Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater_165_PA-T2-2022-00037CITY OF ASHLAND May 13, 2022 Notice of sinal Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has denied the request without prejudice for the following: Planning Action: PA -T2-2022-00037 Subject Property: 165 Water Street, 160 Heiman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Wafer Streets) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for Owner: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC and Gil Livni Description: A request for a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed- use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Heiman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase I, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase II. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting strips. [Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight to six. The application no longer includes a Solar Access Exception or an Exception to the plaza space requirement.] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E- 1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and effective ten days after this Notice of Final Decision is mailed. 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 19.5.1.060.I of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be trade directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900I www.ashland.or.us If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community Development Department at (541) 4885305. cc: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC and Gil Livni Parties of record SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 L Appeal of Type H Deeision. The City Council may call up a Type 11 decision pursuant to section 18.5.1.060.J. A Type H decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows. 1. Who May Appeal._ Appeals may only be filed by parties to the plarming 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 18.5.1.060.1.1, above, may appeal a Type lI decision by tiling a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. b. Time for Filing. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Mailed Notice. The City shall mail the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Council to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060.H.1, at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. Scope of Appeal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1.060.I.4.b, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits, and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. b. Reopening the Record. The City Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 I www.ashland,or.us 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 requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error. ii. That a factual error occurred before the Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. iv. Re -opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the Council. 5. Appeal Hearing Procedure. The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type H 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 detennining 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 18.5.1.050.J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tei: 541-4885305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 '"g www.ashland.or.us kvr 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. 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 Appeals to State Land Use Board of Appeals. City Council decisions on Type II applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type II applications must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winbum Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 OW www.ashland.or.us lrj�A BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -T2-2022-00037, A REQUEST FOR A SIX -LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION TO ACCOMMODATE A PHASED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE THREE PROPERTIES AT 95 VAN NESS AVENUE, 165 WATER STREET AND 160 HELMAN STREET. THE APPLICANT'S PHASE I REQUESTS SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR FIVE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACES AND TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABOVE IN EACH BUILDING, AS WELL AS ASSOCIATED SURFACE PARKING, UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. THE THREE REMAINING LOTS WOULD HAVE INITIAL SITE WORK COMPLIED WITH PHASE I, BUT BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WOULD OCCUR ONLY AFTER SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS IN A FUTURE PHASE II. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT ON SEVERE CONSTRAINTS LANDS WITH SLOPES GREATER THAN 35 PERCENT AND ON FLOODPLAIN CORRIDOR LANDS; A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS; A REQUEST FOR A TREE PERMIT TO REMOVE 20 TREES ON THE THREE PROPERTIES AND WITHIN THE ADJACENT RIGHTS-OF-WAY; AND A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW PARKING BAYS WITH STREET TREES IN BUMP -OUTS ALONG VAN NESS AVENUE RATHER THAN STANDARD PARK - ROW PLANTING STRIPS. APPLICANT: ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LCC OWNERS: MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC & GIL LIVNI RECITALS: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & ORDERS 1) Tax lot #2000, 2100 and 7100 of Map 39 1E 04CC are located at 165 Water Street and are zoned E-1, Employment. 2) The applicant is requesting a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Heiman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase I, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase II. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 1 the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting strips. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for the approval of a Preliminary Subdivision. Plat are described in AMC 18.5.3.070 as follows: A. Approval Criteria, The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18,5,3,030.A, may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the following approval criteria. 1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. 2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per pari 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). 3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. 4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. 5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat and maintenance of such areas (e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.) is ensured through appropriate legal instrument (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). 6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. B. Conditions of Approval. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. 4) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 2 D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 5) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. 6) The criteria for a Physical & Enviromnental Constraints Review Perinit are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows: A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 3 7) The criteria for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are described in AMC 18.3.10.090.H as follows: 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3. 10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 8) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows: Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 98.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. G. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 4 approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 9) The PIanning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing via Zoom on March 8, 2022 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to the closing of the hearing, the electronic public hearing was continued at the applicant's request to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, again via Zoom, at which time additional testimony was received and additional evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Comrnission denied the application without prejudice. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval does not meet all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Subdivision, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, Tree Removal Permit and Exception to Street Design Standards meets all applicable criteria for Subdivision approval described in AMC 18.5.3.070; for Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval described in Chapter 18.3.10.050; for Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands approval described in AMC 18.3.10.090.H, and for Tree Removal Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.7.040.B. The Planning Commission finds that an Exception to Street Standards as described in Chapter 18.4.6.020 is not applicable to the project as proposed. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development of land envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient land use among other goals. The PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 5 Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to find that the Subdivision, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and Tree Removal Permit component requests have been demonstrated to meet the relevant approval criteria or to meet those approval criteria with the imposition of certain binding conditions of approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission further finds that the applicant's proposal to place street trees within bump -outs in the Van Ness Avenue right-of-way in order to provide additional public parking in bays while still providing required street trees is in keeping with the Street Design Standards and the requested Exception to Street Standards is not required. Van Ness Avenue is a "neighborhood street" in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and while neither Table 18.4.6.040.F nor the cross-section illustrated in Figure 18.4.6.040.G.4.a. detail a specific treatment for on -street parking in bays, the narrative description in AMC 18.4.6.040.G clearly notes that parking ...... may be provided in 7ft bays rather than as a continuous on -street lane." Neither the table, the figure or the description address the treatment of street trees where parking is provided in bays, but the Commission finds that the proposal here is in keeping with the intent of the standards. 2.7 The Planning Commission notes that Site Design Review approval requires a demonstration that "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. " The Planning Commission notes that the subject properties are located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District and as such are subject to the Historic District Development Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050. As explained in AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2, "The City of Ashland has adopted ordinances to assure that all development in the Historic District overlay remains compatible with the existing integrity of the Historic District... If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review, Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the StaffAdvisor or other City decision maker." The Planning Commission further notes that the Historic Commission initially reviewed the proposal at its March 2, 2022 meeting. During that review, the Historic Commission found that there was no historical precedent in Ashland for three nearly identical, large buildings being constructed together (side by side) in a historic district. The Historic Commission recognized that both the building designs and landscaping here were excellent, and that the high quality of the proposal helped to mitigate the large, identical buildings to a degree, however the Historic Commission ultimately determined that the initial designs were too repetitious, and that this repetition emphasized the significant difference in height and character relative to the residences on the other side of Helman Street. The Historic Commission specifically expressed concerns that in terms of the Historic District Development Standards, the height, scale and massing of the three buildings (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.2-4) as initially proposed along Helman Street for Buildings #1, #3 and #4 were out of scale with the one- to one - and -a -half -story historic residential buildings across Helman Street. The Historic Commission recormnended that the designs be revisited to look at changing the height of the individual stories, noting PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 6 that I1 -foot ceiling heights seemed excessive where building Leight was at issue, and also recommended potentially reducing the number of stories on at least the two end buildings (Buildings #1 and #4). The Historic Commissioners explained that if the buildings on Heiman were lower, the remaining buildings could cascade around the Van Ness corner as taller buildings there would be mitigated by the grade change and the fact that there was not a single -story, historic residential streetscape across Van Ness Avenue. The Historic Commission concluded their March recommendations noting that the designs would benefit from a greater variety of material treatment and finishes, and greater variations in height and/or number of stories to relieve the monotony as they present to the historic Heiman Street streetscape. At its April 6, 2022 meeting, the Historic Commission reviewed design revisions which had been provided in response to their March 2, 2022 comments. These revisions included stepping the center bay in the fayade of Buildings 3 & 4 back three feet from wall plane of the second floor and adding a shed roof to emphasize this step back; cutting back the roofline to reduce the massing of the overhang; changing some surface and material treatments including adding a brick base, using white and lighter materials to de- emphasize the third story, and using open wire or mesh railings where solid railings were previously proposed; and increasing the length of the pedestrian overhang on the ground floor to add shadow lines and emphasize the pedestrian scale of the building at the sidewalk. After reviewing these revisions, the Historic Commission found that while the incremental changes were effective in addressing some issues with regard to the building fagades and pedestrian amenities, the revisions fell short in addressing the larger issues identified in the March meeting, which had to do with the height, scale, and massing of the buildings as they relate to the Historic District Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.2 -B.4.) The Historic Commission found that the three buildings facing Heiman Street with heights near 40 feet and three stories would overwhelm the mostly single -story historic residences across the street, and that these proposed buildings fail to achieve an appropriate scale and fagade compatibility to the adjacent historic streetscape. Additionally, the Historic Commission found that the zero setback to the sidewalk exacerbated the building mass and scale and will overwhelm the adjacent pedestrian traffic. The Historic Commission pointed out that by comparison, the Plaza Inn & Suites hotel on the same side of Heiman Street, nearer to downtown, has 15- to 20 -foot setbacks and is only two -stories in height at the street. The Historic Commission concluded that while the building architecture and landscape design on this project were very attractive and high quality, the buildings were just not compatible with the scale of the historic district residences in the impact area, directly across Helman Street, and for these reasons, the Historic Commission noted that they could not support the application and recommended that it be denied by the Planning Commission. In considering the proposal as it relates to the Historic District Development Standards and in light of the Historic Commission's recommendation, the Planning Commission finds that the standard addressing "Transitional Areas" in AMC 18.4.2.050.B. I is of particular importance here. This standard provides that, "For projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building foam, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subjeetproperty. " In this instance, the subject properties are located at the boundary between E- I (Employment) and R-3(High Density Multi -Family Residential), and there is M-1 (Industrial), C -I (Commercial), and R-2 (Low Density Multi -Family Residential) zoning a short distance PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 7 away. Similarly, the property is at the outer edge of the Skidmore Academy historic district, with district boundary to the north, the Railroad Addition historic district immediately across Water Street, and the Downtown historic district a half -block to the south. The Planning Commission finds that the subject properties are located within a transitional area, and that to address the transitional area standard, the building designs need to incorporate appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment to address compatibility with the transitional area which includes the existing historic residential block across Heiman Street, while not losing sight of the underlying standards and requirements applicable to the subject properties which are zoned E-1 (Employment). The Planning Commission notes that the applicant provided a number of examples of more commercial scale buildings in the vicinity, many of which were historical buildings which are no longer standing, to demonstrate compatibility and the applicant also emphasized that the designs proposed were within the maximum allowances of the E-1 zone. The Planning Commission finds that the transitional area standard is intended to address compatibility with the transitional area as it exists, rather than with historic buildings which are no longer standing. AMC 18.4.2.050 explains "... sensitivity to surrounding buildings and the existing land use patterns is essential to the successful development (18.4.2.050.A.1, emphasis added)" and "The City of Ashland has adopted ordinances to assure that all development in the Historic District overlay remains compatible with the existing integrity of the Historic District (18.4.2.050.A.2, emphasis added). " The drawings illustrating each design standard are described as applying to historic buildings "on and across the street (18.4.2.050.B.2)" or "in the immediate vicinity (18.4.2.050.8.3 & B.4). " The Planning Commission further finds that considerations of compatibility are not limited to a simple comparison of the allowances of the zoning district (i.e. the E-1 zone allowing a 40 -foot height and 85 percent lot coverage where the R-3 zone allows a 35 -foot height and 75 percent lot coverage does not mean that any building complying with the allowances of the E-1 zone is automatically compatible with historic buildings in an immediately adjacent R-3 zone), but for transitional areas require "appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment" which address compatibility with the immediate vicinity while still considering the allowances of the underlying zone. The Planning Commission concurs with the Historic Commission in finding that the three very similarly designed three- story buildings facing Heiman Street with heights of nearly 40 feet fail to achieve an appropriate scale and have heights and massing which, as designed, are not compatible with the adjacent historic streetscape. These issues are exacerbated by the buildings' very similar architectural and material treatments. The Planning Commission finds that here, measures such as setting the buildings back further and placing plaza space between the buildings and the sidewalk, providing a greater step back of the third -story from the second -story fayade to better mitigate the height, mass and scale; providing greater variation in the architectural and material treatments; or placing lower buildings along Heiman and taller buildings along Water and Van Ness could constitute "appropriate adjustments" to address compatibility with the transitional area by mitigating the buildings height, mass and scale, and could be accomplished without losing sight of the standards and requirements of the underlying E-1 zone. The Planning Commission finds, however, that the designs as revised fail to address the recommendations provided in March; do not incorporate appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment to address compatibility; and fail to satisfy the Historic Development Design Standards for height, scale and massing (AMC 18.4.2.050.13.2-13.4). The Planning Commission concludes that the application as presented has not sufficiently addressed the Historic District PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 8 Development Standards, and as such cannot be found to have fully satisfied the approval criteria for Site Design Review. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Conunission concludes that the proposal for a six -lot commercial subdivision, Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings, Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees; and Exception to Street Standards is not supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The Historic Commission reviewed the application initially, identifying issues of height, massing and scale where the designs did not satisfy the Historic District Development Standards for the transitional area where historic one and ane -and -a -half story residences are located directly across Helman Street from the Employment zone here. The Historic Commission provided specific recommendations as to how these standards might be better addressed. The applicant provided revised drawings which were subsequently reviewed, however both the Historic and Planning Commissions determined that the revised designs had not sufficiently addressed the recommendations and did not satisfy the Historic District Development Standards. For both Commissions, the three very similarly designed three-story buildings facing Helman Street with heights of nearly 40 feet fail to achieve an appropriate scale and have heights and massing which, as designed, are not compatible with the adjacent historic streetscape, and these issues are exacerbated by the buildings' very similar architectural and material treatments. To respond to the transitional area here, where Employment and Residential zones intersect along a historic streetscape on Helman Street, greater adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment would be necessary to address standards for height, massing and scale and achieve compatibility with the existing historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. After consideration of all information contained in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the application fails to meet the burden of proof in addressing the Historic District Development Standards. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, we deny Planning Action PA -T2-2022.00037 without prejudice. May 10, 2022 PlannidIg Commission Denial Date PA -T2-2022-00037 Magnolia Terrace May 10, 2022 Page 9 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON } County of Jackson } The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2, On May 11, 2022 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 -T2-2022-00037, 165 Water Street. 4ichaeCSuffivan Signature of Employee G:lcomm-da4lanningManning Ac6onsfts by Street1MWateftWaW-1651PA-T2-2622-9U637_Site Review & Phased SubdivisionlNoticing1N17DIWaler 165_PA T2-2022-60037-J0D_A fidaAto(Maiiing.docx 511112622 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5100 BAKER BARRY A/MICHELLE A 122 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 ERIC BONETTI 105 WATER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 MARQUESS AND ASSOCIATES PO BOX 490 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA -T2-2022-00037 POLARIS LAND SURVEY PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 SANDOW ENGINEERING 160 MADISON ST, SUITE A EUGENE, OR 97402 PA -T2-2022-00037 391E04CC2500 BROUILLARD MARK TODD/DONNA 159 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC7100 LIVNI GIL 2974 CHAPMAN LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC90000 NORTH JAMES E/ DEBRA J 85 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 RHINE -CROSS GROUP PO BOX 909 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97501 PA -T2-2022-00037 SNYDER ENGINEERS 415 E. PINE ST CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 Go to avery.com/templates PA -T2-2022-00037 CAT GOULD 114 VAN NESS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 441 TALENT AVE TALENT, OR 97535 PA -T2-2022-00037 PIPER VON CHAMIER 174 HIDDEN LANE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1314-B CENTER DR., PMB #457 MEDFORD, OR 97501 1 165 Water St NOD 05/11/22 '14 r Allez a avery.ca/gabarits Utilisez le Gabarit Avery 51GO i CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Draft Minutes May 10, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Maywood Norton Doug Knauer Kerry KenCairn Lisa Verner Absent Members: Lynn Thompson Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Derek Severson, Senior Planner Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt It. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Doug Knauer updated the Commission regarding his involvement with the Social Equity and Racial Justice Commission (SERJ). Commissioner Knauer volunteered to act as Liaison between the Planning Commission and the SERJ Commission, and attended their May 7, 2022 meeting. A quorum was not reached and the meeting was held informally. Commissioner Knauer provided the SERJ Commission with a brief presentation on how the Planning Commission utilizes the lens of social equity in its decision-making process. He explained the Commission's procedures and emphasized its goal of total impartiality when reviewing Planning Actions. Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements. • An Election of Officers for the Commission will be held at its June 14, 2022 meeting. • The Commission will consider holding its first annual retreat since the start of the Pandemic, and will discuss holding site -visits for potential locations. Mr. Molnar stated that he would circulate a list of dates for the retreat and that the Commission should consider any items or projects they would wish to discuss at that meeting. • The Commission has received two applications to fill the seat vacated by Commissioner Pearce, and the City Council could potentially make an appointment at its next meeting. • The party interested in developing the Croman Mill Site, Townmakers, LLC, have remained in contact with the Planning Department and are moving forward with plans for development. The group has not yet purchased the site, but are preparing another Pre -Application to submit to Planning staff and present specific plans for development. The project would require a change to the Ashland master plan and codes if approved, necessitating a legislative process where the Commission would hold an advisory role and forward a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. The applicants recognize the employment and residential needs of the City and are considering a phased approach for development. The plans have continued to evolve based on market factors, the needs of the community, and AMC guidelines. The current owners have hired an environmental group from Portland to create a final clean-up plan for the Croman Mill site, which will then be submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for approval. There has been some clean-up activity at the southern edge of the site, though it remains to be seen where the phased development of the site will begin. Ashland Planning Commission May 10, 2022 Page 1 of 4 III. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. April 12, 2022 Regular Meeting Commissioners Verner/Knauer mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 5-0. IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA -APPEAL -2022-00014, 34 Scenic Dr. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners VernerlKenCairn mis to approve the Findings as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 5-0. B.Approval of Findings for PA -T2-2022-00037, 165 Water St. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Verner mis to approve the Findings as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 5.0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Memo — Legislative Update Staff Presentation Senior Planner Derek Severson informed the Commission of two legislative updates from the state that staff have begun work on. The first item concerns an executive order from the Governor of Oregon in 2020 which directed state agencies to adopt rules to reduce greenhouses gases. One of the key approaches to achieve this goal is the creation of more mixed-use developments along transit lines to encourage people work closer to their place of residence, thereby reducing reliance on automotive transportation. The cities in the eight Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) will be required to identify Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs) that could accommodate up to 30% of their future population growth. Zoning changes would likely be necessary to allow for higher population densities (fifteen dwellings per acre), including reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements, allowing building heights of up to 50ft, and placing a greater emphasis on altemative transit networks and electric vehicle infrastructure. The rule -adoption process is expected to finish in May, 2022, and the consultants will begin work shortly thereafter. The state will fund these consultants to assist cities in identifying CFAs and with the public involvement process. The study and identification of CFAs will conclude by June, 2023, and cities will be required to create a Comprehensive Plan, as well as Zoning adjustments to regulations and maps to implement the changes by June 30, 2024. Mr. Severson added that the Commission should expect to begin holding Public Hearings in the near future to gather input from the public before CFAs are identified and discussed. Ashland Planning Commission May 10, 2022 Page 2 of 4 The second legislative update from the state relates to Senate Bill 458 regarding Middle Housing Lot Divisions (MHLD).This bill provides ownership opportunities for'Middle Housing' units built under House Bill 2001, though those lots would still be subject to the parent property's approval and will not have full development rights. Senate Bill 458 also sets specific parameters for what conditions and criteria would be considered for approval. MHLDs will not be considered land use decisions, and will instead be processed using the Expedited Land Divisions procedure of the ORS to streamline the review process. Affected cities will be required to adopt code changes by ,lune 30, 2022 or to implement them directly from state law (see attachment #1). Discussion Mr. Molnar inquired if early Public Hearings would be held to discuss boundaries and locations for potential CFA sites. Mr. Severson advised that the public be introduced to the process as early as possible, and that a Public Hearing should be held once a consultant has been selected. He added that the state has not yet approved the final guidelines, but that each city will be assigned two consultants, and that the consultant for public engagement will likely initiate the process early. Commissioner Verner asked if the City would be able to select the consultants or if they would be assigned. Mr. Severson responded that they will likely be assigned by geographic location, but had commented to the state that Scott Fregonese of 3,J Consulting would be a good flit due to his past work with the Co. Chair Norton pointed out that the guidelines and criteria regarding CFAs would be directed by the state, and that there was no request for public feedback during the process. He requested that staff provide the public with examples of high density developments similar to the mandated CFAs. Chair Norton also expressed concern over the state recommendation that cities allow developments of up to 50ft, and suggested that the public be informed of the potential zoning changes before they are adopted. He added that some urban design studies might be necessary before choosing which zones would be affected by the new standards, and that a universal zoning change would be detrimental to the City. Commissioner Verner asked if the state had mandated that a certain number of CFAs be created. Mr. Severson responded that the number of CFAs had not been given, only that they should accommodate 30% of a city's population growth needs. He added that the state appears to be envisioning most of the CFAs being located in downtown areas, but that the City may want choose areas that would be most appropriate for it. Mr. Molnar agreed with Chair Norton's concern regarding building height, but commented that the CFAs will likely be located in commercial areas that could best accommodate these changes and have adequate transit access. He added that buildings up to 55ft in height are currently allowed in the downtown area with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and up to 55ft in most commercial zones with a CUP if more than 100ft away from a residential area. Mr. Molnar stated that creating CFAs to accommodate 30% of the City's population would be attainable based on the City's projected population growth for the next 20 years. Planning Manager Brandon Goldman calculated that 450-700 new housing units would be required to meet the 30% CFA standard, and that the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan could accommodate up to 450 new housing units. Commissioner Knauer inquired if staff was comfortable with what the state had outlined for MHLDs, citing the .June, 2022 deadline for adoption. Mr. Severson responded that House Bill 2001 was limited to Accessory Residential Units (ARVs) and duplexes, and that Senate Bill 458 would not conflict will its guidelines regarding ARUs. Mr. Severson stated that the new state law could be applied to duplex applications while a new city ordinance is adopted. Chair Norton asked if the state would regulate the market if it found that 70% of non -GFA sites had already been developed without the required percentage of CFAs being completed. He also queried if the City would be able to propose new transit routes in order to accommodate the CFAs and not be limited to existing transit routes. He commented that transit routes would need to be altered to run through the Croman Mill Site to be considered as a CFA. Ashland Planning Commission May 10, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Dawkins pointed out that the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) has already been outlined, and that the Railroad District should be considered as a CFA with greater height allowances. He also suggested that the City consider alternatives to on-site parking, such as regularly scheduled public transportation from parking areas outside of the City. Chair Norton asked staff how these legislative updates would be integrated with the Housing Production Strategy (HPS). Mr. Goldman responded that once the CFA rulemaking process is complete it will be integrated into the development of the HPS, which is already considering changes to building height limits and reducing parking requirements for buildings. He stated that developing those strategies in compliance with state provisions will be vital in determining if they could be implemented in other areas of the City, not just CFAs. He cited various strategies being considered in the HPS, such as a reduction in parking requirements for affordable housing, multi -family housing, and mixed-use developments, and whether these could be applied to the future CFAs. Chair Norton expressed a concern over there being significant overlap between the HPS and the development of the CFAs, and whether the two consultants for these programs would be working together to ensure cohesion. Mr. Goldman replied that the strategies that come out of the MPS will be implemented over an eight-year period, and could therefore be adopted in compliance with new state requirements. Mr. Molnar added that Planning staff will be working closely with staff from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and its regional representative to assist in coordinating multiple projects. Public Comment The Commission briefly discussed a public comment submitted by Mark Knox, who requested that the Commission consider mixed-use commercial buildings in certain Commercial and Residential Zones be temporarily permitted as 100% residential buildings (see attachment 2). Mr. Molnar stated that the City Council had requested that the Commission consider allowing mixed-use buildings to be 100% residential with a CUP, with the possibility of returning to commercial use in the future. He added that the mechanism for achieving this is being discussed by staff, but that Mr. Knox requested the Commission consider this course of action when the item is brought back before the Commission. Commissioner KenCaim stated that it would be premature to discuss this issue before it is sent back to the Commission. Chair Norton disagreed with Mr. Knox's assertion that the City Council, Planning Staff, and the Commission hold any bias against development in the City. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission May 10, 2022 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes April 12, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Kerry KenCairn Doug Knauer Absent Members: None Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Derek Severson, Senior Planner Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt (absent) Il. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements: • The Social Equity and Racial Justice (SERJ) Commission requested that a member of the Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission attend their meeting on May 5, 2022. Commissioner Knauer volunteered to attend. • The City Council will hold a hybrid Council meeting on April 19, 2022. The City Council members will be in attendance, as well as key members of staff. Members of the public will still participate virtually. City Commissions could potentially use this template for future meetings. • Mr. Molnar expressed gratitude to Commissioner Roger Pearce for his years of service on the Planning Commission. This will be Commissioner Pearce's final Commission meeting before his move to Seattle. Commissioner Pearce said that it had been a privilege to work with the Commission and Planning staff. Ill. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. March 8, 2022 Regular Meeting 2. March 22, 2022 Study Session Commissioners KenCairn/Verner m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. lV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS — Appeal A. PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 Scenic Dr. APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 1 of 8 DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission to hear an appeal of staff s decision approving PA -T1-2021-00168 which was a request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32 -acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, to the south is proposed Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and parcel 3 is proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7,5; MAP: 391E 08 AD, TAX LOT: 7300 Chair Norton read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. All Commissioners except for Commissioner Thompson visited the site. Staff Presentation Associate Planner Aaron Anderson detailed the staffs report on the appeal for the partition of the property at 34 Scenic Dr. The lot would be divided into three parcels, with parcel #3 remaining currently undeveloped. Mr. Anderson directed attention to the relevant criteria that were the main subjects of the appeal, and stated that staff found the criteria had been met by the applicants original submittal. Therefore it was staff's recommendation that the appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with the condifions recommended in the staff report (see attachment #1). Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification from staff regarding the use of an easement across the appellant's property to access parcel #3. Mr. Anderson related how the current easement would not be sufficient for any future single family homes per the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), but that staff did not weigh in on this issue because it was a civil matter between the two parties. Any future development would be required to show how the easement would allow for any necessary driveway standards before moving forward. Applicant Presentation Amy Gunter gave a brief presentation to the Commission detailing how the minimum standards for a lot partition were met in the original proposal. She stated that several parcel layouts were discussed before deciding on the current proposal, which would have sufficient lot depth, width and street access, and would comply with chapter 18.5.3 of the AMC. Ms. Gunter addressed one concern made by the appellants over the lack of a development plan for parcel #3. She explained that the applicants had several potential plans for the parcel, but that it was their intention to leave it undeveloped at this time. The development plan recently submitted by the applicants was made to convey the development potential to the appellants and alleviate any concerns that they held. Ms. Gunter then noted that the applicants had sought the expertise of an engineer to demonstrate that a driveway could be developed for parcel 43 and conform to existing AMC standards. She also drew attention to the recorded easement, which stipulated that the property owners would be permitted to drive, walk, and place utilities within that 15ft wide easement, and would be a legal access point to the property. Ms. Gunter addressed the connectivity issue raised by the appellants due to block length, pointing out that the Granite Street easement could grant access to Lithia Park in the event of increased foot traffic through the property. She stated that this is not the current intention of the applicants, but that this could be employed to alleviate the concerns of the appellants. Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Ms. Gunter summarized the contentious and protracted legal suit that settled the current easement over the property. The applicants also wanted the Commission to be aware of the increasing urbanization of the Scenic Drive area, and that this partition conforms to all development standards and criteria required by the AMC. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Verner inquired if the applicants would be averse to removing the easement from the bottom of lot #3 in order to disconnect it from lot #2. Ms. Gunter replied that she would be hesitant to do this because of the potential Ashland Planning Commission April 92, 2022 Page 2 of 8 for utilities through that easement. The original intention of the partition was to provide driveway access from the bottom of the lot and remove any need for parcels #1 and #2 to share a driveway. She stated that the site naturally lends itself to preserving the driveway of parcel #1 for access to parcel #2, and that the easement at the bottom of the lot could be amended to only allow for utilities along that easement and no longer support an ingress/egress point. Appellant Testimon Raul Woerner spoke on behalf the appellants, Susan and Rod Reid, and stated that the intent of the appeal was not to deny the partition, but to address concerns primarily regarding access to the parcel. The concern was that the nearby retaining wall would necessitate any future development to use the 15ft wide easement as a principal access point, a concept that the appellants believed would be untenable with increased traffic through the parcel. Therefore the appellants requested that the Commission impose a condition for approval stating that any issuance of development permits for parcel #3 be restricted until an access point that meets AMC standards is provided. Mr. Woerner contested page 2 of staffs report that a single family could use the easement as a access point without further review. He stated that this was incorrect because the AMC required that driveways over 50ft in length would need to be wider than the 15ft easement would allow. He also pointed out that the engineering plan was not provided in the initial application and was instead supplied afterwards, but was encouraged that such a development would be possible. Mr. Woerner concluded by informing the Commission that the Reids supported amending the terms of the easement at the bottom of parcel #2 to include utility use only. Public Testimony Richard and Joyce Stanley/Mr. and Mrs. Stanley conveyed their misgivings over access and lack of a development plan for parcel #3. They were concerned that the integrity of the nearby retaining wall would be compromised if forced to support a relatively steep driveway. They inquired if building a driveway in a swale would be problematic, and how the development could impact the parcel as a natural wildlife corridor. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley concluded by inquiring if a development plan could be requested, particularly with regards to the potential for up to twelve cottages being developed on the site and what that could mean for the narrow access point. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Gunter responded that many of the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley were code criteria and directed those inquiries to staff. She pointed out that no development plan was originally required in the application, but that one was provided in response to the appeal and that the plan for twelve cottages was one of many options for development and not a current proposal. Ms. Gunter clarified that the design for the driveway was done by one of the engineers responsible for the original retaining wall, which was the reason the applicant's team sought him out. She conceded that such a development would be difficult, but that the only lots left available in City were the ones with restrictive access points. She detailed how cottage housing would not require off-street parking as opposed to a subdivision, which would have different standards for development. Ms. Gunter then informed the Commission that she had contacted the appellants and agreed to change the easement for parcel #2 to be for utility use only. Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 7:55 p.m. Discussion and Deliberation Commissioner Verner stated that the Commission should deny the appeal because she believed that the requisite criteria had been met, but with the condition of approval regarding the use of language for parcel #3. There was general discussion over the Commission's jurisdiction over the language of the easement, but it was determined that because the applicants had consented to the change it could be listed as a condition of approval. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Commissioners Verner/Dawkins mis to uphold the original approval including the four conditions recommended by staff, with the addition of a fifth condition consistent with the applicant's proposal that the final survey plat identify the easement at the bottom of lot #3 as an easement for utility access to lot #2. Roti Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022-00037 — CONTINUED SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (cornerof Van Ness & Wafer Streets) APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for DESCRIPTION: A request for a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase I, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase Il. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting strips. [Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight to six. The application no longer includes a Solar Access Exception or an Exception to the plaza space requirement] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner KenCairn wanted it noted that she resides in the neighborhood, but believes that she treats all projects that go before the Commission impartially. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson first outlined the changes made to the commercial subdivision proposal since the March 8, 2022 Commission meeting (see attachment #2). The significant changes included: • The number of lots was reduced from eight to six. Eight buildings are still proposed but they would be constructed as condominiums. • The resultant lot configuration would alter the property lines and a Solar Access Exception would no longer be requested. • The resultant lot configuration would eliminate a previously identified street frontage issue for the previously proposed lot #5. • Each building would now be configured to provide 65% of the ground floor area for commercial use. • Plaza space had been clearly detailed, and identified plaza space totaling 8,774 square feet, over the initial proposal of 5,581 square feet. An exception for reduced plaza space would no longer be requested. • A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided, and concluded that development would not significantly impact traffic in the area. • A geotechnical report had been provided by the Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting firm. This report concluded that, with their recommendations, the site would be suitable for development without adversely affecting the stability of the slope. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Severson pointed out that the ceiling and building heights had not changed since the March 8, 2020 Manning Commission meeting. He directed the Commission's attention to the recommendation made by the Historic Commission at its April 6, 2022 meeting, which had determined that the three buildings along Heiman Street did not fit with the surrounding historic district and should be reduced in height, scale, and mass. The Historic Commission stated that the designs would benefit from a greater variety of materials, height, and number of stories to alleviate the monotony that the buildings would present along the Heiman streetscape. The Historic Commission thanked the applicants for the changes that had been made to the design of the buildings, but concluded that too few of their significant issues with the project had been addressed since their meeting on March 2, 2022. The Historic Commission unanimously recommended that the application be denied. Mr. Severson outlined how the key consideration for staff when examining the project was how to apply the Historic District Development Standards addressed in AMC 18.4.2.050.6.1. Regarding Transitional Areas, these standards stated that "appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject property." Mr. Severson stated that in staffs opinion the massing of the buildings along Heiman Street remained an issue. He suggested that greater third -floor step backs or plaza space in front of the buildings be considered to make the Heiman Street frontage more compatible with the surrounding area. He cited a project on First Street that employed third -story step backs in order to meet transitional building standards. Mr. Severson also drew attention to design standards in the Transit Triangle Overlay and the Croman Mill site and their use of transitional zones to incorporate future developments. In staffs opinion the application did not meet appropriate design and massing adjustments to meet the compatibility standards of the Historic District. Mr. Severson recommended that the Commission consider whether a more substantial third -floor step back might better address the buildings' massing, and whether some additional park -row and sidewalk width, or front plaza space, would work to provide some additional buffer space and better accommodate street tree growth which would ultimately support greater tree canopy as a further buffer. Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner requested clarification on the decision to deny the application by the Historic Commission. Mr. Severson responded that on March 2nd the Historic Commission had given the applicants recommendations on how to better incorporate the project into the Historic District. At the subsequent April 81hmeeting the Historic Commission determined that the applicants had not made significant enough changes to the project design and therefore recommended that the application be denied. Commissioner Pearce asked for clarification from staff on their interpretation of the transitional zones, and whether this referred to the transition between zones or the transition between individual projects. Mr. Severson stated that when the Historic Commission looks at projects they focus on the impact area, which is typically within 200 feet of the proposed site, and look at the existing development within that area. He pointed out that larger buildings have historically existed in the area, as well as some currently, but not within the 200ft impact area of the development site. Applicant Presentation Ms. Gunter gave a brief overview of the zoning and historical overlays of the development site and the surrounding area. She summarized the site history and showed several examples of large scale buildings that had fom erly existed in the Historic District. Ms. Gunter also noted that streets previously named "Mechanic" and "Factory' could be found in the area, which in her opinion alluded to industrial, employment, and commercial zoning being the predominant zoning types and uses of the area. She stated that the proposed buildings met Historic District design standards for massing, design, scale, mass, and materials used are within compliance for a mixed-use residential and commercial development in this zone. Ms. Gunter added that the development would be consistent with the Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 5 of 8 surrounding area and was under the maximum allowed building height. She noted that the lot numbers may change due to ORS 92 requirements, but that the layout would not change. Piper von Chamier spoke to the plaza space throughout the project, and detailed how the applicant team was able to fully develop the plazas throughout the sites. She remarked that the design team had also considered naming the central promenade either "Factory" or "Mechanic" Way as a nod to the formerly named streets. Ms. Chamier emphasized her firm's desire to include stormwater as a part of the landscape, as well as for fountains and irrigation. The largest plaza space would be Heiman Plaza, which would have raised stormwater planters, fountains, trees, and raised steps out to the parking area. Ms. Gunter mentioned that she found the Historic District design standards text largely addressed residential dwellings and the immediately adjacent properties, but seemed to primarily focus on the compatibility between two homes. She stated that the Transitional Zone between the districts would therefore need to be the most heavily considered criteria, which the proposed development would conform to. Ms. Gunter detailed how the designs also reflected the Historic District design standards, in the form of numerous traditional design elements and materials, despite the scale and massing appearing more modern in relation to the nearby houses. Ms. Gunter directed the Commission's attention back to the Historic Design standards and its lack of guidelines for a commercial development in relation to the existing residences. She stated that her team's interpretation of the transition zone indicates that the Historic District standards are superseded when considering the underlying zoning standards, and expressed the opinion that the design standards should be more objectively written. Mr. Gunter briefly presented side-by-side comparisons between the earlier building designs and those currently proposed. She showed further comparisons between her team's proposal and previously approved projects. Included was one that was accepted by the Commission but never developed, and would have included similar buildings in mass and scale to those proposed by the applicants. Ms. Gunter expressed concern that staff had cited the Transit Triangle and Croman Mil development standards in their report, despite those standards not being applicable to this proposal. Gil Livni, the property owner voiced his frustration over what he believed were shifting design standards from previously approved projects. He said that his team could make further design adjustments, but that denials seemingly based on subjective reasoning were disheartening. Mr. Livni expressed concern that the code of conduct regarding ex parte contact for Public Hearings had been breached. Public Comments Mark Brouillard/Mr. Brouillard rejected the concern that any improper contact had taken place. He drew the Commission's attention to two commercial buildings at 92 Van Ness Avenue and 152 Heiman Street as a comparison to the proposed development. Mr. Brouillard also contended that the applicant's TIA report contained inaccurate information. He cited section 18.3.13.010.a of the AMC which states that the Residential Overlay is intended to encourage a concentration and mix of businesses that provide a variety of housing types, a standard that he believes this project fell short of. Mr. Brouillard concluded by suggesting that the Commission follow the recommendation of the Historic Commission and deny the application. Eric Bonetti/Mr. Bonetti informed the Commission that he is Mr. Livni's neighbor and has worked with him on numerous projects. Mr. Bonetti contended that this district has not yet been fully utilized as an E-1 zone. He showed examples of several commercial buildings already in the Historic District and expressed the opinion that the applicant`s project could help revitalize the area. Mr. Bonetti acknowledged the difficulties of developing a parcel that encompasses and abuts the R-3, E-1, and M-1 zones, but that the applicants had put forth a convincing and appropriate proposal for development. He went on to say that if the application was rejected then this would remain an undeveloped and underutilized area, and warned that unsightly commercial developments could one day occupy the lot. Mr. Bonetti presented examples of undeveloped lots near the proposal site, and voiced frustration a project Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 6 of 8 with the potential to revive the area was not being readily approved. He cited the four-story Plaza Inn and Suites hotel on Water Street and three-story development on First Street as examples of similarly sized developments, and expressed the opinion that it could be seen as hypocritical if the Commission denied the applicant's proposal. Planning Manager Brandon Goldman wanted it noted that, while Mr. Brouillard does serve on the Transportation Commission, his comments were made as a resident of the neighborhood and not made on behalf of the Transportation Commission. Applicant's Rebuttal Ms. Gunter pointed out that the buildings in the proposal were similar in mass and scale, but they would not be identical. She stated that the development, when the base lot area relative to building size is taken into account, would be similar in massing and scale to the commercial building on 92 Van Ness Avenue cited by Mr. Brouillard. Ms. Gunter concluded by stating that citing existing single -story or underdeveloped Employment zone properties doesn't provide an Historic District comparison because those properties could be redeveloped to the Employment District site design review standards. Therefore they cannot be taken as direct comparisons to the applicant's proposal. Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 9:16 p.m. Discussion and Deliberation Mr. Severson stated that it was not staff's intention to suggest that the proposal would be subject to the design standards of the Croman Mill Site or Transit Triangle, merely to provide concrete examples of where the Commission determined those types of treatments were appropriate of ways to mitigate mass. Commissioner KenCaim suggested that the enclosed plaza spaces within the development be placed in front and provide set -backs for the development, alleviating the scale and mass of the development in relation to nearby single -story houses. She noted that the four-story development on Water Street had been approved because the site was at a lower elevation than Heiman Street, and wasn't in a residential neighborhood which made it more compatible with the area. Therefore the applicant's submittal could not be judged in relation to previously approved projects. Commissioner Pearce praised the plaza designs, adding that they met all the design standards necessary for approval. He voiced the opinion that the Transition Zone had been misinterpreted by the historic Commission, which he stressed speaks to the transitions between zones, not individual buildings. He stated that the only source of contention is the transition between the development site in the Employment District and the R-3 Zone across Heiman Street, and stated that the proposal was compatible with the neighboring R-3 Zone. Commission Verner disagreed with Commissioner Pearce's interpretation of the transition zones and stated that existing buildings should be taken into account when considering a new development. She suggested that the applicants consider placing four-story buildings along Water Street and two-story buildings along Heiman Street, thereby remove the issue of mass and scale in relation to the neighboring houses. Commissioner Verner remarked that she saw no significant change in the plazas since the applicant's first brought their proposal to the Commission, and voiced disappointment that the parking lots and entrance ways were being included as plaza spaces. Commissioner Thompson agreed with Commission Verner, adding that the code refers to the transition being between zones, and stated that the examples used in that section compared new developments to the existing historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. She stated that any transition between the Employment and R-3 zones would therefore need to take the Historic District code into account when considering any new development. Commissioner Thompson would support the Heiman Street buildings being reduced to two -stories in favor of increasing the Water Street developments to four -stories, and remarked that the mass and scale of the buildings Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 7 of 8 along Heiman Street is compounded by the -number of buildings proposed along that streetscape. Commissioner Thompson expressed her disappointment with the plaza spaces in the application. Commissioners DawkinslKenCairn mis to extend the meeting until 10:00. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. The Commission discussed the interpretation of the transition zone and massing along the Heiman streetscape, and there was general agreement that the applicants should submit a proposal dealing with this issue. Chair Norton remarked that the Planning Commission and Historic Commission had recommended to the applicants that they adjust their proposal to reduce scale and mass along Heiman Street. Commissioner Pearce agreed that the building mass remained an issue, but that the Commission should encourage such development projects. Commissioner Dawkins asked staff what would happen to the project if the Commission denied it. Mr. Severson replied that the Commission could deny the application without prejudice, which would allow the applicants to submit a new proposal for the site without delay. If it was denied outright then the only recourse for the applicants would be an appeal of the decision before the City Council or to wait one year before resubmitting. Chair Norton voiced frustration that the Commission had been put in the position to deny the application after the applicants had been given instructions for approval. Commissioner Pearce agreed that it should be denied without prejudice to allow the applicants to resubmit their development plans without delay. Commissioners DawkinslKenCairn mis to deny the application without prejudice. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, all AYES. Motion passed. 7.0. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission April 92, 2022 Page 8 of 8 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Planning Application Review April 6, 2022 PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 160 Heiman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for OWNER: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC and Gil Livni DESCRIPTION: A request for a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Heiman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase I, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase 11. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting strips. [Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight to six. The application no longer includes a SolarAccess Exception or an Exception to the plaza space requirement.] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 Recommendation: The Historic Commission would like to thank the applicants for the proposed building design modifications since the Commission reviewed the project last month. The Commission finds that most of the incremental changes are effective in that they address some of the Commission's concerns regarding the building fagades and pedestrian amenities, but these revisions fall short in focusing on the major issues identified in the March meeting, which had to do with the height, scale, and massing of the buildings as they relate to the Historic District Design Standards (AMC 18.4.2.050.B.2 -B.4.) This massive development of eight nearly identical "cookie cutter" designs has no precedent in Ashland or its historic districts. The Commission cannot support approval of a project that has demonstrated such disregard in their attempt to comply with our historic standards and the scale of our city and neighborhoods. In particular, the three buildings facing Heiman Street with a height of up to 40 feet and three stories will overwhelm the mostly single -story historic residences across the street. These proposed buildings fail to achieve an appropriate scale and facade compatibility to the adjacent historic streetscape. Additionally, the zero setback to the sidewalk exacerbates the building mass and scale that will overwhelm the adjacent pedestrian traffic. By comparison, the Plaza Inn & Suites hotel on the same side of Heiman Street, nearer to downtown, has 15- to 20 -foot setbacks and is only two - stories in height. In the Historic Commission's view, the building architecture and landscape design on this project is very attractive and high quality, but, the buildings are just not compatible with the scale of the historic district residences in the impact area, across Heiman Street. For these reasons, the Commission cannot support moving this application forward. With that in mind the Historic Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the project be denied. CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes April 12, 2022 1, CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Kerry KenCaim Doug Knauer Absent Members: None Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Derek Severson, Senior Planner Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt (absent) 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements: • The Social Equity and Racial Justice (SERJ) Commission requested that a member of the Planning Commission and Housing and Human Services Commission attend their meeting on May 5, 2022, Commissioner Knauer volunteered to attend. The City Council will hold a hybrid Council meeting on April 19, 2022. The City Council members will be in attendance, as well as key members of staff. Members of the public will still participate virtually. City Commissions could potentially use this template for future meetings. Mr. Molnar expressed gratitude to Commissioner Roger Pearce for his years of service on the Planning Commission. This will be Commissioner Pearce's final Commission meeting before his move to Seattle. Commissioner Pearce said that it had been a privilege to work with the Commission and Planning staff. III. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes 1. March 8, 2022 Regular Meeting 2. March 22, 2022 Study Session Commissioners KenCairnlVerner mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS — Appeal A. PLANNING ACTION: PA -APPEAL -2022-00014 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 34 Scenic Dr. APPLICANT/OWNER, Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 1 of 8 DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission to hear an appeal of staffs decision approving PA -T1-2021-00168 which was a request for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32 -acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, to the south is proposed Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and parcel 3 is proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; MAP: 391 E 08 AD, TAX LOT: 7300 Chair Norton read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. All Commissioners except for Commissioner Thompson visited the site. Staff Presentation Associate Planner Aaron Anderson detailed the staffs report on the appeal for the partition of the property at 34 Scenic Dr. The lot would be divided into three parcels, with parcel #3 remaining currently undeveloped. Mr. Anderson directed attention to the relevant criteria that were the main subjects of the appeal, and stated that staff found the criteria had been met by the applicants original submittal. Therefore it was staffs recommendation that the appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with the conditions recommended in the staff report (see attachment #1). Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked for clarification from staff regarding the use of an easement across the appellant's property to access parcel #3. Mr. Anderson related how the current easement would not be sufficient for any future single family homes per the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), but that staff did not weigh in on this issue because it was a civil matter between the two parties. Any future development would be required to show how the easement would allow for any necessary driveway standards before moving forward. Applicant Presentation Amy Gunter gave a brief presentation to the Commission detailing how the minimum standards for a lot partition were met in the original proposal. She stated that several parcel layouts were discussed before deciding on the current proposal, which would have sufficient lot depth, width and street access, and would comply with chapter 18.5.3 of the AMC. Ms. Gunter addressed one concern made by the appellants over the lack of a development plan for parcel #3. She explained that the applicants had several potential plans for the parcel, but that it was their intention to leave it undeveloped at this time. The development plan recently submitted by the applicants was made to convey the development potential to the appellants and alleviate any concerns that they held. Ms. Gunter then noted that the applicants had sought the expertise of an engineer to demonstrate that a driveway could be developed for parcel #3 and conform to existing AMC standards. She also drew attention to the recorded easement, which stipulated that the property owners would be permitted to drive, walk, and place utilities within that 15ft wide easement, and would be a legal access point to the property. Ms. Gunter addressed the connectivity issue raised by the appellants due to block length, pointing out that the Granite Street easement could grant access to Lithia Park in the event of increased foot traffic through the property. She stated that this is not the current intention of the applicants, but that this could be employed to alleviate the concerns of the appellants. Speaking on behalf of the applicants, Ms. Gunter summarized the contentious and protracted legal suit that settled the current easement over the property. The applicants also wanted the Commission to be aware of the increasing urbanization of the Scenic Drive area, and that this partition conforms to all development standards and criteria required by the AMC. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Verner inquired if the applicants would be averse to removing the easement from the bottom of lot #3 in order to disconnect it from lot #2. Ms. Gunter replied that she would be hesitant to do this because of the potential Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 2 of 8 for utilities through that easement. The original intention of the partition was to provide driveway access from the bottom of the lot and remove any need for parcels #1 and #2 to share a driveway. She stated that the site naturally lends itself to preserving the driveway of parcel #1 for access to parcel #2, and that the easement at the bottom of the lot could be amended to only allow for utilities along that easement and no longer support an ingress/egress point. Appellant Testimo� Raul Woemer spoke on behalf the appellants, Susan and Rod Reid, and stated that the intent of the appeal was not to deny the partition, but to address concerns primarily regarding access to the parcel. The concern was that the nearby retaining wall would necessitate any future development to use the 15ft wide easement as a principal access point, a concept that the appellants believed would be untenable with increased traffic through the parcel. Therefore the appellants requested that the Commission impose a condition for approval stating that any issuance of development permits for parcel #3 be restricted until an access point that meets AMC standards is provided. Mr. Woemer contested page 2 of staffs report that a single family could use the easement as a access point without further review. He stated that this was incorrect because the AMC required that driveways over 50ft in length would need to be wider than the 1 5f easement would allow. He also pointed out that the engineering plan was not provided in the initial application and was instead supplied afterwards, but was encouraged that such a development would be possible. Mr. Woemer concluded by informing the Commission that the Reids supported amending the terms of the easement at the bottom of parcel #2 to include utility use only. Public Testimony Richard and Joyce Stanley/Mr. and Mrs. Stanley conveyed their misgivings over access and lack of a development plan for parcel #3. They were concerned that the integrity of the nearby retaining wall would be compromised if forced to support a relatively steep driveway. They inquired if building a driveway in a swale would be problematic, and how the development could impact the parcel as a natural wildlife corridor. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley concluded by inquiring if a development plan could be requested, particularly with regards to the potential for up to twelve cottages being developed on the site and what that could mean for the narrow access point. Applicant Rebuttal Ms. Gunter responded that many of the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley were code criteria and directed those inquiries to staff. She pointed out that no development plan was originally required in the application, but that one was provided in response to the appeal and that the plan for twelve cottages was one of many options for development and not a current proposal. Ms. Gunter clarified that the design for the driveway was done by one of the engineers responsible for the original retaining wall, which was the reason the applicant's team sought him out. She conceded that such a development would be difficult, but that the only lots left available in City were the ones with restrictive access points. She detailed how cottage housing would not require off-street parking as opposed to a subdivision, which would have different standards for development. Ms. Gunter then informed the Commission that she had contacted the appellants and agreed to change the easement for parcel #2 to be for utility use only. Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 7:55 p.m. Discussion and Deliberation Commissioner Verner stated that the Commission should deny the appeal because she believed that the requisite criteria had been met, but with the condition of approval regarding the use of language for parcel #3. There was general discussion over the Commission's jurisdiction over the language of the easement, but it was determined that because the applicants had consented to the change it could be listed as a condition of approval. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 3 of 8 Commissioners Verner/Dawkins mis to uphold the original approval including the four conditions recommended by staff, with the addition of a fifth condition consistent with the applicant's proposal that the final survey plat identify the easement at the bottom of lot #3 as an easement for utility access to lot #2. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2.2022.00037 — CONTINUED SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) APPLICANTIOWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for DESCRIPTION: A request for a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase 1, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase Il. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting strips. [Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight to six. The application no longer includes a Solar Access Exception or an Exception to the plaza space requirement] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner KenCairn wanted it noted that she resides in the neighborhood, but believes that she treats all projects that go before the Commission impartially. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson first outlined the changes made to the commercial subdivision proposal since the March 8, 2022 Commission meeting (see attachment #2). The significant changes included: • The number of lots was reduced from eight to six. Eight buildings are still proposed but they would be constructed as condominiums. • The resultant lot configuration would alter the property lines and a Solar Access Exception would no longer be requested. • The resultant lot configuration would eliminate a previously identified street frontage issue for the previously proposed lot #5. • Each building would now be configured to provide 65% of the ground floor area for commercial use. • Plaza space had been clearly detailed, and identified plaza space totaling 8,774 square feet, over the initial proposal of 5,581 square feet. An exception for reduced plaza space would no longer be requested. • A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was provided, and concluded that development would not significantly impact traffic in the area. • A geotechnical report had been provided by the Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting firm. This report concluded that, with their recommendations, the site would be suitable for development without adversely affecting the stability of the slope. Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Severson pointed out that the ceiling and building heights had not changed since the March 8, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. He directed the Commission's attention to the recommendation made by the Historic Commission at its April 6, 2022 meeting, which had determined that the three buildings along Heiman Street did not fit with the surrounding historic district and should be reduced in height, scale, and mass. The Historic Commission stated that the designs would benefit from a greater variety of materials, height, and number of stories to alleviate the monotony that the buildings would present along the Heiman streetscape. The Historic Commission thanked the applicants for the changes that had been made to the design of the buildings, but concluded that too few of their significant issues with the project had been addressed since their meeting on March 2, 2022. The Historic Commission unanimously recommended that the application be denied. Mr. Severson outlined how the key consideration for staff when examining the project was how to apply the Historic District Development Standards addressed in AMC 18.4.2.050.8.1. Regarding Transitional Areas, these standards stated that "appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject property." Mr. Severson stated that in staffs opinion the massing of the buildings along Heiman Street remained an issue. He suggested that greater third -floor step backs or plaza space in front of the buildings be considered to make the Heiman Street frontage more compatible with the surrounding area. He cited a project on First Street that employed third -story step backs in order to meet transitional building standards. Mr. Severson also drew attention to design standards in the Transit Triangle Overlay and the Croman Mill site and their use of transitional zones to incorporate future developments. In staffs opinion the application did not meet appropriate design and massing adjustments to meet the compatibility standards of the Historic District. Mr. Severson recommended that the Commission consider whether a more substantial third -floor step back might better address the buildings' massing, and whether some additional park -row and sidewalk width, or front plaza space, would work to provide some additional buffer space and better accommodate street tree growth which would ultimately support greater tree canopy as a further buffer. Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner requested clarification on the decision to deny the application by the Historic Commission. Mr. Severson responded that on March 2nd the Historic Commission had given the applicants recommendations on how to better incorporate the project into the Historic District. At the subsequent April 8th meeting the Historic Commission determined that the applicants had not made significant enough changes to the project design and therefore recommended that the application be denied. Commissioner Pearce asked for clarification from staff on their interpretation of the transitional zones, and whether this referred to the transition between zones or the transition between individual projects. Mr. Severson stated that when the Historic Commission looks at projects they focus on the impact area, which is typically within 200 feet of the proposed site, and look at the existing development within that area. He pointed out that larger buildings have historically existed in the area, as well as some currently, but not within the 200ft impact area of the development site. Applicant Presentation Ms. Gunter gave a brief overview of the zoning and historical overlays of the development site and the surrounding area. She summarized the site history and showed several examples of large scale buildings that had formerly existed in the Historic District. Ms. Gunter also noted that streets previously named "Mechanic" and "Factory" could be found in the area, which in her opinion alluded to industrial, employment, and commercial zoning being the predominant zoning types and uses of the area. She stated that the proposed buildings met Historic District design standards for massing, design, scale, mass, and materials used are within compliance for a mixed-use residential and commercial development in this zone. Ms. Gunter added that the development would be consistent with the Ashland Planning Commission April IZ 2022 Page 5 of 8 surrounding area and was under the maximum allowed building height. Shenoted that the lot numbers may change due to ORS 92 requirements, but that the layout would not change. Piper von Chamier spoke to the plaza space throughout the project, and detailed how the applicant team was able to fully develop the plazas throughout the sites. She remarked that the design team had also considered naming the central promenade either "Factory" or "Mechanic" Way as a nod to the formerly named streets. Ms. Chamier emphasized her firm's desire to include stormwater as a part of the landscape, as well as for fountains and irrigation. The largest plaza space would be Heiman Plaza, which would have raised stormwater planters, fountains, trees, and raised steps out to the parking area. Ms. Gunter mentioned that she found the Historic District design standards text largely addressed residential dwellings and the immediately adjacent properties, but seemed to primarily focus on the compatibility between two homes. She stated that the Transitional Zone between the districts would therefore need to be the most heavily considered criteria, which the proposed development would conform to. Ms. Gunter detailed how the designs also reflected the Historic District design standards, in the form of numerous traditional design elements and materials, despite the scale and massing appearing more modern in relation to the nearby houses. Ms. Gunter directed the Commission's attention back to the Historic Design standards and its lack of guidelines for a commercial development in relation to the existing residences. She stated that her team's interpretation of the transition zone indicates that the Historic District standards are superseded when considering the underlying zoning standards, and expressed the opinion that the design standards should be more objectively written. Mr. Gunter briefly presented side-by-side comparisons between the earlier building designs and those currently proposed. She showed further comparisons between her team's proposal and previously approved projects. Included was one that was accepted by the Commission but never developed, and would have included similar buildings in mass and scale to those proposed by the applicants. Ms. Gunter expressed concern that staff had cited the Transit Triangle and Croman Mill development standards in their report, despite those standards not being applicable to this proposal. Gil Livni, the property owner voiced his frustration over what he believed were shifting design standards from previously approved projects. He said that his team could make further design adjustments, but that denials seemingly based on subjective reasoning were disheartening. Mr. Livni expressed concern that the code of conduct regarding ex parte contact for Public Hearings had been breached. Public Comments Mark Brouillard/Mr. Brouillard rejected the concern that any improper contact had taken place. He drew the Commission's attention to two commercial buildings at 92 Van Ness Avenue and 152 Heiman Street as a comparison to the proposed development. Mr. Brouillard also contended that the applicant's TIA report contained inaccurate information. He cited section 18.3.13.010.a of the AMC which states that the Residential Overlay is intended to encourage a concentration and mix of businesses that provide a variety of housing types, a standard that he believes this project fell short of. Mr. Brouillard concluded by suggesting that the Commission follow the recommendation of the Historic Commission and deny the application. Eric Bonetti/Mr. Bonetti informed the Commission that he is Mr. Livni's neighbor and has worked with him on numerous projects. Mr. Bonefti contended that this district has not yet been fully utilized as an E-1 zone. He showed examples of several commercial buildings already in the Historic District and expressed the opinion that the applicant's project could help revitalize the area. Mr. Bonetti acknowledged the difficulties of developing a parcel that encompasses and abuts the R-3, E-1, and M-1 zones, but that the applicants had put forth a convincing and appropriate proposal for development. He went on to say that if the application was rejected then this would remain an undeveloped and underutilized area, and warned that unsightly commercial developments could one day occupy the lot. Mr. Bonetti presented examples of undeveloped lots near the proposal site, and voiced frustration a project Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 6 of 8 with the potential to revive the area was not being readily approved. He cited the four-story Plaza Inn and Suites hotel on Water Street and three-story development on First Street as examples of similarly sized developments, and expressed the opinion that it could be seen as hypocritical if the Commission denied the applicant's proposal. Planning Manager Brandon Goldman wanted it noted that, while Mr. Brouillard does serve on the Transportation Commission, his comments were made as a resident of the neighborhood and not made on behalf of the Transportation Commission. Applicant's Rebuttal Ms. Gunter pointed out that the buildings in the proposal were similar in mass and scale, but they would not be identical. She stated that the development, when the base lot area relative to building size is taken into account, would be similar in massing and scale to the commercial building on 92 Van Ness Avenue cited by Mr. Brouillard. Ms. Gunter concluded by stating that citing existing single -story or underdeveloped Employment zone properties doesn't provide an Historic District comparison because those properties could be redeveloped to the Employment District site design review standards. Therefore they cannot be taken as direct comparisons to the applicant's proposal. Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 9:16 p.m. Discussion and Deliberation Mr. Severson stated that it was not staffs intention to suggest that the proposal would be subject to the design standards of the Croman Mill Site or Transit Triangle, merely to provide concrete examples of where the Commission determined those types of treatments were appropriate of ways to mitigate mass. Commissioner KenCaim suggested that the enclosed plaza spaces within the development be placed in front and provide set -backs for the development, alleviating the scale and mass of the development in relation to nearby single -story houses. She noted that the four-story development on Water Street had been approved because the site was at a lower elevation than Heiman Street, and wasn't in a residential neighborhood which made it more compatible with the area. Therefore the applicant's submittal could not be judged in relation to previously approved projects. Commissioner Pearce praised the plaza designs, adding that they met all the design standards necessary for approval. He voiced the opinion that the Transition Zone had been misinterpreted by the Historic Commission, which he stressed speaks to the transitions between zones, not individual buildings. He stated that the only source of contention is the transition between the development site in the Employment District and the R-3 Zone across Heiman Street, and stated that the proposal was compatible with the neighboring R-3 Zone. Commission Verner disagreed with Commissioner Pearce's interpretation of the transition zones and stated that existing buildings should be taken into account when considering a new development. She suggested that the applicants consider placing four-story buildings along Water Street and two-story buildings along Heiman Street, thereby remove the issue of mass and scale in relation to the neighboring houses. Commissioner Verner remarked that she saw no significant change in the plazas since the applicant's first brought their proposal to the Commission, and voiced disappointment that the parking lots and entrance ways were being included as plaza spaces. Commissioner Thompson agreed with Commission Verner, adding that the code refers to the transition being between zones, and stated that the examples used in that section compared new developments to the existing historic buildings in the immediate vicinity. She stated that any transition between the Employment and R-3 zones would therefore need to take the Historic District code into account when considering any new development. Commissioner Thompson would support the Heiman Street buildings being reduced to two -stories in favor of increasing the Water Street developments to four -stories, and remarked that the mass and scale of the buildings Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 7 of 8 along -Heiman Street is compounded by the number of buildings proposed along that streetscape. Commissioner Thompson expressed her disappointment with the plaza spaces in the application. Commissioners DawkinslKenCairn mis to extend the meeting until 10:00. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 7-0. The Commission discussed the interpretation of the transition zone and massing along the Heiman streetscape, and there was general agreement that the applicants should submit a proposal dealing with this issue. Chair Norton remarked that the Planning Commission and Historic Commission had recommended to the applicants that they adjust their proposal to reduce scale and mass along Heiman Street. Commissioner Pearce agreed that the building mass remained an issue, but that the Commission should encourage such development projects. Commissioner Dawkins asked staff what would happen to the project if the Commission denied it. Mr. Severson replied that the Commission could deny the application without prejudice, which would allow the applicants to submit a new proposal for the site without delay. If it was denied outright then the only recourse for the applicants would be an appeal of the decision before the City Council or to wait one year before resubmitting. Chair Norton voiced frustration that the Commission had been put in the position to deny the application after the applicants had been given instructions for approval. Commissioner Pearce agreed that it should be denied without prejudice to allow the applicants to resubmit their development plans without delay. Commissioners DawkinslKenCairn mis to deny the application without prejudice. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, KenCairn, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, Knauer, and Norton, all AYES. Motion passed. 7.0. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assislant Ashland Planning Commission April 12, 2022 Page 8 of 8 WRITTEN PUBLIC TESTIiI`NY RECEIVED DURING THE PUBI FC HEARING ON 411212022 PA -T2-2022-00037 (165 Water Street) BC PARTNERS III Memo from Eric Bonetti, 105 Water Street, Ashland, OR 97520 GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT 1. 1 have lived in Ashland since 1997, various locations within town, ranging from the Railroad District, near the High School, a home off of Tolman Greek Road, now back in the middle of town. pl met Gil Livni and his wife Kathleen in 2005 on Old Mill Way, and I have worked on numerous successful projects with Mr. Livni over the years. We also own and happen to be the neighboring property at 105 Water Street, directly adjacent to Mr. Livni's project on Water Street. 2. The extension of the E1 "Employment Zone" has never been fully realized within this area of Ashland. The E1 zone actually extends from Hersey all the way up to "B" Street. This particular section of town on Water Street, Van Ness and Heiman also has a "residential overlay." 3. 1 know that this project on Water, Van Ness and Heiman Street is a challenging site to develop and there are various transition considerations to be given between the M1 (Industrial zoning), R3 (High Density Residential zoning) and E1 (Employment zoning)—but I believe the architects at Terrain Landscape Design and Rogue Planning and Development have done a great job addressing these challenges. 4. 1 find the project quite practical and attractive in its overall design. I believe the connectivity through the property on its landscaped paths and via the new alleyway will help bring new life and vibrancy to this area of town. 5. 1 am concerned that if Mr. Livni's project is not approved for some reason, meaning that there are no new business opportunities developed in this area, no new housing brought to this area, the "undeveloped blight" will remain unchanged. I've have witnessed for 25+ years, that nothing new has developed along this area of Water Street. Worse in my opinion is that these three properties could be redeveloped into more large metal commercial structures lacking any charter nor provide needed residential housing. PHOTOS OF SURROUNDING WATER STREET AREA ENHANCEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DISTRICT 1. The E-1 Zone is and "employment zone" and these particular parcels have the "residential overlay"—so the thought of having new live/work area to this section of Ashland is appealing. It also seems appropriate for the proposed housing density since the property is adjacent to the M1, R3 High Density Residential Zoning. 2. if the City wants more housing in Ashland, more employment in Ashland—then one needs to have structures with multiple floors at this level of density or greater. Again, the Magnolia Terraces project is in compliance for the El Employment Zone. 3. The proposed development should create a new energy, vibrancy an opportunities to within this area and surrounding neighborhoods, hypothetically there could be a yoga studio, a CPA, a coffee shop, a reading center, and nonprofit organization, etc. Currently what is in the area could be seen as a "hodge podge" of residential, construction yards, concrete pumping services, recycling center, skate park, cabinet shop, food services and large metal commercial buildings. Page 1 of 3 A -T2-2022-00037 (165 Water Street) 4. 1 think how great the railroad district is with its buildings, homes and businesses and live & work structures, coffee shops, bike shops, veterinarians, furniture stores, etc.. This area of Water Street, Van Ness and Helman could also be great! Now is the time to extend the Railroad District and Downtown into what has been a neglected area for many many years. CREATING SAFETY AND ENHANCING THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. t previously have heard comments from a neighbor that this area has been ripe for illegal drugs (calling it a `shooting gallery'), nefarious activities, etc. They didn't seem to support the development, connectivity that alley extension between Water Street and Hellman Street and pathways through the project will be provided. The City's website, states; "Role - The Transportation Commission advises the City Council on transportation related issues specifically as they relate to safety, planning, funding and advocacy for bicycles, transit, parking, pedestrian and all other modes of transportation. 2. 1 actually have a different perspective. I assume that when this project moves forward, when the area is populated, with active businesses and engaged citizens, pedestrian traffic, buildings, lights, and personal pride of ownership—that the area would actually be cleaned up and less dangerous -the blight lifted. 3. Again, this area of Water Street has been a "dark zone in the past" hence the City's parking has been limited to (4) hours in the day, no parking between Midnight -5:30 a.m. People will be less likely be parking buses on the street, nor the spilling of booze bottles and trash. Yes, unfortunately—these are all realities I've witnessed as I have personally clean areas in front of our buildings at 105 Water Street (with my kids in tow). HISTORIC COMMISSION 1. I participated in the Historic Commission's meeting last week. I find the Historic Commission's interaction last week with Mr. Livni to have been very subjective, premeditated — and not objective. They did not provided him a clear path to move this project forward. 2. On a personal note, when we were remodeling 145 North Main Street, we encountered a very similar subjective, not historically accurate, and un -supportive criticism from the Historic Commission. Therefore we brought forth our project to the Planning Commission to which the Historic Commission's sentiments were overturned. PLAZA I OPEN SPACE / PROXIMITY OF THE PROJECT 1. 1 appreciate how Magnolia has designed the plaza space and pathways within the project. If an individual has a bad knee or hip, an elderly parent visiting, young children, do you have to walk up the hill to enjoy the plaza space or could you not enjoy the landscaping and the open space near your building with ease-of-use. 2_ If someone would like additional open space, one can venture literally a block away and there's 4.4 acres of land and community gardens at Ashland Creek Park on Hersey. Page 2 of 3 A -T2-2022-00037 (165 Water Street) 3. Two -three blocks to the South, puts one at the Downtown Plaza and adjacent to the Calle where you can there is additional open space along the Ashland Creek and Lithia Park. This project should be considered an extension of the Railroad District and Downtown. COMPARISON OF OTHER PROJECTS 1. The hotel which was previously approved for Mr. Livni was much larger in scale, much more massive that the current project that has been proposed. The Planning Commission approved Hotel building with apartments on the site for Magnolia Investments as presented in 2018. 2. The property and the proposed building on the corner of 95 Van Ness and Heiman, previously owned by Jim Batzer, had a building which was approved by the historic commission, and this building was much larger, taller, than what Mr. Livni is proposing for any of his buildings. 3. The Magnolia Terraces project and design tastefully done. It integrates the need for the required commercial building spaces per the E1 Employment Zone, with the buildings overall looking more residential giving a nod to the R3 High Density Residential zone— much more than neighboring metal buildings on Helman, Hersey, and Water Street. It appears that the proposed development and application meets the required planning code requirements. The City now has the opportunity to move this area of town forward—I look to the planning commission's for support of this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Eric Bonetti Page 3 of 3 From: City of Ashland._ OrGgc�n To.,fan nnina; Rescan 7r_aN Subject. Historic Commission Contact Form Submitted Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 3:01:10 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] ***FORM FIELD DATA* * * Full Name: Mark Brouillard Phone:2066617085 Email: mtbrouillard@msn.com Subject: Response to April 6th meeting Message: Dear Historic Commission: Thank you for your diligence with regards to PA - T2 -2022-00037. We believe that the Commission came to the correct decision. I am not writing really in response to your decision. I would like to respond to several comments I heard from the recording and following along with the draft minutes provided by staff (Regan Trapp). Eric Bonetti?s comments, like ours, should be looked at in full context. Mr. Bonetti was tasked by Magnolia Fine Homes to sell 160 Helman Street as a mulit- story multi -use condo complex in 2020-2021. I asked that the Commission look at Zillow and put in the address for 160 Helman Street. You can see what they were trying to sell as an ?approved? project. I interacted with Mr. Bonetti on several occasions, including about Mass, Scale, and Size of the proposed ?approved? building he was trying to sell. I cannot share those comments as they are not appropriate, but they were so egregious that I wrote Mayor Atkins about it. I would personally contact Mr. Bonetti when the For Sale sign would fall or be knocked over, asked if we could do something about the landscape maintenance (the neighborhood was willing to pitch in to clean it up), and when the door was open (along with calling the police for both him and Gil due to the 160 Helamn building being used as a ?shooting den?). At one point, I believe Magnolia Fine Homes came in and upgraded the security of the building so that they could use it for storage (windows, and other construction materials ? guessing it was for the project in Talent). That stemmed the flow of folks through the building. Also, Mr. Bonetti should know that materials to be shown or used in public meetings are supposed to be provided before the meetings, as he is a developer and real-estate agent. If it was one or two pictures I wouldn?t have minded, but it makes it hard for a rebuttal during a meeting, which if I were present would have. Next, being referred to as uneducated (?should have educated themselves better??) home owners who should have known better before purchasing the properties is a slap in the face. Margret (owner of 145/149 Helman Street) purchased her duplex from her landlord/owner. Myself and my wife (owners of 159 Helman) purchased our home from our landlord/owner. Felipe and Sofia (owners of 171 Helman) purchased their home from their landlord/owner. Gabrielle and Gerome (former owners of 175 Helman ? moved recently due to job) purchased their home from their landlord/owner. We were all tenants who purchased the homes we rented. We had all been around for the first iterations of Magnolia Terrace back in 2006. We all knew that something was going to be built across from us as we have seen it over the years. When Brian purchased 173 Helman from Woody, he knew that there was going to be something built across the street (though in the minutes it is shown as 160 Helman, it was 95 Van Ness/Bazt a r?s project). When Brian sold it to Jordan and Sheldon (current owners, purchased this year), they were fully aware that buildings were going to be put up across the street. Seems rather disingenuous to suggest that we, the Helman Street Received 4.14.2022 homeowners?, didn?t know this and that we should have researched better -before purchasing. Also, I moved here in 1992 and my first job was at Pyramid Juice Company. Think I might know the property just a tad more than most. My last comment would be in response to energy efficiency of our ?small? homes being less efficient that the new proposed buildings. Though it might be possibly correct, it again is another slight to those of us who have worked diligently to make our homes more efficient. Let?s start with 175 Heiman; in 2017 Gabrielle and Gerome got a loan through the city to put in an energy efficient HVAC system. They then went on to redo the entire interior of the house to put in more insulation in the walls, better windows and doors, new insulation in the attic and crawl space, water saying measures in landscape and all new plumbing throughout. They were conscious about energy consumption as she worked as was a conservationist, along with having a newborn that they wanted to teach about redoing old and making it better than before. My wife and I redid the interior of our home in 2018 by removing the lathe and plaster and rebuilding inside of the original exterior walls using 2 X 6 constructi o n methods. We lost several square feet of living space to do this and put in R-21 insulation vs. having nothing before. We put in all new energy efficient windows and doors, along with new insulation in the attic (did the crawl space about 20 years ago). We also purchased an energy efficient mini -split HVAC system vs. having a window mounted A1C and very large gas furnace. Sofia and Felipe of 173 Heiman also did an interior remodel in 2018 for the same reasons I mentioned with the other two addressed. They too put in an energy efficient mini -split HVAC system vs. having a window mounted A1C and very large gas furnace. Thank you for your time and sorry for the long winded response. Attachment I file: Attachment 2 file: Attachment 3 file: * * * USER INF OR.MATION SubscriberID: -1 SubscriberUserName: SubscriberEmail: RemoteAddress: 66.241.70.76 Remo teHost: 66.241.70.76 RemoteUser: Received 4.11.2022 Michael Sullivan From: Brandon Goldman Sent: Friday, April 08, 2022 4:58 PM To: Michael Sullivan; Derek Severson Subject: FW: Recent Ashland Contruction/Development, observations on Mahar's building Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Please add Mr. Bonetti's email below as a public comment for the PC 4/12 hearing regarding 165 Water Street. Thanks. Brnaodn From: Eric Bonetti <ashlandoregon@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2022 3:23 PM To: Brandon Goldman<brandon.goldman@ashiand.or.us>; Gil Livni <magnoliaflnehomes@gmail.com>; Amy Gunter <amygunter. planning@gmail.com> Subject: Recent Ashland Contruction/Development, observations on Mahar's building (EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Brandon, Just another observation while driving through town. The final phase of the Mahar building project is three stories, directly adjacent to the historic railroad district, not even separated by a street (Gil Livni's project is buffered by the public right of way of Helman and Van Ness Streets). Gil Livni's buildings will also be less formidable and more residential in design/appearance in comparison the building illustrated here below. I Thanks, Eric ERIC BONETT1 165 Water Street Ashland OR 97520 Cell 541-951-7653 1 Office 541-488-0010 j eEax 503-210-7899 ashlandoregon@gmail.com Michael Sullivan From: Cat gould <cat.gould@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 3:51 PM To: Planning Commission - Public Testimony Subject: 4/12/22 PC hearing testimony [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear commissioners, I live very close to this proposed development and feel for the following reasons it is not a good fit for our neighbourhood in the Skidmore historic district, nor responsible development for Ashland as a whole. The design has not made any attempt to blend into the historic nature of our modest neighbourhood. Nor takes into account the necessity to curtail energy consumption in every household. PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) Sincerely, Cat Gould 114 Van Ness Ave, Ashland, OR 97520 Sustainability and Affordability Ashland does not need more unaffordable housing that demands huge energy consumption to keep cool in summer and warm in winter due to the high ceilings and exposure. What are the projected energy costs to keep these large high ceilinged apartments comfortable? Ashland needs housing for lower income workers that we rely on to work in our restaurants/schools/and retail stores. Many employees of the Ashland City administration can't even afford to live here. Energy costs are skyrocketing and this is not just pocket book costs, it is costs paid out in climate chaos on the poorest of the world who do not have the freedom to simply pay more to live elsewhere. It is irresponsible to be building anything less than energy efficient housing. Energy consumption is reduced by 1 % for each 10 cm of ceiling height reduction. Parking Most houses in the area already use street parking which is strained during high season, this can not have been assessed by the traffic analysis due to lack of high season for the past 2 years. Flood Plain While we are in a drought cycle now we all know that this will be over at some point and the unpredictable natureof climate chaos that we have unalterably entered will continue. I have to wonder why Gil Livni, who only recently lost his entire development to climate chaos and had to completely rebuild after the Almeda fire, would once again throw his buildings in the path of zoned "extreme or severe risk" of flooding. This land has Severe Constraints meaning "development of this land is discouraged" Application itself explains "the embankment was likely first created by Ashland Creek" . Shading caused by mass of structure on neighborhood and traffic The following image was taken off google earth and you can see where the 28 foot pole reaches (yellow). At a proposed average height of 40 feet the development will be approximately 40% taller than the existing pole. have conservatively projected in orange the extent of the shadow that will be cast from this building on the homes and intersection. This intersection and the steep downhill slope of Van Ness Ave to Water st is in heavy use throughout the year by commuters, school traffic, recology vehicles, delivery trucks and the official bike corridor from the greenway and will be extremely icy throughout winter due to this shading from the building. From: City of Ashland, Oregon To: planning; Regan Trapp Subject: Historic Commission Contact Farm submitted Rate: Monday, April 04, 2022 6:31:16 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] *** FORM FIELD DATA*** Full Name: Mark Brouillard Phone: 206 6617085 Email: Mtbrouillard@msn.com Subject: PA -T2-2022--00037 Message: To whom it may concern: I am unable to be at this week's meeting but wanted to follow-up from the last meeting. First, as a point of reference we have heard about the photo showing Ashland Iron Works and its supposed 40 foot height. That height was on the Water Strret frontage. Second, I implore you to revisit the Heiman Street side. Stand in front of 173 Heiman. Look at the subject property and notice a lamp post next to the gate. The propsed Buildings would be 8+ feet taller than that. Third, it seems like a rather flippant response to the Commisiins asking for different heights on the Heiman Street side. Two deck/balcony changes and that is considered an elevation change? Fourth, this project still doesn't meet the AMC criteria I laid out in the last meeting. Setbacks, scale, massing, height are not even close to the homes in the on or across the street. Fifth, buildings are.still cookie cutter and don't follow the AMC which states different buildings and residential accommodation (have AMC at home, currently on an airplane). All we are asking for is something reasonable on the Heiman Street side. Buildings taller than a telephone poll is not reasonable. No setbacks; again revisit the site and look at it from the sidewalk on the east side of Heiman. Walk from Central towards Van Ness and Invision a monolithic building with zero setback. It will block the openess of the street and any view that there once was. Doesn't seem like any equity; social, mental health, economic, or justice. This is a David versus Goliath moment that you as the historic commission have a lot of say in. Respectfully, Mark and Donna Brouillard 159 Heiman Street Attachment 1 file: Attachment 2 file: Attachment 3 file: *** USER INFORMATION *** SubscriberID: -1 SubscriberUserName: SubscriberEmail: RemoteAddress: 66.241.70.76 RemoteHo st: 66.241.70.76 RemoteUser: Received 4.4.2022 From: Sarre Baker To; Plannino Commission - Public Testimonv Subject: Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony Date: Saturday, April 02, 2022 8:47:24 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] My wife and I live on Helman Street and are very concerned about project PATT2-202200037 because it does not fit into the quaint historic feel of our neighborhood. After having been blindsided by the city when the Plaza Inn was able to add an additional building on the corner of Central and Heiman that was not in the original approved plans, we feel that extra care needs to be taken to protect what is left of our quality neighborhood. Our concerns are as follows: Height - the proposed units on Helman Street will be much taller than any nearby. Scale - the proposed units will not be to scale with anything on that side of Helman Street. Massing - the surrounding buildings are single units and set back from the street and the new project is not consistent with this design. Past project proposals have been denied for these same reasons and we hope that this project will also be denied. Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 .r 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022-00037 CITY OF -ASHLAND SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Wafer Streets) APPLICANT Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for OWNER: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC and Gil Livni DESCRIPTION: A request for a six -lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase 1, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase 11, The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park -row planting strips. [Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight to six. The application no longer includes a Solar Access Exception or an Exception to the plaza space requirement.] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E- 1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6.00 PM, See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 92, 2022 G: comm-devlplanningTianning ActionsTAs by StreetMWaterlWater_1655PA-T2-2022-00037—Site Review & Phased SubdivisionWoliciagWOC 92lWater_165 PA-T2-2022-00037_NOCAmx Historic Commission Meeting Notice is hereby given that the Historic Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the Historic Commission meeting virtually, but not participate in any discussion, you can use the Zoom link posted on the City of Ashland calendar website httr)s://www.ashland.or.us/calendar.asp . Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line "Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public- testimony@ash land. or. us with the subject fine "Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Tree Commissioners 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-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 6, 2022. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "Advisory Commission Testimony Request", 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to testify at, 4) specify the agenda item you wish to speak to, 5) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 6) 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 CPR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). 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 rvtv,sou,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, f=ailure 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-19 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 planningOashland.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. ashIand.or.us/PCpackets seven 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 Wnburn Way, via a pre -arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing plan ningoashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC ublic-testimon ashland.or.us with the subject line "April 12 PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC -public -testimony a().ashland.or.us with the subject line "April 12, 2022 Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2022. 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. 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- public-testimony(a7ashl and, or, us by 10:00 a.m. on April 11, 2022. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "April 12 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 541-552-20401 derek.seversonpashland.or.us. GAcomm-dev\planningTianning Actioas\PAs by StreetlW\Water\Water_i6.STA-'f2-2022-00037_Site Review & Phased SubdivisionVolicing\NOC #2\W ater_lfi5_PA-T2-2022-00037_NOCAnex SUBDIVISION CRITERIA 18,5.3,070 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Criteria A. Approval Criteria. The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the following approval criteria, 1. The subdivision pian conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area, 2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation), 3, Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. 4, The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. 5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat and maintenance of such areas(e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.) is ensured through appropriate legal instrument (e.g,, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). 6, Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. B. Conditions of Approval. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations, 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 forwater, 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. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.8.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site, b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty, d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. GAcomm-dev\p1anning\P1anning Actions\PAs by StreetMWaterMater_165\PA-T2 2022-0003?_Site Review & Phased SubdivisionWaticingWOC #2\Water 165 PA-T2-2022-0003T_NQC.do" PHYSICAL. & ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSTRAINTS 18.3.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria, A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions, The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS 18.3.10.090.H An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18,5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10,090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.13) Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2, Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. G. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone, In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18,57.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Mcomm-devlplanning)Planning ActionsTAs by StreeAW\WaterlWater 165TA-T2-2022-00037_Site Review & Phased SubdivisionWoticingWOC QNWater-165 PA-T2-2022-00037_NOC.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 March 29, 2022 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 -T2-2022-04037, 165 Water Street. .Al ichaeCSuCCivan Signature of Employee G:%comnrdevV1ann1ng4P1anning AchonslPAs by Stree6WtWaMWater_IMPA-T2-2022-00037_Site Review $ Phased SubolvisionWaheingWOG#ZWa1er_166_PA-T2-2022-00037_NOC_AfldavR of Mailing.doex 312912022 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2300 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2400 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E09BB16400 AGUILAR JORDAN ASHLEY/SHELDON ARCHER FELIPE B ET AL ASHLAND CREEK HOLDINGS LLC 173 HELMAN ST 171 HELMAN ST 70 WATER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5100 BAKER BARRY AIMICHELLE A 122 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2500 BROUILLARD MARK TODD/DONNA 159 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1500 CHURCHILL SCOTT GIGOULD CATHS 114 VAN NESS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1600 FAKUNDING CHRISS MIKRISTINE L 110 VAN NESS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1900 HOBSON RONALD CLIFTON/MARCIA 102 PLEASANT VW TALENT, OR 97540 PA -T2-2022-00037 MARQUESS AND ASSOCIATES PO BOX 490 MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA -T2-2022-00037 391E04CC1800 NEW HORIZONS WOODWORKS FOLICK JOSHUA B 11308 SE STANLEY AVE PORTLAND, OR 97222 PA -T2-2022-00037 PIPER VON CHAMIER 174 HIDDEN LANE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391E04CC1901 BATZER JAMES H 2358 BLUE SKY LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2600 BROWN MICHAEL HAROLD & PHYLLI 119 VAN NESS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5000 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC 246 FOURTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391E04CC1800 FOLICK JOSH/BONNIE 11308 SE STANLEY AVE MILWAUKIE, OR 97222 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC7100 LIVNI GIL 2974 CHAPMAN LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2200 MASON MARY ET AL 530 LOMA ATTA CARMEL, CA 93923 - PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC90000 NORTH JAMES EI DEBRA J 85 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 POLARIS LAND SURVEY PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5500 BC PARTNERS III LLC 175 PIEDMONT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC4800 CHAPPELL CURTIS C TRUSTEE ET 522 MYRTLE AVE MODESTO, CA 95350 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5901 CONSERVANCY LLC CIO SHAW ROGER PO BOX 1105 VANCOUVER, WA 98666 I PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5200 GEARY EDWARD A TRUST ET AL 345 HARRISON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2000 MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 2974 CHAPMAN LN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1800 NEW HORIZONS WOODWORKS FOLICK JOSHUA B 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E098131 6801 PECKHAM FRANCIS B JR MECCA SUZETTE 315 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 RHINE -CROSS GROUP PO BOX 909 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601 PA -T2-2022-00037 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5900 PA -T2-2022-00037 ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ' RUBIN MARGARET NASH SANDOW ENGINEERING 1314-B CENTER DR., PMB #457 323 OAK ST 160 MADISON ST, SUITE A MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97402 PA-T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC4700 SCHLITZER MARGRET BRAY 622 HELMAN ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5700 VARNEY MARIANNE PO SOX 744 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 SNYDER ENGINEERS 415 E. PINE ST CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5300 WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL 152 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5800 VAN AUSDALL JOHN MICHAEL 40 VAN NESS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 165 Water NOC 3/29/22 35 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes March 8, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Kerry KenCairn Doug Knauer Absent Members: None Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Derek Severson, Senior Planner Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt, not present II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Haywood Norton began by welcoming Doug Knauer to the Planning Commission. Community Development director Bill Molnar made the following announcements: • Commissioners Kerry KenCairn and Lisa Verner have volunteered to join the Housing Production Strategy Advisory Committee. The Housing Production Strategy will build upon the Housing Capacity Analysis and will result in specific programs and actions to address the housing needs of the community. The state requires the Housing Production Strategy to create an active plan that can be implemented over the next several years. The Committee will meet five times over a period of ten months. A consultant for EcoNorthwest will give an overview of the Housing Production Strategy at the March 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, as well as detail some public involvement processes that the Commission can engage in. • Discussions will be held about a Planning Commission retreat in the future. Ill. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1, February 8, 2022 Regular Meeting Commissioners Thompson/KenCairn m/s to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Knauer abstained due to the meeting taking place before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA -T2-2022-00036, 329 Granite St. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner KenCairn recused herself due to her presence on the design team. No ex parte contact was reported. Associate Planner Aaron Anderson informed the Commission that revisions were made to the Findings prior to the meeting after Commissioner Lynn Thompson identified the necessary corrections within the distributed copy. Three were editorial revisions, an addition of the Tree Commission's recommendations, and significantly reworked paragraph 2.4 dealing with Conditions of Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 1 of 6 Approval. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Anderson for clarification regarding the Physical & Environmental Restraints criteria for the project, specifically that the Findings state that the family dwelling was well within the maximum allowed on this parcel despite it needing an exception before proceeding. Mr. Anderson explained that per State Bill 2001 the maximum number of units allowed on the parcel would be two, which this single dwelling development would fail under. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m!s to approve PA -T2.2022.00036 with staff's revisions. Commissioner KenCairn abstained due to her presence on the design team, and Commissioner Knauer abstained due to the item being approved before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 5-0. B. Recommendation to City Council for PA -T2-2021-00031, 3751475 E. Nevada Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Questions of Staff Commissioner Pearce inquired if the City Council would have full access to the Findings and Recommendation for this item before voting, to which Senior Planner Derek Severson responded that both would be provided to the Council. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins mis to approve Recommendation to the City Council on item PA -T2.2022.00031. Commissioner Knauer abstained due to the item being approved before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6.0. VL PUBLIC FORUM - None VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 165 Water Street, 160 Heiman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) APPLICANT/OWNER. Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for DESCRIPTION: A request for an eight -lot commercial subdivision to construct a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Heiman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use buildings consisting of two ground floor commercial spaces with two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The remaining three building sites would be developed in a later phase. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; a request far an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow 3,087 square feet of plaza space where the standards require 5,624 square feet; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park row planting strips. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 Chair Norton read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact All Commissioners conducted site visits, Commissioner KenCairn resides in the neighborhood. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Prior to the Staff Report, Chair Norton read from one passage on page 16 that he believed would impact how the meeting would be conducted: "In staffs assessment, there are stili additional items needed to complete the Commission's review of the Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 2 of 6 application. Without a Traffic Impact Analysis and Geotechnical Report, and time to review tnem, staff does not believe that findings can be made that all applicable criteria have been satisfied, however staff believed it was worthwhile to begin the public process, solicit comments from both the Tree and Historic Commissions, and provide the Planning Commissioners with an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the site and proposal and weigh in on key issues including the Exceptions to the Site Development and Design, Solar Access and Hillside standards." Mr. Severson presented the application for an eight -lot commercial subdivision to construct a phased mixed-use development of the three properties including 95 Van Ness Avenue, 165 Water Street, and 160 Heiman Street totaling 1.9 acres. The Phase I site would consist of five mixed-use buildings containing commercial and residential units, with the remaining three being developed in Phase Il. Four Exceptions would be necessary for development; 1) Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow for an approximately 45% reduction in the required plaza space; 2) Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park row strips; 3) Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; and 4) Solar Access Exceptions for Lots #3 and #4 (request received after public noticing, requiring continuance of the Public Hearing to the Planning Commission meeting on April 12 to allow for re -noticing). A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit and a Tree Removal Permit to remove twenty trees would also be required. As noted by Chair Norton Mr. Severson detailed further requirements for development, including a complete Geo -Technical report and time for the Planning and Public Works staff to review a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was received on March 2, 2022. As such it was Staffs recommendation that the Public Hearing be continued to the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Severson called attention to the site's proximity to C-1, R-2, R-3, and M-1 zoning, and is at the edge of the Residential Overlay. It is also in the E-1 zone, within the Skidmore Academy Historic district, is adjacent to Railroad district, and is in close proximity to the Downtown district. The site is not in the Hillside Overlay and thus not subject to the Hill Constraints, therefore the only slopes regulated on the parcel would be those with a grade of over 35%. Mr. Severson noted that commercial development had largely not been considered by staff when that ordinance was created. The existing neighborhood largely consists of one- story historic residential buildings and a two-story mixed-use building on Water Street with an increase in mixed-use buildings closer to Downtown. Mr. Severson pointed out that the subdivision has no planned common or open area and the two parking areas are proposed via easement. Lot #5 was proposed without any street frontage other than on an alley, which the Ashland Municipal Code requires for a minimum of 40 feet. He stated that in staffs view the easiest remedy would be to provide an eight -foot flagpole consistent with the partition's chapter to create a connection for lot #5 to Heiman Street. Mr. Severson brought to the attention of the Commission that the proposal was not clear on which areas would constitute the Plaza space, and that the ground floor designs appeared to be less than the required 65% of a mixed-use building. It was his recommendation that the Commission request elaboration from the applicants over these issues. The Solar Access Exception was requested in regards to the height of each building and the respective shade cast onto adjacent buildings. Though the buildings fall under the 40ft max building height in the E-1 zone, the shadow cast on adjacent buildings would exceed the E-1 standard of 16ft because of their close proximity to each other. Commissioner KenCairn questioned whether height would be an issue if the Historic District max height was met, to which Mr. Severson responded that Solar Access exception would still likely be necessary for development. As part of its report to the Historic Commission staff presented design plans from a proposal in 2006 that had been approved but not developed. Mr. Severson directed attention to the design which consisted of several three-story buildings, but because of the staggered nature of the rooftops they would not have cast an exceptional amount of shade. He also stated that the building design in the current proposal are similar to designs used in another prior project that had been approved but not developed further. Mr. Severson briefly outlined the view of the Historic Commission, which felt that in terms of the Historic District Design Standards the height, massing, and scale were not compatible with the homes across the street. Height, scale, and massing were seen to be the greatest flaws. The Historic Commission felt that there was no precedence for three similarly scaled buildings to be adjacent to each other in the Historic District, and recommended that the applicants consider varying the materials and height to break up the monotony of appearance and design. Mr. Severson concurred with the Historic Commission's assessment, and detailed how subtle shifts in upper floor design and recesses could help mitigate the uniformity and massing of the three buildings along Heiman Street. Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 3 of 6 The Tree Commission voted unanimously to support recommendation to approve the proft;,:t as submitted, with the further recommendation that alternatives to tree grates be considered -for the street trees. Tree Commissioner Simpson also noted that the shade provided by the tall buildings could provide the opportunity to plant some species that would be unable to be planted otherwise. Questions of Staff Commissioner Knauer commented that the Staff report mentioned portions of the structures exceeding the maximum height of 40ft. Mr. Severson explained that individual portions of the wall can exceed the 40ft maximum provided that the average height of all four walls be lower than 40ft. Commissioner Pearce cautioned that because the Public Hearing on this item would continue until the April 12, 2022 meeting it would be difficult to make an informed and responsible decision before the end of the application's 120 day review. Commissioner Verner pointed out that the applicant can ask to extend the review period. to which Commissioner Pearce stated that an extension should be recommended to the applicants otherwise he would have to vote no on the proposal. Commissioner Pearce also raised concerns over the designs and contents of Phase I and Phase 11. He pointed out that staff and the Commission were seemingly being asked to apply site development standards to the entire project despite there being a separate application and process for Phase It development. Commissioner Pearce stated that there was ambiguity in the application over the contents of Phase I and Phase II and requested clarification. He contended that development standards should be applied separately to each individual Phase if they would be developed at different times, otherwise the applicants should clearly dictate the contents of each phase and not deviate from those plans after the application is approved. There was general discussion and agreement that the Commission required more information particularly regarding the plaza ratios. Chair Norton added that the applicants should also request an exception for the lobby floor plans due to them falling below the 65% required floor space ratio. Commissioner KenCaim questioned why the application was deemed to be complete if the applicants did not comply with solar standards and had not yet supplied the Commission with a TIA. Mr. Severson responded that because the project's scope likely warranted the continuation of the Public Hearing, and that the arrival of the absent studies was imminent, staff determined that it would be beneficial to begin deliberations on this item. He added that a letter of incomplete had been sent to the applicants, who addressed many of the issues raised by staff. Applicant's Presentation Applicant Amy Gunter began by assuring the Commission that there would be very little delay in the development of Phases I and 11, and that the purpose for phasing the project was to allow access for construction vehicles and materials for the lot with minimal traffic congestion. This is also why the public right-of-way and alley would be part of Phase 1. She stressed there would be little -to - no changes in site design for Phase 11 going forward. Ms. Gunter displayed several current structural designs present in the Historic district that the design team referenced when developing the buildings, as well as the material types that would be used in their construction. She said that the intent was to create breaks and changes in the facade to give an impression of there being separate spaces within the building itself. She also emphasized that the average height would be around 36ft and none of the buildings would be over the 40ft height maximum allowed. Ms. Gunter presented more detailed plans of the buildings and the tree removal plan. Twenty trees would be removed from the site, to which the Tree Commission had no objections, and thirty-six trees would then be planted on site after development. Phase I would also have approximately 3,700 square feet of landscape and hardscape areas. This is below the standard plaza footage for a site of this size, but the applicants believed that, under the exception requested, the amenities and features of the plaza areas would equally achieve the purpose of creating a safe and comfortable environment. Applicant Piper Von Chamier described that the proposed plaza space would amount to over 7,600 square feet of the entire lot. The plaza spaces would be made up of gathering spaces connected by smaller greenway spaces throughout the lot. A variety of flora would also be planted in the greenway areas and around the walkways to assist with storm -water treatment. The intention would be to create a green and sustainable space on the lot. Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, Ives. Gunter granted that there would likely be a slay. increase in traffic during development, but that driveway and pedestrian access were projected to be safe -and efficient. In order to address the accessibility issue the applicants proposed combining lots #4 and #5 and converting lot #5 into a condominium. This would allow the applicants to only require one Solar Setback Waiver for building one being shaded by building three. This would also eliminate the issues with the access standards of lot five not having access to a public street. Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation by formally requesting an extension to continue the Public Hearing to allow their team to address the issues raised by the Historic Commission and provide additional geotechnical evidence. Due to the complicated nature of the application Commissioner Pearce requested that the applicants be given additional presentation time in order to provide the Commission with as much information as possible. Developer Gil Livni provided testimony wherein he clarified several issues raised by the Commission. He stated that there would be almost no delay between the development of Phase I and II and there would be no design changes to the plaza spaces. He apologized for the lateness of the TIA, stating that their team had requested the study four months prior to this meeting. Mr. Livni believed that a geotechnical analysis would confirm the stability of the site and there should be no issues with developing it. Regarding building height he conceded that the ceilings could be reduced from eleven to nine feet, and the shifting of comer rooflines could alleviate the shade issue. He pointed out that there are already several uniform, mixed-use buildings in the Historic district and suggested that this new development would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Public Testimony Cat Gould/Ms. Gould showed several photos of a 28ft telephone pole at the comer of Heiman Street and Van Ness Avenue to show the length of shadow it alone cast on the street. She then showed a photo of a two-story building whose shadow pass to the other side of the street. Her concern was that buildings nearing 40 feet in height would fully engulf the surrounding homes and streets in shade and that hazardous ice could potentially develop in winter. Ms. Gould supported development of the parcel, but expressed concern that the large project would not be cohesive with the historic and affordable neighborhood. Mark Brouillard/Mr. Brouillard asked staff for additional notice time in preparation for public meetings, and also requested that information packets for Historic and Tree Commission meetings be made readily available before meetings, particularly when discussing items with numerous exceptions. Mr. Brouillard directed the Commission's attention to A.M.C.18.4.2.050.13, the criteria of which he believed would prohibit the kind of development proposed by the applicants. He then requested information regarding plans for the Heiman irrigation ditch that transects the parcel and is a public right-of-way. He also cautioned against the proposed alley running from Heiman Street to Water Street, which he believed could result in more transient crime in the area. Mr. Brouillard stated that there is already inadequate parking on Heiman street, which would be exacerbated by this development. He also clarified that the Plaza Inns and Suites is located on Central Avenue and not on Heiman Street. Applicant's Rebuttal Ms. Gunter pointed out that the shadows shown in Ms. Gould's testimony point to the West, while the solar setbacks shadows are calculated and factored to be in the North. She contended that shadowing neighboring buildings to the North is not a criteria that applies. Ms. Gunter directed attention to the civil drawings included in the packet for this meeting for the irrigation line. Currently the irrigation line does not have an easement through the property and suffers from leaks. The property has no rights to that irrigation so this proposal would carry the pipe through the plaza and under the parking area and reconnect it to the irrigation line on Van Ness Avenue and Heiman Street. Ms. Gunter emphasized the importance of looking at the Transitional Area code because despite the property being in the Historic District the Employment Zone standards should not be changed to fit those criteria. The general shape, form, scale, and materials of the buildings should be paramount in determining conformity. While size and scale was the main concern of the Historic Commission, Ms. Gunter stated that in her estimation the A.M.C. does not require a commercial building to conform in size and scale to one-story residential buildings within the Historic District. She cited A.M.C. 18.4.2.050.B.1. which speaks to the Transitional Areas and the criteria in place when developing on district boundaries, and had led to the design of what her team deemed to be appropriate buildings for the area. Ms. Gunter then referenced several past cases of structures built in in the Historic District that reached well over the 40 -foot Ashland Planning Commission March S, 2622 Page 5 of 6 height limit, including the Woolen Mill, ttit; Planing Mill, and the Ashland Iron Works. She -.cued that, though these buildings are no -longer present, their development created precedence for large scale buildings in this district. She -concluded by stating that there is residential height limitation that exists in residential zones, but not a commercial limitation. Commissioner Comments Commissioner KenCaim commended the design of the project, but remarked that it disregarded the Historic District that it is in. Between the scale, exceptions requested, and its incongruous nature she stated that she could not support this development. Chair Norton requested that staff research whether the applicants would need to request an exception for not meeting the 65% commercial floorplan ratio. If an exception were necessary then the planning action would need to be re -noticed to include this request. Commissioner Thompson recommended that the applicants address what the relevant requirements and standards are, and identify whether they are met nor not. She specifically mentioned the hillside standards, plaza spaces, solar, and the lobby, feeling that they were not adequately examined in the proposal. Commissioner Thompson requested greater specificity from the applicants on all of those requirements at the April 12th meeting. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commission Thompson and voiced the opinion that there was too much ambiguity over the plaza areas and their contents. He added that nowhere in the application was there a delineation of square footage for the plaza spaces, nor how they met the required criteria for development. He leant support for some design elements, but stated that more details were needed before the Commission could make a decision. He suggested that the applicants consider combining more lots in order to solve their solar exception issue and conveyed that the height issue would be problematic to reconcile. Chair Norton agreed that more precision over plaza coverage was needed from the applicants. He suggested that they clearly demarcate each plaza space and provide dimensions, as well as which lot they are a part of, and in which phase they would be developed. Commission Dawkins questioned whether the smaller and more scattered elements of the design plan were meant to be counted as potential plaza space, and if so then whether they met four of the six criteria elements necessary for development. Commissioner Verner agreed that the plaza was too dispersed and that the aggregate space was not sufficient to constitute an open meeting area. She voiced disappointment that despite the dispersion of the plaza space the proposal still necessitated an exception, and also worried that the stark difference in building size and mass would overwhelm the surrounding houses. There was general discussion over the building size and scale. Commissioner KenCaim commented that this project was an opportunity to either embrace the eventual takeover by commercial buildings in the district, or an opportunity to preserve affordable, residential housing near downtown. She stated that because of its designation as an R-3 zone it is in danger not being residential any longer. She acknowledged that those are not criteria under which the Commission operates, but wanted to draw attention to that reality. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins mis to continue the Public Hearing on PA -T2-2022-00037 to the April 12, 2022 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF PFF r:r 541-488-5305 Fax; 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or,us TTY; 1-800-735-2900 AS H L.AN D PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY:165 Water Street,160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for DESCRIPTION: A request for an eight -lot commercial subdivision to construct a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use buildings consisting of two ground floor commercial spaces with two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The remaining three building sites would be developed in a later phase. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow 3,087 square feet of plaza space where the standards require 5,624 square feet; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park row planting strips. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 6.00 PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 6,00 PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: March 8, 2022 at 7:00 PM, GAeomm-deAplanningSPlanning Actions\Ms by StreetMWaterMates_155WA»T2-2022-00037_Site Review & Phased Sub4ivi9ionWou6ng\Water_165_PA-T2-2022-90037 NOCAd Historic and Tree Commission Meetings Notice is hereby given that the Historic and Tree Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the Historic and Tree Commission meetings virtually, but not participate in any discussion, you can use the Zoom link posted on the City of Ashland calendar website https://www,ashland.or,us/calendar.asp. Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line "Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 2022. 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- public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Wednescigy, March 2 2022. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "Advisory Commission Testimony Request", 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to testify at, 4) specify the agenda item you wish to speak to, 5) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 6) 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). 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 rvtv.sou.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-19 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 planning@ashland.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.or.us/PCpackets seven 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 planning(5-as hiand. or. us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland. or. us with the subject line "March 8 PC Hearing Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 7, 2022 Written testimony received by this deadline will be available for Planning Commissioners 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-public-testimonyp_ashland.or_us by 10:00 a.m. on March 7, 2022. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "March 8 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 541-522-20401 derek.severson@ashland.or.us. Q: comm-deOplanning\Planning Az6ons\PAs by S"etMWater\Wate[_165\PA-T2-2022-00037_Site Review & Phased Subdivision\Nnticing\Water_165PA-T2-2022-00037_NOC.doex 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 183). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1, There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA 18.5,3.070 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Criteria A. Approval Criteria. The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the following approval criteria. 1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. 2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 183, and any applicable development standards, per part 18A (e,g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). 3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained in section 18.4.3,080 Vehicle Area Design. 4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in chapter 18A.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. 5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat and maintenance of such areas(e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.) is ensured through appropriate legal instrument (e.g,, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's). 6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. B. Conditions of Approval. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. I. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic, Ill. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040,A. PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS GAcomm-dev5planninglPlanningAdons\PAsbyStreetMWater\Water_1651PA-T2-2022-00037_SiteReview & Phased SubdivisionlNoticingMater_165 PA -T2-2022-00037 MOCA= 18.3,10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS 18.3.10.090.H An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter, 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3. 10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10,090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e„ likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6, b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone, d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050, Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Wcomm-dev%planningTlanning Acdons.NPAs by Street WlWater\Water_i65VPA-T2-2022-0oo37_Site Review & Phased SubdivisionWodcing\Water_I65 PA42-2022-00037_NOC.dom 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 February 23, 2022 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 -T2-2022- 00037, 165 Water Street. Signature of Employee G:lcomm-devlplanningV'Ianning AationsTAs by SbeeriW4WaterlWater_16STA-T2-2022-00037_Site Review & Phased SubdiWsionV4oticinglWaier_i65 pA-T2-2022-00037_AMdavit of Mai6ng.dosx 2f2312022 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2300 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2400 PA -T2-2022-00037 391E09131316400 AGUILAR JORDAN ASHLEYISHELDON ARCHER FELIPE B ET AL ASHLAND CREEK HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 1953 171 HELMAN ST 70 WATER ST JACKSONVILLE, OR 97530 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5100 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1901 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5500 BAKER BARRY A/MICHELLE A BATZER JAMES H BC PARTNERS III LLC 122 HELMAN ST 2358 BLUE SKY LN 175 PIEDMONT DR ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2500 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2600 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC4800 BROUILLARD MARK TODD/DONNA BROWN MICHAEL HAROLD & PHYLLI CHAPPELL CURTIS C TRUSTEE ET 159 HELMAN ST 119 VAN NESS AVE 522 MYRTLE AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 MODESTO, CA 95350 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1500 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5000 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5901 CHURCHILL SCOTT GIGOULD CATHE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC CONSERVANCY LLC CIO SHAW ROGER 114 VAN NESS AVE 246 FOURTH ST PO BOX 1105 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 VANCOUVER, WA 98666 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1600 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1800 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5200 FAKUNDING CHRISS MIKRISTINE L FOLICK JOSH/BONNIE GEARY EDWARD A TRUST ET AL 110 VAN NESS AVE 11308 SE STANLEY AVE 345 HARRISON ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 MILWAUKIE, OR 97222 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1900 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC7100 PA -T2-2022-00037 HOBSON RONALD CLIFTONIMARCIA LIVNI GIL MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 102 PLEASANT VW 2974 CHAPMAN LN 441 TALENT AVE TALENT, OR 97540 ASHLAND, OR 97520 TALENT, OR 97535 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2000 PA -T2-2022-00037 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC2200 MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT GROUP LLC MARQUESS AND ASSOCIATES MASON MARY ET AL 2974 CHAPMAN LN PO BOX 490 530 LOMA ATTR ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD OR 97504 CARMEL, CA 93923 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC1800 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC90000 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E09BB16801 NEW HORIZONS WOODWORKS FOLICK NORTH JAMES El DEBRA J PECKHAM FRANCIS B JR MECCA JOSHUA B SUZETTE 85 CENTRAL AVE 27$ HELMAN ST ASHLANDOR 97520 315 OAK ST , ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 PA -T2-2022-00037 PA -T2-2022-00037 POLARIS LAND SURVEY RHINE -CROSS GROUP ROGUE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 459 { PO BOX 909 1314-B CENTER DR PMB#457 ASHLAND, OR 97520 FLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601 MEDFORD OR 97501 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5900 PA -T2-2022-00037 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC4700 RUBIN MARGARET NASH SANDOW ENGINEERING SCHLITZER MARGRET BRAY 323 OAK ST 160 MADISON STREET, SUITE A 145 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 EUGENE, OR 97402 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 SNYDER ENGINEERS 415 E. PINE ST CENTRAL POINT, OR PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5300 . WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL 152 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2022-00037 391E04CC5800 VAN AUSDALL JOHN MICHAEL 40 VAN NESS AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 165 Water NOC 2/23/22 34 PA -T2-2022-00037 391 E04CC5700 VARNEY MARIANNE PO BOX 744 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ELECTRONIC PT3BLIC HEARING NOTICE On March 8, 2022 the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the following mixed-use lot development: PLANNING ACTION, PA -T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (earner of Tian Ness & Water Streets) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agentfor OWNERS: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC and Gil Livni DESCRIPTION: A request for an eight -lot commercial subdivision to construct a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at the corner of Van Ness and Water Streets including 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Heiman Street. The applicant's Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use buildings consisting of two ground floor commercial spaces with two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The remaining three building sites would be developed in a later phase. The application also includes a ;request for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove all of the trees on the property and within adjacent rights of way; a request for an Exception to the Site Development and. Design Standards to allow 3,087 square feet of plaza space where the standards require 5,624 square feet, and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump -outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park row planting strips. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E -I; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 The electronic public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 8, 2022. The meeting will be televised on local channel 9 or channels 180 and 181 for Charter Communications customers or will also be available live stream by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting RVTV Prime. Written testimony will be accepted via email to PC-public-testimonyn&ashland.or.us with the subject line "03/08 Planning Commission Meeting Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 7, 2022. Written testimony received by the deadline, and written testimony previously submitted on this action, will be available 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 forum and the public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC -public testimony�ia,ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 8, 2022,. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "03108 Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item you want 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. By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735- 2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Publish: Friday, February 25 E-mailed: 02/22/22 Purchase Order: 120139 160 Madison Street, Suite A Eugene, Oregon 97402 541.513.3376 March 2, 2022 I Ohl 1 :1 :1 so] 10 RECEIVED 03/02122 Traffic Impact Analysis PR IN 77929PE ORES N� 4, 2�0 S RENEWAL 06/30/22 Ashland, Oregon March 2, 2021 Kelly Sandow PE SAN DOW ENGINEERING 160 Madison Street, Suite A Eugene Oregon 97402 S41,S133376 sandowengineering.com project 4# 5942 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SAN DO ENGINEERING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a revision to the Traffic Impact Analysis and findings prepared for the proposed Magnolia mixed-use development on Tax Lot 2000 of Assessor's Map 31 -1E -04 -CC located at the southwest corner of Water Street and Van Ness Avenue in Ashland, Oregon. The property is currently zoned Employment (E-1) with a Residential Overlay. The applicant is proposing to modify the site plan to 8 buildings that contain ground floor retail and upper floor residential units. Access to the site will be via the public alley off of Water Street and a driveway and alley access from Van Ness Avenue. The analysis evaluates the operation of the site entrances and adjacent intersections. The findings and recommendations are based on information and analysis contained within this report. FINDINGS The analysis concludes the following findings: • All intersections meet the mobility standard with the development in place • The addition of development traffic will not substantially increase queueing conditions over the background conditions. • All site driveways are projected to operate safely and efficiently. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SA.NDOVV ENGINEERING CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................4 1.1 SITE INFORMATION.............................................................................................................................4 1.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................4 2.0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS... ........ — ......................... ....... ... — ................................ 6 2.1 STREET NETWORK...............................................................................................................................6 2.2 CRASH ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................••................8 3.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES............................................................................................................... 9 3.1 INTERSECTION COUNTS..............................................:.......................................................................9 3.2 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT....................................................................................................................9 3.3 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND VOLUMES.............................................................................................9 3.4 BACKGROUND VOLUMES....................................................................................................................9 4.0 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC.................................................................................................... 13 4.1 TRIP GENERATION.............................................................................................................................13 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................................................................13 4.3 BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES........................................................................................................14 5.0 INTERSECTION EVALUATION.............................................................................................. 18 5.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES..............................................................................................................18 5.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - 2022........................................................................................19 5.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS— 2025........................................................................................19 5.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - 2030........................................................................................20 5.5 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS RESULTS - YEAR 2025..............................................................20 5.6 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS RESULTS -YEAR 2030..............................................................21 6.0 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION........................................................................................ 23 6.1 TRANSIT ACCESS................................................................................................................................ 23 6.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.........................................................................................................................23 7.0 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................23 FINDINGS................................................................................................................................................. 23 March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SA.N IOW ENGINEERING LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN STUDY AREA ....................................................... 6 TABLE 2: INTERSECTION CRASH RATES........................................................................................... 8 TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION.......................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 4: HCM LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS............................................................... 18 TABLE 5: INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2022 PM PEAK HOUR ........................................ 19 TABLE 6: INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR ........................................ 19 TABLE 7: INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR ........................................ 20 TABLE 8: INTERSECTION QUEUING: YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR ................................................. 21 TABLE 9: INTERSECTION QUEUING: YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR ................................................. 22 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1— SITE LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP............................................................................. 5 FIGURE 2 — EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AND INTERSECTION CONTROL ............................... 7 FIGURE 3 —YEAR 2022 PM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................ 10 FIGURE 4 —YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES................................11 APPENDIX D: FIGURE 5 — YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................ 12 FIGURE 6 -- SITE TRIPS —PM PEAK HOUR.......................................................................................15 APPENDIX F: FIGURE 7 —YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SITE TRIPS .............................16 APPENDIX G: FIGURE 8 — YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH SITE TRIPS .............................17 APPENDIX H: LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SITE PLAN APPENDIX B: CRASH DATA APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX D: 2022 SYNCHRO OUTPUT APPENDIX E: 2025 SYNCHRO OUTPUT APPENDIX F: 2030 SYNCHRO OUTPUT APPENDIX G: 2025 QUEUING ANALYSIS APPENDIX H: 2030 QUEUING ANALYSIS March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SAID DO ENGINEERING 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 SITE INFORMATION This report provides a revision to the Traffic Impact Analysis and findings prepared for the proposed development of the Magnolia Multi -Use Development in Ashland, Oregon. The site is located on the south side of Van Ness Avenue between Heiman St and Water St. The site, located within 0.74 acres on Tax Lot 2000 of Assessor's Map 31 -1E -04 -CC, is zoned Employment (E-1) with a Residential Overlay. Figure 1 illustrates the site location. Currently the site is vacant. The development proposal is eight, three story buildings. The bottom floor will contain 2 smaller retail units between 1,500-1,700 total square footage per building. The second and third floors will contain residential units with 2 total units per building. The applicant is proposing access via a public alley off of Water Street and Van Ness Ave, and a driveway off of Van Ness Avenue. The site plan is included in Appendix A. The proposed development is expected to generate more than 50 vehicle trips during the weekday PM peak hour triggering the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis. 1.2 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS The traffic study is performed in accordance with City of Ashland Traffic Impact Analysis standards and criteria. The traffic impacts are evaluated for the weekday 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM time period at the following locations: • Water Street @ Central Avenue • Water Street @ Van Ness Avenue • Water Street @ E Main Street • Van Ness Avenue @ Heiman Street • Heiman Street @ Central Avenue • Site Driveways The operational analysis is performed at the studied intersections during the weekday PM peak hour of the system for the existing year (year 2022), the year of opening (year 2025), and the 5 -year planning horizon (year 2030), with and without the proposed development. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 RECEIVED 031€2122 Q u c � �yy m � n (a M C O c U O � a-� o` ai �q 03 L 6 `o a m Q' as �d� pal Ig LP w�dH N by t a C7 � Z LU o LU z_ z ul co 0W � z RECEIVED 031€2122 ANDO ENGINEERING 2..0 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 2..1 STREET NETWORK Streets included within the study are Water Street, Van Ness Avenue, Central Avenue, E Main Street, and Heiman Street. The project site abuts Water Street and Van Ness Avenue. Water Street is a local street which connects E Main Street to the south with businesses and residences and provides a connection to Hersey Street to the north. Van Ness Avenue is a local street which connects Oak Street to the east with businesses and residences and connections to Main Street to the west. Central Avenue is a local street which connects Water Street to the east with businesses and residences and connects to Main Street to the West. Main Street (Hwy 99) is a one-way Boulevard, part of the Hwy 99 couplet, through the downtown center which serves as a main north/south route though Ashland. Heiman Street is an Avenue which connects Main Street to the south with businesses and residences to the north. Table 2 illustrates the roadway characteristics within the study area. TABLE 1: ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN STUDY AREA Figure 2 illustrates the study area intersection locations, intersection geometry, and access control. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 6 RECEIVED 03/02/22 E Main St Characteristic ' Water 5t I Van Ness Ave Central Ave (Hwy 99) Heiman St Functional E Local Local Local �� Boulevard Avenue Classification -- ---- -- - _ ---- Unposted ------- Unposted - . Unposted Unposted Posted Speed (25 mph).__ (25 mph) - - (25 mph) 20 mph (25 mph) Lanes per 1 1 1 l 2 1 Direction Center Left None None None None None Turn Lan . - ............ . .__ -- - .... Restrictions ln3 None None None None f None theMedian _...... - .. --- _......._............. ... --------- --- Bikes Lanes None None None None i None Present .......... Yes- sidewalk Sidewalks i missing along Yes - Yes Yes 3 Yes Present development Southside only -- ---- frontagei ---- ---- - Transit Route j - -- None None - -- - _ None Yes None On Street Yes Yes Yes i Intermittent Yes Figure 2 illustrates the study area intersection locations, intersection geometry, and access control. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 6 RECEIVED 03/02/22 a c o e U ca - I— � a c K m � m t6 C}] o cc v= e � m U � c J w � d m J v V' m ,tS 4 play i C 's v� J by ZQr ,¢C C � u) Z CSl N LU O LU Z C C� Z CA uj C: Im+ rt r E dQ1S E d015 co 0 STEP aj fil ST P N YiEIEI N Ni RECEIVED 03/02/22 ANDD ENGINEERING 2.2 CRASH ANALYSIS A crash investigation was performed for the study area intersections. The analysis investigates crashes that have been reported to the state for the most recent S years of data available, 1/1/2018- 12/31/2019, to determine a crash rate in crashes per million vehicles on the roadway and the types of crashes that occurred. The crash rate is compared to a standard threshold of 1.0 crashes/million entering vehicles. If the calculated crash rate exceeds the 1.0 crashes/MEV or there is a high percentage of a certain crash type, the location is investigated for further mitigation measures. Crash data was provided by ODOT for the study area and is included in Appendix B. The results of the crash analysis are provided in Table 2. TABLE 2: INTERSECTION CRASH RATES There were no crashes reported at the intersections of Water Street and Central Avenue, Water St at Van Ness Ave, and Heiman St at Central Ave. during the studied 5 -year period. As illustrated in Table 2, all of the studied intersections have a crash rate lower than the 1.0 threshold: therefore, warranting no further mitigation measures. There was one reported crash involving a bicycle at the intersection of Helmen St at Van Ness Ave. This crash occurred on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 6 pm. The bicycle was travelling straight on Van Ness Ave from south to north and the vehicle was traveling straight on Van Ness Ave from south to north. The error was assigned to the bicyclist for failing to yield right-of-way and running the stop sign. There were four reported crashes at the intersection of Water St at Main St. Three of the crashes were rear end collisions, two of the rear end collisions were vehicles travelling southeast bound on Main St. One crash involved a vehicle traveling southwest bound on Water Street. In all three cases, it appears the stopped vehicle was waiting for a pedestrian to cross, and that error was assigned to the following vehicle for following too closely. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 8 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Types ofCrashes Number of ; Pedestrian/ Crash Location Crashes Bead Rear ri Side Turn Other _.m Bike ADT Rate* Van Ness Ave @x 0 0 0 1 2,530 {�..�0..22 Heiman St ! ------------------ I Water St @Van Ness 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,020 0.00 Ave -- ---- _.- Water St @Central Ave 0 0 0 0 0 -- . 0 0 ........ _ 760 0.00 — ---- Water St @ Main St ._ 4 0 3 - . 0 0 - - — 1 --- 0 - ......... 9,900 E 0.22 - -- -- Heiman St @ Central 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 1,560 0.00 Ave -- ..... ........ *(crashes/million entering vehicles) There were no crashes reported at the intersections of Water Street and Central Avenue, Water St at Van Ness Ave, and Heiman St at Central Ave. during the studied 5 -year period. As illustrated in Table 2, all of the studied intersections have a crash rate lower than the 1.0 threshold: therefore, warranting no further mitigation measures. There was one reported crash involving a bicycle at the intersection of Helmen St at Van Ness Ave. This crash occurred on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 6 pm. The bicycle was travelling straight on Van Ness Ave from south to north and the vehicle was traveling straight on Van Ness Ave from south to north. The error was assigned to the bicyclist for failing to yield right-of-way and running the stop sign. There were four reported crashes at the intersection of Water St at Main St. Three of the crashes were rear end collisions, two of the rear end collisions were vehicles travelling southeast bound on Main St. One crash involved a vehicle traveling southwest bound on Water Street. In all three cases, it appears the stopped vehicle was waiting for a pedestrian to cross, and that error was assigned to the following vehicle for following too closely. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 8 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SANDOW ENGINEERING 3.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3.1 INTERSECTION COUNTS As part of the analysis, weekday PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections. The traffic counts were performed for the 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM peak period. The turning movement counts illustrate that the PM peak hour occurs from 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. The traffic volumes are included in Appendix C. 3.2 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT Application of seasonal adjustment factors account for the fact that through volumes along State Highways and recreational routes tend to fluctuate from month to month due to changes in recreational behavior, etc. Monthly volume variations for routes with recreational traffic show much higher seasonal peaking than for traffic with predominantly intercity traffic. Typically, intercity intersections don't experience a significant seasonal fluctuation. However, Main Street (Hwy 99) is a state highway that serves as a commuter route. The seasonal adjustment factor for Main Street was determined using methodology outlined by ODOT's Analysis Procedures Manua! (APM). The seasonal adjustment considers the "commuter" trend as described with in ODOT's 2016 seasonal Trend Table. The City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan uses the average of the commuter/summer trends for seasonal adjustment. However, the counts were taken in December which is a peak season for shopping in Ashland. Therefore, it is determined that the December counts account for the peak seasonal traffic variation. The commuter peak is the appropriate seasonal factor to apply to these counts. "Commuter" traffic peaks in August. The traffic counts were taken in early December, therefore the seasonal fluctuation in traffic was considered for this location as volumes are adjusted to the August "commuter" values. The seasonal adjustment factor for the "commuter" trend is 1.14. The seasonal adjustment calculation is included in Appendix C. 3.3 FUTURE YEAR BACKGROUND VOLUMES The development is anticipated to be completed within the year 2025. Consistent with traffic impact analysis criteria the intersections were evaluated for the year of completion, year 2025, and a 5 -year planning horizon, year 2030. To estimate future traffic volumes, a 1.5 percent per year growth rate was applied to the existing traffic counts. The 1.5 percent per year growth rate was determined based on data within the City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan. 3.4 BACKGROUND VOLUMES The existing traffic volumes were adjusted according to the methodology described above. Figures 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the year 2022, 2025, and 2030 background traffic volumes for the PM peak hour, respectively. Appendix C contains the traffic volume calculations. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 9 RECEIVED 03/02/22 RECEIVED 03/02/22 k > § k \ � I k k z Ilecc § C 7 k 2 ) � / m m 4 a q - � @ � &� 3 �a 3 � *a � � ± � . J � lu o. a g% 7 Lu5� LU Z rnE ® �LL rq �9L 2 z fc `f LLJ 9 ?c 9 m �« < G� ƒ 17 jƒt I f ee ƒ 72 ��� Z E 41 t ® 0 / §!� } 9 % ƒ @� / k 2 2 � f r v ©� � I r q ® �� L N\< ¥Ln 2 S HLUENtU U3/7212 RECEIVED 03/02/22 U) E 2 / ( � E � ) R � q � 43) \ 2 @ 3 Im / m R R q cnK a LL � ZP ` q � vi a # E� U %ƒ @ LU Z U �4Ln !!L m\< 99� _ R Z \ i } `�® \ ��ƒ �� � ƒ �9 �9z LLJ� E� -7E § g 7 � 2 E z t § E f{ 0 /® C: 3: 3ƒ 6� \k $ & » ® ® � �} rryi � �f �E ® gym© L� °It ®� ®S® ° § REc VERU& /:" SANDO ENGINEERING 4.0 DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC 4.1 TRIP GENERATION The trip generation for the development was estimated using information contained within the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11' Edition. The trips generated by the residential units are estimated using Land Use 220- Multi -Family Low Rise. This land use is described as residential with up to two floors. The trip generation for the retail portion of the site considered the space a mix of office and retail uses using separate trip rates for both, and using the ITE small retail land use for all the retail. The 11th Edition of the ITE Manuals provides an ITE trip rate for mixed retail under 40,000 sf (ITE code 822). This retail contains a mix of uses including restaurants, shops, and office. The rate for the retail is approximately 8 times higher than the rate for the office use (ITE code 712- small office). Therefore, using the retail land use provides a more conservative trip estimate than using a mix of retail and office trip rates. The site generated trips for the PM peak hour are illustrated in Table 3. TABLE 3: TRIP GENERATION The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate 107 primary trips during the PM peak hour. 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The development trips were distributed though the study area network using the existing observed travel patterns as a base with modifications as per reasonable origins and destinations. The trip distribution is as follows: • 55% to the South via Main Street • 25% to the North via Van Ness Avenue • 10% to the North via Central Avenue • 5% to the Northwest via Hersey Street • 5% to the West via B Street • 55% from the South via Lithia Way • 35% from the North via Central Avenue • 5% from the Northwest via Hersey Street • 5% from the West via B Street The development trips assigned to the existing street network are illustrated in Figure 6. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 13 RECEIVED 03/02122 Trip Generation : : : ITE Land Use e Size UnitRate % j % E Trips In Out Trips I In Trips Out 220—Apartments 16 DU 0.51 ! $ L639 37% R Y5t 3... 822- Retail <40k 14.0 KSF GFA Ln(T)=0.711n(x)+2.72 1 99 50% 50% 1 5049 Total) 107 ' 55 € 52 The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate 107 primary trips during the PM peak hour. 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The development trips were distributed though the study area network using the existing observed travel patterns as a base with modifications as per reasonable origins and destinations. The trip distribution is as follows: • 55% to the South via Main Street • 25% to the North via Van Ness Avenue • 10% to the North via Central Avenue • 5% to the Northwest via Hersey Street • 5% to the West via B Street • 55% from the South via Lithia Way • 35% from the North via Central Avenue • 5% from the Northwest via Hersey Street • 5% from the West via B Street The development trips assigned to the existing street network are illustrated in Figure 6. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 13 RECEIVED 03/02122 SANDOW ENGINEERING 4.3 BUILD -OUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES The proposed site trips were added to the year 2025 and 2030 background traffic volumes to represent the build condition. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the year 2025 and 2030 PM peak hour traffic volumes respectively. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 14 RECEIVED 03/02/22 RECEIVED 03/02/22 s � O d 3 a O � w+ U) m .2- E E a CD lu LL m �H Sd�i4 P s yJ J m C+ me Ua al 4-1Z ••• O LU LU M Lrl(} aU �as�I� �5 �8� til 4 4 �81 t-9 �1 � b u E¢ `° to t— EL 8L U rma'�° is �ZL C Q •% V Z E Z al A al �. c 8 tY' I� L —� 0L =► o n &c RECEIVED 03/02/22 RECEIVED 03/02122 c as E CLch0 Q 3 fA m Y. n P U � R3 Im ou` u 3m o O m ¢ LO a N N ca O ti O I.L. �s sm J'`J a w 4 M r ull l L L 8 0 8� i (L)O O r Caj LZ y �aZ rn LCU u 8L I { z C OEC^ a�Ln 6 � r Lb mQ �¢ 6l� L� N�fltO -� z� N Z L L O O Z 59 _ _� LU O LU r,rvw (6 N ot,doCG m t Q E 65 b) Ezc `6 6L 9L�J Lb m 99 L nt n n S Ln r `n RECEIVED 03/02122 a� CL s ^0 C W W > W � O C ,� l0 U Q) ! E V Q �p n U w o CCi O d 3 � a c 'tl O co v C= N � tS 41 pw,ay QO Z3 CJ7 LL sd�i4 P s ya J N W) F� 5£ 017 —8Z U P O w LZ �LZ�Q U N= 9 V r06¢ OZ Z L£� �L o rn C z L N £� N L 69 L3 LU O LLI Z m ca CNN p C Z ns `r 9i LU y E £b U I F— 0903 E Q Ez E c w >. a L9 (A c u, c =2 N 09 8� mmu� S� ui�u $11/ L�J N �o 8L c,9� I- LULIVEU 0 /U1/22 SA.N IOW ENGINEERING 5.0 INTERSECTION EVALUATION 5.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES The studied intersections were evaluated for Level of Service and Volume Capacity. Level of Service is a measure of performance that is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM6) defined level of service (LOS). LOS is a concept developed to quantify the degree of comfort (including such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles) afforded to drivers as they travel through an intersection or along a roadway segment. It was developed to quantify the quality of service of transportation facilities. LOS is based on average delay, defined as the average total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. Average delay is measured in seconds per vehicle per hour and then translated into a grade or "level of service" for each intersection. LOS ranges from A to F, with A indicating the most desirable condition and F indicating the most unsatisfactory condition. The City of Ashland has a level of service threshold of LOS D for all intersections. The LOS criteria, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual, for signalized intersections are provided in Table 4. The volume -to -capacity ratio describes the capability of an intersection to meet volume demands based on the maximum number of vehicles that could be served in an hour. V/C is the threshold for which ODOT evaluates the operation of intersections, as defined by the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. V/C thresholds are defined based on roadway classification and speed. Main Street (Hwy 99) is a District Highway within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Water Street is a Local Road. The v/c threshold for both approaches is a 0.95. The intersection of Water Street at Main Street is an ODOT intersection, therefore the v/c standards apply to this intersection. TABLE 4: HCM LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service March 2, 2022 Stopped Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds ner Vehiclel lined Intersections <_ 10.0 >10.0and <15.0 >15.0and<25.0 > 25.0 and <_ 35.0 >35.0and<50.0 > 50.0 Magnolia Terrace TIA 18 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SANDOW ENGINEERING 5.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - 2122 A performance analysis was conducted for the studied intersections for the year 2022 existing condition during the PM peak hour. The results of the analysis are illustrated in Table 5. The SYNCHRO outputs are provided in Appendix D. TABLE 5: INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2022 PM PEAK HOUR As illustrated in Table 5, all of the studied intersections operate better than the mobility standard in existing conditions. 5.3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - 2025 A performance analysis was conducted for the studied intersections for the year 2025 background and build conditions during the PM peak hour. The results of the analysis are illustrated in Table 6. The SYNCHRO outputs are provided in Appendix E. TABLE 6: INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE: YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR ISA -L-']'—. ca_. -_1,.._1 �^ rvlr n.. .1........ .....J Intersection Van Fess Ave @ Heiman St Water St @ Van Ness Ave Water St @ Central Ave Water St @ Main St Heiman St @ Central Ave -- Site Dvwy @ Heiman St Site Dvwy @ Water St Water St @ Alley Heiman St @ Ailey *results for stop controlled intersections are LOS/ WC LOS/ WC* D A D B D A _...... ....... .......... . ... 0.95 T 0.21 D B ------------- -- D N/A D _- N/A - ---- - D NIA - D N/A Sorted for tha cntical approach only. 2025 Build LOS/ V/C* A .............................................. A ....... -- 0.26 B A A A A As illustrated in Table 6, all of the studied intersections operate better than the mobility standard in both the background and build conditions. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 19 RECEIVED 03/02/22 ANDOW ENGINEERING 5.4 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS RESULTS - 2030 A performance analysis was conducted for the studied intersections for the year 2030 background and build conditions during the PM peak hour. The results of the analysis are illustrated in Table 7. The SYNCHRO outputs are provided in Appendix F. TABLE 7, INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE. YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR Mobility Standard .2030 Background; 2030 Build Intersection LAS/ WC LOS/ V/C* LOS/ WC* Van Ness Ave @ Heiman St IN Water St @Van Ness Ave D ..........._ ....... Water St @Central Ave = D Water St @ Main St = 0.95 Heiman St @Central Ave = D ...... .......... Site Dvwy @ Heiman St .................. ...... ...... ...... R D Site Dvwy @ Water St D _........................__.... .......... ......._........................_...._ --- - ----._.._.:....------ Water St @ Alley -- -------------- = E3 ......... ........I ......... ............... ..... ... ....... . Heiman St @Alley D *results for stop -controlled intersections are reported for the critical approach only A A B B A A 0.287 0.286 B B N/A A ............. N/A A ------ ._._.......--------- ._....----. ... _..... -_.............. ....... N/A A -- -- -- N/A A As illustrated in Table 7, all studied intersections operate at or better than the mobility standard in both the background and build conditions. 5.5 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS RESULTS - YEAR 2025 A queuing analysis was performed following procedures within the Highway Capacity Manual and implemented within SimTraffic 8. SimTraffic, a micro simulation software, evaluates traffic operations as a network and provides queuing estimates. The Average and 95th Percentile queues for the year 2025 PM peak hour, with and without the proposed development scenario, are included in Table 8. The outputs are included in Appendix G March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 20 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SANDO ENGINEERING TABLE 3. INTERSECTION QUEUING: YEAR 2025 PM PEAK HOUR 2025 Background 1 2025 Build Avaiiahle (Feet) (Feet) Storage 95tH _ 95m Intersection 2 (Feet) Average percentile i Average percent EB :LTR': 500+ 25 50 i 25 s0 Van Ness Ave @ Heiman St W LTR 500+ _................ 50 .........................- 75 50 _.....-.............. 75 NB .....5B........ : LT_R 5_00+ 25 50 'uu 50 75 -- — ........ .......... ............... LTR 320 50 50 i 50 50 NB LTR " 500+ -� 25 _. _ _ 50 25 50 Water St @Van Ness Ave 5B TR" _-..__........._ 490 ........................................_.. 25 - 50 1 ----------- 25 50 ..... NW LT 300 0 25 0 --_ .......... Water St @ Central Ave EB LR..� 275 ___..... 025 ........._...-.... ..................... -...-.- 25 -.-.-_.�. 25 ---- NB LT 500+ D 25 I 0_..__'2.. SB o............................._............-...-... LT :: 500+ 50 ......--- _ 100 J 50 125 Water St @Main St LT ' , 350 0 - -- -- ......:...... 25 .... 0 25 SE _ t ..- _.-,__..__..... _.......--_--- ---- - -.. TR 350 0 0 0 25 EB €LTR` 300 25 50 25 50 Heiman St @ Central Ave WB ............- LTR " - - 275 -------- µ 25 —------------ 50 --- 25 — -- ..-.. _ .............. 50 ... - SB ;LTR 400 25 25 25 25 ------ ---- Site Dvwy @ Helman St --- WBLR Dvwy N A N A 25 50 EB LR Dvwy v N/A N/A 25 50 Site Dvwy @ Water St - - — - -- -....................... _.- N B LT . -- 500+ N/A - N/A ; 25 ........... -------- 50 St @ Alley i B t. LR 75 .............................................. N/A N/A i -- -----................------..._._.....- 0 0 Heiman St @ Alley WB LR 75 N/A N/A 25 50 EB = Eastbound, WB = Westhound, NS = Northbound, SO = Southbound, L = Left, T = Thru, R = Right As illustrated in Table 8, the added development traffic is not anticipated to create any queuing or spillback issues in the build condition. Additionally, queues from the proposed site driveway are not anticipated to back up blocking nearby intersection. 5.6 INTERSECTION QUEUING ANALYSIS RESULTS - YEAR 2030 A queuing analysis was performed following procedures within the Highway Capacity Manual and implemented within SimTraffic 8. SimTraffic, a micro simulation software, evaluates traffic operations as a network and provides queuing estimates. The Average and 95"' Percentile queues for the year 2030 PM peak hour with and without the proposed development scenario are included in Table 9. The outputs are included in Appendix H. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 21 RECEIVED. 03/02/22 SANDOW ENGINEERING TABLE 9. INTERSECTION QUEUING: YEAR 2030 PM PEAK HOUR 2030 Background 1 2030 Build ';Available:(Feet) (Feet) Storage 95th 95tH Intersection (Feet) Average percentile ' Average percent le As illustrated in Table 9, the added development traffic is not anticipated to significantly increase existing queuing conditions in the future year. Additionally, queues from the proposed site driveway are not anticipated to back up blocking nearby intersection. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 22 RECEIVED 03/02/22 EB i LTR;; 500+ 25 50 ; 25 50 WB LTR'; 500+ 50 75 50 75 Van Ness Ave @ Helman St T— ^-mm75 NB :LTR'; 500+ 50 75 1 50 SB LTR;; 320 50 50 50 50 NB LTR 500+ 25 50 j _ 25 50 Water St @ Van Ness Ave SB LTR E 490 _ 25 50 25 50 SE LTR 340 0 0 1 025 _Q NW LTR 1 300 0 25 j 25 EB LR 275 25 50 25 25 Water5t @ Central Ave NB _-.-.-a....-_..-.-._ IT ............................................................. 500+ 0 25 ... .... .......... .... 25 _.............. __....... 25 - -.... SB _-...z,....- LT ` 500+ 50 125 75 1 100 Water St @ Main St LT 1 350 0 25 0 25 SE --, TR o 350 0 25 0 25 EB :LTR ...-.......p_ .......... 300 ...._.-., 25 _..-. 50 _....._ 25 _ 50 _ __... Central Ave @ Helman St WB LTR ---- -- 275 ----- 25 — - ---- 50 - — 25 --- 50 --- NB :LTR 425 0 25 25 25 SB LTR 400 25 25 f 25 25 ............... Site Dvwy @ Van Ness Ave ......... NB LR „ Dvwy N/A N/A i 25 50 ....... ......: EB LR Dvwy r___.._.___ N/A -- N/A 25 -- --- 50 Site Dvwy @ Water St ---- ------------- NB LT 500+ N/A N/A 0 0 - EB LR 75 N/A...._... -....._N/A...._...`......_ 25 50 Water St @ Alley NB LT 240 N/A N/A f 25 25 WB LR 75 N/A N/A 25 50 Helman St @ Alley SB LT 11 200N/A N/A ( 0 25 EB W Eastbound, WB = Westbound, NB = Northbound, SS = Southbound, L - Left, T = Thru, R = Right le As illustrated in Table 9, the added development traffic is not anticipated to significantly increase existing queuing conditions in the future year. Additionally, queues from the proposed site driveway are not anticipated to back up blocking nearby intersection. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 22 RECEIVED 03/02/22 SA.N ID0.VV ENGINEERING 6.O SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The site was evaluated for internal vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation. Vehicle access is proposed to the site via the public access alley onto Water Street and a driveway from Van Ness Avenue. 6.1 TRANSIT ACCESS Rogue Valley Transit District provides public transportation along Main Street and Lithia Way via Route 10. The nearest stop is located approximately 800 feet away. The service is provided at approximately 20 -30 -minute headways between 5:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 1 hour headways between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturdays. 6.2 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Currently pedestrian access to the site is provided via a sidewalk on Van Ness Avenue. Currently there are no sidewalks along Water Street which connect to the project site. The applicant is proposing continuous sidewalks along the property frontage on both Van Ness Avenue and Water Street. 7.0 CONCLUSION This report describes the Traffic Impact Analysis and findings prepared for the proposed development of Magnolia Terrace located off Van Ness Ave between Heiman St and Water St. The analysis evaluates the operation of the site entrances and adjacent intersections. The following findings and recommendations are based on the information and analysis contained within this report. FINDINGS The analysis concludes the following findings: • All studied intersections will meet the applicable mobility standards with the development in place. • The addition of development traffic will not substantially increase queueing conditions over the background conditions. • All site driveways are projected to operate safely and efficiently. March 2, 2022 Magnolia Terrace TIA 23 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Magnolia Terrace PY2,10i7i1TiTA-AJCal 101 A4 VA 10 RECEIVED 03/02/22 ] w� OZSL6NO`J3210'C]NbIHSbj am IzMz z Com:, `•?_ 3nb S39N NbA S6 IS NHW1H 09L /1S?J9lbMS4l 1 X3 z _ Luh - E ° z g i-3MiS H31VM -ate ti _r_.._• _., _•, . _l. ............. , - - - - 13Mt1S idt7Wi3H� ', 7v v 1 I � d a W u w x �8 o�Aaa r r r - =ate K� r ic 2 W �W A g �r3 o a C7 LU °a to 7 t Q gEg M- e a w LU - o a�a m oc�v8 3- J w � j E ° z g i-3MiS H31VM -ate ti _r_.._• _., _•, . _l. ............. , - - - - 13Mt1S idt7Wi3H� ', 7v v 1 I � d a W u w x �8 o�Aaa r r r - =ate K� r ic a�n'ooa a �W �2 baa C7 °a � 7 7 t 1 e E ° z g i-3MiS H31VM -ate ti _r_.._• _., _•, . _l. ............. , - - - - 13Mt1S idt7Wi3H� ', 7v v 1 I � d a W u w x o N o�Aaa p - =ate ic a�n'ooa a �W �2 baa C7 °a e ya _- a w o a�a m oc�v8 n E ° z g i-3MiS H31VM -ate ti _r_.._• _., _•, . _l. ............. , - - - - 13Mt1S idt7Wi3H� ', 7v v 1 I � d a W u w x Magnolia Terrace SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 k |) R �) a §§ ° k) ; |� IRI INd � ' k � /i � \\ \k § t} § }] !t � }f � !( B§ � \] � \ §\ \} ! N � §nm� \ ,« � §§m \ \ !RA � 444 ] § ) #]J §42 k\ ],2 a!! \fij ir ■ | 2§F �B§ N§m� � �# \| ) \ƒ \ § \\ k !\ ) {( § R �2 �i )i ;\ \} §5 � �.. � )§ � ! . § n - �■ a B } !a )\ ! _ kG §)§ � ;■G §. : ){ q§ Q! § B \)! n !)2 §\ ( k§\) \{) \ § \\ @ )) \ �E j )$ ( § |) r !) §) j] ) ]\ ]} B] � /! §] � „ \\ ) § !) nm ; !� ) § B $§ 22 �$ � /K & m !;! . � §r)® § ;!« � !2# ;§§ SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 1 Q Q 0 W 11� W U w N N N N CD m 0 0 LL LU U LLI iloo U11-11 p ti � ;ice goon oo0 N N O O 0 LLl w U W N N 1 LU LLIU NW F 11 cv N O m O 12w 1JJ U w D S Y 4wf� a R d a p�A a -p Eerthovn Q E L9 101'IIM Imilulm N N 1 N (Y) O LU LU U LU ,g 1 CD m 0 a Lij U Lij Irk cq cq 0 w LU U w Ird MM �.�s'��eaa0000 � aa�n'aa�aaaaoa 3 _,-,0000ao q '� s n 4oaaQao aaaaa CN 0 m Cl 0 W LU U W ry IrA N N 1 N O M O LLI i_ LU C) LU Qi N N N O M Li.{ L LI U L11 0L 'A 0 0 Lij LLJ U W se o 0 8 8 a S � 3 � a � ® p a SCR w o A i �3 � / 0 c L ± ± Q 2 Of , R R V 611 � } J 1.1 a.2, /! 'A, 2 . \ § \ ! �CNI � CDC) Q 2 ± ± Q L ± 3!� r; m. ILI \ / 0 n ± 2 2 U ± a WE FF 2 § Z3 ITT = n , k R`, `® «\§- 73 r.r FT- ! `�/ \ `�.`�\ `��~�\ \ \�,`�/ \ \ \� ■ \ / 0 n ± 2 2 U ± a Magnolia Terrace SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 2: Water St 03/02/2022 Int Delay, slveh 4.3 Future Vol, vehlh 8 18 17 23 15 2 Sign Contrai Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT'G lwEat a .....: None lion Storage Length 0 l......... .... Grade, % 0 - ._ - 0- - 0 ...._.. Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 10 15 0 3 t Conflicting Flow All 121 27 28 0 - 0 Stage �... ..... ...T ..... .. .. F Stage 2 94 T Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - Cr��cal Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - Pat Stage 1 1001 Platoon blocked, % - - - Mpq Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 863 - - ,���� � ........ 983 .. .....- � ... ,: ° .. _ . ...� ........ ';..... . ': ......... Stage 2 935 _ HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.017 - 0.043 - - 1 tCK Contra! Delay (pa... IB... 8 8.8.. .... HCM Lane LOS A A A - HCM 9�lnttte Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 Existing Synchro 10 Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Central Ave & Heiman St 03102/2022 Int Delay, slveh 3.2 Conflicting Flow All 212 207 85 208 201 71 88 0 0 80 0 0 Lane Configurations Stage 2 103 98 - 119 112 - - - - - - Tra 6 "A :.. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - Future Vol, vehlh 5 9 5 6 16 2 6 42 12 8 55 5 Follow-up Hdwy 3 5 4 3.3 3 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 N I�ot Gap3 Maneuver„ , .749.., 693. „984„ 7a4 , ; Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free 825 Free Free Free Free _ RT Charnefr�ed ' Nene fVone' E[cne Storage Length - „Npne' - - - - - - - - Veh _-- Mov Cap -2 Maneuver _ 683 - 729 __..., Grade, % - - - - O _ 0 _._._._ Q __ .. 0,.. ,� _. _...... PeaCc Hour Factrir 68 fib fib 68 _ ti& 68 6$8 68 68 fib Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 . ,.:...68 0 0 ..;,. 0 3 Conflicting Flow All 212 207 85 208 201 71 88 0 0 80 0 0 Stage 2 103 98 - 119 112 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - - C[tta[ Follow-up Hdwy 3 5 4 3.3 3 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 N I�ot Gap3 Maneuver„ , .749.., 693. „984„ 7a4 , ; fi99 ;997 7529.,, , , , 15,1, Stage 1 901 809 - 923 825 - - - - . Platoon blocked, % - - - M��r Gap -1 Mafteuver X24. 1531 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 720 683 - 729 689 - - - - Stage 2 874 813 - 862 801 - - - - - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.006 - - U37 0,049 0,008 - KW*6 Delay {s 74 ... 14 ; :..::10 3 .. , .7. 4 HCM Lane LOS A A - B B A A - Water Street 01113/2022 2022 Existing Synchro 10 Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03102/22 HCM 6th TWSC 8- Water St & Van Ness Ave 03102/2022 Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Lane Configurations A. Future Vol, veh/h 0 43 5 5 126 6 11 6 10 6 6 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop IJone;: late Storage Length - - - - - - - - �eh Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - 0 - 0 92 �PU., Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 .. 0 0 0 D Conflicting Flow All 144 0 0 52 0 0 205 204 50 210 203 141 7w5h Stage 2 - - 155 154 59 52 - Cnttcal Hdwy ... 4 35` _-4. Critical Hdwy Stg 1 61 5.5 61 5,5 Crit�tl NdwY..2 ='1 Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - 2.425 35 4 33 3.5 4 3.3 Pgi Cep 1 Maneuver 1:451, ...; .. _ 149,.:'' 75T 696 1024 762 697 912 Stage 1 - - - - 968 857 856 776 _. . Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver, t45 t 1419 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver .....; .. - - - 749 693 - 736 694 - Sfage 1 -Stage 2 - - 840 771 - 941 856 - _s HCM LOS A B � e HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.036 - - 0.004 - - 0.019 HCM Lane LOSS A A - - A A B Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 Existing Synchro 10 Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th AWSC 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave 0310212022 intersection Delay, slveh 7.9 Future Vol, vehlh 2 25 6 11 98 _30 3 33 5 18 42 7 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB t0epartur HeadV3ray,{Nd) ,. : ; 4 T73 249 4#125 4 369 Convergence, YIN Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Service Time Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB — - �Or1�E�6) _.. ......... ...:..:..... ........ HCM Control Delay 7.5 8 8.1 7.8 HCM 95th -tile Q Lane Flow Rate Vol Left, % 7% 6% 8% 27% t0epartur HeadV3ray,{Nd) ,. : ; 4 T73 249 4#125 4 369 Convergence, YIN Vol Right, % 12% 18% Yes Service Time Traffic Vol by Lane 41 33 139 67 _.. ......... ...:..:..... ........ Through Vol 33 25 98 42 HCM 95th -tile Q Lane Flow Rate 46 37 156 75 Degree of Util (X) 0.061 0,044 0.175 0.091 t0epartur HeadV3ray,{Nd) ,. : ; 4 T73 249 4#125 4 369 Convergence, YIN ..,4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 2.777 2.255 2.12 2.372 _.. ......... HCM Control Delay 8.1 7.5 8 7.8 HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0,1 0.6 0.3 Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 Existing Synchro 10 Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02122 HCM 6th TWSC 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St 03102/2022 Int Delay, slveh 1.1 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 41 42 0 29 773 136 0 0 0 Coiffl-Mng Peds, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop RT Citneltzed_.Nsn- Nees Storage Length Grade, % - 0 _ 0 0 0 1?eak Hriur Fxtar _88 1.3;8 813;; 88 $8 &8 _88 88 85; _88, 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 lV1vm 1"fv 0 U Conflicting Flow All 505 1099 0 0 0 Stage 2 505 1099 - - Crttfeal Idwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.02 2.2 Phi Cap -1 Maneuver.._ . T 509.:: 77 Stage 1 0 Platoon blocked, %777 - - Mov 7" Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 501 0 Stage 2 577 0 HCM LOS B HCM Lane VIC Ratio - 0.188 HCM Cantroi Dely.is.. '.3 $ HCM Lane LOS - B HCM ;9tlx %tile (veh� 0 7 :y Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 Existing Synchro 10 Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Magnolia Terrace SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 m �Iw 0 HCM 6th TWSC 2. Water St 03/02/2022 Int Delay, slveh 4.2 Future Vol, vehlh 8 19 18 24 16 2 Goni�ctlt� Ped#fhc a., Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Storaqe Length 0 - - - - Conflicting Flow All 927 28 29 0 0 m Stage 2 99 Cni�cal f•3d�r....