HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-08 Planning PACKET
cornerofVanNess&
WaterStreets
agentfor
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DraftMinutes
February 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:Staff Present:
Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director
Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager
Roger PearceDerek Severson, Senior Planner
Lynn ThompsonAaron Anderson, Associate Planner
Lisa VernerApril Lucas, Development Services Coordinator
Kerry KenCairnMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:Council Liaison:
NonePaula Hyatt, not present
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements:
Mr. Molnar informed the Commission that an appeal had been filed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)
on its decision to approve PA-T1-2021-00158, 351 Walker.It is now incumbent upon the appellant to make their
argument to LUBA.
Staff met with the TownMakers LLC design team following their January 25presentation to the Commission.
th
The design team was informed that legislative action was likely necessary before development plans could
proceed.
On February 1, 2022 the City Council had its first reading on the Housing in C-1 and E-1 Zones that had been
recommended by the Commission atthe December 14, 2021 meeting.The City Council decided to postpone a
decision until the Chamber of Commerce could examine an economic diversification policy.
An appointment of a seventh member to the Planning Commission will be made by the City Council at the
February 15 or March 1, 2022 meeting.
III.CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
A.
December 14, 2021 Regular Meeting
1.
Commissioners Dawkins/KenCairn m/s to approve the December 14, 2021 Regular Meeting Minutes. Commissioner
Verner abstained due to her absence from the meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 5-0.
2. January 25, 2022 Study Session
Commissioners Verner/Thompson m/s to approve the January 25, 2022 Study Session Minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed. 6-0.
IV.PUBLIC FORUM -None
V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00036
A.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 329 GraniteSt
OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning Services for Clarke
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 1of 6
DESCRIPTION: AnapplicationforaPhysicalandEnvironmentalconstraintsreviewpermit(P&E)
fortheconstructionofanewsingle-familyresidentialhomeonhillsidelandswithsevere
constraintsforthevacantparcelat329GraniteStreet.TheapplicationfortheP&Eincludesa
requestforsixdifferentexceptionstothedevelopmentstandards.Thedevelopmentalsorequiresa
limitedactivityandusespermitintheWaterResourceProtectionZone(WRPZ)foradriveway
crossinganidentifiedwaterway,twovariancesforanallowanceofthemaximumgradeofa
drivewayandanallowancetoexceedthemaximumlotcoverage,andfinallyatreeremovalpermit
fortheremovalofnineteensignificanttrees.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland /
LDR; ZONING: WR / RR-.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 EE, TAX LOT: 704
Ex parte contact
Commissioner KenCairn recused herself due to her presence on the design team. Commissioners Dawkins, Verner, and Norton
conducted site visits; no ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Aaron Anderson presented the Commission with the Staff’s report on the development site plans. Mr.
Anderson detailed the three main components of the plan; 1) a Physical and Environmental Constraints(P&E)review; 2) Limited
Activity and Uses Permit for the Water Resources Protection Zone (WRPZ); 3) two Type II variances for lot coverage and
driveway grade. Mr. Anderson also noted that the published packet listed six exceptions to the Hillside Standard, but that the
standard relating to building envelopesin18.3.10.090.E.1.aonly applies to newly created lots, and would therefore not be
included in the discussion.
Mr. Anderson gave a brief history of the parcel before moving on to the site and plan review. He identified the Twin Creek
waterways that run through the propertyand the buffer zone around the creeksthat the P&E and WRPZ maps refer to.He
explained that despite the steep slopes of the hillside this site was required to be considered buildable for a single-family building
or duplex as the code allows. The Buildable Land Inventory (BLI) designates the property as vacant and buildable for one unit,
and in 2004 a Type I Land Use Action approved a P&E exception for the development of a driveway, but was never acted upon.
Mr. Anderson then provided the Commission withsite plans detailing the variances requested on the application, including
exceptions to the maximum grade of a driveway and hillside building height (see Attachment #1).In addition, the plans call for a
Tree Removal Permit for the removal of eighteensignificant trees.
Mr. Anderson explained that the development calledfor threeexceptionsto the City’s Grading code: 1)currently the code allows
for up to one hundred feet of driveway to be developed on 35% slopes, and this plan would call for nearly the entire drivewayto
exceed these standards;2) retention in natural state standard be reduced from 89.57% to 69.3%;and 3)that the maximum cut
slope and terracing of retaining wallsbenearly double the fifteen foot maximum standard.There wouldalso betwo building
design exceptions requestedfordownhill wall height limitationsand horizontal building plane limitations.
Mr. Anderson informed the Commission that this proposal went before the Tree Commission on February 3, 2022 for reviewas it
would require the removal of eighteen significant trees from both the driveway and building envelope. The Tree Commission
reviewed the application and voted three-to-one to approve it.He concluded by stating that Staff recognizes that the buildable lot
has severe constraints and that it would be reasonable to anticipate that exceptions would be necessary to develop the property.
Questions ofStaff
Commissioners Roger Pearce and Lynn Thompson commended Mr. Anderson on the quality of his presentation. Commissioner
Thompson questioned Mr. Andersonaboutthe intent of the grading code with regards to terracing and cut slopestandards.Given
that this proposal called for allowingnearly double the standardshe questioned what the implication would be in approving these
exceptions. Mr. Anderson stated the applicant’s civil engineer could speak to the exceptions but statedusing smaller terraced
sections could result in a much bigger disturbance tothe site. Mr. Molnar added that this site is much steeper than the case
studies that were evaluated when the Hillside Development Standards were adopted.
Applicant’s Presentation
Theproperty owners Katie and Joe Clarke thanked the Commission, Staff, and their design team for the work put into this
proposal.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 2of 6
Applicant Amy Gunter began by stating that despite the steep slope and difficult terrainher teamwould be able todevelopthe
property with as little impact on the surrounding area as possible. She detailedthe topographical differences between the map of
the area used by Jackson County and the one used by her design team, including a difference of 56ft in the property’s stated
height above sea level. She also noted that in examiningthe map there did not appear to be a more developable lot further down
the hillside. She added that this area of the site had beenchosen for being theflattest, most buildable location, while the driveway
allowed emergency vehicle access to theproperty.Ms. Gunter stated that the structure would utilize step foundations to decrease
the downhill wall height and to reduce mass, while also exceeding all required setbacks.Shealsonoted that one of the trees
marked for removal by the plan would now be retained.
