Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWebster_1554_PA-2011-01576 CITY F SHLAND January 26, 2012 Keith Fugate SERA Architects 338 NW 5t' St Portland, OR 97209 RE: Planning Action #2011-01576 Notice of Final Decision At its meeting of January 10, 2012, based on the record of the public meetings and hearings on this matter, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Site Review, Conditional Use Permit and Tree Removal Permit for the property located at 1554 Webster Assessor's Map # 39 lE 10CD; Tax Lot 4200. The Ashland Planning Commission approved and signed the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, on January 24, 2012. The Planning Commission decision becomes effective on the 13'h day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 1 year. Please review the attached findings and conditions of approval. The conditions of approval shall be met prior to project completion. Copies of the Findings, Conclusions and Orders document, the application and all associated documents and evidence submitted, applicable criteria and standards are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($318), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110 (A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal may not be made directly to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact the Community Development Department between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday at (541) 488-5305. cc: Southern Oregon University Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 wwmashland,orms t SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type H decisions - shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address,' a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 31. 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 hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated: a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 ' Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms t Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. C.. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten- (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if different, and three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten (10) days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining . whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make fmdings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.B.5 . F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: I 1. The applicant. 2. ,Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland.or.us E BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION January 24th, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2011-01576, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-STORY ) DINING HALL NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WIGHTMAN AND WEBSTER ) STREETS, TWO NEW FOUR-STORY RESIDENCE HALLS NEAR THE INTER- ) SECTION OF WEBSTER AND STADIUM STREETS, TWO PARKING LOTS, ) AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY CAMPUS AT 1554 WEBSTER STREET. ALSO INCLUDED ARE ) FINDINGS, REQUESTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW ) CONCLUSIONS BUILDINGS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND VARY FROM THE ) AND ORDERS LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE SOU MASTERPLAN AND TO EXCEED THE ) 40-FOOT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE IN THE SO ZONING DISTRICT, AND A REQUEST FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE 27 TREES THAT ARE ) 18-INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER. ) APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #4200 of Map 39 IE 10 CD is located at 1554 Webster Street and is zoned SO, Southern Oregon University. 2) The applicants are requesting Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included in the application are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40-foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 27 significant trees (defined as being I8-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d. b. h) or greater). Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The Southern Oregon University Campus SOU Plan Update ("the SOU Plan") was adopted by the Ashland City Council in June of 2010 to achieve compliance with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes which requires that the _ planning activities of Southern Oregon University be coordinated with the City of Ashland to ensure compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan and local land use ordinances. The SOU Plan provides both a conceptual framework and design guidelines for the on-going development of the 164- acre Southern Oregon University campus, which is zoned SO (Southern Oregon University). Zoning regulations within this district are found in AMC 18.64, which generally provides that those uses which PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 1 are directly related to the educational functions of SOU, which are indicated and located in conformance with the adopted SOU Plan, and which are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property are permitted outright subject to Site Review approval, while allowing a measure of flexibility to the adopted SOU Plan where project-specific site planning varies from the larger conceptual framework by providing that any "use, site design, or construction or alteration of same" not agreed upon in advance is subject to discretionary review as a Conditional Use Permit. 4) The application also involves the proposed demolition of four to five single family residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development. The demolition and relocation of structures is not regulated through Ashland's Land Use Ordinance (AMC Chapter- 18) or subject to land use approval, and must instead be reviewed and approved separately pursuant to AMC 15.04.210-.218 which regulate the demolition and relocation of buildings within the city. The approval of Demolition/Relocation Review Permits is subject to review by the Building Official and/or the Demolition Review Committee. 5) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. 6) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC 18.104.050 as follows: E A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity offacilities. PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 2 } 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6 The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 7) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, 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 PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 3 i 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 he a condition of approval of the permit. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 13, 2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This hearing was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 10, 2012 at which time additional testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: f F f SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. i Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Review, Conditional Use and Tree Removal permit approvals meets all applicable criteria for Site Review approval as described in Chapter 18.72, for Conditional Use Permits as described in Chapter 18.107, and for Tree Removal Permits as described in Chapter 18.61. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan provided delineates the proposed building location, design and associated site improvements. The Planning Commission further PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 4 t finds that the application involves requests for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story 27,500 square foot Dining Hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four- story Residence Halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets with the South Residence Hall to consist of 105,000 square feet in 128 semi-suite units to house 429 students and the North Residence Hall to consist of 89,443 square feet in 78 suite units to house 273 students, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the northern portion of Southern Oregon University's campus at. 1554 Webster Street. The Planning Commission finds that with the proposal, the existing Cascade residential complex on the southern campus' will cease to be used to house students, and the proposed new North Campus Village development will replace the lost Cascade beds and potentially provide accommodations for up to an additional 100 students. The Planning Commission also notes that while the application makes mention of the possibility of a future 50,000 square foot Recreation Center addition which would be constructed between the nearby McNeal Pavilion building and Wightman Street, this future addition is not part of the current proposal and is not considered here. The Planning Commission finds that,the first criterion to be considered for Site Review approval is that, "All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development." The Planning Commission further finds that development within the SO zoning district is guided by the SOU Plan, which provides the conceptual framework for the development of the campus over the coming decade through an adopted map detailing proposed developments as well as through specific site and building design standards applicable to the campus which supplement the zoning regulations found in AMC 18.64 and the site design standards found in Ashland Site Design Review Chapter (AMC 18.72) and the city's Site Design and Use Standards. In AMC 18.64, the SO zoning district regulations .generally provide that those uses which are directly related to the educational functions of the university are considered outright permitted uses, provided that such uses are indicated and located in conformance with the adopted, city-approved SOU Plan, and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property. In addition to the SOU Plan, development on campus is also subject to the Site Review, Sign Regulations, Off-Street Parking and Tree Preservation & Protection chapters, as well as to the Conditional Use Permit chapter which applies to: any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in advance by the city and the university in the SOU Plan; any use, site design, or construction within 50 feet of privately-owned property; any construction over 40 feet in height; and wireless communication facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed residence and dining hall buildings are directly related to the educational functions of the university, however the location of the dining hall, residence halls and associated parking lots are not as identified in the SOU Plan, the 400+ foot length of the residence halls exceeds the maximum 250 foot,length allowed in the SOU Plan, and the height of the residence halls is greater than the 40 feet allowed outright in the district. As such, the Commission finds that these components of the application require Conditional Use Permit approvals to address these areas of nonconformity. Findings with regard to these Conditional Use Permits are provided in Section 2.4 below. The Planning Commission finds that there are provisions within the SOU Plan for the applicants to consider parking standards specific to the university in collaboration with city staff. Currently, the PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 5 applicable parking standards in AMC 18.92.020 call for two off-street parking spaces for each three guest rooms in a dormitory. Overall campus parking requires one and one-half spaces per classroom plus one space for five students, plus the required parking for on-campus resident students the campus can accommodate within dormitories. Based on observed parking demand across campus, the applicants propose to adjust the parking required for residence halls from two off-street parking spaces for each three guest rooms in a dormitory to only one space per three beds. The applicants also propose to increase classroom parking required from one and one-half spaces per classroom plus one space for five students to two spaces per classroom plus one per five students, and to clarify that required parking for on-campus resident students the campus can accommodate within dormitories should be considered only once, rather than being counted for the dormitory and then again at the overall campus level. The Planning Commission finds these proposed parking requirements to be reasonable and based on the observed demand discussed in the applicants' submittals, and further notes that 350 double rooms would accommodate 700 students with a parking requirement of 231 spaces based on the current municipal code requirement, while 700 beds considered under the proposed adjusted standard would require 234 spaces. The application notes that there are currently 570 existing off-street parking spaces available on the northern portion of the campus, and that these spaces currently have a utilization rate of roughly 36 percent. The application materials also point out that on-street parking currently has a peak utilization rate of 91 percent, and goes on to suggest that based on the applicants' observations, approximately 50 percent of the current on-street demand is tied to the university. As part of the application, the applicants propose to construct two parking lots - one off of Stadium Street at College Way, where parking is already in place, and another at the corner of Stadium and Webster Streets. The application explains that with the removal of some existing parking lots to accommodate the proposed buildings and the addition of these two parking lots, there will be a net reduction of 44 parking spaces, leaving 526 off- street spaces to accommodate demand on the north campus. The application notes that with the proposed north campus development, a utilization rate of approximately 77 percent could be obtained for off-street parking on the north campus, and that there would be a possibility to absorb the additional demand currently associated with on-street parking into the campus at a future date. Application materials provided relative to transportation and parking demand management note that while some actions are entirely within the University's control, such as setting policies on where students and employees park, other items such as a bus pass program or neighborhood parking permit program are dependent upon the expansion of working partnerships between the City, Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the surrounding neighbors, and further indicate that the proposed North Campus Village project is in effect transportation demand management strategy unto itself in that it seeks to make living on campus more attractive to students who might otherwise commute by car, as well as providing substantial bicycle parking to support student bicycle commuting. The application states that the university will implement variable pricing between parking lots when the residence halls open in fall of 2013, and will re-designate parking lots on the north and; south campus areas to ensure that resident students have sufficient parking available on the appropriate side of Siskiyou and that PA #2011-01576 j January 24, 2012 Page 6 t k parking resource utilization efficiency is maximized. It further suggests that while the university would be willing to adjust parking pricing further and pursue other measures such as restricting the sale of parking permits to first year students they believe that a neighborhood parking permit program would be needed prior to implementation to avoid having parking impacts spill over to the surrounding neighborhood streets. In terms of additional transit strategies, the applicants have indicated a willingness to meet with RVTD, university staff and administrators and students to discuss transit subsidies, noting that they would like to reinstate a bus pass program in an appropriate form provided there are changes in transit service to meet student needs such as adequate evening hours to support students who commute to the Higher Education Center in Medford, and will also explore options for providing some sort of express shuttle service for students traveling to the Medford Higher Education Center campus and from outside of Medford as well. While the application suggests that parking management strategies including parking pricing, parking restrictions, and specific parking lot designations can reduce demand in conjunction with transportation demand managements measures such as transit subsidies and a targeted shuttle service, the submittal materials ultimately conclude that because the proposed parking is adequate for the request these measures are not necessary in association with the current proposal. The Commission finds that because the application primarily involves a shifting of existing student population from one side of Siskiyou Boulevard to the other, it is appropriate that providing adequate parking within a reasonable proximity to the new halls and addressing pedestrian safety enhancements at the likely crossing points for residents be key areas of focus for the application, and that these are two issues are adequately addressed in the materials provided. However, the Commission must also note that without a more detailed explanation of the future Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion including the nature of proposed uses and the number, type and frequency of potential events, a finding cannot be made at this time that the parking proposed now will be adequate to serve that future construction, and further finds that at the time that project is considered through Conditional Use Permit review, more aggressive parking management and transportation demand management measures such as neighborhood parking permit programs may be necessary to minimize vehicular impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from the combined demand of the currently proposed North Campus Village housing and future Student Recreation Center addition which is not part of the current request. The Planning Commission further finds that with regard to bicycle parking, AMC 18.92.040 typically requires that colleges and universities provide one bicycle parking space per five automobile parking spaces, with half of these spaces required to be covered. The applicants have indicated that they intend to provide bicycle parking in an amount at least equivalent to the requirements of AMC 18.92.040. A site plan has been provided illustrating five proposed covered outdoor bicycle parking locations near the entry points to the proposed buildings and the existing Greensprings dormitory, where the applicants propose to install two-level racks which can accommodate up to 20 bikes on each level similar to those widely used on the southern campus and which have become a de facto standard for campus bicycle parking. The applicants have indicated that 100 percent of the outdoor spaces to be provided are to be covered, and that these two-level racks will accommodate twice the number of bicycles in the same surface area. The Commission finds that the proposed bicycle parking provisions are consistent with the PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 7 t placement standards of the land use ordinance, and will ultimately exceed both the overall number of spaces to be provided and the number of those which must be covered. The Commission farther finds that while the two-level bicycle parking structures will not accommodate all users or bicycle types on their upper levels, the lower levels provide options for locking bicycles securely by the frame similar to those provided by the standard inverted U-rack as required in AMC 18.92.060.J, with the upper level providing for a doubling of the number of spaces in the same surface area, and that these racks are an appropriate treatment for on-campus bicycle parking. The Commission finds that the applicants will also provide additional bicycle parking within the proposed residence halls in amount equivalent to one bicycle parking space per bed in the form of hooks or racks in each room and/or locking bicycle parking rooms on the lower floors to accommodate indoor bicycle parking for students on upper floors and thus further exceed the minimum required number of bicycle parking spaces.' The Planning Commission finds that the second criterion for the approval of a Site Review permit is that, "All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met." Within the Site Review chapter, both commercial and multi-family residential developments requiring Site Review approval are required to provide an "opportunity-to-recycle" site for use of the project occupants. The "opportunity-to-recycle" site must be of a size equal or greater than the solid waste receptacle, and both the waste and recycling facilities must be screened from view by adjacent properties and public rights- of-way. The plans provided identify a "recycling hub" as a central element in the floor plans for each floor in the residence halls, and a trash compactor location is identified between the southern residence hall and Ashland Street. The existing trees and topography already screen the compactor location to a degree, and the applicants have provided details of enhanced landscape screening to be planted for further screening in their- landscape plan submittals. Once constructed, the fature mixed-use building identified to be built along Ashland Street will provide further screening of the proposed compactor placement. The applicants have also indicated that solid waste and recycling facilities for the dining hall are to be contained entirely within the building and not to be visible from adjacent properties or rights- of-way. A condition has been included below to require that the building permit submittals include final details for the solid waste and recycling facilities' placement and screening in a manner consistent with the details provided in the land use application. The Site Review chapter also requires that project lighting not directly illuminate any adjacent residentially-zoned property. While the plans provided do not identify details on the type or placement of lighting, the Commission finds that the primary area where lighting might impact adjacent residentially-zoned property is at the front of the proposed dining hall building on Wightman Street, which is located directly across the 60-foot street right-of-way from residential property. The Commission further finds that given the physical separation and the options available for lighting selection, placement and screening, there should be no difficulty in complying with this standard, particularly given that the applicants have noted that they will pursue dark sky standard lighting as part of their proposed LEEDS certification. A condition has accordingly been included to require that, lighting specifications including details of specific light fixture placement and any shrouding or other screening necessary to prevent direct illumination of adjacent residential properties be provided with the building permit submittals. PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 8 t The Site Review chapter further requires that prior to final approval, the proposal be reviewed by Conservation Division staff to assess energy use estimates and conservation strategies provided by the applicants and to provide any applicable recommendations as to available cost-effective means to further reduce energy consumption. The applicants have indicated that the project will be pursuing LEEDS certification to at least the Silver level, have provided details of the energy use and conservation strategies anticipated for the project, and have been in on-going discussions with Conservation Division staff since the early stages of project planning to identify available means to reduce energy use for the project. Given the scale of the project and the level of detail involved with LEEDS certification, the Commission has included a condition to provide for the Conservation Division's final review of the building permit submittals to allow for the fine-tuning of energy conservation strategies. The Planning Commission finds that the third criterion for Site Review approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter." The Site Design & Use Standards handbook includes specific design standards for both commercial and residential developments. The Commission finds that institutional buildings, including public buildings and schools like the residence and dining halls considered here, are to be reviewed under the basic site review standards for commercial projects, and further finds that the council-adopted SOU Plan also includes specific design standards for campus development which are'be considered with this criterion, or as part of the Conditional Use Permit discussion in Section 2.4 below, as appropriate. The Planning Commission finds that the Site Design & Use Standards generally seek to improve each project's appearance while creating a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel, lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking, and screen adjacent uses from any adverse impacts of development. To these ends, the standards require that buildings have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Buildings on corner lots are to orient to the higher order street or to the corner, and sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages, with automobile parking and circulation areas not to be placed between buildings and the street. The Commission further finds that the SOU Plan details additional Design Guidelines for campus development seeking to provide buildings at a density appropriate both to a significant university and to the scale of Ashland, to ensure that the scale and articulation of buildings enhance the "sense of place" of the campus and support walking within the campus environment, and to express the permanence and long-term role of the university in the community. These goals are addressed through standards for building massing and orientation which limit new construction to four stories; strongly discourage single-story buildings; limit residential buildings to a maximum length of 250 feet, and to a maximum footprint of 35,000 square feet; and provide articulation guidelines which call for design elements including offsets or jogs in the plan or significant recessed entry or courts of at least 25 feet in width on buildings longer than 200 feet to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet. Buildings facing major streets are to have significant, strongly articulated and clearly understandable entries to the street, PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 9 k, and buildings facing both a significant street and a campus open space are to have entries provided to both. The SOU Plan also includes standards calling for the use of materials and construction selected for long-term durability, with a preference noted for materials similar to the more significant buildings on campus which have typically used red brick, concrete and stucco. In considering the initially proposed building designs in light of both the Site Design & Use Standards and the SOU Plan's Design Guidelines, Planning Department staff identified concerns with the sense of entry and orientation to the street of both the Dining Hall and Residence Hall buildings. The proposed dining hall faces the Wightman Street streetscape to the west and a small area of campus open space to the east. The SOU Plan Design Guidelines call for strongly articulated and clearly understandable entries 'to both the street and the open space. Planning staff noted that in initial design submittals, the Wightman Street entry to the Dining Hall was not strongly articulated enough to establish a clear sense of entry and relationship to the pedestrian corridor to meet either the university's or the city's design standards, and the placement of a kitchen/support service entrance so near the Wightman Street storefront entry further detracted from a clearly articulated and understandable sense of entry. Staff recommended that the building's sense of entry be better articulated in the building design and site planning. With regard to the residence halls, staff noted that the buildings' primary entrances were shown to be to the interior quadrangle space being created, and further pointed out that the street-facing entries were labeled on the floor plans and treated in the designs more as back doors. Staff stated that this was of particular concern for the South Hall, which was placed well back from Ashland Street, with parking and circulation between the building and the street and no clear pedestrian connection to the streetscape despite the strong likelihood that the developing University District would draw student pedestrian traffic to the grocery shopping, banking, dining, coffee shops, fitness center and wireless communications services available just across Ashland Street. Staff suggested that a primary reason that the SOU Plan had envisioned placement of this residence hall in a mixed use building along Ashland Street, was that it would more effectively engage and complement the streetscape and nearby University District. The applicants explained that in the current market, a mixed use building with commercial rental space is not feasible, and suggested that the development of the current proposal could help to create a market for such a building in the future by bringing a significant portion of the campus's student population to this side of Siskiyou Boulevard. As such, the application retains a future building envelope with the Detail- Site Review Zone along Ashland Street. Staff noted that the reservation of a future building envelope along Ashland Street for development at some unspecified point in the future provides a basis for the placement of parking and circulation between the currently proposed South Hall and Ashland Street, in a location that will be behind that future building. However, staff asserted that until that future building ultimately develops, the length and size of the South Hall building, its relative to proximity to Ashland Street and the developing University District, and the magnitude of the shift in student population to this new portion of campus merited a substantially stronger sense of entry to Ashland Street and a clearly defined pedestrian connection from the entry to Ashland Street with city-standard streetscape improvements including sidewalks along Stadium Street. Staff provided the conceptual illustrations in the form of exhibits, including: S-3) a conceptual example of how a stronger sense of entry might be achieved with a raised central entry element that would also break up the length of the building; S-4) a photograph of a PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 10 more effectively addressing the South Hall's length and articulation. The Commission finds that with these revisions, the buildings comply with the Site Design and Use Standards. The Planning Commission finds that the final criterion to be considered for the approval of a Site Review permit is, "That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options." Each of these facilities is discussed individually below. Water: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that there is an eight-inch water main available to serve the project within Stadium Street, as well as a six-inch water main available in Webster Street. After review of the existing facilities and the preliminary utility plans submitted with the application materials, Public Works and Engineering staff indicated that with the extension of facilities to the site from the adjacent rights-of-way, these existing mains should be adequate to serve the project. Sewer: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that a 12-inch sanitary sewer main is available in Wightman Street. Additionally, a six-inch sanitary sewer main is available in Stadium Street. Public Works staff has noted in their review of the existing facilities and preliminary utility plans submitted that this Stadium Street line as it exists is undersized and inadequate to serve the project, and the applicants have proposed to upgrade this line to provide a new 12-inch main out to Wightman Street as part of the application request. Paved Access: Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street along the property's south boundary are both classed as boulevards or arterial streets under the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Both are also state highways, but in the vicinity of the subject property they are under city jurisdiction as part of the jurisdictional exchange and street improvement project completed in 2002. Both are fully i mproved with paving, curbs, gutters, curbside sidewalks and street trees in place along the subject property's southern frontages. The Transportation Commission recommended that the existing curbside sidewalk installation on Ashland Street from Walker Avenue to Siskiyou Boulevard be. reconstructed to full city street standards for an arterial street. In considering this recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that Ashland's Street Standards call for a consideration of existing trees in street design, and both the Site Design & Use Standards and Street Standards handbooks require preservation of natural features including existing, established trees to the greatest extent possible. In this case, the Commission finds that reconstruction of the existing sidewalk would necessitate the removal of 29 or more trees along the subject property's Ashland Street frontage, and given the topography present would also require that either a safety railing (creating physical barrier between the property and the pedestrian streetscape) or a fill slope (requiring additional tree removals) be installed.. The Commission further finds that full reconstruction to widen the existing sidewalks in this vicinity could also pose complications to utility installations that would be necessary to serve a future mixed-use building on Ashland Street, as well as any potential for PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 12 four-story multi-family building in Medford which successfully incorporates more of a recessed entry court as envisioned in the SOU Plan; S-5) an illustration of how an arched entry at the sidewalk and walkway to the entry might better achieve a relationship to the pedestrian streetscape, as with Churchill Hall which is similarly setback from the street; and S-6) an illustration from Princeton University's master plan showing a concept for their New South Green incorporating landscaping, walkways, and an arched entry through the building to a central quadrangle to create a stronger relationship to the streetscape and the "sense of place" sought in the standards. i Staff also indicated that the initial designs proposed for the residence halls exceed the maximum length allowed under the university's own Design Guidelines, and did not in staff s view adequately incorporate the SOU Plan's Length and Articulation Guidelines to mitigate the building length's proposed. The SOU Plan calls for buildings not to exceed a maximum length of 250 feet, and further requires that any building greater than 150 feet in length provide jogs, offsets, or a significant recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width. As initially proposed, both residence halls exceeded 400 feet in length on the primary elevations while no significant recessed entry or court was provided, and the jogs and offsets shown were generally shallow and repetitive notching which, particularly on the South Hall were not reflected through the building's roofline and thus did little to break up the effect of the length. Staff suggested that a building 1.64 times the maximum allowed length required stronger articulation, and that the length proposed without adequate articulation exacerbated concerns with the building's sense of entry. Staff indicated that better articulation with a significant recessed entry or court at the significant street-facing entries could address the length as well as sense of entry as illustrated in the staff exhibits, and recommended that the building and site designs be modified to address these issues and be brought back to the January meeting. In response to the discussion at the December 13th hearing, the applicants presented revised elevation drawings and site plans to address both the Wightman Street entry to the dining hall and the Ashland Street-facing entry of the South Hall. The Dining Hall revisions included the removal of the service entry from the Wightman Street elevation, a clarification of the treatment of this fagade to emphasize the material treatment, use of columns and a recessed entry from Wightman Street, as well an alternative site design proposal to enhance the Wightman Street pedestrian corridor along the dining hall's frontage to include standard five-foot width commercial tree grates, new street trees, eight foot sidewalks, and widened pedestrian circulation routes and landscape treatments to strengthen and emphasize the importance of this entry as a key point in the relationship between the proposed North Campus Village development and the broader community. The South Hall revisions included the addition of dormer elements over the previously proposed bay window projections so that the recesses were reflected through the roofline to more effectively break up the building's length and provide greater architectural interest; revised street-facing entries to be incorporated into the designs of both residence halls featuring a large arch element over a stronger entry, with a recessed entry area to provide refuge from the elements at the entry; a slightly raised roof on the central building element to more effectively distinguish the massing of the building into three parts and emphasize the central entry; and a pedestrian connection to better integrate circulation to and from the South Hall entry into the existing campus pedestrian circulation system and provide a clearly defined pedestrian connection out to Ashland Street and the nearby University District. The Planning Commission finds that, when taken in sum, these revisions greatly improve the building's sense of entry and relationship to the adjacent streetscapes, while also PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 11 a future reconfiguration of the right-of-way in this vicinity. The Commission therefore finds that sidewalk reconstruction in this vicinity would be more appropriately linked to the future construction of a new mixed-use building fronting on Ashland Street to allow for more careful planning of the relationship of the pedestrian corridor, buildings and plaza space as well as more efficient and coordinated installation of utility infrastructure necessary and/or underground parking to serve that future building, while retaining the large, established trees along Ashland Street until their removals are necessary. The Planning Commission also finds that the Connectivity Standards detailed in Section II-7 of the Street Standards Handbook provide for the use of off-street pathways connected to the street network as a viable component of the transportation system. These standards explain that such pathways should not be used in lieu of traditional streets with sidewalks, but can be appropriate to supplement traditional streets and sidewalks. In this instance, street improvements including sidewalks are already in place along Ashland Street, and the Commission finds that the use of an off-street pathway to supplement the sidewalk and accommodate likely pedestrian circulation interior to the site, as envisioned in the Connectivity Standards, is an appropriate treatment until development occurs within the Detail Site Review Zone along the property's Ashland Street frontage. The applicants have provided a revised Landscaped Site Plan (Sheet 1,001 revised December 30, 2011) which details a pathway installation of this nature, and the Commission finds that this off-street pathway will link the existing pathway system from the gateway intersection and Greensprings dorms through the grassy area along Ashland Street, through the parking along South College Way with a materially-distinct crossing to the entrance of the proposed South Hall and out to the sidewalk on Ashland Street near its intersection with Stadium Street and the crosswalk leading to the nearby University District. The Commission finds that this pathway provides a more direct route to the most likely pedestrian destinations. arising from the shifting of the resident population to the north campus in a manner which would be better integrated into the existing campus pedestrian circulation system, while helping create a clear relationship between the new South Hall's southern entry and the Ashland Street pedestrian streetscape and accommodating more coordinated planning of sidewalk improvements with future development at the.street. - I Wightman Street is classified as a collector street in the TSP and is improved with paving, curbs, gutters, five-foot wide curbside sidewalks and street trees in place along the subject property's western frontage. The established street trees are just behind the sidewalk and consist of a row of eight to nine large established sycamores ranging in size from 11 to 21 inches in diameter at breast height. These trees provide a buffer between the sidewalk and adjacent surface parking, and two more rows of sycamores containing a total of 17 trees ranging in size from seven to 20 inches in diameter line an off-street pedestrian circulation pathway that leads roughly from the gateway intersection to the location of the new Dining Hall. The established curbside sidewalk pattern on the east side of Wightman Street, with only a few small disconnected sections of sidewalk in place along the west side, is carried on all the way to Iowa Street, with a number of large established trees planted very near the back of the sidewalk. Discussion during the hearing in December raised the issue of whether the existing narrow sidewalks were adequate to serve the PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 13 Y increases in pedestrian traffic anticipated with the proposal, and raised the issue of potentially widening the sidewalks to city standard widths. In considering this possibility, the Commission finds that the shift to a standard parkrow configuration with wider sidewalks for the full Wightman Street corridor would need to be considered not only for its immediate impact to the established sycamore trees on the subject property, but also to the other trees further up the Wightman Street corridor as development of the north campus continues. The Commission further fmds that one of the key opportunities noted to improve the quality of the campus noted in the SOU Plan was to continue to reinforce the main pedestrian spine with new plantings and the development of plazas and new outdoor activity nodes, improved sightlines, and better orientation and articulation of building entries. The plan also recognizes that the north campus area has substantially less tree canopy established than the south campus, and the existing sycamore-lined pathway here adjacent to Wightman Street is already in place with an established canopy corridor creating a promenade to draw students from the gateway intersection's plaza area to the new dining hall location, likely lessening the use of the Wightman Street sidewalks by provided a strongly articulated and attractive route. The Commission finds that this currently one of the few areas on the north campus where the landscaping is already working to reinforce the main pedestrian spine, and further finds that this existing pattern could be easily be further reinforced to create a strong line of sight connecting the gateway intersection plaza to the new dining hall. The Commission finds that when the sycamore street trees and the adjacent sycamore-lined off-street pathway are considered in combination with the established pattern of existing sidewalks and large stature trees further down Wightman Street, a significant reconstruction of sidewalks and the associated removal of established trees would not be appropriate. However, the Commission further finds that given the likely pedestrian circulation I from the gateway intersection down the sycamore-lined corridor to the dining hall, students and guests are likely to circulate to the main Wightman Street entry from the corridor and that the pathway to the Wightman Street entry and the pedestrian corridor in front of the building need to better reflect the prominence of this entry. The Commission accordingly firids that the alternative Wightman Street pedestrian corridor alternative design submitted by the applicants on January 9t' and identifying a widened pathway from the sycamore-lined corridor, new street trees, widened sidewalks, and enhanced landscaping and pedestrian treatments along the dining hall's full Wightman Street frontage is a more appropriate treatment given the details of the proposal and anticipated use of the dining hall and shall be incorporated into the final site plan for the project. On the subject property, Webster Street is a private street which provides an east-west connection from Walker Avenue to Wightman Street. North and South College Ways, both private streets, provide circulation primarily to existing surface parking in place between Ashland Street and the existing tennis courts, which are to be removed. With the proposal, North College Way will be removed and South College Way will be improved as a parking lot serving the proposal South Hall, as well as providing fire apparatus and service corridor access. Stadium Street, which is currently within public right-of-way for its southerly 270 feet and becomes a private street for its remaining length, provides a north-south connection from Ashland Street to Webster Street. Here the Commission would note that Public Works staff have PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 14 recommended that this street be vacated to clarify responsibility for its maintenance in a manner consistent with other internal campus streets and drives; while the Commission finds that such a vacation would be appropriate, no vacation requirement is incorporated in this decision as a vacation requires Council action and would need to be pursued separately. The Planning Commission finds that with the relocation of the dining and residence hall buildings, the installation of 150 parking spaces in lots not originally envisioned in the SOU Plan, the partial closure of Webster Street to motor vehicles, and the likely eventual construction of a new 50,000 square foot Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion, Stadium Street will ultimately serve as a gateway street for the developing North Campus Village neighborhood. The Commission accordingly finds that despite its being located largely on university property, it merits improvement to city street standards to include full sidewalks, parkrow installation and pedestrian scale street lighting along its length between Webster Street and South College Way, and curbside sidewalks along the remaining length between South College Way and Ashland Street in order to preserve a number of large, established trees near the Ashland Street intersection. The applicants have provided revised submittals identifying these improvements, and the Commission finds that with their installation Stadium Street would take some of the vehicular traffic off of the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Wightman Street, and off of Wightman Street itself, thus lessening the impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood from the dining hall's relocation, while also providing an attractive and clearly articulated route to better focus pedestrian circulation on the north campus. Conditions to require improvements to Stadium Street are thus included below. Storm Sewer: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that a 24-inch storm sewer line is available in'Webster Street. The application materials provided note that the site's stormwater facilities are in the form of existing large diameter concrete stormwater piping that collects run- off from up-gradient streets, and indicates that this piping is to be reconstructed by the applicants as necessary to route around the proposed structures: The application materials further indicate that stormwater within the project is to be collected by new area inlets within the parking areas and landscaped open space areas, with roof drain leaders and area inlets then linked by new subsurface conveyance piping that ultimately connects to existing down-gradient public stormwater lines in Webster Street. The materials also indicate that run-off collected by surface inlets is to be pre-treated by means of bio-swales in the landscaped areas, or by mechanical inserts in the parking lot catch basins. Preliminary calculations in the submittal suggest that with the removal of some parking areas and tennis courts, the project will lead to a reduction in impermeable surface area within the primary development limits of the residence halls and dining facility and thus a net decrease in stormwater run-off to downstream facilities. Engineering staff has indicated that the storm drain system improvements proposed to be installed by the applicants as detailed in the application will be adequate to serve the needs of the proposal, subject to final review and approval of civil drawings that are to include all design calculations. The Commission notes that in addition to the Engineering Division's standards to address stormwater, the SOU Plan includes parking lot standards which require that "to the greatest PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 15 E k degree feasible, parking lots shall be designed to include localized stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities. Whenever possible, these stormwater treatment facilities, should be above ground structures that incorporate appropriate plantings for pre-treatment and filtering of particulates and pollutants (SOUPIan, p. 59)." Initial application submittals had indicated that stormwater from the new parking lot at the corner of Webster and Stadium Streets was to be piped, but the applicants subsequently provided revised drawings identifying above ground detention facilities. In addition to standard conditions that final drainage plans be provided for Engineering Division review prior to building permits, the Commission has included a condition that the drainage and site plans incorporate above ground stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities consistent with the SOU Plan's parking lot design requirements for new parking areas. Electric: Electrical facilities are available from all of the surrounding street rights-of-way, and city Electric Department staff has indicated that these facilities have adequate source and capacity to serve the project with the extension of services onto the subject property by the applicants. The applicants continue to work with the Electric Department to develop a final electric service plan while considering the requirements of the Electric Department, project logistics and potential costs, and a condition has been included below to require that a final electric service plan be provided for the review and approval of the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments with the building permit submittals. I Transportation: The Planning Commission finds that with the shifting of so substantial a portion of the campus's resident student population to the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard as currently proposed, issues of adequate transportation and specifically pedestrian safety are among the most significant considerations with the request. Subsequent to a pedestrian fatality along the campus's Siskiyou Boulevard frontage in 2008, the City Council convened the Siskiyou Boulevard Ad Hoc Safety Committee which met for a number of months and ultimately recommended a number of measures to improve pedestrian safety for the corridor including a reconfiguration of the Garfield and Siskiyou intersection, the installation of rumble strips to alert vehicles as they enter the campus corridor, speed limit reductions, and the installation of pedestrian-activated flashing beacons at several of the intersections adjacent to the campus. With the recent adoption of the SOU Plan,. there were requirements that a number of transportation- related studies be completed prior to a development application in order to provide for a complete consideration of transportation issues. These included: a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and Access Management Standards; a Pedestrian Safety Plan to include but not limited to improved crossings with enhanced pavement design and access controls with on-going monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety issues; Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies to be accompanied by a timeline for their implementation; an Emergency Vehicle Access Plan to be provided for the review and approval of Ashland Fire & Rescue to demonstrate that all modifications to vehicular and pedestrian circulation are in compliance with emergency access provisions of the Oregon Fire Code; and the creation of parking requirements specific to SOU's on-campus student housing to be developed through collaboration with city staff. The Planning Commission finds that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the application and made a determination that the construction of the Dining and PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 16 Residence halls will not adversely affect state highway facilities (Siskiyou Boulevard or Ashland Street) and thus does not trigger further ODOT review. The Commission further finds that ODOT has recommended that the city and university update the current crosswalk lighting to replace the existing flashing beacons with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) now in use elsewhere around the state, as also recommended by the applicants' consultants Kittelson and Associates. ODOT notes that RRFBs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving pedestrian safety in areas where there are conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles, particularly at uncontrolled or mid-block crossings, and has provided a copy of the RRFB section of the Oregon Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (pg. 5-17) as a reference informing this recommendation. During the Transportation and Planning Commission hearings, there was testimony and Commission, discussion of the feasibility of a pedestrian bridge crossing over Siskiyou Boulevard or a pedestrian undercrossing to allow pedestrians to cross beneath Siskiyou Boulevard separately from motor vehicle traffic, however it was noted that during the SOU Plan adoption process, the options of either an overcrossing or an undercrossing had been considered and were not identified as preferred options due to their likely costs and the complexities of addressing ADA requirements for crossings of this nature, as well as potential impacts on surrounding uses and utilities in place beneath the roadway. The applicants clarified that to meet ADA grade requirements it would require lengthy approach ramps and necessitate so much on the ground disturbance and extra out-of-direction travel distance that students would likely cross at surface crossing points anyway unless there were fences or other barriers installed to limit at grade crossings, to the detriment of the built environment. Given that these treatments had already been considered by Council during the SOU Plan adoption process and were not identified as being among the preferred options, the Commission found it appropriate that the applicants had focused their proposals on the preferred options identified in the SOU Plan which involved crossing improvements and adjustments to signal phasing to improve pedestrian safety. The Planning Commission finds that the project's transportation consultants Kittelson & Associates have provided detailed recommendations for the treatment of the intersections along the university corridor to provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing between the north and south campus areas while also seeking to minimize the disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic through the corridor. They conclude that with implementation of the recommended measures the project can be completed as proposed while maintaining safety at the intersections and acceptable traffic operations. Kittelson's specific recommendations for each of the intersections are detailed below, along with corresponding recommendations from city staff and the Transportation Commission and the findings of the Planning Commission: Intersections of South Mountain Ave. & Siskiyou Blvd., and of Ashland St. & Siskiyou Blvd. Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were to replace the pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads and add a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing of each of these intersections' signals. Both staff and the Transportation Commission concurred with these recommendations, with the added stipulation that the pedestrian countdown signal heads should include audible countdown indicators. , Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 17 Commission finds that the proposed treatments for these intersections are sufficient and has accordingly included conditions that they be implemented with the project. Crossing of Siskivou Blvd. at University Way Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were that the existing flashing beacons here be replaced with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) which have proven more effective in getting drivers to stop for pedestrians in similar installations elsewhere in the state, as noted in recommendations from ODOT. Kittelson also recommended that the adjacent street trees be pruned and maintained to improve visibility. Staff concurred with the recommendations to install RRFBs in this location, and noted that the Parks Department could prune and maintain the street trees in this location. The Transportation Commission concurred with the recommendation, and asked that the RRFBs to be installed include an audible indicator. Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed treatments for this crossing are sufficient and has included conditions that they be implemented with the project. Crossing of Siskivou Blvd. at Avery St. Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were that the existing flashing beacons be replaced with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs), and that the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" sign at the westbound approach be relocated to.provide adequate clearance for the crosswalk signage and beacons. Staff concurred with the recommendations to install RRFBs.in this location, and noted that the city crews could complete the sign relocation. The Transportation Commission asked that the RRFBs to be 'installed include audible indicators. Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed treatments for this crossing are sufficient and has accordingly included conditions that they be implemented with the project. Crossings of Siskiyou Blvd, at Garfield St. and at Bridge St. Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were that the existing flashing beacons be replaced with RRFBs at both of these pedestrian crossings. Staff concurred with the recommendations to install RRFBs in these locations, and the Transportation Commission recommended that. the RRFBs to be installed include audible indicators. Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed treatments for these crossings are sufficient and has accordingly included conditions that they be implemented with the project. Gateway Intersection of Wightman St., Indiana St. & Siskivou Blvd. Kittelson and Associates' recommended the replacements of the existing pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads; the adjustment of lead times for the pedestrian phasing of the signal to accommodate a 36-second "scramble" phase, requiring two additional pedestrian signal heads; and the installation of high visibility markings for a diagonal crossing of the gateway intersection. A hybrid of this scramble phase was presented PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 18 as a new applicants' "Figure 12" at the Transportation Commission hearing, involving a reconfiguration of the crossing to a single, pedestrian-activated crossing shown with new high visibility pavement markings. Under this proposed treatment, the two existing Siskiyou Boulevard crossings at the intersection would be closed, and the signalization designed to minimize the time automobiles wait due pedestrian-activated phasing. Staff supported this configuration, subject to final designs by Kittelson, and noted that this would require the applicants to upgrade the existing signal cabinets and controllers at both Wightman Street and Ashland Street (Highway 66) to accommodate the necessary signal modifications. The j Transportation Commission recommended that the existing pedestrian signal heads be replaced with pedestrian countdown heads which include an audible indicator of signal timing. Based on the Kittelson recommendations, and review by staff and the Transportation Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the recommended improvements to the gateway intersection are merited and a condition that they be implemented with the proposal has accordingly been included below. Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at Frances Ln. Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were that advance pedestrian signs with RRFBs be installed in this location. In considering this recommendation, Public Works/Engineering staff noted that based on the current pedestrian crossings in this location, they did not believe that the crossing improvements were merited and could instead be deferred until future development necessitated their installation. However, during deliberations at the January 1 Otn hearing, it was noted. that in addition to students who might wish to cross in this location to patronize businesses in and around the University District, with the relocation of the Dining Hall to the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard, current Dining Hall users including a substantial number of patrons of the University's Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI) on Frances Lane would potentially be crossing in this location, and the improvements recommended by Kittelson would not only increase safety at the crossing but would serve to remind drivers coming from the southeast that they were entering the university corridor. Based on the Kittelson recommendations and the potential for increased crossings by both students and OLLI patrons, the Planning Commission finds that the Kittelson's recommended improvements to this crossing merited and a condition that they be implemented with the proposal has therefore been included below. Crossing of Ashland St. at Stadium St. Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were that advance pedestrian signs with RRFBs be installed. Staff concurred with these recommendations, and also recommended that Kittelson look more closely at the possibility of other improvements to the existing placement and configuration of the crosswalk and median in order to minimize the potential i' for conflicts between pedestrians and drivers turning left onto Ashland Street from the PC Market of Choice parking lot. The Transportation Commission concurred, recommending that audible RRFBs be installed and that the applicants' team further review the location of the existing crosswalk, and if feasible and warranted that the crosswalk be relocated with appropriate pedestrian ways and amenities provided for the new location. PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 19 kkV The Planning Commission finds that the Kittelson recommendations to install advance pedestrian signage along with the audible RRFBs recommended by the Transportation Commission are appropriate treatments for this crossing, and a condition to this effect has accordingly been added below. The Commission also finds that with the improvements to Stadium Street proposed and discussed more fully above, city standard street lights will be installed at the intersection of Stadium and Ashland Street and will provide additional lighting in this location to improve nighttime visibility for pedestrians using the crossing. The Commission recognizes the complexity of the Stadium Street crossing given the configuration of driveways on the opposite side of Ashland Street near the crossing point, and the potential impact of modifications to the median configuration or turning restrictions on adjacent businesses, and accordingly finds that while the applicants should further review the location and configuration of the crossing and median to determine whether additional treatments are feasible and warranted, any substantial modification which would alter circulation from or access to nearby businesses would need to be considered separately, with notices to those business and property owners, and therefore could not be required as a condition here. Intersection of Ashland St. and Walker Ave. Kittelson and Associates' recommendations were that the existing pedestrian signal heads be replaced with pedestrian countdown signal heads and that a five-second lead time be added to the pedestrian phasing of the signal. Staff concurred with these recommendations, and added that these improvements would also benefit children using this signal on their way to or from Walker Elementary and Ashland Middle schools. The Transportation Commission concurred and requested that audible pedestrian countdown heads with a five-second leading pedestrian phase also be installed. Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed treatments for this intersection are sufficient and has thus included conditions that they be implemented with the project. The Planning Commission finds that with the implementation of the Kittelson recommendations, as supported by the Transportation Commission, signage and pavement markings will be upgraded, trees pruned to improve visibility, and audible rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB's) installed at the four existing crossing on Siskiyou; the crossings at Ashland and Stadium Street and Frances Lane and Siskiyou Boulevard will have audible RRFB beacons and improved pavement markings and signage installed, and the Stadium Street crossing and median configuration will further considered; the crossings at Mountain Avenue and Walker Avenue will be upgraded with audible pedestrian countdown signals and the addition of a five second pedestrian lead time; and the gateway intersection at Indiana and Wightmans Streets will have its existing pedestrian signal heads replaced with pedestrian countdown signal heads, new signal cabinets, and the addition of a hybrid 36-second pedestrian scramble phasing lead time and high visibility markings to accommodate a diagonal crossing. In addition, new sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Stadium Street between Webster Street and Ashland Street, PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 20 an additional off-street pedestrian path will be installed on campus parallel to Ashland Street between Stadium Street and Siskiyou Boulevard to facilitate the likely new student circulation patterns on the subject property, and the pedestrian corridor along the proposed Dining Hall's Wightman Street frontage will be enhanced to emphasize the Wightman Street entry. The Commission finds that with the implementation of these measures the application has adequately considered and addressed the potential pedestrian safety issues associated with a shifting of the resident student population across Siskiyou Boulevard, and that adequate transportation facilities can and will be provided with the implementation of the improvements described above. I The Planning Commission finds that based upon the plans provided by the applicants and review by the Public Works, Engineering, Electric and Planning Department staff, and by the Transportation Commission, that the existing facilities in place and those proposed to be extended or upgraded on site and within the adjacent rights-of-way by the applicants to serve the project can and will provide adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage and transportation facilities to and through the proposed development with the conditions included below. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal requires Conditional Use Permit approval because it varies from the adopted SOU Plan in the following ways: the residence halls, dining hall and parking lots vary from the locations identified in the SOU Plan; the two residence hall buildings exceed the 250-foot maximum length; and these residence halls are also more than the 40-foot height outright allowed within the SO zoning district. With regard to the changing location of the buildings and parking lots, the Commission finds that under the adopted SOU Plan, the Dining Hall was to have been part of a strong quadrangle that would have unified the dining hall, new residence halls and the existing Greensprings complex to create a "clear residential zone." The two proposed residence hall buildings were shown as four buildings enclosing this new quadrangle, with the buildings separated to allow for both pedestrian access and views through the quadrangle from both Ashland and Webster Streets. The southern residence halls were to have been constructed in mixed use buildings fronting directly on Ashland Street, with the potential for ground floor retail space to complement the adjacent University District businesses. The current request has shifted the Dining Hall out of the quadrangle to the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets. The application materials note that the Dining Hall is significantly larger than was shown when it was planned as part of the quadrangle in the adopted SOU Plan, indicating that the relocation was due both to the need to accommodate this greater building size and the desire to put a public building in a more prominent, visible location to provide optimum convenience for students. The application notes that the proposed building is 40 feet tall, has a gross square footage of 27,500 square feet, and is setback 15 feet from the Wightman right-of-way because it is opposite from private housing across the street. The application goes on to suggest that the dining hall is relatively small, kept to a single story, and features a hipped roof in an effort to remain compatible with the more residential scale and character along the opposite side of Wightman Street. The application also explains that most of the student activity for the Dining Hall will be concentrated to its east side entry, central to campus, and to the south side, where an outdoor dining terrace is located, to lessen the impacts to Wightman Street, and PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 21 that exterior walls will be acoustically dampened and exterior lights will meet LEED dark sky requirements. The application indicates that the dining hall is designed for compatibility with a future student recreation center addition to adjacent McNeal Pavilion, and that the proximity will allow for a grouping for service and loading functions on both sides of Webster Street, concluding that the Dining Hall will serve as a small student union,- a sort of living room for the campus's resident student population, and thus serves as a critical feature in accommodating and encouraging students to live on campus as opposed to commuting long distances. The Commission finds that the Dining Hall building's proposed placement is appropriate to serve the new proposed residence halls as well as the student population that is to remain on the south side of campus, and that the building itself is of a scale and character appropriate to the Wightman streetscape. With the changes to the Wightman Street pedestrian corridor proposed by the applicants during the January 10th hearing, and discussed in greater detail above, the Commission further finds that the building design and associated site planning provide a sense of entry that will engage the pedestrian streetscape along Wightman Street, creating a strong relationship not only to the residence halls and j open space areas to the east but to the Wightman corridor and broader community to the west, as envisioned in the Site Design and Use Standards and SOU Plan. With regard to the modification in the location of the residence halls, staff have suggested that a primary reason that the SOU Plan had envisioned placement of this residence hall in a mixed use building along Ashland Street, was that it would more effectively engage and complement the streetscape and nearby University District. The applicants have explained that in the current market, a mixed use building with commercial rental space is not feasible, and suggested that the development of the current proposal could help to create a market for such a building in the future by bringing a large portion of the student population to this side of Siskiyou Boulevard. As such, the applicants have proposed to retain a future building envelope with the Detail Site Review Zone along Ashland Street. During Planning Commission discussion of the site configuration now proposed, it was noted that the SOU Plan had originally envisioned the dining hall and four residence halls grouped around a larger quad which would have better engaged the existing Greensprings complex in an effort to create a well-defined residential life zone. In discussing the modifications to the residence hall locations and configuration of the proposed quadrangle at the hearings, the applicants noted that the proposed quad had been reduced in size to a more usable, human scale while remaining large enough at approximately 180 feet by 300 feet to accommodate and encourage a variety of student use, and that efforts had been made in site planning to retain a strong relationship with the Greensprings complex by retaining a human scale pedestrian corridor between the Greensprings and the proposed new residence halls. The applicants emphasized that this corridor was to be carefully landscaped and would also be treated with functional public art pieces to encourage its use by students. Given that the applicants have proposed to reserve an envelope to provide for future development along Ashland Street in a manner appropriate to the Detail Site Review Zone corridor, and the applicants' efforts to retain a human scale to the proposed quadrangle and to enhance the corridor connection with the Greensprings dorms through landscaping and public art to engage students and encourage its use, the Planning Commission finds that the revised location and configuration of the residence halls is supported by evidence in the record. PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 22 With regard to the height of the proposed residence halls, the Planning Commission finds that the regulations applicable to the SO zoning district, found in AMC 18.64, require that any buildings taller than 40 feet in height are subject to Conditional Use Permit review. The Commission further finds that the adopted SOU Plan generally envisions construction up to four stories high in seeking a degree of density appropriate to a university and to supporting transit while maintaining a compact, walkable campus. The plan notes that height will be dependent on specific construction types and further recognizes that building to a four-story height may require Conditional Use Permit approval where the 40 foot height is exceeded. Both the North and South Residence Halls are proposed at four stories, with a height of approximately .49 feet to the midpoint of their hipped roofs. The application notes that this height is less than the adjacent Greensprings complex, which is five stories and 60-65 feet in height, and that the proposed residence hall buildings are well setback from Ashland Street. The application also discusses the site topography, noting that the ground floor of the South Residence Hall sits approximately 20 feet below the level of Ashland Street, and the North Residence Hall sits approximately 27 feet below Ashland Street, and suggests that this combination of distance and topography will significantly reduce the perceived height of both buildings from the campus perimeter. The application details the architectural treatment of the fourth floor in both residence halls as an "attic story" with different articulation and color to create a more horizontal design which reduces the perceived height of the buildings, and goes on to explain that architecturally the buildings are designed in keeping with the `SOU Mediterranean' architectural character of earlier campus buildings such as Churchill Hall, Central Hall and Susanne Homes which display common design features including stucco exteriors and red tile sloping hip roofs in wings that are parallel to the slope of the hillside. This style has been identified as unique to SOU among all other universities in Oregon, and the SOU Plan and current application seek to re-establish the use of this style on campus to create an overall school identity. The Planning Commission finds that the buildings' placement relative to the campus perimeter, the site topography and the design efforts pursued by the applicants effectively mitigate potential negative impacts of the proposed height, which remains in keeping both with the four-stories envisioned in the SOU Plan and with its underlying goals to create a compact, walkable campus developed at densities to support transit. In considering the lengths of the proposed residence hall buildings, the Planning Commission notes that the SOU Plan includes specific limits on the length of residence hall buildings, which are not to exceed 250 feet in length and which are to have offsets or jogs in the building fagade or to incorporate a recessed court of at least 25 feet in width and depth at entries on any elevations which exceed 150 feet in length. As proposed, the four residence halls identified in the SOU Plan have been consolidated into two, and the resulting buildings are each more than 400 feet in length significantly exceeding the 250 foot length limitation in the Plan. The application materials provided note that McNeal Pavilion, the Science Building and the Hannon Library are of similar lengths to those proposed here, and go on to explain that with a future proposed addition McNeal Pavilion will be 1,000 feet in length (assuming that a Conditional Use Permit to exceed this same length standard is ultimately approved). The applicants' submittals indicate that the designs comply with the standards in providing design elements to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet with an "offset or jog in the plan of at least 25 feet in width with a five foot minimum PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 23 offset" and in limiting the footprint to less than 35,000 square feet. The application explains that each residence hall side wing is no longer than 175 feet in length, and that each of the residence halls incorporates a "central neighborhood pavilion" element which is 60 feet wide to effectively divide each building into three different components so that they appear as three linked buildings. The materials go on to indicate that the wings are broken up with multiple bay window projections and jogs in the plan to ensure that there are no long, unbroken wall lengths. The application concludes that the new buildings avoid the long unbroken lengths discouraged in the SOU Plan through the use of differentiated massing, building articulation, and roof forms, and go on to suggest that'the proposed longer buildings reduce the amount of site area required for the development; reduce the number of stairs, elevators, exterior skin area, service and support space; and thus reduce the total gross square footage (and associated environmental impacts) necessary for the same number of beds if they were provided in the four buildings envisioned in the SOU Plan. The Planning Commission finds that because greater efficiency and a substantial lessening of environmental impacts of the proposal are key to the applicants' arguments to justify the shift from the four residence halls envisioned in the SOU Plan to two substantially longer buildings, and because the applicants have also indicated that the buildings will be certified to at least a LEEDS Silver standard, that LEEDS Silver certification should be required of the approval to allow for third party verification that the gained efficiencies and lessening of environmental impacts are in fact obtained with completion of the project. Given the uncertainties of the timeline for certification, a condition has been included below to require that the applicants provide evidence that they have submitted to be- certified to at least a LEEDS Silver standard within 12 months of occupancy, and that certification be obtained within 36 months. During the December 13th hearing, Planning Department staff suggested that, as with their heights, that the buildings' lengths would be somewhat mitigated by their placement relative to the campus perimeter, the buffer provided by topography, and the varied character of the buildings on campus, however staff raised a concern that the buildings' lengths in the initially-submitted designs needed to be better addressed to comply with the "Building Length and Articulation Guidelines" of the SOU Plan. Staff had also raised concerns with the buildings' sense of entry and relationship to the street, and suggested that the length and sense of entry could likely both be addressed by a stronger application of the Building Length and Articulation Guidelines. Residence hall building lengths are limited to a maximum of 250 feet in the SOU Plan, and with regard to the Length and Articulation Guidelines, the plan text indicates that "For any building longer than 200 feet, the plan shall include design elements to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet. These elements shall be an offset or jog' in the plan or a significant recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width." The illustration provided in Figure 15 of the SOU Plan shows an L-shaped building with one wing at 250 feet in length, and a 25-foot wide courtyard placed at the 150-foot length within that wing. This courtyard appears to have a depth of at least 25 feet as well to provide for its functional use as a courtyard; although this depth is not called out explicitly. The other wing has a jog with a five foot minimum offset shown, not as part of a court but simply as a change in the articulation of the wall surface. PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 24 During the December hearing, Planning Department staff argued that both the text and illustration in the plan call for a recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width and depth or for an offset of at least five feet in the face of the building. They noted that in the initially proposed designs, the 60-foot wide `central neighborhood pavilion' component had five foot recesses at either side of the central element in the South Residence Hall's building face, and approximately ten foot recesses on the North Residences Hall's building face. These recesses were repeated at approximately 35-foot intervals along the South Hall's exterior and every 30 feet along the North Hall's exterior. Staff asserted that particularly on the South Hall, the use of these repeated recesses, which were not reflected through into the building's roofline, had the effect of notching the building while providing little real articulation over a 400-foot length. In addition, staff suggested that the lack of a deeper recess with a functional depth at the entry, combined with a long, unbroken roofline failed to adequately break up the expanse of the building's length while also detracting from the buildings' sense of entry. In response to the discussion at the December 13th hearing, the applicants presented revised elevation drawings of the South Hall at the January 10th hearing. The revisions included the addition of dormer elements over the bay window projections on the south hall so that the recesses are reflected through the roofline to more effectively break up the building's length and provide greater architectural interest. The applicants also proposed to revise the street-facing entries on both the north and south halls to incorporate a large arch element over a stronger entry, with a recessed entry area to provide refuge from the elements at the entry, a slightly raised roof on the central building element to more effectively distinguish the massing of the building into three parts, as well as proposing a pedestrian connection to better integrate this entry into the existing campus pedestrian circulation system and provide a pedestrian connection out to Ashland Street and the nearby university district. The Commission finds that the revised building designs as they relate to standards for length and articulation as well as for sense of entry for relationship to the street, very effectively address the previously-raised concerns and satisfy the applicable approval standards. The Planning Commission finds that when taken in sum, these revisions greatly improve the building's presence to the Ashland Street streetscape and relationship to the broader community. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a tree inventory identifying 265 trees on the subject property which are six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater. Of these, 27 trees 184nches d.b.h. or greater are proposed for removal. Trees greater than 18-inches d.b.h. are deemed significant by code, and the removal of significant trees necessitates Tree Removal Permits within the subject property's SO zoning district. The Commission finds that a 24-inch Catalpa Tree (Tree #71) near the intersection of Wightman Street and Siskiyou Boulevard has been approved for removal on the subject property in conjunction with a separate land use action (Planning Action #2011-00530) which was recently approved. The Commission finds that while this tree removal may be occurring concurrently with completion of the current proposal, its approval is a distinct action and is not regulated under the current application. PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 25 t The Commission finds that the approval of a Tree Removal Permit requires the applicants to demonstrate that: the trees proposed for removal are in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards; the removal of trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. In addition, as a condition of approval for Tree Removal Permits, applicants are required to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to the requirements of AMC 18.61.084. The Commission finds that the project's arborist Tom Myers has indicated that the trees proposed for removal are in or near the proposed building footprints or in the path of utility easements or grade changes and would not survive the proposed development. The Commission further finds that with the required mitigation, the proposed removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The Commission also finds that the applicants have made considerable effort in planning development of the site to retain a 36-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple (Tree #13), one of the most notable trees on the site, and to incorporate it as a j prominent central landscape feature in the new quadrangle. Myers, the project arborist, has also provided tree protection recommendations and identified the radius of a protection zone to be fenced for each of the trees to remain on the property. Myers provides general specifications for tree preservation during demolition, site clearing and construction, as well as detailed requirements for pruning. These recommendations include that a certified arborist is to approve and supervise any work within the identified tree protection zones and carry-out required pruning; additional tree-specific recommendations are provided to address proposed sewer line excavation within the protection of a large redwood and incense cedar (Trees #200 and #201) in a parking lot southeast of the intersection of Wightman and Iowa Streets. The Commission hereby includes all of Myers' recommendations as conditions of approval, including the additional recommendations intended to ensure the on-going viability of the large redwood and incense cedar (Trees #200 and #201). These recommendations specify that, in lieu of the full tree protection zone being protected with fencing, the project arborist instead be present on site to supervise any excavation within these trees' root zones, and that any excavation be done by hand. The Planning Commission further recognizes that the goal of these additional efforts is to preserve the large redwood (#200), and that the incense cedar (#201) which has previously been severely topped may ultimately need to be removed; this removal will be dependent on the arborist's assessment during and following excavation, and with this in mind it has been included as one of the 27 trees considered with this Tree Removal Permit. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Review approval to construct a new single=story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements; Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 26 Masterplan and to exceed the 40-foot height allowance in the SO zoning district; and Tree Removal Permits to remove 27 significant trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2011-01576. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2011-01576 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that the applicants shall submit materials to the US Green Building Council (USGBC) requesting certification of all buildings to at least a LEED® Silver status within 12 months of final occupancy, and receive final certification within 36 months. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That prior to submittal of the building permit application, the applicants shall consult with Conservation Division staff to allow for the fine-tuning of energy conservation strategies for the proposed buildings. 4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their January 5`, 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 5) That building permit submittals shall include: I a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utility easements and fire apparatus access easements. b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards, and the colors and materials selected shall be consistent with those approved with the application. C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. This plan shall address: 1) the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5', 2012 meeting relating to the preservation and protection of Trees #200 and #201; 2) the PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 27 4 i responder radio coverage provisions (if applicable); key box; and storage and collection of combustible and recycle materials. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. In keeping with city standards and the SOU Plan, which both seek to maintain a pedestrian scale for campus improvements, driveways and other access ways shall be limited to no more than the minimum required under the driveway standards in AMC 18.92, with any additional width necessary to accommodate fire apparatus requirements to be achieved through alternative treatments such as a rolled curb and materially distinct sidewalk next to the paving, or the use of grasscrete or similar alternative treatments which will support fire apparatus access in a manner acceptable to the Fire Marshal and Staff Advisor without requiring wider than necessary swaths of paving. Fire apparatus and their width, radius and material treatment shall be clearly identified in the building permit submittals. 6) That prior to the issuance of the building, excavation or demolition permits or the commencement of site work or storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site. Tree protection measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.61.200.B. The project arborist's recommendations and specifications, as detailed in the submittal materials dated November L. 2011 from Thomas M. Myers, and- subsequent revisions, shall be conditions of approval. b) The approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review and associated permits and inspections shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to demolition of existing structures. C) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit civil design drawings for the implementation of improvements detailed in the materials provided by Kittelson & Associates (included as part of the application in the Supplemental Land Use Information dated December 5, 2011) and modified with this decision for the review and approval of the Public Works, Engineering and Planning Departments and Oregon Department of Transportation. These civil plans are to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits, and required improvements are to be completed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit. The required improvements include public and private street improvements and pedestrian crossing treatments as detailed more completely below: i. Replace existing pedestrian signal heads with audible pedestrian countdown heads and add a five-second leading pedestrian phase to signal timing for the intersections of South Mountain Avenue & Siskiyou Boulevard, and of Ashland Street & Siskiyou Boulevard. ii. Replace existing flashing beacons with audible rectangular rapid flash beacons PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 29 identification of 27 mitigation trees to be planted on site or details of alternative mitigation measures proposes; 3) the required irrigation plans, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 4) the identification of parking lot landscaping equivalent to at least seven percent of the parking surface area, at least one parking lot tree for each seven parking spaces, and required landscape buffers and screening consistent with the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards. The applicants shall also obtain the required plumbing permits and inspections for installation of the required double-check valve(s) associated with the irrigation system; 5) incorporation of the removals of the four sycamore trees (#100-#103) to be removed along the Dining Hall's frontage and of the catalpa (Tree #71) near the gateway intersection. e) That a revised stormwater drainage plan, including any necessary on-site detention measures, shall be provided for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments with the building permit submittal. The drainage plan shall be designed to ensure that post-development peak'stormwater flows are less than or equal pre-development levels as required by the Engineering Division. In addition, the plans shall incorporate above ground stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities consistent with the parking lot design requirements of the SOU Plan for the new parking lots to be constructed. f) That a final utility plan for the project shall be provided for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building 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, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any necessary service upgrades shall be completed by the developer at developer's expense. g) The applicant shall submit an 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 Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets and sidewalks, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. h) That a pedestrian circulation plan for the new North Campus Village area shall be provided which identifies an integrated pedestrian pathway system, including a new connection from the southeast corner of the Greensprings to the new South Hall's south entry and to the intersection of Ashland and Stadium Streets, with routes and material treatment of the paths, landscaping including the new gateway plaza treatment, pedestrian scale lighting, and way finding measures clearly detailed. i) Revised plans to address Fire Code requirements including approved addressing; fire apparatus access, turn-around, angle of approach; fire flows; fire department connections;' fire hydrant distance to structures and clearance; firefighter access pathway; emergency PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 f'! Page 28 (RRFBs) for the University Way pedestrian crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard. iii. Replace existing flashing beacons with audible rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs), and relocate the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" sign, at the westbound approach of the Avery Street pedestrian crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard to provide adequate clearance for the crosswalk signage and beacons. iv. Replace existing flashing beacons with audible rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) at the Garfield Street and Bridge Street pedestrian crossings of Siskiyou Boulevard. V. Replace the existing pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown heads which include an audible indicator of signal timing, and reconfigure the "gateway" intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard with Wightman and Indiana Streets with a single diagonal crosswalk as shown in conceptual drawings presented at the December 15th Transportation Commission meeting as new "Figure 12", and install high visibility pavement markings for a diagonal crossing. The crossing treatment is to be designed to minimize the time automobiles wait due to the 36 second pedestrian-activated "scramble phasing", and will also require that the applicants upgrade the existing signal cabinets and controllers at both Wightman Street and Ashland Street (Highway 66) to accommodate these signal modifications. vi. Install advance pedestrian signs and audible rectangular rapid flash beacons at the Stadium Street pedestrian crossing of Ashland Street/Highway 66, and at the Frances Lane crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard. The applicants are also to explore, and if warranted and feasible implement alternative crosswalk placement and median configuration at the Stadium Street crossing to address concerns with pedestrian crossings conflicting with left turning movements from PC Market of Choice site onto Ashland Street. vii. Replace pedestrian signal heads with audible pedestrian countdown signal heads and add a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing of the signal at the intersection of Ashland Street and Walker Avenue. . viii. Install city standard seven- to eight-foot width parkrows with street trees, five- to six-foot sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street lighting on both sides of Stadium Street from Webster Street to South College Way consistent with city standards for a neighborhood street, with the sidewalk improvements to transition to curbside to preserve established trees between South College Way and Ashland Street. ix. Install standard five-foot hardscape tree wells with new street trees and eight -foot sidewalks and associated landscaping and circulation modifications along the full Wightman Street frontage of the dining hall as illustrated in the applicants' alternative proposed designed submitted on January 9th. 7) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That all landscape improvements and the irrigation system shall be installed according to PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 30 ~ t the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. c) The screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be identified in the building permit submittals and shall be in place, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. d) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including approved addressing; fire apparatus access, turn-around, angle of approach; fire flows; fire department connections; fire hydrant distance to structures and clearance; firefighter access pathway; emergency responder radio coverage provisions (if applicable); key box; and storage and collection of combustible and recycle material requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the installation of sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street lighting on both sides of Stadium Street shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. f) All hardscape improvements including parking, driveways and off-street pathways shall be installed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. g) That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify the design and placement of covered bicycle parking both indoors and outdoors as described in the application. h) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. i) That prior to occupancy of the proposed new dining and residence halls... The applicants shall implement the parking management measures proposed in the application materials, including but not limited to a re-designation of parking lots and creation of a variable parking pricing structure for maximum efficiency in parking resource utilization on campus. As proposed by the applicants during the Planning Commission hearing, the parking lot in front of McNeal Hall shall be designated for commuter/staff parking rather than resident parking as shown in the application materials. Parking lot signage reflecting the new designations and usages of all parking lots shall be in place, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. January 24th, 2012 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2011-01576 January 24, 2012 Page 31 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 f PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1300 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 Property Owner/Tenant 416 BRIDGE LLC ALBERT MELISSA BETH 725 ROYAL AVE PO BOX 492 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 39 MEDFORD OR 97504 TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 i PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1400 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5400 ASHLAND COMMUNITY LAND TRUST BARTELL ALDA BENOIT ROBERT H TRUSTEE FBO 550 MAIN ST PO BOX 1191 309 SAN BENANCIO RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SALINAS CA 93908 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 900 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6600 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5500 BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL BOEHLER KIMBERLY RAIE BUTLER JOHNNY L 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD 22 BOW PERCH LN 4 425 WIGHTMAN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 BOZEMAN MT 59718 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5100 PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1200 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10300 CONKLIN JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL CONKLIN JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE P 0 BOX 246 P 0 BOX 246 725 ROYAL AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6800 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5700 EDWARDS MARK ENGLE DOUGLAS M/LONNA M FALLON THOMAS E/KELLI A 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 11 1031 BEESON LANE 703 BUTLER CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1201 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10500 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 FINCH PAUL J/VICKI J FIRST FEDERAL S/L ASSN GREENBURG ROSE MARIE 420 BRIDGE ST 111 N WALL ST P 0 BOX 1226 ASHLAND OR 97520 SPOKANE WA 99201 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10200 GUITRON-MORA CARLOS HARMON PAUL MARTIN JOY PAMALA ET AL 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 33 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 31 472 WALKER AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 7100 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5300 KEENAN DARBY ELLEN KING JEFFREY/SUSAN MARSDEN LETTON JOHN BENJAMIN/LETTON 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 13 1617 PARKER ST KATHERINE K' ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 273 WILLOW WAY TALENT OR 97540 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10400 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 7000 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10100 LIGON WILLIAM C/JANET LOCKLIN PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL LUDWIG ROBERT F P 0 BOX 3534 1350 NEVADA ST 175 PILOT VIEW RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 300 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 100 MAYFIELD GERALD DUANE MEISTER RICHARD J TRUSTEE ET AL MEISTER'S BUY RITE INC 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 1777 CRESTVIEW DR 870 CYPRESS POINT ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 700 nn 201101576 391 EI SR n 490 € PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 3200 MEISTER'S BUY RITE INC nnnc~-roc BUY RITE INC MERCER DONALD J 1450 ASHLAND AVE 870 CYPRESS POINT LOOP 1380 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 MEYERS SCOTT D ESTATE OF MINTON CHRISTINE H MORA-OLIVARES MARIA DE JESUS 720 GROVER ST 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 19 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 40 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5600 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6500 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 100 NOYES ROBERT OLSON IVAN C/ELEANOR OREGON STATE OF - SOU PO BOX 542 1620 HOMES CRAIG MORRIS, VP FINANCE & ADMIN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391EISAB 6700 PRINCE DANNY JOE PRINCE LOUANN /DANIELLE VICTORIA QUINCE PETER L 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 36 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD #10 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD #35 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 800 REYES-RODRIGUEZ FAUSTO SCHIRNER DAVID M ET AL SIERRA GRIZZLY LLC 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 46 424 WALKER AVE PO BOX 970 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 STEIN DAVID SWISS CAROL ANN TAGUI-BINZHA GILBERTO PO BOX 3018 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 50 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 49 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5000 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 TAGUI-BINZHA YOLANDA THOMPSON JOHN P URRUTIA-DIAZ BRIGIDO 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 48 P 0 BOX 711 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 37 ASHLAND OR 97520 DALLAS TX 75221 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6900 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 URRUTIA-DIAZ MIGUEL VEZIE RICHARD L/GAYLE E WHITE NOEL 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 16 446 WALKER AVE 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 41 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E1SAB 6700 PA-2011-01576 WILLIAMS BARBARA YOUNG MICHAEL D SERA Architects 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 52 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 43 Kurt Schultz ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 338 NW 5th Av Portland OR 97209 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 ZCS Engineering Adroit Construction American Campus Communities 900 Klamath Ave Tom Walker Clint Braun Klamath Falls OR 97601 P 0 Box 609 12700 Hill Country Rd Bd STE T-200 Ashland OR 97520 Austin TX 78738 I I PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 Tom Burnham Marilyn Briggs Colin Swales 1344 Apple Wy 590 Glenview Dr 143 Eighth St Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 Ashland OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 Mick Church RVTD-Paige Townsend Kittelson & Associates Inc 2669 Takelma Wy 3200 Crater Lake Av Susan Wright Ashland OR 97520 Medford OR 97504 610 Alder St #700 Portland OR 97205 PA-2011-01576 67 Tom Myers 1-26-12 .2040 Ashland Mine Rd 1554 Webster SOU Ashland OR 97520 Findings f, Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) Address (no P.O. 13ox) Phone Email Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number 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 (plarming 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 Lem, requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon lain does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Plarnniiig Co»uuissioi7generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time coi7stl,aints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follora, the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions i~hich are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Planning Department, 51 Winbu, ay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y _ 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLI PLANNING ACTION: 2011.01576 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1554 Webster (on the Southern Oregon University campus) OWNERIAPPLICANT: American Campus Community Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40 foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 18 trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. The application involves the demolition of five residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 4200 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action on December 8, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Transportation Commission will review this Planning Action on December 15, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers building located at 1175 East Main Street. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: , PA #2011-01676 1554 WEBSTER I WEBSTER STREET SUBJECT PROPERTY PROPOSED OUTLINED IN RED ! DINING. HALL _.I LOCATION PROPOSED NORTH RESIDENCE HALL LOCATION W i co Z [EXISTING EENSPRINGS DORMITORY - NORTH COLLEGE WAY PROPOSED SOUTH RESIDENCE HALL W LLI LOCATION Z w SOUTH COLLEGE WAY n t Q UJI 4o GG - = N ASHLAND STREET O 0 2040 80 Peet Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 ' Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. 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. (ORD 2655,1991; ORD 2836, 1999) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants, 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 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) t Wcomm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2011\2011-01576.doc t t ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM January 10t", 2012 PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01576 APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services LOCATION: 1554 Webster Street (on the S.O.U. campus) ZONE DESIGNATION: SO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: December 2, 2011 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 31, 2012''na}'be adjusted based on date oflasnew submitlaTs) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.64 SO University District 18.72 Site Design Review 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.96 Sign Regulations 18.104 Conditional Use Permit and The Campus Master Plan Update for Southern Oregon University ("The SOU Plan") REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking Jots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40-foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 24 trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. The application involves the demolition of five residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application The public hearing for this matter was opened and testimony taken at the January 13tn~ 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. During the hearing, staff identified issues relating to pedestrian safety, building design and parking which merited further E' consideration; staff also noted that a significant amount of new material had been submitted after completion of the staff report, and that the Transportation Commission had not yet had the opportunity to review and comment on the application's Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 1 of 19 transportation component, which included a significant amount of information which was deferred from the SOU Plan's adoption, where the Transportation Commission would typically have commented. Based on these factors, staff recommended that the hearing be continued until the Planning Commission's next regular meeting. At the conclusion of testimony, the Commission moved to continue the public hearing on the matter to the regular meeting of January 10th, 2012. B. Detailed Description of Issues Relating to the Proposal since December meeting December 13th Planning Commission Meeting During the course of the December 2011 Planning Commission hearing, staff identified the following issues as needing to be further addressed: o Pedestrian Safety o Automobile and Bicycle Parking o Management of Parking and Transportation Demand o Fire Apparatus Access o Building Design In addition, in discussion during the hearing the following issues were also identified: o Consideration of needed sidewalk improvements along the subject property's street frontages on Wightman, Ashland and Stadium Streets o An implementation timeline for Transportation Demand Management strategies December 15th Transportation Commission Meeting The Transportation Commission considered the application at their December 15th meeting and made specific recommendations for improvements at a number of intersections and pedestrian crossings along the University corridor after reviewing materials provided by the applicants' transportation consultants, Kittelson & Associates. In addition, the Transportation Commission requested that any approval be conditioned to require that the sidewalks along Ashland Street between Walker Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard be reconstructed to full city street standards. A more detailed discussion of their specific recommendations is included below in the discussion of the "Project Impact", and copies of their minutes and recommendations will be distributed at the January Planning Commission hearing. January 5th Tree Commission Meeting The Tree Commission was unable to convene their December meeting due to a lack of quorum; they're now scheduled to review and comment on the application at their regular meeting on January 5th, 2012. Because their comments are not available as this staff report is being drafted, a condition has been recommended below to require that all recommendations of the Tree Commission's January 5th meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, be made conditions of approval for the project. Copies of their January 5th recommendations will be distributed I at the January Planning Commission hearing. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 2 of 19 (Staff would also note here that a 24-inch Catalpa Tree near the intersection of Wightman Street and Siskiyou Boulevard identified as Tree 971 has been proposed for removal on the subject property in conjunction with a separate land use action. Planning Action #2011-00530 is a conditional use permit application to modem the university's sign program with the addition of four gateway signs at Siskiyou Boulevard's intersection with Mountain Avenue, University Way, Wightman Street, and Indiana Street, as well as a change in the university's logo on all campus signage. Staff has administratively approved this request, and the decision will be final if not appealed by January 4, 2012.) II. Project Impact Pedestrian Safety In considering the project's impacts as they relate to pedestrian safety and the SOU Plan's requirement that a pedestrian safety plan be provided prior to the shifting of the student residential population across Siskiyou Boulevard, the project's transportation consultants Kittelson & Associates have provided detailed recommendations for the treatment of several of the intersections along the University corridor to provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing between the north and south campus areas while also seeking to minimize the disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic through the corridor. They conclude that "with implementation of the recommended measures" the project can be completed as proposed while maintaining safety at the intersections and acceptable traffic operations. Kittelson's specific recommendations for each of the intersections are detailed below, followed by corresponding recommendations from both city staff and the Transportation Commission, which considered the project at its December 15th, 2011 meeting: Intersections of South Mountain Ave. & Siskiyou Blvd., and of Ashland St. & Siskiyou Blvd. o Kittelson's recommendations were to replace the pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads and add a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing of each of these intersections' signals. o Staff concurred with the recommendation to install pedestrian countdowns signal heads at these intersections, but for both intersections suggested that a five-second lead time would have minimal benefit to pedestrians. o The Transportation Commission recommended that conditions be attached to the approval to require the replacement of the pedestrian heads with countdown heads and the addition of a five-second leading pedestrian phase for both of these intersections. Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at University Way o Kittelson recommended that the existing flashing beacons be replaced with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs), and that the adjacent street trees be pruned and maintained to improve visibility. o Staff concurred with the recommendations to install RRFBs in this location, and noted that the Parks Department could prune and maintain the street trees in this location. o The Transportation Commission recommended that a condition be attached to the approval to require the installation of RRFBs in this location. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 3 of 19 Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at Avery St. o Kittelson recommended that the existing flashing beacons be replaced with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs), and that the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" sign at the westbound approach be relocated to provide adequate clearance for the crosswalk signage and beacons. o Staff concurred with the recommendations to install RRFBs in this location, and noted that the city crews could complete the sign relocation. o The Transportation Commission recommended that a condition be attached to the approval to require the installation of RRFBs in this location. Crossings of Siskiyou Blvd. at Garfield St. and at Bridge St. o Kittelson recommended that the existing flashing beacons be replaced with RRFBs at both of these pedestrian crossings. o Staff concurred with the recommendations to install RRFBs in these locations. o The Transportation Commission recommended that a condition be attached to the approval to require the installation of RRFBs at these crossings. Gateway Intersection of Wightman St., Indiana St. & Siskiyou Blvd. o Kittelson recommended the replacements of the existing pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads; the adjustment of lead times for the pedestrian phasing of the signal to a 36-second "scramble" phase, which will require two additional pedestrian signal heads; and the installation of high visibility markings for a diagonal crossing of the gateway intersection. o Staff concurred with the recommendation to install pedestrian countdowns signal heads at this intersection, and recommended that prior to implementation of a "scramble phase" that the intersection signalization treatment be designed by Kittelson to minimize the time automobiles are waiting due to the 36-second pedestrian phasing. Staff also concurred with the recommendation to install high visibility pavement markings for a diagonal crosswalk, and indicated that the existing signal cabinet would need to be upgraded to implement these changes. o The Transportation Commission recommended that conditions be attached to any [ approval to require that the existing pedestrian signal heads be replaced with pedestrian countdown heads which include an audible indicator of signal timing, that the applicants design and reconfigure the intersection with a single diagonal crosswalk as shown in conceptual drawings presented at the Transportation Commission meeting as new Figure 12; that the existing controllers at both Wightman Street and Highway 66 be upgraded to accommodate the signal modifications; and that high visibility pavement markings for a diagonal crossing be installed. Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at Frances Ln. o Kittelson recommended that advance pedestrian signs with RRFBs be installed. o Public Works/Engineering noted that based on the current and anticipated number of pedestrian crossings in this location, they did not believe that the crossing improvements were merited at this time and recommended that the crossing instead be looked at with future development. o The Transportation Commission made no recommendation for improvements to this crossing at this time. o Planning staff believe that the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 4 of 19 i pedestrian safety enhancements at this crossing in the form of signage and RRFB installation would ultimately be beneficial to those students likely to cross to destinations such as Starbucks in this vicinity, as recommended by Kittelson. Crossing of Ashland St. at Stadium St. o Kittelson recommended that advance pedestrian signs with RRFBs be installed. o Staff concurred with the Kittelson recommendations, and noted that Kittelson should also look more closely at the possibility of other improvements to the existing placement of the crosswalk and whether the existing median layout needed to be altered. o The Transportation Commission recommended that condition be attached to the approval to require that advance pedestrian signs and pedestrian-activated RRFBs be installed, and that the applicants' team further review the location of the existing crosswalk, and if feasible and warranted the crosswalk be relocated with appropriate pedestrian ways and amenities provided for the new location. Intersection of Ashland St. and Walker Ave. o Kittelson recommended the replacement of the pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads and the addition of a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing of the signal. o Staff concurred with the Kittelson recommendations, and noted that these improvements would also benefit children using this signal on their way to or from Walker Elementary and Ashland Middle School. o The Transportation Commission recommended that pedestrian countdown heads with a five-second leading pedestrian phase be installed. The Transportation Commission also recommended that the existing city sidewalk installation on Ashland Street from Walker Avenue to Siskiyou Boulevard be reconstructed to full city street standards for an arterial street. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the application and made a determination that the construction of the dining hall and residence halls will not adversely affect state highway facilities (Siskiyou Boulevard or Ashland Street) and thus does not trigger any further ODOT review. However, ODOT has recommended that the city and university update the current crosswalk lighting to replace the existing flashing beacons with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) now in use elsewhere around the state, as recommended by Kittelson. ODOT notes that RRFBs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving pedestrian safety in areas where there are conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles, particularly at uncontrolled or mid-block crossings, and has also provided a copy of the RRFB section of the Oregon Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (pg. 5-17) for reference. Planning staff are generally supportive of the Transportation Commission recommendations; however we believe that the timing of a requirement to reconstruct existing sidewalks on Ashland Street to current city street standards should be carefully considered. Ashland's Street Standards call for a consideration of existing trees in street design, and both the Site Design & Use Standards and Street Standards handbooks require preservation of natural features including existing, established trees to the greatest Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 5 of 19 extent possible. In this case, reconstruction of the existing sidewalk would necessitate the removal of 29 or more trees along the subject property's Ashland Street frontage, and given the topography present would also require that either a safety railing (creating physical barrier between the property and the pedestrian streetscape) or a fill slope (requiring additional tree removals) be installed. The applicants have provided a new submittal (Sheet L005 revised December 30, 2011) which identifies the additional tree removals that would likely be necessary to reconstruction the Ashland Street sidewalks. Full reconstruction of the sidewalk in this vicinity could also pose complications to utility installations that would be necessary to serve a future mixed-use building on Ashland Street, as well as any potential for a future reconfiguration of the right-of-way in this vicinity. With this in mind, it is staff's recommendation that sidewalk reconstruction in this vicinity be tied to the future construction of a new mixed-use building fronting on Ashland Street to allow for more careful planning of the relationship of the pedestrian corridor, buildings and plaza space as well as more efficient and coordinated installation of utility infrastructure necessary to serve that future building, while retaining the large, established trees along Ashland Street until their removals are necessary. The Connectivity Standards detailed in Section II-7 of the Street Standards Handbook provide for the use of off-street pathways connected to the street network as a viable component of the transportation system. These standards explain that such pathways should not be used in lieu of traditional streets with sidewalks, but can be appropriate to supplement traditional streets and sidewalks. In this instance, street improvements including sidewalks are already in place along Ashland Street, and staff believe that the use of a temporary off-street pathway to supplement the sidewalk and accommodate likely pedestrian circulation interior to the site, as envisioned in the Connectivity Standards, is an appropriate treatment until development occurs within the Detail Site Review Zone along the property's Ashland Street frontage. This off-street pathway would have the added benefit of creating a clear relationship between the new South Hall's southern entry and the Ashland Street pedestrian streetscape. Staff has discussed this issue at some length with the applicants subsequent to the December meetings of the Planning and Transportation Commissions, and believe the more appropriate treatment to accommodate pedestrian circulation in this vicinity until a building is developed along Ashland Street is to require that a new off-street pedestrian connection which would link the existing pathway system from the gateway intersection and Greensprings dorms through the grassy area along Ashland Street, through the parking along South College Way with a materially-distinct crossing to the entrance of the proposed South Hall and out to the sidewalk on Ashland Street near its intersection with Stadium Street and the crosswalk leading to the nearby University District. This pathway would provide a more direct route to the most likely pedestrian destinations arising from the shifting of the resident population to the north campus in a manner which would be better integrated into the existing campus pedestrian circulation system, and would also accommodate coordinated planning of sidewalk improvements with future development at the street. The applicants have provided a revised Landscaped Site Plan (Sheet L001 revised December 30, 2011 1) which details this pathway installation. Staff has accordingly proposed conditions below which include all aforementioned recommendations as conditions of approval with the exception of the proposed sidewalk reconstruction on Ashland Street, which we believe would be more appropriately Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 6 of 19 considered at the time development occurs along the subject property's Ashland Street frontage. A condition is also recommended to require that the applicants provide a detailed pedestrian circulation plan for the new North Campus Village area which identifies an integrated pedestrian pathway system, including a new connection from the southeast corner of the Greensprings to the new South Hall's south entry and to the intersection of Ashland and Stadium Streets, with routes and material treatment of the paths, landscaping including the new gateway plaza treatment, pedestrian scale lighting placement, and way finding measures clearly detailed. Stadium Street Sidewalks With the relocation of the dining and residence hall buildings, the installation of 150+ parking spaces in lots not originally envisioned in the SOU Plan, the partial closure of Webster Street to motor vehicles, and the likely eventual construction of a new 50,000 square foot Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion, staff believe that Stadium Street will ultimately serve as a gateway street for the developing North Campus Village neighborhood. As such, we believe that despite its being located largely on university property, it merits improvement to city street standards to include full sidewalks and parkrow installation along its length between Webster Street and South College Way, and curbside sidewalks along the remaining length between South College Way and Ashland Street in order to preserve a number of large, established trees near the Ashland Street intersection. With these improvements, staff believes that the street would take some of the burden of vehicular traffic off of the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Wightman Street, and off of Wightman Street itself, thus lessening some of the impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood from the Dining Hall's relocation, while also providing an attractive and clearly articulated route to better focus pedestrian circulation on the north campus. Staff has accordingly recommended a condition below to require that new sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees and pedestrian scale street lighting be installed to city street standards along both sides of Stadium Street between Webster Street and South College Way, and to require that curbside sidewalks be installed along both sides of Stadium Street between South College Way and Ashland Street to accommodate preservation of the existing trees on that segment. Wightman Street Sidewalks At the December Planning Commission meeting, there was also a good deal of discussion about the existing sidewalks on Wightman Street, particularly in the vicinity of the new Dining Hall. It was suggested that while there are existing, established sycamores in place they are not the best street trees. Ashland's Recommended Street Tree Guide notes that sycamores are trees of great beauty, but also that they have strong surface roots, are subject to disease, can be messy, and generally have a physical form which shades solar installations. Wightman Street has a narrow, five-foot wide curbside sidewalk in place; just behind the sidewalk there is a row of eight large established sycamores ranging in size from 11 to 21 inches in diameter at breast height. These trees provide a buffer between the sidewalk and adjacent surface parking, and two more rows of sycamores containing a total of 17 trees ranging in size from seven to 20 inches in diameter line an off-street pedestrian circulation pathway that leads roughly from the gateway intersection to the location of Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 7 of 19 C, t the new Dining Hall. The established curbside sidewalk pattern on the east side of Wightman Street, with only a few small disconnected sections of sidewalk in place along the west side, is carried on all the way to Iowa Street, with a number of large established trees planted very near the back of the sidewalk. The shift to a standard parkrow configuration with wider sidewalks would need to be considered not only for its immediate impact to the established sycamore trees on the subject property, but also to the other trees further up the Wightman Street corridor as development of the north campus continues. The SOU Plan notes that one of the key opportunities to improve the quality of the campus is to continue to reinforce the main pedestrian spine through new plantings and the development of plazas and new outdoor activity nodes, improved sightlines, and better orientation and articulation of building entries, and also recognizes that the north campus area has substantially less tree canopy established than the southern campus (pp. 25-26). In assessing the north campus area at the pre-application level, staff noted that the existing sycamore-lined pathway had the effect of creating a promenade to draw students from the gateway intersection's plaza area to the new Dining Hall location with an already established canopied corridor, and is one of the few areas on the north campus where the landscaping is already working to reinforce the creation of a main pedestrian spine, in this case in an area where the existing pattern could be easily reinforced to create a strong line of sight connecting the gateway intersection plaza to the new Dining Hall. Staff also noted that these sycamores seem generally healthy, that they have had relatively minimal impacts on the paving in the area, and that the University has recently replaced paving where it was being impacted. When the sycamore street trees and the adjacent sycamore-lined off-street pathway are considered in combination with the established pattern of existing sidewalks and large stature trees further down Wightman Street, staff does not believe a significant reconstruction of sidewalks and the associated removal of established trees is appropriate. Bicycle Parking, Rack Design & Placement During December's hearing, staff had noted that additional information was needed to detail bicycle parking to be provided with the proposal. In discussions of bicycle parking with the applicants subsequent to the December meeting, they have indicated that they intend to provide at least the required one bicycle parking space per five required automobile spaces outdoors, with 100 percent of the spaces provided to be covered in racks placed at various points of entry around the proposed buildings. A site plan has been provided illustrating the proposed covered outdoor bicycle parking locations, and the applicants have indicated that their preference would be to continue to use the two- level racks which are in use around campus and have become a de facto standard for campus bicycle parking. Finally, the applicants have indicated that they will also provide for indoor parking of bicycles by providing locking bike parking rooms on the lower floors to accommodate indoor parking for students on upper floors, and in-room bicycle parking as well, as part of the requirements for LEED certification. In staff's view, the provisions made for bicycle parking are consistent with the placement and coverage standards of the land use ordinance and will ultimately exceed the number of bicycle parking spaces required. While the two-level bicycle parking structures will not accommodate all users or bicycle types on their upper levels, the lower level provides options for locking bicycles securely by the frame similar to those provided by the Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 8 of 19 ti standard inverted U-rack as detailed in AMC 18.92.060.J, with the upper level providing for a doubling of the number of spaces in the same area. Staff observations are that these racks seem to be well-utilized wherever they have been placed on campus, and for staff, the ready availability of a sufficient amount of convenient, secure bicycle parking will go a long way toward promoting bicycle use by students as a viable alternative to driving. Automobile Parking, Parking Management and Transportation Demand Management As noted in the December hearing, the application identifies 570 existing off-street parking spaces on the northern portion of the campus, and explains that in the applicants' studies these spaces currently have a utilization rate of roughly 36 percent. On-street parking currently has a peak utilization rate of 91 percent, and the application suggests that 50 percent of the existing on-street demand is tied to the university. The applicants propose to construct two parking lots - one off of Stadium Street at College Way, where parking is already in place, and another at the corner of Stadium and Webster Streets. The current proposal, with some existing parking removed due to proposed building placement, results in a net reduction of 44 parking spaces, leaving 526 off-street spaces to accommodate demand on the north campus. The application notes that with the proposed north campus development, a utilization rate of approximately 77 percent could be obtained for off-street parking on the north campus, and that there would be a possibility to absorb the additional demand currently associated with on-street parking into the campus. It was noted during the December hearing that the SOU Plan required the applicants to provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy and a timeline for the implementation of specific TDM measures; the applicants have provided a memo as an update on their TDM plans and near-terrn and long-term action goals, which has been provided in the Planning Commission packets. This memo notes while some actions are entirely within the University's control, such as setting policies on where students and employees park, other items such as a bus pass program or neighborhood parking permit program are dependent upon the expansion of working partnerships between the City, r Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the surrounding neighbors. The memo also notes that the proposed North Campus Village project is a TDM strategy unto itself in that it seeks to make on campus residence more attractive to students who would otherwise commute by car, and provides substantial bicycle parking to support student bicycle commuting. The memo goes on to explain that SOU will implement variable pricing between parking lots when the residence halls open in fall of 2013, re-designate parking lots on the north and south campus areas to ensure that resident students have sufficient parking available on the appropriate side of Siskiyou and that parking resource utilization efficiency is maximized, and would be willing to adjust parking pricing further and pursue other measures such as restricting the sale of parking permits to first year students but believes that a neighborhood parking permit program would be needed prior to implementation to avoid having parking impacts spill over to the surrounding neighborhood streets. In terms of additional transit strategies, the applicants have indicated a willingness to meet with RVTD, university staff and administrators and students to discuss transit subsidies, noting that they would like to reinstate a bus pass Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 9 of 19 program in an appropriate form provided there are changes in transit service to meet student needs such as adequate evening hours to support students who commute to the Higher Education Center in Medford, and will also explore options for providing some sort of express shuttle service for students traveling to the Medford Higher Education Center campus and from outside of Medford as well. While the application suggests that parking management strategies including parking pricing, parking restrictions, and specific parking lot designations could further reduce demand, in conjunction with transportation demand managements measures such as transit subsidies and a targeted shuttle service, the submittal materials ultimately conclude that because the proposed parking is adequate for the request these measures are not necessary in association with the current proposal. In staff's assessment, the fact that application largely involves a shifting of existing student population from one side of Siskiyou Boulevard to the other merits a large part of the application's focus going to providing adequate parking within a reasonable proximity to the new halls and pedestrian safety enhancements at the likely crossing points for their residents. However without a more detailed explanation of the future Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion (i. e. will this 50, 000 square foot building serve only students, or is it likely to also host larger sporting events which draw significant numbers of visitors to the campus?) which is not proposed for consideration at this time, we believe it should be made clear that a finding cannot be made at this time that the parking in place will be adequate to serve that future construction, and that at the time that project is considered more aggressive parking management and transportation demand management measures such as a neighborhood parking permit program are likely to be necessary to minimize vehicular impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from the combined demand of the North Campus Village housing and Student Recreation Center addition. I Fire Apparatus Access During the course of the hearing in December staff noted that final fire apparatus access and hydrant installation details remained to be approved by the Fire Marshal. In discussing this issue with the Fire Marshal, she noted that the applicants would need to provide plans detailing required aerial fire truck access and the placement of fire hydrants to serve them prior to building permit approval, while also demonstrating that sufficient access is maintained for the existing buildings including the Greensprings residence hall complex. The applicants' team has been in continued communication with the Fire Marshal in developing these plans, and staff has recommended a condition below to require that the applicants provide a final fire apparatus access plan for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of the building permit. Because both city standards and the SOU Plan seek to maintain a pedestrian scale to the campus improvements, staff would also recommend that the Planning Commission consider including language which would limit accessways to no more than the minimum required under the driveway standards in AMC 18.92, with any additional width to accommodate fire apparatus requirements to be achieved through alternative treatments such as rolled curbs and materially distinct sidewalks installed next to the driveway paving, or the use of grasscrete or similar alternative treatments which will support fire apparatus access in a manner acceptable to the Fire Marshal and Staff Advisor without requiring wider than necessary swaths of paving. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 10 of 19 l Building Design In terms of the building design as it relates to standards for sense of entry, relationship to the street, length and articulation, staff believes that the revisions proposed by the applicants and provided in the Planning Commission's packets have effectively addressed the previously-raised concerns and now satisfy the applicable approval standards. Specifically, the design includes the addition of dormer elements over the bay window projections on the south hall so that the recesses are reflected through the roofline to more effectively break up the building's length and provide greater architectural interest. The applicants have also proposed to revise the street-facing entries on both the north and south halls to incorporate a large arch element over a stronger entry, with a recessed entry area to provide refuge from the elements at this entry, a slightly raised roof on the central building element to more effectively distinguish the massing of the building into three parts, and a pedestrian connection out to Ashland Street which when taken in sum greatly improve the building's presence to the Ashland Street streetscape. i III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: j A, All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property, All improvements in the street right-of- way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage, 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets, Increases in pedestrian, Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 11 of 19 bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.61.080.13 as follows: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The application requests Site Review, Condition Use and Tree Removal permit approvals to construct a new single-story dining hall, two new four-story residence halls, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus, and to remove 24 significant trees. Conditional Use Permit approval is required because the proposed development includes buildings and parking lots which vary from those conceptually envisioned in the mutually agreed upon SOU Plan, and the Conditional Use Permit process provides a higher level of review which allows for a more thorough consideration of the impact of these variations from the adopted plan's vision. At last month's hearing, staff raised a number of issues including pedestrian safety, building design, and the management of parking and transportation demand which we believed needed to be further addressed before a decision could be reached. We also had hoped that continuing the hearing until January would provide the time to more Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 12 of 19 r I t completely review late arriving submittals and allow the Transportation Commission to review and comment on the application. Pedestrian Safety With the implementation of the Kittelson recommendations, as supported by the Transportation Commission, signage and pavement markings would be upgraded, trees pruned to improve visibility, and rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB's) installed at the four existing crossing on Siskiyou; the crossing at Ashland and Stadium Street would have RRFB beacons and improved pavement markings and signage installed and the crossing and median configuration further considered; the crossings at Mountain Avenue and Walker Avenue would be upgraded with pedestrian countdown signals with audible countdown indicator and the addition of a five second pedestrian lead time; and the gateway intersection at Indiana and Wightmans Streets would have its existing pedestrian j signal heads replaced with pedestrian countdown signal heads, a new signal cabinet, and the addition of a 36-second pedestrian scramble phasing lead time and high visibility markings to accommodate a diagonal crossing. In addition, staff has recommended that sidewalks be installed on both sides of Stadium Street between Webster Street and Ashland Street, and that an additional off-street k pedestrian path be installed on campus parallel to Ashland Street between Stadium Street and Siskiyou Boulevard to facilitate the likely new student circulation patterns on the I! subject property. In staff's view, with the implementation of these measures the application can be found to have adequately addressed pedestrian safety. Management of Parking & Transportation Demand The application suggests that parking management strategies applied in conjunction with transportation demand management measures could further reduce demand, but the submittal materials ultimately conclude that because the proposed parking is adequate for the request these measures are not necessary in association with the current proposal. For staff, because the application involves mostly a shifting of existing student population from one side of the boulevard to the other, the application's focus primarily on providing adequate parking within a reasonable proximity to the new halls and pedestrian safety enhancements at likely crossing points for residents is merited. However, we believe it is important to note that a finding cannot be made at this time that the proposed parking will be adequate to serve future construction on the north campus, such as the Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion, and that at the time future projects are considered, more aggressive parking management and transportation demand management measures such as a neighborhood parking permit program are likely to be necessary to minimize vehicular impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. l= Building Design (Sense of Entry, Relationship to the Street, Length & Articulation) Staff believes that the design revisions proposed by the applicants and provided in the Planning Commission's packets have effectively addressed the previously-raised Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 13 of 19 i concerns and that the proposal can now be found to satisfy the applicable approval standards. Specifically, the design includes the addition of dormer elements over the bay window projections on the south hall so that the recesses are reflected through the roofline to more effectively break up the building's length and provide greater architectural interest. The applicants have also revised the street-facing entries on both the north and south halls to incorporate a large arch element over a stronger entry, with a recessed entry area to provide refuge from the elements at this entry, a slightly raised roof on the central building element to more effectively distinguish the massing of the building into three parts, and an off-street pedestrian pathway connecting the existing pathway system to the building's entry and Ashland Street which when taken in sum greatly improve the building's presence to Ashland Street. With the additional information provided and modifications proposed since the December hearing, staff is supportive of the application and recommends its approval with the following conditions attached. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that the project be certified to at least LEED Silver status within 24 months of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That prior to submittal of the building permit application, the applicants shall consult with Conservation Division staff to allow for the fine-tuning of energy conservation strategies for the proposed buildings. 4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their January 5th, 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 5) That building permit submittals shall include: a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utility easements and fire apparatus access easements. b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards, and the colors and materials selected shall be consistent with those approved with the application. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 14 of 19 C) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. ' d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. This plan shall address: 1) the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5th, 2012 meeting where consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2) the identification of 24 mitigation trees to be planted on site or details of alternative mitigation measures proposes; 3) the required irrigation plans, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 4) the identification of parking lot landscaping equivalent to at least seven percent of the parking surface area, at least one parking lot tree for each seven parking spaces, and required landscape buffers and screening consistent with the Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards. The applicants shall also obtain the required plumbing permits and inspections for installation of the required double-check valve(s) associated with the irrigation system. e) That a revised stormwater drainage plan, including any necessary on-site detention measures, shall be provided for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments with the building permit submittal. The drainage plan shall be designed to ensure that post- development peak stormwater flows are less than or equal pre- development levels as required by the Engineering Division. In addition, the plans shall incorporate above ground stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities consistent with the parking lot design requirements of the SOU Plan for the new parking lots to be constructed. f) That a final utility plan for the project shall be provided for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building 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, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any necessary service upgrades shall be completed by the developer at developer's expense. g) The applicant shall submit an 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 Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets and sidewalks, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 15 of 19 h) That a pedestrian circulation plan for the new North Campus Village area shall be provided which identifies an integrated pedestrian pathway system, including a new connection from the southeast corner of the Greensprings to the new South Hall's south entry and to the intersection of Ashland and Stadium Streets, with routes and material treatment of the paths, landscaping including the new gateway plaza treatment, pedestrian scale lighting, and way finding measures clearly detailed. i) Revised plans to address Fire Code requirements including approved addressing; fire apparatus access, turn-around, angle of approach; fire flows; fire department connections; fire hydrant distance to structures and clearance; stairway access to roof; firefighter access pathway; emergency responder radio coverage provisions; key box; and storage and collection of combustible and recycle materials. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk. In keeping with city standards and the SOU Plan, which both seek to maintain a pedestrian scale for campus improvements, driveways and other access ways shall be limited to no more than the minimum required under the driveway standards in AMC 18.92, with any additional width necessary to accommodate fire apparatus requirements to be achieved through alternative treatments such as a rolled curb and materially distinct sidewalk next to the paving, or the use of grasscrete or similar alternative treatments which will support fire apparatus access in. a manner acceptable to the Fire Marshal and Staff Advisor without requiring wider than necessary swaths of paving. Fire apparatus and their width, radius and material treatment shall be clearly identified in the building permit submittals. 6) That prior to the issuance of the building, excavation or demolition permits or the commencement of site work or storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site. Tree protection measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.61.200.B. The project arborist's recommendations and specifications, as detailed in the submittal materials dated November 1, 2011 from Thomas M. Myers, and subsequent revisions, shall be conditions of approval. b) The approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review and associated permits and inspections shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to demolition of existing structures. C) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit civil design drawings for the implementation of improvements detailed in the materials provided by Kittelson & Associates (included as part of the Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 16 of 19 4 application in the Supplemental Land Use Information dated December 5, 2011) and modified with this decision for the review and approval of the Public Works, Engineering and Planning Departments and Oregon Department of Transportation. These civil plans are to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building permits, and required improvements are to be completed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit. The required improvements include public and private street improvements and pedestrian crossing treatments as detailed more completely below: o Replace existing pedestrian signal heads with countdown heads and the add a five-second leading pedestrian phase to signal timing for the intersections of South Mountain Avenue & Sislciyou Boulevard, and of Ashland Street & Siskiyou Boulevard. o Replace existing flashing beacons with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) for the University Way pedestrian crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard. (Adjacent street trees be pruned and maintained by the Parks Department to improve visibility.) o Replace existing flashing beacons with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs), and relocate the "Stop Here for Pedestrians" sign at the westbound approach of the Avery Street pedestrian crossing of Sislciyou Boulevard to provide adequate clearance for the crosswalk signage and beacons. (City Street Department crews to complete the sign relocation.) o Replace existing flashing beacons with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) at the Garfield Street and Bridge Street pedestrian crossings of Siskiyou Boulevard. o Replace the existing pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown heads which include an audible indicator of signal timing, and reconfigure the "gateway" intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard with Wightman and Indiana Streets with a single diagonal crosswalk as shown in conceptual drawings presented at the December 15th Transportation Commission meeting as new "Figure 12", and install high visibility pavement markings for a diagonal crossing. The crossing treatment is to be designed to minimize the time automobiles wait due to the 36 second pedestrian-activated "scramble phasing", and will also require that the applicants upgrade the existing signal cabinets and controllers at both Wightman Street and Ashland Street (Highway 66) to accommodate these signal modifications. o Install advance pedestrian signs and rectangular rapid flash beacons at the Stadium Street pedestrian crossing of Ashland Street/Highway 66; explore and if warranted and feasible implement alternative crosswalk placement and median configuration to address concerns with pedestrian crossings conflicting with left turning movements from Market of Choice site onto Ashland Street. o Replace pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads and add a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing of the signal at the intersection of Ashland Street and Walker Avenue. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 17 of 19 I i o Install city standard seven to eight foot width parkrows with street trees, five to six foot sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street lighting on both sides of Stadium Street from Webster Street to South College Way consistent with city standards for a neighborhood street, with the sidewalk improvements to transition to curbside to preserve established trees between South College Way and Ashland Street. 7) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That all landscape improvements and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments' specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. C) The screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be identified in the building permit submittals and shall be in place, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. i i d) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including approved addressing; fire apparatus access, turn-around, angle of approach; fire flows; fire department connections; fire hydrant distance to structures and clearance; stairway access to roof, firefighter access pathway; emergency responder radio coverage provisions; key box; and storage and collection of combustible and recycle material requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. e) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the installation of sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street lighting on both sides of Stadium Street shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. f) All hardscape improvements including parking, driveways and off-street pathways shall be installed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. g) That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify the design and placement of covered bicycle parking both indoors and outdoors as described in the application. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 18 of 19 p_ h) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. i E; Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Addendum.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 19 of 19 I> April Lucas From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:46 AM ECEI V® To: Aril Lucas Subject: SOU housing PA JAN 0 2012 Planning Commissioners, (for the Record" I see from your packet that the TC's recommendation to improve Ashland Street frontage to City standards is not being supported by Staff for a variety of reasons. I would just like to point out that the current row of street trees (maples?) are in fact quite recent replacements for the prior liquidambars that were heaving the sidewalk. They were hopefully planted within root barrier pockets and are of a size that they could likely be moved and replanted quite efficiently with a mechanical tree spade into their proper places. Excavation for such a massive development would surely produce enough fill to crate a full width sidewalk with re-grading. Attractive paving of the sidewalk could be done in reusable small unit pavers - much more sustainable than poured, brushed slabs that are commonly used. They could be lifted and re-used if/when the frontage buildings are ever realized later. (Jim Olsen also informed me that utilities would most probably not be in front of such buildings.) I feel that a decent pedestrian promenade along this stretch ( and around the corner on Siskiyou Blvd.) would really help achieve the "gateway" approach that the Master Plan promised. Thanks for your consideration of this important aspect of the project. Colin Swales. Nong Khai, Thailand. -/i iI Iii January 9, 2012 71114 IW iul af.H 1 Derek Severson Associate Planner City of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Re: SOU North Campus Village #2011-01576 Staff Report Addendum Conditions of Approval Dear Mr. Severson: We are in receipt of the staff report addendum dated January 10, 2012. We have some comments on the text and requested changes to the conditions of approval for your consideration. On page 1 History of Application, the correct date should be December 13th, 2011 i Conditions of Approval (page 14-19) Condition 1: We request that this condition be deleted. While we are pursuing LEED certification, the level and timing for certification is undetermined at this time. Condition 5 (i): We request revisions to this condition. Stairway access to the roof is not required per the IBC when the roof slope is steeper than 4:12, which we are. Radio coverage will also be tested prior to occupancy and will be supplied if needed as a condition of occupancy. Condition 7 (d): We request revisions to this condition. Stairway access to the roof is not required per the IBC when the roof slope is steeper than 4:12, which we are. Radio coverage will also be tested prior to occupancy and will be supplied if needed as a condition of occupancy. Thanks Derek Sincerely, SERA Architects Kurt Schultz AIA LEED AP Principal 338 NW 5TH AVENUE PORTLAND OR 97209 T 503.445.7372 E 503.445.7395 SE:RAPH.CON! I Zimbra Page 1 of 1 Zimbra seversod@ashland.or.u + Font size - Wightman street alternate From . Kurt Schultz <kurts@serapdx.com> Mon, ]an 09, 2012 01:41 PM Subject : Wightman street alternate 021 attachment To :'Derek Severson' <derek.severson@ashland.or.us> Cc : Keith S. Fugate <keithf@serapdx.com>, Greg Covey <greg@coveypardee.com> Derek, based on.your e-mail from last Friday, attached is an alternate to the Wightman street sidewalk. We are proposing showing this as an alternate tomorrow night and let the commission decide which way to go. We are proposing removing the (4) existing Sycamore trees and adding a 13' curb-tight sidewalk w/ (4) new street trees in 5x5' tree grates at the curb. This design meets the City standards for a commercial neighborhood collector, which is Wightman's classification. Let us know if that approach makes sense to you i Thanks Derek SERA architecture interior design I planning I urban design I www.serapdx.com Kurt Schultz, AIA, LEED@ AP principal kurts@serapdx.com 503.445.7312 338 nw 5th avenue, portland, oregon 97209 ph: 503.445.7372 fax: 503.445.7395 DISCLAIMER: This message and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and / or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute this message or any information contained within, including any attachments, to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender and permanently delete the message and any attachments and destroy any printouts made. Although we have taken steps to ensure that our e-mail and attachments are free from viruses, the recipients should also ensure that they are virus free. Wightman entry_Dining_bw.pdf 33 KB I http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=50506&1 1/10/2012 t 1 `fI L ti k\ { lol, ~.~='jq ~ ,~r \ na ( ti '1' • ~ i'4. _~c, wr' ~'''.w `"y} L- 'r V f ~f ~ D }G... 1 1'p a~ ,..f+ ~ j ri 1 4 Future f - - - - - EAL REMOVABLE WEBSTER STREET REMOVABLE ! EOLLARDS _ COVERED PIKE , - , p>;rKUir. - EXISTING j v _ r a Q N EL- x a CIcCHANICA b NORTH HALL PAD r b T n 77 l~ In'fi~ ~pp~ '11', q7 7}+1~~~.11.t~v7; grit a-~$17g <t~ i i r3. E I. L 1 f f Mill 6. f? i f7} rp~, ti.1 _ - _ h. I I f.r' c 1 I' l ii, I i rj Q rwi r l j Ili, il'I i - I! 1 r i 4 F. _ t 7 DINING HALL I i COMMUNITY CENTER L t I TH, ~ I e~ I I ~ 9 { , r r a TERRACE 5' . I 0j, 9 E j V7) 1 I I , A 1 ~I WORK. I „ s LIMIT LINE 12 l _ I It a 1 i I ill nl]~l P 'L I ~JT~ i J 1iw WORK 1 n m- 1 r ~l f tom. _'Cj 'J~ ~71' a t I I ~o ~,y i t` sl LifrllTlfNE - _SQM P a HAIL (yyyppa COVERED BIKE PARKING s 1 GRrIN I 'J, PLAZA I t J _ ( ~ AERIAL APPARATUS ZONE. fC G002 SOUIH )LLEGEWAY ! COMPACTOR 46b _ FUTURE RESIDENCE HALL ASHLAND STREET M i Primary Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian Circulation PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Covered Bike Parking - 'I'Om Myers c~ ~ ~irvr ,!s ~'~rj Tree Consultant H., 204 0 Ashland Mine Rd Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-601-2069 Keith Fugate SERA 338 NW 5th Avenue Portland OR 97209 1/06/12 Tree Report #2 for SOU Student Housing Development The proposal to change the existing sidewalk along hwy 66 into a sidewalk with parkrow would cause the death of 29 trees. Because the trees are planted so close to the existing sidewalk, the removal and regrading for a new sidewalk would extend well into the trees critical root zone, and in some cases into the trees themselves. The trees along the existing sidewalk range in age from young to mature. Many are just starting to reach the age where they provide a real asset to the common area of the sidewalk by providing shade in the hot summer months. To remove these trees in order to make a parkrow and sidewalk would be a waste of resources and would render the area exposed to the sun for another twelve years. The existing sidewalk is in good condition and is up to ADA standards. Replacing the sidewalk is unnecessary. I strongly recommend against the removal of the trees along highway 66 merely to make room for a parkrow and sidewalk. The Redwood tree near the tennis courts (tree #200, see attached plans) is currently in good health. The proposed sewer line will run within the tree protection zone of the tree. There is enough room to keep the line away from the trunk so that no more than 25% of the root zone is affected. It will be necessary to dig the trench by hand in the area within the tree protection zone. A certified arborist must be on site when the hand digging is done so that no roots larger than 4" in diameter are cut. Any smaller roots that are cut must be cut clean with a sharp pruning saw and kept wet and covered with burlap and weed barrier cloth. If these procedures are followed, the tree will survive the construction process. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at 541-601-2069. Thomas M Myers, Certified Arborist Page 1 of 1 Greg Covey From: "Tom Myers" <upperlimbit@wiIdblue. net> To: "Greg Covey" <greg@coveypardee.com> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 10:59 AM Subject: Tree 176 176 Cherry 13E 30 12 Good moderate 9.75 Sent from my Wad i 1/5/2012 Tree Tree # Species DBH in Hey, J n Crown Condition :Tolerance Tree -,tection Notes Remove ` 1 16 40 WGood moderate 12 (Remove 2 Norway spruce..,.- _ 11; 25._. & Good moderate 8.25: Remove 3 Blue spruce 12 30! 12!Good moderate 9 Remove 4 Black ine 14 40 12 Good good _ 7' [Remove. . P - 5 Shore pine 20 35 11 Fair good 10 Leaning Remove 6 Blue spruce 15 29 6 Good moderate 11.251 Remove 7 Honey locust 12 30 12 Fair !good 6Trunk wound Remove 8 Black locust 71 35! 9 Poor good 3.5' Multiple stemmed Remove 9 Honey locust 10 25 13 Fair good 5 Included bark cc Remove ' 10 ponderosa pine 201 401 17, Good good 10 Remove } . 11 Black pine.. 11 30, 121Good ........good.. 5.5 _ Remove I 12 Shore pine 18 38 151Fair good 9 'Severe lean Remove I 13 Silver maple 36, 32I 451 Fair moderate 36, Broken scaffold limb Protect I 14 Shore pine 21 40j 14Good ;good 10.5 Remove - - 15 Himalayan pine 19 40 15 Good good 9.6t Remove F 16 Ponderosa 15 30 14 Good good 7.5; Remove 17 Port orford 14' 30 13 fair good 7 Clorotic Remove 18 Siberian elm 37 38 36 Fair (good 18 5!Broken scaffold limb Remove 19 Ash 8: 24 153 Good I moderate 6 Protect 20 Red Maple 16 28 18 Good moderate 12 Protect _ _ 21 Red Maple 11i 27 15 Good moderate 8 25 Protect 22 Red Ma le 71 201 11 Good moderate 5 25 Protect - P 23 Red Maple 9i 24 131 Good moderate 6.75; Protect 24 Red Maple 8 23 121 Fair moderate 6Trunk wound Protect _ 25 Blue spruce 7 28 5Good (good 5 25 Remove I 26 Shore pine 9i 28 7Good good 6.75: Remove _ . 27 ponderosa pine, 10 31i 91Fair !good _........_7.5Clorotic...._...._... _..._Remove 28 Shore pine 9' 27 _._10,Good Igood 6 75 Remove 29 Red Maple 6._.,._ 5 Good -_Remove 30 Pagoda Tree 12; 26 14, Good moderate 9. Protect 31 Deodar cedar 181 42 201Good good 13 5 Remove I 32 Red Maple 15 15 25 Good moderate 11 25 Remove 33 Red Maple 10 10 28 Good moderate 7.6 Remove 34 Silver maple 17 16 32'Good moderate 12.75. Remove _ . . 35 Tulip Tree 11' 10 36Good (good 8.25; Remove 36 Deodar cedar 28' 281 40 Good good 28.75 Protect - - - 37 English laurel 10 12- 14 Good good 5 Remove F 38 Plum 5 6° 15fair moderate 3 75 Remove 39 Plum 4 6 15 fair moderate 3 (Remove 6 151fair moderate 3; Remove 40 Plum 4. 41 Red maple 15 38 151good !moderate 11.25: Remove 42 Red maple 12, 28 12 fair moderate 9 Remove 43 Red maple 111 36 11 Fair !moderate 8 25 Remove . 44 Red ma le 14' 36 15 Good moderate 10 5 Remove p 45 Plum 10 _ _2291Good moderate 5,_. Remove-j 46 Bartlet pear 6 22 6Good moderate 45 Remove 15 20 15 Good good 11.25 Remove 47 Shore one _ p . 48 Hawthorne 7 18 7 Good moderate 5.25 Remove - 49 Shore pine 10 24 9 fair good 5 Remove 50 Birch _6 ...._....................26~. 6 Good moderate 4 5 Remove..._ 51 Sycamore 201 32i 30 Good ':.moderate 20 Remove 52 Siberian elm 24 35~ 26 Good good 18 Remove 53 Siberian elm 25 32 27 Good _Remove 54 Deodar cedar 18' 40 21 Good good 13.5' Remove 55 Deodar cedar 16i 40 18 Good good 12 Remove r P - 56 Deodar cedar 141 40 95Good good 10 5 Remove - 57 Austrian pine 1T 34 14;Good good 12.751 Remove I 58 Austrian pine 14 32 12; Good good 10.51 Remove 59 Austrian pine 13: 30 13 Good good 9.75: Remove 60 Zelkova 13 22 15 Good good 9.75: Protect 61 Pagoda Tree r8 24 9 Good moderate 6 Protect Protect - 62 Austrian Arne 11 32 12Good - -good 8.25: 63 Leland cypress 20' 52 151Good 'good 15 Protect 1 64 Plum 7 22 6 Good 1 moderate 5 25: Prot t ec. _ _ _ Tree # Species DBH in Hey' in Crown Condition Tolerance Tree tection Notes Remove I - 18 42 15 Good good 13.5: Protect 65 Leland cypress 66 Leland cypress 27 38~ 22 Good good 20.25 Protect 67 Leland cypress 27 44 23 Good ;good 20.251 68 Leland cypress 25! 42 21 Good good 18.751 Protect . _ 69 Sycamore 20 401 28 Good moderate 15 Protect Giant edwood 44 44 22 Good moderate 33: Protect 71 Catal aw. ; 25; 39 21 Good moderate f m 18 75r Protect - 72 Sycamore 24, 42 22 Good moderate 15._ Protect Protect 73 Sycamore ! 19i 40 191 Good :moderate 4,25: 74 Sycamore 10, 36 181 Good ;moderate 7.51 Protect 75 Sycamore 1 Z 35 12 Good moderate 9 Protect Protect 41 76 Sycamore 15 36 15 Good moderate 1125 77 Sycamore 10 35 10 fair i moderate 7.51 Protect Sycamore 10 36 11 Good moderate 7.5 Protect 78 ycamore 7: 26 9 fair moderate 5.25 Protect 79 I i 80 Sycamore 12 35 121G -od - moderate 9 Protect _f 81 Sycamore 10 28 91 Good moderate 7.5: Protect - - I 82 Sycamore 11 361 -12Good moderate 8 25: _ Protect 83 Sycamore 9 30 11Fair moderate 6.751 Protect E - - 84 Sycamore 12 35 13 Good moderate 9 Protect 85 Sycamore 9 301 11fiFair moderate 6.751 Protect Protect 86 Sycamore 11 35 12 Good moderate U& 87 Sycamore 9 29r 10 Fair ;moderate 6.75 Protect - - - 88 S ca more 9; 30 12 Good moderate 6.75' Protect I, _..Y _ _ 89 SYcamore 7i 32 12 Fair ( moderate 5 .25, Remove 90 Sycamore _ 11 34 15 Good moderate 8 25 Remove 91 Sycamore 10 33 12Good moderate 7.51 Remove 92 Sycamore- - 10............ 34, 12 Good .....,moderate 7 5 Remove 93 Sycamore 101 331 12 Good moderate 7.5 Remove 94 Sycamore 13 33, 121 Good moderate 9.75; Remove 95 Sycamore 21 32 16 Good imoderate 15-75: ~Remove 96 Sycamore 13' 32 18 Fair ,moderate 9 75 Protect 97 Sycamore 13. 32 18 Fair moderate 9.75 ; Protect 98 Sycamore 13 32 20 Fair moderate 9.751 _ _Protect 99 Sycamore 12:. 42 30 Fair moderate _......9>_ Protect 100 Sycamore _..._12 33 15 Fair moderate 9 Protect _ Protect 101 Sycamore 11' 30 13 Fair moderate U& - - Protect 102 __.3612, Good moderate 8.25: _ _ _ 103 Sycamore 151 33 17;Good moderate 11 25' Protect 104 Red maple 1 13: 32 131 Fair !moderate 9.75 Remove 11 , 14 Good ;moderate 8 25 Remove 1 _ 105 Red maple 30s - 106 Red maple 14' 361 20 Good ;moderate 10.51 Remove 107 Red maple 11 40 12Good moderate 8.25; Remove 1 108 Red maple........ 1.21. 38 12 Good moderate 9 Remove 109 Red maple 12 33 12 Good moderate 9 ;Remove 110 Red maple 13 35 17 Good moderate 9.75; Remove Remove j 111 Tulip tree 11 42 7 Good good 5.6: 112 Tulip tree _ _9F 40 6Good good 4.5 Remove - 113 Tulip tree i 201 44_. ._16 Good ;good 10 Remove 114 Tulip tree 17 45 151 Good good 8 5 ;Remove 115 Black pine 11 30 15`Good good - 5 5 Remove 1.6.5; .Remove.... 3 116 Black pine.... _ . ................22i 33 ......21 Good .............:good.........- 117 Red oak 23 42 21 Good good 17 25; Remove 118 Red oak _ _ 26, 453 33 Good good 19 5 Remove 119 Box_Elder 24 _ 38~ 28 Good moderate 18,._ Protect 120 Arbor Vitea _ 8 21 5 Good moderate 6. Remove 1 121 Arbor Vitea 22 6Good moderate 675 Remove _ - 122 Goiden locust _._.16: 30 17EFair 8 'Topped _Remove .good............ _ ....3 5eCodominant stems Remove _ 123 Black locust . 31. _..-................12 Fair _ 124 Black locust -8...__........ ...32................... .11Fair ;good......................; 4:Codominant stems Remove... 125 Blue spruce 18, 26 9 Fair moderate 13 5 Topped Remove _ 126 Siberian elm _ 14' 38I 15 Fair good 10 5 Codommant stems Remove ~ Fair moderate 5.25: Remove 127 Plum 7, 15 6 - - 128 Black locust 21 48~ 15 Fair good 10 5,Codominant top Remove . 129 Black locust 21 48, 15 Faire !good 10 5 Remove Tree # Species DBH in ,He!' in Crown ICondition Tolerance Tree tection Notes Remove Remove A le 6 18 6 pp 130 p ` 1 Poor G_ good g _ _ 34 Remove 131 Red ma le 13 33 18 ood ood 65 - - _ Remove 132 Incense cedar 21 48 9 Good moderate 15.75 . 133 Incense cedar o 21 48 9'Good moderate 15.75:: . . 134 No!way ma le 8 36 14 Fair moderate 6 Multimtrunk Remove 135 Douglas fir 15 30 12 Poor moderate 11 25 Dead top v Remove 136 Mulberry 91 331 18 Fair ;good 4.5; Remove 137 Mulberry % 35 14 Good ;good 5 Remove _ . 138 Ponderosa 7, 251 5€Good good 3.5: Remove moderate 9 75 Remove 139 Birch 13 331 15 Dead 140 Big leaf Maple 6'........ 21 5Good poor 4.51 Remove 141 Incense cedar 37i 62 14 Good moderate 27.751 Remove I 142 Black locust j 7 33i 9 Fair good 3.51 Stump sprout Remove 143 Norway spruce 131 45 15, Good moderate 9.75. Remove 144 Black oak 1511 45 16'Good moderate 111.25 Remove 145 Black locust 8: 42 12lGood good 4Remove 146 Black locust 9 42~ 14Good good 6.75 Remove 147 Black locust - 12 41 15 Good good 9 Remove 148 Apple 9 26 10 Good food 6 75 Remove 1 149 Apple 12 - 26 10 Good good 9 Remove 150 Incense cedar 67 21 &Good moderate 4.51 Remove 151 Black locust 8 38 8 ,Fair good 4 Stump sprout Remove _ 152 Black locust 10j 38j 8 Fair good 5 Remove good 7. Remove 153 Black locust 14 441 15 Fair 154 Black locust 14 44 18 Poor ,good 7 Remove 155 Black locust 6; 33 9 Poor good 3 Stump sprout Protect 156 Black locust 2Z..._.... 42_..__..... 253 Poor !good _ 13 5 Trunk wound Protect . 8.. Protect _ . 157 Siberian elm . . .........._...............t6 40 _ 15 Good good 158 Siberian elm 17' 40 15 Good good 8.5 Protect Protect 159 Incense Cedar .__38i _ -7GOOd ;moderate 10.5 Protect 160 Incense Cedar 11 381 8Good moderate 8.251 161 Incense Cedar . 6 201 SGood moderate 4 5 Protect 162 Incense Cedar 129 40 71Good moderate 9 Protect 1 163 Incense Cedar ; 17 40~ 9; Good moderate 12.7& Protect 164 incense Cedar 26 42 12 Good moderate 15,....... _.._Protect I........ _ 165 Incense Cedar 23` 45 14.Good moderate 17 25 Protect 166 Incense Cedar 19: 44 12 Good moderate 14 25 Protect 167 Incense Cedar 9' 42- „7jGood moderate 6.75: ,,..Protect 168 incense Cedar 9. 41~ 71Good moderate 6 75 Protect jProtect 169 Incense Cedar 91 36 7;Good !moderate 6.751: 170 Incense Cedar 9 38 7 Good moderate 6 75 i Remove 171 Incense Cedar 12 36 7 Good moderate 9 Remove 172 Incense Cedar 10: 37 7Good moderate _.........7.5e ~Remove..._ 173 Incense Cedar 10 35 - 7 Good .moderate......... 