HomeMy WebLinkAboutRussell_474_PA-2015-01284
CITY F
ASHLAND
December 9, 2015
Notice of Final Decision
The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following:
Planning Action: PA-2015-01284
Subject Property: 474 Russell Street
Owner/Applicant: Laz Ayala/Ayala Properties, LLC
Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct two mixed-use buildings
for the property located at 474 Russell Street. "Building A" will be a two-story, mixed use 8,688 square
foot building consisting of commercial space and garages on the ground floor, and four residential
condominiums on the second floor; "Building B" will be a two-story 12,617 feet commercial building
consisting of commercial space with six residential condominiums on the second floor.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
lE 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2805.
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,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
7
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
1
L'r
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 to
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.
t
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection
18.5.1.060.I.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. Tinge 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
I8.5.1.060.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
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 II decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission.
a. Oral Argwnent. 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 ~
is
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.
is
C
ii
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 f
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 L
www.ashland.or.us _
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-01284, A REQUEST FOR ) I
SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF )
TWO MIXED-USE BUILDINGS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 474 )
RUSSELL STREET. "BUILDING A" WILL BE A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE ) G
808 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING CONSISTING OF COMMERCIAL SPACE )
AND GARAGES ON THE GROUND FLOOR, AND FOUR RESIDENTIAL ) FINDINGS,
CONDOMINIUMS ON THE SECOND FLOOR; "BUILDING B" WILL BE A ) CONCLUSIONS,
TWO-STORY 12,617 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF ) AND ORDERS
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND GARAGES ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND SIX )
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. )
APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/Ayala Properties, LLC )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #2805 of Map 39 lE 09 AA is located at 474 Russell Street and is zoned E-1, Employment.
2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct two mixed-use buildings
for the property located at 474 Russell Street. "Building A" will be a two-story, mixed use 8,688 square
foot building consisting of commercial space and garages on the ground floor, and four residential
condominiums on the second floor; "Building B" will be a two-story 12,617 feet mixed-use building
consisting of commercial space and garages on the ground floor, and six residential condominiums on
the second floor. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows;
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
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 1
f;
i
I
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may j
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 Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on November 10,
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
appropriate development of the site.
k;
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 2
r=
2.2 The Planning Commission fords that the proposal for Site Design Review approval meets all
applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050.
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 I8, 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 application materials provided note that all of the applicable provisions of the property's E-1 zoning
from AMC 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 are being complied with, and no exceptions or variances are proposed.
The Commission further finds that the subject property's underlying zone is E-1 (Employment) and
within this 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. While there are residential properties at the perimeter of the subdivision, the subject
property does not directly 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 31-foot maximum height here complies with this limit.
i
2.4 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)." The application
materials suggest that the proposal complies with the Residential Overlay regulations found in AMC
18.3.13.010, including but not limited to commercial and residential ground floor ratios as well as j
permissible residential densities. The applicants emphasize that the "project is for an attractive and well
thought-out mixed use development that will not only provide the City with needed small unit housing
and new office space close to the downtown core, but is also in keeping with the original subdivision's
envisioned concept plans and is contextually compatible with the existing building on Lot 44 across the
street. "
The Commission finds that for properties within the E-1 zoning district's Residential Overlay,
residential development is allowed at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The application materials
provided explain that the property is 0.636 acres in size and thus has a base density of 9.54 dwelling
units. The proposal is for six two-bedroom units, two one-bedroom units and two studio units that will
be less than 500 square feet and thus count as only 3/a units for density purposes. This calculates to 9.50
dwelling units and complies with the property's allowed base density.
The Commission further finds that within the Residential Overlay zone, AMC 18.2.3.130.B.1 provides
that, "If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, j
not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses." The applicant
notes that:
i
PA 92015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 3
i
i
I
I
"The proposal is for two buildings on one site The overall ground floor° of both
buildings is 11,302 sq. ft., including residential garages and commercial area footprints.
Building "A's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 2,743 sq. ft commercial
and 1, 801 sq. ft. residential. Building "B's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio
is 4,701 sq. ft. commercial and 2,057 sq. ft. residential. Combined, the ground floors of
the two buildings have a commercial to residential ratio of 7,444 sq. ft. commercial to
3,858 sq. ft. residential (66% commercial / 34% residential) in compliance with AMC
18.2.3.130 B.1. Further, although the Municipal Code defines the two buildings as "one
building" due to the connection of the skywalk, the overall site area has also been
calculated in accordance with AMC 18.2.3.130. B.1 in order to determine the ratio of the
site that is commercial and residential. In this case, the calculations illustrate that 54%
of the site (14,946 sq. ft.) is deemed "commercial use" and 46% (12,763 sq. ft) is
deemed residential use. Specifically, the commercial area includes the footprint of the
two buildings, less the residential parking garages, ground floor hallway on Building
"A" and % of all other common areas such as the parking lot, access isle and plaza.
Based on these calculations, Standard 18.2.3.130 B. is complied with.
The Commission finds that, as noted by the applicant, if the buildings are considered to be a single
structure because they are connected by a "skywalk", they provide 66 percent of the total ground floor
area in commercial space, and if they are considered as separate buildings, 54 percent of the site is
reserved for commercial use. The Commission therefore finds that in either case, the requisite
commercial/residential split is satisfied.
2.5 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, these 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.
The Commission finds that the application materials assert that the proposal complies with the
applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC Chapter 18.4, and that no exceptions to the
Site Development and Design Standards are requested.
With regard to the Basic Site Review standards, the Commission finds that the application materials note
that the site's parking lot sits behind the two proposed buildings and will be screened fiom the front of
the property by the buildings and the elevated plaza area. The applicant suggests that two proportionally
wide buildings were determined to be significantly superior to a single mass, and the two proposed
building facades occupy the majority of the streetscape, and are separated by an elevated plaza area
which is noted as providing a break between the buildings while also addressing concerns expressed by
PA 92015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 4
I;
neighbors residing in the mixed-use building across the street who wanted to preserve some of the their
views of Mt. Ashland.
The Commission further finds that the applicant explains that with the exception of the residential
entrances, the buildings' primary commercial entrances are located on the ground level adjacent to the
public sidewalk; have been designed to face the street and sidewalk; and are clearly visible, functional,
and should remain open to the public during all business hours. The applicant notes that the standards
seek to have buildings on corner lots oriented to the higher order street or to the corner, and suggests that
in this case, the subject property is not on a corner lot, but on a sharp 90-degree curve in the street. The
applicant emphasizes that their design team looked at this standard and its intended purpose, and
determined that given the relationship of the curb, open space and residential neighborhood to the east, it
was more appropriate to have the buildings' entrances oriented to the commercial streetscape of the
subdivision and remain true to its commercial street character. The Commission here finds that the
building is on a curve in the Russell Street corridor rather than at a corner, and that the orientation
proposed is appropriate as proposed.
The Commission finds that the applicant notes that although warehouses and some
industrial/manufacturing uses are permitted in the E-1 zone, they have designed the building to
accommodate an array of uses which include commercial office and service businesses that will benefit
from attractive building designs and accessible public sidewalk, and will construct a public sidewalk and
install street trees along the property frontage, in keeping with city standards and the original vision of
the subdivision.
The Commission finds that the application materials provided include landscaping and site plans
identifying a screened trash and recycling area, and the applicant further notes that all site and building
lighting will meet requirements not to directly illuminate adjacent properties and noise ordinance
requirements as well. The applicant emphasizes that they have an interest in minimizing any typical
nuisance issues related to lighting or noise in order to provide the expected quality of living to the
project's residents.
With regard to the Detail Site Review Overlay standards, the Planning Commission finds that the site is
0.636 acres in size, or 27,710 square feet, and has a total proposed floor area of 21,305 square feet, for a
Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.) of 0.76, not including the plaza area, which exceeds the minimum
requirement for a 0.50 F.A.R. The applicant notes that the buildings' frontages have a variety of jogs
and other distinctive changes in the fagade for the purpose of creating an attractive streetscape, and that
the walls facing the street and plaza area will have displays, windows and doorways for at least 20
percent of the wall area. The buildings' working areas, pedestrian entrances and display areas are to be
transparent while also addressing current building code and conservation standards relating to energy
efficiency. The applicant explains that the buildings incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface
and finish to give emphasis to the entrances, and that the buildings' elevations illustrate a continuous
PA 92015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 5
plane of awnings between pilasters and vertical forms of the building that not only accentuate the
building's design, but also protect pedestrians form the rain and sun. The applicant further notes that the
buildings will front onto a 15-foot sidewalk with street trees planted in irrigated tree wells that, along
with the building awnings, provide relief from inclement weather and in return promote walking and
`people areas', and explains that the design of the plaza space, including canted stairs and adjacent
bench along the public sidewalk, was intended to create a sense of invitation to promote `people use' of
the plaza.
The Commission finds that the building is to be placed within five feet of the sidewalk as required in the
Detail Site Review standards, and that the landscape plan includes landscaping between the public street
and the parking lot. The application further explains that a landscape buffer is also in existence along the
southern property line adjacent to the existing retaining wall, and suggests that in general, there are no
incompatible uses on any of the adjacent lots as the surrounding lots are primarily vacant. The
application materials point out that the building materials include changes in relief for at least 15 percent
of the exterior wall area, and that bright paint colors or significant amounts of glass are not to be
incorporated in the buildings' facades.
The Planning Commission further finds that the Detail Site Review Standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C.
require that building facades incorporate "arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect
pedestrians from the rain and sun," and that the applicant notes that awnings are provided on the
proposed building for this purpose. In previous actions, the Commission has determined that a depth of
approximately seven feet was necessary to provide such protection, and could be provided through a
combination of recessed entry area and awning projection. The Commission finds that while it is not
completely clear from the drawings provided, it appears that the awnings here project only about four
feet from the building face, and a condition has accordingly been added below to require that in the final
design the awnings provide a protected area of at least seven feet in depth to protect pedestrians from the
rain and sun as required in the standard.
In terms of the Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments in AMC 18.4.2.040.D., the
Commission finds that the proposed buildings were designed to divide large building masses into
heights and sizes that relate to human scale, and that both incorporate changes in building masses, have
sheltering awnings and recessed entrances and include a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces. In
addition, both include windows, small scale lighting and trees that will be planted along the property's
frontage and throughout the site.
The Commission further finds that the subject property is outside the Downtown Design Standards
Overlay, and as such is subject to standards which limit the building area and length. The application
explains that the combined square footage of the proposed buildings is 21,305 square feet, and the
property frontage is less than 200 feet, and as such the buildings comply with the standards limiting their
footprints and areas to less than 45,000 square feet and their lengths to no more than 300 feet.
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 6
i
The Commission finds that the project was designed with a roughly 2,788 square foot plaza, and that the
combined gross floor area of both buildings is 21,305 square feet. As such, the plaza space represents
roughly 13 percent of the floor area, which exceeds the minimum ten percent plaza space requirement.
The applicant emphasizes that the plaza was designed to serve multiple purposes ranging from a view
corridor, a break in the building mass, a place for public gathering and recreation, a wind break, and an
area for seating and general relaxation. The plaza incorporates four of the required elements for plaza
space - sitting spaces, a mixture of sunlight and shade, protection from wind, and trees. The applicant
goes on to explain that there are roughly 30 formal seats in the plaza area as proposed, where only eight
are required, and that all of the seats will be at least 16-inches in height and 30-inches in width. The
plaza area also includes six shade trees, all of which will be at least two-inches in diameter when
planted.
The Commission finds that the applicant has provided the following parking calculations to address the
city's parking requirements, which are detailed in AMC 18.4.3.040:
Building "A" - Mixed-Use
Two (2) one-bedroom residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 1 %2 spaces per unit = 3 spaces
Two (2) two-bedroom residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 13/4 spaces per unit = 3.5 spaces
2,743 sq. ft. of general office @ 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 5.5 spaces
or
2,743 sq. ft. of medical or retail g 1 space per 350 sq. ft. = 7.8 spaces
Building "A" Total Parking Required = 12 - 14.3 parking spaces*
Building "B" - Mixed-Use
Two (2) studio residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 1 space per unit = 2 spaces
Four (4) two-bedroom residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 13/4 spaces per unit = 7 spaces
4,701 sq. ft. of general office @ 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 9.4 spaces
or
4,701 sq. ft. of medical or retail g 1 space per 350 sq. ft. = 13.4 spaces
Building "B" Total Parking Required = 18.4 to 22.4 parking spaces*
Total Combined Parking Required: 31 to 37 parking spaces*
Surface Parking Provided (Off-Street): 18 parking spaces
Garage Parking Provided: 10 parking spaces
Total Off-Street Parking Provided: 28 parking spaces
The range of parking required is dependent upon actual commercial uses; if the full amount of
downstairs commercial space were used as general office, the lower number of spaces would apply, and
if the full amount of downstairs commercial space were used as retail or medical office space, the high
PA 42015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 7
nuniber° ofpar°king spaces would be r°equir°ed.)
The Commission finds that a total of 18 parking spaces were installed as part of the subdivision's
original infrastructure installation, and that the applicant proposes to construct ten additional off-street
parking spaces in garages with the proposal. As detailed above, the total parking required is between 31
and 37 spaces where only 28 off-street spaces are proposed, and the applicant has requested to meet the
additional three to nine space parking demand through the parking management strategies found in
AMC 18.4.3.060 which provide that the off-street parking requirements may be reduced by up to 50
percent through on-street parking credits, alternative vehicle parking credits, mixed or joint use credits
where it can be shown that the peak demand for the individual uses is off-set and does not materially
overlap, transportation demand management plan credits, or transit facilities credits.
The Commission finds that these credits allow for a maximum combined reduction in parking demand
of 50 percent; the reduction requested here is between 9.7 and 24.3 percent. In the case of 479 Russell
Street across the street, the Planning Commission approved a one-space on-street parking credit and
allowed an additional two-space reduction in the parking requirement through an 11 percent mixed-use
parking credit as it was determined that the peak demand of the ground floor commercial space and the
five-residential units above was materially offset to a degree to merit the reduction.
The Commission finds that there are ten on-street parking spaces along the subject property's frontage
(seven parking spaces are located along the north side of the lot's street frontage and three more on the
lot's east side) which are available as on-street credits. The application suggests that based on the credit
methodology discussed in AMC 18.4.3.060, 50 percent of the site's 18 surface parking spaces should be
available for mixed- or joint-use credits, creating a pool of 19 credits for the applicant's use (i.e. ten on-
street spaces plus nine (50 percent of the 18 surface spaces)). The Commission finds that the parking
demand management strategies do not mean that 50 percent of the site's available surface parking
spaces are available as a pool to be used in reducing parking demand, but rather that parking demand
inay be reduced by the Commission by up to 50 percent when it is demonstrated that the peak demand of
differing uses will be off-set to a degree that a lesser number of spaces can accommodate their combined
demand.
In this instance, the Commission fmds that the upper floor uses consist of ten residential units of varying
sizes. These ten units generate a total parking demand of 15.5 spaces, and ten garage spaces are to be
provided. The Commission finds that the peak residential parking demand is likely to be at night, while
the bulk of the lesser daytime residential demand could likely be accommodated in the garage spaces.
The Commission further finds that there are ten on-street parking spaces available to accommodate
parking demand that is not addressed off-street. If four of the ten on-street spaces are considered as on-
street parking credits and a 13 percent mixed-use credit is granted, the parking requirements are
satisfied. The Commission finds that this is an appropriate use of the available parking demand
management strategies in the code. (36.7 maximum required parking spaces - 28 spaces provided - 4
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 8
i
I
i
i
i
on-street credits = 4.7 space mixed use credit; 4.7/36.7 = 12.806 percent reduction). The Commission
further finds that for the site's parking to work it is essential that garage spaces be available for parking
rather than being used for storage by residents, and a condition has accordingly been included below to
require that the garage spaces remain available for vehicle parking and are not used for storage as
required in AMC 18.4.3.110, and that this limitation be reflected in the project's CC&R's.
The Commission finds that the required bicycle parking for the proposal includes 13 required covered
bicycle parking spaces for the ten residential units, and at least five bicycle parking spaces for the
commercial space, with at least three of these spaces to be covered. The applicant has proposed to
provide ten bicycle parking spaces in the residential garages, and an additional ten covered bicycle
parking spaces near the plaza to address the combined commercial and residential bicycle parking
requirement. All proposed bicycle parking spaces are to be designed in compliance with the Bicycle
Parking Design Standards noted in AMC 18.4.070. A total of 20 bike parking spaces will be
constructed, all of which will be covered; each of the ten enclosed garages will have one hanging bike
parking space and ten additional covered bike parking spaces will be installed adjacent to the plaza, next
to Building "A".
The Commission finds that the subject property's parking lot is pre-existing, and was constructed in
2003-2004 in conjunction with the other subdivision improvements. The curbing, drainage, landscaping
area, irrigation conduit, asphalt thickness, etc. met the Building and Planning standards at the time, and
the applicant intends to utilize the parking lot as originally constructed, completing the necessary
landscaping and irrigation improvements shown in the landscape plans, and does not propose to bring
the parking lot into compliance with the recently adopted parking area design requirements from AMC
18.4.3.080.B.5, which would require substantial modifications to the parking lot's surfacing and
stormwater drainage provisions.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the fourth 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 water, sewer, electricity, urban storrn drainage, paved access to
and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject
proper ty."
The Commission finds that the application materials indicate that all key facilities are available to
service the proposed buildings and were installed during the subdivision's initial construction in 2003-
2004. The application further explains that all utilities to service the buildings are available within the
adjacent Russell Street right-of-way or are already stubbed to the property, but that if necessary, services
will be installed at the time of construction in accordance with Ashland Public Work Standards. The
applicant indicates that in meetings with the various city utilities, it has been indicated that adequate
City facilities are available to serve the subject property.
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 9
i
The Commission further finds that planning staff have noted that in discussing the available public
facilities with the Public Works, Fire and individual utility departments they have determined the
following:
® Water - The property is currently served by an eight-inch water main in Russell Street, and the
applicant will need to extend services and pay any applicable service and connection fees
required for any new water services installed as part of this project. The Fire Department has
also indicated that because the project is mixed-use, monitored fire sprinklers will be required,
and a flow test has been scheduled to verify that flows are adequate to accommodate sprinkler
installation. The Fire Department also notes that one street light installed with the subdivision
infrastructure is incorrectly identified as a fire hydrant in the submittal materials; this will need
i
to be corrected in the final utility plan.
® Sanitary Sewer - The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in
Russell Street.
® Electricity - There is an existing three-phase service located at the southeast corner of the
subject property. The Electric Department has indicated that a second vault will need to be
installed within one of the parking lot tree wells, and will require bollards or other protection as a
buffer fiom parking cars.
® Urban Storm Drainage - The Public Works Department noted that stormwater issues were
considered in the subdivision infrastructure installation, and the property is currently served by a
12-inch storm sewer main in Russell Street as well as a 12-inch storm sewer in the interior of the
lot.
® Paved Access & Adequate Transportation - Russell Street is a commercial neighborhood
collector street, and was improved to city street standards as part of the subdivision infiastructure
installation, with the exception of sidewalks and street trees which were to be installed as each
lot develops. The street standards call for a five-foot hardscape parkrow with tree well with
irrigated street trees and an eight- to ten-foot sidewalk. The applicant has proposed to meet these
standards with the installation of a 15-foot sidewalk corridor.
With the construction of subdivision infrastructure, a pedestrian bridge over Mountain Creek was
constructed to provide a link for pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent residential subdivision
(Mountain Creek Estates) and down through the subdivision via Thimbleberry Lane to the North
Mountain Park area.
A future street connection will extend Russell Street to connect with Clear Creek Drive as part of
the adopted street dedication map for the area, and the original subdivision's developer was
required to sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) to participate in the cost of
constructing a future railroad crossing at Fourth Street.
PA 92015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 10
The Planning Commission finds that existing public facilities and utilities are in place and available to
serve the project, and have been preliminarily identified on the Site Plan provided and discussed in the
narrative. Utilities and street improvements were largely installed with the subdivision: water service,
sanitary sewer and storm drainage are available in Russell Street, and the applicant has indicated that
services will be extended as necessary to connect to the proposed buildings. Conditions have been
included below requiring that final electrical distribution, utility, storm drainage, and street
improvement plans be provided for review and approval prior to building permit submittal, and that any
fees for necessary service upgrades or connection to address specific service requirements for the
proposed buildings be paid for prior to permit issuance.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds the final criterion for Site Design Review approval provides that
the Planning Commission may approve Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of
part 18.4 if certain circumstances are found to exist. In this instance, the Planning Commission finds
that no Exceptions have been requested with the current application.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that utilities and street improvements were largely installed with
the subdivision creating the lot, and that the applicant proposes to complete these by extending services
to the buildings proposed and installing city standard fi-ontage improvements. No Exceptions or
Variances are requested, and the Commission finds that the proposed new buildings seem to have been
designed with city standards in mind, with their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking
areas, and visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street and accessed directly from
the sidewalk. Parking is located behind the buildings and within ground floor garages, and the surface
parking is visible from the second-story windows. The Commission finds that with the conditions
attached below, the proposal seems well-suited to the site and vicinity.
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 approvals for two mixed-use buildings at 474 Russell 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 #2015-01284. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-01284 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 conformance
with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be
submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 11
3) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their November 5, 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 all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including
approved addressing; commercial fire apparatus access including angle of approach and any
necessary easements; provisions for firefighter access pathways; fire flow; fire hydrant
clearance; fire department connection (FDC); fire extinguishers; a Knox key box; and monitored
fire sprinklers for mixed-use buildings.
6) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Russell Street, and the location
and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
7) That the front entrances adjacent to Russell Street shall remain functional and open to the public
during all business hours, and the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to
prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building.
8) That all garage parking spaces shall remain available for vehicle parking and shall not be used
for material storage, as required in AMC 18.4.3.110. This limitation shall be reflected in the
project CC&R's.
9) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility or
drainage easements, mutual access easements, fire apparatus access easements, and
public pedestrian access easements.
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those
described in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used.
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. These revised
plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of the Tree Commission from their
November 5, 2015 meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and
with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2) required size and species specific
replacement planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications, including the
requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering
schedule with seasonal modifications; 3) lot coverage and required landscaped area
calculations, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas,
and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent, and the
calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 15 percent landscaping and seven percent
parking lot landscaping are provided.
e) Stormwater drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of
the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The stormwater plan shall address
Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows do not
exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 12
I
i
i
I
site's stormwater shall be provided at the applicants' expense. Storm water from all new
impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on
site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i. e., curb gutter at public
street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in
accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection
systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering,
Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any
necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including
the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and
clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire
Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least
visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any
necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at
applicant's expense.
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all
primary and secondary services including any 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 outside the
pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas,
while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service
extensions or upgrades shall be completed at the applicant's expense.
h) That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of city-standard
street frontage improvements for the full frontage of the subject property, including five-
foot width hardscape parkrows with irrigated street trees, ten-foot sidewalks, and
pedestrian scale street lighting for the review of the Planning and Public
Works/Engineering Departments. If necessary to accommodate city standard street
frontage improvements, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or provide
public pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or right-of-way dedications
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning and Public
Works/'Engineering Departments.
i) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes bicycle parking spaces in each
of the ten garages and ten covered bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the project's plaza
space. Inverted ii-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle
parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.1, inspected and
approved prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit
submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are
met.
j) That the building permit drawings shall clearly demonstrate that an area of at least seven
feet in depth is provided at the front entries to provide pedestrians with protection from
rain and sun as required in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. This depth may be met by a combination
of any entry recess and the depth of an awning or other covering.
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 13
k) Revised elevations for the east end walls with additional windows in keeping with the
standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. Le. (Detail Site Review r^equirernent for^ indows adjacent
to streets and plaza and prohibiting blanks walls within 30 feet of a street) and AMC
18.4.2.040.D.1.a (Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments requiring a distinct
pattern ofwindoiis to relate to human scale).
10) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including
staging or the storage of materials:
a) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and
connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit,
and system development charges for water, sewer, storm- water, parks, and transportation
(less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid.
11) That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or issuance of a
certificate of occupancy:
a) All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, parking lot and driveway; 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) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at the street, and
underground electric services shall be installed according to the approved plans to serve
all units prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent residential proprieties.
C) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk,
parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet of frontage, and street
lighting, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in
accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f) The CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association or similar maintenance agreement shall be
provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final
survey plat. This agreement shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all
common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting strips and street
trees. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall be considered a
violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties
described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 14
g) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the
Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size
than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in
AMC 18.4.4.040.
7 4
December 8 2015
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2015-01284
December 8, 2015
Page 15
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 December 9, 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 #2015-01284, 474 Russell.