� _ 6 4 _.u5�� .....`t T. Cntical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 Pot Cap 1 l�tiarieyer.... , 872 " 1"053 459 Stage 1 1000 - �fage Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 856 - - - Stage 2 930 HCM LOS A HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.018 - 0.045 - - HC€� Cdntrol Delay fie} _ 73 ,..D B.B," HCM Lane LOS A A_ A - - HCM Water Street 01113/2022 2025 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 1 RECEIVE© 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 3- Central Ave & Helrnan St 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 3.1 Lane Configurations 222 219 89 219 211 77 92 0 0 88 0 0 TraffiVsl,vehll.... .. ....... �7 ,..:':.. ........4....8 106 - ...:', ..:-.; Future Vol, vehlh 5 10 5 6 17 2 6 45 15 8 58 5 CanfictrngPeds,� :a ... ... .0... �..; .........q .. ......:U..::.4, Cr►#anal . 4 .,' 0.... Sign Control Stop Stop Skop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free 'T Ctianeirzed. 3.3 2.2 - 2,2 Po# Gap !rte done -. J h1ne _ Storage Length Stage 1 897 806 917 820 - - - - S#age 907 8 i i ....... .., 803...:.: D 0 Platoon blocked, % Grade, % 0 T 0 - - 0 673 0 - Peak M_ ov Cap -2 Maneuver 708 673 716 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt ft+nr ... _ ..... 866 7 9 . 2 ..., .. 3 ..... �, ... .... ?....;: �. ,... .......: Conflicting Flaw All 222 219 89 219 211 77 92 0 0 88 0 0 Stage 2 109 106 - 124 116 - - - C#�c€ t=Fduty i _ ...., Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.1 5.5 6,1 5.577 - - - - Cr►#anal Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2,2 Po# Gap Stage 1 897 806 917 820 - - - - S#age 907 8 i i ....... , 885...; 803...:.: _... Platoon blocked, % _ - - Il�arr Capin Maneiver „ , 708 673 975;:. 76, M_ ov Cap -2 Maneuver 708 673 716 680 - - - Stage ... Sta e 2 9 866 806 - 855 797 - - - - - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.006 - - 0.04 0,052 0.008 HCM Lane LOS Water Street 0111312022 2025 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 1.9 Lane Configurations �. 11 1 161 Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 55 0 0 216 215 53 221 214 149 Stage 9 Future Vol, vehlh 0 46 5 5 133 6 12 6 11 6 6 1 62 55 - _ -,------� Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop R Ci�atnellzed None: done . .... None: Nin® . c Storage Length _ 2.425 - 3.5 - 3.3 - - - - - 1415: �leh 686 "2U 7$ 903 ... 965 855 - Grade, % 770 0 - - 0 0 - - 0 - Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10I)IR►I[�T: HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.039 - - - 0.004 - - 0.02 HCM Lane LOS Water Street 01/1312022 2025 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 �. 11 1 161 Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 55 0 0 216 215 53 221 214 149 Stage 9 63 53 15 .. 158. . Stage 2 _ 163 162 62 55 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.1 5.5 6,1 5.5 - Cnhca# Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 _ 2.425 - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Mariever1.441 1415: 745 686 "2U 7$ 903 Stage 1 W - 965 855 - 848 770 E Platoon Mocked, % - - - Mov Gap 1"Maneuver ,1.441 ... 1415. Mov Gap -2 Maneuver - -" - - 737 683 - 723 684 - ,... Stage 1....:... .... .. .......965....855;... ......848," 761... ;.. . Stage 2 - - 832 765 936 853 10I)IR►I[�T: HCM Lane V1C Ratio 0.039 - - - 0.004 - - 0.02 HCM Lane LOS Water Street 01/1312022 2025 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th AWSC 9: Helman St & Van Ness Ave 03/02/2022 Intersection Delay, slveh 8 Future Vol, vehlh 2 27 6 104 31 4 35 5 19 45 7 17% 21% 10% Sega Control .._ _12 - Skop Stap StaP .`' . - — Traffic Vol by Lane 44 35 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 45 Lane Flow Rate 49 39 165 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB Convergence, YIN SB Yes Yes NB QPpos�rg i.anes . Service Time 2:828 2,298 2.149 2.415 HCEN Conflicting Approach Left SB 8.2 7,5 NB 7,9 EB WB Conflle{�rfg Lanes Lef# 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 Conflicting Approach Right NB SBWB EB HCM Control Delay 7.5 81 8.2 7.9 Vol Left, % 9% 6% 8% 27% - Vol Right, % 1%° 17% 21% 10% Sega Control .._ _ ...' .,_ .- .tai - Skop Stap StaP .`' . - — Traffic Vol by Lane 44 35 147 71 Through Vol -------------- 35 27 104 45 Lane Flow Rate 49 39 165 80 _ 1 - 1 — Degree of Util (X) 0.066 0.047 019 - 0.098 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 2:828 2,298 2.149 2.415 HCEN HCM Control Delay 8.2 7,5 81 7,9 HCS i ArteW HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.3 Water Street 0111312022 2025 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 4 RECEIVED 073/02122 HCM 6th TWSC 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 1.2 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 44 45 0 30 819 144 0 0 0 - - - - CnaaE Hdwy Stg'2 8 :, 5 54 .. Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.02 - 2.2 Pot Cap=l Marie�rer 481, . 793} Stage 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop lei ,anhelized _ _ Nape' ...; .. .... Stage 2 None 0 - - - t�tane Nuns Storage Length - - - - - - - 17 �n tetlian Grade, % 0 - 0 M - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour FpG�tr8`. 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Iumt Flew 50 Conflicting Flow All 534 1163 - 0 0 0 Stage 2 534 1163 - - - Cr�Ucat Hdwy� $ ,,f 6 54 1 r Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - CnaaE Hdwy Stg'2 8 :, 5 54 .. Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.02 - 2.2 Pot Cap=l Marie�rer 481, . 793} Stage 1 - - 0 Platoon blocked, % 48 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 481 0 - - - SEags 1.. , ...; .. .... Stage 2 558 0 - - - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - - 0.21 HCM Lane LOS Water Street 01113/2022 2025 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03102/22 HCM 6th TWSC 2: Water St 0310712022 Int Delay, slveh 4.3 Future Vol, veh/h 15 27 27 38 30 2 Can#Elptirig Pstls,r 0 0 . .. 0- . 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free ��,��i�43CieIIZBd �lQie .. `. AI41i1�...^ �QfiB� Storage Length g 0 - - - - Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - �sak Heavy Vehicles % 0 0 0 10 15 0 E 1 _ r = Conflicting Flow All 201 51 52 0 - 0 Stage 1 51 Stage 2 150 Cr'tacat _ Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 Gr€tial, _ Hd Fallow -up _v _ iroY 3.5 3 3 ,.. 2.2 - _ Stage 1 977 - S#�age Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov,Ga�'-1;�lane.�yer -. 769 103 156; .„ Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 769 W Sta e 2 883 HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.028 0.075 - - HCM HCM Lane LOS A A A Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Central Ave & Heiman St 031x212022 Int Delay, slveh 4.3 Lane Configurations 4 1.5:, Future Vol, veh/h 15 17 5 13 27 2 6 57 15 16 66 5 �.. , , . Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free kT AlonE:':; IJope Storage Length lief Medlars Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -- Peak Hoye Faotor 68 68 68 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 2 7:' 19... s Conflicting Flow All 284 273 101 278 265 95 104 0 0 106 0 0 t4, Stage 2 135 124 - 165 152 - - - - Cr�tacal, Critical wy Hd St 1 9. 61 5 5 61_ 5.5 _ ,. 'E. .. Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 3,5 4 3.3 2.2 12 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 626 622 641 629 Stage 2 822 792 795 762 — -— HCM LOS B B , Capac�#vehlh� 150 fi5 643 148... HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.006 - 0.083 0.096 0.016 - 11CM HCM Lane LOS_ A A B B A A - HCM 95:Eh %#ale t(veh} 4, Water Street 01113/2022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave 0310212022 Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 57 0 0 221 220 54 227 220 149 Lane Configurations Stage 2 - - - - - 163 162 - 44 raf%4r1, vehlh z f a..; 13 .... ; 6 1 6 7 Future Vol, vehlh 46 6 5 133 ..:Q....$ 6 20 8 11 6 7 1 Cflnlchng _2 . , .,.: 0 ....:,0 2.22A25 3 5 4 3.3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized none:: None ,-: - l�torie - '4 Nuns _... E Storage Length , Ratoon blocked, % - - Veh-In,Mkian i rage .. - ..,.; 729 .... fi7$ mQ/9' 71 ,. w. 9Q3 Q - Grade, %_ - 729 0 _ p _ ... Stagg p _ 0 _ Peak,H Nrl' I ctor; _.. 92 92 92 , 92 _ 92 ...: 92. 92 ... 92 , , �2 92 ,_ , 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mumt Flow - 2 - .50 7; 5. , : (4....; 7 ...:22 , . 9 2` T_ 8 -- . I Conflicting Flow All 152 0 0 57 0 0 221 220 54 227 220 149 Stage 2 - - - - - 163 162 - 68 61 - �t�t<cal Critical Hdwy Stq 1 - 61 5.5 6.1 6.5 Cntlpal Follow-up Hdwy 2.22A25 3 5 4 3.3 3.5 4 33 - Stage 1 - - - 959 851 848 770 - '4 , Ratoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Manevet , E44i 1413.:: 729 .... fi7$ mQ/9' 71 ,. 679 9Q3 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 729 679 715 679 - ... Stagg Stage 2 - - - 831 765 925 847 - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.054 0.002 - - 0.004 - - 0.022 HCM Lane LOS Water Street 0119312022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02122 HCM 6th AWSC 9: Helman St & Van Ness Ave 0310212022 Intersection Delay, slveh 8.2 Intersot� LCS ', A _... Future Vol, vehlh 2 27 6 12 109 34 12 40 8 19 47 7 eafcC¢aracHoe 0 $9 -. 0'89 Q$9 D:.$9, 89. Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 MvmtFiow 2 30 7 13 122 = 38 13 45 9 21 S3 '� Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB J. _ Conflicting Approach Left SB NB_ EB WB Rl fol 8 _ .._ t ...:_ 1..: Conflicting Approach Right_ NB SB WB EB ConfEchng, L aneSRsght.. "1 .......:. ........ 1 t. ...:. ....' .. 1.. - ;' .. . HCM Control Delay 7.6 8.3 8.4 8 Convergence, YIN Vol Left, % 20% 6% 8% 26% Vol Thrfi °la..... ....I°h 70%......64 A.... Vol Riaht, % 13% 17% 22% 10% Traffic Vol by Lane 60 35 155 73 J. Through Vol 40 27 109 47 Rl fol 8 _ .._ . Lane Flow Rate .. 67 39 _34 174 82 - 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.091 0.047 0.202 0.101 Convergence, YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes ....... $25 ._....86Q..., ....'8Q8....... Service Time 2.864 2,365 2,197 2,462 „ _. �4CM,Lane V{G Rano . ._ . 0:09 0 44i „ � ZEIN„ �';1t31 HCM Control Delay 8.4 7.6 8.3 8 - ,_ _ HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.3 Water Street 0111312022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 14; N Main St & E Main St & Water St 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 1,5 Lane Configurations Conflicting Flow All 544 1173 0 0 0 Stage 2 544 1173 - - Traffic,llal, r� 62 4 a 34 s a. Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 62 45 0 34 819 144 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds,,�lhr 0 .. 0 �. 0 ; 0" :;' Q Mov Cap -2 Maneuver474 0 - - Sfage 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop S� Control r nelized ` Npne' _ ;t lone None; None Storage Length Veh to tViedian storage -0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Heavy Vehicles,% 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 _ 0 mW.;u.....8.._ Conflicting Flow All 544 1173 0 0 0 Stage 2 544 1173 - - Cnt►cal"idvuy Critical Hdwy Stg_1 Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4,02 - 22 - - Pct dap=7 Stage 1 0 - St 2' .. Platoon blocked, % Mc�v Cep t Maneuver Mov Cap -2 Maneuver474 0 - - Sfage 1 _ 0 Stage 2 551 0 - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - - 0.257 HCM Lane LOS - - C Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03102122 HCM 6th TWSC 17: Water St & Ally Acc 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 3A Future Vol, vehlh 10 9 21 33 19 1 o01cittg..Peds, #Ihr ...:. Q . ,. .. _... 0"` MU Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Storage Length 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peak Hailr Factor Heavy Vehicles % _ 2 2 2 2 2 2 ConflictingFlow All 112 2 3 23 0 - 0 _ Stage 2 _ 89 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Cnticaf Hdu! Stg: 542 ... :. ;' _._.. ... Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Capl,Mar%euver 885 1t154 159:: Stage 1 1000 - Stage Platoon blocked, % - - - 1u Cap 1 Maneiauer 571 104 1592... r Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 871 - - ..... Stage 2_ry 934 - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.016 - 0.024 - HCM HCM Lane LOS A A A Water Street 0111312022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 6 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 21: Alley Acc & Helman 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 0.7 Future Vol, vehlh 6 6 59 13 1 74 Gon#I�eilttg Peds, HCM 95th, °Mfe.Q[veh� Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Chaitnehz�ed_� . .. bone l�tone . ,None... '<. Storage Length 0 llehn Meci�an Storage, # 0 - 0 _ D .....;' Grade, % 0 0 - - 0 t'ealc HahrFacior' 86 $ 85 - 85 .- 85 85 , — - Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Flow All 166 77 0 0 84 0 Stage 2._.. 89 - Crli�cal Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3 518 3.318 2 218 71 ... . Stage 1 946 - - Sfa9e. Platoon blocked, % - - - 1Vlow Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 823 S#a e 1 946 7777-7 Stage 2 933 - - HCM LOS A ....__.. , ------------ __.. .... ... x HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.016 0.001 -- — HGM Gatirol Dslay.ts 91 .74 0 HCM Lane LOS - A A A HCM 95th, °Mfe.Q[veh� Water Street 01113/2022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 23: Heiman & Site access 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 1.2 Future Vol, vehlh 10 10 47 18 1 65 onflrctirg Peds, #Ithr , ...... 0 .fl 0.... Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free _ Ntuaeiane: Storage Length 0 - IIeFi Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 '....2,. Heavy Vehicles, l4 2 2 . 2 2 2 W". 12 127F� .... Conflicting Flow All 144 66 0 0 76 0 Stage 1 66 - r Stage 2 78 - - �rl�c� Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - Cr�tical Follow-up HdwyT 3,518 3,318 2 21$ Pat Ca Y� .... .. ........ _ _._. Stage 1 957 - - - - Stage2 945........; .:...... ; Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap 1 Maneuver 848 'a98 123 .. ' 77 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver .: , 848 , - . . 5fage 1 ;' ,.957 ...:...... '` ..... . Stage 2 944 HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio - 0.026 0.001 M> ontral pelay 4$).- 9..W, 74 0 ... HCM Lane LOS - A A A ICM 9"le Q(vett)i 1. 0 Water Street 0111312022 2025 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 8 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Magnolia Terrace SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 0 HCM 6th TWSC 2: Water St 03/02/2022 MENEM Int Delay, s/veh 4.3 Lane Configurations }j _ Stage 2 105 - - W T Critical Hdwy Stg 1 _ 5.4 Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2 2 Future Vol, veh/h 9 21 19 26 17 3 Gono�ing 14�oy,>vap-1 ManeUver....4� 1(149 '{592: ,. Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 845 k Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free _ RT �at+nelized . .:. ..Marie ntor�e.. None ..V Storage Length 0 - - - - i(eh In Pdian Storage, �: Grade, % 0 - 0 0 ...... r, .. . _ - Peak Hour l"actar 61 61... fit. 6� " f 1 6) Heavy Vehicles % 0 0 0 10 15 0 Conflicting Flow All 136 31 33 0 0 Stage 2 105 - - W T Critical Hdwy Stg 1 _ 5.4 Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2 2 Pot Cap 1 Maneuver 92 „ X04992' _ 1 997 :Stage .Y_ Platoon blocked, % - - 14�oy,>vap-1 ManeUver....4� 1(149 '{592: ,. Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 845 - Stage 1 _ ... ... X77 .. ...... '. 6tage 2 924 _ HCM LOS A HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.05 Tm � HCM Lane LOS A A A - HCM 95th °lahtE C1(veh). , ` (i1.. fl 2, Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 3. Central Ave & Helman St Int Delay, s/veh 3.1 0310212022 - ^ 234 95 233 225 83 98 0 0 95 0 0 Lane Configurations Stage 2 116 113 - 132 12477, - Crtt€cal Traffic Ilii!,18..:... _ Cnt cal Hdwy Sig 61 5 5 - 61 Future Vol, veh/h 5 105 6 18 3 6 48 16 9 62 5 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - }'otCep 1 Mangu�er 72267t} 967 7216 ... Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Chanel�zed 876,: 79.7:-`..... done:. - foe None:.. Nope Storage Length - - - Mav Ca1p-Maneuuer - - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 689 660 Veli �n,MedEan Sforage.#,_ 0 668 - -«. �.... ..: Stage 9 _ Grade, io ° - o - - o - .- - .. a .... - ........ - o - x _ . Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 237 234 95 233 225 83 98 0 0 95 0 0 Stage 2 116 113 - 132 12477, - Crtt€cal _ Cnt cal Hdwy Sig 61 5 5 - 61 5,5-77 „1 Cr'wy Follow-up Hdwy 15 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 2.2 - 2.2 - }'otCep 1 Mangu�er 72267t} 967 7216 678 , 982 1508.. - 1512, ; , Stage 1 888 800 910 815 - - Stage2.: 894 856 876,: 79.7:-`..... ...'._. - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mav Ca1p-Maneuuer Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 689 660 - 700 668 - - - - - Stage Stage 2 856 801 846 790 NCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.006 - - 0.041 0.057 0,009 NCM Lane LOS Water Street 01113/2022 2030 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave 03102/2022 Int Delay, slveh 1.8 Future Vol,yehlh 0 49 5 5 142 6 13 6 12 6 6 1 168 168. ,_ . _... Stage 2 172 171 - 66 58 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized. Mons - Cr�ficai Storage Length - - - 2.2 2.425 3.5 - - 3.5 4 - Aot Cap"9 Maneuver _ Veh - 0 ..-.. , -.. Grade, % - 0 - _ 0 _ _ 0 _ _ 0 _ Peak Hair Factoi .� 92 9 92c - - ,: Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 673 - 708 674 - Stage..1.. Conflicting Flow All 161 0 0 58 0 0 228 227 56 234 226 158 Stage 1566 A A B HCM 95tft °Iotle Q�veh} 168 168. ,_ . _... Stage 2 172 171 - 66 58 Crral Hdwy 41 h 35 71 .6;5 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.1 5.56A 5.5 - Cr�ficai Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 2.425 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Aot Cap"9 Maneuver _ 1430.€09,6:&77 - Stage 1 - - 961 852 - 839 763 .... Sta9e.2.... <:... 835 76:1 Platoon blocked, % - - Mav . Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 722 673 - 708 674 - Stage..1.. Stage 2 - - - - - 824 758 - 931 851 - HCM LOS HCM Lana WC Ratio 0.042 _ - 0,0040,02 HCM Lane LOS_ A A A A B HCM 95tft °Iotle Q�veh} Water Street 01113/2022 2030 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03102/22 HCM 6th AWSC 9- Heiman St & Van Ness Ave 03102/2022 Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.1 Intrsectr€ I-.....-.. Left, % 9%/ 1Vol 1k�10 '78% -7ry8% [.6/.1! 7.V¢I6-i2.10 r27°% - Vol Right, % 11% 16% 22% 10% Lane Configurat€ons Sfap Stflp Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 47 37 158 77 13 21 _. Through Vol 38 ratftc 11al,,veh>h 48 34 , ... 4...8 53 5 2 I -- 4B Future Vol, veh/h 3 28 6 13 111 34 4 38 5 21 48 8 Service Time 2,875 2.35 2.176 2.453 Cf� iae V1G Ria. 472,......0 451 0.206 0,707 ._. Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 1UIvmtFlovu...... 3 31_ , ' Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB 'Ppns�77 r l ares 1. _... -� . - .. -.... �� Conflicting Approach Left SB . NB ..�....- ...� EB WB Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB HCM Control Delay 7.6 8,2 8.2 8 Left, % 9%/ 1Vol 1k�10 '78% -7ry8% [.6/.1! 7.V¢I6-i2.10 r27°% - Vol Right, % 11% 16% 22% 10% Sfap Stflp Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 47 37 158 77 13 21 _. Through Vol 38 28 111 48 34 8 - Lane Flow Rate 53 42 178 87 Degree of Ut€I {X} 0.071 0.05 0.205 0.107 Deparftii Headway (Hd} ::_ , .- -. 4 86 4.336 4. l66 4 439 ...... Conner ence, Y/ g N Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 2,875 2.35 2.176 2.453 Cf� iae V1G Ria. 472,......0 451 0.206 0,707 ._. HCM Control Delay8.2 7 6 8.2 8 HOtN t arse I„OS A .......! ...._-.. - ., .... _ - HCM 95th -tile Q 0.2 0,2 0,8 0.4 Water Street 01/1312022 2030 Background Synchro 10 Report Rage 4 RECEIVED 03/02122 HCM 6th TWSC 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 1.3 Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 47 48 0 32 877 154 0 0 0 Gon#1►ctirig �'gd5,, ihr =; � ..:.p .. 0.. 0. ' . � ..� Q .. ;� Q . � . �' t? �. a . Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop tT Ct�arneftzed...: Clone: ffane ... '.tvonei; Nane Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - Vei1:6979 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 - Peale Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 ItiAvrnt i;lt3w 0 0 36 997 17 0 0 .0 Conflicting Flow All g 571 12 44 - 0 0 0 �..:...... Stage 2 571 1244 4 = = Cutleaf Hdwy Stg 1 CrtW ii St s2 5 $ ._5 54 _. Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4.02 2.2 Stage 1 0 Stage 53.4n`,7 ;`-14, ,.: Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 456 0 Stage 2 534 0 — HCM LOS C HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.237 HGM Gotrof E3elay tS�. HCM Lane LOS _ _ _ C Water Street 01113/2022 2030 Background Synchro 10 Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 3: Central Ave & Helman St 03102/2022 Int Delay, slveh 4.2 Lane Configurations 0.006 c 0.102 0.017 - - H�M _ HCM Lane LOS A A B 'fraffip Uta1, vet�lh 1?., 5�; 13 2� 3 6 60 16: l7 7: �.._. Future Vol, vehlh 15 ...17 17 5 .. 13 ,. 28 3 6 60 16 ...; 17 70 , .. 5 Conti�ciirg Peds, #Ihr -> .0 ..., 0 0 0 ._ . Q.. a. ........... Sign Control . Stop Stop .... Stop Stop .. Stop Stop Free ... Free Free Free Free Free Storage Length - - - - - - - - Veh Grade, % 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 0 PeaEc Maur Factar _66 6:8. , 6868 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �lumYFlQw j2 Conflicting Flow All 298 287 107 291 278 100 110 0 0 112 0 0 118118. - _. _ _ Stage 2 141 130 - --.w 173 160 - - - - - - nhl Criff cal Hd St 1 wy 61 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - _ Fallowu Hd p 35 4 33 35 4 33 22 22 - Pot Cap Maneuver 658 626 953 665 633 ... 9G1 .', _ 149t7 _- Stage1 850 772 891 802 - - �. Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 611 611 628 618 - - - - - Sfage Stage 2 814 787 - 786 755 - - - - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.006 - 0.085 0.102 0.017 - - H�M HCM Lane LOS A A B B AA - }iC1,9511�. Water Street 0111312022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 8- Water St & Van Ness Ave 03/02/2022 Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Conflicting Flow All 161 0 0 60 0 0 233 232 57 240 232 158 .Stage 1 . ' , 61.... Lane Configurationsrr Stage 2 - 172 171 72 64 Crihealdv�y t car .. Traffic !Iol, vehlh:........ 2. .,.. ... 6 5 142 , 6 .... m 21. , .. .:8 1.? 7..1.,... . Future Vol, vehlh 2 49 6 5 142 6 21 8 12 6 7 1 Confladig, F�eds,.#1hr..... EQI5.111:',.,71.-.8 _ 67i 833 .. Stage 1 - - - - - 955 848 - 839 763 - Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop MovCap 1 Maneuver,1430 .: 709 7f6 669 1015' 699 6B9 ..:893 . Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - Storage Length - - - 699 669 - Sfage..�... - - - - - - Stage 2 11eh,MI�an Storage, # - - 822 758 - 920 845 - Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 - PeakHour 92 92 9� 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 161 0 0 60 0 0 233 232 57 240 232 158 .Stage 1 . ' , 61.... Stage 2 - 172 171 72 64 Crihealdv�y t -7r- -4.367771 .. . 6 2 ...7,1....... 6- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 - Cnca[ Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.425 - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cad -1 Maneuver f430 72fi.....672 EQI5.111:',.,71.-.8 _ 67i 833 .. Stage 1 - - - - - 955 848 - 839 763 - Platoon blocked, % - - - MovCap 1 Maneuver,1430 .: 709 7f6 669 1015' 699 6B9 ..:893 . Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 716 669 - 699 669 - Sfage..�... Stage 2 - - 822 758 - 920 845 - HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.058 0,002 - - 0.004 - - 0.022 HCM Lane LOS Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th AWSC 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Arne 03/0212022 Intersection Delay, slveh 8.3 fntersc6pn0$. Future Vol, vehlh 3 28 6 116 37 12 43 8 21 50 8 Peak,!-lisur Factor V ....0.89 0;85 t85 _13 890 8g 89 0 85 018. 0p':Staff Strap Stop Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 - ;31 - 5 130 _._ 42 13 , : 48 7i, Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Opposing Approach WB r EB : SB IVB _..... .._ ...-�_ ...... . _ 1 = ... . Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB ....� WB Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Confl�cl3ng LanesR►ght........ .... 1 ..... 1. .. . .. . ....... _ . HCM Control Delay 7.7 ..... _ . 8.4 8A 8,1 Vol Left, % 19% 8% 8% 27% Vol Tru. °fa , ...' r, ..... 68°Ia 76% 709a 03°l0' .._:_ Vol Right, % 13% 16% 22% 10% 0p':Staff Strap Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 63 37 166 79 LT...-.. 21 ....... Through Vol 43 28 116 ._. . 50 7i, Lane Flow Rate 71 42 187 89 of Util M 0.096 0.051 0.218 0.111 YIN Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Time 2.915 2,42 2,227 2.504 HCM Control Delay 8.4 7.7 8.4 8.1 HCM Lane LQ5TMA .!...... ; ......`_.,..:_ = . HCM 95th -tile Q 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.4 Water Street 01/1312022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 3 RECEIVE=D 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St 03102/2022 Int Delay, slveh 1.6 Platoon blocked, % Mou rap -1 Maneuver 449 071 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 449 0 - - Stage 2 528 0 - - - - HCM LOS C HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.286 t{CM Central pelay (s) ... .. -. .. ;..162.. HCM lane LOS - C GIUI 95th °Iot�le Q(�reh) ., 9 2.. Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Lane Configurations Future Vol, vehlh 0 0 0 65 48 0 36 877 154 0 0 0 . �... � ... � ..., 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT �hatnei€zed "- .. ;. .None; Y ...., 1•io�e .. _'`. .. inn®:^ :. . hpne .. Storage Length - - - - - - - - - et� �n ledran Starae, 0699..,.: _- n. , Grade, % - _ . 0 - - - _... 0 - 0 - - 0 ......`.... Peai< Hour Factor 8$„ 88 88 8& ', 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 Q 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 975:: 0 fl., ....%... � Conflicting Flow All 581 1254 0 0 0 Stage 2 581 1254 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Cnf�rl Follow-up Hdwy 3 5 U2 2,2 - - Pot Staae 1 - - D - - Platoon blocked, % Mou rap -1 Maneuver 449 071 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 449 0 - - Stage 2 528 0 - - - - HCM LOS C HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.286 t{CM Central pelay (s) ... .. -. .. ;..162.. HCM lane LOS - C GIUI 95th °Iot�le Q(�reh) ., 9 2.. Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 17: Water St & Ally Acc 03/02/2022 II IIIII- Int Delay, slveh 3.3 Lane Configurations 0.016 0.024 - fiCM a HCM Lane LOS A A A - ttCM Future Vol, veh/h 10 9 21 35 20 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Charnel�ed .. NDiIE Pane Storage Length 0 - - - - Velr�nledan Grade, % 0 - 0 0 - Peakll�rFclor85.... 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvrnt Flour ....:.... ................ i 2 11 25 =; 24 . . r .. _ .:- Conflicting Flow All 116 25 25 0 - 0 Stage 1 .:'T 25 Stage 2 91 - - ericai Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - cnt,�ai Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - Pnt Stage 1 998 - - Platoon blocked, % _ Iay.Ca 1 Maneuver , , 866...101 r ,1589'. �... T E Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 866 - - - Stage 2 933 HCM LOS A HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.016 0.024 - fiCM HCM Lane LOS A A A - ttCM Water Street 01/1312022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 21: Alley Acc & Hellman 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 0,7 Future Vol, vehlh 6 6 61 13 1 78 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free None " ... "alone Y �.. Storage Length 9 0 - Veh in Medan Stara�e, Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak,HourFacto. 85 85 85. 85 m; " 85 85 _.. Heavy Vehicles % 2 2 2 2 2 2 . e - a Flow All 174 80 0 0 87 0 _Conflicting Stage 2 94 - - Cnt►cal,Hdtivy 6:42 .6 7 412 Critical Hdwy Stg 1' 5.42 - _.- _ tnicat Follow-up Hdwy 3 518 3.318 2.218 Pot Gap= [ Maneve€ 818 980 A. Stage 1 943 Stage Z 93" Platoon blocked, % - - - l�ov"Cali-9 lUlahe�v�r " 815 9$0 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 815 - - age1.. 943.. .._ .......... .." J .:... " _ .. " . . Stage 2 929 HCM LOS HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,016 0.001 - HCI� HCM Lane LOS - A A A HCM 95th°Io-tile;Q(veh} 0 p Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 6 RECEIVED 03/02/22 HCM 6th TWSC 23: Helman & Site access 0310212022 Int Delay, slveh 1.2 HCM LOS A HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.026 0.001 #1C1Ncantrol Delay (s�. 1 . 7 4 ;. 0 HCM Lane LOS Lane Configurations A A Future Vol, vehlh_ 10 10 50 17 1 69 ConfltGting Peds,#Ihr.......0 .. d 0 _ .4..'.... g.. Si n Control Stop Free Free Free ree FW Ft9 � �StoP StorageLength 0 , in- Median Storage, .'; 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 MumtFlw ...... .; $ Conflicting Flow All 152 69 0 0 79 Q Stage 2 83 - Critical Hdvey Stg 1 5,42 - Critical tdwy 2 x:42 .. . '; Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3 318 2 218 Stage 1 954 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 839 - - _ Sage Stage 2 W9 _ 939 � - m _ HCM LOS A HCM Lane VIC Ratio - - 0.026 0.001 #1C1Ncantrol Delay (s�. 1 . 7 4 ;. 0 HCM Lane LOS _ - A A A Water Street 01113/2022 2030 Build Synchro 10 Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Magnolia Terrace SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Back round 03102/2022 Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #0 Directions Served LR Maxuntiin Queue:(i _ =12_ Average Queue (ft) 3 9th Queue (fit} 13 9 �.. :. �.... Link Distance (ft) 280 tlpsttear► BIk Tine°�} . i _ _.. .. Queuing Penalty (veh) Sfora�e :day Hist'O .. :' Storage Blk Time (%) 99 Qteuttg;-Pena[ty veh} , Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #1 Directions Served LR LT tVlart9utt� Que�[(ft)___ _ =12_ Average Queue (ft) 1 2 9th Queue (fit} 13 9 �.. :. �.... Link Distance (ft) 280 99 1 ------------ Queuing Penalty (veh) Link Distance (ft) Storage Blk Time 99 ° Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #2 a Directions Served LR LT Average Queue (ft) 1 Link Distance (ft) 280 99 ° . . Queuing Penalty (veh) _ Storage Blk Time (%) Water Street ShTraffic Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background 93102/2022 Intersection: 2: Water St, All Intervals Directions Served LR LT Intersection: 3. Central Ave & Helman St, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximta Qusueft}g 31 4 12 Average Queue fft) 14 24 1 2 Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Helman St, Interval #1 Directions Served_ LTR LTR LTR LTR laxu►n Queue (ft} .. ..� , 5�... .. '4't � ...; � ; .... ,..- , Average Queue (ft) 19 _ , 22 1 , 1 Link Distance (ft) _ TT 274 280 259 418 D streaitt B1icTir�e °� Queuing Penalty (veh) torageEtay Dts={ft�� w . ........ ..... ... . Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty;;(yeh} � �. �� Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02122 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background 03102/2022 Intersection. 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 22 Average Queue (ft) 13 13 1 th Queue (ftj 37.,._.� 39 Link Distance (ft) 274 280 418 IJstrifk Tine°� .. _- _7 771-1,1_1111 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuir-g. - 0ty .N h :e -- Storage Blk Time (%) Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, All Intervals Directions Serve d LTR LTR LTR LTR Ave race Queue (ft) 14 17 Link Distance (ft) 274 280 259 418 lJtreamikTirre Queuing Penalty (veh) storage "�a� DiStt}...... Storage Bik Time (%) Que€�ing'.Penaity-e) Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 22 12 95th Qtife.(ft). ;' .., ... Link Distance ft 338 282 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blit Time Queuir-g. - 0ty .N h ... ... . Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background 0310212022 I11111111111111111� Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 19 13 38 ....:3fl _ ' ....� �.__ __ - __ __ Link Distance (ft) 338 282 18 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 19 11 StorageBlkTime (%) 262 Clttep fnglPen�lty (veh} ..�.. _ ._ Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR M�m�irtQoe►�e`.(it� .�:8 38 ....:3fl _ ' ....� �.__ __ - __ __ Average Queue (ft) 0 18 10 Average Queue (ft) 0 19 11 Link Distance (ft) 262 338 282 .. Link Distance (ft): 262 338 282 Queuing Penalty (veh) ;' �. .. . _. . . Storage Ba"y DistO - k - Storage Blk Time QeungP�naltyveta) .. - _ _ Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, All Intervals Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR ..`38 ... Average Queue (ft) 0 19 11 96th Q►�eue fit) .T '. _ b "-: 41 �4 .... , .. Link Distance (ft): 262 338 282 u^" Upstream BSC Tine ;' �. .. . _. . . Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background 03/0212022 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maxuri3 Queue (ft) 35 54 —- Average Queue (ft) 22 42 24 30 _ Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 t�BtrBaFt1 E#lk TtlTte �a�°} ...'rn Queuing Penalty (veh) �tbragaa�+ I�[st(ttj Storage Blk Time (%) Quevng Penalty (vein) Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maxuri3 Queue (ft) 35 54 —- Average Queue (ft) 22 36 27 30 _ Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 t�BtrBaFt1 E#lk TtlTte �a�°} ...'rn Queuing Penalty (veh) Stara a Ba Chst tt � � ,._ .. ... . Storage Blk Time (%) Queun ;;Penal veh ..... Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR UM"'Q Average Queue (ft) 21 37 26 28 Link Distance ft 461 288 418 223 Queuing Penalty (veh) - Storage Bay 1Jtst;a�). :. � � ,._ .. ... . Storage Blk Time Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background 0310212022 IYI IIII IIYO Intersection: 9: Kelman St & Van Ness Ave, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR IaxttttrCtrQtreu;(it)8 Average Queue (ft) i] 54.......:4 =. -.., .., Average Queue (ft) ( 22 37 26 29 fl Stgrag :Bay Dist::O ...... - Storage Blk Time (%) Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 Upstream Blk T1e°? _ --- F Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Quett�rtg'Pnaliyveh) T Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #0 Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #1 �LT Directions Served LT Maximum - —=- Average Queue (ft) 52 Link Distance (ft) 169 FF iti�tri?itj, (j77 Queuing Penalty (veh) fl Stgrag :Bay Dist::O ...... - Storage Blk Time (%) Queue Per�aity; vet).. ... Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #1 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 6 RECEIVED 03/02122 �LT Directions Served Maxirun Queu(ti) -- Average Queue (ft) 54 T — Link Distance(ft)169 . - FF iti�tri?itj, (j77 Queuing Penalty (veh) fl Stora ..;Bay t7Est (fk) Storage 8[k Time Qusutng. P,enalfyi.veh) E Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 6 RECEIVED 03/02122 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Background 03/02/2022 Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #2 Directions Served LT TR Maximum,,,, UOUW. , ....:.. ,. Average Queue (ft) 43 0 77 7 Link Distance (ft) 169 359 - - Queuing Penalty (veh) 5tarage Bay Djs# {ft) - Storage Blk Time QtreUil1.9Penaltyi{'def?} .- Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, All Intervals Directions Served LT TR Maxrmu Queue: ft 924 1, ,-. ; Network Sum Netwark wide Qtetaing Penalty, intervat #U Q- � ... ., Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #1: 0 Netwa€ wide Queu,r€cd Penalty; Interval2 0 _ Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water Street SimTraffc Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03/02/2022 Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #0 Directions Served LR LT TR Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #1 Directions Served LR LT TR Average Queue (ft) 8 2 'nth G2uus eft) Q , .... 20 s Link Distance (ft) 280 99 Link Distance (ft) 280 Queuing Penalty (veh) 146 Up�trea� BIk Titrie ("'lQ) ... Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty {ue}3) . Intersection: 2: Water St. Interval #2 Directions Served LR LT TR Average Queue (ft) 3 1 0 Link Distance (ft) 280 99 146 Up�trea� BIk Titrie ("'lQ) ... Queuing Penalty (veh)77 - 7 Storage Blk Time77 Water Street SirnTrafc Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03/0212022 Intersection: 2: Water St, All Intervals Queuing Penalty (veh) 5torage;Bay 10€sttt Storage Blk Time (%) Q�uing'.Penalty (��}�) Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Helman St, Interval #0 i -s Served Directions LTR LTR LTR l�ax�mvti Queue:: 30 LTR '. Storage Blk Time {%) Queutr P�nalty:(e}€} Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #1 ._ Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maxmm Queue (it} ..." 45 Average Queue (ft) 28 27 3 Link Distance (ft) 274 280 418 Queuing Penalty _Lvejkj Storage Blk Time%) Queutnr� Penalty;(veh) :.. ..... Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03/02/2022 Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR *84 Directions Served LTR Average Queue (ft) 22 23 1 5 3t - Average Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) 274 280 418 U�stre� Blk Time {°1a) .: Storage BlkTime °la� Queuing Penalty (veh) Link Distance (ft) 274 Storagel3ay 1]�st`) 418 _ _.. Storage Blk Time ' ... m. _�_ .. _.... Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, All Intervals Upstream t3tki�e ��10) Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served w. LTR LTR Maxtrnu Queue (fi) ,... LTR Directions Served LTR LTR �Iaxrmur�Queue(ft} ,. 50 5 3t - Average Queue (ft) 22 23 1 Storage BlkTime °la� Link Distance (ft) 274 280 418 Upstream t3tki�e ��10) Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served w. LTR LTR Maxtrnu Queue (fi) ,... ?4 ., Average Queue (ft) 20 9 77 Link Distance (t 135 282 ..... Queuing Penalty (yehl Storage BlkTime °la� �. .... _ Water Street ShTraffic Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 0310212022 Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Directions Served LTR LTR Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave. Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR tela 06 Qt eue: (ft)..... ' 2 34 Average Queue (ft) 22 10 Average Queue (ft) 43 33 .......... Link Distance (ft).:,... _ 135 282 Upstream 13l[ ii.(°1�} _ , . .. Queuing Penalty (veh) 135 Sure Bay Dlst(._ _ ._ .. Storage Blk Time N qusu�n Pend veh Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 22 10 Link Distance (ft) 135 282 Queuing Penaity (vet)_ ............. Storage Blk Time Water Street SimTraftic Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build03102/2022 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 24 36 31 27 Average Queue (ft) 23 40 33 31 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 U(a tre B1k Tlrre 461 288 418 223 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage: StorageBay Qi(#t) - Storage Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) Que�airt,Pn{ty( eh) t�ileui�g PeneliY`(ye�� -- Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 LTR LTR Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR ; Average Queue (ft) 22 38 Average Queue (ft) 23 40 33 31 #h, Qurri�.(ft) 47 59 57..--. . T� Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 lisream 13i Time (AlQ) Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) StorageBay Qi(#t) - Storage Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) t�ileui�g PeneliY`(ye�� Queuing Penalty (veh) _ T, ...... Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 LTR LTR Directions Served LTR LTR Maxunum Queue;(tt) ; Average Queue (ft) 22 38 31 29 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 tlpsiream B11cTte {�°) Queuing Penalty (veh) StorageBay Qi(#t) - Storage Blk Time (%) t�ileui�g PeneliY`(ye�� Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #0 Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #1 Directions Served LT Maximut Queue .. '..... 13 _... Average Queue (ft) 65 Link Distance (ft) 969 lJpstrean S1k,Tune,(41a} ...; Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5korageBay flys# (ft) _......r Storage Blk Time (%I Queuing Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 6 RECEIVE© 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #2 Directions Serrvteyd[) LT LT TR jau �LT Average Queue (ft) 13 Average Queue (ft) 50 0 0 9attt Qaeue {tk) -, 1 - 3 Link Distance (ft) 169 359 359 _. Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Str�ge'ay iirst!(ft} Storage Blk Time (%) Queug_Penatty jveh) Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, All Intervals Directions Served LT LT TR Average Queue (ft) 13 Average Queue (ft) 50 0 0 9attt Qaeue {tk) -, 1 - 3 Link Distance (ft) 169 359 359 _. Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Blk Time N Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Ace, Interval #0 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Directions Served LR Average Queue (ft) 13 95th, Quet►� (�) .'' .... , ..., .. 3�.. _ .. `.; . .. Link Distance (ft) 94 Upstream BI[c Tune {°!o-} ... Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time _. Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Ace, Interval #1 Directions Served LR Niax�m Queue').....3 LR Average Queue (ft) 16 Average Queue (ft) 13 Link Distance (ft) 94 Link Distance (ft) -- Queuing Renal tY _(veh) Stora a=8a Dts#: ft d '; s Storage Blk Time (%) _ Queu�n �'Ret�ai veh Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Ace, Interval #2 Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Ace, All Intervals Directions Served LR Directions Served LR �Max�mu Queue ...... Average Queue (ft) 13 Link Distance (ft) 94 Link Distance (ft) 94 UpstreIEcTtt �I Queuing Penalty (veh) _ Storage Bay Dint O _ Storage Blk Time (%) Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Ace, All Intervals Directions Served LR - Average Queue (ft) 13 _ :6 Link Distance (ft) 94 Queuing Penalty (vel _ Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing PettaEfy''jveh Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 8 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03102!2022 Intersection: 21: Alley Acc & Heiman, Interval #0 Directions Served LR Directions Served �S Average Queue (ft) 13 95th Qiaeus ft 36 Link Distance (ft) 136 Link Distance (ft) -- Queuing Penalty (veh) f Starage`aj(Dtst..i) ....,.... _ Storage Blk Time (%) Queuttig:Penalty";�Y�h) _ � Intersection: 21: Alley Acc & Heiman, Interval #1 Directions Served LR Directions Served ....- --t Average Queue (ft) 10 Average Queue (ft) 10 Link Distance (ft) 136 Link Distance (ft) -- Queuing Penalty (veh) f Starage`aj(Dtst..i) = - - Storage Blk Queuttig:Penalty";�Y�h) _ � Intersection: 21: Alley Acc & Heiman, Interval #2 Water Street SimTratlic Report Page 9 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Directions Served LR mix,�mtttt Average Queue (ft) 10 95th Qu ft 32, z.__ Link Distance (ft) 136 Queuing Penal veh Storage Blk Time (%) Water Street SimTratlic Report Page 9 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #0 Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #1 Directions ServedLR Directions Served LR taximurrt Average Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 15 �� .:. ,... y ................ ... .. Link Distance ft O Link Distance (ft) 167 llt}$t{iti Bltc7ittle (Ike- - - Queuing Penalty (veh) S'torae Bay Dost(tt) _ . Storage Blk Time (%) Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #1 Directions ServedLR ax mu., Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 19 95th Queue (�}... . _.. , .. �� .:. ,... y ................ ... .. Link Distance ft O 167 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 10 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2025 Build 03/0212022 Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #2 Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, All Intervals jrnrt5m Directions Served W.. . LR Maxrmu�n dueue�tt}. � Average Queue (ft) 14 __ Link Distance (ft) 167 Upstrer 131k7ire°!)....:.._ _ - Queuing Penalty (veh) --- Storage Blk Time M Network Summary Net�rprkwid� Queu�n� Penalty, Interval #0_ Q Networkwide Queuing Penalty, Interval #9; 0 !Network wide C�ve�tng Penalty interval #2 Q Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: D Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 11 RECEIVED 03102122 Magnolia Terrace SANDOW ENGINEERING RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 03/0212022 Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #0 Directions Served LR Iattlur� a", Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #1 Directions Served LR LT LT Average Queue (ft) 4 1 Average Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) 280 99 StfB[iiIlt �tiYte% i. Queuing Penalty (veh) 280 StoraeaY tsi1 Storage,Blk Time Queuing Penalty (veh� Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #2 Directions Served LR LT Average Queue (ft) 0 _0 Link Distance (ft) 280 99 Queuing Penalty (veh� Storage, Blk Time uutng Pertalt�r;{yell) Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 0310212022 Intersection: 2: Water St, All Intervals Storage Blk Time Queumg'Penaliy'(vet>} Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #0 Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #1 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Iaxlmun Queue(ft) ;..... Average Queue (ft) ....... 17 24 1 1 nth Cuue eft) -._ 4i Link Distance(ft) ( )_ 274 280 259 418 Upstream B!k TErre Queuing Penalty (veh) -77h st Storage Blk Time N QEie�nrtg Penalty(veha ;� .... __ . Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #1 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR 11aXEnit71T4 Qki818:(tt} T .... ., Average Queue (ft) 21 23 1 2 4i Link Distance (it) 274 280 259 418 Queuing Penalty (veh) -77h sterageBay)7ist�ft} Storage Blk QEie�nrtg Penalty(veha ;� .... __ . Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 2 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 03/02/2022 Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Helman St, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 16 Average Queue (ft) 16 15 1 Link Distance (ft) 33.8 28.2 1pstreaz »IkT�r»e°) .-.. ; Link Distance (ft) 274 280 418 Storage $aY_'.O _, ....:.. ................... �.... .... _ Queuing Penalty (veh) Queu[ng;Penaity;veh),- ..._... Storage NBay Dist() _ - ., Storage Bik Time (%) Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Link Distance (ft) 274 280 259 418 UP$ room Q6eu1ng Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing=Penaliy-:veh} ......__ . . Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 16 14 Link Distance (ft) 33.8 28.2 1pstreaz »IkT�r»e°) .-.. ; ...., Queuing Penalty (veh Storage $aY_'.O _, ....:.. ................... �.... .... _ Storage Blk Time (%) Queu[ng;Penaity;veh),- ..._... Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 0310212022 1 IIII II ISI Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR Directions Served LTR Directions Served Average Queue (ft) 22 11 LTR Average Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) 338 282 11 Average Queue (ft) Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 12 Link Distance (ft) Storage 61k Time (%) 338 282 Ipstrearn Bik TEme%) .... Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 0 18 11 Average Queue (ft) 0 19 12 Link Distance (ft) 282 338 282 Ipstrearn Bik TEme%) .... 262 338 Queuing Penalty (veh) .... r Queuing Penalty (veh) 77 Storage Blk Time (%) en PenatiyL) , ... Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave: All Intervals Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02122 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Max►mut,Qu�u (ft) .. „.. > . .... 49 ...'3Q T .. . , .. . Average Queue (ft) 0 19 12 777 Link Distance (ft) 262 338 282 up�trean SIkT�re [°Itl) .,T .... r Queuing Penalty (veh) 77 Storage Blk Time (%} Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02122 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 0310212022 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Max�mutn Queue t� 31 59 �2 ....... ' Average Queue [ft) 26 43 21 .. ..: . ..... .... ..... 27 32 27 29 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 llpstreai#t B!hie (°l�}...... Upstreamtk T�ren�a} - _: Queuing Penalty (veh) - i Queuing Penalty (vehL 516raga day Drst .. _ .. -- _ - Storage Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time N tlueutnc°penalty (ueh}.,..... Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Max�mutn Queue t� 31 59 40 3� - Average Queue (ft) 19 39 26 32 27 29 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 Upstreamtk T�ren�a} - _: Llpstrea BlkTrrr (%}...V Queuing Penalty (veh) i Queuing Penalty (vehL 516raga day Drst .. _ .. -- _ - SlOrage Storage Blk Time N Storage Blk Time_oo —...... Intersection: 9: Helman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Manu Queue',(ft}1 .5 59 54� Average Queue (ft) 24 36 27 29 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 Llpstrea BlkTrrr (%}...V i Queuing Penalty (vehL SlOrage Storage Blk Time_oo —...... Water Street SimTrattic Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 03/02/2022 11111111411�1IIIIUIIII�I��I�Ii� Intersection: 9: Helman St & Van Ness Ave, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #0 Directions Served LT Maximu Quer e...... Average Queue (ft) 6.,..,.,,:, .. r 47 Average Queue (ft) 72 Link Distance (ft) 169 Link Distance (ft) _. Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Skorge;BayflSt.�%.. �. Storage Blk Time (%) Storage Blk Time (%) Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #1 Directions Served LT laxm C2tteue: (ft} , .... ,I .... ... . Average Queue (ft) 72 Link Distance (ft) 169 Queuing Penal veh 0 Storage.=bay flr"sf{ftj. Storage Blk Time (%) Queutiig Pen�lty';�veh} Water Street SirnTrafFic Report Page 6 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Background 0310212022 Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #2 Queuing„Penalty. {veh) Starage:;Bay �Ist"fit) Storage Blk Time (06) Quip�� Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, All Intervals *00e'3ay Djst;ft Storage 131k Time (%) Queuing PenW� Network Summary 1Ve�+rark w►de Q��uEng PenaCty, inten+�l #Q � = _ Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval # 0 Newark wide Cuea� Penally, l�terval #2 ;0 x Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water Street SimTrafc Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 LT TR Directions Served ti�axl�utn Qtle€1e��itj _ `__ _ '110 1 _ Average Queue (ft) 49 0 -- Link Distance (ft) 169 359 Queuing Penalty(veh) 0 *00e'3ay Djst;ft Storage 131k Time (%) Queuing PenW� Network Summary 1Ve�+rark w►de Q��uEng PenaCty, inten+�l #Q � = _ Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval # 0 Newark wide Cuea� Penally, l�terval #2 ;0 x Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water Street SimTrafc Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 0310212022 Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #0 Directions Served LR LT tuladrnur Queue Ett) LR LT Average Queue (ft) 7 5 Average Queue (ft) 4 _ Link Distance (ft) 280 99 upstream kik Tette (°lQ) _, 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) - Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penal� Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #1 Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #2 Directions Served LR LT Directions Served LR LT Average Queue (ft) 3 1 Average Queue (ft) 4 2 9th Queue (ft) 280 99 Link Distance (ft) 280 99 i 1pstream Blk Tine°I°) .. '' - Queuing Penalty (veh) Stor_'Bay ? Storage Blk Time (%) .,;, r . Q€eu>ng Pnatty'-(veh) :_ ..... ...' . __ Intersection: 2: Water St, Interval #2 Directions Served LR LT Iax�mrnQueueft) .... 334 ... Average Queue (ft) 3 1 Link Distance (ft) 280 99 iJpslrear Queuing Penalty .(veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing PenaEty'(veh) .,;, r . Water Street SimTraffc Report Page 1 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 2: Water St, All Intervals Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Max�m€�m Qutre'�� 38 41 Average Queue (ft) 25 29 6 4 Link Distance (ft) 274 280 259 418 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5tarageay Storage Blk Time (%) (�ueuing P�talfy'{ueh� ... , Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Heiman St, Interval #1 Directions Served_ LTR LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 31 30 1 3 95th, Qceue Link Distance (ft) 274 280 259 418 _ iJp treain I3 Tune. {��) Queuing Penalty {veOL - Storage Blk Time (%) Queutt�"Pe?atty;{vehj .: :.. '' Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 2 RECEIVE© 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03/02/2022 Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Helman St, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR `. 34 Average Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 23 25 1 2 4� Link Distance(ft) 274 280 259 Link Distance (ft) 274 280 259 418 Queuing Penalty (veh) - Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) 8(raga; �ueu�rig:Penatty=veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Queutrt.Penalty_veh}. _ - Intersection: 3: Central Ave & Helman St, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue :[ `. 34 Average Queue (ft) 23 25 1 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 4� Link Distance(ft) 274 280 259 418 l I�strea Falk 1 ire [%) ... Queuing Penalty (veh) Stprac. Bay ©lSt . Storage Blk Time (%) �ueu�rig:Penatty=veh) - - - Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Directions Served LTR LTR Average Queue [ft) 22 10 Link Distance (ft) 136 282 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Water Street SimTratfic Report Page 3 RECEIVED 03102/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 Directions Served LTR LTR Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maxiru Quee:(f# g_ .._ .......a4 38 Average Queue (it) 0 0 23 92 Link Distance (ft) 288 263 136 282 Upsaream 81k Time {°lA} Queuing Penalty„(veh) Storge'Bay Dist {fit} Storage Blk Time (%) -- Intersection: 8: Water St & Van Ness Ave. All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Wax�mu Average (ft) 9 0 0 _ 23 12 i Link Distance(ft) 288 263 — 936 282 - — ._ Queuing Penalty (veh) 7-7 Storage Blk Time_L'Xa) } Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 4 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03/02/2022 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #0 Queuing Penalty (veh) St�rage;By Ost() Storage Blk Time ('/%) Queatn,P�na[iy veh} Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 t"W"VITM m� LTR :. LTR ; Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR lamr Qeuft� 313 48 44 _ . Average Queue �ft) 22 46 34 29 33 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 ipstra Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) St�rage;By Ost() Storage Blk Time ('/%) Queatn,P�na[iy veh} Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #1 t"W"VITM m� LTR :. LTR ; Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Ma M"4'. 45 55 31 Average Queue (ft) 25 39 30 33 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 :.. - Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 Queuing Penalty (veh) Queuing Penalty (veh) , Storage 81k Timed%) Storage Blk Time (%) Cuen�n °- _ .. 33ertaltyveh� Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, Interval #2 Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR F Average Queue (ft) 22 40 31 30 Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 b7, Queuing Penalty (veh) r. , Storage 81k Timed%) Water Street Sim Traffic Report Page 5 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03/02/2022 Intersection: 9: Heiman St & Van Ness Ave, All Intervals Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Average Queue (ft) 59 r Average Queue (ft) 22 40 31 30 Queuing Penalty (vehl Storage eBay Disi[it) .......: = . Link Distance (ft) 461 288 418 223 Queuing Penalty (veh) Sfinrage;BayDrsi(it) .,._ ._...._ Storage Blk Time rT(%) Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #0 Directions Served LT TR Storage Blk Time (%) {tet�ingPnaltyuh �.......... __ _ __ Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #1 Directions Served LT m6ximu�Queue_(ttj _ ..... _ Average Queue (ft) 59 r Link Distance (ft) 169 Queuing Penalty (vehl Storage eBay Disi[it) .......: = . Storage Blk Time (%) Op Water Street SimTraftic Report Page 6 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, Interval #2 Directions Served LT TR Maxsu LT TR Average Queue eft) 54 0 Average Queue (ft) 54 0 Link Distance (ft) 169 359 Link Distance (ft) 169 359 Queuing Penalty (veh) m.. __ - _ torag - Storage Blk Time (%) Storage B[k Time Intersection: 14: N Main St & E Main St & Water St, All Intervals Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Acc, Interval #0 0 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 N Directions Served LT TR Average Queue (ft) 54 0 snau r;f)_- _ Hca._ _ "- Link Distance (ft) 169 359 >psttearrt B(kTi�IQ) m.. __ - _ Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage eay Dist {ttj Storage B[k Time flueuang Penalty,-��r�h} Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Acc, Interval #0 0 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 7 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03102/2022 Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Acc, Interval #1 Directions Served LR Max OR Queue - Average Queue (ft) 14 Wqueueft _ Link Distance (ft) 148 llpstreari� ilk Ttne {°fad .. '� __ W Queuing Penalty (veh) 145 5tarage ;Bay pestO _. - Storage Bik Time%) Queuing Penalty_(veh {uear�g Peti. (veh - — Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Acc, Interval #2 Directions Served LR LT LT Average Queue (ft) 12 1 Average Queue (ft) 12 Link Distance (ft) 148 145 �Jp�trea� ),3licfi►me �°�� -. �'_ ' <; Queuing Penalty (veh) 145 storageyt tft__ - = _. - Storage BIR Time (%) Queuing Penalty_(veh {uear�g Peti. (veh - — Intersection: 17: Water St & Ally Acc, All Intervals Directions Served LR LT Average Queue (ft) 12 1 Link Distance (ft) 148 145 Queuing Penalty_(veh 77 Storage Bik Time (%) ggeuing Water Street SimTraffrc Report Page 8 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03/02/2022 Intersection: 21: Alley Acc & Heiman, Interval #0 Intersection: 21: Alley Acc & Heiman, Interval #1 Intersection: 21: Ailey Acc & Heiman, Interval #2 Directions Served LR Directions Served LR Maximum Queueft c8 Average Queue (ft) 8 0 28 - - Link Distance (ft) 136 Link Distance (ft) 136 Queuing Penalty (veh) U pstream Irn 5tixageBay tt�stj , _. - �..., w Storage slk Time Q u eung; Penaltyveh) StPrae?Bay Dist (ft), Intersection: 21: Ailey Acc & Heiman, Interval #2 Directions Served LR LT 7n7777— Average Queue (ft) 10 0 Link Distance (ft) 136 137 U pstream Irn Queuing Penalty (veh) StPrae?Bay Dist (ft), Storage Blk Time (%) Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 9 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build03102/2022 Intersection: 21: Alley Acc & Heiman, All Intervals Directions Served LR LT Directions Served LR Average Queue (ft) 10 0 05th 13 Link Distance (ft) 136 137 Link Distance (ft) 167 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storagey Storage Blk Time Storage Blk Time (%) Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #0 Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #1 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 10 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Directions Served LR Average Queue (ft) 13 Link Distance (ft) 167 Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penaify(ueh)� �-.... f Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #1 Water Street SimTraffic Report Page 10 RECEIVED 03/02/22 Queuing and Blocking Report 2030 Build 03/0212022 Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, Interval #2 Directions Served LR Intersection: 23: Heiman & Site access, All Internals Network Summary t�etvrprl��nde Queuing Penalty,, Intervat �8.i Q Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #1: 0 NetN+or wtde Quet�ng Penalty, knterval #2: s0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, All lntervals: 0 Water Street SinnTraffic Report Page 11 RECEIVED 43/02/22 Regan Trapp I From: Brandon Goldman Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2022 2:10 PM To: Beverly Hovenkamp; Dale Shostrom; Bill Emery; Kieth Swink; Piper Von Chamier; Terry Skibby; Sam Whitford Cc: Regan Trapp; Shaun Moran; Derek Severson Subject: Historic Commission: 165 Water St - Public Comment Good afternoon, Commissioners, The public comment below was submitted after packets for the 3/2/2022 Historic Commission meeting were prepared. The comment relates to the proposed development at 165 Water Street (PA -T2-2022-00037) at the intersections of Heiman St, Van Ness Ave, and Water St. I wanted to provide the email comment to you all for your consideration in advance of tomorrow night's meeting See you tomorrow evening, Brandon From: Mark Brouillard <MTBrouillard@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:59 PM To: Shaun Moran <Shaun.Moran(@council.ashland.or.us>; Stephen Jensen<stephen@council.ashiand.or.us>; Paula Hyatt <Paula.Hyatt@council.ashland.or.us> Cc: Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us>; Julie Akins <iulie@council.ashland.or.us> Subject: PA -T2-2022-00237 - May we have impartial meetings [EXTERNAL SENDER] To Council Liaisons, Planning Department, and Mayor, I am asking that we have impartial meetings with regards to PA -T2-2022-00237. There are very specific reasons for this. During the last go around with what is being proposed (it was for 95 Van Ness Street - PA -T1- 2018-0033) a proclamation was made by a presenter (Rogue Planning) and laughed at and mocked by the historic commission members. That proclamation was "now that there aren't any pesky home owners here we might get something accomplished." I was present at the meeting as a homeowner and made an objection to it (being labeled as a pesky homeowner). But, the attending historic commission members laughed at it and I guess they thought it was entertaining. To me and others it showed bias. Again, we are having another new PA with regards to the subject properties at 95 Van Ness, 160 Heiman, and 165 Water. We as neighbors thought we had gotten past the prior two approvals (much to the objections of the neighborhood) for 95 Van Ness and 160 Heiman. We had all gotten used to the idea of having (2) 40 foot tall buildings across the street from us to now trying for 5 massive buildings that offer no affordable housing, unless you call a million dollars per condo affordable (8 buildings in total with 3 being on 165 Water). Those of us who have been around long enough on Helman have seen the City not be totally truthful with the neighborhood. Look into the notes and building plans for The Plaza Inns & Suites (on Heiman Street and Central Avenue). One building we never saw the plans for and when the open house happened, Mayor DeBoer asked what we thought about the buildings; he was asked where it was on the plans. They were not there. Bill Molnar's predecessor told us that the City wouldn't let another 3 story building happen on Helman Street after the Plaza fiasco. Magnolia Terrace Eight tot Commercial Subdivision Five Building Mixed Use Commercial Site Review RflGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 January 7, 2022 Property Owner: Landscape Architecture/ Site Planning: Magnolia Investment LLC Magnolia Fine Homes LLC 441 Talent Avenue Talent, OR 97535 Terrain Landscape Architecture 33 N Central Ave., Suite #406 Medford, OR 97501 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC 1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 Civil Engineer: Transportation Engineer: Geotechnical Expert: Structural Engineer: Rhine -Cross Group PO BOX 909 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Sandow Engineering 160 Madison Street, Suite A Eugene, OR 97402 Marquess and Associates Rick Swanson PO Box 490 Medford, OR 97504 Snyder Engineers 415 E Pine St Central Point, OR 97502 Surveyor: Polaris Land Survey PO BOX 459 Ashland, OR 97501 Page 1 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Subject Property Property Addresses: 160 Neiman Street, 95 Van Ness and 165 Water Street Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04CC; Tax lots 2000 & 2100 and 7100 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment Zoning: E-1 Overlays: Residential Overlay Skidmore Academy Historic District Detail Site Review Zone Floodplain Severe Constraints Request: This request is for the approval of an eight lot, Commercial Subdivision, and a phased, mixed-use development. Phase One is proposed the Subdivision of the property and includes a request for Site Design Review for the development of five, mixed-use commercial buildings with residential units above. The required parking area for the first phase of proposed development will be provided in Phase One. Phase One is also proposed to install the required public street frontage improvements, subdivision infrastructure. The request included a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for encroachment onto to lands that have more than 35 percent slope, and development within the Ashland's Flood Protection Zone, and a Tree Removal Permit. Property Description: The area of the proposed subdivision encompasses a one- half block area south of the Water Street, Van Ness and Neiman Street intersections. The property extends to the south to a partially improved public alley that extends between Water Street and Heiman Street. The property appears on the earliest City of Ashland Maps (1883 AD) as a part of Lots 4 & 5 of Block 29 at the intersection of Mechanic (Van Ness) and Water Streets (prior to railroad) created from Abel D. Helman's Donation Land Claim Act. The property to the north across the street was the site of Daley & Co.'s Planing Mill. This mill was run using water from a flume that diverted water from Ashland Creek to the south of the subject property, and run through a turbine. (http://wrightarchives.blogs ot.com 2011/07/ashland-oregon-early-history._htm� Page 2 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 In 1887, the "Golden Spike" was driven, finishing the trans -continental route for the railroad. The area to the north of the subject property (Block 18, Lots 1, 2 & 3) where the Daley & Co. Planing Mill had been located, became railroad right-of-way. Historically, a steel trestle was constructed crossing Ashland Creek (Mill Creek at the time) and Water Street. On the 1898 Sanborn map (clip of July 1898 ##4 below (full sheet attached)), an irrigation ditch traverses the property to from the south to the northwest. Another flume carried the tail race waters from Ashland Woolen Mill that had been located at the property now occupied by the Plaza Inn and Suites, to the south of the property, to the Oregon Mining and Stamp Co. which was located on the north side of the railroad tracks. The tunnel for Water Street that passes under the railroad was constructed in 1907. Jun IN ASHLAND aye. cc i � g By 1911, according to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, the site still had the tail race flume but the former irrigation route had been converted to a spur rail line for the Southern Pacific Railroad that went into town to serve the various mills, including Ashland Cold Storage that had taken over the Woolen Mill site. Following the closure of the mills and the subsequent removal of the flumes, the Water Street portion of the property held commercial structures (shops, sheds, etc.). Above ground fuel storage tanks were placed along Van Ness Street. In about the mid -1950x, a service station was constructed on the site. That service station then served as auto repair for many years. In the 19805, SOS Plumbing began operations on the property. SOS operated at the site until 2007. The site has been most recently used Page 3 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 as an auto repair shop, then as a storage area for the property owners construction business equipment and for a local landscape contractors equipment. Due to the presence of the above ground fuel storage tanks, the fueling station and the auto repair shop, the site was considered a Brownfield. The sturcutres removed, the site was cleaned up and the case has been closed by the Department of Environmental Quality htt www.de .state.or.us Webdocs Forms Out ut FPController.ashx?Sourceid=4951&SourceldT e =11 The subject properties now consists of three parcels of record; Parcel 1 is at 165 Water Street is a 38,515 square foot, vacant parcel at the