7.5' .Remove....... 174 Black walnut 261 38 24 Good moderate 19 5 Protect - - 175 Black poplar 42:_ ._48~ 45 Good !moderate 31 5 _ _ r._.__.._ Protect _ 200 Redwood 611 65 30 Good Pgood 45.75i 201 Incence cedar 35 35 24, Fair moderate 35 - - - 202 Pagoda tree 11 t 22 _ 15Good , moderate _ 11 42 ._........._.._.20jGood moderate ..........31 1.................... 203 Incence cedar ._;....._.........31 204 Incence cedar,. .....25'...._. 40~_.. 17 Good moderate 25... . 205 Chamaecypan 21 24I_ 17 Fair good -2~ 206 Pear 9 ____._._...13._ _ 10 Poor moderate _ 9 207 Black oak 23 40 - -21, Fair !moderate 23 - _ - - ~ - - . 208 Black oak 241 42 271Fair moderate 24 . 209 Douglas fir 14 43 15 Fair Imoderate 14 210 Black _oak 30 44 30, Good (moderate 30' _ _ . 28 211 White oak . 41 25 Good.. good - 212 White oak 101 9 18Poor..... d 10 _ 213 Red ma le 6` 18 SFair moderate 4.5: - - - ~_--p - 214 Black oak -_...v_ 6±...--r__. _..1_4.. 7.Fair moderate r_..,.._ , 4.51 215 English holly _ Io, ._14..._ 7 Fair ;moderate 216 Black oak 25' 401.. 15 Fair. moderate 25 217 Douglas fir 231 451 18 Good ;moderate 23 Tree # Species DBH in Hej° in ;Crown Condition Tolerance Tree 'tection Notes Remove 218 Black oak 29, 451 28, Good moderate 29; - - - 219 Red maple 5 18 61 Poor moderate 5 220 Plum 101 23~ 18! Fair moderate 10 _ 221 Red maple 5 18I 5 Poor 1 moderate 3.75 222 Plum 8 18 12 Poor moderate 6 223 Cymacypress 131 30, 21 Good good 13 224 Red maple 5. 18 4lFair moderate 5' _ e 225 Red maple 5 18 5[ Fair moderate 5 226 Red maple 6 17 5 Fair moderate 6 227 Poplar 5 22 5 Fair ;moderate 5 moderate 13 228 Cherry 13 24 12 Fair _ 229 Pear 8 13~ 6' Fair moderate 8 230 Red maple 8' 26 8 Fair moderate - 8 I _ 231 Redwood 50 58 16 Good good 37.5' 232 Ash 14 _38 13 Good good 10.5 - - 233 Ash 71 32. 15 Good good 3.51 234 A* 8 33 15 Good good 4... - - - 235 Leland cypress ; 14 44 21 Good good 7 _ 236 Leland cypress 15 44 ......................__21 Good good..... 7-5;....... 237 Ash - 10 34~ 12 Good good 5 _ . . 238 Leland cypress 15~ 44 18 Good !good 7.5 _ 239 Leland cypress _._.12_.__.,,_....44______._. 21 Good 240 Redwood 41;._ _ 48 - - ---151 Good ;.good......... _.....30.75 241 Ash 9 33 !Goo d !good 4 5 _ 242 Ash 8 32 91Good good 4 243 Ponderosa 10, 36 9 Fair good 5 ood 244 Leland cypress.... 231 36 18 Good 115 g 245 Ash . 7i 30 7 Good good 35 - !good 65 246 Leland cypress 13 36 15 Good 247 Ash 7 31 61 Good !good 3.51 248 Leland cypress: 14 40 12`Good ;good 7: 249 Leland cypress-- 13 41 151 Good good............. 65 250 Ash 7= 28 6Good good 3.5; - - - . 251 Ash_---. 7' 32 7Good good(---- 3.5; 252 Ash 8i 35 81Good good 4 T < . 253 Ash 8 35 81Good good 4j _ - - 254 Ash 11 37 12~Good good _ 55_. - - - 255 Ash 8 35 8 Good good 4 256 Ash 121 37 12 Good good 6 - 257 Black pine 12: 30 9 Good 'good 6 _ 258 Liquidambar 13: 38 12 Good ;good 9 75 259 Liquidambar _ 16 40 18Good good 12 260 Liquidambar _ 23 46.. 15{Good good 17,251 261 Liquidambar 14' 43 16 Good good 10.51 - . ;good 6 75 Good 262 Blackpine 9 38._... 9!... 263 Black me 17 381 15 Good good 12,75: - - 264 Redmaple 7 301 9 Good moderate 3 5 ' 265 Leland cypress 16' 42 - 15 Good good 12 _ . - 4 son, i LL i o' loom 1 r~ r s z T _ M t Noy", ti < F l 1 r f r I p ~ , I I r i s, r l IL f / ~ t r r i ti l 1•• r J~, .1:t ~1 I - _ jv f r ~ t ~ t y ✓ Jr- k \ ! - All; r l t 11~~ f i r t s w i a v I imp. WIN ism, F_ Ott - i o- ~(°i?'+-°? ff A i'. - - . y - i ~ ' 4'- r ; r ~ ~ . ~ , E ,t i3 ~ ~ ~ i ~ j ~i T - ~ ` li ' ' y y: i _ - h.. i E ~ 1 ~ r., 1, ~ _ - ~ ~1.. ~ _ i ~ _ ~ _ ' ~ S .t~°'~ I _ - _ ~ ~ 4 ~ i _ ~ ~ I ~iS ",~'t _ 1. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~ 1 ~ -a: - ( I - - i j ~ - ~ ul _ i, its. _ 1 - - _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~ - - ,I - _ ~ - ~ - - i , _ - i ~ 1 ~ ` 'f ~ i ~ _I i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 y.i ~,r ~ 1 - . , ` ~ ~ F 1i~ ~F _I ~ e .t z f _ s.. J ~ ~ _ i ~ i,~ f~ ' % J t:1 1' ~ ~ ~ f r .ia i r i1 J ~ ! ~ i~ ~ ~ ? x j i ~ / _ ~l t f I I t 1 i ' ~ -f'- ~ _ 14~ sl , - ~ ~ ~~I I ~ ~ _ ~ ~ , ~i 4,~1 1 _ b Kjt IL_ is 2a rw - `E tzar F,~, -i~ _ z - 15 'E i a A I= M son y r' G _y & CIA r fir, e r - Y W -1 x ARIA Toy; 01 . c C~ y & _ _ may.- _,d i L _ !ASK t -1l _ I H i ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ) r ~ ~ m 11,, ~~ll ~ j ifi I, ~ ~i' i. _ ~l ~ f. f _ ~fi ~ 7..j 'l ,i i ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ti, ~ t Y ~ _ ..I c ~ ~ .y I ~ ~ ~ i i - 5 _ 1~ ~ _ - ~ I ~ j ~t;~F fir, 1 ~ - ~ ~ _ i 1 ~ . < _ i ~ { r~r ~ i5 ~ .t { ~ r , ~ t ~ : , , . ~ ~ . , _ ~ '~I o _ . 1! ~ ~ 1 h _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ r~ - " i ~ n ~ . ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 , ~ I it ~e,' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~i ~~a ~,1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - i, i ~ { ~ ~ 1, ' r~ ~ . 'ir ~ ~ / f\., ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ 1 _ r 1~ _ _ _ i ~ ~l ~ ~1~ ~ ~ 1 'f ~ r 4~a ~ 1 w ~il ~'.J I C 4 { ~ I i J ~ r ~ i 4 / 1 l - ~j,I ~ ~ ~v \ ~Y! _ _ _ ~j a,~ t~ r ~ 1 ! ~ 1r 1~; - Cf ~r Il 'P t . rl ~ ~ ~ I j ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~1' _ _ .i. \ . l 1 ~ - 1; { . N1 _yS ~~J~ ~ i rl ~ _ t 1 1 ~ ~ ' ~ r~~ - j l ~ I - r i f l ~ I i l i a r. ter, i , --3 50MN-6&55 R!N EIEIMiNk!>79JS8U' JBUIY. IN-9)=/91690' _ 3 W16NI RIM EW,,-1=49' _ 6'IW ICV EM'MUE.104.1' m u 3 IN/ _ S9NN-&597 ~ry , S r~ RIM In- 19769 I' ~ 0-6617 S 14W0(NR41 EIN. -1977.00 L 1 _ _ eur A fN N 9M.63- lowu SO ')=]971.13' c ®P 4-DEg1100US OHP HP OHP Pp 1 ' DEq GLJLroLgU$T_i1' LW d. _ Y' 11' fIKMIX/9f/5 N Cn 9,~ I a _ ® k w ~ ( 10' OE4A)Ums ASPHALT PARKING AREA f/1 ~ 6' DECJOUms ~ V) ~ II V II 10' DEO&OIS u 10' 0f Alums = E]ASPHALT PARKING AREA I / N o F~ I aE 02 x / oxD 4' DECIDUOUS / YARD DEBRIS DUMP AREA r r ~ SS S5 SS s I~ 01 / ❑ GRAVEL DRIVE sDMN_se74 (Jj 36 E6W / V ELEVAMN-1944.01' (/1 \ II \ a I 1414Y,OU/(()-1935+11' BN ' IPM! (N(3)=19SS SMAW o I 204 J SO k y 50 591, s\io46( 50 / 70 JUNIPER 30" JUNIPER JO' JUMPER 70' JUNIPER I" JUNIPER 30 JUMPER 30' JUtlPER 30' JUNNFR 30 JUMPER p III a ~ p m G° III h 1- NORTH 'Villagme bUU Northuampus Existing Trees at New Sanitary Sewer 7L77 AMERICAN CAMPUS COMMUNITIES January 5, 2011 0 1 2 40- 1554 WEBSTER STREET, ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET January 51 2012 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01576 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1554 Webster Street (on SOU campus) APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40 foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 18 significant trees (i.e. those greater than 18- inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.)). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 4200 Recommendation: 1) Not to install new sidewalks and full parkrow on both Ashland and Wightman Streets. 2) Have a certified arborist on-site at all times in lieu of tree protection fencing during the installation of the sanitary sewer line from gravel parking area to Wightman, as shown on the sanitary sewer installation plan dated January 5, 2012. 3) Reduce the tree protection fencing on the north side of tree #200 by 25 percent, and hand dig within the root zone per arborist recommendation, as drawn on the sanitary sewer installation plan dated January 5, 2012. 4) That removal of tree #201 to be determined on-site by the arborist. Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5350 CITY F 51 Winburn Way Fax; 541-552-2050 SH LAN r% Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 wwwashl t April Lucas From: Colin Swales [colinswales@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:22 AM To: Derek Severson; Brandon Goldman Cc: April Lucas Subject: SOU - PA #2011-01576 Derek, Brandon, (cc April) At our recent Transportation Commission meeting it was suggested that any member who had individual thoughts on the SOU planning action #2011-01576 should submit them to you for inclusion in the Record. In that spirit, I herewith offer some further suggestions, but only as an interested citizen, and these should not be construed as representing in any way the Ashland Transportation Commission or its membership. Could you also please print out my ODOT - Ashland ADTs spreadsheet at [ https:Hdocs.google.com/spreadsheet/ecc?key=OAIIUpGpSBunvdFQla2RUWUEyc2hLbVFaOW1c5UFNpVIE US#gid=o i ] and include in the Record, as I am currently out of town and unable to bring into your office a hard copy. i Planning Commissioners, 1. Gateway ( also mentioned in my Dec 9th submittal) The SOU master Plan included some ideas for a highway "gateway" at each end of the SOU Campus. The "gateway" treatment of the Indiana/Wightman junction in my opinion leaves a lot to be desired. This busy junction is invisible from vehicles being driven up Ashland Street from the south. I would suggest that SOU street banners on the university's Ashland Street frontage be used to alert drivers to the existence of busy pedestrian presence. Changes to the pavement surface treatment ( as suggested in the master plan) should also be installed. Small- unit pavers, green painting of the bike lanes, Sidewalk and parkrow to City Standards along the entire Ashland Street, Siskiyou frontage to SOU should all be seriously considered. Upgrades to the ped crossings on Ashland Street to improve visibility, pedestrian refuges etc should be looked at both at Stadium, Walker and where the proposed new multi-use path exits on Ashland Street near the junction with Siskiyou Bld. Many more students will be crossing here to access the market, Beanery and other stores in the vicinity, but on the opposite side of Ashland Street 2. Lighting After the tragic fatality of a SOU student at the Garfield crossing much discussion ensued about the inadequate lighting. The overhead cobra heads and the pedestrian scale lighting fixtures only glare into the drivers eyes and do little to illuminate pedestrians waiting to cross or actually in the crosswalk. (Note: more of these were installed by SOU recently to light this dark stretch). This situation is especially bad if pedestrians are wearing dark clothing. Each crosswalk should have a carefully shrouded spotlight that is focused on the actual marked zebra crossing and anyone that is walking across. The current visual blight of the excessive sign pollution only serves to distract drivers from seeing actual people using this area. The chiarascuro dazzling caused by the low winter sun coming thought the gaps in the tall evergreen trees fronting the university I feel was perhaps a major cause of the Jiminez fatality, as she seems to have already crossed 4 of the five lanes yet been totally invisible to the driver that ran her down and threw her 50 ft down the road. I offer no solutions to this daylight dazzle problem except removing the trees, but somehow this i pedestrian invisibility needs to be adwessed perhaps by education so that pedoJLrians crossing Siskiyou Blvd. do not have a false sense of security Multiple Lanes needed? ODOT's own historic traffic counts show that the traffic on this arterial through the heart of our university and High school is in fact decreasing (Please see attached spreadsheet ODOT - Ashland ADTs). Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street do not have sufficient traffic to justify the current 4/5 lanes for 25 mph traffic. Should this even be a school zone 20 mph max? A road diet to further calm auto traffic should be considered with the outer lanes perhaps used as a dedicated Bike Boulevard or shuttle bus lane. This would decrease pedestrian crossing distances and eliminate the current very dangerous problem of a driver in the overtaking lane not seeing a pedestrian or noticing the stopped car in the other lane - a common occurrence at present. Pedestrian Place It is unfortunate that this planning action just preceded by a few weeks the recent changes that were passed under the rubrik of "Pedestrian Places". (Although I understand that those changes are to be soon looked at again by Council). The inclusion of the original pedestrian-rich Bridge-Wightman area would have been better than the alternate Tolman area that was substituted. With this new proposal, the huge increase in pedestrian activity necessitates that this area is also included for consideration as a "pedestrian place", perhaps by voluntary offerings from SOU. The proposed "pedestrian scramble" seems to be predicated on the assumption that the auto has the overall priority. This area should indeed be multi-modal and would be perfect for a truly "Shared Space". ODOT traffic engineers assure me that the City's jurisdiction of this stretch of highway gives them total control over creative options to improve safety for all users of this public right-of-way, without neccesarily adhering to the usual straight jacket of ODOT's own one-size-fits-all rules. P.S. The 2-minute video that I mentioned at the last PC meeting, showing empty-road driving conditions on a typical weekday at 10:00 a.m. in front of SOU and the near-accident I then witnessed at Walker intersection, can now be viewed online at: [ http://youtu.be/Z4ecVgovS4I ] Respectfully submitted 1/3/12 Colin Swales 143 Eighth Street, Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 840 7492 2 ~ d 0 0,00 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0010 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o 0 10 h € O CO O V M c0 r- 'U' N O V Cl) O 03 (00 i CD i m r0 N (O CA N V' ~t 'I C' N ti OD (Cj 4j O O O O " Co (1 N r Q) o n (O O O O O O Ol l:D ,O O o o O, O o 0 0 'p 0 0 0 0 j 1 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O'O O 'O O _ 1 O I O O O O W W M N O M Mina t O ` V O O O O b al o. M tf, f• N. Al SIM; 00.(D M~ e_ 1 Lq . M r- m 0 0 o C) CD CD C, U') J o 0 o O' I O O C { O: 00100 ! W! c U VO' w O w 0 CO O O C. C~ co - .6 , O O C O ' O O C O LO M. t` d' N O l r O V tl•~ V' 'd' V"J V' M M co L(~ co O O r r O (D O O N (D N 1-r C\a; { i N .~NM ° t o - 0o t cQ~ ~o,,.. ooo. 'olo O' O C CD' O O S C) CD N , 010 O O.. OO O O o C) o O o o 0 o m O p 0 0 0 o CD, ti M r 00;0 N N i[~ t iM' OI I((i N O'N, ap:V O 0°0 o6 6 (0 f-, fl CD m ~1 C' 00,(01 C ~-1N M _I L(0 OOO:OO°~ OOO o 00 000.0 0l O 0 o " ° O o - o°o~oOO o Oi0 X010 O O O'O'O O. 0: W [O O C:' c) d' M , O o N M O N.N c f NC ) 1(00! I O O'C (0 N CO <t V' ti' O { O ((i O) 0 0 r (D (0.(D r N N M N N m (D M' N 00 (D M - I~ ~ I I f I _ O-.-. C J 0 ^ ON W(.p0jl o.~ 4 W °iO 'o 0 0 of Imo: 0 0I-O010OO ~C\ N161 O M ! 1 M ti I mo) N r r ~'1M d'( cI ,IW It` ti :NI MN d' M' , { ICI M{ , (0 C), --0 OIO i0 0 I a7 W.Va7 (0L~ O M O '101 O 1 O. O O; 0 t 0 O; O C 00 {O cO G c1I O V+ CI J ' 0 O 00i h' Oj 0`IOi 100 0 0~ CCD) Oi O? C) 0,010 O• O,G O o~ d (Oft` i 0 M M ~ n 00 c-, c- C O C O 0 0 1 u G Ci o 0 O 0 0 0 0 01 ( vµ1 0 0 O co; C~ C, u r O O O O - - - C1 ui I I CM ((0 a (n tf t 0J 00 C' t u u7 'cr C t- c'' , ) N - ~i Flo (O~ O-. 1 ooo ooo oo;o 0,0 1(D 00 ~O O OlO O O O o o O'O O{0 1 0`0, O O O,O O 8' O O OiO O CD CD N. €O o Oic OD o- 1 Y ~j~ o0~c-) :OlI- 't i'dr O:t~ ,COprjW ti ,0 ma o o V°•( O (A tO (0 ` (O 10 O, O O (O 1~ 100 I MC Cl LO M. CO p. r-~c- N M r'- Ml c-i O;MIM' v 00 CO? (D C~ CD CD 0 0; o o{o{ oho` oho olo olo C) c 0 0 0~0 o N iM ojo 0 0 0 0 i O,O O o_ o o O INp r 00 F'O' iV0• 0°0 F 0 ~I V (O0i i t0O C' 0 M tO ,I M (Cij o' d) M 1' 1 Imo( a) O)°O) au vii M N. c N h:M.~ c- O'M M, '~ti 00 (O r I { I 1 ~w, ( { 13P w Ec°i r: Imo, j 'g, of o` T m rnl W, ca, I I 1 ( o w; W (4 J o j o m L ZI c c 12 ii 5: ( ,1 of m 1 cl ~2( E > rn o~ CD tn;. l QI c nl o o 1 > o u ( u' a~•01 o m o mi. o c (n m 2! o o > I o c ~ E a~ cl m >1 o' c O CO 3. 0 3:Y m m NI W o c o LL' ~I Q o of L! c c 01 C r' nr"r: c N w- ~ ; c W in I m a~ ° rn ~ o o: m o n w o o W i c co ° a I c FQ--; c Q Q) m. > TI m1 c IL m1 i ull m W o j{ a ~i d L L IF-' > m z mE 21 a)(q W ' 1 a,! U){ cm . c a~ m1 w, v a)C m° cm O 1 •C 1 N 'all ~ ~ N 3 m O Y I o - -1 I •c c 0 0 o a c (a o W`~I .6, 21 Z:Z( i -.11 N:>'2 a:>1 2; IU d N Qc2 (7 a~U (6 0o o d. dm N) .I--j v-{ 1v-iwI'iv-I ' a- 4- Z1• o, O, o p O O: p Oi o 0 0. O O' p pi'" 0 0 ' O p `O - { p 3 1.12-1 0' 4- 4 v-' w, O O' O O pl _ L L LL+ L { O O O +L-~ }rL-+'C 1 IL '5O 1.1-- . L L •L-+ O L L' L L., L LI ~LI L, Iw. { o 'CI 71'0 01 'C 7 'C o ' : > > 'C 'C w' rn n N i n N N:•+N_- - o a CO, o OC 0 ojo, E: p1 0 0{ 0' 0 0l of of o; o, aU m ml to of o: o m m m m' Nf o (Vf C C C N C~ (q NI N' C: N N C; CI C to UI o C; 1 a) N N 3 3 o Ea c m . _m a~ , a~ m) (a~ i m a7 ail a7 cu a) »7 a> a> (D u) a), (D a)a> m a~ Q .1 E' El E, 0 oot. EE EEI EEEI E~ - E si' o o o o o1 i EI~ E EI E El El EL E~ E' ' Et EE _ E LO 1 Lo 1- U o.o L o W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 clij '5 o m o,o O OIO~ o m O O:O 0 0 0 O d o O N i Z el -I 1 O - - l Z o 0 0 i - C O 0 OI O O l O O (D c ii, 0! 0 010 o W ,N M N O L~ N M;ct O,a0 (D V (D NI W, NI M O W V O C i (O (0~-00 ~O) OOIO;(0 ~ON 6 C:) 'ch 0 j I1 0V' (0 COI t- 10: CA NO] 0 i I'.. r M a0', CA ((j Ih O' M' W O) O~ m O M M Lq O N1 N ~ m O M, Ni M O ( O O N M Imo; O 'D7 I61I I0: O). O O!O N C7 O{010 r r-I 'c-!~i {c-~~ N N N N N`N N N 13: m Im' col ca 0 L C ~ I YI. I ~ I I Q 'z I I 20 >Z cn' I i cl) CL X 0 C" U) '0 0 1 1 V U 1V U' I ~I m 9> I >m' ( 1 j az; W' 10, lO I ' ' 1 Q C (Q C' W Q 1 _I Io o o of m I- ; COMMENTS REGARDING THE SOU STUDENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PLAN* 2011-2012 TO: ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TOM BURNHAM 1344 APPLE WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 Email: ntburnhaniggmail.com 541-482-4467 * THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS REFLECT MY PERSONAL OPINIONS AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF THE ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER. 1. I am concerned about the safe and efficient crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard by pedestrians and cyclists. Siskiyou is a 4 lane Boulevard with some of the busiest vehicular traffic in Ashland. It is wide (4 driving lanes, turn lanes, plus a center median.) With this new project, Siskiyou Blvd. will be passing through the center of the SOU's campus. Additional campus growth will be on this north side of Siskiyou. The University has a sizeable amount of property that can be developed in this north area. More building means more people. 2. I question the pedestrian counts at the busiest crossing on Siskiyou - the intersection of Siskiyou, Wightman, and Indiana. Has there been an accurate count during the lunch time? The new dining facility, which will be the only major eating facility on campus is proposed for this new development (North side of Siskiyou.) Have the pedestrian count projections included local non student residents, commuting students and SOU staff that park on the local streets in this particular area and would require crossing Siskiyou? Does the plan take into consideration the effect of motor vehicle traffic during athletic events that take place in this area. This includes students using local streets for parking and the effect of additional pedestrian use on both sides of Siskiyou. I have not seen any vehicle or pedestrian counts regarding this. 3. Crossing Siskiyou Boulevard via the proposed crosswalk developed by Planning staff appears, at first glance, to be pretty simple and easy to accomplish. I see a problem with pedestrians attempting to get from the north/west corner of Siskiyou and Wightman to the southeast corner of Siskiyou and Indiana (check your drawing). This would involve: 1. Crossing Wightman's 2 lanes (signalized 2. Crossing Siskiyou's 5 lanes plus bike lanes (signalized), 3. Crossing Indiana's 3 lanes (signalized). I have no idea how long that would take and if it is a long time, pedestrians and cyclists might decide to "shortcut" this intersection. 4. The idea of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge should still be seriously considered. If not right now, at least it should be put in the plan for the near future by providing the needed space for its construction. This would allow for a continuous flow for pedestrians and cyclists regardless of vehicle traffic and in my opinion a "no brainer". And, vehicle traffic would be able to move at a smoother pace as traffic signals would not have to contend with pedestrians. I understand that cost is an issue. SOU, ODOT, and the City should start to work on grants or other sources to fund this. I We all realize that the north side of Siskiyou will be where SOU will eventually grow more. E i 5. I have not seen any plans for a campus shuttle service. Getting from one end of campus to the other certainly deserves this. It could cut pedestrian walking and move folks in an efficient manner. I would prefer to see as much walking as possible, but sometimes that can't happen. Overall the planning process was scheduled according to State statutes, but adequate time to ° review the project has not been given to both the Planning Commission and Transportation Commission. After all, this is a fairly large project with many future implications Thank you for taking the time to review and listen to these concerns. Tom Burnham Copy: Transportation Commission 590 Glenview Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 December 27, 2011 Dear Ashland Planning Commission: As an alumni of the Planning Commission, serving eight years ending in 2005, I feel obliged to offer an opinion regarding the proposed student housing on the SOU campus. (I attended all the citizen meetings during the SOU 10 year plan proposals.) PLEASE DO NOT PERMIT THE "CONDITIONAL USE" REQUESTS IN REGARDS TO THE PROPOSED LENGTH AND HEIGHTS OF THE DORM STRUCTURES. If 250' length for residential campus uses is allowed, the 400' length proposal is far beyond an acceptable "conditional use". Also, if the height limit is 40' and the proposed "average" heights of the hip roof is 49', it is not acceptable. The backside facades of the two structures which face the courtyard present an unbroken 400' mass that have the character of Russian apartment blocks, or, the NYC "projects" which have proven unacceptable living spaces. Architectural tweaks might mitigate the problem. I'll be so bold as to make a suggestion: If the 400' facades were broken by end "wings" that match the courtyard facades, or by a central entrance "wing", (or all three wings), the unacceptable length would be mitigated. Furthermore, if the "wings" were not full height, but two stories instead, the "average" allowable height would be mitigated. (Adding the wings on the 400' facades could make up floor space lost to the lower wing heights). Additionally, perhaps the small hip gables over the "bump outs" could be straight gables with additional tall windows. Mainly, this feature would break up the enormous mass of the red roof. The effect would present structures that seem to grow organically on the site and rise like the beautiful foothills behind. It is more like Frank Lloyd Wright's principle: "of the site, not on it". This mitigation would increase the structural cost, but our existing ordinances would be much more closely followed. When I was on the Planning Commission, setting a precedent was avoided. Our ordinances yield the small town atmosphere touted in our Comprehensive Plan. These dorms could last a hundred years and absolutely must fit into the site. PRIDE OF PLACE never should be overlooked. f i Y 7 ~ I 11 ' i A i A Q) SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY STUDENT I DEVELOPMENT Revised Site Review Application Conditional Use Permit Application December 29, 2011 r 1~ s , r I I WJ0 h:11, f SITE REVIEW REVISED SUBMISSION Plan Requirements The following information is being provided in response to the initial Planning Commission Hearing comments for consideration: Drawings (SEE ATTACHED SUBMITTAL) SHEET 1-001 (revised): Update showing Stadium St parkrow, asphalt sidewalk in south lawn connecting to Stadium SHEET L002 (revised): Additional trees inventoried along Ashland St SHEET L003 (revised): Planting updates for Stadium St parkrow, trash compactor screening SHEET L004 (revised): Planting updates for Stadium St parkrow SHEET L005 (new): New exhibit showing tree removal along Ashland St if a new parkrow is required RENDERING 1 (new): South elevation perspective view of South Residence Hall RENDERING 2 (new): Enlarged elevation of South Residence Hall building entry pavillion SITE RENDERING (revised): Updated to show Stadium St improvements, asphalt sidewalk in south lawn connecting to Stadium, and landscape improvements as outlined above Written Material 1. Southern Oregon University Transportation Demand Management Plan Update, Dated December 28, 2011 2. Revised SOU Tree Inventory, Dated December 26, 2011. ~~11'Ih III )i:7:-{~ ICI l6i j Tree Tree # j Species I DBH in He in Crown )Condition Tolerance Tre )tection I Notes Remove 1 ! ) 16 40 15 Good )moderate 12 Remove 2 Noiwayspruce~ 11 25 8 Good moderate 8.25 Remove 3 Blue spruce 121' 30 12 Good moderate 9 Remove 4 Black pine 14~ 40 12 Good good 71 Remove _ 5 Shore pine 2035 11 Fair good 10 Leaning Remove 6 Blue spruce 15 291 6 Good moderate -_11.25 Remove 7 Honeyocust _ 12 301' 12 Fair jgood 61Trunk wound Remove 8 Black locust 7( 35' 9)Poor _good 3.5 Multiple stemmed Remove 9 Honey locust ) 10 25 13 Fair good 5~Included bark co Remove 10 j ponderosa 20 40 17 Good __good 10 Remove 11 j Black pine I _ _ 11 T 30 12 Good good 5.5~ _ Remove 12 Shore pine I 18 38 15~Fair good J 9)Severe lean Remove _ _ _ 13 Silver maple 36 32I 45~Fair (moderate 36~Broken scaffold Protect 14 Shore pine 21 40~ ~14f Good good _ 10.5~R _ _ Remove 15 Himalayan 19 ) 40) 15 Good good 9.5 Remove 16 Ponderosa 15( 30)T 14 Good good 7.5 Remove 17 Port orford 14) 30~ 13 fair good 7~Clorotic Remove 18 ;Siberian elm 37 38) 36 Fair good 18.5 Broken scaffold Remove 19 Ash -------8 24 15 Good moderate 6 _ Protect 20 Red Maple 16 28 - 18 Good moderate - 12 Protect 21 Red Maple 11 27 15 Good moderate 8.25 Protect 22 ERed Maple 7I 20, 11 Good moderate 5.25 Protect _ 23 'Red Ma le 9; 24 13 Good moderate 6.75 Protect 24 Red Maple 81 23 12 Fair moderate 6~Trunk wound Protect 25 Blue 26 Shorepine ) 9! 281 - 5 Good )good 5.25 Remove 27 6.75 Remove I ' 31! 7)Good good ponderosa 10!1 311 9 Fair good 7.5 Clorotic Remove 28 ;Shore pine _ 9~ 271 10 Good lgood 6.75 Remove X29 Red Maple 61 27 SGood moderate 4.5 T Remove 30 IPagoda Tree ( 121 26 14 Good moderate 9 Protect - . 31 Deodar cedar 18 42 20 Good good 13.5 Remove 32 Red Maple 15 15 25 Good moderate 11.25 Remove 33 Red Maple 10 10 28 Good moderate 7.5 Remove 34 Silver maple 17 16 32 Good moderate 1175 Remove _ Remove 35 Tulip Tree ) 11 10~ 361 Good good - - 8.25 36 Deodar cedar ) 280 28 - 40,Good - _g od 28.75 Protect 37 ;English laurel [ 10) 12- n 14 Good _~good - 5~ _ )Remove 38 PPlum 5~ 6~ 15 fair moderate 3.75 ~ Remove - - - - - - - - - 39 Plum 4) 6~ 15 fair moderate Remove 40 Plum 4~ 6 15~fair moderate 3~ Remove - 41 Red maple 15 38- 15~goodmoderate 11.25 Remove 42 Red maple 12 28 12~fair moderate 9I Remove 43 Red maple _I 11 35 11 Fair moderate 8.25 Remove - - 44 Red maple 141 - 36~ 15 Good moderate 10.51 Remove 145 j Plum 10 22 9 Good -moderate 7.5 Remove F --1 -mo to 1'46 Bartlet ear 61 22~ Good moderate _ 45 Remove - - - - - - 47 Shore ine 15; 20 15 Good ood 11 25 Remove p - g. - }48 ;Hawthorne 7 18 7 Good moderate 5.25 Remove (49 Shore pine 10 24 91fair ood 5 Remove s_--- 150 Birch 6 261 6_IGood moderate 4.5 Remove L_ - _ - _ - - 51 Sycamore 20( 32 _ 30 Good -moderate ) 20 Remove - 52 (Siberian elm )J 24[~ 35 _ 26 Good (good 18 Remove u _ - 53 iSiberian elm 25 32 27 Good ood 18.75 Remove Remove 54 ;Deodar cedar ) T 18) 40~ 21 Good good ] 13.5 55 Deodarcedar ) 16 40r 15Good good 12~ Remove W . - - - - - good 10.5 Remove 156 Deodar cedar 14 40[ 15 Good j57 Austrian pine 17 34) 14 Good -_good 12.75 Remove - - 158 [Austrian pine 14 32 12 Good og od 10.5 Remove 159 (`Austrian pine 13 30 13 Good good 9.75 Remove Zelkova 13 22 15 Good ood 9.75 _ Protect_ 160 g 161 IPagoda Tree 8 - 24 9~Good moderate 6) T Protect i 11 _ 32 12 Good ood _ 8 25 Protect 63 Leland cypress! 20I 52~ ~15Good good - )Protect Tree # (Species [DBH in ~Heiat't in Crown Condition Tolerance Tree nrotection Notes [Remove 64 Plum 7 22 6 Good moderate 5.25 Protect [ 65 Leland cypress W 42 15 Good good 13.5 [Protect _ 66 Leland cypress 27 ._....__381.___ v-_r 22 Good ggood 20.25 Protect 67 ;Leland cypress 27 44[ 23 Good good 20.25 Protect 68 Leland cypress 25~ _ 42[ 21 Good good 18.75 _ Protect 69 Sycamore 20[ 40[ 281Good moderate _ 15~ Protect 70 Giant 44~ 44 22 Good moderate 33 Protect 71 Cataa~1 _ 25[ -39 21 Good moderate ( 18.75_- Protect 72 Sycamore ) 20~_ _ `42 22 Good moderate 15 _ Protect 73 Sycamore 19 40 19 Good moderate _ 14.25 Protect 74 Sycamore 10 3C6-j'. Good moderate 7.5 Protect m__. 75 jSycamore 1-2 Good [moderate 9 Protect 76 jSycamore 15 361 15 Good [moderate 11.25 -,---------,Protect 77 ;Sycamore f_ 10 351 10 fair (moderate 7.5 Protect I78 jSycamore [ 10 36 11 Good moderate 7.5~ Protect - 79 Sycamore_ 7_ 26 9~fair moderate 5.25 Protect 80 Sycamore [ 12 35) 12 Good moderate 9 Protect !81 !Sycamore m 10 28) 9~Good moderate 7.5 Protect ,82 Sycamore 11 36 12 Good jmoderate 8.25 Protect 83 Sycamore 9 30 11 Fair moderate 6.75 Protect (84 Sycamore 12 35 13 Good moderate 9 Protect 185 Sycamore 9 30 11 (Fair moderate 6.75 Protect 186 Sycamore [ 11 35 12 Good f moderate 8.25 Protect 87 Sycamore 9 29 10[Fair moderate 6 75 Protect 88 jSycamore [ 9 30 12~Good moderate 675 Protect_ 89 iSycamore 7 32 12 Fair moderate 5.25 Remove !90 Sycamore 11 - 34~ 15~Good moderate 8.25 Remove i91 Sycamore 10 - 33 12 Good moderate 7.5 Remove ~92 Scamore 10~ 34 12~Good moderate ( 7 5~ Remove camore 10 33 12 Good moderate 7.51 Remove f 93 !Sy 94 !Sy ~95 camore 13~ 33 12 Good d moderate 975 Remove - - - - - ~ jS camore 21 32 16 Goo[ moderate 15.75 Remove 96 ;Sycamore 13 32 18 Fair moderate 9.75 Protect 97 ;Sycamore 13 32 18 Fair moderate 9.75 Protect - - - 98 Sycamore 13 32 20 Fair moderate 9.75 Protect 99 Sycamore [ 12~ 42) 30 Fair -moderate - 9) Protect 100 Sycamore ( 12) 33 15 Fair moderate [ - 9 [Protect ;101 Sycamore -4 11 30~ 13 Fair LL -moderate [ _ - 8.25 uProtect 102 Sycamore ( 11 36[ 12 Good moderate [ 8.25~~ - [Protect 103 Sycamore ( - -15 3317 Good moderate [ 11.25 r Protect ;1104 05 Red maple [ 13 32 13[ Fair moderate 9.75 Remove [ Remove Red maple [ 11 30 14 Good -[moderate 8.25 ;106 Red maple 14~ 361 20[Good moderate 10.5 Remove 107 Red ma le 11 40 12 Good moderate 8.25 Remove 108 jRed maple u [ 12[^ 38 _ 12 Good moderate 91 Remove j j 109 Red maple 12 33 12 Good moderate 9 Remove 110 ! Red 13 35 17 Good moderate 9.75 Remove maple - __I - - - - - - 111 ;Tulip tree 11 42 7[Good good_ 5.5~ Remove 1 112 Tulip tree 91 40 6~Good _good 4.5 Remove - - ?113jTulip tree 20~ 44 16 Good good 10 Remove - - - _ 114 Tulip tree 17[ 451z- 15 Good good 8.5 Remove 115 Blackpme - 11 30~ - 15 Good good 5.5 Remove [ j116 Black pme 22 30 21~Good m good 16.5 Remove r. _ r _ 1117 !Red oak 23 42 _ 21 Good good 17.25[ Remove 118 Red oak 26 45~ 33 Good good 19.5 Remove 119 Box Elder 24~ 38) Good moderate 18 Protect 120 Arbor Vitea 8 21 50Good -moderate 6 Remove 121 ArborVitea 9 22 6 Good moderate 6.75 Remove 122 !Golden locust 16 30 17 Fair good_- 8 Topped _ Remove 123 j Black locust _ 7 31 12 Fair ood 3.5 Codominant stems Remove 124 jBlack locust 8 32 11 Fair food 4 Codominant stems Remove _9 air 112625 !Blue spSiberian elm 14 38 15 Fair moderate - 113.5 0.5 Topped-- stems Remove ` ~ - [ [ ~g move ,127 ;Plum 7 15 6 Fair moderate 5.25] Remove 2 I Tree # Species _ jDBH m ~Heirht in Crown Condition Tolerance (Tree protection Notes -1 Remove 128 Black locust J~ 21 48 15 Fair _ good j 10.5 Codominant top Remove 129 j Black locust 21 48 15 Fair good 10.5 Remove 130 ,Apple- 6 18 6 Poor _____good 31 Remove 131 Red maple 13 33 181 Good good 6.5 _ `Remove _ _ 132 Incense cedar 21 48 _ 9 Good _moderate _ 15.75 Remove 133 Incense cedar ~ 21 ~ - 48 91Good moderate 15.751 Remove 134 Norway maple 8]i 36 n rt 14 Fair f moderate 6jMultimtrunk _ Remove 135 Douglas fir 15 30 12 Poor moderate 11.25' Dead top Remove 136 ;Mulberry 91 331 18~Fair good 4.5i Remove 137 IMulberry 10 35 14 Good good Remove 138 jPonderosa _ 7 25 5~Good good 3.5 Remove 139 ;Birch j 13~ 33 15 Dead moderate 9.75 Remove 140 Big leaf Maple , 6 21 5 Good poor 4.5 Remove 141 Incense cedar 371 621 14 Good moderate 27.75 Remove 142 Black locust 7 331 9l Fair good 3.5 Stump sprout Remove 15 Good jmoderate 9.75 Remove 143 Norway spruce 1 13 45 Remove 144 Black oak 15 45', 16 Good jmoderate 11.25 145 Black locust 8 _ 421- 12 Good ood 1 4 p TfeT _f Remove 146 ;Black locust 91 421 14 Good jgood 6.75 r Remove 147 !Black locust 12 41 15) Good good 91 Remove - - - - - 148 Apple - 9 26 10 Good good 6.75 Remove Apple 12 26 10~Good good 9, Remove 149 150 Incense cedar 6) 21 51Good jmoderate 4.5! Remove 151 Black locust ( 8) 38 81 Fair (good 41 Stump sprout Remove 152 Black locust 101 38~ 81 Fair good 51 Remove - - 153 Black locust 14 441 15IFair !good I 71 Remove 154 i Black locust 14 44 18I Poor ;good 71 Remove 155 Blacklocust 6 33 91 Poor good - 3lStump sprout Protect 156 Black locust 27 42 25; Poor good- j 13.5ITrunk wound Protect 157 Siberian elm - 161 40 15;Good jgood 81 Protect 158 Siberian elm ~17 401 15Good good 8.51 1Protect 159 Incense Cedar 141 381 7jGood Imo_d_erate 10.51 Protect 1160 Incense Cedar 11 38 8 Good moderate 8.25 Protect - - - - - - - - - 161 Incense Cedar 6 20 5 Good moderate 4.5 Protect - - - - - - - - - - 162 Incense Cedar 12 40 7 Good moderate 9 Protect 163 ;Incense Cedar 17 40 9 Good moderate 12,75 Protect 164 Incense Cedar 20 42 12 Good (moderate 151 Protect 165 Incense Cedar 23 45 14 Good moderate 17.25 Protect 1 166 Incense Cedar 19 44 12 Good moderate 14.25 Protect 167 Incense Cedar j- 91 42 7 Good (moderate ( 6.75 Protect 168 Incense Cedar 91 41~ 7 Good jmoderate 6.75 Protect 1169 Incense Cedar 9 36 7 Good moderate 6.75 Protect 170 ; Incense Cedar 9 38 7 Good moderate 6.75)! Remove 171 Incense Cedar j 12) 36~ 7jGood moderate ( 9 Remove - - A r-- ,172 Incense Cedar ( 10[ _ 371 Good moderate 7.5 Remove 173 Incense Cedar j 10 35- 7jGood moderate 7.51 Remove ,174 (Black walnut 26 381 F 24 Good _moderate 19.5 _ Protect 1175 Black poplar _1_ 42 481 _-45Good _moderate 31 5 Protect 1200 Redwood ( 61 65 30 Good good 45.75 1201 ;Incence cedar 35 35E 24 Fair moderate 35 1202 Pagoda tree L 11 221- 15 Good (moderate 11 1203 Incence cedar r 311 - 421 20 Good moderate 31 1204 Incence cedar 25~ 401 17 Good jmoderate 25 205 Chamaecypari 21 24~ 17 Fair jgood 21~ 206 Pear 9 13 10 Poor moderate 9 j v - - - - j207 -Black oak 1 23 40 21 Fair moderate - 23 _ 1208 !:Black oak 24 42 27 Fair moderate 24 - - 209 Douglas fir 14 43 15 Fair moderate 14 210 ; Black oak 30 44 30 Good moderate 30 211 !,White oak 28 41 25 Good good 28 212 White oak 101 9 18~Poor,good 10~ 1 213 Red maple 6 181 8 Fair moderate 4.5 6 7 Fair 214 Black oak 14 moderate 45 3 Tree # jSpecies -DBH in oht m Crown .(Condition f Tolerance Tree,nrotecfion Notes Remove .v. 215 English holly 10 14 7(Fair moderate ~f 10 216 Black oak 25 40 15 Fair moderate 25 217 ! Douglas fir 23 45 Good moderate _ 23 _ 1218 'Black oak 29 45 28 Good - moderate 29 - 1219 ;Red maple 5 18( 6 Poor moderate 5 220 `Plum 10 23 18 Fair moderate 10 221 ;Red maples _______J_18 5 Poor moderate ( 3.75 222 Plum 8~f 18 12 Poor moderate 6 223 Cymacypress13~ h _30 ! 21 Good good 13 _ 224 i Red maple 5 18 4 Fair moderate 5 225 Red maple 5 18 5(Fair moderate 5 - - 226 Red maple ( 6 17 5~Fair moderate 6 227 Poplar-( 5 22~ T 5~ Fair moderate 5 228 ;Cherry 13 24 12 Fair moderate 13 _ _ _ 229 iPear ( 8 13) 6 Fair moderate 8 w 230 !Red maple qn 8 26 8~Fair (moderate 8~ m 231 !Redwood 50 _ 58 _ 16 Good good 37.5 232 ;Ash 14~ 38 _ 13 Good good 10.51 _ 233 Ash 7 `32 15 Good good 3.5~ _ 234 lAsh 8 33 15 Good_ good 4 235 Leland cypress 14 44 21 Good good 7 236 Leland cypress ( 15 44 21 Good _ good 7.5 237 Ash 0 34 12 Good good 51 238 ,Leland c ress 1( ~ j yp 5( 44 _ 18(Good. ]good 7.51 240 c ress 12 44_ 21 _Good good _ 6 239 'Leland Redwood p 41( 48 Good good 30.751 ! X241 Ash _ r_ . _9 _.__.33 10 Good good 4.51 (242 Ash ( 8(~ 32~ 9 Good good 4! i 243 Ponderosa ( 10( 36( 9 Fair good 5 244 Leland ress 23 36 _ 18 Good good 11.51 c - - - 245 Ash yp ( 71 30 7 Good . m.. _~_~.od ..good 3.51 { 1246 Leland cypress _ 13( 36 T 15 Good good 6.51 j - - 247 Ash _ 7 _ 31 6 Good 1248 Leland cy ress 14 40 - 12 Good good good 3.57f ;249 jLeland cypress- 13 41 15 Good good 6.5 - r - _ - - - _ _ 1250 !Ash ( 7 28~ _ Good good _ 3.51 251 Ash 7 32~ 7(Good good 3.5~ ,252 ;Ash 8~ m 35~ 8~Good good i 4~ ,253 Ash ( 8~ 35 8Good good ! 254 Ash 11( 37 12~Good good 5.5 - - j255 Ash 8( 35 8~Good good j 41 ( 6~ 1 256 257 ,,Ash Black me 12 37) 12~Good good pi 2 30~ 9 Good good j 6 M258 Liquidambar 13~ 38 12 Good good 9.75 _ _v _ 1259 Liquidambar 16~ 40, 18~Good good 12( 260 Liquidambar _ 23 48~ 15(Good (good 17 25~ a_ - - Liquidambar ( 14 43~ 16(Good lgood 10.5 _ j ,261 X262 Black pine j 9 38 91 Good good 6.75 263 !Black pine [ 17 38 15(Good (good _ 12.75 264 !Red maple 7( 30 9(Good moderate 3.5( L265 ,,Leland cypress 16( 42~ 15 Good good 12 4 f OREGON UNIVERSITY i December 28, 2011 TO: City of Ashland Planning Commission Derek Severson, Planner FROM: Southern Oregon University RE: Southern Oregon University Transportation Demand Management Plan Update Thank you very much for your consideration of SOU's current application to construct new student housing and a dining commons. This application is consistent with our City-approved Master Plan and will allow us to provide additional on- campus housing options for our students. As you know, the City has placed conditions on the approval of the Master Plan for SOU to prepare an updated transportation demand management (TDM) plan. We are committed to further detailing our TDM plan and identifying near-term and long-term actions and goals. This is consistent with our own sustainability goals and is also supportive of future campus expansions. The City has already received evidence of our efforts toward updating the TDM plan. Work conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (KAI) has summarized many of our ongoing TDM efforts and their results, expressed in such terms as the adequacy of on-campus parking resources and the safety and operational adequacy of the surrounding transportation system. Nonetheless, SOU intends to go further in its TDM efforts. Several actions are entirely within our control, such as policies controlling where students and employees park. Other potential actions are largely dependent upon the City's vision and on expanding our working partnerships with the City, our surrounding neighbors, and Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD). The proposed student housing facility is, in and of itself, a TDM strategy for SOU, helping to convert what are now student auto commuters into on-campus pedestrian and bicycle commuters. Significant bicycle parking is planned with this project and transportation outreach efforts by housing staff will be expanded over the coming year. Our resident students already have a very low automobile ownership rate (0.27 vehicles per resident student) and while there are some things we could do to further reduce this rate, our TDM program should primarily focus on commuter students and employees. These users have the largest impact on the transportation system, our surrounding neighbors, and our own parking needs. SOU's current TDM programs and strategies are aimed at reducing the number of drive-alone trips to campus. These activities are run through our Commuter Resource Center (CRC), which educates and promotes travel options such as walking, biking, and transit to students and employees. The CRC also facilitates ridesharing, helps people find carpool matches, and hosts a weekly commuter connections networking group for people who commute from Grants Pass. Part of SOU's TDM program is parking pricing. Annual parking permits are $118/year for residence hall and commuter students and $125/year for faculty and staff. Visitor parking is $1 per hour. We recognize that increasing the price of parking is an important tool in managing travel demand. SOU is open to increasing parking pricing; however, we are concerned about the impacts this may have on our surrounding neighbors by increasing the demand for on-street parking. Any substantial increase in parking permit rates will only be successful in reducing single-occupant travel to campus if the City of Ashland concurrently implements an area parking permit program to help protect our neighbors from inappropriate parking by those who may try to avoid the higher parking fees. Thus, this strategy would require a significant partnership and planning between SOU, the neighborhoods, and the City. SOU will need to rely on the City's vision and planning efforts-as well as feasibility studies of a neighborhood parking program-which in turn will dictate the opportunity and timing of implementation for all involved. SOU is interested in implementing many of the TDM strategies recommended in Kittelson & Associates report. The following provides a summary of those recommendations and SOU's intended actions: Parking Management Strategies Parking Pricing: implement adjustments to the existing parking pricing structure to provide "variable pricing" between different lots. o SOU anticipates implementing variable pricing between lots when the proposed housing facility opens in fall of 2013 and already does this for hourly/daily parking in Lot 41. Parking Restrictions: implement additional parking restrictions, such as restricting the sale of permits to first- year students. o SOU is interested in exploring this type of strategy, but believes a neighborhood parking permit program is necessary prior to implementing such restrictions to avoid inappropriate neighborhood parking spillover. Parking Designations: re-designate existing surface parking lots within the north and south campus areas to better distribute parking demands across the SOU system. o SOU will be modifying our parking designations in the north and south campus areas to ensure that resident hall students have sufficient parking on the appropriate side of Siskiyou Boulevard and to better utilize existing parking resources. Transit Strategies Transit Subsidies: reinstate transit pass subsidies for students to provide access to the transit system during all days and hours of operation, concurrent with improved transit service for SOU. o SOU is scheduling a meeting with RVTD staff, administrators, and students in January 2012 to discuss transit pass subsidies. We would like to reinstate this program in an appropriate form, but feel it must be connected to changes in transit service that meet the needs of our students, such as adequate evening hours to support our Higher Education Center in Medford. Even with planning expansion of evening hours, RVTD will not meet the HEC-Ashland student transit needs, as many SOU courses at the HEC do not end until well after 9p.m. Shuttle Service: target service to places and/or for special user groups that may be unavailable via regular transit services. o SOU will give this consideration, pending our discussions with RVTD on a transit pass program. To explore this idea, we will map our student and employee addresses to identify potential shuttle service routes, estimate costs to operate a shuttle system, and propose it to our student body, as it would need to be at least partially funded through student fees. An 'express' shuttle between the HEC and Ashland Campus that can guarantee transit in a reasonable (30 minutes or less) amount of time, coupled with a 'park & ride' concept for those commuting from outside of Medford, may reduce single-occupant vehicle traffic considerably, but the cost of such a program will need to be weighed carefully. This type of program may be a necessary component of a neighborhood permit program and higher parking fees. There are two critical issues that need to be addressed in order to further develop a more detailed TDM program. The first is establishing a transit pass subsidy program with RVTD that meets the needs of student and employee commuters and can be supported by the student body. The second is establishing some type of neighborhood parking permit area surrounding the campus. We are committed to working on both of these issues with RVTD, our neighbors, and the City of Ashland in advance of the completion of the North Campus Village housing project. 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520-5045 T: 541.552,6221 F: 541.552.8324 C, t ~ .r _ 1:~ ,r ,spa Toni. , + 'IIL I a(!{!,~i ~ I~ I a ~ ;i l 1.a 1 111 i'Ilii l J o1;" -!I-,ll i t t 31~11~ if ~ I. . IG_ -IIl r it is k i 1. i J r r ref l}I?=!,) .i f I (i ;11 i 1} i~' l~~ I:Ia 'Pip t r ;I I i VI LI`` I .1i, I~}i ~o k 1i~ cb l i ,t iy, ~'\.I/ 11 I I ~ h 1~~, I _YI ~ .,-sl•~... 1~. .},,}!t, I _l_ _ 1: .l r ~L, .f r I .~7 Y~el' kY `,h . I Y Kul Li It.t ffry; I I /~r r+ ; ;.1 1 I I~ I~ Il ~ i! ~ ~ _ + - ....Y. -I lk-_ _y , ~3 _ ~ n'. IL.1. I _c.~ ~ - :1~Yi ~ _n•yl` - J'. , ✓V Ism," ( ~ ~ ~•-~,r :'3' . V - dG - I' Y.,iliv -r: -~.t V ~ J - 1. ,f..,:. +,t`Y`N . f . v , nt:%~.'"•.-~ ,l~,,, 1 l„ ~ j r~:.•~`~ ,;~cT.-~' ~~Cr ,f~~', 1~ , r>rt ! .,;1 r' (d ~ ~ ~6; sib y SOUTH HALL { , !S 1 F ; i... ' L).~J Jl CO\ r s / 1 I { 1 r ,El ` j I pp 1'~ r 1 f_ I ff I EE i i { I I1 A ( i r li 11 pr tq, I I a )JA I JP, V SOUTH HALL ENTRY PAVILION r aEAL _~,,j REMOVABLE - - BO LARDS L - _ WEBSTE_RSTREET MOVABLE - - - - YIN2DS i C¢yEREQ11KE - - PARKING STEAM FUNNFIL - - - ; PADHANICAC! i - 61~ r - NORTH HALL r _ u ~ i r _G _ o Ii r t o o I I r DININGHALLI I r COMMUNITY CENTER v L~ ` [ v i ~ ~ ~S 6 B F H o 9 vo o I ~ 8a3 W 9 i c~ i~ i (z TERRACE c i w WORK w LIMIT LINE 1 ly l _ _ L r ` Ili b1JI -WORK LIMITLINE J'7~^ tr. F~A~~Lr Ill. Ch7 HALL' _ COVERED BIKEPARK]NG ; ✓ GREENSP"RINGS PLAZA AERIAL APPARATUS _1 1~I ! (I ZONE; REF G002 - - C' ~ SOUTH COLLEGE WAY PED ROSSING L -COMPACT(, BS1°~ - FUTURE RESIDENCE HALL i~ L T ASHLAND STREET PROPOSED SITE PLAN 01.10.2012 ~ L~ ,J.~ a a a a a I~ I I I I Rvrv z _e- _ 'yy x or McNEAL PAVILION ARCHITECTURE m a m m a URBAN OESI SEwCE ILOAMNG _ 0RERTF-ORCED ~ rL ----_--RI-- INIERIOft OF510N G 0 W ~ IOt 1*B Ml61AAr["I W E B S T E R STREET oe° 8Bg>g>goo oBgegegeg8g8go - - - - o - ° ° ° e ~ I e e ~ _ nau6aa6P COVERED ~ ~ =-=mar sr a~_ °BIH°E LI ~ @ - 38 PARg11G CNepeces) ° ° o 0 0 0 o I~ L E F DINING HALL/ p W COMMUNITYCENTER 5 LU «:p., u C VERE COVRED BIKE PAR+URD I1 I & NORTH HALL PAngr6ofmsPSrzg E F N I e QUAD Z ~ I & ?ei REINFORCED $ - I OUTDOOR Ul'M fTrPI cE 3 DINING Q 1YP.BEKCH (A TOM) I~ • a7Se ~I~_J Q O REINFORCED I E IN Fv UVM(T4P) 3 BIKE PARKING a ° ° z REINFORCED SEATWALLS '!M P I (RELOCATED) mI ExsrrovERED ) ' L 61KE PARKING \-J I TOREI.NIN -T I- O L -,J EkISTDIGTREE TO N {y' I RE11A61111'P) ~ G ♦ ~ ~ ~ SOUTH HALL - IIIIL''I~~~ _ ~ ~ Nyk*' o a CO EREDEKE COVERED BIKE 1 ' °A O - - - PAR KING B PARKING m, em (66 sw-S) I ~ I 1 v IL J PARKROVl(r 4AOE) BIX PARKING E= E::) TOREIMIN I _ O ' r V GREENSPRINGS SIDMALK(GME) W I r J- I III I A k,;, ~ ~ xewvoRCDD ~6. I_ - LAWN I C I 717-PIT o~Q \ E%ST COVERED SOUTH COLLEGE WAY EMK PANKIIW A1~W~ C e TO REi10.1N a ~'vM1 f--"T I \ +,a. w _ - _ _ - - - - _ - TRASH COI.IPACiOR ASPHALTPATNI6'l'nDE) ♦ ^ ,4 z 19 0 CL :2 yJ~ qRo ~vA + ~mg ® Z rc ASHLAND STREET Q~ _ _ - - -a _ _ - Wj ===m=- _ -w w w Q M-. o-ea6mD 1a D[CNII lD ncu ngTe 'A s' nov ln Esrt w }..n . z.i ~ F4MCTIIq: 6916!1 I LANDSCAPE NORTH SITE PLAN w O1 C 15' 30' 60' g N-aem~urtkl~.ycls: rlew,.a,waao~;hrzccnmra°sans-raRlrz:r'>TCren~!DayM3-6~anr~„mrsrsrt*~;+ew'Nesa%nzEef~zrre~-l< I;.danermlU>fra4aPrJl trecrvwraanzeoabakvw.3.atet-sezDnm~hr azt~.gslr.~zero°ts~m,r~wy~sr3,. 44eNGUYaIPe,'eeAnklrt 1NCOmNU9dwwtlzOvabm?apFaEUH3,wbs#vMa&neE~lo~bC'akzH;L 91 y t ~ i I gym,; r ~ mcNEAL PAVILION o I ~ - s - ' x<•'a' I ~ ARCHITECTURE % ❑ - - \ ° _ _ - UAAAN DESIGN. OUNNIN4 - IXI[AIOA DESIGN _WEBSTER STREET ❑ . 11 A / I I •°I I~ ~ ` 40 ~v 14 152 , -7 I 103 16 113 11 A I o '"°r 1631 i ' ' 4a o 0 0 0 F i DININ '11 11 v = ~ ~ 121 702 COMMUNI vTER,_~ 11~ i 11 I 1 Y~ 123 124 15 / A n', ° II 1~ 1 h 9~ II'I ...p I I ❑ -07 122r ❑ ❑ ey I 36 ❑ i~ 12 IU" F- _ 101 ;pG~ 108tr?jw 7 I N' 116 i~ 42 v / 1 A NORTH HALL MG 142 I f i W ~~n 63 94 / A~. r 11. ay./ 38 i ,I 1 12 154 12 X74 a i~ 4f 1.1999[ ~.r~ 31 \ 38 1s 43~s Z g~ ❑ ❑ 9~ 8° 37 5 I`I 130 (9 yp 111 17 / . I -`t' h 144 ~'qe \ ~ I N u J r \ haS € zt 9 fie h 0 I II y I- 40 I ' 87 I I ~ - 36 f ~ . ^E7r8~ 8°'°~ ° ~ V I ~ C 133 14 L_J off 3 °0 ~~j 41f n u i IMM LW t ns A2 _ ❑ I .7 19 W6 172 m ❑ - c 34 zs K'4 Q .~'r - - - - a I 11 ~ ❑ I I I I a Y I rs„ 77 78 I I I I', , , < co X14 28 27 - , 4 t~ P~_ YI s °I ,r76 - - 48 53 vv 52~ v SOUTH HALL AN, / 74 L~ r AI AI 26 % 19 v\ v 72 A vI v/ ° : o o I 54 J V 1 r- N GREENSPRINGS LT- \I b 57 R f L-j 24 23 22 21 26 -~j 1 j / 174 \ N~''t, VA VA~~~ 63 a ♦ ~ 6 - _ - - r 1 7QV ®a s a ~ 1 17 T/ NC~ - 1Y 61 -J L- Sk se ® id MRS 17 th 0 r CL 75 F20 0 02 s7 ®®®®®®®®®®®®EO®®d o ss ~I / 0 2e D rv~"~ ® Z w ❑ s3 ®s ASHLAND STREET a 4s 42 a °e QN 45 44 d3 41 ® U rc o m / C ~ a:eaewn LEGEND NOTES sAeECUn / EXSTG. TREE NUMBER 1. Topographic survey provided by Polaris Land 4. Final location of tree protection fencing shall be i N EXISTING TREES TO BE / (Sea Certified Arbodst's Tree Inventory) Surveying, LLC. determined hya certified arbodsi as described in \ REMOVED Tree Protection Plan. - ~ 2. Tree Inventory provided by Tom Myers, Certified ® MM M IM TREE PROTECTION FENCING ArborisI. Refer to Tree Inventory for additional akoxzun NaN TYB TREE Information regarding tree species, size, protection - vXOaanw: osrur (See Note 4.) zone, and condition. I > PROTECTION ZONE 1 ~4A TREE PROTECTION 3. Where discrepancies exist behveen the existing free EXISTING TREES TO NORTH REMOVAL PLAN w i $ species and size labels on the survey and the \ REMAIN v' _ Information contained in the Tree Inventory, the Tree M / ~N nventory shall be deemed correct. 7%= o-'', 2~ / I p/ rsredu xPaoryi rrxcanp.ua,~rzavero;.sECeesrt.„d~.smnsaa l,eayak,esEC,wy,~a+=,. amez$+m;s~~w.da,:eywsynreeaeimrena~. 0 15' 30' 60' L~ L002 g rasnecr.+~craoe,Pn.d-,. Irecrra.ad~a~cU:,ba-arra~ana:rsa;uem+~arraNtr~.n=+~'^ss.nB~,yr. remnkac,~-ter. K~ndEraMilP:,-atRS!br MGnila9 ilvda0.mbrH(3,rc1~'+3Ir3',s¢`dNa58eWamo-'i'n.9k~4,sL I _ L I - - - - PLANT LIST 10 TREES - ACGA ACER GRMIDIDENTATUM BIGTOOTH MAPLE 1.7UL B&B _ - 2-0UAU a AUU ACEA wF'AUTUMN BLAZE' AUTUMN BU2E MAPLE 1.75'CAL B&B ARCHITECTURE ACGI ACEA GINNAU'FUME- FIAMEAMURMAPLE 1,75'ULB&B URBAN DESIGN r PUNNING HACTR ACTR ACERIAUNUTUM CHINESE MAPLE 1.75'UL B&B INTERIOR DESIGN COED CORNUS'EDDIESWH7EWONDEA' EDDIES WHITE WONDER DOGWOOD 1.,S CALB&B CUBA CUPR SSUSBANEAI BAKEASCYPAESS 6'T HTB&0 PaA Uain`metteus 4AC01 FAA) FAGUSS'ANFA511' RNERSPURPLE BEECH 1.7A'GLLB&B r FRAU FR"NUS A'AMIMN PURPLE' AUTUMN PURPLEASH L75°ULA&B I. Sal of rou 0 SJ, GIBI GINKGO BIIOBA'AUMMN GOLD' AUNMNGOLDG[NHGO Ids CALO&B flur 1.5"ULB&B 1-UCA UU UGEASiROEIAIA I'UTAWBA' GTAVlBACRAPE MYRTLE )ANA UGEASTR0 MIA I'NATCHEZ NATCHEZCRAPEMYRTLE I.5I CA SO AACGI ITN NAIODFIIOAONT'EMERALD CITY' EMEAALOCITY TWPTREE 175'UlB&B MAAM I,BAACK'IAAMURENSIS AMUR MAACIOA 1]S•CALB&B ® AIAPR IAALUS'PPAIAIfIRE' PAAIAIFIAECRABAPPLE 1.75°CA B&B IIYSY WSSA SYLVATIU OUR GUM 1.75- CL B&B DINING HALL( 1FRAU PAPE PAAROIUPERSIU ERSIANPAAROTM 1.75'ULB&B LU COMMUNITY CENTER +'1"^PR 12 PICK PISTACIA CHBIENSIS CHINESE PISTACHE 1.75-CAL B&B W p i-0UFO cum QUERCUS FTOREST GREEN' FOREST GREEN OAK 1.7s' CM- B&B QUAD OUNCES MACAOVAPA BURR 0&1 1.75•ULB&B LLL / / QUAU QUERCUSAUBBA RED OAK 1.75- CAL BOB n i- QUSH QUERCUS SHUMAROII SHUMAAD RED OAK 175°ULA&B x 8 t-0IIFO JAAAIA SiIA STYRAKMPONICUSYNOWCONE SIICIVCOIIEJAPANESE SNOWBELL 1.75- CAL B&B ¢ A e nit Z SHRUBS a X Y z.ncTR 3~ae & ->l/ ABED ABEt1A'E01'IARDGOWIFR' EOlVAA0G0U[HERABELU 1GAL Fs TV oc. to ISCAEEN g 2 1ACGI ARUN ARBUTUS UNEDOCOMPACTA COMPACTSTRAWBEARY UNEDO IGAL@6-0'af to ISCREEN e IC / 6 / ~L BEER BERBEAISTHVNBEAGH'CRIALSONPYGMY- CRIMSON PYGMY BARBERRY IGAL@2-0°of LON v BEND BERG ERIS THUN BERGH 'ROSE GLOW' ROSE GLOW BARBERRY IGAL@4-0°at PEAISCREEN 0 CITE CHOISYATERNATA TERNATE MEXICAN ORANGE IGAL @6-0°OC NEDISCREEN 2 r / CICO CISTUSCORBARIEN5IS WHITE AOCKROSE 1GAL @6-0°oc VEDI SCREEN O 2AOTR 4❑ r CPU CISTUS PURPUREUS ORCHID ROCKROSE IGAI@4-0'-. LGDISCREEN $ / ❑2 I-OR 1ACAU COHO COTONEASTER HORNOWALIS ROCK COTONEASTER 1GAL@"'0c LO4 t I-0UN I _ / EUAL EUONYHUS AIATUSCOMPACIA' COMPACT BURNING BUSH IGAL@6'-0',E. LGISCREFN a 1-0UIIA 1LCG IW' COANMATUAIOADI NANA' COMPACTC111111 HOLLY iGAt@4'-0'at. L'O16OAEEN g '3 !•i IAACO MAHONIA AQUIFODUM'COMPACTA' COMPACTOREGONGRAPE SGAL@4'-0'ot. LPN 5 " 4 4 NIAAQ MAHONIAAQU FODUM OREGON GRAPE IGAL@A'-0'uc LIED/SCREEN ❑ - Q- 1 PIMU PINUS MUGO MUGO MUGHO P,NE 1GAL@5'-0'oc N® "s IACiP RHAR RHUS AROMATIU'GRO-IOW' GRO-IOWFRAGRANTSUMAC IGAL@5'-0'oc LPN `-pa f- - SAPU SAUXPURPUREA AUSKABLUEWILLOW IGAL@5'-0'ac LOISCREEN SARNI SAACCCOCCA AUSCIFOUA SkINUBOX IGAL LS 4--0'uc 4FO SPIA SPIRAEA IAPONIU'ANTHONY WATERER' ANTHONYWATERERSPIAAU IGAL @3'6°o.c UEOIBCAEEII e H } Z-ACTR SPUD SPIAAEA DOUGUSII DOUGUSSPIRAEA IGAL @4'-0'o.c VEOI SCREW - L® I-NYSY I` N E GROUNDCOVERS & PERRENIALS i. hAW ARCFOSFAPXYl105 WALRSI'MA55.' n1ASSACHUS5EITSBEAR BERRY IGAL @4'-0'o.c I} f V^ I L DECE DESCHAMPSIACESPNOSA'GOLDSTAUR' GOIDSTAUB TUFTED HAIR GRASS IGAL @3'-0'ar. IUEF JUNCU5 EFNSUS SOFT RUSH IGAL@3'-0'o.c PEV PENNISETUM A'IITTIERUNNY' LITTLE BUNNY FOUNTAIN GRASS 1GAL@T6'- F \ 1ACAI ~;U 7~ - VIAL NNCAMIIIOR DWY,RFPERRYVANKLE IGAL@9'-0'ar. UtVN HNAOSEED LAWN PERENNIAL RYE TURF GRASS MIX l 1} I I o g I~OL'FG LEGEND - H 0 MEDIUM AND LARGE SHRUBS j r o fR U DCOVEASANDLOWSHRUBS j} GROUN C / "1 I ~ LAWN INANA ® FILTRATION SWALE PLANTINGS I+ - ' W ! R - - - - } / / ® REINFORCED LAWN CL 2 - TREES C 2 1-0URU GREENSPRINGS 0 E ( P MITIGATION TREE NUMBER L) Z) I - ❑B (23 MITIGATION TREES REQUIRED \ f I I-ACOR AS REPLACEMENTS) g Q i N U` I 0Z b F1 Z \ NOTES ~Wm tavsH 1. Topographic , U.C. survey provided by Polaris land DJ Surveying ; (n Q ~2. Tree Inventory provided by Tom Myers, Certified \a Arborist. Refer to Tree Inventory for additional enrDan I Information regarding tree species, site, protection RIDECNII zone, and condition. 31 GENII 3• An alltOMat[c irrigation system desfgn for all new WIII be provided with the building I I~ Pantingareas drawings. ' permermR = -Fol. DI N'OV2a11 fill I"'• \ NORTH FRa Ho: oa \ J L-_...- i SITE REVIEW PLANTING PLAN o to' 20' Ao' WEST Z \ OG~ I Z L003 Imxmu3~TSNGYk lrofasawd..EUO.>mm'aerxcAtannL&-q.mE~o-c:n~.lydvG+r~s,G~aa~v'amr.s-asrua:t-carr•~~s~nla,exEaMmrel+oa I:fsdEr<~AIG@aSm PnAa~ ireGrra]w~,tk cvea'~~'~y eJ ~w.'m~srxraz~+v~Eera~m~:anr.,me+tsw.xv, I.;sdErtailPaz~P,-.kk. lra[ov~fu9l~wtlsWabl_i{aiblHtsll hae!ef<1Rrl~yue:rt*sblrtJ.H - x ~ ACREEN ACGI 1ACLR 1itV51 n aI~IAAt % - Vauas ,ACTP I.ACai _ o _ - 14URN 1-0llRU 1~AUPR - _ rc tNAPR ~ / p F-aACGt / / / i.vAAU `I T ABCHREGIUAE / URBAN DESIGN. PLANNING IF ❑ f; 7J, / - _ / h•? 1 INTERIGRDESIGH RU 7A 1dMPR I I-FRAN rna traexu[ f I{ICN Foa oamo,suur fAUFO k bAGAU / tar 5w,11 ivi / I-0UM xAlrsV I/\/\ fteuoz.[au NORTH HALL aACAo / 1D Auae f/ / / 1AUTO Id1APA ZAOTR / h atney hNSY ❑ 2ACAI MA -fAIIUA / tD aACAU IdnA,,1 / a` / wuRU "~L 2-0UFO SCREEN PG % _ 1N Z3 ~ SHRWS ~ rG^ ~ i.UFO H e 5 ❑ to urm \ 1-0uE1a g 1-A❑CGR _ 0 - ,is r r sScieEs xum / / / .t3Sz 1rAGI IPAPE: !i § aanL z-ACAU z.AGAU. 1 e ,ansv LIJ o W Ia;ApR amnu k WI F- -2.1rvBr j l.TJA s 1 I{Rau (n 33$9 J 1-0uro _ / , - p ❑ <; IAOED' IACTR ` I-0UFO 1,V18Y 1-AGRU 1-ACGR- faro YYY ! ] s Roes 1+rcav r I.STJA I.STJA- B 110E0 /~LY1STJA ❑g / / ) 1-0URU I-U / vJ anecl / zFlUU IACAI SOUTH HALL wM 1uuA Y k; ~I; 1 R I{RAU 6 ❑7 ~-tACW (n 2PAPE t-ACAU LEGEND > xr y i. ;I N Z Nu a wu" MEDIUM AND LARGE SHRUBS = 1ACAU M -13 Ay 2 I-0USH i-Alol u5H -nAU`U0 I ACTA 1-0 ~ ~ 'F 1AUro 4Ata1 GROUNDCOVERS AND LOW SHRUBS E (0) N I A LAWN V ° - FILTRATION SWALE PLANTINGS 0 z T^ ~ ¢ ® REINFORCED LAWN Z U S uuNA I-ACGR IFA 1 0 TREES LU I 1.151 ® 3 MITIGATION TREE NUMBER N Q (23 MITIGATION TREES REQUIRED ~oczaill y .ueo AS REPLACEMENTS) u~ 11 ~t 11 + NOTES NORTH b 1. Topographic survey provided by Polaris land Surveying, LLC. peo~aa om ISSUE- -v.11 FL II raa¢aNx 09IW1 A Ir, 2. Tree Inventory provided venom Myers, •I h.. Arhorist. Refer to tGTree Inventory for additional I ,a 0 10 20' 40 Information regarding tree species, size, protection SITE REVIEW ¢ ♦ 0 I~, zone, andcondition. PLANTING PLAN v _ _ ~ 3. An automatic Irrigation EAST ~ - areassvll be provided with the bullding new 04 CU - - planindrawings. - - permit aaNAe,„r~~'BW~ ttaer3aaauW64a bpletlu +rar&'.g ,ti.bnm pa3 adiaYr.a%yosarevo-awcamcw~w.vrwavmnaLYa3Jeenm - _ NivNE'a'151 Gfa'<9nPrala`m ReGr215SroAa N~`F.d.re'isut`BINy,SYaCtKz'Y D.1eaY a2rtulWASf MCltONCrS4s, _ ~y - - - 1i.InNF eU9 PaF~Nmlt-1he4mrta]r9%.rlkPratla..SpreJUfiblldr,ft§tle69rtIDiffmeCvbrtffiS - M-EAL LPA- r r 4w /106 m 11 1 1, _ - ~m_- _ Mo.v =_-_v ARCHITECTURE w aS..e 1 _ a ~ URBAN DESIGN VWIRINO 6$TER INTERIOR DESIGN aoaoaoooaa a WE STREET F 10y 44 8f a8g8geg > m=a - _ ,ams=- R 141 151 rcan~soaala ars Kil 14 ~ ~ ~ T. s~num.mu 0 s ~ 53~ IL 0 ININGHALL7 11 d3 ° 21~{8 MMUNIIYCENTER Fem., 1114 s 11 42 39 NORTH HALL - - 12 i r12 ,42 f,~ 12 i A 154 x 'pn. y 4i ~ llld ~ 1 ~ ~ 131 ~ +»»,I I 111 116 37 ~ 13 143 _ ~ j g 6 ~ 13 137 P ® \ I ~ Ee fl 0 9 fiBSe F-v ~ g°g63 00 3S eo3300 11 \ ti~ ry - - g f 8g8 I T `A 1}I ~ 93 L J 8ti - 3 3D ~ 8 183 e~y~,, 8 3e~,8 ~ 13 I 14 146 _.u § ~ ~ I ~ ® 13 ~ O;~o °8°°^~a p 133 14 0»a- ~Y ryry f-l R 1 W ~ ' 13., 147 _ - tl ~3, *4~~~~ 14 172 O 35 29 F L28J 27 17~ 16 176 y1 ' SOUTH HALL i-7 b3 62 25 ~,r, ~ 28 II ~Ir. IRISES wi,iroe ®I -j 18 59 P H GREENSPRINGS 76 ~ 56 - - I I I PO L II LJ b7~ HG 62 a 24 23 22 21 o;,,,a20 } ® °i i I 80 61 65 81 ~ T ~ 3_P' ~ l l ~ z a VI -JL - W ft fig ® 11 3 17 H j213 y 66» 67 TsI®®®®®®®®IS®®®®srA 23 0. nl TEST! ING! IS U. ~4 tirv ' ~ 2~ I ~ u 26 ®5 265 © ASHLAND STREET 47 46 - - - _ _ S (a) a ® ® 4® 43 241 37 ® 233 23 - - _ _ _ 0 Z ~ t Z m J ma L Q - N -gym K - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c ® Ww N LEGEND NOTES V`~a W°E`23 I ~Dfcfl EXSTG. TREE NUMBER 1. Topographic survey provided by Polads Land 4. Final location of tree protection fencing shall he EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (See Certified Ar6odsl's Tree Inventory) Surveying, LLC. determined bya certified arhodsl as described in / Tree Protection Plan. 2. Tree Inventory provided by Tom Myers, Certified IN IN TREE PROTECTION FENCING Arbodst. Refer to Tree Inventory for additional G14e3LR0 crc N TYP. TREE Information regarding tree species, size, protection ISEUEC- a nevNv i (See Note 4.) e 1 PROTECTION ZONE zone, and rendition, _ nrM TREE REMOVAL EXISTING TREES TO 3. Where discrepancies exist between the existing tree REMAIN species and size labels on the survey and the NORTH FOR ASHLAND ST W PARKROW Information contained In the Tree Inventory, the Tree M n1 Inventory shall be deemed correct. aenuriem RxCO•~mxueo-naab xwact~adraw ~,.FWaMr" un9av Eggswmrme,+~,rba»+bxNaan,dexn<a. 0 15 30' 60' 00 g z I hPadErv.W [YminPa+A~ 1kCMdud.b Me a}IIS~ U '-a' uR'a Filrsa3 Aar&y,Nra*ra.5aa ra+sl4+a MC~k~m.