Signature of Employee
DocumeW 121912015
PA-2015-01284 PA-2015-01284 PA-2015-01284
AYALA PROPERTIES URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GARY CAPERNA
604 FAIR OAKS COURT 604 FAIR OAKS COURT 2908 HILLCREST ROAD
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD,OR 97501
PA-2015-01284 PA-2015-01284 PA-2015-01284
CEC ENGINEERING LAURIE SAGER & ASSOCIATES HUYCKE, O'CONNOR, JARVIS & LOHMAN
PO BOX 1724 700 MISTLETOE RD SUITE 201 823 ALDER CREEK DR
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504
474 Russell
NOD 12/9/15
6
i
f
G
x
I
I
E
f
G
f
f
I
t
((f
t
i
i
Proposed Staff Conditions
Based on the commissions discussions, Mr. Severson stated they will want to remove the Historic Commission
recommendations for the composition shingle roof and a residential use only in the Mickelson-Chapman house, and edit
condition #9L to state "Pedestrian circulation shall not reduce the driveway width below the proposed 154 width but maV
include a materially distinct pedestrian path within the driveway." Recommendation was made to modify condition #9M to state
"Building permit submittals are to include the identification of the placement of the trash enclosure, if any." Mr. Severson
questioned whether there was any interest in tying the restoration of the historic homes to the construction of the townhomes
and if so, suggested a condition that would state prior to the issuance of the fourth occupancy permit, the restoration of one of
the historic homes should be completed and before the completion of the last townhome or cottage the second restoration
shall be completed. Commissioner Pearce commented that until they know how the financing for this project will work he is
reluctant to include such a condition. Commissioner Dawkins noted they have had issues in the past with affordable units
never getting built and gave his opinion that it is reasonable to include a condition that addresses this. Commissioners Brown
and Mindlin supported a condition to address the timing, and Mindlin noted this is the only tool they have to ensure this gets
done. Commissioner Norton commented that if the houses are not improved the applicants will have a difficult time selling the
townhouses and he is not sure this condition is necessary.
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2015.01517 with the modifications and staff recommendations for
conditions #3, #4,#9J, #9L, #9M (including adding "if any" to the end), #11A, and conditions as stated by staff j
addressing the timing and the vision clearance along B Street. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Norton stated he can't i
support the motion and stated the full 25% bonus plus the office space is too much for the site. Commissioner Pearce stated
he is uneasy about the timing condition, but he will support the motion. Commissioner Miller stated she reluctantly supports
the motion and stated her preference would be for the units to look more residential. Commissioner Mindlin voiced support for
the motion and believes they have addressed all the issues. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Thompson, Miller,
Pearce, Dawkins, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioner Norton, NO. Motion passed 6-1.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015.01284
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 474 Russell Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/Ayala Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct two mixed-use buildings for the property
located at 474 Russell Street. "Building A" will be a two-story, mixed use 8,688 square foot building consisting
of commercial space and garages on the ground floor, and four residential condominiums on the second floor;
"Building B" will be a two-story 12,617 feet commercial building consisting of commercial space with six
residential condominiums on the second floor. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING:
E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2805.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Pearce, Norton, Mindlin, Brown, and Miller conducted site visits; no ex parte communication was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the application to construct two mixed use buildings at 474 Russell Drive. He
noted the bulk of the infrastructure is already installed, including the parking lots, streetscape, and pedestrian connection. He
reviewed the site plan, Tree Commission recommendations, landscape plan, floor plans, and elevations. He commented on
the commercial/residential split requirements (AMC 18.2.3.130.B.1) and provided a detailed overview of the parking
calculations. Mr. Severson explained the applicant's have illustrated how the parking will work as the commercial space
develops and provided a summary of their parking management strategy. He stated in evaluating the request staff believes
there is reasonable assumption that the residential and commercial parking demand will be offset and staff is recommending
approval of the parking management strategy and requiring 28 on-site spaces with 4 on-street credits and a 12.8% reduction. ;
Mr. Severson commented that it difficult to tell from the submittal how wide the entryways are and whether they would provide
adequate protection from sun and rain, and noted staff has recommended a condition of approval to address this. He also
commented on the fenestration standard and suggested the commission consider the number and placement of windows to
ensure large masses are divided into a more human scale. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is
recommending approval with the conditions as presented.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 10, 2015
Page 5 of 6
Applicant's Presentation
Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks/Mr. Knox introduced Laurie Sager, Laz Ayala, Cindy Dwyer, and Gary Caperna. He thanked staff
for the thorough presentation and stated they have no issues with the recommendations of the Tree Commission. He
commented briefly on the parking and stated he would let the project architect comment on the number and placement of
windows. Mr. Caperna addressed the commission and stated he understands staffs concern, but some of the window
placement is restricted by what's happening internally in the building. He stated they could potentially add some high windows
and noted some of the window locations suggested by staff are on walls where you would normally place a bed. He stated
staffs suggestion might be more aggressive than what they can feasibly incorporate, and noted engineering issues need to be
considered. Regarding the overhang at the entries, Mr. Caperna stated they could address staffs concerns by recessing the
doors a little more and extend the canopy to satisfy whatever conditions the Planning Commission adopts.
1
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Knox clarified there are 10 units proposed and each unit will have its own garage space. Regarding the west elevation, he
explained this side of the building faces the undeveloped railroad property and if the commission requires additional windows
on this frontage they should serve a purpose. Landscape Architect Laurie Sager addressed the commission and suggested
trees or plant materials be considered as part of the solution.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 9:45 pm.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Brown voiced support for the site plan and parking, but stated if the fenestration requirements are going to be
addressed with plantings the applicants need to provide a revised landscape plan that shows this. Commissioner Dawkins
voiced support for windows on the east side and questioned covering the walls with plants. Commissioner Mindlin stated this
is a small element of the proposal and believes they could condition this and leave it up to staff to make sure it is met.
Commissioner Pearce agreed and stated if the applicants can work with staff on the east wall he is fine with moving this
forward. Mr. Severson read aloud the proposed staff recommendation to address this issue (Condition #9K) and stated if the
commission is not concerned about the west side and the walls adjacent to the plaza space the condition could be revised to
just state the east end. Recommendation was made for an additional modification that would change the condition to read
"additional windows, or other design treatments" so that staff is not limited to approving only windows.
Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve PA-2015.01284 with the addition of condition #9K as discussed. Roll
Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Pearce, Miller, Thompson, Norton, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
r:
Ashland Planning Commission
November 10, 2015
Page 6 of 6
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
November 10, 2015
PLANNING ACTION: #2015-01284
OWNERIAPPLICANT: Laz Ayala/Ayala Properties, LLC
LOCATION: 474 Russell Street
ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1, Detail Site Review & Residential Overlays
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 2, 2015
120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 1, 2016
ORDINANCE REFERENCE (see httl _7 , z 5hiand.or.us/corndevdocs to view land use
code on-line):
i
18.2.2 Base Zones & Allowed Uses j
18.2.6 Standards for Non-Residential Zones
18.3 Special Districts and Overlay Zones
18.3.9 Performance Standards
18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design
18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation
18.4.6 Public Facilities
18.5.2 Site Design Review
i
REQUEST: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct two mixed-use
buildings for the property located at 474 Russell Street. "Building A" will be a two-
story, mixed use 8,688 square foot building consisting of commercial space and garages
on the ground floor, and four residential condominiums on the second floor; "Building B"
will be a two-story 12,617 feet commercial building consisting of commercial space with
six residential condominiums on the second floor.
1. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
The subject property is Lot #6 within the Falcon Heights Subdivision.
In 1991, a proposal was made to develop the subdivision's parent property. The
proposed development was initially approved by the Planning Commission; however, a
neighborhood group appealed the decisions to the City Council and eventually to LUBA.
The project was remanded to the City and a mediation process was initiated. Mediation
resulted in a mixed zone and density project.
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 1 of 16
The E-1 portion of the land, including the subject property and its parent subdivision, was
sold and the remaining residential land was split and zoned R-2 (Multiple Residential)
and R-1-3.5 (Suburban Residential). A mixed zone development plan for the residential
land received final plan approval in September 1998. That plan included a total of 49
dwelling units, including 27 detached single-family units which are now built and
occupied immediately to the north of the Falcon Heights Subdivision.
The city completed a draft Master Final Plan for Ashland's railroad property in June
2001. The subject property is included in this document. The consultants for that Master
Plan recommended a combination of uses from light industrial to office to affordable
housing for the subject property.
In 2002, the Planning Commission approved an Outline Plan for the seven-lot Falcon
Heights Subdivision on property located southeast of Rogue Place and north of the
railroad tracks as Planning Action #2002-00020. This approval superseded a previously
approved outline plan for 13 lots. Russell Street was created to provide access to the lots.
The developer at the time modified the original site design to accommodate his
development plans; these modifications were approved as part of Planning Action #2003-
00047. The subdivision plat map was approved and recorded, and utilities, parking, some
common area landscaping, and some street improvements have been installed.
In 2006, the Planning Commission considered a request for Site Review approval as
Planning Action #2005-01834 for a three-story mixed-use building consisting of four
ground-level commercial units and three residential units on upper levels located at 479
Russell Drive located across the street to the north on Lot #4. This initial application was
ultimately withdrawn and the proposal modified in response to issues with the height and
bulk of the proposed building that were raised during Planning Commission review. The
Planning Commission ultimately approved a modified proposal as Planning Action
42006-01787 in April of 2007. The approved application was for a two-story, 7,762
square foot mixed-use building comprised of retail and office space on the ground floor
and five residential units on the second floor. This building is now constructed and
occupied.
In May of 2008, the Planning Commission Hearings Board approved Planning Action
#2008-00598, a request for Site Review approval to construct a two-story, mixed use
building on Lot #5 at 489 Russell Street. This building was to have been 5,579 square feet,
with office space on the ground floor and two residential units on the second floor. An 18-
month extension of this approval was granted in April of 2009, but the approval has since
expired.
Since its creation with the recording of the Falcon Heights subdivision plat map, there are no
other planning actions of record for the subject property, and with the exception of Lot #4 at
479 Russell Street, the remainder of the subdivision remains vacant.
S. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site
The subject property is Lot #6 of the Falcon Heights Subdivision, is located at 474
Russell Street, and is a vacant 0.64-acre parcel zoned E-1 (Employment). The property is
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 2 of 16
located within the Detail Site Review and Residential overlays. The property is generally
rectangular with an approximate six percent slope from south to north. The site's parking
lot, including paving, curbs and storm drain were installed along with perimeter curbing,
street lights, fire hydrants and transformer boxes as part of the subdivision infrastructure.
A short retaining wall abuts the south property line; the application notes that the original
construction of this wall was poor, and that it is in need of repair.
Lot #6 has no significant natural features. There are no trees or shrubs on the property,
and while parking lot landscaping bays were installed with the subdivision infrastructure,
they were never planted. Mountain Creek, an intermittent or ephemeral stream according ~
to Ashland's adopted Water Resources Protection Zones Requirements map is located to
the east, across Russell Street. As an intermittent or ephemeral stream, Mountain Creel',
has a Water Resource Protection Zone which extends 30 feet upland of the centerline of
the stream to provide a riparian buffer. This protection zone is largely preserved and
protected in the subdivision's open space area and by the placement of Russell Street, and
does not extend onto Lot #6. Street trees, sidewalks, and landscaping are to be installed f
as each lot develops.
Single-family dwellings in Phase 1 of the Park Ridge Subdivision are located adjacent to
subdivision, to the north, and dwellings in Phase 1 of the Mountain Crest Estates
Subdivision are location to the east, across Russell Street and Mountain Creek. The
railroad property is located to the south, and various manufacturing, service and
commercial uses are to the west.
Proposal
The application involves a request for Site Design Review approval to construct
two mixed-use buildings for the property located at 474 Russell Street. "Building
A" will be a two-story, mixed use 8,688 square foot building consisting of
commercial space and garages on the ground floor, and four residential
condominiums on the second floor; "Building B" will be a two-story 12,617 feet
commercial building consisting of commercial space with six residential
condominiums on the second floor.
II. Project Impact
As detailed in AMC 18.3.12.030.C, any development within the Detail Site Review
Overlay which exceeds 10,000 square feet is to be reviewed through a "Type II"
application process and requires a decision by the Planning Commission through a public
hearing.
Site Design Review Proposal
Underlying Zone Requirements
The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies tinith
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 application materials provided note that to the best of the applicant's
r
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Repor ,dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 3 of 16
r:
G
r
knowledge, all of the applicable provisions of the property's E-1 zoning from AMC 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 are being complied with, and no exceptions or variances are
proposed.
The subject property's underlying zone is E-1 (Employment) and within this 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. While there are residential properties at the perimeter of
the subdivision, the subject property does not directly 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 31-foot
maximum height here 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)." The application materials suggest that
the proposal complies with the Residential Overlay regulations found in AMC j
18.3.13.010, including but not limited to commercial and residential ground floor ratios
as well as permissible residential densities. The applicants emphasize that the "project is
for an attractive and well thought-out mixed use development that will not only provide
the City with needed small unit housing and new office space close to the downtown core,
but is also in keeping with the original subdivision's envisioned concept plans and is
contextually compatible with the existing building on Lot #4 across the street."
For properties within the E-1 zoning district's Residential Overlay, residential
development is allowed at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The application
materials provided explain that the property is 0.636 acres) acres in size and thus has a
base density of 9.54 dwelling units. The proposal is for six two-bedroom units, two one-
bedroom units and two studio units that will be less than 500 square feet and thus count
f
as only 3/4 units for density purposes. This calculates to 9.50 dwelling units and complies
with the property's allowed base density.
Within the Residential Overlay zone, AMC 18.2.3.130.B.1 provides that, "If there is one
building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of
the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a
site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential I
uses." The applicant notes that:
"The proposal is for two buildings on one site The overall ground
floor of both buildings is 11, 302 sq. ft., including residential garages and
commercial area footprints. Building "A's" commercial / residential
ground floor ratio is 2,743 sq. ft commercial and 1, 801 sq. ft residential.
Building "B's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 4,701 sq. ft..
commercial and 2,057 sq. ft. residential. Combined, the ground floors of
the two buildings have a commercial to residential ratio of 7,444 sq. ft
commercial to 3,858 sq. ft residential (66% commercial / 34%
residential) in compliance with AMC 18.2.3.130 B.I. Further, although
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 4 of 16
the Municipal Code defines the two buildings cis "one building" due to the
connection of the skywalk, the overall site area has also been calculated in
accordance with AMC 18.2.3.130. B.1 in order to determine the ratio of
the site that is commercial and residential. In this case, the calculations
illustrate that 54% of the site (14,946 sq. ft.) is deemed "commercial use "
and 46% (12,763 sq. ft.) is deemed residential use. Specifically, the
commercial area includes the footprint of the two buildings, less the
residential parking garages, ground floor hallway on Building "A" and
of all other common areas such as the parking lot, access isle and plaza.
Based on these calculations, Standard 18.2.3.130 B. is complied with.
As noted by the applicant, if the buildings are considered to be a single structure because
they are connected by a "skywalk", they provide 66 percent of the total ground floor area
in commercial space, and if they are considered as separate buildings, 54 percent of the
site is reserved for commercial use. In either case, the requisite commercial/residential
split is satisfied.
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,
below." Generally, these 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.
The application asserts that the proposal complies with the applicable Site Development
and Design Standards of AMC Chapter 18.4, and that to the best of the applicant's
knowledge, no exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards are necessary
for this application.
Basic Site Review
The application materials note that the site's parking lot sits behind the two proposed
buildings and will be screened from the front of the property by the buildings and the
elevated plaza area. The applicant suggests that two proportionally wide buildings were
determined to be significantly superior to a single mass, and the two proposed building
facades occupy the majority of the streetscape, and are separated by an elevated plaza
area which is noted as providing a break between the buildings while also addressing
concerns expressed by neighbors residing in the mixed-use building across the street who
wanted to preserve some of the their views of Mt. Ashland.
The applicant further explains that with the exception of the residential entrances, the
buildings' primary commercial entrances are located on the ground level adjacent to the
public sidewalk; have been designed to face the street and sidewalk; and are clearly
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 5 of 16
visible, functional, and should remain open to the public during all business hours. The
applicant notes that the standards seek to have buildings on corner lots oriented to the
higher order street or to the corner, and suggests that in this case, the subject property is
not on a corner lot, but on a sharp 90-degree curve in the street. The applicant
emphasizes that their design team looked at this standard and its intended purpose, and
determined that given the relationship of the curb, open space and residential
neighborhood to the east, it was more appropriate to have the buildings' entrances
oriented to the commercial streetscape of the subdivision and remain true to its
commercial street character. Staff would concur here that the building is on a curve in
the Russell Street corridor rather than at a corner, and that the orientation proposed is
appropriate.
The applicant notes that although warehouses and some industrial/manufacturing uses are
permitted in the E-1 zone, they have designed the building to accommodate an array of
uses which include commercial office and service businesses that will benefit from
attractive building designs and accessible public sidewalk, and will construct a public
sidewalk and install street trees along the property frontage, in keeping with city
standards and the original vision of the subdivision.
The application materials provided include landscaping and site plans identifying a
screened trash and recycling area, and the applicant further notes that all site and building
lighting will meet requirements not to directly illuminate adjacent properties and noise
ordinance requirements as well. The applicant emphasizes that they have an interest in
minimizing any typical nuisance issues related to lighting or noise in order to provide the
expected quality of living to the project's residents.
Detail Site Review Overlay
The application materials explain that the site is 0.636 acres in size, or 27,710 square feet,
and has a total proposed floor area of 21,305 square feet, for a Floor Area Ration (F.A.R.)
of 0.76, not including the plaza area, which exceeds the minimum requirement for a 0.50
F.A.R. The applicant notes that the buildings' frontages have a variety of jogs and other
distinctive changes in the fagade for the purpose of creating an attractive streetscape, and
that the walls facing the street and plaza area will have displays, windows and doorways
for at least 20 percent of the wall area. The buildings' working areas, pedestrian
entrances and display areas are to be transparent while also addressing current building
code and conservation standards relating to energy efficiency. The applicant explains that
the buildings incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish to give
emphasis to the entrances, and that the buildings' elevations illustrate a continuous plane
of awnings between pilasters and vertical forms of the building that not only accentuate
the building's design, but also protect pedestrians form the rain and sun. The applicant
further notes that the buildings will front onto a 15-foot sidewalk with street trees planted
in irrigated tree wells that, along with the building awnings, provide relief from inclement
weather and in return promote walking and `people areas', and explains that the design of
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 6 of 16
the plaza space, including canted stairs and adjacent bench along the public sidewalk,
was intended to create a sense of invitation to promote `people use' of the plaza.
The applicant notes that the building is within five feet of the sidewalk as required in the
Detail Site Review standards, and that the landscape plan includes landscaping between
the public street and the parking lot. They further explain that a landscape buffer is also
in existence along the southern property line adjacent to the existing retaining wall, and
suggest that in general, there are no incompatible uses on any of the adjacent lots as the
surrounding lots are primarily vacant. The application materials point out that the
building materials include changes in relief for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall
area, and that bright paint colors or significant amounts of glass are not to be incorporated
in the buildings' facades.
I
The Detail Site Review Standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. require that building facades
incorporate "arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from
the rain and sun," and the applicant notes that awnings are provided on the proposed
building for this purpose. In previous actions, the Commission has suggested that a depth
of approximate seven feet was necessary to provide such protection, and could be
provided through a combination of recessed entry area and awning projection. While it is
not completely clear from the drawings provided, it appears that the awnings here project
only about four feet from the building face, and staff have recommended a condition
below to require that in the final design the awnings provide a protected area of at least
seven feet in depth to protect pedestrians from the rain and sun as required in the
standard.
Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments
With regard to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments found in AMC
18.4.2.040.D., the application materials explain that the proposed buildings were
designed to divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale,
and both incorporate changes in building masses, have sheltering awnings and recessed
entrances and include a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces. In addition, both include
windows, small scale lighting and trees that will be planted along the property's frontage
and throughout the site.
The applicant points out that the subject property is outside the Downtown Design
Standards Overlay, and as such is subject to standards which limit the building area and
length. The application explains that the combined square footage of the proposed
buildings is 21,305 square feet, and the property frontage is less than 200 feet, and as
such the buildings comply with the standards limiting their footprints and areas to less
than 45,000 square feet and their lengths to no more than 300 feet.
The applicant goes on to explain that the project was designed with a roughly 2,788
square foot plaza, and that the combined gross floor area of both buildings is 21,305
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 7 of 16
square feet. As such, the plaza space is roughly 13 percent of the floor area, which
exceeds the minimum ten percent plaza space requirement. The applicant emphasizes
that the plaza was designed to serve multiple purposes ranging from a view corridor, a
break in the building mass, a place for public gathering and recreation, a wind break, and
an area for seating and general relaxation. The plaza incorporates four of the required
elements for plaza space - sitting spaces, a mixture of sunlight and shade, protection from
wind, and trees. The applicant goes on to explain that there are roughly 30 formal seats
in the plaza area as proposed, where only eight are required, and that all of the seats will
be at least 16-inches in height and 30-inches in width. The plaza area also includes six
shade trees, all of which will be at least two-inches in diameter when planted.
Parking, Access & Circulation
Based on the city's parking requirements, as detailed in AMC 18.4.3.040, the applicant
has provided the following parking calculations:
Building "A" - Mixed-Use
Two (2) one-bedroom residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 11/2 spaces per unit = 3 spaces
Two (2) two-bedroom residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 13/4 spaces per unit = 3.5 spaces
2,743 sq. ft. of general office @ 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 5.5 spaces
or
2,743 sq. ft. of medical or retail n 1 space per 350 sq. ft. = 7.8 spaces
Building "A" Total Parking Required = 12 -14.3 parking spaces*
Building "B" - Mixed-Use
Two (2) studio residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 1 space per unit = 2
I
spaces
Four (4) two-bedroom residential units 500 sq. ft.) @ 13/4 spaces per unit = 7 spaces
4,701 sq. ft. of general office @ 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 9.4 spaces
or
4,701 sq. ft. of medical or retail cr, 1 space per 350 sq. ft. = 13.4 spaces
Building "B" Total Parking Required = 18.4 to 22.4 parking spaces*
Total Combined Parking Required: 31 to 37 parking spaces*
Surface Parking Provided (Off-Street): 18 parking spaces
Garage Parking Provided: 10 parking spaces
Total Off-Street Parking Provided: 28 parking spaces
The range of parking required is dependent upon actual commercial uses; if the fidl
amount of downstairs commercial space were used as general office, the lower number of
spaces would apply, and if the full amournt of downstairs commercial space were used as
retail or medical office space, the high number of parking spaces would be required)
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 8 of 16
A total of 18 parking spaces were installed as part of the subdivision's original
infrastructure installation, and the applicant proposes to construct ten additional off-street
parking spaces in garages with the proposed development. The total parking required is
between 31 and 37 spaces where only 28 off-street spaces are proposed, and the applicant
has requested to meet the additional three to nine space parking demand through the
parking management strategies found in AMC 18.4.3.060 which provide that the off-
street parking requirements may be reduced by up to 50 percent through on-street parking
credits, alternative vehicle parking credits, mixed or joint use credits where it can be
shown that the peak demand for the individual uses is off-set and does not materially
overlap, transportation demand management plan credits, or transit facilities credits.
These credits provide for a maximum combined reduction in parking demand of 50
percent; the reduction requested here is between 9.7 and 24.3 percent. In the case of 479
Russell Street across the street, the Planning Commission approved a one-space on-street
parking credit and allowed an additional two-space reduction in the parking requirement
through an 11 percent mixed-use parking credit as it was determined that the peals
demand of the ground floor commercial space and the five-residential units above was j
materially offset to a degree to merit the reduction.
i
The applicant explains that there are ten on-street parking spaces along the subject
property's frontage (seven parking spaces are located along the north side of the lot's
street frontage and three more on the lot's east side) which are available as on-street
credits, and goes on to suggest that based on the credit methodology discussed in AMC
18.4.3.060, 50 percent of the site's 18 surface parking spaces should be available for
mixed- or joint-use credits, creating a pool of 19 credits for the applicant's use (i.e. ten
on-street spaces plus nine (50 percent of the 18 surface spaces)). In staff s reading of the
code, the parking demand management strategies do not mean that 50 percent of the
site's available surface parking spaces are available as a pool to be used in reducing
parking demand, but rather that parking demand may be reduced by up to 50 percent
when it is demonstrated that the peak demand of differing uses will be off-set to a degree
that a lesser number of spaces can accommodate their combined demand.
In this instance, the upper floor uses consist of ten residential units of varying sizes.