Ms. Gunter outlined theWRPZon the property around the Twin Creek waterwaysand detailed how the plans for the driveway
had been structured to largely avoid interfering with the riparian habitat.Due to the nature of the terrain the greatest impact would
be around the driveway switchback and turnaround, and the culvert beneath the driveway that wouldallow the creek to continue
runningthrough the property.She pointed out that the northern branch of the streamwas considered by her team to have a
higher ecological value, and therefore the plans weredesigned to have as littleimpact on that region as possible.Ms. Gunter
called attention to the code calling for a “hardship exception” to build structures in riparian habitat, but calls for a lesser review for
driveways, indicating that such development would be acceptable in the region. With regards to the driveway she also pointed out
that the average slope of the driveway would be around 15% and that the code appears to support exceptions to the maximum
grade allowed in order to access more buildable property.
Ms. Gunterpresentedthe Commission with written testimony from various experts who gave findings and opinions approving
development. These included Geotechnical Engineers Robin Warren and Eric Swanson,Ashland Fire Chief Ralph Sartain,and
Fire Code Professional Margueritte Hickman.Ms. Gunter noted the Fire Professional’s Opinionthat development could provide
additional fire protection through fuel reduction and by providing greater access to potential wildfires in the area(see Attachment
#2).
Questions for the Applicant
Ms. Gunter addressed Commissioner Thompson’s earlier question. She acknowledged that the property was located on nearly
double the maximum slope allowed for a buildable lot,but added that it was her belief that this lot and grade were not conceived
when the grade ordinance was adopted.If the team were to adhere to the existing code it would result in significant cuts into the
hillside, whereas fewerbuthigherterraceswouldhave a reduced impact on the terrain.She addedthather geotechnical team
concluded that thisretaining wall design would be a better solution for the property.
Commissioner Pearce expressed hesitancy in approving the project due to its insistence in developing on the highest and most
difficult to reach portion of the lot, and suggestedthat the project would potentiallyrequire fewer variances and exceptions if it was
developed closer to the driveway opening. Engineer Todd Powell responded by pointingout that the slopes near the site entrance
were between 40-60% grade andcautionedthat this madedeveloping on that portionextremely difficult.He furtheremphasized
that the top of the site wasthebest location for building construction.
Commissioner Thompson remarked that theproposal’s Wildfire Fuels Reduction Planmade reference towood mulch andstraw
wattlesset around the property during developmentand queried whattheir purpose,duration, and potential dangeron the site
would be.Mr. Powell responded that,while many materials were listed in the proposal,no mulch would be used on site due to fire
danger, and that straw wattles wouldbe placed to halt erosion on the developed slopes and terraces.They would remain on site
until the contractor could reseed the ground andstabilizethe soil, typically a matter of months after development.The wattles
would then be removed at the discretion ofan Erosion Control Inspector, in this case the geotechnical expert on the project.
Public Testimony
Jasmin Holley/Ms. Holley’spropertyneighborsthe development site and shehad previously met with the design teamto bring
severalconcerns to their attention.After meetingwiththedesignteamshe compiled a list ofConditions of Approval that she
requested be made part of theCommission’sdecision.(see Attachment #3).In addition to her written testimony she also raised a
concernover the flood risk of a heavily developed site, but commended the design team for keeping the riparian habitat almost
entirely intact.
Applicant’sRebuttal
Ms. Gunter addressed the concerns raised duringMs. Holley’s testimony.She statedthat sporadicroad accessinterruptions
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 3of 6
would be unavoidable, but they would be brief or have prior notice given, and there should be nolimitations on roadside parking
by residences. When discussing construction hours Ms. Guntercitedthe current city ordinance that allowed for activity between
the hours of 7:00a.m.to 7:00p.m. for weekdaysand 8:00a.m. to 6:00p.m. on the weekends, andstated they do not support Ms.
Holley’s request to expand on those limitations. Ms. Gunter then stated that she had no objections to Ms. Holley’s other requests.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing and record at 8:23 p.m.
Deliberation and Discussion
Commissioner Dawkins statedthat due to the steepness of the slopes onthe lot he agreed with the developers that they chose
the best buildable spot to locate the house. Commissioner Pearce concurred with Commissioner Dawkins’ assessment but
lamented that the proposal did not examine other possible areas on the sitefor the building or explainwhy the requested
minimum exceptions and variances were the best possible avenue for development.He further remarkedthat treating this areaas
the only buildable space on the lot was disappointing without exploring other potential areas in the proposal. He conceded that the
engineering of the plan was well thought-out but that the legal arguments were lacking,andconcluded that this likely was the
most promising location on the lotfor development.
Commissioners Verner and Dawkins echoed theconcerns raised by Commissioner Pearceand remarked that at first glancethe
number of variances and exceptions necessary for development were troubling. After further discussion Commissioner Dawkins
pointed outthat this is a legal lot of land, and that declaring it unsuitable for development would not be fair to the owners.
Commissioner Dawkins arguedthat changing the proposal to locate the house elsewherewould also be unlikely to reduce the
number of variances and exceptions necessary for development.
Commissioner Thompson voiced support for the minimal impact the proposal would have on the surrounding area. She called
attention to the potential for wildfire mitigation that development could provide, as well as increased access to emergency
response servicesto the area.Based on theapplicant’s designto accommodate emergency vehiclesand restore the vegetation
after development Commissioner Thompson declared that she was inclined to grant approval.
Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve PA-T2-2022-00036 with staff’s recommendations. DISCUSSION: The
Commission clarified Ms. Holley’s recommended Conditions of Approval are not included in the motion to approve. Roll Call
Vote: Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street
APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for
OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000),David Young(owner, 475 E.
Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300)
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Ashland’s
Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. Theapplication asserts
that there are differences in the UGB’s location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in
use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps’ scales were such that the line width could
significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four
properties in question are within the City of Ashland’s Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37
acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan(2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300).
PLEASE NOTE: The “1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement” also requires
review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland
City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single
Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000,
1100, 1200 & 1300.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Dawkins, Verner, and Norton conducted site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Seversonremindedthe Commission thatType II map amendments are typically processed at the city level,
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 4of 6
but thatthis decision would ultimately need approval from both the City Council and the County Board of Commissionersand
would thereforebeprocessed as a Type IIIprocedure.
Mr. Severson relatedthat whenthe applicantsdiscussed platting the Katherine Mae Subdivision with Jackson County it foundthat
there was an issue with leaving County RR-5 zoned remnant properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)oflessthan
the minimum required five-acre lot area.Recording the Katherine Mae Subdivisionwould require an exception to Goal 14 of
Oregon’s Statewide Land Use-Planning goals. The County informed the applicant that such an action would be costly and unlikely
to be approved(see Attachment #4).
