Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutClearCr_196-200_PA-T2-2020-00023CITY OF ,SHLAND February 11, 2021 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: PA-T2-2020-00023 Subject Property: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLCBryan & Stephanie DeBoer Description: The Planning Commission will re -open the public bearing to consider proposed modifications to a request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square - foot, two-story mixed -use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,5 84 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes a request for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots. The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with section 18,5.1,060.1 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us ILL SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 1. Appeal. of Type II Decision. The City Council may call up a Type H decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.7. 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 parry, 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 18.5.1.060.11.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the following. i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 LIMA www.ashland.or.us requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting parry's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error. ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting parry 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. Appeal Hearin; Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type 11 decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Commission. a. Oral 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: 541A88-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 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. Effective Date and. Ap_ eals to State Land Use Board ofAppeals. City Council decisions on Type H applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type Il applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: M1488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.asb1aud.or.us IFAWI BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 9, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00023, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN 10,956 SQUARE FOOT, ) TWO-STORY, MIXED -USE BUILDING FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 196 AND 200 ) CLEAR CREEK DRIVE. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD CONSIST OF 1,268 ) SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, 7,788 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE SPACE } AND A SINGLE 1,584 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THE APPLICATION } ALSO REQUESTS A PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE CON- SOLIDATION OF THE TWO LOTS. (REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE AND MAJOR ) FINDINGS, MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL [PA 42000-0961 ) CONCLUSIONS, TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY FROM CLEAR CREEK DRIVE WHERE "VEHICULAR } & ORDERS ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STANDARDS" IN AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 AND THE ) SUBDIVISION APPROVAL BOTH PROHIBIT DRIVEWAY ACCESS BECAUSE ) ALLEY ACCESS IS AVAILABLE WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT ) DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.) ) APPLICANT/OWNERS: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC/ ) Bryan & Stephanie DeBoer ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lots 46604 and 96605 of Map 391E 09AB are the vacant Lots #5 and 46 of the `New Addition' subdivision on Clear Creek Drive, and are zoned Employment (E-1) and are within both the Residential, Detail Site Review and Wildfire Lands overlay zones. 2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 10, 956 square -foot, two-story mixed -use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 7,788 square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes a request for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots. Additional requests for a Major Modification of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA-2000-096) and for a Variance to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive where the "Vehicular Access and Circulation Standards" in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 and the original subdivision approval both prohibit driveway access from Clear Creek Drive because alley access is available were withdrawn by the applicant during the public hearing process. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: R. 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, PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 1 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.E 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. 4) The approval criteria for a Property Line Adjustment are detailed in AMC 18.5.3.1203 as follows: 1. Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2. Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlayzone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. if a lot does not conform to the lot's standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). 3. Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. 5) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 420-16 "Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak." The Governor's Order required that public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 2 to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can consider in a timely manner. The subsequently adopted House Bill 44212 further authorized governing bodies in Oregon to conduct all public meetings using telephone or video conferencing technology or through other electronic or virtual means. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on December 8, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16 and subsequent House Bill #4212, this meeting was broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and was live -streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at http://www.rytv.sou.edu. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing. Those wishing to provide written testimony were able to submit it via e-mail in advance of the hearing, as detailed the mailed and posted notices, and all written testimony received by the established deadlines was made available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and was included in the meeting minutes. In addition, those wishing to participate during the hearing could arrange to provide oral testimony by making arrangements to do so in advance of the meeting. Following the closing of the initial public hearing and the record, the Planning Commission considered the materials received and testimony presented and denied the project, noting that a requested Major Modification of the original subdivision approval and an associated Variance to allow a new driveway from Clear Creek Drive were not merited and that the applicant had indicated during the hearing process that the project could not be redesigned without a new driveway access. Subsequent to this decision, but before the written findings formalizing the denial were adopted, the applicant submitted a revised proposal modifying their application by removing the request for the new driveway, eliminating the Major Modification and Variance, granting an extension of time, and asking that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing to review the application as modified. The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, reopened the electronic public hearing on January 12, 2021 at which time written testimony submitted in advance of the hearing was considered and new oral testimony was presented. Following the closing of the public hearing and the record, the Planning Commission considered the materials received and testimony presented and approved the project, subject to a number of 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. PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 3 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. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the application materials, staff report, public testimony and exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the amended proposal for Site Design Review and Property Line Adjustment meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050 and for a Property Line Adjustment described in AMC 18.5.3.120.B. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring 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 Planning Corm-nission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying E-1 zoning will be satisfied. The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). " The Planning Commission finds that the property is within the Detail Site Review, Residential and Wildfire Lands overlay zones. The Detail Site Review overlay requires that the application address the Detail Site Review Standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. Where proposed buildings are greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area — as is the case here -- or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage, the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects in AMC 18.4.2.040.D must also be addressed. Compliance with these standards is discussed with regard to part 18.4 below, under the next criterion. Within the Residential (R) overlay zone, the requirements of AMC 18.3.13.010.0 come into play where residential units are proposed, and require: 1) For mixed -use developments, if there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. At least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor shall be designated for permitted uses and uses permitted with special use standards, not including PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 4 residential uses; 2) Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit; and 3) Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the E-1 District. The Planning Commission finds that: 1) 316 square feet of the 9,372 square foot ground floor is dedicated to the foyer and stairway for the residential unit, with the remainder of the ground floor dedicated to permitted or special permitted uses in the zone other than residential. This equates to only approximately 3.3 percent of the ground floor (316 square feet/9,372 square feet = 0.0337), with the remaining 96.7 percent to be dedicated to permitted or special permitted uses within the E-1 zone; 2) At the allowed residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre, the property has an allowed residential density of 7.997 dwelling units (0.533 acres x 15 dwelling units/acre � 7.997 dwelling units), and the single residential unit proposed does not exceed the allowed density; and 3) The proposal is being considered in light of the same setback, landscaping and design standards as any E-1 project. The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands overlay zone, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3,10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed will need to comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the `Prohibited Flammable Plant List' per Resolution #2018-028. The applicant asserts that the proposed landscape plan complies with the applicable Wildfire Lands requirements, and does not use plants from the prohibited plant list. A condition has been included below to require a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan and plant list be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit or to bringing any combustibles onto the site. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied. The third criterion addresses the Site Development and Design Standards, requiring that "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. " The application discusses the Basic Site Development and Design Standards for Non -Residential Development, noting that the proposed building's primary orientation is towards Clear Creek Drive, with parking placed behind the building and with no automobile parking or circulation between the building and the street. The building's facade is 104-feet of the 141-foot wide frontage, and the building fagade occupies a large majority - nearly 74 percent - of the lot frontage. The building entrances are located within. 20-feet of the street right-of-way. The entrances are clearly visible, and an eight -foot door with transom window, lighting, pedestrian covering, and material changes is provided to emphasize the entrance. Along the west side of the property, there is a five-foot pedestrian easement, and a corresponding five- foot easement is in place on the property to the west to provide a ten -foot wide pedestrian connection from Clear Creek Drive to the alley. The applicant proposes to improve this easement with compacted gravel to provide a walking surface. PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 5 A public sidewalk and parkrow planting strip were installed with the subdivision in 2000, and city standard street trees are proposed to be installed along the frontage. A new pedestrian plaza area, with hardscape surface treatments between the sidewalk and the building, will provide pedestrian access to the street -facing business entrances directly accessible from the public sidewalk. Nearly 17 percent of the site is to be provided as a landscape area to comply with the applicable standards of the zone, and a common recycle and refuse area is provided near the rear of the property, screened from view, and accessible from the alley. All artificial lighting is noted as complying with the standards of AMC 18.4.4.050, and there are no residential zones in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The application discusses the Detail Site Review Standards, noting that the proposed structure and the pedestrian plaza area provided combine to comply with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard calling for a minimum 0.50 FAR. The proposed structure is 10,956 square feet and there is 1,215 square feet of plaza area proposed for a total of 12,171 square feet, which is more than the required 11,761 square feet needed to meet a 0.50 FAR. The building frontage is 104-feet in length, and distinctive offsets and material changes are provided in in the facade to break-up the massing and scale of the structure. All of the front facade walls are within 30-feet of the public street, and more than 20 percent of the wall area facing the street is in windows or doorways. Large windows are proposed on either side of the commercial business entrance, and there is a cantilevered overhang to protect pedestrians from the elements. More than 15 percent of the exterior walls have substantial changes in relief. There is a substantial base; changes in fagade materials with the use of vertical standing scam metal siding, split -face concrete block, horizontal, wooden plank siding, and hardboard. There are bronze -colored, aluminum storefront style windows and doors. Landscape buffers are proposed between the surface parking spaces adjacent to the alley and the west property line, and a landscape buffer of six -feet is proposed along the east side of the parking area. The parking area and the interior area of the site are proposed to be screened from the adjacent railroad property with a six -foot -tall solid panel and CMU screen wall. The property is within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, and the proposed building to be more than 10,000 square feet in area and as such is subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. The application explains that the building is oriented towards Clear Creek Drive, and that the building's mass along the street is divided into two separate masses. The structure has a human scale incorporated though the changes in setback and orientation in materials, and a sheltering roof is proposed to provide pedestrian shelter while adding a horizontal element to the front fagade. The pattern of the windows and the doors is distinct and relates to the spaces within the structure. The application materials note that the building requires 1,096 square feet of plaza space, and 1,215 square feet of plaza space are proposed between the sidewalk and building. This space will incorporate sitting areas, space for eating, a mixture of sunlight and shade areas under the marquee and near the plaza area trees, and the plaza area surface will include colored and/or scored concrete. PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 6 With regard to required off-street parking and parking management strategies, the Planning Commission finds that the project as proposed requires 12.074 off-street parking spaces, which is rounded to 13 off- street parking spaces by code. OFFICE: 1,268 square feet of office at one space per 500 square feet requires 1,2681500 = 2.536 spaces WAREHOUSE: 7,788 square feet of warehouse at one space per 1,000 square feet requires 7,788/1000 = 7.788 spaces RESDIENTIAL: A two -bedroom residential unit requires 1.75 spaces TOTAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED: 12.074 spaces The Planning Commission finds that 11 off-street parking spaces are proposed, with five spaces accessed directly from the public alley at the rear of the property. A driveway extends from the alley into the property where six additional off-street parking spaces are provided — three are within an enclosed carport, two are surface spaces adjacent to the carport, and a sixth space is provided parallel to the building under a canopy. One of the 11 spaces to be provided is shown as a required accessible parking space. The Planning Commission finds that vehicular access to the site is to be from the public alley, and the proposed internal parking and maneuvering area is to be screened with a block wall and an electric gate that fully screens the site from the public rights -of -way of the street and the alley, and from the adjacent properties to the cast. The application explains that full screening and security fencing will allow for uses in Warehouse Unit A that need additional safety measures while also allowing for adaptive re -use by a business requiring screened outdoor storage (subject to a Conditional Use Permit in E-1). The Planning Commission further finds that application proposes to utilize Parking Management Strategies as provided in AMC 18.4.3.060, requesting an On -Street Parking Credit to reduce required off-street parking by two spaces as there are four on -street parking spaces available along the frontage of the property. The combined reduction in required parking requested is approximately 15.4 percent (11 spaces provided/13 spaces required = 0.846; 1.0 — 0.846 = 0.154). The Planning Commission finds that the requested reduction is a reasonable application of the discretion provided to the Commission in the Parking Management Strategies section. The Commission further finds that bicycle parking is proposed to be dispersed around the site to provide the most convenient parking for the various uses. A standard "U-rack" is proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building, visible from Clear Creek Drive. Within the covered carport, and additional two spaces are proposed. And each warehouse unit will 'include additional spaces as proposed. The application emphasizes that all proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards, and will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential bicycle parking. Conditions requiring that adequate bicycle parking be illustrated in the building permit submittals and inspected on site before occupancy have been included below. The Planning Commission finds that parking to be provided will comply with the dimensional, surfacing and back-up space requirements, and notes that the five spaces adjacent to the alley are to be buffered PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 7 from the structure with landscape planters which will function as stormwater swales to capture and treat surface run-off. The three parking spaces within the carport are to be covered, which will reduce the micro -climatic impacts of the parking spaces. The application materials note that parking lot shade trees and landscape buffers complying with the standards for parking area design will be provided. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4. The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, "The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. " The Planning Commission notes that the application asserts that adequate city facilities exist to serve the proposed development, and that final development plans based on the current proposal will be submitted to the City of Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Planning, Building, Electric and Fire Departments for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Specific facilities are discussed as follows: • Water: The application notes that the subject properties are currently served by an eight -inch water main in adjacent Clear Creek Drive right-of-way, and that the new water services and meters proposed will be installed off of this main. • Sanitary Sewer ---- The application explains that the subject properties are currently served by an eight -inch sanitary sewer main in the adjacent Clear Creek Drive right-of-way, further explaining that the existing main ends short of the end of the current street improvements but will be extended from the existing terminus to serve the proposed development. • Electric: An existing electrical box was installed with the subdivision at the northeast corner of the property, and services will be extended to serve the project. The Electric Department has preliminarily approved the electric service plan for the project. • Urban Storm Drainage: The application explains that the subject properties are currently served by a 12-inch storm drainage sewer main in Clear Creek Drive, and that because the proposed development will create more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface, the project civil engineer has proposed a stormwater drainage facility plan which complies with the requirements of the DEQ "MS4 General Permit Phase 2" and which follows the guidance and requirements set forth in the current Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual. • Adequate Transportation: Clear Creek Drive is considered to be a Commercial Neighborhood Collector, and is ultimately intended to provide a commercial corridor connecting Oak Street to North Mountain Avenue. The improvements envisioned for a Commercial Neighborhood Collector are illustrated in AMC 18.4.6.040.G.3 and include a 28- to 36-foot paved curb -to -curb width within a 55- to 63-foot right-of-way, seven -foot landscaped parkrow, and an eight- to ten - foot sidewalk. The existing right-of-way way here is 60 feet wide with an approximate curb -to - curb width of 28 feet which will accommodate on -street parking on one side, and was improved with pavement, curbs, gutters, park rows and sidewalks to city standards at the time of the subdivision approval, however the park row planting strip here lacks street trees or street lights, PA-`1'2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 8 and a condition of approval has been included below to require that street trees be selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide, planted according to standards with irrigation, and inspected, and that street lights be installed along the frontage, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. At the rear of the property, an alley is in place. Typical alley standards envision a 12-foot paved width within a 16-foot right-of-way, however here the alley has a 16-foot paved width within a 20-foot right-of-way, and includes a central `valley gutter' for drainage. With the approval of the subdivision under PA #2000-096, there was also an easement for a 10-foot pedestrian and bike path easement south of the alley, on the railroad property. With the subdivision approval, the Planning Commission at the time found that "all necessary public facilities, utilities and services are available to serve the six tax lots. Public facilities are located within the right-of- way of Clear Creek Drive and within the public alley adjacent to the project. The Commission finds that the multi -use path adjacent to the alley is required in lieu of increasing the Clear Creek Drive right-of-way to accommodate bicycle lanes. As a result, the multi -use path is a required street improvement that must be either installed, or planned and bonded for as part of the subdivision." The application includes a preliminary grading, utility and erosion control plan prepared by Registered Professional Engineer Mark Dew of Dew Engineering. These plans identify facilities available in the adjacent rights -of -way along with proposed connections; meter placement; and storm water control, detention and treatment systems. The Planning Commission finds that the site's utilities will be extended to and through the subject property from public utility easements and street right-of-way adjacent to the site, and that based on the conceptual plans, adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights -of -way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments in conjunction with the building permit submittals, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to occupancy. With these conditions, the Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. The final criterion for Site Design Review approval addresses "Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards." The Planning Commission notes that the application materials include a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow an approximately 18-foot section of the landscape buffer along the east property line to be reduced to three feet in width where the "Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening" standards in AMC 18.4.4.030.F.2.a call for a five-foot landscaped strip to screen parking abutting a property line. The application materials indicate that in addition to the three feet of surface buffering proposed with landscaping, a six- to eight -foot solid panel fence and masonry wall is proposed to provide additional screening at the property line, while on the adjacent property there is a ten -foot wide stormwater drainage easement with an open ditch. The application materials argue that the combination of landscape screening and construction of a solid wall provides equal screening while better providing for public safety by creating a physical barrier as PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 9 protection from the drop off into the open ditch on the adjacent, undeveloped property. The application further asserts that the proposal will not have a negative impact on the livability of the adjacent employment -zoned property which does not have a Residential overlay, concluding that the exception requested is minimal as it is limited to a two -foot reduction in buffer width for only 18-feet of a 258- foot length of the driveway surface. While the Planning Commission recognizes the benefit of the proposed wall installation as a barrier preventing falls into the adjacent open ditch, the Commission also finds that the angled property line which has 143 feet of frontage along Clear Creek Drive but reduces this width to approximately 85 feet along the alley poses a demonstrable difficulty in responding to the standard, that approval of the Exception for this relatively minimal 18-foot segment of the property line will not substantially negatively impact the adjacent property, and that the combination of the reduced buffer and the proposed wall will adequately serve to reduce development impacts on adjacent uses. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfics all applicable standards specific to a Property Line Adjustment. The first criterion for a Property Line Adjustment is that, "No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. " In this instance, the proposal would consolidate the two contiguous lots being considered and would not create an additional parcel or lot. The second criteria for a Property Line Adjustment is that, "Except as allowed far nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lot's standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots andparcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). " The Planning Commission finds that with the requested adjustment, the property will conform to the applicable lot standards of the E-1 zoning district as discussed elsewhere in this document. The final criterion for a Property Line Adjustment is that, "All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. " The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable Vehicle Area Design requirements. Based on the foregoing, The Planning Commission concludes that, as detailed above, the proposal is consistent with the applicable standards and criteria for a Property Line Adjustment. 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 to construct an 10,956 square foot, two-story mixed -use FA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 10 building and for a Property Line Adjustment to allow the consolidation of two lots is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The building proposed will be an attractive addition to the Clear Creek Drive streetscape, and Commission concerns identified during the initial public hearing with the requested Variance/Major Modification to allow a new driveway off of Clear Creek Drive and the requested reductions in off- street parking have been well addressed in the amended proposal now being considered, which no longer includes a new driveway and which limits the reduction in required parking to only two off-street parking credits. As amended, the Commission concludes that the proposal merits approval with the conditions detailed below. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00023. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 42020-00023 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to that there shall be no driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive. 2. That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 4. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way. 5. That the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from into the interior of the building 6. That the front entrances adjacent to Clear Creek Drive shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 7. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.4.7. 8. That the building permit submittal shall include: a. Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(I-Ieight — 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. C. Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints; driveways, parking, and circulation areas; and any other areas other than natural landscaping. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 85 percent as required in AMC 18.2.6.030. PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 11 d. Final electric service, utility and civil engineering plans including grading, erosion control and drainage. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to final inspection/occupancy approval. e. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer mains and services, manholes and clean -outs, and storm drainage pipes and catch basins, along with any backflow prevention measures required by the Water Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. f. The final electric design and distribution plan shall include load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. g. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On -site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. The storm drainage plan shall detail the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, and shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post -development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre -development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. h. Final site lighting details. i. A final size- and species -specific landscaping plan including irrigation details satisfying the Water Conserving Landscaping Guideline in AMC 18.4.4.030.1. New landscaping shall comply with the General Fuel Modification Area requirements and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List adapted by Resolution #2018-028. All landscaping shall be installed according to the approved plan, and tied into the existing irrigation system, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. j. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access; a firefighter access pathway; fire flow; hydrant installation, spacing and clearance; applicable fire sprinklers and alarm monitoring; fire department connection; key box; extinguishers; limitations on obstructions to fire access; and wildfire hazard area requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed in the permit submittals. k. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.1 OO.A.2 shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new Iandscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the `Prohibited Flammable Plant List' adopted with Resolution #2018-028. PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 12 1. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking, spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.I. Inverted U-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in IS .4.3.070.1 and J, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. If bicycle parking is to be provided within the proposed buildings, final interior dimensions of the dedicated bicycle parking areas shall be detailed on the building permit plans to insure adequate space has been provided. A bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a minimum of six feet long by three feet wide by four feet high, shall be accessible without moving another bicycle, and shall be clearly marked as reserved for bicycle parking only. 9. That prior to the final inspection approval or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a. That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed in the Clear Creek Drive frontage, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. b. That all landscaping in the new landscaped areas, and the irrigation system, shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. C. Civil improvements including but not limited to utility installations shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. Public improvements including but not limited to street trees and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved. d. Any damage to the alley or sidewalk from utility installation or construction vehicles shall be repaired under permit from the Public Works Department, inspected and approved. e. That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. f. That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. g. That the required 22-foot clear back-up area shall be provided behind parking spaces along the alley, as illustrated on the applicant's Sheet AS1.0 dated December 15, 2020. The required back-up area may include the full, improved width of the alley. ' February 9, 2021 Hayw od Norton, Chair Date Planning Commission Approval PA-T2-2020-00023 February 9, 2021 Page 13 STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1., 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520,, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 2/11/21 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-T2-2020-00023, 196/200 Clear Creek Drive. LA k Signature of Employee L)ommenA M012021 PA-T2-2020-00023 PA-T2-2020-00023 MARK DEW TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 815 BENNETT 33 N CENTRAL, #210 MEDFORD, OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 33 N CENTRAL, #213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 196-200 Clear Creek Dr NOD 2111/21 5 >� g CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 12, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m, Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Alan Harper Haywood Norton Kerry KenCairn Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Lisa Verner Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Senior Planner April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Council Liaison: Stef Seffinger, absent lL ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Deveiopment Director Bill Molnar issued the following announcements: • The January Study Session has been canceled and instead the commission will have a joint meeting with the Housing & Human Services Commission to discuss the Housing Capacity Analysis. The virtual meeting will be held on January 28 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m, • Pro Tern City Manager Adam Hanks has updated the City Council on KDA's presentation to the Planning Commission regarding potential opportunities for housing on commercial and employment zone lands. The City Council expressed interest on this topic and staff is working to determine potential next steps. • City staff is looking at a local building codes amendment that would require new residential construction to incorporate fire resistant materials. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. December 8, 2020 Regular Meeting. 2. December 22, 2020 Study Session. The minutes of December 8, 2020 and December 22, 2020 were approved as presented, IV. PUBLIC FORUM — None V. TYPE li PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020.00023 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive OWNERIAPPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLCIBryan & Stephanie DeBoer DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re -open the public hearing to consider proposed modifications to a request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square -foot, two-story mixed -use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes a request for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots. Since the initial public hearing in December, requests for a Variance and Major Modification of the New Addition Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2021 Page 1 of 4 subdivision approval (PA-2000.096) to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creels Drive have been removed from the proposal. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment, ZONING., E-1; MAP: 391 E 09AB; TAX LOT #: 6604 & 6605, Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. Commissioners Harper/Pearce mts to reopen the public hearing. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and stated at the commission's December 8, 2020 meeting the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a Major Modification and Variance and determined it was not merited due to the existing alley access for the property. The applicants have since modified their proposal to remove the Variance/Major Modification components and are requesting the commission revisit their decision in light of the proposed changes, Mr, Severson reviewed the modifications to the proposal, which include: • Removal of the driveway curb cut on Clear Creek Dr., eliminating the need for the Major Modification and Variance. • Three additional off-street parking spaces have been provided on -site, with access to all parking taken from the alley. • The use of parking management strategies to reduce required off-street parking has been adjusted, and now requests an approximate 8.89 percentage reduction using two on -street credits along Clear Creek Dr. • The screening wall along the Clear Creek Dr. frontage has been extended to enclose the parking area. • The building length has been reduced by 4 ft., and the steepness of the ramp at the rear of the building has been reduced. • The building area has been reduced from 11,220 sq.ft. to 10,956 sq.ft. • The overhead garage door on the east side of the structure has been shifted to the north approx. 6 ft, • The pedestrian entrance to the Warehouse B space has been moved to the east side of the garage door, eliminating a section of walkway. • The trash and recycling enclose has been relocated slightly to accommodate a hinged gate rather than a sliding gate. Ms. Severson stated staff is supportive of approving the application with the proposed modifications. Questions of Staff None Applicant's Presentation Amy Gunter, Rogue Development Services/Explained they have developed a plan that works with the elimination of the vehicle access off Clear Creek Drive and reviewed the proposed changes. Ms. Gunter stated they have some concerns regarding deliveries for the end users of this development and noted this is something that will need to get worked out. She also commented that the approval condition regarding the alley improvement, which states that "Any damage to the alley or sidewalk from utility installation or construction vehicles shall be repaired under permit from the Public Works Department, inspected and approved" is overly broad given the existing conditions of the alley. She stated they have reached out to the Public Works department regarding this concern, Ms. Gunter stated the concerns expressed by the commission at the last hearing have been addressed in the amended proposal and stated the end result will be a very nice addition to the employment zone, Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Carlos Delgado, Carlos Delgado Arch itectslCommented that the rearrangement of the landscaping and parking area complies with the parking lot standards, even though this area may not be deemed a parking lot since it is only 6 spaces. He stated they have a phased plan if future intensity of the parking area is needed. Questions of the Applicant The applicant was asked to clarify the location for the exception for the reduction in buffer. Ms. Gunter clarified this is the parking space along the east property line. There is a tree at the corner where the area narrows and then widens back out. The applicant was asked about the existing condition of the alley and who will be responsible for improvements. Ms. Gunter stated the alley as well as the sidewalk are in poor condition. She stated the alley is a public right-of-way and is the city's responsibility; however, it was installed 20 years ago and has not been well maintained. Mr. Delgado noted along with this site there are two adjacent properties also developing and the alley's condition will worsen. He noted that in the past the Public Works department has approved deferring maintenance until the construction work is completed and is hoping that will be the case here as well. Ms. Gunter stated they do not have any specific language to suggest for the alley condition and are comfortable working this out with the Public Works Department. Comment was made that there is a language in the draft findings that states "full screening and security fencing will allow for uses in Warehouse Unit A that need additional safety measures while also allowing for adaptive re -use by a business requiring screened outdoor storage (subject to a Conditional use Permit in E-1" and it questioned what will be going into this space that might require additional safety measures. Ms. Gunter explained this was included to provide as much flexibility as possible for the future tenants and to avoid the need to have to go through another approval process. Public Testimony - None Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record at 7:45 p.m. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Thompson stated she is supportive of the revised proposal but requested clarification from staff on the parking credit percentages. Mr. Severson stated staff used the 12.07 figure to calculate the reduction before rounding up; however, this method could be modified to round up first. Commissioners Thompson and Pearce voiced support for rounding up first (to 13) to determine the percentage listed in the Findings. Commissioners ThompsonlDawkins mis for PA-T2.2020-00023 to be approved with the conditions as set forth in the staff report, subject to modification of the condition relating to the alley improvements to clarify that the applicant will consult with the Public Works Department and be responsible for any damage caused by the applicant. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper commended the applicant for modifying their proposal and coming back to the Planning Commission, but stated this could have been avoided if this detail was worked out at the staff level before bringing it before the group. Commissioner Peace requested clarification regarding the alley improvement condition and whether the motion modifies what is listed in the Findings. Commissioner Thompson stated she is supportive of modifying her motion to remove reference to this condition if they feel it is clear that this condition only applies to damage created by the applicant. The commission voiced agreement with this statement. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins mis to approve this change to the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, KenCairn, Harper, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Pearce commented that the standards regarding parking strategies are unclear and recommended this be revisited at a later date. Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2021 Page 3 of 4 VI. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m, Submitted by, April Lucas, Development Services Coordinator Ashland Planning Commission January 12, 2021 Page 4 of 4 • Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square - foot, two-story mixed -use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would consist of 1,258 square feet of office space, 8,052 square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. • Property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots. • Variance/Major Modification of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA- 2000-096) to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive where the "Vehicular Access and Circulation Standards" in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 and the subdivision approval both prohibit driveway access from Clear Creek Drive because alley access is available. • Following the close of the initial public hearing on December 8th, the Commission voted to deny the application on the basis that a Major Modification and Variance were not merited and the applicant indicated that the project could not be redesigned without access from Clear Creek Drive. Findings for that decision have not yet been adopted. • The applicant has subsequently modified the application proposal to remove the Major Modification and Variance components, has provided a 60-day extension, and is requesting that the Commission revisit their decision in light of the proposed modifications. ■ The driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive has been removed, eliminating the need for the Major Modification and Variance components of the original request. • Three additional off-street parking spaces have been provided on -site, with access to all parking to be from the alley. The use of parking management strategies to reduce required off-street parking has been adjusted, and now requests an approximate 8.89 percent reduction using just two on -street parking credits along the Clear Creek Drive frontage. ■ The screening wall along the Clear Creek Drive frontage has been extended to enclose the parking area. • The building length has been reduced by four feet, and the steepness of the ramp at the rear of the building has been reduced by reducing the overall length of the building. • The building area has been reduced from 11,220 square feet to 10,956 square feet. ■ The overhead garage door on the East side of the structure has been shifted to the north by approximately six feet. ■ The pedestrian entrance door to the "Warehouse B" space, on the south elevation, has been moved to the cast side of the garage door, eliminating a section of walkway. ■ The trash and recycling enclosure at the rear of the property has been relocated slightly to accommodate a hinged gate rather than a sliding gate. +N a_ K' S i d + E i j I ■`pvL m F T )n-streete iWIT AV AN k� g3 R���' E- 1 j f 1 JS I } !f W F,' FI 57ii I ' J "w SHEET; . AM CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH AREA REQUIREMENTS >14A7H Ei EVRTION-Cl [AR CRK FA�nRG OUTH EELEVATION - ALLEY FACADE ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE On January 12, 2€121, the Ashland.Planning Commission will re -open an electronic pub- lic hearing to consider proposed rnodaFcations to a request for Site Design Review ap- provat to allow the construciion.of an. 1'1,22G square -foot, Iwo -story mixed -use building for the properties at IPC and 20.D Clsar.Creek Drive_ The proposed building would con- sist of 1,268 square feet of office space, S.G52 square feet of warehouse. space, and a single 1,584 square Foot residential unit on the second floor_ The applicationalso in- cludes a request for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots. Since the initial public hearing in December, requests for a Variance and Major Modi*sca- tion of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA-20nIP nH) to allow a driveway to bs installed From Clear Creek Drive have been removed from, the proposal. The electronic public hearingWil€ be held at 7:Dfl p.m.. on January 12, 2021. The meet- ing will be televised on local channel g or channels 180 and 181 for Charter C ommuanic- agons customers or will also be available five stream by going to mv_soua_edu and se- lecting.RVTV Prime. Written testimony will be accepted via. email to PC-pubtic-testjmenyQashland.or.us with the subieet line '01112 Planning Commission Meeting Testimony" by 111JM a_rn_ on Monday, January 11, 2fl21 _ Written restimGny received by the deadline will be auailabte to the Planning Commission before the meeting and will be. included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will: be taken during the electronic meeting for public For= and the pub- lic hearing. If you wish to provide final testimony during the electronic meeting. send an email to PC-public-tes4imcinyaashland.or.us by 19:00 a-m_ on Tuesday, January 12, 2021 _ In order to provide testimony at the public gearing, please provide the iollowing in- formation: 11 make the subject line of the email '01112 Speaker Request, 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item you want to speak on, 4) specify if you wjH be participat- ing by.computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer ar the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone_ By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities AoL if you need speciat assistance to participate in this meeting, please. candact the City Administrator's oat-ce at (541) 4an- 60132 (TTY phone number 1-nfl0-735-293ID]_ 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-a5_1114 ADA Title 1)'. January 2, 2fl21 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T Y 0 F 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 wwwashland.orms TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: RA-42-2020-00023 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive APPLICANVOWNER: Rogue Ptaniiijig & Developinent Services, LLC/Bryaii & Stephanie Deboer DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re -open the public hearing to consider proposed modifications to a request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square -foot, two-story mixed -use building for the propcilies at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposedbuilding would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 square feet of warehouse space, and a. single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes a request for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots. Since the initial public hearing in Deceniber, requests far a Variance and Major Modification of'lhe Nevi, Addition subdivision approval (PA-2000-09a) to alloii) a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive have been reinovedfton,i the proposal, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; MAP: 39 IE 09AB; TAX LOT 9: 6604 & 6605. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: '7:00 RK on January TZI 20,21 1 C.%UsersSlticasn1AplaDat�ML(i",TVvticiesotl\WiiidowstINeiCache1Coiitent OLIt100k\2ZTHNOV61ClearCrack-196-200—PA-T2-2020 00023—RENOTJCF ducx Notice is hereby given that the: Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action onthe meeting date and time shown above. You can watch dhemeetngmnloca]channe/91.onCheder Communications channels 18O& 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou,edu and selecting 'RVTV Prime.' The ordinance criteria opp,licabletothis planning action are attached tothis notice. Oregon law states that faHuretoraise an objection concerning this applicadon, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an, opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LU8/l) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right ofappeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other iissuea ma|aiimg to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commiission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will beaccepted bv email. Alternative arrangernents for reviewing the application or submitting comments, can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305or , Aoopy of the application, including all documents, evidence and appUicab|e criteria relied upon by the appNcant, and a copy of the staff report will he available on-line at seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials wiU[ be provided at reasonable cost, if requested, Under extenuating o|rnumstances, app|ioafian materials may be requested to be reviewed in -person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51V@nburnWay, via a p,re-arnongedappointment bycalling (541)48D-5305oremaOinQ Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC_public-tqaqgjqpy���� with the subject line "January 12th PC Hearing 'Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, January 11, 20121. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-Dub�ic-testiynoiny,25aa�sihian�iid.or,�u:s wfth the subject line "January 12th PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a,m. on Tuesday, January 12, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. (}na| temtimnmym/iM be taken during the electronic pubQc hearing, ifyou wish to provide ons| testimony during the electronic meetingi, send an ema,il to PC-pub�ic-testimonv(Ei)asli��and.or.,Lhs by M00 a.m. on Tuesday, January 12�,2021.|n order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1)make thesubjectline ofthe email "January 12mSpeaker Request", 2) include your name, �) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) spedfy if You will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if parficipating by computer or the teUaphonenumber you will use ifparticipating bytelephone, 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 at541-488'GOO2(TTYphone number 1-8UO-735-29,OO). Notification 72hours pr�orto the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements, to ensure accessibility bothe meeting. (28CFR35,102.- 35.1O4AQATitle Q. If You have questions or comments uomoerm|mQ this reqmest, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson at SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 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, donsity and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. E3. 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 18A.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. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site, 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. Maier Modification Approval Criteria._ A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Major 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 across, circulation, etc. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. CaUsersVucasalApp➢atalLocalVvticrosotRWindowskTNetCachelCentent.Outlookl2ZIHNPV61CIearCreek_196-200 PA-T2-2020-00023_RENOTICE.docx AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 12/30/20 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-T2-2020-00023, 196 & 200 Clear Creek Dr. �" Signature of Employee Documentl 12l309020 �C PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09AB6605 DEBOER BRYAN BRUCEISTEPHANIE 85 WINBURN WAY ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09BA60003 CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC 3365 KUAUA PL KIHEI, HI 96753 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09AB6602 FOWLER GERARD STEPHEN TRUSTEE 309 KENT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09BA60000 CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC 575 TUCKER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09BAl4601 GRANGE CO-OP SUPPLY ASN INC PO BOX 3637 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09BA60001 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09AB6500 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09BA60002 iHEARTWISE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT HOXMEIER STEVEIKATHY ISLAND IMPORTER INC GURU SANGEET 625 N MOUNTAIN AVE 435 B ST KHALSA ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 184 CLEAR CREEK DR #2 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E09AB6700 PA-T2-2020-00023 391 E04DC3401 UNION PACIFIC RR CO PROPERTY TAX PA-T2-2020-00023 TONEY FAMILY CREDIT SHELTER T DEPARTMENT CARLOS DELGADO ARCHITECT 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD 1400 DOUGLAS ST #1640 : 217 FOURTH ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 OMAHA, NE 68179 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 ;ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 33 N CENTRAL, #213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 MARK DEW 815 BENNETT MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 33 N CENTRAL, #210 MEDFORD, OR 97501 196-200 Clear Creek Dr 12/30/20 NOC #2 15 ml- m f COLMtV Of JaC7SOII, OR� SUI-eSU 0 f IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-TT,-2020-00023 A request for Site Design Review approval to allowthe construction ) REQUEST FOR AN of an 11,220 square -foot, two-story mixed -use building for the ) EXTENSION OF THE TIME properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed ) LIMIT ORS 227,178(1) building would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 ) square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot ) residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes ) requests for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation ) of the two lots and a Variance/Major Modification of the New ) Addition subdivision approval (PA-2000-096) to allow a driveway ) to be installed from Clear Creek Drive where the "Vehicular Access ) and Circulation Standards" in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 and the ) subdivision approval both prohibit driveway access from Clear ) Creek Drive because alley access is available. ) 3 APPLICANTS: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for Bryan and Stephanie Deboer Applicants request a 60 day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1) ,rQ ,i December 17, 2020 Applicant Date *ft ROGUE PLANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, L11] 1%W Site Design Review Property Line Consolidation December 22, 2020 Request for reconsideration for Site Design Review Approval for new mixed -use commercial building to eliminate variance request Subject Property Address: Map & Tax Lot: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning: Overlays: Property Owner: Architect: 196 — 200 Clear Creek Drive 39 1E 09 AB; 6604, 6605 Employment E-1 Detail Site Review Zone Residential Overlay Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer 85 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Carlos Delgado Architects 217 Fourth Street Ashland, OR 97520 Land Use Planner: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 33 N Central Avenue #213 Medford, OR 97501 Engineer: Mark Dew 815 Bennett Medford, OR 97501 Landscape Design: Terrain Landscape Architect 33 N Central Avenue #210 Medford, OR 97501 Page 1 of 17 Request; Request seeks reconsideration of the proposal PA-T2-2020-00023 for Site Design Review for an 11,220 square foot, two-story, mixed -use commercial building. The original proposal included a request to modify a condition of approval from the October 2000, New Addition Subdivision approval and sought a variance to allow for a driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive. This modified application removes the requested subdivision modification and the variance request. Summary list of modifications: The building was reduced in length by four feet. The building area was reduced from 11,220 to 10,956 square feet. Removed driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive eliminating variance and subdivision modification. The screening wall along the frontage is extended to enclose the parking area. Additional surface parking provided on -site accessed only from the alley. Requested parking management strategy to allow for on -street parking of two spaces. The overhead garage door on the East side of the structure shifted North about six feet. The pedestrian entrance door on Warehouse B moved to the east side of the garage door eliminating a walkway. The steepness of the ramp at the rear of the building is reduced some by reducing the overall length of the building. The trash/recycle area at the rear of the property was relocated slightly to accommodate a hinged gate vs. a sliding gate. Details of Modified Proposal: The request is for Site Design Review for a 10,956 square foot, two story, mixed -use, commercial building. The 10,956 square foot building is proposed to have 1,268 square feet of ground floor office space. The office suite has two separate office spaces and a shared conference room. Each office suite has a prominent public entrance facing Clear Creek Drive. A portion of the ground floor, 316 square feet is dedicated to the entry area of the second -floor residential unit. To the east of the ground floor office and residential portion, the facade of the building continues with a three -sided and covered carport structure that is integrated into the horizontal plane of the building along the public street. The roof of the carport provides private outdoor space for the residential unit above. To the rear of the office space is a 4,748 square feet warehouse space. This warehouse space, Warehouse A, is proposed to be accessed from the secure parking area with a large roll -up garage door and an entry door. A second, 3,040 square foot warehouse space, Warehouse B, is to the rear of the larger warehouse. This space is accessed via the rear of the building, with an entry door and a roll up garage door. The uses are shell space for warehouse tenant and office tenant. Warehouse uses and office are both permitted uses in the zone. Page 2of17 The second floor is proposed to be 1,584 square feet. The residence is accessed via the front of the property from the public sidewalk, or from the secure parking area. The 316 square foot entry area has a small foyer and % bath, stairway up to the two -bedroom, two -bath unit above. Residential uses in the Employment zone with the Residential Overlay are special permitted use in the zone. The structure as a mixed -use will have fire occupancy separations and sprinklers and necessary to allow for the adaptive reuse of the ground floor spaces and provides safety protections for the residential unit as well. The structure is setback the minimum distance to provide clearance for the 10-foot public utility easement and to provide of the pedestrian plaza area between the structure and the front property line. To comply with the minimum floor area ratio of .50 FAR; 656 square feet of pedestrian plaza area is required. The development is subject to detail site review overlay standards and requires one square foot of plaza space for every ten square feet of gross floor area. The 10,956 square foot structure requires 1,095.6 square feet of the plaza area. At the front of the building between the structure and the public right-of-way, 1,215 square feet of pedestrian plaza areas provided. The plaza area includes features for sitting space, areas with sunlight and shade, weather protection, and functional use. The two-story building is proposed as a barrel roofed structure. Strong orientation to the public street with accessible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the ground floor commercial tenant office space is shown. The structure is required to be elevated above the street per the conditions of approval from the subdivision, a short run of stairs connects the pedestrian plaza areas to the entrance to the offices. The proposed conceptual landscape plan complies with Wildfire Standards for plant materials, irrigation measures limited placement of mulch, etc. Additionally, the proposal includes Firewise landscaping along the east side of the structure where within five feet of the structure. There are shade trees within the pedestrian plaza area, and irrigated street trees will be planted within the