southwest intersection of Water Street. The parcel extends south along Water Street to a public alley that extends from Water Street, east to Heiman Street. There is an access and parking access easement on this for a separate parcel of property across the alley to the south. it is known that a private irrigation line transects the property. The Ashland Modified flood protection zone for Ashland Creek extends along the Water Street frontage, approximately 20 -30 -feet into the property. Parcel 2 is at the southeast intersection of Van Ness and Heiman Streets. Parcel 2 is a 5,824 square foot, vacant parcel. This parcel has 52.74 -feet of frontage on Van Ness Avenue and 80 -feet of frontage adjacent Heiman Street. Parcel 3 is a 7,302 square foot parcel has 90 feet of frontage along Heiman Street, north of the public alley. The property is occupied by a 3,300 square foot commercial structure that is in very poor condition. It was the location of Pyramid Juice processing, warehouse, and distribution for many years. Upon the redevelopment of the properties, these structures will be removed. The subject properties are zoned Employment (E-1) with Residential Overlay, the property is also covered by t the Detail Site Review overlay. The adjacent properties are zoned E-1, and Low -Density Multi -Family Residential (R-2). The properties to the north, across the railroad tracks are zoned Employment with Residential Overlay. There are also industrially zoned properties to the northwest. The properties are at the boundary of the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The properties to the west are within the Skidmore Academy. The properties across the railroad tracks are outside the Historic Districts. The properties across Water Street are within the Railroad Historic District. Page 4 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Across Heiman Street from the subject property, the uses are primarily residential and their associated accessory structures. The residences are primarily single story and ane -and -one-half story residences. The lot areas range from 3500 —10,000 SF. The property across Water Street is a single-family residential use with outbuildings. The property to the south across the alley is a commercial manufacturing use, a mixed-use office building and a residential structure that has been used commercially in the past as a vacation rental and daycare use. According to the Transportation System Plan, Functional Classification Map, Heiman Street is an Avenue. Heiman Street has a 60 -foot -wide public right-of-way. Heiman Street is improved with paving, curb, gutter, a six-foot landscape park row, and a five- and one -half -foot wide sidewalk. There are two driveway aprons serving the property from Heiman Street. Van Ness is classified as a neighborhood street. Van Ness has a 60 -foot -wide public right-of-way. Van Ness is improved with paved travel lanes, curb and gutter, and a five-foot wide, curbside sidewalk. There are approximately 27 -feet of improvements including a five-foot wide curb side sidewalk. There are three driveway aprons on the Van Ness frontage of the properties. North of the Van Ness right of way are the railroad tracks. Water Street has a 40 -foot -wide right-of-way and is improved with 38 -feet of street improvements that consist of curb, gutter and asphalt. There are two driveway curbcuts on Water Street. There are street trees in very poor condition which will be removed and replaced. Detailed Description of the Proposal: The proposal is for an eight lot, Commercial Subdivision for the future construction of eight, three story, mixed use commercial buildings. The proposed subdivision will provide for a shared parking area, utility infrastructure and subdivision infrastructure. This application provides for the phased subdivision which demonstrates the lot coverage area, access, parking areas, common trash/recycle facility areas, pedestrian connectivity and frontage improvements for complete buildout are provided for. Due to the site's topographical constraints and large area, a phased Site Review for five of the buildings is proposed in conjunction with the subdivision request. The remaining three building sites will be developed following construction of the five buildings on the upper level of the site adjacent to Heiman Street (see Phasing Plan sheet L0.1). The eight lots range in size from 3,696 square feet to 9,651 square feet. The Subdivision is proposed as a planned unit development type of subdivision with an association to address the maintenance and perpetual maintenance of the common areas including the parking, walkways, retaining walls, landscape areas including the public street trees. Page 5 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Easements for utilities, public pedestrian, vehicular uses are delineated on the proposed preliminary plat (see Preliminary Subdivision Map sheet SV -2). Association agreements and covenants pertaining to the long-term maintenance and use of the common use areas of the property will be provided with the application construction documents. These documents will provide for the maintenance of, use of and necessary organization structure to provide longterm maintenance of not only the areas for common use and utility, but also the landscaping including park row trees. Public Infrastructure Improvements: Substantial public infrastructure improvements are necessary to accomplish the development of this commercial block. These include installing substantial public street improvements, electrical, and private irrigation system relocation, and irrigation pipe quality improvement (it is presently leaking). The proposed preliminary grading and drainage plan, the public utilities, and erosion control plans are provided on sheets C 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. The proposed subdivision infrastructure includes installation of a complete public electrical system upgrade which provides for the electric infrastructure to levels capable of commercial / employment use. Frontage improvements are proposed along all the street frontages and within the unimproved public alley. The alley will provide access to parking area accessed from the Water Street side of the development and to the garages on the Helman Street side of the development. The driveway access from Helman Street complies with the spacing standards. The Helman Street frontage has an existing parkrow and sidewalk which are to remain. The street trees within the parkrow are in generally poor condition and are proposed to be removed and replaced. The existing sidewalk on Van ness is a five-foot curbside sidewalk. The proposal includes an eight -foot sidewalk on Van Ness. Parking bays with shade tree bump outs are proposed. The street tree bump outs allow for street trees to be provided with the street improvements while keeping the sidewalk clear for pedestrians. This requires an exception to the street standards. Water Street is proposed to have an eight -foot sidewalk and a hardscape park row. The material of the hardscape park row on both Van Ness and Water are proposed to be pervious surface treatments. Commercial `Sternberg' streetlights will be installed at the intersection of the streets and again at the intersection of the alley. The existing Sternberg pedestrian streetlight on Van Ness may need to be relocated but will remain on the frontage. The proposed street improvements will create a pedestrian friendly environment in an area where there is presently very little pedestrian activity due to the lack of development and pedestrian infrastructure. The increased floor elevations and the creation of the terraced sidewalk system does not diminish the dramatic improvement to the pedestrian environment along Water Street and Van Ness Avenue. Page 5 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Ashland Modified Flood Hazards Overlay Development Standards: According to the adopted maps there the Ashland Modified Flood Zone which requires that the buildings comply with the standards of AMC 15.10 for floodproofing in the flood plains. The buildings and parking area improvements within the flood zone are proposed to comply with the standards of AMC 15.10 and AMC 18.3.10.080. Phase one improvements to the public street frontage including tree removal, public infrastructure including utilities and sidewalk are within the Ashland Flood zone The parking area improvements will be to the rear of the future buildings in the flood zone and will not include improvements subject to the forces of potential floodwaters. The finished floor elevations of the concept subdivision site plan demonstrate adequate finished floor heights to comply with the minimum flood zone elevations. The buildings within the flood zone will have individual Site Review approvals. The Ashland Modified Floodplain Corridor map depicts the flood level as 1845.5 -feet at the intersection of Water and Van Ness to 1849 -feet near the alley (south property line). The finished floor of the future buildings 7 and 8 will be raised to a finished floor elevation of 1846 -feet. This allows for the finished floor of the non-residential structure to be above the flood elevation. Access and Site Circulation: Pedestrian access to the property is via the public sidewalks on the three street frontages and from the public alley. There are pedestrian pathways connecting each building to the street with direct access from the sidewalk. Pedestrian pathways lead through the development, connecting the upper and lower areas and are connected to the sidewalks along each street. The vehicular and bicycle access to the property is provided from a driveway apron from Heiman and from the public alley on both the Heiman side of the property and from the public alley on the Water Street side of the property. Due to the topography of the alley, only pedestrian access is provided in the walkway and stairway leading from Heiman to Water Street. Water Street is proposed to be improved with new curb, gutter, eight -foot hardscape park row with street tree grates within the sidewalk. Van Ness is proposed to be improved along the majority of the frontage with the required eight -foot sidewalk, as the property and Van Ness slope uphill, to the west towards Heiman Street, the proposed sidewalk is reduced in width to achieve the necessary transition between the subject property and the property to the west at 160 Heiman Street. With the modified Page 7 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 finished floor elevation, there is a five -foot -wide (minimum width) raised sidewalk that transitions from sidewalk ramps on either end of the building and to the stair from the intersection. The alley is proposed to be improved with 16 -feet of paving from Water Street to the base of the stair for the pedestrian connection up to the grade of the alley as it continues to Helman Street. From the top of the stair, the alley will be paved to the required width to its intersection with Helman Street. Due to the topography of the site and the grade difference between the subject property and the properties to the west, the alley cannot be improved to have vehicular traffic, to provide a pedestrian connection, a stairway is proposed. Parking: The subdivision proposal includes a surface parking area that accommodates 19 vehicles including two ADA accessible parking spaces with off-loading zones. The uses of the ground floor are anticipated as general office space at this time though. The upper parking area associated with Phase One development includes five (5) surface parking spaces and the lower parking area of five (5) surface parking spaces north of the alley. The parking area will be used in -common and will have recorded joint access, use and parking agreements. Due to phasing requirements, staging and parking for construction vehicles, the lower level which has more of the parking area is in Phase Two. To remedy this, the lower level of commercial spaces will remain unoccupied and no occupancy approvals for finished spaces until the lower parking area is completed. There are two parking spaces per residential unit required. These are provided within the garages on the ground floor of each building. Phase One accommodates for all required residential parking within the buildings. There are 12 bicycle parking spaces provided for in Phase One. These are within the plaza area, adjacent to the vehicle parking area and in front of proposed building #2. The proposed development requires 16 bicycle parking spaces for commercial uses and 16 bicycle parking spaces for the residences. The residential parking is provided for within the garages. , The request included a Parking Management proposal as permitted in AMC 18.4.3.060 and the approved application reduced the off-street parking spaces through use of credits for on -street parking. The proposed parking lot design and construction for the new surface parking area will comply with the standards from AMC 18.4.3.080.6. Page 8 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Site Design Review: There are eight total building lots proposed. Each of the lots is proposed to have a commercial building with residential units on the second and third story. Each building is proposed as shared wall, two -unit, ground floor commercial office, with two -unit, three bedroom, residences above. There are 16 residential units above ground floor commercial spaces. Seven of the eight buildings are directly adjacent to the public streets and direct connections from the public sidewalks to the entrance of the commercial spaces is provided. One building is behind a street facing building. This building is accessed from the pedestrian walkways that connect to the public sidewalk. As proposed, the 65 percent of the ground floor of each proposed building is commercial with between 1,500 —1,700 square feet of commercial space, 35 percent of the ground floor is solely residential use. All proposed parking is to the side and rear of the buildings. The residential parking is within the footprints of the buildings in enclosed garages. Bicycle parking is provided throughout the property and racks are shown in specific locations on the site plans. Trees and Landscaping: The development of the site required a comprehensive review of the sites trees, their conditions and their suitability for conservation in the project. Due the factors, specifically types of trees, location of trees in proximity to development, the proposal seeks to removal all of the site's trees and the trees in the public right-of-way. The landscape pian uses a variety of deciduous shade trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Using water conserving landscape and irrigation design, the proposed landscape plan and the future irrigation plan can demonstrate compliance with the standards. 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. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 9 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Chapter 18.5.3 LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 18.5.3.030 Preliminary Plat Approval Process A. Review of Preliminary Plat. 2. Subdivisions. Preliminary plats for subdivisions are subject to the approval criteria in section 18.5.3.050 and are reviewed through the Type II procedure, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060. Finding: The proposal is for a Type II review of a phased, eight lot, commercial subdivision. B. Modifications. The applicant may request changes to the approved preliminary plat or conditions of approval following the procedures and criteria provided in chapter 18.5.6, Modifications to Approved Planning Applications. See also subsection 18.5.3,020.17, Minor Amendments. Finding: This application is the first requested subdivision of the property. C. Phased Subdivision. The Planning Commission may approve plans for phasing a subdivision, and changes to approved phasing plans, provided applicant's proposal meets all of the following criteria: Finding: The proposal is for a two phase subdivision. 1. The proposed phasing schedule shall be reviewed with the preliminary subdivision plat application. Finding: the proposed phasing divides the property in two portions with Phase One proposed for the upper half of the property bound by Heiman St and Van !Ness Avenue. This allows for the staging of the demolition and construction crews and equipment, provides a work area, including material storage and parking areas for the contractors. Phase One includes the public infrastructure and street frontage improvements. Due to the parking area completion less than the required number of spaces for Phase One, in Phase One, the property owner suggests that the buildings 4 and 5 are shell space until adequate parking is developed in conjunction with Phase Two. 2. Commission approval is required for modifications to phasing plans. Page 10 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Finding This is the first request for phased development of the site. 3. The required improvements (i.e., utilities, streets) for the first subdivision phase shall be installed or bonded for within 18 months of the approval of the preliminary plat, except when an extension of the preliminary plat is granted pursuant to section 18.1.6.040. Finding: The required improvements for the entire subdivision including infrastructure and utility connections are proposed with Phase One. Phase One also includes the upper parking area, and plaza area. 4. Public facilities and common open spaces shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase. Phase One also includes substantial public infrastructure improvements within the public right of way including new curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and on -street parking bay on Van Ness are proposed to be installed in Phase One. 5. The final plat for the first phase shall be approved within 18 months of the approval of the preliminary plat, except when extension of the preliminary plat is granted pursuant to section 18.1.6.040. Finding: The final plat for Phase One will be sought within less than 18 months of the approval of the preliminary plat unless extension is requested. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: The proposed subdivision provides a conceptual development plan for the entire property divided into two development areas. The upper portion of the property is proposed as Phase One and Site Design Review applications accompany this subdivision request. Phase Two is proposed for the lower portion Page 11 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 of the property, the proposed subdivision layout and infrastructure extensions enhances the ability to develop the remainder of the tract (Phase Two) for urban purposes. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Finding: The proposed subdivision does not impede the development of the adjoining land or access thereto. The proposed subdivision will improve the access through the development of the alley. The upper portion of the alley adjacent to Phase One has an existing easement benefitting a property to the south, the proposed subdivision and phased development plan retains this access, and it will not be impeded with the proposed subdivision. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. Finding: There are no known city adopted neighborhood plans or district plans that impact the subdivision of the property. The previous approvals for the properties have expired. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12. months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). Finding. There are eight (8) proposed lots in the Magnolia Terrace Subdivision. The property is zoned Employment (E-1) and is subject to the Residential Development Overlay, the Detail Site Review Overlay, Physical Constraints Overlay for development of Severe Constraints and development in the Ashland Modified flood protection zone, and subject to Historic District design requirements. The proposed lots comply with the minimum requirements of the Employment zone. The proposed subdivision provides for depth and width of properties for commercial uses that are adequate to provide for parking areas and adequate are for the uses contemplated. Page 12 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 18.2.6 STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES 1.8.2.6 sets forth lot and development standards, including minimum dimensions, area, density, coverage, structure height, and other provisions that control the intensity, scale, and location of development, for Ashland's base employment zones, pursuant to the Comprehensive flan and the purposes of this ordinance. Finding: According to AMC 18.2.6.030. there are no minimum lot area, width or depth, or maximum lot coverage; or minimum front, side, or rear yards, except as required to comply with the special district and overlay zone provisions of part 18.3 or the site development and design standards of part 18.4. The Magnolia Terrace Subdivision provides for adequate parking for the entire eight lot, mixed use commercial development. The subdivision phasing of construction and occupancy of buildings in Phase One that require parking in Phase Two area demonstrates compliance with the design standards of 18.4. See additional findings in the Site Design Review applications. The proposed residential density is 16 units which complies with density standards (1.18 X 15 du/ac 17.7 -unit potential). Lot Areas: Lot 1: 4,203 square foot corner lot. Lot 1 has 72.65 feet of frontage upon Van Ness and 65.24 feet of frontage on Helman Street. Lot 2: 6,765 square foot lot to the east of Lot 1. Lot 2 has 68.02 feet of frontage on Van Ness and extends approximately 100 -feet to the south. Lot 3: 3,990 square foot lot to the south of Lot 1. Lot 3 has 70 feet if frontage on Helman Street and extends 57 feet to the east. The driveway leading to the shared parking area is shared upon Lots 1 and 3. Lot 4: 3,696 square foot lot north of the intersection of the alley and Helman Street. The lot has 64.49 feet of frontage upon Helman Street and extends 57 feet to the east. Lot 5: 9,835 square foot lot to the east of Lots 3 and 4. This lot is 108.19 by approximately 84.09 feet. This lot is not proposed to have frontage upon a public street and is not proposed as a flag lot. This is because the lot development standards of the F-1 zone states no minimum lot area, width or depth are required (AMC 18.2.6.030). The standard found in AMC 18.2.4.010. Access and Minimum Street frontage that requires each lot to abut a public street for a width of not less than 40 feet, expect where a lot is part of an approved flag partition... This frontage requirement appears to have been adopted to provide access to each lot. This standard serves no purpose as the standard implies it is needed for lot access (Ashland ORD# 1361) which is not Page 13 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 necessary when abutting a public alley and all other lot side abut common areas. A flag lot pole in an an unnecessary process and affects lot setbacks and fire rated opening but can be provided if deemed necessary. Lot 6: 6,821 square foot lot. This lot has 71.80 feet of width and extends 95 -feet deep. Lot 7: 6,681 square foot lot at the intersection of Water Street and Van Ness. This lot has 48.94 feet of frontage upon Van Ness, 54.65 feet of frontage upon Water Street and extended approximately 95 feet deep. Lot 8: 9,651 square foot lot northwest of the Water Street and public alley intersection. Lot 8 has 82.72 feet of frontage upon Water Street and extends approximately 120 -feet to the west. The proposed subdivision preliminary plat includes Public Pedestrian Access easements along Water Street and Van Ness to provide adequate width to provide public sidewalk and street tree planter strips. There are blanket types of easements to address cross access of the parking areas, walkways, and utilities. These easements would also appear to appease the standards for Access from AMC 18.2.4.010 and a flag pole can be found to not be necessary. Findings addressing the Overlay Zones: 18.3 Special Districts and Overlay Zones: 18.3.10 Physical Constraints Overlay 18.3.10.050 Approval Criteria An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type 1 procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. finding: The development standards provide for supplementary development regulations to the underlying zones to ensure that development protects the natural and topographic character and identity of these areas. The proposed retaining walls and structures on the hillside prevent the erosion of soil, sedimentation of lower slopes, does not create slide damage, severe cutting or scaring. The proposed commercial development does negatively impact the natural and visual character of the city and there are no adverse impacts from the development of the slope to nearby areas. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. Page 14 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Finding The potential hazards would be from erosion of an un -retained cut bank. The proposal provides to structural retention of the hill therefore any potential hazards are mitigated. All stormwater drainage plans are designed by professionals with demonstrable understanding of development on moderately steep slopes. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. Finding: The proposed commercial development of the site includes structural retaining walls and landscape features along the hillside. This area is a small portion of the `hillside' environment and the intention of the hillside development standards ordinance which does not allow for development of slopes of more than 35 percent without an Exception to the Standards (AMC 18.10.090.A.1. Buildable Area). Additional findings are provided herein. 18.3.10.060 Land Classifications B. Hillside Lands. Hillside Lands are lands that are subject to damage from erosion and slope failure, and which include areas that are highly visible from other portions of the city. The following lands are classified as Hillside Lands: All areas defined as Hillside Lands on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints map and which have a slope of 25 percent or greater. Finding: The property is outside of the official mapped boundaries of the Hillside Overlay. The property has slopes that are considered severe constraints. D. Severe Constraint Lands. The following lands are classified as Severe Constraint Lands, which have characteristics that severely limit normal development. 2. All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent. Finding: There is an embankment along the west property line that is more than 35 percent slope. This embankment was first an embankment of Ashland Creek, and over the years was utilized created first it appears as a diversion to irrigation waters, later a railroad spur was atop the embankment. This is topographical feature has been substantially utilized over the years. An exception to develop lands that have a slope of more than 35 percent is requested. Page 15 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 18.3.10.110 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands Finding: Bisecting the properties, there is an area of more than 35 percent slopes. Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E. from Marquess and Associates, LLC has reviewed the steep slope. No slope failure or seepage were evident. The soil type, Camas -Newberg -Evans and Sheffelin Loam are both stable, non-erosive soil types found throughout the area. The Geo -Tech provided an assessment that the slope is stable. In 2017 the proposal included separate development proposals. At that time, the finding was leave a 10 -foot buffer or, with appropriate engineering, and retaining walls there are no slope stability issues for the slope. There is currently a retaining wall on the public alley and the adjacent property to the south along the same hillside. These retaining walls do not exhibit any evidence of slope failure. The Geo-Tech's evaluation letter from 2017 is attached. Due to the nature of the hillside and geology, in the short geologic period since 2017, there have not been changes to the slope nor the soil types that would lead one to conclude the slope is erosive or subject to slope failures. Where the code states severe constraints lands are "extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling or vegetation removal and whenever possible, alternative development should be considered" AMC 18.3.10J10.A. — the Geotechnical Expert, with decades of development experience in Ashland would find that this property is buildable, and that the property is not extremely sensitive to development, there are no faults, or folds or other geological hazards. The geotechnical experts always confirm that in the existing soil types, with proper engineering and inspection, there is not a severely constrained slope that warrants prohibition on development. 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands Finding: The grading, retaining wall and structure design, drainage and erosion control plans are designedby Structural and Civil Engineers with review by a geotechnical expert (geo-techs don't typically design). All cuts, grading and if any fill proposed will conform to the applicable building codes. The proposed for the parking area and the structural retaining wall of the building on Lot 2 and the construction would be one of the first site improvements and ideally the construction would begin in May and end prior to October 31. No exposed cut slopes are proposed. The slope is retained with the structural retaining wall for the parking area and the foundation stem walls of the future buildings on Lots 2 and 5. The intent of the hillside ordinance is to reduce the massing and to keep the structure low on the hills to limit houses from sticking out of the hillside above town. The applicability of the hillside design standards section is questionable and numerous exceptions will be necessary to encroach into the hillside. Page 16 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Reviewing the hearings addressing adoption of the Hillside Development Standards within the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance (See attached Minutes and Ordinances) there is not one discussion of Commercial or Employment zoned lands and whether this code section applied. The intent of Employment Zoned lands is to develop the site to the highest and best use. The majority of the hillside lots the ordinance addresses are the steep, residentially zoned slopes south of Siskiyou Boulevard. Keeping commercial development away from the hillside (minimum of ten feet per the Geotech report from 2017 of an alternative proposal) would reduce the developable area of the Employment Zoned land substantially and render it largely undevelopable. There are no unstable or hazardous areas of the site. To reduce the visual bulk of the retaining wall, a living, green screen is proposed in front of the retaining wall adjacent to the walkway. The retaining wall is necessary for the driveway and parking area which appears to allow for up to a 15 -foot tall retaining wall. The proposed retaining wall does not exceed this height. It can be found on the proposed preliminary Civil Engineering plans, collection and treatment of new impervious surface runoff from the development complies with the standards for surface, ground water and storm water treatment. As proposed, storm water facilities for the new driveways, parking areas and roof drain systems can be accommodated on the site and released into the City of Ashland approved destination point in accordance with the Storm Water Facility Design Requirements. Storm drainage will be installed as part subsurface site preparation for the underground parking and therefore, one of the first improvements constructed on the site. The surface parking area and driveway are proposed to drain first to a parking lot swales for treatment of the surface generated storm water as a result of the site development. This flow retarding system is intended to minimize increases in run-off volume and peak flow rate. All storm water drainage has been designed by a Civil Engineer with the consultation of the Geo - Technical Expert and the project Structural Engineer. The soil types, Camas -Newberg -Evans and Schefflin Loam have little erosive qualities and are not soil types typically found on Ashland's hillsides where highly erosive decomposed granite is the predominant soil material. The geotechnical expert will inspect the site and provide a final report to the City of Ashland as requested. The report will indicate that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans and the scheduled inspections periodically throughout the project. Page 17 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 AMC 18.3.10.090. H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Finding: An Exception to AMC 18.10.090.A.1, Buildable Area is required. All development shall occur on lands defined as having buildable area. Slopes greater than 35 percent shall be considered unbuildable except as allowed below. Exceptions may be granted to this requirement only as provided in subsection 18.3.10.090.H. An exception to 18.10,090.6.3 Retention in Natural Slope is state to be required, but it is unclear how this standard applies to a commercially zoned property. An exception to 18.10.090.B.4.c. Cut Slopes for foundations is required because the building and parking areas are not stepped into the hillside. Exceptions to each section of 18.10.090.E. Building Location and Design Standards are necessary. First, the structures are within the Historic District which provides an exemption from the standards. Secondly, the maximum building height standards in the hillside zone is less than the maximum height allowed in the Employment zone. Due to the unclear and unobjective standards and how to apply the seemingly residential standards to a commercial subdivision it is challenging to address each of the standards as the whole application of this section of code is unique, unusual and presents difficulties in meeting the standards. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: The site is zoned Employment and is unique in that there are no other Hillside Lands, and the area of steep slope is isolated to a small area in the middle of the development site. In order to develop the site in accordance with the standards for the Site Review, Detail Site Review, minimum FARs, adequate parking, and Historic District Design Standards, encroachment into the steep slope is necessary. 18.10.090.A.1. Buildable Area: The code states that lots with over 35 percent shall be buildable for one residential unit but there are no references to the implications of the hillside development standards or whether they apply to commercial zones. 18.10.090.8.3 — Retention in Natural State: Page 18 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 The proposal includes a subdivision and there are individual lots but the retention in natural state standard would seek to have an area of the property left in an undisturbed state. This is not typical for a commercial development and to achieve full site development retention in natural state creates a demonstrable difficulty. 18.10.090.E. - Building Location and Design Standards: The property is unique in that it is not a hillside lot, it is not in the hillside overlay, it is not a steep site that has erosive characteristics or concern for slope failure. The building location and design standards appear to describe the locations of residential lots, and residential building design. Applying residential home design standards to an employment zoned lot that allows for larger building masses and building heights than allowed in this section of code is a unique and unusual circumstance. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. Finding: The proposed exception is for the construction of commercial buildings and for the development of the retaining wall along the parking area to be structurally retained. Instead of the unretained slope present today. The retaining provide protection to the subject property that is "down slope" of the unretained slope. The steep slope area is within the footprints of the buildings and the parking area. Each of the exceptions noted above appears to be associated with residetnail construction on the hillsides on the south side of town. These standards do not translate to employment zoned properties that have a small area of slope that is not natural and appear to have been largely created for utility purposes. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding: The employment zoned property would be greatly impacted if the area of development did not include the hillside slope area. The development of the property to commercial standards, and structurally retaining the slope is the minimum necessary to construct a cohesive commercial development with adequate access, parking, building area, and pedestrian plaza areas. Page 19 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3. 10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.14.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Finding: The proposed exceptions are consistent with the purpose and intent of the chapter and ensures the development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes as there are none, and prevents slide damage. The development standards for hillside lands appear to be focused primary on retention of the natural hillsides and the retention of the natural slopes. The "natural" physiographic conditions of the site that created the embankment are called into question as there has been documented development on the property as long as there has been a City of Ashland. The standards appear to have been largely directed at steep, residentially zoned properties and impacts of the design standards to commercial zones does not appear to have been contemplated as there are no references to commercial zones or similar in the minutes from the adoption of the Physical Constraints Ordinance for hillside Development. The property is not within the hillside overlay and the design standards of the hillside overlay do not translate to commercial site development as it would appear that for all intents and purposes, the hillside development prohibits development of a portion of the property. It does not appear the original drafting of the hillside development overlay that prohibition on employment zoned lands was the intended outcome. 18.3.10.080 Floodplain Development Finding: The applicable overlay zones include the Ashland Modified Flood zone adjacent to the Water Street frontage (AMC 18.3.10.080). The future Phase 2 development of portion of the property the Ashland Modified Flood zone will not have any impacts on downstream properties nearby. The development of the Ashland Modified Flood zone will not cause erosion, sedimentation, slope failure or other environmental hazards. The street improvements and utility installations proposed for Water Street frontage are within the Ashland Modified Flood zone, these are replacements of existing infrastructure and expansion of infrastructure to comply with the required street standards. This will not degrade the environmental conditions of the Ashland Modified Flood zone which consists of the public street, the curbing, street lights and utility cabinets. Page 20 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 This overlay zone requires raised finished floors or flood proofing of the future buildings. The subdivision proposal demonstrates general compliance. The future Site Design Review proposals for the development of Lots 7 or 8 will demonstrate compliance with the requirements from AMC 15.10 for development within a mapped flood protection zone (AMC 18.3.10.808.C.). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. Finding: Each lot is proposed to have vehicular access from the shared parking area access from Helman Street driveway apron, from the upper portion of the public alley to the south of proposed Lots 4 and 5. The Phase Two portion of the property takes all vehicular access from the public alley access from Water Street that will be improved to 16 -feet paved width. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. Finding: The proposed street generally comply with the standards from AMC 18.4. and the proposed public infrastructure improvements conform to the street standards and seeks exception where the standards are not met. All proposed public improvements and dedications are shown on the preliminary plat maps. H. Unpaved Streets. Finding: Not applicable 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding: There is an alley adjacent to the property. Lot S vehicular access is from the alley accessed from Helman Street. Lots 6, 7 and 8 take vehicular access from the alley that is accessed from the Water Street side of the property. RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Page 21 of 47 J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Finding: Any state or federal permits that may be required will be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Finding: No flag lots are proposed with the subdivision. There are no minimum lot areas, lot widths, lot depths, etc. in the E-1 zone and it does not appear a flag pole or other `access' via a minimum street frontage is necessary due to the access from the alley and the access easement for pedestrians, parking, utilities, are provided for proposed Lot 5. 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. Finding: The proposal addresses Site Design Review criteria for the site as a planned subdivision with a phased development review. The Detail Site Review standards and Historic District Design Standards are addressed on the following pages. The buildings are each similar in their design and individual site review findings for each structure are not provided. Each building is discussed in the findings with respect to compliance with the standards. Each building complies with the standards and adherence to the standards are outlined on each buildings plan set. 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: This proposal includes Site Development Design review approval request for five of the eight buildings proposed in the Magnolia Terrace Subdivision. Page 22 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 The proposal complies the standards from 18.2. There are no minimum lot areas and dimensions required in the zone. The property is zoned Employment (E-1). The proposed uses of the buildings as commercial office use is a permitted use, and the residential portions are a special permitted use. The proposed subdivision area of the Magnolia Heights Subdivision complies with the maximum lot coverage allowed in the E-1 zone. LOT COVERAGE SITE AREA: 51,897 BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: 2,565 SQ. FT. X 8 = 20,520 UPPER PARKING: 9,249 LOWER PARKING: 7,478 PEDESTRIAN PLAZAS/PATHS: 3,087 TOTAL COVERAGE: 40,334 40,334/51,897 = 77.7% The proposed buildings are each 38 -feet, 4 -inches from ridge to grade. The proposed buildings within the Magnolia Heights Subdivision complies with the Floor Area Ratio Standards. The five buildings proposed within this application exceed the required minimum FAR of .50, see Detail Site Review findings on the following pages. 18.2.3130 Dwelling in Non -Residential Zone A. Dwellings in the E-1 zone are limited to the R -overlay zone. See chapter 18.3.13 Residential Overlay. Finding: The Employment (E-1) Zoned property is within the Residential Overlay. B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards: 1. if there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. Finding: There are eight separate buildings proposed in the phased subdivision. Each of the buildings includes a floor area that has 65 percent of the floor area devoted to commercial use and 35 percent or less as residential use. Final calculations will be provided for with the building permit sets to demonstrate compliance. There is a shared commercial / residential lobby area which is requested to be part of the floor area of the commercial use to achieve the required area calculations. Page 23 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1 zone, 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-13 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. Finding: The proposal has 16 residential dwelling units which is less than the allowed density. (1.18 X 15 =17.7 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 residences are the same as those of the underlying zone. 4. Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C -1-D zone. FindinE. Off-street parking for the residences has been provided for each of the dwellings within the enclosed ground floor garage space. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The property is subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review, Basic and Detail Site Design Review and Historic District Standards. As evidenced in the findings approved in 2017, and in the supplemental information from the Geo -Tech, preliminary Civil Engineering and Structural Engineering it can be found that the proposed development complies with the development of a commercial building within the Ashland Modified Floodplain, but outside of the FEMA floodplain and complies with the development standards for Severe Constraints due to the slope of the property. The findings from the subdivision criteria address the physical constraints. The proposed development complies with the Site Development and Design Overlays including Detail Site Review and Historic District Development standards. 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. Page 24 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 18.4.2.040 Non -Residential Development Finding: The proposed development of the Employment zoned land with a mixed-use commercial subdivision will have a positive impact upon the streetscapes of Heiman Street, Water Street and Van Fess Streets. Each of the five proposed buildings are proposed to have a minimal setback, only to achieve door swing and alcove to provide pedestrian cover. Outdoor spaces for pedestrian activity and outdoor seating areas for guests, customers and tenants of the building are proposed that will improve the projects appearance and site amenities. Landscaping is proposed to enhance the site and provide screening of the parking lot and trees to provide cooling of the surface parking areas. The proposed public infrastructure improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment and will improve bicycle transit by providing an abundance of bicycle parking facilities. The proposed buildings are each designed to be consistent with the highest standards for compliance with the Detail Site Review, Large Scale Building and Historic District Design Standards even though the site is on lower order, less traveled City streets adjacent to the railroad tracks. B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. Finding The proposed buildings are clearly oriented towards the public streets excepting Building 5 which does not front upon a public street. Buildings 1— 4, 6 -- 8 all have primary orientation towards the street upon which the building fronts. No parking is proposed between the buildings and the streets, all on-site parking is behind the fagade of the structures. The ADA offloading zone is adjacent to the sidewalk on the Water Street side of the property where the parking spaces are nearest the public right-of-way. The proposed buildings occupy the majority of the three street frontages. There are gaps created between the buildings that are limited to the minimum setback to have openings in proximity to the property line. The other separation is where the driveway access to the site from Heiman Street is proposed. The building entrances on each structure are within 20 -feet of the right of way. Each building has a public pedestrian business entrances that are clearly visible, include lighting, pedestrian covering and changes in materials to emphasize the entrances. Page 25 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Lot 1 is a corner lot. The building in this site review, building 1 on proposed Lot 1 is oriented towards the intersection with an entrance from each street frontage. Public sidewalks are proposed along the public street frontages, pedestrian walkways are provided for each business entrance from the public pedestrian sidewalks. 2. Streetscape. Finding: One street tree for every 30 -feet of frontage in compliance with the spacing standards for street trees have been provided. See preliminary landscape plan sheet L.1. 3. Landscaping. Fine. The proposed landscaping complies with the minimum standards, and slightly more than 15 percent of the site has been provided as landscape area. A recycle and refuse area that will be screened in accordance with the standards from AMC 18.4.4 is proposed adjacent to the dedicated easement for the adjacent property to the south. This is accessible from the alley. Another screened trash/recycle enclosure area is proposed within the parking area of Phase 2. More than seven percent of the parking lot area has landscaped areas. There are parking lot shade trees provided for every seven parking spaces. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Finding: Not applicable 5. Noise and Glare. Finding: All artificial lighting will comply with the standards of 15.4.4.050. New Sternberg Commercial streetlights are proposed at the intersections of the public streets and on Water Street at the intersection of the alley. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Finding: RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Page 26 of 47 Not applicable C. Detailed Site Review Standards. Findin : The subject property is within the detailed Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Finding: The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceeds .50. The proposed total area of the first five buildings is 34,173 square feet which is more than the minimum FAR 25,948.5 square feet. Though not designed, it is assumed that the Phase 2 buildings will be roughly the same dimensions and area as the buildings in Phase 1. b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. Finding: The frontage of each individual building is less than 100 -feet in length. The building frontages include distinctive changes in the buildings facade relief. c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public or common open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40 percent of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. Finding: Excepting Building 5, buildings 1-4 are within 30 -feet of the street. Each building includes more than 20 -percent of the walls facing public street as having windows and doorways which allow view into the working areas of the commercial buildings. The building plan sets provide detailed summaries of each building facade and the areas of glazing, and fagade treatment variations. Building 5 is accessible from the upper plaza area and the front of that building exceeds 20 - percent of the wall area will have windows that allow view into the working area. Page 27 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 d. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Finding: The architectural plan sheets provide the areas of the changes in mass, surface materials and finishes to provide emphasis on the entrances. All buildings have substantial pedestrain cover over the entrances. e. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. Finding. The proposed buildings are directly adjacent to the public sidewalk. Where building 5 does not have direct connection to the public street, there is pedestrian access through the subdivision and the entrance to the commercial space is from the plaza area. f. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Finding: The proposed buildings incorporate a substantial overhang that is created by the deck above and a steel overhang to provide a seven foot cover for pedestrians from rain and sun. 2. Streetscape. a. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. Finding: Colored and scored concrete are proposed to designate people areas for both the sidewalks and the plaza area in Phase One and the walkway and future plaza area in Phase 2. b. A building shall be set back not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65 percent of the aggregate building frontage shall be within five feet of the sidewalk. Finding: RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Page 28 of 47 The buildings proposed in the subdivision, except Building 5 are not setback more than five feet from the public sidewalk. More than 65 percent of the building frontages are within five -feet of the sidewalk. 3. Buffering and Screening. a. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Finding: There are no incompatible uses on the adjacent properties that need to be buffered. b. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened from residentially zoned land. Finding: The parking area in the lower portion of the property adjacent to the alley has a five-foot landscape buffer between the parking space and the sidewalk. 4. Building Materials. a. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area. Finding: See the detailed architectural plans for the exact areas relating to the changes in relief on the facades, but each building is designed with changes in relief that exceed 15 percent of the exterior wall area. b. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Finding: Not applicable. There are no bright or neon colors. Though there is a substantial area of glazing, the glazing does not occupy most of the building facade. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. 1. Orientation and Scale. Page 29 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 a. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. Finding: There are eight total buildings within the Magnolia Heights Subdivision. This application proposed Site Design Review approval for five of the buildings. Each building has a fagade length of substantially less than 100 -feet. Each building's facade is divided into two distinct masses with changes in relief at the lower level to develop a human scale design. There are changes in materials, directions of materials, clearly commercial types of windows and doors and each building has signage area and lighting to provide emphasis on the entrance the commercial development. The building massing is divided vertically with changes in relief and massing to minimize the bulk of the second and third floors. b. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall conform to the following standards: i. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. Finding: Not applicable. ii. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. Finding: There are no buildings that exceed 45,000 square feet. There are five separate buildings proposed with this application. Building 1— 7,156 SF, Building 2 — 5,749 SF, Building 3 and 4 7,156 SF and Building 5 is 6,959 SF. The buildings are not touching and the interior plaza area is not bound on three or more sides. iii. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, "basement" means any Page 30 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 floor level below the first story in a building. "First story" shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. Finding: Not applicable iv. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Finding: At no point is the property 300 -feet in length, thus there are no contiguous building lengths of 300 -feet proposed. 2. Detail Site Review Plaza Space Standards. a. One square foot of plaza space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth gross floor area. Finding: Building 1— 7,156 SF, Building 2 -- 5,749 SF, Building 3 and 4 7,156 SF and Building 5 is 6,959 SF. Buildings 6 — 8 are conceptually 7,156 square feet in area. The total gross floor area is 56,241 square feet. This required outdoor plaza space is required to be 5,624 square feet. There is 3,087 square feet proposed and exception to provide less plaza area is proposed. b. Within the C -1-D zone, or Downtown Design Standards overlay, no plaza space shall be required. Finding: Not applicable. c. A plaza space shall incorporate at least four of the following elements: i. Sitting Space — at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. Finding There are sitting areas within the plaza area in the form of poured in place concrete setwalls, dining tables and chairs. ii. A mixture of areas that provide moth sunlight and shade. Page 31 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Finding: The plaza areas are on the north side of Building 5 which will have afternoon shade and morning sun. The plaza area in front of building iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings. Finding; The locations of the plaza areas are all protected from wind by the buildings. iv. Trees — provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at least two inches in diameter at breast height. Finding: Trees meeting this standard are provided on the landscape plan. v. Water features or public art. Finding: Not applicable. vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors. Finding: No dining areas are proposed, but outdoor seating area for residents and tenants of the commercial space is provided. 3. Transit Amenities. Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Finding - Not applicable. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development Finding: The subject property is at the northeast corner of the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The property across Water Street is the northwest corner of the Railroad Historic District. The proposed buildings incorporate the main architectural themes found in Ashland's historic Page 32 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 districts but are not an imitation of a specific architectural style. The standards speak to a comparison of historic buildings in the vicinity. S. Historic District Design Standards. 1. Transitional Areas. Finding:. The property is located that the boundary of the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and the Detail Site Review zone. The proposed building has numerous traditional, architectural elements and materials, the scale, form, massing and some of the material elements are more industrial / modern styling. It can be found that the proposed buildings area architecturally compatible with the historic district design standards when considering the property location at the boundary of the district. The Historic District Design Standards are primarily a contrast and comparison of the proposed site development and the development on immediately adjacent properties. The adjacent properties, and those within the 200 -foot impact area, are underdeveloped, partially vacant or utilized as a non -conforming use such as, residences in the E-1 zone. Additionally, the graphics provided within the Historic District Design Standards are of residential properties and do not translate easily to commercial development. Lack of comparable development complicates the required comparisons per the code. It can be found that each proposed building incorporates a number of the historic district design standard objectives such as sense of entry, provision of a base, fenestrations, a rhythm of openings, smaller masses to reduce bulk and scale. 2. Height. Finding: The buildings propose each have three stories and an average height less than 40 -feet with 38.5 feet from the peak of the ridge to grade. The proposed buildings are below the maximum allowed building height in the Employment zone. 3. Scale. ' Finding: The scale of the development is appropriate for an Employment zoned property that has three street frontages and more than one acre in area. The buildings are divided into smaller facade widths with a 12 -foot separation between the structures. Page 33 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 The nearest commercial developments can be found on Central Avenue. The Ashland Creek Condominiums and the Plaza Inn and Suites on the south side of Central, are just over 200 -feet away, too far to adequately judge scale. (Plaza Inn and Suites is 58,578 square feet in area and Ashland Creek Condominiums is 42,224 square feet in area). A graphical representation is provided on page A0.3 and A0.4 the Architectural renderings that depicts the proposed development with the referenced commercial structures and properties. 4. Massing. Finding: The proposed buildings are each a smaller width structure with varied massing. The proposed architecture is similar to the residentially inspired Plaza Inn and Suites yet as evidenced in the submittal's materials; the proposed structures are more consistent with historically contextual commercial architecture. The recessed entrances covered pedestrian areas, wide sidewalks, street trees all provide visual relief and reduce the massing. The proposed vertical and horizontal rhythms of each building are symmetrical. 5. Setback. Finding: The proposed buildings are each setback the maximum allowed by the municipal code. Buildings 1, 2 and 4 are setback the minimum distance to allow for door swing. Building 3 is proposed to be setback approximately eight -feet to provide a pedestrian plaza area. The maximum setback from the public sidewalk in the Detail Site Review overlay is five feet, the proposed setbacks are only more than five feet when a pedestrian plaza area is provided between the building and the street. 6. Roof. Finding: The roof shape, pitch and materials of the five buildings proposed for construction are consistent with the buildings in the vicinity. There are no commercial buildings immediately adjacent, but the material (metal) is found on the existing roof of the Pyramid Juice building and on the industrial buildings across the railroad tracks. 7. Rhythm of Openings. Page 34 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Finding: The proposed pattern of wall to door and window openings on the street frontages is clearly defined. Each building has a rhythm of openings and each building is divided into two separate masses. The proposed window and door patterns are compatible with a width to height ratio maintained across the facade of each proposed building. 8. Base or Platforms. Finding: The proposed buildings have different types of windows and door openings and in some instances the windows extend to the floor level and some of the buildings have more pronounce four -foot base with siding or stucco materials to differentiate the base from the reminder of the structure. 9. Form. Findin The each of the proposed buildings has a form that is consistent with commercial development and the design add visual interest. Each of the proposed buildings incorporates changes in mass on the exterior with columns, framed bays, transoms, and windows to create multiple surface levels. There is a clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. 10. Entrances. Finding'. Each building has a well-defined, covered, recessed, primary entrances are provided into each commercial tenant spaces that abut the street frontages. Awnings and marquees are proposed to emphasize the entrances. 11. Imitation of Historic Features. Finding: The proposed building design of each structure is consistent with this standard. The proposed buildings are clearly contemporary in design while providing historical context with the incorporation of materials and architectural elements found on commercial buildings in Ashland's historic districts. Page 35 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: The proposed development requires 15.72 vehicle parking spaces for commercial uses in Phase One and an additional 9.198 parking spaces for commercial office use in Phase Two. There are 24.91 parking spaces required for commercial office use. There are 32 parking spaces required for the two/three bedroom residences. These are provided for in the garages. The proposed parking area provide for a total of 17 or the 25 commercial automobile parking spaces on-site. Commercial requires 16 bicycle parking spaces. There is a 10 space rack near the plaza area and additional racks provided near the fronts of the buildings. The residential uses require 16 bicycle parking spaces. They are within the garages. 18.4.3.060 Parking Management Strategies A. On -Street Parking Credit. Credit for on -street parking spaces may reduce the required off- street parking spaces up to 50 percent, as follows. 1. Credit. One off-street parking space credit for one on -street parking space Finding: The proposal seeks to reduce parking by 32 percent through the use of on -street parking credits. The property owner is making substantial improvements to three public street frontages including relocating the curb on Van Ness to provide on -street parking. There is usually an abundance of parking available in the neighborhood. With the proposed Van Ness Street improvements, seven on -street parking spaces will be created. This is in addition to the five on -street spaces on Water Street and the seven present on Helman Street. The requested reduction in the on-site parking spaces will not have a substantial impact as development in the immediate vicinity is very low and on -street parking is not in demand along the frontages of the property at the same capascity as the on -street parking demands found on the properties to the south of Central Avenue. The property has a Walkscore of nearly 90 (www.walkscore.com). That means it is a highly walkable area and most do not need vehicles for short trips. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location Finding: The proposed parking areas are to the side and rear of the buildings. There is no parking between the buildings and the street. B. Parking Area Design. Page 36 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Finding: The required parking area is proposed to be designed in accordance with the standards. The proposed parking spaces are 9 X 18 with up to 50 percent of the provided parking spaces as compact. The parking spaces have the required 22 -foot back up. All of the parking areas (defined per 18.6.1.030 - Parking Area or Lot. Any area inside, under, or outside of a building or structure, designed and used for parking motor vehicles, including parking lots, garages, or structures.) are proposed as pervious surfaces. This is to minimize the adverse environmental impacts. The parking areas are designed to capture and treat surface run-off through a landscape swale. 18.4.6.020 Public Facilities B. Exceptions and Variances. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. Finding. An exception to Street Design Standards for to have street tree bump outs into the right-of-way on Van Ness instead of five-foot by five-foot street tree grates in the sidewalk. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: Van Ness steep has a fairly steep grade adjacent to the existing curbside sidewalk. Though the right-of-way is wide, the railroad tracks prevent improvements on the north side of Van Ness and all improvements are required on the south side along the subject property frontage. The grade of Van Ness also has a slope and the existing sidewalk at the intersection of Van Ness Heiman Street that determines the grade of the sidewalk. The proposal is to construct an on -street parking bay adjacent to the sidewalk. When parking bays are cut into the properties, often there is a loss of area for street trees without a loss of private property. This allows for the installation of street trees without sidewalk grates. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. Finding The connectivity of the property and the neighborhood will have superior transportation facilities through the installation of sidewalk to city standards on Water Street, installation of on street parking bays, and street trees on Van Ness and preservation of the landscape parkrow on Heiman results in superior transportation facilities and connectivity. The trees in bump outs will provide equal transportation facilities as trees within street tree grates. Page 37 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. Finding: Not applicable. H. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. Fin_di_ng: Helman, Van Ness and Water Streets are 'shared' streets without dedicated bicycle lanes. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the bicycle facilities. The provision of ample, secure bicycle parking facilities will encourage employees of the commercial uses of the site to utilize alternate transportation over vehicles. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. Finding: The proposed street improvements to three public streets substantially improves the pedestrian facilities. The proposal is to add sidewalks where none currently exist on Water Street, and to widen the sidewalk on Van Ness and provide an on - street parking bay. Street trees are proposed on all street frontages. The proposed improvements improve the comfort level of walking along the streets and provides a safer pedestrian access, The requested exception to the allow street trees as bump outs into the public right-of-way increases the comfort level of walking along the roadway because additional buffering from the vehicles driving on Van Ness is proposed. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding: The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of having a parking bay which typically would result in a loss of street trees. The proposed bump outs into the right-of-way for the trees provide adequate growth area and provide traffic calming and shading of the street by the proposed street trees. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Page 38 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Finding: The purpose and intent section contain standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street improvements including installation of new street trees. The proposal provides street trees in slightly different manner than required by code within a parkrow or within a tree well. Installation of sidewalks on three streets, street trees and ADA accessible crossings greatly improves the pedestrian experience along the frontages of the property mitigating the impacts of the exceptions. 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. Finding; Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed development. Water: There is an existing 16 -inch water main in Water Street. There is also a 16 -inch main in Van Ness and a four inch water main in Helman Street. The new water services are proposed adjacent to the street frontages with four meters per structure proposed. There is a fire hydrant on Water Street and another fire hydrant across Helman Street from the subject property. The water line sizes and pressures are substantial enough to comply with the water needs for the new structure. Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer line in the Water Street In discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, there are no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines. New sewer connections will be made to connect the proposed structure to the public infrastructure. Electrical: Substantial upgrades are required to the electrical infrastructure. The primary power will come from a pole on Helman and Van Ness. A new transformer will be installed behind the sidewalk adjacent on the east side of Lot 3, this will connect to a new junction box that is proposed to be located on the south side of the alley public alley. A public utility easement will be provided for all public utilities that are on the private property. Storm Sewer: There is a 12 -inch Storm sewer main in Van Ness Street and a 10 -inch main in Water. In consultation with the Street Division, there are no capacity issues with the city's facilities. When considering that post development peak flows are not to exceed pre -development peak flows, there should be little discernable impacts on the storm sewer facilitates. Transportation: According the Transportation System Plan, both Water and Van Ness Water Street are classified as Neighborhood Collectors. This street classification anticipates less than 1,500 ADT and are Page 39 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 meant to provide access to residential and neighborhood commercial areas. Heiman Street is classified as an avenue. Heiman Street is improved with landscape park row and sidewalk. This historic development pattern is proposed to be retained and new street trees are proposed within the reconstructed park row. Water Street has a 40 -foot right-of-way and has a varied improved width. Water Street is currently "improved" with curb, gutter on the subject property side of the street (west) and curb, gutter, and a five-foot curbside sidewalk the east side of Water Street. Across from the subject property there is an on -street parking bay near the driveway that accesses the surface parking area for the residence at 16 Van Ness. The proposal is to upgrade Water Street with five-foot hardscape park row constructed of a pervious surface and eight feet of sidewalk. A public pedestrian access easement will be provided to provide the required pedestrian access across the property. Van Ness Street has a variable width right-of-way with 60 -feet of ROW at the west side of the property and reduces to 40 -feet at the intersection of Van Ness and Water Street. Van Ness, is improved with curb, gutter and a four -foot curbside sidewalk. The proposal is for the majority of the sidewalk along the frontage of the proposed building to comply with the standards (five-foot hardscape park row and an eight -foot sidewalk). The sidewalk is proposed to transition to a five-foot curbside adjacent to the new, on -street parking parallel parking spaces that will be constructed along Van Ness. Where the parking bay is proposed, the street trees are proposed as bumpouts into Van Ness Street. The public alley along the south side of the property cannot be completed through to Heiman Street due to the topography is proposed to have a pedestrian stairway to provide pedestrian access to and through the development. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed by Kelly Sandow from Sandow Engineering with the following summary: All intersections operate within the mobility standards with the exception of Water Street/Main Street. The Water St / North Main Street intersection approach does not meet standards in the future year condition with the development in place. The simple mitigation is to restripe the approach to be two lanes with a separate left and through lane. The previous TIA was reviewed by the City of Ashland Public Works Division and comments and concerns were provided in response that expressed concerns regarding the inability to stripe Water Street to afford necessary future year condition. The revised TIA has not yet been reviewed. The comments from the City discussed a planned improvement of a traffic light to be partially funded through the ODOT ARTS program and that the light is the preferred mitigation. As addressed by the Traffic Engineer, the proposed development increases traffic at the intersection by less than two percent. Any recommended financial contributions to the light to cover the difference between the Page 40 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 grant funding and the City's proportional share should not exceed that of the cost of striping the intersection. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. Finding: An exception to the required Large Scale Development Plaza Area is requested. There is a minimum of This required outdoor plaza space is required to be 5,624 square feet. There is 3,087 square feet proposed. (AMC 18.4.2.040.D.2.a) 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. Finding: There is not a specifically demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirement. The result of the exception to the public pedestrian plaza area is that the proposed areas are well designed, incorporating all of the features sought in the plaza area standards and equally achieve the stated purpose which is to create a safe and comfortable environment and to encourage walking and cycling while maintaining high quality development. The proposed uses and smaller than required pedestrian plaza area is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Employment zone which allows for more industrial types of uses than the Commercial zone and higher intensity development than residential zones. Solar Setback Standards: 18.4.8.020. Applicability 2. Standard B Lots. Those lots with a north -south lot dimension that is less than that calculated by Formula 1 but greater than that calculated by Formula 11, any lot zoned C-1, E-1, or M-1 and not exempt by subsection 18.4.8.020.B, or a lot not abutting a residential zone to the north, shall be required to meet setback standard B in subsection 18.4.8.030.B. Finding: The average slope of each lot for the purposes of solar setbacks varies between 0 to 5 percent slopes. Each lot proposed exceeds minimum required north/south lot width. Lot 1 has an average slope of 1.6 percent downhill to the north. The required lot width is 65 -feet. The lot is proposed to be 69.97 feet wide. The proposed building on Lot 1 complies with solar requiring a 52.6 -foot setback and there is more than 60 -feet to the north to the next adjacent property. Page 41 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Lot 2 has an average slope of 5 percent uphill to the north. The lot is required to be 20.20 feet wide and is proposed to be 100 feet wide north/south. The proposed building on Lot 2 complies with solar setbacks with a 60 -foot+ right-of-way to the north. Lot 3 has an average slope of 1.95 percent downhill to the north. The required lot width is 70.5 -feet and the average lot north/south lot dimension is 72.5 feet. The proposed building on Lot 3 requires a solar setback waiver. The building requires a 52.54 foot setback from the eave to the north property line. There is a 22 -foot setback to the adjacent building on Lot 1 and 13 -feet from the property line to the eave where a 50+ foot setback is required. Lot 4 has an average slope of 3 percent downhill to the north. The required lot width is 72.28 feet and the proposed lot width is 72.5 feet. The building on proposed Lot 4 also requires a solar waiver. The building requires a 51 foot setback where a 24 -foot setback to the adjacent building and 10 -feet to the property line. Lot 5 has a 0 percent slope. The required lot width is 22.47 and is proposed as 97 feet average north south lot width. The proposed building on Lot 5 complies with solar as it shades the property to the north where the parking area is located. Lot 6 and 7 both exceed minimum north/south lot width required for solar and have a public right-of- way to north allowing shading of the right-of-way. Lot 8 has an average slope of 2.6 percent uphill to the north and the minimum required lot depth is 22 feet. The lot width is proposed as 97.5 feet. No buildings are proposed for Lots 6, 7 and 8. AMC 18.4.8.020. C. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from section 18.4.8.030, Solar Setbacks, are subject to subsection 18.4.8.020.C.1, Solar Setback Exception, below. Deviations from the standards in section 18.4.8.050, Solar Orientation Standards, are subject to subsection 18.5.2.050.E, Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 1. Solar Setback Exception. The approval authority through a Type I review pursuant to section 18.5.1.050 may approve exceptions to the standards in 18.4.8.030, Solar Setbacks, if the requirements in subsection a, below, are met and the circumstances in subsection b, below, are found to exist. Finding: Two of five lots in Phase 1 require solar setback waivers. Lots 3 and 4 cast a greater shadow than outright permitted onto the adjacent property to the north. Lot 3: This lot has an average slope of 1.95 downhill to the north. The proposed building requires a 52.54 - foot setback from the eave to the north property line. There is a 22 -font setback to the adjacent building on Lot 1 and 13 -feet from the property line to the eave where a 50+ foot setback is required. Page 42 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Lot 4: This lot has an average slope of 3 percent downhill to the north. The building on proposed Lot 4 also requires a solar waiver. The building requires a 51 foot setback where a 24 -foot setback to the adjacent building and 10 -feet to the property line. a. That the owner or owners of all property to be shaded sign, and record with the County Clerk on the affected properties' deed, a release form supplied by the City containing all of the following information: Finding: As required in this section of code, the property owners will sign the required deed releases agreeing to the specific buildings on Lots 3 and 4. A description of the shading and a corresponding drawing will be provided. b. The approval authority finds all of the following criteria are met. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. Finding: The proposed solar exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site by the proposed habitable building to the north of Lot 3 and the proposed building on Lot 3 which is shaded by the building on Lot 4 does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy on the site. Lot 1 which is shaded by the proposed building on Lot 3 has a garage on the ground level which is not a habitable portion of the structure. The second floor and third floor side of the building on Lot 1 is occupied by bedroom and bathroom areas. The smaller windows of the building are on this side and there is substantial passive solar access on the east and west elevations. The building has the ability to have rooftop solar collection devices for active solar that will not be precluded by the shadow cast upon the south wall of the Lot 1 building. Lot 3 which is shaded by the proposed building on Lot 4 has garage and commercial tenant space on the south side of the building. The second and third stories are the habitable floors and there are office/bedroom, bathroom and on the south side of the building. The shading cast upon the south wall of the building does not prevent access to passive solar with large windows on east, west and north side of the structure providing adequate solar access. The proposed structure height will not prevent the use of solar collections panels upon the roof of proposed building 3. Page 43 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. Finding: The proposed solar exceptions on Lots 1 and 3 does not diminish the use of passive or active solar energy systems "used" by a habitable structure on the adjacent lots as they are vacant of structures and do not contain any solar devices. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. Finding: The unique and unusual circumstance on these lots is that the topography of the subject property and the properties to the north where the solar slope is calculated is a different slope on each property. Some lots are considered as sloping uphill, some downhill and some with zero slope. This creates a unique situation when attempting to calculate the solar setbacks. It is an unusual situation to have numerous slopes on one property depending on the area of the property where solar slope is calculated. The solar ordinance applies to "habitable" structures. Though a portion of the structures include habitable space, the intent of the zone is Employment/business use. Each proposed lot exceeds minimum lot dimensions for solar setbacks but the height of the buildings would be required to be substantially less than the allowed height in the zone. The proposed shading is upon commercial buildings that include a habitable space which is a unique situation. If the buildings were on one lot or fee simple parcels, the solar setback standards would not apply but with a subdivision that creates individual, more restrictive standards apply. Tree Removal Request 18.5.7.040 Approval Criteria B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Finding: There are 20 trees proposed for removal that are within or directly adjacent to the subject property that are proposed for removal. The site is proposed to be fully redeveloped with commercial structures and required parking areas. The amount of site work required to achieve the level of development required in the commercial zone, often necessitates the removal trees that are within the buildable areas of the property. The trees are proposed for removal to permit the applicant to be consistent with other Page 44 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 applicable ordinance requirements and standards applicable to the Site Design Standards and the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Fines:. The removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surfaces waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The areas where the trees are located, post removal will be redeveloped as part of the larger, comprehensive site development. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: There are several hundred trees within 200 -feet of the subject property. The property is in close proximity to the heavily vegetated creek area provides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage and tree densities. The proposed site development and landscape plan replaces canopy, tree densities, sizes and species diversity. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: The residential density is not increased or decreased as a result of the tree removals. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: Mitigation trees are proposed throughout the property. There are 27 mitigation trees proposed within the parking lot and open space areas to mitigate the removal of the trees on the site. There are 16 street trees proposed. Page 45 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Attachments: 1) DEQ Site Clearance Letter 2) Transportation Impact from 2018 3) Application Plan Sets SV -1 Boundary and Topographic Survey SV -2 Preliminary Subdivision Map L0.1 Development Phasing Diagram 1-0.2 Tree Protection & Removal Plan 1-1.0 Landscape Site Plan 1-1.1 Phase 1 Landscape Materials Board L2.0 Tree Planting Plan L2.1 Phase 1 Planting Plan L3.0 Stormwater Diagram C1.0 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan C2.0 Preliminary Utility Plan C3.0 Preliminary Erosion Control Pian A0.0 Comment Responses A0.1 Architectural Site Plan A0.2 Street Views A0.3 Street Elevations A0.4 Street Elevations A0.5 Typical Section (Bldg 1-8 Similar) A0.6 Phase 1 Building Materials Board A1.1 Building 1 Plans A1.2 Building 1 Plans A1.3 Building 1 Elevations A2.1 Building 2 Plans A2.2 Building 2 Plans A2.3 Building 2 Elevations A3.1 Building 3 Plans A3.2 Building 3 Plans A3.3 Building 3 Elevations A4.1 Building 4 Plans A4.2 Building 4 Plans A4.3 Building 4 Elevations A5.1 Building 5 Plans A5.2 Building 5 Plans A5.3 Building 5 Elevations H1.0 Site History H2.0 Site Context / Historical Building Comparison Page 46 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Page 47 of 47 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 MINUTES FOR THE R1GULARMEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 18, 1997 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Golden called the meeting to order at 7:OOp.m.,Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer were present. APPROVALOF NEN TES The minutes of the Regular meeting of November 4, 1997 were accepted as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Introduction and Presentation by Ashland Planning Commission. Barbara Jarvis, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, recognized other members of the Planning Commission (Steve Armitage, Christian Hearn, Michael Morris, Anna Howe, Ron Bass, Mike Gardiner, and Marilyn Briggs). The duties and responsibilities of the commissioners were explained and recognition was made of the time and energy put in by Commissioners when dealing with issues which affect the city. Noted that commissioners are limited in what they can do and must follow criteria set by council. Councilor Hagen and Mayor Golden emphasized the important role of the Planning Commission. Mayor Golden also noted the decrease in planning action appeals under the current commission. Stated that the dedication and thoroughness of the Planning Commission makes the job of the Mayor and Councilors much easier, and recognized Jarvis's role in clarifying duties of the commission as a quasi-judicial body to enforce criteria established by city policy makers. 2. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from Government Finance Officers Association. Jon Jalali, City Manager pro tem of Medford, presented the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Ashland for the Comprehensive Annual Financial. Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30th, 1996. Jalali noted that of the roughly 84,000 governmental entities in the United States only three percent qualify to receive this honor and spoke of the expertise and cooperation required between accounting, department heads, council and mayor to produce an annual financial report which qualifies for this certificate. It was also noted that an award of this nature serves as an excellent endorsement of Ashland for those considering buying bonds issued by the City. Finance Director Turner noted that this is the eighth or ninth consecutive year that the city has received this award. 3. Presentation by OTAK and acceptance of the Final Report for the Ashland Creek Flood Restoration project. The OTAK, Inc. team consisting of Larry Magura of OTAK, Paul Fishman of Fishman Environmental Services and Clay Moorhead of the CDA Consulting Group presented their Final Report for the Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project. Magura discussed the teams three part approach to this project which involved environmental assessments, an extensive public involvement program and the engineering phase consisting of hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of Ashland Creek Corridor. Presentation focused on the final report recommendations on pages 10-18 in the draft final report. Fishman spoke about the environmental assessment process which dealt with ecological and geomorphological considerations in the stream corridor to protect, rehabilitate and enhance the stream corridor's habitat. Emphasized the strong community support for the environmental aspects of the project. Fishman identified some of the stream corridor features and problems along the stream's course including City Council Meeting 11-18-97 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 areas along Calle Guanajuato where paving material had been poured on the stream bank. Noted items being built into the stream channel impeding flood flows and affecting habitat, confined areas near the Winburn Way crossing in need of habitat improvement, and potential problems for fish runs due to structures including culverts with paved, shallow bottoms. Moorhead discussed the comprehensive public involvement process, stating that the issues identified in the initial public meetings were so diverse, specialized and community -oriented that they shifted the project approach to create focus meetings. Five focus meetings were held to identify areas of public concern over topics including Winburn Way bridge design, hydro modeling and environmental interests. An additional meeting was scheduled to discuss the architectural design aspects of the Winbum Way bridge when strong public interest was shown. The public involvement process was particularly challenging due to the need to prepare an early action report, a short-term risk reduction and long-term management recommendations in a definite time frame. Also noted how the public was kept informed on progress through public meetings, newsletters, public notices and announcements. Notices were sent to property owners as well as information posted at the construction site and on the interpretive signs nearby. Magura explained the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to establish a theoretical "100-yearflood event" which would have a one percent average chance of occurring in any given year. Noted that the only available background was from a 1980 FEMA study which was crude by today's standards. Explained that the bridges and culverts were undersized even by the FEMA study's findings. OTAK established a new hydrologic study based on modem methods, realizing that historically Ashland has had a flood approximately once every ten years back to the 1940's and before which is an extraordinary number of flood events. Noted that urbanization along the creek has affected its ability to convey flood flows. Magura explained the Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC -RAS), which is a state-of-the-art hydraulic modeling system was used to generate a precise model based on lots cross-sections taken in a 4200' section of the creek from Hersey St. to Butter Bandshell and then on to the Granite St. Reservoir. Based on this model, the OTAK Team was able to identify and prioritize deficiencies and how they could be addressed. Explained that the early action recommendations were made to identify things that could be done this summer to prepare for potential flooding this winter as a means of short term risk reduction. Chief among these recommendations was the replacement of the Winburn Way culvert with a modern ConSpan pre- fabricated bridge and a flood wall. The "100 -year flood event" was defined as having a flow of 3100 cubic feet per second (cfs) in contrast to the prior FEMA study that had defined this event as 2200 cfs. Explained that long term recommendations focused more on stream corridor management issues. Discussed the progress of the Winbum Way bridge construction including the placement of all utilities, a storm scepter to keep storm -carried pollutants out of the stream, a new hydrant, street and crosswalk. Noted the possibility of project completion by November 26 to allow the bridge to be open to vehicular traffic and qualifying the contractor for portion of contract incentives. It was explained that the crosswalk is in, railing and lights are scheduled to be in by laid -December, but that paving would deed to wait until dry weather. Magura asked the council to accept the recommendations on pages 10-18 of the draft final report or provide input for modifications. The recommendations discussed methods of flood control, including the under - construction flood wall in Lithia Park for protection; setting minimum channel capacity of at least 1500 cfs and not allowing encroachment; removing and replacing gunite in channel or expect bank failure along Calle Guanajuato; cantilever deck removed; adopting stream setback ordinance and consider designating existing structures as non -conforming. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 2 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Moorhead discussed the need for a flood management plan in addition to the flood control measures. Suggested that an annual review of flood hazard conditions be conducted as part of Emergency Management Plan by city staff with consultants and/or community members to identify improvements and maintenance issues for the drainage basin which could reduce future risks of flooding. Moorhead identified removal of woody debris from floodplain similar to the City of Medford Public Works program for regular annual debris removal. This could involve coordinated effort by the City, Parks Dept. and the Forest Service_ Also suggested conducting an annual tree assessment on creekside; using removable or bolted -down concrete furniture to withstand flood conditions; designating a specific member of staff to undertake the flood plan; refining response plan in "greenbook" of emergency responses, including the stockpiling of sandbags, purchasing a sandbagging machine, and placing stations for sandbags at strategic points, including pedestrian walk near lower duck pond in park; and identifying and maintaining a list of at -risk -properties. Magura explained recommended flood design standards for improvements on new structures to meet the 3100 efs/100-year event standard. Noted that Water St. bridge should be the next focus of city'sefforts and something similar to the Winbum Way bridge should be considered. Replacement of pedestrian bridges was also suggested. Fishman outlined some of the habitat and environment recommendations. Explained that bridges, stream bank protection or other projects in the stream corridor should follow guidelines and review procedures to protect habitat and hydraulic capacity for flood conveyance. Control of sediment and erosion watershed -wide is a major part of this issue due to sedimented granitic soils. Fishman is working with Parks staff to formulate a stream corridor management plan, and recommended that the city work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine fish production goals and develop a formal program to improve fish habitat and allow fish passage. Urged council to look at both short- and long-term improvements recommended in report, to review them carefully and develop an implementation plan. Noted that most of the short-term recommendations are in progress, so the long term recommendations should be looked at closely to develop a long-term plan. Fishman also discussed aesthetic considerations and community character, giving only one recommendation. That the community involvement should guide aesthetic decisions for future improvements in the stream corridor. Used the Winburn Way bridge design as an example, since it resulted largely from community input during the interactive process of public meetings. Magura summarized what had been requested of the OTAK team, including early action items, main report of recommendations and that the project be carried out in a very public atmosphere with extensive interaction between consultants, staff and concerned members of the public. Outlined how these items had been delivered, summarizing the presentation and mentioning the recent FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant for $150,000 which was prepared by Mr. Moorhead with no additional compensation from the city. Magura then discussed ideas about what needs to be done next. These included fixing Water St. bridge with one smaller than that on Winburn Way. Noting the utility conflicts and the "risky location" of the new condominiums on, Water Street. Looked at what needs to be done on Calle Guanajuato, especially with regard to the existing pedestrian bridge (Ken Mickelsen of Parks Dept. and Brian McCarthy, Parks & Ree. Commission landscape architect have this project under way). And how to deal with the damaged gunite areas on the Calle. Concluded by expressing appreciation of city staff for their essential contributions to the overall effort, specifically mentioning Public Works Director/City Engineer Paula Brown, Assistant Public Works Director Jim Olson, and Interim City Administrator Greg Scoles. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 3 Mayor Golden questioned the shallowness of the new Winburn Way bridge's flow and channel. Fishman explained geomorphologists had been looking into this and decided on the addition of hard elements to balance hydraulic capacity, habitat and water passage in the area where the retaining walls create the channel. Will also be dealing with the fish weirs under the bridge to address this issue. Councilor Reid questioned alternatives to gunite. Fishman suggests stone, rock and grouted stone wails; clarified walls could be used to stabilize steep banks. Clarified that structures referred to earlier had actually been constructed into the active creek channel as decking foundation, and that the grouted stone walls would not have a structural nature but rather would set the grade of the stream bed to direct the water flow. Mayor Golden noted that the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant was actually in the amount of $155,000, not the $150,000 previously mentioned, due to the addition of $5,000 for administrative costs. Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main St./A member of Watershed Partnership speaking on her own behalf, asked that the report be accepted, but not adopted as the Watershed Partnership is still reviewing the recommendations with staff. Councilors Defter/Laws mis to accept final report. Voice vote, all AYES. Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions and committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports - October, 1997. 3. Confirmation of appointment of Russ Chapman to the Planning Commission, Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to accept the consent agenda. Voice vote, all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Summary of expenditures to be included in Flood Restoration Bond Issue. Public Hearing open: 8:05 pm. Finance Director Jill Turner explained the proposed bond issue and recognized the contribution by city staff members Jim Olson and Karen Huckins who spent hours helping to prepare information for FEMA. Noted that despite the long process, the results are genuinely satisfactory and there has been very little disagreement with the FEMA office or the Office of Emergency Management. Turner explained that most of the work is completed or nearly completed. Presented graphs detailing breakdowns of the total expenditure of $3.6 million and the sources of repayment. Explained that FEMA will not pay for highway repairs and that bond proceeds could only be used for capital, not "emergency" costs. Requested approval of bond issue for $1,080,000, which is less than the $1,250,000 expected. Noted that damage costs were nearly $1 million more than initial estimates, and requested the issuance of general obligation bonds for flood restoration. "Turner noted that she intends to refinance the 1992 water bonds (due to the presence of a favorable interest market) by combining as one issue and reduce the cost of issuance. This would provide significant savings ($50-75,000) by refinancing now. Mayor Golden requested that the bond issuance be discussed under Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts in order to complete the Public Hearing by 9:30 pm. Public hearing closed: 8:13 pm. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 4 2. Consideration of revised Hillside Development Standards. Public hearing open: 8:20 pin. Mayor Golden explained that Ashland residents would be allowed to speak first, followed by non-residents, and that all speakers would be allowed three minutes. Noted that all non-resident speaker requests were in opposition to the ordinance and were in some way connected to real-estate or development. Director of Community Development, John McLaughlin explained that the ordinance was back before council after 1'h months in ad hoc committee meetings. During that time, issues such as slope, building location, and design standards, had been dealt with. McLaughlin noted that a memo had been received from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Field Representative Jim Hinman explaining their review of the ordinance and giving some suggestions. After consideration of these suggestions, McLaughlin concurs and recommends a deletion of the line in 18.62.080(h) which states "ofsuffrcient size to acconunodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone". This was a clarification of building envelopes as suggested by DLCD as per their memo. Stated that other concerns in the DLCD memo will likely be addressed in the City's findings. McLaughlin also discussed the 22 page memo received from Wendie Kellington on behalf of the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors. This memo included 29 specific recommendations, the first six of which refer to specific items from a previous memo and the remaining 23 raising questions with the original ordinance. McLaughlin stated that neither he nor City Attorney Paul Nolte felt these issues should be acted upon by the council. Disagreed that the ordinance resulted in noncompliance with statewide goals as suggested in the memo. Addressed specific issues in which the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors claims a loss of 1129 buildable units on vacant lands as a result of this ordinance. The Planning Department identified only 1600 available units in the entire city, and estimates that only 33 buildable lots would be lost. This is a loss of only two percent of the currently available building lots, rather than the 70% suggested by the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors, which McLaughlin stated, was "very misleading". Councilor Reid questioned whether taking division of lots into account could affect the parties reaching these numbers. McLaughlin explained that currently there are requirements affecting development on all hillside lands, and a higher level of geotechnical analysis and plan requirements and more requirements for new street requirements. Councilor Reid asked whether certain requirements would apply only to splitting lots or creating new lots. McLaughlin stated that this was not the case. Also clarified that tree removal, when not part of development, as part of wildfire management in accord with the Fire Department, would not require a permit or involvement of the Planning process. Steve Wood/464 Parkside Dr./Currently building on hillside. Has moved his envelope to save a small tree, and will use indigenous plants. Stated that Planning Department is made up of intelligent, creative people who strictly enforce, to the letter of the law, all building codes for safe hillside construction. They protect the environment and create safe, secure homes. Feels that this ordinance is an intrusion into personal property rights that amounts to a shameless landgrab on the part of the no -growth lobby. Would like to see laws, which apply to all citizens, equal. Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Dr/Stated that the ordinance is well put together with a few minor problems, and that the Cooper property is evidence of the need for strong standards for hillside development. Willing to forget color requirements, and noted that 18.62.080(a) provides a variance procedure to satisfy those opposing the ordinance. Quoted Frank Lloyd Wright who recommended building up hills not on hills due to City Council Meeting I1-18-97 5 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 fire patterns. Noted her personal experience with fire in the 1960's,where fire moved up Glenview Dr. to Terrace St. John Billings/1140 Jackson/Questioned number of available lots. Made note of his time in council beginning in 1953 and his 30 years of service on council and in the planning commission. Stated that problems arise due to the number of people wanting to live here and needing rules to balance desirability versus livability. Future will bring more people and we should plan to expand boundaries west out Ashland Mine Rd.. Feels that basic rules of construction would satisfy concerns over hillside development safety, but noted his concerns regarding runoff. Wants to keep Ashland liveable. Bill Emerson/90 5th St/As a design professional, he likes the existence of guidelines but would like to have a definition of design professional added along with architect in 18.62.080(8). Pat Walden/144 NutleyiOwns an undeveloped lot on the hillside, and feels that while these restrictions affect her ability to build or sell she still favors the ordinance due to concerns over fire, flooding and aesthetics. Hillsides are important resource to the community and should be placed before property rights, and people sometimes need to give up individual rights to live together for a common good. Pete Seda/1257 Siskiyou/Thanked volunteers for work on ordinance and appreciates the professionalism of the Planning Department. Stressed the importance of relying on volunteers, with professional assistance when needed. Noted that the State Urban Forestry Board would be willing to help with a tree protection ordinance. Felt that relying on the volunteer process and then forwarding to committee, planners and councilors makes accomplishing initial goals difficult. Barbara Bean/510 Terrace/Concerned about unstable granite slopes. Ordinance goes a long way to protect slope. Council must look to best interest of vast majority of citizens and have courage. Original standards correct with 35% limits. Questioned lots in watercourses. Claire Coltins/315 High St./Questioned slope percentage and noted 35% was a compromise as many wanted a 25% limit. Noted difficulty in getting fire trucks up steep roads especially when icy. Ashland is a fireprone town and hillsides effect entire town. Roads on slope lead to erosion and run-off which contributed greatly to this year's flood event. Need planning and guidelines to reach the desirability level citizens want, and there are variances for special cases. Becky Lindgren/Granite St./Granite St. property owner, born in Ashland. Concerned about her ability to build, divide or sell a two -acre lot she owns under this ordinance. Has similar concerns for grandmother's property. Gerald Cavanaugh/560 Oak/Spoke before in favor of strictest ordinance. Not an issue for science to decide but is up to the majority reflected through council's decision. 35 % in these hills appears too steep for building, but it is a standard that can be worked with. Aesthetics deal with more than color but shape, size, placement and as such must be considered and regulated. "Should" is acceptable in place of "shah"with regard to color. This issue touches a raw nerve, and council needs to consider the will of the majority in making a decision. Cate Hartzell/881 E. Main/Confirmed general support for safety aspects, stating that the issue should not be "keeping houses on the hill, but the hillsides on the hill". Ordinance could have tried to deal with other design options other than color, but the committee tried to mitigate key aspccts of the appearance of the overall number of houses on the hill. Noted that the Comprehensive Plan might be interpreted to encourage restrictions even lower than 35%, and that the city needs to balance keeping developers in business with City Council Meeting 11-18-97 6 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 safety of hillside, Questioned subsidizing growth at the expense of all citizens, noting issues concerning property rights, costs of growth, traffic goals, fire and erosion risks. Steve Morjig1610 Chestnut/Considers it a mistake not to have involved realtors and builders earlier in this process. Opposed to some elements as the ordinance is primarily aesthetic and should not regulate aesthetics. Flood damage on Granite St. was due to natural erosion, and in the case of the Cooper property a city mistake in approving subdivision. Present regulations are adequate to handle hillside issues. Noted that wording should be suggestive and felt that "enforcement by committee" would be difficult and time consuming. Lynn Fergeson/1537 Lilac Cir/Noted that 1100 citizens had signed a petition asking for adoption of proposed ordinance and expressed concern with building to ridgeline. Expressed strong feelings that we are irreparably damaging community with current building practices, and that color concerns have been a diversion from important issues. Special interests seeking monetary benefit shouldn't be placed before the community at large, and we should diligently guard our irreplaceable natural resources for the benefit of future generations and carefully preserve the safety of our present citizens. Marie Donovan/Ashland Homes/189 Logan Dr/Against the ordinance, and disturbed by the "lack of process". Noted that city's interpretation of Oregon Administrative Rules, that no urban residential growth is expected to occur on hillside slopes greater than 25%, is wrong by her understanding. Felt that the city's entire buildable lands inventory must remain available for residential development unless the Comprehensive Plan land inventory is amended before this ordinance is adopted. By not dealing with this or dealing with impact on city's remaining Goal 10 compliance, this ordinance removes a large amount of land from the city's available housing stock. Feels strongly that this is contrary to law, and "bad policy placing undue pressure on urban growth boundary. Feels this is a disservice to agricultural lands, the urban growth boundary, sister cities and Jackson County. As a fiduciary of the city'sland use program and steward of the county and state land use programs the city should not adopt the proposed ordinance as written. Bill Robertson/2175 Tolman Cr/Chairman of the Forest Commission and President of the Board of Jackson County Fire District /i5 for Rural Fire Service. Submitted lengthy letter concerning the ordinance relative to ecosystem health and fire safety. Stated that city needs to open forest canopy to provide less fuel for fires, allowing for healthier trees and making it easy and inexpensive for homeowners to take out trees to thin the canopy. Peggy Roberts/320 High St/Helped collect signatures on the petition to pass the ordinance. Citizens have shared concern about continued unrestricted development destroying hillsides. Hillsides are identified as a natural resource in statewide planning goals for the protection of natural features. Many hillside residents and property owners favor this ordinance. Council faces both an obligation and an opportunity to reach a "Sustainable Ashland" often spoken of. Must consider social wellbeing, financial results and environmental protection_ Bill Tweedie/1537 Lilac Cir./Volunteer who helped circulate petition. Expressed support of strong ordinance, with safety and aesthetic elements, noting that aesthetics cannot be separated. If restrictions not retained in ordinance, the natural beauty of the hillside will be gradually destroyed, affecting the desirability of the city. Noted that American Planning Association requested information from jurisdictions with hillside plans or ordinances. 190 cities and counties responded, and 75 % of those listed aesthetic purposes as the reason for the ordinances, and this was highest percent of all reasons given. Henry Kneebone/449 Orchard St./Disagreed with ordinance, noting original recommendation of Gov. McCall to build on hills in order to save farmland. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2422 7 Bob Taber/97 Scenic Dr./Progressive Citizens Alliance/Read November 13th letter from petition signed by 1100 petitioners regarding adoption of original ordinance, and urged council to pass the ordinance. Carlos Reischensham er1600 Emigrant Cr. Rd./Noted he was in favor of health and safety issues and opposed to aesthetic regulations, feeling that standards should be the same for all. Urged another look at the ordinance to separate safety from aesthetics. Also noted that after speaking to the fire department he was told that the deck height issue wasn't a safety issue on their part, as implied in previous discussion of ordinance. Steve Asher/1060 Elkader/Discussed a letter from John Chandler, Director of Government Affairs for the Oregon Building Industry Association. Opposed to the ordinance due to divisive nature and disparities it creates. Aesthetics change and an ordinance shouldn't dictate current conventions to future generations. Need to compromise. Dick Trout/830 Garden Way/Spoke for aesthetics, urging council to keep Oregon looking like Oregon. Rad Welles/359 Kearney/Concerned with Californians moving to Oregon and then dictating policy. Variance procedure is not available to all. Questioned how many lots are really affected by requirements of the ordinance, including those with houses. Noted concerns over the "invasive"requirement for a costly tree survey, Larry Medinger/115 Fork St./Presented photos, questioning elements of ordinance as they apply to the photographed houses, including ridge definitions, color requirements, and gables. Suggested guidelines as used in the Historic District. Richard Ernst/975 Walker/Concerned that a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with 100 trees would be treated the same as a lot with only 5 trees. Public hearing adjourned at 9:30 pm, as required in ordinance. Mayor Golden noted that the public hearing could continue to the scheduled time for the study session tomorrow. Clarified that city ordinance requires public hearings to be completed by 9:30 pm. Stated that only those that had signed up to speak this evening would be allowed to speak at the adjourned meeting. Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to continue public hearing on Wednesday, November 19th at 12:30 pm. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hagen noted that there had been ample opportunity for comment through the process. Councilor Hauck agreed with Hagen's comments, but noted ordinance that requires continuation if all speakers haven't been heard. City Attorney Nolte clarified that the continuation of the meeting would not be a study session, but •a continued public hearing and decision making would be possible. Voice vote: Laws Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon, and DeBoer, AYE. Hagen, NO. Motion passed, 5-1. PUBLIC FORUM None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed to convey property off Tolman Creek Road to William P. Robertson. Councilor Reid requested a map to see the area to be quitclaimed. Councilor DeBoer clarified the situation, and City Attorney Paul Nolte noted that two new owners are now involved. DeBoer stated that he could only authorize signing, if the document was in hand, ready to be filed. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 William P. Robertson, grantee in the deed, explained that he's jumped through all the city's hoops and arranged the agreement to connect city streets. Now he has sold pieces of his property, taken out loans, and doesn't have legal access to his property. Concerned that if not handled now, an agreement will not be possible later. Councilor Laws suggested that the Quitclaim Deed signing could be authorized now pending Friday's meeting between Robertson and Planning. Councilor DeBoer questioned conveying back this piece if city owns pieces of all three properties. Nolte explained that the situation was due to a city mistake, and since the original agreement wasn't recorded in a timely manner, the other pieces do not belong to the city. DeBoer made strong recommendation that city seek pre -signed agreements in the future from other property owners. Councilors HaucklMgen m/s to authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. 2. Authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed removing pedestrian easement at 1:37 Oak Meadows Place. Councilors DeBoer/Reid m/s to authorize Mayor and City Recorder to sign Quitclaim Deed. Discussion on how the survey was incorrect and that the casement is through a deck and part of a house. Discussed rules of adverse possession and City Attorney Nolte clarified that adverse possession cannot be claimed against government. Councilor Hauck clarified history. Discussion of the intent behind the original pedestrian easement and how this would affect eventual extension of the Bear Creek Greenway to Hersey St. Voice vote: Wheeldon, Reid, Laws, and DeBoer, AYE.Hauck and Hagen, NO. Motion passed, 42. Councilors HagenlReid m/s to extend meeting past 10:00 pm. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Recommendation by Housing Commission for the creation of a Rental Assistance and Home Ownership pilot programs. Senior Planner Bill Molnar and Housing Commissioners Larry Medinger and Gerry Sea presented information on two proposed city -sponsored loan programs to fund affordable housing in Ashland. The Ashland Rental Assistance program would provide $750 dollars to potential renters for assistance with up -front costs, particularly for those who have a regular income but can't meet move in costs. Would be a short term, 15 month loan at 5% interest. Home Ownership program would provide $2500 to help with downpayment and miscellaneous closing costs. Noted that the program would place a limit on asset, and require recipients to take ownership classes, as well as requiring residency or employment in Ashland for 6 months previous to application for both programs. Both programs would be administered by an outside agency. Similar programs throughout the state are administered by H.U.D. and require no repayment. Repayment would be required under the proposed programs here. The initial authorization request is $30,000 per program, to allow operation with an evaluation after 1 year. Councilor Reid questioned whether this assistance would be available for those receiving H.U.D. loans. Medinger clarified any loan would qualify as long as Affordable Housing guidelines were met. Molnar noted a possibility that H.U.D. matching funds could become available later. Councilor Reid questioned whether residency requirement could be changed to 1 year. Molnar noted that City Attorney Nolte had been consulted in arriving at the 6 -month requirement. City Council Meeting 11-18-97 9 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Councilor Hauck discussed similar programs elsewhere, explaining that recovery through electric bill payments would help greatly. Councilor Laws questioned bill recovery on electric bills for rentals and stated it will become a subsidy and gradually lose funds through repayment failure. Councilor Hauck noted success of others in the region. Councilor DeBoer questioned whether this funding was available to be used elsewhere, also noting that $2500 would be of little help with most closing costs_ Councilor Hauck clarified that the funding was available to be used elsewhere. Councilor Laws/Hagen m/s to authorize the program. Voice vote, all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Flood Restoration and Refunding Bond Issue Series 1997." Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to adopt Resolution #97-38. DISCUSSION: Mayor Golden spoke concerning Measure 50 issues, property tax value increases and the fact that funds may be available elsewhere. Suggested leaving electric rates as is, rather than decreasing them as had been discussed. Would like to see funds trade available elsewhere without bond or tax increases. Questioned a way of retiring bonds without specifying retirement through property taxes. Finance Director, Jill Turner clarified that general obligation bonds could be paid as a lien against property taxes if not paid some other way. Noted that this would mean an average cost of $10.53 for a $100,000 home. It would be possible to decide on other sources to pay back bonds after issue, but it was noted that projects for Streets, Parks and Water Departments have little funding available from other sources. Councilors Laws and Hauck stated that they felt council could authorize the resolution and allow the budget committee to determine how bonds would be retired. Mayor Golden noted that she'd like a commitment to find other funding. Councilor DeBoer asked for clarification of previous issue's amount, rate and payment information from Turner. Councilor Hagen stated that he was open to looking at other options including tax reductions. Councilor Wheeldon questioned timeline to get best rates, and Turner noted that the current bond market is very favorable. Turner also noted that the issue was important now because of IRS calendar year limitations which require financing wastewater treatment plant and this bond issue in separate calendar years to get the best possible interest rate. Councilor DeBoer asked about combining Fordyce St. LID with this issue. Turner clarified that this was not possible. Cate Hartzell/881 East Main St./Stated that she would like to see public explanations of flood restoration costs related to this issue. Council members clarified that it had been explained earlier in the public hearing. Hartzell reiterated that she would like to see costs publicized, with estimates compared to actuals, and further questioned cost of restoration projects at the airport and the overall process. Roll call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, and DeBoer, YES. Motion passed. 2. Reading by title only of "AResolution Changing the Name of Marklyn Drive to Ashland Creek Drive." Discussion concerning the similarity of "Ashland Creek" to "Ashland Street" noting the potential for confusion on 911 calls. There was confirmation that the Fire Department had signed off on the name change and City Council Meeting 11-18-97 10 RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Director of Community Development John McLaughlin clarified related details of the street name ordinance. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to adopt Resolution #97-39. Roll call vote Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon, DeBoer, and Laws, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30p.m. to continue at 12:30p.m. on Wednesday, November 19th. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder City Council Meeting 11-18-97 Catherine M. Golden, Mayor RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 Il "'ampe. v} MAL ROIJ E & ASSOCIATES 1NC Date: January 20, 2017 To: Gil Livni Amy Gunter P 541-772-7115 F 541-779-4079 1120 FA -KF IACKSON PU BOX 490 NAEDFORD, 01t 97501 EMAIL: infoQ-marsluess.coc7t WEA: ccse�.r77ar[1ursS.Cur7t From: Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E. RE: Geotechnical Reconnaissance 165 Water Street, Ashland, Oregon MAI Job No. P17-9005 As requested by Amy, we have prepared this letter regarding the steep slope that forms the west boundary of 165 Water Street, Ashland, Oregon_ On January 11, 2017, we visited the site and observed the steep slope and the general site conditions. We understand the slope is an old railspur embankment. The subject slope is about 12' high and inclined at about 3 horizontal to 1 vertical to as steep as 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The slope is vegetated with weeds and a few scattered mature trees. The top of the slope appears to be somewhat locally rounded due to the scattered placement of miscellaneous materials (presumably from the people who occupy the ground at the top of the slope). We did not observe any signs of slope instability or seepage from the slope. The slope appears to be reasonably stable. If future improvements, such as a parking lot, are set back from the toe of the slope, perhaps at least 10', it would be reasonable to leave the slope as - is and landscape it to your liking. If future improvements require the removal of the slope, or portions of the slope, we would recommend installing retaining walls to support the slope. This brief letter has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles and practices in this area. No other Warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. PRRF S G I AF - AA � asses � EXPIRES: 6-M RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 14.1 ti N �� W dZN 2 a a® coo© sm s 5 0 d § $ _ ,aa�zu e / ( 2 037j -qv OZM&Cltl «_ _ ,_ «sem k N | N O / N � | / /0 j § Z> � ( W W \ � a � \ * . ) } 7 \ � ! o ,2 §§ - 0@ 2J !, a § � § � c O U l6 E CO C (6 C O Y U m O N f0 `• C +O C3 cn0 Q co N v ticr) N N C) N N U) ='LL Z> W U W�•�/ �cj. N 'q yco 0 co (p 0-a N U N42 o N _0 O co N y O cp U 7+ O d U O U tE N car- N N p p •� C `� E U O cm N tll 'o 'D 2 �� L f0 £L d m C = x N a U CL (CS C U i6 N 'd O p h N A N Cd C N m E w OE iC m y s m c E N p y N A -pp Z U N N cLi E N t] c N(D ca Cd 1E 2 oo Q N C O 4) L y O L C dN tl„ y N OQ.O 7 O U E N L N U 16 C O N C Cn (d a] d S6 O N J4--) '0 41 � ci 7 N� O 'a w� O ydj O 23 m 7 m E E Z—' c� S: oA- N y m � ���mm o o- T cm � o, a�Eas m CO" E p aTi�a� u �= (Y ca a77� ) ai ami ��•od•a 'O p o -o2 o o Yam 8 0 y� � mC Q O U T f6 L lC O E U N 7 2 J N 0 UJ N d' N N' L A � A C O rti id E --0 d Q co (y' A N Q 00 C N m m m d5 Q p .o n- tm N .... o C N c.� CL i (D`m m L ,N"� vY En o o M n. :3 {n c E im O r- 7, 0 46 In N [ 3 T C C'1. O •GS a. N N E N d) y E N U t E N O - O c�3 O O 41 9Y US o 0 C Q L7. C AS 7 C Qf ,� U > 'C O a @ O E N 'C R7 L N to N C 6 C •— C O U N a1 FL =U= 4) O O O_ ca O" ,A U U N r.+ .0 U 0 7 O [C t� 41 E (O L p E r i-� W E_ U y E 1 0 M dC]Q tC4 � O (nom(!} (nom �� � U.- N C. N LL m Uc � m N n Q J [L b m E aS N p p t c ca m > O Co ina � Q Q W m 9 Z��yy�� W 4iU F, a y C G hg hg ♦Oil y � F II1 W J n a.CL b O (n N O d C L J d y y d N D a1 Y7 c c a a 3 m 'o CL ° ° CL o. d d a C d J p d m N 03 _a tL 3m d O c Z m U ad Q '0 0 0 m w (n •Q O m m N O U U E R ?y 0 0J al C W a] O •m m ai C -O m rn o m m � a W ticr) N N C) N N U) ='LL Z> W U W�•�/ �cj. Soil Map• -Jackson County Area, Oregon, Parts of Jackson and Klamath Counties Map Unit Legend 165 Water Street Jackson County Area, Oregon; Parts of Jackson and Klamath Counties (011632) . Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name. Acres In A01 ParCent of A01 2A Abin silty clay loam, 0 to 3 4.21 7.8% percent slopes 23A Camas -Newberg -Evans 11.8 21.8% complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 33A Coker clay, 0 to 3 percent 11.5 21.2% slopes 100A Kubli loam, o to 3 percent 10.9 20.1% slopes 1648 Shefflein loam, 2 to 7 percent 15.8 29.1 % slopes Totals for Area of Interest 54.2 100.0% LisDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey i� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey RECEIVED FEBRUARY 24, 2022 1120/2017 Page 3 of 3 G u P - a- g E 2 T W w I N �`> H a I E S s ¢ Z 5 I LUF D u o S U.1 F CC Q C M 2 E v G U F _ m ILL Lu 0 m m i Z � n_ o I. Z m "aa Z z .. W E9 o O w n G u u o oiw I N �`> H a I m s a o a U 5 u w i a N �`> H a 3 m w � N �`> H a 3 m s a o a U W D u F- W F _ 0 G 9 CL 0 U m o �qyay o Uqq g $$ I d C 0� �� (n qO Ila 3 ' w8�,< m 6 111 o 14d- � e ��mzoy 1 i m Q � a na° a 1338 -LS U31VM 1332i1S NVW�3H N N O N N Q m W LL 0 W W U W w OZ3L6N0032J0'aNVIHSV o~ Zwoo o 3Ad SS3N NVA 96 / 1S NVYCIH 091 / 1S ?J31VM 3911 w i< w = o w p a 30V21 31 VIIONO", a o ^ w 1338 -LS U31VM 1332i1S NVW�3H N N O N N Q m W LL 0 W W U W w 0 d OZSLb N003?JO 'aNblHSb ; w z W'>` N p i DAVSS3N MVA 36 / 1S NVWl3H 091 / 1S NJ IVM 99l w Q W o 1 1lll��i�t—I_o 3Ob?J?J31 dIIONOt/W a F ° z Gu w Y Ow - > K zi. ia Vg om¢ o VOaOOw O a p O op J ow3:5zL6 Qw o DQ¢JO� z O Ez vx,w� m z<o v g o°Q ' Qz¢oa¢s w Qoo _ ¢w w "'!—Eo=QwQ <` o�,,o`z o= QdoSNa�LL zw�o <a ��oa 3o > O p wI 5-w 00 ¢p3o_ �uu --Z 20 �F o„ 20 p xuO�axz yew u'�� "' �ww3 ,Z„O Q I., -oz p >�� a wOz= a z -if ar" y Q��-`a �-¢ -0-o O-- o >t�oi��o 000 oz �Upo w ox�zj�Uo z��„¢i�m (]Oz OOcZ r¢ex OONO 2 ZW6 Jm FSO �Ow OWOU fo LL¢�pp 000 ¢i+z0 OZu �zow�„¢d .�aa >��d �d O ¢ r O 0''.0 O 0':S S 2 i u''> < z 0'..00 000',00 O O u< :u u 0 0 0 0 2-',.o a D o alb 0 n '4' �d¢wQi F Uvxi Ow0 30¢x w�m�T T a¢ -Oo2o z 6 t o�aLSa s=> °Oz�ziO o i tSo UO n� xV� -U d dw USM w o C o¢ _ oo �g oon wok v ow 5 zo gmw ao Oz� a� Ew 0 Qa <2 Qmo¢r �o� oo¢ mO on o� two =�mg0 ¢wF pw E g� ¢lt o> <w owa r= o�m do w o0 �ot O ou ¢ o >w °pz it 2-2 OLL OVow VCa x"�ww mw olo> - O ,r`�-„3 0> w xi ¢� 00 DR' ° u3�uia zo° <2°=z O8= 4uz �L Uwz 3 Z (fix`„ oa z wwOoo- Uo0 �O�¢a OPLL yu 0¢ nd o aJ aW O VO c7 ��oGi�O - p"=m� Zpc� Fsi O� n¢p 1z, 0'J' - <w��C�3� OhUVn F<'n ¢Fz pQ °o1- -to zz mow 2a ¢ O z O �zao¢�r 1,or wi�¢u°�' " V < wz U3m Ew w� O �L QUOpa�� Uw2 w �1�0 �u Uw0m do wO >� Zi �z d�Oy apQ ¢y= w¢O l7¢ OZw �w S >¢O a,OaV oad Oy o � wiwi ax °zo dwwOm- iq�¢x wz< i=o �Z- "'z 'Y'_ Omw za~-O 2�� ¢mw o`oo - "rOZ O°O Qdw3d ohoOm rc w?w O¢�<o �O - "pr �O Vod Nv, o UwO Oo`9`m zw zw0 �¢ w�F�ww OQm�U ��¢ wOU�N3� OEG wm "O m0 zO H0 O�'ro¢SG 6jp E0c O zU0 "<O 5t Om, Fu Q� w� 3mv ~O a uo �� Oa �- LLo6 'S S and ¢„m03o w0 G �OOos¢ _oU _a� _o O m 0 z < O Z zLL Z Y ° a3 wU¢ 4z <z oQ ¢ o Eo O¢JUpO Swtl io 0 op aw < Ua L�` mo=1 2 3'PoONu� o¢ °g.5°uQOQz O zz oo O'FO �5u ',.. u0 0 �oO�o?Oi z> Wo za.- 00 OO Oz �°moi �= FO»ai`oo�4 Fi==auQ""sua <U pU<'='jc¢aCn U z arU= 3< w`¢Q oiwdO �J OV woOdaa3i�¢� N N O N N ry Q CD W LL 0 \W W U W fr c.OZ3Z6 N003dO 'ONVIHSV \ s ]AV MN NVA 96 / 1S NVWI3H 091 / 1S 231VM 991 g J 3OVMIIVIIONOVWI a �4 U Z � 0 a I w i H II d� / a I ` UUJ v m3 wa I L1 133a1S U31VAA ui � o g � w w '< Z � a u J JO Z CL a �4 U Z � 0 a I �W w i �`o4n n4¢ mtE atm / a I wa I L1 133a1S U31VAA d I- � I U O Z �W w i �`o4n n4¢ mtE atm � mEa � vim L1 133a1S U31VAA d U O Z W �y �v r � r 133�1S MVUk3 H w ¢ a �c < ¢ �W w a o m 3 133a1S U31VAA o 0 N N O N 'ct N Q m w U- 0 W W U W w m i y � o m w p I d �y �v r � r 133�1S MVUk3 H w ¢ a �c < ¢ o 0 N N O N 'ct N Q m w U- 0 W W U W w Q Ial ( 2w m s OZSL6 NOODbO 'GNVIHSV, " ov ° Z ry DAV SSDN NVA 96 / 1S NVNAH 09 t / 1S ?JD1VM S9l' w g a 3 w J lI Ire I— _.o N N O N d' N aB� a� aim dE� � Q W W U w ry t �Q OZ9L6 N003�O 'CNVIHSV' o m' Z w z o 3AV MN NVA 96 / 1S NVWl3H 091 / 1S NIIVM 99l g w J r ���illll;llllll LS 3OVNN]i VIIONJVWi C+° s oC '�`u w. V 1332i1S a31VM F _ s d i U 6 z �£ooaooc�o��� C+° s oC '�`u w. V 1332i1S a31VM ... ... .... .. / � § .. ) §/ y3Z6woS1a02NV aD /\ \\ / \/\ > § ( &:;\ ]A ::: NNS 2zs Nyw + 9lzs mAy 9t . 3 2 = g /\d }\ uaVN a2 v oNevw� ... ... .... .. .... .. ..... . . �( _- \;)}( ;,\; I F L 21 ; s2a12_ \ % } < _ Of _ E U- 0 2 \ E 0 ƒ OZSLb N003?JO "aNVIHSV o w z o 2wi �a M 3AV MN NVA 96 / 1S NVWl3H C9 L / 1S ?OiVM 991 w ¢ a s J w FYV 30V?1 Oi VIIONOVW o M � o f 122UiS 2:GIVM ata AAA US NVINIAH N N O 5 � �wN =w� 0�Q LOCO w U— n W W U S W z� � s a� � w �o 5 00 M N glo }, m= MgZ6 NOOD?O'aNVIHSV- ]AV MN NVn 36 / iS NVWIDH 091 / 1S ? OlVM S9 oz o a 3OVNNJ i VIIONOVW i Mr - O� 0 O 'a °- oz' r$moo° JoEm = -oQE Q �a4 ffi�v td W o dot r � moaoQo ��mp� °NoQ� � E4E c� €� �Eo Z E xE 3 d m o m _O oo�°E�` LU ..,� i Mr - O� 0 O 'a °- oz' r$moo° JoEm = -oQE Q �a4 ffi�v td W o dot r � moaoQo ��mp� °NoQ� � E4E c� €� �Eo Z E xE 3 d m o m _O oo�°E�` LU E /\ \}{ \\} \2 \\)/ a Ni ry < _ ± _ ± LL 2 $ u 0 ƒ ` /) \/ R2&NO�ao 2NyHA _ § \ ` R § § t « a w nn ;g: N N� aZ3 NYw R 9lzs mAy 9 U . 2= ƒ ? « § I §K\ ^ u� A& yl�oNev/� E /\ \}{ \\} \2 \\)/ a Ni ry < _ ± _ ± LL 2 $ u 0 ƒ a rg� mai 0Z9Z6 NOe3dO'ONVIH3V° o z w oma N V ` � ]AV SS3N NVn 96 / 1S NVNl3H 091 / 1S ?J31VM 99 t; 5 ' o I 30VM31 VIIONOVW......!� o w N N O ryN d' N } Q m W LL 0 W W U W ry P ,� Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 CITY o F ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Eight Lot Commercial Subdivision, Site Design Review for Five new mixed use commercial buildings DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEER@ Certification? © YES ® NO Street Address 160 Helman Street, 95 Van Ness and 165 Water Street Assessor's Map No. 391E 04CC Zoning E-1 Tax Lot(s) 2000, 2100 & 7100 Camp Plan Designation Employment APPLICANT Name Rogue Planning & Development Services Phone 541-951-44202 E -Mail Address 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 PROPERTY OWNER Name Magnolia Fine Homes LLC Address 441 Talent Avenue amygunter.planning@gmail.com city Medford Phone 510-913-5110 E -Mail Zip 97501 magnoliafinehomes@gmail.com city Talent Zip 97535 SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title Surveyor Name Polaris Land Survey Phone 541-482-5009 E -Mail spawn@poliaris.com Address PO BOX 459 city Ashland Zip 97520 Title Landscape Architect Name Terrain Landscape Architecture Phone 541-500-4776 E -Mail piper@terrainarch.com Address 33 N Central Avenue Suite 210 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, free and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect; the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that f produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are 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 raliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If l have any doubts l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. :i ?l__ __ January 7, 2022 Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the properly involved in this request, 1 have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. 7a L1ViK January 7, 2022 Property Owner's Signature (required) Date [To be completed by City StaH] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ OVER 0 Wcomm-devlplanning\Fomm & Handouts\Zoning Pemit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS u APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. u PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. 0 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. R1 TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS — Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. Z FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) LEER® 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 LEER® 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. N4141 4 • Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. • Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. • All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. • The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 l=ast Main St). • A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. • If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. G.Ncomm-davlpla roti.. Fours & BwidoutsVZoning P=iit Appiication.doc pralkall Planning Division 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR 97520 541.488-5305 Street Address: 160 .