Mr. Severson detailed how in examining this case staff looked through various official and unofficial maps to determine if an error
occurred in splitting the parcels along the UGB.These maps included “The Tarp,” an unofficial reference map from 1984, a map
detailing the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement between the city and county from 1982, as well as the adopted zoning map from
thatsameagreement. Another map was provided to staff from the applicant potentially from the 1989 Urban Growth Boundary
Agreement. The boundary lines on this map partially obscure the parcellines, but staff was unable to confirm if this map was
officially adopted.Finally the Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map was adopted in 2008 and appearsto be consistent with the 1982
Urban Growth Boundary Agreement.Mr. Severson concluded that Staff was as equally frustrated with the divisions created by the
UGB, but could not find any indications that theboundarieswere made erroneously.
Questions ofStaff
Commissioner Thompson commented that the narrative of the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement would be the most important
aspect of this decision and pointed out that the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement map showed the City limits as being the
same as the UGB line. She then inquired if there was any questionover the city limits. Mr. Severson responded there was no
dispute, and that if one line was found to have been made in error then both lines would likely be relocated.He then pointed to a
location on the map where the lines did diverge but then reconnectedbeforereachingthe boundary ofthe disputed line.He stated
thatto staffthis indicated a deliberate decisionregardingboundary placementand not a cartographic error.
Commissioner KenCairnquestioned if such a division of the parcelscould be considereda taking and if a potentialdevaluation of
property could be met with legal action.Commissioner Pearce responded that it would not constitute a taking and that the UGB
only constitutes a jurisdictional lineand does not affect the use of the parcelexcept in terms of development.Commissioner
KenCairn responded thatbecause of this protracted legal disputeit had alreadyaffected the property’spotentialdevelopment.
Commissioner Pearce commented thatper Ordinance 2951, which wasadopted in 2008,the city limitswere seenas being
conterminous with the zoning map and therefore there wasno basis to address the location of the city limitsduring this meeting.
Commissioners Thompson/Verner m/s to approve extendingthe meeting to10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed 5-0.
Applicant’s Presentation
Attorney Garrett West stated the reason for this planning actionwasbecause his team believesthereisadiscrepancy and
mapping conflictbetween the county and the cityover the location of the UGB line.Mr. Westclarified his team is not suggesting
any change to the city limits at this time. Hestated that the county maps show the city’s UGBlineas encompassing the disputed
property, while the city’s maps show them bisecting the property. Mr. West asserted that this discrepancy likelyoccurredwhenthe
city transitioned from physical to digital GIS mapsand that the large lines drawn to demarcate the boundary lines obfuscatedthe
border.The result was the unintended divisions ofthe Nevada Streetpropertiesalong the UGB line.In a letter to the Commission
Mr. West cited several properties in the city where the current GIS mapshows the UGB toconformto the lot linesrather than
divide them into smaller parcels(see Attachment #5).His team believesthatthis consistency elsewhere in the cityshows a clear
oversight with regards to the Nevada Street parcel divisions.Mr. West stated that procedurally it madelegal sense to seek
ratification of a decision from both thecityand the County Board of Commissioners.This would provide clarity for future
applicants and also make the code consistent between the city and county.Mr. West did not recommendrequesting an exception
to Goal 14 because he did not believe it would be approved.
Attorney Brent Hall concluded the presentation byreiterating the saliant arguments made by the applicants, and elaboratedthat
there is a areaof interpretation over where the UGB line was originally intended to belocated. He arguedthat there is precedent
for moving the UGB line without adjusting the city limits as seen elsewhere, and that the reasons for those departures could
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 5of 6
readily apply to this correction. Mr. Hall itemized the past decisions as;1)there waspotential to increase level, buildable land with
access to the city services;2)anincrease to potential density for the city byapproximately twenty units;3)increasing affordable
housing adjacent to a future public street that would be extended for development.Mr. Hall concluded by assuring the
Commissionthat this case could not result in urban sprawling because of adjacent properties and the I5 freeway.For these
reasons hecontended that there is good reason for a Type II minor amendmentand that it would notbenecessary to bring this
issue back to the county given that it had alreadyagreedwith the applicant’s team where the boundary line is located.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Thompson pointed out thatthere weretwoGISmapspromulgated by the Jackson County development services
that appear to be dissimilar in where they place the UGB; one is consistent with thecity’s division of the parcel, while the other
followsthe lot lines, and questioned the applicants why this might be.Ms. Gunter explainedthat the purpose of including two
incompatible GIS maps was to illustrate the changes made to the UGB lineon the county level over the past two years. When
Jackson County deferred judgement to the city it changed its map to match the city’s. However, it recently changed once again
andnowfollows the propertylinesandfurthermuddlesan already unclear situation.Commissioner Thompson responded that
these GIS maps are all unofficial and thusthenarrative is the most important aspect of this item, and that when examining the
1982 mapit seems to clearly intend for the UGB to follow the city limits in this area.Because of this Commissioner Thompson
questionedwhythis case could notbe processed as a minor correctionper the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreementandnot
be subject to Ashland municipal codes.Ms. Gunter argued that if the UGB did divide the parcels that the remnant lot pieces would
be below the minimum requirement to constitute parcels on their own, and would thenrequire an exception to Goal 14.
Commissioner Thompson asserted thata map correction is anincorrect legal avenue to process this request, and that the
correction should be a change to the UGB.She voiced agreement that the outlying parcels should be incorporated into the city
but questionedif theapplicant’s request wasthe best way to achieve that.
Chair Norton closed the public hearing at 9:33 p.m.but left the public record open as this is a Type III action.
Deliberation and Discussion
Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Thompson on her assessment, and stressedthat there appeared to be no
discrepancy between the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement map and the map description that accompanied the
ordinance.In fact the description made specific mention of divergences between the UGB and city limit lines, andthe properties
of EastNevada Street were not listed.Commissioner Pearce concluded byrecommending to the City Council that the UGB line is
correctas shown on the current maps and not a result of any cartographic mistake.He added that he would encourage the city
and county to cooperate to amend the UGB line tomake it follow parcel boundary lines.
Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to recommend to the City Council that based on Ordinance 2227 and the 1982
Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, the UGB boundary in this location is correct and there is no cartographic error that
needs correction. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Verner inquired if it would be proper to include in the motion a recommendation
for the City Council to work with Jackson County to change the UGB to match property lines. Commissioners Thompson stated
there is a process for this under the original agreement.Commissioner Pearce added the Commission can state their preference
for the UGB to follow property lines and recommend the City Council follow that procedure in the future, but they cannot
recommend a specific process for the Council to follow.Commissioner Verner expressed concern that this leaves the applicants
in limbo and the motion does not provide direction to the applicants on where to go from here. Commissioners Thompson and
KenCairn stated the applicants still have options; and noted they can advocate to the City Council to work with the County to
change the UGBboundary. Roll CallVote: Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Commissioner
KenCairn, abstained. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Pearce thanked the applicants for sticking with this process and stated the Commission is frustrated as well; but
stated it would be inappropriate for them to state it was a cartographic error when that does not appear to be the case.
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:46p.m.
Submitted by,
Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 8, 2022
Page 6of 6
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
REQUEST FOR PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOME
ZONING OVERLAY
CITY OF
ASHLAND
SLOPE MAP
Please extend credit to Jackson County GIS in any
subsequent works derived from its data, such as maps.
SLOPE ANALYSIS OF
PROPERTY BASED ON
TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS A.2.1
Sheet L.1.2.A Revised
TREE REMOVAL DATA
Landscape Planting Plan L 1.8A
Landscape Planting Plan L 1.8B
Includes riparian mitigation trees
Civil Plan Sheet C4.0
DRIVEWAY GRADE PROFILES C4.1
Lot Coverage Exhibit Sheet L 1.6
GEOTECHNICAL EXPERT FINDINGS
ÑIn our opinion, the proposed building site is suitable for development with the proposed
single-family homeÈIf the geotechnical recommendations for the development are
followed, in our opinion, there are no significant risks of slope instability on the lotÒ
Applied Geotechnical Engineering and Geologic Consulting LLC
Robin L. Warren, G.E., P.E.
Further, Eric Swanson, G.E. ,P.E has reviewed the previous geotechnical report, and
the1979 and 1999 geologic mapping of the area and found that there are no active faults,
i.e. faults displaying movement during the last 10,000 to 15,000 years, known to exist
within Jackson County.
The (Ashland) area is in relative hazard Zone D, reflecting low amplification, no
liquefaction, and low landslide hazard
Neither of the geologic maps of the area show the existence of landslides near the
property.
FIRE CHIEF FINDING
ÑWith you providing a sprinklered residence, a wide turning radius on your
approach, Ñturn-outÒ locations allowing vehicles to pass, and the fact you are
creating a fire break and defensible space surrounding this property I do not
have issue with the application submitted.Ò
Ralph Sartain, Fire Chief, Ashland Fire & Rescue
FIRE PROFESSIONAL OPINION
Fuels reduction requirements of the OFC, Ashland amendments and the AMC either meet or exceed the requirements of
the WUIC.
"The intent of limiting the grade for fire apparatus access is as much about the ability to respond to an incident quickly and
efficiently as it is about the capabilities of the apparatus performance both uphill and downhill. By limiting the section ofthe
grade to no more than 200 feet, it limits the power needed for the engine or ambulance to climb the grade and it limits the
brake usage to descend the grade.Ò
ÑIt is my opinion that the intent of this section of the code from a fire apparatus perspective is that there could be multiple
sections of up to 18% grade up to 200 feet length on a driveway depending on the total length of the driveway and the
distance between the segments. Ñ
ÑThe development of this lot provides added safety to this neighborhood. Through the development of this lot, fuels
reduction will be required to be implemented and maintained. This will help to improve the potential to slow a fire if it
moves through and reduce the potential for a crowning fire to occur. This also provides a greater potential for firefighters to
make an impact on a wildfire and reduce the potential negative impacts of fire to the neighborhood.Ò
MargueritteHickman, Fire Code Professional
Sage Fire Solutions
ENTRANCE TO PROPERTY
At proposed switchback
South branch of Twin Creek
PHOTOS OF PROPERTY IN SW CORNER OF BUILDING
ENVELOPE (NOTICE EVIDENCE OF CAMPFIRES)
CONCLUSION
‘The Tarp’, unofficial reference map (mid-1980’s)
Officially-Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map (2008)
(
Northerly 2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300)
County/RR-5
Current:
City UGB/North Mountain Neighborhood
Proposed:
Anexpansionofan
urbangrowthboundary.
i.e.PlanningCommissiondecisioninkeeping
withORS227.188
50acres)
Acorrectionwouldnotbeconsideredanexpansion.
Inlightoftheabove–staffaretreatingtheactionasaTypeIIIwithahearingbeforethe
PlanningCommissiontoyieldarecommendationtoCouncil,aCouncilhearinganddecision
whichwouldthenbeforwardedtotheBoardofCommissionersforahearingpriortothe
adoptionofanordinance.
‘The Tarp’, unofficial (mid-1980’s)
Officially-Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map (2008)
DRAFT FINDINGS
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
March08, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2022-00036,A)
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS REVIEW PERMIT )
(P&E) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY )
RESIDENTIAL HOME ON A VACANT PARCEL AT 329 GRANITE )
STREET.IN ADDITION TO THE P&E THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES)
DRAFT
A LIMITED ACTIVITY AND USES PERMIT IN THE WATER )
RESOURCE PROTECTIONZONE(WRPZ), A VARIANCE TO THE )
FINDINGS,
MAXIMUM GRADE OF A DRIVEWAY, A VARIANCE TO LOT )
CONCLUSIONS,
COVERAGE,ANDA TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE REMOVAL )
AND ORDERS.
OF EIGHTEEN SIGNIFIGANTTREES.)
)
DRAFT
OWNER:
JOSEPH AND KATHERINE CLARKE)
APPLICANT:
ROGUE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES)
_______________________________________________________________)
RECITALS:
1)The subject property is tax lot#704of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-08-DDand has a SITUS
address of329 GraniteStreet.
2)The property is split zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5) and Woodland Residential (WR)and is
3.22acres in size.
3)The subject property was created prior to the current Physical & Environmental Constraints
Ordinance (AMC 18.3.10) and has an average slope of 64.57 percent. As provided at AMC
18.3.10.090.A.1.a, “Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35-
percent shall be considered buildable for one single-family dwelling and an accessory
residential unit or a duplex…”
4)The subject property has a Water Resource and Protection Zone (WRPZ) which is identified
as an ephemeral & intermittent watercourse named ‘Twin Creek.’
5)The application proposes the construction of a new single-family residential home which
requires a Physical & Environmental (P&E) constraints review permit due to the topography.
