. Site Lighting, Require in addition to staff's request about new lighting that all existing lighting comply with city policy to have downward facing lights and reduce the height of light poles that are presently non-compliant: Thank you for your consideration, Steve Wolf For North Mountain Condominium Association S eve Wo~ r j ewe dry desigrln B TEL 541 944 4596 box 152 Ashland OR 97520 stevewolfco@gmaii.com noise of the enla A sound corridor. This could 1 nitigated by landscaping. Re guested Amendments or Alternatives: a. Remove the 4 parking spaces on the west side and replace with landscaping to help absorb and reduce noise of the expanded noise canyon. This would reduce the proposed spaces to 46, which still exceeds by 6 the city requirement of 40 parking spaces. Note: 73 additional public parking spaces are already available in the lot to the east. b. Include the northeast Phase 2 parking in the Phase 1 development and use it to mitigate noise of construction, reduce trips past our residences, provide staging areas for construction activity and encourage alternate traffic routes into and out of the site. Or, at a minimum, require construction of an access route through this Phase 2 parking area. We have not been provided any guarantee that Phase 2 will be built. Important note: Since construction is allowed to take place on weekends, using the Phase 2 parking area as a construction area is essential to mitigate the deleterious impact on neighboring residents. 3. Site Lighting. Require in addition to staff's request about new lighting that all existing lighting comply with city policy to have downward facing lights and reduce the height of light poles that are presently non-compliant. Thank you for your consideration, Steve Wolf For North Mountain Condominium Association S eve Wok } jewelry desiorL TEL 541 944 4596 box 152 Ashland OR 97520 stevewolfco@grnail.com ~ ir'S ;.T`. Lit, `I. ~ ~`i. t Icy'- I •-?r--::- i, ~ j i ~ [~Tr P~ ' ~rad 1 t Y 'off yt ~.~k~~ ! F 3 ty! TFrI axkr.-~~ J 1t 1a,~ I a I rL I' T 8 -1f j,.Ta T7 r G ~ ~ •1 1 F ~ ;r t i ( t I aF~ r d e r +h`a~ F t f d ` E 41t w 1 t.~ { ra r~r y g a f: NE; /fi' ,FZ'ri T • ix 4 ?l. .r Ir , * :t f d 4 1 ~V_~w~ s.. lug v II , ; ~ ''`Iff .q vT; 1 ~ r ~,1 ~ 1 ~ ~'i• y+~.~- w~. , 'r'S f"`~5 ~t`~~r~~~° ki rY"Til {;I~~ ~ 'F ~''l~ ~ g• i~ ~l~ T }'-.t`!. e 0 1 tar F- rid l~{ k T I ' Y _ - r~ ~°s R a 1 t a t- Y , d 4 I ~ N I tt\ f i1 i ~ 'lRk Y: t f < ' * Ar*,~~ 1~~1 ' ~ ~3 1 k t ~ r~ •.i ~ ~ ~ a 'Y. ~F, . ~~e , • ~ ~ ,k~,,~ a s ~ ~ r ~ t ~ ~t • ;~E ° i • 1~~• ~~~li r~ , k~ ii:.. _ ICI 4~ f~ Vii' r s t ~ I I_ i • 4~'- Tf ~ ~t,. ~ , t ter, . ~.,ia a i _ F ~ 4 - ~_i l..-lm~ _ r ~ - _ ~i.` I i g j ~ , ~ ~ , ~~Y Y t I ~ ~ri: ~5.5# ' i~s._ t.~i.. t. ._.a ~ - t _ ,1 -a ~ ~ p a~ ~ ~t F P,., J J I' Y I If.~ 4 All" e I '~1j I, ~ r IINI Ir 7r ,•`~~~j a ' , ~ 11 I~r 41 5 S~ • l:. ' ~ tai-: dal ~ ~ I J' I _,,~•I ~ l - r~ 1411 i.,~~,~ u I r '~f 11 l it " { ` n r lr6~r 1 ry 13 1 1 1~ ~1, 'S h r 11,1 h~ ~ E~~ e t ti JJ lllrf 1~ ~ I ~1.: ~ Ir ,~~r~ Frl Illflf I ~ r s- II lil', ~ I I f i fit' 11 it r to- =S;.J I1~If1I ~r I I r 2 1 + r' pT ~ ~S~SL~~r ;1 ?r _ r- ` A } yam, JJJ{{{~ 1. tit I ~ 11 14 i Z k ~J i h _r Y, ek t Y t 7 S s+ 41 ty z t Uri uy 1 . ~ „gym-:-.• _ _ u~ I~-~ e~ - - , ~"r j ~ ,y ~ ` I '~f,~. i;t 1 e. a of - III - , ~ ~>?j. - r t.. 1r 1 r~. l A- 9 1 r1 Y _ - { (psi 4 r.. 4 v Trt , s `A + i i 1,114 r 'y, !4 r 1~ ~,°fy` i ~'3~A a '~t~ f r '•d` f [S.t~ d P r; _ ~f JF'[ ' r t~ .Y. ~ ,r1 1 ~ 3~w 4 K ►f ~,~.';.~c'+~>7~ ' ,y4, 4(b.. .7 jJ~, `}7_►f 7L4, . 4 £>>>'j~~' j 4 S`y iii 1 1~ r ~ f. An' t A. ~~Je~ 1 t S.)3,~r: 4; ~ i r_~il ~i i17 v r if _ ~ t_ i ~ } ya •i f: ~r_ r - 1/~~, q~ r~ i-~ - - 'r_ r~~•'7- ~~~~,t l''~ f, f+y ~ _ /.~y~~,' r~. Y i \~~y„ ~r y • ! i I "-~"M" yii ~ ~ 7 yL { ; ~i'E0'^Y'~~. 1 i4 t ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ A ~i a s , ~Y~ 12 I .r - - ~ ~ 1 4i 1 I I I Id f 1 i I ` I -t f { r 1 v# y J t .3 Y~l -10w, EPA 2 4 .y r N-1 Planning Department, 51 Winbi) ay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y Of lL 541-488.5305 Fm 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 9155 East Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: City ofAshiand/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street, This addition is the first phase of a multi-phase project over the next five years; subsequent phases will include a 1,975 square foot addition, additional parking, and site improvements to bring the site more in line with current standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 10; TAX LOT 900 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Conunission will also review this Planning Action on June 7, 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: June 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center I~ 3 1 Z7r} t ~4 1255 049 1 i _ :l 4.~n BST `ST I L7`-f :W~ 08011D ST s I g Ii If _ 4254 I 264 1r4 12ro [ L- r 1 m J ~a34 ~~''yy P~' + 1228{/ ~t FI ry` f~l 112134 i'1 7 '4 f~ PLANNING ACTION #2012-00575 c~`~ 1155 EAST MAIN STREET • '25~;.r~ ~r I- 1 f ~i - 74 ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY i " d _ h _Ts7s FF17 t d I 7 17S .u3'l as f: r~ f J l ~~[T 1 r~1 Aoperty linos arc for rafarance only, not sca[eab[e 62C31E7 B0 Feet I Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notlce. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion, Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator=s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1.800.735.2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:kamm•deti~~lanning Planning Actions4tioticing FoldcANfalledNotices & Signs12012~2012-00575.doC SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72,070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development, B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. TREE REMOVAL 18.61,080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied, The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1, A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints, The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002) I I I Gacomnrded,plann-sngV]anning Actions\ oticing Foldeelfailed Notices h. SigO201214012-00575 ,doe _ ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT June 12,.2012 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00575 APPLICANT: City of Ashland Ashland Police Department LOCATION: 1155 East Main Street Map 39 1E 10, Tax Lot #900 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment (E-1) APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 3, 2012 120-DAY TIME LIMIT; October 1, 2012 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-1 Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design Review 18.92 Parking, Access & Circulation REQUEST; A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements to bring the site more into compliance with current standards including additional parking, landscaping and hardscaping improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first phase of a multi-phase project, with a subsequent phase to include another 1,975 square foot addition and associated site improvements within two to five years. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Applications In March of 2009, a Site Review permit (Planning Action #200900216) was administratively approved to allow the construction of a 40-foot by 48-foot carport behind the existing Ashland Police Department building at 1155 East Main Street. In February of 2008, a Site Review permit (Planning Action #2008-00164) was administratively approved to allow the expansion of the employee parking lot behind the existing Ashland Police Department building at 1155 East Main Street. In July of 1998, a Site Review permit (Planning Action 91998-00054) was administratively approved to allow the construction of an 8,000 square foot mixed-use service building for the Ashland Community Youth and Family Resource Center now designated as "The Grove" and addressed as 1195 East Main Street. This proposal was identical to Planning Action # 1997- 00040 which had expired without being constructed. Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Applicant, APD Expansion Page 1 of 12 In November of 1997, a request was made for Site Review permit approval (Planning Action #1997-00100) to allow the construction of a 7,800 square foot city office building which would have housed the Community Development and Public Works departments at 1175 East Main Street. This request was approved by the Planning Commission in April of 1998, but prior to moving ahead with the proposal, the Council created a citizen commission to look at the issue. It was ultimately determined that these city offices and the services they provided should be retained as a vital part of the downtown core. With this in mind, the city ultimately acquired the former Hillah Temple building which now houses the Community Development and Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In May of 1997, a Site Review permit (Planning Action #1997-00040) was administratively approved to allow the construction of an 8,000 square foot mixed-use sei vice building for the Ashland Community Youth and Family Resource Center for the site now addressed as 1195 East Main Street. This approval expired without the building ever being constructed. In October, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review permit (Planning Action 91993-00127) for the construction of a 10,100 square foot city office building to be located to the rear of the City Council Chambers, The findings were adopted in October of 1993, but were subsequently appealed by the City Council. In November of 1993, the Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval, however the findings for that Council decision were never adopted and in December of 1993 the Council voted to withdraw the application. . In November of 1982, the Planning Commission approved a Site Review permit (Planning Action #1982-00075) to allow the construction of a new public warehouse facility now addressed as 90 North Mountain Avenue. In October of 1980, the Planning Commission approved Site Review and Conditional Use permits (Planning Action 41980-00078) to allow the construction of the Justice Center/Council Chambers now addressed as 1175 East Main Street. There are no other planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property is an irregularly-shaped, roughly triangular 8,48 acre parcel located just east of the intersection of East Main Street and North Mountain Avenue. The property is bounded on its north side by the railroad tracks, on its south side by East Main Street, and on its west side by North Mountain Avenue. The property currently contains a Public Works warehouse and associated offices for several of the city's utility departments at 90 North Mountain Avenue, the Ashland Police Department at 1155 East Main Street, the Ashland City Council Chambers and Municipal Court building at 1175 East Main Street, and The Grove, a community center building at 1195 East Main Street. The remainder of the site includes outdoor parking areas and associated site landscaping, and indoor and outdoor Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant; APD Expansion Page 2 of 12 i material storage areas for the various city departments housed on site, including electric, water, wastewater, fiber network, streets, fleet, facilities, purchasing and warehousing. The site is located in the Employment (E-1) zoning district, and is designated for "Public Schools & Facilities" in the Comprehensive Plan. It was purchased in the 1970's for the purpose of relocating city facilities from other locations around the city into a consolidated location as well as to provide sufficient area for the storage for materials. The site is largely flat and paved to accommodate the parking and circulation associated with the various city functions occurring on the site, and is generally devoid of significant natural features. Vegetation on the site is limited to landscaping at the perimeter and in the parking areas, with the only substantial green space in the form of lawn area along the frontages of the Police Department and City Council Chambers buildings and directly behind the City Council Chambers. The attached exhibits include aerial photos which illustrate the site in its current condition. Tree inventory and tree preservation plans have been provided identifying 51 trees on the area of the subject property proposed to be disturbed. Of these, eight trees greater that six- inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) are proposed to be removed over the two phases of the project. As a city-owned property, only the removal of trees defined as "significant" by having a diameter greater than 18-inches d.b.h. triggers Tree Removal Permit requirements, and in this instance none of the trees to be removed are large enough to be considered significant or require permit review. The Ashland Police Department building, located at the southwestern corner of the subject property along East Main Street, is currently an approximately 6,400 square foot, single-story building constructed in the 1980's and set back approximately 50 feet back from East Main Street. Access to the subject property is via a driveway from East Main that runs along the southwestern boundary of the property, at the west side of the existing Police Department building. This driveway provides gated access for employees to a parking area which presently contains approximately 33 surface spaces behind the building, including ten covered spaces under a carport. Additional public parking is shared with the Grove, Council Chambers and Municipal Court facilities and is located in a surface lot containing approximately 75 spaces between the Council Chambers and the Grove, with two driveway entrances off of East Main Street. East Main Street is classified as a Boulevard or Arterial within the current Transportation System Plan, and is currently paved with bike lanes, curbs, gutters, storm drains, and curbside sidewalks in place. Street trees are planted and well- established behind the sidewalks along the full frontage of the parent parcel. II. Project Impact The proposal involves a request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot single-story addition at the rear of the existing Ashland Police Department building. A subsequent phase to occur within five years would include a second 1,975 square foot addition beside the first. Associated improvements to the parking, circulation and landscaped areas of the Police Department's portion of the subject property would be completed in conjunction with the project, largely as part of the first phase as funding allows. The basis for the project's proposed phasing is directly related to the funding source. The project is being funded with federal money from drug forfeitures, and there are limits on the Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: APD Expansion Page 3 of 12 I amount of money available in a given fiscal year, necessitating the proposed incremental development. The first phase would consist of the larger addition proposed herein, with the front entry plaza and landscaping improvements to be completed within two years of the completion of the addition. The proposed reconfiguration and addition of parking areas is to be completed prior to the commencement of the second phase which would begin no later than five years after completion of the first addition. The second phase addition would be subject to a separate land use approval prior to its commencement. In this zoning district, only additions up to a 20 percent increase in floor area may be approved administratively. Because the proposed Phase One addition amounts to an approximately 48 percent addition to the existing building, AMC 18.108.040.A. l.c requires that the application be reviewed by the Planning Commission through a Type 11 public hearing process. A. Site Review In considering a request for Site Review approval, the first criterion is that, "All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development." The Employment (E-1) zoning district is intended "to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail, or manufacturing in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses." Outright permitted uses include "public and quasi-public utility and service buildings and yards, structures, and public parking lots... excluding electrical substations." The existing and proposed uses are consistent with these allowances, and the site is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as accommodating public facilities. There is no minimum lot size or width requirement within the E-1 district, and the only yard requirements are that when abutting a residential district a side or rear yard of ten feet per story must be provided. As proposed, the property abuts residentially zoned property to the west and with a setback of 48 feet, substantially more than the required ten-foot per story side setback is provided for both the existing building and proposed addition. The height limitation in E-I is 40 feet, and the proposed building addition is only approximately 25 feet in height at the ridge peak. Solar Access requirements apply within the E-1 under Standard B which limits any shadow cast by a building on the property to no more than would be cast by a 16-foot fence on the subject property's north property line. As defined in the Solar Ordinance the north property line would be on the opposite side of the railroad right-of-way at the north of the parent parcel, approximately 600 feet north of the proposed addition and providing ample separation to allow compliance. Neither the Ashland Municipal Code's Off Street Parking Chapter (18.92) nor the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation manual identify a specific parking requirement associated with police facilities. With regard to "unspecified uses", AMC 18.92 provides that where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined, such requirements are to be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section and other available data. In discussions with the applicants, they have noted that the parking requirement is somewhat unique in that staff, officer and police vehicle parking must all be maintained separately from public parking, and in addition there Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: APD Expansion Page 4 of 12 is often the need to accommodate both impounded vehicles and vehicles which may be being held as evidence in active cases. The applicants have provided the following breakdown of their identified parking demand based on these operational requirements. specified Police Ilse Spaces Required (+l*h c rml,sJon) Staff Parkin Uerja to ee on largest shift) 18 Parkin for Marked Police Vehicles 8 Detective Vehicles 4 Deputy Chief Vehicle 1 Traffic Patrol Vehicle 1 Volunteer Vehicles 2 Community Service Officer Vehicle 1 Impounded Vehicles 5 TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED 411 Public parking for the Police Department, Municipal Court and the Grove Community Center is already in place on the subject property, and no increase in demand is anticipated in conjunction with the current request. Based on the operational requirements of the department, staff believes that the parking proposed is an appropriate amount. With 40 parking spaces to be provided, a minimum of eight bicycle parking spaces must also be made available. One half of these spaces must be covered; all bicycle parking must be designed according to the rack, dimension, and coverage standards of AMC 18.92.040; and bicycle parking must be located as close to the primary public entrance as the nearest automobile parking spaces. As proposed, the applicants have identified six new bicycle parking spaces to be installed, and these appear to be in addition to the four spaces now on site, complying with the requirement. A condition has been recommended below to require that the final building permit submittals demonstrate compliance with the requirements of AMC 18.92.040 in terms of the number of bicycle parking spaces and their placement, and coverage. In staff's assessment, with the conditions recommended, the project meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The second approval criterion for Site Review approval is that, "All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met." Developments within the E-1 zoning district must provide at least 15 percent of the subject property in landscaped area, and at least seven percent of parking areas must be provided in landscaping. As proposed, the application retains approximately 31.4 percent of the Phase One site area in landscaping, and the calculation provided note that approximately 18 percent of the proposed parking area will be provided in landscaping where only seven percent is required. Trash and recycling facilities are already in place elsewhere on site to serve the various city fiinctions already established, and are not to be altered with the current request. Planning Action PA 4 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant; APD Expanslon Page 5 of 12 i A condition of approval has been recommended below to require that all new lighting fixtures be identified in the building permit submittals, and that details of any necessaty shrouding and screening be provided as well, to insure that the Site Review chapter's prohibitions on direct illumination of adjacent properties will be satisfied. The third criterion for Site Review approval is that, "The development complies 11,itb the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter, The Site Design and Use Standards do not have specific requirements for the development of public buildings, and as such the proposed addition is subject to Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, as has been the case with recently-approved School District, University and Fire Department projects. The Basic Site Review Standards place a strong focus on addressing a build'ing's sense of entry and relationship to the adjacent pedestrian streetscape, and with few exceptions call for the placement of buildings no more than 20 feet from the street, In this case, the existing building is at approximately 50 feet from the street, and the placement of the proposed addition at the rear of the building does little to improve compliance with these standards. The application materials suggest that the topography necessitated the building's original placement, and that placement of tile proposed addition at the street now would prove difficult due to the topographic constraints, the need to relate to the existing building's interior spaces, and the project budget. In lief of placing the addition to bring the existing building and site more into compliance with these standards, the applicants have proposed to modify the hardscape and landscape treatments in the entry area between the two buildings to enhance the two buildings' sense of entry by creating a more inviting, people-friendly space near the two entrances that better relates to the pedestrian streetscape. The applicants are also considering replacing the existing turf areas at the front of the site, which are generally discouraged in the Site Design and Use Standards "Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies" with lower water use plantings. Preliminary plans for these improvements have been provided, and a condition has been included to require that size- and species-specific landscaping and irrigation plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Parking lot landscaping and screening standards require that seven percent of the parking lot area be provided in landscaping, that one parking lot tree be provided per each seven parking spaces, that the landscaping be distributed throughout the parking area, and that a minimum five-foot width landscape buffer is provided at property lines/boundaries to buffer adjacent properties or uses. Subsequent to the initial public notice for the hearing, a neighbor residing in residentially zoned property to the west of the addition raised concern that the existing landscape buffer on the west side of the drive be maintained. The application notes that this buffer, which is approximately 12 feet in width where only five feet is required, is to be maintained and enhanced with new landscaping to ensure adequate screening of the addition from the adjacent residences. The application materials provided include a request for Exceptions to the Site Design and Use Standards to address existing non-conformities with the current site's development, including: 1) the existing building's sense of entry and relationship to the Main Street streetscape is not consistent with basic site review standards; 2) that the existing site Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: APD Expansion Page 6 of 12 i landscaping is not consistent with the landscaping standards; and 3) that the existing parking lot is not consistent with the parking lot design, landscaping and screening requirements. These items are discussed in the application submittals as Exceptions, and site improvements to address each of the non-conformities are proposed as part of the overall phasing timeline. The Site Design and Use Standards in Section II-C-1 g actually allow for existing non- conformities to be addressed incrementally to a degree proportional to the percentage of the addition proposed; because the application is identifying the existing non-conformities and seeking to address them through II-C-Ig, staff does not believe they constitute Exceptions. Recognizing the value of the proposed addition in improving the functionality of the existing public facility and the vagaries of the funding source, staff has accordingly recommended conditions below which seek to ensure that these non-conformities are proportionally addressed through the project's phasing. These include requirements that: o Phase One building permit submittals shall include revised landscape and irrigation plans which address the low water use landscaping proposed along the frontage of the Police Station and Municipal Court buildings, and the hardscape and landscape improvements to create an enhanced entry plaza for the review and approval of the staff advisor. These improvements shall be completed according to approved plan no more than two years following completion of the first phase addition, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. o Phase One building permit submittals shall include revised parking lot design drawings reflecting the requirements to include drainage swales within the landscape medians as required in the parking design standards. The improvements associated with the parking lot expansion shall be completed according to approved plan prior to submittal of a land use application for Phase Two, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The final criterion considered in reviewing a Site Review permit request is, "That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options." The application submittals indicate that city facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity and urban storm drainage are already in place serving the existing building and are adequately sized to continue to serve the proposed expansion. In discussing the existing facilities with the Building Official to confirm this assessment, it was noted that there are in fact potentially significant issues with the existing electrical services for the Ashland Police and Municipal Court buildings. Both buildings are currently served by a common transformer and a propane-fueled back-up generator, and as such, changes to the Police Department impact both buildings. The existing generator is rated to carry 347 Amps; the Electric Department recently recorded maximum currents of 269 Amps and 210 Amps for the Police and Courts buildings, respectively. Therefore the existing generator is not rated to carry the combined loads of both existing buildings in their present configuration, before the proposed addition. In addition, the existing 400 Amp transfer switch serving as the service entrance to both buildings is not listed or proper for this function, and a main service disconnect is not installed. As with the generator, the switch is also undersized for the electrical loads of the existing buildings, without taking the added Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant; APD Expansion Page 7 