These ten units generate a total parking demand of 15.5 spaces, and ten garage spaces are
to be provided. In staff's assessment the peals residential parking demand is likely to be
at night, while the bulk of daytime residential demand could likely be accommodated in
the garage spaces. And there are ten on-street parking spaces available, which could fully
accommodate the anticipated parking demand. If four of the ten on-street spaces were
considered as on-street parking credits and a 13 percent mixed-use credit were granted,
the parking requirements would be satisfied and in staff's view, this seems an appropriate
use of the available parking demand management strategies in the code. (36.7
maximum required parking spaces - 28 spaces provided - 4 on-street credits = 4.7 space
mixed use credit; 4.7/36.7 = 12.806 percent reduction). However, in staff's view for the
site's parking to work it is essential that garage spaces be available for parking rather
than being used for storage by residents, and staff have accordingly recommended a
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 9 of 16
condition below to require that the garage spaces remain available for vehicle parking
and not be used for storage as required in AMC 18.4.3.110.
The required bicycle parking for the proposal includes 13 required covered bicycle
parking spaces for the ten residential units, and at least five bicycle parking spaces for the
commercial space, with at least three of these covered. The applicant has proposed to
provide ten bicycle parking spaces in the residential garages, and an additional ten
covered bicycle parking spaces near the plaza to address the combined commercial and
residential bicycle parking requirement. All proposed bicycle parking spaces are to be
designed in compliance with the Bicycle Parking Design Standards noted in AMC
18.4.070. A total of 20 bike parking spaces will be constructed, all of which will be
covered; each of the ten enclosed garages will have one hanging bike parking space and
ten additional covered bike parking spaces will be installed adjacent to the plaza, next to
Building "A".
The subject property's parking lot is pre-existing, and was constructed in 2003-2004 in
conjunction with the other subdivision improvements. The applicant asserts that the
curbing, drainage, landscaping area, irrigation conduit, asphalt thickness, etc. met the
Building and Planning standards, and they intend to utilize the parking lot as originally
constructed, completing the necessary landscaping and irrigation improvements shown in
the landscape plans, however the applicant does not propose to bring the parking lot into
compliance with parking area design requirements from AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5 that have
been adopted subsequent to its construction which would require modifications to its
surfacing and stormwater drainage provisions.
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 hater, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage,
paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and tivill be
provided to the subject property). "
The application materials indicate that all key facilities are available to service the
proposed buildings and were installed during the subdivision's initial construction in
2003-2004. The application further explains that all utilities to service the buildings are
available within the adjacent Russell Street right-of-way or are already stubbed to the
property, but that if necessary, services will be installed at the time of construction in
accordance with Ashland Public Work Standards. The applicant indicates that in
meetings with the various city utilities, it has been indicated that adequate City facilities
are available to serve the subject property.
In discussing the available public facilities with planning staff, the Public Works, Fire
and individual utility departments have noted the following:
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 10 of 16
t
® Water - The property is currently served by an eight-inch water main in Russell
Street, and the applicant will need to extend services and pay any applicable
service and connection fees required for any new water services installed as part
of this project. The Fire Department has also indicated that because the project is
mixed-use, monitored fire sprinklers will be required, and a flow test has been
scheduled to verify that flows are adequate to accommodate sprinkler installation.
(The Fire Department also notes that one street light installed ivith the
subdivision infrastructure is incorrectly identified as a fire hydrant in the
submittal materials; this rt,ill need to be corrected in the final utility plan.)
® Sanitary Sewer - The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer
main in Russell Street.
® Electricity - There is an existing three-phase service located at the southeast
i
corner of the subject property. The Electric Department has indicated that a
second vault will need to be installed within one of the parking lot tree wells, and
will require bollards or other protection as a buffer from parking cars.
® Urban Storm Drainage Storm Drainage - The Public Works Department noted
that stormwater issues were considered in the subdivision infrastructure
installation, and the property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in
Russell Street as well as a 12-inch storm sewer in the interior of the lot.
® Paved Access c& Adequate Transportation - Russell Street is a commercial
neighborhood collector street, and was improved to city street standards as part of
the subdivision infrastructure installation, with the exception of sidewalks and
street trees which were to be installed as each lot develops. The street standards
call for a five-foot hardscape parkrow with tree well with irrigated street trees and
an eight- to ten-foot sidewalk. The applicant has proposed to meet these
standards with the installation of a 15-foot sidewalk corridor.
With the construction of subdivision infrastructure, a pedestrian bridge over
Mountain Creek was constructed to provide a link for pedestrian connectivity to
the adjacent residential subdivision (Mountain Creek Estates) and down through
the subdivision via Thimbleberry Lane to the North Mountain Park area.
A future street connection will extend Russell Street to connect with Clear Creek
Drive as part of the adopted street dedication map for the area, and the original
subdivision's developer was required to sign in favor of a Local Improvement
District (L.LD.) to participate in the cost of constructing a future railroad crossing
at Fourth Street.
In staff s assessment, existing public facilities and utilities are in place and available to
serve the project, and have been preliminarily identified on the Site Plan provided and
discussed in the narrative. Utilities and street improvements were largely installed with
the subdivision: water service, sanitary sewer and storm drainage are available in Russell
Street, and the applicant has indicated that services will be extended as necessary to
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 11 of 16
(
connect to the proposed buildings. Conditions are recommended below to require that
final electrical distribution, utility, storm drainage, and street improvement plans be
provided for review and approval prior to building permit submittal, and that any fees for
necessary service upgrades or connection to address specific service requirements for the
proposed buildings be paid for prior to permit issuance.
Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards
The final criterion for Site Design Review approval provides that the Planning
Commission may approve Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of
part 18.4 if certain circumstances are found to exist. The application indicates that to the
best of the applicant's knowledge, no such exceptions are necessary and none are
requested for approval here.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 as follows:
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.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
For staff, this application seems fairly straightforward in that utilities and street improvements
were largely installed with the subdivision, and the applicant proposes to complete these by
extending services to the buildings proposed and installing city standard frontage improvements.
No Exceptions or Variances are requested. The proposed new buildings seem to have been
designed with city standards in mind, and have their primary orientation to the street rather than
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 12 of 16
I
to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street and
accessed directly from the sidewalk. Parking is located behind the buildings and within ground
floor garages, and the surface parking is visible from the second-story windows.
The issues for staff are relatively minor, first in seeking to insure that the awnings proposed
provide a sufficient covered area around the entrances to protect pedestrians from sun and rain as
sought in the standards; second in carefully considering the applicant's requested parking credits;
and finally in verifying that the split between commercial and residential uses is in keeping with
the standards and does not compromise the site's primary designation as employment land.
Upon review and with the conditions recommended below, staff doesn't believe that any of these
issues pose a concern. We are supportive of the proposal, which seems well-suited to the site
and vicinity, and recommend approval with the following conditions:
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 conformance with those approved as part of this application, an
application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their November
5, 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 all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed,
including approved addressing; commercial fire apparatus access including angle
of approach and any necessary easements; provisions for firefighter access
pathways; fire flow; fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC);
fire extinguishers; a Knox key box; and monitored fire sprinklers for mixed-use
buildings.
6) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Russell Street, and
the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the
building permit submittals.
7) That the front entrances adjacent to Russell Street shall remain functional and
open to the public during all business hours, and the windows on the ground floor
shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the
interior of the building.
8) That all garage parking spaces shall remain available for vehicle parking and shall
not be used for material storage, as required in AMC 18.4.3.110.
9) That building permit submittals shall include:
a) The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or
private utility or drainage easements, mutual access easements, fire
apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements.
b) The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be
consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon
paint colors shall not be used.
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 13 of 16
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. These revised plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of
the Tree Commission from their November 5, 2015 meeting where
consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval
by the Staff Advisor; 2) required size and species specific replacement
planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications, including the
requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a
maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 3) lot
coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building
footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped
areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent, and the j
calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 15 percent landscaping
and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided.
e) Stormwater drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and
approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The
stormwater plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards
requiring that post-development peak flows do not exceed pre-
development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the
site's stormwater shall be provided at the applicants' expense. Storm
water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak
rainfall events must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm
water collection system (i. e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe
or public drainage i4wy) or through an approved alternative in accordance
with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection
systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
f) A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the
Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall
include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in
and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and
meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire
Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors
and in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas,
while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or
upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at applicant's expense,
g) An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including any
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 outside the
pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and
pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric
Department. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be
completed at the applicant's expense.
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 14 of 16
h) That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of
city-standard street frontage improvements for the full frontage of the
subject property, including five-foot width hardscape parkrows with
irrigated street trees, ten-foot sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street
lighting for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering
Departments. If necessary to accommodate city standard street frontage
improvements, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or
provide public pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or
right-of-way dedications shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Planning and Public Works/'Engineering Departments.
i) Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes bicycle parking
spaces in each of the ten garages and ten covered bicycle parking spaces
adjacent to the project's plaza space. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the
outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in
accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.1, inspected and approved
prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit
submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage
requirements are met.
j) That the building permit drawings shall clearly demonstrate that an area
of at least seven feet in depth is provided at the front entries to provide
pedestrians with protection from rain and sun as required in AMC
18.4.2.040.C. This depth may be met by a combination of any entry
recess and the depth of an awning or other covering.
I
I
10) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work
including staging or the storage of materials:
a) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including
permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical
services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water,
sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing
structures) shall be paid.
11) That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or
issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
f
a) All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, parking lot and driveway;
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) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at
the street, and underground electric services shall be installed according to
the approved plans to serve all units prior to signature of the final survey
plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 15 of 16
sidewalk, park ow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet
of frontage, and street lighting, shall be installed under permit from the
Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
f) The CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association or similar maintenance
agreement shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff
Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. This agreement shall
describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-
improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting strips and street
trees. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall
be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and
therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code.
g) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in
accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to
recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be
included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040.
Planning Action PA #2015-01284 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties LLC(Falcon VI) Page 16 of 16
It
I"
(
~ i
I
F~ rl
357 p
- y ;9r-+e~-cal"["' vrr,, u i,~+!S!C*rJ V('' ! ,I b& - 344
rt ~
\ 479 337
'
101
,
isk
rY
134
I
479
I
r
17 ; 4791 9 _
(1
xQ
47 10
4.
_ d 479 05
- f c - G
* A8.
4
479 20
1 1
-S7 fill
479 04
II f
z
327
!
~ k
7n
_2 -41
t
r
a r
y
E
.
v ~f
{ l ~j
u
1 317
# s
ti -
442
t
i
307
f . - I a. _ - - -_.0. -
!
4
4
z
4
/tj
F _ 1
All,
e fff
4
Property lines are for reference only, not scaleable
0 10 20 40 Feet
i
i
I
I
r
I
a
~ a
i
v
-w
k'id' }2r. aY F a" a~t.~ r 1"J k
# 'L 'R •'t Y
K ft
7 `S..
f
_ Ft-
n,
t
I
h ire
I
t. y 479 7 ,
e pq `
i .w
,
ii "
79
Cz PP
479~ 1
y1~ ~t
410
47 5
f .r
479 Zo
~ i
,
oily
p t'
YnP'. y"_.
479 04 {
n
i
,
f r
5 I
/Yus
,
a
i
S7
i
. c
a
1
14
k n
i
u
i
c
i
e ~
elf`` f v
fA
7o
b,~^
I r t.. -a_,?a`
v,
y
z
ii ~1 ~ sb ~z, h r, T l 1" P ~H,` i-~~~k~
5 , u rt l ! I l = sh , r aw 6,
1,480 m .
N
1 inch = 40 feet -
W E
Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy.
~n
0 All features structures facilities easement or roadway locations
20 40 Feet s should be independently field verified for existence and/or location.
Zimbra https:Hzimbra.ashland.or.us/zimbrA/printmessage?id=133526
Zimbra severo@ashland.or.us
e: Falcon Heights Lot
i
From : D. Helmich <dave@d-pminc.com> Wed, Oct 28, 2015 05:11 PM
Subject : Re: Falcon Heights Lot 6 0j2 attachments
To : Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>
Cc : Carol Kim <horacekim@hotmail.com>,
sbolom@ccountry.net, shepree473@gmail.com,
cjmac46@gmail.com, macan@mtashland.net,
eahunger@charter.net, colsoned@hotmail.com,
ashlandcommons@mind.net, stickrichl@gmail.com,
rrbarker@mind.net, janet tuneberg
<janet.tuneberg@gmail.com>,
linjmom@gmail.com, bclary@dadco.com,
hummingbird@jeffnet.org, donahuard@mac.com,
rondab@mind.net, Mark Knox <knox@mind.net>
Reply To : dave@d-pminc.com
Thank you for this, Derek.
This is part of a fairly recent communication from Mark, Derek:
"Dave,
On another note, we ended up dropping the third story on the west side building (see attached
perspective). It was just getting too expensive as we would have needed two elevators and thus
decided to just propose two 2-story buildings connected by a skywalk. I think the design is still
very attractive and compliments the building across the street. However, we are still toying with
possible material and color changes (block to brick). I'll forward a final version when I finally get
them back from the Architect... -Thanks again. - Mark Knox"
I am attaching the jpg sent with the above. For the information of the distribution,
would you please kindly confirm that this is more or less representative in its most
significant features with what you are currently reviewing? The exterior appearance is
acceptable to me and the heights are as good as we can expect I think.
Thanks,
Dave
1 of 3 11/2/2015 10:16 AM
Zimbra https:Hziinbra.ashland.or.us/zhnbra/h/printmessage?id=133526
I
ps. My one comment regarding the earlier design Mark presented (when he met with
us) was that there seemed to be a great deal of pavement on the lot. My personal:
opinion (while he represented the coverage as compliant with the E-1 zoning) is that the
future residential owners would appreciate a softer, less paved site.
This is probably a conflict which the business owners which are looking for a low/no
maintenance site. Since these projects only pencil with a sellout of the residential
condos, it would be nice to see future owners enabled for as much decorative
landscaping as possible.
On 10/28/2015 4:51 PM, Derek Severson wrote:
Greetings,
I know that neighbors have been meeting with the developers looking at
building on Lot #6 in the Falcon Heights Subdivision, i.e. at 474 Russell
Drive. I'm the city planner assigned to this project, and since you all had
copied me on the e-mail communications relative to neighborhood meetings
up to this point I wanted to let you know that we now have an application
we've deemed complete and that will be going to the Tree Commission for
review on Thursday, November 5th at 6:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room at 51
Winburn Way and to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 10th
at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street.
I've attached a PDF copy of the public notice that was mailed to neighbors
within 200 feet; this same notice was also posted on the property.
The file is available for review in the Community Development offices at 51
Winburn Way during our business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), and if you
have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
- Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
PH: (541) 552-2040 FAX: (541) 552-2050 TTY: 1-800-735-2900
E-MAIL: derek.severson@ashland.or.us
This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is
subject to Oregon's public records laws for disclosure and retention. If
you've received this email in error, please contact me at (S41) 552-2040.
Thank you.
2 of 3 11/2/2015 10:16 AM
Zimbra https:Hzimbra.ashland.or.us/ziTnbra/h/printinessage?id=133526
i
I
Persp°1•]pg
Oria
726 KB
dave.vcf
187 B
3 of 3 11/2/2015 10:16 AM
Planning Department, 51 Winbun, VVay, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ITY OF
541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY:1-800-735-2900
- i~ AND
PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01284 j
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 474 Russell
OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz AyalalAyala Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct two mixed-use buildings for the property located at 474
Russell Street. "Building A" will be a two-story, mixed use 8,688 square foot building consisting of commercial space and garages on the
ground floor, and four residential condominiums on the second floor; "Building B" will boa two-story 12,617 feet commercial building
consisting of commercial space with six residential condominiums on the second floor.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment, ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2805
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:00 PM in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
t_ ~ I
' w
MLLIA
MSON WY
i
\ \
L _ \i
i
ssE L ST 1, L J ,
PA #2015-01284
474 RUSSELL ST Li-
SUBJECT PROPERTY
I
W--~ ¢-E
S
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
I
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.
GAcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2015\PA-2015-01284.docs
PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 1007 tA-2015-01284 391E09AA 1008 rA-2015-01284 391E09AA 1100
BATTEN SUSAN ANN TRUSTEE TORRES LAUREL M GRANT LISA MAE
317 STARFLOWER LN 1023 FLYING FISH ST 271 MOUNTAIN AVE N
ASHLAND, OR 97520 FOSTER CITY, CA 94404 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 1200 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 2802 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 2804
PARRY DIANE E FAMILY AYALA LAZ CSAFTIS RYAN
TRUST 132 W MAIN ST 202 PO BOX 131712
263 N MOUNTAIN AVE MEDFORD, OR 97501 CARLSBAD, CA 92013
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 2805 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 5200 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 5300
AYALA LAZ SPINNLER ROBERT K/PENNY A TUNEBERG DARLOW L/JANET
132 W MAIN ST 202 337 STAR-FLOWER LN 327 STARFLOWER LN
MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 5900 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 6000 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 6100
BOLOM SURYA TRUSTEE HELMICH DAVID M TRUSTEE WEATHERELL MARCIA
470 WILLIAMSON WAY 468 WILLIAMSON WAY M/JEFFREY L
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 466 WILLIAMSON WAY
ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 6200 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 90010 PA-2015-01284 391E09AA 90012
UNION PACIFIC RR CO GIES BRIAN J ET AL GIES BRIAN J ET AL
1400 DOUGLAS - STOP 1640 479 RUSSELL ST 479 RUSSELL ST 103
OMAHA, NE 68179 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
PA-2015-01284 391E09AB 6700 ROBERTA BRADDIE URBAN DEVELOPMENT SRV
UNION PACIFIC RR CO PO BOX 562 604 FAIR OAKS COURT
1400 DOUGLAS - STOP 1640 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ! ASHLAND, OR 97520
OMAHA, NE 68179
AYALA PROPERTIES GARY CAPERNA CEC ENGINEERING
604 FAIR OAKS COURT 2908 HILLCREST ROAD PO BOX 1724
ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD,OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501
ALAN HARPER LAURIE SAGER & ASSOCIATES
130 A STREET 700 MISTLETOE RD SUITE 201
ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520
474 RUSSEL
NOC 10/26/2015
23
F ` ~'llna 2491
Mm,
'a n
140 H
a4g il3i fl it 713.1 I.1,' ~l to a 401 u''> a
r,,
1 ~ ~r as ~ 3~a~~ ~,aa~ II
~ I
it4*u
T,aa ~'»nn' Jd~~~~i 1
;r
J~
na~~a to ; oil 'a = ~'~,a-n -
020 a f'aB a
at son'naa'~t:aap o
P3 Tul) Ias Jaai M 5ns U4na 1 ONO
a'a a
~n.~ MAP X11'~ f1• , J i1 3'n .a n t tB .
s a t eau' "C;' f~ a ~aaa
' u a,n, jl j'a'i! A 1N ii 21141'
9aU r a, 162
MI Jul Eau AaA ;pan' lout. 00, r as aau a 1,naa~itn~~'
a Tla a 11,1101 logo na.p 40 d' ~
M
PjUU
114 log
9-61160
1911 M 15'113 O 5,loU. 101, 402 2M
e
nr3 ° ff 3,T, calm . ~.aap
602, 2AW 2SO4 29 of
M H0
14CII 2205 nowdan tauu] J412. 3107 104
1 404
70D 5'n'd ~d 604 ;'ail ikdl' lout ml ADD
310121ta 3-3,011
5iliJ
~5~1543'3U s2Ma a U 6004 Tsui 142 lago~5gi 31 -314 4
r.
a~U'aJ 4'an~ As X30
~JiJ a "r'Ja ,r x141 , a, 1~a~1
U»il ~J17 0 16ti 3sa, W23 STAY
a a -M-4 a l~ 'Ua 3 Owl, Indio l~t it $20
~
B. out
~~}il, h_ -,v= 3019 ~-fa -m 2.a 335 31il C145
d iFil' MAR a`ug )~t%
05 Simeon, a awi a gy, 361 ~yu i ljoa
6801 9 PAD 360,141, r,
~i~ =aa ~ ,pa
aaa' xC-DD I U' ita'u
a r dl ~ ~~~~u t
t tr ~ a~1, ~J H, ' m a a vin ~}!1, 4110 4 . 2.1
Cana L
IGO 53,aa' 4111.~,aan lg, t
1405
11 2.a ; ,aa 5fFU 0% A R, A 0 q, ~ a ,4~:'u R ~0 a j ~a 4n a 421 9~~24
il4~fa+ ~ ~:.30~>~ 1431 t ~AO , M.25'a1~ 5-'ad.
a 5tli1' 000
'10th ' 261+: 321111~ 2OUZ22 5~.~3 3~11UR ' 4afl~u' gj-Do...fop JIM Taut 1491
l~I 1}11 ~I i a a it a ~}i~ u
or I
,ago 7400, ~1~ dagl 1l~~>Za' el 2.,ua, 5,6011, ~ida'1t~ x
a. aa a'~na~~ 3aa a4«aa' d d ~ d'na ~n aaaa~~~GM
r~,,~' ~1t11~laa~a 2M
'l u'D a'ftd l' agag fI, 11M~a11' 11401~'
too 10 4119 400 Dill,
its 20i - 5111,
Ulu
~idl a. ~ `a~.3 a a ' a`i'ad' d'naaa' 11 a 1 as ~'a~ it U°
~WAR alas
'IOU ~ your o IA! 3d'ai1 i<0100 IBM
au~1, yhw.., AM 4 t A-A
i
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
f
r
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 October 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 #2015-01284, 474 Russell.
Signature of Employee
i
DocumeW 10/26/2015
Zimbra https://zimbra.~ghland.or.us/zimbra/h/printinessage?id=133162
imra severso@ashland.or.us
: Falcon V
From : Mark Knox <knox@mind.net> Fri, Oct 23, 2015 10:18 AM
Subject : RE: Falcon VI
To :'Derek Severson' <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>
Yes. Sorry about the confusion. It's caused me serious stress too. But, your assumptions
are 100% correct.
I tried to pull the old from the file, but the front office staff said that was a "no no"
which I get, but it probably would have helped this situation... Thanks
From: Derek Severson [maiIto: derek.severson@ashland. or.us]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 10:13 AM
To: Mark Knox
Subject: Falcon VI
Mark,
I'm looking over Falcon VI; it's a little confusing because I have a submittals dated 7.2,
9.21, 9.23, 9.24, 10.12 and 10.13 with no clear indication that one thing is intended to
replace another or what is changing between submittals. Can I correctly assume that
the most recent stuff from October replaces everything else, except that Laurie Sager's
landscaping stuff from September 21st is still the proposed landscaping plan - since
there isn't a landscaping plan in the October stuff. I've made logical assumptions like
this on things going to PC in a few recent packets and it turned out I was getting wrong
information to the Commission, so I want to make sure.
Derek
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
City of Ashland, Department of Community Development
51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520
: (541) 552-2040 F : (541) 552-2050 Y: 1-800-735-2900
-MAIL: derek.seversonCd)ashland.or.us
This e-mail transmission is the official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to
Oregon s public records laws for disclosure and retention. If you've received this e-mail
in error, please contact me at (S41) 552-2040. Thank you.
1 of 2 10/23/2015 10:28 AM
7 PROJECT AND I ~ bm I
SITE DATA OARV R. CAFIRN
~f
nftCMITtC
4' 7'
AA(tlITIQUfl[
SITE AREA: 27,710 SF FLANNIN
10 #4 v n _ rr e't t A
ON HWeet Rd, MedfoN, Oregon
x 611.040.4128
1 su!!r -i-' ,a'y~ V~ 4,` • 1~'` EmHl: geynpernes^MVter.rei
SITE AREAS: Oregon an„~,Lice- 624,
PARKING: 8923 SF
SIDEWALKS: 1830 SF SIAhF
LANDSCAPING: 2877 SF A~~yvy'
LL PLAZA: 2788 SF F ,
} Actual provided total landscape area 2877 SF + half of~
plaza area 1394 SF a 4271 SF OF
_ _ 11¢SEMOAgNIS,IIEIX4S.6IXS~dS
PKK1riK11F018P£d! AS MtWANK U
A
MUMA~FPGFA 6° MTM
MUD
~x~x\x ! I 1 Sl BUILDING AREAS:~~
4gll tVn&BRO.HWHNE PIPA
Pm Avr o~,macl xman o6uss narrz
AMKWAICtl6f 6ttt GWRK pR1f RUT
VI [LAA6HfMIS 6f6L41 GFIXWAfi?IIItP
Q°II:
Er p~~!° 1 N i COMMERCIAL'
1 N " 5
y BLDG A: 2743 SF (Ground Floor Street level) rLa
32 z WC8I Main St.
