Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFair_Oaks_601-691_PA-2016-01896 CITY F ASHLAND December 14, 2016 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-2016-01596 Subject Property: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue Applicant: Ayala Properties, LLC/II(DA Homes, LLC Description: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456'square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 of the Meadowbrook Park II Planned Unit Development (Tax Lot #800) located at 601-631 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The application also includes a request for Modification of the approved Site Design Review (PA #2016-00617) for a three-story, mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700), located at 651-691 Fair Oaks Avenue, in order to modify the building's exterior design. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved density or parking allocations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 04AD TAX LOTS: 700 & 800. The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18.5.1.060.1 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-088-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us .~r ~_i I E E t Y C 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. 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. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.1.4.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. orms i i E 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 parry 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 Argument. 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 71 www.ashland.or.us i b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City mailed or received. c. All materials considered by the hearings body including the application and all materials submitted with it. d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open. e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available). f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; g. The minutes of the hearing. g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions. 7. Effective Date and Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type II applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms I BEFORE, THE, PLANNING CO SSION December 13, 2016 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2016-01896, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 15,456 SQUARE ) FOOT THREE-STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT #71 ) OF THE MEADOWBROOK PARK II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (TAX ) LOT #800) LOCATED AT 601-631 FAIR OAKS AVENUE WITHIN THE NORTH ) MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA. THE APPLICATION ALSO ) INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE APPROVED SITE ) FINDINGS, DESIGN REVIEW (PA #2016-00617) FOR A THREE-STORY, MIXED USE BUILD-) CONCLUSIONS & ING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE ADJACENT LOT #70 (TAX LOT #700) )ORDERS LOCATED AT 651-691 FAIR OAKS AVENUE IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE ) BUILDING'S EXTERIOR DESIGN. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE ) PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DENSITY OR PARKING ALLOCATIONS. ) APPLICANT/OWNER: KDA Homes, L.L.C./Ayala Properties, L.L.C. ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #700 and #800 of Map 39 lE 04AD are located at 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue and are zoned NM-C (North Mountain Neighborhood Central Overlay). is 2) The applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 of the Meadowbrook Park II Planned Unit ` Development (Tax Lot #800) located at 601-631 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The application also includes a request for Modification of the approved Site Design Review (PA #2016-00617) for a three-story, mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700), located at 651-691 Fair Oaks Avenue, in order to modify the building's exterior design. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved density or parldng allocations. 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 #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 1 t, i 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 Supplemental Approval Criteria for North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed in AMC 18.3.5.030 as follows: C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 5) The approval criteria for Minor Modifications to Planning Actions are detailed in AMC 18.5.6.040 as follows: C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 2 f i c 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. 6) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on November 8,, 2016 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. 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. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review and Modification of Planning Action #2013-0617 meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050, Minor Modifications to Planning Actions as described AMC 18.5.6.040, and the Supplemental Approval Criteria for North Mountain (NM) zoning districts described in AMC 18.3.5.030 with the attached conditions of approval. The site plan and elevation drawings provided delineate the proposed building locations, designs and associated site improvements. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the current application requests: 1) Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 (Tax Lot #800). This building's footprint and general massing were illustrated but not approved as part of the recent Planning Action #2016-00617. Density and parking allocations for the neighborhood core area were addressed in PA #2013-01506. 2) Modification of the Site Design Review approved in Planning Action #2016-00617 for a three-story, mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700) to modify the building's exterior design. The modifications requested are largely limited to PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 3 i removal of the turret-like element at the southeast corner of the building. No changes are proposed to the I previously-approved density or parking allocations. I 2.4 With regard to the proposed new building on Tax Lot #800, the Plamiing Commission finds that the first approval criterion to be considered 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." In this instance, the subject property is located' within the North Mountain (NM) overlay zone and is not address in part 18.2. The applicable regulations for the development of the property are found in AMC 18.3.5. The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The application materials provided indicate that the proposal complies with all applicable provisions for the NM-C overlay zone including setback, density, height, 3,500 square foot floor area, 80 percent lot coverage, orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. The third criterion is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 184, except as provided by subsection E [which provides for Exceptions], below." The Planning Commission finds that the proposed design of the building is consistent with the City's Site i' Design and Use Standards for commercial development, including building orientation, streetscape, access standards andthe location of off-street parking areas. The proposal is also subject to North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, which provide guidance in areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks, height and mixed-uses, and the Commission finds that the proposal meets these standards as well. The building design acknowledges the importance of the neighboring public spaces and ground floor spaces reflect a more traditional storefront appearance, while residential uses are accommodated within the upper floors. The Commission finds that the proposed modifications still result in a building which is in keeping with the vision of the neighborhood plan and previous Subdivision and Site Review approvals. The Commission further finds that parking and density were allocated as follows when Planning Action #2013-01506 was approved, and that no changes to these allocations are proposed, although an additional two on-site parking spaces have been provided for Tax Lot #700: TAX ALLOCATED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ON-SITE PARKING ALLOCATION LOT DENSITY PARKING (PLUM RIDGE COURT) 700 14 10 4 800 10 8 2 1500 (Octagon) 10 0 3 5900 6 4 2 TOTAL 40 22 11 (48% OF 23 AVAILABLE) PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 4 i C i i The Planning Commission finds that the intent of the neighborhood design standards was to create a neighborhood scale pedestrian streetscape environment with strong individual storefront identities and buildings of sizes, forms, massing and architectural elements at the pedestrian scale typical of older buildings similar to those found downtown along the plaza. The Commission finds that there are three areas where the design could be fine-tuned relative to these standards: 1) insuring that the awnings or other pedestrian coverage provided give the continuous coverage sought in the standards; 2) providing windows that establish the desired storefront streetscape character without requiting costly structural alterations when the transition to commercial use occurs; and 3) providing a distinct base for each storefront to provide a stronger individual identity. E Continuous Covered Walks AMC 18.3.5.100.B.3 provides that, "Buildings shall be built up to the front and side property lines as illustrated in Figure 18.3.5.100.B.3. Along the front, exceptions will be allowed to create courtyards, seating areas for cafes, or other special uses. These areas should be designed to further the activity along the streets. Arcades awnings bays and balconies shall extend over walkways to form a continuous covered walk. In only rare cases should the fagade of the second story extend beyond the first floor's front setback." The application materials contend that the intent of the standard should not be required to cross vertical architectural elements or obscure other forms of the storefront rhythm. The awnings illustrated on the submitted plans are described as having a typical five-foot minimum depth. The Commission finds that the continuous covered walks sought in the standards are a defining element of streetscape character as they are in the downtown, that awnings should be provided with the initial construction of the building rather than deferred until a commercial use is implemented, and that the desired coverage should be generally continuous (while allowing for minimal breaks to accommodate vertical architectural elements or transitions between individual storefront spaces) to a covered depth of five to seven feet including the combination of recessed areas at entrances and areas covered by awnings in order to provide adequate protection for pedestrians from the elements. A condition to this effect has been included below. Storefront Window Character The Commission finds that in the recent approval for the building on Tax Lot #5900, the conditions of approval provided for the initial use of smaller windows which were to be replaced with larger storefront windows when the initial interim residential uses transition to commercial use. However, as constructed the lower floor's walls are poured in place concrete, and the enlargement of these windows to enable the intended commercial use of the zone will likely not involve a simple change to framing but potentially cost-prohibitive cutting of the concrete walls in multiple places. The building on Tax Lot #700 similarly had previously proposed to install windows which could be altered with the eventual conversion to commercial use. The Commission finds that, as with the continuous covered walks, storefront windows provide a key defining element of the streetscape character, and that this character should be established with the initial construction rather than being deferred in favor of an interim use until the intended commercial uses are established. The Commission further finds that this is consistent with the North MountainNeighborhoodstandardsmAMC 18.3.5.100.B.1 which call for atransitional. architectural design and construction that "allows a simple transition to commercial use." A condition requiting that full-sized storefront windows be installed with the initial construction of both buildings is accordingly included below. PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 5 f' i l' Base In reviewing the last iteration of design modifications for the building on Tax Lot #700, staff noted that while the proposed modifications were generally in keeping with the previous design, as the design continued to evolve, some of the defining elements of the strong individual storefront characters were being softened. In particular, it was noted that the more defined bases along each individual volume had been replaced with stone veneer wainscoting along only two of the volumes. While the standards do not provide a great deal of specific design guidance, they generally point to a traditional storefront development typically seen in the downtown, particularly along the plaza, and the Commission finds that each building having a distinct base would help in establishing a distinct, individual storefront identity in the fayade. Condition #5 was accordingly attached to PA #2016-00617 to require, That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which demonstrate a stronger identity for individual storefronts by providing stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth sufficient to provide protection from the elements; providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear distinction between the ground and upper floors." The elevations provided have not addressed this requirement on either building, and the Commission has therefore again attached this condition to the current approval. 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 j storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property." The Planning Commission finds that when this criterion was originally considered as part of the Site Design Review application for Tax Lot #700 under PA 42013- 00806, an increase in residential density from the ten residential units originally approved in the Village Center portion of the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision to as many as 40 units proposed over the four lots in the Village Center were discussed as follows: ® Water-All ofthe subject properties are currently served by an eight-inch water main in the Fair Oaks Drive right- of-way, however because the water services were initially intended to serve only ten residential units where as many as 40 are now involved, additional connections and services will need to be provided by the applicant. ® SanitarySewer- Tax Lots #700 and #800 are currentlyserved by an eight- inch sanitary sewer main in the alley to their north. As with water, because the sewer lines provided were initially intended to serve ten residential units where as many as 40 are now involved, additional connections and services will need to be provided by the applicant. ® Storm Water - Tax Lots #700 & #800 are currently served by a six-inch storm sewer main in the alley to their north. With development, the applicant will need to provide an engineered storm drainage plan demonstrating that post-development peak flows will be less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow, and which addresses storm water quality mitigation as part of the design. ® Electric - As with water and sewer, the electric infrastructure initially installed was sized to accommodate only ten total residential units. The applicant will need to address the additional electric capacity and conduitto provide connections to serve all of the proposed units with development. In addition, during the most recent modification, the Electric Department noted that the elevator proposed will require a new three- phase electrical service be installed by the applicants. PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 6 i ® Streets &Transportation -Curbs, gutters, paving, street lights and some sidewalks and street trees were installed with the subdivision infrastructure, however sidewalks and street trees for the subject properties were not installed and will need to be completed in conjunction with the proposed development here. The application includes proposed frontage improvements for Tax Lot #800 consisting of four foot-by-four foot tree wells with street tree grates, a five-foot sidewalk and three-and-a-half foot planter buffer at the building face for installation initially, which would transition to an eight-and-a-half foot sidewalk when commercial uses are implemented on the ground floor. Based on the infiastructure already in place and the modifications to the original approval proposed here, the Planning Commission has added a number of conditions below to require that the applicants provide revised utility plans, including electrical and storm drainage plans, and revised plans of the frontage improvements prior to the submittal of building permit applications. i The final criterion has to do with Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards. In this instance, the Commission finds that no Exceptions have been requested. 2.5 With regard to the proposed modifications to the approved building design for Tax Lot #700, the Planning Commission finds that the primary modification proposed is to remove the "turret-like" element on the southeast corner of the building and replacing it with a standard projecting bay wrapping the corner. A similar bay is included on the southwest corner of the building proposed on Tax Lot #800 to "book- end" the two buildings. Minor adjustments to some of the balcony rail treatments are also proposed. The applicants also note that while it was their original intention to construct the two buildings at different times, after discussions with their architect they now intend to construct the two buildings at the same time for logistical reasons. The Commission finds that the original turret-like element was likely simply carded over from previous designs and was originally a viewing tower in response to the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's call for the creation of a neighborhood focal point at the intersection of Greenway Drive (now Fair Oaks) and North Mountain Avenue in the form of "landscaping, special paving patterns, and a neighborhood monument or gateway" as illustrated in the Plan's Figure 18.3.5.100.D.2. The Commission further finds that this element was described in the 2005 approval as follows: "a viewing tower is located off the easterly most building, nearest North Mountain Avenue. The viewing tower will serve as a covered outdoor deck space for the residential unit. The area is access from the second floor living room and will overlook the central open space and fountain area." The Commission finds that it would be difficult to successfully combine a civic function such as a neighborhood's focal point with a private residence's covered outdoor deck, and further finds that the turret-like element's removal will not diminish the building design or the proposal's overall consistency with the original Plan. The Commission finds that the plaza space and outdoor seating at the southeast comer serve to create the gateway sought in the standards, and the removal of the turret is beneficial to the overall design. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds the subject properties have been considered a number of times over the last three years in looking at the building design for Tax Lot #700, and the site plan addressing both properties in terms of the parking and density allocations. The current request comes PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 7 t down to approving the exterior treatment of the building on Tax Lot #800, which the Commission finds to be generally consistent with applicable standards and compatible with the already approved design for Tax Lot #700, and considering the removal of the corner turret. The Commission finds that the turret's removal poses no concern, and that there are three fine-tuning issues to be addressed with the buildings' designs: 1) insuring that awnings provide the continuous coverage sought in the standards; 2) providing windows that establish a storefront streetscape character without requiring costly structural alterations when the transition to commercial use occurs; and 3) providing a distinct base for each storefront to provide a stronger individual identity. These have been addressed through the conditions attached below. 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 approval and Modification of Planning Action #2016-00617, including constructing a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 located at 601-631 Fair Oaks Avenue and modifying the approved exterior design for the three-story, mixed-use building on the adjacent Lot #70 located at 651-691 Fair Oaks Avenue, 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 #2016-01896. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2016-01896 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. 2) That all applicable conditions of the previous Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals (PA-2013-00806, PA-2013-01506 and PA #2016-00617) shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified herein. 3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify tbis Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) That the property line between Lots 70 and 71 shall be dissolved as proposed by the applicants and evidence provided to the Building Division to demonstrate compliance with Building Code requirements. 5) That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which demonstrate a stronger identity for individual storefionts by providing: a) Stronger pedestrian coverings providing a generally continuous coverage of the sidewalk with a depth of five to seven feet including a combination of recessed areas and coverings to provide sufficient protection from the elements for pedestrians. PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 8 e t r; Pedestrian coverings shall be provided with the initial construction of the building rather than deferred until a commercial use is implemented. b) Providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear distinction between the ground and upper floors. 6) Full-sized storefront windows shall be installed with the initial construction of the building rather than being deferred until a commercial use is implemented. 7) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to any construction within the public rights-of-way. 8) 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, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. An easement providing for public vehicular and pedestrian circulation and connectivity to the surrounding public streets shall be recorded, and evidence of recording provided prior to permit issuance. b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation plan which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their July 3, 2013 meeting where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. These items shall include: 1) identification of size, species and placement of seven mitigation frees to be planted to mitigate the removal of the seven Siberian Elms and associated fencing or other screening to buffer the neighbor to the north from the visual impacts of the proposed building; 2) revised details for the large open space area at the entrance to the project between Fair Oaks Avenue and Fair Oaks Court to include four of the six elements identified under Site Design and Use Standards #11 -C-3b) - Public Spaces; 3) irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. c) The requirements of the Building Department, including but not limited to that the plans provide details addressing accessible units, fire sprinlders, fire separation, ADA parking, and methods of compliance with the 3,500 square foot floor area limitation for each building, shall be satisfactorily addressed. d) 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 buildings including the added residential units; 2) revised details of the frontage improvements and alley extension if deemed necessary by the Planning and Public Works Departments and Transportation Commission; 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. PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 9 e) That the applicant shall submit an 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 to serve the units proposed here and a three-phase electric service necessary for the proposed elevator. All services shall be undergrounded and shall be provided from the alley where possible, and additional transformers and cabinets (if necessary) shall be located in those areas least visible to the public, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. f) That the requirements ofAshlandFire & 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), fire extinguishers, 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 and Rescue. C g) 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. h) That a plan identifying construction staging areas shall be provided for review and approval by the Building, Planning and Fire Departments. 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. If bicycle parking is provided in garages or within the building, hanging racks shall not be used and final interior dimensions shall be detailed in the building permit submittals to insure adequate space. 9) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) The applicants shall provide a copy of the proposed deed restriction making clear that the ground floor commercial spaces are intended for commercial use, but may be used for residential use, for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. These deed restrictions shall be recorded, and copies of the recorded copies provided, prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. b) That all required landscaping, irrigation andhardscape surface improvements including the proposed central open space area, shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. C) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks, street trees along the full frontage of Tax Lots #700 and #800, and mitigation trees in the adjacent right-of- way shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. Street trees and mitigation street trees shall be selected from the Recommended Street Tree List and planted according to applicable standards. PA #2016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 10 E d 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. 7 December 13, 2016 Planning Commission Approval Date I L PA 92016-01896 December 13, 2016 Page 11 I I AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) E The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: F I 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 12/14/16 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 #PA-2016-01896, 601-691 Fair Oaks. Signature of Employee Doeomend 12/14/2016 00 [8/00 t9©1aoAV aoAe olglgedujoa mui Z0 x mm g feniof op aganbijt lMaAV qj!M olgljedwoo ,0/0 ~ x j az!s label /09190 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 900 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 5900 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 800 HUMPHREY GINGER M KDA HOMES LLC AYALA PROPERTIES LLC 593 PLUM RIDGE CT 604 FAIR OAKS CT ! 132 W MAIN ST 202 f ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 601-691 Fair Oaks 12/14/16 NOD 3 ; ; I ; ; ; ; ; ~I ; label size 1" x 2 5/8° compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05,160/8160 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Dame f (please print) f Address (no P.O. llor) i f C Phone Email Tonight's Meeting Date Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) s-~' Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not ahr,ays require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Plarrrring Cornriiissiarr generally invites the public to speak on agenda ite7ns and duringpublic forwn on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. i i I ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT S'T'AFF DEPORT November 8, 2016 t PLANNING ACTION: 2016-01896 OWNER/APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C./KDA Homes, L.L.C. LOCATION: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue (Map 39 1E 04AD, Tax Lot #'s: 700 and 800) ZONE DESIGNATION: NM - C, North Mountain Neighborhood Central Overlay COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Neighborhood ORDINANCE REFERENCES: (See also htt vv_ d.or.us/S1B/f`. - C Cheat 18 current.pdf ) 13.16 Street Trees 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design 18.4.3 Parking, Access & Circulation 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Actions APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: October 31, 2016 REQUEST: The current application is a request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 of the Meadowbrook Park II Planned Unit Development (Tax Lot #800) located at 601-631 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The application also includes a request for Modification of the approved Site Design Review (PA #2016-00617) for a three-story, mixed- use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700), located at 651-691 Fair Oaks Avenue, in order to modify the building's exterior design. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved density or parking allocations. r 1. Relevant Facts I) Background - History of Application Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 1 of 14 l I I This application involves two vacant buildable lots located within the Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C) of the North Mountain Neighborhood zoning district. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area has been located within the Ashland city limits since the early 1900's. In June of 2016, the Planning Commission approved PA #2016-00617, a request for Site Design Review approval, Property Line Adjustment and Modification of Planning Action #2013-01506. The original approval had allowed a mixed-use building with commercial space and parking on the ground floor and residential units L on the two upper floors. The modifications approved were limited to changes to the building's exterior design, adjusting a property line, and adding an exterior elevator. No changes to the previously-approved density, parking allocations or landscaping were included in the request. f In January of 2014, the Planning Commission approved PA #2013-01506, a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806. The modifications approved were: 1); clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of ground floor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in the number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3) modifications to the proposed building design for Tax Lot #700. In August of 2013, the Planning Commission approved PA#2013-00806, which allowed for the construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use buildings consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential units on the second and third floors for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. This application included a modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision approval to adjust the number of residential units allocated between the four subject parcels to allow a total of 40 dwelling units, where only ten units had previously been proposed, based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district. In July of 2005, the Planning Commission granted Site review approval as PA#2005-696 for four mixed-use buildings comprised of ten commercial and ten residential condominium units on the subject properties in the "Village Center" area of the Meadowbrook Park Subdivision. Lots were created and streets dedicated with recordation of the plat for this project. The bulls of the public infrastructure for the Meadowbrook Park Estates Phase IT project, including curbs, gutters, paving, some sidewalks, street trees, and utility infrastructure was constructed shortly thereafter, and some houses were constructed before the developers sold the remaining parcels and the economy declined. In January of 2004, the Planning Commission granted Final Plan approval of PA#2003-158, an 81-lot Performance Standards subdivision located within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area west of the North Mountain Avenue, east of Bear Creek channel and south of the unimproved section of Nevada, including the subject parcels under consideration here. That approval included 79 residential units within Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 2 of 14 1, f I the residential zones, and an additional 13 residential units and 11 commercial spaces in the NM-C portion of the project. This Final Plan approval was granted two 12-month administrative extensions with PA#2005-99 and PA#2006-264. In May 2003, the Planning Commission granted Outline Plan approval of PA#2002-151, an 81-lot Performance Standards subdivision for the 16 acres located along the west side of North Mountain Avenue, east of the Bear Creek channel and south of the unimproved section of Nevada, including the subject parcels under consideration here. This application also included Major Amendments to the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including realignment/reconfiguration of certain streets and modifications of the required yard areas. In May of 1997, the City Council adopted the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan as Ordinance #2800, which included a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendment and a new chapter in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) - Chapter 18.30, North Mountain Neighborhood. With the Unified Land Use Ordinance updates in 2015, the North Mountain Neighborhood District became Chapter 18.3.5 and was moved to Part 18.3 "Special Districts and Overlay Zones". Chapter 18.3.5 lays the framework and provides applicable design standards for development proposals within the NM zoning districts. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description The subject property as well as the area surrounding the site is located in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area, and is included in the North Mountain Neighborhood (NM) zoning district. The NM zoning district is divided into seven secondary zoning districts or "overlays". The subject properties involved here are zoned NM-C (Neighborhood Central Overlay). The Neighborhood Central Overlay represents the commercial and civic center of the plan area. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and implementing NM zoning district regulations identify required transportation facilities, common areas and individual sub-zones. In addition, all development proposals within the NM Plan area are required to adhere to the North Mountain Neighborhood Design standards, as well as other applicable ordinance provisions such as Local Street Standards, General Regulations and Site Design and Use Standards. The areas proposed for construction are currently vacant and free of any existing structures. A row of existing Siberian Elm trees located immediately to the north of the proposed buildings on Tax Lot #700 was approved for removal with PA#2013- 806; no other significant natural features are situated in the immediate area. Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 3 of 14 Current Proposal The current application requests: 1) Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 (Tax Lot #800). This building's footprint, general massing were illustrated but not approved as part of the last application (PA #2016-00617). Density and parking allocations were addressed in PA #2013-01506; 2) Modification of the approved Site Design Review (PA #2016-00617) for a three-story, mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700) to modify the building's exterior design. The modifications requested are largely limited to removal of the turret-like element at the southeast corner of the building. No changes are proposed to the previously- approved density or parking allocations. K Project Impact The current request involves both a new building design approval for a building in excess of 15,000 square feet and the modification of a building design previously approved through a Type II application, and is accordingly being brought to a public hearing before the Planning Commission for a Type II decision. The application includes written findings which respond to the approval criteria for both the Site Design Review and Modification. Proposed Building on Tax Lot #800 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 within the North Mountain (NM) overlay zone and is not address in part 18.2. The applicable regulations are found in AMC 18.3.5. The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." The application materials provided indicate that the proposal complies with all applicable provisions for the NM-C overlay zone including setback, density, height, 3,500 square foot floor area, 80 percent lot coverage, orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. i The third 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." Staff believes the design of the building appears consistent with the City's Site Design and Use Standards for commercial development, including building orientation, streetscape, access standards and the location of off-street parking areas. The proposal is also subject to North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, which provide guidance in areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks, height and mixed-uses. The application appears to meet these standards. The building design acknowledges the importance of the neighboring public spaces and ground floor spaces reflect a more traditional storefront appearance, while residential uses are accommodated within the upper floors. In staffs view, the proposed modifications still result in a building which is in keeping with the vision of the neighborhood plan and previous Subdivision and Site Review approvals. Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 4 of 14 i Parking and density were allocated as follows with Planning Action #2013-01506, and no changes to these allocations are proposed, although an additional two on-site parking spaces have been provided for Tax Lot #700: j; TAX ALLOCATED RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ON-SITE PARKING ALLOCATION r LOT DENSITY PARKING PLUM RIDGE COURT) i 700 14 10 4 800 10 8 2 1500 (Octagon) 10 0 3 5900 6 4 2 TOTAL 40 22 11 (48% OF 23 AVAILABLE) In staff's view, the intent of the neighborhood design standards was to create a neighborhood scale pedestrian streetscape environment with strong individual storefront identities and buildings of sizes, forms, massing and architectural elements at the pedestrian scale typical of older buildings similar to those found downtown along the plaza. For staff, there are three key fine-tuning issues with the building design as it relates to these standards: 1) insuring that the awnings or other pedestrian coverage provided give the continuous coverage sought in the standards; 2) providing windows that establish the desired storefi ont streetscape character without requiring costly structural alterations when the transition to commercial use occurs; and 3) providing a distinct base for each storefront to provide a stronger individual identity. Continuous Covered Walks AMC 18.3.5.100.B.3 provides that, "Buildings shall be built up to the front and side property lines as illustrated in Figure 18.3.5.100.8.3. Along the front, exceptions will be allowed to create courtyards, seating areas for cafes, or other special uses. These areas should be designed to further the activity along the streets. Arcades, awnings, bays, and balconies shall extend over walkways to form a continuous covered walk. In only rare cases should the fagade of the second story extend beyond the first floor's front setback." The application materials contend that the intent of the standard should not be required to cross vertical architectural elements or obscure other forms of the storefront rhythm. The awnings illustrated on the submitted plans are described as having a typical five-foot minimum depth. For staff, the continuous covered walk sought in the standards is one of the defining elements of streetscape character as they are in the downtown. The awnings should be provided with the initial construction of the building rather than deferred until a c commercial use is implemented, and the desired coverage should be generally continuous (while allowing for minimal breaks to accommodate vertical architectural elements or transitions between individual storefront spaces) to a covered depth of at least seven feet to provide adequate protection for pedestrians from the elements. A condition to this effect has been recommended below. Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 5 of 14 Storefront Window Character In the recent approval for the building on Tax Lot #5900, the conditions of approval provided for the initial use of smaller windows which were to be replaced with larger storefront windows when the initial interim residential uses transition to commercial use. As constructed, the lower walls of the building are poured in place concrete, and the enlargement of these windows to enable the intended commercial use of the zone will not involve a simple change to flaming but potentially cost prohibitive cutting of the concrete walls in multiple places. The building on Tax Lot #700 similarly had previously proposed to install windows which could be altered with the eventual conversion to commercial use. As with the continuous covered walks, staff believes that storefront windows provide a key defining element of the streetscape character, and that this character should be established with the initial construction rather than being deferred in favor of an interim use until the intended commercial uses are established. This is consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood standards in AMC 18.3.5. 100.13. 1 which can for a transitional architectural design and construction that "allows a simple transition to commercial use." A condition requiring that full-sized storefront windows be installed with the initial construction of both buildings has accordingly been recommended below. Base In reviewing the last iteration of design modifications for the building on Tax Lot #700, staff noted that while the proposed modifications were generally in keeping with the previous design, as the design continued to evolve, some of the defining elements of the strong individual storefront characters were being softened. In particular, it was noted that the more defined bases along each individual volume had been replaced with stone veneer wainscoting along only two of the volumes. While the standards do not provide a great deal of specific design guidance, they generally point to a traditional storefront development typically seen in the downtown, particularly along the plaza, and staff believes that each building having a distinct base would help in establishing a distinct, individual storefront identity in the fagade. Condition #5 was attached to PA #2016-00617 to require, "That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which demonstrate a stronger identity for individual storefronts by providing stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth sufficient to provide protection from the elements; providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear distinction between the ground and upper floors." The elevations provided have not addressed this requirement on either building, and the condition is accordingly again recommended below. 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." When this criterion was originally considered as part of the Site Design Review application for Tax Lot #700 under PA #2013-00806, an increase in residential density from the ten residential units originally approved in the Village Center portion of the Meadowbrook Park Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 6 of 14 i I II subdivision to as many as 40 units proposed over the four lots in the Village Center were discussed as follows: ® Water - All of the subject properties are currently served by an eight-inch water main in the Fair Oaks Drive right-of-way, however because the water services were initially intended to serve only ten residential units where as many as 40 are now proposed, additional connections and services will need to be provided by the applicant. ® Sanitary Sewer - Tax Lots #700 and #800 are currently served by an eight- inch sanitary sewer main in the alley to their north. As with water, because the sewer lines provided were initially intended to serve ten residential units where as many as 40 are now proposed, additional connections and services will need to be provided by the applicant. ® Storm Water- Tax Lots #700 & #800 are currently served by a six-inch storm sewer main in the alley to their north. With development, the applicant will need to provide an engineered storm drainage plan demonstrating that post-development peak flows will be less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow, and which addresses storm water quality mitigation as part of the design. ® Electric - As with water and sewer, the electric infrastructure initially installed was sized to accommodate only ten total residential units. The applicant will need to address the additional electric capacity and conduit to provide connections to serve all of the proposed units with development, In addition, during the most recent modification, the Electric Department noted thatthe elevator proposed will require a newthree-phase electrical service be installed by the applicants. 1 ® Streets &Transportation - Curbs, gutters, paving, street lights and some sidewalks and street trees were installed with the subdivision infrastructure, however sidewalks and street trees for the subject properties were not installed and will need to be completed in conjunction with the proposed development here. The application includes proposed frontage improvements for Tax Lot #800 consisting of four foot-by-four foot tree wells with street tree grates, a five-foot sidewalk and three-and-a-half foot planter buffer at the building face for installation initially, which would transition to an eight-and-a-half foot sidewalk when commercial uses are implemented on the ground floor. Based on the infrastructure already in place and the modifications to the original approval proposed here, a number of recommended conditions have been included below to require that the applicants provide revised utility plans, including electrical and storm drainage plans, and revised plans of the frontage improvements prior to the submittal of building permit applications. The final criterion has to do with Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards. In this instance, no Exceptions have been requested. Proposed Modifications to Approved Design of Building on Tax Lot #700 The applicants are also requesting to modify the approved exterior building design for the three-story mixed use building on the adjacent Tax Lot #700. The primary modification proposed is to remove the "turret-like" element on the southeast corner of the building and Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 7 of 14 i I replacing it with a standard projecting bay wrapping the corner. A similar bay is included on the southwest corner of the building proposed on Tax Lot #800 and this will "book-end" the two buildings. Minor adjustments to some of the balcony rail treatments are also proposed. The applicants also note that while it was their original intention to construct the two buildings at different times, after discussions with their architect they now intend to construct the two buildings at the same time for logistical reasons. k, In staff's assessment, the original turret-like element had been carried over from previous designs and was originally a viewing tower in response to the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan's call for the creation of a neighborhood focal point at the intersection of Greenway I' Drive (now Fair Oaks) and North Mountain Avenue in the form of "landscaping, special paving patterns, and a neighborhood monument or gateway". This was illustrated in the Plan with Figure 18.3.5.100.D.2. shown below: f ~ The element was described in the 2005 approval as follows: "a viewing tower is located off the easterly most building, nearest North Mountain Avenue. The viewing tower will serlt e as a covered outdoor deck space for the residential unit. The area is access fi°om the second floor living room and will overlook the central open space and fountain area." In staff's assessment, it is difficult to successfully combine a civic function such as a neighborhood's Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 8 of 14 f I I focal point with a private residence's covered outdoor deck, and we believe that the turret- like element's removal will not diminish the building design or the proposal's overall consistency with the original Plan. For staff, the plaza space, outdoor seating and human sundial at the southeast corner serve to create the gateway sought in the standards, and the removal of the turret will benefit the overall design. 11L Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter II are detailed 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 transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. The Supplemental Approval Criteria for North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed in AMC 18.3.5.030 as follows: C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 9 of 14 i t 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. i The approval criteria for Minor Modifications to Planning Actions are detailed in AMC 18.5.6.040 as follows: C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Planning Commission and staff have considered the subject properties a number of times over the last three years in looking at the building design for Tax Lot #700, and the site plan addressing both properties in terns of the parking and density allocations. The current request comes down to approving the exterior treatment ofthe building on Tax Lot #800, which seems generally consistent with applicable standards and compatible with the already approved design for Tax Lot #700, and considering the removal of the comer turret. The turret's removal poses no concern for staff, and in out view, there are only three key fine-tuning issues we believe need to be addressed through the conditions of approval: 1) insuring that awnings provide the continuous coverage sought in the standards; 2) providing windows that establish a storefront streetscape character without requiring costly structural alterations when the transition to commercial use occurs; and 3) providing a distinct base for each storefront to provide a stronger individual identity. Continuous Covered Walks AMC 18.3.5.100.13.3 provides that buildings are to provide, Arcades, awnings, bays, and balconies shall extend over walkways to form a continuous covered walk." The applicants contend that these coverings should not be required to cross vertical architectural elements or obscure other forms of the storefront rhythm, and the awnings illustrated on the submitted plans are described as having a typical five-foot minimum depth. For staff, the continuous covered walls sought in the standards is one of the defining elements of streetscape character, as in the downtown. The awnings should be provided with the initial construction of the building rather than deferred until a commercial use is implemented, and the desired coverage should be generally continuous (while allowing for minimal breaks to accommodate vertical architectural elements or transitions between individual storefront spaces) to a minimum covered depth of seven feet to Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 10 of 14 provide adequate protection for pedestrians from the elements. A condition to this effect is recommended below. Storefront Window Character In the recent approval for the building on Tax Lot #5900 which is now nearing completion, the conditions of approval provided for the use of smaller windows which were to be replaced with larger storefront windows when the initial interim residential uses transition to commercial use. As constructed, the lower walls of the building are poured in place concrete, and the enlargement of these windows to enable the intended commercial use of the zone will not involve a simple change to framing but will instead require potentially cost-prohibitive cutting of the concrete walls in multiple places. While the current request does not suggest that the windows on the proposed building on Tax Lot #800 would be smaller residential windows initially, the building on Tax Lot #700 had previously proposed and been approved to install windows which would be smaller initially and altered with the eventual conversion to commercial use. As with the continuous covered walls, staff believes that storefront windows provide a key defining element of the streetscape character, and that this character should be established with the initial construction rather than being deferred indefinitely in favor of an interim use. This is consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood standards in AMC 18.3.5.100.B.1 which call for a transitional architectural design and construction that "allows a simple transition to commercial use," and a condition requiring that full-sized storefront windows be installed with the initial construction of both buildings has accordingly been recommended below. Base In reviewing the last iteration of design modifications for the building on Tax Lot #700, staff noted that while the proposed modifications were generally in keeping with the previous design, as the design had continued to evolve, some of the defining elements of the strong individual storefront characters were being softened. In particular, it was noted that the more defined bases along each individual volume had been replaced with stone veneer wainscoting along only two of the volumes. While the standards do not provide a great deal of specific design guidance, they generally point to a traditional storefront development typically seen in the downtown, particularly along the plaza, and staff believes that each building having a distinct base would help in establishing a distinct, individual storefront identity in the facade. Condition #5 was attached to PA #2016-00617 to require, "That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which demonstrate a stronger identity for individual storefronts by providing stronger pedestrian coverings of a depth sufficient to I" provide protection from the elements; providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear distinction between the ground and upper floors." The elevations provided have not addressed this requirement on either building, and the condition is accordingly reiterated below. With these items in mind, staff is generally supportive of the request, and recommends approval with the conditions detailed below: I 1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 11 of 14 f 2) That all applicable conditions of the previous Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals (PA-2013-00806, PA-2013-01506 and PA #2016- 00617) shall remain in effect unless otherwise modified herein. 3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in 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. 4) That the property line between Lots 70 and 71 shall be dissolved as proposed by the applicants and evidence provided to the Building Division to demonstrate compliance with Building Code requirements. 5) That the building permit submittals shall include revised elevations which demonstrate a stronger identity for individual storefronts by providing: a) Stronger pedestrian coverings providing a generally continuous coverage of the sidewalk with a minimum depth of seven feet to provide sufficient protection from the elements for pedestrians. Pedestrian coverings shall be provided with the initial construction of the building rather than deferred until a commercial use is implemented. b) Providing a distinct base on each space, and providing a clear distinction between the ground and upper floors. 6) Full-sized storefront windows shall be installed with the initial construction of the building rather than being deferred until a commercial use is implemented. 7) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to any consttuction within the public rights-of-way. 8) 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, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. An easement providing for public vehicular and pedestrian circulation and connectivity to the surrounding public streets shall be recorded, and evidence of recording provided prior to permit issuance. b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation plan which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their July 3, 2013 meeting where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. These items shall include: 1) identification of size, species and placement of seven mitigation trees to be planted to mitigate the removal of the seven Siberian Ehns and associated fencing or other screening to buffer the neighbor to the north from the visual impacts of the proposed building; 2) revised details for the large open space area at the entrance to the Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 12 of 14 i i i E project between Fain Oaks Avenue and Fair Oaks Court to include four of the six elements identified under Site Design and Use Standards #ll- C-3b) -Public Spaces; 3) inigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. c) The requirements of the Building Department, including but not limited to that the plans provide details addressing accessible units, fire sprinIders, fire separation, ADA parking, and methods of compliance with the 3,500 square foot floor area limitation for each building, shall be satisfactorily addressed. d) 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 buildings including the added residential units; 2) revised details of the frontage improvements and alley extension if deemed necessary by the Planning and Public Works Departments and Transportation Commission; 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. e) That the applicant shall submit an 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 to serve the units proposed here and a three-phase electric service necessary for the proposed elevator. All services shall be undergrounded and shall be provided from the alley where possible, and additional transformers and cabinets (if necessary) shall be located in those areas least visible to the public, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. f) That the requirements of Ashland Fire & Rescue shall be adequately addressed, including that adequate fire apparatus access and firefighter access pathways, approved addressing, fire flow, fire hydrant clearance, fie department connection (FDC), fire extinguishers, and key box(es) shall be provided, and that any gates, fences or other obstructions to fie access shall be clearly shown on the plans for review and approval by Ashland Fire and Rescue. g) 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. h) That a plan identifying construction staging areas shall be provided Planning Action 2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 13 of 14 I { for review and approval by the Building, Planning and Fire Departments. i) That bicycle parking shall be shown in the building permit submittals. Inverted ii-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. If bicycle parking is provided in garages or within the building, hanging racks shall not be used and final interior dimensions shall be detailed in the building permit submittals to insure adequate space. 9) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) The applicants shall provide a copy of the proposed deed restriction making clear that the ground floor commercial spaces are intended for commercial use, but may be used for residential use, for the review and approval ofthe StaffAdvisor. These deed restrictions shall be recorded, and copies ofthe recorded copies provided, prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. b) That all required landscaping, irrigation and hardscape sun-face improvements including the proposed central open space area, shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. C) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks, street trees along the full frontage of Tax Lots #700 and #800, and mitigation trees in the adjacent right-of-way shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. Street trees and mitigation street trees shall be selected from the Recommended Street Tree List and planted according to applicable standards. d) 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. Planning Action #2016-01896 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; Ayala Properties/KDA Homes Page 14 of 14 CI'T'Y F Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.orms TTY:1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-01896 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC/KOA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 15,456 square foot three-story, mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 of the Meadowbrook Park II Planned Unit Development (Tax Lot #800) located at 601-631 Fair Oaks Avenue within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area. The application also includes a request for Modification of the approved Site Design Review (PA #2016-00617) for a three-story, mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent Lot #70 (Tax Lot #700), located at 651-691 Fair Oaks Avenue, in order to modify the building's exterior design. No changes are proposed to the previously-approved 11 density or parking allocations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 04AD TAX LOTS: 700 & 800 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: f 7-7 f I. 1 a PA #2016-01896 ~ . 1 601-631 FAR OAKS AVE PA #2016-01D96 FAIR O m. - ! PA #201 FAIR OAKS AV SUBJECT PROPERTY - E SUBJECTPROPERTY n' j Lot #71 Lot #70 Il (fax Lot #800) (Ttx Lot #700) FAIR OAKS AV i Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this 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. Wcomm-dev\planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01896.dotx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS t 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. SECTION 18.3.5.030 Site Plan & Architectural Review Procedure C. Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1. The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2. The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. MINOR MODIFICATIONS 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. I` GAcomm-dev\planning\Ptanning Actions\Noticing Fotder\Mailed Notices & Signs\2016\PA-2016-01896.dotx iiui c i ~ yd 21011 Awl !iJi :I xan5 CI I? 1- I J 'A [p ID 0.10 600 flub 1; 01 Sao - ADD ADD t ! Tool I r L' ~ I J_I ry + I a d ~ ~ Sim 6300 i0L 0 4+01 Ad N 1C 1J 1200 1 ~~~~~1t! SUM Lip; I! I ...I aOU D 682 AJ i' E V "j. L NI UMO O D aii l-LI 91'' I n 1i; 1i J ; i 111 ~ f_i C.1 fl ail F 11~~J b IL L11! f I ~'1;'i I CI24 dl f z AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING E! C' 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, 2016 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 #2016-01896, 601-691 Fair Oaks Avenue. Signature of Employee Document1810/2612016 I PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1300 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 204 ~ -2016-01896 391 E04AD 800 ALI SHAHID ASHLAND ASSISTED LIVING LLC AYALA PROPERTIES LLC 50 LOWE RD 1701 S SUTRO TERR 132 W MAIN ST 202 j ASHLAND, OR 97520 CARSON CITY, NV 89706 MEDFORD, OR 97501 i PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44010 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44017 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44024 AYALA PROPERTIES LLC AYALA PROPERTIES LLC AYALA PROPERTIES LLC 132 W MAIN ST 202 132 W MAIN ST 202 132 W MAIN ST 202 MEDFORD, OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1000 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1100 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 2200 BARNDT PAMELA J TRUSTEE ET AL BELEN CAIXA TRUST ET AL BISHOP RONALD DE VERE TRUSTEE ET 583 PLUM RIDGE CT 19451 BELLETERRE DR AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 REDDING, CA 96003 975 CAMELOT DR :ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 77005 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44015 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44002 BOND CAROLYN E BRANDT FAMILY TRUST ET AL BURTON BOBBY L SEP IRA ET AL 220 FOURTH ST 5 634 FAIR OAKS CT 2305-C ASHLAND ST 504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 2100 PA-2016-01896 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1800 COLONDRES FERNANDO L ET AL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORWIN NATHANIEL 969 CAMELOT DR CONSULTANTS 955 CAMELOT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PO BOX 1724 ;ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 208 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 77003 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 400 CRANE NORMAN T TRUSTEE ET AL CUMMING MARY K DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE ET AL 855 STONY POINT ! 930 N MOUNTAIN AVE 725 ROYAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 206 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44008 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 5800 DURAND SARAH MOTT TRUSTEE FISHBURN WENDY TRUSTEE ET AL GAGNEJA ARVINDER PAL SINGH ET AL 863 STONY POINT 335 STONERIDGE AVE 562 FAIR OAKS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44006 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44011 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1200 GOODMAN BARBARA N REV TRUST ET HAHN LAURA K/SCOTT T HANSEN MICHAEL S ET AL AL 1104 I ST 1,563 PLUM RIDGE CT 6248 HIGHLAND AVE EUREKA, CA 95501 ,ASHLAND, OR 97520 RICHMOND, CA 94805 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44012 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44001 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44003 HEAP KATHLEEN HOUSE RICHARD M TRUSTEE ET AL HOUSE RICHARD M TRUSTEE ET AL 951 CAMELOT DR 622 FAIR OAKS CT 622 FAIR OAKS CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 900 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44007 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 2300 HUMPHREY GINGER M JENSEN LESLIE W JOHNS LIVING TRUST ET AL 593 PLUM RIDGE CT 628 FAIR OAKS CT 979 CAMELOT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 c: PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 77001 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44029 l-N-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44013 JOHNSON BRYCE TRUSTEE ET AL JONES DAVID SCOTT MD PC401 K PSP JONES DAVID SCOTT MD TRUSTEE ET 910 N MOUNTAIN AVE FBO KATH AL ASHLAND, OR 97520 595 N MAIN ST 2 2000 TAMARACK PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44019 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44025 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44028 JULIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM JULIAN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM JULIAN SQUARE HOLDINGS LLC OWNERS ASSOCIA OWNERS ASSOCIA 2498 HERITAGE WAY 2498 HERITAGE WAY 2498 HERITAGE WAY MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97504 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 77002 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 5900 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 2000 KATZ BLANCHE TRUSTEE ET AL KDA HOMES LLC KURTH FAMILY LIVING TRUST ET AL F 920 N MOUNTAIN AVE 604 FAIR OAKS CT 965 CAMELOT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 i PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 6100 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1500 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 300 LASH STEPHANIE LISSBERGER SCOTT TRUSTEE ET AL MARR THOMAS W 925 PLUM RIDGE DR PO BOX 7 955 N MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44005 ! PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 207 PA-2016-01896 MAY RICHARD L JR MULARZ THEODORE L TRUST ET AL OREGON ARCHITECTURE 1206 LINDA AVE 859 STONY POINT 1221 W. 10TH STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 77004 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44014 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 500 PEDERSEN KARIN E PETERS MARGARET A RINEFORT JUSTIN DISHANNON M 905 SKYLARK PL 646 FAIR OAKS CT i42 JENSEN ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 1900 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44016 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 5700 SAGE JEAN SIEGEL PAUL W TRUSTEE ET AL SPAUN JOHN M 6615 SHEPHERD WAY 1733 HOFFMAN ST 552 FAIR OAKS AVE WEED, CA 96094 WOODLAND, CA 95776 (ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 5600 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44026 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44004 SPOONER RAYMOND M/PAMELA TETZ DENNIS ET AL WAY ANTHONY E TRUSTEE ET AL 780 VIVIAN DR PO BOX 819 624 FAIR OAKS CT LIVERMORE, CA 94550 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ;ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2016-01896 391 E04AD 44009 601-691 Fair Oaks WOLFSHEIMER SUSANNE 10/26/2016 NOC PO BOX 3077 56 RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 's "M SQUARE SITE VIE PERMIT SITE VIEW PERMIT MODIFICATION MIXED-USE LOTS #70 #71 (BUlLDfNGDESIGN DRILY) SUBMITTED TO CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND FOR KDA HOMES 604 FAIR OAKS COURT ASHLAND, OR 97520 OCTOBER 4TH, 2016 A I ~Pabe I. PROJEC'T' INFORMATION: PROJECT NAME: "Meadowbrook Square - Lots #70 & 71 APPLICANT: ARCHITECT Ayala Properties, LLC Oregon Architecture 604 Fair Oaks Court 221 W. 10th Street Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97501 LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER: KDA Homes, LLC Construction Engineering Consultants 604 Fair Oaks Court P.O. Box 1724 Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 PROJECT ZONING: As illustrated in the inserted Zoning Map (below), the property is zoned North Mountain (NM) with a Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C). The subject property is regulated by Chapter 18.30.30 of the Ashland Municipal Code as well as Section VII of the Site Design & Use Standards, the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. North Mountain Zoning Ma x SicNJ[rtC~aF Ay A _ r z Subj ect i i ® Properties v J (mixed-use) Julian Square - not a part) t U`J1 ]TOW-, III i Mountain Meadows f`. Retirement Community (not a part) Legend row NM-C , - NM-G Bear Creek " 0 NM-MF Floodplain NM-R 15 _ NM-R 17.5 0 0:125 0.25 Miles ` - Fy 2 ~Page PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a Site Review Permit for a proposed three-story mixed-use building to be located on Lot #71 (Tax Lot 800 - see insert below) within the Meadowbrook II Planned Unit Development. The applicants are also requesting a Modification of a Site Review Permit (Planning Action #2016-00617) for the "approved" three-story mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent property to the east (Tax Lot 700) in order to modify the building's exterior design. No changes are proposed to the previously approved density or parking allocations. North Mountain Central Overlay Area - Meadowbrook Square o r New i Proposed E~isti~lg Common Budding Design "Octagon" Parking Design 111odi X111-0-11 - uildinL ,'TL 1500 Tax Lot 800 Tax Lot 700 P t' P ~ Under Constl'1( 00], Building Central 5~~. ~Oll~, Site Green Tax Lot 5900 Julian Square E°e- hh (»ot a part of subdivision) PROJECT HISTORY: In August of 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Type II land use action in accordance with AMC 18.108.050 (Planning Action #2013-00806) approving a total of 40 residential units for the subject lots (tax lots 700, 800, 1500 and 5900) and allocated parking. The Planning Commission's decision also included approval of a Site Review Permit for the construction of a new three-story mixed-use building on Tax Lot 700. The approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm trees located along the north property line. In December of 2014, a Type I land use action for an 18-month extension was administratively approved. The primary reason for the extension related to the applicant's re-evaluation of the commercial core's development where it was eventually concluded the planned mixed-use building on Tax Lot 5900, now under construction, should be constructed first due to its smaller size in order to evaluate the temperature of the real estate market for mixed-use housing in the North Mountain Neighborhood. In July of 2016, the Planning Commission approved an application (PA 2016-00617) to modi 1'y Planning Action 2013-01506, specifically as it relates to the proposed building on Tax Lot 700, to adjust a 16f line, add an exterior elevator and modify the building's exterior fagade. 3 Page s CU NNT PROPOSAL: 1) New Building - Site Review Permit ('l'ax Lot 9800): The applicants propose to construct a new 15,456 sq. ft, mixed-use condominium building on Tax Lot #800 attached to the proposed condominium building on the adjacent lot to the east, Tax Lot 700. The two buildings are designed to complement each other and share common elements such as an elevator, sidewalks, association rules, etc. As such, the subject building is designed with multiple architectural facades in an attempt to replicate a traditional main street appearance, creating interest in the streetscape and to comply with the City's design standards. The building's design is intended to be urban in character, mass and scale with the intent to enclose the subdivision's central green, similar to the Downtown Plaza. The proposed building's southern elevation has two distinct building facades (west and east), one that is primarily board and batten and the other stucco. The internal floor plan mimics the building's exterior elevations with two "teniporar y" residential units on the ground floor and five residential units on the second and third floors for a total of 12 units. The building's west fayade is designed to anchor the street's corner with a canted entrance covered by a small marquee. The canted corner is replicated on the second and third floors mimicking the angle and orientation of the existing octagon building as well as the new mixed-use building across the street (Tax Lot 1500 and 5900). The building's east fagade include vertical pilasters distinguishing the two facades. The facades are also distinguished by changes in roof line as well as its base material. Other notable distinctions include change of body material and window coverings. Parking & Density Allocation Table (approved PA-2013-01506) _ ::ham . . ~i.=`:Y~ - - - r\ t - AYE ii~~ FL~ RT 5900 4 2 (Subject Property) 700 JApproved #2013-1506) 14 10 4 1500 (octagon Buffding) 10 0 . X0(1 - 10 • ~ 2 (Future Site Review) -40 - - - - - - - - T- ilk E: As previously approved with PA 2013-01506 and intended within the North Mountain Neighborhood Master Plan, the ground floor units are permitted to be residential units until market conditions favor commercial use. In this regard, the two ground floor units will be engineered and constructed to accommodate commercial conversion in the future without future owners having to endure a.considerable expense. To this end, the applicants have designed the ground floor units to have hi.ghe ceiling licights, be ADA accessible and have included two landscape plans illustrating a residential and commercial version with the intent to illustrate what the landscaping and sidewalk treatment would look lilac before 4~ ?<<ge and after the conversion. The primary difference is a narrow strip of landscaping along the Fair Oaks Drive frontage to create a "small" amount of defensible space between the sidewalk and the windows. When converted, the landscaping would be removed creating a more urban storefront atmosphere. The two temporary ground floor units average 1,109 sq. ft. and the ten upper floor units average 994 sq. ft. The ground floor includes a 3,300 sq. ft. eight parking space garage which includes storage, stairwell and elevator access. Vehicle access will be via the rear alley. Parking is also available on Plum Ridge Court, a private parcel owned in combination by the owners of the four commercial tax lots (#700, #800, #1500 and #5900). Plum Ridge Court appears as a public street, but was set aside to accommodate additional parking for the project's planned density and to "one-day" allow temporary events such as a farmer's market or craft fair. Overall, the proposed building and intended uses are consistent with the adopted North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, North Mountain Neighborhood District Zoning Regulations and the adopted subdivision plan (Planning Action 2013-01506) where the Planning Commission specifically approved the residential density, parking allocation and vehicular circulation for not only this lot, but also the subdivision's other three commercial lots (Tax Lots #700, 1500 and 5900). 2) Approved Building - Site Review Permit Modification (Tax Lot #700): The applicants are also requesting a Modification of a Site Review Permit (Planning Action #2016-00617) for the "approved" three-story mixed-use building to be constructed on the adjacent property to the east (Tax Lot 700) in order to modify the building's exterior design. It should be understood the applicants' original intention during the 2013 planning application was to construct the two subject buildings at different times. However, after various discussions with the project's Architects and for a multitude of reasons, it was decided the two buildings should be constructed at one time in order to address various logistical issues such as ADA access, elevator efficiency and construction management concerns. In general, the purpose of the modification is to ensure the building's design coincides with the proposed building on Tax Lot 800 and to incorporate certain design elements planned for the building currently under construction on Tax Lot 5900 (wood shingle siding within the bays, stone veneer base, etc.) with the intent to create a cohesive design flow throughout the neighborhood. As such, the primary modification is the removal of the "turret-like" structure located on the southeast corner of the building. The project's design team, in consultation with a couple of the neighbors, agreed the turret-like structure was too contrived and didn't fit within the context of the neighborhood. The new design eliminates the turret and instead replaces it with a standard projecting bay wrapping the building's southeast corner. The wrapping bay would be consistent with the southwest side of the building creating a complimentary "book-end" appearance. Other than some minor adjustments to balcony railing treatment, no other discernible changes are proposed. Once constructed, the two buildings discussed herein will be connected by a central elevator, recessed roughly 50' from the buildings' front fagade with limited visual impact to the buildings or streetscape. The walkway leading to the elevator creates separation between the two buildings providing an opportunity for additional natural light into the residential units and ground floor commercial spaces. The front fagade of the elevator is intended to be primarily glass for interior natural light and exterior aesthetic value, particularly in the evenings. Conclusion: The applicants contend the proposed buildings will continue to "form" fhe"edges of the central green space creating an "enclosed" neighborhood center as envisioned in the North Mountain ~5~1P0ge Neighborhood Master Plan. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan is a neo-traditional neighborhood designed to accommodate a range of housing types, encourage modal equity through design and to be cognizant about maximizing density without compromising livability. To this point, the applicants' vision is to continue to: 1) produce entry level housing designed to accommodate single couples or single parents with residential units averaging less than 1,000 square feet consistent with the goals noted in the City's 2002 and 2013 Housing Needs Analysis, 2) provide attractive and human-scale streetscapes where residents can walk around the neighborhood and know their neighbors, and 3) build at densities that not only meet the zone's minimum 75% to 110% base density standard, but to accomplish these tasks where the neighborhood remains attractive and livable. Overall, the applicants are excited to be participating in the formation of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The applicants work and/or live within the neighborhood and have been intricately involved with the initial planning and construction since conception in the mid 1990's. The applicants equally hope the Planning Commission and Planning Staff are equally excited to see the community's vision realized. 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 as well as the Site Review Criteria listed in the AMC, Section 18.5.2.050, Supplemental Approval Criteria as listed in the AMC, Section 18.3.5.030 C. and the Minor Modifications Criteria as listed in the AMC, Section 18.5.6.040. 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. Section 18.5.2.050 Site Review Permit - Approval Criteria 18.5.2.050 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 applicant's knowledge, all of the applicable provisions of the property's NM-C zone (Chapter 18.3.5), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, zoning density, building height, maximum floor areas (no unit exceeds 3,500 sq. ft.), 80% lot coverage, building orientation, architecture and all other applicable standards are being complied with. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part48.3). The proposal complies with all applicable overlay zone requirements, specifically the NM-C, '(Chapter 18.3.5) zone. 6~Pa `c 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. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, no exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards are necessary. 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 I be provided to the subject property. All key facilities are available to service the proposed project. All utilities to service the building were installed at the time of the subdivision and no major modifications are expected, other than some additional water taps to accommodate common area landscaping. The applicants have met with all of the utility departments to verify if there were any capacity issues. The results of the meeting 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 knowledge, no exceptions are proposed with this application. Section 18.3.5.030 C. Supplemental Approval Criteria (North Mountain Neighborhood District): 1. That a statement has been provided indicating how the proposed application conforms with the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. The narrative included herein is intended to provide the evidence necessary to express how the proposal conforms to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. Overall, the applicant ind design team believe the criterion and design standards have been incorporated into the application or could be easily incorporated by condition. Note: Within the pre-application narrative, there is some question as to the building's awilil g~ mid if thy) provided a "continuous covered walk" along Fair Oaks Court as required within the North Mountain 7~Page Neighborhood Design Standards (AMC 18.3.5.100 B.3). The applicants contend this standard is to provide shelter over walkways and gathering areas, similar to those found in the downtown area where awnings and marquees are prominently found over the sidewalk. These components provide relief from inclement weather while pedestrian's window shop and peruse between storefronts. Traditionally, these coverings sit between bays and above windows without crossing over vertical architectural elements and obscuring other forms of the building's storefront rhythm. The applicants contend a true continuous horizontal covering without breaks, if literally interpreted, would be inappropriate and compromise the building's architecture and would not meet the vision of the North Mountain Design Standards. To this point, the design shows a continuous group of distinct awnings along the building's storefront that provide shelter to pedestrians in a traditional storefront mamler while at the same time respecting the building's vertical architectural elements by including small breaks between. 2. That the proposed application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. To the applicant's knowledge all specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards (AMC 18.3.5.100 B) will be complied with. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions or variances. Section 18.3.5.040 A. General Regulations (North Mountain Neighborhood District): A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. Land uses, streets, alleys, and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in accordance with those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance 2800. The proposed building on Tax Lot 800, as well as the proposed modified building on Tax Lot #700, conforms with the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan as they relate to land use, street design, alley connectivity, lot coverage, and pedestrian and bicycle access ways. Further, the proposals comply with the zone's utility requirements, alley access requirements, minimum density standards and off-street parking requirements. Section 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria: C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parldng lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parldng lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. Although well intended, the applicant's believe the building's original design, and subsequent designs, with a "turret-like" structure on the building's southeast corner was too contrived and didn't necessarily relate to the area's context. The applicants have heard this concern by neighbors, one of which is a well known local Architect, and have decided to remove this feature and replace it with a standard projecting bay wrapping the building's southeast corner. The wrapping bay would be consistent with the southwest side of the building creating a complimentary "book-end" appearance. 8 Page 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. As noted, it is the applicants' opinion the request is not a Major Modification nor is modifying the use or operations of the approved mixed-use building. However, the applicants are aware the Staff Advisor may determine otherwise and would include additional findings if deemed necessary to ensure the applicable criteria have been fully responded to. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. The applicants are aware the approval authority will approve, deny, or approve with conditions. The applicants' contend all previous conditions of Planning Action 2013-01506 remain pertinent and address all standards, policies and codes of the City. I 9 ~Page V, ,U C) z . • • . . . . 1 N~ FO . . • • 32 O v0' ~m•N U ~~N ~O O O ZQ °E <I 68"551 b Q ' U_ ~ N / LLJ .t. o 0 0 ~ . o ---------------j m N ° a aU- lu C) o m l lj3 I b Q uLL N ¢2:' oe v~y J I U ~U U~~ / d° s J 2j tn3m o~ - C w m i - 0 co 0a / I,---- N U / 0 i N ` m aanowa°d ae of ann ubadO~a ° f• b mUN ~s ° W 4 •t' AWN N ~ ~ O jo CL cn~ to 'Utw ° / Q o ~L ONfI Z-'5 w 1 C) I ~ ..O'.6 ~ U w _ ~ W U w N 4 o O CD ~ O ~ N O to - LY- 1 I U • 5"5 - - - - U. D Cl- i r --------------------i Y I 1 I ' - I II II II I ~ I II II I I .O I i6 0 6 - w _ F- z a K .ors L Icy I w Z ~ o z ti o n o ~ mm c~ m ~a - D I T ~ J h lSi Q r-' a. to F 0 4 mz q a~ - J 9 i Q - ij v I 5 I N I I w I o ® NO ~ 4 N n I N g10 ~ Q 1 ' / O L_ N , i 4 ' 4~~` I-'-l C - - i o' w a 9-9NIUI~N9 ,o-se \1 S~ ` I~I v I n ~ ~ .J I I v O I _ i I$ o I yy d 2~ v 5 ® u N I N~ I rt e I , Ci ..:4 w l_ u ~ 0 3 - r. p my i O O HI - N o °O Nc _r - ~ .o-~ls o .OI-.b2 j .0-iLb -j-~ I rJ yu O m 3~~ p O 3 u ivti I• ® to m O A N a 00 O 4 - N O W O€ a b l toE O r u~ /1 0 Qm z- ti _ o e-~nlavne ~ .o-,Le Y_ b o ~ - OE N v a y~ ~roU0 3~ -a Su <s 5~ r d ~ A m s N ~ ro D - in F d5 b € .5 ~ 4 , I , u G I• ~ - I c ~ w I _ I _ ; w~ ~ ~ NJ I ® _ V N __J ~u`i ` I 6 b s / \ ® EO 3 NC f d ~ d o O k $ 4 ~I G .oI-mz / ~ 9 v € v m rom 0 k 3 I w~ v op d - -v m too ~oo -o Qmo= N~ c]O s~0 ~ ~ 'gym I I o e 00 FFF ~ N N w O ~sy n 6 1 t O o ° 00 m ~ o m r-i NN w o oao'sc 00 ~ K x ~ 0 F~-1 ,.III --n a J m ~ ~ 6~ W U h e-~nlmina .o-~~a _ F,_a!iI I o 0 0 i w m O O O m m m ® C u p p rt) Q + + + Oro z O a~z O~ 0 IT On L Z Q - O O 00 GIII L Il it IN II " I, 1 I l~l ! ~ L_ ..III' Q O ' L II!~il~ 081 i~ /{1 o EI .o~, w ~ 3 ll • l i ~rl~ll~ u a z z z Il ~ 1 ~II~F N L N N 3 w . ~ I I I. dill ,III O ~III~I I I I I TI! 'll it LIi w O ~lf: FL IBM i ~ I LLIR - - - Q II u m m O - u ~N N pcD ! . 04 z oQ ' j N F O O O G I U ❑ \-I i ~I III r w G.or1 ! I E 'I it I ~ ai ~ ' I I I I i Lzi v - z IN ~ O N .F ~ I 'III w _ O { f P. III IU li T. , - 1 ~ 1,~'I'r'^ U11ii;I T Il.l J ~ ® I oU ell I OF tr N z I _ Ifl Yll .o-:o I O .9-:91 Q i o Ad. a H - u gad i°° o i - W Y/ \Y/ CL ~.Y~ ~°PJun X rn~ F7 Eb oa. 8. oExo jo $ 0 2-, z ~ z ~ Xg a as ms8 8 4a NwN ~ 4g w-""- n O a UN~ U -~`S J'EEm aF'~b w"E$Z._'v"~=' Em 6.1s ooo ~o~o;~B= a o C7 W in23'1;g ZC9 Q. Eggac rn1'g'.5 c.zog Q Q n.8'La`oT~ ~5.=sic Edm~~ o 4' ~ V N m c ~n m m W W O U N Z W LQ O N mmm u'x o a _ i ~ E c Hal A E ~ , U m( i2Mal n A pCp ~qq ~°q' $QbS~~ ~~o v 3 ddo $~~u7Ytl d~a m W-1 N z €E~ ui-' ' sg p 42 - d ~ All o$a ~ v c w~+4`o `o ~O E~~' uo -Eli i ~i~ - EcEE~ 'svoo ~`s Eav°~v Sgt :g m$ p ymd b bm ans, B's -11 W g'8iv~°m 2 E1 83. Si~2!.I~~ Cr ~8i 'a 8'i~ a E•,yPg ~gmm~~x ~EC''„S3` W W W o a m> rn'--E'':S' E t s ~'Bi W e ov` o m-'~ a c~~~Bi oH~w °c7 C7 ~~ow E~4 C-P O NwN rn vB~S~gz $8~vHw: Q - 9g°agTo~~Ba E.- b - ~3 Ls cjm e m mn m m Z C9 WW O U N w ~p x \ o x N~ o~c~~~~ ~ rn o E c E E x v m o. m'v .1 E mB w ° cv v zv om c`=N go 3 O v'c m a v _ u v c ~ c ° Nt -~WC C E~mBtw E s'I r, SQ) L4 V -I x 1 II = ~I 17 I i u 1 j:~ 15 _17 - E 1'. 14" JI~ V - Ir ,i , I III 4 _ UL .i _ z r . 11 ~ 1 T TI 71 M7 - - - 4 1 4 +I nom= l e 1 ~ ~ ca mn Y 'y'et-• t - _ . _~t ~ i iT ~ ~....i.,.~„y ;;iii _.:r. ,r r V = I _ t ~ L ,r 4 i - =,pR a. . p - ........ems - i -71 ter- + : -77 . _ - • - -.,ate _ 1 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 97520 o 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 FILE # -ASHLAND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ~ r, 1T", r") DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEED® Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Street Address 601- i 1 Io_ & 16~ v a,'1 f' Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E QA- Tax Lot(s) '7'o o Zoning K) - C Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT AUAC Name ~1v1 k,i . ~ C 1 Phone E-Mail ` Address 6( n VIi-f City Zip 60 7 C & O PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Name ) Phone E-Mail Address C 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 l 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 structures or improvements are ro er y loca ld~ n the ground. Failure in this regard will result most lik in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be remove y expense, If 1 have ny doubts, l am advised seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature WCALkI-i-144 Li-Gate As owner of the property involve li s re , 1 have read a d understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. liacf Luc, l 0 " 7 Property Owner's Signatur (required) ys~ t Vt-l, to [To be completed by CityStafl] Date Received Zoning Permit Type //9 M Filing Fee $ OVER d/ G:komm-dev\planniug\Fot a Ihndouts\Zoning Permit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS C ❑ APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. ❑ FINDINGS OF FACT - Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document. ❑ 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11"x17". Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional -1 additional large set of plans, 2'x3', to use in meetings) ❑ FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ❑ LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) - Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps; ® Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and ® The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: ® Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. ® Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. ® All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. ® The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St). ® A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. ® If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. i. G:\w -dev\planningTo=s&Hendouts\Zoning P-it Applicabon.doc i i Job Address: 601 FAIR OAKS AVE Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: KDA HOMES LLC 0 Phone: P Customer 08481 N State Lie No: P MEADOWBROOK BUILDERS LLC T City Lie No: L Applicant: 604 FAIR OAKS CT R Address: ASHLAND OR 97520 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 944-1921 T Address: N Applied: 10/07/2016 0 T Issued: Expires: 04/05/2017 Phone: State Lie No: Maplot: 391 E04ac400 City Lie No: DESCRIPTION: Modification and Site Review VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Other Type 2 planning review 1,022.00 Commercial Site Review (type2) 13,141.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 C j 7' Y ® F i I hereby certify the contents of this application to be correct to the best of my knowledge, and furthermore, that I have read, Fee Summary Paid Amounts understood and agreed to the following: Building: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1. This permit shall remain valid only in accordance with code State Surcharge: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 or regulation provisions relating to time lapse and revocation Development Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 (180 days). " 2. Work shall not proceed past approved inspection stage. All Systems Development Charges: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 required inspections shall be called for 24 hours in advance. Utility Connection Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 3. Any modifications in plans or work shall be reported in advance to the department. Public Works Fees: $ 0.00 $ 0.00 4. Responsibility for complying with all applicable federal, state, Planning Fees: $ 14,163.00 $ 14,163.00 or local laws, ordinances, or regulations rests solely with the applicant. Sub-Total: $ 14,163.00 Fees Paid: $ 14,163.00 Applicant Date Total Amount Due: $ 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or,us Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080 CITY OF I-PIA , 6 "91 LAN