Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHersey_210-220_PA-2015-01370 Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015.00422. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Pearce questioned if page one of the Findings should list IPCO as the co-applicant and noted tax lot 1000 is not part of the project and should be removed from the description. Staff concurred that these need to be corrected. Roll Call Vote on Findings as amended: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Pearce, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 5-0. [Commissioner Thompson abstained] COUNCIL LIAISON UPDATE Councilor Lemhouse provided a brief update of recent council activities, including: proposals from the Downtown Beautification Committee, updating parking fines, review of Ashland Fiber Network, and an ordinance requiring dog licensing. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01370 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 210-220 East Hersey St. OWNER: The Bernard Family Trust APPLICANT: Adroit Construction, as agent for the owners DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 24,621 square foot addition behind the existing 39,962 square foot Darex factory located at 210.220 East Hersey Street. (A second phase consisting of an 11,107 square foot stand-alone building along Clear Creek Drive will be reviewed separately at a later date.) Also included is a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees six-inches or more in diameter at breast height: a six-inch Maple tree and a six-inch Pear tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04CD; TAX LOTS: 2000. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Thompson, Pearce, and Miller performed site visits. Commissioner Miller stated she spoke with one of the Darex employees who pointed out that the parking area is usually crowded. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a summary of the application. He explained the request is for a 24,621 sq.ft. addition to the Darex building on Hersey Street. The application includes the removal of 3 trees, with 2 protected, and the landscape plan includes the addition of 57 new trees. The parking will be reconfigured to create two parking areas, and the curb cuts and sidewalk fronting Clear Creek Drive will be improved to city standards. Mr. Severson commented on the parking requirements and stated 18.4.3.030 provides for three options: 1. Standard Ratios for Automobile Parking. 2. Unspecified Uses - Where a use is not specifically addressed in the standard ratios, parking required may be determined based upon the "most comparable use... and other available data". 3. A Parking Demand Analysis Provided by the Applicant. Additionally, 18.4.3.030 sets a Maximum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces which "shall not exceed the number of spaces required by this chapter by more than 10%." Mr. Severson explained the applicant is requesting Option 2, and their application details why they believe the office use requirements (1 space per 500 sq.ft.) are the most comparable. He displayed a matrix of the various parking ratios and stated in staffs assessment: 1) the square footage per employee at Darex clearly supports their argument that the business is more labor intensive than anticipated by the "industrial, manufacturing and production, warehousing and freight" parking ratios in the municipal code, 2) Darex currently has 26.76 employees per acre, and with the increase to 226 accommodated by the expansion, this would increase to 46.88 employees per acre, 3) the most recent economic opportunities analysis had employment zones in the city averaging 17 employees per acre, and 4) this supports the argument that the Darex building model supports more employee density than the average E-1 business and merits consideration under the parking ratio for office as the most comparable use. Ashland Planning Commission September 8, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Severson stated the applicants are proposing a quasi-public park that would reserve a building envelope for future development. The area would be landscaped with pathways and seating areas, and would be available for public use until the site develops further. Mr. Severson clarified the applicant's are requesting 163 total parking spaces, and while parking cannot be provided for the future building and the quasi-public park space would not require 22 additional spaces, the ITE Parking Generation manual includes examples of office uses reflecting a substantial range of parking demand, and staff believes the commission could determine that the proposed number of parking spaces is appropriate and necessary based on the unique nature of the Darex operation described in the application and utilizing the "other available data" discretion provided in AMC 18.4.3.030. Applicant's Presentation David Wilkerson, Kerry Kencairn, Mathew Bernard, Dave Ross, and David Stephens/Mr. Wilkerson stated the proposed building is very straight forward in its design and is an expansion of their facility. He stated the addition continues the orientation of the building towards Hersey and creates a new rear of the building. He explained this property was purchased long before Clear Creek Drive was is exempt from the detail site review zone. Regardless, Mr. Wilkerson stated they want to expand in a way that is respectful to the development on the south side of Clear Creek and have adjusted their design to allow the opportunity for a future pad lot that would be developed in manner more consistent with what's happening on the other side of the street. Mr. Wilkerson stated phase two of the expansion would be another addition to the building that would either be utilized as office space for Darex or leased to tenants, and that addition would likely include structured parking. He added parking under the building would be a natural solution given the grade change on the site. Mr. Wilkerson commented on the amount of requested parking and stated the industrial demand is insufficient and the type of work they do more closely resembles office space. Kerry Kencairn commented on the temporary park. She stated trees will be placed in planters that can be easily moved and replanted, and they will utilize pavers and stacked blocks instead of concrete. She added the lawn area will have drought tolerant grasses and stated Darex will assume responsibility for the maintenance. Mathew Bernard stated the goal is to create a win-win situation for the business and the community. He stated Darex has been in Ashland for 35 years and they do high volume assembly and employ over 150 workers. He added they are currently renting space to meet their needs and will be hiring additional staff. Mr. Wilkerson stated their civil engineer has spoken at length with the city's engineer and he is supportive of their proposed surface detention area on the east side instead of a bioswale. He stated this is just a different way to hold the water and requested the bioswale condition be removed. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Dawkins asked if the applicants would be willing to discuss the utilization of their parking area for city use when the facility is not open. Mr. Wilkerson noted the challenges in working with ODOT Rail and stated he does not want to encourage people to cross the tracks until there is a proper crossing, but stated they are willing to have this conversation and see if they can make this work. When asked about the park area, Ms. Kencairn clarified the furniture was intentionally left off the plan and stated the planter boxes and walls are all seat height. Commissioner Brown stated as written, Condition 8e (storm drainage) is left up to staff to resolve and rather than remove it as suggested, the language appears to address the applicants concerns. Mr. Wilkerson agreed that Condition 8e is acceptable as written. Commissioner Mindlin asked why the applicant chose to use option two (unspecific uses) as their approach for the parking. Mr. Wilkerson explained this evolved from numerous meetings with the owners and staff and stated this seemed to be the more natural approach for the project. Mr. Molnar added after reviewing the existing use tables and analyzing their background information, staff had some involvement in guiding them in this direction. Ashland Planning Commission September 8, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Bernard clarified for the commission that should additional parking be necessary for phase two, there is plenty of opportunity to provide additional underground parking on the site. Public Testimony No one came forward to speak. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Wilkerson stated there are a number of ways they could have approached the parking issue, but how it has been presented is the right solution for this project. Mr. Bernard stated Darex wants to continue to be a good community member and also have the opportunity to grow their business. He stated they have been here for a long time and want to continue to be here for a long time, but they need the commission's support to do this. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar addressed the width of Clear Creek Drive and clarified the city has allowed parking on both sides of the street; however as development increases this will likely change to parking on one side only. Mr. Severson commented on the parking rationale. He stated the normal approach would be to start with the industrial parking ratio in the code (1 space per 1,000 sq.ft.); however this is significantly less parking than the applicant has demonstrated they need. The other options available are to either look at a comparable use or a parking demand analysis, and the applicant has provided the basis for both in their application. Mr. Severson stated staff believes however the commission approaches this there is sufficient data in the record to support the applicant's request. He added the application asserts office use is the most comparable use and under the city's ratio, this gets them to 141 parking spaces. If the commission wishes to grant the 163 spaces requested, this is where the "other data" option comes into play and they can apply the ITE parking numbers or utilize the data demonstrating actual need provided by the applicant. Deliberations & Decision The commission discussed whether the ITE numbers or the actual data parking data provided by the applicant was the more defensible approach in granting the requested parking numbers. Comment was made that if you use the ITE chart and the applicant's data, you are already at the requested number and there is no need to make this any more complicated. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015.01370 with the modification to Condition 7 to allow 163 parking spaces. DISCUSSION: The applicant's were thanked for their offer to do a temporary park. Comment was made expressing support for the additional parking on the site, since it is not realistic to expect much on street parking in this area. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Thompson, Brown, Dawkins, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6.0. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015.01496 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 South Second Street OWNER/APPLICANT: MPM Investments AGENT: Kistler, Small & White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review approvals to allow 3,051 square feet of additions including a new kitchen, new bar, laundry room, two new second floor offices and an accessible lift, and the conversion of the existing kitchen into bussing and storage areas for the Winchester Inn located at 35 S. Second St. Also included are requests for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees: a six- inch diameter Plum tree located within the footprint of the proposed new bar, and an eight-inch diameter Birch tree within the footprint of the addition at the rear of the main house; and Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalks along the perimeter of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5600- 5700. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins performed a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission September 8, 2015 Page 4 of 5 CITY F ASHLAND October 14, 2015 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2015-01370 Subject Property: 210-220 East Hersey Street Owner: The Bernard Family Trust Applicant: Adroit Construction Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 24,621 square foot addition behind the existing 39,962 square foot Darex factory located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. (A second phase consisting of an 11,107 square foot stand-alone building along Clear Creek Drive will be reviewed separately at a later date.) Also included is a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees six-inches or more in diameter at breast height: a six-inch Maple tree and a six-inch Pear tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 04CD; TAX LOTS: 2000. The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Bernard Family Trust Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 - Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 _ Cif - , . I www.ashland.or.us i SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 1. Appeal of Type H Decision. The City Council may call up a Type II decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.J. A Type II decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows. 1. Who May Appeal. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following. a. The applicant. b. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure t6 participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. 2. Appeal Filing- Procedure. a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal a Type II decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. 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, d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the 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 Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of 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. Reopening the Record. The City 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 Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the following. i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us t 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. ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. 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, iv. 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 Council. 5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type 11 decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission. a. Oral A7°gwnent. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three 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 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. b. Scope of Appeal Deliberations. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the 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 Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. c. Council Decision. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the Council elects to remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.060.J. 6. Record of the Public Hearing. 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. The public hearing record shall include the following information. a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735 2900 www.ashland.orms b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City mailed or received. c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials submitted with it. d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open. e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available). f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; g. The minutes of the hearing. g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions. 7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type II applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 r Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 f www.ashland. orms I I I i BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 13, 2015 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-01370, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF ) A 24,621 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION BEHIND THE EXISTING 39,962 ) SQUARE FOOT DAREX BUILDING AT 210-220 EAST HERSEY STREET. ) THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL ) PERMITS TO REMOVE TWO TREES SIX INCHES OR MORE IN DIAMETER ) FINDINGS, AT BREAST HEIGHT: A SIX-INCH MAPLE TREE AND A SIX-INCH PEAR ) CONCLUSIONS, TREE. A SECOND PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTING OF AN 11,107 ) AND ORDERS SQUARE FOOT STAND-ALONE BUILDING ALONG CLEAR CREEK DRIVE, ) WILL BE REVIEWED SEPARATELY AT A LATER DATE. ) APPLICANT: Adroit Construction ) (As agent for owner the Bernard Family Trust) ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 2000 of Map 39 lE 04 CD is located at 210-220 East Hersey Street and is zoned E-1 Employment. 2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 24,621 square foot addition behind the existing 39,962 square foot Darex factory located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. The application also includes a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees six-inches or more in diameter at breast height: a six-inch Maple tree and a six-inch Pear tree. A second phase of development, consisting of an 11,107 square foot stand-alone building along Clear Creek Drive, will be reviewed separately at a later date. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community Development. I' i 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: F A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. 8. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 1 urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 4) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows: 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or k facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. PA 92015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 2 F c 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. 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. i 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 5) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level i of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 8, 2015 at which time 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 PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 3 appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" i 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 Design Review and Tree Removal Permit approvals meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050 and for Tree Removal Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.7.040.B.2. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density) and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The subject property's underlying zone is E-1 (Employment) and within that zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum residential density. The property does not abut residential zones to the side or rear, and is not located on an arterial street, and as such no setback requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and the proposed 24 foot height complies with this limit. The Planning Commission finds that the second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." Approximately the northern 320 feet of the property falls within the Residential Overlay zone, and no other overlay zones apply. The requirements of the Residential Overlay are only triggered when residential uses are proposed, and in this instance there is no residential component to the request. PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 4 i The Planning Commission finds that the third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below." Generally, the Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each project's appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to 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. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. In responding to the design standards, the application notes that Phase I will use the existing driveway access from Hersey Street as well as the existing curb cut on Clear Creek Drive for vehicular access to the site. Parking is to be placed on each side of the addition, which is behind the face of the main building's Hersey Street fagade. The application emphasizes that with the placement of the Phase I addition behind the existing building, there will be no change in the orientation of the existing building to the street or its sense of entry, although a new stairway access is proposed to provide direct pedestrian access from the entry to Hersey Street, which has previously been lacking. The Phase 11 building, which is not currently proposed or under review here, is noted as being oriented to Clear Creek Drive, with its wider side to the street and parking to one side. The Planning Commission finds that this building and its associated site improvements will need to be reviewed under the applicable standards in the place at the time it is proposed, and it is not considered here. The Planning Commission finds that with the placement of the proposed addition and its associated site improvements behind the existing building along Hersey Street, and development along the property's Clear Creels Drive frontage deferred until a future Phase 11, the design standards with regard to the streetscape and building design have limited applicability to the current request. The Commission further finds that the key issues with the proposal in terms of the Site Development and Design Standards in AMC 18.4 come down to verifying that adequate parking is to be provided and to ensuring that the parking proposed complies with the parking area design, parking lot landscaping and screening, and pedestrian access and circulation standards. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that a warehouse or industrial building would typically be considered under the parking ratios in place for "industrial, manufacturing and production, ii'arehousing and fi°eight" found in AMC 18.4.3.040 which require that one parking space be provided for each 1,000 square feet of building area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one for each company vehicle. This would require 65 parking spaces to serve the existing building and proposed addition, and because parking provided cannot exceed parking required by more than ten percent under city codes, not more than 71 parking spaces could be provided. The applicants here argue that the warehouse and industrial use categories do not properly reflect the number of people required for the more intense, hand-assembly process employed at Darex, and propose that parking instead be considered in terms of the parking ratio for office use, which is one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area. This would allow a minimum parking requirement of 129 parking spaces, and no more than 142 spaces could be PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 5 provided. The applicants propose to provide 141 spaces to serve the existing use and proposed addition, but also propose to provide an additional 22 parking spaces to serve the future second phase and a quasi- public park area to be made available until that second phase occurs. The applicants suggest that the current facility and site were designed according to the much lower warehouse parking ratio, which is out of sync with the actual business being conducted. They note that as the business has increased staffing over the years, undeveloped land at the rear of the property has become overflow parking for staff. They further note that while the ordinance tries to take advantage of on-street parking credits to reduce the need for off-street parking, the long, narrow, dual frontage nature of the site does not provide on-street parking in quantities sufficient to accommodate their staffing. The applicants also note that the limited off-street parking associated with recent Clear Creek Drive development has left on-street parking in very high demand, and this means that employee parking can spill across Hersey Street and adversely affect residential neighborhoods to the north. The applicants explain that their business is based on high volume hand assembly of numerous individual components for their wide variety of products, and that they employ residents from across the region, including Grants Pass, White City, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland with living wage jobs. They emphasize that the currently available transit service would require a commute of up to four hours for those living in the northern part of Medford and White City, and that commuting by bicycle is not viable for these employees either, particularly in inclement weather. They note that over the years they have tried incentives to encourage car-pooling among staff, but that this has met with little success when employees often have obligations before and after work with daycare, medical appointments or volunteering commitments. They suggest that for many employees, individual automobiles are the only viable commuting option. The Planning Commission finds that the Ashland Municipal Code provides that where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically listed, such requirements shall be determined based upon the most comparable use specified in this section or by using other available data. Here the applicants note that their typical workstations are similar in size (at about 100 square feet each) to the workstations found in an office environment, and the number of employees is also similar to that of a similar-sized office building. They further emphasize that their high volume hand assembly business model is extremely labor intensive and relies on a long-term, skilled labor force which currently employs 129 people and which will grow to 139 people for the period of August through November at this site. They suggest that the first phase of expansion proposed here is intended to accommodate an increase in employees to 226. They propose to use the office parking ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of building area to align with the unique high volume hand assembly work performed at Darex, and note that if the property were to sell, it would most likely continue with similar uses involving clean technologies, intensive hand assembly or office use and the requested parking ratio would match the parking needs of these uses and facilitate redevelopment of the site. In considering the requested parking ratio, the Planning Commission finds that the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 3rd Edition includes analysis of a number of study sites for each categorized use. The Commission considered the following categories of use: PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 6 I ® General Light Industrial (ITE Code 110) - These are typically free-standing facilities devoted to a single use other than manufacturing, with little or no office component. The typical activities include printing, material testing and the assembly of data processing equipment. The average parking supply ratios were 1.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (for five of nine sites reviewed by the ITE) and 1.3 spaces per employee (for four of the sites). These sites averaged an employment density of 1,200 square feet of gross floor area per employee. ® Industrial Park (ITE Code 130) - These are typically sites containing a number of industrial uses and related facilities involving a diverse mix of manufacturing, services and warehouses. Here the average parking supply ratios were 1.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 1.2 spaces per employee, and the average employee density was 900 square feet per employee. ® Manufacturing (ITE Code 140) - These are typically sites where raw materials or parts are converted to finished products. The average parking supply ratios were 1.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 1.3 spaces per employee, and the average employee density was 1, 000 square feet per employee. ® Office (ITE Code 701) - Office uses have several subcategories in the ITE analysis, including General Office (710), Corporate Headquarters (714), Single Tenant Office Building (715), Office Park (750) and Research and Development Center (760). Analysis across these subcategories puts the average parking supply ratios at 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 1.1 spaces per employee, and the average employee density was 303 square feet per employee. These are further detailed in the attached Staff Exhibit S-1, which is adopted as an exhibit to these findings. The Planning Commission concurs with the applicants and finds that on-street parking in the area is in high demand, and further finds that given the width of the improvement on Clear Creek Drive it will likely be restricted to allow parking on only one side in the future. Determining the correct parking ratio to accommodate parking on site is important to minimize the impact of parking to the adjacent streetscape and to the residential neighborhoods to the north. The Commission further finds that as proposed with 226 employees and 141 parking spaces, the applicants operation would have 2.18 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, 0.62 parking spaces per employee, and an average employee density of approximately 285 square feet per employee.' With the current 129 employees, these numbers would be 2.18 spaces per 1,000 square feet, 1.09 spaces per employee, and an average employee density of 500 square feet per employee. The Commission finds that the square footage per employee at Darex clearly supports their argument that the business is more labor intensive than anticipated by the "industrial, manufacturing and production, warehousing and freight" parking ratio in the municipal code. In addition, the Commission finds that Darex currently has 26.76 employees per acre, and with the increase to 226 employees that would be accommodated by the proposed addition this would increase to 46.88 employees per acre. The most recent Economic Opportunities Analysis for the city had Employment zones city wide averaging approximately 17 employees per acre. The Commission finds that this PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 7 employment density further supports the argument that the Darex business model supports more employees than the average E-1 business in Ashland and merits consideration under the parking ratio for office as the use most comparable to that proposed. The 141 spaces proposed for the addition is one space below the maximum allowed for the currently proposed square footage based on the city's standard office parking ratio of one space per 500 square feet. In addition to these 141 spaces proposed, the applicants have proposed two alternatives for the treatment of the Clear Creek Drive frontage until the second phase of development ultimately occurs. Under their first and preferred alternative, they would improve this frontage with a neighborhood park, which would be under private ownership and management but open to the public, and would concurrently install 22 parking spaces that they anticipate would be necessary with the development of the Phase 11 building. This park would feature a variety of ornamental trees in raised planters, a low- water use lawn area and a series of paths. If the park and associated parking are not approved, the applicants propose an alternate design with a low-water use field area that would include irrigation and the planting of ten shade trees for this full frontage. In considering these additional 22 parking spaces, the Commission finds that the ITE standards for parking generation for office uses detailed above reflect a substantial range of parking demand based on square footage and employment density, and further determines that the 163 parking spaces proposed is an appropriate number given the proposed additional square footage, anticipated increase in employees on the site, and the creation of a neighborhood park in light of the unique nature of the Darex business. 163 parking spaces for 226 employees in the 64,583 square foot facility would equate to 2.52 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 0.72 spaces per employee, both of which are significantly below the four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and 1.1 spaces per employee noted for the most c comparable - office - uses in the ITE manual. t 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the parking spaces to be provided are all full-size spaces, at nine feet by 18 feet with no compact spaces proposed, and that the back-up and circulation areas proposed will meet or exceed the required 22-foot dimension. The parking areas are to be separated by buildings, tree wells with parking lot trees, and split level parking areas with sidewalks, and the parking lot design seeks to provide at least 50 percent shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project completion in keeping with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5 which seek to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking. A drainage swale is located in the parking area to the west of the addition, within the planting strip between parking spaces. Drainage in the easterly parking area is to be accommodated with filtered treatment. All stormwater is to be detained on-site so as not to flow beyond the property lines. The parking area design requirements call for parking lots and other hard surface areas to be designed to capture and treat run-off with landscaped medians and swales, and the Commission finds that to adequately address this requirement, the proposed detention system design in the eastern parking area needs to incorporate the landscaped medians to capture and treat run-off. The Commission further finds that continuous walkways are provided through the parking areas to connect to all existing and future buildings, and provide safe, direct and convenient connections from the building entries to the streets, sidewalks and proposed park areas. The walkways are noted as being PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 8 I' ~4 protected by planting strips, five feet in width, curbed except within crosswalks, with pedestrian lighting and marked in painted asphalt or concrete to differentiate them from the surrounding parking area. Parking areas are noted as generally grouped in areas of less than 50 spaces so pedestrians must traverse less than a 150 foot distance within the parking area, and well-distributed accessible parking. The Commission finds that pedestrian circulation is more clearly addressed in the western parking areas, however it appears that the number of potential entrances on the east side of the new building substantially reduce the distance a pedestrian would likely need to travel. A condition has been included to require that a pedestrian crossing be added through the parking area near the southeast corner of the existing building. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for imter, server, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subjectpropero)." The Commission finds that the subject property is presently served by water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and paved access, and that the existing facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed addition. With regard to water and sewer services, the application materials note that with the proposed addition, four additional toilets, two lavatories and two drinking fountains will be added. The applicants further explain that they have been in contact with the city's Water and Wastewater Division and both have confirmed that the existing 12-inch public water line in the Hersey Street right-of-way and eight-inch public sewer lines in the Hersey Street and Clear Creek Drive rights-of-way are sufficient to accommodate these additional proposed fixtures. The applicants indicate that they will continue to confer with the city utilities and Public Works and Engineering Department staff to verify capacity and identify any necessary upgrades as their designs are finalized, and a condition of approval has been included below to require that the applicants provide final utility plans for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Public Works and Engineering Departments in conjunction with their building permit application. With regard to electricity, the application materials note that the electrical contractor for the project has performed preliminary load calculations estimating the proposed additional demand associated with the first phase addition will be approximately 147,000 watts or 408 amps at 120/208 three phase. The applicants explain that the existing 2000 amp service size and 750 KVA 120/208 three-phase city transformer have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed addition. A condition has been included below to require that the applicants provide a final electric service plan for the review and approval of the Planning, Building and Electric Departments in conjunction with their building permit application. The applicants have also been advised to contact the Electric and Conservation Departments as early in the process as possible if they are considering additional solar energy installations on the new addition to identify any financial incentives or technical assistance that may be available. PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 9 With regard to urban storm drainage, the application materials explain that all new improvements including the building, parking areas and sidewalks were designed with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual to address both the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off and comply with city storm drainage requirements. The applicants note that their civil engineer has been in contact with the city's Engineering Department and confirmed that the applicants' Stormwater detention strategy which proposes an eastern detention swale and additional asphalt detention areas as well will comply with city requirements. The application further explains that the stormwater will be treated for water quality and detained so that post-development flows do not exceed pre-development flows for the property in its undeveloped state and will thus have no adverse impact on downstream infrastructure. A condition has been included below to require that a final stormwater drainage and erosion control plan be provided for the review and approval of the Planning, Building and Engineering Departments in conjunction with the building permit application. With regard to paved access and the adequacy of transportation facilities, paved access to the property is primarily from Hersey Street, which is considered an Avenue in Ashland's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Hersey Street is currently paved to a width of approximately 45 feet within the 60-foot right-of- way along the property's frontage. In addition to the motor vehicle travel lanes, a bike lane is in place and there are curbs and gutters but no sidewalks or parkrows along the south side of the street. There is a steep, rock-covered embankment between the curb and the applicants' property and there is currently no pedestrian access from Hersey Street other than via the driveway. The property also fronts on Clear Creek Drive to the south, a Commercial Neighborhood Collector, which is currently paved to an approximate 30-foot width within a 60-foot right-of-way with curbs and gutters in place. A sidewalk and parkrow planting strip extend approximately 270 feet from the property's west boundary, leaving approximately 110 feet of this frontage currently without sidewalks. There are also currently no street trees in place within the existing parkrow planting strip for the entire Clear Creek Drive frontage. The applicants are not proposing to install sidewalks along Hersey Street. The Commission finds that this section of Hersey Street merits an Exception to Street Standards in that the narrow area between the curb and the applicants' property has slopes which vary from approximately 30 percent to more than 45 percent, and which would require substantial cuts and retaining walls, disturbance of existing established trees, and the potential to disrupt the established development on the lot which is only 12 to 24 feet behind the curb. The applicants have proposed to construct a stairway connection from the street which would provide direct pedestrian access from the on-street parking spaces along Hersey Street to the building entrance. A condition has been included below to make the installation of this stairway a condition of approval, and to require that the applicants sign in favor of future Hersey Street improvements which could include a comprehensively planned sidewalk installation taking into account the slopes along the property's frontage and the necessary transition to less sloped sections along adjacent properties. The Commission finds that the applicants' proposal includes the completion of the remaining sidewalks on their Clear Creek Drive frontage, the planting of new street trees within the park row planting strip for the full frontage, and the replacement of two existing driveway aprons installed with the original PA 92015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 10 r construction of Clear Creek Drive. Conditions requiring the completion of these improvements are included below. The Commission further finds that the application materials provided include a letter from James R. Hanks, P.E. of JRH Transportation Engineering. JRH analyzed the proposal and determined based on the thresholds established in city standards, no traffic impact analysis (TIA) was required. The letter explains that based on the anticipated 226 employees that could be accommodated on site with the addition, both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are less than the 50 needed to trigger a TIA, that no traffic control device or geometric improvements are to be installed with the request, and that no newly generated heavy vehicle trips which would require a TIA are anticipated. The Commission further finds that public comment was received during the hearing asking that Darex consider installing a multi-use path between East Hersey Street and Clear Creek Drive along the east side of the subject property. These comments noted that generations of neighboring residents have used this part of the property as a short cut to Clear Creek Drive and it would be nice if the applicants would respect this tradition rather than continuing to post "No Trespassing" signs. In considering this request, the Commission noted that there was already a multi-use path in place along the west boundary of the Darex property providing a connection for public bicycle and pedestrian use between East Hersey Street and Clear Creek Drive, and that the future redevelopment potential of properties further to the, east would likely provide a better spacing for pedestrian connections in this area. The Commission further finds that while there is currently no transit service on either Hersey Street or Clear Creek Drive, there is transit service on Lithia Way less than a half-mile walk from the subject property and the Transportation System Plan anticipates that long term modifications of the Rogue Valley Transportation District's Route 10, or a new express route, might ultimately provide transit service to the property along Clear Creek Drive. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a Tree Protection Plan (Sheet L1.1) identifying five existing trees within the vicinity of the proposed construction, two of which are six- inches in diameter at breast height or greater and thus regulated within the zone. The Commission finds that the application proposes the removal of three trees, two of which are six- inches in diameter or breast height or greater and thus require Tree Removal Permits. The two trees to be removed are a six-inch d.b.h. Maple tree (#2) which is in the area of the demolition to accommodate the proposed site improvements, and a six-inch d.b.h. Pear tree (#3) which is located in the path of the main irrigation line to serve the new landscaping for the site. The third tree to be removed is a 41/2-inch d.b.h. Pear tree (#1) located to the east of the existing building. Its removal does not require a permit. Tree protection fencing is identified for the two existing trees to remain, both Armstrong Maples, although their size means that they would not otherwise be regulated. The Commission further finds that the materials provided note that the trees are in fair to good condition, relatively young and planted in constrained, paved areas. They are proposed to be removed because they are within proposed circulation areas necessary to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic with the addition. The applicants emphasize that the 57 proposed 11/2- to two-inch caliper trees PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 11 and associated landscape plantings in their proposed landscape plan will provide better habitat, and more than make up for the lost canopy coverage and species diversity with the removals. They assert that the removals will allow for proper design of the parking and circulation areas according to applicable standards, and will have no effect on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because the existing trees are within constrained, paved areas. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds that the application requests Site Design Review approval for a 24,621 square foot addition to the existing 39,962 square foot Darex building at 210-220 East Hersey Street and the associated removal of two trees, a Pear and a Maple, located within proposed circulation areas. The Commission further finds that the additional building area is for administration and assembly employees and would ultimately accommodate an increase in employees from the current 129 to an anticipated 226. Given that the proposed addition and associated site improvements are behind the existing building along Hersey Street, and development along the property's Clear Creek Drive frontage is to be deferred until a later Phase II, the design standards with regard to the streetscape and building design have limited applicability to the request. Perhaps the key issue in the Commission's review is determining that the right amount of parking is to be provided. A typical warehouse or industrial building would be considered under the "industrial, manufacturing and production, warehousing and fi°eight" ratio for required parking, but the applicants here suggest that warehouse and industrial use categories do not accurately reflect the number of employees needed for the more intense, hand-assembly process employed at Darex. They argue that the square footage needs per employee and total number of employees is more akin to an office use, and propose to use an office parking ratio to better align with the unique hand assembly work performed at Darex. The applicants suggest, and the Commission concurs, that on-street parking in the area is in high demand, and determining the correct parking ratio to accommodate parking on site is important in providing adequate parking on site to minimize the impact of development on the adjacent streetscape and residential neighborhoods to the north. The Commission finds that the square footage per employee at Darex, which has three to four times the number of employees in the same space as more typical industrial and manufacturing uses, supports the argument that the business is more labor intensive than anticipated in the ITE's Parking Generation manual that underlies the parking ratios in the municipal code. In addition, the Commission finds that Darex currently has roughly 27 employees per acre, and with the staffing increase proposed here this would increase that to nearly 47 employees per acre. The most recent Economic Opportunities Analysis for the city had Employment zones city wide averaging approximately 17 employees per acre. For the Commmission, the available information supports the argument that the Darex business model results in more employee density than the average E-1 business in Ashland and merits consideration under a different parking ratio. The Planning Commission finds that AMC 18.4.3.030 provides three methodologies for determining parking requirements: 1) using the standard ratios for automobile parking found in AMC 18.4.3; 2) for "unspecified uses," the parking required may be determined based upon the most comparable use and other available data; or 3) using a parking demand analysis provided by the applicant. In this instance, the PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 12 applicants have framed their request in terns of the "office" parking ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area as being the most comparable use. In the Commission's assessment of the other data provided in terms of the number of employees, space needs per employee, and the variations possible across the "office" use category based on the ITE Parking Generation manual, while the applicants have demonstrated that their high volume hand assembly use is most comparable to "office", the materials provided amount to a parking demand analysis which suggests that the proposed 163 spaces are appropriate to the demand generated by Darex given the proposed additional square footage, anticipated increase in employees on the site, and the creation of a neighborhood park. 163 parking spaces for 226 employees in the 64,583 square foot facility would equate to 2.52 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 0.72 spaces per employee, both of which are significantly below the four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet and 1.1 spaces per employee noted for the most comparable office uses in the ITE manual. The Commission would also note that the applicants indicated that they would be open to future discussions with the city regarding possible arrangements to utilize their parking during off-hours as one way to address broader parking issues in the area. 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 Design Review and Tree Removal Permit approvals for an addition to the existing Darex facilities at 210-220 East Hersey Street 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 #2015-01370. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-01370 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 specifically modified herein. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September 3, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 4) That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 13 5) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Clear Creek Drive shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Departments prior to work in the street right-of-way or approval of building permits. Sidewalk installation and driveway approach repair shall be permitted through the Engineering Division and completed according to city standards. Frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting, shall be completed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of Ashland Street Standards, and if necessary for alignment of frontage improvements, additional area for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right of-way. 6) That the engineered construction drawings for the stairs to provide a connection from the existing building entrance to East Hersey Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning, Building and Engineering Departments prior to work in the street right-of- way or approval of building permits. Stairway installation within the right-of-way shall be permitted through the Engineering Division. 7) That the parking provided on the subject property shall not exceed the 163 spaces proposed. 8) 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. 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 September 3, 2015; and 2) the required irrigation plans, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications, including the Clear Creels Drive park row planting strip. 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 peals stormwater flows are less than or equal pre-development levels as required by the Engineering Division. PA #2015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 14 I) 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 applicant at applicant's expense. Cabinets, vaults, meters and Fire Department connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. 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 excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. h) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. i) Revised plans identifying an additional pedestrian crossing through the eastern parking area near the southeast corner of the existing building and incorporating the landscaped medians in the eastern parking area as swales in the on-site detention system. 9) That prior to the issuance of the building or excavation permits or the commencement of site work or storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained. Trees to be removed shall be marked, and tree protection measures installed according to the approved plan for any trees to be retained, 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 18.4.5.030.C. b) That the property owner shall sign in favor of Local Improvement District (LID) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, curb gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities for East Hersey Street prior to the issuance of a building permit. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. PA 42015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 15 10) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That all hadscaping including the Clear Creek Drive sidewalk and the stairway connection to East Hersey Street, landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All utility 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 d) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relative to fire apparatus access, including approach and easements; fire flow; fire alarm and sprinkler systems; fire department connection (FDC); fire hydrants; fire extinguishers; key box; approved addressing; approved gates and fences; waste and recycling container location; storage requirements and fire safety requirements during construction shall be satisfactorily addressed. e) Clear Creek Drive frontage improvements including but not limited to the installation of sidewalks, street trees with irrigation and street lighting 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. Street trees shall be spaced at one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. f) 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 bicycle parking according to applicable standards. g) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. October 13, 2015 Planning Commission Approval Date PA 92015-01370 October 13, 2015 Page 16; e i r LU LW W CL ° O 0 m 00 l~D Cl) o Ln Lr? Ul) w Cl) ° m o 0 00 00 m ~n cti e~ w w LL LU LJ L7 0 uj 14 ri ri ° o Io €l o ri o w 6u F- u CL cs) W Z ~ N cfl m 00 00 00 o U.J rn aQ O LL ri -4 c-I rj N N CeE w I- w _ U Q a v~ 4-: 4~ v_ } } vi vi vi vi vi 0 0 0 0 O 0 ~ ~ i L a) aJ v N N Y Q Q Q Q. Q Q a.) W a) u u u u CL Q. CL CL Q pm V) V) (A V) V) v1 'A i w 0 0 O0 LJ rl a-i c-i I~ F- CY) V) co Qj O 41 Ul O M cy) v b v v v O _ C)-- a i a o L- Li1 O z 7F, a m a D v IN ~ w o, LL, ~ C ~ cn ° o v -zz N a Z its se ru k k ' ° A L L )t O ti m v u ei W o u ai O x N f6 N Q m N m CL N (Z- LLI 0 Ca ca W W ~ (.n cn LL. LL. Q I° N I 4 PA-2015-01370 391 E04CD 2000 PA-2015-01370 391 E04DC 3100 PA-2015-01370 BERNARD DAVID A TRUSTEE PYLE THOMAS W/AMANDA L ADROIT CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 730 251 E HERSEY ST 185 MISTLETOE RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 PA-2015-01370 OGDEN ROEMER WILKERSON KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECTURE 545 A STREET, SUITE 3 2950 E BARNETT RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 i 210-220 East Hersey 10/14/15 NOD 5 l AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, j I Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On October 14, 2015 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 #2015-01370, 210-220 East Hersey. Signature of Employee Document610/1412015 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT September 8, 2015 PLANNING ACTION: #2015-01370 OWNERS: The Bernard Family Trust APPLICANTS: Adroit Construction, as agentfor the owners LOCATION: 210-220 East Hersey Street ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: August 31, 2015 i 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: December 29, 2015 I ORDINANCE REFERENCE (see htta;/Iww~~...,.,..,d.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use L code on-line): i 18.2.6 Standards for Non-Residential Zones 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.7 Signs 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits REQUEST: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 24,621 square foot addition behind the existing 39,962 square foot Darex factory located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. (A second phase consisting of an 11,107 square foot stand-alone building along Clear Creek Drive will be reviewed separately at a later date.) Also included is a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees six-inches or more in diameter at breast height: a six-inch Maple tree and a six-inch Pear tree. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application Planning Action #2001-00116 was a proposal for Site Review approval for a phased office and industrial development along the subject property's Clear Creek Drive frontage. This application was submitted, but ultimately appears to have been withdrawn as there is no indication that it was approved, and it was never built. Planning Action #1995-00035, a request for Site Review approval for a four-phase Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 1 of 18 expansion of the Darex building, was administratively approved in April of 1995. This request included a 20,000 square foot production warehouse expansion as a first phase, an 8,000 square foot office expansion as a second phase, a 20,000 square foot production warehouse expansion as a third phase, and a final fourth phase that included an additional 20,000 square feet of production warehouse space. The later phases of this project were never completed. Planning Action #1979-00017, a request for a Site Review permit to allow the construction of the original Darex building, was approved by the Planning Commission in February of 1979. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal I The Site The subject property is an approximately 4.82 acre rectangular parcel bounded on the north by East Hersey Street and on the south by Clear Creek Drive. The property currently contains a 39,962 square foot factory building. The property slopes down to the north at approximately two percent over its full length, but there are areas with slopes approaching 25 percent adjacent to Hersey Street and mid-lot behind the existing building. There are some trees and landscaping near the existing building, but the property lacks any significant natural features. Paved access to the property is primarily from Hersey Street, which is considered an Avenue in Ashland's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Hersey Street is currently paved to a width of approximately 45 feet within the 60-foot right-of-way along the property's frontage. In addition to the motor vehicle travel and bike lanes, there are curbs and gutters but no sidewalks or parkrows along the south side. There is a steep, rock- covered embankment between the curb and the applicants' property and there is currently no pedestrian access from Hersey Street other than by using the driveway. The property also fronts on Clear Creek Drive to the south, a Commercial Neighborhood Collector, which is currently paved to an approximate 30-foot width within a 60-foot right-of-way with curbs and gutters in place. A sidewalk and parkrow planting strip extend approximately 270 feet from the property's west boundary, leaving approximately 110 feet with no existing sidewalks. There are currently no street trees in place within the existing parkrow planting strip. The Proposal Site Design Review Permit Proposal The application involves a request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 24,621 square foot addition behind the existing 39,962 square foot Darex factory located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. This additional space would accommodate additional area for administration and assembly employees, and would be accompanied by the installation of 62 additional parking spaces for customer and employee parking, along with associated landscaping and a new stairway connection from the building's main entry to Hersey Street. The proposed addition would consist of Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 2 of 18 a single-story metal building with a metal roof, approximately 24 feet high, and matching the southern portion of the existing building in color and materials. The application suggests that this addition would ultimately accommodate an increase in employees from the current 129 to an anticipated 226. Typically, a warehouse or industrial building would be considered under the parking ratios in place for "industrial, manufacturing and production, tivarehousing and fi°eight" found in AMC 18.4.3.040 which require that one parking space be provided for each 1,000 square feet of building area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one for each company vehicle. The applicants here suggest that warehouse and industrial use categories do not properly reflect the number of people required for the more intense, hand-assembly process employed at Darex. They note that the typical workstations are similar in size, at about 100 square feet each, to the workstations typically found in an office environment, and the number of employees (currently 129) is also similar to that of a similar-sized office building. They therefore propose to use the office parking ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of building area to better align with the unique hand assembly work performed at Darex. The application also identifies a building pad along Clear Creek Drive which would accommodate a second phase of development, consisting of an 11,107 square foot stand- alone building which they hope to develop in approximately ten years. Approval of this k building is not requested at this time, and the second phase would be considered under the standards in place at the time it is ultimately proposed. The applicants propose two alternatives for the treatment of the Clear Creek Drive frontage until the second phase of development ultimately occurs. Under their first alternative, they would improve this frontage with a neighborhood park-, which would be under private ownership and management but open to the public, and would concurrently install the 22 parking spaces associated with development of their anticipated Phase II building. This park would j` feature a variety of ornamental trees in raised planters, a low-water use lawn area and a series of paths. If the park- and associated parking area are not approved, the applicants propose an alternate design with a low-water use mowable field area that would include irrigation and the planting of ten shade trees. Tree Removal Permit Proposal The application also involves the removal of three trees. Within the E-1 zoning district, any removal of trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or more requires a Tree Removal Permit. In this case two of the three trees to be removed meet this threshold: a six-inch d.b.h. Maple tree and a six-inch d.b.h. Pear tree The third tree to be removed is a 4 1/2 inch d.b.h. Pear tree located; its removal does not require a permit. II. Project Impact As explained more fully above, the application consists of Site Design Review and Tree Removal permit approval requests. Within the E-1 zoning district, new buildings or additions greater than 10,000 square feet are subject to a "Type II" Site Design Review application procedure which requires a decision by the Planning Commission through a public hearing. Because the application also includes the removal of two trees of six- inches or more in diameter at breast height, Tree Removal Permit approval is also Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Ads Applicant: DAREX Page 3 of 18 required. A. Site Design Review Proposal Underlying Zone Requirements The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies 1vith all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards." The subject property's underlying zone is E-1 (Employment) and within that zone, there is no minimum lot area, width, or depth; no minimum front, side or rear yard area except where abutting a residential zone to the side or rear; no maximum lot coverage; and no minimum residential density. The property does not abut residential zones to the side or rear, and is not located on an arterial street, and as such no setback requirements come into play. The maximum building height is limited to 40 feet, and the proposed 24 foot height complies with this limit. Overlay Zone Requirements The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." Approximately the northern 320 feet of the property falls within the Residential Overlay zone, and no other overlay zones apply. The requirements of the Residential Overlay are only triggered when residential uses are proposed, and in this instance there is no residential component to the request. Site Development and Design Standards The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, beloiv." Generally, the Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each project's appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to 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. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties' frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. G In responding to the design standards, the application notes that Phase I will use the existing driveway access from Hersey Street as well as the existing curb cut on Clear Creek Drive for vehicular access to the site. Parking is to be placed on each side of the addition, which is behind the face of the main building's Hersey Street fagade. The application emphasizes that with the placement of the Phase I addition behind the existing building, there will be no change in the orientation of the existing building to the street or its sense of entry, although a new stairway access is proposed to provide direct pedestrian access from the entry to Hersey Street, which has previously been lacking. The Phase 11 building, which is not currently proposed or under review here, is noted as being oriented to Clear Creek Drive, with its wider side to the street and parking to one Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 4 of 18 side. This building and its associated site improvements will need to be reviewed under the applicable standards in the place at the time it is proposed. With the placement of the proposed addition and its associated site improvements behind the existing building along Hersey Street, and development along the property's Clear Creek Drive frontage deferred until Phase II, the design standards with regard to the streetscape and building design have limited applicability to the request. For staff, the key issues with the proposal in terms of the Site Development and Design Standards in AMC 18.4 come down to verifying that adequate parking is to be provided and to ensuring that the parking proposes complies with the parking area design, parking lot landscaping and screening, and pedestrian access and circulation standards. Required Parking Typically, a warehouse or industrial building would be considered under the parking ratios in place for "industrial, manufacturing and production, warehousing and freight" found in AMC 18.4.3.040 which require that one parking space be provided for each 1,000 square feet of building area or for each two employees, whichever is less, plus one for each company vehicle. This would require 65 parking spaces to serve the existing building and proposed addition, and because parking provided cannot exceed parking required by more than ten percent under city codes, not more than 71 parking spaces could be provided. The applicants here argue that the warehouse and industrial use categories do not properly reflect the number of people required for the more intense, hand-assembly process employed at Darex, and propose that parking be considered instead in terms of the parking ratio for office use, which is one parking space per 500 square feet of floor area. This would allow a minimum parking requirement of 129 Parking spaces, and no more than 142 spaces could be provided. The applicants propose to provide 141 spaces to serve the existing use and proposed addition, but also propose to provide an additional 22 parking spaces to serve the future second phase and a quasi- public park area to be made available until that second phase occurs. The applicants suggest that the current facility and site were designed according to the much lower warehouse parking ratio, which is out of sync with the actual business being conducted. They note that as the business has increased staffing over the years, undeveloped land at the rear of the property has become overflow parking for staff. They further note that while the ordinance tries to take advantage of on-street parking credits to reduce the need for off-street parking, the long, narrow, dual frontage nature of the site does not provide on-street parking in quantities sufficient to accommodate their staffing. The applicants also note that the limited off-street parking associated with recent Clear Creek Drive development has left on-street parking in very high demand, and this means that employee parking can spill across Hersey Street and adversely affect residential neighborhoods to the north. The applicants explain that their business is based on assembly by hand of numerous individual components for their wide variety of products, and that they employ residents from all over the county (including Grants Pass, White City, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent as well as Ashland) with living wage jobs. They emphasize that the currently available transit service would require a commute of up to four hours for those living in the northern part of Medford and White City, and that commuting by bicycle is not viable for these employees either, particularly in inclement weather. They note that Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 5 of 18 over the years they have tried incentives to encourage car-pooling among staff, but that this has met with little success when employees often have obligations before and after work with daycare, medical appointments or volunteering commitments. They suggest that for many employees, individual automobiles are the only viable commuting option. The Ashland Municipal Code provides that where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically listed, such requirements shall be determined based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. Here the applicants note that their typical workstations are similar in size (at about 100 square feet each) to the workstations found in an office environment, and the number of employees is also similar to that of a similar-sized office building. They further emphasize that their business model is extremely labor intensive and relies on a long-term, skilled labor force which currently employs 129 people and which will grow to 139 people for the period of August through November at this site. They suggest that the first phase of expansion proposed here is intended to accommodate an increase in employees to 226. They propose to use the office parking ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of building area to align with the unique hand assembly work performed at Darex, and note that if the property were to sell, it would most likely continue with similar uses involving clean technologies, intensive hand assembly or office use and the requested parking ratio would match the parking needs of these uses and facilitate the redevelopment of the site. In considering the requested parking ratio, staff reviewed the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 3rd Edition which includes analysis of a number of study sites for each categorized use. Staff noted the following: ® General Light Industrial (ITE Code 110) - These are typically free standing facilities devoted to a single use other than manufacturing, with little or no office component to the use. Typical activities include printing, material testing and the assembly of data processing equipment. The average parking supply ratios were 1.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (for five of nine sites reviewed) and 1.3 spaces per employee (for four of the sites), and these sites averaged an employment density of 1,200 square feet of gross floor area per employee. ® Industrial Park (ITE Code 130) - These are typically sites containing a number of industrial uses and related facilities involving a diverse mix of manufacturing, services and warehouses. Here the average parking supply ratios were 1.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 1.2 spaces per employee, and the average employee density was 900 square feet per employee. ® Manufacturing (ITE Code 140) - These are typically sites where raw materials or parts are converted to finished products. The average parking supply ratios were 1.3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 1.3 spaces per employee, and the average employee density was 1, 000 square feet per employee. ® Office (ITE Code 701) - General office has several subcategories in the ITE analysis, including General Office (710), Corporate Headquarters (714), Single Tenant Office Building (715), Office Park (750) and Research and Development Center (760). Analysis I: across these subcategories had the average parking supply ratios were 4.0 parking C Ctt z Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 6 of 18 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 1.1 spaces per employee, and the average employee density was 303 square feet per employee. Staff would concur with the applicants that on-street parking in the area is in high demand, and that determining the correct parking ratio to accommodate parking on site is important to minimize the impact of parking to the adjacent streetscape and to residential neighborhoods to the north. As proposed with 226 employees and 141 parking spaces, the applicants operation would have 2.19 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, 0.62 parking spaces per employee, and an average employee density of approximately 285 square feet per employee. With the current 129 employees, these numbers would be 2.19 spaces per 1,000 square feet, 1.09 spaces per employee, and an average employee density of 500 square feet per employee. In staff's assessment, the square footage per employee at Darex clearly supports their argument that the business is more labor intensive than anticipated by the "industrial, manufacturing and production, warehousing and freight" parking ratio in the municipal code. In addition, staff would note that Darex currently has 26.76 employees per acre, and with the increase to 226 employees that would be accommodated by the addition this would increase to 46.88 employees per acre. The most recent Economic Opportunities Analysis for the city had Employment zones city wide averaging approximately 17 employees per acre. In staff's view, this further supports the argument that the Darex business model supports more employees than the average E-1 business in Ashland and merits consideration under the parking ratio for office as the use most comparable to that proposed. In addition to the 141 spaces proposed, the applicants have proposed two alternatives for the treatment of the Clear Creek Drive frontage until the second phase of development ultimately occurs. Under their first and preferred alternative, they would improve this frontage with a neighborhood park, which would be under private ownership and management but open to the public, and would concurrently install the 22 parking spaces that they anticipate would be necessary with the development of the Phase II building. This park would feature a variety of ornamental trees in raised planters, a low-water use lawn area and a series of paths. If the park and associated parking are not approved, the applicants propose an alternate design with a low-water use field area that would include irrigation and the planting of ten shade trees. The 141 spaces proposed is one space below the maximum allowed for the current proposal based on the requested office parking ratio. Approval of an additional 22 parking spaces would require the Planning Commission to either approve a Variance to the Maximum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces in AMC 18.4.3.030.1 j (which has not been requested here) or to find that the additional parking was necessary to serve the park. The Parking Generation Manual has limited information relative to the demand for parks with their analysis limited to one site in Santa Barbara, California where 15 parking spaces per acre were provided and only a 5.1 space per acre peak demand was observed. Generally, in Ashland, neighborhood parks have been required to provide limited parking as they are planned to serve an area that is by intention within walking distance. Staff does not see a strong argument which would support the additional 22 spaces proposed to accommodate demand for a future building or in association with the quasi-public park area. However the national standards for parking generation for office uses detailed above reflect a substantial range of parking demand, and the commission could determine that the total number of parking spaces necessary Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 7 of 18 i for the proposed addition includes these additional 22 spaces based on the employee density the applicants have described. Parking Lot Design The application explains that the parking spaces to be provided are all full-size spaces, at nine feet by 18 feet with no compact spaces proposed, and that the back-up and circulation areas proposed will meet or exceed the required 22-foot dimension. The application further notes that the parking areas are separated by buildings, tree wells with parking lot trees, and split level parking areas with sidewalks, and that the parking lot design seeks to provide at least 50 percent shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years of project completion in keeping with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5 which seek to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking. A drainage swale is located in the parking area to the west of the addition, within the planting strip between parking spaces. Drainage in the easterly parking area is to be accommodated with filtered treatment. All stormwater is to be detained on-site so as not to flow beyond the property lines. The parking area design requirements call for parking lots and other hard surface areas to be designed to capture and treat run-off with landscaped medians and swales, and the Commission may determine that the proposed detention system design in the eastern parking area needs to better incorporate a landscaped median or swale to capture and treat run-off. The application suggests that continuous walkways are provided through the parking areas to connect to all existing and future buildings, and provide safe, direct and convenient connections from the building entries to the streets, sidewalks and proposed park areas. The walkways are also noted as being protected by planting strips, five feet in width, curbed except within crosswalks, with pedestrian lighting and marked in painted asphalt or concrete to differentiate them from the surrounding parking area. Parking areas are noted as generally grouped in areas of less than 50 spaces so pedestrians must traverse less than a 150 foot distance within the parking area, and well-distributed accessible parking. Pedestrian circulation is more clearly addressed in the western parking areas, however it appears that the number of potential entrances on the east side of the new building substantially reduce the distance a pedestrian would likely need to travel. Staff has recommended a condition to require that a pedestrian crossing through the parking area near the southeast corner of the existing building. Public Facilities The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 1846 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sei4~er, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the propero and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subjectproperty." The application materials provided note that the subject property is presently served by water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and paved access, and that existing facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed addition. They further note the following: o Water & Sewer - The application materials note that with the proposed addition, r four additional toilets, two lavatories and two drinking fountains will be added. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report,dds Applicant: DAREX Page 8 of 18 The applicants further explain that they have been in contact with the city's Water and Wastewater Division and both have confirmed that the existing 12-inch public water line in the Hersey Street right-of-way and eight-inch public sewer lines in the Hersey Street and Clear Creek Drive rights-of-way are sufficient to accommodate the additional fixtures proposed. The applicants indicate that they will continue to confer with the city utilities and Public Works and Engineering Department staff to verify capacity and identify any necessary upgrades as their designs are finalized. A condition of approval has been recommended below to require that the applicants provide final utility plans for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Public Works and Engineering Departments in conjunction with their building permit application. i o Electricity - The application materials note that the electrical contractor for the project has performed preliminary load calculations estimating the proposed additional demand associated with the first phase addition will be approximately 147,000 watts or 408 amps at 120/208 three phase. The applicants explain that the existing 2000 amp service size and 750 KVA 120/208 three-phase city transformer have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed addition. A condition has been recommended below to require that the applicants provide a final electric service plan for the review and approval of the Planning, Building and Electric Departments in conjunction with their building permit application. The applicants have also been advised to contact the Electric and Conservation Departments as early in the process as possible if they are considering additional solar energy installations on the new addition to identify any financial incentives or technical assistance that may be available. o Urban Storm Drainage - The application materials explain that all new improvements including the building, parking areas and sidewalks were designed with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual to address both the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off and comply with city storm drainage requirements. The applicants note that their civil engineer has been in contact with the city's Engineering Department and confirmed that the applicants' stormwater detention strategy which proposes an eastern detention swale and additional asphalt detention areas as well will comply with city requirements. The application further explains that the stormwater will be treated for water quality and detained so that post-development flows do not exceed pre- development flows for the property in its undeveloped state and will thus have no adverse impact on downstream infrastructure. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 9 of 18 A condition has been recommended below to require that a final stormwater drainage and erosion control plan be provided for the review and approval of the Planning, Building and Engineering Departments in conjunction with the building permit application. o Paved Access & Adequate Transportation - Paved access to the property is primarily from Hersey Street, which is considered an Avenue in Ashland's Transportation System Plan (TSP). Hersey Street is currently paved to a width of approximately 45 feet within the 60-foot right-of-way along the property's frontage. In addition to the motor vehicle travel lanes, a bike lane is in place and there are curbs and gutters but no sidewalks or parkrows along the south side. There is a steep, rock-covered embankment between the curb and the applicants' property and there is currently no pedestrian access from Hersey Street other than by using the driveway. i The property also fronts on Clear Creek Drive to the south, a Commercial i Neighborhood Collector, which is currently paved to an approximate 30-foot width within a 60-foot right-of-way with curbs and gutters in place. A sidewalk and parkrow planting strip extend approximately 270 feet from the property's west boundary, leaving approximately 110 feet with no existing sidewalks. There are currently no street trees in place within the existing parkrow planting strip. The applicants have not proposed to install sidewalks along Hersey Street. In staff's view, this section of Hersey Street could be found to merit an Exception to Street Standards in that the narrow area between the curb and the applicants' property has slopes which vary from approximately 30 percent to more than 45 percent, and which would require substantial cuts and retaining walls, disturbance of existing established trees, and the potential to disrupt the established I development on the lot which is only 12 to 24 feet behind the curb. The applicants have proposed to construct a stairway connection from the street which would provide direct pedestrian access from the on-street parking spaces along Hersey Street to the building entrance. Staff have included a condition of 4 t approval recommending that this stairway installation be a condition of approval, and a condition that the applicants be required to sign in favor of future Hersey Street improvements which could include a comprehensively planned sidewalk installation taking into account the slopes along the property's frontage and the necessary transition to less sloped sections along adjacent properties. The applicants' proposal illustrates the completion of the remaining sidewalks on their Clear Creek Drive frontage, the planting of new street trees within the park row planting strip, and the replacement of two existing driveway aprons installed Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Reportdds Applicant: DAREX Page 10 of 18 with the original construction of Clear Creek Drive. A condition requiring this sidewalk installation is recommended below. The application materials provided include a letter from James R. Hanks, P.E. of JRH Transportation Engineering. JRH analyzed the proposal and determined based on the thresholds established in city standards, no traffic impact analysis (TIA) is required. The letter explains that based on the anticipated 226 employees that could be accommodated on site with the addition, both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips are less than the 50 needed to trigger a TIA, that no traffic control device or geometric improvements are to be installed with the request, and I anticipates no newly generated heavy vehicle trips which would require a TIA. I There is, currently no transit service on either Hersey Street or Clear Creek Drive, but there is transit service on Lithia Way less than a half-mile walk from the subject property. The Transportation System Plan anticipates that long term modifications of the Rogue Valley Transportation District's Route 10, or a new express route, might ultimately provide transit service along Clear Creek Drive. B. Tree Removal Permit The application includes a Tree Protection Plan (Sheet L1.1) identifying five existing trees within the vicinity of the proposed construction, two of which are six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater and thus regulated within the zone. The application proposes the removal of three trees, two of which are six-inches in diameter or breast height or greater and thus require Tree Removal Permits. The two trees to be removed are: a six-inch d.b.h. Maple tree (#2) which is in the area of the demolition to accommodate the proposed site improvements and a six-inch d.b.h. Pear tree (#3) which is located in the path of the main irrigation line to serve the new landscaping for the site. The third tree to be removed is a 41/2-inch d.b.h. Pear tree (#1) located to the east of the existing building. Its removal does not require a permit. Tree protection fencing is identified for the two existing trees to remain, both Armstrong Maples, although their size means that they would not otherwise be regulated. The materials provided note that the trees are in fair to good condition, relatively young and planted in constrained, paved areas. They are proposed to be removed because they are within proposed circulation areas necessary to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic with the addition. The applicants emphasize that the 57 proposed 1 %2- to two-inch caliper trees and associated landscape plantings in their proposed landscape plan will provide better habitat, and more than make up for the lost canopy coverage and species diversity with the removals. They assert that the removals will allow for proper design of the parking and circulation areas according to applicable standards, and will have no effect on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks because the existing trees are within constrained, paved areas. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 11 of 18 III. Procedural ® Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience, ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty, d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 12 of 18 The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a "Tree That is Not a Hazard" are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.8.2 as follows: A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 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. 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. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The application requests Site Design Review approval for a 24,621 square foot addition to the existing 39,962 square foot Darex building at 210-220 East Hersey Street and the associated removal of two trees, a Pear and a Maple, located within proposed circulation areas. The additional area is for administration and assembly employees and would ultimately accommodate an increase in employees from the current 129 to an anticipated 226. Given that the proposed addition and associated site improvements are behind the existing building along Hersey Street, and development along the property's Clear Creek Drive frontage is to be deferred until a later Phase II, the design standards with regard to the streetscape and building design have limited applicability to the request. For staff, the key issue with the proposal comes down determining that the right amount of parking is to be provided. The addition is to be accompanied by the installation of 62 additional parking spaces for customer and employee parking, along with associated landscaping and a new stairway connection from the building's main entry to Hersey Street. A typical warehouse or industrial building would be considered under the "industrial, manzrfacturing and production, 1varehousing and fi°eight" ratio for required parking, but the applicants here suggest that warehouse and industrial use categories do not accurately reflect the number of employees needed for the more intense, hand-assembly process at Darex. They argue i Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff RepoUcls Applicant: DAREX Page 13 of 18 G i that the space per employee and number of employees is more akin to office use, and propose to use the office parking ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of building area to better align with the unique hand assembly work performed at Darex. The applicants suggest, and staff would concur, that on-street parking in the area is in high demand, and determining the correct parking ratio to accommodate parking on site is important in providing adequate parking on site to minimize the impact of development on the adjacent streetscape and residential neighborhoods to the north. In staff's assessment, the square footage per employee at Darex, which is has three to four times the employees in the same space as in more typical industrial and manufacturing uses, supports the argument that the business is more labor intensive than anticipated in the ITE's Parking Generation manual that underlies the parking ratios in the municipal code. In addition, Darex currently has roughly 27 employees per acre, and with the increase proposed here they seek to increase that to nearly 47 employees per acre. The most recent Economic Opportunities Analysis for the city had Employment zones city wide averaging approximately 17 employees per acre. In staff's view, the available information supports the argument that the Darex business model results in more employee density than the average E-1 business in Ashland and merits consideration under the parking ratio for office as the most comparable use in terms of required parking. The application identifies a building pad along Clear Creek Drive which would accommodate a second phase of development to consist of an 11,107 square foot stand- alone building which they hope to develop within ten years. Approval of this building is not requested at this time, and the second phase would be considered under the standards in place at the time it is ultimately proposed. The applicants propose two alternatives for the interim treatment of the Clear Creek Drive frontage until the second phase of development occurs. Under their first alternative, they would improve this frontage with a neighborhood park, which would be under private ownership and management but open to the public, and would concurrently install the 22 parking spaces anticipated to be needed for the Phase II building. This park would feature a variety of ornamental trees in raised planters, a low-water use lawn area and a series of paths. If the park and associated parking area are not approved, the applicants propose to simply create a low- water use field area incorporating ten shade trees. The 141 parking spaces proposed is one space below the maximum allowed for the Phase I proposal at the requested "General Office" parking ratio, and the approval of an additional 22 parking spaces would require the Planning Commission to either approve a Variance to the Maximum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces in AMC 18.4.3.030.13, which has not been requested, or to find that the additional parking was necessary to serve the proposed addition and park. Neighborhood parks in Ashland have been required to provide limited parking as they are typically planned to serve an area that is by design within walking distance, and staff does not see a strong argument to support an additional 22 spaces proposed with the quasi-public park area proposed here. I I Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 14 of 18 A family-owned business in Ashland since 1978, Darex moved to Ashland and began in its current location with 15 employees in a 5,000 square foot workspace and has grown with Ashland to receive national recognition and repeatedly be named one of the top workplaces in Oregon. In a previous application, it was noted that the applicants believe Darex is the type of business that is compatible with Ashland, a "quiet, non polluting company that asks very little of the town, but gives much back in good wages, taxes and community support." Staff believes that Ashland is fortunate to have Darex Corporation as a part of the community, and we are pleased to see their continued commitment to remain and grow in Ashland. Staff is generally very supportive of this request, and would recommend approval with the addition of the conditions detailed below: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their September 3, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 4) That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 5) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Clear Creek Drive shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Departments prior to work in the street right-of-way or approval of building permits. Sidewalk installation and driveway approach repair shall be permitted through the Engineering Division and completed according to city standards. Frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting, shall be completed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of Ashland Street Standards, and if necessary for alignment of frontage improvements, additional area for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right of-way. 6) That the engineered construction drawings for the stairs to provide a connection from the existing building entrance to East Hersey Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning, Building and Engineering Departments prior to work in the street right-of-way or approval of building permits. Stairway installation within the right-of-way shall be permitted through the Engineering Division. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 15 of 18 7) That the parking requirement for the proposal shall be based on the office parking ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area, and parking provided on the subject property shall not exceed the 141 spaces proposed. 8) 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. 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 September 3, 2015; and 2) the required irrigation plans, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications, including the Clear Creek Drive park row planting strip. 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. 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 applicant at applicant's expense. Cabinets, vaults, meters and Fire Department connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. g) The applicant shall submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Reportdds Applicant: DAREX Page 16 of 18 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 excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. h) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height - 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. i) Revised plans identifying an additional pedestrian crossing through the eastern parking area near the southeast corner of the existing building and incorporating the landscaped medians in the eastern parking area as swales in the on-site detention system. 9) That prior to the issuance of the building or excavation permits or the commencement of site work or storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained. Trees to be removed shall be marked, and tree protection measures installed according to the approved plan for any trees to be retained, 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 18.4.5.030.C. b) That the property owner shall sign in favor of Local Improvement District (LID) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, curb gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities for East Hersey Street prior to the issuance of a building permit. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 10) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) That all hardscaping including the Clear Creek Drive sidewalk and the stairway connection to East Hersey Street, landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds Applicant: DAREX Page 17 of 18 b) All utility 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 relative to fire apparatus i access, including approach and easements; fire flow; fire alarm and sprinkler systems; fire department connection (FDC); fire hydrants; fire extinguishers; key box; approved addressing; approved gates and fences; waste and recycling container location; storage requirements and fire safety requirements during construction shall be satisfactorily addressed. e) Clear Creek Drive frontage improvements including but not limited to the installation of sidewalks, street trees with irrigation and street lighting 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. Street trees shall be spaced at one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the „ Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. f) 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 bicycle parking according to applicable standards. g) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. Planning Action PA #2015-01370 Ashland Planning Division - Staff RepoUds Applicant; DAREX Page 18 of 18 ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET" September 3, 2015 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01370 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 210-220 East Hersey St. OWNER: The Bernard Family Trust APPLICANT: Adroit Construction, as agent for the owners DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 24,621 square foot addition to the existing 39,962 square foot Darex building located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. Also included is a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees, a six-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Maple tree and a six-inch d.b.h. Pear tree, and for a Variance to allow a new driveway on Clear Creels Drive that is 48 feet from the driveway to the west while a separation of 75 feet is typically required on a commercial neighborhood collector street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CD; TAX LOTS: 2000 The Tree Commission recommends approval of the request to remove two trees, the six-inch Maple tree and the six-inch Pear tree, that are within the proposed expansion's footprint and in the path of the main irrigation line. The Tree Commission supports the conditions proposed by Staff and recommends conditions be added to address the need to protect newly planted trees from sun scald and deer, and to discourage the use of sycamores, river birch and London plane trees in the revised landscaping plan, i j If Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5350 CITY OF 51 Win burn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Ashland Planning Commission Aug. 27, 2015 Ashland Planning Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Planning Action 2015-01370 Dear Commissioners: As a resident of a neighboring property, I received today notice of a planned addition to the Darex "factory" located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. I am not opposed to the project, but I do have a couple of minor concerns related to it concerns not serious enough to warrant taking up public hearing time. am worried that the addition will lead to increased heavy truck and other vehicle traffic using East Hersey Street for access to and from the Darex property. The street is already is poor condition in the vicinity of the driveway into Darex and increased traffic can only make it worse. Also, I would hope that, as part of the expansion project, Darex consider installing a walking/bike path between East Hersey and Clear Creek Drive along the east side of its property. Generations of neighboring residents have used this part of the property as a short cut to Clear Creek Drive and it would be nice for Darex to respect this tradition instead of continuing to post "no trespassing" signs. Thank you for your attention to these concerns. Sincerely, Tom Pyle 251 East Hersey Street Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY F 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.orms TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2015-01370 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 210-220 East Hersey Street OWNER: The Bernard Family Trust APPLICANT: Adroit Construction, as agent for the owners DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 24,621 square foot addition behind the existing 39,962 square foot Darex factory located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. (A second phase consisting of an 11,107 square foot stand-alone building along Clear Creek Drive will be reviewed separately at a later date.) Also included is a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees six-inches or more in diameter at breast height: a six-inch Maple tree and a six-inch Pear tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 04CD; TAX LOTS: 2000 NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winbuin Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Main 0'.,. -J~ / - can s L s ..r - - r y I i - - l_ E HERSEY ST - PA #2015-01370 210-220 E.'HERSEY..ST. SUBJECT. PROPERTY 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 I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. CiAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing PolderWailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01370.docx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE UNIFIED LAND USE ORDINANCE 18.5.7.040.13 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit B. Tree Removal Permit. 