ER ~BLDG B:4701SF(Ground Floor street level) aM`d`°rd'°`eg°°9750'
y v)
BUILDINGeAA RESIDENTIAL'
COMMERCIAL AREA , BLDG A:1801 SF (First floor)
~ 2743SF.(1sl floor)
2, S RESIDENTIAIfoor BLDG A:4153 SF (Second floor) _
1801 SF. (I st floor)
TOTAL GROUND FLOOR BLDG B: 2057 SF (First Floor)
OTAENTIAL AREA 0 },a 4535 SF, ! BLDG B: 5860 SF (Second floor) _
%i As Skybridge; 358 SF (Second floor) OCT 3 )
Mom n PARCEL I PER PP~ P-34-1899
Zf~61B1 TOTAL BLDG AREAS: o~
BUILDINGV BLDG A: 8688 SF (Footprint = 4535 SF) R
COMMERCIAL AREA I ,o o~
4701 SF(Isffloor) BLDG B:12,617 SF (Footprint = 6757 SF) w ~a
v° RESIDENTIAL AREA 2057 1sl floor °
PLAZA TOTAL GROUND FLOOR Skybridge: 358 SF F g o
3110 sf 6757 SF. 2
I6 ERiR > U ¢ o
z
o Z
N Q Q ~QQ
I
~ 0 ~ q2
LL oe ~ d
r
\ , ~e _ 4y a LL "amFn
I z
_ f OKNQ DWAR MI1r Me4YRl 5LVY:
f f j t u)
mf 4 f n o
N68
K"K Dnir u a~ mn
m 3 S I ' M CD ISRM
F M9X(f 114:
ma v 1 ° DBAU9MDY: rliClla)
ma o
Ln (MIU[D6Y: CfiC
! z o
I;~ M 0 U Ldtl Tint
elf
NORTH p SITE PLAN : LOT 2085 0 15 30 PL4TDAIE®
SCALE 1132"=1'_0 "x1T) VICINITY MAP 0 25' 50' 100'
a0 SCALE : 1" = 30'-0" >
REFERENCE SCALE: 1"=100'-0"(11"X17") z 1
J
min: :11
z. W
E3 2 Q 3 0 4 0 5 ®_..0
l
I
QARY R. CAP[RNA
ARCHITECT
A - AROIfRQUR[
A ® PWNiINQ
2908 Hgla01 Rd, M.d d, Oregon
541,840.4123
F..J: gvYCepers d~arler.net
Grego Nchite Ucense 5247
Memlx k, can 00)Nchit cts
SiAtH
13
OF ZOO
J F2 QV ,9M CM 9r >6
o r;un>3Almreixurar~nxv7so-
F PA710 PATIO z
5%10 5X10 BED"" O rm0ssmervarms,lrtm[fFOaan WIM
CW1U f8(19RUI MDAff 10 & ~m GdYlS
PA710 PATIO 9K 13 or¢RROnrNatiom¢[~rm >iRr4awu r.
0 7X10 IX 10 0
IaaemortaMnnotwllrnonussxamv
BED AM PATIO BED U)
1 zn
11%2 W64G INW6 LMAG BED RIA LIVING
04X25
15X25 gpDy3 12 6 1 16 9X14 (tHRL
0- La~ 9X10 I 1 G
UNIT2 LJ Ll ~2 _ - 1 19 I 9 32 Wem Main St.
473SF 4135E - UIIDS UMr3
6 ' - 11-68F 1196SF D 6 Medford, Oregon 97501
UN1T3 1 z
10555F " 1034sF
0~ h ~M 0 0 o
D KITCHEN KITCHEN
0 cn
I
BED 1 D D BEDRAI BEDMA BED M
13N 13%14 BED 1 U
WTCHEII " HE KITCHEN(n
K Si0.4 SiOR STOP, &i0R STOR SiO,f K K 'h
0
® 0 L, L _
LLA
0
~ w
D D D D ~ ~
BEDRM
9EDN/. ~,.I I"J I1X 14 t~,: R,( 4 s W F2 =w
Dw1
10%12 . s r.' J%11 >
0
PATIO EDRM W ¢ •,~•,11 p~ w
0 o j..
W 1V Ed ° w
D N
UNIT 4 q[ O UNN4 UfNi4 LAIi4 J (D
DEN
959 SF - r✓ 9976F 752 SF 8x8 766 SF Hg K
G PATIO ❑ ❑ 7XO IMNG LMNG ~ O W
5X10 pNNG BEDRMDEN 16X16 1 12X21 W 0.. Al C o w
NX21 LIVING 421 9X10 PATIO Q , \ a9 t ED Ml BO% 7X10 1X10 F- m E u
0 0fD z IL ® R4m'•
D%1 0 ..a'~o
a L Jdeg1 NN
0 0 U
L00ft PLAN (BUILDING 4PLL T4\ fL°°R PL~I~ (BLDG TT~44~ 6UlG DVM NTNA9VA 3i Y,
18 = 1-0 1B1y 6 =-D - U
u's. xra 0 2 4 6 8 wrw Bw 0 2 4 6 8 Z _
0
U 06-01-2015
RUBSELLLOT6
O GRC
MAU DATE MOU' 4R
LL- I5SIR
O MAU N4:
DIIAWII BY.
Z
creamer:
D
=T TITIG
FLOOR PLAN
y D
g a~ lid t~ GRO
m C 2 .1 ~ M-9TDATE, 9/21/2015 3:07 PM
O
Piz z
nE
A2
w
JAM,
~8c[ ® 13 3 0 4 5
PAINTED 5TL &UARD RAN. (TY' @ BA.CONY) SPX.CO SANG (5AGE)
PAI NTED 5NCfA TRIM (BUFF) V li- AM WD. CORBEL TYPICAL / -AINTP STUGCO TRIM (5Ui
-1'MT. VINYL- 5.H WPO V!/TRAN50M --5TU:6 D,U COAIJ:LE (15UM VIHT. VINYL SH. V.PO W/TRAN50M
CO-40. Lw 519iNG (M 5RN)-~ 5 UGGO WALL ~GONC LAP 51916G (DS 15L"
;GARY R. CAPERNA
1 ~ _ ~ ~~CflITtCT
ARMTKUt
} U : U { t l - ~ \ 11 PVmmo
¢908 Hila eNRQ
•o - ~ Y p ~ McMwO, pe0w197Wi
Y 1 J Y j, r.
64T.4 -%3
8 p^gCibllef,fRl
If f"NftM
Ndeellkmse6247
Mw&, knMceOwn Imtwe Of Wows
To - I
W
p m A dl ( VMV
-Y
\ -PAINTED 5FUT FACE CMU MOVE WATER TA" (SAGE OR LOCO) Ga f.
pA NG'A` PLAZA REP BR" ACCENT AT ENTRY 'Is'
-PAINTED SFUT FADE GMU PROVE WATER TABLE (SAGE OR GfXA:HO
5HT, MTL GANOFY (SAGE) TYrM PAINTED 5NOOm FACE GMN WATER TABLE (6A&e OR COCO A5 5HOWN) C MJ TRASH EN0_05URE (PNK MN SMOOTH PAINTW 5M00m FACE CPU WATER
TABLE (SAGE OR LOGO A5 ALUM STOREFRONT ENTRY DOOR A55EMELY rAINTED SECTIONAL OH GARAGE PR (BLTF OR COCO A5 5HOWN)
WN)
AND SFUT PACE) PNNTFA 5EGTIONN.OH GARAGE PR (BLPF OR LOGO A5 SHOWN) STUCCO CANOPY (Mtn
M, MI TR [§1S 6M%~s
STUCCO BAND (MM 1 SOUTH ELEVATION (BLDG "A" LEFT, BLDG "B" RIGHT)
SCALE; 1/5'=1'•0' WttnYeA"awzW Uaxn.!1A:.ct
3
fA):[6WMIX4TFk1 &M~X"ULnf
tTiA A'~;iVIkTYIK✓A gW'ME01gtR.1,
~---RED BRICK Gq.Uh1N5 ~ 6REEZCWAY ~r"un~ r~w~cruTw
ALUM STOREFRONT @ 5KY WALK usmensnearcuas,aT.
PLANTED 571 GUARP RAL (TYP @ BA!GOM'I -
LAP yl%NG (PF BRIE PNNTEP 5TLCCO TRIM (BU-"fI
PAINTED 5TL GUARP RAIL (TYP 15N-CONY)
/ -PML VINYL 11H VIVO W/TRI"NsoM
zl- r
PAINTED STUUA TRIF1 (BU-~
jWMTV:M9. 5.H 1`510 VI/TRANSOM A 5TLrXO WALL (SAGE)-----
% \
GW LAM CORBEL (T(PAL)-
sj
zaz
r-
a a o.
BUN.DING A j
II~~~~~~pp6UP.DIN6 B WA W 1-3
WATER TABLE (SAGE Oft WFF) -NUM STOREFRONT ENTRY DOORS (TYPICAL) o
RED 15R" 15A% TYPIGN. A55HOwN Z NORTH ELEVATION (BLDG "I3" LEFT BLDG "A" RIGHT) TAINTED SMDOm FADE GMU WATER TABLE k5PI.IT FACE BODY (SAGE) ® 8 `
GN.V. O OTEXL 15A CANOPY Wlm POWDER COATED 5TEEI. CORBEL (GRN) A PAINTED SECTIONAL OH GARAGE DR (WrF OR GOCO A5 SHOW'J~
'•0"
-5T1Y.C0 6AND (MM 3 SCALE: 118'= 1 -RED BRICK KCENTS
z P.
NIM 5H RDO Y!/TRA00ME AND PLANED V.D TRIM - - O/~ ¢ E qo~
1 ~C
AIyIA STOREFRONT AT STAIR TOWER V
- _ _ m 'a 00
a 60 <30
_ a 8. of
k, 11 - ~ - V77~1P
RUM DAR DISAVM
'All
11, 1415
_ R iklL
MOD by;
-
~ ~ I4. 1 ~ 13PAMOt4R lfd R'10fl. WR
GENE) T M. LAP WIN& COCO WITH PAINTED WP. TRIK
MT MIL
PNNTEO SMOOm FAZE GhA1 WATER TABLE/Sfl.T FADE 60PY (DK 6RN) - Y
--REDBRICK eA%(TYPCN.A55HOWN) A).OU(itA14RIltVATIP S
SHTMTI.GANOPY(SAGE) 3 WEST ELEVATION (BLDG "A")
k,A 3 sca : 1/8"= V-0"
4 PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SE (BLDG "6 BACK
A3 scALE: HONE ~L~ (I
A.3
W R. CAPEKNA
W~RMKNA
r _ ARCHITECT
ARmNttNRt
1 )I Y ~1 ®FU w5
~ ~ 1` ~ ~ ~ tT t I`G r a 7 2e0aMuuine.
1 w_ d'j-' - 1 X9
p hkafoN Oregon 97501
[IT
541.840.4127
Ema0: garYnpefm0chula.Mt
aeg. AtcMMUcema 5247
69Em6aAmmcan lns6fNe 01NohfleM .
lf, t I .
r ft 1 ~W 1 i B I Snag
r
T ')STREET VIEW FROM RUSSELL LOOKING SE (BLDG "A" RIGHT) 2 BIRDS EYE LOOKING NW (BLDG "B" RIGHT _
NF4 NEU4t-.
A4 sC E: NONE A4 SGLEr N-0, c n~ .ter
fA~i FA AlJfftl At0A4iP8_IEmN1Yll
RP[9 NIHfPIffiAIDl A+DnE
IauuaEwume~a Nmeucaravrm
Na~Nratlsa~acrn>,rcnrnxnNmia
ume~.¢ncsLeya+ u.aarm7
G5p311101SB~LUS fSRH"IFMR41
> aL !1 _ 1~ ~>I'"' - FU~SCLL 200
t. N~r7 Y Y
x r k d~ 1 ~ - ;I ~.hEn:Y
wtelwrvraevenvENUararxamtat4ET
Fri
rnarr
i
1 ~
MFTM~i
p J 3 t h. 4.
_ k N
r~1 .?~.,:.J } _ ~ ~ ~ ~~r, - r S ~ ,.m+' COVERE06IKE S ~
PARKING~1'- ° ~ Fk t.G ^l
P
r. I__ hn - P P i~ s _ BUP.DIN6 6' 1
STAIR t
i
i
4
qq r
L 4 ~I
3 STREET VIEW FROM RUSSELL LOOKING SOUTH (BLDG "A" RIGHT)" am
Gr`t1 TFP 4 2E
A4 SCALE: NONE _ m
Ea15 G EP E A..K5 AT J F11c'.T TO s
4c:1P_N ~ F Q ~ ' m
$ f Q'~ m m
>
Y M 6 p U =m bwo
Ci -6
N~ bra
5TL=O WALL k9 WOLY (Mnr - - U Par >
O y a N a
ALUTA STOREFRONT @.5TAIR TOWER.. ur
PAINTED WR TRIM
SK 1AM1- WDO W/TRANSOM AEOVr
~r SITE PLAN
~ L Jr Inm DAR mscwTrm
t \ ( - I"l} A5 SCALE: 1"=20'-0'
L
alltJ ~ ~<~r ~!frir~ t ~ i r ~ l-t~ ~ T ~S mamrm. -
_ TKA5H N,L:) ll- r
~.1T N. + I ~ U Sy 1 r oMwnev GRG
~k - r io rJ.1
cmro
t~"* t eJ i Eet'Lw. r- ~ per. -
` T- - ~11 Jra
a
u e
f
~l1 S8tt100nt
4 EAST ELEVATION BLDG "B"
A4 SCALE: 1/8'= -0"~ SPLIT FADE GMU (DK BRM _w..
5TLKG0 WALL- A5OEKII
5HT. 14TL CANOPY(5AGE) RED ERKK EASE (TYPICAL)
C 1
STLeGO WALL A59EMELY (EL¢P)
"FALCON VI - A MIX-ED- USE DEVELOPMENT"
I
i
i
41
FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION
u
REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION
A PROPOSAL FOR
A SITE VIEW PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT TWO MIXED-USE BUILDINGS
WITHIN AN EMPLOYMENT (E-1) ZONING DISTRICT
(FALCON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, LOT #6)
SUBMITTED TO
CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND
FOR
AYALA PROPERTIES, LLC.
604 FAIR OAKS COURT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
604 FAIR OAKS COURT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
OCT 6 2015
OCTOBER 12TH. 201 S
1 Page
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
i
PROJECT NAME: "Falcon VI" (Falcon Heights, Lot #6)
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Ayala Properties, LLC Gary R. Caperna, Architect Laurie Sager & Associates
604 Fair Oaks Court Medford, OR 97501 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201
Ashland, OR 97520 2908 Hillerest Road Ashland, OR 97520
LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER: ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Urban Development Services, LLC CEC Engineering Huycke, O'Connor, Jarvis &
604 Fair Oaks Court P.O. Box 1724 Lohman, LLP
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 823 Alder Creek Drive
Medford, OR 97504
PROJECT ZONING: As illustrated in the inserted Zoning Map (below), the property is zoned
Employment (E-1) with a Residential Overlay. The subject property is regulated by the Ashland
Municipal Code, Chapters 18.2.6 (Zoning), 18.3.13 (Residential Overlay) and 18.4.2 (Site Design
Standards, Non-Residential Development - Basic, Detail & Large Scale design standards).
LA', t
R 1-5
}G~'` 1
t `
Falcon Heights
Subdivision
` (six lots)
Subject Property
Si Lot #6
Zoned E-I «R»
City Zoning Map
2~Page
Sti.ff~ Qua,_
I K~ i ? ~l
'Er
ell
,04 .
fit ~ i ❑ ,,s.l - `~c~ ~ IF'"'--~~ ~
` 2
s I~
SF r p°.d.. T ,
1
x
f ~ S1j~ ~r ~ ~ 7 1I~
UL171110ll
(Iplon Pacific
1~t road Propern
Falcon Heights Subdivision
PROPERTY BACKGROUND: In 1991 a proposal was made for the development of not only the
subject property, but also the residential properties to the north, The proposal was initially approved by
the Planning Commission; however, a neighborhood group appealed the decision to the City Council and
eventually to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The project was remanded back to the City and a
mediation process was initiated. The result of the mediation produced a mixture of land use types from
Single-Family Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5) along Heresy Street, Medium Density (R-2) along
Williamson Way and Employment with a Residential Overlay (E-1) along Rogue Place. The R-1-3.5 and
R-2 properties have been divided, sold, constructed upon and occupied. A total of 27 single-family 22
multi-family parcels were developed.
In 2001, the City completed a "draft" Master Plan for the Railroad Property (now Union Pacific's). The
subject property was included in the plan where it identified conceptual street layouts, street designs,
street connections, building placements and designs, The Master Plan was Bever officially adopted, but
from the plan came the current street layout now adopted as part of the City's Ti-,i zsportation System Plan
as well as certain building and lot configurations (see insert below).
3 1Page
a jA ~ i i ~ ~ 1'-; 1~ ~I { ~ I h 1 ~ ~ 1 R ~ ~ q rk
yn-
7
~P'L` •.I!~ !'I i 9 .cam-~.+y1.~t`. L'-L j- Ij'-~a' a ` P. - t. 'I
~z
Of-
1.
21
~Qs
7`11
I,''..tir1, I'~A ;_I IIal~''I ri 1~'rr
• k f `tart `
~iP~ } J la,~,i -j-~~"' - ~ iF•a` P • +f
1.L11 - m - , y~ k y~ UK
Railroad Master Plan - 2001
In 2002, the property was part of a 13-lot subdivision, but modified in 2003 to seven lots. The seven lot
subdivision was then recorded with various improvements including roads, electrical, storm water, bio-
swales, sewer, sidewalks, street lights and parking areas installed. The property, in its existing condition
today, is generally how it has been since 2004. All of the properties have been reasonably maintained over
the years primarily due to the subdivision's property Owner's Association.
aw,
FA.
"T r
- I
4~Page
i
In 2006, an application was made for the first building within the subdivision on Lot #4, a two-story
mixed-use building consisting of 7,762 square feet comprised of business professional office space, retail
on the ground floor and five residential condominiums on the second floor (see insert above). At the time
of its approval, parking was added to the rear of the building, mixed-use parking credits were granted and
an on-street parking credit was granted.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 474 Russell Street and is a vacant .64 acre
parcel zoned E-1 with a Residential Overlay. The property is rectangular shaped with an approximate 6%
south to north grade. As previously described, the site's parking lot (storm water drain, paving and
curbing) have been installed as well as the site's perimeter curbing, street lights, fire hydrants and
transformer boxes. A short retaining wall abuts along the south property line, but due to poor installation,
it needs to be repaired. Finally, the subject property is well liked by neighboring property owners and
tenants due to its semi-improved state where they can comfortably let their dogs roam around the vacant
property and the abutting railroad property without too much concern.
PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a Site Review Permit to construct two
commercial buildings, connected by a skywalk, on Lot #6 of the Falcon Heights Subdivision consisting of
8,688 sq. ft. (Building "A") and 12,617 sq. ft. (Building `B"). An open plaza space divides the two
buildings and will consist of various seats, trees and areas of shade. All of the units will be condominiums
sharing and maintaining the site's common improvements.
Building A Building "A" is intended to be a two-story mixed-use structure consisting of commercial
space on the ground floor and four residential condominiums on the second floor. The ground floor will
also include five enclosed garages for the second floor residences, but because of the site's sloping grade
(roughly 5'-6" from the front to back), the commercial space will be level with the adjacent sidewalk
where as the garage space will be accessed from the rear parking lot. The ground floor commercial space
will be 2,743 sq. ft. and designed to orientate to the street, similar to the ground floor commercial space
within the existing building across the street (required by the City's Site Design and Use Standards).
Further, Building "A", as well as Building "B" discussed below, will abut a newly installed 15' sidewalk
which will include street trees, street lights and seating areas.
The building's four residential units will consist of two one bedroom units of 752 sq. ft. and 766 sq. ft.
and two will consist of two-bedrooms of 1,196 square feet. The units will be accessed by an internal stair
and hallway system.
Building "B": Building "B" is also intended to be a two-story mixed-use building with six residential
units above the ground floor's commercial space. Building "B" is essentially the same as Building "A",
but includes two additional units and an elevator. The ground floor is slated to be one commercial space
consisting of 4,701 sq. ft. to be used by a single prospective tenant, but will be designed to convert to
multiple spaces (three) in order to provide flexibility over the building's life span. The commercial
space(s) will be orientated towards Russell Drive and the planned 15' sidewal: that runs along the
5 1 P a g e
frontage and then wraps around the east side of the building and extending to the end of the property
where it abuts the Railroad property to the south.
Building "B's" six residential units will consist of two one bedroom units less than 500 square feet and
four two bedroom units with an average floor area of 991 sq. ft. The units will be accessed by a second
floor internal stair and hallway system, but also includes an elevator. The elevator will serve both
buildings which are to be linked by a second floor skywalk overlooking the plaza. The skywalk will
include windows for lighting, but also for views to Mount Ashland and Grizzly Peak.
Similar to Building "A", Building "B" will also include a pedestrian friendly streetscape facade with the
commercial spaces' primary entrances facing the tree-lined street and 15' sidewalk. The internal spaces
will be divided perpendicular to the street with each commercial space having street level access.
Note: It should be noted the proposed residential units are smaller than typical residential condominiums
in Ashland primarily for two reasons. First, the applicant desires to create a "sense of place" with the
plaza, but in order to increase the size of the units, either the footprint of the buildings would need to be
larger or a third floor added. In doing so, the alternative design, although more dramatic in a streetscape
sense, would have negatively impacted the plaza space, impacted views to the neighbors across the street
and possibly risked a dissenting decision. Secondly, in reading the City of Ashland's 2012 Housing Needs
Analysis and 2007 Rental Needs Analysis, both documents emphasize the need for smaller units,
specifically in the studio and one-bedroom unit sizes. As such, the applicants concur there will be a
demand in Ashland for the smaller units and for all of the reasons stated is willing to make the
investment.
Building Architecture: The buildings have been designed to not only reflect certain components of the
existing building across the street, but also in accordance with the regulations noted in the Basic, Detail
and Large Scale design standards (Site Design & Use Standards). Such standards do not require a certain
design style such as Downtown Ashland, but do require large building masses to be divided into heights
and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering
roofs, a distinct pattern of surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. In this proposal's case, the
buildings have been articulated in both mass, volume and material and no one wall is a voided plane. Each
wall includes symmetrically balanced components for a positive streetscape rhythm. In this regard, the
applicants and Architect have amended elevations multiple times in an attempt to make sure the design
complements the existing building across the street, but is a building that expands the architecture and
palate of colors and materials for future buildings planned for the Falcon Heights Mixed-Use Subdivision.
Zoning & Railroad District Master Plan: In addition to the design standards, the project complies with the
City's E-1 zoning standards for rear parking, setbacks, solar access, building heights, etc. Further, the
subdivision's original design and concepts clearly follow the 2001 Railroad District Master Plan (draft) as
illustrated above on Page #4. In addition, suggestions within the master plan, such as "two or more"
building story's are encouraged, follow the provisions of the zoning cocle which allow up to 40', plus a 5'
parapet. In this development's case, the tallest points of the buildings arc roughly 28' to 31 well under
the permitted threshold.
6~Page
Parking. A total of 18 parking spaces are currently provided on-site and another 10 parking spaces are
proposed to be added. Of the 28 total on-site parking spaces, 10 of the proposed spaces will be within
single bay garages - five adjacent to each building. An additional seven parking spaces are located along
the north side of the lot's street frontage and three more on the lot's east side (AMC 18.4.3.060 A.) for a
total of 38 parking spaces available to the users of the site.
i
Note: The property's parking lot is pre-existing, constructed in 2003/2004 with all of the improvements
for curbing, drainage, landscaping area, irrigation conduit, asphalt thickness, etc. meeting Building and
Planning standards. That said, the applicants intend to utilize the parking lot as originally constructed, but
complete the necessary landscaping and irrigation improvements as shown on the landscape plans. The
areas where parking spaces are to be added, the applicants will construct those spaces in accordance with
AMC 18.4.3., most notably the new spaces are to be covered in compliance with the City's recently
adopted microclimatic parking design standards.
In accordance with AMC, Table 18.4.3.040 - Automobile Parking Spaces by Use, the project's parking
demand is as follows:
Building "A" - mixed-use
2 One-bedroom Residential Units > 500 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per unit = 3 spaces required
2 Two-bedroom Residential Units > 500 sq. ft. 1.75 spaces per unit = 3.5 spaces required
2,743 sq. ft. General Office 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 5.5 spaces required
or
2,743 sq. ft. Medical / Retail 1 space per 350 sq. ft. = 7.8 spaces required
Building "A" Total: - 12 to 14.3 parking spaces
Building "B" - mixed-use
2 Studio Residential Units < 500 sq. ft. 1 space per unit = 2 spaces required
4 Two-bedroom Residential Units > 500 sq, ft. 1.75 spaces per unit = 7 spaces required
4,701 sq. ft. General Office 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 9.4 spaces required
or
4,701 sq. ft. Medical / Retail 1 space per 350 sq. ft. = 13.4 spaces required
Building "B" Total: = 18.4 to 22.4 parking spaces
Total Required: 31 to 37 parking spaces*
Total Provided On-Site: 28 parking spaces (18 open and 10 enclosed)
Available On-Street Credits: 10 (10 existing street parking spaces)
Available On-Site Mixed Use Credits: 9 parking spaces (50% of open parking spaces)
Total parking spaces provided per Parking Management Strategies: 47
* The demands for commercial parking spaces are based on the actual commercial uses, i.e., a
general business professional office use vs. a medical office use vs. manufacturing, etc. and the area
7 1 P a g e
that commercial tenant occupies. A property owner / applicant has no way of knowing what the
tenancy will be over the lifespan of a building and thus, in order to ensure there is always enough
parking (and not too much as also required by code) and that commercial uses can fluctuate during
the lifespan of the building, the applicants desire to use a parking optimization approach by utilizing
the City's Parking Management Strategies noted in AMC 18.4.3.060 A. and C. which provide for a
sharing of the on-site spaces (day time vs. night time demand) and/or the use of on-street parking
credits.
Specifically, AMC 18.4.3.060 A. and C. state:
A. On-Street Parking Credit. Credit for on-street parking spaces may reduce the required
off-street parking spaces up to 50 percent.
C. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land,
the total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements
for the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking
demands are offset, in which case the mixed-use credit may reduce the off-street parking
requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced parking demand. A mixed-use parking
credit may reduce the required off-street parking spaces up to 50 percent.
As evidenced above, there are a total of 19 available parking spaces (10 on-street and 50% of the 18
on-site open spaces) available within the pool of spaces allowed to be considered under AMC
18.4.3.060 A. and C. In this application's case, only three to nine parking spaces are necessary for
full utilization of the structures' commercial spaces and thus, any additional demands would come
from the available pool of 19. Overall, the requested optimization approach is relatively minor
considering the "shared" parking nature of mixed-use developments and the extensive amount of on-
street parking spaces along the frontages of the property.
In fact, the applicant's contend the street demand is likely to be underutilized based on the following
two factors: First, the proposed development is a mixed-use development which generally will
accommodate two types of users - one that is primarily a daytime user (commercial businesses) and
one that is primarily a nighttime user (residential units). Based on this fact, it's fair to assume a small
percentage of the two uses will not create their required parking demand at the same time as
contemplated via AMC 18.4.3.060 C. Second, based on multiple site visits and review of Planning
Action 2006-01787, the existing mixed-use building across the street where an I I% on-street credit
was granted, the street has predominately been void of any parking since its construction.
Bike Parking Required / Proposed: All bike parking spaces will be designed in compliance with the
Bicycle Parking Design Standards noted in AMC 18.4.070 and specifically the covered bike standards as
illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.070.1.10 a. and b. of the Ashland Municipal Code. All bike parking spaces,
including those to be mounted inside the residential garage spaces will be reviewed and approved at the
time of the development's occupancy. In this proposal's case, a total of 20 bike parking spaces will be
constructed, all of which will be covered. Each of the enclosed garages will have one hanging bike
parking space (10) and 10 additional covered bike parking spaces adjacent to the plaza, next to Building
"A". The requirements for bike parking are as follows:
?.ti 81Pa,
i
Residential: I per residential unit minimum / 100% covered (AMC 18.4.3.070 CI)
Proposed: 2 Studio and 2 One-bedroom Units = 1 covered space per unit (4)
6 Two-Bedroom Units = 1.5 covered spaces per unit (9)
Covered Spaces: 13 required covered spaces
13 proposed covered spaces (10 in garages and 3 adjacent to plaza area)
Commercial: I per 5 auto spaces / 50% sheltered (AMC 18.4.3.070 D)
18 Auto Parking Spaces / 5 = 4 bike spaces required / 7 proposed
Covered Spaces: = 2 required / 7 proposed (7 adjacent to plaza)
Total Proposed: = 20 Bike Parking Spaces / 20 sheltered
Signs: The buildings' signage is intended to be mounted on the front of the building and within the
window areas of the front fagade. Prior to installation, permits for any signage will be applied for in
accordance with 18.4.7.020 B. and all standards for commercially zoned signs will be in accordance with
AMC 18.4.7.080.
Solar Access: The proposal complies with the City's adopted Solar Access Ordinance, AMC 18.4.8, as
the property is zoned E-1 and classified as a "B" lot and located on the south side of an unbuildable area
(Russell Street). Based on the City's Solar Access Ordinance at a 4.5% negative slope, a 60' unbuildable
area to the north, and a building height of 31' (Building "A") and 29' (Building "B") the solar shadow is
60' at the most extensive distance.
It should be noted that because the subject property is classified as a "Class B lot" as regulated by the
Ashland Municipal Code, a third story on Building "A" was originally contemplated and designed, but do
to neighborhood concern about views and solar access, the third story was removed.
Trash & Recycling: In accordance with 18.4.4.040 G., the project's trash and recycling area is to be within
a combined enclosure, 5' in height, accessed from the rear parking lot. The enclosed structure is aligned
directly with the driveway's opening for easy access allowing for convenient and quick service by
Ashland Recology. The enclosure provides screening from all adjoining neighbors.
Neighborhood Outreach: On June 25th, 2015, a neighborhood meeting was held to address neighborhood
questions. In attendance were five neighbors, the Land Use Planner and Architect. The neighbors asked
positive questions relating to views, heights, proposed uses and construction timing. Two separate
meetings also were planned accommodating two neighbors who were out of town. In addition, a fourth
neighborhood meeting was held on August 4th for neighbors who later expressed concern about exclusion
from the previous meetings, but were primarily concerned about marijuana dispensary concerns.
CONCLUSION: The applicants contend the proposal is another positive example of Ashland's land use
planning efforts. The opportunity to build two mixed-use buildings without CXCeptions or variance and
9JPage
i
providing the Ashland real estate market with two viable commercial and residential options is
encouraging, The applicants also believe the addition of adding 2 studio units of less than 500 sq. ft. and 8
smaller units is a positive contribution to Ashland's housing market. As noted in the City's 2012 Housing
Needs Analysis and 2007 Rental Needs Analysis, both documents emphasize the need for smaller units,
specifically in the studio and one-bedroom unit sizes.
Finally, the applicants and design team are excited about bringing forth a building design that makes a
positive contribution to the public street. In what could have been a very mediocre building and site plan
design, similar to the various manufacturing and office buildings to the west of the subject site, the
proposed buildings are oriented to the street, provide an open and elevated public plaza space and include
a significant amount of glazing and architectural components that emphasize creativity, but also
neighborhood compatibility.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements
and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to the site's zoning, applicable
overlay zones, site development and design regulations. The application is to be processed as a Type II
Planning Action based on the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.2.030 B and D. and subject to AMC
Chapter 18, specifically Sections 18.2.3.130 (Dwellings in Non-Residential Zones), 18.2.6.030 (Unified
Standards for Non-Residential Zones), 18.3.13.010 (Residential Overlay Regulations), 18.4.2.040 (Non-
Residential Development), 18.4.2.040 B. (Basic Site Review Standards); 18.4.2.040 C. (Detail Site
Review), 18.4.2.040 D. (Large Scale Standards), 18.4.3 (Parking, Access & Circulation), 18.4.4
(Landscaping, Lighting & Screening), 18.4.8 (Solar Access) and 18.5.2.050 Site Review Criteria.
For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline " form with the City's
approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a
number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the Findings of Fact are complete.
18.2.3.130 Dwelling in Non-Residential Zone
Where dwellings are allowed in non-residential zones, they are subject to all of the following
requirements.
A. Dwellings in the E-1 zone are limited to the R-overlay zone. See chapter 18.3.13 Residential
Overlay.
The subject property is within an E-1 Residential Overlay Zone as noted on the inserted map on Page #2
of this document.
B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards:
10 Page
1. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a
site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses.
The proposal is for two buildings on one site that will eventually be platted as condominiums sharing and 4
maintaining the site's common improvements. Along with the condominium plat, CC&R's and Bylaws
will be included in accordance with State of Oregon Condominium Statutes.
The overall ground floor of both buildings is 11,302 sq. ft., including residential garages and commercial
area footprints. Building "A's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 2,743 sq. ft. commercial and
1,801 sq. ft. residential. Building "B's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 4,701 sq. ft.
commercial and 2,057 sq. ft. residential. Combined, the ground floors of the two buildings have a
commercial to residential ratio of 7,444 sq. ft. commercial to 3,858 sq. ft, residential (66% commercial /
34% residential) in compliance with AMC 18.2.3.130 B.1. Further, although the Municipal Code defines
the two buildings as "one building" due to the connection of the skywalk, the overall site area has also
been calculated in accordance with AMC 18.2.3.130. B.1 in order to determine the ratio of the site that is
commercial and residential. In this case, the calculations illustrate that 54% of the site (14,946 sq. ft.) is
deemed "commercial use" and 46% (12,763 sq, ft.) is deemed residential use. Specifically, the
commercial area includes the footprint of the two buildings, less the residential parking garages, ground
floor hallway on Building "A" and %2 of all other common areas such as the parking lot, access isle and
plaza. Based on these calculations, Standard 18.2.3.130 B. is complied with.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1 zone, 30 dwelling units
per acre in the C-1 zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D zone. For the purpose of
density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as
0.75 of a unit.
The property is .64 (.636 acres) acres in size and has a base density of 9.54 dwelling units. The proposal is
for six two-bedroom units, two one-bedroom units and two studio units less than 500 sq. ft. (.75 unit
density factor) which calculates based on the above provisions to be 9.50 dwelling units.
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for
permitted uses in the underlying zone.
The proposed residential uses have been designed to comply with the underlying E-1 zoning standards.
4. Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C-1-D zone.
Not applicable
5. Where the number of residential units exceeds ten, at least ten percent of the residential units
shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards of section 18.2.5.050.
The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
11 Page
I
I
Not applicable as the proposed density is 9.5 dwelling units (maximum permitted by code). I
i
13.2.6.030 Unified Standards for Non-Residential Zones
i
18.2.6.030 Unified Standards for Non-Residential Zones - EMPLOYMENT ZONE (E-1)
Residential Density 15 du/ac complies
Lot Area, Width, Depth or Lot Coverage There is no minimum lot area, width or depth, or maximum lot complies
coverage; or minimum front, side or rear yard, except as required
to comply with the special district and overlay zone provisions of
part 18.3 or the site.
it
Setback Yards (feet) There is no minimum front, side, or rear yard required, except complies
where buildings on the subject site abut a residential zone, in
which case a side of not less than 10 ft and a rear yard of not less
than 10 ft per story is required.
Building Height2&3- Maximum (feet) 40 ft complies
Landscape Area - Minimum of 15% complies
developed lot area)
3Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the maximum building height,, see also, 18.4.4.030.G.4 for mechanical
equipment screening requirements, and 18.5.2.020 for Site Design Review for mechanical equipment review process.
Specifically in response to the standards noted in 18.2.6.030, Unified Standards for Non-Residential
Zones noted in the above table, the following is intended to help clarify the applicant's compliance with
the codes:
Density: The property is .64 (.636 acres) acres in size and has a base density of 9.54 dwelling units. The
proposal is for six two-bedroom units, two one-bedroom units and two studio units less than 500 sq. ft.
(.75 unit density factor) which calculates based on the above provisions to be 9.50 dwelling units.
Lot Standards: Based on reading through the history of the property, E-1 zoning standards and the various
Site Design and Use Standards, there are no unique lot area, lot width, lot depth or lot coverage standards
associated with the subject property that are not already designed within the proposal (plaza area, plaza
elements, street trees, etc).
Setbacks: The property does not abut a residential zone. As such, no additional setbacks are required.
Building Height: The maximum height in the E-1 zone is 40', plus an additional 5' for parapets or
mechanical screening. In this case, neither building is greater than 31'. Note: As the architectural plans
are reviewed for mechanical and structural engineering for the eventual Building Permit, there may be
some slight adjustments, specifically to screen any necessary mechanical equipment, but the plans will
remain substantially the same as those presented here.
121Page
Landscape Area: The proposal requires a total of 15% of the property to be landscaped and allows up to
50% of the plaza area to be considered landscaping for the purpose of meeting this standard (18.2.12.060
D). As such, 15% of the site's 27,710 square feet is 4,157 square feet and as proposed, the development
will have 2,877 sq. ft, in landscaping around the property, plus no more than 50% of the plaza area (2,788
sq. ft.) for a total landscape area of 4,271 sq. ft. (15%).
18.3.13.010 Residential Overlav Regulations
(Note: The standards below appear to be duplicating the standards noted in 18.2.3.130, above, but there
are differences. Nevertheless, the purpose of these Findings of Fact is to ensure the application meets all
of the applicable criteria and development standards.)
C. Requirements. The Residential overlay requirements are as follows.
1. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a
site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses.
The proposal is for two buildings on one site that will eventually be platted as condominiums sharing and
maintaining the site's common improvements. Along with the condominium plat, CC&R's and Bylaws
will be included in accordance with State of Oregon Condominium Statutes.
The overall ground floor of both buildings is 11,302 sq. ft., including residential garages and commercial
area footprints. Building "A's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 2,743 sq. ft. commercial and
1,801 sq. ft. residential. Building "B's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 4,701 sq. ft.
commercial and 2,057 sq. ft. residential. Combined, the ground floors of the two buildings have a
commercial to residential ratio of 7,444 sq. ft. commercial to 3,858 sq. ft. residential (66% commercial /
34% residential) in compliance with AMC 18.2.3.130 B.1. Further, although the Municipal Code defines
the two buildings as "one building" due to the connection of the skywalk, the overall site area has also
been calculated in accordance with AMC 18.2.3.130. B.1 in order to determine the ratio of the site that is
commercial and residential. In this case, the calculations illustrate that 54% of the site (14,946 sq. ft.) is
deemed "commercial use" and 46% (12,763 sq. ft.) is deemed residential use. Specifically, the
commercial area includes the footprint of the two buildings, less the residential parking garages, ground
floor hallway on Building "A" and %2 of all other common areas such as the parking lot, access isle and
plaza. Based on these calculations, Standard 18.2.3.130 B. is complied with.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density
calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a
unit.
The property is .64 (.636 acres) acres in size and has a base density of 9.54 dwelling units. The proposal is
for six two bedroom units, two one bedroom units and two studio units less 500 sq, ft. which calculates
based on the above provisions to be 9.50 dwelling units.
13 Page
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for
permitted uses in the E-I District.
The proposed residential uses have been designed to comply with the underlying E-1 zoning standards.
4. If the number of residential units exceeds ten, then at least 10 percent of the residential units
shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards established by
resolution of the City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units
required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
Not applicable as the proposed density is 9.5 dwelling units (maximum permitted by code).
Grant fit. rS~~
~ ~ dell • , - ~ .a..~'
~Wimer
Subject Area ~ L
'4
l
\
r
if_
JI/
AMC 18.3.13.010 Residential Overlay Map (1 of 2)
14~Page
i
t
18.4.2.040 Non-Residential Development
A. Purpose and Intent. Commercial and employment developments should have a positive impact
upon the streetscape. For example, buildings made of unadorned concrete block or painted with
bright primary colors used to attract attention can create an undesirable effect upon the
streetscape.
The proposal clearly has a positive impact upon the streetscape with its varying use of materials, colors
and large store-front windows. The buildings have been designed in context with the neighboring building
across the street with the long-term goal of creating a cohesive and enjoyable street to work or live on and
to utilize various modes of transportation.
Landscaping and site design for commercial and employment zones is somewhat different from that
required for residential zones. The requirement for outdoor spaces is much less. The primary
function is to improve the project's appearance, enhance the City's streetscape, lessen the visual
and climatic impact of parking areas, and to screen adjacent residential uses from the adverse
impacts which commercial uses may cause.
The design team contends the proposal enhance the streetscape and with the installation of added
landscaping and appropriate building placement will lessen the visual and climatic impact of parking
areas. Also, because the property is roughly 100' from the nearest residential zone, bisected by a natural
drainage corridor with a change in topographic elevation, the typical adverse impacts .commercial uses
may cause are mitigated.
One area in which Ashland's commercial differs from that seen in many other cities is the
relationship between the street, buildings, parking areas, and landscaping. The most common form
of modern commercial development is the placement of a small buffer of landscaping between the
street and the parking area, with the building behind the parking area at the rear of the parcel with
loading areas behind the building. This may be desirable for the commercial use because it gives the
appearance of ample parking for customers. However, the effect on the streetscape is less than
desirable because the result is a vast hot, open, parking area which is not only unsightly but results
in a development form which the City discourages.
The alternative desired in Ashland is to design the site so that it makes a positive contribution to the
streetscape and enhances pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The following development standards
apply to commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed-use development. The application of the
standards depends on what area of the City the property is located. Generally speaking, areas that
are visible from highly traveled arterial streets and that are in the Historic District are held to a
higher development standard than projects that are in manufacturing and industrial area.
The project site is not within a Historic District. However, the project planning for this development,
including the initial site and street layout phase, has clearly attempted to make a positive contribution to
the streetscape as well as the residential neighborhood it abuts. As the subdivision and adjoining
15~Page
properties develop and the City continues to enforce its Transportation Plan objectives with connected
streets and positive multi-modal developments, the subject property and the properties within the vicinity
will continue to make a positive contribution towards Ashland's livability.
18.4.2.040 B. Basic Site Review Standards j
I
Except as otherwise required by an overlay zone or plan district, the following requirements apply
to commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed-use development pursuant to section
18.5.2.020.
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.
The site's parking lot sits behind the two proposed buildings and will be screened from the front of the
property by the buildings and the elevated plaza area.
b. A building faVade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project's street
frontage a illustrated in Figure 18.4.2.040.8, 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.
In keeping with the above standard, the decision was made that two proportionally wide buildings would
be significantly superior then a single mass. As such, the two building facades as proposed occupy the
majority of the streetscape, but for the elevated plaza area which, in its own right, is attractive and
inviting. Further the plaza area provides a break between the buildings that address neighbor concerns
within the mixed-use building across the street that desire to maintain some of the their views of Mt.
Ashland.
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.
The building entrances have been designed to face the primary street and its public sidewalk. The
entrances are designed to be clearly visible, functional, and should remain open to the public during all
business hours.
d. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of vay to «rhich they are
required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration,
161Page
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.
Other then the residential entrances, the buildings' primary commercial entrances are located on the
ground level adjacent to the public sidewalk.
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.
The subject property is technically not on a corner lot, but on a sharp 90 degree street section. However,
the design team had looked at this standard and its intended purpose, but based on the eventual outcome
of directly facing the entrance at the residential neighborhood to the east (see photo insert below), it was
decided the entrance should instead face the commercial building across the street and remain true to its
commercial street and zoning.
I
r
L ~ f
Y
~ - G ICI ~
f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage.
The proposal will construct a public sidewalk, in accordance with the City's Street Design Standards and
the Subdivision's originally conceived plan along the Russell Street frontage.
g. The standards in a-d, above, may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as
warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations.
Although warehouses and some industrial/manufacturing uses are permitted in the E-1 zone, the
applicants have designed the building to accommodate an array of uses which include commercial office
and service businesses that will benefit from attractive building designs and accessible public sidewalks.
2. Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of
frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E.
171Page
i
In accordance with AMC 18.4.4.030 E., one street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for
each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street - including the northwest
section of street abutting the side of Building "B".
3. Landscaping.
a. Landscape areas at least ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the
buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays.
The property is within the Detail Site Review Overlay and not subject to the standard.
b. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4.
The attached landscaping and site plans identify a screened recycling and refuse area.
4. Designated Creek Protection. Where a project is proposed adjacent to a designated creek
protection area, the project shall incorporate the creels into the design while maintaining required
setbacks and buffering, and complying water quality protection standards. The developer shall
plant native riparian plants in and adjacent to the creek protection zone.
Not applicable as the property does not abut a designated creek protection area.
5. Noise and Glare. Artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of section 18.4.4.050. Compliance
with AMC 9.08.170.c and AMC 9.08.175 related to noise is required.
Site and building lighting will meet the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.050 as well as adopted building
codes and any noise will comply with AMC 9.08.175. The applicants have an interest in minimizing any
typical nuisance issues related to lighting or noise in order to provide an expected quality of living to the
project's residents.
6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. For sites that do not conform to the standards of
section 18.4.2.040 (i.e., nonconforming developments), an equal percentage of the site must be made
to comply with the standards of this section as the percentage of building expansion. For example, if
a building area is expanded by 25 percent, then 25 percent of the site must be brought up to the
standards required by this document.
Not applicable as the property is currently vacant.
18.4.2.040 C. Detailed Site Review Standards
Development that is within the Detail Site Review overlay shall, in addition to the complying with
the standards for Basic Site Review in 18.4.2.040.B, above, conform to the following standards. See
181Page
conceptual site plan of detail site review development in Figure 18.4.2.040.C.1 and maps of the
Detail Site Review overlay in Figures 18.4.2.040.C.2-5.
k
FNNEVADA ST
E NEVADA 9T E NEVADA S7
4 z 7 S10NERJD O
0M SHEPIDAN ST CAMBRIDGE ST O GEAV '
Q cy. ~ ;u
> 3
G43ANTST RANDY ST u' U FA/R
z_
\ w
m 4
GREENBRIAR PL \ \ d U o
1771S ST
W J Q
t_ O' J
rL
E} ° MOUNTAIN VEW DR g 0
MAPLE ST
~ X51 ~ ~ A. SLFEPy HO>.tOly R
COOLIDGE ST \ G D
y
V 13 NO~9NC~~ JNAV '
Y ~ ~ ?
(-t g
C) NURSERY S7,2
\ °hip
n {',2 Sr
U L`lI RI ER ST
JESSICA EN q~Nr
T
9
~E A, SST CRISPINSY DRISOOEpL
J' V
PA Subject Area
F
WEST ST Z Egt yg"_jjj-~ hS q~ w ¢
( J.
EHERSEY ST
i w
m
G10
J~ SsECt_Sr it td DLEPERRY LN
OP A`' ~ ~t+
O (vim ~ ` J I
~ O F NVty° Q ~ + O
5 z c - /t+-~ ~ -
a e o z,:
2 v¢g z ~~..`.~R l~ OSTr~ ~ ~ F z
s a c9q 5 i T °s
_ ~ co
NU TLEY ST p= O E ~ ~1
fi`C co Sr~`ST ~G 6EAa-I E~ n:, :~1 f.1AIN ST w
co i GLENVIEW DR ~~O ~>I 2
Op
t m ? A S \"S~I a} UPI 4 z
f w
t' L] i YO o
R' ~ ~ LeC t ~ n K
S7RAWBERRY W
9LAWE ST g
AMC 18.4.2.040.0.2 Detail Site Review Overlay Map (1 of 4)
1. Orientation and Scale.
a. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Where a site is one-half an
acre or greater in size, the FAR requirement may be met through a phased development plan or a
shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the
minimum FAR. See shadow plan example in Figure 18.4.2.040.C.1.a. Plazas and pedestrian areas
shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR.
The site is .64 acres in size (27,710 sq. ft.) and has a total floor area of 21,305 sq. k 1_or a;:76 U AR, not
including the plaza area.
19~1'age
b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other
distinctive changes in the building facade.
The subject building frontages have a variety of jogs and other distinctive changes in the building facade
for the purpose of creating an attractive street facade.
c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public open space shall contain at least
20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must
allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or displays areas. Blank walls within
30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40 percent of the length of the building perimeter can be
exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas.
The buildings' walls facing the street and plaza all have windows of at least 20% in display, windows and
doorways. The buildings' working areas, pedestrian entrances and display areas will be transparent, but
also address current building code and conservation standards relating to energy efficiency.
d. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to
entrances.
The buildings' incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish giving emphasis to the
entrances.
e. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and
desirable.
The application complies with this standard,
f. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect
pedestrians from the rain and sun.
The building elevations illustrate a continuous plane of awnings between pilasters and vertical forms of
the building that not only accentuate the building's design, but also protect pedestrians form the rain and
sun.
2. Streetscape.
a. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could
be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
The buildings will front onto a 15' wide sidewalk with street trees planted within irrigated tree wells that
along with the building awnings provide relief from inclement weather and in return promote walking and
"people" areas. Further, the design of the plaza, including the canted stairs and adjacent bench along the
public sidewalk create a sense of invitation to promote "people" use of the plaza.
20~Page
I
b. A building shall be setback not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used
for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility
easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one
structure is proposed for a site, at least 65 percent of the aggregate building frontage shall be within
five feet of the sidewalk.
The application complies with the above standard.
k
C
C
3. Buffering and Screening.'
a. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot.
Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible
with proposed buildings.'
b. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened from residentially
zoned land.
The landscape plan includes landscaping between the public street and the parking lot. A landscape buffer
is also in existence along the southern property line where an existing wall lays. In general, there are no
incompatible uses on any of the adjacent lots as the lots are primarily vacant.
4. Building Materials.
a. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry,
for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.
The building materials include changes for relief for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.
b. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are
prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building shin.
Bright paint colors or significant amounts of glass are not to be incorporated in the buildings' facades.
18.4.2.040 D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects
In the Detail Site Review overlay, developments that are greater than 10,000 square feet in gross
floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage shall, in addition to complying with
the standards for Basic (18.4.2.040.B) and Detail (18.4.2.040.0) Site Review, above, conform to the
following standards. See conceptual elevation of large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.1
and conceptual site plan of large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.2.
1. Orientation and Scale.
21 Page
i
a. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale
by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of
divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
I
The proposed buildings have been designed to divide large building masses into heights and sizes that
relate to human scale. Both incorporate changes in building masses, have sheltering awnings and recessed
entrances and include a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces. Both include windows, small scale E
lighting and trees will be planted along the frontage and throughout the site.
b. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing
buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall conform to the following standards.
i. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one building.
ii. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside
r
of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an
interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof.
iii. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor
space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception.
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not
count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any
floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as
provided in the building code.
iv. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
[i
The subject property is outside the Downtown Design Standards Overlay. The combined square footage is i'
21,305 square feet and considering the frontage of the property is less than 200', the buildings' combined
building length is in compliance with the standard.
2. Public Spaces.
a. One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor
area, except for the fourth gross floor area.
r
The project has been designed with a plaza area of roughly 2,788 square feet and the combined gross floor
area of both buildings is 21,305 square feet. As such, the plaza space is roughly 13% whereas 10% is y1
required (2,130 sq. ft.) by code. The plaza is designed to serve multiple purposes ranging from a view
corridor, a break in the building mass, a place for public gathering and recreation, wind breaks, seating
and general relaxation. j
!I
b. A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least four of the following elements.
i. Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza.
Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in i6dth. Ledge benches shall
have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
22~Page
t
l
ii. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade.
iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
iv. Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at
least two inches in diameter at breast height.
v. Water features or public art.
vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
The plaza incorporates four of the above elements - sitting spaces, mixture of sunlight and shade,
protection from wind and trees. There are roughly 30 formal seats where only eight are required. All of
the seats will be at least 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. The plaza area also includes six shade
trees, all of which will be 2" dbh when planted.
3. Transit Amenities. Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be
required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the
Rogue Valley Transportation District.
In review of the City's Transportation System Plan and through discussions with the Rogue Valley
Transportation District, there are no planned services for this area.
18.5.2.050 Site Review Permit - Approval Criteria
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in
subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application,
impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria.
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.
To the best of the applicant's and design team's knowledge, all of the applicable provisions of the
property's E-1 zone (Chapter 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 are being complied with. No exceptions or variances are proposed with this
development.
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
The proposal complies with the Residential Overlay for this site which is regulated by AMC Chapter
18.3.13.010, including but not limited to commercial and residential ground floor ratios as well as
permissible residential densities. The project is for an attractive and %vell thought-ont mixed use
development that will not only provide the City with needed small unit housing and new office space
231Page
close to the downtown core, but is also in keeping with the original subdivision's envisioned concept
plans and is contextually compatible with the existing building on Lot 44 across the street.
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.
The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC Chapter
18.4, as addressed above. To the best of the applicant's and design team's knowledge, no exceptions to
the Site Development and Design Standards are proposed with this application.
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.
All key facilities are available to service the proposed buildings and were installed during the
subdivision's initial construction in 2003/2004. All utilities to service the buildings are within the
adjoining rights-of-way and stub to the property or if necessary, will be installed at the time of
construction in accordance with Ashland Public Work Standards. The applicant, Planning Agent and
project Civil Engineer have met with all of the utility departments to verify if there were any capacity
issues. The results of the meetings were that adequate City facilities are available to the subject site.
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.
To the best of the applicant's and design team's knowledge, no exceptions are proposed with this
application as they relate to the City's Site Development and Design Standards.
24~Page
i
U
Z
r
(E) STORM DRAIN INLET \
U
RUSSELL STREET (EJ STORM DRAIN INLET rW
o (E) FIRE HYDRANT
\ a 0
A Q. o Q N
a o. W
a ~ 0
r Q N
,
i ➢mu 7-AOER y
-A' A' X-l I U
Z Q
k PR ER LIN J
r raa N 00
,2-SESA W W W
a 4 0 K
X 9-ASAS V F O
g4s ¢ ~ ~ o
k X a'43 n 1-ZELC Q
' Fed r3 W Q
5-ARCS X L' 4 a'~44$
0 =
(P)BUILDING A (P)COVERED
BIKE PARKING - I N
X uJl (P)i6°BENCH J Q ~ Q
A
v 2 FRAA
1-PYRC
~(P) CANOPY
(P) BUILDING B
L- J
22-SESA SESA
o
28-MIX 1
o v I
k ~ 1 (E) LIGHT POLE
8 S
(P) PLANTER AT GRADE
I b
Q'
.~15 TE'~ `
41-MIX,
I r___, r---, r---~ I (PJ PLAZA STAT OREGON {
a-mss I I I I I 3-ZELC 5-clss
LA 1 1-PING ~¢nszt%pH
I sar r d r'--1
sa I }
_ 'aune agcr'-
k
❑ APE A
I I j ~
(E) UTILITY /
$v Rewslon Date: ~
(P) RAISED PLANER o
W/ IV BENCH
(P)TRASH ENCLOSURE $ u
I -ACee J-1 - Drawn By.
k ® 2ESA
1PI LIGHT POLE 8 - HELH 11XI7 SCOIE: 1v°201-0v ;
1
i-PYRC ® (E) PARKING LO~f$ 24X36 Scale: l10'-0'
(P) LIGHT POLE 1F
I RRRR
7-CISB IL1UVd O 1 II 26-9ESA
NVt1 KKA
M
0V. (E)UTILRIES
n
Q II
(P) RETAINING WALL 9 HELH I 9-CISS
k ❑ 1-ACEB
, PYRC
x
(E)UTILITIES w 0
5 F 0
P R E X X (P) FIRE HYDRANT V z
x X 0
N
X X X X G (F)LIGHT POLE z J
Z N O
0~ Z
Q ~ N
19-
~
28
2B-ARCS RCS
F- ~ September 18, 2015
0 10 0 PLANTING PLAN
L-i o
U
Z
N
F-
U
FW"
2
W0
Q N
a H- 0
Q j N
N Lc)
Z
0 Z
N af 0
W W W
Q 0 K
W W
0
U
(7
0 F-
Q o
w Q Q
a 0 x
PLANT LEGEND N
Q
~~Q I
CATEGORY SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC N;IAIE COMMON NAME SIZE
TREES ACES ACER'BON FIRE BON FIRE MAPLE 2"CAL
ACER ACER R-'S GARSEN' SCARLET SENTINAL MAPLE 2"CAL
FRAA FRAXINUS'pUTUMN PURPLE' AUTUMN PURPLE ASH 2°CALr
PING PINUSOREGON GREEN' OREGON GREEN AUSTRIAN PINE 10'TALL
PYRC PYRUS'CHANTICLEER' CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEAR 2'CAL -
ZELC ZELKOVA'CITY SPRITE ZELKOVA CITY SPRITE 2' CAL i
SHRUBS, ARCS ARCTOSTYPHYLOS'SUNSEP SUNSET MANZANITA 5GAL
PERENNIALS ASAS ASARUM SPLENDENS WILD GINGER IGAL
AND CISS CISTUS'SUNSEP SUNSET ROCKROSE 5GAL I
GRASSES HELH HELIANTHEIAUM'HENFIELD BRILLIANT HENFIELD BRILLIANT SUNROSE IGAL
PANN PANICUM'NORTHWIND' NORTHWIND SWITCHGRASS 1GAL
SESA SESLARIAAUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 1 GAL [
MIX1 ERIGERON K.'PROFUSION' SAN TA BARBARA DAISY IGAL
MIXES/ NEPETAPURRSIAN BLUE' PURRSIAN BLUE CATMINT 1GAL I
GROUNDCOVER STACHYSSILVERCARPEP SILVER CARPET LAMB'S EAR IGAL t
I
NOTES f
SECURING TIES USE
B 4
RUBER HOSE At BARK 1. PLACE 12"COMPOST/TOPSOIL BLEND IN ALL TREE AND SHRUB 1S TE
PL ANTING AREAS PROPOSED AND EXISTING, PLACE24"IN ALL RAISED G R
PAND IN STREETTREE PLANTING AREAS BELOW PROPOSED STATE Ofi..d
ALANTERS
In TREE GRATES. TOPSOIL PLUS BLEND AVAILABLE FROM HILTON OREGON'
jIEO 6527A~-
LANDSCAPE SUPPLY.
2. PRIOR TO SOIL INSTALLATION, REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND ROCKS 9 IT :1U
OVER 2' IN SIZE. TILL COMPACTED SUBGRADE TO A DEPTH OF6",
3. PLANT ALL TREES AND SHRUBS PER DETAIL I&2, LASHALL eSUger
ROVE ALL PLANT LAYOUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. LM403
-I X4 BRACING APP M403
CT~PE x "
4. MULCH PLANTING AREAS AFTER ITH WOF DARK MULTIBARK, OR EQUAL- CATION OF PLANT MATERIAL
W
5.APPLYDEERSPRAY TO ALL NEW PLANTS PRIORTO AND it
-2'WOOD STAKES (3) FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. I;
SET ROOTCROWN 2' 6, AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL(P)PLANTING Revision Dole:
ABOVE FINISH GRADE AREAS,
MULCH: 2' MIN. KEEPING MULCH 1'
-%WAYFROMTRUNK {
- SOIL SAUCER: USE PREPARED 'i
SOILMIX4' °
c
- SOPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALL BE
Drown By.
CUT. REMOVE TOP Y3 OF BURLAP. SHRUBS SHALL BE SLIGHTLY
NON-BIO-DEGRADABLE MATERIAL HIGHER IN RELATION TO
SHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED I FINISHED GRADE
MULCHWMIN
~BACKFILL WITH PREPARED MIX OF 26% -
IMPORTED COMPOST AND TOPSOIL AND ~I PRUNE DAMAGED OR
75%NATVE SOIL DESICCATED ROOTS
OIA. MIN. GENTLY COMPACTED SOIL MIX
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL L=I
NOTES: - III - SCARIFY PIT BOTTOM
1. STAKE TREES ONLY IF NEEDED AND REMOVE 150mm (6') MIN.
AFTER 2 YEARS MAXIMUM
2. INSTALL SUNSCALD WRAP ON TREES PLACED 2.5 X DIAMETER OF
IN DIRECT SUN ROOT BALL
1 TREE PLANTING DETAIL 2 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
w Z
w 0
F Ci
~ w
m
>y0
0~
Li ~ Q f
Ij
September 18, 2015
PLANTING LEGEND
<-1.1
z
6
E
6
V
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACT ION #2015_-0_1284, a request for Site ) REQUEST FOR
Design Review to construct a two building mixed use development for the property ) AN EXTENSION
located at 474 Russell . ) OF THE TIME
LIMIT
ORS 227.178(1) 2
APPLICANTS: Ayala Properties, LLC
Applicants request a 30-day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1).
i
9
L
z~
Applicant Date
Applicant Date
f
i
a
3
a
h
a
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
t
G 0 2015
ti
L
{
REQUKST FOR ~P
I ) -VT
51 Winburn Way ~I~
CITY OF
ASHLAND Ashland, OR 97520
Date of Request:
Requestor's Name:
Mailing Address:
City: t - - State: r.,~ Zip; /
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Date of Request:
Requestor's Name:
Mailing Address:
City: State:
Zip:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Date of Request:
Requestor's Name:
Mailing Address:
City: State:
Lip:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
I
2
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-01284, a request for Site ) REQUEST FOR
Design Review to construct a two building mixed use development for the property ) AN EXTENSION }
located at 474 Russell. OF THE TIME
j
LIMIT
} ORS 227.178(1)
APPLICANTS: Ayala Properties, LLC -
Applicants request a 30-day extension to the time Iii-nit set forth in ORS 227.178(1),
a
pppicant
N~ iz~t ~X ~r,L fy h AI(Ir Date 3
Applicant Date
P
i
3L
5
A
3
S
a
e
A
[Note: ORS 227.178(5) provides that the "120-day period set in (ORS 227.178(1)) may
be extended for a specified period of time at the written request of the applicant. The total
of all extensions may not exceed 245 days."]
3
~I
3
# r
a
JUL 2 201 '
F
E
r
( ( \ ~ 51 Winburn Way PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF
ASHLAND Ashland, OR 97520
Date of Request: Jv ! w I
Requestor's Name: r)^ V~~~~r~ l ~G~~t V C : ter 1 ! ~1d • C V
Mailing Address: Vet L-U A-VYyS 6 ~4 [J A-~
City: 45 W-N Q State: Q f~ Zip: 75 o
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Date of Request:
Requestor's Name:
Mailing Address:
City: State: Zip:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Date of Request:
Requestor's Name:
Mailing Address:
City: State: Zip:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Zimbra https://zimbra.ashland.or us/h/printmessage?id=124891 & 1
imbra seversod@ashland.or.us
i
Falcon Heights Lot
From : D. Helmich <dave@d-pminc.com> Fri, Jul 10, 2015 05:12 PM
Subject : Falcon Heights Lot 6
To : planning@ashland.or.us ,l attachment
Cc : Surya Bolom <sbolom@ccountry.net>, Allyn Stone
<ally@mind.net>, Carol Kim <horacekim@hotmail.com>
Reply To: dave@d-pminc.com
To Whom It May Concern:
I live at 468 Williamson Way.
I understand there is a proposal for construction on the subject lot, although I also
understand the initial application with you was not really ready for prime time.
There was a notice given to at least some nearby residents in regard to the building
proposal which may house a small hotel (is this really an appropriate location, considering
access, traffic generation, parking, etc.) but in any case is being proposed as up to 3 storeys.
I was not notified of the neighbor meeting which was scheduled apparently at the site on a
105 degree day. Not much neighborhood input was requested or could have been delivered.
Especially if all affected (read 200 feet) owners were not notified. I think I should have been.
I would like to urge the department to require storey poles once this has settled down a little
and if it doesn't, I will urge the Commission to require them. This lot is elevated above
Russell and less sophisticated neighbors will have no way to understand the proposal without
them. Can this be administratively required under the rather lax E-1 zoning of the site?
There is apparently a 40 foot height limit on this lot. It would be interesting to know if that is
measured from the gutter line or mid-depth of the structure. Big difference.
I appreciate the opportunity to communicate my concerns with you.
Dave Helmich
dave.vcf
L-i 187 B
1 of 1 7/17/2015 8:15 AM
i
I
""FALCON VI - A MIXED -USE DEVELOPENT C
i
VQ~
~M'
r
n
A PROPOSAL FOR
A SITE REVIEW PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT ONE COMMERCIAL BUILDING
AND ONE MIXED-USE BUILDING WITHIN AN
EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT
(FALCON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, LOT #6)
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND
k
FOR
AYALA PROPERTIES, LLC. i;
604 FAIR OAKS COURT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
604 FAIR OAKS COURT
ASHLAND, OR 97520
JUL c,,2915
JULY 2ND, 2015
1 Page
i
1. PROJECT INFORMATION:
PROJECT NAME: "Falcon VI" (Falcon Heights, Lot #6)
i
I
APPLICANT: ARCHITECT ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Ayala Properties, LLC Gary R. Caperna, Architect Alan Harper Attorney at Law
604 Fair Oaks Court 2908 Hillcrest Road 130 "A" Street
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97501 Ashland, OR 97520
LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Urban Development Services, LLC CEC Engineering Laurie Sager & Associates
604 Fair Oaks Court P.O. Box 1724 700 Mistletoe Road, Suite 201
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 Ashland, OR 97520
PROJECT ZONING: As illustrated in the inserted Zoning Map (below), the property is zoned
Employment (E-1) with a Residential Overlay. The subject property is regulated by the Ashland
Municipal Code, Chapters 18.2.6 (Zoning), 18.3.13 (Residential Overlay) and 18.4.2 (Site Design
Standards, Non-Residential Development - Basic, Detail & Large Scale design standards).
A."
t
Falcon Heights
F z `Subdivision
R F~ 1 i}- (six lots)
Subject Property
L 6
z
City Zoning Map
J UL 02 2015
2 1 P a g e
;
E
[FF,
F(
{t ,4-.gyp ,N N
VAW.
y
kdo
-47
T
F rP s ~
a
AfV.
f
R
n2
- q~-
t
=
a
P
T a P. 1sos.-
1 ~ X}
I
' J
r
y"
~ Cuf1111~On i
t1nion Pacific
ova
Jt k Iroad Property
~
Falcon Heights Subdivision
PROPERTY BACKGROUND: In 1991 a proposal was made for the development of not only the
subject property, but also the residential properties to the north. The proposal was initially approved by
the Planning Commission; however, a neighborhood group appealed the decision to the City Council and
eventually to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The project was remanded back to the City and a
mediation process was initiated. The result of the mediation produced a mixture of land use types from
Single-Family Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5) along Heresy Street, Medium Density (R-2) along
Williamson Way and Employment with a Residential Overlay (E-1) along Rogue Place. The R-1-15 and
R-2 properties have been divided, sold, constructed upon and occupied. A total of 27 single-family 22
multi-family parcels were developed.
In 2001, the City completed a "draft" Master Plan for the Railroad Property (now Union Pacific's). The
subject property was included in the plan where it identified conceptual street layouts, street desigiis,
street connections, building placements and designs. The Master Plan was never officially adopted, but
from the plan came the current street layout now adopted as part of the City's Trangp6jjaO(~n np em Plan
as well as certain building and lot configurations (see insert below).
3 1Pabe
_ I
A 7r-
4 lo
r,
T1 t' ti ~5
rI
w 'j
a--~ - Y~
N ~4
'T, 021-
I ~ -r _ - tom. a , Is ~1-
Y rr.
r - toll
"IV
4- 4' .w ;I i . 11 I ,
IJ
p '9r ?%'T I R ~ ° uSa LI F`'1 I it y ~r '1tFF {`I `
ro e
Railroad Master Plan - 2001
In 2002, the property was part of a 13-lot subdivision, but modified in 2003 to seven lots. The seven lot f
subdivision was then recorded with various improvements including roads, electrical, storm water, bio-
swales, sewer, sidewalks, street lights and parking areas installed. The property, in its existing condition
today, is generally how it has been since 2004. All of the properties have been reasonably maintained over
the years primarily due to the subdivision's property Owner's Association.
4~Patie
I
C
t
In 2006, an application was made for the first building within the subdivision on Lot #4, a two-story
mixed-use building consisting of 7,762 square feet comprised of business professional office space, retail
on the ground floor and five residential condominiums on the second floor (see insert above). At the time
of its approval, parking was added to the rear of the building, mixed-use parking credits were granted and
an on-street parking credit was granted.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The property is located at 474 Russell Street and is a vacant .64 acre
parcel zoned E-1 with a Residential Overlay. The property is rectangular shaped with an approximate 6%
south to north grade. As previously described, the site's parking lot (storm water drain, paving and
curbing) have been installed as well as the site's perimeter curbing, street lights, fire hydrants and
transformer boxes. A short retaining wall abuts along the south property line, but due to poor installation,
it needs to be repaired. Finally, the subject property is well liked by neighboring property owners and
tenants due to its semi-improved state where they can comfortably let their dogs roam around the vacant
property and the abutting railroad property without too much concern.
PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a Site Review Permit to construct two
commercial buildings on Lot #6 of the Falcon Heights Subdivision consisting of 12,823 sq. ft. (Building
"A") and 8,243 sq. ft. (Building "B"). An open plaza space divides the two buildings and will consist of
various seats, trees and areas of shade. All of the units will be condominiums sharing and maintaining the
site's common improvements.
Building "A Building "A" is intended to be a three-story mixed-use structure consisting of two
commercial condominium units on the ground floor and 10 residential condominiums on the second and
third floors. The ground floor commercial spaces will each be 1,025 sq. ft. and designed to orientate to the
street, similar to the ground floor commercial spaces within the existing building across the street
(required by the City's Site Design and Use Standards). Further, the building will abut a newly installed
15' sidewalk which will include street trees, street lights and seating areas.
The building's ten residential units will equally be divided with five units on the second floor and five
units on the third floor. Two of the units will be 473 square feet studio spaces, four of the units will be
690 sq. ft. one bedroom units and four will be 724 square foot one bedroom units. The units will be
accessed by an internal stair and hallway system. Five of the units will have enclosed garages which are
accessed from the existing parking lot.
Note: It should be noted the proposed residential units within Building A are smaller than typical
residential condominiums in Ashland primarily for two reasons. First, in order to increase the size of the
units, the footprint of the building would have needed to be larger and thus less plaza space, more parking
would have to be added or a third floor added to Building "B". However, after meeting with various
neighbors, reviewing the neighborhood and analyzing the components of the various Site Design and Use
Standards, the applicants and design team believe a combination approach would be preferred in order to
create streetscape diversity, minimize view loss to adjoining neighbors and to provide "some" level of
distinction of uses between the buildings where Building "B" can independently function as a more
JUL 07 2015 5 1 P a g c
c
i
manufacturing space (if desired) without the typical concerns for the residential users above (smells,
t
noise, vibration, etc.). Secondly, in reading the City of Ashland's 2012 Housing Needs Analysis and 2007 I
Rental Needs Analysis, both documents emphasize the need for smaller units, specifically in the studio
and one-bedroom unit sizes. As such, the applicants concur there will be a demand in Ashland for the
smaller units and for the reasons stated is willing to make the investment.
Building "B".- Building "B" is two-stories consisting of 100% commercial space. The space is divided
into three units designed to be adaptable for the variety of uses permitted in the E- 1. (Employment Zone),
which include: utility uses, offices and manufacturing. A specific example is the large glass windows at
the rear of the building, at parking lot level, that could easily be replaced with roll-up doors to adapt from
G:
one type of use such as office to manufacturing where bulk deliveries are necessary.
Similar to Building "A", Building "B" will also include a pedestrian friendly streetscape fagade with the
unit's primary entrances facing the tree-lined street and 15' sidewalk. The internal spaces will be divided
~
perpendicular to the street with each commercial space having both street level space and parking lot level
space. The design is intended to provide for dramatic interior space with lots of natural light and views.
Building Architecture: The buildings have been designed to not only reflect certain components of the
existing building across the street, but also in accordance with the regulations noted in the Basic, Detail
and Large Scale design standards (Site Design & Use Standards). Such standards do not require a certain
design style such as Downtown Ashland, but do require large building masses to be divided into heights
and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering
roofs, a distinct pattern of surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. In this development's case,
the buildings have been articulated in both mass, volume and material and no one wall is a voided plane. s
Each wall includes symmetrically balanced components for a positive streetscape rhythm.
E:
Zoning & Railroad District Master Plan: In addition to the design standards, the project complies with the C
City's E-1 zoning standards for rear parking, setbacks, solar access, building heights, etc. Further, the
subdivision's original design and concepts clearly follow the 2001 Railroad District Master Plan (draft) as
illustrated above on Page #4. In addition, suggestions within the master plan, such as "two or more"
building story's are encouraged, follow the provisions of the zoning code which allow up to 40', plus a 5'
parapet. In this development's case, Building "A's" height is 35' at the rear parking lot and 40' as
measured along the Russell Street sidewalk. Based on the definition of height, the building's height is
roughly 37'. Building "B's" height averages 28' (similar to the existing building across the street).
Parking: A total of 19 parking spaces are currently provided on-site and another I1 parking spaces are
proposed to be added, two of which will be handicap parking spaces. Of the 30 total on-site parking
spaces, five of the proposed spaces will be within single bay garages within Building "A" and owned by
the residents. An additional seven parking spaces are located along the north side of the lot's street
frontage and three more on the lot's cast side (AMC 18.4.3.060 A.) for a total of 40 parking spaces.
Note: The property's parking lot is pre-existing, constructed in 2003/2004 with all of the improvements
for curbing, drainage, landscaping area, irrigation conduit, asphalt thickness, etc. meetQ-9-u l tn'
61Pac
i
i
Planning standards. That said, the applicants intend to utilize the parking lot as originally constructed, but
complete the necessary landscaping and irrigation improvements. The areas where parking spaces are to
be added, the applicants will construct those spaces in accordance with AMC 18.4.3.080 B.S., specifically
to minimize microclimatic heat gain.
In accordance with AMC, Table 18.4.3.040 - Automobile Parking Spaces by Use, the project's parking
demand is as follows:
Building "A" - mixed-use
2 Studio Residential Units < 500 sq. ft. 1 space per unit = 2 spaces required
8 One-bedroom Residential Units > 500 sq. ft. 1.5 spaces per unit = 12 spaces required
2,000 sq. ft. General Office 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 4 spaces required
Total: = 18 parking spaces
Building "B" - commercial
8,000 sq. ft. General Office 1 space per 500 sq. ft. = 16 spaces required
Total: = 16 parking spaces
Total Required: 34
Total Provided 32*
* Based on a parking optimization approach and utilizing the City's Parking Management Strategies
noted in AMC 18.4.3.060 A.1, the applicants are proposing to utilize two on-street parking credits
(6% of the demand) in order to address the required parking spaces. The requested credits are
relatively minor considering the extensive amount of on-street parking spaces available as well as the
25 "open" on-site parking spaces. However, as in most land use applications where uses and tenants
can vary and Ashland's parking standards are based on the use, the actual parking demand over time
may vary. In this case, the applicants believe the street demand is likely to be underutilized based on
the two following factors: First, the proposed development is a mixed-use development which
generally will accommodate two types of users - one that is primarily a daytime user (commercial
businesses) and one that is primarily a nighttime user (residential units). Based on this fact, it's fair to
assume a small percentage of the two uses will not create their required parking demand at the same
time. This provision is currently provided in AMC 18.4.3.060 C. which allows for up to a 50% credit,
but in this case, the proposal is for only 6%. Secondly, the building across the street was granted an
11% on-street credit in 2006 (PA-2006-01787) and based on multiple site visits from January of 2015
to present; the on-street parking area along the front of the building is rarely, if ever, utilized.
Bike Parking Required / Proposed:
Residential: 1 per residential unit, 100% covered (AMC 18.4.3.070 CI)
Proposed: 2 Studio & 8 1 BR Residential Units = 10 Bike Parking Spaces
Covered Spaces: 10 sheltered spaces (5 in garages and 5 adjacent to plaza a>1L1). 0 2
7 1 P a g e
i
Commercial: 1 per 5 auto spaces, plus 50% sheltered (AMC 18.4.3.070 D)
20 Auto Parking Spaces / 5 = 4 bike spaces / 5 proposed
Covered Spaces: = 3 required / 5 proposed
Total Proposed: = 15 Bike Parking Spaces / 15 sheltered
All bike parking spaces will be designed in compliance with the Bicycle Parking Design Standards noted
in AMC 18.4.070 and specifically the covered bike standards as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.070.I.10 a.
and b. All bike parking spaces, including those to be mounted inside the residential garage spaces will be
reviewed and approved at the time of the development's occupancy.
Sims: The buildings' signage is intended to be mounted on the front of the building and within the
window areas of the front fagade. Prior to installation, permits for any signage will be applied for in
accordance with 18.4.7.020 B. and all standards for commercially zoned signs will be in accordance with
AMC 18.4.7.080.
Solar Access: The proposal complies with the City's adopted Solar Access Ordinance, AMC 18.4.8, as
the property is not only classified as a Type "B" Lot due to its E-1 zoning designation, but also includes
an unbuildable area (Russell Street) and additional E-1 property to the north. Further, Building "A's"
building's height is 40' on the north side and Building "B's" is 34' and based on the City's Solar Access
Ordinance at a 4.5% negative slope, the furthest north setback would be 60' and the building's north
setback measures 62'.
Trash & Recycling: In accordance with 18.4.4.040 G., the project's trash and recycling area is to be within
a combined enclosure, 5' in height, accessed from the rear parking lot. The enclosed structure is aligned
directly with the driveway's opening for easy access allowing for convenient and quick service by
Ashland Recology. The enclosure provides screening from all adjoining neighbors.
Neighborhood Outreach: On June 25th, 2015, a neighborhood meeting was held to address neighborhood
questions. In attendance were five neighbors, the Land Use Planner and Architect. The neighbors asked
positive questions relating to views, heights, proposed uses and construction timing. Two separate
meetings also were planned accommodating two neighbors who were out of town.
CONCLUSION: The applicants contend the proposal is another positive example of Ashland's land use
planning efforts. The opportunity to build two buildings, one as a true commercial building and the other
as a mixed-use commercial/residential building provides the commercial real estate market with two
viable options - one with light office and/or manufacturing on the ground floor that recognizes the
building as a "shared" mixed-use facility and the other as a commercial building with zero residential
above. To this end, the commercial users within Building "B" could produce more noise, sound or
vibration within their day-to-day business operations without having to be overly concerned about being a
public nuisance to the residences above. (l
Jul-
e
8 1 P a g
j
The applicants also believe the addition of adding 2 studio and 8 one-bedroom units is a positive
contribution to Ashland's housing market. As noted in the City's 2012 Housing Needs Analysis and 2007
Rental Needs Analysis, both documents emphasize the need for smaller units, specifically in the studio
and one-bedroom unit sizes.
Finally, the applicants and design team are excited about bringing forth a building design that makes a
positive contribution to the public street. In what could have been a very mediocre building and site plan
design, similar to the various manufacturing and office buildings to the west of the subject site, the
E
proposed buildings are oriented to the street, provide an open and elevated public plaza space and include
G
a significant amount of glazing and architectural components that emphasize creativity, but also
neighborhood compatibility.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements
and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to the site's zoning, applicable
overlay zones, site development and design regulations. The application is to be processed as a Type II
Planning Action based on the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.2.030 B and D. and subject to AMC
Chapter 18, specifically Sections 18.2.3.130 (Dwellings in Non-Residential Zones), 18.2.6.030 (Unified
Standards for Non-Residential Zones), 18.3.13.010 (Residential Overlay Regulations), 18.4.2.040 (Non-
Residential Development), 18.4.2.040 B. (Basic Site Review Standards); 18.4.2.040 C. (Detail Site
Review), 18.4.2.040 D. (Large Scale Standards), 18.4.3 (Parking, Access & Circulation), 18.4.4
(Landscaping, Lighting & Screening), 18.4.8 (Solar Access) and 18.5.2.050 Site Review Criteria.
For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline " form with the City's
approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a
number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the Findings of Fact are complete.
18.2.3.130 Dwelling in Non-Residential Zone
Where dwellings are allowed in non-residential zones, they are subject to all of the following
requirements.
A. Dwellings in the E-1 zone are limited to the R-overlay zone. See chapter 18.3.13 Residential
Overlay.
The subject property is within an E-1 Residential Overlay Zone as noted on the inserted map on Page #12
of this document.
B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards:
31 1
9~Page
G?
1. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a
site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses.
The proposal is for two buildings on one site that will eventually be platted as condominiums sharing and
maintaining the site's common improvements. Along with the condominium plat, CC&R's and Bylaws
will be included in accordance with State of Oregon Condominium Statutes.
I
The overall ground floor of both buildings is 9,483 sq. ft., including garages and commercial area
footprints. Building "A's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 2,000 sq. ft, commercial and
2,410 sq. ft. residential (45% commercial / 55% residential). Building "B's" commercial / residential
ground floor ratio is 100% commercial at 5,073 sq. ft. Combined, the ground floor of the two buildings
have a commercial to residential ratio of 7,073 sq. ft. commercial and 2,410 sq. ft. residential (74%
commercial / 26% residential).
t
f
Further, because the subject buildings are located on one site and not more than 50 percent of the total lot
area shall be designated for residential uses, the applicants have provided plans that illustrate areas of the
site that are specifically dedicated to the residential area of the development, as illustrated on Diagram
"A". The plans delineate the garages and residential hallway of Building "A", 12 open parking spaces,
their back-up area and some miscellaneous areas which cover 8,562 sq. ft: or 31% of the total lot area.
Based on these calculations, Standard 18.2.3.130 B. is complied with.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1 zone, 30 dwelling units
per acre in the C-1 zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-1) zone. For the purpose of
density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as
0.75 of a unit.
The property is .64 (.636 acres) acres in size and has a base density of 9.54 dwelling units. The proposal is
for eight one bedroom units greater than 500 sq. ft. and two studio units less than 500 sq. ft. which
calculates based on the above provisions to be 9.50 dwelling units.
'F
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for
permitted uses in the underlying zone.
The proposed residential uses have been designed to comply with the underlying E-1 zoning standards.
4. Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C-1-1) zone. Q 20'
Not applicable
5. Where the number of residential units exceeds ten, at least ten percent of the residential units
shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards of section 18.2.5.050.
The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
101Page
i
i
Not applicable as the proposed density is 9.5 dwelling units (maximum permitted by code).
G
c
i
18.2.6.030 Unified Standards for Non-Residential Zones
1
18.2.6.030 Unified Standards for Non-Residential Zones - EMPLOYMENT ZONE (E-1)
Residential Density 15 du/ac complies
Lot Area, Width, Depth or Lot Coverage There is no minimum lot area, width or depth, or maximum lot complies
coverage; or minimum front, side or rear yard, except as required
to comply with the special district and overlay zone provisions of
part 18.3 or the site.
Setback Yards (feet) There is no minimum front, side, or rear yard required, except complies
where buildings on the subject site abut a residential zone, in
which case a side of not less than 10 ft and a rear yard of not less
than 10 ft per story is required.
Building Height2&3- Maximum (feet) 40 ft s 0 {;corplSl' s
Landscape Area - Minimum of 15% complies
developed lot area)
3Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the maximum building height,- see also, 18.4.4.030. G.4 formechanical
equipment screening requirements, and 18.5.2.020 for Site Design Review for mechanical equipment review process.
Specifically in response to the standards noted in 18.2.6.030, Unified Standards for Non-Residential
Zones noted in the above table, the following is intended to help clarify the applicant's compliance with
the codes:
Density: The proposed density is 9.5 as previously described above and is in compliance with the E-1
Zoning and Residential Overlay District. The property is .64 (.636 acres) acres in size and has a base
density of 9.54 dwelling units. The proposal is for eight one bedroom units greater than 500 sq. ft. and
two studio units less than 500 sq. ft. which calculates based on the above provisions to be 9.50 dwelling
units.
Lot Standards: Based on reading through the history of the property, E-1 zoning standards and the various
Site Design and Use Standards, there are no unique lot area, lot width, lot depth or lot coverage standards
associated with the subject property that are not already designed within the proposal (plaza area, plaza
elements, street trees, etc).
Setbacks: The property does not abut a residential zone. As such, no additional setbacks are required.
Building Height: The maximum height in the E-1 zone is 40', plus an additional 5' for parapets or
mechanical screening. In this case, Building "A's" height is 35' at the rear parking lot and 40' as
measured along the Russell Street sidewalk. Based on the definition of height, the building's height is
roughly 37'. Building "B's" height averages 28'. Both buildings comply with the 40' height maximum.
11 Page
t
Note: As the architectural plans go through mechanical and structural engineering for the eventual
Building Permit, there may be some slight adjustments, specifically to screen any necessary mechanical
equipment, but the plans will remain substantially the same as those presented here.
c
Landscape A°ea, The proposal requires a total of 15% of the property to be landscaped and allows up to
50% of the plaza area to be considered landscaping for the purpose of meeting this standard (18.2.12.060
D). As such, 15% of the site's 27,710 square feet is 4,157 square feet and as proposed, the development
will have 3,244 sq. ft. in landscaping around the property, plus no more than 50% of the plaza area (3,734
sq. ft.) for a total landscape area of 5,111 sq. ft. (18%).
18.3.13.010 Residential Overlay Regulations
(Note: The standards below appear to be duplicating the standards noted in 18.2.3.130, above, but there
are differences. Nevertheless, the purpose of these Findings of Fact is to ensure the application meets all
of the applicable criteria and development standards.)
C. Requirements. The Residential overlay requirements are as follows.
1. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35
percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a
site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses.
The proposal is for two buildings on one site that will eventually be platted as condominiums sharing and
maintaining the site's common improvements. The overall ground floor of both buildings is 9,483 sq. ft.,
including garages and commercial area footprints. Building "A's" commercial / residential ground floor
ratio is 2,000 sq. ft. commercial and 2,410 sq. ft. residential (45% commercial / 55% residential). Building
"B's" commercial / residential ground floor ratio is 100% commercial at 5,073 sq. ft. Combined, the
ground floor of the two buildings have a commercial to residential ratio of 7,073 sq. ft. commercial and
2,410 sq. ft. residential (74% commercial / 26% residential).
Further, because the subject buildings are located on one site and not more than 50 percent of the total lot
area shall be designated for residential uses, the applicants have provided plans that illustrate areas of the
site that are specifically dedicated to the residential area of the development, as illustrated on Diagram
"A". The plans delineate the garages and residential hallway of Building "A", 12 open parking spaces,
their back-up area and some miscellaneous areas which cover 8,562 sq. ft. or 31% of the total lot area.
Based on these calculations, Standard 18.2.3.130 B. is complied with.
2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density
calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a
unit.
Jul, 0
i<
121 Page
i
The property is .64 (636 acres) acres in size and has a base density of 9.54 dwelling units. The proposal is
for eight one bedroom units greater than 500 sq. ft. and two studio units less than 500 sq. ft. which
calculates based on the above provisions to be 9.50 dwelling units.
3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for
permitted uses in the E-1 District.
The proposed residential uses have been designed to comply with the underlying E-1 zoning standards.
4. If the number of residential units exceeds ten, then at least 10 percent of the residential units
shall be affordable for moderate-income persons in accord with the standards established by
resolution of the City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units
required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit.
C
Not applicable as the proposed density is 9.5 dwelling units (maximum permitted by code).
,Grant St.
_ I~
~ Wimer
Subject Area
r ~
I r
a
l1
'14 _<AT
AMC 18.3.13.010 Residential Overlay Map (1 of 2)
JUL 0 2 2015
13 Page
i
18.4.2.040 Non-Residential Development
A. Purpose and Intent. Commercial and employment developments should have a positive impact
upon the streetscape. For example, buildings made of unadorned concrete block or painted with
bright primary colors used to attract attention can create an undesirable effect upon the
streetscape.
The proposal clearly has a positive impact upon the streetscape with its varying use of materials, colors
and large store-front windows. The buildings have been designed in context with the neighboring building
across the street with the long-term goal of creating a cohesive and enjoyable street to work or live on and
to utilize various modes of transportation.
Landscaping and site design for commercial and employment zones is somewhat different from that
required for residential zones. The requirement for outdoor spaces is much less. The primary
function is to improve the project's appearance, enhance the City's streetscape, lessen the visual
and climatic impact of parking areas, and to screen adjacent residential uses from the adverse
impacts which commercial uses may cause.
The design team contends the proposal enhance the streetscape and with the installation of added
landscaping and appropriate building placement will lessen the visual and climatic impact of parking
areas. Also, because the property is roughly 100' from the nearest residential zone, bisected by a natural
drainage corridor with a change in topographic elevation, the typical adverse impacts commercial uses
may cause are mitigated.
One area in which Ashland's commercial differs from that seen in many other cities is the
relationship between the street, buildings, parking areas, and landscaping. The most common form
of modern commercial development is the placement of a small buffer of landscaping between the
street and the parking area, with the building behind the parking area at the rear of the parcel with
loading areas behind the building. This may be desirable for the commercial use because it gives the
appearance of ample parking for customers. However, the effect on the streetscape is less than
desirable because the result is a vast hot, open, parking area which is not only unsightly but results
in a development form which the City discourages.
The alternative desired in Ashland is to design the site so that it makes a positive contribution to the
streetscape and enhances pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The following development standards
apply to commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed-use development. The application of the
standards depends on what area of the City the property is located. Generally speaking, areas that
are visible from highly traveled arterial streets and that are in the Historic District are held to a
higher development standard than projects that are in manufacturing and industrial area.
The project site is not within a Historic District. However, the project planning for this development,
including th ~ €i itiN ~itgyjnd street layout phase, has clearly attempted to make a positive contribution to
the streetscape as well as the residential neighborhood it abuts. As the subdivision and adjoining
141Page
i
i
properties develop and the City continues to enforce its Transportation Plan objectives with connected
streets and positive multi-modal developments, the subject property and the properties within the vicinity
will continue to make a positive contribution towards Ashland's livability.
18.4.2.040 B. Basic Site Review Standards
Except as otherwise required by an overlay zone or plan district, the following requirements apply
to commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed-use development pursuant to section
18.5.2.020.
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.
The site's parking lot sits behind the two proposed buildings and will be screened from the front of the
property by the buildings and the elevated plaza area.
b. A building facade or multiple building facades shall occupy a large majority of a project's street
frontage a 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.
In keeping with the above standard, the decision was made that two proportionally wide buildings would
be significantly superior then a single mass. As such, the two building facades as proposed occupy the
majority of the streetscape, but for the elevated plaza area which, in its own right, is attractive and
inviting. Further the plaza area provides a break between the buildings that address neighbor concerns
within the mixed-use building across the street that desire to maintain some of the their views of Mt.
Ashland.
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.
The building entrances have been designed to face the primary street and its public sidewalk. The
entrances are designed to be clearly visible, functional, and should remain open to the public during all
business hours.
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 constraintA(Ilot on a~g ation,
15 Page
ti
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.
Other then the residential entrance and rear business entrances, the buildings' primary commercial
entrances are located on the ground level adjacent to the public sidewalk.
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.
The subject property is technically not on a corner lot, but on a sharp 90 degree street section. However,
the design team had looked at this standard and its intended purpose, but based on the eventual outcome
of directly facing the entrance at the residential neighborhood to the east (see photo insert below), it was
decided the entrance should instead face the commercial building across the street and remain true to its
commercial street and zoning.
F
t s ~
y -~"-as S r hW".. 1 c
FF ^h
~ 4~rll
Residences
f. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage.
The proposal will construct a public sidewalk, in accordance with the City's Street Design Standards and
the Subdivision's originally conceived plan along the Russell Street frontage.
g. The standards in a-d, above, may be waived if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as
warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations.
Although warehouses and some industrial/manufacturing uses are permitted in the E-1 zone, the
applicants have designed the building to accommodate an array of uses which include commercial office
and service businesses that will benefit from attractive building designs and accessible public sidewalks.
2. Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of
frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E.
I~~Page
In accordance with AMC 18.4.4.030 E., one street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for
each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street - including the northwest
section of street abutting the side of Building "B".
3. Landscaping.
a. Landscape areas at least ten feet in width shall buffer buildings adjacent to streets, except the
buffer is not required in the Detail Site Review, Historic District, and Pedestrian Place overlays.
The property is within the Detail Site Review Overlay and not subject to the standard.
b. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4.
The attached landscaping and site plans identify a screened recycling and refuse area.
4. Designated Creek Protection. Where a project is proposed adjacent to a designated creek
protection area, the project shall incorporate the creek into the design while maintaining required
setbacks and buffering, and complying water quality protection standards. The developer shall
plant native riparian plants in and adjacent to the creek protection zone.
Not applicable as the property does not abut a designated creek protection area.
5. Noise and Glare. Artificial lighting shall meet the requirements of section 18.4.4.050. Compliance
with AMC 9.08.170.c and AMC 9.08.175 related to noise is required.
Site and building lighting will meet the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.050 as well as adopted building
codes and any noise will comply with AMC 9.08.175. The applicants have an interest in minimizing any
typical nuisance issues related to lighting or noise in order to provide an expected quality of living to the
project's residents.
6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. For sites that do not conform to the standards of
section 18.4.2.040 (i.e., nonconforming developments), an equal percentage of the site must be made
to comply with the standards of this section as the percentage of building expansion. For example, if
a building area is expanded by 25 percent, then 25 percent of the site must be brought up to the
standards required by this document.
Not applicable as the property is currently vacant.
18.4.2.040 C. Detailed Site Review Standards
Development that is within the Detail Site Review overlay shall, in addition to the complying with
the standards for Basic Site Review in 18.4.2.040.B, above, conform to the following standards. See
171 Page
conceptual site plan of detail site review development in Figure 18.4.2.040.01 and maps of the
Detail Site Review overlay in Figures 18.4.2.040.0.2-5.
INNEVA.DA ST ENEVADA ST
_ ENEVADA Si
4,y F m
z STONFRIOGCAV Iq
DAMBDGE ST O+
SBERIC'
o ~ ~ <y a r ~ s
3 Fq
? z ROq -
Q(AN 1 5T \ 1 RANDY ST j
~ISgI,
\ ` to CL
w ~ z u,
mm n ~ co
GREENBRIAR PL I~ S
t S ST m
OTI
Q
r D N
J O j
RiCUNTAIN V1FW OR ~
5 CAAPLE S7 u~
W C f Z I' i per, S(tEPy HOLCQWpR
v z Nm
COOLIDGE ST C"""5 _.~1- CND p RAVINE
ti L OPµ
Y r0
O NURSERY S11Z A
~
tt1S Oy"O
o Z ST
WIIJER ST
z i~" ) Cy h JESSICA W NT
yFR~ ..aVST
¢E y 1i FYST o CRISPINST BRISCOE PI
PA _
Subject
W Area
a ~ p~ L,qN T~ ,
T c1 1~:..7 N~SS~ ' N ,Q z
EST.S7
GG C~OF cJ EHERSEYST z
N ~
Z n: o
lFllo 0" ' Q. ?_ty,-pfi l - 4(-
~~UgSE
~V ,T~ SST s,•,IBLEBERRYLN
-'V C= ~ti~ AST 7=
C
=om 'y
'6& Q h - -
2 T~~
i
a
w ~
4 ~ ~~F ( C `S w N4
2 ~ ~ ~~Y\ ~ G s r? ax c N o_
u z
z m
m ~"qRC r' h S
2 q
NUTLEYS7 O ~_G)N 5 t 2 ti
O
tSr ~
t- * ILF~ BEAa A~ ~JJA1yST w
2 VJI 1
CLENVIEWDR ~YDU N`~~ I U F- >
"r 'Py m, n w ~~i Ar06 ~ ~ < Cwn
0
{ 37RAWSERRY W O
ISIAINE ST > O
'Ah 1o
AMC 18.4.2.040.C.2 Detail Site Review Overlay Map (1 of 4)
1. Orientation and Scale.
a. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Where a site is one-half an
acre or greater in size, the FAR requirement may be met through a phased development plan or a
shadow plan that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the
minimum FAR. See shadow plan example in Figure 18.4.2.040.C.1.a. Plazas and pedestrian areas
shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR.
The site is .64 acres in size and has a total floor area of 20,772 for a .75 FAR; not including the plaza area.
18 Page
E;
i
i
b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other
distinctive changes in the building facade.
r
The subject building frontages have a variety of jogs and other distinctive changes in the building facade
for the purpose of creating an attractive street facade.
c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public open space shall contain at least
20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must
allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or displays areas. Blank walls within
30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40 percent of the length of the building perimeter can be
exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas.
The buildings' walls facing the street and plaza all have windows of at least 20% in display, windows and
doorways. The buildings' working areas, pedestrian entrances and display areas will be transparent, but
also address current building code and conservation standards relating to energy efficiency.
d. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to
entrances.
The buildings' do incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish to give emphasis to the
entrances.
e. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and
desirable.
The application complies with this standard.
L Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect
pedestrians from the rain and sun.
The building elevations illustrate a continuous plane of awnings between pilasters and vertical forms of
the building that not only accentuate the building's design, but also protect pedestrians form the rain and
sun.
2. Streetscape.
a. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could
be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
The buildings will front onto a 15' wide sidewalk with street trees planted within irrigated tree wells that
along with the building awnings provide relief from inclement weather and in return promote. V-walking and
"people" areas. Further, the design of the plaza, including the canted stairs and a c l bench along the
public sidewalk create a sense of invitation to promote "people" use of the plaza. ` U '
191Page
b. A building shall be setback not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used
for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility
easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one i
structure is proposed for a site, at least 65 percent of the aggregate building frontage shall be within
five feet of the sidewalk.
The application complies with the above standard.
3. Buffering and Screening.
a. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot.
Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible
with proposed buildings.
b. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened from residentially
zoned land.
The landscape plan includes landscaping between the public street and the parking lot. A landscape buffer
is also in existence along the southern property line where an existing wall lays. In general, there are no
incompatible uses on any of the adjacent lots as the lots are primarily vacant.
4. Building Materials.
a. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry,
for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.
The building materials include changes for relief for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area.
b. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are
prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin.
Bright paint colors or significant amounts of glass are not to be incorporated in the buildings' facades.
18.4.2.040 D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects W~ Q 2
In the Detail Site Review overlay, developments that are greater than 10,000 square feet io gross
floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage shall, in addition to complying with
the standards for Basic (18.4.2.040.B) and Detail (18.4.2.040.C) Site Review, above, conform to the
following standards. See conceptual elevation of large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.1
and conceptual site plan of large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.2.
Combined, the two proposed building are 20,772 square feet, but independently are 12,772 (Building;
"A") and 8,000 square feet (Building "B"). In addition, neither of the buildings exceeds 100' in length.
r
20~Page
i;'
(k
k
Regardless, the applicants believe the proposal addresses the standards for Large Scale Projects as noted
below.