of 12 , load of an addition into consideration, Finally, the feeder from the generator in the Police building is not rated to carry the anticipated load of the new addition. The anticipated total load is 475 Amps for the existing buildings and two additions proposed. The feeder has been verified by the Electric Department as consisting of two parallel feeds of #300 aluminum which is rated for only 460 Amps. The feeder from the generator to the Courts building is similarly at its maximum capacity, with a measured load of 210 Amps being carried on a single set of #300 aluminum rated for 230 Amps, The Building Official has met on site with the applicant's project team including engineers from local firfn Marquess & Associates, Inc. and the following approach to resolving these issues has been identified: o The existing transformer will need to be replaced. o A new electrical service will need to be provided for the Police Department building. o The old Police Department main panel is to serve as a distribution panel, and a 100- Amp panel will need to be connected to this distribution panel to serve select loads. o The existing generator will continue in service, but will need to be modified to provide service disconnect and overcurrent protection. o Emergency power is to be provided to designated emergency egress lighting by retrofitting battery back-up ballasts which will enable the transfer of power from the normal source to the battery back-up at the fixtures in both buildings. As this report is being prepared, the Building Official has indicated that this proposal could provide an acceptable means to resolve the identified issues subject to approval of a final design, however an electrical service plan reflecting the changes necessary has not yet been provided, A condition has accordingly been recommended below to require that a final electrical service plan which addresses these issues be provided prior to the building permit submittal for the review of the Building, Planning, Public Works and Electrical Departments. During the Public Works Division's review of the proposal, Engineering staff has also indicated that while the proposed first phase does not involve an increase in impervious surfaces because the proposed addition is to be constructed over an already-paved area, with the second phase more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface could be created with the removal of a lawn area and construction of additional parking areas. The City's Engineering Department will ultimately need to review and approve a final, engineered storm drainage plan and determine that the post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation is addressed through the final design. This new parking area is also subject to current design standards which include specific requirements to address parking lot drainage while minimizing environmental and microclimatic impacts. AMC 1$.92,080.B, requires that parking areas meet specific standards including that: o Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet at least one of the following standards or put 50 percent of the parking underground: Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicants APD Expanslon Page 8 of 12 ✓ Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50 percent of the parking area surface. ✓ Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50 percent pervious for a minimum of 50 percent of the parking area surface. ✓ Provide at least 50 percent shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project occupancy. ✓ Provide at least 50 percent shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. o Design parking areas of more than seven spaces and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats run-off on site in landscaped medians and swales. o Parking lots with 50 spaces or more are to be divided into separate areas by the placement of buildings or the installation of landscape areas with walkways at least 10 feet in width, plazas, streets, or driveways with street-like features including raised sidewalks of at least five feet in width, six-inch curbs, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lighting. The application materials provided indicate that the new parking area is to be installed entirely in permeable material, and with this type of installation the Engineering Division will not likely require on-site detention. In considering this proposal, staff notes that all parking areas in excess of seven spaces are to be designed to capture run-off in landscaped medians and swales, and given that the new parking area proposed includes more than seven spaces it is required to provide landscaped medians and swales. A condition has been recommended below to require that the site plans be modified to include required swales in the new parking area to comply with current standards prior to the submittal of a building permit. East Main Street is a city street and is classified as a Boulevard or Arterial within the current Transportation System Plan. East Main Street is currently fully improved, with two paved travel lanes, bike lanes, curbs, gutters, storm drains, curbside sidewalks and street trees in place, and no further improvements are recommended or proposed. In staff's opinion, with the conditions recommended below the application can be found to satisfy the requirements for Basic Site Review approval. B. Tree Removal Tree inventory and tree preservation plans have been provided identifying 51 trees on the area of the subject property proposed to be disturbed. Of these, eight trees greater that six- inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) are proposed to be removed over the two phases of the project. As a city-owned property, only the removal of trees defined as "significant" by having a diameter greater than 18-inches d.b.h, triggers Tree Removal Permit requirements, and in this instance none of the trees to be removed are large enough to be considered significant or require permit review. As this staff report is being prepared, the Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the request and as such, a condition of approval has been recommended below to incorporate their recommendations as conditions of approval. Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report Applicant: APD Expansion Page 9 of 12 { Ill. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The applicable criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows: A, All applicable City ordinances have been rnet or will be rnet by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been rnet or will be rnet. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the 00, Council for iniplenrentation 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 ivill he provided to and through the subject property, 411 improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The building as it exists is setback more than would allowed under the current Site Design and Use Standards and does not present a strong public entrance to East Main Street. The placement of the addition behind the existing building is noted by the applicants as being necessitated by topography and the need to respond to programming of the existing building space within available funds, but does little to improve the building's relationship to the street. As such, the applicants have proposed to modify the landscaping and hardscaping treatment between the Ashland Police Department and the Municipal Court to enhance the building's sense of entry and relationship to the street through the creation of a more inviting, people-friendly space near both entrances. In staff's view, enhancement of this space would be a substantial benefit and greatly improve the sense of entry and functionality of both buildings. Staff believes that with the conditions recommended below, the application can be found to satisfy the applicable Site Review approval criteria to construct the addition proposed. Should the Planning Commission choose to concur with this recommendation, we recommend that the following conditions be attached; 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including that new parking areas shall be installed and maintained in permeable materials. 2) That 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, including any applicable requirements to provide adequate vision clearance areas. 3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) All conditions of the Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of June 7111, 2012 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, and shall be incorporated Planning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: APO Expansion Page 10 of 12 I ' i into revised Landscaping and Irrigation Plans to be provided with the building permit submittals, 5) That, if deemed necessary by the Building Official, a Demolition/Relocation Permit approval shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to issuance of a demolition permit or commencement of demolition work for the existing carport on site. 6) That the building permit submittal materials shall include: a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utility easements, b) Phase One building permit submittals shall include revised landscape and irrigation plans which address the low water use landscaping proposed along the frontage of the Police Station and Municipal Court buildings to satisfy the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards' Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies, and the handscape and landscape improvements to create an enhanced entry plaza for the review and approval of the staff advisor. These improvements shall be completed according to approved plan within two years of completion of the fist phase building addition, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. c) Phase One building permit submittals shall include revised parking lot design drawings reflecting the requirements to include drainage swales within the landscape medians as required in the parking design standards, The improvements associated with the parking lot expansion shall be completed according to approved plan prior to submittal of a land use application for Phase Two, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. d) 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 must be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit, Electrical services shall be installed underground, and any transformers or cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. e) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the existing structure and surrounding area, and sample exterior building colors shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. f) That the location and final engineering for required storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site, and that storm water quality mitigation, if deemed necessary by the Engineering Division, has been addressed through the final design. g) That a final utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering, Building and Planning Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the Manning Action PA # 2012-00575 Ashland Planning Division- Staff Report Applicant; APD Expansion Page 11 of 12 I development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 7) That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including building demolition, storage of materials, or permit issuance. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the other trees that are to be retained on the subject property. The tree protection shall consist of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18.61.2003 and the approved Tree Protection Plan, and shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including demolition, storage of materials or permit issuance. 8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; a) In addition to the two existing "inverted U" racks already in place, six bicycle parking spaces shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and the design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and the building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. b) That any improvements to the sidewalk or adjacent public right-of-way, including but not limited to the new walkway from the sidewalk providing connection the enhanced plaza space, shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) That all liardscape improvements, landscaping, and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, 9) That prior to the commencement of Phase Two: a) That the proposed Phase One parking expansion shall be completed according to the approval plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) That the applicants shall obtain Site Review and building permit approval for Phase Two. Planning Action PA # 2012-00576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: APD Expansion Page 12 of 12 May 03, 2012 ASHLAND POLICE FACILITY EXPANSION PLANNING CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Chapter 18. 72.070 CrIterlafor Approval p. All applicable City Ordinances !lave been met or will be met by the proposed development The following findings address the conditions and comments stated in the Pre-Application Conference Report as prepared by Derek Severson, Associate Planner, City of Ashland and to the best of my knowledge address the applicable City Ordinances requirements. All requirements of the Site Desian Review Chapter (18,72) have been met or will be met. 1. Approval Process per Chapter (18.72.040) a. Applicability All new structures, additions or expansions in E-1 zone b. Plans Required Drawing List G1 index Sheet A1.1 Existing Site Plan (For Reference Only) A1.2 Site Demolition Plan A1.3 Phase 1 Site Plan (Base Bid) A1.4 Phase 2 Site Plan & Alternates A1.5 Phase 1 Enlarged Site Plan & Details A3.1 Phase 1 Floor Plans A6.1 Phase Exterior Building Elevations L1 Landscape Site Plan L2 Tree Protection Plan L3 Irrigation Plan L4 Planting Plan (See attached) c. Method and type of energy to be used for conditioning and lighting and annual amount use and methods to make approximation. Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF), electricity. 