The application also requires a limited activity anduses permit in the Water Resource
ProtectionZone(WRPZ), a variance to the maximum grade of a driveway, a variance to lot
coverage, and a tree removal permit for eighteensignificant trees.
st
6)On January 31, 2022theapplicationwas deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC
18.5.1.050.B.4aNotice of Complete applicationand public meetingwas posted at the
subject propertyin clear view from the public right-of-wayand mailed to all property
owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel.
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 1
DRAFT FINDINGS
7)Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.62 “Emergency Powers” specifically delegates the
authority to declare a state of emergency to the City Manager, subject to subsequent
ratification by the City Council. On March 17, 2020, the City Council ratified the City
Administrator’s March 15, 2020 Declaration of Emergency resulting from the Coronavirus
contagion, and the Council has subsequently approved extension of this Declaration of
Emergency through present. Among other things, this Declaration of Emergency provides for
public meetings to be conducted by electronic means for the various City commissions and
boards, including the Planning Commission.
8)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held apublic hearing on February
8, 2022. The meeting wasconducted electronically byZoom. Public testimony was received,
and exhibits were presented.Following the closing of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate
development of the site.
9)The criteria of approval for a Physical& Environmental (P&E)Constraints Review Permit
are described inAshland Municipal Code (AMC)18.3.10.050which require that all of the
following criteria are met:
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.
10)The criteria of approval for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands
are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.10.090.H which require that all of the
following criteria are met:
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 chapter18.3.10, Physical and
Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside
Lands.
11)The criteria of approval for a Limited Activities and Uses Permit in the WRPZ are described
in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.11.060.D which require that all of the following
criteria are met:
1.All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to
minimize intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone and disturb as little of the surface
area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
2.The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading,
area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on
water resources.
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 2
DRAFT FINDINGS
3.On stream beds or banks within the bank-full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent or
greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of impervious
surfaces, andremovalof native vegetation shall be avoided except where no practicable
alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability.
4.Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid
exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands.
5.Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement, and
wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of a mitigation
plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section18.3.11.110,
Mitigation Requirements.
6.Long-term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone
shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in
subsection18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots
occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures
12)The criteria of approval for a Variance are described in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
18.5.5.050 which require that all of the following criteria are met
1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or
unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent
development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a
hardship for purposes of approving a variance.
2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances
related to the subject site.
3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the
adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the
variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval
previously granted to the applicant.
13)The criteria of approval for a Tree Removal are described in Ashland Municipal Code
(AMC) 18.5.7.040.B.2 which require that all of the following criteria are met:
a.Thetreeis proposed forremovalin 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 part18.4and Physical and Environmental
Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of
surface waters, protection of adjacenttrees, or existing windbreaks.
c.Removalof thetreewill not have a significant negative impact on thetreedensities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an
exception to this criterion when alternatives to thetree removalhave 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
ontrees, so long as the alternativescontinue to comply with the other provisions of this
ordinance.
e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for theremovalof eachtreegranted approval
pursuant to section18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approvalof
the permit.
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 3
DRAFT FINDINGS
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, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes,and
recommends as follows:
2.1The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera
decision based on thecompleteApplicationMaterials,Staff Report, public hearing testimony;
and by theirreference each of these are incorporated hereinas if set out in full.
2.2.1The Planning Commission findsthatAMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development
of land envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources
among other goals. The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the
record to make findings that each of the request actions have been shown to meet the relevant
approval criteria or meet those approval criteria through the imposition of certain binding
conditions of approval.
2.2.2The PlanningCommission finds that the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance is to:
“Provide for safe, orderly, and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of
physiographic conditions and significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and
reduce encroachment upon, or alteration of, any natural environment and to provide for
sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various natural features.”
2.2.3The Planning commission notes the complexity of developing the property a due to the
physical constraints present, and further recognizes that the limitations regarding driveway
grades poses added difficulty in developing the subject property due to the confluence of steep
slopes, riparian protection zones, and tree preservationobjectives.
2.2.4The Planning Commission finds that the standards at AMC 18.3.10.090.E.1 which
provides for the standards to the ‘building envelope’ only relate to ‘newly created lots’and as
such thosestandards at 18.3.10.090.E.1 et. seq. arenot relevant to the application.
2.3The Planning Commission finds that allthe individual components, and their approval
criteria, of the planning action are relatedto the same underlying issue which is the physical
constraints of the property (steep slopes and water courses). The Planning Commission notes that
the Land Use Ordinance considers land steeper than 35-percent to be unbuildable. The Planning
Commission further notes that the average slope of the subject lot is more than60-percent. The
Planning Commission finds thatthe Land Use Ordinance did not contemplate, and the standards
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 4
DRAFT FINDINGS
within do not support, the development of such a property.
2.3.1The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for a Physical
& Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC 18.3.10.The Planning
Commission notes that the least steep portion of the lot is near the top of the property and the
application has made everyeffort to minimize the impacts while at the same time site the home
in the area of least steep slopes. The Planning Commission finds that the application includes
detailed erosion and sediment control plans as well as a geotechnical report and that by following
the recommendations in both that the potential hazards will have been mitigated. The Planning
Commission finds that the landscaping plan and erosion control plan will minimize any adverse
impacts and that the single-family home is well within the maximum development allowed
2.3.2The Planning Commission notes thatthe application requestsfive exceptions to the
Hillside Design standards as detailed below:
a.General Requirements –New Streets and Driveways: 18.3.10.090.A.3.2.b.
b.Retention in Natural State: 18.3.10.B.3.
c.Grading –Maximum Cut Slope Retaining Wall Height: 18.3.10.090.B.4.b.
d.Downhill Wall HeightLimitation: 18.3.10.090 E.2.c
e.Horizontal Building Plane Limitation: 18.3.10.090 E.2.d
The Planning Commission finds that the physical constraints of the property, and the
incompatibility of the hillside standards for a property of this steepness create a demonstrable
difficulty in meeting the hillside standards. Additionally, while the cut faces are significant and
terraced sections exceed the amount permitted, without an exception for the taller cuts ultimately
more of the hillside would need to be disturbed. The Planning commission finds that based on
thestatement of the engineer these exceptions are the minimum necessary to alleviate the
difficulty.