landscape park row. Maximum lot coverage: Up to 85 percent of the site is allowed to be covered with impervious surfaces, this includes all impervious surfaces including driveway, parking area, paths, and other solid surfaces. The proposal has 19,611square feet of surface coverage. This is 84.45 percent lot coverage. There is 1555 percent landscape coverage which exceeds the minimum landscape coverage allowed. Page 3of17 Parking: There are 13 parking spaces required for the proposed development. The 1,268 square foot office area requires 2.5 parking spaces (1268/500=2.5). The warehouse areas require 7.78 spaces (7,788 / 1000 = 7.78) and the residential unit requires 1.75 spaces for a total of 12.03 spaces or, 13. The proposal provides for 11 of the required 13 parking spaces on -site distributed in two parking areas. The vehicular access to the parking areas is from the alley. Adjacent to the alley, five, head -in spaces are proposed. Four are standard automobile size and one will be compact. The required 22-foot back-up dimension is provided to the south side of the alley right-of-way. Near the east property line, the access to the secure parking area and the tenant space, Warehouse A is proposed. This parking area has six standard size parking spaces, one of which is an ADA space. Three spaces are provided within carport structure. Adjacent to the carport are two surface parking spaces, these spaces are presently proposed as standard size. A sixth space is provided in the cantilevered canopy along the east wall of the structure. The proposed parking plan includes a request for on street parking credit utilizing allowed Parking Management Strategies (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). The combination of the eleven on -site parking spaces, and an on -street credit for two parking spaces, more than 50 percent of the required parking is provided on - site and a 14.5 percent reduction is sought. This reduction is substantially less than what the Planning Commission has granted on other proposals of similar size, location and uses. The proposed on -site parking areas are behind the front fa§ade of the structure, and fully screened from view from the right-of-way, and to the rear of the proposed building. The proposed internal parking area, and the property perimeter, is proposed to be screened with a block wall and an electric gate accessible from the alley, that fully screens the interior parking area. The full screening and security fencing allow for uses in Warehouse Unit A that need additional safety measures and the screening allows for the adaptive use of the warehouse space for a business in the E-1 zone and with a special permitted use or conditional use permit review, outdoor storage is allowed when fully screened from view. Along the 248-feet of driveway, vehicular maneuvering area, and parking area, the acceptable width of landscape buffering is proposed. Of this length, an 18-foot section is reduced to three feet. This space will be buffered with a six- to eight -foot -tall screening wall or fence. Adequate bicycle parking will be in various locations around the site to provide the most convenient parking far the various users. There is a U-rack proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building visible from Clear Creek Drive. Under the cover of the covered parking area, two spaces are proposed. Within each warehouse unit, additional spaces are proposed. All proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential parking area. Page 4 of 17 Residential ©welling Unit: The allowed residential density is .54 X 15 = 8.1 dwelling units. The proposed development has one unit proposed. The 316 square foot ground floor foyer and stairway for the residential unit is less than 35 percent of the 9,372 square foot ground floor area devoted to permitted or special permitted uses in the zone. Property Line Consolidation: The shared property line between Lots 5 and 6 of the New Addition Subdivision will be consolidated into one tax lot of record. The proposed site development crosses the property line nullifying it. No new lot of record is created. Jackson County Assessor and Surveyors office requires a Lot Line Consolidation form, this will be provided for through the Jackson County Assessor's office. Findings of Fact: The following information addressing the findings of fact for the applicable criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant's responses are in Calbri font. Page 5 of 17 Findings addressing Criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Site Development Design Standards 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. 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. Finding: It can be found that the proposal complies with the standards for mixed -use, commercial/residential development from 18.2. from commercial development in the Employment zone. The property is zoned Employment (E-1). The lot area and dimensions are increased through the proposed property line consolidation. There is no minimum or maximum lot dimension, or lot area in the E-1 zone. The proposed uses of the site are uses that are allowed as permitted, special permitted, and conditional uses. The majority of the property is proposed to be utilized for commercial/employment uses such as office, and warehouse/storage. These are permitted uses in the zone. The residence is a special permitted use. The proposed structure is oriented towards the public street and the covered, visually prominent, pedestrian -oriented entrances. The entrances are setback 16-feet from the front property line, the remainder of the facade is 10-feet from the street. The area between the building and the street is a public utility easement and there is a pedestrian plaza area between the sidewalk and the structure. Along the south side of the structure, there is a ten -foot public utility easement but there are no required structural setbacks. The rear setback of the building is 32'-8" to accommodate for head -in surface parking, landscape swale area, pedestrian access, vehicular access, and site circulation. The west side setback provides a five --foot, one -inch setback where the five-foot public pedestrian access easement is located. Openings along this side of the structure will comply with fire separation and fire rating standards. The proposed single residential unit is less than the allowed density of seven units in the zone. The conceptual landscape plan was designed as a Wildfire Overlay zone compliant and where landscaping is within five -feet of the structure, the landscaping is Firewise compliant. The plan calls for more than 15 percent of the site area to be landscaped. The landscape area includes a stormwater filtration system before the stormwater enters the onsite detention system that then overflows to the public system. The conceptual landscape plan includes substantially more trees that the required street trees, and two parking lot shade trees. The conceptual landscape plan demonstrates substantial Page 6 of 17 compliance with the standards. Depending upon species sizes, conditions and availability of proposed tree and shrub types the final landscape and irrigation plan will demonstrate that 15 percent of the site area is landscaped, seven percent of the total landscape area is in the parking and vehicle maneuvering area, that two (2), large stature parking lot shade trees and five (5), street trees in the parkrow will remain on the landscape plan. All sides of the structure have architectural interest. The front facade is spatially defined through the use of different materials. The primary material is a standing seam metal siding on a vertical orientation. There is split face, concrete masonry unit block, Hardie -board, and clear coated horizontal wood plank wall. The two-story portion of the proposed structure has a barrel -shaped roof, the single -story portion is a flat roof that provides a rooftop deck for the residential unit. With 28-feet, 4 Y2 inches at the apex of the roof, the building is less than the maximum building height in the E-1 zone, The proposed structure complies with solar setbacks and the right-of-way at 60-feet in width and the 16-foot setback from the subject property's north property line, solar shadow will fall within the street right-of-way. 18.2.3.130 Dwelling in Non -Residential Zone A. Dwellings in the E-1 zone are firnited to the R-overlay zone. See chapter 18.3, 13 Residential Overlay. Finding: The property is within the R-overlay. B. Dwellings in the E- I and GI zones shall meet all of the following standards: 1, Mixed -Use Developments. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential. uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. At least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor shall be designated for permitted uses and uses permitted with special use standards, not including residential uses. Finding: There is one building on the site. The gross floor area of the ground floor is 9,372 square feet. Of this, 9,056 square feet is designated for permitted uses and special permitted uses. There is 316 square feet of the ground floor that is designated for residential uses which is 3.5 percent of the, total gross floor area of the ground floor (316/9,056 = .0349). This is less than the maximum allowed of 35 percent. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1. zone, 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-I zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-1) zone. For the purpose of density calculations, Units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. Page 7 of 17 Finding There is one residential dwelling which is less than allowed densities. The allowed density of the property is seven units. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying zone. Finding: The setbacks, landscaping, and design standards that have been applied to the residence is the same as those of the underlying E-1 zone. 4, Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C- I -D zone. F i n d i 0&� The property is in the E-I zone. Residential use requires 1,75 parking spaces. There are 11 parking spaces on -site and two requested on -street credits of the B. Overlay Zones. 'Fhe proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 183), Finding: The property is subject to Basic and Detail Site Design Review. The property also has a residential overlay. The proposal complies with: the standards for the overlay zones. Findings are detailed herein. The proposed landscape plan also complies with the standards from the Wildfire Hazards Overlay requirements and does not use plants from the prohibited plant list. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal cornplies, with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. 18.4.2.0140, Non-R.esidential Development Finding: The proposed development of the Employment zoned land with a mixed -use commercial structure will have a positive impact upon the Clear Creek Drive streetscape. The building is proposed to have a minimal front setback area. The building facade occupies the majority of the fagade and there is clear, pedestrian and access from the public street to the entrance The residential foyer is connected to the commercial space allowing for a live / work scenario. Page 8 of 17 B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. Finding The proposed building's primary orientation is towards Clear Creek Drive. The proposed parking is behind the building. There is no automobile parking or circulation between the building and the street. The building's fagade is 104-feet of the 141-foot wide frontage. The building fagade occupies nearly 74 percent of the lot frontage. The fagade occupies the majority of the lot's frontage. Along the west side is a five-foot pedestrian access easement, shared with the adjacent property to the west. This space will be improved with compacted gravel walking surface for pedestrian access between the structures that is fire resistant, minimal maintenance and allows pedestrian passage but not loitering The building entrances are located within 20-feet of the street right-of-way. The entrances are clearly visible, an eight -foot doorwith transom window, lighting, pedestrian covering, and material changes all provide emphasis to the entrances. Public sidewalk and landscape park row exist along a portion of the frontage. The improvements complied with the standards for Clear Creek Drive at the time of the subdivision development. Pedestrian plaza area, with hardscape surface treatments between the sidewalk and the property provides pedestrian access to the street -facing business entrances directly accessible from the public sidewalk. 2. Streetscape. Finding: There are street trees shown on the proposed landscape plan within the park row along Clear Creek Drive. The street trees species, size, spacing and planting depths complies with 18.4.4.030.E. 3. Landscaping. Finding: The conceptual landscape plan provides landscape area accounting for 3,947 square feet, or 17 percent of landscape coverage. This complies with the minimum required landscape standard of 15 percent of the site. A common recycle and refuse area is on the site, screened from view, and accessible from the alley. Page 9 of 17 The landscape area includes a stormwater filtration system before the stormwater enters the onsite detention system that then overflows to the public system. The conceptual landscape plan includes substantially more trees that the required street trees, and two parking lot shade trees. The conceptual landscape plan demonstrates substantial compliance with the standards. Depending upon species sizes, conditions and availability of proposed tree and shrub types the final landscape and irrigation plan will demonstrate that 15 percent of the site area is landscaped, seven percent of the total landscape area is in the parking and vehicle maneuvering area, that two (2), large stature parking lot shade trees and five (5), street trees in the parkrow will remain on the landscape plan. The conceptual landscape plan was designed as a Wildfire Overlay zone compliant and where landscaping is within five feet of the structure, the landscaping is Firewise compliant. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Finding Not applicable 5. Noise and Glare. Findin All artificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050. There are no residential zones in the vicinity of the project site. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Finding: Not applicable C. Detained Site Review Standards. Finding: The subject property is within the Detailed Site Review Standards Overlay. 1. Orientation and Scale. Floor Area Ratio {FAR} of 0.50. Finding Page 10 of 17 The proposed structure and the pedestrian plaza area complies with the Floor Area Ratio of .50 (11,761 square feet). The proposed structure is 10,956 square feet and there is 1,215 square feet of pedestrian plaza area proposed for a total FAR of 12,171 square feet which is more than the required 11,761 square feet. The building frontage is 104-feet in length. There are distinctive offsets and material changes in the facade and in the building height along the facade that break up the massing and scale of the structure. All of the front facade walls are within 30-feet of the public street. Substantially more than 20 percent of the wall area facing the street is windows or doorways. The windows allow view into the working areas of the offices. There are large windows on either side of the commercial business entrance. There is a cantilevered overhang to protect pedestrians from the elements. No blank walls are proposed. 2. Streetscape. Finding Colored and scored concrete is proposed to designate people areas from the public sidewalk. The building is required to be set back more than five feet due to the public utility easement. The area is proposed to be used for pedestrian activities and outside eating areas. 3. Buffering and Screening. Finding: Landscape buffers are proposed between the surface parking spaces adjacent to the alley and the west property line. A landscape buffer of five feet is proposed along the majority of the east side of the parking area. The parking area and the interior area of the site is proposed to be screened from the adjacent railroad property with a six -foot - tall solid panel and CMU building material screen. Where the landscape buffer reduces to less than five feet for 18-feet of the 285.62 feet of property line, an exception is sought to accept the reduced landscape buffer with the six -to -eight -foot tall, solid panel or masonry wall to buffer the parking from the adjacent property. 4. Building Materials. Finding: Page 11 of 17 More than 15 percent of the exterior walls have substantial changes in relief. There is a substantial base, there are changes in facade materials with the use of vertical standing seam metal siding, split -face concrete block, horizontal, wooden plank siding, and hardboard. There are bronze colored, aluminum storefront style windows and doors. No bright or neon paint colors are proposed the majority of the building is not glass. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. Finding: The property is within the detail site review overlay and the structure is proposed to be more than 10,000 square feet in area. The building is oriented towards Clear Creek Drive. The buildings mass along the street is divided into two separate masses. The structure has a human scale incorporated though the changes in setback and orientation in materials. A sheltering roof to provide pedestrian shelter and adds a horizontal element to the front fagade. The pattern of the windows and the doors is distinct and relates to the spaces within the structure. The building does not exceed 45,000 square feet with 10,956 square feet in area. The building length is not more than 300-feet. The proposed building requires 1,095.6 square feet of pedestrian plaza space. The plaza spaces are provided along the sidewalk between the building and the street. The plaza spaces incorporate sitting space, space for eating, a mixture of sunlight and shade areas under the marquee and near the plaza area trees. The plaza area surface includes colored and or scored concrete. 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: Finding: There are 13 parking spaces required for the proposed development. The 1,268 square foot office area requires 2.5 parking spaces (1268/500=2.5). The warehouse areas require 7.78 spaces (7,788 / 1000 = 7.78) and the residential unit requires 1.75 spaces for a total of 12.03 spaces rounded to 13. The proposal provides for 11 parking spaces on -site. Five (5) of the parking spaces are accessed directly from the public alley at the rear of the property. There is a driveway from the alley leading into a fully enclosed, secure parking area. This parking area has six (6) spaces. Three of the spaces are provided within the carport structures. Two are surface and another space is provided along the east wall of the structure, parallel to the structure under a cantilevered canopy. Page 12of17 There are four on -street parking spaces along the frontage of the property. There are two on - street parking spaces credits sought with the proposal. Utilizing allowed Parking Management Strategies (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One off-street parking space credit is allowed when there is more than 22-feet of uninterrupted curb frontage contiguous to the lot, when the arterial street is greater in width than the minimum established by the section and not within 200-feet of the C- 1-D or SOU Zone. The combination of the eleven on -site parking spaces, and an on -street credit for two parking spaces provides more than 50 percent of the required parking on -site and a reduction of 14.5 percent reduction is sought. This reduction is substantially less than what the Planning Commission has granted on other proposals of similar size, location and uses. The proposed on -site parking areas are behind the front facade of the structure, and to the rear of the proposed building or screened behind the wall / fence. The proposed internal parking area and warehouse vehicle and delivery maneuvering area is proposed to be screened with a block wall and an electric gate that fully screens the site from the public rights -of -way of the street and the alley, and from the adjacent properties to the east. The security fencing allows for uses in warehouses that need additional safety measures and/or, the screening allows for the adaptive use of the warehouse space for a business in the l -1 zone and with a special permitted use or conditional use permit review where outdoor storage is allowed when fully screened from view. Adequate bicycle parking will be in various locations around the site to provide the most convenient parking for the various users. There is a U-rack proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building visible from Clear Creek Drive. Under the cover of the covered parking area, two spaces are proposed. Within each warehouse unit, additional spaces are proposed. All proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential parking area. There is an ADA, van accessible parking space proposed in the parking area adjacent to the building with an accessible route to the pedestrian entrance. Vehicular access is required from the public alley at the rear of the property. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location Page 13 of 17 Finding: All proposed parking is behind the fagade of the structure and is to the side of the structure and is access solely from the alley. B. Parking Area Design. Finding: A parking lot area is access via a driveway from the rear of the property. The parking area provides parking spaces of 9' X 18' deep and all have more than 22-feet of back up and maneuvering area. There are five head in spaces adjacent to the alley along the south property line. The parking spaces are buffered from the structure with landscape planters that will function as stormwater swales. This parking area is designed to capture and treat surface run-off through the landscape swale. These parking spaces have the necessary 22-feet of back up to the far side of the public right-of-way. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces are required to be covered in a manner which will reduces the microclimatic impacts of the parking spaces. Though not required, the proposal makes every attempt to comply with AMC 18.4.3.050.B.5. There are parking lot shade trees and parking lot landscape buffers that comply with the standards for parking area design. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. Fines The vehicular access to the site is allowed only from the public alley at the rear of the property. The alley is paved with asphalt and a concrete valley gutter. The alley has a 20-foot wide right- of-way and is paved with between 15-feet to 16.5-feet of asphalt. The surface of the alley is in poor condition with severe cracking and vegetation growth though the alley surface. The "as- builts" were unable to be located by the public works department thus, the construction techniques of the alley and the subgrade conditions are unknown. The alley being the only allowed access to the site for vehicular traffic causes concerns due to the distance from the property to the alley intersection with Clear Creek Drive and that the alley cannot be seen from the street right-of-way. Additionally, the alley surface is in a poor condition for nearly the entire length of the alley, the surface conditions concern the property owner as they cannot fix the entire length of the commercial alley to achieve minimum access for vehicles. The property owner is seeking agreement from the city of Ashland that the alley will be maintained by the city and improved to a level to with stand commercial vehicle access by the city. Page 14 of 17 The proposed development has proposed a circulation system that accommodates vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the site. There are all weather surfaced, pedestrian connections on the site that lead from the parking areas to the structure. There are pedestrian connections from the street to the structure as well. 18.4.7 Signs. Finding: The signs for the individual businesses will comply with the sign code standards for sign area based upon business frontage with the sign sizes varying based on the tenant needs. 18.4.8 Solar Access. Finding;; To the north, there is a 60-foot-wide right-of-way for Clear Creek Drive. The proposed structure complies with the solar setback as the rights -of -way are allowed to be shadowed by development. 1). City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 1. 8,4,6 Public 1"acilities, 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. Finding: Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed development. All plans will be submitted to the City of Ashland Public Works Department, Engineering Division and the City of Ashland Electric Division for review and approval. Sanitary Sewer - The property is currently served by an 8-in sanitary sewer main in Clear Creek Drive. The existing main ends short of the end of the current street improvements so the main will be extended from the existing terminus to a spot adjacent to the new development. Water - The property is currently served by an 8-in water main in Clear Creek Drive. City of Ashland Water Department will tap the existing water main and install the new water services and water meter boxes that are proposed. Storm Drainage - The property is currently served by a 12-in storm sewer main in Clear Creek Drive. Storm Water Facility Design Requirements Page 15 of 17 The development will create more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface, the proposed stormwater drainage facility plans created by the project civil engineer complies with the requirements of the DEQ MS4 General Permit phase 2. The proposal follows the guidance and requirements set forth in the current Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual. 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; Finding: Not applicable 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; or Finding: The parking space adjacent to the property line has three feet of landscape buffering where five feet typically required. In addition to the three feet of surface buffering with landscaping, a six - to -eight -foot tall, solid panel fence and masonry wall is proposed to fully screen the parking spaces. On the adjacent property that is to be screened, there is a 10-foot wide storm water easement and swale. There is no development on the adjacent property. The buffering of the parking space with landscape and a fence/wall better achieves the protection of public health and safety by creating a physical barrier between the parking space and the drop off into the storm water ditch. The screening will not have a negative impact on the livability of the adjacent employment zoned with no residential overlay. The exception seeks a reduction in buffer width for only 18-feet of a 258-foot length of parking and driveway surface. This is minimal when considering the length of the property along the shared property line. Page 16 of 17 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. (Ord. 3147 § 9, amended, 11/21/2017) Finding; Not applicable Page 17 of 17 wm'19aIf4a�Vops6lagsq�eOF�olu! �`�T' znss'zss'ts3 OZSL6 a0 PssErlsV • SaanS 4Vsad LtZ 4 'n 1�DIIH aE1V OPE-B Qa SOTS -OD I�dd 35956'OL jS9FC � e9z 35 4if'fL ds etr't iS Z2F.'6 Z O _ 5059'ON lOI %Vl 9V60716E'ON dVVi S,ii0s5]SSV � rv! .. ,,, ,,,_.___ - dZgm No(INVIHSV .T No N3]l30 21V311i coz � � c�U � �n d30&30 NVAH9 0NV 37NVHd31S O z u` Lu e(r[8 'Moo 9Sn a�IXIN M3Nco U 31Va NR11dRJ0530 � � p� �LN3}ti35V! � �sn-aogaasanasla aarNrfvd awgtld'Ca I+JV72J1532f_�i saavas aaHlwn�lNalnn lxwaa aax�ars3n c saavasosaa��3o �' �{1230N 1=d rAa3s'1'd ;]17-1Zj oF=.l .'s 0001:[ ONlXtltld o-as H323v ,C.7:.atJ1.S 1 � 3s p'!98L=f3L'HL AMe9 31a}rNaly c75 l � 777tr. ' - � t S dWa aamrwns sNla3rna ///i Il II I'; � � j + J NflO s)> .v101lvi0i :S:1NrEm—oa3INOd1 D1dl ing �AE3tlYlikn53�vVtl3A0�iD� I� Illlll lip I � � ,' \ � \I 'Ha 1lHa avarx O-Z II I1p11111 sussdl'1:av6o-arsf � \ 13 �NON*MJI53a ONINOZ ll 1 / V I j1 \ 53w3a r :N0l1d1H053o xla3doad II II III - - I II /III/1� 1 1 xN!'I N1vN0 ,9 rlll I�ll�hl IIIIIII ! l�o% r� 1 96991 N/s 63d IN3w3511.9...---- a3a43s / jl I Il llflll 1 \ \ i 11 �. 1 / / ! ° 30'135 SZG ZZ 10+/ ty J A 'a3ritewoo a5Z19'it laVlG /�f {{ sn S999 N'1'19V6P3i-bG 'nO�IZ1.— )gg g54ygt6�gogg�.!a�ig4�� �i; .. _ - - - - a4l o.7sodx3 sm s :m eo i 33rS lit ,5"9c91=dPlnS E 'LsBf= N-i1Ni „<,'f N.i� m_% 370NNH:N 1!r Oh'3 .1.37NI 9.9r70 1 I 5?I,�fNIN .7G V007 S.S 4 �CBl=-O,'JHL nNl 8 / Z 095'k = �ru' ;JL17d � 137a15 ,1 7 SOS_ �O ' 98/ 3X S133HSlWt iS a3iinq cAvv egni 313a:1No {3str9erns , 7vHasv) 3 A i d 0 A a 3 I� 2i311n3 ONN 6it]0 3132l;7N0: �j Z-09-6 aVI—P9peb[aOsalaeO�olul 5699'ON101 l 9V603V6£'OkdNW5,ti05535 YJ �j 'ZOS6'ZSS'LYS _— 6ESL6 LO P�IPsv IaalS yNnad l.iZ — .,,.,..,.._._.__ _ �% Da516 80 V3108V 4 aa>Id3aotia3��aoz A 0 3 A 1 H �'nNrV� — _ [[��/..� 2134A3¢nNnVAfi9 [tl+NVn31hIVNd�3/ASI J�1 WIN �� UPU(aQ SoT��J 31V4 ,...N911d1 �536 13�e WWVJ71 I C�J IVV l 1�[ LaSfi'L59't45 -- -- ML6 L30 pueysW . faail5 VVaad Lfi _ _ __--., .C, 103II H 0NV OPE:RpQ SOTd'OD 31Va NOE1dIH3530 -i 9099'6N10]XVi BWfiO3t6£"ON dVW S.ti055355V '" N .. �.OZSLB 80 ONInHSV vi N6 N33a3 H V31a OOL a3ae3© Wvk8t3 aNV 31NVHd3A5 ,moo o ease Asn a-3xivu .M F 0 ¢ o V � d ti Z /�il.�� ilbH 32N S1�3H5llXfL ��'}/V�S ����T • yn_ ��i ueoapail�3vWPe6taOsolie��o7N z9sszss�rs oLsts LO Poelgsa • Iza,1s gPnad 2 tz OP,00jaQ SOTTp� � ---� l� —_ 31V0 Noildli3�$dO V Z O U 9699'ON k.03 XVA 9VG9346E'ON dtlW 5.210553SSV � � 9zst6 HooNVIFtsv as M33N) 21V31D ❑az TJ]007a NVA296 aKv 31HVHd315 U ocno mwoo �isn a7 wvq MAN tr ++ a o �d U �uY �ULu Lu uzi a m � U O Vas d VH IW 8133HR 1Lx3 i 4' oa'y�a7f4vyope8�apso3eeO�a}�� .-- __.._._...............___- OZSL6 MO We14s"d • 12aryS 4V^-3 LIZ — _................ _— _ }aa iH 8 op� aQ soTxe� RItl4 NO�idlMOS3a v 0 U S093'ON J,Ol X4'1 fltl603}6£'ON d'dW 5210553SStl � � OZ916 aO C1NV3HStl �- aa x3a� znn» aoz dAO930 NWAaB ❑Ntl 31NtlHd3€S p saga ,moo Eisn aixiw mn 3N n a $�H �0000000000�0 U, y tl SJWH 3atl Si 3HS LIM woa3�a�Eya�gopae�agsope�8o��E ZZ6 99165 ozs,6 8ao pl-VIsV .1-113 qv -a r.sz .l �)ai.iu 0NV fop-B2j9Q soTjtD a1v 0 5095'ON lOI XYl Atl6o 745E'ON dtlVt S.aOSS355V � iv azs�a ao 3SV as HnMrn aW1sr�10 ooz 2i 09O Ntlaas ONtl 31NVHd3iS ZO U t. U cn �T U -ASn aAX[w MEIN Q NOiIdIN�53a `7 LL U U O z 0 c� LU U) cD z 0 J fA � / O;&;&6Nomlao2NveyoMKI2»*+@= 3:. c \ \ CD ! � - .�o#l«m,&wbJH ce � mmW W\ CITY Of ASH LAN D ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 8, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Alan Harper Haywood Norton Kerry KenCairn Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Senior Planner Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Council Liaison: Stef Seffinger, absent 11, ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained Chair Norton provided the annual commission update during the City Council meeting on December 1, 2020, The presentation went very well, and the Commission would receive a copy of the report. During the meeting the City Council passed the second reading of the Affordable Housing Standards amendments and approved first reading for the annexation on 1511 Hwy 99. The Housing Capacity Analysis Advisory Committee met December 7, 2020. Commissioners Thompson and KenCairn participated. The group will address Ashland's existing and future housing needs for the next twenty years. Mr. Molnar provided the background that resulted in forming the committee. Both Commissioners KenCaim and Thompson spoke to the thoroughness and importance of the committee. Mr. Molnar went on to explain the applicants had submitted the building permit for the final phase to the downtown project for Plaza West, South, and North. Commissioner Pearce asked if it was possible for the Commission to access the reports and planning material from the Housing Capacity Analysis Advisory Committee. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman would forward the Power Point presentation to the Commission. III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. November 10, 2020 Regular Meeting Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins mis to approve the minutes of the meeting on November 10, 2020, Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00021, Otis Street (39 1 E Map 05AD, Tax Lot #200) The Commission declared no ex parte contact on the matter. Commissioner Thompson/Pearce mis to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2020.00021. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A, PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2.2020-00023 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page I of 5 OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLCIBryan & Stephanie Deboer DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square - foot, two-story mixed -use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes requests for a property line adjustment to allowthe consolidation of the two lots and a Variance/Major Modification of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA-2000.096) to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive where the 'Vehicular Access and Circulation Standards" in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 and the subdivision approval both prohibit driveway access from Clear Creek Drive because alley access is available. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION; Employment; ZONING: E-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AB; TAX LOT #: 6604 & 6605 Chair Norton read the rules of the electronic public hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins declared no ex parte contact but knew the site. Commissioner Thompson and Pearce had no ex parte contact but had driven by the site. Commissioner KenCairn had walked the site but had no connection to the project and no ex parte contact. Commissioner Harper declared no ex parte contact and no site visit. Chair Norton had no ex parte contact but had visited the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): • Proposal • Vicinity Map • Clear Creek Frontage • New Addition Subdivision Commissioner Dawkins asked if the bike lane came up to the railroad property. Mr. Severson explained it went 10-feet into the railroad property towards the tracks. There was approximately a 70-foot distance from the property line. The alley was 20-feet wide and another 10-feet for the bike lane that went onto the railroad property. • Schematic Parking Lay -Out from Subdivision App. • Alley/Bike Path Section Drawing Commissioner Thompson wanted to know if the bike path was improved and who was responsible for improving it. The bike path was not improved. The condition of approval stated the applicant would post a deposit to complete the improvements. Once that happened, the City would assume the maintenance. • New Addition • Architect's Rendering • Front Elevation (street -facing) • Side Elevations • Rear Elevation (alley -facing) • Main Floor Plan • Upper Floor Plan • Site Plan • Grading, Utility • Preliminary Electric Plan • Planting Plan • Landscape Site Plan • Plaza Space • Variance & Subdivision Modification • Schematic Parking Lay -Out from Subdivision App. • Adopted RR Street Network Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 2 of 5 • Parking & Parking Management Strategies Staff was generally supportive of the application provided the Commission thought the variances were merited and the parking was satisfactorily addressed. Questions of Staff Commissioner KenCairn asked about the wall and gate to the alley. Mr. Severson explained the applicant was proposing having a gate on the railroad property side. Commissioner KenCairn noted the two lots were originally supposed to share parking. Mr. Severson responded the conceptual plan showed circulation between the parking areas. The only condition requirement was that the two lots shared parking. Commissioner Thompson asked if the whole parking area was paved, Mr. Severson responded it was. Commissioner Thompson confirmed that circulation would be available only to the owner, Mr. Severson replied it would and explained the driveway at Clear Creek Drive could be used as a hammerhead to pull in then back out. Commissioner KenCairn observed it would remain a dead end alley for any other development. Mr, Severson responded the applicants had explained the driveway and the handicap parking place might combine to provide somewhat of a hammerhead for circulation back out. Commissioner KenCairn commented the dead end driveway would work for the applicant but would not help the rest of the development. Mr. Severson explained the original subdivision did not include any easement to support this and did not change the situation. Additionally, the conditions did not require it to be provided. Commissioner Thompson asked if the trucks could pull in from either direction to access the loading area. Commissioner Pearce noted there were two loading areas. Commissioner Thompson added the only way to access the front was through a separate loading dock. Commissioner Pearce commented that a 20-foot alley was large and used in urban settings. He disagreed that if a delivery was happening, another vehicle would not be able to pass the truck. Mr. Severson responded the paved area would be 16.5 feet wide. Commissioner Pearce clarified it could also be 20-feet wide. The alley would be the primary access for trucks. The other was intended to support circulation without using a turnaround, Commissioner Pearce asked if vehicles parked in the alley would have to back out. Mr. Severson confirmed they would. Commissioner Pearce asked what the code allowed. Mr. Severson explained the code did allow backing to an alley. Commissioner Pearce wanted the Commission to consider the correct standards during deliberation because practical difficulties were not a variance standard. Commissioner Dawkins did not think the paved portion of the alley was anywhere close to 20-feet. The parking spaces for buildings 1 and 2 went up to the alley. There did not appear to be enough space to add width on the north side of the alley. Adding four more feet would encroach on the bike path. Mr. Severson explained the paved portion of the alley was 16.5-feet, but the right of way was 20-feet. Commissioner Pearce added the right of way was planned at 20-feet and the bike path was separate, Commissioner Harper asked if the applicant provided staff with turning radius diagrams to show it would not interfere with the handicap parking space. Mr. Severson confirmed they had not, but the Commission could ask for that. Commissioner Harper asked about the prohibition for driveways onto Clear Creek Drive. Mr. Severson explained the standard had been in place for a long time. If there was alley access, a driveway from the street was not allowed. It was also supported in the Comprehensive Land Plan, Commissioner Harper asked why it was included as a condition when it was already in the code. Mr. Severson explained it was done so a buyer purchasing property and not aware of the code clearly understood they would not be able to have a driveway. Commissioner Thompson asked why the applicants wanted the Commission to grant them modifications to the parking standards. There was enough room on the site to satisfy the entire standard. Mr. Severson thought the applicants themselves Ashland Planning Commission December S, 2020 Page 3 of 5 could respond better to the question. He thought they could have a few more parking spaces, but the backup dimension and circulation pattern did not allow enough room. Commissioner KenCairn commented having large trucks move through the site without the driveway would make it prohibitive. They did design it to themselves but in this instance, the original approval was not a good solution to the problem. Applicant's Presentation Amy Gunter]Rogue Development Services]Carlos Delgado/Carlos Delgado Architects/Ms. Gunter explained the parking reduction was not an exception or a variance. It was an allowed joint use or mixed -use credit per the code. The code allowed for onsite reduction in parking by using the joint use of facility credits and mixed -use credits to allow reduction in pavement. It would also allow for uses that did not generate traffic and reduce parking on the site. It was a discretionary decision for staff or the Planning Commission. The requested number of spaces was based on the joint use or mixed use. It was sometimes predicated on what other developments or future developments were occurring in the vicinity. They wanted the driveway curb cut because the functionality of the site was challenging due to the size, shape, and the 8%-12% slope along the frontage of the property. The building was set at the grade of the alley. The distance and curve of the alley inhibited visibility and it was not gridded, It did not work well for employment properties seeking to have .50 floor area ratio uses that increased employment numbers. The applicants were trying to accommodate the four types of uses that were potential for the site. There was 32-feet between the sidewalk and the gate, Ms. Gunter addressed the driveway coming off the street That area was not intended to be used as a parking space, It was for trucks to pull in and back into the gate. The condition spoke to a standard -length semi -truck. It would not be functional to move the gate back to accommodate a 53-foot semi -truck. The space was intended as a hammerhead and to access the site, Due to these issues with the site, this was their best effort to make itfunctional. When the subdivision was originally approved, they had not gone through the block standards. They could not dedicate an easement for the general public. The alley functioned as a dead end. The driveway would allow vehicles to turnaround and exit. The surface space of the alley would provide 22-feet of back up space. For adaptive reuse, when and if the uses intensified, there was potential to add additional parking to the site. Mr. Delgado concurred with Ms, Gunter's comments on the back up space and parking. The alley was 18-feet or less paved. Ms, Gunter thought the design enhanced the neighborhood and area. There had not been development on this section of road in fourteen years. The application gave the ability of an E-1 zoned site to develop to E-1 level intensities. The variance request was merited because the subdivision did not meet subdivision spacing standards and the gridded street system. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Pearce read from the parking management strategy for mixed uses. The parking requirement was the sum for the several uses unless it could be shown by the applicant that the peak parking demands were offset. He asked if there was anything in the applicant's submittals that showed peak parking demands were offset. Ms. Gunter responded the only joint use they were requesting was for the residential to offset the business use on the ground floor. The other ones were the on - street parking credits. The residential use was considered an evening use versus the daytime use of the office on the ground floor. Commissioner Thompson asked why additional parking spaces on the property would not work. Ms. Gunter explained the way the site was set up, additional parking spaces would be along the east side in the travel lane of the driveway. If the site intensified and modified, they would make accommodations for the tenants and add the additional parking spaces. The backup dimensions of the head in parking spaces in the covered parking area was 22-feet, almost to the door of the warehouse space. There was conflict in the different travel patterns that would happen on the site. Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Harper asked what the applicant's position would be if the Commission found no basis for the variance. There was not a compelling reason to support a variance. Ms. Gunter responded it would not be developable as an E-1 property with large vehicle deliveries due to the lack of visibility in the alley. Mr. Delgado explained the reason both properties were purchased was to make it feasible. The subdivision approval made the lot practically unworkable due to the set up. The drive through made it workable. Public Testimony -None Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record. Applicant's Rebuttal - None Deliberation and Decision Commissioner KenCairn thought the difficulty of the site was not created by the client and the variance was warranted even though she thought the parking could be better designed. Originally, the alley should have been designed to come back around to Clear Creek Drive and connect. It was not a workable site with the long alley. She did not fully agree to the visibility issue. However, the alley was too long of a stretch to not be able to get back to the street. Commissioner Dawkins agreed, There was a conflict in the code previously pointed out. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Harper. It did not qualify for a variance. The alley width was 20-feet. There was plenty of space to unload and have vehicles get past. It was currently 16.5-feet but could be built out. The difficulty with the turnaround was the applicant did not design for it. The site was basically flat and not difficult in terms of the topography. The standard for a variance was having a unique, physical circumstance of the site. The final criteria for a variance was that it was not self-imposed. An applicant could not request a variance because a previous land use approval was granted. The conflicting uses was due to the applicants putting conflicting uses on the site. There was plenty of possible access from the alley, yet they were asking for access from the front. He would not support a variance approval and did not have a strong opinion regarding the amount of parking. Commissioner Harper/Pearce mis to deny application for PA-T2.2020-00023. It did not meet the standards as outlined in the code and did not meet the criteria for a variance. DISCUSSION, Commissioner Harper reiterated Commissioner Pearce's comments. The variance statue was manmade and not the reason the Commission should grant a variance. There was no basis for undermining the condition in the original approval that would justify the major modification. He thought they wanted to do more with the site than merited, That was not a reason for a variance. Commissioner KenCairn noted the subdivision was designed incorrectly and approved. What would have to happen to fix that. Commissioner Harper thought the applicants could dedicate the alley as a public alley way. They could wait for the adjacent property to be developed. Or, they could build a smaller E-1 building on Clear Creek Drive and create the circulation that fit the design. Commissioner Thompson had the same concerns about the variance standard. She would not go as far to say the subdivision was incorrectly designed. She thought the design did not easily accommodate the use the applicant wanted to apply to the site. The variance requirements were not satisfied. Chair Norton thought one of the things driving this was that the two lots were put together, It created a much larger warehouse but did not achieve the physical hardship necessary for a variance. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Norton, Harper, Thompson, and Pearce, YES; Commissioner KenCairn and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-2. VI, ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:27 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 5 of 5 From. ca rlos(d)ca r1osdelga doarchitect. com To: Derek Severson; Planrrgg Cgmmissron - Public Testimon Subject. December 8th Speaker Request Date: Monday, December 07, 2020 6:56:04 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00023 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive COMPUTER PARTICIPATION: name: Carlos Delgado Carlos Delgado Architect 217 Fourth Street Ashland, OR 97520 54 1.552.9502 cai-losfo)Cat-losDegqadoAi-claitect.caiii ww)y. QarlosDelgado,ArcH LeCtCOM 01,11"I"(1, (I �1 202(Jill I'BY: ........... From: —Amy Gunter To: Planning Commission - PLANc Testimony Subject: December 8th PC Public Hearing Date: Monday, December 07, 2020 6:35:50 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services Re:Clear Creek Drive - PA-T2-2020-00�023 Participating via computer "Amy Gunter". Thank you, Any Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 541-951-4020 Rogueplanning.corn REC"'.'ETV'So,I), 202U, .... . .. . OF&`, Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 975201 CITY OF 1541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: P.A.-T2-2020-00023 SUBJECT PROPERT Y: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Plariiiing & Development Services, LLC/13ryan & Stephanie Deboer DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square -foot, two-story mixed -use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would Consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 square 'feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes requests :for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots and a Variance/Major Modification of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA-20�00-096) to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive where the "Vehicular Access and Circulation Standards" in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 and the subdivision approval both prohibit driveway access frorn. Clear Creek Drive because alley access is available, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; MAP: 39 IE 09A13; TAX LOT #: 6604 & 6605 Wcamw-&Oplanni n&lanning Actions\PAs by Strecf\00ear Crcck\0earCreek_ 196 200\CtearCreek ) 96,,200_PA-1 2-2020-00023Noticing\C'IearCreek_ 196-200PA-T2-2020 .0002 3_NOC,docx Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an, electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to I'VtV.SOLA.edu and selecting `RVTV Prime.' The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers 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. Because of the COVID-1 9 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements, for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or olann4i asNand.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line, at www.ashland.oi-.A/PC�ac�<�etseven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be, reviewed in -person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing p1anning(aashland.or. LIS. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-pgb Ilq- esfimon ashland.or,us with the subject line "December 8 1h PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, December, 7, 2020. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the, testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC- ublic-testimonyg, ashland.or.us with the subject line "December 8th PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 2020. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commlssioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If YOU wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-�)Lib��c-testimonv(o-)asliland.or. L,IS by I O:00 a.m. on Tuesday December 8, 2020. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "December 8t' Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. 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 Derek Severson at 541-488-5305 or derek. severson @ash land. or, us. C,,\cotniii-devVpiariiiiii_giPlanning AcfimsTAs by Strect\ClClearCreek\ClearCreek_t96_200CleaTCreek_196 200 PA-T2-2020-000231Noticiteg\(;lewCieek_196-200, PA--,r2-2020-00023,_N0C.dacx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 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. 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 There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, butgranting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant, Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Major 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, 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. Gacomm-devlplanning\I'lanning AciionsSPAs by StreeACTlear CreeklClearCreek_196_2OO1CiesrCreek_I96_200_PA-T2-2026-000231NoticinglClea€Creek_196-200_PA-T2-2020-00023_NOC.dccx AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On November 24, 2020 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-T2-2020-00023, 196-200 Clear Creek. Sig ure of Employe oocamenii 1112412020 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E04CD2000 PA-T2-2020-00023 PA-T2-2020-00023 BERNARD HERSEY PROPERTY LLC BRYAN & STEPHANIE DEBOER CARLOS DELGADO ARCHITECTS PO BOX 730 85 WIN BURN WAY 217 FOURTH STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09BA60000 CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC 575 TUCKER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09A136603 FOWLER GERARD STEPHEN TRUSTEE 309 KENT ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09A136500 HOXMEIER STEVE/KATHY 435 B ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 33 N, CENTRAL AVE # 213 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09AB6700 UNION PACIFIC RR CO 1400 DOUGLAS ST #1640 OMAHA, NE 68179 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09BA60003 CLEARCREEK PROPERTIES LLC 3365 KUAUA PL KIHEI, HI 96753 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09AB10200 GRANGE CO-OP SUPPLY ASN INC PO BOX 3637 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09BA60002 ISLAND IMPORTER INC 184 CLEAR CREEK DR #2 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 33 N CENTRAL AVE #210 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09AB6604 DEBOER BRYAN BRUCE/STEPHANIE 196 CLEAR CREEK DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E09BA60001 HEARTWISE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 625 N MOUNTAIN AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2020-00023 MARK DEW ENGINEER 815 BENNETT AVE MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 391E04DC3401 TONEY FAMILY CREDIT SHELTER T 6581 GRIFFIN CREEK RD MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA-T2-2020-00023 196-200 CLEAR CREEK NOC TYPE 2 City of Ashland Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5305 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Type II Planning Action Work Class: Type II Planning Action PA-T2-2020-00023 Apply Date: 11/5/2020 Tax ILf ,►actr 391 E09AB6604 196 Clear Creek Dr Owner: Bryan/Stephanie Deboer Owner 85 Winburn Wy Address: Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: (541) 227-9001 Site design review for MU Comm Pee Description: Commercial Site Review (Type ll) Lot Line Adjustment Variance (Type ll) Applicant: Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development Applicant 33 N Central Ave 213 Address: Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (541) 951-4020 2 variance to allow for driveway curb cut. PLA to consolidate lot. Date: Amount: $9,688.50 $0.00 $2,190.75 F $11,879,25 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FA 11Planning DiVisian 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR 9'7520 FILE # PA-T2-2020-00023 CITY OF ASHLAND 541-4$$-5 �hefjgsignhe0 ew for new Mixed Use Commercial Development Includes Variance to allow for driveway curb cut when alley DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Property Line Ad 'ustment to ronsolidaia lot DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES Kr NO Street Address 196 - 200 Clear Creek Drive Assessor's Map No. 39 1 E 09AC Tax Lot(s) 6604 & 6605 Zoning E-1 Comp Plan Designation Employment APPLICANT Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC 541-951-4020 am tannin mail.eom Name Phone E-Mai! enter. yg p 9@g Address 33 N Central Avenue. Suite 213 City Medford Zip 97501 PROPERTY OWNER Name Address Bryand and Stephanie Deboer Phone 85 Winburn Way 541-227-9001 E-Mail bryandeboerRgmail.com City Ashland zip97520 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Architect Name Carlos Delgado Architects Phone 541-552-9502 E-Mail Carlos@carlosdelgaoarchite Address 217 Fourth Street City Ashland Zip 97520 Title Engineer Name Mark Dew Phone 541-772-1399 E-Mail markdew@gmaii.com Address 815 Bennett Avenue city Medford zip 97501 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. I understand that aA 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 furthar understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnishadjustifies the granting of the request 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. ff t have any doubts, i am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. October 2, 2020 Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Bryan tDe9oer fQct 5. 202o pa;is PDT} Property Owner's Signature (required) October 5, 2020 Date Ffo be completed by Oily Staff] Date Received }� <J i Zoning Permit Type Type 2 Filing Fee $_ 10A ,15 OVER N Wcamm-&eAplannin,ffc s & Handouts\Zonuig Permit Apptication.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. REQUIREMENTS ✓ 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, Zx3', 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. DOTE: • 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 I :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 5t), • 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. GAcom &vlplarmBigToms & HmdoutsVZoning Permit Application.doc ja ROGUE PLANNING O DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 200 Clear Creek Drive Site Design Review Variance to allow Driveway Curbcut Modification of Subdivision Property Line Consolidation October 2, 2020 Site Design Review Approval for new mixed -use commercial building and a Variance to the curb cut requirements from a commercial collector street, Property Owner: Architect: Bryan and Stephanie Deboer 85 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Carlos Delgado Architects 217 Fourth Street Ashland, OR 97520 Land Use Planner: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 33 N Central Avenue #213 Medford, OR 97501 Engineer: Mark Dew 815 Bennett Medford, OR 97501 Landscape Design: Subject Property Address: Map & Tax Lot: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning: Overlays: Terrain Landscape Architect 33 N Central Avenue #210 Medford, OR 97501 196 — 200 Clear Creek Drive 39 1E 09 AB; 6604, 6605 Employment E-1 Detail Site Review Zone Residential Overlay Page 1 of 18 Request: Request for Site Design Review for an 11,220 square foot, two-story, mixed -use commercial building. The proposed structure consists of 1,268 square feet of office, a 5,012 square feet warehouse space, a 3,040 square foot warehouse, and a 1,584 square foot residence. The proposal includes a request to modify a condition of approval from the October 2000 New Addition Subdivision approval and requests a variance to allow for a driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive. The shared property line between Lots 5 and 6 will be consolidated. Property Description: The subject property is on the south side of Clear Creek Drive and consists of two tax lots, Lot 5 and Lot 6 of the New Addition Subdivision. The subdivision was approved in 2000 and platted in 2002. Lot 5 has a frontage width of 58.14 feet and Lot 6 frontage is 84.86 feet. The combined frontage of the lots is 141 feet. The lots each extend over 200 feet to the south. Each lot is .27 acres for a CLEAR CREEK DRIVE combined lot area of .54 acres or, 23,522 square feet in area. A 20-foot-wide public alley abuts the south property line. 6602 6603 6604 6606e 027 Ac 027 Ac 027 Ac 0.27Ac C S 17198 3 IN. 3 / H> � 6 6900 fl01 Ac r sraEEriwuc 6800 OBI Ac -THEE-UG --1-1.- The property is vacant of structures and there are no significant natural features on the property. The site slopes generally from the south to the northeast with an approximately 8 - 12 percent slope from south to north/northeast. There is a steep embankment along the east property line to the open storm drainage ditch along the east property line. The storm drain line is an easement through the Railroad property to the east. According to the Transportation System Plan, Clear Creek Drive is a Commercial Collector street. There is a 60-foot wide public right-of-way that terminates into a one -foot street plug at the end of the pavement which ends just past the subject lot's east property line. There is a five -foot -wide, public sidewalk with a seven -foot park row that is present along the frontage of the property. There are no street trees in the park row. A public alley with a 20-foot wide right-of-way terminates at the east property line of the subject site. There is a one -foot street plug at the terminus of the alley. The alley surface is in poor condition. The railroad tracks are south of the alley public right of way. Page 2of18 A ten -foot -wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) is present along Clear Creek Drive. There are utility boxes and cabinets for various public utilities in the PUE. A five-foot pedestrian access easement exists along the west property line of 196 Clear Creek Drive. A 10-foot public utility easement is present along the south property line adjacent to the public alley. The properties are also in the Detail Site Review overlay and the Wildfire Hazards overlay. Detailed Proposal: The request is for Site Design Review for an 11,220 square foot, two stories, mixed -use, commercial building. A modification of a condition of approval from the October 2000 Subdivision and requests a variance to allow for a driveway curb cut to serve the parcel from Clear Creek Drive. The proposed 11,220 square foot building is proposed to have 1,268 square feet, of the ground floor as office space. The office suite has two separate office spaces and a shared conference room. Each office suite has a prominent public entrance facing Clear Creek Drive. A portion of the ground floor, 316 square feet is dedicated to the entry area of the second -floor residential unit. To the east of the ground floor office and residential portion, the fagade of the building continues with a three -sided and covered carport structure that is integrated into the horizontal plane of the building along the public street. The roof of the carport provides private outdoor space for the residential unit above. To the rear of the office space is a 5,012 square feet warehouse space. This warehouse space, Warehouse A, is proposed to be accessed from the secure parking area with a large roll -up garage door and a entry door. A second, 3,040 square foot warehouse space, Warehouse B, is to the rear of the larger warehouse. This space is accessed via the rear of the building, with a entry door and a roll up garage door that face the parking area and the alley. The uses are shell space for warehouse tenant and office tenant. Warehouse uses and office are both permitted uses in the zone. Page 3 of 18 The second floor is proposed to be 1,584 square feet. The residence is accessed via the front of the property from the public sidewalk, or from the secure parking area. The 316 square foot entry area has a small foyer and h bath, stairway up to the two -bedroom, two -bath unit above. The structure as a mixed -use will have fire occupancy separations and sprinklers and necessary to allow for the adaptive reuse of the ground floor spaces and provides safety protections for the residential unit as well. The structure is setback the minimum distance to provide clearance for the 10-foot public utility easement and to provide of the pedestrian plaza area between the structure and the front property line. To comply with the minimum floor area ratio of .50 FAR; 561 square feet of pedestrian plaza area is required. The proposal within the detail site review overlay and is more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, requires one square foot of plaza space for every ten square feet of gross floor area. The 11,220 square foot structure requires 1,120 square feet of the plaza area. At the front of the building between the structure and the public right-of-way, 1,215 square feet of plaza area is provided. The plaza area includes features for seating, shade, weather protection, and functional use. The two-story building is proposed as a barrel roofed structure. Strong orientation to the public street with accessible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the ground floor commercial tenant office space is shown. The structure is required to be elevated above the street per the conditions of approval from the subdivision, a short run of stairs connects the pedestrian plaza areas to the entrance to the offices. The proposed landscape plan complies with Wildfire Standards for plant materials, irrigation measures limited placement of mulch, etc. Additionally, the proposal includes Firewise landscaping along the east side of the structure where within five -feet of the structure. There are shade trees within the pedestrian plaza area, and irrigated street trees will be planted within the landscape park row. Maximum lot coverage: Up to 85 percent of the site is allowed to be covered with impervious surfaces, this includes all impervious surfaces including driveway, parking area, paths, and other solid surfaces. The proposal has 85 percent lot coverage and 15 percent landscape coverage. Parking: There are 13 parking spaces required for the proposed development. The 1,268 square foot office area requires 2.5 parking spaces (1268/500=2.5). The warehouse areas require 8.05 spaces (8,052 / 1000 T 8.05) and the residential unit requires 1.75 spaces for a total of 12.3 spaces, rounded up to 13. Page 4 of 18 The proposal provides for eight (8) parking spaces on -site with four (4) spaces accessed directly from the public alley at the rear of the property. There is a driveway from the alley leading into a fully screened, secure parking area. This parking area also has four spaces. These spaces are provided within carport structures. A three -vehicle parking structure is proposed at the north end of the parking area and a fourth space is provided parallel to the structure under a cantilevered canopy. The residential unit requires 1.75 parking spaces. Utilizing allowed Parking Management Strategies, these spaces are proposed to be shared within the secure parking area and the proposal seeks a joint use of facilities credit. Finally, there are four on -street parking spaces along the frontage of the property. The combination of the eight parking spaces, a joint -use credit for the residential parking spaces, and the on -street credit provides more than 50 percent of the required parking on -site with the proposed eight on -site, and three of the four available on -street parking spaces as a credit. The proposed on -site parking areas are behind the front fagade of the structure, and to the rear of the proposed building. The proposal seeks a variance to allow for a driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive. There are many reasons for this request but primarily it is to provide adequate vehicular and delivery truck turnaround, access and safety expected in the Employment zone. The alley begins more than 500-feet from the subject properties, with no down block view of the alley. The alleyway is very narrow and does not support two-way vehicular traffic, especially not truck traffic. Delivery vehicle and truck traffic should be anticipated considered in the employment zone. The proposed internal parking area, and the property perimeter, would be screened with a block wall and an electric gate that fully screens the interior parking area from the public street. The full screening and security fencing allows for uses in warehouse unit A that need additional safety measures and/or, the screening allows forthe adaptive use of the warehouse space for a business in the E-1 zone and with a special permitted use or conditional use permit review, outdoor storage is allowed when fully screened from view. Adequate bicycle parking will be in various locations around the site to provide the most convenient parking for the various users. There is a U-rack proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building visible from Clear Creek Drive. Under the cover of the covered parking area, two spaces are proposed. Within each warehouse unit, additional spaces are proposed. All proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential parking area. Page 5 of 18 Residential Dwelling Unit: The allowed residential density is .54 X 15 = 8.1 dwelling units. The proposed development has one unit proposed. The 316 square foot ground floor foyer and stairway for the residential unit is less than 35 percent of the 9,636 square foot ground floor area devoted to permitted or special permitted uses in the zone. The parking area for the residential unit is proposed to be shared with the commercial parking areas required as a joint -use credit. The uses of the residence and the ground floor uses are offset in their hours of use between business hours of operation and `typical' residential hours of use. Additionally, the residence is connected to the ground floor office via an interior doorway allowing for a live -work situation where the tenant is also part of the business thus requiring one parking space. Property Line Consolidation: The shared property line between Lots 5 and 6 of the New Addition Subdivision will be consolidated into one tax lot of record. The proposed site development crosses the property line nullifying it. No new lot of record is created. Jackson County Assessor and Surveyors office requires a Lot Line Consolidation form, this will be provided for through the Jackson County Assessor's office. Findings of Fact: The following information addressing the findings of fact for the applicable criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Arial font and the applicant's responses are in Times New Roman font. Page 6of18 Findings addressing Criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Site Development Design Standards 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. 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. It can be found that the proposal complies with the standards for mixed -use, commercial/residential development from 18.2. from commercial development in the Employment zone. The property is zoned Employment (E-1). The lot area and dimensions are increased through the proposed property line consolidation. There is no minimum or maximum lot dimension, or lot area in the E-1 zone. The proposed uses of the site are uses that are allowed as permitted, special permitted, and conditional uses. The majority of the property is proposed to be utilized for commercial/employment uses such as office, and warehouse/storage. These are permitted uses in the zone. The residence is a special permitted use. The proposed structure is oriented towards the public street and the covered, visually prominent, pedestrian -oriented entrances. The entrances are setback 16feet from the front property line, the remainder of the fa�ade is 10 feet from the street. The area between the building and the street is a public utility easement and there is a pedestrian plaza area between the sidewalk and the structure. Along the south side of the structure, there is a ten foot public utility easement but there are no required structural setbacks. As proposed, the building is setback to provide head -in surface parking, landscape swale areas, pedestrian access, truck/vehicular access, and site circulation. The west side provides a five- foot, one -inch setback where the five-foot public pedestrian access easement is located. Openings along this side of the structure will comply with fire separation and fire rating standards. The west side setback is 34 feet, 518 of an inch to the side of the structure. The proposed single residential unit is less than the allowed density of seven units in the zone. The landscape plan was designed as a Wildfire Overlay zone compliant and where landscaping is within five feet of the structure, the landscaping is Firewise compliant. The plan calls for 15 percent of the site area to be landscaped. The landscape area includes a storm waterfrltration system before the stormwater enters the onsite detention system that then overflows to the public system. All sides of the structure have architectural interest. The front fagade is spatially defined through the use of different materials. The primary material is a standing seam metal siding on a vertical orientation. Page 7 of 18 There is split face, concrete masonry unit block, Nardi -board, and clear coated horizontal wood plank wall. The two-story portion of the proposed structure has a barrel -shaped roof, the single -story portion is a flat roof that provides a rooftop deck for the residential unit. With 28 feet, 4 % inches at the apex of the roof, the building is less than the maximum building height in the E-1 zone. The proposed structure complies with solar setbacks and the right-of-way at 60 feet in width and the 16 foot setback from the subject property's north property line, solar shadow will fall within the street right-of-way. 18.2.3.130 Dwelling in Non -Residential Zone A. Dwellings in the E-1 zone are limited to the R-overlay zone. See chapter 18.3.1.3 Residential Overlay. The property is within the R-overlay. B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards: 1. Mixed -Use Developments_. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. At least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor shall be designated for permitted uses and uses permitted with special use standards, not including residential uses. There is one building on the site. The gross floor area of the ground floor is 9,636 square feet. Of this, 9,320 square feet is designated for permitted uses and special permitted uses. There is 316 square foot area of the ground floor that is residential which is three percent of the total gross floor area of the ground floor. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1 zone, 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-I-D zone. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. There is one residential dwelling which is less than what the allowed density would be. The allowed density of the property is seven units. The proposed density complies. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying zone. The setbacks, landscaping, and design standards that have been applied to the residence is the same as those of the underlying E-1 zone. Page 8 of 18 4. Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C-1 -D zone. The property is in the E-1 zone. Residential use requires 1.75 parking spaces. The required parking for the residential use is proposed to be a mixed -use / joint use credit between the commercial business space and the residential tenant space. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The property is subject to Basic and Detail Site Design Review. The property also has a residential overlay. The proposal complies with the standards for the overlay zones. Findings are detailed herein. The proposed landscape plan also complies with the standards from the Wildfire Hazards Overlay requirements and does not use plants from the prohibited plant list. 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. 18.4.2.040 Non -Residential Development The proposed development of the Employment zoned land with a mixed -use commercial structure will have a positive impact upon the Clear Creek Drive streetscape. The building is proposed to have a minimal front setback area. The building facade occupies the majority of the facade and there is clear, pedestrian and access from the public street to the entrance The residential foyer is connected to the commercial space allowing for a live / work scenario. B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. The proposed building's primary orientation is towards Clear Creek Drive. The proposed parking is behind the building. There is no automobile parking or circulation between the building and the street. The building's fofade is 104 feet of the 141 foot wide frontage. Though a driveway apron is proposed, the building facade occupies nearly 74 percent of the lot frontage. The fagade occupies the majority of the lot frontage. Space created by the driveway opening along the east property line is designed consistent with the Site Design Standards and the space consists of landscaping and hard durable surface materials that highlight pedestrian areas along Clear Creek Drive. The space on the west side is five feet with a five foot easement on the adjacent property to the west. Page 9 of 18 This space will be improved with compacted gravel walking surface for pedestrian access between the structures that is fire resistant, minimal maintenance and allows pedestrian passage but no loitering The building entrances are located within 20 feet of the street right -of --way. The entrances are clearly visible, an eight foot door with transom window, lighting, pedestrian covering, and material changes all provide emphasis to the entrances. Public sidewalk and landscape park row exist along a portion of the frontage. This complied with the standards for Clear Creek Drive at the time of the subdivision development. Pedestrian plaza area, with hardscope surface treatments between the sidewalk and the property, provides pedestrian access to the street facing business entrances directly accessible from the public sidewalk. 2. Streetscape. There are street trees shown on the proposed landscape plan within the park row for Clear Creek Drive. The street trees were proposed, and the spacing complies with 18.4.4.030.E. 3. Landscaping. The proposed landscape areas comply with the minimum required landscape standards and 15 percent of the site has been provided as a landscape area. A common recycle and refuse area is on the site, screened from view, and accessible from the alley. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Not applicable 5. Noise and Glare. All artificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050, There are no residential zones in the vicinity of the project site. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Not applicable Page 10 of 18 C. Detailed Site Review Standards. The subject property is within the Detailed Site Review Standards Overlay. 1. Orientation and Scale. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. The proposed structure and the pedestrian plaza area complies with the Floor Area Ratio of .50 (11,761 square feet). The proposed structure is 11,220 square feet and there is just over 1,200 square feet of plaza area proposed for a total of 12,435 square feet which is more than the required .50 FAR. The building frontage is 104 feet in length. There are distinctive offsets and material changes in the facade and in the building height along the facade that break up the massing and scale of the structure. All of the front fa�ade walls are within 30 feet of the public street. Substantially more than 20 percent of the wall area facing the street is windows or doorways. The windows allow view into the working areas of the offices. There are large windows on either side of the commercial business entrance. There is a cantilevered overhang to protect pedestrians from the elements. No blank walls are proposed. 2. Streetseape. Colored and scored concrete is proposed to designate people areas from the public sidewalk. The building is required to be set back more than five feet due to the public utility easement. The area is proposed to be used for pedestrian activities and outside eating areas. 3. Buffering and Screening. Landscape buffers are proposed between the surface parking spaces adjacent to the alley and the west property line. A landscape buffer of six feet is proposed along the east side of the parking area. The parking area and the interior area of the site is proposed to be screened from the adjacent railroad property with a six -foot -tall solid panel and CMU building material screen. 4. Building Materials. Page 11 of 18 More than 15 percent of the exterior walls have substantial changes in relief. There is a substantial base, there are changes in fagade materials with the use of vertical standing seam metal siding, split face concrete block, horizontal, wooden plank siding, and hardboard. There are bronze colored, aluminum storefront style windows and doors. No bright or neon paint colors are proposed the majority of the building is not glass. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. The property is within the detail site review overlay and the structure is proposed to be more than 10,000 square feet in area. The building is oriented towards Clear Creek Drive. The buildings mass along the street is divided into two separate masses. The structure has a human scale incorporated though the changes in setback and orientation in materials. A sheltering roof to provide pedestrian shelter and adds a horizontal element to the front facade. The pattern of the windows and the doors is distinct and relates to the spaces within the structure. The building does not exceed 45,000 square feet with 9,636 square feet in area. The building length is not more than 300 feet. The proposed building requires 1,120 square feet of plaza space. The plaza spaces are provided along the sidewalk between the building and the street. The plaza spaces incorporate sitting space, space for eating, a mixture of sunlight and shade areas under the marquee and near the plaza area trees. The plaza area surface includes colored and or scored concrete. 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: There are 13 parking spaces required for the proposed development. The 1,268 square foot office area requires 2.5 parking spaces (1268/500=2.5). The warehouse areas require 8.05 spaces (8,052 / 1000 = 8.05) and the residential unit requires 1.75 spaces for a total of 12.3 spaces rounded to 13. The proposal provides for eight (8) parking spaces on -site with four spaces accessed directly from the public alley at the rear of the property. There is a driveway from the alley leading into a fully enclosed, secure parking area. This parking area also has four spaces. These spaces are provided within carport structures. A three -vehicle parking structure is proposed at the north end of the parking area and a fourth space is provided parallel to the structure under a cantilevered canopy. The residential unit required 1.75 parking spaces. Utilizing allowed Parking Management Strategies, these spaces are proposed to be shared within the secure parking area and the Page 12 of 18 proposal seeks a joint use of facilities credit. Finally, there are four on -street parking spaces along the frontage of the property. The combination of the eight parking spaces, a joint -use credit for the residential parking spaces, and the on -street credit provides more than 50 percent of the required parking on -site with the proposed eight on -site, and three of the four available on -street parking spaces as a credit. The proposed on -site parking areas are behind the front fagade of the structure, and to the rear of the proposed building The proposed internal parking area and warehouse vehicle and delivery maneuvering area is proposed to be screened with a block wall and an electric gate that fully screens to fully screen the site from the public rights -of -way of the street and the alley, and from the adjacent properties to the east. The full screening and security fencing allows for uses in warehouse Unit A that need additional safety measures and/or, the screening allows for the adaptive use of the warehouse space for a business in the E-1 zone and with a special permitted use or conditional use permit review, outdoor storage is allowed when fully screened from view. Adequate bicycle parking will be in various locations around the site to provide the most convenient parking for the various users. There is a U-rack proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building visible from Clear Greek Drive. Under the cover of the covered parking area, two spaces are proposed. Within each warehouse unit, additional spaces are proposed. All proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential parking area. There is an ADA, van accessible parking space proposed to the south of the building with an accessible route to the south warehouse space and access to the pedestrian walkway. Within the parking area there is a second ADA accessible parking space. Primary vehicular access is proposed from the public alley to the parking areas and the vehicle parking and maneuvering area for Unit A. To improve access to and though the property for expected large vehicle truck traffic, delivery vehicle, emergency vehicle, etc. and to address the turnaround issues caused by the length of the public alley and the distance of the property from the alley intersection a driveway curb cut from the public street is request. This necessitates a variance. Findings addressing variance criteria are provided. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location All proposed parking is behind the fagade of the structure and is to the side of the structure. Page 13of19 S. Parking Area Design. The parking areas are proposed in two separate areas. In both parking areas the parking spaces are 9-feet wide and 18 feet deep. The paved parking spaces will all have adequate back-up and turn around area. There are four head in spaces adjacent to the alley along the south property line. The parking spaces are buffered from the structure with landscape planters that will function as stormwater swoles. This parking area is designed to capture and treat surface run-off through the landscape swale. The parking spaces within the secure parking area are all proposed to be covered which will reduces the microclimatic impacts of the parking spaces which complies with AMC 18.4.3.050.B.5 even though not required. There are parking lot shade trees and parking lot landscape buffers that comply with the standards for parking area design. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. The proposed development has proposed a circulation system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. There are all weather surfaced, pedestrian connections on the site that lead from the parking areas to the structure. There is pedestrian connections from the street to the structure as well. The proposal seeks a variance to AMC 18.4.2.080.C.5. Alley access. The proposal seeks to take access from the alley and to provide a curbcut from the adjacent public street. 18.4.7 Signs. The signs for the individual businesses will comply with the sign code standards for sign area based upon business frontage with the sign sizes varying based on the tenant needs. 18.4.8 Solar Access. To the north, there is a 60 foot -wide right-of-way for Clear Creek Drive. The proposed structure complies with the solar setback as the rights -of -way are allowed to be shadowed by development. 