110,000kWh per year, based on bin data and published energy efficiency and coefficient of performance values for the new heat pump equipment. 2. Applications, per Chapter (18.108,017) A. Complete Application a. All of the required information for the specific action requested. a) Type II planning action b) Priority planning action NOT requested j b. Written findings of fact. 18.72.090 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FROM SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of AY 0 4 NI Z the site; 1. Site Topography and Access The original site topography slops approximately 11' from the high point at the East Main Street frontage to the low point at the north assumed property line. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 1 The original building, designed in 1980, was based on a two function building housing the Police and the Municipal Court. The complex was located on average about 50' back from the East Main Street frontage to allow for slope conditions. Even with a 50' setback the site cut created a 4'+/- high embankment between the Police building finished floor and the street frontage level. The original documents indicate no access from East Main Street, only from the east public parking lot, because of the topography conditions and parking location. The current sloped walk from East Main Street to the facility entry plaza was added at an unknown latter date. In order to comply with the 20' frontage setback significant excavation and retaining wall installation with ramping would be required in the 20' setback at significant cost to the Police expansion project with no improvement for facility access over what now exists. Aesthetically the building, if located at a 20' setback, would appear to be down in a hole with only the upper half exposed. The gradual slope to the existing plaza is a significantly better solution both aesthetically and functionally. The open landscaped sensation and building architecture is very appealing for this particular facility. 2, Building Function Police facility function is critical for best performance of police activities. The patrol department is located between parking and muster; evidence adjacent to patrol; investigation between patrol and administration; administration between investigations/patrol and the public meeting space directly off the public lobby. Locating the police facility addition to the north (back) of the existing building provided a functional arrangement consistent with the above relationships at least cost to the project. There is not sufficient space between the building and street frontage to allow for the required Phase I and Phase II building expansions. If space were added at the building front additional space would be needed at the rear, requiring significant exterior and interior remodeling, relocation of the existing solar array, increased construction costs and no improvement in the police function. 3. Hardscape/Landscape The current landscape and majority of hardscape was installed during the original facility construction completed in 1981. The landscape has since matured and is well maintained by the City. To increase a sense of street entry, design improvements are proposed at the street frontage and walk connection at the existing entry-walk/plaza. These alterations will increase the awareness of entry place and allow citizens to gather and discuss in larger groups. Landscaping will be added at the existing parking lot to comply as best possible with the current Site Design Standards. The City Facilities and Police Departments will be collaborating on a remodel of the frontage landscaping along East Main Street to achieve better compliance with the low water usage and drought resistant plant materials. The improved entry walk/plaza, front landscape remodel and the parking lot landscape improvements will be completed as part of Phase II. B. Approval of the variance will notsubstantially negatively impact adjacent properties; Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 2 No change is proposed that would alter the existing character or relationship of the Police Facility to the surrounding land uses. Approval of the requested variance will not negatively impact adjacent properties. C. Approval of the variance (exception) is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; ["The requirement for outdoor spaces is, of course, much less. The primary function is to improve the project's appearance, enhance the City's streetscope, lessen the visual and climatic impact of parking areas, and to screen adjacent residential uses from the adverse impacts which commercial uses may cause."j("The alternative desired in Ashland is to design the site so that it makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and enhances pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This is accomplished through the following three level review process."'] ["The project is outside a 'Detail Site Review Zone ; and as such needs to comply with Basic Site Review Standards only. "'I The Basic Site Review Standards are: 1a.1) Orientation and Scale, 'Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street." The Police/Courts building has its primary orientation to the street. 1a.2) Building entrances shall be located within 26 feet of the public right-of- way. The Police/Courts building is setback greater than 20 feet and will require a variance for the stated discussion.in A.1 above. 1a.3) NA 1b) Streetscape, This is a mature landscaped site (since 1981) and street trees j are in place. 1c.1) Landscape to cover50916 in one year.... The landscape is mature. 1c.2) Landscaping design shaft utilize a variety of low water use, deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs and flowering plant species. The existing nature landscape incorporates all of the above except for turf Which is under consideration, by the Facilities and Police Departments for replacement as part of Phase it that will meet the low water use criteria. 1c.3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10' in width The existing mature landscape meets this requirement. 1c.4) irrigation systems shall be Installed..... There is an installed irrigation system. 1c.5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. Two trees will be removed for Phase I work and two to four removed for Phase 11 work. 1d 1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. The parking is located behind the building. 1d,2) Parking area shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. Screening is in place between this project and adjacent residential uses. Parking lot shading and landscaping will be provided as part of Phase 11 construction. i~ 1e) Designated Creek Protection..... NA 1f) Special attention to glare and noise shall be considered The proposed addition to the Police Facility will not change the existing glare or noise conditions. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 3 1g) Forsites which do not conform to the above requirements (1a through 1f), an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with the above standards as the percentage of building expansion.... The building expansion is a 48% increase of the existing building. of the three above items that do not meet the Basic Site Review Standards the following is proposed: For 1a.2) a new site entry Plaza is proposed to enhance the perception and connection of the main building entry to the streetscape. This new entry Plaza will be provided as part of Phase II work. 1c.2) A revised front landscape plan will be provided as part of Phase II work. 1d.2) Parking lot tree shading and planting will be provided as part of Phase 11 work. i D. The variance (exception) requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty; The variance requested will satisfy the Basic Site Review Standards with the least jeopardy to the existing conditions. E. Or where no demonstrable difficulty is found to exist, granting the exception (variance) will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. The existing completed Police/Courts project is in fundamental compliance with the City's current Site Design and Use Standards with the exception of building setback, low water plants and parking lot shading. Building setback is the only item that can be changed and granting this exception will result in maintaining the existing building appearance and site setting, both of which are aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for the location in the City. c. Complete and signed application form (Zoning Permit A lication See attached completed application form, 1 B. Pre Application Conference, completed on February 13, 2012 with Derek Severson. C. Priority Planning Action. Not Requested. D. Types of Procedures (18.108.020) 1. Ministerial Actions - NA 2. Planning actions - Yes c) Type 11 Procedure (18.108.050) d) Zone E-1 1) Addition of 3,050sf to existing Police Facility, a 48% increase, exceeds 20% building increase for a Type I Procedure and project IM AY it 111, must be reviewed as a Type II Procedure requiring a Public Hearing. 2) NA 3) Impervious surface will not increase greater than 10% 4) Parking spaces will be reorganized within the existing paved area 5) No change of occupancy Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 4 6) No change in use of lot 7) NA 3. Legislative amendments -NA I i Ff i f f AY 0 Straus & Seib ertArchitect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 5 C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for Ii triplementation of the Chapter. 1, a. Landscaping Requirements Zone E-1, 15% minimum b. Multi-Family Residential Development NA c. Commercial Employment and Industrial Development Il-G1 Basic Site Review Standards: This project is for the addition, in two Phases, of a 5,000 square foot addition to the existing City of Ashland Police Facility originally constructed in 1981. The original Site Design for the Police and Courts/Council buildings was approved and developed in 1980. Some of the conditions of the Site Design and Use Standards may not be possible given existing conditions. 11-C-1a) Orientation and Scale 1. The buildings orientation addresses East Main Street and is accessible from the public sidewalk. 2. The entrance setback to the Police/Courts/Council buildings is 60 feet from the public right-of-way and will not be changed to meet the current 20 foot setback. No automobile circulation or parking is between the building and the right-of-way. The current entrance is clearly visible, functional, and open to the public during all business hours. 3. NA i. 11-C-1b) Streetscape Street trees exists at about 30 foot spacing at the frontage. 11-C-1c) Landscaping 1. The landscaping is mature at present. Minor new landscaping will comply with the percentage coverage requirements. 2. The existing landscaping is mature (planted in 1981) and is well maintained. i The Police and City Facilities Department are considering alterations to the existing frontage landscaping which will, when implemented, address the j "low water use" condition of this section. This alteration work will not occur j as part of the Police Facility addition construction. 3. The frontage buffer averages about 50 feet and a mature 12 foot wide buffer is on the west side screening the residential property. 4. There is installed a landscape irrigation system. 5. Two trees (Betula sp) will be removed to allow for Phase One construction and an additional four trees (three Pinus c, and one Picea pungens) may be removed depending on selection of Alternate Bid Items for Phase One work. 11-C-1d) Parking 1. The parking now exists behind the building and will be reconfigured in the same area. Four new compact parking spaces will be added next to the building on the West side. 2. Parking area shading will be provided as required in the reconfigured parking area. Landscape screening of residential is in place between the existing and proposed building addition on the west side. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 6 11-G1e) Designated Creek Protection NA 11-C-1f) Noise and Glare No changes in the project use are considered that will change the existing Noise and Glare conditions as presently used or installed. 11-C-1g Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings This site does not conform to the current Site Design and Use Standards. The planed Phase One Addition to the Police Facility is 3,050 square feet an expansion of 48% over the existing 6,400sf.. The defined Police Facility site is 45,900sf (Landscape required at 15%= 6,885sf) Existing Area to Comply Building Area 9,450 (includes Phase one expansion) Parking/Drives 17,430 x.48% = 8,366 (1) Hardscape 5,000 x .48% = 2,400 (2) Landscape 14,020 x.48% = 6,730 (3) Item (1) Parking and Drives: The entire Parking area will be reconfigured and include the required internal landscaping. Item (2) Hardscape. The entire front approach walk from the street sidewalk to the building entry will be redesigned creating a front plaza. Item (3) Landscape: Landscaping will be added to the parking lot. The frontage landscape will be improved as a joint project by the Police and Facilities Departments at future date as funds are made available. 11-C-2 Detail Site Review € Not Applicable 11-C-3 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects Not Applicable d. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards i 11-D-1 Screening at Required Yards E 1. Not Applicable 11-D-2 Screening Abutting Property Lines There is an existing 12 foot wide landscape buffer in-place on the west property line screening the parking from abutting residential uses. 11-D-3 Landscape Standards 1. The parking lot landscaping at 586 square has been provided at the north, east and west parking areas, plus one tree per seven spaces, see drawings. 2. Trees are selected from the tree list and will be planted per the standard. 3. The 2' planting standard will be maintained. 4. The landscaped area will be planted with shrubs and/or ground cover will achieve the required coverage rates. 5. Landscape is distributed as best that will allow for even distribution. 1. 11-D-4 Residential Screening A 12' wide screen is in place and mature. 11-D-5 Hedge Screening Hedge screening is not required. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 7 11-D-6 Other Screening 1. Refuse Container Screen: Refuse is part of the City Maintenance Facility. 2. Service Corridor Screen; Screening of the residential use along the west service drive is in place. 3. Light and Glare Screen: No change is proposed from the existing. e. Street Tree Standards II-E-1 Location for Street Trees Street trees are in place along the street frontage and are irrigated. II-E-2 Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees Street trees are in place along the street frontage at intervals of about 30'. II-E-3 Replacement of Street Trees No street trees will be replaced II-E-4 Recommended Street Trees The existing street trees, 'Purnus s', are about 16' in height, and selected and maintained by the City Facilities Dept. P. That ade "uate capacity o Cite acilltiesr 1) 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. The existing Police/Courts Facility has in place all of the above items consistent with City requirements. 2) All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 188.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord. 2836 S6, 1999) No changes will occur in the street right-of-way for this current project. c 0 j Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 8 Addenda to findings for the Ashland Police Station Renovations 1155 East Main Street There are eight trees proposed for removal on this project, all eight trees are under 18" dbh, and are on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. Due to these criteria, the removals are not subject to the tree removal ordinance, A tree protection and removal plan has been submitted as pant of the application. The trees are proposed for removal for the following reasons; they are in the way of required parking, they are in the footprint of building expansion, or in the case of tree #31 block visual access to the gathering area in front of the municipal court blocking the perceived and physical entry to the building. I I I i r ) June 1, 2012 U-N 1 1'~ Ashland Police Addition and Remodel RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONCERNS: "Clarification of the Phasing" 1. On May 30, 2012 Police Chief Terry Holderness directed that the site work, with the exception of the work associated with the Phase 11 building project, be completed as part of the Phase I work. To this end attached is a revised site plan to accomplish this request, (See attached drawings PLN 1 & PLN 2). The Phase 11 work is projected to be completed in not less than two nor more than five years. For the E. Main Street frontage no specific direction has been given by the City as to what planting materials will be used to reduce existing turf other than the recommendation to reduce the amount of turf and install low water use planting. Further discussion and perhaps a deferred time frame may be needed for this work to allow the City to comprehensively address the landscaping and drainage issues relative to the entire street frontage. "Elevations of the new addition including the completion of Phase II" 2. For building elevations that represent the entire structure including Phase 11, (see attached drawing A6.2). In that all work of the project including site work, except minor site work coupled with Phase 11 and possible landscape frontage at E, Main St., will be completed as part of Phase I work this current planning review will address only the Phase I work. "Parking Requirements" 3. At the conclusion of Phase ll the parking requirement, established by the Police Department, will be as follows: ® Staff Parking 18 (one space for each employee at max shift) ® Marked Police vehicles S ® Detectives 4 0 Deputy Chief 1 a PT 1 ® Volunteers 2 e CSO 1 ® Impound 5 TOTAL 40 (accounts for expansion) The Ashland Municipal Code does not specify a parking requirement for a Police Facility - "E. Unspecified Uses. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined in this section, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data." The above parking schedule is the recommended requirement established by the Police Department. The parking plan is based on the recommendation of the IACP to have two exits from a Police F=acility Secure Parking area. E F "Parking Lot Design Standards" 4. (4) Total parking provided for this project through Phase FI is 40 spaces. No division of the parking lot is required. Straus & Serhert Architects LLP Ashland Police Facility Page 1 i c (5) "Parking areas of more than seven spaces shall meet the following standards" a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50$16 of parking underground. i. Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 503' of the parking area surface. NA r. Provide porous solid surfacing or open-grid pavement that is at Ieast Sp°o pervious for minirriur» of0ra of the parking area surfrlcP "he nevv parking surface will be constructed ustltg.'petvrous paving; per pho116, 61wermtlon 7Ath EngineerPieter SIincenh' - 111. Provide at least 50°0 shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years. NA iv. Provide at least 503'a shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface. NA b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales. The new parking surface will be constructed using pervious paving. Existing parking lot area will not be changed. Run-off capture and detention at the new parking area is not required per phone conversation with Engineer Pieter Smeenk. "Storm Drainage" 5. Per a discussion with Engineer Pieter Smeenk with the Public Works Department the recommendation was made to use pervious paving for the new parking surface area. By using pervious paving run off captured in a drainage swale will not be required. No additional alterations to the existing parking surface or drainage will be required. "Electrical System Capacity„ 6. Agreement has been reached with Michael Grubbs, Building Official for the electrical service to the Police Facility (see attached e-mail communication). The Police Facility will be provided with a new building electrical service and a new transformer will replace the existing. The existing generator will continue in service with several modifications to the present installation for service disconnect and overcurrent protection. Attached drawing Information 7. The attached Drawings PLN-1 & PLN-2 represents change directives issued to the A&E time on June 30, 2012 to "Include all site work, except those issues directly associated with Phase II work", in the Phase I work package. The information concerning planting and irrigation contained in the submitted Landscape drawings L-1 thru L-4 will be adjusted to be consistent with revised parking plan shown on PLN-1 and PLN-2. Changes in planting materials are not considered but a relocation of some planting items will be required. These adjustments will be completed on the final drawings submitted for permitting. JUN i t 7 Straus & Seibert Architects LLP Ashland Police Facility T a e 2 i € 1111, SO 11 MAR. ESS .5 C7 C I A l E S 1 C P 5,11-772-7115 F 941-779-4079 1120 EAST JAMON PO BOX X,)o &ILDF01M OR 97501 & A S -MAIL inlc3!i,~harclt~c~,~.cc~rn 1VE - ~zx1-%v n) i - PRa MEMORANDUM1'~~ ~~,a t n r; F~ fay 7'481 PE P Date: April 5, 2012 OREGON To: Michael Grubbs, Building Official, City of Ashland CH8.ti~°e GQ` From: William D. Lomica, P.E. D. Project: Ashland Police Department MAI Job 114082.1 Gyyq pA~E; 1231.20! Subject: Electrical Service and Generator Distribution. This rnernorandum explains several problems with the incoming electrical service to both the Ashland Police Department Building and the Ashland Municipal Court Building; and presents a path to solve these problems. Since both buildings are served from a common transformer and a common propane-fueled generator; electrical changes to the Police Department Building affects both buildings. Problem #IA: The existing generator is rated to carry 317 amps. Mike Cook of Ashland Electric Department recorded maximum currents of 269 amps and 210 amps for the Police and Courts Buildings, respectively. Therefore, the existing electrical system is not rated to carry the combined loads of both buildings as it is now configured. Problem #1B: The existing 400A transfer switch is serving as the service entrance to both buildings, but is not listed or proper for this function. A main service disronnert i,~ not installed. As in Problem #lA, this is also undersized for the existing and expansion load. Problem #2: The Police Department has loads which should be classified as "Emergency" loads, specifically the emergency egress lighting specified by section 1006.2 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Other generator-backed loads that are not dedicated maintaining the safety of occupants are present (these must be classified by the Authority Having Jurisdiction as Legally Required or as Optional Standby loads). Article 700.5(D) of the Oregon Electrical Specialty Code states that transfer equipment [for emergency loads] shall supply only emergency loads. Presently, the emergency loads are not segregated from the other loads which is against Code. Problem #3: The feeder from the generator to the Police Building is not rated to, carry the anticipated load of the new addition. The anticipated total load is 475 Amps (this allows for a second, future expansion). The feeder has been verified by Ashland Electric Department to be two parallel feeds of #300 Aluminum (rated for 460 Amps). Additionally, the feeder from the generator to the Courts Building is at maximum rated ampacity. The measured load of 210 Amps is being carried by a single set of #300 Aluminum (rated for 230 Amps). f MAY 2012-04-03 Ashland PD Service.doc Page 1 of 2 t, f Proposed Solution: Solution to Problem #1: Replace the generator and service entrance gear to carry the load and be a compliant service entrance. Solution to Problem #2: Provide Emergency power to the designated emrgencyt egress tight fixtures by retrofitting them with unit equipment (battery backup ballasts). The transfer of power for the emergency light fixtures from its "normal" source to its "emergency source (battery) is accomplished at the fixture. This allows the loads of both buildings to be classified as either Legally Required or Optional Standby; and because Code allows these two load classifications to share transfer switches, additional transfer switches are not required. It is assumed that some fixtures in both buildings will need to be retrofitted. Solution to Problem #3: In conjunction with solving Problem #1, the underground feeders must be replaced, Anticipated Cost: I anticipate the costs of correcting these problems to be approximately $160,000 including electrical engineering design fees. I anticipate electrical engineering design fees to be $7,500. Attachment: Ashland PD/Courts - April 5, 2012 I i I 3 s i 2012.04-03 Ashland PD Service.doc Page 2 of 2 r David Straus From: Bill Lomica [blomica@marquess.com] Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 10:12 AM To: David Straus Cc: Ogun Arslan; Oscar J. Zuniga Subject: FW: Ashland Police Department - Proposed new service to Police Department Building Dave, Here is Mike Grubbs conditional approval. I am trying to contact Warren. His Voice mail says he is in office, but away from phone. Bill From: Michael Grubbs [mailto:grubbsm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:05 PM Td: Bill Lomica Subject: RE: Ashland Police Department - Proposed new service to Police Department Building Hi Bill, I have considered your proposal and agree with the following condition: provide a service disconnecting r-neans and overcurrent protection for existing feeders and transfer switch. I look forward to seeing your design. I will be out of the office until Tuesday, the 29th. Let's talk a little more then. Have a good Memorial Day weekend! Regards, Michael Grubbs, Building Official City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541) 552-2073, TTY (800) 735-2900 Email: michael. rubbs ashland.orms This email t-ronsmission is official business of the City of Ashland and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. if you hove received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2073. Thank you. From: Bill Lomica fmai[to:blomicaftmarquess.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 8:59 AM To., grubbsm@ashland.or.us Cc: DStraus ssarchll .cam; OArslan ssarchll .com; Oscar J. Zuniga Subject: Ashland Police Department - Proposed new service to Police Department Building Mike, JUN 0 = 3 Thanks you for taking the time to meet with me on this. Below, I will review the proposed solution to the problems of the existing utility/generator service at the Police Department and Courts buildings. I also have added an outline of your concerns with the proposal. Please add comments, corrections, and clarifications in your reply. Our present proposed solution to the issues I outlined in the April 5, 2012 memo (attached for reference) is as follows: Reduce the present load of the Police Department building from the existing generator/ATS to less than the generator's rated 347 Amps by shedding the load of the existing Police Department from the generator. This shedding would be accomplished by establishing a "normal" power service entrance for the Police Department on the west side of the Police Department Building with OESC 230.2 (E) compliant identification. The generator/ATS service would be considered a OESC 230.2 (A)(3) compliant additional service in this configuration. The old police department main panel would then serve as the distribution panel for the Legally Required and optional standby loads. A 100-amp panel would be connected to this distribution panel to serve selected loads. The selected loads desired are selected power receptacles within the work spaces, lighting throughout, and some HVAC within the limits of the generator's rated capabilities. The limitation of the generator Is foVnd by applying OESC 220.87(2); the sum of the new load and 125% of maximum demand cannot exceed the rating of the service (generator). Maximum demand Is 210A (this is the recorded max demand provided by Mike Cook). 