2.3.3The Planning Commission finds that the driveway design, based on the topography, has
no alternative but to cross Twin Creek. The application states that the design specifically
minimizes the impact on the WRPZ while also providing the required grade and access standards
for Fire Department access. Given that the crossing was inevitable in the design phase the
applicant has made efforts to ensure that thedisturbance has been minimized and that no
practicable alternative exists. The Planning Commission finds that the storm drain system has
been designed by an engineer to ensure that it can pass the base flood, and that the application
includes an extensivereplanting plan of native species. The Planning Commission further finds
that a management plan is not required as the property isresidentially zoned and proposed to be
occupied only by a single-family dwelling.
2.3.4The application requires two variances: One for maximum grade to a driveway,and a
second for amount of allowed lot coverage.
The application is requesting a variance to driveway grade to allow one segment of driveway to
exceed the 15-percent maximum grade, but remain less than 18-percent, for a distance of 200
feet. Ashland’s Land Use Ordinance at AMC 18.5.3.060.F requires that: “Flag drive grades shall
not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades
in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 5
DRAFT FINDINGS
shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approval in chapter 18.5.5 Variances.” The
proposed driveway is 814-feet in total length with a vertical climb of 124-feet for an average
slope of 15.23-percent with a range between 8-18 percent. The applicants have designed the
driveway so that one section that is 200-feet in length has an 18-percent grade.
The second variance is for maximum allowed lot coverage. The code specifies that there are
maximum allowed lot coverages for different zones. Shown at right is the subject property with
the two separate zoning districts delineated by the dashed line bisecting the property. The
western part is 1.51 acres and is zoned Woodland Reserve (WR), and the easternpart is 1.71
acres and is zoned Rural Residential (RR-.5). The WR zone allows for 7-percent lot coverage
and the RR-.5 zone allows for 20-percent lot coverage. The application request to increase the
amount of lot coverage on the WR zoned part from the allowed maximum of 7-percent to a total
of 11.7-percent. This is an increase of 66-percent over the standard (3,052 sq ft over the allowed
4,611 sq. ft. for a total of 7,663). The RR-.5 part of the property is proposed to have a total of
13.7-percent lot coverage, which is 6.3-percent below the allowed maximum coverage of 20-
percent. That said, when considering the property as a whole, the overall proposal has less lot
coverage than would be allowed in total.
The Planning Commission finds that the property has a unique set of physical constraints in the
significant slopes are throughout the property and intermittent stream channels bisect the access
point from the building area. The positive benefits of allowing the 18% grade is that the height of
the cuts from stations 2+80 to 4+80 are less than if the grade of the drive was at 15%. The
Planning Commission further finds that the physical characteristics of the site which warrant the
complex driveway construction, and increased lot coverage have not been self-imposed by the
applicant. The Planning Commission concludes that the approval criteria for both variances has
been met.
2.3.5The application states that there are over 330 trees larger than six inches DBH (Diameter
at Breast Height), and that the design ofthe project has taken efforts to minimize required tree
removals. The application states that those trees identified for removal are because they are “in
the path of the proposed driveway, are in the building envelope, or within the required 30-foot
buffer from the residence, are in poor condition, or the impacts of construction will irreparably
harm the trees.” The application asserts that, “There are no specimen trees or trees of stellar
quality that would necessitate preservation or redesign of the driveway, building envelope area,
and proposed residence.”With that said, the application includes a request a Tree Removal
permit for eighteen significant trees, as well as Tree Removal permits for those regulated trees in
the Riparian protection zone/floodplain of Twin Creek, and many smaller stature trees that are
part of the wildfire fuel reduction plan.The Planning Commission finds that the regulated trees
that are requested for removal meet the criteria of approval for trees that are not a hazard asthey
are located in the building envelope and driveway area.
2.4During the public comment period Jasmin Holley suppliedwritten comment expressing
concerns about the development. Jasmin Holley also appeared during the hearing and provided
testimony. Jasmin Holley supplieda set of proposed conditions of approval that she felt would
mitigate her concerns. Except forrestrictions on hours of construction (which is already
regulated in the AMC) the applicant’s representative indicated that there were no concerns in
principle, as such they have been included as conditions of approval.
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 6
DRAFT FINDINGS
2.5.1In Summary, the applicant has submitted a substantial set of findings addressing all of the
relevant approval criteria for the planning action, the requested exceptions andvariances. The
application addresses the unique factor requiring the need for the requested variances is the fact
that the areas of the property with the slopes of less than 35-percent, which were identified for
the building envelope, are located considerably upslope from the access and thus require
significant encroachment into the steep slopes and riparian protection zones so that the driveway
could achieve the required grade. Additionally, the application asserts that the location of the two
identified watercourses preclude development of the lower portion of the property. And finally,
in discussing the exceptions in general the application states that the code did not anticipate a
property with such steep slopes and that that these site conditions constitute “a unique aspect
because a parcel with this degree of slope cannot be created under present zoning ordinances.”
2.5.2The Commission finds that with the conditions below attached, the proposal satisfies the
applicable approval criteria. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable
criteria for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit as provided at AMC
18.3.10 with five exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, a Limited
Activities and Uses Permit in the WRPZ as provided at AMC 18.3.11, two Variances as provided
at AMC 18.5.5, and the removal of eighteen trees that are not a hazard as provided at AMC
18.5.7.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on therecord of the Public Hearings on this matter, andall materials submitted by
the applicant the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant’s site planning, building
design, engineering and landscape planning adequately address the criteria and standards for the
Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit with five associated design
exceptions, two Variances, Limited Activities and Uses permit for the WRPZ, and tree removal
permits.Therefore,the Planning Commission approves the Application, with the attached
conditions of approval, notingthat this decision is supported by evidence contained within the
whole record.
1.Thatallproposalsoftheapplicantshallbeconditionsofapprovalunlessotherwise
modifiedherein.Towit,Duringthehearingtheapplicantindicatedconsentwiththe
suggestedconditionssubmittedbyMs.Holley,theyfollow:
a.TheSharedDriveway/accessroadfor295,303,309-11,313,315-17,321,329
GraniteStreettobeprofessionallyassessedpriortopriortoconstructionbeginning.
b.Duringtheconstructionoftheprojecttemporaryrepairstobemadeasnecessaryto
maintaintheroad.
c.Theroadwillreasonablypassableandfunctionalatalltimes
d.Attheconclusionoftheprojecttheroadshallbereconstructedtoastandardequalto
orgreaterthantheassessedcondition.
e.Thattreeprotectionmeasuresasdesignedremaininplaceduringconstruction.
f.Thatalleasementsbephysicallymarkedonsitepriortoconstruction.