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 Page 14 of 18 access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed development. All plans will be submitted to the City of Ashland Public Works Department, Engineering Division and the City of Ashland Electric Division for review and approval. Sanitary Seaver - The property is currently served by an 8-in sanitary sewer main in Clear Creek Drive. The existing main ends short of the end of the current street improvements so the main will be extended from the existing terminus to a spot adjacent to the new development. Water - The property is currently served by an 8-in water main in Clear Creek Drive. City of Ashland Water Department will tap the existing water main and install the new water services and water meter boxes that are proposed. Storm Drainage - The property is currently served by a 12-in storm sewer main in Clear Creek Drive. Storm Water Facility Design Requirements The development will create more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface, the proposed stormwater drainage facility plans created by the project civil engineer complies with the requirements of the DEQ MS4 General Permit phase 2. The proposal follows the guidance and requirements set forth in the current Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual. 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. No exceptions are requested. Variance 18.5.5.050 A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type 11 procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. The requested variance is necessary because the code provision that that prevents vehicular access from the public street due to the presence of an alley (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5). The code provision does not account for substantial distance of more than 500 feet that the subject Page 15 of 18 property is located from the where the alley intersects with the street and that a view from the street down the alley is not possible from the street requiring a driver enter the alley and possibly need to stop and reverse out of the alley. Additionally, the provision assumes that there is a complete street system that allows for a gridded street so a driver can go around a block to reach their destination. Due to the dead ending of the street and the alley into land that needs substantial environmental clean up before development, it is not known when the north/south alley connection will be made to allow through traffic. The conditions of approval of the subdivision included a condition of approval that prevented a curb cut Clear Creek Drive. Presently all turn -around of the public street and the alley is trespassing past a 1-foot street plug and on the Railroad owned property. A fence or other barrier to prevent this trespass could be installed and then there is no turn around for vehicles, emergency service vehicles and for customers or delivery trucks. A driveway curb cut allows for a hammerhead turn around to be created and allows for a driveway to be used by the subject property when delivery traffic demands it. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the unique circumstances. The proposed curbcut is wide enough to accommodate large vehicles including semis, the driveway surface is narrower and more intended to be minimal in appearance to not have it appear like the primary access. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. A driveway curb cut allows for a hammerhead turn around to be created and allows far a driveway to be used by the subject property when delivery traffic demands it. The variance allows for adequate vehicular and delivery truck access and safety expected in the Employment zone. The city's street design standards require that when there is alley access to a property, access to the parcel Condition #7 of the six -lot subdivision that created the subject lots, prohibited access from Clear Creek Drive. At the time of subdivision, it was anticipated that the railroad property adjacent would eventually develop and that the street and the alley would not dead-end just east Page 16 of 18 of the subject properties. The alley begins more than 500 feet from the subject properties, hundreds of feet from the intersection. The alleyway is very narrow and does not support two- way vehicular traffic, especially not truck traffic. Delivery vehicle and truck traffic should be anticipated considered in the employment zone. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. it can be found that the lack of access through the public right-of-way past the property prevents adequate access and the driveway curb cut provides that access. Additionally, there is no legal vehicular or emergency vehicle and fire apparatus access turn around due to the street plugs at the alley and the public street terminus. Though presently, trespassing occurs on the railroad owned property, that property owner could at any time prevent future trespass and block the gravel turnaround. The proposal provides a hammerhead for turn around in the event passing the pavement is prohibited. The variance is necessary for a specific code section and not caused by the property owner due to a property line adjustment. Major Modification 18.5.6.030 4. A change in the type and/or location of vehicle access points or approaches, driveways, or parking areas affecting off site traffic if the change could cause a significant adverse impact on traffic operations or safety. The proposed driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive is a change of conditions from the original approval (PA2000-096). The proposal adds a curb cut to provide vehicular traffic, specifically larger vehicle truck traffic anticipated in Employment zones serving structures that include warehouse spaces to and through the site. The curb cut from Clear Creek Drive is not intended to be the primary access as the office space and the rear warehouse space are both accessed outside of the fenced parking area. The impact to the street will be minimal as there is access and parking area provided from the alley an public, on -street parking. The proposed curb cut will not have a significant adverse impact on traffic operations or safety because for the foreseeable future, the private railroad property which requires an environmental clean up which was supposed to begin (again) in 2018 has not commenced and no further information is available from the railroad or from the city of Ashland website railroad clean-up tab. C. Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval Page 17 of 18 authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Major 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. The modification request seeks to allow a curb cut from the public street when there is alley access present. A condition of approval explicitly prohibited curb cuts, this proposal seeks to remove that condition. This necessitates a variance. At the time of the subdivision, the criteria was specific to following the requirements for drawing of the map but there is not a discussion of block length or through access excepting the following statement. 2.3 The Commission finds that all necessary public facilities, utilities and services are available to serve the six tax lots. Public facilities are located within the right-of-way of Clear Creek Drive and within the public alley adjacent to the project. The Commission finds that the multi -use path adjacent to the alley is required in lieu of increasing the Clear Creek Drive right-of-way to acconinaodate bicycle lanes. As a result, the multi -use path is a required street improvement that must be either installed, or planned and bonded far as part of the subdivision. This condition does not address vehicular traffic, connectivity or to and through traffic. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. The modification request necessitates a variance. Criteria addressing the variance are found above. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. It can be found that the written findings of this application provide adequate justification to approve the requested subdivision modification to allow the curb cut. Page 18 of 18 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2000 1N THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION 42000-096, REQUEST FOR ) PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF A SIX -LOT SUBDIVISION } FINDINGS, OF PARCEL 6 ON CLEAR CREEK DRIVE. } CONCLUSIONS } AND ORDERS } APPLICANT: JAMES LEWIS ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 6600 of 391E 09AB is located on Clear Creek Drive and is zoned E-1; Employment. 2) The applicant is requesting to subdivide the parcel into six lots. Site improvements are outlined on the preliminary plan on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Preliminary Plan approval are as follows: A. Submission. The subdivider shall submit eight (8) copies of a preliminary plat and other supplementary material as may be required to indicate the general program and objectives of the project to the office of the Director of Public Works. The plat shall be prepared by a registered surveyor. B. Scale. The preliminary plat shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen (18) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet. C. General information. The following general information shall be shown on the preliminary plat: 1. Proposed name of the subdivision, which must not duplicate nor resemble the name of another subdivision in Jackson County and shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 2. Date, north point, and scale of drawing. 3. Appropriate identification clearly stating the map is a preliminary plat. 4. Location of the subdivision sufficient to define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract. 5. Names and addresses of the owner, subdivider, and surveyor. D. Existing conditions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the preliminary plat: 1. The location, width, and names of all existing or platted streets within or adjacent to the tract, together with easements and other importantfeatures, such as section lines and corners, and monuments. 2. Location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding. 3. Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preservable trees. 4. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures to remain on the property after platting. 5. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract. 6. Contours at an interval offive (S) feet. E Land division -proposed plan. The following information shall be included on the preliminary plat. 1. The location, width, names and approximate grades of streets, and the relationship of the streets to any projected streets as shown on any development plan adopted by the Planning Commission, or if there is no development plan, as suggested by the City to assure adequate traffic circulation. 2. The location and purpose of easements. 3. The location, approximate dimensions, and proposed lot and block numbers, for all lots and blocks. 4. Sites, if any, allocated for purposes other than single family dwellings. G. Partial development. Where the plat to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by the subdivider, the Planning Commission may require a Master Plan for the unsubdivided portion. H. Explanatory information. The following information shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying the preliminary plat or, if practicable, shall be shown on the preliminary plat.- 1. A vicinity map, showing existing subdivisions, streets, and unsubdivided land adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be extended to connect with the existing streets. 2. Proposed deed restrictions, if any, in outline form. 3. Where there are slopes in excess of ten (10) percent within the area to be subdivided, a preliminary grading plan may be required by the Planning Commission. A grading plan should show existing and finished grades on lots and streets proposed to be graded. Before grading can begin, the grading plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission, which may request a review and report fi°om the City Engineer. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on October 10, 2000, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. 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 proposed six -lot subdivision meets all relevant approval criteria as described in the Subdivisions Chapter 18.80. 2.2 The Commission finds that the proposed lots are adequately sized to accommodate structures and off-street parking. The E-I zone does not require a minimum lot size or lot line dimensions. 2.3 The Commission finds that all necessary public facilities, utilities and services are available to serve the six tax lots. Public facilities are located within the right-of-way of Clear Creek Drive and within the public alley adjacent to the project. The Commission finds that the multi -use path adjacent to the alley is required in lieu of increasing the Clear Creek Drive right-of-way to accommodate bicycle lanes. As a result, the multi -use path is a required street improvement that must be either installed, or planned and bonded for as part of the subdivision. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal to subdivide the property know as Parcel 6, adjoining the newly created Clear Creek Drive, into six lots is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2000-096 . Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action 42000- 096 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2. That a grading plan with spot elevations for each lot shall be submitted prior to signature of the final survey plat. The elevation of the lots shall be above the sidewalk grade. 3. That the finished floor elevation of the ground floor of future structures shall be above sidewalk elevation along property frontage. A grading plan verifying this shall be submitted with the Site Review application for each lot. 4. That the Clear Creek Drive and alley improvements shall be completed to the east boundary of Parcel 6 prior to signature of the final survey plat. All improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees and street lighting, shall be installed along the entire frontage of the property in accordance with the partition approval PA 99-048 prior to signature of the final survey plat. 5. That all necessary public utility easements for sewer, water, electric, phone, cable, storm drainage, etc. shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. All necessary public utility easements for the alley shall be indicated on the final survey plat. 6. That off-street parking for Lots 5 and 6 shall be shared unless the lot configuration is modified by a future land use action to allow the provision of the necessary amount of off-street parking to meet the requirements of Chapter 18.92. 7. That automobile access to all lots shall be from the public alley adjacent to the west and south property line. Additional driveway access along Clear Creek Drive shall be prohibited. 8. That the temporary turn around required as part of the Clear Creek Drive partition (PA 99-048) shall not be located on Parcel 6. 9. That the pedestrian easements shall be designated as public pedestrian easements on the final survey plat. 10. That the pedestrian and bike path improvement plan, for the section of multi -use path from the existing end of the path at the bend in the alley to the eastern boundary of the Clear Creek Partition area, shall be completed and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. The improvement plan shall include a project cost, and the full improvement cost deposited with the City prior to signature of the final survey plat. The improvement plan shall include all grading, storm drainage, retaining wall and safety railings necessary to finish the improvement to the 10-foot wide, multi -use path standard. Planning Commission Approval Date Z O �� no']oainl:vyopafilaOxalia0 r�i alul U N� ZOS6 z 9 IVS _ 5099'ON 10 XHi 8V6o 3III 'ON dtlW S,aOSS3SStl OZ9L6 a0 PuelysM • ,aa�1S 4Vnod LLZ �✓ OZSL6 a0 ONVIHSV o TT aa>illao a'V3-O ooz u9 $0 1 0 3 1 1 H 0 2f tl-----------.----- � a30834 NVAaB aNtl 31NtlHd31s zo ��j�� Opp jaQ SOIz�� 31V0 NOI1dIaOs3o 0 Jal9 'WWO`J isn aAXIW MAN o 0 Ad INL 9Z991 N�3' m1w CYN3W?SV3 H1 a 3smnS_aasanasla �wxdva CWbb mpVl,,, I d , Js S3OVdSE H10311�N1H11M1NWba39N30153a (� � 3NMJS 53391JJ0 °� Nnlj-IliiON is�:l�saalna3s lJ ..0'.CL =,t d SNINatld aSf�I+�iVN1 1332J1S soon' a td ,t t991'=naH1 nNi„a / l \ 3si ,85981 — N9tJ 310HNVA O � I � 3317b dI3SJ� � A4 /il/ �s ozz'u wioisala soap ///// HsoaO'e ;e.—HatVl ///✓/� / �� Vlo'9 ;M.esnOHaaVM / (19A91 :h3ddN 3^Nlsaa ds eie ` :banal NIMNU aoNaO3plsaa JS 09Z'L -h363l NIMW)301HH0 �ALMWNIn3 pNlpllnS / /�/ / �sazz'ez (aaoco99 :Maavlol lvml �//�lIlll ll/ l �� � dS bt2'4 :S1NNdlo0-130datl9(d) aS 4f.4'fi :1NIad100dJNlplln9 'ap Xaoav�l000a 9099 Y'l'1 �9N60-3 L-6E - L3 N0111NOIS3I ONINOZ >ft I NIVHn 9 i v /o✓ / / 'S9 L N/S z13d J N3N12SVD l ! / 11// l l 1 77, HSMNS wa01S ,01 Fx �- I / 103364ZZ'EZ/ov 54 S099 A'11 9V60'3 L-6E >ra3a'p av3lO ooz / 05 6n / 8 / y� S>Iavn ,111111n ON / JdX3 en13 011,11 ?I9HI3 / � \ 008S60S3if� ,b9S81=dlNnS � S' 0981—Ma S d 11W 8PJn5 E O Ol Jn7d 133als Oe O 015 015' p1S 8 OM nop(z)-1 i \ 3n L, 3 .....� NISHIVVA 1V ON3 S> LaM 31Y00� SS ,L0981 = 1inHNwe JNd,OL Y r O .18 w w� w r o� o� 2 VJ CO Q o 3IV0S 3lVH 3aV 5133HS LIXt L �yi n 311 S ins 1 >dyd s e� i3 I I O CD N O r 9I C) U U / I i I NVRI153Q.3d 1N363sV- 01 �� �� Imo• � �� SS � SS s311n- CNe e n0 313N�Noo 4 4 M - - 00bZS =— --.Deal_ 30e3ons 1 eHdsv) �I A 11 8 0� A 3 3 88 V 3 1 0) / 10 ---- ---- -- al—_ --- — -- - Ya.,no aNe eane =3 :)rvoo Z O �a'pa�n l-iynpa51a0 aolia0 r�i np�l U ssss oN loi xvi evss 3 se ON dvw s,1102s32sv N a Ml Z056'Z55'tb5 — v OZ9L6 60 Pu Wl 0-'s Wood LLZ __..__. ____ OZSLb aU aNV HSV w� N F s a0 Y33aU aVFM 00Z Z V U u. � w W N u9 $O 1 3 1 ( H 23 V ?J30830 NVAae ONV 31NVHd31S p z Q p W op� IaQ so1z-6D emo -moo isn mixiw MAN <<� a W 31VC N011dINOS3f1 O o� U O 161 Z O w o�'pal!4wVOPefiIaD soUeO @'�o)u1 OZ9L6 NO Pse1q, • —S Wood LL6 --_ _ 5099'ON F 10-. Xtli BV6031.6E'ON dVN S,aOSS3S5V D UZ9L6 HO aNV IHSV I— �o u9 &0 1 0 3 1 I H N a V OP-0�j2Q SOjZ�� 31vD NrnidlaD9ao a3oa3a NVA89 aNd 31NVHd3iS zp `EMJO 'WWO'J Asn a�XIW MAN LL O z Spi£1N3W?SV3 8Z991N� H1V��? iYdO`Q'dSyndS109NI1IkiHd'dY,laf-J' (RrJ b'(df-S.�d3d ,k, S3oVdS a3H10311`NIH11M 1N WDa 3oN301S3a ^95�91JJ0 ne HiaON Jn7 o-o-m_.� as 000'c�awravd esZH-avm ,v t9z?I—iINH171N1„3 a 999, — MlLi / — �s lnD A�0. 3�oHNM as �� �>7e, LH ,Z1981=Y1 NI „vZ — / ds ozz' �� mm�lsaia ssoa6 j(z/ /, Y \ - dsorooe ds Zlo'S :,V,35(10N3aVM ds Rle 'h-1Nivwl acNaalsaa ////���/ ds 99z't '('I3A3'I NIvw73aHda //// / / :ALVWNIf150NI0llne /�/// // / I / dS bZd'SZ (3a0V69') :—v10l I'—, 111lZ'L s1NIad100d 1aodatlo(d) d5949'B :lN1adl(1[—NI[ lnR(.l) AJVWWf1E /3—J1.1 Hao av 4118v 1NJS3o NoS3— C- --TTTI --- NNn MVHJ .9 59 t N/; a3d 1 N3w3s ea 1 1/ 1 /lll l' I I a3M3s Ivaois ,01 a,s / 9�i , �, i / / �� ds?l9'u/av 9099 fi'l'19v6o-34-K A � -p v — aeaa�av— ooz r i aL9 8 O/H \ SN21V,W .1L711n ON nao(zt )dxa en -Ls judo "3713 1/ C / o 0 ooessos3Y _ ,b9sat=awns ._ .a�9. O'D98l=Wla CA �3IOHNVw IV UN3 13INI ednJ S-»DdW JLV3M E—/ 01_ Jnld 13361S .1 1 3Nd ,w oQ o r' O _ W T m aa. oro o� w off aU c) Q p .--. aav 5133H5 LIXI L jc\ 311S I O CD CD N OO LN3w3sd- INvlais3a3d JI I /i ss Ss Dl l91, b'311n9 CNV @Rk 313h'DNOJI 9 /VI Y, _.. m ... — _oz_NLS ?,Z'z,LU.66S ,3JvJdns lWHdsv) II 8 V 3 % 0 (\ N31inJ aNV eano 313dj NOj Z ~ W ((1r� o�l�a�14U�Voae6�a(7saI�eON�oaU� U "`WT W 5099'ONlOI Xyi 8y6J 316E'ON dyW SiiOSS3SSV � � 2�o Yq�, zosszss tis yi OZ9L6 iJ0 PuelysH taal:S 4Vnoj L LZ _ —_..._ _ _ OZSL6 ii0 ONHIH£V U ~ Y W N N3383 ,dv310 OOZ Z U U w w U 11 0 3 1 I H 3 21 V -- i130830 NVAHEI ONV 31NVHd31S Sl o w C— `i�/�3�Q Opu idQ sOI��� Elva N011dRJOS30 Oa�B WWOo 3Sfl 4�XIW MAN �H 6U a p z O oa'1oe14yVoPe6lapsoVe�©oJui 1 a soss'oNlolxvi av603�ssoNavws,aoss3ssv � Yr QZ L6 do p-jg4 H • l.-,S q,—n LLZ � OZ5L6 0 pNV IHSV a0 N33a0 aV IO 03Z �' 31 I H J H V _ _ a30830Nvnae pNV 31NVHd31S O S�9a O u� aQ `9 SOl�� J 3ivo—WlldiaOs3a me 'Awo ASn a�iXIA AON rdl �\AT o woo';oa;iywyopeBlaOsol�eO�jo;ui Z096'Z5S'L49 06GL6 Ho PMWV . ;aasu 0— LLZ 'n 1031(�I H0'd V SOIJUD 31Vp N011dR 530 �Opu-2Iaa Z O F 2099 ON 107)(V1 9V60 ALH ON dVA S�60SS3SSV OZ9L6 a00NVIHSV w aO>md aV3�0 OOZ a30930 MVAa9 0NV 31NVHd31S zO Ja-19moo Asn ciAxm MAN o 0 0 o� vas �ivn 3av s133ns L�x� � W CD N N N CD U 1, iro'aaallya�HaPefilaOsolie00o o)u1 �jLO ]aa�u LLZ o OZSL5 NO Puel4sr 4Pno_ y o0 u9 0 1 J 71 1 H 0 2] V - op-g-BjaQ Sojz-e� --- -- =_ aivn NOLI,Iafnagn Z n 9099'ON 10l XVi 2V603LH ON dVW&'d0SSDSSV N w r N ;]Z5i6 NO ONVIHSV OOZw U w KI N3O8lu I(I NW,80 (INVl31NVHd3iS p z oo p 2 (N N Jana 'vmoo isn a3XIW AA//IN o � Q o o V jy� Z /� 31VDS 9IVH A- Si-5 L lX I /*v 1/ z 0 „c xi v.i ,. il, 5099'ON lO�XVl 9`✓603L6E'ON dtlW SS1OSS3SS`J � Yp LO OZSL6 230 b c SV U o a c F Q N37LO CINVDV D. OOZ }J3O93O Z �� F o W T— _ NHAaONH 9 3�NtlHd31S O Q o m o = smg ,moo �isn a�iIW XMAN ® 31VC NO11d121`JS'3O � � �� � O o H O z o� x S-zsT. o =sp oa��F eS o. IN, 60Sf 031�ON. - - -. X00'I ^ NItlaO Wa019 , j0 ,24 Ttl15N 10p�U ppOCpC 9£9 m Nroa0 wa>i9 ,9 10 ,a9 1- 00 3�NtlalN3 p O p NOLLONll5tM0 �tlifl Aatla0dW31 O O O O O 9 b1aV1 IN— NWtlW00tl3LYN 0 WG ba01S Op�O OO 44 's a2 a 0O = OppOO dV ,gym oo O p C oS MOM WOMOM A 3NOHd ONOV3�" / NItlaO Wa015 end 30 T J1 ry (3)� vC O O O ,9 ,. y I� o p0 O .i'9991=dW09 NJBNI ANIN Z�— .C'099 t=WIN '(3) 131NI BElfp - _-- —.1 6aro SSONOV 99b901a TVISNI COO O OOC 9530Jtl 311a0 .il M3N d IV- d IVH 3dV Sl3dHS L W t 1,97 CP�fi \ as i� �i 6 O� O \ (L 0L 9AIH A99U NVR IJ a®� OZ3Z6 NOe]NO'GNV1HSb Aalb monwWa 3$(1 03XIW M3N Q 0 M3nrao . � I 4 k r - {� ijzz )� . » % \ ./ \ 2NyHD, 5 ^/ \ƒryy( \ y2allo� Mo d&aG«23dvsloON Uj\\ %\ =2 \ & 2 gEai« uwwoa2m 2x w w N \\ \ �