125% of max demand is 262.5A. 347A minus 262.5A is 84.5A. 84.5A is our limit for new police department load Legaly Required/optional standby loads. The emergency lighting loads within each building would be carried by newly installed unit equipment as previously described in my April 5 memo (Solution to Problem #2). 1 am contacting Ashland Power to determine if the existing transformer physically can accommodate a new normal power service feeder. Your Concerns: You told me you would need to look at OESC 230.2 to be sure that the proposed second service to the police department is Code compliant. You reminded me that the ATS has from its installation never been in code compliance for the service entrance function it is serving. There is no service disconnect at the ATS and there is no overcurrent protection on either of the Individual feeders to the two buildings served. This service entrance will need to be brought to compliance in order for our proposal to be In compliance. Bill Lomica, P.E. Marquess & Associates 1120 East Jackson Medford, OR 97504 T: 541.772.7115 F: 541.779.4079 i 2 V ~yf Lam'' m r u _ . k12 lie KA 'T .Tf_~ h 5h j ~ :YL1d~YY-~-+: W W a 4A T Igo -uu 00 fib- _ _ ~ "~~-,r_ ~~v-•~ .ate ~~a ICI fly W N - Islas ®rl W G OZ9L6 80 Puelmsv Palls UPW '3 99LL aE V z Am 1N3WIHVd3® 3on0d ®NVIHSV _m 2 301°'.5 3 ;I S W •80d SNOLLVAONM ®NV .SN®I aav a rn v N Z ¢ F F Q Q 8 w o z z F Z g z Q ..dsa r g w ¢ 2 rn r z a ¢ m w G O O G7 J o 'i' a m w ° w g 3 a a < ¢ a U f d ¢ O - Z LL = h ¢ N Q O W Q J ¢ N O t0 J CL 'J x W F- m R O N Q U W co > rn Z m ai Q 5 LLI Z Z U Z ` ° 4 Ow Z Z Z 0 O / z Z d" O F 0 z N z z ~ Z g w O 0 co d 2 d w„. YS L1J ¢ r G y w ¢ o d ga ° a a „ W Q s ° z¢ w r x o v < v cs 0° LLJ ¢ m 0 z z z ° W v¢ w z m z ¢ a ¢ a z z = ¢ m m m m H u w.. Z o ¢ U p z Y ¢E ¢ a U v U v~ v n,:: y ww. w W w W Z w ° Z_ ¢ W W W WO W J z a a w d U U g a a U R a O ¢a T m N O¢ O Z Z - ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ a a ii a iL 71 L 7l 1 it ~F iµ Z Q Z ¢ e -a ; a z 3 3 LD :2 z <5 ° LL a ¢ ¢ z W 8 S t7 ¢z ¢z x 8° 8° { li> LL >Z N O W W F 4 - S F Z )YI ~ :jr EM ~W 8 ° Q- { f-O rOZ Q O Z ° Z m- t- ae w c' z ° °z°w z w w zs 2w $.r<,".. .Ll { :ice w wr g (7 c7 LLO O~ ¢ ¢ C7 - U ~ a w J ¢ ° az Z2. U0 ° 02 0= wa wg¢ ¢ m m 3 LL ou0i w 0 < N N z w c.7 W J m <n o o ¢ J N z O O w N ng 0 m ? ¢ ¢ > w z a a m ww z z ~ ~w > z x 7d a a ¢ a CO J W a O- rn U3 m ¢ 8 09 c z U C`3 a x w z ° n0, a m r- ¢ z ¢ z m w W m w cc o w rn 5 5 I- U ? w m a a m u U wa wa S m N m Q a G a a¢ a¢ a d w'unaoa~tloaueigw ascovarj iasn n~wae!,wy~~o,~ayi Wa -!pd a~,i4+vvscovaol53o+a^\5 -S-Ms CC J to E OZSL6 HO PUOI I UIEW'3 SSLL w s.u as `dd3® 30110d ®NVIHSV _ in m _ a w 9 Q 1N3WJ1i ®Nas 3tl o _ :HO:J SNOIlVAON3H ®N`d SNOI MIV a x z z 3 Q D 11 2 H w w W W 1 I I ® 1 1 1` 1 I I 1 , # ' 1 I I W i r re~ 1 1 1 _ _ Ill - Z Z d I I _1-... Id~ e l 1 1 i I 1 _ 1 dl ST. i LINCOLN I . 1 ~ + 1 1 11 m ; it 111 ~ ~ II 111 ® 1} `111 I 1 ~ ~ ~ 11 ~ I _~lIDby a.t84M Y sSB hml / - I I I ~ 11 "71 r i rsb">, i 1111 I i ~~1,i 1 --!'a\ I I 1 i~ 1 1 `ate. I ~ 111 1 I I .a 1 I ~{I~I 1 ~ r ~ jl 1'i. 1 ldJ! X11 Q i\ i t ~I \ 111 rl 0 a, _ J ~ Ii I~'III _ , s a ~ 1 w ❑ L1 WOE 'P 1 i I z g 1 1~ Q 11 1 LLI g 11 o I 11 l d _ Z_ L) j 1 w 9 1 y 1 1 ~ . I ii N' g 11 1 Ii~j11 F L) ~ Ills a. 1 eC 1# t = r l X U II g 1 11 EL `J w 11 S o fill ®1 N 1 1,~ - ®1 all ' 1 I I I 18 11 . 1 pl 11 ~l~ ~ I ~ I I II ~ 1 11 I ~i I 1~' 1 I I I 1 1 I I~ g W Y r 1 11 L I A w xrs auus z3 a~ wl 1 1 1 T . F rs sty -sty- ~ I I 1 I Ili II 1 1 ~ ~ csoN 1 1 I g +1-«-- a I lla 1 ai g~a~ li I,~ i ~I i. illil#111111 ~ ~ ~'1111~ Al Is. w i 1 ~ I I' d~ n 1~ ~ I I' A JJJJJ~~~ F ' ~ d 1 1 N Tg ~ 1 ~`sa I ~ I I I I I I sne o I I m ~ 1 1 III** I r - I' ~ ~ } It UjI U QI v1 QZ~~ 1 Z 4 LL ; 3' i 1- V 1 g w❑7p 4t1 a10 N 3,i ~1 1 Q L C3 .I m ❑ 1 Q L'L X 6A' ~I ~ ~ NS -r I lull g 1 0 ® I o I -g.:x -xsx - X- X11 ~ .m' _'~11 ---sr- al- I I / 3NN A1lf3dOJd OlttNl '1 w'NN3o a~gwvw~IVSV 45EO~alij usn 1!~aM1!^aL\ano»ayl ~tlap a~goa vNgv~ rs£mF9oi,,laa.ws~1 sr:s zlotys J I W G 'a E OZSL6 HO Pue14SV IMIS UM 3 SSLI m R r m ox 1N3WlUVd30 33nOd ONVgHSV _m E Q e~/s eWn e :HOd SNOLLVAON3d ®NV SNowaab ° Ss u~, I~ # ~ z w p r ~ g ~ w w w W w 3 ~ 2 w J ~ b a w 2 t7 N 11 1 11~ 11, - - _ - 1 11 - k ® n~ N ??a I`I ~1 l~ ® 1 111 - r O ST. LINCOLN / 11 ~III V Y R / I v 11 1 CL ''tsyp ` I 1 1 y~ 1 1 Y 1 ~ 11 ~l Z s~ W "sue s NUT!, ~I+"~ X111 6p ZoLL J l 1 11 ---------go~•. .III \ 11 _ _ _ I ~s^` - -!sw _ _ -~w- I~ , I ~ ~ erMxnm auusoa 11 ~1 1 o I ~ i I ~ Fz---- ¢ 1 ~ 5, 4 * ~ 91 ` 'T _ ;7 ! $~n I I 1 LiJ~ I ~f $ 91 '1 1111 ~ i, 1 1 1 z o 6gl ! O A-1' m J r w cl) e ~o x 1 2 I.. uJ c I s au wes s4 1 1 Q ,.I_ x ~o o } Otld 3fV.t ALtl3a0tld 1 L~J ~J ~f! O3N02 m ~w'~ L~'J •ld ~ 1 I _ ayy ,tlaQ:ni!od F~~'14sd v5E0\+9o1\10+ \1 tv:s z~oz/£/5 .-So-asilopugq,KEU\.I!1,asnI EA -1 4 0 J W G a OZSL6 HO PUL14SV IMIS u1eW 73 SSI•L c H ~ o ~ W r m ~ or LN3WlHVd3(133110d ONV NSV _R E :HOd SNOIlVAON3» ONV SNOIlIOOV ° 310 ~~~„~d €m Q cn cn < 9 WE $ 3 H 3 SBw z 3 ss w y 58 8N fi -s¢ o y a QQ o $ aRa w g ~ 3 91 8""h "2 o m W 8 a ":nQ 88 ~o X00 11 t3 0 w o < In spa y i~ a o ~~aa m G ~ o w w c ~ ° ~ ~ w a - o a EEE E z B 5 $ - YQ $ 2 H N (7 V to n~ N ~ W e e 'e 111 1 - I I ~ 0 ® 1 1~ `"•sr I M ~ 1 11 Q ` I io I_® 1 x,,11 LLI I\\\ I ya 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 n I I ~ 3 ~ F2 1 1 r. i w - I 5 I 111 5 Q a- 4' ~i 1 1 1 ss 2 z Ir.m, W 00 lh i - ~ ~s ~,`41 w 111 / lw ; 1 1 aaeo~ -mr m, y~_ 1 I¢ ~ d, I tt ~ i 1 ~1 szl m ids -I IQ) 7. 1 3i z INI.. Y 4 77 i i r I I 1 1§ N~ I I ~ 1 1 1 / 1 _ ~ 1 11 w J I ? o' - 0 Z..- f 0 1 I W w _ - - i 0 1 1 1 GO CO F-- Cl) N y LLI 11, I 19 I a- a ~BwB~a I o 's e a I ALtl3~d I 3N1~/.Ltl3tlOtld 1 ~J sa a3NOZ l~J l~J 'I~J ~J ~ I W'-OaagI 4E0\al!A+lI!AaIMa11\ana7041'10a4 w,I0d Fael4v~>5£0\s4o!\IO-,s\l, ElSZtOZ/E/5 k J to OML6 80 PUMSV hail u°.eW'3 991 _ W G ~P m =gx 1N3WIHVd3CI BMW ONtl- HWV a3€~a 'tlOd SNOIltlAON3li ONtl SNOIlIOOtl Leo ~N~51~e ° m ~ § LL~mLL~ti mmx~e.< E aL his - o 3 o z ilia M 5 IM e ~ z g~ a 1 ~1 goo=! 11108010 I% $ 3 w o > a ds \ I 77 s rr l 1 k ~I~boo b [17NZQW k Z I 1~~J 3 `rv I W-7- I I ~ elkbM ~ f - ~I ,11 1 1 ~ oil k r 1 ~ Ui 'z _ I, I z dgd~ f C3 ~1 N. V J Y 1 N d 3~ II ~I I 'Jill - - Hill I r--h O 71 l1J m'I -f} Q - fz -2pLL Z~ _ `1 ~1 g o OC x z t L pr,g i I I 1 LU Or J 0 1 r 1 w p: i-- -I, I` I - 1 F g R§y3u5 I Lxz I ' - - ~I F I 6 1. w 'M i a .aRM1p) ~D4 H^I e.' AAB t A-9[ ! ~ ~ 3NNA1N3dOtld ~ I 3NIlAW3dOtld \ A l O sa aaNOz [1 [l [ ---S-7x900-1141 K%\k'ili*nfll!d6NV!^~L1o+ox~-41 ldaG ao9odP IM KEGN-110+aun D:SZLOZ/Vg oroHOww~~S J ( wQ~ z ~ / U / z Z-.L9 „9-.b9 ) zz ® cTS cry 1 c? z rn r- n ?i ~n pis f u`i Q\ Q<w 1 i. W E p aQw... AV \j y'v ap> o w x \ G 7Z rJ \ wW \ w" t < m w J~ o V a\~~ i A\ x C3 O - -:~(7 tL W r i i El z lovdWOO S I w zQ a`x ~....I f:7 z c 0 co I o p W Z i Z W a \ l OpW WX -x- - N Z ,b I rn a w° \ =t CE j /y w Y d W NIW.O,ZZ\ . LL J d ~~'w p Vii \ Q U a z w x co . LLJ 0 `Q C9 a5~1 X~w pmj ~LL LL I U. S., Cl) = +°r0 1 a ,z o o a o WIIC6 a. C3 y LL '(D Z IL \W ~I~ L~ILJI - _o I ozcw~ ~ ~ I a O C i~ 91Xe ® 1~21~ p z o ~ o ; x oddHOO s • i~ (U U N C' ~ I W U L oOSZ~/+) 9ALL O~wrt Vzz•~ w =)W 0 9wdyOsa VI a2S 3Nil a dd02idd02i \ _ _ \ ~ \ j x ~ Cf) W W E-N 03N®Z W 0 0 0 oww as rim W W W 1, 4 1 1 C N W ® 1 1a =1a 1 1 shy j LU 1 1 ~ co a c~ m 1 1 m wZ Irz 1 1 0 g 1 z n• 1 ow 0 o r _ FB - N U - J W W _ ~l 1 OW- W 1 1 O of o~ 1 1 € M O Z co -74 ~J 0 - co ' 1 I w Cl) w u W~ $ 1 ° Z LL: ¢ .C LLI L a ' , 1 1 Fa 1 1 ICI ~ z w w ` ~JQZ Wn. > zap ~U3 11 p U Lu- 0a 1 1 Q LL w a [/J z z° Wg~° Luz 0 C5 w (f) om ~ ' 1:. 1 z w 1 _ 1 Saa" a: r I~ d 1NM2 MEN 1 a .W I 1 44 ¢ 1 1 E z E 1 ~w ~1 0 o wfn a fo O -r - rn / 1 1 F apaw. w "'a c~9a - 1 1 ~~m _ $ I~ 0 o m ~ 1 1 oa3E oco z 1 1 ~s z U 0 ~ ~ _,-az WOE.. •.9. X 1 1 zmm C9 W a . - I z ' ow 1 J N CL 0 U) slizX o qQcr 1 ~~e a w w a w r o' ^t ¢ W a z3 .z LML 77 - °O' U ' o V L S" Z o Q •W N •0 - .9L ll zlz Wo 1 11 Cl) o o o o \\\.JJL./// co S'. b L W m f Cl) w w w w i I J " CG r$ F OZ9L6 HO Pue14SV 3aQAS uleW .35SLL _ $ m G = 1N3W1litld3® 30110d ®Ntl'I'rlStl -°.Q E s r - Q =s x s a~ g> :tlOd SNOIltlAON3l:I ®Ntl SNOIlI®®tl (an V9 ¢ ? w : ~ na ®NOlslnsd ~ g w w w w w y I I I- I ea , 1 ,I HE ® qlI II I ~I d 1 Alit I ~ ~ ~ ~I II II_II-' II I~._ ~ 6Dd6D~a~,d i I ~I I i i-III. I I I I ~ I- f I ti g ~ Iw 5 1 c+ -I-% ~ I ~ VIII W'rv).trzc .o s ~ J 1 - I I - SDd6 DNDltlvd¢l69 4,~ i I o b 1 1 I. U I I t D I ~ 0 - ~ of q l ~ i a- a / I I JFI kk~ I T-D-Vd-001 1, a •a ~ ~ ~ )I s ° I ~ IV I III; s 4 i g Qb 1 W I -n5oa!IOdPDDl4! b Eo\sdl!i+nIwMV!-YS~-lo aqj ItlaO aopod Ptrel45v-bSEO\9o!\to-v E45 ZtOZ/fly W G 'a OZ9L6 730 Puel4stl laaalS u1eW -3 99L l c s M m = Spay LN3WIHVd3U 33110d ®NVINSV A a ~ e 9 W .x tl®A SNOIl`ifAON3a ®Nt/ SN®111®®t/ a co a ~ ~ , ~ ~ " Ewa 4i o a ~ ~ ~ ems ~----I-----------------fir,-~----- ~ I ~ ~III~I ~ I II II I I s - - ~W oV_ 3 m e I I I s z ~ ~ I I I ~ I sl o - IN 4 - - - - - - - - - - I I I m I w w ~ U ¢ 2 ~ U• ~I 0-1 I I ~Ta I - -I- g ~LJI I m u I o~ I I ~ a~ L I - >ts za _ F-7 co r~ - ~r _ ~ I I ~ gLl j I I I - j m \ ~ e I OF III. - III ~.M S M I i s #~a 3W17 Sul I n al I P ~ I I I~ ! - m I I p I I r ~ - - .N~6-Ze A 94 .0 ZL .B .Zt .0 Zt .B Zt .0 .Bt c yvuoeo-~!IOdPoBI45V 65£Ol~'i!j+o6fi nnay0l~w~ana7a41'14ap wSpd Poo14Nb5fO\SgOMO-a \ E9:5 ztoz/v5 I I a OZ9L6 HO PUe14SV P94S U!eW'3 SSLL su G 1N3Wlktld3® 33110d ®NtlIHStl R s ur t' tlOd SNOIitlAON3li ®Ntl SNOIiI®®tl ° n a Q c~is vs < Ada ®p~l~d 0 w z ~ 9 w w w w w w 9 -N -miNV m' ~ z a ~ 8 8 6 6 A w ,I-- 8 I -I~sim ~i I ff ~ ~ Q QI ~ \ X mb I I I~ I Y _ i tl o I _ sg - - - - - i " ' I (r ~ ~q M ~ Qo j I z- I _ I 2 O II~,.I II III' s ~°a. III III 1 ~q ~I_ „ I p - - LL - J - 52 I r o o I I 1 to I ~ > I w M 7 - b ' I I 9 3~ O III I ~ II 0 10 III i~ w o I ~J- -III - wm ' ~ I m~ SIC mp _ w'ueBO a~!:oauemw KE0\salLd -n i!~ay~rvay\ana~a41 Idaa aailod Puel4 % 45£%:9o1\IW-% £t:5 Zlom OZ4L6 Ii0 Pue14SV jeaAS utM 3 SSLL 1N3w wvd3® 33nod aNv-iHS1/ _ s :dOd SNOLLVAON3U QNV SNOWaGy ° tan g o w g ~ o b gaw~ ~b o $ 3 ~ dl 6 -77 Iu 1 I I I I I a I IIa € I I I I layg . I ~ i I ~oa I I II 11 II a~ ~e I I I N LS+) ~ O I II 1 I i I I I i I I N I- - I I II q I Ig I II i i I I I~ I I II I Is~3 _ I 11 P) I r I il~~ I II / I I i I ~ a a t $3 1771 II I i ' II I I I I it w - I g a I I~ I I~ ala I I a4 w~+~so xxav~~vasea,Um ~n n wj. Jr-c-u-, ac c+~lwv r.'swaa41os 1 iss cioznas ro'sdeJSWelwlpue:i~lwBM 6S$$'L03'tOSdIJJ ~1t~1Ja1I9~~3tlCJSPUC'j ~ S:J OZSL6 UO'Wel4 % ztsszssws IIdlB~tiB~j - ~~zs °d v"x OZ5L6 N003210 `OMdIHSd r .JJ-0Stl SES Yn lC80V'LCS :IJl y < s a 133211S NBtlW '3 99 r ad° See a NOUVIS 30110d ®NVIHSV LA ~g$ gggg p NV-1d 3115 3dV3SUNVl § b ~ ~ F 8 5 " 'a It 11 a sal B -1 jgH f~ ] 8R 1H HN In, 5 HEN 1H Its -1, 1 = 5gg ggs a ggggggg fisx $$~'E a: 51 u oo $a€ a sp` p+,q `4- $2 0 .sus 5 D gg I }3 tiB 111,11 ilk M, pill 4 b p ~ ~ - ~ 1 ~ 8 y` i 1 om 1 ~G _ 1 ran v~ i II ~ e 1 1 L! K 1 ~ ~s \_I A T; ii; sl 11. I Nu _'131 id nit Ilk! medosvuewreaueH~/,uaH %WL09'WG:11wj atr4337 qWV od Jspuvj OZS46 jooAS V StS 46V65Lc bB6'5l9S apd :Pl U1IB'JUOx - g:Y &06 ^ OZ9L6 NO0M10 `ONV"IHSV toaugS6S 13MUSNIVN'399CL C®9 Soy w NO11V.LS 33110d ®N`d1HSV LA ~ QZ till] O x~ E F LU LU _,~,__b~a~"smFacS_b--"cm~mc?nef>a~~.~mm~b~b_~Nmhbr,«bb ~ ~ p s 'I i III 1 I 1 1 1 I ~ I 1 1 \ ~ j ~ ~ m G z ~ 1 t ~1' -471 rte- 1~~ j ~1 I\ 1h '~1 ~ 1I 77 T l 1I ~ 1 177 \I 1: 16 6 mm m m J. U~ I < hill 3 pz t -I IM 5 3pi ` s ES;i iS $ E ' a, a 11-0111 HII 011 ~ 3~a32s $ z 9$ MM I moll $ g $ § 1 E f & C6~ ~ 5 1~ du MEN M IT w ozsts atl¢xoasa 80*suq sssrzwir'sto ~+N~a119>N aAeJS0oe7 S.J e~av~sro~s s Lssw er'$i~~i IIS[L'JIIax - w a}'~•x~ b m a o o N003021 'aN`d"IHSy 2! CW) ti s q 1MILLS NIdW '3 99L L NOUVIS 33110d (INVIHSV LA `u=eee 13 Zc o 8s , { s gI i H f -g 99 O gala flEq~i 1 131 A x s 6 v66 P 5 p$ pg a pqQ $ s11-$$3.. F Q Y S d > a O 5 P Em Ui ~$~u €sS ~ H ~1 2• TY~$ 2 t N Fk X11 h~112 ~ I Q B 0 ~ ~i ~ I~yS~Ii~_l ~~B~B ~~°ggCV ~k~~9~58i'L9~Ex5 .L ~ N 83 9 a Z $ e~ sF a s g m gas w gs Q S w F° ?~saa ne g H " E' J W s^ gc- a ~mm~mu& 3~Y Z^f. Z u5 ~ & ~e t°b o %sy;F P 2e W / s" E Imo rc g,. 000 ©0000008® J c4 a U @ L F Q O 5 W L~~ y 7 J 0 g~ S I d } 5F' F x~ U 1 1 1 a \ 1 Dbq~ cc.~m ac 1 I T" i u'f 1 5 1 s i rowmspL4ufm,'Vfwm 3ss9'L09'0S:11w'J OM3JMgwVOdmpREj 13 mzoao'D q.v zmz59't9$ J 9 m m b I-usvm vsmwivs:wi UOIBDU N ` OZ9L6 NOE)MJO `ONVIHSV "a i y < w = 13MUS NIVIN'3996L Z °v~° SCT~ o NOUVIS 33110d ®Nb'1HSV LA UMIN' saw E m~ 'flfg'jifll Ha `s s s g~° gs a egg q l ~ 2jgs.aaXagge g s°$m8~ss~_?gQy HOE ga $ _ y~E i N~fflvo~m°, _ 6949 - 68 a ffi~ mEam° 1§~ I a ( X 1 1 w 8- 1A, -3A 1 g LL- - ° 17 It - ~ Ids ~ _ ~1 - _ ~ \i 1 i ~ x x _77 ~ ~1~ 1 i f AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On May 24, 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 fist at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2012-00575, 1155 East Main St. Signat)a of Employee G:lcomm-devlplanningTorms & HandoufslAf idaWtof Mailing_Ranning Action Notice.doc \400144141 ~ 2704 27 2 e • J' .5 ~ WFORMATM TECHNOLOGY ir_ log, ~ 7001,4 ~ 0x 24414 244 131I 444 4104 Map Maker 37 30, ..I. 371 104 Application 14340 } 9441 2 i .11 " 3 {I I Proporty Data 4nNna Legend I 3 1 4 1 Highlighted Foature ~I rl 041s,....i_. I 144 X743'', r 3701. _ 1139 ' •741, ehoSuttar 1 041 roo7' i 2807 - ( ) 1 ;~4 r i 3 ,g dieSufferTarget i73wt 3 ra 1204 ,.5# 719 i 3446...a 4411 5... ;.......I TexLofOuWrtes Tax Lot Numbers , " . i 7.37J ~ 314 1405 i... 6200 50 373 444 1404 3721 $_3341 , rt .4744_ f l E ,t4 41..,I.. 4041 3 t 372 11 4.5.1~ t~ ' ''14341 i~101831I~~ 1300 2$ ~ 3721 I 1# 74B{ 1{f11 G~ )1404 ! 15041 1112 ..._.I fI i at (701, 11, 71#i, 630 143iFl1 i . (I 12 " ~i 4z, 441 r: 1701 t2t~ 1: ~ ~f2it3 ~ ~{FO :4202 32W2 4 420P i rt24}4.1 140 j a" ! 11113 ifi12 i74?41 i141(11~10 I'. 101' I t j I ' ;t11G - 844} 111;1 1 Y~i~,11@2i tlt4 10'~ J. ~ i8 ~ 70~ 014 06 4~ 917 19414) a 2► ta4 11 , . trio*.. 1 I ~ ~i8 1 f r~ ~ ~10b.', II GI~~[li:~ ~ ; 10117 84t►.,1;24~ i ST a 274}11 .►4( O 411 4 55131 , 14 240 2444 I l3t0 10p S40b 5421 542424f44~751 2604 344 201 5407 ~ 25 r SA 04a 5410 U104 81' id~F310 fr#►3 75(k4 5411 5417 1-3466' { u XnsT 4,111 atradll 5413 5416 5414 t,41 A 1iW1 14x~a1 14 $ 741 1 , 744}0 i4~=I 7.3" '2102 u lu i` t 1~? 4)4 I - ~ 710 3 I 1 1 441j ~3i 1 441 1400 27011 3 1 1 61 4..: _ 29#11 2E192 2701 6x 1 I i4 li01 051111 I - ~3441ia II 1440 4401 54 04041 i #0414 04N?...101 s2 132 r4Oa 041 2fi 4 6204 70441 11 ~ 11;44 i 104 _a7oo, ago 4:. ` , 105441 I 444414) 47544 I i 141 7 4 ids,.,. ~1404~ 14340 . lt " ? 