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 7
DRAFT FINDINGS
2.Thattheplanssubmittedforthebuildingpermitshallbeinsubstantialconformancewith
thoseapprovedaspartofthisapplication.Iftheplanssubmittedforthebuildingpermit
arenotinsubstantialconformancewiththoseapprovedaspartofthisapplication,an
applicationtomodifythislanduseapprovalshallbesubmittedandapprovedpriorto
issuanceofabuildingpermit.
3.Thatthepropertyownershallsigninfavoroflocalimprovementdistrictsforthefuture
streetimprovements,includingbutnotlimitedtosidewalks,parkrow,curb,gutterand
stormdrainage,forGraniteStreetpriortotheissuanceofabuildingpermit.
4.ThatarevisedTreeProtectionPlanconsistentwiththestandardsdescribedinAMC
18.4.5besubmittedforreviewandapprovaloftheStaffAdvisorpriortotheissuanceof
abuildingpermit.TheplanshallincorporatetherecommendationsoftheTree
Commissionandidentifythelocationandplacementoffencingaroundthedriplinesof
treesidentifiedforpreservation.Thetreeprotectionfencingshallbeinstalledaccording
totheapprovedplanpriortoanysitework.Noconstructionshalloccurwithinthetree
protectionzoneincludingdumpingorstorageofmaterialssuchasbuildingsupplies,soil,
waste,equipment,orparkedvehicles.Theamountoffillandgradingwithinthedrip
linesshallbeminimized.Cutswithinthedriplineshallbenotedonthetreeprotection
plan,andshallbeexecutedbyhandsawandkepttoaminimum.Nofillshallbeplaced
aroundthetrunk/crownroot.
5.ThataTreeVerificationPermitshallbeappliedforandapprovedbytheStaffAdvisor
priortopermitissuance,treeremoval,oranysiteworkincludingdemolition,staging,
storageofmaterials,orexcavation.TheTreeVerificationPermitistoinspectthe
identificationofthetreetoberemovedandtheinstallationoftreeprotectionfencingfor
thetreestobeprotectedonandadjacenttothesite.Thetreeprotectionshallbechainlink
fencingsixfeettallandinstalledinaccordancewithAMC18.4.5.030.
6.Thatanytemporaryerosioncontrolmeasures(i.e.siltfenceandbalebarriers)andsilt
fencingtoprotecttheTwinCreeksWaterResourceProtectionZoneshallbeinstalled
accordingtotheapprovedplan,inspectedandapprovedbytheStaffAdvisorpriortoany
sitework,staging,storageofmaterials,excavationorpermitissuance.
7.Thatapre-constructionconferencetoreviewtherequirementsoftheHillside
DevelopmentPermitshallbeheldon-sitepriortositework,theissuanceofanexcavation
permitortheissuanceofabuildingpermit,whicheveractionoccursfirst.Theconference
shallincludetheAshlandPlanningDepartment,AshlandBuildingDepartment,any
relevantPublicWorksorUtilitiesstaff,andtheapplicant’sprojectteamincludingthe
projectengineer,projectgeotechnicalexperts,landscapeprofessional,arborist,the
generalcontractorandexcavationandutilitysubcontractors.Theapplicantorapplicants’
representativeshallcontacttheAshlandPlanningDepartmenttoschedulethe
preconstructionconference.
8.Thatallmeasuresinstalledforthepurposesoflong-termerosioncontrol,includingbut
notlimitedtovegetativecover,rockwalls,retainingwallsandlandscapingshallbe
maintainedinperpetuityonallareasinaccordancewithAMC18.3.10.090.B.7.
9.Thatafinal‘GeneralFuelModificationArea’fuelreductionplanaddressingthe
requirementsinAMC18.3.10.100.Bshallbeprovidedforthereviewandapprovalofthe
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 8
DRAFT FINDINGS
FireDepartmentpriortobringingcombustiblematerialsontotheproperty,andanynew
landscapingproposedshallcomplywiththewildfireoverlayzonestandardsandshallnot
includeplantslistedontheProhibitedFlammablePlantListperResolution2018-028.
10.Thatthebuildingpermitsubmittalsshallincludethefollowing:
a.Identificationofalleasements,includingbutnotlimitedtoanypublicandprivate
utilityeasements,mutualaccesseasements,,andfireapparatusaccesseasements.
b.Solarsetbackcalculationsdemonstratingthatallnewconstructioncomplieswith
SolarSetbackStandardAintheformula\[(Height–6)/(0.445+Slope)=Required
SolarSetback\]andelevationsorcrosssectiondrawingsclearlyidentifyingthehighest
shadowproducingpoint(s)andtheheight(s)fromnaturalgrade.
c.Lotcoveragecalculationsincludingallbuildingfootprints,driveways,parking,and
circulationareas.Lotcoverageshallbelimitedtonomorethanthatdescribedinthe
currentVariancerequest.
d.Thatstormwaterfromallnewimpervioussurfacesandrun-offassociatedwithpeak
rainfallsmustbecollectedonsiteandchanneledtotheCitystormwatercollection
system(i.e.,curbgutteratpublicstreet,publicstormpipeorpublicdrainageway)or
throughanapprovedalternativeinaccordancewithAshlandBuildingDivisionpolicy
BD-PP-0029.On-sitecollectionsystemsshallbedetailedonthebuildingpermit
submittals.
e.Thatwrittenverificationfromtheprojectgeotechnicalexpertaddressingthe
consistencyofthebuildingpermitsubmittalswiththegeotechnicalreport
recommendations(e.g.gradingplan,stormdrainageplan,foundationplan,etc.)shall
beprovidedwiththebuildingpermit.
f.Thatthebuildingfoundationshallbedesignedbyanengineerorarchitectwith
demonstrablegeotechnicaldesignexperienceinaccordancewithAMC
18.3.10.090.F.