-g, _ Al Tf ave, Description of Project: V h asp 1 Applicant: Property Owner: ir1 L Lt✓n/i L. L G Commercial Site Review Valuation Estimate Prepared by: AA #- K . &, h L1- Estimator Phone: D° - 001 DO - Estimator Email: Valuation Estimate C 0.t DESCRIPTION: VALUATION: Excavation & Earthwork $ 01 O,V •�7 Landscaping $ �� 0"q Parking Area(s) & Driveways $ y 0 0 0 Sidewalks/PatioslWalkways $ L ro 0 New Construction — Materials & Labor Total* $ i —+ Lf D 0,5 Q TOTAL. PROJECT VALUATION: $ "Building permit valuations shalt be based upon the Uniform Fee methodologies as established by OAR 998-050-0900. Magnolia Terrace Eight Lot Commercial Subdivision Five Building Mixed Use Commercial Site Review Aft ROGUE PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC January 7, 2022 Property Owner: Landscape Architecture/ Site Planning: Magnolia investment LLC Magnolia Fine Homes LLC 441 Talent Avenue Talent, OR 97535 Terrain Landscape Architecture Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning and Development Services, LLC 1314-B Center Dr., PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 Civil Engineer: Transportation Engineer: Geotechnical Expert: Structural Engineer: Rhine -Cross Group PO BOX 909 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Sandow Engineering 160 Madison Street, Suite A Eugene, OR 97402 Marquess and Associates Rick Swanson PO Box 490 Medford, OR 97504 Snyder Engineers 415 E Pine St Central Point, OR 97502 Surveyor: Polaris Land Survey PO BOX 459 Ashland, OR 97501 Page 1 of 39 Subject Property Property Addresses: Map & Tax Lot: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning: Overlays: 160 Heiman Street, 95 Van Ness and 165 Water Street 39 1E 04CC; Tax lots 2000 & 2100 and 7100 Employment E-1 Residential Overlay Skidmore Academy Historic District Detail Site Review Zone Floodplain Severe Constraints Request: This request is for the approval of an eight lot, Commercial Subdivision, and a phased, mixed-use development. Phase One is proposed the Subdivision of the property and includes a request for Site Design Review for the development of five, mixed-use commercial buildings with residential units above. The required parking area for the first phase of proposed development will be provided in Phase One. Phase One is also proposed to install the required public street frontage improvements, subdivision infrastructure. The request included a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for encroachment onto to lands that have more than 35 percent slope, and development within the Ashland's Flood Protection Zone, and a Tree Removal Permit. Property Description: The area of the proposed subdivision encompasses a one- half block area south of the Water Street, Van Ness and Heiman Street intersections. The property extends to the south to a partially improved public alley that extends between Water Street and Heiman Street. The property appears on the earliest City of Ashland Maps (1883 AD) as a part of Lots 4 & 5 of Block 29 at the intersection of Mechanic (Van Ness) and Water Streets (prior to railroad) created from Abel D. Heiman's Donation Land Claim Act. The property to the north across the street was the site of Daley & Co.'s Planing Mill. This mill was run using water from a flume that diverted water from Ashland Creek to the south of the subject property, and run through a turbine. (http:ZZwrightarchives.blogspot.com/ 2011 07 ashland-ore on-earl-histor .html Page 2 of 39 In 1887, the "Golden Spike" was driven, finishing the trans -continental route for the railroad. The area to the north of the subject property (Block 18, Lots 1, 2 & 3) where the Daley & Co. Planing Mill had been located, became railroad right-of-way. Historically, a steel trestle was constructed crossing Ashland Creek (Mill Creek at the time) and Water Street. On the 1898 Sanborn map (clip of July 1898 #4 below (full sheet attached)), an irrigation ditch traverses the property to from the south to the northwest. Another flume carried the tail race waters from Ashland Woolen Mill that had been located at the property now occupied by the Plaza Inn and Suites, to the south of the property, to the Oregon Mining and Stamp Co. which was located on the north side of the railroad tracks. The tunnel for Water Street that passes under the railroad was constructed in 1907. Rv F 1911, according to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, the site still had the tail race flume but the former irrigation route had been converted to a spur rail line for the Southern Pacific Railroad that went into town to serve the various mills, including Ashland Cold Storage that had taken over the Woolen Mill site. Following the closure of the mills and the subsequent removal of the flumes, the Water Street portion of the property held commercial structures (shops, sheds, etc.). Above ground fuel storage tanks were placed along Van Ness Street. In about the mid-1950s, a service station was constructed on the site. That service station then served as auto repair for many years. In the 1980s, SOS Plumbing began operations on the property. SOS operated at the site until 2007. The site has been most recently used Page 3 of 39 as an auto repair shop, then as a storage area for the property owners construction business equipment and for a local landscape contractors equipment. Due to the presence of the above ground fuel storage tanks, the fueling station and the auto repair shop, the site was considered a Brownfield. The sturcutres removed, the site was cleaned up and the case has been closed by the Department of Environmental Quality http:ZZwww.deg.state.or.us/Webdocs Forms utput/FPController.ashx?Sourceid=4951&SourceldType =11 The subject properties now consists of three parcels of record; Parcel 1 is at 165 Water Street is a 38,515 square foot, vacant parcel at the southwest intersection of Water Street. The parcel extends south along Water Street to a public alley that extends from Water Street, east to Heiman Street. There is an access and parking access easement on this for a separate parcel of property across the alley to the south. It is known that a private irrigation line transects the property. The Ashland Modified flood protection zone for Ashland Creek extends along the Water Street frontage, approximately 20 -30 -feet into the property. Parcel 2 is at the southeast intersection of Van Bess and Helman Streets. Parcel 2 is a 5,824 square foot, vacant parcel. This parcel has 52.74 -feet of frontage on Van Ness Avenue and 80 -feet of frontage adjacent Heiman Street. Parcel 3 is a 7,302 square foot parcel has 90 feet of frontage along Helman Street, north of the public alley. The property is occupied by a 3,300 square foot commercial structure that is in very poor condition. It was the location of Pyramid Juice processing, warehouse, and distribution for many years. Upon the redevelopment of the properties, these structures will be removed. The subject properties are zoned Employment (E-1) with Residential Overlay, the property is also covered by t the Detail Site Review overlay. The adjacent properties are zoned E-1, and Low -Density Multi -Family Residential (R-2). The properties to the north, across the railroad tracks are zoned Employment with Residential Overlay. There are also industrially zoned properties to the northwest. The properties are at the boundary of the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The properties to the west are within the Skidmore Academy. The properties across the railroad tracks are outside the Historic Districts. The properties across Water Street are within the Railroad Historic District. Page 4 of 39 Across Heiman Street from the subject property, the uses are primarily residential and their associated accessory structures. The residences are primarily single story and ane -and -one-half story residences. The lot areas range from 3500 — 10,000 SF. The property across Water Street is a single-family residential use with outbuildings. The property to the south across the alley is a commercial manufacturing use, a mixed-use office building and a residential structure that has been used commercially in the past as a vacation rental and daycare use. According to the Transportation System Plan, Functional Classification Map, Heiman Street is an Avenue. Heiman Street has a 60 -foot -wide public right-of-way. Heiman Street is improved with paving, curb, gutter, a six-foot landscape park row, and a five- and one -half -foot wide sidewalk. There are two driveway aprons serving the property from Heiman Street. Van Ness is classified as a neighborhood street. Van Ness has a 60 -foot -wide public right-of-way. Van Ness is improved with paved travel lanes, curb and gutter, and a five-foot wide, curbside sidewalk. There are approximately 27 -feet of improvements including a five-foot wide curb side sidewalk. There are three driveway aprons on the Van Ness frontage of the properties. North of the Van Ness right of way are the railroad tracks. Water Street has a 40 -foot -wide right-of-way and is improved with 38 -feet of street improvements that consist of curb, gutter and asphalt. There are two driveway curbcuts on Water Street. There are street trees in very poor condition which will be removed and replaced. Detailed Description of the Proposal: The proposal is for an eight lot, Commercial Subdivision for the future construction of eight, three story, mixed use commercial buildings. The proposed subdivision will provide for a shared parking area, utility infrastructure and subdivision infrastructure. This application provides for the phased subdivision which demonstrates the lot coverage area, access, parking areas, common trash/recycle facility areas, pedestrian connectivity and frontage improvements for complete buildout are provided for. Due to the site's topographical constraints and large area, a phased Site Review for five of the buildings is proposed in conjunction with the subdivision request. The remaining three building sites will be developed following construction of the five buildings on the upper level of the site adjacent to Heiman Street (see Phasing Plan sheet L0.1). The eight lots range in size from 3,696 square feet to 9,651 square feet. The Subdivision is proposed as a planned unit development type of subdivision with an association to address the maintenance and perpetual maintenance of the common areas including the parking, walkways, retaining walls, landscape areas including the public street trees. Page 5 of 39 Easements for utilities, public pedestrian, vehicular uses are delineated on the proposed preliminary plat (see Preliminary Subdivision Map sheet SV -2). Association agreements and covenants pertaining to the long-term maintenance and use of the common use areas of the property will be provided with the application construction documents. These documents will provide for the maintenance of, use of and necessary organization structure to provide long term maintenance of not only the areas for common use and utility, but also the landscaping including park row trees. Public Infrastructure Improvements: Substantial public infrastructure improvements are necessary to accomplish the development of this commercial block. These include installing substantial public street improvements, electrical, and private irrigation system relocation, and irrigation pipe quality improvement (it is presently leaking). The proposed preliminary grading and drainage plan, the public utilities, and erosion control plans are provided on sheets C 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. The proposed subdivision infrastructure includes installation of a complete public electrical system upgrade which provides for the electric infrastructure to levels capable of commercial / employment use. Frontage improvements are proposed along all the street frontages and within the unimproved public alley. The alley will provide access to parking area accessed from the Water Street side of the development and to the garages on the Heiman Street side of the development. The driveway access from Heiman Street complies with the spacing standards. The Helman Street frontage has an existing parkrow and sidewalk which are to remain. The street trees within the parkrow are in generally poor condition and are proposed to be removed and replaced. The existing sidewalk on Van ness is a five-foot curbside sidewalk. The proposal includes an eight -foot sidewalk on Van Ness. Parking bays with shade tree bump outs are proposed. The street tree bump outs allow for street trees to be provided with the street improvements while keeping the sidewalk clear for pedestrians. This requires an exception to the street standards. Water Street is proposed to have an eight -foot sidewalk and a hardscape park row. The material of the hardscape park row on both Van Ness and Water are proposed to be pervious surface treatments. Commercial 'Sternberg' streetlights will be installed at the intersection of the streets and again at the intersection of the alley. The existing Sternberg pedestrian streetlight on Van Ness may need to be relocated but will remain on the frontage. The proposed street improvements will create a pedestrian friendly environment in an area where there is presently very little pedestrian activity due to the lack of development and pedestrian infrastructure. The increased floor elevations and the creation of the terraced sidewalk system does Page 6 of 39 not diminish the dramatic improvement to the pedestrian environment along Water Street and Van Ness Avenue. Ashland Modified Flood Hazards Overlay Development Standards: According to the adopted maps there the Ashland Modified Flood Zone which requires that the buildings comply with the standards of AMC 15.10 for floodproofing in the flood plains. The buildings and parking area improvements within the flood zone are proposed to comply with the standards of AMC 15.10 and AMC 18.3.10.080. Phase one improvements to the public street frontage including tree removal, public infrastructure including utilities and sidewalk are within the Ashland Flood zone The parking area improvements will be to the rear of the future buildings in the flood zone and will not include improvements subject to the forces of potential floodwaters. The finished floor elevations of the concept subdivision site plan demonstrate adequate finished floor heights to comply with the minimum flood zone elevations. The buildings within the flood zone will have individual Site Review approvals. The Ashland Modified Floodplain Corridor map depicts the flood level as 1845.5 -feet at the intersection of Water and Van Ness to 1849 -feet near the alley (south property line). The finished floor of the future buildings 7 and 8 will be raised to a finished floor elevation of 1846 -feet. This allows for the finished floor of the non-residential structure to be above the flood elevation. Access and Site Circulation: Pedestrian access to the property is via the public sidewalks on the three street frontages and from the public alley. There are pedestrian pathways connecting each building to the street with direct access from the sidewalk. Pedestrian pathways lead through the development, connecting the upper and lower areas and are connected to the sidewalks along each street. The vehicular and bicycle access to the property is provided from a driveway apron from Heiman and from the public alley on both the Heiman side of the property and from the public alley on the Water Street side of the property. Due to the topography of the alley, only pedestrian access is provided in the walkway and stairway leading from Heiman to Water Street. Water Street is proposed to be improved with new curb, gutter, eight -foot hardscape park row with street tree grates within the sidewalk. Van Ness is proposed to be improved along the majority of the frontage with the required eight -foot sidewalk, as the property and Van Ness slope uphill, to the west towards Delman Street, the proposed sidewalk is reduced in width to achieve the necessary transition Page 7 of 39 between the subject property and the property to the west at 160 Heiman Street. With the modified finished floor elevation, there is a five -foot -wide (minimum width) raised sidewalk that transitions from sidewalk ramps on either end of the building and to the stair from the intersection. The alley is proposed to be improved with 16 -feet of paving from Water Street to the base of the stair for the pedestrian connection up to the grade of the alley as it continues to Heiman Street. From the top of the stair, the alley will be paved to the required width to its intersection with Heiman Street. Due to the topography of the site and the grade difference between the subject property and the properties to the west, the alley cannot be improved to have vehicular traffic, to provide a pedestrian connection, a stairway is proposed. Parking: The subdivision proposal includes a surface parking area that accommodates 19 vehicles including two ADA accessible parking spaces with off-loading zones. The uses of the ground floor are anticipated as general office space at this time though. The upper parking area associated with Phase One development includes five (5) surface parking spaces and the lower parking area of five (5) surface parking spaces north of the alley. The parking area will be used in -common and will have recorded joint access, use and parking agreements. Due to phasing requirements, staging and parking for construction vehicles, the lower level which has more of the parking area is in Phase Two. To remedy this, the lower level of commercial spaces will remain unoccupied and no occupancy approvals for finished spaces until the lower parking area is completed. There are two parking spaces per residential unit required. These are provided within the garages on the ground floor of each building. Phase One accommodates for all required residential parking within the buildings. There are 12 bicycle parking spaces provided for in Phase One. These are within the plaza area, adjacent to the vehicle parking area and in front of proposed building ##2. The proposed development requires 16 bicycle parking spaces for commercial uses and 16 bicycle parking spaces for the residences. The residential parking is provided for within the garages. , The request included a Parking Management proposal as permitted in AMC 18.4.3.060 and the approved application reduced the off-street parking spaces through use of credits for on -street parking. The proposed parking lot design and construction for the new surface parking area will comply with the standards from AMC 18.4.3.080.B. Page 8 of 39 Site Design Review: There are eight total building lots proposed. Each of the lots is proposed to have a commercial building with residential units on the second and third story. Each building is proposed as shared wall, two --unit, ground floor commercial office, with two -unit, three bedroom, residences above. There are 16 residential units above ground floor commercial spaces. Seven of the eight buildings are directly adjacent to the public streets and direct connections from the public sidewalks to the entrance of the commercial spaces is provided. One building is behind a street facing building. This building is accessed from the pedestrian walkways that connect to the public sidewalk. As proposed, the 65 percent of the ground floor of each proposed building is commercial with between 1500 —1700 square feet of commercial space, 35 percent of the ground floor is solely residential use. All proposed parking is to the side and rear of the buildings. The residential parking is within the footprints of the buildings in enclosed garages. Bicycle parking is provided throughout the property and racks are shown in specific locations on the site plans. Trees and Landscaping: The development of the site required a comprehensive review of the sites trees, their conditions and their suitability for conservation in the project. Due the factors, specifically types of trees, location of trees in proximity to development, the proposal seeks to removal all of the site's trees and the trees in the public right-of-way. The landscape plan uses a variety of deciduous shade trees, shrubs, and ground covers. using water conserving landscape and irrigation design, the proposed landscape plan and the future irrigation plan can demonstrate compliance with the standards. 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. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 9 of 39 Chapter 18.5.3 LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 18.5.3.030 Preliminary Plat Approval Process A. Review of Preliminary Plat. 2. Subdivisions. Preliminary plats for subdivisions are subject to the approval criteria in section 18.5.3.050 and are reviewed through the Type II procedure, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060. Finding: The proposal is for a Type II review of a phased, eight lot, commercial subdivision. B. Modifications. The applicant may request changes to the approved preliminary plat or conditions of approval following the procedures and criteria provided in chapter 18.5.6, Modifications to Approved Planning Applications. See also subsection 18.5.3.020.F, Minor Amendments. Finding: This application is the first requested subdivision of the property. C. Phased Subdivision. The Planning Commission may approve plans for phasing a subdivision, and changes to approved phasing plans, provided applicant's proposal meets all of the following criteria: Finding The proposal is for a two phase subdivision. 1. The proposed phasing schedule shall be reviewed with the preliminary subdivision plat application. Finding: the proposed phasing divides the property in two portions with Phase One proposed for the upper half of the property bound by Heiman St and Van Ness Avenue. This allows for the staging of the demolition and construction crews and equipment, provides a work area, including material storage and parking areas for the contractors. Phase One includes the public infrastructure and street frontage improvements. Due to the parking area completion less than the required number of spaces for Phase One, in Phase One, the property owner suggests that the buildings 4 and 5 are shell space until adequate parking is developed in conjunction with Phase Two. 2. Commission approval is required for modifications to phasing plans. Page 10 of 39 Finding: This is the first request for phased development of the site. 3. The required improvements (i.e., utilities, streets) for the first subdivision phase shall be installed or bonded for within 18 months of the approval of the preliminary plat, except when an extension of the preliminary plat is granted pursuant to section 18.1.6.040. Finding: The required improvements for the entire subdivision including infrastructure and utility connections are proposed with Phase One. Phase One also includes the upper parking area, and plaza area. 4. Public facilities and common open spaces shall be constructed in conjunction with or prior to each phase. Phase One also includes substantial public infrastructure improvements within the public right of way including new curb, gutter, sidewalk, street trees and on -street parking bay on Van Ness are proposed to be installed in Phase One. 5. The final plat for the first phase shall be approved within 18 months of the approval of the preliminary plat, except when extension of the preliminary plat is granted pursuant to section 18.1.6.040. Finding. The final plat for Phase One will be sought within less than 18 months of the approval of the preliminary plat unless extension is requested. 1.8.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: The proposed subdivision provides a conceptual development plan for the entire property divided into two development areas. The upper portion of the property is proposed as Phase One and Site Design Review applications accompany this subdivision request. Phase Two is proposed for the lower portion Page 11 of 39 of the property, the proposed subdivision layout and infrastructure extensions enhances the ability to develop the remainder of the tract (Phase Two) for urban purposes. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Finding: The proposed subdivision does not impede the development of the adjoining land or access thereto. The proposed subdivision will improve the access through the development of the alley. The upper portion of the alley adjacent to Phase One has an existing easement benefitting a property to the south, the proposed subdivision and phased development plan retains this access, and it will not be impeded with the proposed subdivision. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. Finding: There are no known city adopted neighborhood plans or district plans that impact the subdivision of the property. The previous approvals for the properties have expired. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). Finding: There are eight (8) proposed lots in the Magnolia Terrace Subdivision. The property is zoned Employment (E-1) and has the Residential Overlay, the Detail Site Review Overlay, Physical Constraints Overlay for development in the Ashland Modified flood protection zone and subject to Historic District design requirements. The proposed lots comply with the minimum requirements of the Employment zone. The proposed subdivision provides for depth and width of properties for commercial uses that are adequate to provide for parking areas and adequate are for the uses contemplated. Page 12 of 39 18.2.6 STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES 18.2.6 sets forth lot and development standards, including minimum dimensions, area, density, coverage, structure height, and other provisions that control the intensity, scale, and location of development, for Ashland's base employment zones, pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this ordinance. Finding: According to AMC 18.2.6.030. there are no minimum lot area, width or depth, or maximum lot coverage; or minimum front, side, or rear yard, except as required to comply with the special district and overlay zone provisions of part 18.3 or the site development and design standards of part 18.4. The Magnolia Terrace Subdivision provides for adequate parking for the entire eight lot, mixed use commercial development. The subdivision phasing of construction and occupancy of buildings in Phase One that require parking in Phase Two area demonstrates compliance with the design standards of 18.4. See additional findings in the Site Design Review applications. The proposed residential density is 16 units which complies with density standards (1.18 X 15 du/ac = 17.7 -unit potential). Lot Areas: Lot 1: 4,203 square foot corner lot. Lot 1 has 72.65 feet of frontage upon Van Ness and 65.24 feet of frontage on Heiman Street. Lot 2: 6,765 square foot lot to the east of Lot 1. Lot 2 has 68.02 feet of frontage on Van Ness and extends approximately 100 -feet to the south. Lot 3: 3,990 square foot lot to the south of Lot 1. Lot 3 has 70 feet if frontage on Heiman Street and extends 57 feet to the east. The driveway leading to the shared parking area is shared upon Lots 1 and 3. Lot 4: 3,696 square foot lot north of the intersection of the alley and Heiman Street. The lot has 64.49 feet of frontage upon Helman Street and extends 57 feet to the east. Lot 5: 9,835 square foot lot to the east of Lots 3 and 4. This lot is 108.19 by approximately 84.09 feet. Lot 6: 6,821 square foot lot. This lot has 71.80 feet of width and extends 95 -feet deep. Lot 7: 6,681 square foot lot at the intersection of Water Street and Van Ness. This lot has 48.94 feet of frontage upon Van Ness, 54.65 feet of frontage upon Water Street and extended approximately 95 feet deep. Page 13 of 39 Lot 8: 9,651 square foot lot northwest of the Water Street and public alley intersection. Lot 8 has 82.72 feet of frontage upon Water Street and extends approximately 120 -feet to the west. The proposed subdivision preliminary plat includes Public Pedestrian Access easements along Water Street and Van Ness to provide adequate width to provide public sidewalk and street tree planter strips. There are blanket types of easements to address cross access of the parking areas, walkways, and utilities. Findings addressing the Overlay Zones: 18.3 Special Districts and Overlay Zones: 18.310 Physical Constraints Overlay 18.310.060 Land Classifications D. Severe Constraint Lands. The following lands are classified as Severe Constraint Lands, which have characteristics that severely limit normal development. 2. All lands with a slope greater than 35 percent. Finding: There is an embankment along the west property line that is more than 35 percent slope. This embankment was first created to provide a diversion to irrigation waters, later a railroad spur was atop the embankment. This is not a natural topographical feature and has been substantially altered over the years. 18.3.X0.] 10 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands Finding: Bisecting the properties, there is an area of more than 35 percent slopes. Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E. from Marquess and Associates, LLC has reviewed the steep slope along the west property line. No slope failure or seepage were evident. The soil type, Camas -Newberg -Evans and Sheffelin Loam are both stable soil types found throughout the area. The Geo -Tech provided an assessment that the slope is stable and that with appropriate engineering, the retaining wall and construction of the structure will further stabilize the topography. There is currently a retaining wall on the public alley and the adjacent property to the south along the same hillside. These retaining walls do not exhibit any evidence of failure. The Geo-Tech's evaluation letter is attached. 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands Fines The grading, retaining wall and structure design, drainage and erosion control plans are designed by Structural and Civil Engineers with review by a geotechnical expert (geo-techs Page 14 of 39 don't typically design). All cuts, grading and if any fill proposed will conform to the applicable building code. The proposed for the parking area and the structural retaining wall of the building on Lot 2, construction would be one of the first site improvements and ideally the construction would begin in May and end prior to October 31. No exposed cut slopes are proposed. Steep slope is retained with the structural retaining wall for the parking area and the foundation stem walls of the future buildings on Lots 2 and 5. The intent of the hillside ordinance is to reduce the massing and to keep the structure low on the hills to limit houses from sticking out of the hillside above town. The applicability of this section is questionable as the intent of Employment Zoned lands is to develop the site to the highest and best use. The majority of the hillside lots the ordinance addresses are the steep, residentially zoned slopes south of Siskiyou Boulevard. Keeping commercial development away from the hillside (minimum of ten feet per the Geotech) would reduce the developable area of the Employment Zoned land substantially and render it largely undevelopable. There are no unstable or hazardous areas of the site. To reduce the visual bulk of the retaining wall, a living, green screen is proposed in front of the retaining wall adjacent to the walkway. It can be found on the proposed preliminary Civil Engineering plans, collection and treatment of new impervious surface runoff from the development complies with the standards for surface, ground water and storm water treatment. As proposed, storm water facilities for the new driveways, parking areas and roof drain systems can be accommodated on the site and released into the City of Ashland approved destination point in accordance with the Storm Water Facility Design Requirements. Storm drainage will be installed as part subsurface site preparation for the underground parking and therefore, one of the first improvements constructed on the site. The surface parking area and driveway are proposed to drain first to a parking lot swales for treatment of the surface generated storm water as a result of the site development. This flow retarding system is intended to minimize increases in run-off volume and peak flow rate. All storm water drainage has been designed by a Civil Engineer with the consultation of the Geo -Technical Expert and the project Structural Engineer. The soil types, Camas -Newberg -Evans and Schefflin Loam have little erosive qualities and are not soil types typically found on Ashland's hillsides where highly erosive decomposed granite is the predominant soil material. Page 15 of 39 The geotechnical expert will inspect the site and provide a final report to the City of Ashland as requested. The report will indicate that the approved grading, drainage, and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans and the scheduled inspections periodically throughout the project. AMC 18.3.10.090. H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: The site is zoned Employment and is unique in that there are no other Hillside Lands and the area of steep slope is isolated along a former property line. In order to develop the site in accordance with the standards for the Site Review and Historic District Design Standards, encroachment into the steep slopes is necessary. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. Finding: The proposed exception for the retaining wall along the parking area to be structurally retained instead of unretained loose soil. The retaining provide protection to the subject property that is "down slope" of the unretained slope. The steep slope area is within the footprints of the buildings and the parking area. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty in not developing the property in accordance with the standards from the Site Review and Historic District Design Standards. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.1.0 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. Finding The proposed exception is consistent with the purpose and intent of the chapter and ensures the development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower slopes as there are none, Page 16 of 39 and prevents slide damage. The development standards for hillside lands appear to be focused primary on retention of the natural hillsides and the retention of the natural slopes. The "natural" physiographic conditions of the site that created the embankment are called into question as there has been documented development on the property as long as there has been a City of Ashland. 18.3.10.080 Floodplain Development Finding: The applicable overlay zones include the Ashland Modified Flood zone adjacent to the Water Street frontage (AMC 18.3.10.080). This overlay zone requires raised finished floors or flood proofing of the future buildings. The subdivision proposal demonstrates general compliance. The future Site Design Review proposals for the development of Lots 7 or 8 will demonstrate compliance with the requirements from AMC 15.10 for development within a mapped flood protection zone (AMC 18.3.10.808.C.). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. Finding::. Each lot is proposed to have vehicular access from the shared parking area access from Heiman Street driveway apron, from the upper portion of the public alley to the south of .proposed Lots 4 and 5. The Phase Two portion of the property takes all vehicular access from the public alley access from Water Street that will be improved to 16 -feet paved width. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. Finding The proposed street generally comply with the standards from AMC 18.4. and the proposed public infrastructure improvements conform to the street standards and seeks exception where the standards are not met. All proposed public improvements and dedications are shown on the preliminary plat reaps. 11. Unpaved Streets. Page 17 of 39 Finding: Not applicable I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding: There is an alley adjacent to the property. Lot 5 vehicular access is from the alley accessed from Helman Street. Lots 6, 7 and 8 take vehicular access from the alley that is accessed from the Water Street side of the property. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Finding: Any state or federal permits that may be required will be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.53.060. Finding: No flag lots are proposed with the subdivision. There are no minimum lot areas, lot widths, lot depths, etc. in the E-1 zone and it does not appear a flag lot is required in any instance. Page 18 of 39 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. Finding: The proposal addresses Site Design Review criteria for the site as a planned subdivision with a phased development review. The Detail Site Review standards and Historic District Design Standards are addressed on the following pages. The buildings are each similar in their design and individual site review findings for each structure are not provided. Each building is discussed in the findings with respect to compliance with the standards. Each building complies with the standards and adherence to the standards are outlined on each buildings plan set. 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: This proposal includes Site Development Design review approval request for five of the eight buildings proposed in the Magnolia Terrace Subdivision. The proposal complies the standards from 18.2. There are no minimum lot areas and dimensions required in the zone. The property is zoned Employment (E-1). The proposed uses of the buildings as commercial office use is a permitted use, and the residential portions are a special permitted use. The proposed subdivision area of the Magnolia Heights Subdivision complies with the maximum lot coverage allowed in the E-1 zone. LOT COVERAGE SITE AREA: 51,897 BUILDING FOOTPRINTS: 2,565 SQ. FT. X 8 = 20,520 UPPER PARKING: 9,249 LOWER PARKING: 7,478 PEDESTRIAN PLAZAS/PATHS: 3,087 TOTAL COVERAGE: 40,334 40,334/51..,897 = 77.7% The proposed buildings are each 38 -feet, flinches from ridge to grade. Page 19 of 39 The proposed buildings within the Magnolia Heights Subdivision complies with the Floor Area Ratio Standards. The five buildings proposed within this application exceed the required minimum FAR of .50, see Detail Site Review findings on the following pages. 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 1$.3.13 Residential Overlay. Finding: The Employment (E-1) Zoned property is within the Residential Overlay. B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards: 1. if there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. Finding: There are eight separate buildings proposed in the phased subdivision. Each of the buildings includes a floor area that has 65 percent of the floor area devoted to commercial use and 35 percent or less as residential use. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1 zone, 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C -1-D zone. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. Finding: The proposal has 16 residential dwelling units which is less than the allowed density. (1.18 X 15 = 17.7 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 residences are the same as those of the underlying zone. 4. Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C -1-D zone. Finding: Page 20 of 39 Off-street parking for the residences has been provided for each of the dwellings within the enclosed ground floor garage space. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The property is subject to the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review, Basic and Detail Site Design Review and Historic District Standards. As evidenced in the findings approved in 2017, and in the supplemental information from the Geo -Tech, preliminary Civil Engineering and Structural Engineering it can be found that the proposed development complies with the development of a commercial building within the Ashland Modified Floodplain, but outside of the FEMA floodplain and complies with the development standards for Severe Constraints due to the slope of the property. The findings from the subdivision criteria address the physical constraints. The proposed development complies with the Site Development and Design Overlays including Detail Site Review and Historic District Development standards. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 1.8.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. 18.4.2.040 Non -Residential Development Finding: The proposed development of the Employment zoned land with a mixed-use commercial subdivision will have a positive impact upon the streetscapes of Heiman Street, Water Street and Van Ness Streets. Each of the five proposed buildings are proposed to have a minimal setback, only to achieve door swing and alcove to provide pedestrian cover. Outdoor spaces for pedestrian activity and outdoor seating areas for guests, customers and tenants of the building are proposed that will improve the projects appearance and site amenities. Landscaping is proposed to enhance the site and provide screening of the parking lot and trees to provide cooling of the surface parking areas. The proposed public infrastructure improvements will enhance the pedestrian environment and will improve bicycle transit by providing an abundance of bicycle parking facilities. The proposed buildings are each designed to be consistent with the highest standards for compliance with the Detail Site Review, Large Scale Building and Historic District Design Standards even though the site is on lower order, less traveled City streets adjacent to the railroad tracks. Page 21 of 39 B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. Finding: The proposed buildings are clearly oriented towards the public streets excepting Building 5 which does not front upon a public street. Buildings 1 — 4, 6 .... S all have primary orientation towards the street upon which the building fronts. No parking is proposed between the buildings and the streets, all on-site parking is behind the fagade of the structures. The ADA offloading zone is adjacent to the sidewalk on the Water Street side of the property where the parking spaces are nearest the public right-of-way. The proposed buildings occupy the majority of the three street frontages. There are gaps created between the buildings that are limited to the minimum setback to have openings in proximity to the property line. The other separation is where the driveway access to the site from Helman Street is proposed. The building entrances on each structure are within 20 -feet of the right of way. Each building has a public pedestrian business entrances that are clearly visible, include lighting, pedestrian covering and changes in materials to emphasize the entrances. Lot 1 is a corner lot. The building in this site review, building 1 on proposed Lot 1 is oriented towards the intersection with an entrance from each street frontage. Public sidewalks are proposed along the public street frontages, pedestrian walkways are provided for each business entrance from the public pedestrian sidewalks. 2. Streetscape. Finding. One street tree for every 30 -feet of frontage in compliance with the spacing standards for street trees have been provided. See preliminary landscape plan sheet L.I. 3. Landscaping. Finding: The proposed landscaping complies with the minimum standards, and slightly more than 15 percent of the site has been provided as landscape area. A recycle and refuse area that will be screened in accordance with the standards from AMC 18.4.4 is proposed adjacent to the dedicated easement for the adjacent property to the south. This is accessible from the alley. Another screened trash/recycle enclosure area is proposed within the parking area of Phase 2. Page 22 of 39 More than seven percent of the parking lot area has landscaped areas. There are parking lot shade trees provided for every seven parking spaces. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Finding: Not applicable 5. Noise and Glare. Finding: All artificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050. New Sternberg Commercial streetlights are proposed at the intersections of the public streets and on Water Street at the intersection of the alley. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Finding: Not applicable C. Detailed Site Review Standards. Finding: The subject property is within the Detailed Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. FIoor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Finding. The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) exceeds .50. The proposed total area of the first five buildings is 34,173 square feet which is more than the minimum FAR 25,948.5 square feet. Though not designed, it is assumed that the Phase 2 buildings will be roughly the same dimensions and area as the buildings in Phase 1. b. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building fagade. Finding': Page 23 of 39 The frontage of each individual building is less than 100 -feet in length. The building frontages include distinctive changes in the buildings facade relief. c. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public or common open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40 percent of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. Finding: Excepting Building 5, buildings 1— 4 are within 30 -feet of the street. Each building includes more than 20 -percent of the walls facing public street as having windows and doorways which allow view into the working areas of the commercial buildings. The building plan sets provide detailed summaries of each building fagade and the areas of glazing, and fagade treatment variations. Building 5 is accessible from the upper plaza area and the front of that building exceeds 20 - percent of the wall area will have windows that allow view into the working area. d. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Finding: The architectural plan sheets provide the areas of the changes in mass, surface materials and finishes to provide emphasis on the entrances. All buildings have substantial pedestrain cover over the entrances. e. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. Finding: The proposed buildings are directly adjacent to the public sidewalk. Where building 5 does not have direct connection to the public street, there is pedestrian access through the subdivision and the entrance to the commercial space is from the plaza area. f. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Finding: Page 24 of 39 The proposed buildings incorporate a substantial overhang that is created by the deck above and a steel overhang to provide a seven foot cover for pedestrians from rain and sun. 2. Streetscape. a. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasserete, or combinations of the above. Finding: Colored and scored concrete are proposed to designate people areas for both the sidewalks and the plaza area in Phase One and the walkway and future plaza area in Phase 2. b. A building shall be set back not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility casement. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65 percent of the aggregate building frontage shall be within five feet of the sidewalk. Finding: The buildings proposed in the subdivision, except Building 5 are not setback more than five feet from the public sidewalk. More than 65 percent of the building frontages are within five -feet of the sidewalk. 3. Buffering and Screening. a. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Finding: There are no incompatible uses on the adjacent properties that need to be buffered. b. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets, and screened from residentially zoned land. Finding: The parking area in the lower portion of the property adjacent to the alley has a five-foot landscape buffer between the parking space and the sidewalk. 4. Building Materials. Page 25 of 39 a. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area. Finding: See the detailed architectural plans for the exact numbers relating to the changes in relief on the facades, but each building is designed with changes in relief that exceed 15 percent of the exterior wall area. b. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Finding: Not applicable. There are no bright or neon colors. Though there is a substantial area of glazing, the glazing does not occupy most of the building fagade. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. 1. Orientation and Scale. a. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. Finding: There are eight total buildings within the Magnolia Heights Subdivision. This application proposed Site Design Review approval for five of the buildings. Each building has a facade length of substantially less than 100 -feet. Each buildings facade is divided into two distinct masses with changes in relief at the lower level to develop a human scale design. There are changes in materials, directions of materials, clearly commercial types of windows and doors and each building has signage area and lighting to provide emphasis on the entrance the commercial development. The building massing is divided vertically with changes in relief and massing to minimize the bulk of the second and third floors. b. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall conform to the following standards: i. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. Finding Page 26 of 39 Not applicable. ii. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. Finding: There are no buildings that exceed 45,000 square feet. There are five separate buildings proposed with this application. Building 1— 7,156 SF, Building 2 — 5,749 SF, Building 3 and 4 7,156 SF and Building 5 is 6,959 SF. The buildings are not touching and the interior plaza area is not bound on three or more sides. iii. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, "basement" means any floor level below the first story in a building. "First story" shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. Finding: Not applicable iv. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. Finding. At no point is the property 300 -feet in length, thus there are no contiguous building lengths of 300 -feet proposed. 2. Detail Site Review Plaza Space Standards. a. One square foot of plaza space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth gross floor area. Finding: Building 1— 7,156 SF, Building 2 --5,749 SF, Building 3 and 4 7,156 SF and Building 5 is 6,959 SF. Buildings 6 -- 8 are conceptually 7,156 square feet in area. The total gross floor area is 56,241 square feet. This required outdoor plaza space is required to be 5,624 square feet. There is 3,087 square feet proposed and exception to provide less plaza area is proposed. Page 27 of 39 b. Within the C -1-D zone, or Downtown Design Standards overlay, no plaza space shall be required. Finding: Not applicable. c. A plaza space shall incorporate at least four of the following elements: i. Sitting Space -- at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. Finding: There are sitting areas within the plaza area in the form of poured in place concrete setwalls, dining tables and chairs. ii. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade. Finding: The plaza areas are on the north side of Building 5 which will have afternoon shade and morning sun, The plaza area in front of building iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings. Finding: The locations of the plaza areas are all protected from wind by the buildings. iv. Trees — provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at least two inches in diameter at breast height. Finding: Trees meeting this standard are provided on the landscape plan. Y. Water features or public art. Finding: Not applicable. vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors. Finding: Page 28 of 39 No dining areas are proposed, but outdoor seating area for residents and tenants of the commercial space is provided. 3. Transit Amenities. Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation flan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Finding; Not applicable. 18.4.2.050 Historic District Development The subject property is at the northeast corner of the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The property across Water Street is the northwest corner of the Railroad Historic District. The proposed buildings incorporate the main architectural themes found in Ashland's historic districts but are not an imitation of a specific architectural style. The standards speak to a comparison of historic buildings in the vicinity. B. Historic District Design Standards. 1. Transitional Areas. Finding: The property is located that the boundary of the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and the Detail Site Review zone. The proposed building has numerous traditional, architectural elements and materials, the scale, form, massing and some of the material elements are more industrial / modern styling. It can be found that the proposed buildings area architecturally compatible with the historic district design standards when considering the property location at the boundary of the district. The Historic District Design Standards are primarily a contrast and comparison of the proposed site development and the development on immediately adjacent properties. The adjacent properties, and those within the 200 -foot impact area, are underdeveloped, partially vacant or utilized as a non -conforming use such as, residences in the E-1 zone. Additionally, the graphics provided within the Historic District Design Standards are of residential properties and do not translate easily to commercial development. This complicates that comparisons necessary by code. It can be found that the each proposed building incorporates a number of the historic district design standard objectives such as sense of entry, provision of a base, fenestrations, a rhythm of openings, smaller masses to reduce bulk and scale. 2. Height. Finding: Page 29 of 39 The buildings propose each have three stories and an average height less than 40 -feet with 38.5 feet from the peak of the ridge to grade. The proposed buildings are below the maximum allowed building height in the Employment zone. 3. Scale. Fin, dire: The scale of the development is appropriate for an Employment zoned property that has three street frontages and more than one acre in area. The buildings are divided into smaller facade widths with a 12 -foot separation between the structures. The nearest commercial developments can be found on Central Avenue. The Ashland Creek Condominiums and the Plaza Inn and Suites on the south side of Central, are just over 200 -feet away, too far to adequately judge scale. (Plaza Inn and Suites is 58,578 square feet in area and Ashland Creek Condominiums is 42,224 square feet in area). A graphical representation is provided on page A0.3 and A0.4 the Architectural renderings that depicts the proposed development with the referenced commercial structures and properties. 4. Massing. Fines The proposed buildings are each a smaller width structure with varied massing. The proposed architecture is similar to the residentially inspired Plaza Inn and Suites yet as evidenced in the submittal's materials; the proposed structures are more consistent with historically contextual commercial architecture. The recessed entrances covered pedestrian areas, wide sidewalks, street trees all provide visual relief and reduce the massing. The proposed vertical and horizontal rhythms of each building are symmetrical. 5. Setback. Finding: The proposed buildings are each setback the maximum allowed by the municipal code. Buildings 1, 2 and 4 are setback the minimum distance to allow for door swing. Building 3 is proposed to be setback approximately eight -feet to provide a pedestrian plaza area. The maximum setback from the public sidewalk in the Detail Site Review overlay is five feet, the proposed setbacks are only more than five feet when a pedestrain plaza area is provided between the building and the street. Page 30 of 39 6. Roof. Finding: The roof shape, pitch and materials of the five buildings proposed for construction are consistent with the buildings in the vicinity. There are no commercial buildings immediately adjacent, but the material (metal) is found on the existing roof of the Pyramid Juice building and on the industrial buildings across the railroad tracks. 7. Rhythm of Openings. Finding: The proposed pattern of wall to door and window openings on the street frontages is clearly defined. Each building has a rhythm of openings and each building is divided into two separate masses. The proposed window and door patterns are compatible with a width to height ratio maintained across the facade of each proposed building. 8. Base or Platforms. Finding: The proposed buildings have different types of windows and door openings and in some instances the windows extend to the floor level and some of the buildings have more pronounce four -foot base with siding or stucco materials to differentiate the base from the reminder of the structure. 9. Form. Finding: The each of the proposed buildings has a form that is consistent with commercial development and the design add visual interest. Each of the proposed buildings incorporates changes in mass on the exterior with columns, framed bays, transoms, and windows to create multiple surface levels. There is a clear visual division shall be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. 10. Entrances. Finding: Page 31 of 39 Each building has a well-defined, covered, recessed, primary entrances are provided into each commercial tenant spaces that abut the street frontages. Awnings and marquees are proposed to emphasize the entrances. 11. Imitation of Historic Features. Finding: The proposed building design of each structure is consistent with this standard. The proposed buildings are clearly contemporary in design while providing historical context with the incorporation of materials and architectural elements found on commercial buildings in Ashland's historic districts. 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: The proposed development requires 15.72 vehicle parking spaces for commercial uses in Phase One and an additional 9.198 parking spaces for commercial office use in Phase Two. There are 24.91 parking spaces required for commercial office use. There are 32 parking spaces required for the two/three bedroom residences. These are provided for in the garages. The proposed parking area provide for a total of 17 or the 25 commercial automobile parking spaces on-site. Commercial requires 16 bicycle parking spaces. Thre is a 10 space rack near the plaza area and additional racks provided near the fronts of the buildings. The residential uses require 16 bicycle parking sapces. They are within the garages. 18.4.3.460 Parking Management Strategies A. On -Street Parking Credit. Credit for on -street parking spaces may reduce the required off- street parking spaces up to 50 percent, as follows. 1. Credit. One off-street parking space credit for one on -street parking space Finding; The proposal seeks to reduce parking by 32 percent through the use of on -street parking credits. The property owner is making substantial improvements to three public street frontages including relocating the curb on Van Ness to provide on -street parking. There is usually an abundance of parking available in the neighborhood. With the proposed Van Ness Street improvements, seven on -street parking spaces will be created. This is in addition to the five on -street spaces on Water Street and the seven present on Heiman Street. The requested reduction in the on-site parking spaces will not have a substantial impact as development in the immediate vicinity is very low and on -street parking is not in demand along Page 32 of 39 the frontages of the property at the same capascity as the on -street parking demands found on the properties to the south of Central Avenue. The property has a Walkscore of nearly 90. That means it is a highly walkable area and most do not need vehicles for short trips. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location Finding_ The proposed parking areas are to the side and rear of the buildings. There is no parking between the buildings and the street. B. Parking Area Design. Finding: The required parking area is proposed to be designed in accordance with the standards. The proposed parking spaces are 9 X 18 with up to 50 percent of the provided parking spaces as compact. The parking spaces have the required 22 -foot back up. All of the parking areas (defined per 18.6.1.030 - Parking Area or Lot. Any area inside, under, or outside of a building or structure, designed and used for parking motor vehicles, including parking lots, garages, or structures.) are proposed as pervious surfaces. This is to minimize the adverse environmental impacts. The parking areas are designed to capture and treat surface run-off through a landscape swale. 18.4.6.020 Public Facilities B. Exceptions and Variances. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. Finding: An exception to Street Design Standards for to have street tree bump outs into the right-of-way on Van Ness is proposed. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: Van Ness steep has a fairly steep grade and the proposal is to construct on -street parking bay adjacent to the sidewalk. When parking bays are cut into the properties, often there is a loss of area for street trees. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity Page 33 of 39 considering the following factors where applicable. The connectivity of the property and the neighborhood will have superior transportation facilities through the installation of sidewalk to city standards on Water Street along the frontage of the property. The smaller street tree trees will provide equal transportation facilities. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. Finding: Helman, Van Ness and Water Streets are both `shared' streets without dedicated bicycle lanes. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the bicycle facilities. The provision of ample, secure bicycle parking facilities will encourage employees of the commercial uses of the site to utilize alternate transportation over vehicles. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. Finding,: The proposed street improvements to three public streets substantially improves the pedestrian facilities. The proposal is to add sidewalks where none currently exist on Water Street, and to widen the sidewalk on Van Ness and provide an on - street parking bay. Street trees are proposed on all street frontages. The proposal is to allow bump outs into the street where street trees can grow on Van Ness. The proposed improvements improve the comfort level of walking along the streets and provides a safer pedestrian access. The requested exception to the allow street trees as bump outs into the public right-of-way increases the comfort level of walking along the roadway because additional buffering from the vehicles driving on Van Ness is proposed. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding: Page 34 of 39 The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of having a parking bay which typically would result in a loss of street trees. The proposed bump outs into the right-of-way for the trees provide adequate growth area and provide traffic calming and shading of the street by the proposed street trees. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Finding: The purpose and intent contains standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street improvements including installation of new street trees. The proposal provides street trees in slightly different manner than required by code within a parkrow or within a tree well. Installation of sidewalks on three streets, street trees and ADA accessible crossings greatly improving the pedestrian experience along the frontages of the property. 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. Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed development. Water: There is an existing 16 -inch water main in Water Street. There is also a 16 -inch main in Van Ness and a four inch water main in Helman Street. The new water services are proposed adjacent to the street frontages with four meters per structure proposed. There is a fire hydrant on Water Street and another fire hydrant across Heiman Street from the subject property. The water line sizes and pressures are substantial enough to comply with the water needs for the new structure. Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight -inch sanitary sewer line in the Water Street In discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, there are no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines. New sewer connections will be made to connect the proposed structure to the public infrastructure. Electrical: Substantial upgrades are required to the electrical infrastructure. The primary power will come from a pole on Heiman and Van Ness. A new transformer will be installed behind the sidewalk adjacent on the east side of Lot 3, this will connect to a new junction box that is proposed to be located on the south side of the alley public alley. A public utility easement will be provided for all public utilities that are on the private property. Page 35 of 39 Storm Sewer: There is a 12 -inch Storm sewer main in Van Ness Street and a 10 -inch main in Water. In consultation with the Street Division, there are no capacity issues with the city's facilities. When considering that post development peak flows are not to exceed pre -development peak flows, there should be little discernable impacts on the storm sewer facilitates. Transportation. According the Transportation System Plan, both Water and Van Ness Water Street are classified as Neighborhood Collectors. This street classification anticipates less than 1,500 ADT and are meant to provide access to residential and neighborhood commercial areas. Helman Street is classified as an avenue. Heiman Street is unproved with landscape park row and sidewalk. This historic development pattern is proposed to be retained and new street trees are proposed within the reconstructed park row. Water Street has a 40 -foot right-of-way and has a varied improved width. Water Street is currently "improved" with curb, gutter on the subject property side of the street (west) and curb, gutter, and a five-foot curbside sidewalk the east side of Water Street. Across from the subject property there is an on -street parking bay near the driveway that accesses the surface parking area for the residence at 16 Van Ness. The proposal is to upgrade Water Street with five-foot hardscape park row constructed of a pervious surface and eight feet of sidewalk. A public pedestrian access easement will be provided to provide the required pedestrian access across the property. Van Ness Street has a variable width right-of-way with 60 -feet of ROW at the west side of the property and reduces to 40 -feet at the intersection of Van Ness and Water Street. Van Ness, is improved with curb, gutter and a four -foot curbside sidewalk. The proposal is for the majority of the sidewalk along the frontage of the proposed building to comply with the standards (five-foot hardscape park row and an eight -foot sidewalk). The sidewalk is proposed to transition to a five-foot curbside adjacent to the new, on -street parking parallel parking spaces that will be constructed along Van Ness. Where the parking bay is proposed, the street trees are proposed as bumpouts into Van Ness Street. The public alley along the south side of the property cannot be completed through to Helman Street due to the topography is proposed to have a pedestrian stairway to provide pedestrian access to and through the development. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed by Kelly Sandow from Sandow Engineering with the following summary: All intersections operate within the mobility standards with the exception of Water Street/Main Street. The Water St / North Main Street intersection approach does not meet standards in the future year condition with the development in place. The simple mitigation is to restripe the approach to be two lanes with a separate left and through lane. Page 36 of 39 The previous TIA was reviewed by the City of Ashland Public Works Division and comments and concerns were provided in response that expressed concerns regarding the inability to stripe Water Street to afford necessary future year condition, The revised TIA has not yet been reviewed. The comments from the City discussed a planned improvement of a traffic light to be partially funded through the ODOT ARTS program and that the light is the preferred mitigation. As addressed by the Traffic Engineer, the proposed development increases traffic at the intersection by less than two percent. Any recommended financial contributions to the light to cover the difference between the grant funding and the City's proportional share should not exceed that of the cost of striping. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 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 Tree Removal Request 1.8.5.7.040 Approval Criteria B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Finding: There are 20 trees proposed for removal that are within or directly adjacent to the subject property that are proposed for removal. The site is proposed to be fully redeveloped with commercial structures and required parking areas. The amount of site work required to achieve the level of development required in the commercial zone, often necessitates the removal trees that are within the buildable areas of the property. The trees are proposed for removal to permit the applicant to be consistent with other applicable ordinance requirements and standards applicable to the Site Design Standards and the Physical and Environmental Constraints ordinance. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding: The removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surfaces waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks. The areas where the trees are located, post removal will be redeveloped as part of the larger, comprehensive site development. Page 37 of 39 c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Finding: There are several hundred trees within 200 -feet of the subject property. The property is in close proximity to the heavily vegetated creek area provides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage and tree densities. The proposed site development and landscape plan replaces canopy, tree densities, sizes and species diversity. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: The residential density is not increased or decreased as a result of the tree removals. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: Mitigation trees are proposed throughout the property. There are 27 mitigation trees proposed within the parking lot and open space areas to mitigate the removal of the trees on the site. There are 16 street trees proposed. Attachments: 1) DEQ Site Clearance Letter 2) Transportation Impact from 2018 3) Application Plan Sets SV -1 Boundary and Topographic Survey SV -2 Preliminary Subdivision Map L0.1 Development Phasing Diagram L0.2 Tree Protection & Removal Plan L1.0 Landscape Site Plan 1-1.1 Phase 1 Landscape Materials Board L2.0 Tree Planting Plan Page 38 of 39 L2.1 Phase 1 Planting Plan L3.0 Stormwater Diagram C1.0 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan C2.0 Preliminary Utility Plan C3.0 Preliminary Erosion Control Plan A0.0 Comment Responses A0.1 Architectural Site Plan A0.2 Street Views A0.3 Street Elevations A0.4 Street Elevations A0.5 Typical Section (Bldg 1-8 Similar) A0.6 Phase 1 Building Materials Board A1.1 Building 1 Plans A1.2 Building 1 Plans A1.3 Building 1 Elevations A2.1 Building 2 Plans A2.2 Building 2 Plans A2.3 Building 2 Elevations A3.1 Building 3 Plans A3.2 Building 3 Plans A3.3 Building 3 Elevations A4.1 Building 4 Plans A4.2 Building 4 Plans A4.3 Building 4 Elevations A5.1 Building 5 Plans A5.2 Building 5 Plans A5.3 Building 5 Elevations H1.0 Site History H2,0 Site Context/ Historical Building Comparison Page 39 of 39 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 -T2-2022-00037 PPIy safe: 1/11/2422 Applicant: Date: °al $25,627.75 p !i111QFCi€1F�:i+�t[flFl, ry Vkppll�urr r „ 7. 391 E04CC2000 165 Water St Applicant: Date: °al $25,627.75 p !i111QFCi€1F�:i+�t[flFl, ry Vkppll�urr r „ 7. Owner: Magnolia Investment Group LLC Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development Owner 453 Tucker St Applicant 1314-B Center Dr PMB 457 Address: Ashland, OR 97520 Address: Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (510) 913-5110 Phone: (541) 951-4020 I?rraj' Eigth lot Commercial subdividion , site design for five mixed use buildings 1 i Fee Description: Amount: Commercial Site Review (Type Il) $22,260.00 Other Type II planning review $2,247.50 Physical Constraints Permit (Type 1) $1,120.25 Applicant: Date: °al $25,627.75 The comments of this pre -app are preliminary in nature and subject to change based upon the submittal of additional or different information. The Planning Commission or City Council are thefrnal decision making authority of the City, and are not bound by the comments made by the Staff as part of this pre -application. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE COMMENT SHEET July 7, 2021 SITE: 165 Water Street APPLICANT: Magnolia Investments REQUEST: Site Review, Performance Standards Options Subdivision, and P&E Permit for Floodplain Development, Tree Removal This pre -application conference is intended to highlight significant issues and bring them to the applicants' attention prior to their preparing a formal application submittal. General: The subject property presents a number of opportunities along with challenges around the floodplain, topography relative to the surround streetscape, and a location which is subject to higher level urban design standards including Detail Site Review and Historic District Development Standards. Staff looks forward to working with the applicant team as they craft a final proposal in addressing the applicable criteria and standards, which are further discussed below. Heiman Street Elevations: Generally, the building elevations along Helman Street lack a clear sense of entry or orientation to the street. While changes to the mixed use requirements for ground floor space are being discussed, staff do not anticipate that any design standards will change, and commercial streetscape treatments (i.e. strong sense of orientation to the street, sense of entry, etc.) will continue to be a focus of Site Design Review and will seek strong storefront treatments along street frontages. These buildings elevations should be looked at carefully in light of the Historic District Development Standards for Height, Scale, Massing, Roofs, Rhythm of Openings, Base, Form and Entrances and would benefit from review by the Historic Commission as designs are further developed. Building 41: It appears from the elevation drawings that Building #1 is proposed as a single -story structure without a clear sense of entry or orientation to the corner or the higher -order street (Heiman Street) and seems to conflict with the Historic District Development Standard for Height, and also seems to sit below the sidewalk which exaggerates the lacking orientation and sense of entry. Van Ness & Water Street Elevations: While it is difficult to get a clear sense of the building in two dimensions in black and white, generally it seems that the designs need to do more in emphasizing entries, providing adequate pedestrian coverings, fenestration and detail variation to address the applicable standards. 165 Water Street December 2, 2015 Page 1 Pedestrian Circulation: The final application should clearly address the Pedestrian Access and Circulation Standards in AMC 18.4.3.090, including a continuous walkway system with safe, direct and convenient connections between all entrances and adjacent streets. Lot Coverage/Parking Treatment: A maximum of 85 percent of the site may be covered, and natural landscaping is to be provided for 15 percent of the site. Landscape and screening requirements must be met, including that seven percent of the parking and circulation areas must be provided in landscaping with one parking lot tree per seven parking spaces. Parking lots must also meet the parking area design standards including addressing the micro -climatic impacts of the parking area and providing for on-site drainage in swales within the parking lot. Please identify on site plan and in text all areas of landscaping, and all impervious surfaces and other lot coverage. Parking: The application should make clear how off-street parking is to be addressed, including parking management strategies proposed to offset required off-street parking demand. Some specific notes here: Parking Calculations: The final application will need to include parking calculations illustrating how the total parking requirement is arrived at based on the parking ratios in AMC 18.4.3.040. • Parking Space Requirements: Standard off-street parking spaces are required to be 9 x 18 feet with a 22 -foot back-up dimension behind. Compact spaces are required to be 8 x 16 feet with a 22 -foot back-up dimension behind. Half of the required spaces may be provided as compact. • Bicycle Parking: For commercial projects, in addition to automobile parking, one bicycle parking space is required for every five required automobile spaces. One half of the spaces must be covered, and all bicycle parking must be designed according to the rack, dimension, and coverage standards of LUO 18.4.3.070. In addition, there are specific residential bicycle parking requirements based on unit size. Bicycle parking must be located as close to the primary public entrance as the nearest automobile parking space. Please provide bike parking details in the final application. materials. • Parking Demand Management Strategies: Parking Demand Management Strategies including on -street credits, mixed and joint use credits, and alternative vehicle parking may be used to reduce the parking requirement by a total maximum reduction in off-street parking spaces of 50 percent. The approval authority may require a parking analysis prepared by a qualified professional to support the reductions requested. It should be remembered that the reductions here are discretionary on the part of the Planning Commission, and the most recent parking study by the city found that Water Street was at 85-1 00percent utilization into the evening hours all the way up to Central Avenue. An application would need to make a strong case in support of any requested parking demand management strategies (How will the varied uses' demands be materially offset? How likely are customers/residents/hotel guests/employees to use bicycles or motorcycles instead of bringing a car to the site to result in a meaningful reduction in parking demand?) • On -street Parking Credits - On -street credits can only be requested where they are along the frontage of the applicant's property, and can be used to reduce the parking requirement by a total of up to 50 percent, including other strategies. These credits are discretionary, and it is likely that credits proposed in an area where on -street parking is in high demand in proximity to the downtown will be questioned (ifparking is heavily used and unlikely to be available for parking, it is likely not to be allowed as a credit). Credits are counted 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Wage 2 based on 22 -feet of frontage where parking is available (not within 10 feet of a driveway, not where right-of-way width is insufficient, etc.) • Parking Lot Design Standards (LUO 18.3.080.B.4). Parking lots with 50 or more parking spaces, and parking lots where pedestrians must traverse more than 150 feet of parking area, as measured as an average width or depth, shall be divided into separate areas by one or more of the following means. a building or group of buildings; plazas landscape areas with walkways at least five feet in width; streets; or driveways with street -like features as illustrated in Figure 18.4.3.080.8.4 Street -like features, for the purpose of this section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, with six-inch curb, accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian -oriented lighting (i.e., not exceeding 14 feet typical height). • Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards. The parking lot landscaping and screening standards in LUO 18.4.3.080.E.6, E.7 and 18.4.4.F require that minimum five- foot width landscape buffers be provided adjacent to property lines to buffer all parking and vehicular circulation areas. One parking lot tree must be provided for every seven parking spaces, and seven percent of the total parking and circulation area must be provided in landscaping according to the standards. • Circulation: All parking spaces more than 50 feet from the street need to be able to turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. It is unclear if all of the spaces have adequate circulation area to accomplish this (e.g. Building 2 & 3 garage spaces, Upper Parking spaces 16 & 17) • Extent of Right -Way: The final application will need to make clear the extent and dimensions of the existing and proposed right-of-way and the existing and proposed improvements, including street frontage improvements and on -street parking. Street Improvements: Where existing streets are not improved to full city street standards, new developments are required to provide street improvements to and through the project. In this case, eight -foot width sidewalks and a five-foot width commercial parkrow-planting strip with street trees would need to be installed by the applicants along the subject property's street frontages or exceptions requested. Along Water Street, this should take the form of an eight -foot sidewalk with five-foot tree wells with grates; on Van Ness Street this would be an eight -foot sidewalk with five- foot tree wells with grates where on -street parking is proposed (i.e. trees in grates between bays) but could transition to a six-foot sidewalk with seven -foot park row planting strips where there is no on -street parking and the street is transitioning into the residential area uphill. Helman could utilize the existing parkrow and a widened sidewalk as illustrated. If existing rights-of-way are insufficient to accommodate city standard frontage improvements, easements or dedications would need to be provided. Alley improvements: The pre -application materials indicate the alley to the south of the subject property will be utilized to access the property. As this alley is presently unimproved, it will have to be improved to full city standards to serve the subject property. Staff recognize that completing the alley improvements to allow vehicle access from Helman Street to Water Street is unfeasible due to the significant grade change, however the final alley improvements should address pedestrian access improvements (through the use of stairs, or ramped switch backs) to provide for pedestrian access from Helman St. to Water Street. Additionally, the alley improvements, and use as vehicular circulation or fire apparatus staging, should consider its eventual use and relationship 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 3 with the property to the south, and will need to be reviewed and approved by both the Public Works and Planning Departments. SITE DESIGN REVIEW Because of its location in a Detail Site Review Zone and Historic District, development of the property is subject to some of Ashland's more stringent architectural and site design review standards. Ground Floor Commercial/Residential Split: The plan provided shows a split between office and retail on the ground floor and residential above with roughly 56 percent of the ground floor areas dedicated to commercial use. As currently regulated, the Land Use Ordinance provides that if there is one building on a site, 65 percent of the ground floor area must be dedicated to permitted uses other than residential. Where more than one building is located on a site, at least 50 percent of the total lot area must be dedicated to permitted uses other than residential. While there are discussions occurring about altering these percentages, until any code changes are adopted and in effect, the application would need to demonstrate compliance with the current standards or request a Variance to the Residential Overlay requirements for Mixed Use Development (AMC 18.3.13.010.C.1), Variances can be difficult to obtain and add a significant level of discretion to the review process. Residential Density. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-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. At the allowed base density of 15 residential dwelling units per acre, the 1.14 acres here could accommodate approximately 17.75 units. Maximum Building height: The maximum building height in E-1 is 40 feet. Final submittals should clearly demonstrate how height is calculated to ensure compliance with this standard. Height is measured as the vertical distance from grade or ground level to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof, as illustrated in AMC 18.6.1.030.H. (Parapets may be erected up to five feet above the maximum building height; see also, 18.4.4.030. G.4 for mechanical equipment screening requirements, and 18.5.2.020 for Site Design Review for mechanical equipment review process) Grade Changes: The final application should make clear how grade changes and grading will work, particularly with regard to vehicular and pedestrian circulation and with buildings as they relate to the adjacent streetscape. Basic Site Design Review Orientation to the Street — Buildings must establish a primary orientation to the higher order street or the intersection at the corner. Sense of Entry — Generally, buildings are to use lighting and changes in mass, surface and finish to give emphasis to entries. Historic District standards call for buildings to articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticoes, and other pronounced 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 4 architectural forms. As presented, staff had does not believe the designs adequately address these standards and need adjustments enhance the prominence of each entrance. • Streetscape - A building shall be setback not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Detail Site Design Review Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Developments within the Detail Site Review Zone shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50 where a site is one-half an acre or greater in size. Fenestration: Any wall that is within 30 feet of the street, plaza, or other public or common open space shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas, lobbies, pedestrian entrances, or display areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40 percent of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. Emphasis to Entrances: Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Pedestrian Protection — Buildings must incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings (typically of a depth of at least seven feet) to provide pedestrians with protection from rain and sun. Changes in Relief: Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, and fluted masonry, for at least 15 percent of the exterior wall area. The application should include color and material details, cross-sections of the facade, and lighting spec's as part of the final submittals. Add'l Standards for Large Scale Development Because the proposed development includes more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and is within the Detail Site Review Zone, it is also subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Developments, including: • Human Scale: Dividing large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. • Plaza Space — Providing one square foot of plaza space for every ten square feet of building area which incorporate four of the six requisite elements detailed in the standards. 165 Water street July 7, 2021 Page 5 Historic Distric Development Standards (HDDS) - AMC 18.4.2.050 + Height — The HDDS seek new buildings constructed to a height within the range of historic building heights on and across the street • Bulk & Scale — The HDDS call for buildings to relate to the scale of buildings within the neighborhood and the district in terms of height, width, massing, etc. • MassingNolume/Bulk — The HDDS call for buildings to break up larger forms into smaller, varied masses which were more common on historic buildings. • Roof Forms — The HDDS call for buildings to relate to the historic roof forms of buildings in the area. Rhythm of Openings — The HDDS call for buildings to respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the facade and to consider the width to height ratio of bays in the fagade, and to avoid introducing incompatible facade patterns that upset the established rhythms of the area. • Base — The HDDS generally seek a clearly defined base, or platform characteristic of historic buildings in the immediate vicinity, rather than walls that rise directly out of the ground or sit below the adjacent streetscape. • Form — The HDDS seek to have a vertical/horizontal emphasis of a building that is consistent with that of adjacent historic buildings. + Entrances — The HDDS seek well-defined primary entrances with covered porches, porticos, and other architectural features compatible but not imitative of historic counterparts. As noted above, staff believe that the building designs should be looked at more carefully in light of the Historic District Development Standards above, and would benefit from review by the Historic Commission as the designs are further developed. Historic Commission Review: Site Design Review approvals rely heavily on the Historic Commission recommendations and upon compliance with the Historic District Design Standards. The applicants would be well -served in addressing Historic Commission concerns prior to making a formal application, and prior to submitting a formal application, applicants are required to present their proposals to the full Historic Commission at a monthly meeting for informal review. To request time on the full Commission agenda, please call (541) 488-5305. The Historic Commission meets the Wednesday before the Planning Commission each month at 6:00 p.m. (At this time, the Historic Commission's weekly Review Board is not meeting.) For each of these standards, the application will need to demonstrate through the plan drawings and detail through the written findings how compliance is achieved or request applicable Exceptions or Variances. Exceptions and Variances add a further level of discretion to the Planning Commission's review, and a Conditional Use Permit requiring multiple Variances to key design standards may encounter more difficulty in demonstrating the required architectural compatibility with the impact area. 165 Water Street July 7, 2421 Page 6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION The applicants may wish to consider whether they can accomplish the same outcomes with a standard subdivision. Significant Natural Features: The Performance Standards Options (PSO) chapter provides some measure of flexibility with regard to some standards in exchange for designs that stress "energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood." A key requirement of the PSO is that the existing and natural features of the land such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., be identified in the plan of the development and significant features be included in the common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. The application would need to address this standard particularly in terms of whether the floodplain corridor here constitutes a significant natural feature and deal with it accordingly. Lot Configuration: The final application will need to include a clear delineation of the proposed lot configuration for the proposed subdivision. PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT Physical and Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit :for Flood Plain Corridor Development: Roughly the front 27 feet of the property is located within the Ashland Creek floodplain corridor, and as such, any development would require a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Floodplain Development. The applicant should consider whether there are alternatives available elsewhere on the site to avoid impacts to the corridor, and where development occurs within the floodplain it would need to address the approval criteria and applicable standards for floodplain development. The final application will need to include a surveyor's identification of the extent of the floodplain on the site. TREES Tree Inventory, Tree Preservation & Protection & Tree Removal: The final application will need to include a tree inventory identifying all trees greater than six -inches DBH on the subject property, and on adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line including street trees. Protection measures shall be identified for those trees to be preserved, and Tree Removal Permits requested where trees are to be removed. Tree removal would be considered in terms of Tree Removal Permit requirements found in AMC 18.5.7, which regulates the removal of any trees greater than six -inches DBH from the property. A report from an arborist should be provided to address any tree removal permit request and should respond to the applicable criteria. Tree removal permits require mitigation on a one-for-one basis. (Tree Removal would also be considered in light of the Performance Standards Option chapter's standards for preserving natural features and, if located within the floodplain corridor, the trees' removals would also be considered as part of the P&E Permit.) Signs: Signage would need to be considered as part of the overall impact of the proposal, and signage details including size, placement, color and materials would need to be provided with the 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 7 application. Signage must comply with Chapter 1$.4.7 of the Ashland Municipal Code, and signage will require a separate sign permit and inspection. Site Visits: Given the location, scale and complexity of the project, it will be helpful to have site visits by the Planning and Historic Commissions prior to a formal hearing. It would also be helpful if there could be some depiction on site of the height and massing of the building (i.e. balloons on string at the building corners would be the simplest method) to give commissioners a sense of the building in context. Site visits are typically held the Monday afternoon before a Tuesday hearing; staff will contact the applicants in advance to make final arrangements. Building Code Requirements — Occupancy & Flood Plain: Applicants will want to consult the Building Department prior to submitting the planning application to determine if there will be additional building code requirements in terms of requirements that may be posed by development in or near the floodplain, and any occupancy issues relative to the proposed mix of uses, or new wildfire prevention codes which will be in effect for building permits issued after October 1, 2021. Building Official Steven Matiaco can be reached at (541) 4$8-5305 or via e-mail to steven.matiaeog Ashland. or.us. Demolition/Relocation Review Permit: Demolition or relocation of buildings greater than 500 square feet in area is subject to a Demolition/Relocation Review Permit through the Building Division --- i.e. separate from any planning approval - and would need to address the applicable standards in AMC 15.04.210-.216 Construction Staging: The applicants will want to consider the logistics of construction, staging and site access with Public Works/Engineering and Planning early on given the constraints of the location and impacts of any disruption on the surrounding area. Brownfield Issues: The application should make clear how any "brownfield" issues are being remediated to address environmental concerns as part of the application. Written Findings/Burden of Proof: This pre -application conference is intended to highlight significant issues of concern to staff and bring them to the applicant(s)' attention prior to their preparing a formal application.. Applicants are advised that written findings addressing the ordinance criteria are required, and the applicable criteria and required plans are explained in writing below. The burden of proof is on the applicant(s) to ensure that all applicable criteria are addressed in writing and that all required maps, written findings, and other materials are submitted even if those items were not discussed in specific, itemized detail during this initial pre -application conference. Neighborhood Outreach: Planning staff strongly encourage applicants or their agents to approach affected neighbors, make them aware of the proposal, and try to address any concerns as early in the process as possible. 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 8 OTHER DEPARTMENTS' COMMENTS BUILDING: Please contact the Building Division for any building code or permit -related information at 541-488-5305. CONSERVATION: For more information on current Conservation Programs, please contact Larry Giardina in the Conservation Division at 541-552-2065 or e-mail to: larry.giardinagashland.or.us . PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING: Detailed' corrxaents provzded at the end of ;this docurn.ent. Please contact Karl Johnson of the Engineering Division for any further information ...............:........................: about public facility improvements including streets, sidewalks, utilities or storm drainage at 541- 552-2415. FIRE DEPARTMENT. No comments provided. Please contact Chief Ralph Sartain of the Fire Department for information on applicable Fire Department requirements at 541-552-2229 or via e-mail to rWph.sartain@ashland.or.us. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE: If the project requires additional water services or upgrades to existing services the Ashland Water Department will excavate and install in the city right of way all water services up to and including the meter on domestic and commercial water lines. if afire line is required the water department will also only install a stub out to the location where the double detector check assembly complete with a Badger brand cubic foot bypass metershould be placed in a vault external to the building. The vault and the DCDA device housed in it are the responsibility of the property owner and should be placed at the property line. Fees for these installations are paid to the water department and are based on a time and materials quote to the developer or contractor. Meter sizes and fire line diameters will need to be provided to the Water Department at the time of a quote being requested. Please Contact Steve Walker at 541-552-2326 or ( walkers@ashland.or. us ) with any questions regarding water utilities. ELECTRIC SERVICE: Prior to submitting a land use application the applicants will need to arrange an on-site meeting with Dave Tygerson of the Electric Department to develop an electric service plan. Dave will provide a plan detailing the Electric Department -required facilities to serve the project; this approved plan will need to be incorporated into the final submittals for the project, and submittals will not be deemed complete without an Electric Department -approved plan. Please allow the necessary extra time for scheduling an on-site meeting and the subsequent preparation of a service plan. Please contact Dave with any questions about electrical service needs and requirements, fee information, orto arrange an on-site meeting at 541-552-2389. (Please nate that the placement of all electrical facilities should be planned to minimize visibility from the right-of- way while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Transformers, vaults and meters are not to be placed within the pedestrian corridor or between the building and street.) HISTORIC COMMISSION: Prior to submitting a formal application, applicants are required to present their proposals to the full Historic Commission at a monthly meeting for informal review. To request time on the full Commission agenda, please call (541) 488-5305. The Historic Commission meets the Wednesday before the Planning Commission each month at 6:00 p.m. (At this time, the Historic Commission's weekly Review Board is not meeting.) 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 9 ZONING DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS ZONING: E-1 (Employment) within the Detail Site Review, Residential & Historic District Overlay Zones NOTE: In the E-1 zone, retail uses are limited to 20,000 sq ft of gross leasable floor space per lot. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS: A minimum of 15 percent of the site must be landscaped. Seven percent of parking areas, including the driveway aisles and other vehicular circulation areas, must be landscaped and a site-, size-, and species- specific landscaping plan is required at time of formal application. The landscape plan must address required screening, and include street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage where applicable. Also include "shade" trees in the parking area — one tree per seven parking spaces. Trees within parking area should be located in landscape fingers or islands. Avoid using lawn. Provide irrigationystem for all landscaped areas. Tree requirements for parking areas shall consist of a mixture of deciduous trees and shall shade the parking stalls. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50 percent coverage occurs after one year and 90 percent after 5 years. PARKING, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION: As per the requirements of LUO 18.4.3. SETBACKS: There are no setback requirements, except where abutting a residential district in which case a minimum ten -foot side yard and/or a ten -foot -per -story rear yard requirement applies. Solar access requirements (`Standard B') are also applicable within the E-1 district. LOT COVERAGE: A maximum of 85 percent of the site may be covered. Landscape and screening requirements must be met. Please identify on site plan and in text all areas of landscaping, and all impervious surfaces and other lot coverage. SIGNS: As per LUO 18.4.7.080. All existing and proposed signage must be identified in the Site Review application submittals; a separate sign permit will be required prior to installation. PROCEDURE: Within the E-1 zoning district, Site Review for new buildings or additions greater than 10,000 square feet is subject to a "Type Il" application procedure which requires a decision by the Planning Commission through a public hearing, and has the potential for an on - the -record appeal to Council. Outline Plan approval is also subject to a "Type II" procedure. A. Application Requirements. 1. Application Form and Fee. Applications for Type II review shall be made on forms provided by the Staff Advisor. One or more property owners of the property for which the planning action is requested, and their authorized agent, as applicable, must sign the application. The required application fee must accompany the application for it to be considered complete. 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 10 2. Submittal Information, The application shall include all of the following information, a. The information requested on the application form. b. Plans and exhibits required for the specific approvals sought. c. A written statement or letter explaining how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail. d. Information demonstrating compliance with all prior decision(s) and conditions of approval for the subject site, as applicable. e. The required fee. APPLICATION MATERIALS: The application is required to include drawings of the proposed improvements (i.e. the plan requirements) as well as written findings addressing the applicable approval criteria in narrative form in accordance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (i.e. the narrative submittal requirements). The following section includes the requirements for plans and written submittals which are applicable to the proposal as described in the pre - application submittals. When more than one planning approval is required for the proposal, multiple sections of the ALUO may apply. PLAN & EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS_ : The plans below, formatted to print to scale on paper no larger than 11"x 17. Note: The 11 x 17 copies may be used for the Planning Commission packets and for the notices mailed to neighbors -please submit clear, readable, reproducible plans formatted to print to a standard architect's or engineer's scale. If larger copies are needed for the Planning Commission, the applicants would need to provide 12 sets for distribution to Commissioners and Staff. o Plans required for Site Review as required in AMC 18.5.2.040. o Plans required for Outline Plan approval as required in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.2 o Plans required for Final Plan approval as required in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.4 o A Tree Inventory, Preservation & Protection Plan as required in AMC 18.4.5.030. o Plans required for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, as detailed in AMC 18.3.10.040 o Plans required for a Variance -- if applicable - as detailed in AMC 18.5.5.040 o Plans required for a Tree Removal Permit, as detailed in AMC 18.5.7.030. NARRATIVE ADDRESSING RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS: Applicants are advised that in addition to required plans, written f ndings addressing how the ordinance criteria are satisfied in narrative format are required. The applicable criteria are included below. The Ashland Land Use Ordinance in its entirety may be accessed on-line at: https ://ashland.municipal. codes/LandUse o Written findings addressing the criteria from AMC 18.5.2.050 for Site Design Review and applicable design standards. o Written findings required for Outline Plan approval as required in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 o Written findings required for Final Plan approval as required in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 11 o Written findings required for a Variance (if applicable to the final proposal) as required in AMC 18.5.5.050. o Written findings addressing the following criteria from AMC 18.5.7.040.8.2. for Tree Removal Permit to remove a tree that is not a hazard (if applicable to the final proposal). o Written findings addressing the approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit as detailed in AMC 18.3.10.050. o Written findings addressing the approval criteria for Exception to Street Standards detailed in AMC 18.4.6.020.8.1. (if applicable to the final proposal] NEXT APPLICATION DEADLINE: PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) HEARING: HISTORIC COMMISSION MEETING: TREE COMMISSION MEETING: FEES: Site Design Review, Type II P&E Permit Final Plan wlOutline, Type II Variance, Type II (if applicable) Variance, Type I (ifapplacable) Street Tree Removal Permit Exception to Street Standards Tree Removal Permit First Friday of each month for following month's PC Second Tuesday of each month (7:00 p.m.) Wednesday before Planning Commission (6:00 p.m.) Thursday before Planning Commission (6:00 p.m.) $2,247.50 + 1/2 percent of project valuation $1,120.25 $2,993.00 + $150 per lot $2,247.50 $1,120.25 $ 100 $0 $0 " APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED ON A FIRST COME -FIRST SERVED BASIS. • APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT A COMPLETE APPLICATION FORM SIGNED BYTHEAPPLICANT(S) AND PROPERTY OWNER(S), ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS AND FULL PAYMENT. X ALL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ARE REVIEWED BY STAFF, AND MUST BE FOUND TO BE COMPLETE BEFORE BEING PROCESSED OR SCHEDULED AT A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. K APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED FOR COMPLETENESS WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM APPLICATION DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRS 227.178. • THE FIRST 15 COMPLETE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ARE PROCESSED AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. For further information, please contact: Derek Severson, Senior Planner Phone: (541) 552-2040 or e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 12 Public Works Pre -Application Comments 1. Engineered Plans - Where public improvements are required or proposed, the applicant's engineer shall submit design plans for approval of all public improvements identified on the approved plan or as specified in conditions of approval. One set of these civil plans MUST be submitted DIRECTLY to the Public Works/Engineering Department. All design plans must meet the City of Ashland Public Works Standards. Engineered construction plans and specifications shall be reviewed and signed by the Public Works Director, prior to construction. All public facilities within the development will be designed to the City of Ashland Engineering Design Standards for Public Improvements. The engineered plans shall also conform to the following: • If drawings are submitted to the City of Ashland digitally, they shall be true scale PDF drawings. If AutoCAD drawings are also submitted, they shall be compatible with the AutoCAD release being used by the City at that time and shall be located and oriented within the Oregon State Plain Coordinate System (NAD83-89). • Drawings sizes shall comply with ANSI -defined standards for page width and height. Review drawings may be submitted in B size (11x17). Bidding and construction documents may also be printed at B size; however, all final as - constructed drawings must be submitted to scale on D -size (24x36) Mylar. Digital files of the as -constructed drawings shall also be submitted. Drawings shall be drawn such that reduction of plans from full size (D sized) to half size (B sized) can be done to maintain a true scale on the half -sized plans. TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis) — A TIA has previously been submitted for this project however the City would like confirmation that there are no alterations/updates to this previously submitted document. The City of Ashland feels that this project may meet at least one of the thresholds at which a TIA is required. The applicant shall have a Registered Engineer submit evidence that a TIA should not be required if the thresholds are not met. All land use actions that either propose direct or indirect access to a State highway or a boulevard will need to provide the City of Ashland with the information outlined below. The governing jurisdiction will then inform ODOT of the intended land use action and provide pertinent review material. These guidelines are intended to ensure that developments do not negatively impact the operation and/or safety of the roadway. A. Applicants must submit a preliminary site plan for review to the City of Ashland, prior to the pre -application conference. At a minimum, the site plan shall illustrate: 1. The location of existing access point(s) on both sides of the road within 500 feet in each direction for Category 4 segments or 5 lane boulevards, and 300 feet for Category 5 segments and 3 lane arterials; 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 13 2. Distances to neighboring constructed public access points, median openings, traffic signals, intersections, and other transportation features on both sides of the property (this should include the section of roadway between the nearest upstream and downstream collector); 3. Number and direction of site access driveway lanes to be constructed, as well as an internal signing and striping plan; 4. All planned transportation features on the State highway/boulevard (such as auxiliary lanes, signals, etc.); 5. Trip generation data or appropriate traffic studies (See the following section for the state's traffic impact study requirement thresholds.); 6. Parking and internal circulation plan; 7. Plat map showing property lines, right of way, and ownership of abutting properties; 8. A detailed description and justification of any requested access variances; B. Proposed land use actions, new developments, and/or redevelopment accessing a State highway/boulevard, directly or indirectly (via collector or local streets), will need to provide traffic impact studies to the respective local reviewing jurisdiction(s) and ODOT if the proposed land use meets one or more of the following traffic impact study thresholds. A traffic impact study will not be required of a development that does not exceed the stated thresholds. 1. Trip Generation Threshold: 50 newly generated vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the adjacent street peak hour; 2. Mitigation Threshold: Installation of any traffic control device and/or construction of any geometric improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting the highway; 3. Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation Threshold: 20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the day; All traffic impact studies will need to be prepared by a registered professional engineer in accordance with ODOT's development review guidelines. C. Traffic Impact Study Requirements 1. The following is a summary of the Oregon State Highway minimum requirements for a traffic report. ODOT views the following requirements as the minimum considerations to be dealt with by Professional Traffic Engineering Consultants in their analysis of traffic impacts resulting from new developments adjacent to State highways. 2. The analysis shall include alternates other than what the developer originally submits as a proposal for access to state highways, city streets, and county roads. 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 14 3. The analysis of alternate access proposals shall include: (i) Existing daily and appropriate design peak hour counts by traffic movements, at intersections which would be affected by traffic generated by the development (use traffic flow diagrams). (ii) Projected daily and appropriate design peak hour volumes for these same intersections, and at the proposed access points after completion of the development. If the development is to be constructed in phases, projected traffic volumes at the completion of each phase should be determined. (iii) Trip Generation shall be calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' manual "TRIP GENERATION 5th Edition" or other, more current, and/or applicable information. (iv) A determination of the need for a traffic signal based on warrants in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices." 4. The recommendations made in the report should be specific and shall be based on a minimum level of service "D" when the development is in full service. As an example, if a traffic signal is recommended, the recommendations should include the type of traffic signal control and what movements should be signalized. If a storage lane for right turns or left turns is needed, the recommendations should include the amount of storage needed. if several intersections are involved for signalization, and an interconnect system is considered, specific analysis should be made concerning progression of traffic between intersections. 5. The internal circulation of parking lots must be analyzed to the extent that it can be determined whether the points of access will operate properly. 6. The report shall include an analysis of the impacts to neighboring driveway access points and adjacent streets affected by the proposed new development driveways. 7. The report should include a discussion of bike and pedestrian usage and the availability of mass transit to serve the development. 3. Street Improvement — No additional street improvements, beyond those necessary to comply with City Street Standards, will be required at this time. 4. Public Pedestrian Access • A handicap access ramp will be required at the intersection Water Street and Van Ness Avenue as well as the intersection of Heiman Street and Van Ness Avenue. Where handicap access ramps are required as part of a proposed project, the ramps shall meet current United States Access Board Public Rights -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and shall be designed in accordance with the current Oregon Department of Transportation design guidance. Use of the ODOT Standard Drawings for curb ramps as guidance for design is recommended however a curb ramp detail sheet, similar to ODOT DET 1720 -Example of Minimum Sidewalk Ramp Details, is required 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 15 for each curb ramp corner that is being proposed. Referencing standard drawings for curb ramps in plans in lieu of curb ramp detail sheets is no longer acceptable. An ODOT ADA Curb Ramp Design Checklist shall also be completed and submitted with the civil design drawings. If the following items are not submitted with the civil design drawings the City of Ashland Engineering Department will view the submittal as incomplete. Required ADA submittals: L ODOT ADA Curb Ramp Design Checklist ii. Curb Ramp Detail, similar to ODOT DET 1720, for each proposed curb ramp 5. Right of Way — No additional right of way dedication, beyond that necessary to comply with City Street Standards, will be required at this time. 6. Sanitary Sewer - The property is currently served by an 8 -in sanitary sewer main in Water Street and a 6 -in sanitary sewer main in Heiman Street. The applicant proposed improvements must be reviewed, approved and permitted by the City of Ashland Engineering Department. 7. Water - The property is currently served by a 16 -in water main in Water Street, a 4 -in water main in Heiman Street and an 8 -in water main in Van Ness Avenue. City of Ashland Water Department shall tap existing water main and install any new water services and water meter boxes that are proposed by development. City of Ashland Water Department must be contacted for availability, placement and costs associated with the installation of the new water service. Service & Connection Fees will also be required for any new water services installed as part of this project. Water meters need to be placed inside the public right of way. 8. Storm Drainage - The property is currently served by a 12 -in storm sewer main in Water Street and a 15 -in storm sewer main in Van Ness Avenue. City of Ashland Engineering Department must review an engineered storm drainage plan. Storm Water Facility Design Requirements All development or redevelopment that will create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc.) area that discharges to an MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer systems), must comply with the requirements of the DEQ MS4 General Permit phase 2. Applicant MUST follow the guidance and requirements set forth in the current Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual which can be found at the following website: httes://www,rvss.us/pilot.asp?pg=StormwaterDesignManuaI All stormwater calculations, reports, drawings, etc. shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Engineering Department for review. 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 16 9. Erosion & Sediment Control - The following requirements shall be met: • All ground disturbances exceeding 1,000 square feet shall implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESOP). • A 1200-C permit will be secured by the developer where required under the rules of the Oregon State DEQ. City of Ashland Engineering Department must receive a copy of this permit before any construction shall begin. • Erosion Prevention and Sediment control measures that meet the minimum standards set forth by the City of Ashland Public Works/Engineering Standard Drawing CD282 must be in place before any construction related to the project begins. • Pollution, track out, and sediment dumping into storm water are strictly prohibited per AMC 9.08.060. • Drainage from automotive use areas shall be limited to oil concentrations of 10 mg/l by a pre -approved means. • Trash storage areas shall be covered or provide additional storm water treatment by an approved means. • Off-street parking areas shall conform to Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.3.080.8.5, including provisions to minimize adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts. 10. Driveway Access -- No additional improvements/requirements will be requested at this time, but the applicant proposed improvements must be reviewed and permitted by the City of Ashland Engineering Department. 11. Permits — Any construction or closure within the public right of way will require a Public Works permit and before any work in the right of way commences all necessary permits MUST be obtained. Retaining walls inside the public right of way will need to have a Public Works Encroachment permit attached to them. 12. As-Builts - Where public improvements are required or completed, the developer shall submit to the City of Ashland, reproducible as -built drawings and an electronic file of all public improvements constructed during and in conjunction with this project. Field changes made during construction shall be drafted to the drawings in the same manner as the original plans with clear indication of all modifications (strike out old with new added beside). As -built drawings shall be submitted prior to final acceptance of the construction, initiating the one-year maintenance period. 13. Addresses — Any new addresses must be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 165 Water Street July 7, 2021 Page 17 CIT Y O F Planning Division ,ASHLAND 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE APPLICATION 97520 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Project Description Commercial Site Review for 8 mixed used buildings, Performance Standards Subdivison or nine lots. APPLICANT Name Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC hone 541-951-4020 E -Mail amygunter.planning@gmail.com ....................................... Address 1814-B Center Dr., PMB #457 City Medford Zip 97501 PROPERTY OWNER Name Livni Family Trust - Gil Livni Trustee Day Time Phone 510-913-5110 agnoiis investment Address 2974 Chapman Lane City Ashland Zip 97520 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 95 Van Ness 1165 Water 1 160 Helman Assessor's Map No. 391 E 04CC Tax Lot(s) 1700/200012100 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To request a pre -application conference, submit this form with two sets of scalable plans, one large format 24"x36" and one no larger than 11"x17". Include the following informationImus your submittal fee of $142.25 (check, Visa, MasterCard or cash accepted): 1. Completed Application. 2. Narrative — Provide a written description of proposal and request, (If in Historic District, provide pictures of existing structures, elevations of proposed structures and details of planned exterior design features and materials) 3. Site Plan -- The site plan should contain all applicable elements in the Site Plan Checklist (see reverse) plus any other information pertinent to this proposal. The site plan will be checked to insure all applicable information is included at the time the pre -application date is set. 4. Additional information - Provide in the narrative or with the site plan: 1) Number of acres in development 2) Total gross square footage of all structures 3) Number of stories on each structure 4) Indicate number of and square footage of: a) Dwelling Units (include the units by the number of bedrooms in each unit— e.g. 10 1 -bedroom, 25 2 -bedroom, etc) b) Office Spaces c) Retail Units d) Other Spaces 5) Percentage of lot coverage by: a) Structures e) Landscaping b) Streets & Roads f) Number of parking spaces c) Parking AreaslDriveways g) Total square footage of landscaped areas. d) Recreation Areas h) Other pertinent information of the proposed development 5. LEEDO Certification -- Indicate whether project will be pursuing LEER® certification. 6. Submittal Fee Pg.3 of 6 G:tcumm-dav%planningForms & HandoulslPm-Appllcatlon Information Sheet Subm W Requkements_FY2017-18 Aft RNCl1E PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC June 7, 2021 PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUBMITTAL Performance Standards Subdivision for nine lot subdivision and condominium development Site Design Review of an eight mixed use commercial structures Subiect Pronert Property Addresses: 160 Heiman Street, 95 Van Ness and 165 Water Street Map & Tax lot: 39 1E 04CC; Tax lots 2000 & 2100 and 7100 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment Zoning: E-1 Adjacent Zones: E-1 & Low Density Multi -Family Residential Skidmore Academy Historic District Ashland Flood Protection Zone Severe Constraints Development Property Owners: 95 Van Ness Gil and Kathleen Livni 160 Heiman Magnolia Investment Group LLC 165 Water Street 2974 Chapman Lane Ashland, OR 97520 Request• The request is for a nine (9) lot Performance Standards Subdivision for a mixed use commercial development of three parcels at the intersections of Water Street, Heiman Street and Van Ness Street. The proposal includes a request for Site Design Review for the development of eight (8), mixed-use commercial structures. Property Description: The subject property consists of three parcels of record. 165 Water Street is a 38,515 square foot, vacant parcel that extends from the public alley on Water Street, north to the intersection of Van Ness Street. This lot is trapezoidal shaped and extends up to Heiman Street. Ashland Creek is to the east of the property, across Water Street from the subject property and to the east of the single family residence and barn structure. Along the Water Street frontage of Parcel #1, approximately 15 -feet is within the Ashland Adopted Floodplain for Ashland Creek. ROGUE PLANNING G DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Parcel #2 is to the southeast of the intersection of Van Ness and Heiman Streets, Parcel 2 is a 5,824 square foot, vacant parcel. This lot has 52.74 feet of frontage on Van Ness Avenue and 80 -feet of frontage on Parcel 2. This property had an approval for a two, mixed use commercial / residential units (PA2018-0033). Parcel 3 is to the south of Parcel #1 and north of the public alley. This 7,302 square foot lot has 90 feet of frontage along Helman Street. There is an access and parking access easement on this for a separate parcel of property across the alley to the south. The property is occupied by a 3,300 square foot commercial structure. It was the location of Pyramid Juice process, warehouse and distribution for many years. Upon the redevelopment of the properties, these structures will be removed. The properties are zoned Employment (1=-1) with Residential Overlay. The adjacent properties are also zoned E-1, and Low -Density Multi -Family Residential (R-2). The property is also within the Detail Site Review zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. According to the Transportation System Plan, Functional Classification Map, Heiman Street is an Avenue. Heiman Street has a 60 -foot wide public right-of-way. Heiman Street is improved with paving, curb, gutter, a six-foot landscape parkrow, and a 5.5 -foot wide sidewalk along the Heiman Street frontage of the property. Van Ness is classified as a neighborhood street. Van Ness has a 60 -foot wide public right-of-way. Van Ness is improved with paved travel lanes, curb, gutter, and a five-foot wide, curbside sidewalk. Water Street has a 40 -foot wide right-of-way and is improved with 38 -feet of street improvements that consist of curb, gutter and asphalt. 2 ROGUE al_nNNINB s UEVELU MENT SERVICES, tic Detailed Proposal: The proposed building are three stories. With a commercial office and/or retail type uses on the ground floor in street or common area facing commercial business fronting entrances. Each building provides a wide facade towards the public streets with limited separations except for the common areas, driveway access and to provide minimum building separation while not crowing the property with parking, structures, and coverage areas. Depending on the trajectory of the most current discussions of the uses of ground floor commercial space, the ground floor commercial units may be proposed to be used a residential occupancy where permissible. As proposed, the garages provide to two off-street parking spaces yielding a building floor area that is not a 65 percent commercial to 35 percent residential use of the ground floor. Instead, 56 percent of the ground floor is proposed as commercial. In the event that this is not permissible or ill advised in the current review climate in Ashland, the structures would be modified to either eliminate parking within the garage and increase paved areas to accommodate more parking area on the property or additional Parking Management Strategies would need to be accounted for. There are 34 parking spaces required if all uses retail and 24 parking spaces required if the uses are all office. The tenants are unknown at this time, but a mix of commercial office, retail, walk-in coffee/breakfast/lunch place to serve the professional development and residential uses on the property would be an ideal. The proposed layout provides 21 of 24 required spaces, this is a reduction of the on-site parking of 8.8 percent. There is ample on street parking on the three street frontages adjacent to the property to accommodate the three spaces necessary for office development. Reuse to higher intensity uses would require some measure of flexibility with the standards to allow for on - street, additional bicycle parking, or proximity to the residential and commercial neighborhood that supports pedestrian and bicycle convenience and the proximity to the downtown. The proposal seeks to allow flexibility in uses to provide a reasonable amount of on -street parking to provide to ample on-site parking to allow for the development of the commercial property to an intensity level expected in an Employment zone. The proposed floor area ratio of building area to site area is exceeded with the proposed 49,248 SF of floor area. The minimum FAR is 25, 820. The proposal will need to modify the layout through smaller footprints, and less landscape area to accommodate required parking. On the second and third story, there are 16 residential units above ground floor commercial spaces. Each residential unit requires 1.75 spaces per two bedroom unit or 28 parking spaces. There are two vehicle garages proposed for the residential parking for a total of 32 spaces. If the business owner/tenant lives above the business, it would be requested that there be a shared credit provided as ROGUE PLANNING E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC the vehicle trips for work from home or live/work situations dramatically reduces vehicle use and parking demands. The resident access to the residences will be from a shared stairway leading to the floors above. The required bicycle parking for the residential units is within the garages. Bicycle parking for the business uses varies. To encourage bicycle use, there will be 21 bicycle spaces with eight (8) covered for the most intense uses of the entire site as retail. There are 16 bike parking spaces required. Five additional spaces are proposed to allow for a vehicle credit. The application will also include a request for a Performance Standards Subdivision request to allow for the subdivision of the property to allow for the sale of the structures and the units within. The configurations of the lots are not known at this time, but the layout of the property intends for there to be a subdivision plat for the individual lots and a condominium plat of the units. The proposal is similar in nature of the Spur Rail Subdivision with a conceptual rendering of the proposed structures. The findings address the proposed structures. The frontage of the property on Water Street is within the Ashland Modified Flood Zone. The Ashland Modified Floodplain Corridor map shows the flood level as 1845.5 at the intersection to 1849 near the alley (south property line). Buildings #4 and #5 are proposed to be raised to a finished floor elevation of 1846.5 and 1850. This allows for the finished floor of the non-residential structure to be more than one foot above the flood elevation identified on the Ashland Modified Flood Zone map. There is adequate room provided along the Water Street frontage to allow for a five-foot hardscape planter and an eight -foot sidewalk. Stairs will lead to an upper level that has the proposed structures setback 4.5 feet from the retaining wall at back of public improvements. Along Van Ness, the curb line is proposed to be relocated to provide parallel parking in a bay. There is not a park row proposed — does this require an exception to the street standards? Heiman Street has existing improvements of a parkrow and sidewalk. Does this require exception if retained? The tree removals remain the same as previous requests, a new tree survey will be attained to determine health and size presently. The proposal will enhance the commercial viability of the employment zone. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the land use classification for the Employment zone (2.04.09), these areas are for a variety of office, retailing, manufacturing, storage, repair and wholesale operations. The property is within the residential overlay and the proposal includes two residential units. ►H RQGNE PIANNING 9 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 3a � o fa N 41 y� V A IY ( AIECFI A Nl S C s w o S �l4�sf �' U ti PARCEL 2 N ` t!n cF-w.r am { "24 54. FF. t 5th Og/, I and a3-35dbT a YAf1A'Yl5 �9t• R' � - - / I 0Yfif'15"10' fY a `.:, 2dS(' flD.b N x'5451 W a iZ, ,L v n V Lo '� 59fB g5; PARCEL 1 R I w 4 I (, S$515 S4 Fl, SGi1L: f' w !0' - I gg45^9 `s r v PARCEL 3 In as 7,307 54. FT. I M� i ACG3S Fi�1YCNi PfF I I I I�11-056SE0 l I r V I pAo cm uw I 46 1 TAtiiis CPCOUR5E5 � � HOfiNT � ^i. Q�\�-' 11JI701L " � 4I Fr.A 8F-A RIR MSMAr I 102fia' S - 781.78'- - 1 j NFU^7fM'1"lt• 5,00' W �1"- n N fiTN JO'W - - A ---� A L L e r.7d<.78' •�` Q NX9'7 rY�"W lY.w F• b ""-- 5 r O Q � 2 � Y � 3 Y mot ' € rr e -1 re ar -1 - L �d sari ON LULL nm�nw° 3 111 g mmH 3 `"Y 1'—' u°id � '"' wwnm�.°� y em mini s u°iw„nu°ia � �e �_in n :n g” M , _N� � ! n ;� i = N 41 SIN R ":� un � =� e_ _E �i S.__F 8 T}1=-�E m �3:.-E= � �== E �d !MIN :{ �3�_�E ��� � � g cc- g � � s W; paw "IN dg���'-»22 a oo 8 a s =RM s s OZ516210'R�el4s9' o 1N3M01'A' AW '1S N31vm X9 4 r O Q � 2 � Y � 3 Y mot ' € rr e -1 re ar -1 - L �d sari ON LULL nm�nw° 3 111 g mmH 3 `"Y 1'—' u°id � '"' wwnm�.°� y em mini s u°iw„nu°ia � �e �_in n :n g” M , _N� � ! n ;� i = N 41 SIN R ":� un � =� e_ _E �i S.__F 8 T}1=-�E m �3:.-E= � �== E �d !MIN :{ �3�_�E ��� � � g cc- g � � s W; paw "IN dg���'-»22 a oo 8 a s =RM s s Wai 6v ° z J 6 ] 1 � � I R 'i� I j% j a ji } r O Q � 2 � Y � 3 Y mot ' € rr e -1 re ar -1 - L �d sari ON LULL nm�nw° 3 111 g mmH 3 `"Y 1'—' u°id � '"' wwnm�.°� y em mini s u°iw„nu°ia � �e �_in n :n g” M , _N� � ! n ;� i = N 41 SIN R ":� un � =� e_ _E �i S.__F 8 T}1=-�E m �3:.-E= � �== E �d !MIN :{ �3�_�E ��� � � g cc- g � � s W; paw "IN dg���'-»22 a oo 8 a s =RM s s 6v ° �- f; ] 1 � � I R 'i� I j% j ji } I trJ j. � I. 7 a i - i1 I� }r'3S TUT r O Q � 2 � Y � 3 Y mot ' € rr e -1 re ar -1 - L �d sari ON LULL nm�nw° 3 111 g mmH 3 `"Y 1'—' u°id � '"' wwnm�.°� y em mini s u°iw„nu°ia � �e �_in n :n g” M , _N� � ! n ;� i = N 41 SIN R ":� un � =� e_ _E �i S.__F 8 T}1=-�E m �3:.-E= � �== E �d !MIN :{ �3�_�E ��� � � g cc- g � � s W; paw "IN dg���'-»22 a oo 8 a s =RM s s nzs4s NO 'Pu-tq-V 1N3WdOl3R30 '1S 1131VM 59 w a Oz516 li0 'Aue}ysy F' E ll � � 1N3WdOIRA3© � o 'IS N31VM99G v TM i 1 sw s C —seCL �� f w s a _ VYNd�13�H75a:1Vf ...... :. ....... Alla=55 3 4 F OZS15 aO 'PueIN$V s Evg, p Z v. P z .1N3MO�3Am LLI .:y '1S ?J3IVM 99 � a V � w � < N a z 0 a Lu LLJ LL, W i -- N w LLJ a z 0 a 5 LL, J W N N LLI z z OLSLfi ao'puel45h' Z F ao 1N3Wd0�3113a° „ N 1S H31` m 99ti Q r z 0 a Lu LLJ LL, W i -- N w LLJ a z 0 a 5 LL, J W N N LLI z z z 0 a w J w F - w W 1- N z a J w i z 0 a w J LU LU J J a 9ZSLG80'P-e34-v k Z o 1N3wd013n30a o QY 'IS N31VM 99 z 0 a w J w F - w W 1- N z a J w i z 0 a w J LU LU J J a �� � e OZ51521D'Rue�ysy E � OO MaNdOMAM z Ps '1S N31'dM 99lis og Q y I ism a f I r I I I Ij I I I a I t i j I I I I I I I I I qg I 4 1 � 1 � •--------- I I '1 r a K 1 0 1 I w I iN I I I I ..1 I a I 1 t � I I I I I I I , I y^' J N a OZSL0 210 'pu.lgsv IN3WdOlaA3a •Is m3ivm 5s L a Q OZSL6 HD ,P.el4�J 1N3WdOl3A3❑ -4 LL co 4 oU `1S N31VM 591 a w w a Q IT V 4 LL O , d' am �Q OZ6l6l10'Pue ysy z � zo O o • w CoA IMM0�13A3❑ a UU '1S N31vm 99 4 m Q a ------------ i z �u 0 w J w a � O % LL _a � r i% PZSL6 HUPue14s'd (7Z 4 IN3wdo�3n3a ©p N `1S 2i3ivm 99 4 m Q w 0=8 LO 'PU914SV fn 1N3WdOl3n30 N '1S N31VM 991 z 0 a w w u�3 c� z 0 a w LU LL LU ©zs�sao°pv�vsd z cy, 1N3Wd013A3❑ � a `1S Q N31VM 99 W z 0 a w LU LL LU City of Ashland Community Development Department 51 Winbum Way Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5805 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Pre -Application Review Work Class: Pre -Application Review PREAPP-2021-00282 Apply Date: 6/8/2021 -rtat_ 391 E04CC2100 95 Van Ness Av Owner: Magnolia Investment Group LLC Applicant: Rogue Planning and Development Owner 453 Tucker St Applicant 1314-B Center Dr PMB 457 Address: Ashland, OR 97520 Address: Medford, OR 97501 Phone: (510) 913-5110 Phone: (541) 951-4020 r.P.ei.�j1�51 05�/ .F�1.Yo 4 _ A ! v. _ .. _ ..a .. .a .�.: .. .. .. ... .'! July 7 Spm PreADD for Commercial site review of 8 mixed use buildings Fee Description: Amount: Pre Application Fee $142.25 Applicant: Date: ftl oC� $142.25