~,t'r. ( ..bad t.WPa,~elPrxhtz RaCmfa]u9a4vtla0 brslap,re'IVenll"ua krpe,6Eat8y t3sNrm,`.sl ti f Q n I II II I II W i - X I ~I R l~ W >f11~~~ LL, Me ~I U ~I a ~ ~ (tj~`~ can X~ II j ~ 00 d ~ Ii rn ~ ro I 03 Q I ] ~ T w o I( J 4. F -f,-Fo , U~ N x II , ~ r - Q 0 h C 16 C\j x- - _ I NdIN i HO IM o~ Zimbra Page 1 of 2 Zimbra seversod@ashland.orm: + Font size - E: SOU and C meeting From : Paige Townsend <ptownsend@rvtd.org> Thu, Dec 15, 201104:13 PM Subject : RE: SOU and TC meeting 021 attachment To : Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com>, Nathan Broom <nbroom@rvtd.org> Cc : Steve Ryan <resolutionvideo@yahoo.com>, Derek Severson <seversod@ashland. or.us>, Julie Brown <jbrown@rvtd.org> Colin, I attached the written agency comment that was submitted to the Planning Commission and have provided a summary of the oral comments I made at the meeting on Tues. night. Just below... The Commission was advised to strengthen the existing TDM program for the Webster Housing and for the Commuter Resource Center as it is not 'effective' to reduce auto trips to campus and by their student-residents. To help explain what a strong TDM program should include we referenced our own guide as TDM practitioners. The Federal Highway Administration has published what they consider to be the pillars of an effective TDM program which are the 5 E's: Education, Encouragement, Environment, Enforcement and Evaluation. We described how the Commission through the evaluation of applications is considered a method of enforcement, especially due to RVTD's inability to mandate certain TDM measures. The environment component includes good pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and good transit which they have with 20 min. headways on Route 10 and soon to have evening and Saturday service. The Webster Housing, and SOU, location Is served with bi-directional transit service- students can catch a bus in either direction. We also touched on the relationship we have with the Commuter Resource Center being weak and that they have been resistant to communicate with RVTD in a manner that allows resources to be used effectively. We explained that TDM is a "people-business" requiring a lot of hand holding to change behavior to non-auto trips. Because of this we encourage there be a commitment to have the Resident Assistants offer Travel Smart type of programs for the residents so they are keenly familiar with the transit, bicycle and pedestrian systems and how to reach basic amenities without driving. We explained that we have worked aggressively with the student union each year since 2006 to get the bus pass program back in operation but it hasn't happened. We are expecting to meet with students, administration and hopefully city representatives once school is back in session in January. We concurred with the Commission that the TDM implementation timeline had not been submitted with the application which we would like to also see and provide further comment on. We ended by stating that we are willing to engage in discussion and negotiation and that we have resources to assist in them in completing these TDM strategies. We also put the campus in a larger context by describing it as one of our top five concerns for trip generation that is without a TDM program or transit subsidies in the valley and that it generates approximately 1/3 of Ashland traffic which is a large demand on Ashland's roadways. There has been great discussion about why we are focusing on the Webster housing and not on the campus as a whole. We are wanting a campus-wide TDM program to be in place and have worked toward that for a very long time without much success. The application only pertains to the new residence halls however. We see this as a very good start to a larger program and that with its success there will be stronger interest by either the Administration or students to have it campus wide. Please note that we are asking for transit subsidies but we are also asking for SOU to take on the responsibility of running a TDM program for their students: education, encouragement, evaluation, incentives, events, forming a multi-modal committee, etc. This is much larger than just RVTD providing transit passes for students. From what Jon Eldridge has stated to us he sees multi-modal transportation as being part of the university's sustainability goals and possibly the next big push. We agree with what has been said in that the majority of students housed at the resident halls will have a short commute across the street and less non-school trips than other SOU students who commute from outside of Ashland. Albeit, the typical persons daily trips are made up of 1/3 work-school and the rest for other trips such as shopping, errands, recreation, etc. A bus pass will be as useful to this person as someone who theoretically lives in a TOD and has a 20-minute lifestyle. There has also been a 'nexus', or connection being called into question since the net increase in students is around 100. I still find a strong nexus to requesting a robust TDM program for the Webster residents because 1. A change in housing location for the existing 600 residents does not change their need for transportation, 2. Municipal codes, government policies and laws change over time- and have changed drastically since the Cascade Hall was built. The application and review process is the mechanism to allow opportunity for this new practicum to be applied and for growth to occur more in line with current knowledge about land use. 3. There is expected to be 100 new residents and new users of the transportation system and 4. The university is considering minimizing access to vehicles for freshman and has decreased parking, which is great, but it also changes the environment from what was previously available at Cascade. RVTD is looking for a long term contract for the Webster housing residents that would start fall of 2013 when it opens. Between now and http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=49676&1 12/16/2011 Zimbra Page 2 of 2 t then I am hoping the University will work toward the funding mechanism and consider instead a campus-wide program. Just so you get an idea, the program costs $1.95 per person per month- for Webster this equates to under $17,000 per year, or an additional $2 on rent each month. Thanks for requesting additional info- sorry this is so long. Best, Paige Townsend RVTD Senior Planner 3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford, OR 97504 (541) 608-2429 Office (541) 779-5821 Main p.townsend@rvtd.org www.rvtd.oro -----Original Message----- From: Colin Swales [maiito:colinswales@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 1:57 PM To: Paige Townsend; Nathan Broom Cc: Steve Ryan Subject: SOU and TC meeting Paige and Nathan, (cc Steve - TC chair) Thanks for showing up last night at the PC meeting for the SOU presentation. I did try to catch you after the meeting, but you had already left. Can you share your thoughts you presented on TDM with the Transportation Commission, perhaps in writing, for our meeting tomorrow? thanks Colin Webster Housing Agency Comment RVTD.pdf r a 50 KB I,. http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=49676&1 12/16/2011 ~v~~A,NSroxr,ng~o Rogue Valley Transportation District From the Desk of Paige Townsend, Senior Planmer 3200 Crater Lake Avenue • Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 ® I Phone (541) 608-2429 • Fax (541) 773-2877 Visit our website at., www.rvtd.org December 2, 2011 Pam Marsh, Chair Ashland Planning Commission, RE: SOU Webster Housing, Action 2001-01576 Thank you for this opportunity to provide Agency Comment on the SOU Webster Student Housing Development permit application. The application intends to add 30% more residential facilities at SOU for a population that is often considered 'auto-transportation disadvantaged' and thereby being on the cutting edge of using other forms of transportation. Students who live in residence halls are in many ways 'under the wing' of the University and with transportation being a critical aspect of everyday life it should be considered a partial responsibility of the University. To this end, RVTD is requesting that the Webster Housing application's approval have conditions that address basic transportation needs. First and foremost, RVTD is requesting that the Webster Housing complex occupants receive transit subsidies byway of a bus pass program. Transit subsidies for all students, faculty and staff are identified as TDM strategies in the SOU Master Plan, in the Webster Housing Development permit application and in the City of Ashland's TSP currently underway. It is RVTD's interest to equip all SOU users with a bus pass however this request is specifically focused on the Webster Housing complex occupants. By listing transit subsidies as a condition for approval on this permit application, the Webster Housing complex will have a perpetual transit subsidy program in place that will not be affected by the variability of a campus-wide program. It would ensure that approximately 10% of SOU students would have fare-less access to the transit system making it an attractive transportation choice. Despite what the application report states on page 60, SOU does not have an 'effective TDM Program' in place and it 'needs to be enhanced with additional strategies' to become more effective. To ensure environmentally friendly transportation options are well known to the students RVTD would also like to I c { see that a student-resident orientation include a paper and web-based description detailing transportation facilities and a map. Additionally, a simple tour of the housing development's bicycle facilities and a visit to the nearest bus stop will go a long way to help orient new students to the options they have available to them. Residents should be offered individualized trip planning assistance by resident assistants with support from the SOU Commuter Resource Center. These are all strategies identified in the application that should be adopted as permanent programs. An additional strategy to encourage non-auto transportation is to un-bundle the cost of parking from the resident hall units. Essentially, students who do not own a car and utilize a parking space would pay less for their Webster unit than those who do. A smart complement to this strategy is to also provide a carshare program so that students can pay for and have access to a car only when they need it. This will likely require some study by SOU before implementing and with the foreseeable addition of new buildings on this property it would help to facilitate more efficient land use in Ashland. These strategies will likely have indirect benefits by helping to achieve LEED certification which considers I "easy accessibility to multiple modes of environmentally friendly transportation options." Additionally, families who research Universities will view these amenities as mutual benefits that are on the long list of reasons to attend SOU and live on campus. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The Webster Housing permit application includes several recommendations on how to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities to and from the new housing complex. The report states that adequate pedestrian crossing amenities are available and that adequate bicycle parking is already on campus and therefore the applicant does not need to provide more. We strongly disagree and want to encourage the city to ensure that not only will pedestrian, bicycling and skateboarding be encouraged, easy to navigate and feasible but that it will be safe. RVTD would like to see conditions for facility improvements as part of this application approval. The City has identified specific improvements to be made and RVTD supports their recommendations. erely, Paige Townsend, Senior Planner CITY OF -1S H LAN D TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 15, 2011 Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street DETAIL AGENDA FOR ITEM V 1. Ordinance Review (staff) II. Open Public Hearing III. Staff Presentation a. Planning b. Public Works c. TC Questions to Staff i IV. Applicant Presentation (15-20 min) V. TC Questions to Applicant VI. Public Comment (3 min per person) VII. Close Public Hearing VIII. TC Deliberation and Subsequent Vote 2.13.030 Powers and Duties - Generally The Transportation Commission will review and make recommendations on the following topics as it relates to all modes of Transportation: 1. Safety: will develop, coordinate and promote transportation safety programs; 2. Planning: * Will review and serve as the primary body to develop recommendations to the City's long range transportation plans. * Will review and make recommendations in Type III Planning Actions during the pre- application process. 3. Funding: will make recommendations to the City's transportation section of the Capital Improvements Program; 4. Advocacy: will advocate and promote all modes of transportation to make modal equity a reality. * Facilitate coordination of transportation issues with other governmental entities. * Select one or more member liaisons to attend and participate in meetings with other transportation related committees in the Rogue Valley. * Examine multi-modal transportation issues. (Ord 2975, 2008; Ord 3003, 2010) t CITY OF ASHLAND Memorandum DATE: December 14, 2011 TO: Mike Faught, Jim Olson FROM: Karl Johnson RE: SOU Student Housing Below are my comments regarding each of the intersection proposals that have been presented by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. in their document titled, Southern Oregon University Student Housing Development Supplemental Land Use Information dated December 5, 2011 ® S. Mountain Avenue/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads ® This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. o Proposal - Add a 5 second leading pedestrian phase I'm not sure what the reason for this would be. The north and south legs of S. Mountain Avenue are independent of each other and with the right hand turn lane that is built on the south-side, the only conflict that exists between pedestrians and automobiles is right turns from the north-side onto Siskiyou Boulevard. ® University Way/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons a This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. o Proposal - Maintain street trees to ensure crosswalk and flashing beacons are visible This would be a good task for the City of Ashland Parks Department to keep up on. ® Garfield Street/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons p This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. ® Avery Street/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons ® This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. o Proposal - Relocate "Stop Here for Ped" sign at the westbound approach to provide adequate clearance for the crosswalks sign and flashing beacons. This seems like a task that the City of Ashland could review and complete the proposed relocations if necessary. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DIV. Tel: 541488-5347 N- I 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-6006? Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 C74 www.ashiand.onus G:\pub-w k-s\eng\11-28 SOU Student Housing\B Eng (ZCS Engineering)\Design Development\Kittelson Student Housing Comments - 12-14-1 Ldorx ® Bridge Street/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons ® This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. ® Wightman Street/Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. o Proposal - Add a 36 second pedestrian "scramble" phase (requires 2 additional pedestrian signal heads and pushbuttons) ® If this option is going to be implemented with this project, Kittelson should provide a design to help limit the time that automobiles are waiting due to the added 36 seconds. The existing signal cabinet should be upgraded as part of this proposal. o Proposal - Install high visibility pavement marking for diagonal crosswalk ® This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented if the diagonal crosswalk is approved/required. Ashland Street/Sisl0you Boulevard o Proposal - Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. o Proposal - Add a 5 second leading pedestrian phase ® I'm not sure what the reason for this would be. The only conflict that exists for pedestrians at this intersection is for automobiles turning right on red from Ashland Street onto Siskiyou Boulevard. The other crossings have definite stops and so adding 5 seconds would not do anything to improve an existing situation. ® Frances Lane/Siskiyou Boulevard o Proposal - Install advance pedestrian signs with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons. ® This intersection doesn't seem to need this treatment at this time with the current number of pedestrians that cross there. These improvements could be installed in the future if it is found to be something that is necessary with future development. ® Stadium Street/Ashland Street o Proposal - Install advance pedestrian signs with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons. ® This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. Kittelson should look at the possibility of other improvements to the existing placement of the crosswalk and whether the existing median layout needs to be altered. ® Walker Avenue/Ashland Street o Proposal - Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 0 This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented. o Proposal - Add a 5 second leading pedestrian phase C= i PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DIV. Tel: 541488-5347 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 / Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 C iy"washland.orms G:\pub-wrks\eng\11-28 SOU Student Housing\B Eng (ZCS Engineering)\Design DevelopmentTittelson Student Housing Comments -12-14-1 Ldoex o This appears to be a good idea that could be implemented for crossing Ashland Street and would help the children that use this signal to go to Walker Elementary and Ashland Middle School. ® Additional Comments o Kittelson has said that the Wightman Street/Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection does not meet warrants for a pedestrian bridge and that there would be issues with pedestrians wanting to use it. I still feel that a pedestrian bridge should be investigated more to help increase safety for pedestrians crossing Siskiyou Boulevard at this intersection and there should be ways in which pedestrians could be enticed to use the bridge instead of existing crosswalks i PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DIV. Tel: 541488-5347 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 JG Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 1; Ln twvw:ashland.orms G:\pub-wrksleng\l 1-28 SOU Student Housing\B Eng (ZCS Engineering)\Design DevelopmentTittelson Student Housing Comments -12-14-1 Ldocx o PO Z f w W spas - I On fr z _ ❑ W LLI T w i~vnarls L _ 15, t I a a; ~v ¢30 ` Ix . ~ a l 1 i I - f l l 1 a i E I ~ s 6z o e, I ~ ~z a ~ a 0w N z vl ~ Q to u } ! Z Q w co U) l!. o - LL LL J O m Q WF m E F _I. /l' I 11, ~ t~ ®s® pia • V6L4-VI M/ `l dam - X0' 9- 1100''39-0 6MP'W.9195011I OM, 61100 rroH WO M9009-CSBl llft ,H CITY i/~O~F T T AS HLA L TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Thursday, December 15, 2011 Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING ACTION 2011-01576 S. Mountain Avenue/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase University Way/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Garfield Street/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Avery Street/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Bridge Street/Siskiyou Boulevard Replace flashing beacons with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons Wightman Street/Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Design and Reconfigure the intersection with single crosswalk as shown conceptually on new Figure 12 (see attached); upgrade existing controller at both Wightman and Hwy 66 3) Install high visibility pavement marking for diagonal crosswalk Ashland Street/Siskiyou Boulevard 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase Stadium Street/Ashland Street 1) Install advance pedestrian signs 2) Install Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (pedestrian activated) 3) Review location of existing crosswalk, and if conditions warrant relocate crosswalk with appropriate pedestrian ways and pedestrian amenities from the new facility Walker Avenue/Ashland Street 1) Replace Pedestrian Heads with Pedestrian Countdown Heads 2) Provide a 5 second leading pedestrian phase Sample Motion MOTION: Move to recommend the Ashland Planning Commission include the Transportation Commission's recommended Transportation Improvements as Conditions of Approval for the proposed SOU Student Housing. t authern Oregon University Student Housing Development December' t I v UPNF I+ V i "JU o ~l 'I rA,~p i dui 1Ff5ll11 O G ~ ' 0 - P RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT THE WIGHTMAN-INDIANA STREET INTERSECTION ASHLAND, OREGON KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. p~ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING 4 Southern Oregon University Student Housing Development December2011 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUPPLY FUTURE CONDITIONS SUPPLY DEMAND ` STUDENT COMMUTER 263 I STUDENT COMMUTER 97 84 75 DORM STUDENT 162 C7 DORM STUDENT 315 280 FACULTY AND STAFF 62 FACULTY AND STAFF 42 17 j VISITOR 41 VISITOR 41 11 OTHER (ADA; RES; SID, L) 42 I ~ OTHER 31 2 22 TOTAL 570 ,2 TOTAL 526 394 a a , I' 30 2] ZO I D D flK 7 / ro i i 3 Q~1 i r CSC3~ _j F e 2~ 37 I I 9 0 . - - _p 0 42 H y ' 1- I ! Ll - STUDENT COMMUTER LOTS SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT i ` - DORM STUDENT LOTS, ; a E, -FACULTY AND STAFF LOTS METERED PARKING LOTS RECOMMENDED PARKING DESIGNATION AND SUPPLY - ASHLAND, OREGON KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING/ PLANNING Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) Address (no P.O. Box)- ' . Email 0, Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) off ( ,Zitr~ J 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 Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time consti-amts lirrritpublic testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order: of proceedings for public bearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name (please print) Address (no Y.O. Box) j Phone )~l1 Email Tonight's Meeting Date \ke Regular Meeting Agenda item number ' OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: N L--L 24-y 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 Law requites that all ch)) meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not alivays require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashlannd Planuninng Cornrnnnissionn gefnerally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time connstraints limit public testinnnonny. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the pn•esidinng officer. Behavior or actions which an°e unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the MOM. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. Gmail - SOU Housing Page 1 of 1 Pam Marsh <pam.mars h@gmaiLcom> SOU Housing 1 message Mick Church <mickchurch@gmail.com> Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:30 PM To: "Marsh, Pam" <pam.marsh@gmail.com> I agree with all the questions/concerns I heard from staff at the site visit on Friday December 9. The south face of the dorm buildings that you will see from Ashland will read as one large facade. Other comments: 1. Their design treatments try to use the themes present on the south campus; but these new buildings will be next to an existing residence hall (Madrone) that reads to me as a mostly unadorned concrete building, not Spanish revival or whatever style name applies to the main campus. Won't Madrone be the visual reference point, not the south campus buildings over 1/4 mile away across Siskiyou? 2. If I was going to drive to the new residences I would much prefer to do so westbound on Ashland and then turn in at Stadium. It seems to me that the City and ODOT would prefer to see new vehicle trips to and from this new residence center be drawn away from the Siskiyou/Wightman confluence which is already a ped/auto conflict area, with quite a few turning movements going on. 3. Looking at the proposal from the surrounding streets , I think that the automotive "perceptual" front door to the residences is going to be from Ashland, not Siskiyou or Wightman. Stadium is certainly going to become a much more significant street and I think it should be improved with curb,gutter and sidewalk on both sides. 4. The section of sidewalk on the north side of Ashland (adjacent to the SOU property) from Stadium up to Siskiyou should be widened to provide enough space for two people to walk side-by-side; and the back of sidewalk which drops off rather dangerously in some places should have a wall or fence. Currently this section of sidewalk is a pretty unpleasant pedestrian experience. 5. Since there is a master plan and their current submittal is inconsistent with this master plan, why isn't there a requirement for them to have to, as part of this submittal, formally amend the master plan? 6. Why did they propose the design they did in mid-2010 and why the change? If you have questions about anything I've said, please feel free to call me at 650-218-9775. Mick 1. i, 2. Ci I? Mick i https://mail.google.com/maiWl 8z45vey274s5/?&v=pt&s=q&q=mick&th=13430cOa5e6... 12/13/2011 Zimbra Page 1 of 1 Zimbra seversod@ashland.or.u; + Font size - SOU dorms PA 2001-01576 From : Colin Swales <colinswales@gmail.com> Fri, Dec 09, 201102:50 PM Subject : SOU dorms PA 2001-01576 To : Karl Johnson <johnsonk@ashland. or.us>, Derek Severson <seversod@ashland.or.us> Karl and Derek, (For the Record PA 2001-01576) I was reading with interest the packet for the upcoming TC meeting on the SOU Master Plan ( I will also try to be there next Tuesday at the PC meeting as individual interested citizen I just wanted to thank Karl for the hard questions asked in his memo (Page 17 Of 168 of the pdf). Having been on the Committee that dealt with the Garfield fatality of student Gladys Jimenez, I also strongly feel pedestrian crossing safety for the SOU staff and Students is of paramount importance. The SOU Master Plan talked about some kind of "gateway" treatment at each end. But it is shown at Indiana 1 I feel that such a treatment, should be before the Walker signals and its ped place "Festival Street", and might help to warn motorists on Ashland Streetthat they are approaching a school crossing zone including the major crossing that lies just around the bend on Siskiyou Blvd. Such treatment could be in the form of public art, small-unit pavers for driving surface, or even a road diet etc. ":..We did an Ashland Street plan. It was one of the last things I did when I was here ...I think the idea was to try to make Ashland Street - which quite frankly has got two extra lanes - I mean, you could really take two more lanes out of that and make it a more livable, pedestrian-friendly street. It just doesn't justify the number of lanes it has for the traffic... " John Fregonese, former Ashland Planning Director, interview on JPR 10/10/08 With a major State Highway running through the heart of our University and High school campuses we need to insist on only the best safety measures. Colin i I http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=49447&1 12/14/2011 Gmail - SOU Housing Page 1 of 1 itYof t~shl Piamning• Exhibit x~+ta~il C 1 I C) I pA~ iail.com> DATE I' ~ STAPP F~.h SOU Housing _ 1 message Mick Church <mickchurch@gmail.com> 9:30 PM To: "Marsh, Pam" <pam.marsh@gmail.com> I agree with all the questions/concerns I heard from staff at the site visit on Friday December 9. The south face of the dorm buildings that you will see from Ashland will read as one large facade. Other comments: 1. Their design treatments try to use the themes present on the south campus; but these new buildings will be next to an existing residence hall (Madrone) that reads to me as a mostly unadorned concrete building, not Spanish revival or whatever style name applies to the main campus. Won't Madrone be the visual reference point, not the south campus buildings over 1/4 mile away across Siskiyou? 2. If I was going to drive to the new residences I would much prefer to do so westbound on Ashland and then turn in at Stadium. It'seems to me that the City and ODOT would prefer to see new vehicle trips to and from this new residence center be drawn away from the Siskiyou/Wightman confluence which is already a ped/auto conflict area, with quite a few turning movements going on. 3. Looking at the proposal from the surrounding streets , I think that the automotive "perceptual" front door to the residences is going to be from Ashland, not Siskiyou or Wightman. Stadium is certainly going to become a much more significant street and I think it should be improved with curb,gutter and sidewalk on both sides. 4. The section of sidewalk on the north side of Ashland (adjacent to the SOU property) from Stadium up to Siskiyou should be widened to provide enough space for two people to walk side-by-side; and the back of sidewalk which drops off rather dangerously in some places should have a wall or fence. Currently this section of sidewalk is a pretty unpleasant pedestrian experience. 5. Since there is a master plan and their current submittal is inconsistent with this master plan, why isn't there a requirement for them to have to, as part of this submittal, formally amend the master plan? 6. Why did they propose the design they did in mid-2010 and why the change? If you have questions about anything I've said, please feel free to call me at 650-218-9775. Mick 1. 2. Mick I https://mail. google. coin/inail/1-i/18z45vey274s5/?&v=pt&s=q&q=mick&th=1343 0cOa5c6... 12/13/2011 8 City of Ashland ARCHITECTURE E Planning Exhibit Emma o URBAN D[fIGN - PUNNING •p, INTERIOR DESIGN V 1,I,° 5 Wi~bttX t ~ ~ POANJWBtlI4X w101 ryAA # ATKI~ if STAFF ArL- - r. eP!ub.1m ~ v _ ~ ~ _ _ 56N.NS ]19f #1V0[tPtl 1 s l l ~~r r 1 I ~v ITI I/ L X I 11?lll 3~ P 1 I I 1 I ~ ~ I I I I ' l l t ~Il I 1 l ~t~ ~I ~ I ~I f l l IE' I i l l ti I"ICI I I l l Ii ~ i~', I l i 11' ~ I e 2% DINING HALL FROM SOUTHWEST LLJ d 0 Lu O Z w 1 2 pp ,r ~ ~ ~yt~ ~ ` `1 UJ Lu 5- yj 1 f I I c ~'i I A K r I Q of 0 1 0 tai IIi ~ p ~ I (7 Z cj) UN _ _ 1i ~i {t[r _ I f{p~~{'' 1I _ t I ~ V Rf . 1 ~I~ t.~1 I,.I i~ilV..Il{ 1~~.~~ I ~I'.. b I~IP I~I-~ t I.,1 Il ~r~l4ll4l L~It~.I~~l I ,-~+f ~wm . W ~z1 CO < r' SOUTH HALL FROM QUAD -DATE IM .1 rao~aln, .1.1 W PERSPECTIVES ='O) 0 Xmaoux.rooer s<rxtrea.nnwam aam u~~ h erfi. nu c,drr..~mmmm~nax eu3 .~m~:a aamr~~ne-~mr,l,am~ar:a.,~. Xx umra.m,acm:asmRaaa~m,cma twa:~rccn-emmrlm z aee ~."M~~ps rnun~ma.~ea ~mm~r o,=a yo-. A350 g - XeEwelfiledwPiry~ARMdM RS Wde:IwM1 MMeWUlapy~tkden9]&peta lktl4Xebknlo-e?saebrt.4>zl i B p~p 4y of Ashland ' 005 r p 7,~ yy,, yy,, y ARONIiECNRE m l'IannmB E.~II~U~t URBAN RESION~ PUNNING 1 ~1 INTERIOR DESIGN ~ ~%H151T~ `I L/ s pA roo 11B wa5M IrtYY[ s x FF 0 ORFL+{ 4t96i STAFF Pe :FBtFO«w 's ~i a N. F L IVY v4/~ r y A...-.. -l ~I~ i-~•'" r~i:.. a_ n4-. { d~ 1~-~ i~ II_, t~ I ! f. r . All/ x L _ C4A) > W u; I_ a= v o :c ad ®z~ DINING HALL VIEW FROM WIGHTMAN ST Z R~ 0 w N Q ' ocaEOer: " IBS.aeaTE mrrECSmI moRCrrw_ o9tvn W PERSPECTIVES cf) 0 N:r..aenx~aF~Rgn.m:mk~wmMr e~abaq;reraw,~'narexsxN~r~,~ISnMam~mrva?~da erxBaas,-R!rmal+~~*a. wTravnrelgMeracom. g ~ w.rwaraaacesurtmxadamme~.imsmwcvae~r,u;:aM~au~Na;ac3r ~:nawm~,~,N~~dr,~lrzml~~wisa,. A352 Z kotkslEAndq Ppr:MhnidortlY.s[aSnirAtln44 PxebvOSp~~nedx.'r'n?O~psH raL#sK?TVem~?kFrr;el I L 8 _ City of Ashland /acxlr¢cruac pj,,i nlnng Exhibit URBAN xcsmw+PUNNING w ENM6i7W , INTERIOR DESIGN a Pfa~E~n ~ ,3a,nsm,r<,us ~1 w' 0[o FOn 9,)01 CZ.A~Ilmk-~,k\ros e: a,+s.ua n a' F i 8 g~ ; , I 41t~~ , rt j STAFF_ s ✓ /~5~",t3„ itd ~+''tTi';~." R;^r-~" f".'rt'»,`.F 7 it I. , r iii '~'i i; "ti~d~ T' _ ~ ~l I i I PLY 1 3 } l- T _T jj _jlfli Y~ j)`~ l 11 I I In i \l`{1`_. {1 ^t o ,1}.il y I,Il-'V ,,,1i _iF il' I.._6' Il-,• ~i ~ll Jill; I t1 lJL 7 71 ICI { I 1 f ' 7 p } i ri! hI~ 1 fiJ u,l L , IDij III" T I! 1 j. f 'i V! Yl 'I'. 1 JI 't] tfq1l~ 1,5 1u IA I :)n d # l1 9 III `I'~ 1 ~.r_ 11.,, I~,I _ III II a I it !1 ~r l f; l~ gy , I. ~1 t r.x u '-i`/vc` {l~ ,-~R.-ctiti'~ b ~_t.__. ws_ ~ 1~'•,,~5,-v:..,.~~:~..c % ~.r"=^'"~~~`' t r~~ ~.~`7+. ~1n.--' 1 f \ 1 uj C{ V U~ ~o ~Q U~ SOUTH HALL VIEW FROM ASHLAND ST Q z ZU~ IF11101d m DH RSk6AiF M~C2 f1 LPAkG11D: fd1641 W PERSPECTIVES Zu3 0 ~ xx~gtamce~'~ynwmmnnneamr,nw~br~<ee+sammmaa,.n> i~czbwvssiae;<r.,~Mx~neh. sea,.r2,°~e~.wrPa,3~,».I~e,lne~naan x'XxgL,mMlfi6atim TwldonlFe[CaiMt~PZRrebrei'IOD'1,a4ejv2va:l~9d~G3HSb4ry'rAa,~varvitlMtYmJ2~o#stx. A351 g KK6agFgnGfApnlRwldm'IAe RAe]rlq~M~ bm.,e~a0mlrcvD&~, E~P=.2§efLryveSm?hrea~d i - TM - - - 1 COVERED BIKE PARKING REMOVABLE t BOLLARDS 1 1VH15TLR SIRI hL iIPJ'U,BI~ ~ l1C,LU~HDS 1-~' - - - - - - _ EXISTING 9ItAU runI~1EL _ MECHAI PAD _I - j DINING HALL H Hnu „ i I I I ~'I,I y P- C It i ii 1 n~l!: q U, L ~~~~!x!I-7Ir>i ---fff 7 7-- -A I , I; I IL ` WORK CUAO LIMIT LINE 1 m , LC I r ir d ~lY ! I - WORK i IIMITLINE- SOU H HALL ARH@,'G ' _ --tt_FP 'xCOVER f PLAZA -AERIAL APPARATUS ZONE - SCLii H COLLEGE VJAY L \rr PED ~ CROSSING \ ArOp _ I r 6~ ~ I qRp I I FLlIU E E [E.XE_ ALL j ' l , rc¢NkRUN,Nwakd, ASHLAND STREET - - City of Ashland Manning Exhibit EXHIBIT' A-0b PA '~FJ7 QA 3 1 STAFF T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 503.273.8169 December 2, 2011 Project 11854.0 Derek Severson City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE. SOUStudent Housing Development Dear Derek, The following summarizes our response to Karl Johnson's November 9, 2011 memorandum regarding his review of our traffic impact analysis, parking demand/ratio analysis, and pedestrian safety plan for the SOU Student Housing Development. Karl's comments are provided below followed by our responses in blue. As indicated below, many of Karl's comments resulted in modifications to our November 2, 2011 Traffic Impact Analysis, while a few are solely addressed below. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1. If it has been determined (page 22 of the Traffic Impact Analysis) that there is "a relatively high number of rear-end crashes over the five year period" and this crash rate is related to the crosswalk at this intersection [Bridge Street/Siskiyou Boulevard], why wasn't a potential solution to the problem proposed? With the increased number of students crossing the street, won't this problem only get worse? Although the crash rate at the Bridge Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection is higher than other similar intersections along the corridor, it is less than half of the statewide average of comparable facilities at 0.51 crashes per million entering vehicles as compared to 1.09 on urban highways statewide. This intersection has a higher crash rate than others on the corridor in part because it is one of the most heavily used crosswalks along the corridor. Following installation of the signalized crossing, there have been no pedestrian involved crashes. The installation of traffic control devices frequently reduce severe crashes that result in injuries but can result in increased minor crashes such as rear end crashes. However, options to increase the visibility of the flashing beacons and potentially reduce rear-end collisions are described in the Pedestrian Safety Study portion of the report. FILENAME., IIKITTELSON.COMIFSIH PORTLANDIPROJFILEI11854-SOU STUDENTHOUSINGIREPORT]RESPONSE LETTER 02SLW,DOCX t SOU Student Housing Development Project M 11854.0 December 2, 2011 Page; 2 - - As described on pages 78-79 of the report, one potential solution to improve driver yield rates to pedestrians and provide more noticeable indication to drivers that vehicles ahead may be stopping, is to replace the flashing beacons at the pedestrian crosswalks with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB). RRFBs are user-actuated warning lights that have an irregular flash pattern similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. These warning lights are used at unsignalized intersections or mid-block crossings to enhance driver awareness of pedestrians crossing and vehicles stopped or slowed at a crosswalk. We have expanded our discussion in the Traffic Safety portion of the report to provide further evaluation of the crash data for the Bridge Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection as well as highlight our recommendations in the Pedestrian Safety Plan. 2. Are the numbers presented in Table 3 (page 26) realistic due to the fact that there will be over 200 more students, but the table shows very few more trips generated? The students living in the existing Cascade Hall would only have a need to cross Siskiyou Boulevard to visit the few buildings on the north- side, while all of the students in the new dorms will need to cross Siskiyou Boulevard to access the entire rest of campus. The trip generation estimates shown on page 28 of the report are based on driveway counts conducted at the surface parking lots located adjacent to the Green Springs Resident Hall; each of which are currently dedicated to resident hall students (commuter students are not permitted in these lots). The total number of vehicles that entered and exited the driveways over the 24-hour period were compared to the total number of students living in the Green Springs Resident Hall (330 students) to develop daily, weekday a.m., and weekday p.m, peak hour trip generation rates per resident student. The results were applied to the potential capacity of the proposed student housing facility (702 students), which led to the trip generation estimate shown in Table 3. This trip generation estimate is for vehicle trips only. It is assumed that trips between the north and south campus area by existing and future resident students occur by foot and bicycle as resident students may only park in resident student parking lots. We have expanded our discussion in the Trip Generation section of the report on pages 27-28 to provide additional information on the trip j generation estimate as well as how it was applied. 1 Additionally, it should be noted that no reduction in parking demand or trip generation was assumed for potential off-campus students that currently commute to campus using a vehicle, which may be converted to on-campus resident students. The proposed facility is anticipated to increase the proportion of the student body that lives on campus. Generally, the more students that SOU can attract to on-campus housing, the lower their impact to the transportation system will be. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon SOU Student Housing Development Project 11854.0 December 2, 2011 Page; 3 3. How will there be a daily reduction of S7S daily trips to the south campus area (page 27) with the closure of Cascade Hall? The same number of students will need to access the buildings and classrooms on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard and the automobile traffic that is using it will still be accessing the area the same way. The reduction of daily, weekday a.m., and weekday p.m. peak hour trips to the south campus area is based on the assumption that when Cascade Hall is closed and the new facility is open, trips to/from the resident halls will shift from the south to the north. Trips between the north and south campus area are again, expected to take place by foot or by bicycle (see discussion above) as resident hall students are only permitted to park in resident hall parking lots and not in all student parking lots. 4. Was data for any other times besides the typical a.m. and p.m. peals gathered? There are significant traffic issues, both pedestrian and vehicular, outside of these time frames. Traffic data collected for the City's current Transportation System Plan Update was reviewed prior to selecting the study periods. The following' chart illustrates the peals hour pedestrian crossings and total entering vehicles recorded at the Siskiyou Boulevard Street intersection on September 22, 2009 along with the percent of peals hour volumes for all other time periods. Hourly Volume Profile (Siskiyou Boulevard (01199)/Ashland Street (01166) 100% 42 Peak Hour 2,450 Peak Hour 90% Pedestrian Crossings Total Entering Vehicles 809/ - cu 70% - I 0 60% - - - - 0 40% Q _ y 30% - - - - - - - a E 20 Al . 10% o IT" 0% i i ~T M -i } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o m o m o n o m 0 n o cn 0 m o m m o m o m 0 m o m o m o ~o ~ r` n co ao a rn o o N N N m m a~ u-, ~n ~ co r. n co co as rn o o~ ri ci .--I N a-1 ci ai c-i N ri N N rl N N rt ci ci N N N N N ® Pedestrian Crossings I Total Entering Vehicles - Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon SOU Student Housing Development Project 11854.0 December 2, 2011 Page: 4 As shown in the chart the p.m. peals represents the highest point during the day for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Also shown in the chart, there is a mid-day peak period that is slightly higher than the a.m. peals in terms of pedestrians, but slightly lower in terms of vehicles. While the mid-day peals may be similar to the a.m. peak, the p.m. peak represents a significantly higher demand period for both pedestrians and vehicles and documents the most critical peak period. The study periods (7:30 to 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:30 p.m.) were confirmed with city staff in the Project Methodology and Key Assumptions Memorandum submitted to the city on September 26, 2011, prior to our data collection effort. PARKING DEMAND/RATIO ANALYSIS 5. Is it realistic that 700 students will only need 156 parking stalls (147 minus handicap accessible stalls)? Streets around the development will be inundated with cars as students will not want to walk the long distances to and from the dorms and their cars. Page 43 states the fact that students do not use lots now in the current layout due to inconvenience and the fact that on-street parking is free. On-street parking by students is primarily occurring from commuter students. This is evidenced by the dramatic decreases in on-street parking during the evening through the early morning in the areas surveyed. Resident hall parking has traditionally been located in close proximity to the resident hall. This is anticipated to continue for the south campus. On-street parking by commuter students is likely to continue unless a neighborhood parking pass program is implemented (where parking is restricted to short-term parking unless the vehicle has a neighborhood parking permit). However, when determining the existing and future parking demand generated by SOU, the amount of on-street parking was included in the demand ratios so that it could be accounted for, and so that we could verify that it could be accommodated on campus if neighborhood restrictions were implemented. Parking demand ratios, shown on page 45 of the report, were developed for resident students based on data collected in the surface parking lots as well as several on-street locations. Table 7 summarizes the estimated demand ratios for resident students as 0.27 stalls per resident student. Applying this ratio to the potential capacity of the proposed student housing facility (702 students) results in the need for approximately 186 parking stalls to accommodate future parking demand. Also, as described in the Future Baseline Parking Conditions section of the report, the future parking supply within the north campus area is sufficient to the accommodate existing and future parking demand assuming approximately 75 percent utilization in all of the north campus existing and future surface parking lots. This includes the smaller, harder to find lots, located on the fringe of campus and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon i SOU Student Housing Development Project 11854.0 December2, 2011 Page: 5 in between buildings. Under existing conditions, most of these lots, such as the northern portion of Lot 41, sit empty throughout most of the day because there is not sufficient demand to fully utilize all of SOU's current parking supply as well as on-street parking is more convenient for some staff and commuter students. As parking demand increases and utilization of these lots becomes necessary, some action on the part of SOU will be required to ensure parking permit holders are aware of all of their parking location options and to prevent increases in on-street parking. However, on-street parking today is occurring more out of a desire to avoid paying for parking than to find close parking as currently the campus has ample vacant on-campus parking on the north and south campus. If on- street parking continues to spill further, on-campus parking will become more attractive as it will become the closer option. Various transportation demand management strategies SOU could implement to fully utilize all of the north campus lots are described in the TDM section of the report on pages 58-60; including adjustments to parking designation, pricing, and the potential for parking restrictions. We expanded our discussion in the future parking demand section on page 48 to address on-street parking demand within the north campus area, indicating that a portion of it can be accommodated in the north campus are,. while the remaining can be accommodated in the south campus area, if a neighborhood parking permit program were desired. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PLAN 6. With the addition of the potential 700 additional students that would cross at least twice per day, once to class and once back to the dorms, why were no alternatives given that would not use the existing crosswalks? As described in the report, there are currently enhanced pedestrian crossings located at each of the major intersections between the north and south campus areas with no additional locations to potentially add a crosswalk that would serve the proposed housing development. Based on our evaluation, the types of treatments currently provided at each crossing are appropriate given the number of pedestrian crossings and conflicting vehicles during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak time periods. Some crossings, such as the Bridge Street/Siskyou Boulevard crossing are approaching their respective "limits" in terms of how many pedestrians they can accommodate; however, the recommended improvements at the Wightman-Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection should shift existing and future demand to the signalized intersection which can accommodate i significantly more pedestrians. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon SOU Student Housing Development Project 11854.0 December 2, 2011 Page: 6 A grade separated crossing was not identified as a viable option given they tend to increase walking distance by three to four times that of using a crosswalk (in addition to having to go up and down a grade) and unless crossing Siskiyou Boulevard were prohibited for several blocks in each direction, would not be utilized. 7. The Pedestrian Safety Plan states (page 81-82) that the Wightman-Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection would operate acceptably with the addition of a 36 second "scramble" phase. This intersection currently has times during the day that traffic backs up on the westbound leg of Siskyou Boulevard/Ashland Street intersection. How would the addition of a 36 second "scramble" phase not affect both of these signals in a negative way? Will this 36 seconds phase run during every cycle of the traffic signal or will it be "intelligent" and only run when necessary? The "scramble" phase would be pedestrian actuated and would not run during every cycle. However, during peals hours it is likely to be triggered every cycle. The "scramble" is proposed to provide increased safety and convenience to pedestrians as the major desire is to cross diagonally across the intersection to/from the southwest and northeast corners. This type of treatment may also help attract more pedestrians from other crossings in the corridor such as Bridge Street, improving operations downstream. However, without a "scramble" phase, the traffic signal has ample capacity to accommodate the anticipated approximately doubling of pedestrian volumes. The traffic impacts of the "scramble" phase are described below. However, -if these impacts are deemed too significant by the City, it is recommended that in the near-term the intersection be improved to have countdown I signal heads and an increased advance pedestrian interval. In the long-term, if a "scramble" phase is not implemented, monitor the need to remove the permissive left-turn phasing on Wightman-Indiana Street that conflicts with the pedestrian movements. This requires widening Wightman Street to provide a left-turn lane at Siskiyou allowing for exchisive left-turn phasing. The 36 second pedestrian "scramble" phase proposed would have an impact on operations at the Wightman-Indian Street and Siskiyou Boulevard/Ashland Street intersection in terms of both level- of-service and volume-to capacity. However, based on our evaluation of future 2013 traffic conditions, operations at the intersections are not expected to exceed the City's mobility standards for signalized intersections. Based on the City's comments, we expanded the Signalized Pedestrian Crossing section to provide further evaluation of the pedestrian "scramble", including a queuing analysis using SimTraffic. This analysis is included in the updated report in the Pedestrian Safety Plan section. The queues that exist on Siskiyou Boulevard under existing conditions between Wightman- Indian Street and Ashland Street are due to the closely spaced intersections. Modifications to the Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon ks! r< SOU Student Housing Development Project>#. 11854.0 December 2, 2011 Page: 7 signal timing and phasing were made to the Siskiyou Boulevard/Ashland Street intersection as part of the queuing analysis to improve the coordination between the two intersections. 8. Would the addition of 9 seconds, to the traffic signal timing, too long? The current 3 second delay allows pedestrians to proceed into the street so that they are seen by drivers before traffic begins to move. The nine second recommendation is based on the amount of time it is expected to take to cross one bicycle lane and two lanes of opposing traffic. At a minimum, five seconds should be considered as an alternative to the current three second lead given the number of pedestrians that currently cross at each of the signalized intersections and the number of opposing vehicles. Based on the City's comments, we modified our recommendations to include a five second leading pedestrian interval at each of the unsignalized intersections. Prior to distribution of this response letter we received notice of an email from you written on November 23, 2011 requesting further evaluation of additional enhancement opportunities at the Wightman-Indian Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection; specifically enhanced pavement designs and potential gateway treatments. It should be noted that SOU has a separate on-going project that is constructing plaza gateway treatments at several intersections including the Siskiyou/Wightman-lildiana Street intersection. These drawings are attached. Based on your comments we have expanded our discussion in the Pedestrian Safety Plan to incorporate the potential for enhanced pavement design at the Wightman- Indiana Street/Siskyou Boulevard intersection., as well as each of the other signalized and unsignalized intersections/pedestrian crossings located along Siskyou Boulevard and Ashland Street that provide access to either the north or south campus areas; however, while these treatments enhance the overall environment and can indicate that a driver has entered a special district, there is no proven connection to enhance pedestrian safety. We have also more clearly indicated our recommendations as opposed to "enhancement opportunities" and have documented these in the Pedestrian Safety Plan Conclusions and Recommendations and included them in an additional figure in the report (also attached). Some of the recommendations are divided into near-term and long-term based on pedestrian activity and behavioral changes in pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike at several locations based upon recommended monitoring. Kittel5on & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon SOU Student Housing Development Project i#: 11854.0 December 2, 2011 Page: 8 One additional request in your e-mail was to provide further consideration of Transportation Demand Management strategies to shift parking demand to the south campus area and/or reduce parking demand in general by promoting other travel modes. Based on your comments we have expanded our discussion in the Transportation Demand Management .section of our report to focus on shifting demand to the south campus along with redistributing demand within the existing and potential fixture lots. The current TDM Program for SOU includes many important elements but the current ample parking supply and on-street parking availability makes it difficult for additional significant changes in mode split to occur. There are opportunities to enhance the TDM program with additional strategies and refinements to existing strategies. However, the parking proposed for construction as part of the housing facility is necessary to accommodate the existing parking demand rates if existing on-street parking were to be absorbed on to campus. Absorbing the current on-street parking demand on to campus is an important step in order for SOU to utilize parking pricing as a tool to further reduce their travel demand without additional impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to the changes described above, we made changes to the parking demand/ration analysis section to correct a minor issue in our estimate of the future parking supply within the north campus area. The updated report is enclosed. If you have any additional questions or comments about the changes we made to the report or our responses included in this letter, feel free to contact us at 503- 228-5230. Sincerely, KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Susan Wright, P.E. Matthew Bell Senior Engineer Transportation Analyst Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon I" , H.•Iprojfilell 1854 - SOU Student Housingldwgslfigsll1854F1G03.dwg Dec 02, 2011- 6:02pm - mbell Layout Tab: Fig 12 CCD z ~O O r a0 iZ R z z> Q (n ro m o z D Z 0 C -a i m y fA _ zD fick Dr Z Zl m -Q # O z n n ` m o 0 o0N n o~ ~z> z a ~ o Q o Z ~zo z oz ~b(n m m ~oN ~Z n w z~ c < 0 m~ ~70 mz mo >ryr mM m m r i y M K M Y O D M m (n z z3 00-4 r z -1 073 M o z 0c I ➢ D ( ~65 o Z <m q zc z m 0 < Z m < Z 6', z a z a D m ~ tnm a~ z U, m 00 o ZZ o v o s f l r H.Ordfi7o111654-SOUStudc tHousingVrrgsWgs111654FCO'I .02,2011-555pm-mba9 Lay-tTOb:Fg13 I D ,i - . ! B O D m 1 m T i y o 0 r- A N ll 1 A C 0 0 ~ Z (n o O 90 zD r 7~1 a ' i 3 _ r~ p m lzs: o " r 9800 4. vogy 5T flg m FsT I. ItiG W'Va yT ~ - 1:.~!t I 11i 1 age j i v r 41 0 >v I. 1 Z - 0O r _ Om X3 mm ~ 1 O-zi ~ I t o z vy ~ ~ ~ i r (7 cue I 3 T i o ,•,f r 49- 0 > IN Z", ✓ f f< z~mm ;:J / 11 91, 'HN mZDZ , -iii-~ i// ~°~~f. • - f% e,"!/'/~~',%"l;i~ (j) m i M Z N Z Z m D co v7 r o SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY a o aoS° o~F~ ,p GATEWAY AND EVENT SIGNAGE 'ass ~~oA reksataeeat9a 54sAStreet s ASHLAND, OREGON °s F °ya o' 1KenCairn F. 541.552.9512 Ashland,OR97520 cT I LandseapeArclilleclum f Ce3:541.501.5559 kerry@kemkntandscape-com mrxry[ai.t~Sra~acx+ 7 C1 %Zl C; o _ 1 Y r) / 1. ~t 1 '4 t 2 t d ~ 6 ~ s : u r'7 ~c .i i J _f ~ ~ 1 0 4, 7 r i 1 n ~i N ~ cn -u H ~ Fes{ } '-U \ v , 1~ _ L T.1 1 O_ I ) ~ - 00 O rrn0:E n I 'V cn :1 00 Z ` s I--I O Ammm ~ti o`rI Z Z~ `t'j u o4 O ow(~m 7-, z~czm 40 w 777III✓ Z \1 m\4\ ` (1 9 ` c C t \ 'V 0®~ °t rdn T-6- m m z~ --i r m SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY o ass V ~o~~~ W p GATEWAY AND EVENT SIGNAGE _ g IC-C T~ 547.488.3194 645 A Street ASHLAND, OREGON KenCairn Fax:541W.9512 AshandOR97620 1__ J LandscapcArchlleclure CeY:541.601.5559 kerry@keraknlands,:W.com UNIVERSITY WAY % co co co 00 ~ a cn i rn co 4 - r` Z CO) co moo; \ Li` ~J 4 4' x 9 O tri 00 C6 I~ t r x y tT~ 00 rn-,07 7 0 ;u zDm U Am mD 1W -1 O D o mA mm (j) m mm v z0 z m I SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY r~ a ~s Any N p GATEWAY AND EVENT SIGNAGE x 9P s Te7: 541.486.3112 545esv 94 M ASHLAND, OREGON KenCaii n TZ2,1.552.95 Astdend O 0R 897520 CT I:4 ;m. 3xc~e I.andscapeAcchlleclure 1 Cetl:541.601.5559 kerry®keiua'xnlandscapo,can i MOUNTAIN AVE. a 91 r o , (o 6 i r Y~ ~ o 1 Z ~ itty~~{{i 9 " ' I - 9 O ~t 4 moy,~,~77o mZo C) ZOA C <u 4 t Irl 1 fi` o <r m , D A ~8 1 u z Vjz n 1 y o i. q m ~ 3-1C ,lam, ~a t~~. r rqm m~ -o Z~ m D Ii r o SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY A os°,, tl7 ~F A GATEWAY AND EVENT SIGNAGE o _ m" TeC 541.466.9194 545AS6eel s ASHLAND, OREGON b x - ~~,a = d~ - • KenCalm F.;541.552.9512 AshWrM,Ofl97520 :fit Land-caperlrchiteelalt Cel1:541.601.5559 kerry@kemxtrrMndscape.C0M Planning Department, 51 WM6. ay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 1 Y E 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,orms TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: 2011.01576 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1554 Webster (on the Southern Oregon University campus) OWNER/APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40 foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 18 trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. The application involves the demolition of five residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University, ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 4200 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action on December 8, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Transportation Commission will review this Planning Action on December 15, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers building located at 1175 East Main Street. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PA #2011-01576' 1664 WEBSTER WEBSTER STREET SUBJECT PROPER" - OUTLINED IN RED PROPOSED DINING HALL LOCATION PROPOSED NORTH RESIDENCE HALL F LOCATION W W [A I I ~ Z [EXISTING - GREENSPRINGS DORMITORY NORTH COLLEGE WAY PROPOSED.. ~i SOUTH RESIDENCE HAL~ I- 9 W LOCATION IyW,, I$ _ Z W S SOUTH COLLEGE WAY I Q N w O Q G - C', r ~F!%Q ASHLAND STREET - - O O 2040 80 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 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. 4i 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. (ORD 2655,1991; ORD 2836,1999) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B, That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. 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. i 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) Wcomm-dev\planning\Notices Mailed\2011\2011-01576.doc /j NOTICE OF SITE VISIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland Planning Commission will conduct a site visit of 1554 Webster (SOU Student Housing Project) on Friday, December 9, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. The site visit is open to the public. For additional information please contact Associate Planner Derek Severson at #541-552-2040. [Planning Action #2011-01576] Submitted to the Daily Tidings Community Notes section on 12/7/2011 E i v C) (D 0 0 C) a ~Nb 5 q ,0 ° 0 0 0 04B i~~, 00°~ ooh ~F~ *''dR'o, ~,oo vA ~ ,c"d 00 C's q ° d q 0 p q~ -,Z' 0 t8 b 0 bA bA0y o ~ b 00 v p O cd , on :1 o m 0 0 0 = VJ p~' °~a bay " Cd 00 0 000 n0oo ~ n ~oU~ z: 0 >q¢,~ J~ m ` '0'o P 00 00. N cd a 0 cd p 0 ~ bN 0 ° bA q 4- O 0 m 0 cd dd 'v~ 0 0 N cad a+ 9 h N p q 42 0 o A cidd ,c"G 0 b0 0, w b y0 bA q 'd 'o O O 0 m O H 4-4 0 fib, U ~a~ o~~ 'd0 'D P3 + u C~ 0 A 0O p+' m Z 0 0~ q 0 0 0 0 0 ~cd'~~O9g0 ~cdo~~'~ c,ma O Abp ~0 d 06 N 0 44 o 'd 0 r W + o m o 0 0 b cd o H 0 0° q y a0 0~ .o~ 0 p bA m W ~'Od~o0p 0 cd 0 o p cd~0 o q~~0 0~'0 ~~~q 0 b . -IS *9 cn cd a 0 ° 0 0 10 " C ~o +tq ~0q+b0 ca qo> v0q ~0pgc~~~ p`d 41-1 b 0 °~~Ubp 0 -yon' 0 m0, 0 Ho~ ~ Q o ~idq~'d v~ n q U0, o .0 75 oo O vv o, ,H V 0 "CS CO N N Lr) N' V Y , rI q l~ i-V + A.o g O • i-1 Z::, q a P o 0 0° o 0 v N i0 N N 'd r CO ,N 0 -0 0 o p ° ~ A ca q 0 ":J 4 0 0 e a~ co CD ~U~ cd0 ~,m^°0 oZyc,m ~ q ~O-dbcd p qq q~ NX 0 0 " R 0 401 0, 4y 0 p O 0 U a m 00 c°0 ¢d~ b gtid"' . ' q°r v -d 0 ~A b 0~q~ o v,~0m tl o ~0.'