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i,e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 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, 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. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning ActionsVNoticing Foldet-Wailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01370.docx s I PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 50003 , PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2000 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 1804 BENDAT KEN TRUSTEE ET AL j BERNARD DAVID A TRUSTEE BLACKBIRD POND LLC 455 COURTNEY PO BOX 730 j 1255 HELMAN ST STE 1 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 14705 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 1900 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 60001 CIOTA BARBARA CLEAR CREEK INVESTMENTS LLC CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC 7975 DEAD INDIAN MEM RD 845 OAK ST 222 LANILOA WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 j ASHLAND, OR 97520 HAIKU, HI 96708 PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3203 PA-2015-01370 391E09AB 6604 !PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 1903 COE LAURA-JULIA G COMSTOCK PAUL iDELGADO INVESTMENTS LLC 239 E HERSEY ST PO BOX 35 148 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PHOENIX, OR 97535 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I~ PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3400 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 14703 PA-2015-01370 391E09AB 6603 D-MAC LLC ET AL ELLINGSON-WHITE FAMILY TRUST FOWLER GERARD STEPHEN TRUSTEE 240 E HERSEY 253 THIRD ST X309 KENT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2300 PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3202 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 305 FRYE GAYLE K GERMANN ALBERT CARL TRUSTEE HAVILL RUDDY P TRUSTEE ET AL 173 E HERSEY ST 1 243 HERSEY ST E 204 PATTERSON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ,ASHLAND, OR 97520 li III ~ PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2800 PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3201 SPA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2200 HOLLAND GEORGE H HUNG EPING ET AL ',HYLAND STEPHANIE L 153 HERSEY ST 247 E HERSEY ST 175 HERSEY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 60002 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 303 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 14707 c ISLAND IMPORTER INC JOHNSON SARA L TRUSTEE ET AL % KENCAIRN KERRY 184 CLEAR CREEK DR 2 ! 200 PATTERSON ST 1 147 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 50004 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 3200 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2500 LA ROSA HOLDINGS LLC ! LILLY JANET C MOWAT DAVID TRUSTEE ET AL 180 CLEAR CREEK 203 141 E HERSEY ST 163 EAST HERSEY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 IASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 3100 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 14706 PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3100 NEWTON PHYLLIS M TRUSTEE ET AL I NOLEN DAVID PYLE THOMAS W/AMANDA L 139 E HERSEY ST 328 1/2 LIBERTY ST ~i251 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 'ASHLAND, OR 97520 .,ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2600 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 14704 iPA-2015-01370 391E09BA 50002 REICHERT ELDRED A/JOAN C RNN PROPERTIES LLC ROGERS ALEX/TINA 161 E HERSEY ST 2640 E BARNETT RD E-431 1450 PARK RIDGE PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 'ASHLAND, OR 97520 I i PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 601 PA-2015-01370 39IE04DC 3300 PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3401 SOUTHARD PEGGY A STROUD C WANDA TRUSTEE ET AL TONEY FAMILY CREDIT SHELTER PO BOX 644 219 HERSEY STREET E 3955 S STAGE RD 89 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2015-01370 391E09BA 14800 PA-2015-01370 391E09AB 6700 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 306 UNION PACIFIC RR CO UNION PACIFIC RR CO VISION HOMES INC 1400 DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640 1400 DOUGLAS - STOP 1640 PO BOX 3550 OMAHA, NE 68179 OMAHA, NE 68179 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PA-2015-01370 PA-2015-01370 391E04CD 2900 PA-2015-01370 391E04DC 3000 ELIZABETH ELLINGSON WEAVER ALICE T WILSON AND RUBALOFF TRUST 253 THIRD STREET 151 E HERSEY ST 479 CAROL ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I I PA-2015-01370 PA-2015-01370 'PA-2015-01370 ADROIT CONSTRUCTION ORW ARCHITECTURE 'KENCAIRN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 185 MISTLETOE ROAD 2950 E BARNETT ROAD ;545 "A" STREET, SUITE #3 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 I i ' i i i Prepared bY:, _ OgdenRoemerW lka son Arehirecture, AIA 2950 East Barnett Road Medford, Oregon 97504 eo,raa: d"D-id Mccal~,o'~haom tel: 541-779-5237 x20 Iv _ deed names and address - Bernard David A, Trustee and Bernard, Marlor e A, Tr -"ee FBO; Bernard Fam Trust y s - 210 E E Hersey St Ashland, Oregon 97520 _ ! `x - t slat sits: ARLHIItC1URYE address. 210 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND y nap 39IE04LD tax Ioru: 2000 ping: El oerlay: PARTIAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY ] - - " r - s}e review: BASIC ZONE r yr y Pram yard 25 k 11 side yard sheer: Nona required s de yard: None required ; - or yard. None re d . re quire E- j PROPOSED PROJECT NARRATIVE: 9 / _ ~ r Dale:':.read ag ro ada or6er-w -1- ro d ih ! h D P Peat Y y ~ K St l 'll -d d d the cbr l'r as. a~ al CD Pr p d I. :M I d',g and -.1 raadin9 sear T ly t. / PE-2 wll bee(blare aevelopmeni to he determined di tE "rte ' by the owlet. SITE , VICINITY MAP SITE ANALYSIS MAP PROPERTY ZONING DIAGRAM NO SCALE dearex expansion 2 10 Kersey street SCALE: I°=loo o° NORTH NOTES: I. PROPERTY 7.ONED IN BASIC SITE REVIEW. 2. MAP IS ORIENTED TO ALIGN WITH ATTACHED SITE PLAN. aUU~I f1HU' ~IUUiI ~V09 0 i1trU2 li'6U1. r Y, 3 U U fD.Y'U-!k € 401 IUD' ~~U ~UU' ;~"~'llll' ,U,~iliN~ J UU 'LL iY kF~ '~I711 .t, 7M tl' ~),U 5, ~l `II U, Jul T a R 3Y U» d ii'U i~ ,"i • 2f E. ' . ~''fl5 ?~13. U '`u zffb, UU`5 .2 T! ID rtL, 71 11 dij,3 T ~T 3 Mij ! tgj tut t. T , ~7 2- 4 T's a, U'ii n ll, oty 4'U't' ` ' Jill 30 U, H,U i 'U + 11j 1 U' S U U'' 3(i~ ll ~ ~T~' 4T! l 3k U~1 tk r T:o T3; u , T1.1U2 i;3i}T'tiFi''U'~ 1-mil Zoo 3 k1 Ua$ 1di-aU~ 24 U't ilk TiUUE* ~ U [ 3 !1' 35,tu 180.3 14 3}`' i 3~Ufr 3;r~~ lim t. H41 1964 3543 62 t3fj~idr 14ii`Uil 147" 602 13b,a$ 603 605 13 CO a 'U 4t I' Tait INIGO r t 340t 1, .-irU, s du lp IU5U TtiJ, 31it rr?iv~k Z.i llU cell' 'iiiHilt, 6~bff 1 -H 5:n ti t21u ` 53'Uil hUU rd8,Ua 'U;e u0 ~i5'U di5 ~ `ll it 5'1F U it L U il' S. H D 5 T'D tf 1) U t tl 5'd j tim ~ 3 U ti,3 ij'U 9129 U 5'U U'i} fill a U' 5 iiu U. -.111o i1' 'M {l' !rHUiI'-- 11'ii°UU' 41o{,I+ 1,U1I~}il JVJI, a#1~' i~1ia''r'UilU'U1~'Ul , 4 5 lU U ~i 41 U U U1' 'U U {i'l 'U U'. vU, sal h (3 U' i 'G IJ t~ ~ 7 i1 H ~i' fi} U~l H 11 il' ! Q ~ (4 i it ikil 1-u U, R .y ' 4 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 August 26, 2015 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 #2015-01370, 210-220 E Hersey St.. Signature of Employee r Document4 8126/2015 Darex Expansion Planning Application Project Findings August 17, 2015 City of Ashland _ Planning Division ARCHIITECTURE E 51 Winburn Way 29 5 0 E EA A W.O S AT EC RCH I TECT TT T R RO 0 29 OAR Ashland, OR 97520 N E° F 0 R R OR 97 5 11 O A)) 9 5 2 3 F 5 4 1)] 2 8{] 2 Project Identification Darex Expansion Site Address: 210-220 Hersey St, Ashland, OR 97520 Map 391E04CD Tax Lot: 2000 Zoning: E 1 (Employment) ORW Architecture 1444 Purpose These findings are intended to serve as the guiding document that will allow the City of Ashland to review and make its determinations regarding the planned expansion of the existing Darex facility. It will explain and demonstrate how the planned work will be acceptable within the Ashland Municipal Code. Project Overview The existing Darex facility located at 210-220 East Hersey Street is 39,962 SF with 79 existing parking spaces. Darex is planning two phases of future construction: Phase 1 is a 24,621 SF addition to their existing factory to accommodate additional space for administration and assembly employees, and 62 additional parking spaces for customer and employee parking; Phase 2 is an 11,107 SF stand-alone building at the south side of the property and 22 additional parking spaces. We request Site Design Review approval to construct the Phase 1 addition which is a one-story metal building and roof, approximately 24' high, and will match the southern portion of the existing building in color and materials. The project will provide additional area for the unique, hand assembly business model Darex is known for to accommodate an eventual increase in employees from the current 129 up to 226. The application includes a request for Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees, a 4.5-inch diameter Pear tree, a six-inch diameter Maple tree, and a six-inch diameter Pear tree. The application also proposes a private park be constructed in the location of the future Phase 2 building which will be open to the public from Clear Creek Drive, and 22 parking spaces for the future Phase 2 development. If the preferred proposal of the Phase 1 building addition, 84 (62+22) additional parking spaces and park is not allowed, an alternate site design has been developed which includes the some building addition, 69 additional parking spaces, and low-maintenance shrubs in place of the park. A site stair will also be added from Hersey Street to the main entry to further comply with City of Ashland standards. Municipal Codes The existing building will be renovated under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Chapter 18 Land Use Standard development codes 18.2.2, 18.4.2, 18.4.3, and 18.5.2. Zoning The project is in Zone E-1 with a Residential Overlay on the north half of the site that includes the existing Darex building fronting Hersey Street. The addition is south of and perpendicular to the existing building and complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code including setbacks, lot coverage, building height and design, parking area requirements, and design criteria as demonstrated in this submittal. Development Area The project expands the existing facility within the existing 4.85 acre site (556x378). Structural Site Coverage The project expands the existing building area by 24,621 SF. The total (existing + addition) proposed building footprint of 64,583 SF provides a site coverage of approximately 31 percent. Impervious Surface Coverage The project has approximately 60, 000 SF of new asphalt and concrete, plus minimal additional coverage for the bike rack and loading area curbs/bollards. Parking The Phase 1 addition adds 63 parking spaces which includes 6 accessible spaces. 22 additional spaces are located adjacent to the park to serve the future Phase 2 building. Bicycle parking will be expanded and located adjacent to the existing building's main entrance. Parking will be accessed from three existing curb cut locations: two on Hersey St and one on the west side of Clear Creek Drive which reduces congestion at the main Hersey Street entry. A fourth existing curb cut on the east side of Clear Creek Drive will be improved with a drive apron only to finish the appearance between the existing curb cut and the proposed sidewalk. A description of the parking space per person ratio is provided due to the nature of Darex's business and the quantity of employees. Refer to the Project Considerations narrative located at the end of this document. Pedestrian circulation in parking areas comply with City standards. The eastern side of the proposed addition has nine entry locations, offering short travel distances from the parking area. The west parking areas have a network of compliant walkways connecting parking areas to building entries. Accessible parking will be distributed such that all parking areas will be less than 50 spaces Traffic Impact The proposed expansion of the manufacturing facility on 210 E. Hersey St. does not meet any of the threshold criteria and therefore the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis is not met. Refer to JRH Engineering document dated 07/09/2015 attached. Landscaped Area The landscaped area of the proposed development is approximately 27% of the affected developed lot area, including the proposed park. This calculation excludes the north portion of the existing site which remains largely unchanged. Refer to the attached drawings which meet the requirements. Development of the future Phase 2 building will require that the landscaping be re- designed to meet Ashland Planning ordinance at that time. is Proposed Park (Preferred Site Design) The project proposes the construction of a private park, open to the public, in exchange for the early creation of parking to serve the future Phase 2 building. Darex anticipates building a Phase 2 development in approximately 10 years. The proposal requests building the parking associated with that future building as part of Phase 1, and offers in exchange to build a privately held park, accessible to the public, that will serve the community until the Phase 2 building project is developed. The proposed park features: ® A variety of ornamental trees. ® Trees will grow and prosper in raised planters, but can be easily moved when the site is redeveloped. The materials are all reusable or recyclable. ® The park will be owned, maintained and insured by the applicant, while being fully accessible to the public. ® The park has a large "lawn" but uses a low water use "Lawn Alternative" seed mix that requires 50% less water and infrequent mowing. ® All the paths and hard surfaces are permeable crushed granite. Park Trees: The trees are planted in raised planters approximately 30" tall. The planters are built from a reusable, pinned segmental retaining wall system. Lining the retaining wall and the bottom of the planters (six inches below the exterior finish grade) is landscape fabric. This fabric, and the raised planters create a "grow bag" that contain the roots of the trees while giving them plenty of room to grow. When the time comes to develop the park area into a building, the walls can be taken down and the tree along with its intact soil volume can be moved with a fork lift. Basically, the trees are being placed in an extended nursery situation, and being grown as boxed trees to be replanted into the future building landscape. The retaining wall blocks will be reused to create terraces on the back slope of the lot for level tree wells. Park Ownership: The park will be built and cared for by the applicant. Liability and responsibility for the park will stay with the applicant. The employees at Darex will be free to use the park for their breaks and small gatherings. The public will be able to use this park in the same way that the Darex employees do, as a free-form neighborhood park. The park would include a public use easement that would be revoked when the building project moves forward. There will be winding paths and crushed granite patios along with a large green "Lawn Alternative". Alternate Site Design If the park and associated parking are not allowed, an alternate site design (shown on the Alternate Site Plan drawing) develops the land adjacent to Clear Creek Drive with a low water use mowable field that includes irrigation and ten shade trees. Public Facilities Overview City facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed addition for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and paved access to the north and south edges of the site. Existing public transportation serves the site. Electricity The electrical design/build contractor has performed preliminary load calculations estimating the proposed addition's demand will be 147,000 watts or 408 amps at 120/208 three-phase. The existing service size and City-owned transformer (2000 amp service at 750KVA 120/208 three- phase) have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed addition. j Gas Gas may be provided to the addition and will not result in public utility upgrades. Water and Sewer The project proposes four additional toilets, two lavatories, and two drinking fountains. The design team contacted Steve Walker (Ashland Water Division) and Jason Robustelli (Ashland Wastewater Division) and both confirmed the existing public water line (12" main on Hersey Street) and sewer facilities are more than adequate to handle the additional proposed fixtures. As the design progresses the team will confer with the City (i.e. Steve Walker, Scott Fluery, Jason Robustelli, and others) to verify the existing system's capacity and any upgrades if needed. Storm Water All new improvements (building, parking and sidewalks) were designed with the Rogue Valley Quality Design Manual to address both quality and quantity and comply with current storm drain requirements. The civil engineer contacted Pieter Smeenk (Ashland Public Works Division) and confirmed the detention strategy is compliant via an eastern detention Swale and asphalt detention areas. Storm water will be treated for water quality and detained so that post- development flows do not exceed pre-development flows (undeveloped ground). Therefore the proposed development will not have any impact on the downstream infrastructure. Waste All waste is controlled by Darex in accordance with OSHA and local regulation for waste disposal. Landfill Waste generation will grow to be similar to the existing Darex building per square foot. The existing building accommodates one 25-yard dumpster for trash which is emptied seasonally, and one 2.5-yard dumpster for trash emptied weekly. Darex anticipates using the existing dumpsters and increasing the pick-up frequency as needed to accommodate additional waste for the addition. Recyclables Recyclable generation will grow to be similar to the existing Darex building per square foot. The existing building accommodates one 25-yard dumpster for cardboard which is emptied weekly, and several comingled recyclable (paper/cans/glass) wheeled bins emptied weekly. Darex anticipates using the existing cardboard dumpster and increasing the pick-up frequency as needed to accommodate additional waste for the addition; Darex may acquire additional wheeled bins for comingled recyclables if needed. Site Lighting Exterior lighting will be added to the building and parking areas per code requirements. Air Pollution There is no expected addition to the local air pollution. Hazards There are no hazardous substances introduced by the proposed scope of work. 18.5 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES AND APPROVAL CRITERIA Reader note: Code sections are shown in italics, followed by proposed findings and conclusions. 18.5.2.010 Purpose The purpose and intent of this chapter is to regulate the manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and to ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. 18.5.2.020 Applicability Site Design Review is required for the following types of project proposals: A. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential, and Mixed Uses. Site Design Review applies to the following types of non-residential uses and project proposals, including proposals for commercial, industrial, and mixed-use projects, pursuant to section 18.5.2.030 Review Procedures. 18.5.2.030 Review Procedures B. C-1, E-1, HC, and M-1 Zones. In the C-1, E-1, HC, and M-1 zones, but not within the Downtown Design Standards or Detail Site Review overlays, new structures or additions greater than 15,000 square feet in gross floor area, or greater than 50 percent of an existing building's gross floor area are subject to Type II review. D. Detail Site Review Overlay. In the Detail Site Review overlay, new structures or additions greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area, or longer than 100 feet in length or width are subject to Type 11 review. E. Bicycle Parking for Parking Lots and Structures. All public parking lots and structures shall provide two spaces per primary use, or one bicycle parking space for every five automobile parking spaces, of which 50 percent shall be sheltered. G. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Amendments. Minor amendments to landscape and irrigation plans approved pursuant to chapter 18.4.4 to improve fire safety, public safety, water conservation, or energy efficiency may be processed as Ministerial or Type I actions. Conclusion: The application is subject to include B, D, E and G Submittal for Type II review 18.4.2 BUILDING PLACEMENT, ORIENTATION, AND DESIGN 18.4.2.040 Orientation and Scale A. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street and not a parking area. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or to one side. Finding: Phase I parking is on each side using existing access from Hersey Street and existing curb cut on Clear Creek Drive. Finding: Phase 2 future development will be oriented toward Clear Creek Drive with parking to the west side accessed from Clear Creek Drive. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. B. A building fagade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project's street frontage as illustrated in Figure 18.4.2.040. B, and avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages created through a combination of driveway aprons, parking areas, or vehicle aisles. This can be addressed by, but not limited to, positioning the wider side of the building rather than the narrow side of the building toward the street. In the case of a corner lot, this standard applies to both street frontages. Spaces between buildings shall consist of landscaping and hard durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian areas. Finding: There is no change to the existing building orientation. Finding: The Phase 2 development will be oriented with its wider side toward the street and occupies a majority of the frontage. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. A clarification to the term "large" majority is requested. Refer to the Project Design Considerations narrative, item 2, at the end of this document. C. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. See Figure 18.4.2.040. B. 1. Finding: There no change to the existing building entrance. A new stair access will be added near the Hersey St. entrance. Finding: The entrance design for the Phase 2 development will be submitted to planning at a future date for compliance. The existing public sidewalk will be extended to the east and west extents of the property along Clear Creek Drive. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. c D. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where other buildings meet this standard. C Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable. i E. Where a building is located on a corner lot, its entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. The building shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. j' i I Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable F. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Finding Additional public sidewalk has been provided on the south of the property to r complete the existing public walk. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. f' 18.4.3 PARKING ACCESS AND CIRCULATION i 18.4.3.010 Purpose Chapter 18.4.3 contains requirements for automobile and bicycle parking, and vehicular and pedestrian access, circulation, and connectivity. The purpose is to provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. For transportation improvement requirements, refer to chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities. 18.4.3.020 Applicability A. The requirements of this chapter apply to parking, access, and circulation facilities in all zones, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected or enlarged, parking, access or circulation is expanded or reconfigured, or the use is changed. B. The City may require a study prepared by a qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand, access, circulation, and other transportation impacts, pursuant to this section. C. All required parking, access, and circulation facilities shall be constructed when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use, or when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units or guest rooms. D. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5.5 Variances, except that deviations from the standards in subsections 18.4.3.080. B.4 and 5 and section 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation are subject to 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards that reuse of the building stock within the Historic District overlay is an exceptions I circumstance and an unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. I E. Variance to Parking Standard for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Historic District overlay while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, the Staff Advisor, through a Type I procedure and pursuant to section 18.5. 1.050, may grant a Variance to the parking standards of section 18.4.3.040 by up to 50 percent for commercial uses within the Historic District overlay. The intent of this provision is to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential. The City, through this ordinance provision, finds that reuse of the building stock within the Historic District overlay is an exceptional circumstance and an unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. 18.4.3.030 General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions A. Minimum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to one of the following three methods and shall include required Disabled Person Parking. 1. Standard Ratios for Automobile Parking. The standards in Table 18.4.3.040. 2. Unspecified Use. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically listed in Table 18.4.3.040, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. 3. Parking Demand Analysis. The approval authority through a discretionary review may approve a parking standard that is different than the standards under subsection 1 and 2, above, as follows. a. The applicant submits a parking demand analysis with supporting data prepared by a professional engineer, planner, architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional; b. The parking analysis, at a minimum, shall assess the average parking demand and available supply for existing and proposed uses on the subject site; opportunities for shared parking with other uses in the vicinity; existing public parking in the vicinity; transportation options existing or planned near the site, such as frequent bus service, carpools, or private shuttles; and other relevant factors. The parking demand analysis option may be used in conjunction with, or independent of, the options provided under section 18.4.3.060 Parking Management Strategies. c. The review procedure shall be the same as for the main project application. B. Maximum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the number of spaces required by this chapter by more than ten percent. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. C. Downtown Zone. All uses within the C-1-D zone, except for hotel, motel, and hostel uses, are exempt from the off-street parking requirements of this section. D. North Mountain Plan District. Within the Neighborhood Central zone of the North Mountain (NM) Neighborhood Plan district, all uses are exempt from the off-street parking requirements of this section, except that residential uses are required to provide a minimum of one parking space per residential unit. Conclusion: The scope of work complies with items A and B. Items C and D are not applicable. 18.4.3.040 Parking As noted in Table 18.4.3.040, minimum parking per land use for Commercial General Office is 1 space per 500 SF floor area. The proposed quantity of parking spaces includes both Phase 1 and Phase 2 spaces. Finding: The total proposed building area for Phase 1 is 64,483 SF (existing 39,962 SF + Phase 1 24,521 SF). The proposed parking for the addition is 141, which falls between the minimum (64,483 SF / 500 SF = 129 spaces) and maximum (129 x 1.1 = 142 spaces). Finding: The future Phase 2 building area is approximately 11,107 SF; the proposed parking for Phase 2 is 22 spaces, which complies with the minimum (1 1,107 SF / 500 SF = 22 spaces). Finding: The total proposed parking for this project is 163, which is the sum of Phase 1 and 2 parking (141 + 22 spaces). Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. Due to the unique nature of Darex's business activities, the building's use most closely aligns with Commercial General Office; refer to the Project Design Considerations narrative, item 1, at the end of this document. 8.4.3.050 Accessible Parking Spaces Accessible parking shall be provided consistent with the requirements of the building code, including but not limited to the minimum number of spaces for automobiles, van-accessible spaces, location of spaces relative to building entrances, accessible routes between parking areas and building entrances, identification signs, lighting, and other design and construction requirements. Accessible parking shall be included and identified on the planning application submittals. Finding: Accessible parking is included per building code and proposed preliminary locations are identified on the proposed site plan. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18.4.3.070 Bicycle Parking E. Bicycle Parking for Parking Lots and Structures. All public parking lots and structures shall provide two spaces per primary use, or one bicycle parking space for every five automobile parking spaces, of which 50 percent shall be sheltered. Finding: Minimum bicycle parking spaces is 33 (163 vehicle parking spaces / 5 = 33). The proposed work expands the existing parking adjacent to the main entrance to j accommodate 34 bicycle spaces, with at least 50% being covered. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location (Only item A.2, is applicable) 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. Finding: No parking is designated within the yard setbacks. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. B. Parking Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080.8. See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 18.4.3.050 and parking lot and screening standards in subsection 18.4.4.030.F. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Up to 50 percent of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space not less than 22 feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces, and parking lots where pedestrians must traverse more than 150 feet of parking area, as measured as an average width or depth, shall be divided into separate areas by one or more of the following means: a building or group of buildings; plazas landscape areas with walkways at least five feet in width; streets; or driveways with street-like features as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.080.8.4 Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, with six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lighting (i.e., not exceeding 14 feet typical height). 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.080.8.5. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards (options include 50% shade from tree canopy over parking surface within 5 years of occupancy). Findings: Parking spaces are 9 feet by 18 feet. Findings: Compact spaces are not used in design. Findings: Maneuverability meets or exceeds 22'. Findings: The parking areas are separated by buildings, tree wells with street trees and split level lots with sidewalks. Findings: As designed the parking lots have over 50% shade within the first five years of occupancy. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. (Only items C.1, C.2, and C.3 are applicable) The intent of this subsection is to manage access to land uses and on-site circulation and maintain transportation system safety and operations. For transportation improvement requirements, refer to chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities. 1. Applicability. This section applies to all public streets within the City and to all properties that abut these streets. The standards apply when developments are subject to a planning action (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision). 2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in 18.4.3.080.8.4. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must conform to the provisions of section 18.4.3.090. 3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum spacing requirements for the street's classification in the Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP) as illustrated in Figures 18.4.3.080. C. 3. a and Figure 18.4.3.080. C. 3. b. a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following. i. Distance between driveways: on boulevard streets: 100 feet. On collector streets: 75 feet. On neighborhood streets: 24 feet for 2 units or fewer per lot, 50 feet for three or more units per lot. ii. Distance from intersections: on boulevard streets: 100 feet. On collector streets: 50 feet. On neighborhood streets: 35 feet. d. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. Not Applicable. D. Driveways and Turn Around Design. (Only items D.3-4, and D.6-9 are applicable) 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to: facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety; be clearly and permanently marked and defined; and provide adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. 4. The width of driveways and curb cuts in the parkrow and sidewalk area shall be minimized. 6. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13.5 feet for their entire length and width. Parking structures are exempt from this requirement. 7. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area except as set forth in section 18.2.4.040. 8. Grades for new driveways in all zones shall not exceed 20 percent for any portion of the driveway. If required by the City, the developer or owner shall provide certification of driveway grade by a licensed land surveyor. 9. All driveways shall be installed pursuant to City standards prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new construction. Finding: Existing Curb cuts on Hersey Street and Clear Creek Drive will not be changed or relocated. Drive aisles and/or driveway aprons will be added to existing Clear Creek Drive curb cuts. Finding: Curb cuts are existing and the width of drive aisles are minimized. Finding: Vertical clearances are compliant. Finding: Vision clearance are compliant. Finding: Driveway grades are compliant. Finding: Driveways will be connected to existing curb cuts and installed per City standards. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. See Project Design Considerations narrative, item 3, at the end of this document. E. Parking and Access Construction (Only items E.1-4 are applicable) 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds, and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic, porous solid surface, or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles, and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway Approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. Finding: Paving is asphalt. Finding: A drainage swale is located to the west of the addition, in the planting strip between parking areas. All drainage will remain on-site and will not flow beyond property line. Finding: All driveway aprons will be concrete and comply with City standards. Finding: All parking are markings will comply. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 78.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and circulation A. Purpose. The purpose of section 18.4.3.090 is to provide for safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian access and circulation. B. Standards. Development subject to this chapter, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and associated accessory structures, shall conform to the following standards for pedestrian access and circulation. 1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private City of Ashland 4-64 Land Use Ordinance 18.4.3 - Parking, Access, and Circulation property for this purpose. 2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent streets. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply. a. "Reasonably direct" means a route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. b. "Safe and convenient" means reasonably free from hazards and provides a reasonably direct means of walking between destinations. c. "Primary entrance" for a non-residential building means the main public entrance to the building. In the case where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the main employee entrance. d. "Primary entrance" for a residential building is the front door (i.e., facing the street). For multifamily buildings and mixed-use buildings where not all dwelling units have an individual exterior entrance, the "primary entrance" may be a lobby, courtyard, or breezeway serving as a common entrance for more than one dwelling. 3. Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall provide connections meeting all of the following requirements as illustrated in Figures 18.4.3.090.B.3.0 and 78.4.3.090.B.3.b a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable. b. Connect on-site parking areas, recreational facilities, and common areas, and connect offsite adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable. Topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections. c. Install a protected raised walkway through parking areas of 50 or more spaces, and where pedestrians must traverse more than 150 feet of parking area, as measured as an average width or depth. 4. Walkway Design and Construction. Walkways shall conform to all of the following standards in as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.090.B.3.a and 18.4.3.090.B.3.b. For transportation improvement requirements, refer to chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities. a. Vehicle/Walkway Separation. Except for crosswalks, where a walkway abuts a driveway or street, it shall be raised six inches and curbed along the edge of the driveway. Alternatively, the approval authority may approve a walkway abutting a driveway at the same grade as the driveway if the walkway is distinguished from vehicle-maneuvering areas. Examples of alternative treatments are mountable curbs, surface treatments such as stamped concrete or reflector bumps, and using a row of decorative metal or concrete bollards to separate a walkway from a driveway. b. Crosswalks. Where walkways cross a parking area or driveway, clearly mark crosswalks with contrasting paving materials (e.g., light-color concrete inlay between asphalt), which may be part of a raised/hump crossing area. Painted or thermo-plastic striping and similar types of non-permanent applications may be approved for crosswalks not exceeding 24 feet in length. c. Walkway Surface and Width. Walkway surfaces shall be concrete, asphalt, brick/masonry pavers, or other durable surface, and at least five feet wide. Multi-use paths (i.e., for bicycles and pedestrians) shall be concrete or asphalt, and at least ten feet wide, in accordance with the section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards. d. Accessible routes. Walkways shall comply with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State of Oregon requirements. The ends of all raised walkways, where the walkway intersects a driveway or street, shall provide ramps that are ADA accessible, and walkways shall provide direct routes to primary building entrances. e. Lighting. Lighting shall comply with section 18.4.4.050. Finding: Continuous walkways are provided throughout the parking areas and connect to all existing and future buildings. Finding: Walkway connections are safe, direct, and convenient from building entries to streets, sidewalks, and proposed park. Finding: Walkway connections are safe, direct, and convenient between building entries and the Phase 1 addition is connected to the existing building internally. Finding: Walkways are provided in planting strips (i.e. protected) to connect parking areas to building entries. Finding: Accessible parking will be distributed such that all parking areas will be less than 50 spaces. Finding: Pedestrians traverse less than 150 feet of parking area to access building or protected walkways. Finding: All walkways (except crosswalks) are separated from the drive path with a 6" curb. Finding: All walkways within the parking areas are painted asphalt or concrete, which clearly differentiate it from the surrounding parking area asphalt. Finding: All walkways and sidewalks are 5' wide. Finding: All walkways comply with ADA and State of Oregon accessibility requirements. Finding: All walkway lighting shall comply with section 18.4.4.050. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18 4 4 LANDSCAPING LIGHTING AND SCREENING 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening A. General Landscape Standard. All portions of a lot not otherwise developed with buildings, accessory structures, vehicle maneuvering areas, parking, or other approved hardscapes shall be landscaped pursuant to this chapter. B. Minimum Landscape Area and Coverage. All lots shall conform to the minimum landscape area standards of the applicable zoning district (per Table 18.2.6.030 for non-residential zones, the minimum landscaped area is 15% for zone E-1). Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, areas proposed to be covered with plant materials shall have plant coverage of not less than 50 percent coverage within one year and 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. Finding: Site is in E-1 zone; per Table 18.2.6.030 it requires minimum 15% landscaping. The proposed site plan, excluding the park, is approximately 16% landscaping. Finding: Landscape areas will attain at least 50% coverage in the first year and 90% coverage within five years of planting. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. C. Landscape Design and Plant Selection. (Item C.4 is not applicable) The landscape design and selection of plants shall be based on all of the following standards. 1. Tree and Shrub Retention. Existing healthy trees and shrubs shall be retained, pursuant to chapter 18.4.5. Consistent with chapter 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection, credit may be granted toward the landscape area requirements where a project proposal includes preserving healthy vegetation that contribute(s) to the landscape design. 2. Plant Selection. a. Use a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground covers. b. Use plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The r presence of utilities and drainage conditions shall also be considered. c. Storm Water Facilities. Use water-tolerant species where storm water retention/detention or water quality treatment facilities are proposed, d. Crime Prevention and Defensible Space. Landscape plans shall provide for crime prevention and defensible space, for example, by using low hedges and similar plants allowing natural surveillance of public and semi-public areas, and by using impenetrable hedges in areas where physical access is discouraged. e. Street Trees. Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. 3. Water Conserving Landscaping. Commercial, industrial, non-residential, and mixed-use developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review, shall use plants that are low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.1 Water Conserving Landscaping. 5. Screening a. Evergreen shrubs shall be used where a sight-obscuring landscape screen is required. b. Where a hedge is used as a screen, evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that not less than 50 percent of the desired screening is achieved within two years and 100 percent is achieved within four years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. 6. Plant Sizes a. Trees shall be not less than two-inch caliper for street trees, and 1.5-inch caliper for other trees at the time of planting. b. Shrubs shall be planted from not less than one gallon containers, and where required for screening shall meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030. C.5 Screening. Finding: Per the proposed site plan and tree removal and protection drawings, three trees are proposed to be demolished and three are proposed to remain and be protected per City standards. The parking area shade strategy proposes many new trees which more than mitigates the three trees to be demolished. Finding: Plant selections are predominantly deciduous with a mix of evergreen and deciduous shrubs. Finding: All proposed plants are adapted to this region and are positioned based on exposure, water needs, site soils and drainage. Finding: The Stormwater bio-swales are proposed to be planted with appropriate shrubs and trees. Finding: Defensible design is integrated into the design. Finding: The city of Ashland street tree list was used to generate the proposed street trees. Finding: Plant selections meet the City's water conservation landscaping standards. Finding: The East and West project boundaries are designed as site-obscuring landscape screens containing evergreen shrubs and deciduous trees. Finding: The site-obscuring landscape screens (hedges) will achieve 50 percent of the desired screening within two years and 100 percent within four years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. Finding: All street trees are specified as two inch caliper; all other trees are specified as a minimum 1.5 inch caliper. Finding: All shrubs are at least one gallon at planting and 5 gallon for screening purposes. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. D. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal. See chapter 18.4.5 for Tree Protection and Preservation and chapter 18.5.7 for Tree Removal Permit requirements. Finding: A tree removal and protection plan is included in this submittal. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. E. Street Trees. (Item E.4 not applicable) The purpose of street trees is to form a deciduous canopy over the street. The same effect is also desired in parking lots and internal circulation streets; rows of street trees should be included in these areas where feasible. All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees. 1. Location of Street Trees. Street trees shall be located in the designated planting strip or street tree wells between the curb and sidewalk, or behind the sidewalk in cases where a planting strip or tree wells are or will not be in place. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Community Development Department. 2. Spacing and Placement of Street Trees. All street tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions that may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. b. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than ten feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. d. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than ten feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. e. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 2.5 feet from the face of the curb. Street trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with City specifications. f. Street trees planted under or near power lines shall be selected so as to not conflict with power lines at maturity. g. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation, where approved pursuant to section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards, may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. 3. Pruning. Street trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. Finding: Trees along the Clear Creek Drive frontage are placed one tree per thirty feet. Finding: Street trees are not near street or alley intersections, and not closer than 10' from proposed driveways. Finding: Per the tree planting detail on our proposed planting plan, all street trees include irrigation, root barriers, and other approved systems for the health and wellbeing of new trees to promote their growth. Finding: Trees and light standard locations are compliant. Finding: All trees have at least 3' of space between the trunk and hardscape. Finding: Power lines are underground at this site and will not conflict with trees. Finding: Existing trees will not be used as street trees. Finding: Street trees will be pruned to comply with City standards. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. F. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. (Items 2.c is not applicable) Parking lot landscaping, including areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading, shall meet the following requirements. 1. Landscaping. a. Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of seven percent of the total parking area plus a ratio of one tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. b. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. c. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least two feet from any curb or paved area. d. The landscaped area shall be distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. e. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip, or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage, and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls. 2. Screening. a. Screening Abutting Property Lines. A five foot landscaped strip shall screen parking abutting a property line. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. b. Screening Adjacent to Residential Building. Where a parking area is adjacent to a residential building it shall be setback at least eight feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. Finding: The total area of parking and circulation is 54,690 square feet. The total landscape area is 14,539. Landscape cover within the combined parking and circulation areas is 26.5%. Finding: Proposed parking lot tree varieties include the list below and follow the Ashland recommended street tree guide accept where parenthetically noted: Betula nigra 'Duraheat' (in the bioswale) Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' Malus ioensis Xlehms Improved Bechtel' Platanus x a. 'Bloodgood' (used in larger planting areas) Quercus rubra Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase' Finding: All trees are planted a minimum of three feet from any curb or paved area. Finding: The landscaping is distributed throughout the parking area and at the perimeter. Finding: Landscaping meets all City ratios and standards. Finding: The parking lots and circulation are buffered by a five foot wide hedge on both the east and west property lines. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. G. Other Screening Requirements. (Item G.2 is not applicable) Screening is required for refuse and recycle containers, outdoor storage areas, loading and service corridors, mechanical equipment, and the City may require screening other situations, pursuant with the requirements of this ordinance. 1. Recycle and Refuse Container Screen. Recycle and refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to eight feet in height to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. All recycle and refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. 3. Loading Facilities and Service Corridors. Commercial and industrial loading facilities and service corridors shall be screened when adjacent to residential zones. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor, and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. 4. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be screened by placement of features at least equal in height to the equipment to limit view from public rights-of-way, except alleys, and adjacent residentially zoned property. Mechanical equipment meeting the requirements of this section satisfy the screening requirements in I8.5.2.020.C.3. a. Roof-mounted Equipment. Screening for roof-mounted equipment shall be constructed of materials used in the building's exterior construction and include features such as a parapet, wall, or other sight-blocking features. Roof-mounted solar collection devices are exempt from this requirement pursuant to subsection 78.5.2.020. C. 3. b. Other Mechanical Equipment. Screening for other mechanical equipment (e.g., installed at ground level) include features such as a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or hedge screen. Finding: The recycle and Refuse area will be screened with a five foot tall masonry wall and slatted fence. Finding: The site is screened so that these facilities are screened as part of the parking lot screening requirement. j Finding: Roof-mounted mechanical equipment is approximately 80' from Clear Creek Drive and is not planned to be screened similar to the existing building. Street Trees and park plantings are expected to provide sufficient screening from Clear i Creek Drive. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. H. Irrigation. Irrigation systems shall be installed to ensure landscape success. If a landscape area is proposed without irrigation, a landscape professional shall certify the area can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals. Finding: The project proposal includes a professionally designed irrigation system that will support the proposed plant material and comply with water saving irrigation technology. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 1. Water Conserving Landscaping. The following standards are intended to conserve water while encouraging attractive landscaping. Further, requirements are aimed at reducing water demand when water is most scarce, during the dry late summer months when water reserves are low. 1 . Landscaping Design Standards. a. Landscaping Coverage. Water conserving designs shall have plant coverage of not less than 90 percent with five years of planting, but are not required to meet the standard of 50 percent coverage within one year. b. Plant Selection. At least 90 percent of plants in the non-turf areas shall be listed as drought tolerant in the Sunset Western Garden book, City's Water-Wise Landscaping website, or be similarly well-suited for this climate of region as determined by the Staff Advisor. Up to ten percent of the plants may be of .a non-drought tolerant variety or species as long as they are grouped together and are located in a separate irrigation zone. c. Screening. Plant screening hedges to attain 50 percent coverage after two years. d. Mulch. Add a minimum of two inches of mulch in non-turf areas to the soil surface after planting. Neither large nuggets nor fine bark may be used for mulch. Non-porous material shall not be placed under the mulch. e. Turf and Water Areas. Limit combined turf or water areas (i.e., pools, ponds, and fountains) to 20 percent of the landscaped areas. Turf limitations do not apply to public parks, private common open space, required outdoor recreation areas, golf courses, cemeteries, and school recreation areas. f. Fountains. Design all fountains to recycle their water. g. Turf Location. Turf is restricted to slopes less than ten percent grade. h. Berms and Raised Beds. i. Soil Quality. When new vegetation is planted, soils shall be amended for plant health and water absorption. Add mature compost at a rate of three cubic yards of compost per 1,000 square feet of area to be landscaped, and work soil and amendment(s) to a depth of four to six inches. This requirement may be waived for one or more of the following circumstances. a. The area to be landscaped is fenced off to fully protect native soil from disturbance and compaction during construction. b. Soil tests document an organic content of a least three percent based on a representative core sample taken at a rate of one test per 20,000 square feet, based on a minimum of three core sample per test. Samples shall be taken at least 40 feet apart to a depth of six inches following attainment of rough grade. c. The area to be landscaped will be used to capture and treat storm water runoff, and is subject to separate design standards. Finding: The landscape as designed will achieve greater than 90% coverage in five years. Finding: All plants on this plan are well-suited to this climate and are considered water- wise and well adapted. All plants used for this site are low water use accept for the swale plantings which are on their own irrigation zone. Finding: The screens plantings on the East and West sides of the site are planted to screen at greater than 50% within 2 years. Finding: A minimum two of inches of City-approved mulch will be specified for all planting area excluding the low water use turf area. Finding: We are proposing the use of a Drought Tolerant Lawn Alternative for the proposed park which is documented to use 50% less water than a typical sod lawn. The Alternate Site Design is a mowable, seeded erosion control field. Finding: The design excludes fountains, berms, and raised beds. Finding: The proposed Lawn Alternative are is relatively flat. Turf is not used on slopes of 10% or more. Finding: The existing soils on this site will be amended to meet this soil quality criteria and new topsoil will be brought in to fill all landscape area to an additional 12" of depth. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 2. Irrigation System Design Standards. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals, and are subject to the following standards. a. Design sprinkler head spacing for head-to-head coverage. b. Design irrigation system to minimize runoff and overspray to non-irrigated areas. c. Match precipitation rates for all irrigation heads for each circuit. d. Separate irrigation zones based on water needs of plantings and type of sprinklers being used (i.e., rotating, fixed spray, or drip). Plants with similar watering needs shall be in the same irrigation zone unless irrigated by drip irrigation having emitters sized for individual plant water needs. f. Use sprinkler heads with a precipitation rate of .85 inches per hour or less on slopes exceeding 15 percent to minimize run-off, or when slope exceeds ten percent within ten feet of hardscape. g. Serviceable check valves (or pressure compensating emitters for drip systems) are required where an elevation difference greater than 20 feet exists on any circuit. h. Drip irrigation systems are required for trees unless within lawn areas. i. Equip all irrigation zones with pressure regulator valves (PRV) to meet the manufacturer's recommended operating pressure for the components of each zone; except in those instances where a PRV is in place. PRV's shall be located at the meter or solenoid valve. j. Automatic Sprinkler Controls. i. Equip all irrigation systems with a controller capable of dual or multiple programming. Controllers shall have a multiple start time capability, station run times in minutes to hours, and water days by interval, day of the week, and even/odd day ii. Use controllers with a percent adjust (water budget) feature, or the capability of accepting an external rain or soil moisture sensor. j Finding: The irrigation system, as designed, has head-to-head coverage. Finding: The irrigation system is designed to minimize runoff and overspray. Finding: All zones contain heads with matched precipitation rates. Finding: All zones are plant requirement specific. Finding: The irrigation system has been designed to meet precipitation rate requirements. Finding: No zone has an elevation difference more than 20'. Finding: The irrigation system incorporates bubblers for all trees on a separate zone. Finding: The irrigation system incorporates PRV's where needed to meet City standards. Finding: The irrigation system controllers meet City standards. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. J. /Maintenance. All landscaping shall be maintained in good condition, or otherwise replaced by the property owner; dead plants must be replaced within 180 days of discovery. Replacement planting consistent with an approved plan does not require separate City approval. Finding: Landscaping will be maintained to comply with City standards. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 78.4.4.040 Recycling and Refuse Disposal Areas (A.1 is not applicable) A. Recycling. All residential, commercial, and manufacturing developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. 2. Commercial. Commercial developments having a refuse receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the refuse receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local sanitary service franchisee under its on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. B. Service Areas. Recycling and refuse disposal areas shall be located to provide truck access and shall not be placed within any required front yard or required landscape area. C. Screening. Recycle and refuse disposal area screening shall be provided pursuant to section 18.4.4.030. G. 1. i r Finding: Darex currently provides a large recycle site for cardboard, mixed recyclables, and glass. The proposed addition will make use of the existing recycle site and enlarge as needed. Finding: Recycling site is in a hardscaped area adjacent to the existing building with truck access. Finding: Recycle area is existing and is screened from view by the building and parking lot landscaping. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18.4.4.050 Outdoor Lighting A. Purpose. This section contains regulations requiring adequate levels of outdoor lighting while minimizing light spillover onto adjacent properties B. Applicability. All outdoor lighting is subject to the requirements of this section. Where a proposed development is subject to Type I, Type 11, or Type III review, the approval authority may require specific lighting levels or limit lighting as a condition of approval to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. C. Standards. As a guideline, lighting levels shall be no greater than necessary to provide for pedestrian safety, property/business identification, and crime prevention. All outdoor lighting, except streetlights, shall comply with the following standards. 1. Arrange and install artificial lighting so there is no direct illumination onto adjacent residential properties. 2. Provide light poles no greater than 14 feet in height for pedestrian facilities. (Pedestal- or bollard-style lighting is an alternative method for illuminating walkways located inside a development but not located in a public street right-of-way.) 3. Where a light standard is placed over a sidewalk or walkway, maintain a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet. 4. Install light fixtures where they will not obstruct public ways, driveways, or walkways. Where a light standard must be placed within a walkway, maintain an unobstructed pedestrian through zone per Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. 5. Except as permitted for signs, direct outdoor light fixtures downward and have full shielding to minimize excessive light spillover onto adjacent properties. 6. For streetlight requirements, see subsection 18.4.6.040. D. 18. D. Maintenance. Outdoor lighting shall be maintained in good condition, or otherwise replaced by the property owner. Finding: Outdoor lighting will be designed to comply with City standards relative to minimizing spillover onto adjacent properties, and light pole height and placement. Finding: While the site is across the street from a residential zone, the site is not directly adjacent to a residential property. Finding: Outdoor lighting will be maintained to comply with City standards. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18.4.4.060 Fences and Walls (Not applicable) The proposed work does not incorporate fences or walls. Landscape screens meet City standards. 18.4.5 TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection A. Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall be approved by the Staff Advisor concurrent with applications for Type I, Type fl, and Type III planning actions. If tree removal is proposed, a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to chapter 18.5.7 may be required. 8. Tree Protection Plan Submission Requirements. In order to obtain approval of a tree protection plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. C. Tree Protection Measures Required. Measures are noted on tree protection plan. D. Inspection. The applicant shall not proceed with any construction activity, except installation of erosion control measures, until the City has inspected and approved the installation of the required tree protection measures and a building and/or grading permit has been issued by the city. Finding: See tree protection plan for proposed removal, and protection measures. Finding: Construction will not proceed until City has approved the required tree protection measures. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18.5.7 TREE REMOVAL PERMITS 18.5.7.040 Approval Criteria (Only Item B.2 is applicable) B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. For a Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3. 10. b. 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. c. 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. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: This proposal removes two 6 inch dbh trees and one 4.5 inch dbh tree. In all cases the trees to be removed interfere with the proposed circulation improvements for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Tree #1 (4.5" dbh) is an ornamental Pear, tree # 2 (6" dbh) is an Armstrong Maple and tree # 3 (6" dbh) is an ornamental Pear. All trees are in fair to good condition, relatively young, and planted in constrained paved areas. The proposed trees and plantings will provide better habitat for the proposed trees as well as more than make up for canopy coverage and species diversity. Finding: The removal of the three trees allows for proper design of parking and circulation consistent with the Land Use Ordinance and Site Development and Design standards. Finding: Removal of the relatively isolated trees (in constrained paved areas) will have no effect on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: Removal of these trees will not have any effect on the surrounding tree densities (within 200' of the property). The trees are small and insignificant in their relationship to the greater environment and to a larger goal of species diversity, and the trees are very common in the urban and sub-urban landscape. The surrounding developed area has many large trees that are of similar species as they are typically used for parking lots and commercial developments. Finding: This is not a residential situation; criteria B.2.d does not apply. Finding: The proposal includes 57 new trees that provide sufficient mitigation. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. 18.5.7.050 Mitigation Required (Only item A is applicable) A. Replanting On-Site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1.5-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a five to six-foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. Larger trees may be required where the mitigation is intended, in part, to replace a visual screen between land uses. Suitable species means the tree' s growth habits and environmental requirements are conducive to the site, given existing topography, soils, other vegetation, exposure to wind and sun, nearby structures, overhead wires, etc. The tree shall be planted and maintained per the specifications of the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: Because this proposal includes planting 57 new trees, significantly more than a typical landscape plan, this provides tree coverage beyond the required mitigation. Finding: Proposed trees are 1.5" and 2" caliper healthy trees which will eventually equal or exceed the removed trees in size. Finding: Proposed species were selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide. Conclusion: The proposed scope of work complies. PROJECT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS We are writing to address several planning issues associated with a proposed development by Darex LLC. As you know, Darex is an established company and major employer in Ashland, the epitome of responsible local business that is so vital to Ashland's economic stability. Both short- and long-term growth in Darex's business requires additional space for assembly of their products, as well as additional area for support functions, including storage and offices. The owners chose to relocate their business to Ashland because of its unique character, and their overwhelming desire is to remain in Ashland. Darex's business is based on the assembly by hand of numerous individual components that are sourced from multiple suppliers. Additionally, Darex sells a wide variety of different products, each of which is assembled by hand at this facility, before being shipped to retailers and consumers around the world. This business model provides living wage jobs to residents from all over Jackson County, including Grants Pass, White City, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland. Part of Darex's ongoing success is their ability to get a large amount of business done in a small space, meaning the staff on site is at a much higher density than typically found. It is important to note that this does not come at the expense of employee happiness, in fact the opposite, Darex has been named one of Oregon's best employers multiple times, spanning i decades. As shown in the attached supporting documentation provided as Exhibit A, the hand assembling process at Darex is extremely labor intensive and relies on a long-term, skilled labor force. Currently, Darex has 129 currently employees which will grow to 139 for the period of August through November, all at this site. The proposed phase 1 expansion of this facility will allow them to increase this number to 226. The ability to expand Darex's current facility, and remain in Ashland, is contingent upon finding viable solutions to several different planning issues that are outlined below in detail. Some issues are related to Darex's unique, employee-intensive business model. Others issues are beyond their control, the result of development standards enacted after Darex started operations on this site in 1979, 36 years ago. When Darex first purchased the property it was Zoned M1 Industrial, and Hersey Street was a dirt road, which met the criteria for Darex future plans. Design Consideration 1: Parking Ratio The type of business conducted by Darex does not fall into any of the established categories of business uses listed in the parking tables. This is not a warehouse facility, as products are only stored here for a short time before being shipped out around the world. Similarly, this is not an industrial facility, which is based on the use of heavy machinery and mechanized fabrication processes to limit the number of people required to do the work. That is to say, the 'warehouse' and 'industrial' use categories do not properly reflect the number of people required by Darex to assemble products by hand. Rather than an "assembly line", the hand assembly process at Darex relies on numerous individual workstations, similar to a workbench. These staffed workstations are similar in size (about 100 square feet net) to workstations found in a traditional office environment. Furthermore, the actual head count at the facility (129 currently) is very similar to what it would be if this building was used as an office building. Therefore, we propose to use a parking ratio of 500 square feet per person, the same as the parking ratio for an Office use, to align with the unique hand assembly work performed at Darex. We offer the following additional justification for supporting this design: • The property is adjacent to the Clear Creek development, which severely limits the amount of off-street parking. It would benefit the city for Darex to keep its staff parking on site, so that future developments on Clear Creek Drive can use the on-street parking. • The current facility is on a site that was designed according to a much lower "warehouse" type parking ratio, which is out of sync with the actual business type. As Darex has increased its staff over the years, the undeveloped land near Clear Creek has been used for overflow staff parking. • Although the ordinance code tries to take advantage of on-street parking to help alieve the requirements for large parking areas, the long, narrow, dual frontage nature of this site does not provide on-street parking in sufficient quantities to provide adequate parking for Darex staff. And this on-street parking is already in extremely high demand by neighboring businesses, which requires employees to park in more remote residential neighborhoods. • The unique nature of Darex's business model requires long term skilled workers, most of whom do not live in Ashland. The available bus service would require a commute of up to four hours from Medford and White City. The also makes commuting by bicycle unreasonable, particularly in inclement weather. This leaves independent travel by car as the only viable option. • Over the years, Darex has provided incentives to its staff to encourage car-pooling, especially when fuel prices were high. Unfortunately, this effort met with no success. They found that their employees have obligations before or after work (e.g. daycare, medical appointment, volunteer commitments), which requires the use of a car. • If Darex were to sell the property, the most likely uses would be a similar hand assembly operation or a 'clean tech' assembly / office use. The requested parking ratio would match the parking required for these future uses, facilitating redevelopment of this site. Design Consideration 2: "Majority" of the street frontage This site has some unique constraints, which were not self-imposed by Darex. Rather, they result from the creation of Clear Creek Drive and gave this property a dual frontage. Although the current Darex facility fronts Hersey Street, the owner and design team have developed a site plan that allows for the creation of a future building that will front on Clear Creek Drive. This building will occupy the southernmost portion of the site, the area not occupied by the Darex expansion. Since this building also requires its own parking, that limits the building size and thus its frontage. The current city standard requires a "large majority" of street frontage be dedicated to building facade. We request that the future building occupy a "simple majority" (51 % or more) along Clear Creek Drive. We offer the following additional justification for granting this exception: • The pad lot that is reserved for a future building needs to be a reasonable depth, in order to have any useful purpose. It also needs to be immediately adjacent to the Darex expansion, in case it is used by Darex and needs a physical connection to their building. This means that the parking must be located on the west side, rather than behind it. • The ordinance calls for site development to include building frontage on a "large majority" of the streetscape. It is not possible to meet this standard, for the reasons outlined above. In previous situations like this one (e.g. Les Schwab), staff has agreed to a simple "majority" of frontage. • The narrow configuration of this site, coupled with the size and nature of the addition to the existing building, makes it impossible to increase the frontage even further. Design Consideration 3: Clear Creek Drive Curb Cuts and Drive Aprons As discussed during our recent Pre-Application conference, this site has some unique constraints, which were not self-imposed by Darex. Rather, they result from the creation of Clear Creek Drive. When Darex bought this property, the site had a single frontage on Hersey Street. However, ~ ~r g p -epa -ed by 1^ - }L - - ~'a' Ogden Roemerw lkerson Aran tenure, AA 2950 East Barnett Road Medford, Oregon 97504 S _ contact D., id W Ikerson day d@onvarch cam fd1l 541 779 5237x20 - ~ deed names and add -ess kk ,f( Bernard, D- 1d A, Trustee and Be-Lard, Marlor e A, Trustee FBO; Bernard Fam ly T-t lK' ' g 3 210 E Hersey St Ashland, Oregon 97520 . x sfat si cs -11 ITECTUR E jF p ~L • ' .,A i~ ~4y address: 210 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND mnp# 391E04cH t iK -b w _ tax 1018 2000 b on n9 El verlay PARTIAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY site-i- BASIC ZONE IP( i - sotbacks front yard: 25 ft f 1 Aide yard street: None -eqp red y side yard None mqp red rear yard. None rego red W PROPOSED PROJECT NARRATIVE: s Z _y W _ oa,e. --di, t dd 1 n Q rowmds he rear of tha D-, .Perlyng srr ` Y', _•r W sm,cLrey wll -d and amend ma <ermnf rncl- ry + Proposed-dwls ore Merolsd,g and nasal t - t1 oaf !r•,~. rand ng seam f t i i' l 4. ~ - F `y' 'ha wll bonlvlure developm nr to 6e deter Lined „ i• - Yn,., .,w er ~1 4 y r. .q f C. ' ji !j SITE VICINITY MAP SITE ANALYSIS MAP PROPERTY ZONING DIAGRAM NO SALE darex expansion SCALE: l°=loo o° 210 Kersey street NORTH NOTES: ' omros.ru~,nrr~~.,vmve I. PROPERTY ZONED IN BASIC SITE REVIEW, 2. MAP IS ORIENTED TO ALIGN WITH ATTACHED SITE PLAN, (E) FIRE HYD r SLOPE (SEE CIS F PHASE 2 DRIVE DRAWINGS) AISLE ~ TRUCK TURNAROUND (N) PARKING LIGHTING I I EXISTING EAST CURB CUT (E) FIRE HYD TO REMAIN - - NEW WALK AND DRIVE - - - - rT APRON (E) OIL SEP. CATCH -SIN ~ dI SFI111 1~R-- t r (E) PHASE 2 ARCHITECTURE. FUTURE BUILDING rv r 71 fl If APPROXIMATELY 11,107 SF _ -1 E I If 1TOTAL 1 }l i. PHASE PRIVATE PARK AREA Rorv~ 15 T 5/24T CLE:Artv[rr b 26/117T 16.420 SF (SEE LANDSCAPE YLANTS ns sTnrvT r iU - _ p FOR ALTERNATE I II f L} DRAWINGS Il t W +1 W ~L PROPOSALS. rvEwn 1- 1vtW STAIRWAY - uJ L J .vew coot wn~rc (E ) LOADING ZONE NEW LOADING U U ,vew so=TSCn=e ED DOCK i Q NEW COVERED BIKE (E) LOADING - rv_ww i_rvnarv UU PARKING DOCK E~ J-1 (E) FIRE HYD f l W L I rvir e - - (E) GRADE I , lUlllE uJ 77 71 59,962 SF (N > LANDSCAPING RAILROAD LJ (E ) OIL SEP. TIE STAIRS (E) CATCH BASIN (N) RETAINING WALL ASSEMBLING ELEVATION (E ) WATER MAIN s1DewALrc N 0/OT n 1856.5 1 5DT _ ( a _ k;~ T~: J ^-Jb'6 (N) RETAINING WALL (2 ) (E) 25 CY . DUMPSTERS O/OT aAl'K SnITT m RE-LOCATED ADA PARKING AND - / PHASE 2 PARKING o RE-STRIPE FOR NEW PARKING '(T; f 0/0DTDE^o, iIIT'-e w (E) 2.5 CY . DUMPSTER - l=~_. NEW WALK AND DRIVE 4/55DT APRON )/24T (E) CLEAN ouUT~ ~1J 1 EXISTING WEST CURB CUT TO REMAIN ,e _ _ . _ _ zc iT SAN. SEW. 14, UPPLY ERVED NTT) 12" WAT (E) SIDEWALK coo e, e (N) PARKING l- (N) RETAINING WALL p °(E) 12" STORM DRAIN ACCESS 22 LIGHTING u(E) ELECT VLT i;ara v 1 nnie~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN darex expansion 210 hersey street o ao 120' o~~. NORTH "Fl I II Ukt 88'-6" PHASE 2 225'-9" NEW STRUCTURE 1 212'-D" EXISTING BUILDING VERTICAL METAL SIDING (N) TRUCK DOCK NEW STAIRWAY (BEYOND) JEW STEEL cupROggIL 12 PAN x 3" HIGH STANDING SEA -ROOF (E) MAN DOOR EXISTING BANK mss,, - NEW CUT p p (e) GRADE `i (E) TRUCK DOCK EXISTING DRIVEWAY s~~p~ II 9 III 1 II II _ii 1_ 11 I 'I I oPE II I PARK ELEMENTS (eEVONO) I3 _ - - HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES STEEL ROLL-UP DOORS STRUCTURE I WAREHOUSE STORAGE 10,158 OF EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1"-40'-0" 30'-0" 212'-D" EXISTING BUILDING 225'-9" NEW STRUCTUREI 88'-6" PHASE 2 NEW STAIRWAY (BEYOND) VERTICAL METAL SIDING EXISTING BANK - 12" PAN x 3" HIGH STANDING SEAM ROOF EXISTING DRIVEWAY PARI( ELEMENTS (BEYOND) II II it i1 I I SLOaF ZTLSFF STRUCTURE71 DOORS/RECITES NEW CUT (E) GRADE FACTORY -TVE. 16,929 SF WEST ELEVATION 2 SCALE: I"=40'-D" ELEVATIONS darex expansion 210 hersey street 0 40' so' 54'-8" el'-4" EXISTING BUILDING 120'-0" STRUCTURE 1 121'-III" (E) BUILDING BEYOND PHASE I _ NEW STEEL PARK PLANTERS (BEYOND) GUARDRAIL ARCHITEI.TURE 1865.0 _ r. r. a - a ;a 1865.0 1856.0 STAIRS (BEYOND) 4\-\1856.0 3 NEW ART STAIRS (BEYOND) L VISIBLE FROM CLEAR CREEK IT CURB RB CUT CURB RB CUT SOUTH ELEVATION scALE: I"=4o•-0" 8'-H" 9 1 03 `-0,1 (E) STRUCTURE 12" " 120'-0" STRUCTURE I (E) STRUCTURE 38'-7z NEW LANDSCAPE (BEYOND) N VISIBLE GABLE OVER (E) BUILDING 1865.0 1856.0 NEW CUT SLOPE (BEYOND) OUTLINE OF SLOPED PARKING (BEYOND) STRUCTURE 01 N®RTH ELEVATION ELEVATIONS darex expansion 210 hersey street 0 40' 80' , ~a a r f 3 T D. -T-1 a .ter 0 I - I 1• ~ s IT- 11111 P1.1111- II ( PROPOSED DDILDINO " h ] ¢ P-11-1, , n.ulNa ~ g~ 61 Ill I ! ~ ' "x~w~w~cwut ~ S o i l~x~ i' I I _ a xx u Nrw w[rux NC wuu r z el.r aaa ~x~ au xrve II w o.e') n v F. I - y ~ u s+ z z 1 W w" 0 I Li .o m o,w• a wmxc oxm~ ensx ~ ~ 9 p s° ~ mwe xcw awa mwe * Px~mn uxe xe _ ~ h~ ~1 VI` J 2FI.IMINARY ~ 4CO „ GRADIN(, DRIINAC~h & h JAN C I - - - - - - - - - - KenCairn - s m i ey > - _ I - ~L W sCAtEi 40 0 K jU I PF_ L 5 LCILI Q U I LANDSCAPE DATA'A' LANDSCAPE DAIA'ti' - EXISTING BUILDING ° ~oirvc XxvV Anne E...__.. P.,xwx=«„==u. x :xx,x =xu~ox=o..a uxos=.,oES... m=,e ux=s=,~E S.. ixaw.==n.. OVERALL SITE NTS ~.uxos=APE v.+.e muxx==.,PE . - - ~c~-r I~ rv,„>oE ~os~n .:~.oE sa ~xx _ocwrvTE P..x ~ , _ 1 A~SOxAE ~coa.oxs „uN,Ex I II . ~ ®,i sF Paaxx i r~ it I _ -xrr, ~,N.E m.i ~a wrEx~xnuos O C, W Z m J~ ~ DTI I = I uj ~ O I _ X m n 'gi'n Inl II III ~,wF aNa D aEVSOx uATE LANDSCAPE'! J i SITE I ~ - - PLAN L- _ ssueoAT, BIKE i,-, KenCairn ~ zX' nTS pe prsm,ecm_' J~ o sue. M~ A o.. ~tl~ - r w. I G O N ~ r m X m ai c - i - - ®Na I r - TREE l - PROTECTION,. L f t PLAN 3. Jam. _ o ISSUE DATE mix s, zos o 20' 40~ 80~ L 1 e 1 raEEPRO1E~r,oN - =~a~e , -40-0, \ ~ ~ ~ m - - KenCairn ~ o - Lnn~.swpe AmlutecN~ei s a I ~ l 9 JP , tl III7 a a9, I 9ne ARN lil iirr STAFF III .,aw S, IsvmRRIGATION LEGEND I- . ITFn - _ - _ 41i SCALEi na o REC...F C. =omE.o . xA~xE,=E I ~ 'IRRIGATION HEAD LEGEND i y N In 3 0. loon o~s_ < - r. Z T x. IRRIGATION NOTES - W = -6 r r Tx. rv En 4` ~ ~ yy O L ' xs 3 I . nw cos LANDSCAPE,. IRRIGATION . : PLAN p I All "ZI.- 0 2040 0' L 2.® cal.. , 4Y-T - - - - - - - a , - _ vtle .Amhnee - vn.z- I C i uoe ,o z ~rarvn BY: 1 PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND \U Y 3 ~ m 4 p 0 N Q ,z rvo^ _ ~o CREL IOTES LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN E, ~s:ES zo ,s 0 20' 40 80' N 3.0 scale: 111=41'-U' - - - - - - ~z m,.ro, KenCairn rEn. _ I_ -1-p, A,Ohl(calua I~' III ~ °II srtEaac E. a, NO TE oNCRUSHEO GRAN iE PATH ILI qPE AR~4 U srASF SCALEV=4-" ,.a wood arac no ov,u, I a / z I III 1 III I'. i ~ N gITNI ~rul- I T Q ~ III r III III III II III E II _ II~~IIII Irl f ~ d o a Hn II IIIti~~ .aa~aaao>n,E W m - i IRVIIIIN -E I r "i LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT F w I'L r ~Y crry n a ' /PLAN IA KIPRIVATE WI PUBLIC ACCESS) I I ~ -I I f '-gip` lx stole: 1/32=1'-0" L 4.0 VERTICAL STACK .-...A-LOF...ANTE.. x KenCairn L ro,a a vnu =m rc=o~ow PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND n - / o / N - -I z 6rJ D. o .=rbv 1.6.1 i EPRELII Ix.'- NDSCAPE NOTESo J =x-x svs oN 11E ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE .w J - PLANTING PLAN a i X__- v LL 5X Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture Adroit Construction Attn: David Wilkerson/Dave Stevens Attn: Dave Ross 2950 E. Barnett Rd. 185 Mistletoe Rd. Medford, OR 97504 Ashland, OR 97520 RE: DAREX Planning Application Dave, David & Dave, As I mentioned in the e-mail yesterday, there are a few additional items needed before we can call the Darex application complete. A list of what's needed is provided below; if we have this by August 19th I can review and have it in the packets for the September 8th Planning Commission hearing. General Clarity The Planning Commission has expressed frustration lately with large project submittals not having a clear, written explanation of the request and its details and instead expecting them to figure out the request through the plans. A clear explanation of the request up front in the narrative would help greatly to this end, something like: "We're requesting Site Design Review approval to construct a 24,621 square foot, single-story addition to the existing 39,962 square foot Darex building located at 210-220 East Hersey Street. The proposed addition will match the existing in color and materials, and will be a metal building with metal roof. The addition will provide additional square footage for the unique, hand assembly business model Darex is known for and is hoped to provide workspace that could accommodate an eventual increase in employees from the current 129 up to 226. The application also includes a request for Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees, a six-inch diameter Maple tree (#2) and a six-inch diameter Pear tree (#3)." It would also help with the review if the "Proposed Private Public Access Park" were clarified in the submittals as they are going to be confused by the private/public, and wonder about this versus the alternative simple landscaping proposal which I don't see discussed in what we have now. Written Findings for Site Review The findings provided speak to the design standards, but they do not directly respond to the approval criteria from chapter 18.5.2.050 for Site Design Review. These are: A. Underlying Zone, The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 183). DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-552-2040 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 1- 800-735-2900 wm.ash^rland.or.us derek.severson(o?ashfand.or.us ~ . C. Site Development and esic -'s. The proposal complies with th applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection F, w D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 PuL,7c Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. _ i_ _7 to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which wou' ! c ate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The City Facilities item (D) in particular needs to be well-addressed in the narrative. I see some utility detail in the plans, but no discussion in the narrative of the adequacy of public facilities and our various city departments have indicated that they haven't been contacted to look at utility or capacity issues. Exceptions/Variance Two of the Exceptions requested don't really need to be requested, as detailed below, and the third requires a Variance rather than an Exception. ® Parking - The request with regard to parking isn't really an Exception, it's asking the Planning Commission to find that an intense hand assembly use is not industrial or warehouse, and is instead most similar to an office use as allowed under "Unspecified Uses" in chapter 18.4.3.030.A.2. I think you've made that case well, but terming the request as an Exception would subject it to different criteria and discretion and make granting the request a lot less clear. ® Majority of Street Frontage - The request to address the "majority of the street frontage" issue as an Exception here doesn't need to be done until a building is proposed along Clear Creek Drive. The Commission couldn't really approve an Exception to this standard without a building it applies to, and as proposed you seem to have reserved a majority of the frontage so no Exception is necessary. ® West Side Driveway Location on Clear Creek Drive - The request here is somewhat unclear, as it refers to a driveway on the east side but the only driveway shown onto Clear Creek is on the west side. The new west-side driveway on Clear Creek Drive is only 48 feet from the existing driveway to the west when the standards call for a minimum 75 foot separation on a commercial neighborhood collector DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-552-2040 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 1- 800-735-2900 u.ashland,or.us { street in chapter 18.4.3.080.C. This requires a Variance, and would need findings that respond to the following criteria from chapter 18.5.5.050.A: 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. ® East Side Driveway? - If there's also to be an east side drive, that should be shown in the plans as well. Written Findings for Tree Removal We also need written findings addressing the criteria for Tree Removal from 18.5.7.040.B.2., listed below: 1. The tr j is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other ap, Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applic ib. 2 Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. 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. 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. 4. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 this ordinance. 5. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-552-2040 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 1- 800-735-2900 www.ash~and.ar.us n us _ On the subject of tree removal, it would help to clarify the proposal regarding Tree #1. The Tree Protection Plan (1-1.1) shows Tree #1 to be preserved and protected, but the Proposed Site Plan shows this as an "existing tree to be removed." Parking Lot Circulation & Stormwater Detention Current standards call for pedestrian circulation to be addressed in parking lot design and for parking lots to capture and treat run-off in landscaped medians or swales. While the narrative mentions a detention pond on the east side of the building, there doesn't appear to be one shown in the plans. We'd need to see the landscaped median or swales for detention, and some pedestrian circulation details similar to that on the west side, or have Exceptions requested to these standards. Drawings Site Plan Scale - The Site Plan calls out a scale of 1/64" = 1', but the scale bar actually seems to be at 1/32" = 1' while the plans themselves don't match either. Staff and the Commission need to see scalable plans to enable review. i Elevations - It would be helpful to have at least one set of large scale plans of the building elevations (and potential a site plan) that would be more readable for the Commissioners at the hearing and/or during site visits. Site Visit As we get nearer to a hearing for larger projects, we'll typically try to arrange a site visit by the Planning Commissioners once their packets have gone out. This is just a chance for them to familiarize themselves with the site and its issues on the ground. Assuming a September 8th hearing, they would normally do the site visit at 3:30 p.m. on the Monday before (i.e. September 7th). As we get nearer to that date, I'll check in to make sure we have property owner permission for them to be on the site for 30-45 minutes on that day. If there are any questions or if I can provide clarification of any of the above, please don't hesitate to contact me. As noted above, if you can get me responses to these items by August 19th, we'd still have time for review, noticing and preparation of packets for the September 8th meeting. Thanks, Derek D. Severson, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 derek.severson cg ashland.or.us or (541) 552-2040 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-552-2040 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 1- 800-735-2900 wmashland, or,us _ C Darex Expansion Planning Application Project Findings July 13, 2015 City of Ashland Planning Division 51 Winburn Way ARCHEITECTURE 950 AST EAST BA R ORE iT R044 Ashland, OR 97520 „ E w o a F o' N T9 RESOAD 5 . F 5< 1]] 2 e 4] 2 Project Identification Darex Expansion Site Address: 210-220 Hersey St, Ashland, OR 97520 Map 391E04CD Tax Lot: 2000 Zoning: E 1 (Employment) ORW Architecture 1444 Purpose: These findings are intended to serve as the guiding document that will allow the City of Ashland to review and make its determinations regarding the planned expansion of the existing Darex facility. It will explain and demonstrate how the planned work will be acceptable within the Ashland Municipal Code. Building and Site The Darex existing facility described above will be expanded to the south towards Clear Creek Dr. to provide additional building space for administration and assembly employees. The parking areas will be expanded and landscaped to accommodate customer parking, employee parking and delivery areas for Darex operations detailed below. The site-front will receive a Hersey St stair to the main entry. An additional landscaped Public Access Park area at the south of the property will include parking for a future development, and allow foot traffic from Clear Creek Dr. Municipal Codes: The existing building will be renovated under the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Chapter 18 Land Use Standard development codes as follows: 1. 18.22 2. 18.4.2 3. 18.4.3 FI(R) i_ - 4. 18.5.2 j 5 ?015 Summary: Development Area The project(s) expand the existing facility and within the existing 4.85 acres. Structural Site Coverage The project expands the existing building envelope square footage for Phase I by 24,621 SF. The site will become a building footprint coverage of approximately 31 percent. Impervious Surface Coverage The project has approximately 60, 000 SF of new asphalt and concrete. Additional minimal coverage for the bike rack and loading area curbs/bollards Parking Spaces The project will increase parking for the expansion by 61 spaces to a total of 140 parking spaces which includes a 6 accessible spaces, and additional bicycle parking. Adjacent to the Public Access Park, is 22 spaces for development of the future Phase 2 building. The Bicycle parking will be expanded and located adjacent to main entrance of building. Parking will be accessible from existing 2 locations on Hersey St and 1 new location on Clear Creek Dr. The parking area from Clear Creek Dr. will provide parking to the proposed walking park, future development area as well provide Darex employees an alternative street entry/exit, reducing congestion. An exception to the parking space per person ratio is requested due to the nature of business provided and quantity of employees. Refer to the Exception Request 1 narrative located at the end of this document. Traffic Impact The proposed expansion of the manufacturing facility on 210 E. Hersey St. does not meet any of the threshold criteria and therefore the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis is not met. Refer to JRH Engineering document dated 07/09/2015 attached. Landscaped Area The landscaped area is identified on the attached drawings which meets the requirements. Gas Gas consumption increases for the expansion should be within standard usage rates for the building and business type. Electricity Electrical consumption increases for the expansion should be within standard usage rates for the building and business type. Water and Sewer Water usage and sewer discharge increases for the expansion should be within standard usage rates for the building and business type. Storm Water Storm water from all new impervious surfaces will be detained in surface ponds on the parking lots both east and west of the proposed building extension. Storm water from the parking lots and sidewalks will be detained via treatment swales west of the proposed new building. Waste: All waste is controlled by Darex in accordance with OSHA and local regulation for waste disposal. Landfill Waste increases for the expansion should be within standard usage rates for the building and business type. 4 and 10 yard containers are currently used outside the building. Recyclables Comingled recyclable paper/cans/glass wheelie bins and one 2 yard cardboard container used outside the building, which require 'curb side' pick up. Site Lighting Exterior lighting will be added to the building and parking areas will be based on code requirements Air Pollution There is no expected addition to the local air pollution. Hazards There are no hazardous substances introduced by increase in size of building. JU 1.5 2015 18.5 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES AND APPROVAL CRITERIA 18.5.2.010 Purpose The purpose and intent of this chapter is to regulate the manner in which land in the City is used and developed, to reduce adverse effects on surrounding property owners and the general public, to create a business environment that is safe and comfortable, to further energy conservation efforts within the City, to enhance the environment for walking, cycling, and mass transit use, and to ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City. 18.5.2.020 Applicability Site Design Review is required for the following types of project proposals. A. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential, and Mixed Uses. Site Design Review applies to the following types of non-residential uses and project proposals, including proposals for commercial, industrial, and mixed-use projects, pursuant to section 18.5.2.030 Review Procedures. 18.5.2.030 Review Procedures B. C-1, E-1, HC, and M-1 Zones. In the C-1, E-1, HC, and M-1 zones, but not within the Downtown Design Standards or Detail Site Review overlays, new structures or additions greater than 15,000 square feet in gross floor area, or greater than 50 percent of an existing building's gross floor area are subject to Type 11 review. I D. Detail Site Review Overlay. In the Detail Site Review overlay, new structures or additions greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area, or longer than 100 feet in length or width are subject to Type II review. E. Bicycle Parking for Parking Lots and Structures. All public parking lots and structures shall provide two spaces per primary use, or one bicycle parking space for every five automobile parking spaces, of which 50 percent shall be sheltered. i G. Landscape and Irrigation Plan Amendments. Minor amendments to landscape and irrigation plans approved pursuant to chapter 18.4.4 to improve fire safety, public safety, water conservation, or energy efficiency may be processed as Ministerial or Type I actions. Conclusion: The application is subject to include B, D, E and G Submittal for Type 11 review 'J 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design 18.4.2.040.1 Orientation and Scale a. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street and not a parking area. Automobile circulation or off-street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or to one side. Finding: Phase I parking is on sides using existing access from Hersey St. Finding: Phase II future development will be oriented with parking to the side, the current parking of the proposed Public Park , accessed from Clear Creek Dr. Conclusion: Parking for the extension complies. Parking for Phase 2 will be determined at the time of application. b. A building fagade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project's street frontage as illustrated in Figure 18.4.2.040.B, and avoid site design that incorporates extensive gaps between building frontages created through a combination of driveway aprons, parking areas, or vehicle aisles. This can be addressed by, but not limited to, positioning the wider side of the building rather than the narrow side of the building toward the street. In the case of a corner lot, this standard applies to both street frontages. Spaces between buildings shall consist of landscaping and hard durable surface materials to highlight pedestrian areas. Finding: There no change to the existing building orientation. Finding: The Phase II development will be oriented with its wider side toward the street and occupies a majority of the frontage. Conclusion: An exception to the term 'large majority is requested. Refer to the Exception No. 3 narrative at the end of this document c. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. See Figure 18.4.2.040.8.1. Finding: There no change to the existing building entrance. A new stair access will be added to Hersey St. entrance. Finding: The entrance design for the Phase II development will be submitted to planning at a future date. For compliance. The existing public side walk will be extended to the west edge of the property. Conclusion: The requirement will be met. d. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as shopping centers, where other buildings meet this standard. Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable e. Where a building is located on a corner lot, its entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. The building shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Finding Additional public walk has been provided on the south of the property to complete the existing public walk. Conclusion: Criteria has been met with this proposal I 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.3.010 Purpose Chapter 18.4.3 contains requirements for automobile and bicycle parking, and vehicular and pedestrian access, circulation, and connectivity. The purpose is to provide safe and effective access and circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. For transportation improvement requirements, refer to chapter 18.4.6 Public Facilities. Conclusion: Criteria has been met with this proposal 18.4.3.020 Applicability 18.4.3.020 Applicability A. The requirements of this chapter apply to parking, access, and circulation facilities in all zones, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected or enlarged, parking, access or circulation is expanded or reconfigured, or the use is changed. B. The City may require a study prepared by a qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand, access, circulation, and other transportation impacts, pursuant to this section. C. All required parking, access, and circulation facilities shall be constructed when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space, seating capacity, or change in use, or when an existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of dwelling units or guest rooms. D. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to chapter 18.5.5 Variances, except that deviations from the standards in subsections 18.4.3.080.6.4 and 5 and section 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation are subject to 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. that reuse of the building stock within the Historic District overlay is an exceptions I circumstance and an unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. E. Variance to Parking Standard for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District. In order to preserve existing structures within the Historic District overlay while permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, the Staff Advisor, through a Type I procedure and pursuant to section 18.5.1.050, may grant a Variance to the parking standards of section 18.4.3.040 by up to 50 percent for commercial uses within the Historic District overlay. The intent of this provision is to provide as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential. The City, through this ordinance provision, finds that reuse of the building stock within the Historic District overlay is an exceptional circumstance and an unusual hardship for the purposes of granting a variance. Conclusion: Criteria has been met with this proposal 18.4.3.030 General Automobile Parking Requirements and Exceptions A. Minimum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to one of the following three methods and shall include required Disabled i, Person Parking. 1. Standard Ratios for Automobile Parking. The standards in Table 18.4.3.040. 2. Unspecified Use. Where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically listed in Table 18.4.3.040, such requirements shall be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use specified in this section, and other available data. 3. Parking Demand Analysis. The approval authority through a discretionary review may approve a parking standard that is different than the standards under subsection I and 2, above, as follows. a. The applicant submits a parking demand analysis with supporting data prepared by a professional engineer, planner, architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional; b. The parking analysis, at a minimum, shall assess the average parking demand and available supply for existing and proposed uses on the subject site; opportunities for shared parking with other uses in the vicinity; existing public parking in the vicinity; transportation options existing or planned near the site, such as frequent bus service, carpools, or private shuttles; and other relevant factors. The parking demand analysis option may be used in conjunction with, or independent of, the options provided under section 18.4.3.060 Parking Management Strategies. c. The review procedure shall be the same as for the main project application. 8. Maximum Number of Off-Street Automobile Parking Spaces. The number of spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the number of spaces required by this chapter by more than ten percent. Spaces provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces. C. Downtown Zone. All uses within the C-1-D zone, except for hotel, motel, and hostel uses, are exempt from the off-street parking requirements of this section. D. North Mountain Plan District. Within the Neighborhood Central zone of the North Mountain (NM) Neighborhood Plan district, all uses are exempt from the off-street parking requirements of this section, except that residential uses are required to provide a minimum of one parking space per residential unit. Conclusion: A,B parking has been made to comply with these standards . C,D, Not Applicable 18.4.3.040 Table 18.4.3.040 Referenced 8.4.3.050 Accessible Parking Spaces Accessible parking shall be provided consistent with the requirements of the building code, including but not limited to the minimum number of spaces for automobiles, van-accessible spaces, location of spaces relative to building entrances, accessible routes between parking areas and building entrances, identification signs, lighting, and other design and construction requirements. Accessible parking shall be included and identified on the planning application submittals. Finding: Accessible parking shall be included and identified on the planning application submittals. Conclusion: Accessible parking has been made to comply with this standard. 18.4.3.070 Bicycle Parking E. Bicycle Parking for Parking Lots and Structures. All public parking lots and structures shall provide two spaces per primary use, or one bicycle parking space for every five automobile parking spaces, of which 50 percent shall be sheltered. Finding: Existing Bicycle parking has been enlarged, provides 20 sheltered bicycle securing locations, totaling 40 options adjacent to the entrance Conclusion: The revised bicycle parking has been made to comply with this standard. i; 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location 2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street, except alleys. Finding: Articles 1 and 3 and not applicable. Finding: No parking is designated within the yard setbacks. Conclusion: Criteria has been met with this proposal B. Parking Area Design. Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the following standards and dimensions as illustrated in 18.4.3.080. B. See also, accessible parking space requirements in section 18.4.3.050 and parking lot and screening standards in subsection 18.4.4.030. F. 1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet. 2. Up to 50 percent of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." 3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space not less than 22 feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate moving of other vehicles. 4. Parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces, and parking lots where pedestrians must traverse more than 150 feet of parking area, as measured as an average width or depth, shall be divided into separate areas by one or more of the following means: a building or group of buildings; plazas landscape areas with walkways at least five feet in width; streets; or driveways with street-like features as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.080.6.4 Street-like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, with six- inch curb, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-oriented lighting (i.e., not exceeding 14 feet typical height). 5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.080.6.5. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following standards. Findings: Parking spaces are 9 feet by 18 feet Findings: Compact spaces are not used in design Findings: Maneuverability meets or exceeds 22' Findings: The parking areas are separated by buildings, tree wells with street trees and split level lots with sidewalks Findings: As designed the parking lots have over 50% shade within the first five years of occupancy. Conclusion: Criteria has been met with this proposal 18.4.3.080.D. 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to: facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety; be clearly and permanently marked and defined; and provide adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. Finding: Existing Curb cuts on Heresy St remain unaffected, Clear Creek Dr curbs requires minor relocation and reinstallation for access to parking areas, walking park and future Phase II parking. Conclusion: Design depicts required modifications and notates future Phase II curb use and See Exception Request 2 narrative at the end of this document 18.4.3.090 Pedestrian Access and circulation Finding: A, B, 131, B2, B3 all applicable Conclusion: Criteria has been met with this proposal 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening A. General Landscape Standard. All portions of a lot not otherwise developed with buildings, accessory structures, vehicle maneuvering areas, parking, or other approved hardscapes shall be landscaped pursuant to this chapter. Finding: Landscaping for undeveloped areas is proposed on the landscape drawings. Conclusion: For Item A, all areas not in building or other hardscape are proposed to be landscaped pursuant to this chapter. B. Minimum Landscape Area and Coverage. All lots shall conform to the minimum landscape area standards of the applicable zoning district (see Table 18.2.5.030.A - C for residential zones and Table 18.2.6.030 for non-residential zones). Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, areas proposed to be covered with plant materials shall have plant coverage of not less than 50 percent coverage within one year and 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. Finding: landscape areas will attain at least 50% coverage in the first year and 90% coverage within five years of planting. Conclusion: For Item B, criteria has been met with this proposal. C. Landscape Design and Plant Selection. The landscape design and selection of plants shall be based on all of the following standards. 1. Tree and Shrub Retention. Existing healthy trees and shrubs shall be retained, pursuant to chapter 18.4.5. Consistent with chapter 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection, credit may be granted toward the landscape area requirements where a project proposal includes preserving healthy vegetation that contribute(s) to the landscape design. Finding: There are very few trees within the limit of work in this site. Refer to the tree removal and protection plan which identifies the trees to be removed. This project more than mitigates for the two tree removals through its planting of trees to achieve 50% shading of the parking areas. 2. Plant Selection. a. Use a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Finding: We are using predominantly deciduous trees and a mix of evergreen and deciduous shrubs. b. Use plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The presence of utilities and drainage conditions shall also be considered. Finding: All plants proposed for this project are adapted to this region and are positioned based on exposure, similar water needs and the site soils and drainage. c. Storm Water Facilities. Use water-tolerant species where storm water retention/detention or water quality treatment facilities are proposed. Finding: The Stormwater bio-swales are proposed to be planted with appropriate shrubs and trees. d. Crime Prevention and Defensible Space. Landscape plans shall provide for crime prevention and defensible space, for example, by using low hedges and similar plants allowing natural surveillance of public and semi-public areas, and by using impenetrable hedges in areas where physical access is discouraged. Finding: Crime prevention and defensible space were integrated into the design process for this project. e. Street Trees. Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: The city of Ashland street tree list was used to create the street frontage that is adjacent to this project. 3. Water Conserving Landscaping. Commercial, industrial, non-residential, and mixed-use developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review, shall use plants that are low water use and meet the requirements of 78.4.4.030.1 Water Conserving Landscaping. Finding: This project responds to this requirement it is designed to follow water conservation landscaping standards. 4. Hillside Lands and Water Resources. Landscape plans for land located in the Hillside Lands overlay must also conform to section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside t t Lands, and in the Water Resources overlay must also conform to section 18.3.1 1.1 70 Mitigation Requirements for Water Resource Protection Zones. Finding: Not Applicable for this project. 5. Screening a. Evergreen shrubs shall be used where a sight-obscuring landscape screen is required. Finding: The East and West project boundaries are site obscuring screens containing evergreen shrub and deciduous trees. b. Where a hedge is used as a screen, evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that not less than 50 percent of the desired screening is achieved within two years and 100 percent is achieved within four years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. Finding: Hedges have been design so that evergreen shrubs shall achieve 50 percent of the desired screening within two years and 100 percent is achieved within four years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. 6. Plant Sizes a. Trees shall be not less than two-inch caliper for street trees, and 1.5-inch caliper for other trees at the time of planting. Finding: All street trees are two inch caliper and for trees other than street trees they are specified as at least 1.5 inch caliper. b. Shrubs shall be planted from not less than one gallon containers, and where required for screening shall meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.C.5 Screening. Finding: All shrubs are at least one gallon at planting and 5 gallon for screening purposes. Conclusion: For Item C, criteria has been met with this proposal. D. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal. See chapter 18.4.5 for Tree Protection and Preservation and chapter 18.5.7 for Tree Removal Permit requirements. Finding: A tree protection and findings are included in this submittal. Conclusion: For Item D, criteria has been met with this proposal. E. Street Trees. The purpose of street trees is to form a deciduous canopy over the street. The same effect is also desired in parking lots and internal circulation streets; rows of street trees should be included in these areas where feasible. All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees. 1. Location of Street Trees. Street trees shall be located in the designated planting strip or street tree wells between the curb and sidewalk, or behind the sidewalk in cases where a planting strip or tree wells are or will not be in place. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Community Development Department. Per the tree planting detail on our proposed plating plan, all street trees include irrigation, root barriers, and other approved systems for the health and wellbeing of new trees to promote their growth. 2. Spacing and Placement of Street Trees All street tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions that may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. Finding: Trees along the Clear Creek Drive frontage are placed one tree per thirty feet. b. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than ten feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. Finding: This requirement has been met, see planting plan. d. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than ten feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. Finding: This requirement has been met; see Landscape Planting Plan and Civil Plans. e. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 2.5 feet from the face of the curb. Street trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water r; into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with City specifications. Finding: All trees are planted so that there is at least 3' of space between the trunk and the hardscape. g. Street trees planted under or near power lines shall be selected so as to not conflict with power lines at maturity. Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable, the power lines are underground at this site. h. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation, where approved pursuant to section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards, may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. Finding and Conclusion: Not Applicable. There is no need to asses existing trees as street trees. 3. Pruning. Street trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable. 4. Replacement of Street Trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable. Conclusion: For Item E, criteria that is applicable, the requirements have been met with this proposal. F. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. Parking lot landscaping, including areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading, shall meet the following requirements. 1. Landscaping a. Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of seven percent of the total parking area plus a ratio of one tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. Finding: The total area of parking and circulation is 54,690 square feet. The total landscape area is 14,539. Landscape cover within the combined parking and circulation areas is 26.5% b. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission to avoid I i root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Finding: Proposed parking lot tree varieties include the list below and follow the Ashland recommended street tree guide accept where parenthetically noted: Betula nigra 'Duraheat' (in the bioswale) Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' Malus ioensis 'Klehms Improved Bechtel' Platanus x a. 'Bloodgood' (used in larger planting areas) Quercus rubra Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase' c. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least two feet from any curb or paved area. Finding: All trees are planted a minimum of three feet from any curb or paved area. d. The landscaped area shall be distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. e. Finding: The landscaping is distributed throughout the parking area and at the perimeter. f. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip, or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage, and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls. Finding: There is plenty of landscape to meet the parking lot landscape requirements. 2. Screenina. a. Screening Abutting Property Lines. A five foot landscaped strip shall screen parking abutting a property line. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. Finding: The parking lots and circulation are buffered by a five foot wide hedge on both the east and west property lines. b. Screening Adjacent to Residential Building. Where a parking area is adjacent to a residential building it shall be setback at least eight feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. { F Finding: The parking lot is 8 feet from a residential building and is heavily screened to meet this requirement. c. Screening at Required Yards. Parking abutting a required landscaped front yard or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obstructing hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. ii. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except within vision clearance areas, section 18.2.4.050. Finding and Conclusion: Not Applicable Conclusion: For Item F, criteria that is applicable, the requirements have been met with this proposal. G. Other Screening Requirements. Screening is required for refuse and recycle containers, outdoor storage areas, loading and service corridors, mechanical equipment, and the City may require screening other situations, pursuant with the requirements of this ordinance. 1. Recycle and Refuse Container Screen. Recycle and refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to eight feet in height to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. All recycle and refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. Finding: The recycle and Refuse area will be screened with a five foot tall masonry wall and slatted fence. 2. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view, except such screening is not required in the M-1 zone. Finding and Conclusion: Not applicable. 3. Loading Facilities and Service Corridors. Commercial and industrial loading facilities and service corridors shall be screened when adjacent to residential zones. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor, and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Finding: The site is screened so that these facilities are screened as part of the parking lot screening requirement. 4. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be screened by placement of features at least equal in height to the equipment to limit view from public rights-of-way, except alleys, and adjacent residentially zoned property. Mechanical equipment meeting the requirements of this section satisfy the screening requirements in 18.5.2.020.C.3. a. Roof-mounted Equipment. Screening for roof-mounted equipment shall be constructed of materials used in the building's exterior construction and include features such as a t parapet, wall, or other sight-blocking features. Roof-mounted solar collection devices are exempt from this requirement pursuant to subsection 13.52020.C.3. b. Other Mechanical Equipment. Screening for other mechanical equipment (e.g., installed at ground level) include features such as a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or hedge screen. Finding: The site is screened so that these facilities are screened as part of the parking lot screening requirement. Conclusion: For Item G, criteria that is applicable, the requirements have been met with this proposal. H. Irrigation. Irrigation systems shall be installed to ensure landscape success. If a landscape area is proposed without irrigation, a landscape professional shall certify the area can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals. Finding: The project proposal includes a professionally designed irrigation system that will support the proposed plant material and comply with water saving irrigation technology. Conclusion: For Item H, the requirements have been met with this proposal. 1. Water Conserving Landscaping. The following standards are intended to conserve water while encouraging attractive landscaping. Further, requirements are aimed at reducing water demand when water is most scarce, during the dry late summer months when water reserves are low. 1. Landscaping Design Standards a. Landscaping Coverage. Water conserving designs shall have plant coverage of not less than 90 percent with five years of planting, but are not required to meet the standard of 50 percent coverage within one year. Finding: The landscape as designed will achieve greater than 90% coverage in five years. b. Plant Selection. At least 90 percent of plants in the non-turf areas shall be listed as drought tolerant in the Sunset Western Garden book, City's Water-Wise Landscaping website, or be similarly well-suited for this climate of region as determined by the Staff Advisor. Up to ten percent of the plants may be of a non-drought tolerant variety or species as long as they are grouped together and are located in a separate irrigation zone. r Finding: All plants on this plan are well-suited to this climate and are considered water- wise and well adapted. All plants used for this site are low water use accept for the swale plantings which are on their own irrigation zone. c. Screening. Plant screening hedges to attain 50 percent coverage after two years. Finding: The screens plantings on the East and West sides of the site are planted to screen at greater than 50% within 2 years. d. Mulch. Add a minimum of two inches of mulch in non-turf areas to the soil surface after planting. Neither large nuggets nor fine bark may be used for mulch. Non-porous material shall not be placed under the mulch. Finding: Three inches of fine bark will be specified for all planting area excluding the low water use turf area. e. Turf and Water Areas. Limit combined turf or water areas (i.e., pools, ponds, and fountains) to 20 percent of the landscaped areas. Turf limitations do not apply to public parks, private common open space, required outdoor recreation areas, golf courses, cemeteries, and school recreation areas. Finding: We are proposing the use of a Drought Tolerant Lawn Alternative for the proposed private park. This will be used as a common open space until the future building plans are developed and built out. This Lawn Alternative is documented to use 50% less water than a typical sod lawn. f. Fountains. Design all fountains to recycle their water. Finding and Conclusion: Not Applicable g. Turf Location. Turf is restricted to slopes less than ten percent grade. Finding: The proposed Alternative Lawn area is flat. h. Berms and Raised Beds. Conclusion: Not Applicable i. Soil Quality. When new vegetation is planted, soils shall be amended for plant health and water absorption. Add mature compost at a rate of three cubic yards of compost per 7,000 square feet of area to be landscaped, and work soil and amendment(s) to a depth of four to six inches. This requirement may be waived for one or more of the following circumstances. a. The area to be landscaped is fenced off to fully protect native soil from disturbance and compaction during construction. Finding: The existing soils on this site will be amended to meet this criteria and new topsoil will be brought in to fill all landscape area to an addition 12" of depth. 2. Irrigation System Design Standards. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals, and are subject to the following standards. a. Design sprinkler head spacing for head-to-head coverage. Finding: The irrigation system, as designed, has head to head coverage. i b. Design irrigation system to minimize runoff and overspray to non-irrigated areas. Finding: The irrigation system is designed to minimize runoff and overspray. c. Match precipitation rates for all irrigation heads for each circuit. Finding: All zones contain heads with matched precipitation rates. d. Separate irrigation zones based on water needs of plantings and type of sprinklers being used (i.e., rotating, fixed spray, or drip). Plants with similar watering needs shall be in the same irrigation zone unless irrigated by drip irrigation having emitters sized for individual plant water needs. Finding: All zones are plant requirement specific. f. Use sprinkler heads with a precipitation rate of .85 inches per hour or less on slopes exceeding 15 percent to minimize run-off, or when slope exceeds ten percent within ten feet of hardscape. Finding: The irrigation system has been designed to meet the parameter. Serviceable check valves (or pressure compensating emitters for drip systems) are required where an elevation difference greater than 20 feet exists on any circuit. Finding: The irrigation system has been designed to meet the parameter. g. Drip irrigation systems are required for trees unless within lawn areas. Finding: The irrigation system has been designed to meet the parameter through the use of bubblers for all trees on a separate zone system h. Equip all irrigation zones with pressure regulator valves (PRV) to meet the manufacturer's recommended operating pressure for the components of each zone; except in those instances where a PRV is in place. PRV's shall be located at the meter or solenoid valve. k. Finding: Automatic Sprinkler Controls. Equip all irrigation systems with a controller capable of dual or multiple programming. Controllers shall have a multiple start time capability, station run times in minutes to hours, and water days by interval, day of the week, and even/odd days. Finding: The irrigation system has been designed to meet the parameter. Use controllers with a percent adjust (water budget) feature, or the capability of accepting an external rain or soil moisture sensor. Finding: The irrigation system has been designed to meet the parameter. Conclusion: For Item I, criteria that is applicable, the requirements have been met with this proposal. Chapter 18.4.5 - Tree Preservation and Protection 18.4.5.030 Tree Protection A. Tree Protection Plan. A tree protection plan shall be approved by the Staff Advisor concurrent with applications for Type I, Type II, and Type III planning actions. If tree removal is proposed, a Tree Removal Permit pursuant to chapter 18.5.7 may be required. B. Tree Protection Plan Submission Requirements. In order to obtain approval of a tree protection plan; an applicant shall submit a plan to the City, which clearly depicts all trees to be preserved and/or removed on the site. The plan must be drawn to scale and include the following. Finding and Conclusion: Please see tree protection plan submitted with this project 18.4.5.030.C. Tree Protection Measures Required. Finding and Conclusion: Please see tree protection plan submitted with this project E i REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION TO THE ASHLAND ORDINANCE We are writing to address several planning issues associated with a proposed development by Darex LLC. As you know, Darex is an established company and major employer in Ashland, the epitome of responsible local business that is so vital to Ashland's economic stability. Both short- and long-term growth in Darex's business requires additional space for assembly of their products, as well as additional area for support functions, including storage and offices. The owners chose to relocate their business to Ashland because of its unique character, and their overwhelming desire is to remain in Ashland. Darex's business is based on the assembly by hand of numerous individual components that are sourced from multiple suppliers. Additionally, Darex sells a wide variety of different products, each of which is assembled by hand at this facility, before being shipped to retailers and consumers around the world. This business model provides living wage jobs to residents from all over Jackson County, including Grants Pass, White City, Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland. Part of Darex ongoing success is their ability to get a large amount of business done in a small space, meaning the staff on site is at a much higher density than typically found. It is important to note that this does not come at the expense of employee happiness, in fact the opposite, Darex has been named one of Oregon's best employers multiple times, spanning decades. As shown in the attached supporting documentation provided as Exhibit A, the hand assembling process at Darex is extremely labor intensive and relies on a long-term, skilled labor force. Currently, Darex has 129 currently employees which will grow to 139 for the period of August through November, all at this site. The proposed phase 1 expansion of this facility will allow them to increase this number to 226. The ability to expand Darex's current facility, and remain in Ashland, is contingent upon finding viable solutions to several different planning issues that are outlined below in detail. Some issues are related to Darex's unique, employee-intensive business model. Others issues are beyond their control, the result of development standards enacted after Darex started operations on this site in 1979, 36 years ago. When Darex first purchased the property it was Zoned M1 Industrial, and Hersey Street was a dirt road, which met the criteria for Darex future plans. Exception Request 1: Parking Ratio: The type of business conducted by Darex does not fall into any of the established categories of business uses listed in the parking tables. This is not a warehouse facility, as products are only stored here for a short time before being shipped out around the world. Similarly, this is not an industrial facility, which is based on the use of heavy machinery and mechanized fabrication i processes to limit the number of people required to do the work. That is to say, the 'warehouse' and 'industrial' use categories do not properly reflect the number of people required by Darex to assemble products by hand. Rather than an "assembly line", the hand assembly process at Darex relies on numerous i individual workstations, similar to a workbench. These staffed workstations are similar in size (about 100 square feet net) to workstations found in a traditional office environment. Furthermore, the actual head count at the facility (129 currently) is very similar to what it would be if this building was used as an office building. Therefore, we propose to use a parking ratio of 500 square feet per person, the same as the parking ratio for the Office use. We request an exception to recognize this unique Hand Assembly use, and to establish the parking ratio at 500 square feet per person. We offer the following additional justification for granting this exception: • The property is adjacent to the Clear Creek development, which severely limits the amount of off-street parking. It would benefit the city for Darex to keep its staff parking on site, so that future developments on Clear Creek Drive can use the on-street parking. • The current facility is on a site that was designed according to a much lower "warehouse" type parking ratio, which is out of sync with the actual business type. As Darex has increased its staff over the years, the undeveloped land near Clear Creek has been used for overflow staff parking. • Although the ordinance code tries to take advantage of on-street parking to help alieve the requirements for large parking areas, the long, narrow, dual frontage nature of this site does not provide on-street parking in sufficient quantities to provide adequate parking for Darex staff. And this on-street parking is already in extremely high demand by neighboring businesses, which requires employees to park in more remote residential neighborhoods. • The unique nature of Darex's business model requires long term skilled workers, most of whom do not live in Ashland. The available bus service would require a commute of up to four hours from Medford and White City. The also makes commuting by bicycle unreasonable, particularly in inclement weather. This leaves independent travel by car as the last and only option. • Over the years, Darex has provided incentives to its staff to encourage car-pooling, especially when fuel prices