14(14' 02"'' 100 434 17404.. 484t► 704' '1,244141041 X730 S54O1~~4t 4 . 1g i041{f4 . 34 1 put CY,'T i. I~ ~ I 304)4 X304 31(10 4.x.1 ~2~114tC1#11 2 1>1{I 4 I I 1 104 "4304"~ ~i204 ~84212801 f 43W1 20of) i 2104 r I $2011 5 0! I 23411 1 1-50 1JACKSON 12. f 2 ~T 601 l COUNTY 0rCg011 ,t~ Ali 4j i..i f144 43 1 ~4t4441 i 1 i rnamapi fizzed unag zh~izbaee co 0a, p,~ I i 1 I rcp'ed 6 Jackson County From a varey I ~J tyi3V7f } J owces Jackson County Cann p _ _ I5,5+a V_ I 7 i r3l of s of ecce ! G Y..., p rFly for errors, orrtss!ons,a re_pcnsi { ' 741441 i f i ! 17 i `I7 I_ ! V b V @i po< aoa acarac7. TWO ue no rarsanios, expresso3 orfrcp5od. Ptzase reoyde %-,h adored erA greCe gaper frea!ed wrh Map`.Acr Map uea!ed on 5r2U2MJ0'4947APd us:'" v jb faeke-cnCOun.y,prg T AWAd-OD-008-6 wide-dod pjogaj al aalQn,?a juaaia5ae4:) T X096 sAb AV;!jege6 al zasllE3~i utor~an j Ije aanLpeN el q zalIdaa ap ®as " as!ad p sa~ i!e# e•nruv►nn $P u sananbl; PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 1100 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 600 •A-2012-00575 391 E 10 900 ASHLAND ACADEMY OF ART LLC BLUE IRIS PROPERTIES LLC COMMUNITY WORKS INC 222 LANILOA WAY PO BOX 338 900 E MAIN ST HAIKU Hl 96708 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2012•-00575 391 E09AD 7200 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60003 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60002 CONKLIN JIM TRUSTEE COOMBS MARY IRENE CRUZ SANDRA PO BOX 246 1420 BRICKELL BAY DR 1505 72 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 MIAMI FL 33131 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7400 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5409 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5416 DONALDSON J ROBIN TRUSTEE - DYKSTRA JAMES D JRIMARIA E FRANKS VERNON LOUIS DONALDSON JA 1238 ROSE LN TRUSTEE ET AL 114 GRANITE ST ASHLAND OR 97520 555 SHERIDAN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7100 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5407 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5414 GERSCHLER KENNETH G/LINDA GOTTLIEB HEIDEN E GRAHAM ROSEMARY E 1218 ROSE LN 1288 ROSE LN 1125 MAIN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 100 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7300 PA-2012-00575 391E 10BC 5413 GRAWOIG MARTE LOGAN HALL RICHARD/HALL SAMANTHA HEALEY KIMBERLEY 2305-C ASHLAND ST PMB 433 M 1278 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 40 NORTH MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60004 PA-2012-00575 391E 10 800 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 601 HIGH PRISCILLA TRUSTEE ET AL HODGINS ROBERT DALE HOFFMAN MARIE BELLE REV LIV 2709 CLAY CREEK WAY TRUSTEE ET AL TRUST ASHLAND OR 97520 165 TIMBERLAKE DR 61 MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 2901 PA-2012-00575. 391E10 1000 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 7600 HOWE OLIVE J TRUSTEE JACKSON CO SCHOOL DIST #5 JACOBSON SEPORA MAYIM P O BOX 336 885 SISKIYOU BLVD 1031 PAKINGTON ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 VICTORIA BC V8V382 PA-2012-00575 399 E1 OBC 2800 PA-2012-00575 391E 10BC 5422 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60005 KRADLE ARIEL MARIA R LEWIS-RAYMAN KATHY M MAIER WILLIAM CIJOANN 23 GARFIELD ST 1254 ORCHID ST 1156 IDAHO ST ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SAN JOSE CA 95126 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60007 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 8900 PA-2012-00575 391 E 10BC 2803 MARSHIK LINDA NORTHCUTT JACK DIBETTY A PEARSON ADAM JICHRISTINA A 415 18TH ST 1340 E. MAIN ST 33 GARFIELD ST NORTH VANCOUVER BC V71- 2Y1 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 700 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5420 PA-2012-00575 391 E 108C 5406 PEOPLES BANK POE PATRICIA L TRUSTEE FBO POWELL JEANNE H TRUSTEE ET 750 BIDDLE RD 27 DEWEY AL MEDFORD OR 97504 ASHLAND OR 97520 1208 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 T T wi86P3 dn-dad asodxa jaded Ral T @09LS aleldwo.L oltJand asn mORS ®AU! 04 Gull Bpole Puae ® 11 slagel ®laad Ase3 T Aa9A V-09-oos-! T wldn-dod pjogej 01 jaJgngj Juawerwep @a9ls ®AM9A'd I,jegefi ai zasrNln ' uj jDAe-aeMM ' ep ulle ajntM el q zelldes aP sues , jaled q selpe; sa:pan PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5410 PA-2012-00575 391 E1 OBC 2802 fjA-2012-00575 391E 10BC 5408 PRESKENIS DANIEL JIAMY I REDDING LINDA J ROSENTHAL RICHARD S 1248 ROSE LN 31 GARFIELD ST 1228 ROSE LN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 El OBC 5419 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60008 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AA 1700 SCHOROVSKY SANDRA B SCHREIBER ARTHUR HIJANET C SPENCER NANCY S TRUSTEE 1285 ROSE LN 64 MOUNTAIN AVE FBO ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 167 N MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E 1 OBC 2900 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 603 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 201 TAYLOR STEVEN WIWANDA THOMASHEFSKY ALLEN J THOMPSON BRENT TRUSTEE ET 32 LINCOLN ST 64 3RD ST AL ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 P O BOX 201 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5411 PA-2012-00575 391 E10BC 5415 PA-2012-00575 391 E1 OBC 5412 TOEWS ERIC H/CASSANDRA S TSCHANN DENISE M TYGERSON DAVID G/KELLY A PO BOX 85 659 FORDYCE ST 5072 S OLD HWY 99 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60006 PA-2012-00575 391 E09AD 60001 PA-2012-00575 391 E 1 OBC 5417 WAXMONSKY STEVENIJENYA WOLF STEPHEN H YOUNG SALLY O TRUSTEE FBO 1 MANDALAY PL 909 PO BOX 152 2300 TAYLOR AVE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA ASHLAND OR 97520 YREKA CA 96097 94080 PA-2012-00575 46 Straus & Seibert Architect LLP 5-24-2012 1175 E Main, Suite SE 1155 E Main Medford OR 97504 Police Stn i i I t I Twx09ZS @AM3AV wieBp3 dn-dod asodxa jaded paaj @09 LS ejeldwal ®Rjany asn 01 auik 6u01e pua® ® , slagsl ®laad jSse3 May 03, 2012 MAY 0 4 ?U' 12 E ASHLAND POLICE FACILITY EXPANSION PLANNING CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Chapter 18. 72.070 Criteria for Approval ~k All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development; The following findings address the conditions and comments stated in the Pre-Application Conference Report as prepared by Derek Severson, Associate Planner, City of Ashland and to the best of my knowledge address the applicable City Ordinances requirements. All requirements of the Site Design Review Chapter (18.721 have beer) rnet or will be met. 1. Approval Process per Chapter (18.72.040) a. Applicability All new structures, additions or expansions in E-1 zone b. Plans Required Drawing List G1 Index Sheet AU Existing Site Plan (For Reference Only) A1.2 Site Demolition Plan A1.3 Phase 1 Site Plan (Base Bid) A1.4 Phase 2 Site Plan & Alternates A1.5 Phase 1 Enlarged Site Plan & Details A3.1 Phase 1 Floor Plans A6.1 Phase Exterior Building Elevations LS Landscape Site Plan L2 Tree Protection Plan L3 Irrigation Plan L4 Planting Plan (See attached) c. Method and type of energy to be used for conditioning and lighting and annual amount use and methods to make approximation. Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF), electricity. 110,OOOkWh per year, based on bin data and published energy efficiency and coefficient of performance values for the new heat pump equipment. 2. Applications, per Chapter 18.108.017 A. Complete Application a. All of the required information for the specific action requested. a) Type 11 planning action b) Priority planning action NOT requested b. Written findings of fact. 18.72.090 ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FROM SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of the site; 1. Site Topography and Access The original site topography slops approximately 11' from the high point at the East Main Street frontage to the low point at the north assumed property line. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 1 The original building, designed in 1980, was based on a two function building housing the Police and the Municipal Court. The complex was located on average about 50' back from the East Main Street frontage to allow for slope conditions. Even with a 50' setback the site cut created a 4'+/- high embankment between the Police building finished floor and the street frontage level. The original documents indicate no access from East Main Street, only from the east public parking lot, because of the topography conditions and parking location. The current sloped walk from East Main Street to the facility entry plaza was added at an unknown latter date. In order to comply with the 20' frontage setback significant excavation and retaining wall installation with ramping would be required in the 20' setback at significant cost to the Police expansion project with no improvement for facility access over what now exists. Aesthetically the building, if located at a 20' setback, would appear to be down in a hole with only the upper half exposed. The gradual slope to the existing plaza is a significantly better solution both aesthetically and functionally. The open landscaped sensation and building architecture is very appealing for this particular facility. 2. Building Function Police facility function is critical for best performance of police activities. The patrol department is located between parking and muster; evidence adjacent to patrol; investigation between patrol and administration; administration between investigations/patrol and the public meeting space directly off the public lobby. Locating the police facility addition to the north (back) of the existing building provided a functional arrangement consistent with the above relationships at least cost to the project. There is not sufficient space between the building and street frontage to allow for the required Phase I and Phase II building expansions. If space were added at the building front additional space would be needed at the rear, requiring significant exterior and interior remodeling, relocation of the existing solar array, increased construction costs and no improvement in the police function. 3. Hardscape/Landscape The current landscape and majority of hardscape was installed during the original facility construction completed in 1981. The landscape has since matured and is well maintained by the City. To increase a sense of street entry, j design improvements are proposed at the street frontage and walk connection at the existing entry-walk/plaza. These alterations will increase the awareness of entry place and allow citizens to gather and discuss in larger groups. Landscaping will be added at the existing parking lot to comply as best possible with the current Site Design Standards. The City Facilities and Police Departments will be collaborating on a remodel of the frontage landscaping along East Main Street to achieve better compliance with the low water usage and drought resistant plant materials. The improved entry walk/plaza, front landscape remodel and the parking lot landscape improvements will be completed as part of Phase II. i 901 B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 2 No change is proposed that would alter the existing character or relationship of the Police Facility to the surrounding land uses. Approval of the requested variance will not negatively impact adjacent properties. C. Approval of the variance (exception) is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; ("The requirement for outdoor spaces is, of course, much less. The primary function is to improve the project's appearance, enhance the City's streetscape, lessen the visual and climatic impact of parking areas, and to screen adjacent residential uses from the adverse impacts which commercial uses may cause.")j"The alternative desired in Ashland is to design the site so that it makes a positive contribution to the streetscape and enhances pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This is accomplished through the following three level review process."] ,("The project is outside a 'Detail Site Review Zone', and as such needs to comply with Basic Site Review Standards only. The Basic Site Review Standards are: 1a.1) Orientation and Scale, "Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street." The Police/Courts building has its primary orientation to the street. 1a,2) Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right-of- way. The Police/Courts building is setback greater than 20 feet and will require a variance for the stated discussion in A.1. above, 1a.3) NA 1b) Streetscope, This is a mature landscaped site (since 1981) and street trees are in place. 1c.1) Landscape to cover SO% in one year.... The landscape is mature. I c.2) Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use, deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs andflowering plant species. The existing mature landscape incorporates all of the above except for turf which is Under consideration by the f=acilities and Police pepartments:for replacement as part of Phase II that will meet the low water use criteria, 1c.3) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10' in width The existing mature landscape meets this requirement, 1c.4) Irrigation systems shall be installed There is an installed irrigation 3 system. 1c.5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on I the site as possible. Two trees will be removed for Phase 1 work and two to four removed for Phase II work. 1d.1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. The parking is located behind the building. I d,2) Parking area shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from nary-residential uses. Screening is in place between this project and adjacent residential uses. Parking lot shading and landscaping will be provided as part of Phase ll construction, 1e) Designated Creek Protection..... NA 1f) Special attention to glare and noise shall be considered The proposed addition to the Police Facility will not change the existing glare or noise t conditions. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 3 E. 1g) For sites which do not conform to the above requirements (1a through 1f), an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with the above standards as the percentage of building expansion.... The building expansion is a 48% increase of the existing building. Of the three above items that do not meet the Basic Site Review Standards the following is proposed: For 1a.2) a new site entry Plaza is proposed to enhance the perception and connection of the main building entry to the streetscape. This new entry Plaza will be provided as part of Phase II work. 1c.2) A revised front landscape plan will be provided as part of Phase 11 work. 1d.2) Parking lot tree shading and planting will be provided as part of Phase 11 work. D, The variance (exception) requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty; The variance requested will satisfy the Basic Site Review Standards with the least jeopardy to the existing conditions. E. Or where no demonstrable difficulty is found to exist, granting the exception (variance) will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. The existing completed Police/Courts project is in fundamental compliance with the City's current Site Design and Use Standards with the exception of building setback, low water plants and parking lot shading. Building setback is the only item that can be changed and granting this exception will result in maintaining the existing building appearance and site setting, both of which are aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for the location in the City. c. Complete and signed application form (Zoning Permit Application See attached completed application form. i i B. Pre-Application Conference, completed on February 13, 2012 with Derek Severson. C. Priority Planning Action. Not Requested. D. Types of Procedures (18.108.020) ! 1. Ministerial Actions - NA 2. Planning actions - Yes c) Type 11 Procedure (18.108.050) d) zone E-1 1) Addition of 3,050sf to existing Police Facility, a 48% increase, exceeds 20% building increase for a Type I Procedure and project must be reviewed as a Type U Procedure requiring a Public Hearing. Y Nl 2) NA 3) Impervious surface will not increase greater than 10% 4) Parking spaces will be reorganized within the existing paved area 5) No change of occupancy Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 4 6) No change in use of lot 7) NA 3. Legislative amendments - NA i I € {{E E I 3 1 i i . P'~R 4a 2012 Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 - Page 5 C, The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of the Chapter: 1. a. Landscaping Requirements Zone E-1, 15% minimum b. Multi-Family Residential Development NA c. Commercial Employment and Industrial Development 11-C-1 Basic Site Review Standards: This project is for the addition, in two Phases, of a 5,000 square foot addition to the existing City of Ashland Police Facility originally constructed in 1981. The original Site Design for the Police and Courts/Council buildings was approved and developed in 1980. Some of the conditions of the Site Design and Use Standards may not be possible given existing conditions. 11-C-1a) Orientation and Scale 1. The buildings orientation addresses East Main Street and is accessible from the public sidewalk. 2. The entrance setback to the Police/Courts/Council buildings is 60 feet from the public right-of-way and will not be changed to meet the current 20 foot setback. No automobile circulation or parking is between the building and the right-of-way. The current entrance is clearly visible, functional, and open to the public during all business hours. 3. NA 11-C-1b) Streetscape Street trees exists at about 30 foot spacing at the frontage. E 11-C-1c) Landscaping 1. The landscaping is mature at present. Minor new landscaping will comply with the percentage coverage requirements. 2. The existing landscaping is mature (planted in 1981) and is well maintained. The Police and City Facilities Department are considering alterations to the existing frontage landscaping which will, when implemented, address the "low water use" condition of this section. This alteration work will not occur as part of the Police Facility addition construction. 3. The frontage buffer averages about 50 feet and a mature 12 foot wide buffer is on the west side screening the residential property. 4. There is installed a landscape irrigation system. S. Two trees (Betula sp) will be removed to allow for Phase One construction and an additional four trees (three Pinus c. and one Picea pungens) may be removed depending on selection of Alternate Bid Items for Phase One work. 11-C-1d) Parking 1. The parking now exists behind the building and will be reconfigured in the same area. Four new compact parking spaces will be added next to the building on the West side. 4 2012 2. Parking area shading will be provided as required in the reconfigured parking area. Landscape screening of residential is in place between the existing and proposed building addition on the west side. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 6 11-C-.1e) Designated Creek Protection NA 11-C-1f) Noise and Glare No changes in the project use are considered that will change the existing Noise and Glare conditions as presently used or installed. ll-C-1g Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings This site does not conform to the current Site Design and Use Standards. The planed Phase One Addition to the Police Facility is 3,050 square feet an expansion of 48% over the existing 6,400sf.. The defined Police Facility site is 45,900sf (Landscape required at 15%= 6,885sf) Existing Area to Comply Building Area 9,450 (includes Phase one expansion) Parking/Drives 17,430 x.48% = 8,366 (1) Hardscape 5,000 x.48% = 2,400 (2) Landscape 14,020 x.48% = 6,730 (3) Item (1) Parking and Drives: The entire Parking area will be reconfigured and include the required internal landscaping. Item (2) Hardscape: The entire front approach walk from the street sidewalk to the building entry will be redesigned creating a front plaza. Item (3) Landscape: Landscaping will be added to the parking lot. The frontage landscape will be improved as a joint project by the Police and Facilities Departments at future date as funds are made available. 11-C-2 Detail Site Review Not Applicable H-G3 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects Not Applicable I d. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards 11-D-1 Screening at Required Yards j 1. Not Applicable 11-0-2 Screening Abutting Property Lines There is an existing 12 foot wide landscape buffer in-place on the west property line screening the parking from abutting residential uses. E 11-D-3 Landscape Standards 1. The parking lot landscaping at 586 square has been provided at the north, east and west parking areas, plus one tree per seven spaces, see drawings. 2. Trees are selected from the tree list and will be planted per the standard. 3. The 2' planting standard will be maintained. 4. The landscaped area will be planted with shrubs and/or ground cover will achieve the required coverage rates. 5. Landscape is distributed as best that will allow for even distribution. H-D-4 Residential Screening A 12' wide screen is in place and mature. 11-0-5 Hedge Screening M AY 0 Hedge screening is not required. Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 7 11-D-6 Other Screening 1. Refuse Container Screen: Refuse is part of the City Maintenance Facility. 2. Service Corridor Screen: Screening of the residential use along the west service drive is in place. 3. Light and Glare Screen: No change is proposed from the existing. e. Street Tree Standards lI-E-1 Location for Street Trees Street trees are in place along the street frontage and are irrigated. II-E-2 Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of Street Trees Street trees are in place along the street frontage at intervals of about 30'. II-E-3 Replacement of Street Trees No street trees will be replaced II-E-4 Recommended Street Trees The existing street trees, 'Purnus s', are about 16' in height, and selected and maintained by the City Facilities Dept, 0. That adequate capacity of City: facilities. 1) 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. The existing Police/Courts Facility has in place all of the above items consistent with City requirements. 2) All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 188.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord. 2836 S6, 1999) No changes will occur in the street right-of-way for this current project. I I i 4 20V Straus & Seibert Architect LLP Ashland Police Planning Submittal, May 1, 2012 Page 8 Straus & Seibert Architects, LLP TRANSMITTAL March 4, 2012 To: Derek Severson City of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Project: Ashland Police Department Remodel Via: Hand Delivery Enclosed: Derek, Planning submission material includes the following for your review: (2) Copies of Zoning Permit Application (1) Full Set & (1) Half Size Set of drawings Drawing List: G1 Index Sheet A1.1 Existing Site Plan (For Reference Only) A1,2 Site Demolition Plan A1.3 Phase 1 Site Plan (Base Bid) A1.4 Phase 2 Site Plan & Alternates A1.5 Phase 1 Enlarged Site Plan & Details A3.1 Phase 1 Floor Plans A6.1 Phase Exterior Building Elevations L1 Landscape Site Plan L2 Tree Protection Plan L3 Irrigation Plan L4 Planting Plan Thank you, Ogun Arslan, NCARB, LEEP AP Straus & Seibert Architects LLP 1175 E. Main Street, Suite 2E Medford, OR 97504 MAY i Voice: 541-779-4363 oarslc~n~ssarchl~.com JA0354 Ashland Police Dept, The Grove\Admin\TRClty of Ashland Planning050312,docx Planning Division ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 -ASH LAN Q 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-5006 FILE # DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? 0 YES 0 NO Street Address 1155 East Main Street Assessor's Map No. 391E 10 Tax Lot(s) 9 0 0 Zoning E-1 Camp Plan Designation Employment APPLICANT Name Ashland Police Dept. Prone 541 -488-2211 E-Mail Address 1155 East Main Street City Ashland Z€p 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name Same As Applicant Phone E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Architects Title Architect Name Straus & Seibert Phone 5.41_.-779-4.1ti-t-Malldsf.ra„.q@Gsarr-hlIp,CC Address 11 75 E. Main Street, Suite 2E C€tv Medford Zip 97504 Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and fnformatlon contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required Endings of fact, are in 811 respects, true and carrect. 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. f further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish., 1) that 1 produced sufOclent faclual evidence at the headng to support this request Z) that the Endings of factfurnishedjustifres the granting of the request° 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate,, and further 4) that all structures or Improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure In this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my exponse. IfI have any doubts,/ am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the propertyinvolved in this request, l have read and understood tine complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner's Signature (required) Date (lobe -%*[ed by city Stat]i Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 0 G:kmn de0planninffo=&Handouts}ZoningPem,itApplicatlon"doa P1a>u>;ingDivision ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION C r r a r 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520? 4 _i'5 - A ,ASH LAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541488-6006 FILP # 4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEX)Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Street Address 1155 East Main Street Assessors Map No. 391 E 10 Tax Lot(s) 9 0 0 Zoning E-1 Comp Plan Designation Employment APPLICANT Name Ashland Police Dept. Phone 541 -488-221 1 E-Mail Address 11 55 East Main Street City.Ashland Zip 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name Same As Applicant Phone E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Architects Title Archi tef^t Name Straus & Seibert Phone 541-77c)-4-169-Mall.d.straii.q@.q.qa-rc-.hllp.com Address 111 75 E. Main Street, Suite 21a City Medford Zip 97504 Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip t hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application including the enclosed drawings and the required findings offact, are in all respects, true and correct. 1 understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site Inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I lurther understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish; 1) that l produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request,- 2) that the findings of fact furnishedjustifres the granting of the request; 3) that the >tndings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properlylocated on the ground. Falluro 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. ff I have any doubts, i am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applica is Signature Late As owner of the property involved in this request, l have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Propert Owner's Signature (required) Date [lobe -froted by coy staff) Date Received y Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ r OVER 1/ G:komm-dadplanningTonns & HandontstiZoning Permit Appficatiomdoc ~ n Job Address: 1155E MAIN ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: CITY OF ASHLAND 0 Phone: P Customer 06743 N State Lie No: P' CITY OF ASHLAND T' City Lie No: L Applicant: R= 1: Address: A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: T' Address: N Applled: 05/04/2012 0'. T Issued: Expires: 10/31/2012 R, Phone: State Lie No, Maplot: City Lie No: DESCRIPTION; Commercial Site Review Construction valuation is 1.3 million VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: E MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Commercial Site Review (type2) 8,428.00 CONDITIONS O>= APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488.5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800.735.2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY Request Line: 541-552-2080 ® F