~ +q0 0 o m W U t3 q tl o 0° 0 q 0 AaAv~ ° q cd U) 0 0 0 N N t " cl~ " ca p, " a 0 ca m o 10 q q H 'd 0 a cad + a Do cao ca d o °p0en a,m o° s cd{ q onpg0 0 v bo + 0 i--I V U {-1 O U ^ O VJ O O ~ r~ q VJ U] T C O Cd C) ~0~W 0 0 b'S o~ o ° o~~ o~° 0 0 0 0 co° A[-iw~ ~ ~U~~ ~ U v,Fy °~U ~a~ U ~Q ~•~U ~a~ ~ ~ U ~ ~',v, P,s~,~ ~w° ~v~ ~~na ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT December 13t", 2011 PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01576 APPLICANT: American Campus Community Services LOCATION: 1554 Webster Street (on the S.O.U. campus) ZONE DESIGNATION: SO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: December 2, 2011 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 31, 2012 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 4 18.64 SO University District 18.72 Site Design Review 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.96 Sign Regulations 18.104 Conditional Use Permit and The Campus Master Plan Update for Southern Oregon University f ("The SOU Plan") REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus, at 1554 Webster Street. Also included are requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40-foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 24 trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. The application involves the demolition of five residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate the proposed development. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application Oregon Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) as well as Chapter 197 of the t Oregon Revised Statutes requires that the planning activities of Southern Oregon University be coordinated with the City of Ashland to ensure compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan and local land use ordinances. Compliance with these requirements is achieved with the adoption of the university's SOU Plans, which provide Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 1 of 23 the framework and guidelines for on-going development or the 164-acre Southern Oregon University campus. In June of 2010, the Southern Oregon University Campus SOU Plan Update ("the SOU Plan") was adopted by the Ashland City Council with the passage of ordinances #3014, #3015, #3016 and #3019 which: amended the Comprehensive Plan to adopt and incorporate the SOU Plan as a supporting document; amended AMC 18.64 to correctly reference the updated SOU Plan; amended the Zoning Map to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations for SOU properties reflected in the SOU Plan; and amended the Detail Site Review Zone for consistency with the SOU Plan. Because the SOU Plan included a significant shifting of a substantial portion of the resident student population of the campus from the Cascade residence hall complex on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard to the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard (as proposed in the current application) and did not fully address the potential impacts to traffic, parking or pedestrian safety, the SOU Plan includes requirements that the following studies be completed prior to a development application, as further detailed on i page 54 of the SOU Plan: • A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and Access Management Standards • A Pedestrian Safety Plan to include but not limited to improved crossings with enhanced pavement design and access controls with on-going monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety issues. Design strategies to be coordinated and prepared based on input from both a traffic engineer & urban design professional. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies to be accompanied by a timeline for their implementation. • An Emergency Vehicle Access Plan to be provided for the review and approval of Ashland Fire & Rescue to demonstrate that all modifications to vehicular and pedestrian circulation are in compliance with emergency access provisions of the Oregon Fire Code. • Proposed Parking Requirements for On-Campus Student Housing to be developed through collaboration with city staff. In February of 2000, the City Council adopted the "Southern Oregon University Campus SOU Plan - 2000-2010" as prepared by Southern Oregon University with amendments by the City of Ashland. In August of 1990, the Ashland City Council adopted the "Southern 2000 Campus SOU Plan" as prepared by Southern Oregon State College with amendments by the City of Ashland. I As both the Greensprings complex and the detached single family residences on the subject property pre-date current land use regulations, there are no other planning actions of record for the subject property. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 2 of 23 t The Site The subject property is a generally rectangular, 14.69 acre parcel bordered to the north by Webster Street (a private street), to the south by Ashland Street (a state highway under city jurisdiction), to the east by Walker Avenue (a collector street), and to the west by Wightman Street (a collector street). Stadium Street (a partially public street), North and South College Way (private streets), and a number of private driveways and walkways provide circulation through the property. Roughly the western third of the property contains the existing Greensprings residence hall complex which consists of four connected buildings that are to remain in place on the site, associated parking areas, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes. The central third of the property contains six tennis courts which are to be removed with the proposed development of the site, additional parking, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation routes. The western third of the site contains approximately five residences dating to approximately the 1950's which currently provide student housing on site, and their associated garages and accessory structures. These buildings are clustered near the intersection of Stadium and Webster Streets, and are proposed to be removed with the proposed development in order to accommodate a new parking lot. The property is generally flat with an approximately four to five percent average slope down to the north, however there are some steeply sloped areas (approximately 40 percent) along the south boundary of the property at the edge of Ashland Street and along the southwest corner of the Greensprings complex where cuts have previously been made to accommodate road and building construction. The property- has a number of established trees, including clusters along the Wightman Street corridor, near the new dining hall's location at Wightman and Webster, at the southeast corner of the Greensprings complex, near the existing parking area south of the tennis courts, and near the existing houses along Webster and Walker. The application includes a tree inventory which identifies 175 trees of six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater on the site. Of these, 109 trees are to be removed with the proposed development. 22 of the trees to be removed are 18-inches d.b.h. or greater and are considered to be "significant trees" as defined by ordinance. The removal of significant trees on the Southern Oregon University campus requires Tree Removal permit approval, and the removal of these 18 significant trees is discussed in light of the Tree Removal permit approval criteria later in this document. The subject property and the properties directly to the north and to the southwest across Siskiyou are zoned as the Southern Oregon University (SO) zoning district, a zoning designation created to provide for the unique needs of Southern Oregon University as a State educational institution functioning within the planning framework of the City of Ashland. Generally speaking, development within the SO zoning district is guided by the SOU Plan, which provides specific guidance for the development of the campus through an adopted map detailing proposed developments as well as providing specific site and building design standards applicable to the SO zoning district, and the zoning regulations found in AMC 18.64. Development on campus is also subject to the Site Review, Sign, Off-Street, Parking, and Tree Preservation and Protection chapters, as well as to the Conditional Use Permit chapter which applies to: any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in advance by the city and the university in the SOU Plan; any use, site design, or construction within 50 feet of privately-owned property; any Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 3 of 23 construction over 40 feet in height; and wireless communication facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. To the east along the opposite side of Walker Avenue, there is a small area of Low Density Multi-Family Residential zoned property, with the remainder of the residentially zoned lands on the east side of Walker Avenue zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). To the west, across Wightman Street, properties near the intersection with Siskiyou and Indiana are zoned Commercial (C-1), and properties further north along the west side of Wightman are zoned Low-Density Multi-Family Residential (R-3). To the south and southeast, properties across Ashland Street and Walker Avenue are zoned Commercial (C-1). The current Transportation System Plan update process and related "Pedestrian Places" project include the area at Ashland Street and Walker Avenue as an identified Pedestrian Places node that is well-suited to placemaking efforts to help solidify the creation of a "University District." The SOU Plan recognizes the importance of the developing district and notes that the University will continue to work with the city and campus neighbors to I' support and encourage the development of the district, which will contribute to a more dynamic urban environment and increase students' sense of community and engagement while allowing private businesses to benefit from the student market. A number of placemaking concepts have been considered for future redevelopment of the properties across Ashland Street, and revisions to the zoning ordinance to guide future development in this direction were recently adopted by the City Council with Ordinances #3051-3054. In staff's view, the relationship between the new residence hall neighborhood to be created with the proposal and the University District pedestrian node across Ashland Street presents significant opportunities, particularly given the number of existing destinations (grocery store, restaurants, gym, and wireless services provider) likely to serve the student population. The SOU Plan notes that to this end, new campus development will follow the city's urban design guidelines regarding orientation, entries and parking locations, recognizing that a thoughtfully designed urban environment can increase pedestrian safety by creating a streetscape supportive of pedestrian circulation (SOUPIan p. 44). Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street along the property's south boundary are both ` classed as boulevards or arterial streets under the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Both are also state highways, but in the vicinity of the subject property they are under city jurisdiction as part of the jurisdictional exchange and street improvement project completed in 2002. Both are fully improved with paving, curbs, gutters, curbside sidewalks and street trees in place along the subject property's southern frontages. Wightman Street is classified as a collector street in the TSP and is improved with paving, curbs, gutters, curbside sidewalks and street trees in place along the subject property's western frontage. Walker Avenue is also classified as a collector street in the TSP and is improved with paving, curbs, and gutters in place along the property's eastern frontage. This frontage currently lacks sidewalks along the southern approximately 400 feet of its length, with parkrows and sidewalks in place along the remaining approximately 140 feet of the frontage just south of Webster Street. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 4 of 23 E t On the subject property, Webster Street is a private street which provides a connection from Walker Avenue to Wightman Street. Stadium Street is a partially public street providing a connection from Ashland Street to Webster Street, and North and South College Ways, both private streets, provide circulation primarily to existing surface parking in place between Ashland Street and the existing tennis courts, which are to be removed. The Proposal Site Review approval The application requests Site Review approval to construct: a new single-story 27,500 square foot Dining Hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets; two new four-story Residence Halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets with the South Residence Hall to consist of 105,000 square feet in 128 "semi-suite" units to house 429 students, and the North Residence Hall to consist of 89,443 square feet in 78 suite units to house 273 students; two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. (The application also notes the possibility of a future 50,000 square foot Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion which would be constructed between the existing building and Wightman Street, however this future addition is not part of the current request and is not being considered at this time.) Conditional Use Permit approval The application also includes requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the proposal to vary from the SOU Plan in the following ways: the two residence hall buildings exceed the 250-foot maximum length and are more than 40 feet in height; the residence halls, dining hall and parking lot vary from the locations identified in the SOU Plan. In the SOU Plan, the dining hall was to have been part of an integrated quad that would have included the dining hall, new residence halls and the existing Greensprings complex. The two proposed residence hall buildings were shown as four buildings to enclose the quad, with the southern residence halls to have been constructed in mixed use buildings fronting directly on Ashland Street. The SOU Plan includes limits on the length of residential buildings, which are not to exceed 250 feet in length and are to have a recessed court of at least 25 feet in width and depth at entries on elevations which exceed 150 feet in length. As proposed, the two proposed residence halls exceed 400 feet in length and while they have provided some offsets there are no recessed courts proposed at the entries to break up this length. Tree Removal Permit approval Finally, the application includes a request for Tree Removal Permit approval to allow the removal of 22 significant trees (i.e. trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater) from the subject property. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 5 of 23 Note: Demolition/Relocation Review Permit approval is also required The application also involves the demolition of five residences and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to accommodate a proposed new parking lot in that location. The SOU Plan notes that the University currently owns 37 single family residences within or near the campus boundaries, and recognizes that several of these may need to be removed with implementation of the plan although these although the buildings proposed with the current request are not identified for removal in Figure 12 "Building Status" on page 36 of the SOU Plan. The SOU Plan requires that demolitions or relocations comply with the provisions of the Demolition/Relocation Ordinance in AMC 15.04, and notes that except where structurally unsound, buildings will be relocated to new locations and if relocation is not feasible due to deterioration, the buildings will be deconstructed to recover materials for reuse or recycling to the extent supported locally. Prior to demolition, the applicants will need to obtain Demolition/Relocation Review Permit approval through the Building Division as required in AMC 15.04. This requires an application process similar to, but separate from, the land use approval which is reviewed by the Building Official and may be appealed to the Demolition Review Committee/Building Appeals Board. A condition has been recommended below that evidence of this approval be provided prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit, or demolition or relocation of the homes. II. Project Impact As explained more fully above, the application consists of Site Review, Condition Use and Tree Removal permit approval requests. The construction of new buildings within the SO zone is subject to Site Review approval, and the application must be processed as a Type II procedure with a public hearing and decision by the Planning Commission because the gross square footage involved exceeds 10,000 square feet. In addition, because the proposal includes buildings which exceed the maximum length, vary from the locations identified in the Masterplan, and exceed the base 40-foot height allowance in the SO zoning district, Conditional Use Permit approval is required. Finally, because the application includes the removal of 22 significant trees, Tree Removal Permit approval is also required. A. Site Review Approval The application requests Site Review approval to construct: a new single-story 27,500 square foot Dining Hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets; two new four-story Residence Halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets with the South Residence Hall to consist of 105,000 square feet in 128 semi-suite units to house 429 students and the North Residence Hall to consist of 89,443 square feet in 78 suite units to house 273 students; two parking lots and associated site improvements on the 1 Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. (The application also notes the possibility of a future 50,000 square foot Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion which would be constructed between the existing building and Wightman Street, however this future addition is not part of the current request and is not being considered at this time.) Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 6 of 23 1. Requirements of the SO Zoning District The first approval criterion for Site Review is that, "All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development." Generally speaking, development within the SO zoning district is guided by the SOU Plan, which provides specific guidance for the development of the campus through an adopted map detailing proposed developments as well as through specific site and building design standards applicable to the SO zoning district which supplement the zoning regulations found in AMC 18.64. In AMC 18.64, the SO zoning district regulations generally provide that those uses which are directly related to the educational functions of the university are considered outright permitted uses, provided that such uses are indicated and located in conformance with the adopted, city-approved SOU Plan, and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property. In addition to the SOU Plan, development on campus is also subject to the Site Review, Sign Regulations, Off-Street Parking and Tree Preservation & Protection chapters, as well as to the Conditional Use Permit chapter which applies to: any use, site design, or construction or alteration of same not agreed upon in advance by the city and the university in the SOU Plan; any use, site design, or construction within 50 feet of privately-owned property; any construction over 40 feet in height; and wireless communication facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180. The proposed buildings are directly related to the educational functions of the university, however the location of the dining hall, residence halls and associated parking lot are not as identified in the SOU Plan, the 400+ foot length of the residence halls exceeds the maximum 250 foot length allowed in the SOU Plan, and the height of the residence halls is greater than the 40 feet allowed outright in the district. As such, the application includes requests for Conditional Use Permit approvals to address these areas of nonconformity with the SOU Plan. Within the SOU Plan, there are provisions for the applicants to develop specific parking standards in collaboration with city staff. Currently, the applicable parking standards in AMC 18.92.020 call for two off-street parking spaces for each three guest rooms in a dormitory and one and one- half space per classroom plus one space for five students, plus the required parking for on-campus resident students the campus can accommodate. i Based on observed parking demand across campus, the applicants propose to adjust the parking required for residence halls from two off-street parking spaces for each three guest rooms in a dormitory to only one space per three beds. The applicants also propose to increase classroom parking required from one and one-half spaces per classroom plus one space for five students to two spaces per classroom plus one per five students. The Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 7 of 23 f, applicants also propose to remove the addition of required parking for on- campus resident students the campus can accommodate as these spaces are considered with the required parking for the dormitories and should not be counted twice. For staff these adjustments seem reasonable and based on existing demand; to compare we would note that 350 double rooms would accommodate 700 students with a parking requirement of 233 spaces by the current requirement, while 700 beds by the proposed adjusted standard would similarly require 233 spaces. The application notes with the proposal that there are 570 existing off- street parking spaces available on the northern portion of the campus, and that these currently have a utilization rate of roughly 36 percent. On-street parking currently has a peals utilization rate of 91 percent, and the application suggests that 50 percent of this demand is tied to the university. As part of the application, the applicants propose to construct two parking lots - one off of Stadium Street at College Way, where parking is already in place, and another at the corner of Stadium and Webster Streets. The current proposal results in a net reduction of 44 parking spaces, leaving 526 off-street spaces to accommodate demand on the north campus. The application suggests that parking management strategies including parking pricing, parking restrictions, and specific parking lot designations could be use to reduce demand, in conjunction with transit subsidies and a targeted shuttle service, however the submittal concludes that because the proposed parking is adequate these measures are not required. With construction of the newly proposed surface parking lot at the intersection of Stadium and Webster Streets, the demolition of five existing detached single family residences is proposed. Staff is generally in agreement with the modified parking requirements recommended, and believe that if additional parking is necessary to serve the proposed buildings, the parking lot locations seem well-chosen. Staff recognizes that a surplus of parking on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard is by itself unlikely to address newly created parking demand on the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard, however we believe that prior to creating new parking lots and demolishing existing rental housing, it may be prudent to first exhaust the potential for utilizing existing parking elsewhere on campus, developing a permit program to reduce impacts of student use of on-street parking in surrounding residential neighborhoods, seeking to reduce student automobile use by promoting other modes of travel including transit, and more strongly pursuing transportation demand management strategies as called for in the SOU Plan. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds, Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 8 of 23 E j`. With regard to bicycle parking, the application does not clearly indicate whether the requirement in 18.92.040 that colleges and universities provide one bicycle parking space per five automobile parking spaces, with half of the spaces to be covered is appropriate to demand experienced on campus. The site plans provided detail a mix of covered and uncovered bicycle spaces provided near the entries to the residence halls and dining hall, and in discussions with the applicants they have suggested they are considering placing bicycle parking accommodations in each of the individual rooms although it is unclear from the floorplans if or how this is being incorporated into the proposal. Staff would like to see additional information on bicycle parking demand and how it is to be addressed, including details of in-room bicycle parking if it is to be part of the proposal. 2. Site Review The second requirement for approval of a Site Review permit is that, "All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met." Within the Site Review chapter, both commercial and multi-family residential developments requiring Site Review approval are required to f provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. The recycle site must be of a size equal or greater than the solid waste receptacle, and both the waste and recycling facilities must be screened from view by adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. The plans provided identify a recycling hub as a central element in the floor plans for each floor in the residence halls, and the placement of a trash compactor between the southern residence hall and Ashland Street, but are not as clear as to the placement of these facilities for the dining hall. Staff would recommend that a condition be attached to any approval to require that a revised site plan be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals which clearly details the placement and screening of the solid waste and recycling facilities, including those to serve the dining hall. In addition, staff would recommend that this condition require that the proposed trash compactor placement be relocated elsewhere on site as its current placement seems ill-suited to efficiently serving the dining hall and will tend to detract from the new south residence hall's orientation to Ashland Street (until such time as a new building is constructed in the envelope identified for future development along Ashland Street.) In addition, the chapter requires that project lighting not directly illuminate any adjacent residentially zoned property. The plans provided do not identify details on the type or placement of lighting, although in staff's assessment the primary area where this would need to be closely considered. is at the front of the proposed dining hall building on Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 9 of 23 Wightman Street, which is located directly across the 60-foot street right- of-way from residential property. Given this separation and the options available for lighting selection, placement and screening, staff do not believe there should be any difficulty in complying with this standard. Staff would recommend that a condition be attached to any approval to require that lighting specifications including details of specific light fixture placement and any shrouding or other screening necessary to prevent direct illumination of adjacent residential properties be provided for the final review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Finally, the chapter requires that prior to final approval, the proposal be reviewed by Conservation Division staff to assess energy use estimates and conservation strategies provided by the applicant and make any applicable recommendations as to available cost-effective means to further reduce energy consumption. The applicants have indicated that the project will be pursuing LEED certification, and have been in discussions with Conservation Division staff since the early stages of project planning to identify available means to reduce energy use with the project. Given the scale of the project, and the level of detail involved with LEED certification, staff would recommend that a condition be attached to any approval which would provide for the Conservation Division's final review of the building permit submittals to allow for the fine-tuning of energy conservation strategies. 3. Site Design and Use Standards The third Site Review approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter." The Site Design & Use Standards handbook includes specific design standards for both commercial and residential developments. Institutional buildings, including public buildings and schools like the residence and dining halls considered here, are reviewed under the basic site review standards for commercial projects. Given that the council-adopted SOU Plan also includes specific design standards for campus developments, the applicable standards from j the SOU Plan are also addressed here, and below under the Conditional Use Permits discussion, as appropriate. Generally, the Site Design & Use Standards seek to improve each project's appearance; create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Buildings on corner lots are to orient to the higher order street or to the corner. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds I Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 10 of 23 f i i along subject properties' frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. The SOU Plan details additional Design Guidelines for campus development seeking to provide buildings at a density appropriate both to a significant university and to the scale of Ashland; to ensure that the scale and articulation of buildings enhance the "sense of place" of the campus and support walking within the campus environment; and express the permanence and long-term role of the university in the community. These goals are addressed through standards for building massing and orientation which limit new construction to four stories, strongly discourages single- story buildings, limits residential buildings to a maximum length of 250 feet, and to a maximum footprint of 35,000 square feet, and provides articulation guidelines which call for design elements on buildings longer than 200 feet to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet to include offsets or jogs in the plan or significant recessed entry or courts of at least 25 feet in width. Buildings facing major streets are to have significant, strongly articulated and clearly understandable entries to the street, and buildings facing both a significant street and a campus open space are to have entries provided to both. The SOU Plan also includes standards calling for the use of materials and construction selected for long-tern durability, with a preference noted for materials similar to the more significant buildings on campus which have typically used red brick, concrete and stucco. i. i In considering the proposal in light of both the Site Design & Use Standards and the SOU Plan's Design Guidelines, staff has identified the following primary concerns: o The sense of entry and orientation to the street of both the dining and residence halls are not adequately addressed in the proposed designs. The proposed Dining Hall faces the Wightman Street streetscape to the west and a small area of campus open space to the east. The SOU Plan Design Guidelines call for strongly articulated and clearly understandable entries to both the street and the open space. For staff, the Wightman Street entry to the Dining Hall (as detailed on sheets A321, A350 and A521) is not strongly articulated enough to establish a clear sense of entry and relationship to the pedestrian corridor to meet either the university's or the city's design standards, and the placement of a kitchen/support service entrance so near the Wightman Street storefront entry further detracts from a clearly articulated and understandable sense of entry. Staff would recommend that the ' entries from both the Wightman Street streetscape and the open space to the east be better articulated in the design and revised Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 11 of 23 drawings brought back to the Planning Commission's January meeting for further consideration. For the residence halls, the buildings' primary entrances are shown to be to the interior quadrangle space being created, and the street- facing entries are labeled on the floor plans and treated in the designs as back doors. For staff, this is of particular concern for the South Hall, which is placed well back from Ashland Street, with parking, circulation and a trash compactor between the building and the street and no clear pedestrian connection to the streetscape despite the strong likelihood that the developing University District will draw student pedestrian 'traffic to the grocery shopping, dining, coffee shops, fitness center and wireless communications services available just across Ashland Street. For staff, this is a primary reason that the SOU Plan envisioned placement of this residence hall along Ashland Street, in a mixed use building which would more strongly engage and complement the streetscape and nearby University District. The applicants have explained that in the current market, a mixed use building with commercial rental space is not feasible, and suggested that the development of the current proposal could help to create a market for such a building in the future by bringing a large portion of the student population to this side of Siskiyou Boulevard. As such, the application retains a future building envelope with the Detail Site Review Zone along Ashland Street. Staff believes that the reservation of a future building envelope along Ashland Street for development at some unspecified point in the future provides a basis for the placement of parking and circulation between the currently proposed South Hall and Ashland Street, in a location that will be behind that future building. However, in the interim until that building ultimately develops, staff believes that the length and size of the building, its relative to proximity to Ashland Street and the developing University District, and the magnitude of the shift in student population to this new portion of campus merits a substantially stronger sense of entry to Ashland Street, a clearly defined pedestrian connection from the entry to Ashland Street with city-standard streetscape improvements including sidewalks along Stadium Street, and the relocation of the proposed trash compactor to a less prominent location that will serve the residence and dining halls. Staff have provided exhibits illustrating: 1) an example of how a stronger sense of entry might be achieved with a raised central entry element that would also break up the length of the building; 2) a photograph of a four-story multi-family building in Medford which successfully incorporates more of a recessed entry court as envisioned in the SOU Plan; 3) an illustration of how an arched entry at the sidewalk and walkway to the entry might better achieve a relationship to the pedestrian streetscape, as with Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 12 of 23 f, Churchill Hall which is similarly setback from the street; and 4) an illustration from Princeton University's master plan showing a concept for their New South Green incorporating landscaping, walkways, and an arched entry through the building to a central quadrangle to create a stronger relationship to the streetscape and the "sense of place" sought in the standards. Staff recommends that the building and site designs be modified to address these issues, and revised drawings be brought back to the January meeting. o The proposed residence halls exceed the maximum length allowed under the university's own Design Guidelines, and also seem to inadequately incorporate the articulation standards to mitigate the excessive building length's proposed. The SOU Plan calls for buildings not to exceed a maximum length of 250 feet, and further requires that any building greater than 150 feet in length provide jogs, offsets, or a significant recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width (see pp. 54-55 and Figure 16). As proposed, both residence halls exceed 400 feet in length on the primary elevations. No significant recessed entry or court is provided, and the jogs and offsets shown are generally shallow and repetitive notching, particularly on the South Hall, and do little to break up the effect of the length. In staff's view, a building that is 1.64 times the maximum allowed length requires stronger articulation. We believe that the excessive length without adequate articulation exacerbates concerns with sense of entry discussed above, and that better articulation with a significant recessed entry or court at the significant street-facing entries could address the length as well as sense of entry as illustrated in the exhibits discussed above. Again, staff recommends that the building and site designs be modified to address these concerns, and that revised design drawings be brought back to the Commission for review at the January meeting. 4. Adequacy of Public Facilities The final approval criterion is, "That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options." In their preliminary review of available facilities, Public Works/Engineering staff has indicated the following: • Water: There is an eight-inch water main available to serve the project within Stadium Street, as well as a six-inch water main Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 13 of 23 available in Webster Street. Based on the details in the submittal materials, Engineering staff has determined these facilities to be adequate to serve the project. • Sanitary Sewer: A 12-inch sanitary sewer main is available in Wightman Street. Additionally, a six-inch sanitary sewer main is available in Stadium Street; Public Works staff has noted in their review that this line as it exists is undersized and inadequate to serve the project; the applicants have proposed to upgrade this line to provide a new 12-inch main out to Wightman Street as part of the application request. • Storm Sewer: A 24-inch storm sewer line is available in Webster Street. The application materials note that stormwater facilities are in the form of existing large diameter concrete stormwater piping that collects run-off from up-gradient streets, and indicates that this piping is to be reconstructed by the applicants as necessary to route around the proposed structures. The application materials indicate that stormwater within the project is to be collected by new area inlets within the parking areas and landscaped open space areas, with roof drain leaders and area inlets then linked by new subsurface conveyance piping that ultimately connects to existing down-gradient public stormwater lines in Webster Street. The materials also indicate that run-off collected by surface inlets is to be pre-treated by means of bio-swales in the landscaped areas, or by mechanical inserts in the parking lot catch basins. The application materials further note that preliminary calculations suggest that with the removal of some parking areas and tennis courts, the project will lead to a reduction in impermeable surface area within the primary development limits of the residence halls and dining facility and thus a net decrease in stormwater run-off to the existing downstream facilities. Stormwater detention facilities are to be provided for the new parking lot proposed at the corner of Stadium and Webster Streets, and the application notes that these will be routed through subsurface piping to connect to existing facilities in Webster Street and designed to current Engineering Division standards, with complete calculations to be provided for Engineering staff review with permit submittals, along with a project-specific operations and maintenance manual similar to a sample included with the application. Engineering staff has indicated that the storm drain system improvements detailed in the application will be adequate to serve the needs of the proposal, [ subject to final review and approval of civil drawings that are to include all design calculations. Here, staff would note that in addition to the Engineering Division's standards to address stormwater, the SOU Plan includes parking lot standards which require that "to the greatest degree Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 14 of 23 feasible, parking lots shall be designed to include localized stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities. Whenever possible, these stormwater treatment facilities should be above ground structures that incorporate appropriate plantings for pre- treatment and filtering of particulates and pollutants (SOU Plan, p. 59)." In addition to standard conditions that final drainage plans be provided for Engineering Division review prior to building permits, staff recommends that these drainage plans and the site plans be revised to incorporate above ground stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities consistent with the parking lot design requirements of the SOU Plan. • Electric: Electrical facilities are available from all of the surrounding street rights-of-way, and city Electric Department staff has indicated that these facilities will have adequate source and capacity to serve the project with the extension of facilities onto the subject property by the applicants. The Electric Department has identified two favorable options for an electrical service plan for the site, and is continuing to work with the applicants to develop a final approved plan based on project logistics and costs. Staff recommend that a condition be attached to any approval to require that a final electric service plan be provided for the review and approval of the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments with the building permit submittals. Based upon review by the Public Works, Engineering and Electric Departments, staff believes the plans provided support a finding by the Commission that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, and urban storm drainage can and will be provided to and j through the subject property with the proposal. For staff, the issues of adequate transportation and particularly pedestrian safety are perhaps the most significant considerations of the request. With a pedestrian fatality along the campus's Siskiyou Boulevard frontage in 2008, the City Council convened the Siskiyou Boulevard Ad Hoc Safety Committee which met for a number of months and ultimately recommended a reconfiguration of the Garfield and Siskiyou intersection, rumble strips to alert vehicles as they enter the campus corridor, speed limit reductions, and the installation of pedestrian-activated flashing beacons at several of the intersections adjacent to the campus. Staff believe that during the review of the SOU Plan last year, it was clearly understood that "pedestrian safety at this intersection [of Siskiyou/Ashland/Wightman/Indiana] will become paramount to the success of an integrated SOU campus" (SOUPlan, p. 48) and that prior to shifting so significant a portion of the resident student population north of Siskiyou Boulevard the university would present a plan to thoroughly address pedestrian safety issues. In staff's view, the materials initially Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 15 of 23 provided did not go as far as envisioned to be necessary in the SOU Plan to address pedestrian safety, particularly at the intersection of Siskiyou/Ashland/Wightman/Indiana where paving enhancements to create an Eastern Gateway to the campus were called for. The applicants have subsequently submitted roughly 300 pages of revised materials, a substantial portion of which appears to deal with transportation and pedestrian safety on the day before the Planning Commission packets are prepared and distributed. Planning staff, other city departments and the Transportation Commission have not had adequate time to review or comment on these new materials, and as such, staff believes that the public hearing on the matter should be continued to the January meeting to allow for review of the new materials by staff, other departments, and the Transportation Commission to support a fully- informed decision by the Planning Commission. (By code, the Transportation Commission would typically review and comment upon a Type Ill land use application such as the SOUPlan at the pre-application level, as noted in AMC 2.13.030.2, however given the number and complexity of the transportation-related studies and analyses which were deferred in the Plan, staff believe that their review is both appropriate and called for. The application is scheduled for their review on December 15rh ) B. Conditional Use Permit The application also includes requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the proposal to vary from the SOU Plan in the following ways: the residence halls, dining hall and parking lot vary from the locations identified in the SOU Plan, and the two residence hall buildings exceed the 250-foot maximum length and are more than the 40- foot height outright allowed in the district. Location In the SOU Plan, the Dining-Hall was to have been part of a strong quadrangle that would have unified the dining hall, new residence halls and the existing Greensprings complex to create a "clear residential zone." The two proposed residence hall buildings were shown as four buildings enclosing this new quadrangle, with the buildings separated to allow for both pedestrian access and views through the quadrangle from both Ashland and Webster Streets. The southern residence halls were to have been constructed in mixed use buildings fronting directly on Ashland Street, with the potential for ground floor retail space to complement the adjacent University District businesses. The current request has shifted the Dining Hall out of the quadrangle to the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets. The application materials note that the Dining Hall is significantly larger than was shown when it was planned as part of the quadrangle in the adopted SOU Plan, indicating that the relocation was due both to the need to accommodate this greater size and the desire to Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 16 of 23 i put a public building in a more prominent, visible location to provide optimum convenience for students. The application also notes that this allowed the creation of a larger quad for the residential buildings. The application notes that the proposed building is 40 feet tall, has a gross square footage of 27,500 square feet, and is setback 15 feet from the Wightman right-of-way because it is opposite from private housing across the street. The application goes on to suggest that the dining hall is relatively small, kept to a single story (which is generally discouraged in the SOUPlan), and features a hipped roof in an effort to remain compatible with the more residential scale and character along the opposite side of Wightman Street. The application also explains that most of the student activity for the Dining Hall will be concentrated to its east side entry, central to campus, and to the south side, where an outdoor dining terrace is located, to lessen the impacts to Wightman Street, and that exterior walls will be acoustically dampened and exterior lights will meet LEED dark sky requirements. The application suggests that the dining hall is designed for compatibility with a future student recreation center addition to adjacent McNeal Pavilion, and that the proximity will allow for a grouping for service and loading functions on both sides of Webster. The application concludes that the Dining Hall will serve as a small student union, a sort of living room for the campus's resident student population, and thus serves as a critical feature in allowing students to live on campus as opposed to commuting long distances. For staff, the building's placement here seems appropriate to serve the new proposed residence halls and student population that is to remain on the south side of campus, and the building itself seems to be of a scale and character appropriate to the Wightman Street streetscape. The primary concerns for staff are in ensuring that the building design incorporates a stronger sense of entry to better engage the pedestrian streetscape along Wightman Street as discussed in more detail above. We would also like to see more complete site plan details of the loading functions described to ensure that truck loading is handled in a way which will not impede fire apparatus access, and that solid waste and recycling facilities are appropriately placed and screened to comply with standards. Height Within the SO zoning district regulations in AMC 18.64, any buildings taller than 40 feet in height is subject to a Conditional Use Permit review. The SOU Plan generally limits construction to four stories, noting that height will be dependent on specific construction types and may be subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. The Plan's Design Guidelines also note that in order to make an appropriate transition to the surrounding context, building heights will typically be lower in areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The Design Guidelines note, however, that in order to create a campus that is compact, walkable and more supportive of transit, single story buildings are to be strongly discouraged in all campus areas (SOU Plan, p. 54). Both the North and South Residence Halls are proposed at four stories, and at a height of approximately 49 feet to the midpoint of the hipped roof. The application notes that this height is less than the adjacent Greensprings complex, which is five stories and 60 feet in height, and that the buildings are well setback from Ashland Street. It goes on to explain that the ground floor of the South Residence Hall sits approximately 20 feet below the level of Ashland Street, and the North Residence Hall sits approximately 27 feet below Ashland Street, and that this will significantly reduce the perceived height of both buildings from the campus perimeter. The application also details the architectural Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 17 of 23 treatment of the fourth floor in both residence halls as an "afidc story" with different articulation and color to create a more horizontal design to further reduce the perceived height of the buildings, and goes on to explain that architecturally the buildings are designed in keeping with the `SOU Mediterranean' architectural character of the campus exemplified by Churchill Hall, Central Hall and Susanne Homes that display common design features including stucco exteriors and red tile sloping hip roofs in wings that are parallel to the slope of the hillside. This style is identified as unique to SOU among all other universities in Oregon, and the SOU Plan and current application seek to continue and amplify the use of this style on campus to create an overall school identity. In staff's view, the buildings' placement relative to the campus perimeter and topography and the design efforts pursued mitigate any potential negative impacts of the proposed height, which remains in keeping both with the four-story limitation imposed in the SOU Plan and the underlying goals thereof, which seek a compact, walkable campus at densities that are more supportive of transit Length The SOU Plan also includes limits on the length of residential buildings, which are not to exceed 250 feet in length and are to have a recessed court of at least 25 feet in width and depth at entries on elevations which exceed 150 feet in length. As proposed, the four proposed residence halls are now consolidated into two buildings, both of which exceed 400 feet in length, and while these buildings provide some offsets there are no recessed courts proposed at the entries to break up this length as was envisioned in the SOU Plan. The application materials provided note that McNeal Pavilion, The Science Building and Hannon Library are of similar lengths, and goes on to explain that with a future proposed addition McNeal Pavilion will be 1,000 feet in length (assuming a Conditional Use Permit to exceed this same length standard is approved). The submittals indicate that the designs comply with the standards in providing design elements to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet with an "offset or jog in the plan of at least 25 feet in width with a five foot minimum offset" and in limiting the footprint to less than 35,000 square feet. The application explains that each residence hall side wing is no longer than 175 feet in length, and that each of the residence halls incorporates a "central neighborhood pavilion" which is 60 feet wide to effectively divide each building into three different components so that they appear as three linked buildings. The materials go on to indicate that the wings are broken up with multiple bay window projections and jogs in the plan to ensure that there are no long, unbroken wall lengths. The application concludes that the new buildings avoid the long unbroken lengths discouraged in the SOU Plan through the use of differentiated massing, building articulation, and roof forms, and go on to suggest that the proposed longer buildings reduce the amount of site area required for the development; reduce the number of stairs, elevators, exterior skin area, service and support space; and thus reduce the total gross square footage (and associated environmental impacts) necessary for the same number of beds. For staff, as with their heights, the buildings' lengths would seem appropriate given their placement relative to the campus perimeter, the buffer provided by topography building, and the varied character of the buildings on campus but we believe the lengths need to be better addressed in the design to comply with the "Building Length and Articulation Guidelines" of the SOU Plan (See SOU Plan, pp. 54-55 and Figure 16). As noted above, staff has concerns with the sense of entry or relationship to the street, and believes Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 18 of 23 that the length and sense of entry can likely both be addressed through the Building Length and Articulation Guidelines. Residential building lengths are limited to a maximum of 250 feet, and with regard to the articulation guidelines, the plan text indicates that "For any building longer than 200 feet, the plan shall include design elements to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet. These elements shall be an offset or jog' in the plan or a significant recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width." The illustration provided in Figure 15 shows an L-shaped building with one wing at 250 feet in length, and a 25 foot wide courtyard placed at the 150 foot length within that wing. This courtyard appears to have a depth of at least 25 feet as well to provide for its functional use as a courtyard, although this depth is not called out explicitly. The other wing has a jog with a five foot minimum offset shown, not as part of a court but simply as a change in the directional expression of the wall surface. In staff s view, the text and illustration call for a recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width and depth or for an offset of at least five feet in the face of the building. As proposed, the 60 foot wide `central neighborhood pavilion' component has five foot recesses at either side of the central element in the South Residence Hall's building face, and approximately ten foot recesses on the North Residences Hall's building face. These recesses are repeated at approximately 35 foot intervals along the South Hall's exterior and every 30 feet along the North Hall's exterior. For staff, the use of these repeated recesses has the effect of notching the buildings and does little to offset the directional expression over a 400 foot length, particularly on the South Hall. In addition, the lack of a deeper recess with a functional depth at the entries does not adequately break up the expanse of the building's length and detracts from the buildings' sense of entry. Here staff would recommend that the building designs be revised to better reflect the SOU Plan's Building Length and Articulation Guidelines, particularly with regard to providing a functional recessed court at the entries both to break-up the buildings' lengths and to enhance their sense of entry, and that revised elevations be brought back to the Commission's January meeting. j I i I C. Tree Removal Permit The application includes a tree inventory identifying 175 trees on the subject property which are six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater. Of these, 109 trees are proposed for removal of which 22 are 18-inches d.b.h. or greater necessitating Tree Removal Permits. Tree Removal Permit approval requires a demonstration that: trees proposed for removal are in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards; removal of trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The project's arborist Tom Myers notes that the trees proposed for removal are in or near the proposed building footprints or in the path of utility easements or grade changes associated with development as envisioned in the SOU Plan, and would not survive the proposed construction. Staff would note here that Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 19 of 23 the applicants propose to retain a 36-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple, one of the most notable trees on the site, and incorporate it as a prominent central feature in the new quadrangle. Mitigation has not been clearly addressed in the application, and as such staff would recommend that a condition be included to require that the 18 significant trees to be removed be mitigated on a one-for-one basis as provided in AMC 18.61.084 and that this mitigation be clearly illustrated in the final building permit plan submittals. In staff's view, with mitigation the proposed removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. Myers, the project arborist, has also provided tree protection recommendations by identifying the radius of a protection zone to be fenced for each of the trees to remain on the property and noting specifications for tree preservation during demolition, site clearing and construction, as well as providing detailed requirements for pruning. A certified arborist is to approve and supervise any work within the identified tree protection zones and carry-out required pruning. Staff would recommend that Myers' recommendations be made conditions of the approval, along with those of the Tree Commission which has not yet reviewed the application as this report is being prepared. 111. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. 8. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of- way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in 18.104.050 as follows: A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 1 8. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: Planning Action PA 42011-01576 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 20 of 23 } 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.61.080.13 as follows: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted j approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The application requests Site Review, Condition Use and Tree Removal permit approvals to construct a new single-story dining hall, two new four-story residence halls, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the Southern Oregon University campus, and to remove 18 significant trees. Conditional Use Permits are required because the proposed residence hall buildings vary from the lengths, height, and locations identified in the SOU Plan. Ashland is fortunate to have Southern Oregon University within the community. The university's presence adds diversity while enriching the local art and cultural community and strengthening the local economy. Cooperative planning efforts ensure that the university remains a strong and viable institution within the Oregon University System, while also ensuring that campus development recognizes the values and concerns of the Planning Action PA 42011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 21 of 23 broader community. Planning staff are generally very supportive of this request, and believe the project presents a unique and exciting placemaking opportunity to shape a new neighborhood which will enhance student life, the campus and their relationship to the broader community. However, for staff a few significant concerns remain with the project as currently proposed. These include: Pedestrian Safety - The SOU Plan calls for the creation of a Pedestrian Safety Plan prior to the shifting of student housing across Siskiyou Boulevard. This plan was to "include, but not be limited to, improved crossings with enhanced paving designs and access controls with ongoing monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety issues." Of the options explored in the SOU Plan, the recommendation within the plan was to focus on "enhanced paving designs" at the intersection of Siskiyou/Ashland/Wightman/Indiana (pp. 48-49) supplemented by improvements to the other crossings, access controls, and provisions for on-going monitoring. The initial Pedestrian Safety Plan provided instead concludes that, while "enhancement opportunities" are available at several crossing points, the existing pedestrian crossings are themselves sufficient to accommodate the increase in pedestrian activity related to the proposal and that no improvements are required. Staff believe that during the review of the SOU Plan last year, it was clearly understood that "pedestrian safety at this intersection [of Siskiyou/Ashland/Wightman/Indiana] will become paramount to the success of an integrated SOU campus" (SOU Plan, p. 48) and that prior to shifting so significant a portion of the resident student population north of Siskiyou Boulevard the university would present a plan to thoroughly address pedestrian safety issues. In staff's view, the materials initially provided did not go as far as envisioned to be necessary in the SOU Plan to address pedestrian safety, particularly at the intersection of Siskiyou/Ashland/Wightman/Indiana where paving enhancements to increase safety while creating more of an Eastern Gateway to the campus were called for. The applicants have subsequently submitted roughly 300 pages of revised materials, a substantial portion of which appears to deal with transportation and pedestrian safety on the day before the Planning Commission packets are prepared and distributed. Planning staff, other city departments and the Transportation Commission have not had adequate time to review or comment on these new submittal materials, and as such, staff believes that the public hearing on the matter should be continued to the January meeting to allow for review of the new materials by staff, other departments, and the Transportation Commission to support a fully-informed decision by the Planning Commission. Building Designs - Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards call for buildings to have their primary orientation to the street; where there are multiple street frontages, buildings are to orient to the higher order street and have direct Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant; American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 22 of 23 fi pedestrian access from that street's sidewalk. This is echoed on page 54 in the SOU Plan's Design Guidelines, which note that where a building faces a major street such as Ashland Street or Wightman Street, it shall have a significant entry facing that street, and where it faces both a major street and a campus open space it shall have strongly articulated and clearly understandable entries to both the street and the open space. In addition, there are specific limitations on building lengths, and Building Length and Articulation Guidelines are provided within the SOU Plan. Staff has concerns that neither the sense of entry or length standards are adequately addressed in the designs submitted, and would recommend that the designs be modified to better respond to the standards and brought back to the Commission for review in January. Parking - The application materials include recommended revisions to the parking requirements to address parking demand on campus, as envisioned in the SOU Plan, along with studies of the current parking situation. As part of the application, the demolition of five existing detached single family residences near the corner of Stadium and Webster Streets is proposed to accommodate the construction of a new parking lot to serve the new buildings. Staff is generally in agreement with. the modified parking requirements recommended, and believe that if additional parking is necessary to serve the proposed buildings, the parking lot location seems well-chosen. However, while staff recognizes that a surplus of parking on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard is by itself unlikely to address newly created parking demand on the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard, we believe that prior to creating new parking lots and demolishing existing rental housing, it would be prudent to first exhaust the potential for utilizing existing parking elsewhere on campus, developing a permit program to reduce impacts of student use of on-street parking in surrounding residential neighborhoods, seeking to reduce student automobile use by promoting other modes of travel including transit, and more strongly pursuing transportation demand management strategies as called for in the SOU Plan. Until these items are further addressed, and the application and requisite transportation studies and analyses (including the lengthy revised submittals received as packets are being prepared for distribution) have been reviewed by staff, other departments and the Transportation Commission, staff do not believe that there is sufficient information in the record to approve the application, and we accordingly recommend that the public hearing be left open and the matter continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 10th, 2012. If, without entering into deliberations, the Planning Commission wishes to provide general direction with regard to the relative importance of the issues raised above, or identify other issues or concerns with the proposal, it would be very helpful to staff and the applicants as we prepare for the January l Ot meeting. Planning Action PA #2011-01576 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: American Campus Community Services at SOU Page 23 of 23 Staff Exhibits S-1) A vicinity map illustrating the surrounding zoning S-2) An aerial vicinity map S-3) An example of how a stronger sense of entry might be achieved with a raised central entry element that would also break up the length of the building. S-4) A photograph of a four-story multi-family building in Medford which successfully incorporates more of a recessed entry court as envisioned in the SOU Plan. S-5) An illustration of how an arched entry at the sidewalk and walkway to the entry might better achieve a relationship to the pedestrian streetscape, as with Churchill Hall which is similarly setback from the street. S-6) An illustration from Princeton University's master plan showing a concept for their New South Green incorporating landscaping, walkways, and an arched entry through the building to a central quadrangle to create a stronger relationship to the streetscape and the "sense of place" sought in the standards. i S-7) The SOU Plan's Design Guidelines S-8) The Pedestrian Places Project's "University District" Node Concepts i o - N T_ _ j 10 i TI ~ TI o jam; i , X -n m / c d _ 1 / NIQ- z c I' 0w M0 ~ O z to ~ i one cnz - T ~ cn 0>0 Z M o ~ - L a I ~ a m ~ ~ A o - O 0 I T ~ O T1 w s: ak, w s 04, INDIANA ST Ida r { 1d x n *77 3 41 ION , i STADIUM ST c { to- 1, 41 t. Vl ! 1 l~n y 5ft . - ~ t WA R AV m - m 'I 3 1- ' ~•4 _ 9 m Jlco ~1 m - mi (n - y L m Qo - i 00 m n CI) _ Rt._ at~l - 3 j ~f'f _ e it v } r' - \ t'; taz~ d 40 d 14 I-W p MC g~~ 7 "I ~s 11,\ x f r xv-R-b All t > 4 i 1 r ~ j ti r ti - ' ~ ~ d a.~. ~ ~ ^r`: v, t"~ ~ "C ~ I ~ •^I--.+-.-~ ~ ~ ~ \ri i r~ry i 1 ~ r~~L~ . ~ rfl`~?r~Z~fi, ~ t { ~rl _ • ~ ~ ti d rr 4~ 1,~ _ A ,a,aa. 1, r 1. y Y~f rr v,..'" vc • , ~ ,~y1f~ • f , w .e i ~ \ ~ fO Y 1 r iY[ i ,,1r;i, ~ y-. ri ~ ~.3 ~ 1 ~ ,tr11`r 1~~~'' i ~ 1~~~1~) +y~~ W` 1^c• "1--.~ t r 11~ I Y1 5.) 1 `;3 4 1b~a,~I'' I~~ i ~ , Ir ii l)/1J ~ ~ Sul . y , 1 r` 1` Y►,ts}~ ,.111. ~ ~ 1 , ~ .v ti.~~~ r~ _ ~~1~ ~ ~ 15(1 t f T t jr J. ~ I ..r l^"V: J .~•4Y•v~~- k 41{( ~M1Y}ll 1 ~ l{K.1 r ,µ.,.F~~, :L ~ ..w`~y~~'h f.,. ) } 1 . 1I1 r,.. r y y r1 ~ r ~1 's. i 'Y ~ ~ 1 ~ r -i 1 -l. f - Y~ 9.I1 f ~1 1 1 1 r~J y''J~ r~ kl rv±.,'*4 l+~l n _.,y :1~-+•~ , - 1 it ~ ~ - ,c i~,~7t1 / 1 1 ~ r 1X1 ♦ ~ S~ ` IIIY71~1 AI 111 sl-.~wrv:..~.rn_,ti4.. 3 t 'i I t t 1 f / x r , col t ( + Ica 6f?= !1 i a 1 -Olt Staff Ex. S7 Design Guidelines The design guidelines for development under this Master Plan Update are- intended to serve several goals: • Provide for buildings at a density appropriate both to a significant university and to the scale of the Ashland community; • Ensure that the scale and articulation of buildings enhance the 'sense of place' of the campus and support walking within the campus environment; • Express the permanence and long-term role of the University in the community. Building Density Development density is a complex issue, with advantages and disadvantages at both ends of the spectrum. Lower development densities can allow large unbuilt areas around each building, but can also promote sprawl and hinder attempts to foster pedestrian activity and support transit. Higher densities can lead to undesirable shading of neighboring buildings or open space and increased traffic, # 4- if the density is not accompanied by strong transit and other TDM measures. Several factors specific to SOU support campus development at medium densities: - • SOU is relatively land-locked, and both the cost of land and the fact that the campus is surrounded by established neighborhoods limit the potential for expansion of the campus. Any future growth of campus enrollment to meet OUS system-wide goals will likely need to be accommodated within this limited land area. - X111 • The nature of academic programs warrants durable construction at a scale ■■NN lX93 n i' that is cost effective and supports individual academic programs under ~j] i ~o~ yLL one roof. fAl ..ti • Creating a cohesive campus community that is dense enough to support 11 short walking distances -and ultimately improved transit - requires a density higher than low residential densities. --.OTaller buildings are appropriate to sites However, the University also recognizes that it exists within a community with interior to the campus and on commercial existing neighborhoods and that its developments ought to be of a compatible and mixed-use street edges. Buildings scale with those neighboring uses. In particular, the edges of campus need to be adjacent to residential neighbors should generally be more In-scale with that of a similar scale. This is recognized by the SO Zoning provisions calling for tighter context. restrictions on development within 50 feet of the campus edges. CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPDATE [12-APRIL-10 DRAFT] 53 i DESIGN GUIDELINES Building Massing and Orientation - - - Thoughtful orientation of buildings supports several important development goals. ' k Orientation of entries to the pedestrian circulation system increases the walkable nature of the campus. A generally east-west orientation can help support energy *~a efficiency in building design. And the treatment of building scale - how it is articulated and expressed can help larger institutional buildings be compatible -:T p with nearby residential uses. To accomplish the goals described above, the following guidelines apply to new campus construction and major renovations _ under this Master Plan Update: Maximum Building Height Thoughtful orientation of buildings can help create sunny outside spaces and New construction will be limited to four story construction. Height in feet will assist with management of sunlight as an be dependent on specific construction types, and in some cases could require energy strategy within the building as well. conditional use approval per current requirements of the City's SO zone. I' In areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods, building height will typically be lower in order to make an appropriate transition to the surrounding ' [ f u! context. However, in order to create a campus that is compact, walkable and more I ` supportive of transit, single story buildings are strongly discouraged in all campus areas. See the section below for guidelines applying specifically to the Faculty ales„ Village Housing type. Maximum Building Size In order to avoid potentially monotonous conditions, individual buildings shall be limited in overall length and footprint [i.e. ground area covered] as follows (See I Figure 16]: f • 300' maximum length for academic buildings ii ifi i l • 250' maximum length for residential buildings 45,000 SF maximum footprint for academic buildings • 35,000 SF maximum footprint for residential buildings Figure 16: Building Length and Articulation Guidelines The unfortunate shading strategy employed at Taylor Hall disconnects building interiors and the landscape, creating a sense of 'deadness' around the \ building, and limiting daylight Inside. 1 t1w I 5 Fr. HN OFFSET MAX LEJ Icm ccuar 'e j f 1ST/h/W%/UI/IHROKEt! LEMCiTH 54 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY DESIGN GUIDELINES Building Articulation For any building longer than 200 feet, the plan shall include design elements to ! prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet. These elements shall be an T11,11 ? offset or jog' in the plan or a significant recessed entry or court of at least 25' in width [Figure 16]. - Building Entries ' - ' Buildings that face a major street shall have a significant entry facing the street. Buildings facing the main campus open space shall have a major pedestrian entry facing that open space. Where a building faces both a significant street and the i main campus open spaces, entries shall be provided to both. Entries shall be strongly articulated and clearly understandable as entries. - Development Along Siskiyou Boulevard Any development or redevelopment along the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard shall seek to reinforce a strong relationship between the campus and the - r, boulevard, through an appropriate combination of the following strategies: • Development of a strongly articulated fagade and pedestrian entries facingF Siskiyou Boulevard. • Minimization of service functions on the Siskiyou Boulevard face of the building, and enhanced screening of these functions where they exist. • Improved, consistent and significant signage acknowledging that visitors e I;i "t have entered the campus. Building Orientation Churchill Hall represents a successful Wherever consistent with other design goals, such as street orientation, align example of a building that fronts onto two buildings with the longer dimension in the east-west configuration, to improve faces, and makes both approaches feel welcoming. potential for building design to capture energy savings related to passive solar management. Setbacks Where campus development occurs across a street from off-campus private k. 1 housing, buildings shall be set back from the public right-of-way by at least 15 feet, I~' { to provide a buffering landscape. Where campus development is across from commercial development and ! , j includes .n ground floor non-residential uses, buildings shall be allowed and encouraged to L - be sited at the back of the public right-of-way, to encourage a pedestrian-oriented f urban streetscape pattern. University development adjacent to existing neighborhoods should be Materials and Character designed to be appropriate to that context. Materials and construction systems shall be selected for long-term durability, and shall be generally consistent with existing campus buildings. While there is not a clear established palette of materials for campus buildings, preference should be given to materials similar to the more significant buildings on campus - such as Churchill Hall and Hannon Library - including red brick, concrete and stucco. CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPDATE [12-APRIL-10 DRAFT] 55 r` t DESIGN GUIDELINES Where campus development occurs adjacent to or across a street from off- campus private housing, the character of the development shall be appropriate to J rF '`r y; that context. Scale, materials and massing shall be used to create an appropriate asrrz^rro•- , ~St~ ~ transition from the campus to the neighborhoods. Guidelines for Faculty Village Housing The following guidelines apply specifically to the areas designated for Faculty Village Housing, including all development in the block bounded by Ashland Street and Henry Street, west of Mountain Avenue. 1. Building footprints shall be limited to 6,000 square feet total for a multi- family building. Example: six attached 1,000 sf townhouses. 2. Buildings shall be no more than 120 feet long, For buildings longer than 60 feet, a significant offset [5 feet or more] in the plane of the fagade shall be created so that no major fagade plane is more than 60 feet in length. Projecting elements and/or recesses [such as decks, bay windows and recessed entries] shall be applied to fagades to avoid long planar walls facing the street. 3. Buildings shall be limited to 3 stories above grade generally, and 2 stories west of Mountain Avenue. 4. Building fagades shall face the primary street or a shared open courtyard space which in turn fronts on the street. f Vii. Building entries shall include porches, stoops and similar elements to % create a transition zone between the public street and the private home. a f ± 6. Individual entries to each dwelling unit are preferred. In no case shall more i than four dwelling units share a common entry from the street or common open space. Example: traditional four-square style building, with two units Slgnificant paths should be differentiated above and two at the ground floor, sharing an entry. with improved paving, to assist with 7. Buildings shall be designed with appropriate placement of interior spaces wayfinding Below., an allee on the Penn and exterior windows to provide views from active areas to the public street State campus Is a central area where and/or cornrnon open spaces [sometimes known as "eyes on the street"]. students cross paths throughout the day. 8. Shared parking shall not be located between the street and the primary fagade of dwelling units. To the greatest extent feasible, parking shall be located at the rear of units. Where parking is located at the front of units, it shall be only in the form of personal driveways serving individual units. In y this configuration, garage entries shall be set behind the primary fagade of dwelling units by a minimum of 5 feet. 9. Exterior building finishes shall be similar to existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. Vinyl siding is not an allowed finish material; i-: metal siding is discouraged, except as an architectural accent. Allowed r 1 ! materials include: r? o Wood siding or shingle; o Cementitious wood products; o Brick, stone and artificial stone. 10. Design elements that are representative of the surrounding residential neighborhood context are encouraged, although literal repetition of historic styles is not required or expected. 11. Landscape materials shall be consistent with palette of the Ashland bioregion. Native plants and drought-tolerant, non-invasive plantings are strongly encouraged. 56 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY DESIGN GUIDELINES Sustalnabllity Guidelines Additional guidelines relating to Sustainability best practices - including materials and orientation - are described in the Sustainability section. Open Space Guidelines These guidelines are intended to improve the quality of outdoor spaces on the campus and create a consistent visual look for the campus. 1. The hierarchy of paths on campus should be clarified through the use of design elements that help distinguish between the major paths through the campus and secondary paths. Path width, materials and furnishings should help signify the most important paths on campus. In particular, the main circulation spine through the campus should be upgraded to serve as a major wayfinding element through the campus. Two different types of paving materials may be used for primary paths; one for the portions of the pathway that are primarily for circulation, and a different, accent material to mark prominent crossings or activity nodes. Unpaved, frequently used pedestrian routes, commonly referred to as 'cow paths' or'desire lines' should be paved with a more durable solid or semi permeable material to decrease erosion and improve pedestrian safety. 2. The south-facing entry areas at major campus buildings should be enhanced as activity nodes within the campus structure. Seating, tables, 4+ and similar amenities should be provided to encourage use of these r `t L spaces for meeting, group study and actively programmed uses. Primary activity nodes for larger spaces should also include some of the following'. additional amenities: o A variety of seating types, including benches, retaining or seat walls, and building ledges Integrated seating create a comfortable place for Individuals and small groups to o Special paving materials and/or patterns gather. o Planters for trees and landscape plantings o A mixture of sun and shade exposure o Protection from wind by buildings or other screening structures, such as pergolas or trellises o Outdoor eating areas o Water features rl r w !k o Public art 3 - i r ;t o Terraced levels in areas with significant slopes 3.A campus standard for furnishings should be adopted and used1 2 I consistently across campus open spaces. A common palette of materials = - - should be utilized for these elements, to create a recognizable look for the campus, and ensure that furnishings have a durable and timeless design. Campus site furnishings standards should address the following elements: A full inventory of existing trees will help o Benches with long-term landscape management. o Tables and chairs o Exterior lighting fixtures and lamp types o Trash and recycling receptacles o Handrails and guardrails o Bicycle racks CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPDATE [12-APRIL-10 DRAFT) 57 i DESIGN GUIDELINES Bollards and other traffic control devices t f., Bus and pedestrian shelters Tree grates o Skateboard deterrents 1~ Landscape Standards 1,4 't ~'y xr z , y ~Jx Trees New tree plantings should be selected from the many species that will thrive in the A fully developed and well-maintalned Ashland micro-climate, with careful consideration given to drought tolerance and garden program can offer numerous benefits, as a working learning disease resistance. Annual rainfall is significantly lower and summer temperatures experience, as an interpretive element higher than most of Western Oregon, and choosing appropriate, water conserving to educate visitors and as an amenity for plant materials will become more important as population increases in the campus residents. Like the ECOS garden at SOU [above] these programs provide Rogue Valley. Consultation with the campus grounds and maintenance staff is outreach to the larger community. recommended when specifying new trees so that the existing diversity of tree Example: the Farm and Garden project at species on campus is maintained. When designing new landscapes adjacent to UC Santa Cruz is the backbone of an agro- campus boundaries, the City of Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide should ecology program. It is a major part of the be consulted. The City Guide contains requirements that may apply to campus Environmental Studies curriculum and a campus amenity. The Alan Chadwick grounds when public rights of way are involved, and the comprehensive lists of Garden [below] in particular is maintained trees for a variety of special conditions can also be applied to interior campus to be attractive and welcoming to campus landscapes. visitors. Shrubs and Understory Plantings i As aging, overgrown shrub and understory plantings are removed, they should be replaced with materials selected for drought tolerance, ease of long-term maintenance, and pedestrian safety. Planting locally available native and 4 adapted species will help meet the University's sustainable development goals for landscape management. Implementation of the Xeriscape Master Plan recently developed by capstone students in the Environmental Studies program should be strongly considered where appropriate to convert turf areas and older shrub I plantings to water saving landscape materials. Use of water loving plants such as t 3 f exotic shrubs and flowering annuals should be limited to concentrated areas near campus gateways and significant building entries. Irrigation + -n As the University continues to replace outdated and inefficient components of the campus irrigation system, a comprehensive long-term plan for minimizing landscape water consumption should be developed. Utilizing emerging technologies in low-volume irrigation design and regulating consumption with automated weather monitoring can help reduce irrigation demands. Reducing large lawn areas wherever possible will help decrease the reliance on the Talent Irrigation District water supply, which is seasonal and highly variable. An open dialogue between Facilities staff, the SOU Sustainability Council, and interested student groups can help move the campus towards a more integrated strategy for saving water in the landscape. 58 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY t DESIGN GUIDELINES Community and Educational Gardens Existing and future gardens for teaching and for production of food by campus residents - like the ECOS Community Garden off Mountain Avenue - is encouraged. The gardens should be developed and maintained to be neat and welcoming, and should include interpretive information to inform students and campus visitors about the benefits of organic practices, water saving strategies and other best practices demonstrated by the garden. Parking Lots Parking lots should be developed with dedicated walkways, trees to provide Parking lots shall include safe, dedicated pedestrian paths and trees at a spacing shading, and stormwater management consistent with the City's Site Design and Use Standards: facilities to treat and infiltrate run-off water. "Ii-D-3 Landscape Standards 1. Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of 1 tree for each 7 parking spaces to create a canopy effect." To the greatest degree feasible, parking lots shall be designed to include localized stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities. Whenever possible, these stormwater treatment facilities should be above-ground structures that incorporate appropriate plantings for pre-treatment and filtering of particulates and pollutants. Signage a Monument Signs At the gateways to campus, the primary entry and directional signs should be R 1 z consistent in scale and materials. The base or backdrop for these monument F lay signs should be constructed of durable materials, selected for compatibility with - 1 existing campus architecture. The preferred composition shall include natural stone, concrete, or masonry bases sited to blend with the natural topography... Earthen berms may be used to blend the sign base into the natural grade where adjacent slopes warrant their use. Signage and furnishings can be blended, Signs shall consist of raised metal letters, painted metal panels, sand-blasted or to create a strong design element that carved stone or concrete, or other durable, natural material. Landscape plantings helps blend the landscape and buildings. of trees, low to moderate height shrubs, and ground cover may be used to accent the composition where appropriate. Lighting shall be designed to prominently illuminate and accent the sign panel so it can be easily seen by motorists and pedestrians. The use of wood, stucco, or interior-lit plastic signs is strongly discouraged. General Signage The University and City of Ashland have developed a Sign Program, which guides the placement and design of signs on campus. That program will be maintained and updated as needed to accommodate new signage needs, with appropriate standards for signs directed to the pedestrian and the vehicle driver. When consistent with the Sign Program and this Master Plan, signage may be approved via the City's permitting process rather than a conditional use process. CAMPUS MASTER PLAN UPDATE [12-APRIL-10 DRAFfI 59 k DESIGN GUIDELINES Campus signs will be designed to provide a recognizable and consistent look to the campus. The University anticipates development of a changeable message sign for athletic events at McNeal Pavilion, to be located near Wightman and Siskiyou Boulevards. Inconsistent existing signage will be brought into compliance with standards when affected by work in their vicinity. Urban Design Guidelines for University District Development The University District is intended to be a walkable neighborhood, serving the campus and the surrounding neighborhood with services and gathering places. Development in this area should be designed to support pedestrian activity. The following areas designated for new development shall be subject to Ashland's approval standards for development within the Detail Site Review Zone (II-G2], including those additional standards for Large Scale Projects [11-C-3]. [See map below. The design standards are in Appendix 5]: • Along Ashland Street between Walker Avenue and Wightman Street within 150 feet of the near edge of the Ashland Street right-of-way • Along Walker Avenue between Ashland and Webster Streets, within 150 feet of the near edge of the Walker Avenue right-of-way. The following specific provision of the above-referenced standards shall not apply to the University: • 11-C-2a] Orientation and Scale #1- Maximum Floor Area Ratio [FAR] LEE 8,r- HOMES AV WEBSTER ST wn~ RKER ST Z 150, _J s'~S ASHLAND ST klypGA~ l\ MADRONE J Y AV ~ 14,l~~ FREty Ofa~Qwp MIT] FROSPEa r. Campus area where Detail Site Review applies. Detail Site Review Zone: Siskyou Boulevard, Ashland Street and Walker Avenue 60 SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY Q s m x co OD I I j S3 ?A : f t I: J~ t CD if 1, { L PL) p o J>T' ' . .itr s ~ I r D li - t. a ~~a l: _ s t (D f+ CD r+ P ~I ` r °0-4 k~ J h .Cna Walker Ave. CJ ~ Y?I ~z x~p ~oo0oopp ~'Q OOOOOOr,norr 00 / 0 ° 0 Jv 'Vob°° o °°O° 004 O 10 1 000000000ooo 0p, _id A I I o O % pJ 4 _ h LJ as r ('n c o o o^ c 0 ¢G~ o o ~r ro ry o R i o r. O ao 3 q b c O n ro -O o o a c o O° < R t'L 5, ~ %J11 CL p R .i p n C ~t R R C rtn p, ~ C ; ~ H o C o a o O°u N.x 3 n o o x ® O G A. N a 3 R n to O p o cn to O 'b n w G b O .rtj O Oa n J G P. 'Y} n a' (D 3 v, aG n R c c? as r ray" Q• ,nn. r G ° a o' rt A °p T o n n CD G m ' a ~ b ro P1 aril G Q o° m N o a R y' o E a rr a 3r n Gb rt a n R a n O 6 R 'OO rt V M ° ^ rf 3 ° C. o b 9. n vR, rt 'O L S, 2 C (DD c, , • IS z ° 0 o n d. r .e O rD c, O r1 9 09 aG rt n o 7- 5' 2• nq r• R rv rn Gy (1 p rt 3. °n 7 n 0 (D O e `t y }i y S q - ( r Iv: w ~ c , L-1 i n oa aj-~J +f f -J t y ~ (LR 2 { `•Yafkei ~ 1 ~ 4J' C~ h *~1* r j T y h o i o x n N n w e a a a a a < 7 rz rt a a o N z°_ i t r 9 c v, 7 n 7' rJ 9 0 9 6Q o-n „vn. w o-a _ w oo c+ it oa o 5. 3 2. a o o T G1 o m$ m p (1 a? 3 (p G n n b n O _ a. u. - pp _ 'S N "D p p o o "n C tl v c n n N n 3 w p N ova ro c Ll x 3 i p,. ~p u n m co .C 'O r- CD m CL 1q b C w n 'ro o rt F a ~ B f i i ! Z w o ~ j a s rt / , II 1 r n n C / ,1 i7 aa 6. b g. y a G °w n m {r 1 rt a n lD r~ vs C obi' io / 41 R n n W 2 'r git, e ~ j d t A~i ;G1 e 1 y ~1lCl~ Ef ,l o k of Cho, I4_1 ::.tom Imo" WlkerA,e 1f t t ~ G R.O QS 00 OZ I £ TON Tn I -nv CC O T O ID I. I 'O ~0 O n 2 y ~ ~ O ~ y W t~ O e. v B rry x o p 0 a oa . y G N - H 3 a n Oa rt R y O rt p R n R Sidewalk Corridor Dedl-ion Approximately 8-feet ; If I- ti~ V~ t" ~ f 1 ~Rafway 3 N w 8ldcwalk Corridor Dedkatton a Approxhnately 2deet - - - - - - - - - filghW-War o g lD ° oI~ stn ~ Im~D D N - ° ° c Co T D T I ~ ~ a ~ la` a T ° °3-- G III:: a ° S~ ab I: n 0- ~.d 3 G p N A 3~T_ j. N n e VI a un N F J - Sidewalk Corridor Dedkatton R__- lr. Approximately 2-feet t Ix y NI 1 " w ~ i cuff~ " nsat~c-0twer F Sldewalk Corridor Dedkatton Approxmately 4-feet Sectiong 1 rA r€ 'D A", ~~l WalkerA~enue ~ rno vt c q Ol tz } ~~~Iy:, 1+ 1 v: w S T o # I rTO fo D r } ~ ~ li E P~ 'n t f ~ w r t j c e. 111 , ! i 17F `1 - N sx i~ 47 C i r~ ~ n t N 0 4- > - E a) a) > y d 0 0 0) j O o d O C 0 a) 0 4; O N m 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 w ~ ohm 0 n. 0 ° a°i ®ro a) E ,X 3 q A° cd N y o .-0 a o p a N N 0 0 3 0•~ ~ metro m L s o 12 c o 0°) ram o >1 5 a) N ~ ESE N E N ro a) L2 0) 0 ro N T V1 '0 _0 a) m ,0 N O U O (n tr- 0 a.0 O L O L y O v 0 b to _0 O ~a)N o.~ N c E 0 s 0 (n 0 a ro a)o~ a U " r 12n'2E of `ma) V ado ' 0 0 0 o ate` cu coo a) co:) ~c° ro~ pya w a) °aJ a a)>o ° ro 0 a).2 a) ~O E 2 v~o a a) a) nom 0m Vr V"' ~v,o w00 0~ 70 Cd 0 a) -0 70 a) >1 >N 0 75 a) L) o .2 0) U) a) cu ~aa as o cu 3 ro ~4- o o rl 1-0 ° a o E c ~ ~ro~ a•- c N m ~ 2 m° p~ c- ° > m L- '8 ) 0 a) > > N ro - 0 mo o d d' C O NOON cad U a) C 0 0 a °0074- C CON N p0 a)a) 0 b)) N N P L) d 0 > N+ +0+ ,C 0 C 3 O) a) 0 s O U N O O_ 0 - F~ U+ a.6 ~ ~W ~oo~w a)0) m omo ~ ~ me Nya~ 0 = 0 a) N CU ro m0) r = a) O C V Cr._ O C M N 0 0 q4. 0 m 0 a) 0 o m L c _ a) o p c p a~ r E a) a o m~ 0 4-4- 0 0 ° 0 3 v a) (7 a) a as++ ti FL 7 0 0 o L4- a)4- 0 U++ (n Ul 1-- C a 400 E f0 0 a) a ° 0 O c N ° N o 9 o~ 0 0• ma) EO4_ o am L 3 oao ~ mm L L ro- ro a d a)ro p Q m N v 0 sc pmmsro am°a)~ o~ ui (n4 o_ a) coma 0'X cd 0 bA4~ a t/j 4- m m E 7 O 7 L 0 L + N 0 a) a) + a) 0 CD ,y 0 Q, 9 ~-0 a) C C Q Q Q Q a C cE aa) N r Y N y r+ ,O Q 0 M O N O fd C L CN >N0 4-w C nN N a- N 0)N c o Q ro E ~ 27 o ~ N >o U L ro4_ O O c m ° bA^ Q ~NM p E bb L m N 4- 0 0 1 0 r m 3_ro °roLLrom aro E m a) m a.° 2 0 4 P. y CL ~o ~a~~ U ai s om o• a)a)oo oc ° ~ ~ ~ m yc 0 a a)a)o aroa cc~= o o o N s'L N aa~ ~ ror 2 a) u)Y (Ds c~ m,~ ~ o ° °a 0 m 0 N Nro a)ma)a)0 CONa222OCL >p0o °a>o E E c o ° o~:) I p rr 0 Ld s~ O N sssss ssa)04~4~mrom O 4-O O OO NNa)R bA ~4-wO x ~~Z C M LO ~ I-I-1-f-f- Nf-f-s0(nWX - a ~NC~ ~~jaa NN E U, o c D- v sa),~ n 0 E~ mQO~ ti >cm~ mm°N A ~ Id z U) (n 0 7 L L L° 0-0 ~ 0 c ID W /0 0 0 0 0 U A O W 0) CLL m.0 0v O LL ro.0 0 LL amN N M4 C QQ~' 0 by 0 0~ V O 0 a o C's th 4. 1-Y 0 0 0 c °L fp Q yQy Q Q - a O 'C Q 0 J 0 O cd o> c2:11 U~ V 0 Q~ (V co V ~Ud a) ~Nri ro m m pa cm- W 0 LU c LLI bb 'o C b z 0 s O N F- X Q f~ 0 A Q° 0 r 0 5 °c AO~ dF4 ° 0 icd 0 H 0~~r i http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodelD=3296 . or on page 17 in the pre-application conference comments. Refer to the attached revised arborist's report titled "Tree Removal Permit Request for SOU Student Housing Development" which is intended to replace the tree inventory list in the original application material and addresses the criteria for removal of the project's existing significant trees as required by AMC 18.61.080. The report contains a list of the 22 significant trees that are scheduled for removal, as well as an updated tree inventory to include the existing trees affected by the proposed new parking lot at the corner of Stadium and Webster Street. Tree Protection & Removal Plan; Sheet L002, has been revised to add the numbers of the existing trees inventoried in the vicinity of the proposed new parking lot, and additional tree protection fencing for trees to remain in this area. Site Review Planting Plans; Sheets L003 and L004, have been revised to indicate the 22 mitigation trees required by AMC 18.61.084 that will be planted on site. Energy Use: AMC 18.76.060.X.3 calls for all development applications to include "The method and type of energy proposed to be used for heating, cooling and lighting of the building, and the approximate annual amount of energy used per each source and the methods used to make the approximation." This information will be reviewed by our Conservation Division and recommendations for ways to further reduce energy use provided if any exist. The North and South Residence Halls will both be heated and cooled by electric variable refrigerant flow type heat pumps. Target interior lighting power density for both residence halls is 0.6 W/sf. The Dining Hall will be heated by water heated from campus steam infrastructure (produced by natural gas boilers at the plant) and will be cooled by electric DX cooling. Lighting power density for the Dining Hall is 1.1 W/sf. Energy use for all three buildings was estimated by using typical energy use index values for similar facility types in Oregon with adjustments based on the types of systems that will be installed. The estimated annual energy use values were checked by running preliminary simulations in eQuest software. The estimated end uses for each building are as follows: North Residence Hall (Suite Style) Heating - 396,000 kWh/year Cooling - 285,800 kWh/year Interior Lighting -243,000 kWh/year i i ( i I South Residence Hall (Semi-suite Style) Heating - 462,000 kWh/year Cooling - 333,500 kWh/year interior Lighting - 283,500 kWh/year Dining Hall Heating - 2,500 Therms natural gas Cooling - 141,900 kWh/year Interior Lighting -264,600 kWh/year In addition, as we move toward hearings I wanted to point out that there are some issues which were raised in the master plan and emphasized by staff during the pre-application conferences and subsequent correspondence that we don't believe have been fully considered in the final application materials. The most significant of these are detailed below, and are likely to be the areas where staff focus our presentation to the Planning Commission at the December hearing: Pedestrian Safety Plan: The Master Plan calls for the creation of a Pedestrian Safety Plan prior to housing shift to "include, but not be limited, to improved crossings with enhanced paving designs and access controls with ongoing monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety issues." The materials provided do not seem to address intersection improvements including enhanced paving designs at the intersection of Siskiyou/Ashland/Wightman/Indiana, which was the primary recommendation identified in the Master Plan (see pages 48-49), and instead concludes that, while enhancement opportunities are available at a number of crossings, the existing pedestrian crossings are sufficient to accommodate the increased in pedestrian activity related to the proposed facilities. Staff believe that during the review of the Master Plan, it was clear to the Planning Commission and Council that "pedestrian safety at this intersection will become paramount to the success of an integrated SOU campus" and we believe that considerations of pedestrian safety will be paramount in the Planning Commission's consideration of the application. In staff's view, the materials' provided do not go nearly as far as was envisioned in the Master Plan to address pedestrian safety, particularly at this Eastern Gateway intersection; we believe that the treatment of the Eastern Gateway will need to be more carefully considered, and that the plan will need to include a detailed timeline to address the responsibility and timeline for the installation of "enhancement opportunities" to the other intersections identified in the submittals. SOU has a separate on-going project that will construct plaza gateway treatments at several intersections including the Siskiyou/Wightman-Indiana Street intersection. These drawings are attached to this report. Based on your comments we have expanded information contained in the Pedestrian Safety Plan to v G r: r 1 Rogue Valley Transportation District f From the Desk of Paige Townsend, Senior Planner - 3200 Crater Lake Avenue • Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 Phone (541) 608-2429 • Fax (541) 773-2877 Visit our website at: www.rvtd.org December 2, 2011 Pam Marsh, Chair Ashland Planning Commission, RE: SOU Webster Housing, Action 2001-01576 Thank you for this opportunity to provide Agency Comment on the SOU Webster Student Housing Development permit application. The application intends to add 30% more residential facilities at SOU for a population that is often considered 'auto-transportation disadvantaged' and thereby being on the cutting edge of using other forms of transportation. Students who live in residence halls are in many ways 'under the wing' of the University and with transportation being a critical aspect of everyday life it should be considered a partial responsibility of the University. To this end, RVTD is requesting that the Webster Housing application's approval have conditions that address basic transportation needs. First and foremost, RVTD is requesting that the Webster Housing complex occupants receive transit subsidies by way of a bus pass program. Transit subsidies for all students, faculty and staff are identified as TDM strategies in the SOU Master Plan, in the Webster Housing Development permit application and in the City of Ashland's TSP currently underway. It is RVTD's interest to equip all SOU users with a bus pass however this request is specifically focused on the Webster Housing complex occupants. By listing transit subsidies as a condition for approval on this permit application, the Webster Housing complex will have a perpetual transit subsidy program in place that will not be affected by the variability of a campus-wide program. It would ensure that approximately 10% of SOU students would have fare-less access to the transit system making it an attractive transportation choice. Despite what the application report states on page 60, SOU does not have an 'effective TDM Program' in place and it 'needs to be enhanced with additional strategies' to become more effective. To ensure environmentally friendly transportation options are well known to the students RVTD would also like to see that a student-resident orientation include a paper and web-based description detailing transportation facilities and a map. Additionally, a simple tour of the housing-development's bicycle facilities and a visit to the nearest bus stop will go a long way to help orient new students to the options they have available to them. Residents should be offered individualized trip planning assistance by resident assistants with support from the SOU Commuter Resource Center. These are all strategies identified in the application that should be adopted as permanent programs. An additional strategy to encourage non-auto transportation is to un-bundle the cost of parking from the resident hall units. Essentially, students who do not own a car and utilize a parking space would pay less for their Webster unit than those who do. A smart complement to this strategy is to also provide a carshare program so that students can pay for and have access to a car only when they need it. This will likely require some study by SOU before implementing and with the foreseeable addition of new buildings on this property it would help to facilitate more efficient land use in Ashland. These strategies will likely have indirect benefits by helping to achieve LEED certification which considers "easy accessibility to multiple modes of environmentally friendly transportation options." Additionally, families who research Universities will view these amenities as mutual benefits that are on the long list of reasons to attend SOU and live on campus. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The Webster Housing permit application includes several recommendations on how to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities to and from the new housing complex. The report states that adequate pedestrian crossing amenities are available and that adequate bicycle parking is already on campus and therefore the applicant does not need to provide more. We strongly disagree and want to encourage the city to ensure that not only will pedestrian, bicycling and skateboarding be encouraged, easy to navigate and feasible but that it will be safe. RVTD would like to see conditions for facility Improvements as part of this application approval. The City has identified specific improvements to be made and RVTD supports their recommendations. erely, Paige Townsend, Senior Planner ( CITY ■ LL Mtlllu to F DATE: December 2, 2011 TO: Derek Severson FROM: Margueritte Hickman, DC/Fire Marshal RE: SOU -1554 Webster - PL-2011-01091 Please include conditions on the Planning Action that will address the following fire code needs: 1. Provide turning radius on each driveway as required by the aerial apparatus. 2. Provide a site plan that includes building footprints of the new buildings and Greensprings, fire access routes, existing and proposed hydrants, FDC's, grades and side slopes on access routes. Additional access and hydrants may be required. 3. Identify location that will be used for semi loading and unloading and demonstrate that it will not block fire apparatus access. 4. Fire apparatus access is hatched in some areas, but it doesn't connect from the south side of the building to the west side. Fire apparatus access for the aerial is required to connect all the way through. 5. Ladder truck drawings as related to access have not been approved. Until these are completed, the location of the aerial access driveways in relation to the building cannot be approved as close enough to the buildings for fire apparatus access. 6. Greensprings residence hall access is modified and is reduced from what was previously available. The removal of the parking lot on the west side of Greensprings has eliminated fire access to the FDC's for Greensprings. Access is required to be maintained at least at the same or better than it was prior to this project. 7. Ashland Fire & Rescue recommends that Firewise Landscaping be implemented on this project. - - L FIRE & RESCUE 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-2770 - Fax (541) 488-5318 TTY: 800-735-2900 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GENERAL 2-4. LOAD CHART INFORMATION 76 FOOT AERIAL LADDER THE FOLLOWING CAPABILITIES SHALL BE BASED UPON CONTINUOUS 3600 ROTATION AND AERIAL AT FULL EXTENSION 50 MPH WIND CONDITIONS/WATERWAY DRY DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 FLY - - - - 250 500 750 1000 MID - 250 500 500 750 1000 1000 BASE - 250 500 500 750 1000 1000 1000 50 MPH WIND 6ONDITIONSNVATERWAY WET' DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 FLY - - - - 250 250 500 750 MID - - - 250 250 500 750 1000 BASE - - 250 500 500 750 1000 1000 ELEVATION STABILIZERS ARE FULLY EXTENDED AND SUPPORTED ON Ong, „S FIRM GROUND. REAR OF APPARATUS TO BE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE ~s STABILIZER SYSTEM & INSTALL WHEEL CHOCKS. ,m. earma+rAt ass A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0° TO 3SIDE SLOPE OF° THE APPARATUS; B.) 3'Y. TO 6 SIDE SLOPE OF THE APPARATUS - REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; rs C.) OVER 5'Y SIDE SLOPE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0° TO 5'%° GRADE OF THE APPARATUS; B.) 5 Y TO 6'/° GRADE OF THE APPARATUS - REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; C.) OVER 6 GRADE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. STRUCTURAL AND STABILITY LIMITATIONS GOVERN LOAD CHART CAPACITIES. FOR ICING CONDITIONS, REFER TO SEPARATE CHARTS LOCATED IN THIS MANUAL. READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL BEFORE OPERATING THE APPARATUS. t DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPERATE THE AERIAL APPARATUS LADDERPEACH (Mn of UNLESS YOU HAVE HAD PROPER TRAINING. ROTAnON AERIAL' ELEVATION GPM NOZZLE POSITION -5° to 75° 1000 GPM UNLIMITED NOZZLE POSITION 2003 Pierce Manufacturing Inc. All Rights Reserved 2-14 Heavy Duty Ladder GENERAL 105 FOOT AERIAL LADDER (500 LB tip load capacity) THE FOLLOWING CAPABILITIES SHALL BE BASED UPON CONTINUOUS 3600 ROTATION AND AERIAL AT FULL EXTENSION 50 MPH WIND CONDITIONSIWATERWAY DRY DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 FLY - - - - 250 250 750 1000 UPPER MID - - - 250 250 500 1000 1000 LOWER MID - 250 250 500 750 1000 1000 BASE - 250 250 500 750 1000 1000 1000 50 MPH WIND CONDITIONS/WATERWAY WET DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 FLY - - - - - 250 500 750 UPPER MID - - - - 250 500. 750 1000 LOWER MID - - 250 500 750 1000 1000 BASE - - 250 500 750 1000 1000 1000 ELEVAl10N 1. STABILIZERS ARE FULLY EXTENDED AND SUPPORTED ONIX FIRM GROUND, 2. REAR OF APPARATUS TO BE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE STABILIZER SYSTEM & INSTALL WHEEL CHOCKS. 3. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0° TO 3 YZ SIDE SLOPE OF THE APPARATUS; m° B.) 3'%° TO 5 SIDE SLOPE OF THE APPARATUS - f REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; p.o C.) OVER 5 Y2- SIDE SLOPE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. 4. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0- TO 5 Yz GRADE OF THE APPARATUS; B.) 5 % TO 6 GRADE OF THE APPARATUS - REDUCE ~v LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; 5 ~~s C.) OVER 6 GRADE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. I 5. STRUCTURAL AND STABILITY LIMITATIONS GOVERN LOAD CHART CAPACITIES. 6. FOR ICING CONDITIONS, REFER TO SEPARATE CHARTS LOCATED IN THIS MANUAL. 7. READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL BEFORE OPERATING THE APPARATUS. e 8. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPERATE THE AERIAL APPARATUS LADDER REACH FEET) OF UNLESS YOU HAVE HAD PROPER TRAINING. ELEVATION AERIAL ELEVATION GPM NOZZLE POSITION -51 to 751 1000 GPM UNLIMITED NOZZLE POSITION © 2003 Pierce Manufacturing Inc. All Rights Reserved 2_15 Heavy Duty Ladder GENERAL E 106 FOOT AERIAL LADDER (750 LB tip load capacity) - LADDERS WITHOUT WATERWAY THE FOLLOWING CAPABILITIES SHALL BE BASED UPON CONTINUOUS 3600 ROTATION AND AERIAL AT FULL EXTENSION 50 MPH WIND CONDITIONS DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 FLY - - - - - - 250 750 UPPER MID - - - - 250 250 500 750 LOWER MID - - - 250 250 500 1000 1000 BASE - - 250 250 250 750 1000 1000 1. STABILIZERS ARE FULLY EXTENDED AND SUPPORTED ON FIRM GROUND. ELE`'EE' T) FT5°fll--25.0' 2. REAR OF APPARATUS TO BE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE STABILIZER SYSTEM & 49.0' INSTALL WHEEL CHOCKS. 60° 3. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0° TO 396.0' SIDE SLOPE OF THE APPARATUS; 70.0• B.) 3 Y° TO 5'Yz SIDE SLOPE OF THE 4s° APPARATUS - REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; 80.0' C.) OVER 5'/° SIDE SLOPE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. 30° 86.5' 4. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0° TO 5'%- GRADE OF THE APPARATUS; 106.0' B.) 5 TO 6'Yz GRADE OF THE APPARATUS 60.0' - REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; C.) OVER 6'/° GRADE - REPOSITION THE ss, s' APPARATUS. i s° 5. STRUCTURAL AND STABILITY LIMITATIONS a GOVERN LOAD CHART CAPACITIES. 6. FOR ICING CONDITIONS, REFER TO SEPARATE CHARTS LOCATED IN THIS MANUAL. 7. READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL BEFORE OPERATING I 100, o THE APPARATUS. ' 8. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPERATE THE AERIAL LADDER REACH (FEET) OF APPARATUS UNLESS YOU HAVE HAD ROTATION PROPER TRAINING. 1 0 2003 Pierce Manufacturing Inc. All Rights Reserved 2-16 Heavy Duty Ladder GENERAL 105 FOOT AERIAL LADDER (750 LB tip load capacity) - LADDERS WITH WATERWAY THE FOLLOWING CAPABILITIES SHALL BE BASED UPON CONTINUOUS 3600 ROTATION AND AERIAL AT FULL EXTENSION 50 MPH WIND CONDITIONS/WATERWAY DRY DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 FLY - - - - - - 250 750 UPPER MID - - - 250 250 500 750 LOWER MID - - - 250 250 500 1000 1000 BASE - - 250 250 250 750 1000 1000 50 MPH WIND CONDITIONS/WATERWAY CHARGED DEGREE OF -5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 30 30 to 40 40 to 50 50 to 60 60 to 70 70 to 75 ELEVATION EGRESS 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 FLY - - - - - 250 500 750 UPPER MID - - - - 250 500 750 1000 LOWER MID - - 250 500 750 1000 1000 BASE - - 250 500 750 1000 1000 1000 ELEVATION 1. STABILIZERS ARE FULLY EXTENDED AND SUPPORTED FULL EXTENSION (FEET) ON FIRM GROUND, 500 LB TIP LOAD FLOWING 1000 GPM ALL ELEVATIONS 2. REAR OF APPARATUS TO BE FULLY SUPPORTED BY 60. 49.0' THE STABILIZER SYSTEM & INSTALL WHEEL CHOCKS. *HO~ gp IZONTAL 96.0' 3. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0- TO 3'%- SIDE SLOPE EEP OF THE APPARATUS; 45 70.0' B.) 3'% TO 5 SIDE SLOPE OF THE APPARATUS - REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; 80.0' C.) OVER 5'%- SIDE SLOPE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. ao° e6.5' 4. A.) FULL LOAD CAPACITY FROM 0- TO 5 GRADE OF THE APPARATUS; 60.0' 1os.o' B.) 5'%o TO 6'%' GRADE OF THE APPARATUS - REDUCE LOAD CAPACITY BY 50%; 96.5' Is C.) OVER 6'%- GRADE - REPOSITION THE APPARATUS. 5. STRUCTURAL AND STABILITY LIMITATIONS GOVERN ss.s LOAD CHART CAPACITIES. 6. FOR ICING CONDITIONS, REFER TO SEPARATE CHARTS LOCATED IN THIS MANUAL. 7. READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THE OPERATOR'S MANUAL BEFORE OPERATING THE APPARATUS. I Ioo.o' 8. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPERATE THE AERIAL LADDER REACH (FEET) OF APPARATUS UNLESS YOU HAVE HAD PROPER ROTATION TRAINING. AERIAL ELEVATION GPM NOZZLE POSITION i -5° to 75° 1000 GPM UNLIMITED NOZZLE POSITION © 2003 Pierce Manufacturing Inc. All Rights Reserved 2-17 Heavy Duty Ladder ,41 Department of Transportation Rogue Malley Office john A. Kitzha'oer,1VL--:, Governor 100 Antelope Rd White City, OR 97503-1674 (541) 774-6299 FAX (541) 774-6349 December 1, 2011 City of Ashland Planning Department Attn: Derek Severson 20 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Site Approval for SOU Dining Hall (PA-2011-01576) Dear Mr. Severson, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consideration of a request for site review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall near the intersection of Wightman and Stadium streets. j I ODOT has reviewed the land use request and has determined this proposal will not adversely impact the state's transportation facility; therefore, the proposed land use action does not trigger ODOT's review under the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0000) or under the current Access Management Rule (OAR 734-051-0045. We have no further comments for this land use action. As a recommendation, we do suggest the City of Ashland and Southern Oregon University update their current cross-walk lights to the newer, rectangular rapid flash beacon currently being utilized throughout the State. The use of the rectangular rapid flash beacon has demonstrated its effectiveness in pedestrian safety in those areas where there are conflicts with pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Please enter this letter into the public record for the proposed project and send me a copy of the City's final decision. Please feel free to contact me at (541) 774-6399 if you have any additional comments or concerns. espectfully, Ian K. Horlacher Development Review Planner Cc: RVDRT CHAPTER 5: STREET CROSSING Rectangular Rapid Flashing pedestrian crosses to median island; traffic Beacon (RRF ) in opposite direction is not stopped and continues to travel, uninterrupted. The Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon ® At the end of phase 1, traffic in the first or RRFB is a pedestrian activated flashing warning beacon used to supplement pedestrian direction resumes; pedestrian walks towards or school crossing signs at uncontrolled second crossing, which is offset to the right. crosswalks. FHWA Interim Approval dated ® Phase 2: pedestrian pushes button in island July 16, 2008 should be consulted for and stops traffic in other direction; when implementation details. The RRFB has proven pedestrian has finished the second crossing, to be very effective in improving stopping traffic resumes in the second direction. compliance at uncontrolled and mid-block Pedestrians must be made to walk against on- crosswalks. In Oregon, the convention is to coming traffic, so they can see it hasn't stopped; not provide any indication to the pedestrian pedestrians need to push the second button (a about the flasher status, so that the pedestrian pedestrian push button on island is required). responds to changes in traffic, not the flasher. This offset also makes it possible to orient the The RRFB should be paired with the advance pedestrian signals to just half the roadway, so stop bar on multi-lane roadways. Effectiveness pedestrians don't get a mixed message from a improves with installation of a flasher on at the pedestrian head that is in their line of sight, but edge of the roadway and in a median. not intended for their half of the roadway. F Traffic signal controls - 1 one d-ti.n .rly I( This traffic continues through Aa_ . 7t, e~ ~ r f3 t, I _ I F I Rapid rectangular flashing beacon Thia vas°stoPa y ,one di ane directioectiononly °IsI Figure 5-25: 2-step signal: pedestrian Two-Step Pedestrian Signal activates signal to stop near side traffic On busy roads, stopping all traffic long enough - TaFidicsignaln recgcontrols „>z,hrc~nb u only 1 This trarfi tin ~ to let a pedestrian cross may cause undue delay^ if the pedestrian signal is activated frequently / at peak periods. A two-step pedestrian signal F - ~ . r 7a minimizes delay to motor vehicle traffic while - allowing pedestrians to cross conveniently. This requires a median refuge island to break _ y the crossing into two distinct parts. Each ~-1 signal is independently controlled - essentially -1~- - creating two pedestrian signals across two one- This u.M. esumes oTra fie aignalc °.a ne drection only way streets: Figure 5-26: 2-step signal: pedestrian proceeds to far side crossing facing traffic • Phase 1: pedestrian pushes button to stop traffic in one direction; traffic stops and OREGON BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FLAN 5-17 CITY F ASHLAND Memorandum DATE: December 1, 2011 TO: Derek'Severson FROM: Karl Johnson RE: SOU Student Housing - Adequate Utility Availability On Tuesday November 29"', the City of Ashland Engineering Department met with Scott Souders from ZCS Engineering Inc. to discuss what is currently shown on the civil design sheets of the proposed Student Housing plan set. During the discussion we were guaranteed that utilities that would need to be constructed to serve the housing project would be properly sized and all utility lines that must be reconstructed, due to current placement, would also be constructed in accordance with City of Ashland standards and needs. Currently the civil plans do not show all of the necessary information that we would normally see on civil plans, including pipe sizes, pipe profiles etc. This information will need to be included before any final sign off from the Engineering Department can occur and ZCS is aware of this and has stated that they will provide a schedule of when we can expect to receive plans that we will be able to review. In a letter to ZCS Engineering Inc. dated September 12, 20111 stated the following about the utilities in the area of the proposed SOU Student Housing project: • City of Ashland Water - There is an 8-inch water main available Stadium Street and a 6-inch water main available in Webster Street. • City of Ashland Wastewater - There is a 12-inch sanitary sewer main available in Wightman Street. There is also a 6-inch sanitary sewer main that is undersized for this project in Stadium Street. ® City of Ashland Storm Sewer - There is a 24-inch storm drain available in Webster Street. The City of Ashland Engineering Department feels that the current water and storm drain systems will be adequate to serve the needs of what has been included in the preliminary design. ZCS has stated that they will provide storm water design calculations for the storm drainage system that will be constructed to serve the proposed buildings and parking lots. The sanitary sewer system that will be used for the housing project is currently not of adequate size. SOU has already agreed to reconstruct this mainline and upgrade to an acceptable size to handle the increased flow and ZCS has already began a design of the new mainline placement, based on an meeting that occurred in the field a few months back. This design will also need to be reviewed and approved be the Engineering Department and it has been promised that it will be included in the overall civil design plans that will ultimately be provided. The City of Ashland Engineering Department feels comfortable that all the necessary plans, designs and calculations will be provided for review and approval however, this will not occur before the Planning Commission meeting this month. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DIV. Tel: 541-488-5347 20 East Main Street Far: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 NvNvw.ashland.or.us G:\pub-wrks\eng\11-28 SOU Student Housing\A_Admin\Planning Issues-documents\Adequate Utility Availability - 12-01-11.docx CITY F ASHLAND Memorandum DATE: November 9, 2011 TO: Derek Severson, Planning Department FROM: Karl Johnson` RE- SOU Student Housing Development Below are initial comments that the City of Ashland Engineering Department has for the SOU Student Housing Development submittals for the new dormitory buildings at 1554 Webster Street: ® Traffic ImpactAnaI sis o If it has been determined (page 22 of the Traffic Impact Analysis) that there is "a relatively high number of rear-end crashes over the five year period" and-this crash rate is related to the crosswalk at this intersection, why wasn't a potential solution to this problem proposed? With the increased number of students crossing the street, won't this problem only get worse? j o Are the numbers presented in Table 3 (page 26) realistic due to the fact that there will be over 200 more students, but the table shows very few more trips generated? The students living in the existing Cascade Hall would only have a need to cross Siskiyou Boulevard to visit the few buildings on the north-side, while all of the students in the new dorms will need to cross Sislciyou Boulevard to access the entire rest of campus. o How will there be a daily reduction of 575 daily trips to the south campus area (page 27) with the closure of Cascade Hall? The same number of students will need to access the f buildings and classrooms on the south side of Sislciyou Boulevard and the automobile traffic that is using it will still be accessing this area the same way. o Was data for any other times besides the typical a.m. and p.m. peak gathered? There are significant traffic issues, both pedestrian and vehicular, outside of these time frames. ® Parkin; DemandlRatio Analysis o ' Is it realistic that 700 students will only need. 156 parking stalls (147 minus handicap accessible stalls)? Streets around the development will be inundated with cars as students will not want to walk the long distances to and from the dorms to their cars. Page 43 states the fact that students do not use lots now in the current layout due to inconvenience and the fact that on-street parking is free. ® -Pedestrian Safety Plan o With the addition of the potential 700 additional students that would cross at least twice per day, once to class and once back to the dorms, why were no alternatives given that would not use the existing crosswalks? o The Pedestrian Safety Plan states (page 81-82) that the Wightman-Indiana Street/Siskiyou Boulevard intersection would operate acceptably with. the addition of a 36 PUBLIC WORKSIENGINEERING DIV. Tel: 541A88-5347 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.ocus L G:\pub-wrks\eng\l 1-28 SOU Student Housing\A Admin\Planning Issues-documents\Site Review Application Comments Memo -11-11.docx e~ second "scramble" phase. This intersection currently has times during the day that traffic backs up on the westbound leg of Siskiyou Boulevard through the Siskiyou Boulevard/Ashland Street intersection. How would the addition of a 36 second "scramble" phase not affect both of these signals in a negative way? Will this 36 second phase run during every cycle of the traffic signal or will it be "intelligent" and only run when necessary? o Would the addition of 9 seconds, to the traffic signal timing, too long? The current 3 second delay allows pedestrians to proceed into the street so that they are seen by drivers before traffic-begins to move. ® Development Plan Set o Does not appear that the right-of-way transfer, from the City of Ashland to SOU, of the southerly portion of Stadium Street, which was requested; is shown. o Unable to determine whether all requested utility upgrades have been addressed without the inclusion of the civil design plan sheets so we cannot determine whether we have additional comments on these at this time. o Engineering Department will need to receive and review the storm water report before comments can be made. The initial submittal showed multiple bioswales and other detention facilities while the new plan set shows none. PUBLIC WORKSIENGINEERING DIV. Tel: 541-488-5347 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 T1Y: 800-735-2900 LJ www.ashland.orms U G:\pub-wrks\eng\11-28 SOU Student Housing\A Admin\Planning Issues-documents\8ite RevieNV Application Comments Memo -11-11..docx I€ j 20 1,0 , shland ne Rr' Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-601-2069 Keith Fugate SERA 338 NW 5th Avenue Portland OR 97209 12/2/2011 Tree Removal Permit Request for SOU Student Housing Development Efforts were made in the planning of the SOU student housing development to accommodate all existing trees, however, the large scale of the project will require the removal of 22 trees with a diameter in excess of 18 inches. These trees are indicated on the enclosed spreadsheet and are tagged in the field with corresponding numbers. Removal of these trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil„stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Also the removal of these trees will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The planting of one or more trees into the new landscape will mitigate each tree that is removed. Tree # 5 is a 20-inch DBH Shore Pine. The pine is leaning. It is located too close to the proposed curb cut and would not survive the excavation. Tree #10 is a twenty-inch DBH Ponderosa Pine. It is located too close to a proposed curb cut for a walkway and would not survive the necessary excavation. Tree#12 is an eighteen-inch DBH Shore Pine with a severe lean. It is located too close to a proposed curb cut for a walkway and would not survive the necessary excavation. Tree #14 is a twenty-one-inch DBH Shore pine. Its roots extend into the proposed footing for the building. It is located too close to the foundation excavation and grade change. It would not survive the excavation process. Tree # 15 is a nineteen-inch DBH Himalayan pine. It too is located too close to the foundation excavation and grade change. It would not survive the excavation process. Tree #18 is a thirty-seven-inch DBH Siberian elm. This tree has a number of broken scaffold limbs and is an inappropriate tree to have near a building. Its root zone and canopy extend into the building. It is located too close to the foundation excavation and grade change. It would not survive the excavation process. Tree # 31 is an eighteen-inch Deodar cedar. It is located in an area proposed for hardscape and also has its roots and canopy extending into the proposed building. It would not survive the excavation process. f Tree # 51 is a twenty-inch Sycamore. It is located in an area proposed for hardscape and also has its roots and canopy extending into the proposed building. It would not survive the excavation process. 12/2/2011 Tree #52 is a twenty-four-inch Siberian elm. It is located much too close to the proposed foundation. It would not survive the excavation. Tree #53 is a twenty-five-inch Siberian elm. It is located much too close to the proposed foundation. It would not survive the excavation. Tree # 54 is an eighteen-inch Deodar cedar. It is located within the building footprint. Needless to say, it needs to be removed. Tree # 95 is a twenty-one inch Sycamore. It is located too close to a proposed curb cut for a walkway and would not survive the necessary excavation. i Tree #113 is a twenty-inch Tulip tree. It is located within the building footprint. Needless to say, it needs to be removed. Tree # 116 is a twenty-two-inch Black pine. It is located within a proposed stairway. It needs to be removed. Tree #117 and tree # 118 are twenty-three inch and twenty-six inch Red Oaks. They are located too close to the building footing and grade change. They would not survive the construction process. Tree #125 is an eighteen-inch Blue spruce. It is located within a proposed parking area that will be graded and paved over. No tree can survive the construction of a parking area over its root system. Tree # 128 and tree # 129 both twenty-one-inch Black locusts. They are located within a proposed parking area that will be graded and paved over. No tree can survive the construction of a parking area over its root system. Tree #132 and tree # 133 are both twenty-one-inch Incense cedars. They are located within a proposed parking area that will be graded and paved over. No tree can survive the construction of a parking area over its root system. Tree #141 is a thirty-seven inch Incense Cedar. It is located within a proposed parking area that will be graded and paved over. No tree can survive the construction of a parking area over its root system. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at 541-601-2069. Thomas M Myers, Certified Arborist 0 Page 2 o _ ARCHITECTURE y l 10 10 i'-~~ (10' ~ V0.8AN DESIGN PNNI INTERIOR DESIGN GN ~ I ~ wlc ~~rra.~ \ $S ~S"'~ I V! 3, W ~ 14AR 0 [W. 9 ] T y i----- 41 ~ I 1S1 s f. lu,eni.cOV ~Iij / 14 .152 I . 1 103 10 \ w 1 1.. 1531 ,p DININ 11 I L) LILT ~ ~•t; , ~ ~ /l ~1 y 1,~J~123 124 15 ~ / ~ \ • 101 ti+=~ 10,. 1/1L -16 142 ~ 154 z I ♦ rl ~V 11 v 1 - J I I Q yypI` / I I II _ 1291 113 - 91 \_Jy'` gp 111 ..~f 36 ....137 \ 143\ 44 x g 9 i1 I„....u ` § FMS S7 T f 148 X 14 e 88 133 14 ~ 97 - ~ 85 86 ~1 14 •'Y83YF E.$ X81 lr-j '3 " I I 173 14 172 e 7 s ss ~ ~ 7s ~ so a ~ 7z ❑ 7a T. 4 N-74 74 X72 W I 0 - II d IIi r 7~ 70 II \I » it Iii, e I L I I AAAJ W Lu ~ a ©I ` 1741', W -J L U) L: 00 05 Z COG, ti O ( W (Lo L® ~ 3 1•+ w 1.! _ 0 W REtv;'.a+u o: DEazo1T -Tall be Abed in GTC -CB,. IssuE DrTE: wnov xwl PRG1ECilkl 091w1 TREE PROTECTION NORTH & REMOVAL PLAN L U) swnry,ma e~cy~ >kco--,a. r«ea-.reo were.tameaa m.e,m~,~:«e m+_;nlrs-~ +A,v[-.,v g H>E~cre,~-sf~rm~P«.t~ Trec~:a~.m ~,raa.=rm rit~-.~6bF rrsr!-bma,,sa•~na r;~nn A~ 0 15• 30' 60• L002 i'eix clf.y0s1PT,~yprv..l,bc ita Coma¢O rLV ra O.^~br_e PaFel~NT 11 J+•: s°=r u4,tael~r,~rn<°.-~Nhi ti ITS memo to File DATE: December 2, 2011 TO: Derek Severson FROM: Margueritte Hickman, DC/Fire Marshal RE: SOU -1554 Webster - PL-2011-01091 Please include conditions on the Planning Action that will address the following fire code needs: 1. Provide turning radius on each driveway as required by the aerial apparatus. 2. Provide a site plan that includes building footprints of the new buildings and Greensprings, fire access routes, existing and proposed hydrants, FDC's, grades and side slopes on access routes. Additional access and hydrants may be required. 3. Identify location that will be used for semi loading and unloading and demonstrate that it will not block fire apparatus access. 4. Fire apparatus access is hatched in some areas, but it doesn't connect from the south side of the building to the west side. Fire apparatus access for the aerial is required to connect all the way through. 5. Ladder truck drawings as related to access have not been approved. Until these are completed, the location of the aerial access driveways in relation to the building cannot be approved as close enough to the buildings for fire apparatus access. 6. Greensprings residence hall access is modified and is reduced from what was previously available. The removal of the parking lot on the west side of Greensprings has eliminated fire access to the FDC's for Greensprings. Access is required to be maintained at least at the same or better than it was prior to this project. 7. Ashland Fire & Rescue recommends that Firewise Landscaping be implemented on this project. 'EN FIRE & RESCUE 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-2770 > Fax (541) 488-5318 TTY: 800-735-2900 PRINTED CN RECYCLED PAPER Zimbra Page 1 of 2 Zimbf a seversod@ashland.or.u; + Font size - RE: U Land Use Submittal From : HORLACHER Ian K <Ian. K.HORLACHER@odot.state. or.us> Mon, Nov 28, 201109:55 AM Subject : RE: SOU Land Use Submittal To : Derek Severson <seversod@ashland.or.us> Derek There is no significant impact to the state transportation facility. We have no further comments, but we do offer the recommendation that they City go to the updated HEM pedestrian-activated lights along the corridor in which the students would be using. Thanks. Ian K. Horlacher Development Review Planner ODOT Region 3, District 8 (White City) Ph: (541) 774-6399 "Unless commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes... but no plans " - Peter Drucker From: Derek Severson [mailto:seversod@ashland.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 20113:30 PM To: HORLACHER Ian K Cc: derek.severson@ashland.or.us Subject: SOU Land Use Submittal Ian, We've received the land use application for Southern Oregon University's project to relocate their dining hall and about 704 residence hall beds to the north side of Siskiyou. This was envisioned in the recently adopted Master Plan, but there were a number of transportation analyses that were deferred until development that have been provided with the application now to address the shift in student travel patterns across Siskiyou. I wanted to send them your way for review and comment. At this point, I anticipate that we'll be sending this to our Transportation Commission for comment in mid-December, and to our Planning Commission for a public hearing on January 10th. We'll send you formal notice with our regular noticing, but given the magnitude I thought you might like it while we are still reviewing for completeness. The documents are pretty huge, so I've PDF'ed them and placed them on our website at: http://www.ashIand.or.usjRgge.a5p?NavID=14464 There's also a link to the masterplan on that link, if it helps provide background. If I can provide any additional info or assistance, please let me know. Hope all is going well. Derek Derek Severson, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 PH: 541.552-2040 FAX: 541.552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=48894&1 11/30/2011 Zimbra Page 2 of 2 t 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)552-2040. Thank you. i i http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=48894&1 11/30/2011 r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On Wednesday November 23, 2011, 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 #2011-01576, 1554 Webster Street. i I Signature of Employee Gkomm-devlplanningWorms & HandoutslAffidavit of Mailing-Planning Action Notice.doc PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 700 2011 0 576 39 EI SBn nne A-2011-01576 391E15BA 3200 MEISTER'S BUY RITE INC MEISTER'S BUY RITE INC VMERCER DONALD J 1,450 ASHLAND AVE 970 CYPRESS POINT LOOP 1380 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97E20) ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 MEYERS SCOTT D ESTATE OF MINTON CHRISTINE H MORA-OLIVARES MARIA DE JESUS 720 GROVER ST 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 19 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 40 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5600 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6500 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 100 NOYES ROBERT OLSON IVAN C/ELEANOR OREGON STATE OF - SOU PO BOX 542 1620 HOMES CRAIG MORRIS, VP FINANCE & ADMIN ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PRINCE DANNY JOE PRINCE LOUANN /DANIELLE VICTORIA QUINCE PETER L 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 36 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD #10 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD #35 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 800 REYES-RODRIGUEZ FAUSTO SCHIRNER DAVID M ETAL SIERRA GRIZZLY LLC 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 46 424 WALKER AVE PO BOX 970 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97501 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 STEIN DAVID SWISS CAROL ANN TAGUI-BINZHA GILBERTO PO BOX 3018 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 50 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 49 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5000 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 TAG UI-BINZHA YOLANDA THOMPSON JOHN P URRUTIA-DIAZ BRIGIDO 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 48 P 0 BOX 711 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 37 ASHLAND OR 97520 DALLAS TX 75221 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576.391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6900 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 URRUTIA-DIAZ MIGUEL VEZIE RICHARD L/GAYLE E WHITE NOEL 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 16 446 WALKER AVE 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 41 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 WILLIAMS BARBARA YOUNG MICHAEL D SERA Architects 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 52 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 43 Kurt Schultz ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 338 NW 5th Av Portland OR 97209 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 PA-2011-01576 ZCS Engineering Adroit Construction American Campus Communities 900 Klamath Ave Tom Walker Clint Braun Klamath Falls OR 97601 P 0 Box 609 12700 Hill Country Rd Bd STE T-200 Ashland OR 97520 Austin TX 78738 t PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 NA-2011-01576 391E1000 1300 A-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 Property Owner/Tenant 416 BRIDGE LLC ALBERT MELISSA BETH 725 ROYAL AVE PO BOX 492 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 39 MEDFORD OR 97504 TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1400 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5400 ASHLAND COMMUNITY LAND TRUST BARTELL ALDA BENOIT ROBERT H TRUSTEE FBO 550 MAIN ST PO BOX 1191 309 SAN BENANCIO RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 SALINAS CA 93908 PA-2011-01576 391E156A 900 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6600 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5500 BOARD/REGENTS/NORMAL SCHOOL BOEHLER KIMBERLY RAIE BUTLER JOHNNY L 1250 SISKIYOU BLVD 22 BOW PERCH LN 4 425 WIGHTMAN ST ASHLAND OR 97520 BOZEMAN MT 59718 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5100 PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1200 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10300 CONKLIN JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL CONKLIN JAMES TRUSTEE ET AL DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE P 0 BOX 246 P 0 BOX 246 725 ROYAL AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 6800 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5700 EDWARDS MARK ENGLE DOUGLAS M/LONNA M FALLON THOMAS E/KELLI A 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 11 1031 BEESON LANE 703 BUTLER CREEK RD ASHLAND OR 97520 TALENT OR 97540 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E1000 1201 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10500 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 FINCH PAUL J/VICKI J FIRST FEDERAL S/L ASSN GREENBURG ROSE MARIE 420 BRIDGE ST 111 N WALL ST P 0 BOX 1226 ASHLAND OR 97520 SPOKANE WA 99201 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10200 GUITRON-MORA CARLOS HARMON PAUL MARTIN JOY PAMALA ET AL 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 33 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 31 472 WALKER AVE ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 7100 PA-2011-01576 391E10CD 5300 KEENAN DARBY ELLEN KING JEFFREY/SUSAN MARSDEN LETTON JOHN BENJAMIN/LETTON 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 13 1617 PARKER ST KATHERINE K ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 273 WILLOW WAY TALENT OR 97540 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10400 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 7000 PA-2011-01576 391E10DC 10100 LIGON WILLIAM C/JANET LOCKLIN PAUL TRUSTEE ET AL LUDWIG ROBERT F P 0 BOX 3534 1350 NEVADA ST 175 PILOT VIEW RD ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 PA-2011-01576 391E15AB 6700 PA-2011-01576 391E15BA 300 PA-2011-01576 391E1513A 100 MAYFIELD GERALD DUANE MEISTER RICHARD J TRUSTEE ET AL MEISTER'S BUY RITE INC 1565 SISKIYOU BLVD 25 1777 CRESTVIEW DR 870 CYPRESS POINT ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 ASHLAND OR 97520 n r, L.:, [-L1 t rl of rr r,,rt r .S r~-,1 1~ i t. - 61. r9 r"Ir[Irsrl `I'"~~~~d ~T<I iJ 1~ ,4U>L h; r°I UV r CSC , f'„i~ "~r.~ INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LILD a e u r c, I I~ r.7 I ey] CFl' _ G -rW rra r_A r4 _~alc ~,1 I~ - _ LLIrL t r` r ;t' d , Map Maker L P r,, ~urh ~rv cJ . s Application 2-9 ° J L' I Pro Data Online Legend t . l td yi cub CS°,{ td r r 4~ °9r 1 r Pent L I p rJq C Highlighted Feature -C, c'L h L , r7 L_"] tl ~ir,_ rt = ti .I~ theButfer e r-r r, y f;t 4! L~ - Yt p e 7c? Target E-Lm L r ~ e u °.rti the8uffer I r1c❑' y'd , Alm Tax Lot Outlines ~l dY` I y "o Jl~4b i 1[Il1.J[l~ td v r, I I t7 Vernal Poets L.I I ks id c-, 13 q `u_ Cl Wetlands rt ly L3 r rW,t t t lI ri" wetland L, tJ n [ c l9 , ~J 7' p~~ LEI [ y L E~ 7~ Et L~p [i ~ ! l rrr~l upland dy I LI11 IJu?,!t' .c t]L']! id+ C'U t110 aim •!7~'JZ € t o Streams and Ditches L L rr.~~i~i -t-Ji 7-7 Ir~•-',A.J f lJ- E j J q[ [7s APP A legate, Rogue, Bear 7iINT~I JO 11$ 1~3 Kl rt~ Creek Ili! I rL "TI { + tl ' r^ Rivers a m-1 nd Major ,J I .refry 111 C.u,) l i i d= 9CAVA, a Streams U L7 I I ] el ja S J a~ y?lJ Lt JI L r y to LJ : I J.1 ,y 9, C r(j Named Streams r1 - I 1~ 49 J" ❑ 3c~ c I , JIB 5J a[1 Lj Minor Streams -d n~l url h [,It vI n rY ,zt t`rG7 , -f cy.. J II J r~ll r (dS ,JI tl. Internfittent I l~iu +L7 ~r r ktl ~G5 , UndergroundStreams Streams 11 i d ~L St d 19l r ' r'3 t, d ~n J N € Canals [ I rJ r I Ley L, J Cl ~l 4 Y Canals -Tunnels 1 'r r -v 9 t} fir;. I~ a ieJt r L'i t ~I rJ '1~-r"'J ' I Siphons ~J i t r LI= 1 : ~1 - i I J ® Mobile Home Parks E -•e`, 1 Ir tx}t I-: i~~.[~'~ 1 ~`I 7,;~ ~~Li ~,'y~ by r r~cq r lJ } 9 fr Apartments I.S~ 1 Buildings '~t-'>•. r G'7 -h j I r ter, / E: ~,7uu c~,J y ~ , t • c~ rl -r l7 1 1 1 a ` -J -,J ra ttie^-,}, t r r L1 L-I I [,t 4i ~ F I 1 rA ' I [ _ ti Crr ~ L u s f: II Pin+a$~.~rl PATk~ r0 t IN, y s ft 5` -hti ~f H r J t I ~a I L ~ i JJ EL. I- tr.` r ~Yll.~ dl iJ~ F- 1'r'- L5 I l~ r rt_,. r r. ❑ r^~ t-j E r 47 ¢ 7 ! , d j L °.7 C,I 1, I ? C r,, t t- I r T '!I G 4 r,L.,l _ I~t(] !i [7 q l 6s 'l a4fi 'i 0 i7 d r rU ~~t4L e'J 11~~47I1~ yr fr7c ~iL 5 44 G~ j}i5d r~J Jd r7 d~LJ'h~C 1~~1 IJ U rU L L'.1 S I ti~ LI - r rill 'v?j r'I c.'_ P ~~f~rll Fa. ~SttH .t~a,f=+rSbJ I l1'k 7+~1~:~ 5.1 t I dll Il t, ~ ~ t I w. 47 I J J 7.r o l7rrt {j~ K{~ p t a_5 r 1 , !S ° [ i t r ,a L, p CI 0 1Iil'I lit fit' 111 j tIS v tl~"~'r HI '1 L}J r~rL~LP[a ~cL,suia3 a Iqh rL Cl ail I I u _tl r r t I F7 r 1 [F r' l~ i1ri.1 tit L1rE,L-1'.~i~ L4~,T~1 IS r.1 1~ a51 _'015~ ~r?r11~5J l~dtll}!°, rl, d LU r. ; dr LI IJ". ( a g~tL'I haI!`41 r I ~f7;7t lr d ; (~Lr Ll a 41 ~u l L~ j ❑ CJ -c, i c l ~I~ I LUr~ q- J.i F n -.1I rJ L~p u iti H , k n rJ r' r L~l. h~ -I It, 'S ~ I c t t•~ :19 i!a A ~ ~ J rliy I I ~ ..t L~ ~V J 'a I t)t 16 e _ I , .{I [.l cy If f # Cy I~ CI t u c r-L a r ,L - % -I I4 4~:'~ - Its «r"d r~1 n fl l 7 D r', ry 4a 1 La rI r,~,,e"i 3 0 I ar y C11 J , F, J~. IJ I - f, J LI I y«~ t_, r 1, IY I ~ • P ~1~ LI G ri :[y rx I. I Lr' I dl LI Lu I I .a. ti~ -x, ~tl 1~• [i~ it cn.r -hrv~,C~ m,- rJ _ I`- ir 3 r?" ° , 1 k' C' tdL, ~i 4 L I 1 F ut. I~ i~tl I] L f, a Ih' t~ : 4 L E f b 6.Ia,LISp U _~7 JACKSON COUNTY i 1- L7 oreg011 L"7 L - 61 d to r, t~ i 'I' This map is based on a digital database Ll compiled by Jackson County From a variety [7 1 t'>" Cd L,, 4J it of sources. Jackson County cannot accept =I _d~- .fir O q' [J !Jr-i responsiblly for errors, omisions, or - 1 d - r 4 r 4 n J GI positional accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied. Please recycle vrith colored office grade paper Created with MapMaker Map created on 11122120114:15:54 PM using web.lacksoncounty.org I 50 4~.1 ( U I t y°I P Lr I -a•~ r ~l t, °;e r y, r c n.f~'ytYFJ wT., °+~'I 1 L~ L,.r tl, d ®~I tI~C'I r LI ryrL-'I.`cL1 b1 Ire, k ~ P , t'11 ~t 7 L u u1 I if741;, CSC II Ij I + G`~- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12! a [ rwl c7 r_4 r4 4a I 'I Y7 it t - al [ L'irt L,+ L1 IllplrI I ° Map Maker se - L IJcr~. u,~J Lr c ,~~'1 45 .9 , L7 ,+I I Application vCl! 1.3 ~Li,~ L s C3 ' Property Data Online Legend { L717 I r n +rL .t b f~ n rl ° Highlighted Feature r J e - L L I [1 ~nq r„ IIC t S j thoButter r I L:'7 I LtS~ 13 ' c q iheBufLarTargat tl , ~'Lr eIL'l(; i n p a I l 4!~'u!t y[9 , u ' P , { Ctp Tax Lot Outlines 7111{~7r711171-Jrl{ ~C~(y I f I II r~ t 9 b { } D Vernal Pools L;1 ` J 9 if}:;:-rj~a ~@t~trll }Lrt;~ ,A 130I { s.. Wetlands n a 17,' r' n 113 u! L wettand upland ~C o a I , •1` P , ' Streams and Ditches I~ 1 .H qll ~u:r R I~~~1 l.'JIOlI I Crock Applegate, Rogue, Bear t 144' r~ ~iJ J~ ftyyrrl~L,u i Creek L ~I (Idt dl ~ I !L!t r~ _ILI I~ Liar # Rivers and Major J Streams n 4 (,rIL.~Inl L7I~~LI.h Irs~~ ti'". {,R.~'UL~dLrr~ ~ .~~i ~[T r ! . ,~P Named Streams - t~ q I~ r <TII y 5_r t Crr.C 11 ~ [J cam, cl,7rv- a[7 LI IJ r LF;. g { f tt,❑I to o i I J 2 y U?~~ ~7! Minor Streams ~ t 1~ u U C._ 1- h 4 i' •IJI z IJ It' 4 I I+ 5 n u l I I{ f' intermittent Streams j gp ll 1_ . U, f~ ! 1 iry L~ dJ r L I. }Ia u @ ii ! < Underground Streams J EL fl rr I 4~ d +°l r +J ) ~L~ 4a ! Canals 1. Gel l II N~' L7 n ~u Canals • Tunnels It $ j~I .,~t~ ch r i I p r_( Siphons L}, I"r `l 9 ~r"7 u p'.. I~a`-, `d Llr-" L, n r LI ] II _ 'r? I r t i a q r.' 1 Mobile Home Parks S~L~ 11 r3 ,lit r s~+,TL' i11~~L C•tP Li.,?.l h sr nLS( 71 cI ® f .J r.. 1-I i I 1 rjy . (,,['y-, r• I_ci Lni I 151 Apartments r, I13 I r R {f 's 1 { l i_ ` iti'i. ~r~~ J41 I r r ® f B.Ildings FJ T a_,.9 L~1 _ A CO! - r-I Ll ' 4 odl .rti . n C:] LJr-. h._.,{ i~ lsl i i. L-J rn, ra- ca ee p C W, G r~ tl ii r r r e I v I u .,11 Lit+~ 'r.~e t P i Lk.l ! {{t r t I r in a r Ill 7J ,I + I ¢ I ICY L' -L1 u I I~- 'r !L lr` Ly 7 L~ J ~ ritJ ~?ILr~ ; I 4 iLI'rrl, n L I rLt II ~a 11 t~ 6it.!`a?I ' L JI a C_I' t . I l , [ u L t .,,il 4 r L... ~7 ea 17 u I>•.~ C~ d,; `L 2 3 P I Sr V~ o 4T a,'_I U 1 e A . : I 41 n .rrz a { + rtr I fIT 3r`L'(}.les :71~~t711 a,C r f J 31 ` I e i=C.:, SG. L r- ~ IJ Wit. I p ~ ~ i(( 'y I f( u LJl 11 L' rll r sir ITJi+ i°~r ~l'r I Its 1a It IS* t I JS H e, r~ :L@ LI It ~ .F r f rti. LF .,.Clx.~r ;❑q{I [1 Y _I; r} il_I r4 L7, a i _ rq• , ry c3 0 1 .1 4~ o p r. e, ti t3fd I~ _Jlr p~ „Xp ,lfr~~t71 a I°4r. c r_hr 6-J' I I Il LI VI L. [,fit r p 0,11'4 `i l.l. ❑Q .1~ 1 'ry >r Lt~ - ~ ICJ 17_ 1 .h V ry, I [ 1-~ 117`_~~u [f'~ ~I . ~z. ❑ 1~4 GY C C7. I I lid I~ I L a J C r t'Tt 43' , I. 1 LJt Lf ti' I r 1.1 1 Is N < <LII ..Ilf 4 -p r, r hlap la.~l LIB F`.. 4 rJJllr~ I Sal ll ~I.. ;U Fl iJLJ ~M [I j1t? fl 2'+' XI 711~Jf1 rltetil~~.' 0 Lu 5,x'.1 Jtir~ I l • r1 'rJ a v4kiQ'hsa! rp 1G ? Jr>7~r 1~1r~,3t. 1~4 (1 U CJ LJ ~ I - i rt t-,]Iy GI y GI (i u JF4 f. t,Yi2 r ➢I-,i } 7 II r :I I r rJ L t. a J.s R 5 P LI" ❑ h 4a ~1 5~ I Ll 1: Y r lr' ti LJ ~Ll L-~ it Ic r, :L If ury CJI ~f1l 'l5e i ryl ~ Fj ~I~ L~ 0r~t .I - ,(1 r , r L LEI , - _~r u 'a7 L~ I-L. L4J~. 4 P li!rf Lily t rat n Ll u J ! 1 r5 5 ,IL, ~I Ll y I ;i lur e 12 y t r U n.t .~C., r7 17 f ~ ~ ~ , ~ Li. or _ 'lr "i', LI - I I 1J I~ L~ It r I. H a1 '"1T.,z C`_'J :'f' r rrJ* y 7 '.f~'I, h a1 1{~JII C F f~133 GJ 1ry~, +~t~~~~ t, .1 ~ n '1'.1.3 in rI L ~r~1;~y I I rl, IW r_~I ' , L,, y A , ~nr;ri 1 J1l ~~s II Ll,?tj• ~ C • °t.. i~r~41. 'L~ r~r.}r '{I lr~.'~I ~ . r,W~, ~'!•Lz!l Ir;,r C~..441rr~ tY `1 1~'I, Ily'' ~5 QI 4.7iLr' Crl 6L1 I ` 1 t J2, p ~ti 11 g. ''t r Ji: Jr„ ~r a d 4 t H 11 L~ ftia Ll4~ j,,r~t J IJ1 L a r• i JACKSON il ' '1 .L~!• 1 IIII ja fj L_ COUNTY I .r Lx 'a~ C7 L7~1~~ O regOtt t,T P.r [J r,Ltl~{' ll t~ J G ~I This map Is based on a digital database I a , [ , y L1 r~ compiled by Jackson County From a variety I d n 1 1 I `I Imo. Ld CI of sources. Jackson County cannot accept r~~,~• { -•4'{ { , I e t t Fd I f a rJ r-Itl responsibily for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy. There are no O Ca warranties, expressed or Implied. Created with MapMaker Map created on 11/22/2011415:54 PM using web.lacksoncounty.org Please recycle with colored office grade paper f t ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division cHrv OF 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # E ASHLAND 541488-5305 Fax 541488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SOU Student Housing Development: two new residence hall buildings and a separate dinina hall building DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? YES ❑ NO Street Address: Area bounded by Wightman. Ashland,, Stadium, and Webster Streets Assessor's Map No. 391 E 10cb . Tax Lot(s): 4200 I Zoning: SO Comp Plan Designation: Southern Oregon University APPLICANT Name. Keith Fugate (SERA) Phone: 503.445.7372 E-Mail: keitht9serapdx.com Address: 338 NW 5th Ave. City: Portland . Zip: 97209 PROPERTY OWNER: Southern Oregon University (SOU) Name: Craig Morris. VP Finance and Administration . Phone: 541.552.6319 E-Mail: Cmorris ansou.edu Address: 1250 Siskiyou.170 Churchill City: Ashland . Zip: 97520 SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. OTHER Title: Architect of Record . Name: Kurt Schultz . Phone: 503.445.7372 E-Mail: karts aiserapdx.com Address: 338 NW 5th Ave. City: Portland . Zip: 97209 Title: (Structural) Engineer of Record . Name: Mark Shepard . Phone., 713.779.7252 . E-Mail: markshepard aOscahouston,com . Address: 12511 Emily Court . City: _Sugar Land . Zip: 77478 1 hereby certify that the stakments and infom►ation contained in this application, Including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are In all respects, bw and correct 1 understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be Incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden wail be on me to establish. 1) that/ produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further 4) that all shWwes or improvements are properly located on the ground. Fag" in this regent-WN result most likely rn t onty the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed dl my expense, tf I have anydoug" am dvised to saekcompetent professional advice and assistance. Applican s SignatureDate As owner of the property involved in this request, ! have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. , Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [To be 0114$ebed by Cry ShRM Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 0* URanrari\Ticammfllaa\Irailhflf)natnem\7nnino narmil AnnliraNm Mr Job Address: 1554 WEBSTER ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: OREGON STATE OF O Phone: P Customer 06522 N State Lic No: L T City Lic No: P AMERICAN CAMPUS COMM SERVICES Applicant: 12700 HILL COUNTRY BLVD R Address: SUITE T-200 A C AUSTIN TX 78738 C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (512) 732-1028 T Address: N Applied: 11/04/2011 O T Issued: Expires: 05/02/2012 R Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E10CD4200 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: SOU Student Housing Development, two residence hall buildings and a separate dining hall building, Valuation is $27 million VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description i Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Conditional Use Permit (Type2) 1,928.00 Commercial Site Review 135,963.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL C COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF -ASHLAND Zimbra Page 1 of 1 t Zim bra seversod@ashIand.onuw + Font size - RE: SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility From : Derek Severson <seversod@ashland. or.us> Fri, Sep 30, 201102:37 PM Subject : RE: SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility To : mbell@kittelson.com, swright@kittelson.com Cc : 'derek severson' <derek.severson@ashland. or.us>, bill molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us>, 'Mike Faught' <faughtm@ashland.or.us>, Karl johnson <Karl.johnson@ashland.or.us> Matt, Just wanted to provide some feedback on your "Project Methodology & Key Assumptions" for the SOU housing project after discussing your 9/26 submittal with the Planning Director: TDM Measures & Circulation /Emergency Vehicle Plan - In terms of the Master Plan requirements, the studies and analyses called for also included a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy and implementation timeline and a circulation plan which includes not only pedestrians but considerations for emergency vehicle access as well so that it could be reviewed by the Fire Marshall early on (i.e. rather than having issues potentially arise at building permit). We're not sure if the intent is for you to prepare these concurrently with looking at the other studies and analyses, or if the additional studies would grow out of what you'll be looking at in the coming week, but I wanted to make sure that these additional analyses remain on everyone's radar screen given the timeline. (I know that the project's Civil Engineering team had met with the Fire Marshall earlier and the circulation plan issue was raised, so that may also be moving ahead separately.) Residence Hall Trip Generation - For trip generation from residence halls, you've noted relying on counts from the parking areas adjacent to Greensprings. Anecdotally, we've heard a number of times (Including from staff who were formerly students on the campus) that students in the older dorms are less likely to bring cars to campus or if they do, to drive as often, so students in Greensprings or Cascade may have quite a bit lower trip generation than students in the newer Madrone. You may wish to consider this in looking at the trip generation. Parking Proximity to Uses Served - In looking at available parking on campus, there will need to be a consideration not only of the number of spaces but of their proximity to the uses they are anticipated to serve. Our code typically provides that parking must be within 200 feet of the use it is intended to serve. If the overall campus parking Inventory shows a surplus of parking, but the proposal is reducing the number of available spaces in the vicinity of the new residence and dining halls -thus likely leading to increased demand on-street in the surrounding, neighborhoods - that would need to be addressed in the study and subsequent land use application through TOM measures or (if ultimately necessary) additional parking. PC Market Pedestrian Place /University District Node - In estimating future pedestrian flows, the analyses should carefully consider and address potential crossings to the PC Market shopping center as the core of the developing University District. With the shift of residential population to the new residence halls and their increased proximity to the PC Market site, and its identification as a likely-to-be- substantially-enhanced "Pedestrian Place" in our on-going Transportation System Plan update, we believe that the relationship between these two sites is likely to make it a significant pedestrian destination for students in the new student residential life zone, and that it will be on the Planning Commission's mind as they consider the application. Gateway Treatments - In the discussion of a Pedestrian Safety Plan on page 5 of your 9/26 memo, it notes that while traffic volumes on the local street intersections adjacent to the proposed development are assumed to be low enough to allow safe pedestrian crossings without additional enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments, considerations will be given to gateway treatments at the Wightman/Webster intersection (near the dining hall) and at Walker and Webster and at Stadium and Ashland. We are assuming that gateway treatments will also remain a primary consideration at the intersections of Siskiyou and Wightman and at Siskiyou and Ashland, as discussed in detail in the master plan. I hope these are helpful in preparing for the work to be done in Ashland next week. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any clarification of the above, or any further information or assistance. Derek Severson, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 PH: 541.552-2040 FAX: 541.552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us 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)552-2040. Thank you. http://zimbra.ashland.or.us/h/printmessage?id=46804&1 9/30/2011 i t KIT L I T , I NC. T R A N S P O R T A T I O N E N G I N E E R I N G / P L A N N I N G 610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97205 503.228.5230 " 503.273.8169. MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2011 Project 11854.0 To: Derek Severson, City of Ashland CC: Bill Molnar, Mike Faught, and Karl Johnson, City of Ashland Front: Phill Worth, Susan Wright, P.E., & Matthew Bell, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Project: SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility Subject: Project Methodology & Key Assumptions The purpose of this memorandum is to document the methodology and key assumptions associated with the preparation of a traffic impact analysis, parking demand/ratio analysis, and pedestrian safety plan for the proposed Southern Oregon University (SOU) Student Housing/Dining Facility. The methodologies included in this memorandum are based on the City of Ashland TIA Guidelines, the Conditions of Approval from the SOU Master Plan, and our experience preparing similar studies. Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic impact analysis will evaluate current and projected traffic operations at six study intersections adjacent to the SOU campus and the project site. The intersections were selected following a review of the proposed development plan and are assumed to represent the primary access points between the existing and proposed campus facilities located east of Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) and north of Ashland Street (OR66). Traffic operations will be evaluated at each study intersection under the weekday a.m. and weekday p.m, peak hour traffic conditions of the adjacent street system. Based on traffic data from the City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan update, the weekday a.m. peak hour typically occurs between 7.30 and 9:30 a.m. and the weekday p.m. peak hour typically occurs between 4:00 and 6:30 p.m. New data will be collected during these two peak periods and traffic operations will be evaluated at the following proposed study intersections: I Avery Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) Bridge Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) Wightman Street/Indiana Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) I FILENAME.•H.'1PROJFILE111854-SOUSTUDENTHOUSINGIREPOR71METHOD MEM0111854METHOD MEMO FINALDOGY SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility Project 11854.0 September 26, 2011 Page 2 Siskyou Boulevard (OR99)/Ashland Street (OR66) Stadium Street/Ashland Street (OR66) Walker Avenue/Ashland Street (OR66) Figure 1 illustrates the location of the proposed study intersections. Each of the proposed study intersections have signed and striped crosswalks across one or more approaches; both the Wightman Street and Ashland Street (OR66) intersections with Siskiyou Boulevard (OR99) are signalized with pedestrian actuation (meaning pedestrians can activate the signal from a pushbutton). PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES The traffic volumes will be reviewed to determine the system-wide peak hour for the morning and evening time periods. These volumes will not be adjusted to the 30th highest hour given that they will represent peak traffic conditions when school is in session. MOBILITY STANDARDS All of the study intersections are assumed to be owned and operated by the City of Ashland. Ashland has not adopted level-of-service (LOS) or volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio standards for signalized or unsignalized intersections. However, the following standards were used in the development of the City's recent (although not yet adopted) TSP update. Intersections that do not meet the following operational thresholds will be identified: 0 LOS "D" at signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections if the V/C ratio is not higher than 1.0 for the sum of critical movements. LOS "B" for the poorest operating approach at two-way stop intersections. Approaches operating at a LOS "F" where a traffic signal is not warranted will also be identified. CRASH ANALYSIS The five most recent years of crash data will be reviewed at the study intersections, as available, if reflective of the current configuration. The data will be analyzed for type, severity, and location to identify potential crash patterns. GROWTH RATE An annual growth rate of 1.7 percent will be applied to existing traffic volumes to reflect build-out year 2013 and horizon year 2018 traffic conditions at the study intersections. is Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon SOU SNdent Hoot gVk4g Fe fy Ccbb6 , l E IT L`a'ss ~t f ! ~ CI f ~ ~~~'•t ! bbl I NT - ~ ~ ft ~u>a a ti ~ i ~ ..a .c....i `s._ ...«.tif • `1~~. , ~ 1 S i t r I: i `fclt~#i tfo-,I - t d VA 4 S TF c M ` t I ~~~IJ~ I~ t ~I if t } 1 t ~ ~ pA'~ +.r 4.{. '{Sa I Ev' + r•:-_ r ♦ F s. ~ ~t c nT ~ r r d rt ' _ I s ~ ?kid • r ~ t - s't ye,i 11 7,4"" ~.5~~f~ 111113+.'tr9 r~!II~tSt'1[YL~~1y I} ~Yf 5'~'I r 7 I.. I ..,~i i~;Y I] try r V~~r'tr ~f~~kt 1r i).iL ~~f F~t~~~.n. ;~G' ~I; ~5 ~ !~'I' I t` all' ~;.4el~N,(I.._ ~v'~f~ ~It1;?'ir! t {.r ~_~I-". .5;--''•`',,.z c, ,.f C~ 'Y ,F l 3 Z;,' 4 f i d et` ~.a f x s f 7 ~iT.:~i 5 n. .L,,.a ¢'•.•w,A Yi 'E{~4 I _j~ G ~ !r~ : ~ ~ ~e R ~~F''i I rll ~ r q I, : vC ~ ~Jr. ~-s ,:Rl I~~~~~tSf l ,3 ~~"ii ~y s#,v,7M~ m F ` tL r'Y £~vti 5i rg a''r } i. ~11's QY •,.1{_1 1 i 1-,. I ~1 R S I _ r kv* a. a 1 / . e s i f- c' 9 4 4 sti' ;c~+ ~1 r ri 4*~6r sec * t7' el ALI? I T !c{ u. s -s" r„ ~ , ~ C tiC ~ t ~ ~ ~a ~r i 2r--- ~ T _ d x: v Sr _ ir'~ z,{ r. NF, l 3 tri. kti,' 1 = r 11 t 1 r { y ,,.'t s v ( err` L C ~1. st {t I i:.3 = f4 I- ~d "ti' i I I Tl~ § ! ~t j la`y ~1 t R ~p,.'dr#1 1 V 6 , F•` 4vj ~Y 1 l ..r b ~i ~~J T. tE'. ~'L e 1 t $i!' t 1C55 ♦ s J'C ?r a '3 .y t 1 I c-•. < A~ rT 5T. - J i 'a.,{+i l ( S~ 'i 4'~' a I., 1 + ,7 F r_,.. b l t• j ' 4 'F v r 1 ~ Ya ( 1y~:r %1 V 'rr cu •i a 3 J'~J fl,,'Z..z>t fs f~ _ 1 -..A.} l all ~ C' spa. ~r~~•r d r.~.•. f-jt~~ - q~r; r• 7. i i I'1i. R G f:7 i'# r /v~+ rfr !r -rfi i t s 4 r i 1 - tt~~ +ik c J 1 ) 4 '(((,J}J}J3fff y/~ t~k t ~'3T•~;Z j~~_a-~y`~~_. ~ 4'~ Tl.. i L t•• t/i.,~i, IH* ter- .r.l~i' f'1`r!.syf K~?tiri'1 f. •.;r,' yr11 F 'I--. 1~ 1~' y.~.` f' tt' ~c_ f sh :.~_~`ttra,~;.2f•_:. ' is l e -TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LOI 4 'eTIONS - N RI x ( -ON-STREET PARKING COUNT LOCATIONS DATA COLLECT,ASHLAq O AREGONONS MTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. c nns_TnibN[e.cN E-l aV.HwMG I SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility Project 11854.0 September 26, 2011 Page 4 TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates for the proposed student housing facility will be developed based on driveway counts conducted at the surface parking lots located adjacent to the Greensprings Residence Halls (lots 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9). The total number of weekday a.m. and weekday p.m. peak hour trips entering and exiting the driveways will be compared to the total number of students who occupy the Greensprings Residence Halls. Trips to the proposed dining facility are assumed to consist primarily of pedestrian and bicycle trips and will, therefore, be addressed in the Pedestrian Safety Plan described below. Any vehicular trips to the dining facility, such as service vehicles, are not expected to significantly impact traffic operations at the study intersections. However, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted at the Wightman Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) intersection to determine the potential capacity for vehicular trips to the dining facility as well as other campus facilities located north of Siskiyou Boulevard (01199). Parking Demand/Ratio Analysis The total number of vehicles parked in each of the parking lots designated for dorm students (15 lots) will be collected each hour between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. for a total of 11 hours. The hourly parking counts will be compared to the total number of available parking stalls in each lot to develop an 11-hour utilization profile for parking demand associated with student housing. A similar process will be completed at each of the faculty, staff, student commuter, and metered parking lots in order to develop 11-hour utilization profiles for parking demand associated with each use. Hourly parking counts will also beconducted along several of the adjacent streets in order to capture any potential spill-over in the surrounding neighborhoods. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed on-street parking count locations. The parking inventory provided by SOU will be confirmed prior to the start of the data collection effort. The utilization profiles will provide us with a better understanding of how each parking area is being utilized by the various user types. With this information we can determine if additional parking will need to be assigned to dorm students given the loss of dorm student parking associated with the new development and if any other adjustments to parking are necessary. Pedestrian Safety Plan The pedestrian safety plan is intended to improve pedestrian access and circulation between the proposed student housing/dining facility and the main campus area. A key component of the plan is identifying safe and convenient locations for pedestrians to cross Siskyou Boulevard (01199) and/or Ashland Street (01166); in particular, during the morning and evening peak hours for vehicular traffic. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility Project M 11854.0 September 26, 2011 Page 5 Based on a review of the proposed development plan and the location of existing crosswalks in the area, the following intersections have been identified for further evaluation. Avery Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) r Bridge Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) Wightman Street/Siskyou Boulevard (OR99) Siskyou Boulevard (OR99)/Ashland Street (OR66) Stadium Street/Ashland Street (OR66) Walker Avenue/Ashland Street (OR66) Traffic volumes at the local street intersections adjacent to the proposed development area are assumed to be low enough to allow safe pedestrian crossings without additional enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments. However, some consideration will be given to gateway treatments at the Wightman Street/Webster Street and Walker Avenue/Webster Street intersections, as well as the north leg of the Stadium Street/Ashland Street (OR66) intersection. Another A key component of the plan is estimating future pedestrian flow patterns and crossing locations, as well as the approximate number of pedestrian crossings during the peak time periods associated with the student housing and dining facilities. This will be estimated by looking at the projected number of students living in on-campus housing on each side of Siskiyou Boulevard, as well as the estimated number of meals to be served at the dining facility during each hour of the day. These estimates will be modified to account for the reduction of crossings necessary with Greenprings student housing located on the east side of Siskiyou Boulevard and the existing dining facility on the west side of Siskiyou Boulevard. Once pedestrian flows have been estimated, the capacity of the above intersections and crosswalks to handle the projected crossings will be evaluated and appropriate treatments to enhance safety at each of the study locations will be identified in coordination with the safety data review. Next Steps We would like to request concurrence from SOU and the City of Ashland on the methodology and key assumptions outlined in this memorandum prior to beginning the data collection effort, which is scheduled to take place the first week of October (second full week of classes). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon t SOU Student Housing/Dining Facility Project p:11854.0 September 26, 2011 Page 6 We trust this memorandum provides adequate documentation of the methodologies and key assumptions for each of the analyses. If you have any questions or suggestions, please call us at (503) 228-5230. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon I I `'r Ashland Fire & Rescue Pre-Application Comments Project 1554 Webster St Date: 8/30/11 Description: Sou Applicant: SERA Architects / Kurt Contact: Margueritte Hickman Schultz 552-2229 Phone: 503.445.7312 Permit Number: PL-2011-001091 Fire department comments are based upon the 2010 Oregon Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Ashland Municipal Code 15.28: A scaled site plan with existing hydrants and drive widths will be required in order to verify access and water supply. Addressing - OFC 505- Building numbers or addresses must be at least 4 inches tall, be of a color that is in contrast to its background, and shall be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Additional building numbers or addresses must be plainly visible on the buildings. All premises identification, street signs and building numbers, must be in place with temporary signs when construction begins and permanent signage prior to issuance of any occupancy. Fire Apparatus Access Approach - OFC 503 - The angle of approach at the point where the public road transitions to the private fire apparatus access road must meet the City of Ashland Engineering Department specifications. Fire Apparatus Access - OFC 503 - Because the furthest point on the structures is greater than 150' from the street, the entire length of the private drive or street must meet fire apparatus access. Minimum standards for fire apparatus access shall have a 20 foot wide driving surface, must support 44,000 pounds, have a maximum slope of 15 percent, and have vertical clearance of 13' 6". Inside turning radius is at least 20 feet and outside turning radius is at least 40 feet and must be indicated on site plans submitted for building permits. Fire apparatus access is required to be signed as "No Parking-Fire Lane." If a fire apparatus access road crosses onto or over another parcel, an easement must be obtained to provide access for fire apparatus. Easement language needs to include wording that indicates that the shared access easement may not be modified, removed, or obstructed in any way without prior written approval from Ashland Fire and Rescue. Fire Apparatus Access for More Than 200 Multi-Family Dwelling Units OFC Appendix D 106 Multi-family dwelling residential project having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Fire Apparatus Access for the Buildings Greater Than 26 Feet in Height OFC Appendix D105 1554-Webster---PL-2011-01091 [1 ].docx - Page 1 of 3 Fire apparatus access for these buildings are required to be 26 feet wide exclusive of shoulders in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of the building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. Stairway access to roof - OFC 504.3 New buildings four or more stories above grade plane shall be provided with a stairway to the roof. Fire Apparatus Turn Around - OFC 503.2.5 - Fire apparatus access roads greater than 150 feet in length are required to provide a fire apparatus turn around. The turn around must be identified in an approved manner with "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and must remain clear at all times. Firefighter Access Pathway - OFC 504.1 - An approved footpath around the structure is required so that all exterior portions of the structure can be reached with the fire hose. Any changes in elevation greater than two feet in height (such as retaining walls) require stairs. The stairs shall be an' all-weather surface, and meet the requirements as specified in the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Fire Hydrants - OFC Appendices B & C Fire hydrant requirements cannot be determine without a scaled site plan. A hydrant will be required within approximately 25 feet of each FDC. Fire Hydrants Clearance - OFC 507 - Hydrants must have 3 feet of clearance extending from the center nut of the hydrant all the way around. Fences, landscaping and other items may not obstruct the hydrant from clear view. Hydrants must be shown on site plan when submitting for building permits. Fire Department Connection (FDC) - The FDC is required to be a 2 %2" Siamese female connection installed 18" to 48" above finished grade. A single 2 %2" NST female swivel connection with rocker lugs and cap is acceptable if hydraulic calculations are provided that indicate a single 2 1/2 " line will adequately serve the system. (Note that this was changed in 2010. Please make sure your sub-contractors are aware of this upfront.) Gates and Fences - OFC 506 - Obstructions such as gates, fences, or any other item which would block or reduce the required fire apparatus access width must be shown on the plans and approved by Ashland Fire and Rescue. Key Box - A Knox Box is required for each building with a fire sprinkler or fire alarms system. The Knox Box must be a 3200 series or larger and may be either surface mounted or recessed into a wall. The installation location of the Knox Box will be determined by Ashland Fire & Rescue. The Knox Box is required to be installed in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. The Knox Box order form must be obtained from Ashland Fire & Rescue. 1554_Webster _-_PL-2011-01091 [1 ].docx - Page 2 of 3 i Storage and Collection of Combustible Waste & Recyclable Materials - OFC 304 & 318 Collection and storage of combustible waste and recyclables are required to meet this section of the fire code. Dumpsters 1 cubic yard or larger cannot be stored in buildings or next to combustible walls, openings or combustible roof eave lines unless other requirements or exceptions in this section of the code are met. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage - OFC 510 Buildings greater than 50,000 square feet in size or larger are required to have approved radio ° coverage for emergency responders within the building. This section has an allowance for performance testing when approved by the fire code official. Final determination of fire hydrant distance, fire flow, and fire apparatus access requirements will be based upon plans submitted for Building Permit review. Changes from plans submitted with this application can result in further requirements. Any future construction must meet fire code requirements in effect at that time. The fire department contact for this project is Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman. She may be contacted at (541) 552-2229 or hickmanm@ashland.or.us. 1554-Webster---PL-2011-01091 [1].docx - Page 3 of 3 Rogue Valley Transportation District From the Desk of Pare Townsend; Senior Planner 3200 Crater Lake Avenue • Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 Phone (541) 608-2429 9 Fax (541) 773-2877 Visit our website at: www.rvtd.org TO: Derek Severson DATE: August 29, 2011 RE: Pre Application SOU Housing 1554 Webster St. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the application for 1554 Webster St. regarding SOU Housing and additional student facilities. As the regional public transportation provider and Transportation Demand Management liaison to ODOT, RVTD would like to submit the following comments. The University's activities generate a significant number of trips as an educational and residential facility serving thousands of people. Adding a housing complex will have a positive effect on reducing commute distances and will make walking and bicycling more appealing. However it will also change the dynamics of the entire campus. We would like to recommend that the City seek a holistic approach with this application by applying transportation programs the entire campus can benefit from. In other words, for strategic programs to work at the new housing site, such as parking management, it will be necessary to apply the strategy to the campus as a whole. i As this application undergoes further review the following programs are recommended to be examined as part of the conditions for approval. RVTD is available to assist in the creation and/or implementation of these programs. • Complete a transportation survey of students, faculty and staff to understand transportation patterns. • Improve transit access through a University subsidy of transit fares for students, faculty and staff. • Plan for bus facilities such as pull outs, bus stops and vehicle access to turn buses around. • Improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the campus and across Ashland St. • Initiate campus parking management that addresses parking as a privilege that utilizes valuable land and provide for the right to have access to affordable transportation. • Un-bundle parking from new housing by providing decreased rent for residents who do not own a vehicle. • Implement the TDM strategies listed in SOU Sustainability section over a period of 1-5 years. The initial resources needed to implement these programs should be viewed as business strategies whose return on investment justifies the start up costs. As SOU and the City both know, RVTD has worked for over a decade to present initiatives to the student council and provide the business case to the administration for adopting programs that make getting to class or to work easy and affordable. We hear the stories from students who find their commute to and from school as a logistical nightmare. Ultimately both the students and administration need to work together and see that transportation generated by the campus is their responsibility to manage in a creative and efficient way. RVTD looks forward to seeing the campus grow and play an even larger role in southern Oregon's economic and civic community. Sincerely, Paige Townsend