were high. Unfortunately, this effort met with no success. They found that their employees have obligations before or after work (e.g. daycare, medical appointment, volunteer commitments), which requires the use of a car. • If Darex were to sell the property, the most likely uses would be a similar hand assembly operation or a 'clean tech' assembly / office use. The requested parking ratio would match the parking required for these future uses, facilitating redevelopment of this site. I Exception Request 2: Drive Aisle on east side: As discussed during our recent Pre-Application conference, this site has some unique constraints, which were not self-imposed by Darex. Rather, they result from the creation of Clear Creek Drive. When Darex bought this property, the site had a single frontage on Heresy Street. However, development of the area to the south of the Darex property created Clear Creek Drive, which has created a dual frontage. In order to comply with the city's development standards related to this new frontage, the owner and design team have developed a site plan that reserves the southernmost portion of the site for a future "Phase 2" office building. This building might be developed in the future by Darex for its own use, or for lease to office tenants. The pad lot for this future building is located so that all the parking is on one side, as per the city's development standards. But the site's shape and the location of the existing building requires an additional drive aisle on the other side of the building. We request an exception due to the unique site constraints imposed by the newly-created dual frontage on this long and narrow property, to allow for a drive aisle on the opposite side of the future building. We offer the following additional justification for granting this exception: + The site is an elongated property. Both the existing building and the proposed expansion need tractor trailer access from both sides, as is provided now off Hersey. This forces the expansion to occupy the middle of the site. Reserving space for a drive aisle on the east side of the future building will allow critical fire department access to the east side of the property from Clear Creek Drive, without having to enter from Hersey Street. • If the future building (phase 2) is more than one story tall or if it expands beyond its current footprint size, it will require additional parking. There are several alternatives being evaluated at this time, including but not limited to underground parking, leasing parking from other properties etc. This will be addressed at the time of development of phase 2. Exception Request 3: "Majority" of the street frontage: As mentioned above, this site has some unique constraints, which were not self-imposed by Darex. Rather, they result from the creation of Clear Creek Drive and gave this property a dual frontage. Although the current Darex facility fronts on Hersey Street, the owner and design team have developed a site plan that allows for the creation of a future building that will front on Clear i Creek Drive. This building will occupy the southernmost portion of the site, the area not occupied by the Darex expansion. Since this building also requires its own parking, that limits the building size and thus its frontage. We request an exception due to the unique constraints posed by the newly-created dual frontage on this long and narrow property, to allow of the future building to occupy a simple "majority" of the street frontage. We offer the following additional justification for granting this exception: • The pad lot that is reserved for a future building needs to be a reasonable depth, in order to have any useful purpose. It also needs to be immediately adjacent to the Darex expansion, in case it is used by Darex and needs a physical connection to their building. This means that the parking must be located on the west side, rather than behind it. • The ordinance calls for site development to include building frontage on a "large majority" of the streetscape. It is not possible to meet this standard, for the reasons outlined above. In previous situations like this one (e.g. Les Schwab), staff has agreed to a simple "majority" of frontage. • The narrow configuration of this site, coupled with the size and nature of the addition to the existing building, makes it impossible to increase the frontage even further. Darex's goal is to maintain and grow of their business in Ashland by developing the building on the existing site. However, the expansion hinges on need for parking, access and future development. Based on our preliminary collaborative discussions, it is our understanding staff will support the exceptions designed into the development during the planning application process. This support is critical to allow the project to move forward. E N GI N E E R S P R 0 E C T M A N A G E R S P LAN N E R S July 9, 2015 PR~f LNG I N Dave Ross 9852 Project Manager Adroit Construction Co., Inc NW PO Box 609 Ashland, Oregon RENEWS 6/30/17 Subject: Traffic Impact Analysis for Darex Expansion, 210 E. Hersey St. Dear Dave: This letter confirms that under the City of Ashland threshold standards, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required. A new manufacturing assembly structure of slightly less than 25,000 square-feet will be added to an existing 40,000 square-foot manufacturing assembly structure. The structure will allow the addition of 97 more employees beyond the current 129. The City of Ashland has three criteria for determining the need for a TIA: Trip Generation, Mitigation, and Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation. Each is discussed below. Trip Generation Threshold: A TIA is required if there are 50 newly generated trips (inbound and outbound) during the adjacent street peak hour. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 9'1' Edition is the industry standard for determining the number of trips generated by a development. The proposed development falls under ITE land use number 140, Manufacturing. The number of trips for a manufacturing use is based on the number of employees. The equation to calculate the number of trips was derived from over 50 individual studies. It follows a logarithmic distribution curve. The number of trips, per employee, goes down as the number of employees goes up. To understand why, voice 54 1.687.1081 f A X 541.34 5.6599 %veu ( It II WE S.C0M 4765 VILLAGE PLAZA 1,001' SUITE 201 EUGENL 0 REGON 97401 Traffic Impact Analysis - 210 E. Hersey St .July 9, 2015 think of a very small facility that only has two employees. If both of them drive to work, they would generate two peak-hour trips, both inbound, and if there is a single delivery made, there would be an additional trip inbound when it arrived and an outbound trip when it left for a total for the site of 4 trips, two per employee. l If the site had 100 employees, there would be more chances to car pool, more of a chance that some of the commuting would be outside the peak hour and a higher probability that some employees would bike or walk. The delivery that doubled the number of trips in the two person shop would be a minor component of the larger facility. i; Because the rate goes down as the number of employees increases, the calculation for the incremental number of trips for a site addition requires the subtraction of the number of trips prior to the expansion from the number of trips after the expansion. The table below shows the calculation for the original site with 129 employees and then site after it has expanded by 97 employees to 226 total employees. Darex Expansion Trip Generation ii:l Code Proposed Land Use Employees Manufacturing Existing 140 129 Curve 1 67 73% 49 27% 18 Curve 2 68 80% 54 20% 14 Manufacturing Future 140 226 Curve 1 107 73% 78 27% 29 Curve 2 107 80% 86 20% 21 Increase 97 41 30 11 40 32 8 T= Numberof Trips in time period X =Number of Employees Curve 1 Ln(T) =0.85*Ln(X)+0.07 Curve 2 Ln(T) = 0.78 *Ln(X)+0.48 The calculated 41 PM peak-hour trips and 40 AM peak-hour trips are less than the threshold 50 trips and therefore a TIA is not needed under the Trip Generation Threshold. Mitigation Threshold: This threshold is met if the project includes the installation of any traffic control device or any geometric improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic entering or exiting the driveway. JRH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING - PAGE 2 Traffic Impact Analysis - 210 E. Hersey St .July 9, 2015 The project does not include the installation of any traffic control device or geometric improvements and therefore a TIA is not needed under the Mitigation Threshold. Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation Threshold: This threshold is met if the project generates 20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the day. The site currently generates 25 trucks per week. This is a daily trip rate average of 10 heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) per day. No additional trips are anticipated as part of this expansion. This falls below the threshold for heavy vehicle trip generation and therefore a TIA is not needed under the Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation Criteria. Summary: The proposed expansion of the manufacturing facility on 210 E. Hersey St. does not meet any of the threshold criteria and therefore the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis is not met. Please let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, James R. Hanks, PE JRH TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING - PAGE 3 the Site Development and Design Standards. Y Y NEXT APPLICATION DEADLINE: First Friday of each month PLANNING COM3/HSSION HEARING: Second Tuesday of each month j FEES: Site Review, Type H $2,032 + 1'2 percent of project valuation NOTES:~ l APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED ON A FIRST COME-FIRST SERVED BASIS. ® APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT 'A COMPLETE APPLICATION FORM SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT(S) AND PROPERTY OWNERS), ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS AND FULL PAYMENT. I, ALL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ARE REVIEWED BY STAFF, AND MUST BE FOUND TO BE COMPLETE BEFORE BEING I c r PROCESSED OR SCHEDULED AT A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. j APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED FOR COMPLETENESS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM APPLICATION DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 227.178. Y THE FIRST 15 COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ARE PROCESSED AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. For further information, please contact: Derek Severson, Associate Planner Phone: (541) 552-2040 or e-mail: dersk.setyerson:"%ashi~e.or.~s i-- E~ 210 E. Hersey St. January 7; 2015 Page 23 AIt-Ih[_i.l 88'-6" PHASE 2 225'-9" NEW STRUCTURE 1 212'-0" EXISTING BUILDING 30'-0" VERTICAL 12 PAN x 3" HIGH (N) (E) MAN DOOR (E) TRUCK - EXISTING NEW STEEL METAL SIDING STANDING SEAM = TRUCK DOCK BANK GUARDRAIL ROOF - DOCK NEW (E) NEW cur °1 III III STAIRWAY - ° - P BEYOND) I Q n - GRADE I, IT, • PARK ELEMENTS _ - - -o~ ND) HOLLOW METAL STRUCTURE 1 STEEL ROLL-UP DOORS EXISTING DOORS AND WAREHOUSE DRIVEWAY FRAMES STORAGE 10,158 SF EAST ELEVATION 212'-0" EXISTING BUILDING 225'-9" NEW STRUCTURE 1 88'-6" PHASE 2 NEW STAIRWAY (BEYOND) 12 PAN x 3" HIGH VERTICAL PARK ELEMENTS EXISTING STANDING SEAM ~ METAL SIDING (BEYOND) BANK ° nF EX VTINC IIII If III IIIIII.11]" II -I' I''' 11 T. DRIVEWAY w T.O. _ O 41 A.P. ALOE CU _SE STRUCTURE NEW o- _ . FACTORY DOORS/RECITES LF'.-:Lt ~ 16,929 SF -TYP. WEST"ELEVATION Q elevations darex expansion 210 hersey street 54'-8" 81'-4t" EXISTING BUILDING 120'-0" STRUCTURE 12P-114" (E) NEW PHASE I BUILDING STEEL PARK PLANTERS BEYON GUARDRAIL 8EYOND) ~ - T.O. Y 1. - AP yes - - - ANEWRRT STAIRS a 24'-114" 35'-10" (BEYOND) (BEYOND) CLEAR CREEK 24'-0" TO CURB CUT CURB CUT CURB CUT TO CURB CUT Q SOUTH ELEVATION 18'-I I" 97'-4~" 103'-04" (E) STUCTURE 120'-0" STRUCTURE I (E) STRUCTURE 38'-74, SLOPED PARKING (BEYOND) ~ VISIBLE GABLE OVER o NEW CUT SLOPE OUTLINE OF STRUCTURE 01 NEW LANDSCAPE (BEYOND) (BEYOND) 1 Q NORTH ELEVATION _ elevations darex expansion 210 hersey street o maaaw=. (N) PARKING LIGHTING r SLOPE (SEE CIVIL I\ (E) FIRE HYD 1 I DRAWINGS) L EP. U, I CH BASIN ~E) REMOVED C~2 19/19 616T 44 F C a I pu~rnr[~-u ae IT 5/21T CLEAROU7 o 27/46T HATCH: PROPFRTYI,INE I'-J 11 _ PHASEI aErn ra NC was I_IT l PARK AREA W J1 J! . tL Jl , ll _ _ SF (SEE LANDSCAPE p AN c es sraNr 16.420 ~ NEW STAIRWAY NEW COVERED BIKE DRAWINGS FOR ALTERNATE } - PARKING PROPOSALS. NEW PLANTER New FANOSCaae rr+E LLJ U) AFTER PARKING IS ! 1 w DEMOLISHED (E) FIRE HYD ❑ NEw carve wn~rc S _ lLl L LANDSCAPING RRT E] O1-1. S.F-AlE STAIRS E. wnrea aereNii 39,962 SF - (N) RETAINING WALL _ (E) ASSEMBLING (E) e° WATER MAIN ❑ EANreosraEN~ ° ELEVATION - - ❑ IAII5,ll l`ama' c a N - - ° 856.5 aooR,ENT-CE ° u 10 CY. T _ w oUMPSTER (N) 36" H RAISED BJ 27 4_-- 29/76T PLANTE Of mz RE-LOCATED ADA O/OT P3`KTNNG'IN ROW' PARKINGAND sAaK NeroAa RE-STRIPE FOR F NEWPARKING ) n _ __T Q W FO/OT pnarcN N~ N rorp~aow zo 0/79T cLenT' - ) _ v Aa EL C.- n E"l K Eo NG N aow d OT PAR 1, U TT o c ~E) 8" SAN. SEW. N PP Y o f J~D Jt TTER AINf I(N) RETAINING WALL rc O rorA I I T T" o,aresa.aam r OIL C n^~,~ I I I (E) ELECT VLT (N) RETAINING WALL p~ -(E) I " STORM DRAIN ACCESS ema e z R(E) ELECT VLT o p p ~e 33 m= s ai wn,.ieo, oue,.ai.l e oaol laae.aai=,w=a.: s e ov,.,ma:a ro PROPOSED SITE PLAN darex expansion 210 hersey street NORTH o=o~, Poa+....waw,.uuax. 01-S' 16' 32' 64 ✓ crm Fvac-r-n" Prepared by OgdenRoem,,W Ikerson Architecture, AIA 2950 East Barnett Road Medford, Oregon 97504 - - conrad. David Wilkerson k ENT F_ L - L.; _ day d@orworcl- - tel: 541-779-5237x20 deed names and address: - Bernard, David A; Trustee and Bernard, Marlon e A, Trustee FSO; Bernard v _ - - Family Trust J 210 E Hersey St Ashland, Oregon 97520 _ statistics, AN, I'i U I. [ address 210 E HERSEY ST ASHLAND map 391E04cD tax lot#: 2000 oning: El vedoy: PARTIAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY f- - - - site review: BASIC ZONE C setbacks front yard: 25B side yard street None required side yard: None required v lJJ - rear yard: None required LLJ PROPOSED PROJECT NARRATIVE: . ~ ~ Dprex s mend n9 fo odd fe fhe r ex st ng structure / Q owords fhe rear of the 0orex pr ri fle, r t W ELI n an '.I e y St-- f w u e x,eri d expand he c-r-1 rac rtes 7E / Proposed mater als are Meml s d ng and metal f r a U - stood seem roof Ph 2 ase 2 w II be a future development fo be determined FF= ONED E-I byihepwner i Icy c SITE - VICINITY MAP SITE ANALYSIS MAP G DIAGRAM NO SCALE PROPERTY ZONIN darex expansion SCALE: v=loo o° 210 hersey sreet NORTH NOTES: PROPERTY ZONED IN BASIC SITE REVIEW. 2. MAP IS ORIENTED TO ALIGN WITH ATTACHED SITE PLAN. ,A~Iwx a \ e es ~ ~ aM e I YRDPO~PD~BGILDIVG I B I ~ 5 L%ISiINGBUILDINU ~ ~ II / ~ I ir-es~ I ~ aT116ro I ll i I "a I s~.~- rxsi camas a. oe'/ ~ ~ ~ Li F \ g E~ii - ees- mao camw b1 ~ w ~ o 'a k7 ~rnawmx j ~ " j 7--6- --c - _ ~ I I ~F iiiii 43 PRPIIMINARY GRADING DRAA''AGE &EROSION CONTROL PLAN E aarox eoarePw.xx~e \ I xu++c ,rP, I~ I z xxea,~ 5 ~ E ~ I Eeaxrwox u sa+c on i I ~=ss F - - I d U W 9PE AF~P NQ~J ~ OU ~ > siAFF pm w scaaet 40W I d ¢ U I~I 'Q PANrtE FAQ oNC A .rw a Assoc aieo ~ ' eovea wn art I I surtoavocavrx xawe ux ncuunoxcovrx <nwz vnamua noxcovu s+ee i v +xac I +x++r oN osssux xAaz i , uxosenee zawx xuxascue xcrv,: x I ++a axroec.r. sso<e cxucs.r, A xsxnoe - w.aox xsxnoe xs~ov. I - - - - cxunzEanm 3 s~~ ~e~x,EeP~rtxx~ o lm e~aneNS +r., ee.uMex - z 0 z tl x Lu O X. LLJ N Q P LANDSCAPE SITE . PLAN ssuelATl osms - +uu BIKE PATH c L 1.0 scale: 1'=40'-0" ~ KenCa~rn II S 11 T I ~ ~ I~ ~ I I Ir ~I I, A g .d I I a~.~.n a I Z G - ~ ~ ~ ~ aNmao 9PE AF I i Drawn _ Y .u. .mo L - ! scaLE tAFFesO I m I - z y r l z rn ma I / uw w 0 a w Z ~w aor oNa „ w 0 .~~.n .~,E~oEAs n TREE s I n„xn~x.,,nEM„n noanE,~no~nx~,o~nnnnF d`am` ' I,- PROTECTION PLAN w.ea nn~„Enann A n TME,nEE.nnM fift I- ° I eO L 1.1 , 4o,.o„ TREE PROTECTION ~ - - - - - > IRRIGATION T. - KenCa hrn xre F'I I l( a II e a ' L'. e ens I 11 III I ~ I ~ ~II a ~ I ~ ~ ,owner I -TIN a ~ II 9rAEE LEGEND - sYM TEM I " 1--- nul~wE S+u+oas ursxuuxsssxuzes xsoursnowc. - stewes-sen.ao,miu.s¢ssxuissuoin. os vnsslxcvivs. - ' L, au cnrawT>pxsvn VVE xuxrsaa•ac c®eo.c., I. - coxraousa xurvr[x>xocwtx souasxc - - zoxs ro- s I icnnox 'Ij I ~ I vnvesiu I F IRRIGATION HEAD LEGEND - ~x I I~ . + ,N~ 'I VIII W ~ F Z rn ,III I~ f aa. co ar ~x W wm ~I O f. IRRIGATION NOTESr WLI . C ecrvarnsnwxoro asu ux xnrsuc aaenrox sa ' xr cn ~ ~ II ~ W N + sursn rtsns saaaross rn ncrous xonnme owrv xcsunnme r i _ J I wxrnxnr+oas,[oxsl+ crswssxcouxrsnsn. ' r -.r outs uouas ca+n xur rn xcxs ~ _ rcc scnroxsuoosxon. ax +uw nusaaxrc~xxsaos s ' xu+csoaosnsnxn omsx -crnocum x monsnswarrcs - _ - +II~ N ursau+xss +z xcxwwmuu.+unxuxs +sixcx - o - ~I Id- 0 N Q sc rnucoxcrnuowrww - re s+avswwnoxs nss a roaaru+exnvcauceu - e m - mnnoxx~ssssnascoao x ooao o+wwxcsrome ^ _ soe II o I~ ~ - ~ gEVSOM OntE ooxnvnxsro nrn ~x I Ar, o xsoucsomsv. ~ ~ ~ nsrcomasrExrwoaxm sn.nxooaosazvwu+xe+ I saEPa~ExrnnE - - I crate r ~xra - LANDSCAPE xn, nx Y= - IRRIGATION x - !f PLAN o x rnn~xc~ xxxoxxsnno _ hi srn Enn ~,nnE. Pxom~,< rx~,osra.E~. ~ _ _ _ ssue oaTE. aa~nrnx~PE.x~svuuE. wnwxEns o,rn s,axxr rnmxm..sPa. Eon~..~<s. - a I nx+ExExo. _ zz. ~nxranc,na sx~+rEai~.s+Ew~xx.ncnnx:aro nr^„nxnr,xn>anPwEO~aa .,nw~n I I L 1 o L 2.0 T11 -T kr n o E xn~ n ssu ca+ramu=a wale: V=401,D1L r., rs s " " °°°s " KenCairn _ _ .s v,. , Landscape Archnccmre as o~ I o ALEGENFRELIMINARY D / Y i \ K ~M a wn n e n<n x T, ~ r ~ s s ~ m , O O , y u1 ? ~ s «o o I s E - xn.s-s `LJ _ O nµ s ~ s•s s osrs,wuesnoosorarx C=iT ~ ~~i, rasruwscmxc nxcwsossaumso_ _ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTE wewreex, u.~se Nu w eix-'o - - Nm s_ m~cx LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN k .m a n as w-, mx-, ~ ~ issuE°zas _ _ - - D e°,D, , L 3.0 acol : V-40'-0, - KenCairn cx°wxxms vnm a m ~dscapcA 6lectute sx° w o° _ 1 I rIi ~G r cx° CEO x°sw, ~~wlnll Il~liF ILI~la11-1 r X - xEr°xP"cm , war,.w rt,»E.r. II~II:II IFtllll m s.r say c.s,,.° - ma.i 4 sTPA tou-csusxeo oRwN re ewrx m „ i w - _ U osiaffs~ K U - ~z ssncxc - nsovss°,uxs °iNr xas.,nw°xrvr csr rcn ms°csnucm mex°orsnuocx ueTea. nr I ,o„wn+wusF~...+ ~u,"cw`s"xor I' I - - xrexwrroasov x crnmaszr - ii ~ 1 wax vPCnxunes xECarnrnsxueu I~ ~ c,r.rz i Eorcxusx ~lil r - ax I an racnnxire O O n,s~,xr. I N ` fT z ~I Tni0~ it ii`iF~~i~u~iiiil, x.E c~E z .~xxs~xxsxEo xocx,~, .III=11 1-ul-III'Tt* cma"crs°s°x~xnoE L[1 y O d -R ERSA-LUK IAN a W = C Q r _.l ~F'' III I , , - LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT it sPLAN-MINI-PARK (PRIM TE WI PUBLIC ACCESS) /32 , _o'. L 4.0 VERTICALSTACK........:-~..:.. L:........ L..:.:.:.~~......~~.::.:.8 ~t.......~., G..:.:..,~::.l1: - KenCairn - - - - - - ~ Landscape Architecture I I 6 r c9pF AFC I A E) PRLLII. IN,RY PLANT LEGEND ~rJ,e e O N I „ W y o i2 ~ ~ 1' Lux o „ ass ~I a-, I aE~seNOaTE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTES ALTERNATE l LANDSCAPE I PLANTING rs ~ l PLAN kI , L 5.0 wale: V-40'-0"' r i`. a ' _ CSC A µ Sa ~4 -~j•` T t- O kS" - - tea` - d r SAO lot Vol !I ~ I I t' ~ n t+~ .y TN HF. l 1. r s~ Lam' _ - - aI~ F -#3:..s v`Lie w-. r - s hey aw..,- r r? 'F LL a d I i 0 i I I I I o I I I I I ,r i . _ 1 I - i Ir L I ILL - oI h I f --al L ~ - ------------------------1I I lI Ir Ir Ir ~ lI Ir Ir Ir Ir IT 2 Pr b q 30/59 ._a•„ 1 %~0 2T _ 31,680 S0 F a 9/21T - p 1 1 ,T. 1 1 na tcluke c r1 r. FL 1 118,440 IF r EXSTING El FACTORY/ ❑ 1,890 SF WAREHOUSE EXISTING OFFICE ELEVATION 1856.5 ELEVATION L.16' E i 1856.5 F, T„f ~ "off ..~E U.>.o ry - O/OT 1~ 0/0T w I7/162T ~ e SOT W 15,390 SF 560 SF 5/ 67 EXISTING OFFICE' ENG. qw. _ WAREHOUSE IB 14bT - 1 0 " 5 Y ELEVATION 1856VSTION W 1856. 4 2T ` a 0 ,,/79T - 66T p ' 27/109 ••=`•kP~ y - F ~17 _~~-Ju--- darex expansion - option d7 210 Kersey street i~ ~ ~J : 204 4(d w 11 b 30!59 6i6T ®12T~~ - - OG F 20/29 ,I 1~ W u uv m ; ~ I I e/zir _ oeroe ~ k 6.. 1 1 c - - ~ -I I I 1,01 - J 18,440 SF ❑ 2,762 SF o EXISTING i ON IN FACTORY/ - I' ' I ? . I r 'III ❑ e.,ari r BUESS ' 1890 SF WAREHOUSE I. BUJ' IN LONG EXISTING fl t OFFICE ELEVATION - - - _ ELEVATION 1856.5(+ IA56.5 ELEVATION d t 1856.6 - - - - yF I'. a= I 1 ~ j 0/OT I I T W 15,390 SF 1,560 SF 5/67T = EXISTING ENG. EXISTING , W 8 OFFICE 8 l WAREHOUSE ~ l w ELEVATION ELEVATION p[ 6.5 I ud u. 19-] 1856.6' _ p f 2 4! 2T - - 6 _E d - 66 - c~ 1 a I eL 7 J [ fi 7/73T I I I I , darex expansion - a ti®n dl L 210 hersey street p '1`5 ®4~ Land Use. 110 Lead Use' 110 General Light Industrial reneral Light Industrial Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On Land Use Description a: Weekday have an standing facilities devoted to a sin le use.al The office facilities pace. Typical light typically have minim sing equipment, _ Peak [ i 1 - industrial facilities are free- Light rIal testing and assembly of ing related uses. o~,c Period 7:0 u' a m.; rr^ emphasis on activities other than mE at industrial activities include printing manufacturing (Land Use 140) are data process , in - 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.; Industrial park (Land use 130) - 1:00-3:00 M. Number of Stud Sites 7 Database Description demand rates at the d suburban together- Average Size of Stud Sites 210,000 .9. ft. GFA The database consisted of a mix of suburban and urban sites. Parking Average Peak Period Parking Demand 0.75 vehicles er 1,000 s . ft. GFA ,t. Standard Deviation 0.33 sites were similar to those at urban sites and therefore the da ft GFA Cfive combined study and sites) and 1 analyze o Were .3 spaces Per Coefficient of Variation 44% supply ratios: 1.1 spaces per 1,000 sq. Range 0.36-1.19 vehicles per o Average Parking to ee (five study sites). _ 1,000 s . ff. GFA employee ifour study sites). ft. GFA per amp y 85th Percentile 1.13 vehicles per 1,000 s . ft. GFA ees working on all shifts. - 33rd Percentile 0.49 vehicles per 1,000 s q. it. (31-A ® Average of employment density: 1,200 sq . of impIt toYis uncle this land use was the total number The number of employees for peak at different hours. Prior from or t aft" shift Facilities with employees that work on shifts may collected for this land use whether the parking demand counts occurred during, Weekday Peak Period G changes at the study sites. to edbetweenoneaan ninlo Four yeB, Parking Demand sites that were submitted were 1 substantially 00 sq. ft . smaller than GFA the and imp other y sites arke ve contained d hicles in P the database. 600 The sties ranged Pizeeriod between 1 obs 00 and 5, - persons. The p demand observed t these four sites was 1.13 p demand information from these sites was excluded from the data plots and analy N The parking ®1 ® 67 500 Study Sites/Years - _ _ - - , X (1985); Oklahoma City, OK (1987); Glenview, IL (1990); Anaheim, CA Z 0 400 Anaheim CA (1984); Dallas, T i (1991); Seattle, WA (1999); Nornslown, PA (2001) - 300 - - f ® - - 200 ® CL P=0.61x+6 100 - 2 J _ R - 0.81 0 T 0 200 400 600 8001 f i x e 1,000 sq. ft. GFA - -'iral Data Points -Fluid Curve eaddecene<anon,3rdedmon Land Use, 130 Land Use-. 110 Industrial Park General Light Industrial Land Use Description Average peak Period Parking Demand vs: Employees Industrial parks contain a number of industrial or related facilities. Industrial parks are characterized by a mix of manufacturing, service and warehouse facilities, with a wide variation in the proportion of each on a: Weekday type of use from one location to another. Many industrial parks contain highly diversified facilities some - - with a large number of small businesses and others with one or two dominant industries. General light industrial (Land Use 110) and manufacturing (Land Use 140) are related uses. cried - - - - 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m; Database Description 1:00-3:00 re 5 e Average parking supply ratios: 1.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA (11 study sites) and 1.2 spaces per Number of Stud Sites 380 em to ees employee (eight study sites). Average Size of Stud Sites 0.64 vehicles per em to ee a Average site employment density: 900 sq. ft. GFA per employee (eight study sites). Aver- e Peak Period Parkin Demand 0.21 Standard Deviation 32% The following table presents a time-of-day distribution of parking demand for five study sites. Coefficient of Variation o.42-0.88 vehicles er em to ee - - Rana 0.81 vehicles er em to ee U ne n^ v ^ fes W-l r v Da Stith Percentile 0.53 vehicles per em to ee DOa II _ , F tIf Pe 11j Nun _ 331d Percentile 12:00-4:00a.m. 0 -----5:00 a.m. - 0 F - 60 Weekday peals Period 55 2 82 5 Parking Demand 88 89 5 11:00 a.m. 90 5 1200 .m 92 4 1000 - - - 1:00 .m. 97 2 - - 2:00 .m. 100 2 _ C8 000 ® 3:00 95 2 4:o0 .m. 77 2 - _ 5:00 .m. 62 2 6 600 -r _ 7:00 .m. 0 B - - - - - - - - - - - - - e:oo 400 - - - - - .m. - a P = 0.42-+ 17 9:00 .m. - o 10:00 .m. - 0 - - 200 Subset of database R e 0.99 0 Study $itesNoars 0 1500 1000 0 50O San Francisco, CA (1985); Berkeley, CA (1990); Anaheim, CA (1991); Renton, WA (1991); Clackamas, X ® Employees OR (1995); Portland, OR (1995); Tempe, AZ (1995); Wilsonville, OR (1995) _ _ ----Average Rate Fitted Curve o Actual Data Points \ eraNOn, Std Ed i on Bnyll4ute of Tran p ri 1 en Engin es P k' D G reNOn, 3rd Ediflon ,aR~ p'eo~ Park 9Qen - ~~I 33 nstl4ute of Transpokafion Eng n¢e 32 ,.t'" Land Use: 130 Lard Usea 130 lndustrial Park Industrial Park Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Employees On a: Weekday Average peak period ®ndingWDemand vs: 1,000 sq. f#. GPA jj~ Peak Period 1:0o a.m -12 im m.,; 1:uu-a:uu .m. sou-4:u0 .i Number of Stud Sites 8 - - - 7:vv °m 1G uu Average Size of Stud Sites 250 employees Peak Pena Average Peak Period Parking Demand 0.89 vehicles per employee Number of Stud Sites 194,000 s . ft. GFA Avera e Size of Stud Sites 1.27 vehicles er 1,000 s . ft. GFA Standard Deviation 0.24 Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 0 62 Coefficient of Variation 27% Standard Deviation 49% Range 0.60-1.36 vehicles per employee coefficient of Variation 0.55-2.44 vehicles er 1,000 s . ft. GFA 85th Percentile 0.98 vehicles per employee Ran e 1.85 vehicles er 1,000 s . ft. GFA 33rd Percentile 0.83 vehicles per employee 85th Percentile 0.90 vehicles er 1,000 so. ft. GFA 33rd Percentile _ - - Weekday Peak Period Weekday Peak Period Parking Demand Parking Demand I _ - 600 a ~ I ~ a 700 500 - - - - ® 400 - - - - 600 "0 300 500 I - 400 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 300 ® 1 200 P = 0.76x + 26 200 - ® I 10®~ - R2 = 0.66 100 - 0 200 400 600 400 0 200 jf x Efnp9®yees 000 . ft. GFA 600 - - o I - r Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate L- o Actual Data Paints i _ _ Inst~Wte of'he p rt tion Engineers ✓-,~d 35 Parking G-vion 3,d Edition Perk g tl natation, 3rd Ed bo mot" Insifu€e of TrensPeree4on~~_ 34 _ Land Use, 140 Land Use' 140 Manufacturing Manufacturing Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: 1,000 sq. ft. GFA Land use ®escriptt®n On a: Weekday Manufacturing facilities are areas where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials or pas tistic vary substantially from one facility to another. In into s generally also have office, warehouse, peak Period finished products. Size and type of activity may Y , eal:. Fern., D,:mar~d 2:00-3:00 .m. addition to the actual production of goods, manufacturing facilitie research and associated functions. General light industrial (Land Use 110) and industrial park (Land Use Number of Stud Sites 3 130) are related uses. Average Size of Stud Sites 165,000 s q. ft. GFA Average Peak Period Parkin Demand 1.02 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA Database Descripti®n Standard Deviation 0.23 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA (three study sites) and 1.3 spaces Coefficient of Variation 23% Average parking supply ratios: 1.3 spaces p Range 0.82-1.27 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA 000 sq. ft. GFA per employee (three study sites). 85th Percentile 1.18 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA Pat. employee (three study sites). Average site employment density: 1, 33rd Percentile 0.92 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA Parking demand counts were only submitted between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. and between 2:00 p.m. - and 3:00 p.m. Study Sites/Years Weekday Peak Period Parking Demand Bellevue, WA (1991); Kent, WA (1991) u, 250 d 200 - cD > 150 100 ® - - 50 - - n 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 x ® 1,000 sq. f#. GFA • Actual Data Points _ Insti9ute ofi Transportat on Engineers Q '&g GeneraAOn, 3M Ed'Aion „ram"-~on, 3ttl Edition P MgG i sti4ute of TranspoHation Engineers 36 1 Lard Use: 140 Land Use. 150 Manufacturing Warehousing Land Use Description Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs; Employees Warehouses are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, but they may also include office and on a: Weekday maintenance areas. Database Description tic _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - 2 u013 uu 'n o Average parking supply ratios: 0.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA and 1.0 space per employee. reak Perlau 3 a Average site employment density: 4,100 sq. ft. GFA per employee. Number of Stud Sites 160 em to ees Avera e Size of Stud Sites 0.97 vehicles or em to as The study sites consisted of a grocery store distribution warehouse, dot.com warehouses, paper supplier Avera e Peak Period Parking Demand 0.24 warehouses and transfer and storage companies. Standard Deviation 24% Coefficient of Variation 0.75-1.22 vehicles er em to se The following table presents a time-of-day distribution of parking demand for the 10 study sites. Ran a 1.14 vehicles er em to ee sa; 85th Percentile 0,88 vehicles er em to as 33rd Percentile r r IP e -r^t" ,a,', 1-6,gini ,3 F..r-r~tN~P - - II _ 12.00:00 0 - Weekday Peak Period 5:00 a.m. p Parking Demand 6:00 00 a.m. o a.m. 0 5:00 a.m. 71 10 9:00 a.m. 92 10 10:00 a. m. 100 10 N 250 ® 11:00 a,m. 99 10 12:00 mm. 88 10 1:00 - 0 es 200 - - - - 0 0 150 - 0 0 ~ 6:00 .m. - 0 0 i 1 0 8:00 .m. 0 ~ 9:00 .m. - 0 I a:oo .m - a 50 0 IL 0 4-- - " Subset of database 0 50 100 150 200 250 For eight of the study sites, data were also collected for trucks parked at the site. The average truck parking demand ratio was 0.11 trucks per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA with a range between 0.04 and 0.25 trucks % o Employees per 1,000 sq, ft. GFA. L------------ _ - Study Sites/Years a Actual Data Points C Syracuse, NY (1988); Bellevue, WA (1991); Seattle, WA (1991); Clackamas, OR (1995); Gresham, OR 6 (1995); Milwaukee, OR (1995); Portland, OR (1995); Wilsonville, OR (1995) Parking dener 0r 3rd E Institute oP Transportafran Engl.... Paiklnp eenarallon 3rtl Eddan Inst tut. of dransporta4- EnBrneers 3S - a Land Use. Land Use. 150 Warehousing Warehousing Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Employees Average Beak Period Parking Demand vs: 9,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday On a: Weekday Peak Period - _ r i ,i 00-300 m. 2 00 3:U0 .m..:. - - - Number of Study Sites 13 Peak Period NumberofStud Sites 390,000 s s ft. - GFA Average Size of Stud Sites 190 em to ees . Average Size of Stud Sites p.41 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 0.78 vehicles per em to as Average Peak Period Parking Demand 0.30 Standard Deviation 0.26 Coefficient of Variation Standard Deviation 73% 33% Coefficient of Variation 0.03-1.06 vehicles er 1,000 s . ft. GFA Ran e 0.36-1.16 vehicles per employee Range 0.67 vehicles per 1 ,000 sq ft GFA 85th Percentile 1.01 vehicles er emplo as 85th Percentile 0.28 vehicles er 1,000 s . ft. GFA - 33rd Percentile 0.81 vehicles par emplo ee 33rd Percentile - Weekday Peak Period Weekday Peak Period Parking Demand Parking Demand i 700 - - 7 - v 600 P = 0.80x 700 o - - - T 600TP=_0.41x-5 --------------1 500 R2=0.86 R2 = 0.87 E 500 - - - o 400 - > 400 300 300 a 200 0 tt 100 200 - ® T - ® - _ 11 100 0 - 0 200 400 600 800 e~ 0 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 x m Employees I x ® 1,000 sq. ft. GFA - J Actual Data Points Filled Curve/Average Rate L--- -Fitted Curve/Average Rate ® Actual Data Points i. is ~ T i itt Ye of Transportation E,Gmeers41 Pa n 11 "d-C'," erkmB aenera(an 3 d E.li..m _ rl'n ee - g era m " insiRUte of Transpo,aa_ En01ne s - q0__- - ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division C I T Y OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # f -4S H LAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? El YES NO Street Address Assessor's Map No. 391 E Tax Lot(s) Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Phone E-Mail Address City I Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone -E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR. ENGINEER. ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip Titles Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip l hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. /understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. l further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that l produced suffrc%nt factual evidence at the hearing to support this request- 2) that the findings of fact furnishedjustifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. t Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to e removed at my expense. lfl have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. r Applicant's Signature Date Aso wne o t pro erty involved in t s request, If have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property own r. Oro erty Own 's Signa ur (required) Date Fro be completed by City Staff / Date Received r Zoning Permit Type_ f Filing Fee $ OVER N Wcomm-de0planning\Forms & HamdoutslZoning Permit Application.doc Job Address: 210 HERSEY ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A P Owner's Name: MATTHEW C BERNARD 0 Phone: Customer 07966 N State Lic No: R P ADROIT CONSTRUCTION T City Lic No: Applicant: R I Address: A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: T Address: N Applied: 07/15/2015 0 T Issued: R Expires: 01/11/2016 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Commercial Site Review - Darex VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Commercial Site Review (type2) 15,488.95 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.onus Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF