HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-070 Findings - Rogue Credit Union
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
April 18, 2017
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-01894, AN APPEAL OF THE )
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF A REQUEST )
FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 4,508 SQ. FT., )
SINGLE-STORY CREDIT UNION BUILDING WITH DRIVE-UP WINDOW AS )
PART OF THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT )
1651 ASHLAND STREEET. ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR A PROP- )
ERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE ) FINDINGS,
EIGHT OF THE SITE'S 24 TREES. THE APPLICATION PROPOSES THE USE ) CONCLUSIONS &
OF A SHADOW PLAN INVOLVING ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE ) ORDERS
OUTSIDE THE FUTURE CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT AS A MEANS FOR )
COMPLYING WITH THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.F.) OF 0.5. )
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Credit Union/ )
Kistler, Small & White Architects, LLC )
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots #8700 and 49201 of Map 39 lE IODC are located at 1651 Ashland Street and are zoned C-
I (Commercial).
2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct a 4,508 square foot, single-
story credit union building with drive-up window as part of the phased development of their
properties located at 1651 Ashland Street. Also included are requests for a Property Line
Adjustment and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight of the site's 24 trees. The application
proposes the use of a shadow plan involving adjoining properties that will be outside the future
control of the applicant as a means for complying with the minimum Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of
0.5. Site improvements are outlined on the 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,
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 1
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an
existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will
not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and
Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the
difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
4) The approval criteria for a Property Line Adjustment are detailed in AMC 18.5.3.120.B as follows:
1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment.
2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or
as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot
standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and
coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lots standards of the applicable
zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As
applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions
for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource
protection zones).
3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080
Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall
not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment.
5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to Remove a Tree That is Not a Hazard are detailed in
AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows:
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant
an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
PA 92016-01894_Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 2
and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the
zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the
permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider
alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that
would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the
other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 10, 2017
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the
hearing, the Planning Commission denied the application without prejudice.
7) This matter came before the City Council as an appeal on the record pursuant to Ashland Municipal
Code (AMC) 18.5.1.060.1. Subsequent to the mailing of a the Planning Commission's adopted
findings, an appeal was timely filed by attorney Mark S. Bartholomew on behalf of the applicant
Rogue Credit Union. AMC 18.5.1.060.1.2.c requires that each appeal set forth 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. The five clearly and distinctly identified
grounds for appeal in this case were: 1) The Planning Commission failed to properly consider the
Appellant's request for an exception to the strict Floor Area Ratio standards due to the Appellant's
unique use (i.e. a drive-up); 2) The Planning Commission improperly construed the Ashland
Municipal Code in determining the use of a Shadow Plan to meet Floor Area Ratio standards is
discretionary on the part of the Planning Commission, rather than discretionary on the part of the
Appellant; 3) The Planning Commission improperly considered Appellant's two contiguous
parcels to be separate parcels, contrary to the Ashland Municipal Code, which provides that
contiguous parcels under the same ownership shall be considered a single parcel for purposes of
development; 4) The Planning Commission improperly applied the Ashland Municipal Code with
respect to Shadow Plans; 5) The Planning Commission provided no findings in rejecting
appellant's offering a restrictive covenant to ensure a minimum Floor Area Ratio of the property
(consisting of two parcels).
8) The City Council, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 21, 2017 at which
time oral arguments were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the City Council
supported the appeal, reversed the Planning Commission's decision and approved the application.
As detailed more fully below, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in applying
the Municipal Code with respect to shadow plans, and that the applicants met their burden of proof
as to the applicable criteria and associated Site Development and Design Standards.
Now, therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows:
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 3
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 City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the
staff reports, public hearing testimony and the exhibits contained within the whole record.
2.2 The City Council finds that the proposal for Site Design Review, Property Line Adjustment and
Tree Removal Permit approval meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in
AMC 18.5.2.050, Property Line Adjustment in AMC 18.5.3.120.13, and for Tree Removal described in
AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2. The site plan and elevation drawings provided delineate the proposed building
location, design and associated site improvements.
2.3 With regard to the appeal request, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in
applying the Municipal Code with respect to the treatment of contiguous properties under a single
ownership.
AMC 18.6.1 defines a lot as, "A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision or a unit or contiguous
units of land under single ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the time such lots were
created. Any contiguous ownership of non-conforming lots will be considered one tract of land."
In this instance, the subject property consists of two contiguous units of land under the applicants' single
ownership at the time of the application which are therefore considered here as a single lot for purposes
of reviewing a shadow plan.
AMC 18.6.1 further defines a shadow plan as, "A schematic or conceptual design for future land
development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the
proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required
building intensity standards (i. e., Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned
to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development. "
The Council further finds that with this in mind, the shadow plan provided demonstrates that the proposed
development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required Floor Area
Ratio standard.
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 4
2.4 The City Council finds that the request involves Site Design Review approval to construct a 4,508
square foot, single-story credit union building with drive-up window as part of the phased development
of the properties located at 1651 Ashland Street. Also included are requests for a Property Line
Adjustment and a Tree Removal Permit to remove eight of the site's 24 trees.
The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, "The proposal complies with all of the
applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard
setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. " The subject property is located in the C-1
base zone and the Detail Site Review and Pedestrian Places overlay zones. Commercial services, offices
and their associated accessory uses are permitted outright in the C-1 zone. In addition, drive-up uses are
a special permitted use and the applicants have provided plans and narrative to demonstrate compliance
with the applicable special use standards along with evidence that they hold one of the 12 drive-up use
permits allowed in the city (Permit #2012-01506). Within the C-1 zone, there is no minimum lot area,
width or depth, or maximum lot coverage; or minimum front, side or rear yard. Along arterial streets like
Ashland Street, there is a required arterial setback of "not less than 20 feet, or the width required to install
sidewalk andpark row improvements, consistent with the street standards in chapter 18.4.6, whichever is
less." In this instance, the applicants propose to install city standard sidewalk and park row improvements
and will thus comply with the arterial setback requirements. The C-1 zone allows building heights of up
to 40 feet, and where buildings are located more than 100 feet from a residential zone, buildings may be
greater than 40 feet but less than 55 feet in height with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. As
proposed, the height of the building is only approximately 24.0 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 85 percent
and 15 percent of the site must be landscaped within the C-1 zone, and the proposal notes that 78.6 percent
of the site would be covered and 21.4 percent landscaping provided.
The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements
(part 18.3)." The property is located within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, the Pedestrian Places
overlay zone, and is subject to additional standards applicable to development of the Ashland Street
boulevard corridor. The Detail Site Review overlay triggers specific standards that apply as part of the
Site Development and Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. Compliance with these standards is
addressed under the next approval criterion later in this document.
The Pedestrian Places overlay requirements apply to proposed development that requires a planning
application approval, and involves development of new structures or additions other than single-family
dwellings. Pedestrian Place overlay provisions supplement those of the applicable base zoning district
and other applicable ordinance requirements. Because the proposal does not involve mixed-use
development in a residential zone, the Pedestrian Places overlay only impacts the subject property in two
ways:
1. Building Setbacks. The solar access setback in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access
applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the north. In this instance,
because the lot to its north is zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential) solar access
setbacks do apply for Lot 1.
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 5
2. Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. Outdoor seating areas, plazas, and other useable
paved surfaces may be applied toward meeting the landscaping area requirements
in chapter 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, but shall not constitute
more than 50 percent of the required area.
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."
The application materials explain that proposed parking is located to the rear of the building, and the
proposed building on Lot #2 occupies 70.1 percent of the street frontage and with development of the
proposed shadow plan the 63 percent of the two frontages will be occupied by buildings. Building
entrances are to be oriented to Ashland Street, and the street frontage is to be improved to city street
standards. The application explains that the building has multiple jogs and offsets, a recessed entry with
protection for pedestrians, changes in relief, and more than ample glazing on all walls in proximity to the
streetscape.
Within the Detail Site Review Zone, properties are required to have a minimum 0.50 floor area ratio
(F.A.R.). This means that the building's floor area must be equal to at least one half of the lot area to meet
the standard. As proposed, the 4,508 square foot single-story building achieves a .247 F.A.R. For
properties greater than one-half acre, the Site Design and Development Standards provide that the Floor
Area Ratio standard may be addressed with a "shadow plan" illustrating how the development could be
intensified over time to meet the minimum F.A.R.
AMC 18.6.1 defines a lot as, "A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision or a unit or contiguous
units of land under single ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the time such lots were
created. Any contiguous ownership of non-conforming lots will be considered one tract of land." In this
instance, the subject property consists of two contiguous units of land under the applicants' single
ownership at the time of the application which are therefore considered here as a single lot for purposes
of reviewing a shadow plan.
The City Council finds that the applicants have provided a shadow plan showing how additional buildings
could be constructed to achieve an F.A.R. of .624 on Lot 1, a contiguous property under their ownership.
If considered together this would yield a combined F.A.R. of .506 between the two parcels when the
contiguous parcel is developed. The Council further finds that the shadow plan provided demonstrates
that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required
0.50 Floor Area Ratio standard.
The fourth criterion for 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
storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will
be provided to the subject property."
The City Council finds that Public Works, Engineering and Electric Department staff have noted the
following with regard to utilities:
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 6
• Water - The property is currently served by an eight-inch water main in the Ashland Street right-
of-way, and the application indicates that the applicants intend to provide new services from this
main. Both the Water and Fire Departments have reviewed the applicants' initial utility lay-out
and indicated that a double check detector assembly (DCDA), bypass meter and vault will need to
be installed near the property line at the street to provide adequate fire service for the development
of the site.
• Sewer - The property is currently served by a six-inch sanitary sewer main that enters into the
property across the northern property line. The applicants propose to acquire a new easement over
Tax Lot 49800 to the north of the property and install a new six-inch sanitary sewer line out to
Parker Street.
• Electric - The applicants have met with the Electric Department, and it has been determined that
the transformer location shown on the submitted plans will requires a "three-phase pull box" and
re-routing the source of the power by boring beneath or trenching across Ashland Street to a
transformer in front of Wendy's. The Electric Department has indicated, and Planning staff
concurred, that the pull box would be better located outside of the park row planting strip, behind
the sidewalk to provide a spatial buffer from cars traveling at arterial speeds. The Electric
Department has also suggested locations for future lines to serve future buildings on Lot 1, and the
applicants will provide a service plan once they have an Electrical Engineer on board to consider
how the other lots may develop.
• Storm Drainage - The property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in the Ashland
Street right-of-way. The application materials indicate that storm water associated with the
development on Lot 2 is to be detained on site for percolation into the soil. A treatment/detention
trench is proposed along the full length of the property line for Lot 2, with any overflow to be
pumped up to the curb on Ashland Street. The application notes that the project's civil engineer,
Dew Engineering, will prepare a final storm drainage and surface water management plan for
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
With regard to considerations of paved access and adequate transportation, the Council finds that Ashland
Street is a state highway, and is considered to be a "boulevard" under Ashland's Transportation System
Plan (T.S.P.). City-standard frontage improvements for a boulevard include irrigated street trees planted
in five-foot square planters with tree grates spaced every 30 feet and an eight- to ten-foot wide sidewalk
along the full property frontage. In areas where no on-street parking is to occur, the applicants may
propose an alternative frontage treatment to include a planted swale within the park row. The applicants
have proposed to install frontage improvements consistent with these requirements as part of their
proposal.
The Council further finds that for proposals accessing a boulevard, directly or indirectly, a Traffic Impact
Analysis (TIA) is required where the proposed land use meets one or more of the following thresholds:
• Generating 50 new vehicle trips inbound and outbound during the adjacent street's peak hour;
• Installing any traffic control device or construction of any geometric improvements affecting the
progression or operation of traffic; or
• Generating 20 new heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the day.
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 7
In this instance, because more than 50 new vehicle trips would be generated during the adjacent street's
peak hour, the application materials provided include a Traffic Impact Analysis (T.I.A.) prepared by
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, L.L.C. The T.I.A. includes the following findings:
1. All study area intersections were shown to operate within performance standards under existing
year 2016, Phase I design year 2017 no-build, Phase 1 design year 2017 build, full build design
year 2026 no-build, and full build design year 2026 build conditions during the p.m. peak hour.
2. One queue length was shown to be exceeded in the study area under analysis scenarios. The east
bound left turn queue length on Ashland Street at Walker Avenue was shown to be exceeded by
one vehicle length (25 feet) under existing 2016 no-build conditions and continued to be exceeded
in every analysis scenario. This increased the adjacent through lane queue length, but was not
shown to create any adverse queuing conditions downstream. No mitigation is shown to be
necessary.
3. Sight distance was found to be adequate in both directions from both driveways on Ashland Street.
4. A center two-way left turn lane currently exists on Ashland Street at the proposed development,
and the criterion for a westbound right turn lane was not shown to be met under the Phase 1 design
year 2017 or the full build design year 2026 conditions during the p.m. peak hour.
5. There were no safety concerns based on the crash histories at the studied intersections.
The T.I.A. concludes that the streets serving the subject property are demonstrated to have adequate
capacity to support the proposed development. City Engineering staff reviewed the T.I.A. and expressed
support for its findings with no further recommendations.
The Council finds that a 26-foot driveway aisle has been provided to accommodate fire apparatus access,
including aerial truck access to the future buildings at the rear of the property. The driveways exceed the
requirement for a 20-foot driveway to serve seven or more parking spaces. The applicants have been in
discussion with the Fire Marshal to ensure that address fire apparatus access can be provided.
The Council finds that the final approval criterion has to do with Exceptions to the Site Development and
Design Standards. The Council finds that with the determination in upholding the appeal that the two
contiguous lots are to be considered as one here, the proposed shadow plan satisfies the Floor Area Ratio
requirements and no Exceptions are necessary to approve the request.
2.5 The Council finds that the proposal includes a request for Property Line Adjustment to adjust the
property lines between the applicant's Lot 41 and Lot #2. This would enlarge the existing Lot #1 by
2,977 square feet while reducing Lot #2 by a commensurate amount. The application materials emphasize
that there is no minimum lot area, width, depth or coverage in the C-1 zoning district; that adequate
setbacks from the adjacent residential zones can be provided; that both lots can be built upon after
adjustment; and that there are no physical constraints to pose any concerns. In addition, the application
notes that the adjustment does not make access less conforming and will allow for better driveway
alignment with the driveway across the street.
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 8
2.7 The Council finds that the application materials include a Tree Protection & Removal Plan
prepared by Landscape Architect Alan Pardee that identifies 24 trees on the property as well as a number
of trees on adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line. Eight of the site's trees are proposed
for removal with the current proposal. These include: Tree #5, a 20-inch d.b.h. Black Oak; Tree #18, a
12-inch d.b.h. Cedar; Tree #19, a double-stemmed 14-inch d.b.h. Big Leaf Maple; Tree #20, a 30-inch
d.b.h. Cottonwood; Tree #21, a 24-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple; Tree #22, a 10-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple;
Tree #23, an 18-inch d.b.h. Siberian Elm; and Tree #24, a 24-inch d.b.h. Siberian Elm.
In the Tree Removal Permit request, Pardee explains that efforts were made in the planning process to
accommodate the site's trees. He notes that for years, the site was used as a trailer park and as such the
central portion is largely without tree cover and those trees that are in place are primarily concentrated
along the property lines at the perimeter. This arrangement provided for the preservation of the bulk of
the sit:e's trees, and in Pardee's assessment the retention of these larger established trees at the property
boundaries will benefit the site and surrounding properties. He goes on to explain that the tree removals
proposed are in areas that will be disturbed by paving, building construction or utility installation to
develop the site in keeping with the Site Development and Design Standards, and that the Rogue Credit
Union project will include many new trees selected for their hardiness, beauty and longevity selected to
meet Ashland's standards and more than mitigate the removals proposed. He asserts that these removals
will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of
adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, or upon the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity
within 200 feet of the subject property.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 With regard to the appeal request, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission erred in
applying the Municipal Code with respect to the consideration of contiguous properties under a single
ownership. AMC 18.6.1 defines a lot as, "A unit of land created by a partition or a subdivision or a unit
or contiguous units of land under single ownership, which complies with all applicable laws at the time
such lots were created. Any contiguous ownership of non-conforming lots will be considered one tract of
land."In this instance, the subject property consists of two contiguous units of land under the applicants'
single ownership at the time of the application which are therefore considered here as a single lot for
purposes of reviewing a shadow plan. AMC 18.6.1 further defines a shadow plan as, "A schematic or
conceptual design for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A
shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be
fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e., Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed
development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development." The Council finds
that the shadow plan provided demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use
of the lot to be fully developed to the required Floor Area Ratio standard.
Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the City Council concludes that the proposal for
Site Design Review approval, and Tree Removal Permits is supported by evidence contained within the
whole record.
PA 42016-01894_Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 9
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, the City Council supports the appeal, reverses the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
application, and approves Planning Action #2016-01894. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-01894 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be conditions
of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to that the western-
most driveway on Ashland Street shall be limited to a right-out only configuration as
described in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not
in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this
Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3) That the potential redevelopment strategy illustrated in the shadow plan is not being
granted Site Design Review approval here. Site Design Review approval will require a
separate Site Design Review application to address all applicable criteria and standards
including clarifying the proposed uses and parking, and addressing the Basic, Detail and
Large Scale development standards.
4) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to any construction
within the public rights-of-way, including but not limited to sidewalk or driveway
installation.
5) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5, 2017 meeting
shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable standards and with final
approval by the Staff Advisor.
6) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall
meet the requirements of Chapter 18.4.7.
7) That 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 the front entrance from Ashland Street shall remain functional and open to the public
during all business hours.
9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The building permit submittals shall include identification of all easements, including
any public or private utility easements, access easements, public pedestrian access
easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation plan which
addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5, 2017
meeting where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the
Staff Advisor. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include: 1)
identification of size, species and placement of six mitigation trees to be planted to
mitigate the removals approved here; 2) irrigation details satisfying the requirements of
PA 42016-01894_Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 10
the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and
Policies.
C) That the applicant shall provide revised civil drawings detailing: 1) a revised final
utility plan for the parcels to include the location of connections to all public facilities
including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sanitary sewer lines, storm
drain lines, electric services to serve the proposed building; 2) revised details of the
frontage improvements along Ashland Street which include irrigated street trees
planted in five-foot square planters with tree grates spaced every 30 feet or a seven-
foot planted park row planting strip, and an eight- to ten-foot wide sidewalk along
the full property frontage with appropriate transitions to the existing sidewalks to
the north and south, with any additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate
the required frontage improvements (approximately five feet three inches) either
dedicated to the city, or public pedestrian access easements provided; 3) a storm
drainage plan which demonstrates that post-development peak flow are less than or
equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and which includes
necessary storm water quality mitigation.
d) That the applicants shall submit a final electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment to serve the proposed
development for the review and approval of the Electric, Building and Planning
Departments. This plan shall clearly identify any additional services, conduit, etc.
necessary. Electric services shall be installed according to the approved plan at the
applicants' expense, inspected and approved prior to final building inspection or
occupancy permit issuance. All services shall be undergrounded and any additional
transformers or cabinets (if necessary) shall be located in those areas least visible to
the public, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department, and the
electric pull-box shall be located behind the sidewalk, outside of the parkrow
planting strip, for safety reasons as recommended by the Electric Department.
e) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking,
and circulation areas shall be included with the building permit submittals. Lot
coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent as allowed in the C-1 zoning
district.
f) That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak
rainfalls 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.
g) That the requirements ofAshland Fire & Rescue shall be adequately addressed, including
that adequate fire apparatus access and firefighter access pathways, approved
addressing, fire flow, fire hydrant clearance, fire department connection (FDC), and
key box(es) shall be provided, and that any gates, fences or other obstructions to fire
access shall be clearly shown on the plans for review and approval by Ashland Fire
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 11
and Rescue.
h) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be detailed in the building
permit submittals, and shall be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent
with the exterior building colors reviewed as part of this application.
i) That bicycle parking shall be shown in the building permit submittals. Inverted u-
racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in
accordance with the rack design, spacing and coverage standards in AMC 18.4.3.070
prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
j) That the applicants shall obtain a Tree Verification inspection to verify that the trees
to be removed are appropriately identified on site prior to their removal and that
the trees to be protected have appropriate preservation measures in place prior to
permit issuance or any site disturbance including staging, storage of materials or
commencement of construction.
k) A revised Site Plan identifying pedestrian easements to enable connectivity with
adjacent properties shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff
Advisor.
10) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy:
a) That all required landscaping, hadscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to
the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks and irrigated street
trees shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by
the Staff Advisor. Street trees shall be selected from and planted according to the
standards in the city's Recommended Street Trees guide.
C) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties. Lighting specifications and shrouding details
shall be included in the building permits submittals and their installation site-
verified prior to occupancy.
d) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in
accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards.
April 18, 2017
Joh S ombe g, Mayor Date
City of Ashland
PA #2016-01894-Council Appeal
April 18, 2017
Page 12