F
1. Orientation and Scale.
a. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale
by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of
divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
The proposed buildings have been designed to divide large building masses into heights and sizes that
relate to human scale. Both incorporate changes in building masses, have sheltering awnings and recessed
entrances and include a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces. Both include windows, small scale
lighting and trees will be planted along the frontage and throughout the site.
b. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing
buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall conform to the following standards.
i. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be
considered as one building.
ii. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside
of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an
interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof.
iii. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor
space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception.
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not
count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any
floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as
provided in the building code. i,
iv. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet.
The subject property is outside the Downtown Design Standards Overlay. The buildings do not share a
common wall and are two separate buildings. The combined square footage is 20,772 square feet and
considering the frontage of the property is less than 200', the buildings' combined building length is in
compliance with the standard.
2. Public Spaces.
a. One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor
area, except for the fourth gross floor area.
The project has been designed with a plaza area of roughly 3,734 square feet. The combined gross floor
area of both buildings is 20,772 square feet. As such, the plaza space is roughly 18% whereas 10% is
required. The plaza is designed to serve multiple purposes ranging from a view corridor, a breal: in the
building mass and of course, a place for public gathering and recreation.
Q 2 1
I
211Pag,e
b. A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least four of the following elements.
i. Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza.
r
Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall
have a minimum depth of 30 inches.
ii. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade.
iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
iv. Trees - provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at
least two inches in diameter at breast height.
v. Water features or public art.
vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
The plaza incorporates four of the above elements - sitting spaces, mixture of sunlight and shade,
protection from wind and trees. There are roughly 30 formal seats where only eight are required. All of
the seats will be at least 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. The plaza area also includes six shade
trees, all of which will be 2" dbh when planted.
3. Transit Amenities. Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be
required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the
Rogue Valley Transportation District.
In review of the City's Transportation System Plan and through discussions with the Rogue Valley
Transportation District, there are no planned services for this area.
18.5.2.050 Site Review Permit - Approval Criteria
An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in
subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application,
impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria.
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.
To the best of the applicant's and design team's knowledge, all of the applicable provisions of the
property's E-1 zone (Chapter 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 are being complied with. No exceptions or variances are proposed with this
development.
221Page
i
i
B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
i
The proposal complies with the Residential Overlay for this site which is regulated by AMC Chapter
18.3.13.010, including but not limited to commercial and residential ground floor ratios as well as
permissible residential densities. The project is for an attractive and well thought-out mixed use
development that will not only provide the City with needed small unit housing and new office space G
close to the downtown core, but is also in keeping with the original subdivision's envisioned concept
plans and is contextually compatible with the existing building on Lot #4.
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.
The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of AMC Chapter
i
18.4, as addressed above. To the best of the applicant's and design team's knowledge, no exceptions to
the Site Development and Design Standards are proposed with this application.".
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.
h'
All key facilities are available to service the proposed buildings and were installed during the
subdivision's initial construction in 2003/2004. All utilities to service the buildings are within the
adjoining rights-of-way and stub to the property or if necessary, will be installed at the time of
construction in accordance with Ashland Public Work Standards. The applicant, Planning Agent and
project Civil Engineer have met with all of the utility departments to verify if there were any capacity
issues. The results of the meetings were that adequate City facilities are available to the subject site.
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
r
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.
231Page
I
To the best of the applicant's and design team's knowledge, no exceptions are proposed with this
application as they relate to the City's Site Development and Design Standards.
r
A 0
24~Page
L4 z 6! 6J y LA 0
w 11 J T AND III►~Ilil
4'.: GARY R. CAPtRhA
SITE DATA
`
-L 1'y3. ARCMITICT
~r
l.~=.~ ®APUh h4flP
SITE AREA 27,710 SF
A 2roeH4xr~ aan!earam,ap-
4
f 64,1404,23
i Ii 1ld"I L111n«.4t
x: SITE AREAS a~a A"~"
ti- III
-1 -zLt 4"""
j' t K rramararenaaa.Kass
, PARKING: 9402 SF LA J
,i
STAMP
%;..sr „FCy SIDEWALKS: 1771 SF
: 3244 SF
LANDSCAPING:
PLAZA 3734 SF
i-mz
I
Ii. it 2 91 OF
BUILDING AREAS: ~:ED~,a 6 o,n
GttWWll45:N TCT MA~E1U6[ ~84P'RYIS
rx6wn¢amrAnnmt[Nxuuana Lid
s , COMMERCIAL Rrhl9 WIR6YDNkIXPM,
wAmsr ua
A~ \
w
i k Y 1 i -i o~rr4nmisetwnwawncr
s? BLDG B: 5073 SF (Footprint) WT.
BLDG B: 3170 SF (Ground Floor street level) razAyalK
B Q 132 West Mein St.
PA C y BLDG 8:1903 SF (Ground Floor parking level) a MedPad,Ore@on97501
a } A~ r , u ! ;,r BLDG B: 2927 SF (Second Level)
F~ air°J t, I i BLDG A: 2000 SF (Ground Floor)
~T ARU~ Q r 0 A~ ~ to I U, RESIDENTIAL:
SWG.
ASP a r, a BLDG A: 2410 SF (Ground floor)
2.S c 241CSFNtNLPAEA o ! \ (5 co / i
; rn,~ GROUND FLOOR N ; BLDG A: 4095 SF (2nd flr excl. balconies)
BLDG A, 4095 S (3rd fir excl. balconies)
1
LONER LEVEL .~J ~ U
v P ~ P w -~D~ TOTAL BLDG AREAS: _
r Tea (r3ierb1., (Street)
►r•l 1 2. r` A Li
-G1 BLDG B: 8000 SF
1 n~ W4i GGMMERCIAI
~5 <
BLDG. B BLDG A:12,600 SF
w \ I Z
I
3,170s.L(1sl 1
floor) Q w
(_n CY
lame LOT 3 e
• IIII
C
UPPER LEVEL ' t Ya ~0
(Parking) LJ
{ 1{9036,1. Fa n 'v,/p0. Eu r N
LL `y t FIAIYJSE rq LO a W 74 NW
41l 4 C: \ v a. ~ p'WppWW
~ "aACvN
,
p~ \u t $ 4 j
c~3 w unawaeamnrnreaw~auv:
10
r h
•rc. ~ ~ U
m},h• N 1 w
® a W (n t-- M U E -
BDGB
LL
0
Qw0 3
0- Z 0
=
of
20
U i r
O d Lf-) HAKK Den mavmn
131.5 o w' I
3 .v
€ fY - ~o uD
CL LLJ it ravmrna:
DKAWn BY:
.f chmD KY: BiC
U z
D n
o
NORTH 0 8' 16' 32' - nsroen E/soPtmsk4tru
tu_
_ to
s L _
SCALE: vs2 _I -0' 11•x17"VICINITY MAP 25 50 100' I
SCALE . Ys 1'-0" of ~r
- Z - - a
REFERENCE ~ f ~ -ALL:tloo--0°(11x1r~ ~ A
® 1 ® 2 3 ® 4 ® 5
'VIII I ~ i!
J
gARY R. CAPtRNA
0 _
Jf ARCHITECT
AncnirtaUXt
FLANNING
{
u r
I } = A
awana"nnenuwreoezn
J 1
I r ~I I I) (I l;:.l' /a t uPmro,w 4 au • i
I y
- -
srAre
~ I
I 1 is ~ "i`
"
a
13
PERSPECTIVE VIEWS FROM RUSSELL ROAD OF
Mtf W:W111R IFa0FI5.6OE616
I - _ - _ P~nUWAMIaPFP{b P6NSII4II4f
-.10LLSIXrTP. FINfG11MG41 I
cuuaiu+.lri¢tr~nufmuumanru
fc!~~pl"f4N1@N.r lQM1mIH"I IIAPU E
--~aA~sa+lmrerum,nmeMewelrxn, I
II"-0" ~'-9" Ib'-3° 1Y~' 11'-D° 21'- ° IB' gy.y' ~¢+eAronexfa~xaxnronmxss ~
mnw.nmunamws»4axIIn
rorneMwnaruw<uw. ~:r¢r
K
I NEW
Unit 131 Unit B2 Unit B3
-
1! 0
LuAyala
, r C I. I
132 West Main St.
9 e 5 ° + - M Medford, Oregon 97501 COMMERCIAL AREA L
e
a d PA1p PA 1 11 I
SX 16 X10-
°%g
• BLDG A ~ I, I
6
2000 SF, ON ~ 1 I I
,
UNIT " ` p : 1222 2 RESIDENTIAL AREA a,3 Il
d 2410 SF BA 1fl"~
d TOTAL GROUND FLOOR 22155E 6V5sr ,
O
"a 4461 SK
IT-
6', d - X OMEN 1
arc aEe
i d STAIN L E ` a7ue
+ v y.
a
v . v .4 a" IOA
d s ,
® GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE. ' a GARAGE d GARAGE a 6
125X22, 125X24 lUX2 .57 125X24 12.5 X21..® D
4 FINISH FLDDR iIW 4. - z
. ~d 10 Ut6i4 DEN DEN UNIT 5 p O E
d . ® ® 76SSP 8X8 8X8 765 SE V)
a, A-
4p UPANG 4 &AMWwmmUM9VAL5TW,,
S PANG
12X21 ( 12)(21 V)
® I• b •I~' I ® I I .r I. ® . I' •'I° ,d I. PAIID PA710 °
d I I'® I I I ) 7X122 7zto
~ !,d I I I I L,
S
w
rc
Garage G1 Garage G2 Garage G3 Garage G4 Garage G4 Unit B4 Unit B5 of
0
Ir-6s ,s~^ Is-v Ir-Ga Ir-r ,r-~ w-6° i8"-6° Ir-G° MW aArz Dwnm
Ar 6 1Y 6 Z L _r___ _ -1
0
F m9xcT "9 _
Of caAmar: "CC)
UaolmBy' GRC
U) D
O srttrnne
o
0
n r n91 DAM 6/30/2015 442 PU
NORTH FLOOR PLAN: BUILDING "A" NORTH FLOOR PLAN: BUILDING "A" ° I
1
PARKING LEVELS o 4' a' 16' 2nd AND 3rd FLOORS 01i 4' 8 16'
aD SCALE; 1'-0"(11"X17') - aD SCALE:J•"=1'-0"(11"X17")
~r W
9d
d!0® ® ® 3 ® 4 ® 5 a L
13 2 ~ 13 3 ® 4 13 5
RUSSELL ROAD s
0 1°0 0 0
GARY R. CAPIRINA
ARC ITICT
I `iR 'ice:
A J ®narnllumal
a
~ , ° ! d • ® ° A zDOa3aru.~PLAN
ad M.d ,d,0,.9-
ur.wo.aiza
° °
4 ..4
~ r 111
.60
SIN
_ _ _ A A N
d
d ° COMMERCIAL @ ®.a a,
9' W BLDG. B 4 .4 ' d
'0 01
°
a . 3,710 SF (Street Level) : ° a ° 1°o
~ e ® •
'd ~ ® FINISH FLOORx9315' ,Q E e OF
• ° d.° ° @ .e • , d'. . ® .e rauaxuxnuranus ettsc~s
° wahvartnmbv,uaa>w:~nncr
tY ' d' .I ! d G
d e d w>xaeu mFina°au
.
A a d' d ° namoNrar xrm+vai+uwxnra
~Ir e b e _ o"mnuaswrxnxmm,wnwrEar.gw.tt
' A , A. rcaA"ronanra~airvmmnmrmnarrw
i-... 1 _i-__ - umumnmveruwcrxaltAaartsc
• - _ wmwmxuncwrtuuxAU:niar
I A :4 e ° m UL,i:
I A BLDG B 1,903 SF y. ,
° .Q • e d ° (Ground floor mid level d e Laz Ayala
p ° 3 132 West Main St.
B •1 " I ° I'° ~I • at parking lot) : • . • • 2, ~3(
o °r'•. o( ° 'd , Medford, Oregon 97501
° "18i 1 G( iA' FINISH FLOOR *100,76' d d°: 'e B
-4 4
4 4
" °:is 10
2Y JI'-I " U-r ffi 0
BUILDING "B"
NORTH
FLOOR PLAN : PARKING LEVELS 0 4' sr 16' W
0 0,1
W'-P - - _
-11' Yd SCALE i-0'(24"X36") 1-0(11"X17') w out
w
se sr
5
I 0J
C+ } D Qo
J b
Z
z Z
w a JQ
O w ~4mw
°Wmo
z
N Warn DtrMR[aiArM9VAL SINN:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U
cr)
O
13
a
BLDG B: 2927 SF °
y w
2nd level -
W
of
0
~I HAAA DAR wsarnm
z is3uc
F99RCT h?;
- - - DMaMY.- On W
MOO BY. M
z D[ -I
o Mminne
D (GroundFloorparking i NORTH FLOOR PLAN: UPPER LEVEL u
level below) BUILDING "B" 0 4 s tsr o
F L o MT BAN, 6/30/2018 4A2 PM
aD SCALE :Y."=1'-0"(24"X36")TV (11°X17") z L I
p I 1 I
p§ L , i Z /-1
fgs ~ ®\L~
k-FO 13 ® ® 3 13 4 13 5 a
® 1 ® 2 ® 3 ® 4 ® 5
¢ RGGFCAP
T
ROOF YEA,MALA,E(AIAGCEM6®NG GARY R. CAPIRNA
ASfiHOVM,
HoRN.xmosIBNGASSaowu
CT
L
A nAPEr AR(HO[O0R(
PLANNING
2905 Kll-A Rd M&JIold 0,epo„
1 SK16Am41¢s
L ~ ~ ~ F1GAIk eg`CMABI,Nt
II I I,I I, I I ~~I B ( (}I BWo^P,
i pegon NchaAAttkuwe 5¢O
L , IYT',Y f V-A r0.me~DINrAXSab
a -1
xnnr
TE SNCCO AS SHOWN _ Ell
BUILDINGA f PLAZA AREA °"WAL~ BUILDINGB
13
OF
D 5T 10' 2DI aan+ArtoHV~ uwDUpAnn
SOUTH ELEVATION
x^vsxa Msrscatra r,nRBRpv.M
1 ua+uaxreupM¢rvNWioexru
L_ rxrmuNrAOOamI:rNn,NKKUAUnR
SCALE:1"=2P-0'(11AI I") VEflnCAL METAL ACCENT SONG RDOFACAP 1DripliDlNYSmaMM1Atwawer.
AS SHOWN, `:~CiiA fiA1RTMTPR D%(SBMR",RN
'TG1 IM-KRLL1-M T
'-1NISi6arUfp',, A4NBtt
HORE WOOD SIDNO AS SHOWN. F TIME
R00£: METAL COPIWBCAP LrmKALI HORI2.W000SIONG GRHT
ROOFCAP IACCEMPAriERN)
//--.~-COAE..OWN 022915
ROCFCAP IIPPEABALWNES,POWDER f LEE Ayala
CCATED METAL RARINGS AS SHOWN 132 West Main St.
M
B '.`••"•`1~„•.;y. M~1-41
edford, Oregon 97501 A - BPD FIR
PLAZA
k
j
<i
T
11
r A
I
~ RLEYEL AREA
`8R ACCENIB P°
lffUL CANOPIES TYPICAL A. SHOWN
BUILDINGB SPL FACE GM RENTRYELPBENT.AND BUILDINGA
BRICK WALL CLADDING WA IT TABLEBtiSE.
L
NORTH ELEVATION o 51 10, 20'
~Q
- -
SCALE 1 20'-0- (11 "X
d
w
2 °Zea
ti
Jg
c HORQ.WODDSpWO AS SHOWN. r C 4m
ROOF YEnTOAL METAL ACCENT SONG SSHOOWN, LACCENispNO - Z ~j Q M
AS SHOWN 1FXIMED 6nK:COA9SHOWN O Z 0 3'
ROGFCAP RGOFCAP N Q J
4 w QQQ
RWF I-T
h O W NmNW
W A•.P~• t LY KW~2
IV
RWFCAP HOR¢.W000 SpNO • :D
p AS SHOWN, d p V n {mod N
Z
RE. AS WOOD
1 O L-- -
SAOftA III pG k A96HOWN,ACCENTPATIERN SOWN DOMIIYlI1 AMWAL STAY,
U)
f app FlR I iRORA N
I
~l~ pR 1 1
13
2NDFLR
2NDELR
FEE LAR.E. 7~,~~
1
iSTFLR BAR IXHAYRRp
T-I~K ~1 1~) iI~EVEI IN BACK A': aAlo
1 k
BUILDING A BUILDINGB _
• l B IDIEVEI ZO 611E
v
6PlRFACEOCNO.Bl00KWALLANO 1- rA9[(i 1191 (Beyond) WArERTABLE 6pLIr.FACEACCFNr / BUILDINGA ° DI bra
IRC (a)
CMO (CONCRETE BLOCK) EwtD by. GRID
V) DI
D EAST ELEVATION 0 51 10, 20' (NEST ELEVATION 0 5' 10' 20' YUT°u
- - S
a SCALE:1"=20-0" 11'Aii - - F- RerDAM 6/30/2015 4.42 Pit
( ) 5CALE:P =cu •U"(11"h1 h] O
Q
z
d!O 13 13 ® 3 ® 4 13 5 a _
U
Z
U
w
T
c 0
Q N
CL t 0
Q = N
L) v)
V) ~
Z Q U
Z
rY 0
0
w w w
Q 00 w
w O
ULI
U
< 0 w O
Q Z
w g
in 0~
PLANT LEGEND Q Q
CATEGORY SYMBOL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE
TREES ACES ACER'BON FIRE' BON FIRE MAPLE 2* CAL
ACER ACER R.'SCARSEN' SCARLET SENTINAL MAPLE 2* CAL
11
FRAA FRAXINUS'AUTUMN PURPLE' AUTUMN PURPLE ASH 2'CAL///I
PING PINUS'OREGON GREEN OREGON GREEN AUSTRIAN PINE 10'TALL I
PYRC PYRUS'CHANTICLEER' CHANTICLEER FLOWERING PEAR 2'CAL
ZELO ZELKOVA'CITY SPRITE' ZELKOVA CITY SPRITE FCAL
SHRUBS,
PERENNIALS ARCS ARCTOSTYPHYLOS'SUNSET SUNSET MANZANITA 5GAL
AND PANN PANICUM'NORTHWIND' NORTHWIND SWRCHGRASS IGAL c^' pT
GRASSES
MU(EBI SIX ERIGERON K,'PROFUSION' SANTA BARBARA DAISY 1GAL
GRO ER NEPETA'PURRSIAN BLUE' PURRSIAN BLUE CAT MINT 1GAL
MIXES/
STACHYS'SILVERCARPET SILVER CARPET LAMB'S EAR 1GAL
NOTES
SECURING TIES USE
RUBBER HOSE AT BARK 1. PLACE 12' COMPOSTITOPSOIL BLEND IN ALL TREE AND SHRUB
PUNTING AREAS PROPOSED AND EXISTING, PLACE 24'IN ALL RAISED
PUNTERS AND IN STREET TREE PUNTING AREAS BELOW PROPOSED ~~S Tfi~F
In TREE GRATES, TOPSOIL PLUS BLEND AVAILABLE FROM HILTON 'I
LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, 4S STAIEOF
A d
2. PRIOR TO SOIL INSTALLATION, REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND ROCKS OREGON
OVER 2. IN SIZE, TILL COMPACTED SUBGRAOE TOA DEPTH OF 6', r, REC. 0527 . H
3, PLANTALL TREES AND SHRUBS PER DETAIL 182; LA SHALL -'I
1X4 BRACING APPROVE ALL PLANT LAYOUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION G)
4, MULCH PLANTING AREAS AFTER INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL O Lno~
WITH 3'OF DARK MULTIBARK, OR EQUAL. nm o: .51
5. APPLY DEER SPRAY TO ALL NEW PLANTS PRIOR TO AND C' 'CI
2' WOOD STAKES (3) FOLLOWING INSTALLATION. 9PE ARC
SET ROOT CROWN 2' 6, AUTOMATED IRRIGATION SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL(P)PLANTING
ABOVE FINISH GRADE AREAS,
Revision Dole:
MULCH: Y MIN. KEEPING MULCH 1'
AWAY FROM TRUNK
SO IL SAUCER; USE PREPARED
SOIL MIX 4' SHRUBS SHALL BE SLIGHTLY
_ ROPES ATTOP OF BALL SHALL BE HIGHER IN RELATION TO
FINISHEDGRADE Drawn 8
711$ CUT. REMOVE TOP Y3 OF BURLAP. 1r
- I NON-6t"EGRADABLE MATERIAL MULCH 3'MIN
IF Il II-- SHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED.
III-I- - =;I-III - PRUNE DAMAGED OR
ill II IIBirll 1 I III DESICCATED ROOTS
I~I BACKFILL WITH PREPARED MIX OF 25% I=I S;~ III
~-W IMPORTED COMPOST AND TOPSOIL AND GENTLY Wh1PAGTED SOIL MIX
2XBALL 75% NATIVE SOIL ~~rL=.,
DIA SCARIFY PIT BOTTOM
, MIN.
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 41 160mm (6') MIN.
NOTES; 2,5X DIAMETER OF
I. STAKE TREES ONLY IF NEEDED AND REMOVE ROOT BALL
AFTER 2YEARS MAXIMUM
2. INSTALL SUNSCALD WRAP ON TREES PLACED
IN DIRECT SUN
1 TREE PLANTING DETAIL 2 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
w Z
w 0
) (7
yy0
0~ Z
g
Q ^ N
LL Q
July 2, 2015
PLANTING LEGEND
®1.1
-X-X \
~k
\ 1
I
k I
1
I
k
I
k I I
I
k I
T
k I
I
k SI ENTIA A
I
I II
k
i
I ~ I I
\
o I II
LOT AREA CALCULATIONS I
27.710 SF TOTAL LOT AREA
I
8,662 SF- TOTAL RESIDENTLAL LOT AREA ®
31% OF TOTAL LOT AREA
19,148 SF - TOTAL COMMERCIAL LOT AREA
69% OF TOTAL LOT AREA DIAGRAM A I
U
(E) STORM DRAIN INLET \ \ N
H
~ W
(E) FIRE HYDRANT RUSSELL STREET (E) STORM DRAIN INLET U
F1 x
` N
RR t 02 r w w
a 0
-X X X ~ 7-ACER \ L\ N
C~ 0,
PR PER LIN
Z
k
r7 I- ~ 0
J= hn -I ❑ 1 W U.1 W LLJ ❑ a Q O
9-ASAS LLj
O
F
00
V) W
W
I Z
(P)BUILDING A (P)COVERED Q 0 =
BIKE PARKING (P)SEATING N
J Q t\ Q I
k
2•FRAA
II
(P) CANOPY
(P) RAISED PLANTER (P) BUILDING B
1•ZELC
19-MIX I
(E) LIGHT POLE
I
(PIPLAIA
54-MIX1
E
k XSTFR
-j- I oaecoN ~
r ca5n
Q Lo~ri~ e Sugtt
k a
F-1•HELH I O9PE ARG
~VgA~N ~ (E) UTILI 7-CI00
CaE o PARKIN ® 17.5 Sp Revision Date:
k 1 •PINO
(P) RAISED PLANTER fl SEATING
(P)TRASH ENCLOSURE I I
3.ACEB
k - ® 22 • esA O/ Drawn By:
(P) LIGHT POLE 10 I I
~ I 1 IXll Scale: I" n 20'-0'
PYRC I
® (E) PARKING LOT i 2AX36 Scale: 1' ° 10'V
8-HE
k (P) LIGHT POLE
W
9 • CISS 25-SESA I
(E)UTILIS I
(P) RET~IEAIINING WALL I 9- FISS
8,[HELH
k , a II 1•PYRG O
x u I
(E)UTILITIES w Z i
0
PROPERTY IryE X X X X (E) FIRE HYDRANT W
X X V X Q 5 L2
X X (E) LRIHT POLE 0-
z y o
' Z
0~
19-PANN Q
LL
2B-ARCS
July 2, 201$
10 20 30 PLANTIN PLAN
B ~"J ~ ryry
NIN MIT APPLICATION
Planning Department
C I T Y OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE
541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 ASHLAND ~k
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT _
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Street Address
Assessor's Map No. 39 1E i Tax Lot(s)
I
Zoning Comp Plan Designation
APPLICANT
Name Phone 751, , E-Mail
Address v - - City - Zip
PROPERTY OWNER
Name _ e Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
Title Name Phone E-Mail
Address City Zip
I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects,
true and correct. /understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their
location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to
establish:
1) that 1 produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request;
2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request;
3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further
4) that all structure i rovements are properly located on the ground.
Failure in this regard ill result mo likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to lor be
removed at y ex nse. If ave any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and asstance.
Applican'naDate
As owner y d in this request,
I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property
owner.
Property Owner's ignature (required) Date
[To be completed by City Staff)
Date Received _ Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $
Planning Action Type
OVER 0
C:\DOCUME-1Uimksa\LOCALS--1\Temp\Zoning Permit Application Forn.doc