11.Thatpriortofinalinspectionapprovalortheissuanceofacertificateofoccupancy:
a.Replacementtreestomitigatethetreesremovedshallbeplantedandirrigated
accordingtotheapprovedplan,oralternativemitigationaddressedasprovidedin
AMC18.5.7.050.
b.Thattheflagdriveshallbepavedtoa12-footwidth,withaverticalclearanceof13-
feet,6-inchesandbeabletowithstand44,000lbs.priortofinalinspectionapproval
ortheissuanceofacertificateofoccupancy.Theflagdriveshallbeconstructedso
astopreventsurfacedrainagefromflowingovertheprivatepropertylinesand/or
publicwayinaccordancewith18.5.3.060.Theapplicantshallprovidecertification
thatthedrivewaygradeisconsistentwiththatpermittedhereinpreparedbya
licensedlandsurveyor.
c.Thattheprojectgeo-technicalexpertshallinspectthesiteaccordingtotheinspection
scheduleoftheengineeringgeologyreportincludedintheapplicationpriortothe
issuanceofthecertificateofoccupancy,theprojectgeo-technicalexpertshall
provideafinalreportindicatingthattheapprovedgrading,drainageanderosion
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 9
DRAFT FINDINGS
controlmeasureswereinstalledaspertheapprovedplans,andthatallscheduled
inspectionswereconductedbytheprojectgeotechnicalexpertperiodically
throughouttheproject.
d.Thelandscapingandirrigationforre-vegetationofcut/fillslopesanderosioncontrol
shallbeinstalledinaccordancewiththeapprovedplanpriortoissuanceofthe
certificateofoccupancy.Vegetationshallbeinstalledinsuchamannerastobe
substantiallyestablishedwithinoneyearofinstallation.
Planning Commission ApprovalDate
PA-T2-2022-00036
March8,2022
Page 10
Memo
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900
PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00037
()
corner of Van Ness & Water Streets
SUBJECT PROPERTY:165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness
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; ASSESSORÔS MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #:
2000, 2100 & 7100
The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on
NOTE:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 6:00
. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing.
PM
The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on .
NOTE:Thursday, March 3, 2022at 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.
Historic and Tree Commission Meetings
Notice is hereby given that the will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting
Historic and Tree Commission
date and time shown on Page 1. If you would like to watch and listen to the meetings virtually, but not participate in any
Historic and Tree Commission
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 ÑAdvisory
Commission Hearing TestimonyÒ 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-
In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the
public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 2022.
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 I).
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and
Underlying Zone:
yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
Overlay Zones:
C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as
Site Development and Design Standards:
provided by subsection E, below.
D. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water,
City Facilities:
sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject
property.
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards:The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards
E.
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
The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary
A. Approval Criteria.
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 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.
The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other
B. Conditions of Approval.
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.
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.
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 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section
18.3.10
18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B)
1. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or
Hazard Tree.
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. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
Tree That is Not a Hazard.
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.
165 Water Street
95 Van Ness Avenue
160 Helman Street
165 Water Street
95 Van Ness Avenue
160 Helman Street
Subdivision
Access & Minimum Street Frontage
Site Design Review
Off-Street Parking Requirements & On-Street Parking Credits
Ground Floor Commercial/Residential Split
Adequate Transportation (AMC 18.5.2.050.D) - Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
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
Historic District Development Standards and Historic Commission Review
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards
Plaza Space
In the Detail Site Review overlay, developments that are greater
than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage
shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic (AMC 18.4.2.040.B) and Detail (AMC
18.4.2.040.C) Site Review, above, conform to the following standards. See conceptual elevation of
large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.1and conceptual site plan of large scale
development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.2
All improvements on a site, including alterations to
land and new or remodeled structures, parking and loading areas, landscaping, paved or graveled
areas, and areas devoted to exterior display, storage, or activities.
*
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.
Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit (18.3.10.050) and
Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands (AMC 18.3.10.090.H)
unclear and unobjectiveÈ seemingly residential
standards
\[As the applicant notes, the standards in AMC 18.3.10.090.E are not applicable to the
historic districts and as such would not require an exception here in the Skidmore Academy
Historic District.\]
Development of Severe Constraints Lands
relatively unique in being E-1 zoned, outside of the Hillside
Lands overlay, with a limited area of Severe Constraints Lands near the rear of the property, and with
developable E-1 land both above and below the slope which are to be protected from slope failure with
structural retaining to enable development typical of E-1 lands and their associated development and
design standards.
Tree Removal Permit
Ð 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.Ñ
Exception to Street Standards (AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1)
Exception to the Street Design Standards
ÐÈ. may be provided in 7 ft bays rather than as a continuous
on-street lane
Solar Setback Exception (AMC 18.4.8.020.C)
habitable
Solar Access Exception
provide protection of a reasonable amount of sunlight from shade from
structures and vegetation whenever feasible to all parcels in the City to preserve the economic
value of solar radiation falling on structures, investments in solar energy systems, and the
options for future uses of solar energy
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 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&RÓs).
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.
A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area
and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation,
architecture, and other applicable standards.
B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).
C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.
D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public
Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to the subject property.
E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially
negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the
minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the
exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the
Site Development and Design Standards.
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.
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.
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, and section 18.3.10.090, Development
Standards for Hillside Lands.
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.
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.
iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically
apply elsewhere. (Ord. 3147 § 8, amended, 11/21/2017).
The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with
other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not
limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical
and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,
flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes,
canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant
an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered
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.
i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or
public drainage way
San Diego Buff
San Diego Buff
San
Diego Buff
_________________________________
FW: PA-T2-2022-00237 - May we have impartial meetings
Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us>
Thu 2022-02-24 03:15 PM
To: Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>
Cc: Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us>
Lƌƌ Ɠƚfy the enre Council of the need to refrain from discussing or reviewing informaon related to this quasi-
judicial acon before the PC, as it would be subject to rules regarding ex parte communicaons outside the public
hearing process.
CƩƚƒʹ Mark Brouillard <MTBrouillard@msn.com>
{ĻƓƷʹ Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:59 PM
ƚʹ Shaun Moran <Shaun.Moran@council.ashland.or.us>; Stephen Jensen <stephen@council.ashland.or.us>;
Paula Hya <Paula.Hya@council.ashland.or.us>
/ĭʹ Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us>; Julie Akins <julie@council.ashland.or.us>
{ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹ PA-T2-2022-00237 - May we have imparal meengs
\[EXTERNAL SENDER\]
To Council Liaisons, Planning Department, and Mayor,
I am asking that we have imparal meengs with regards to PA-T2-2022-00237. There are very specic
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 proclamaon was made by a presenter (Rogue Planning) and laughed at and
mocked by the historic commission members. That proclamaon was "now that there aren't any pesky
home owners here we might get something accomplished." I was present at the meeng as a
homeowner and made an objecon to it (being labeled as a pesky homeowner). But, the aending
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 properes at 95 Van Ness, 160 Helman,
and 165 Water. We as neighbors thought we had goen past the prior two approvals (much to the
objecons of the neighborhood) for 95 Van Ness and 160 Helman. We had all goen used to the idea of
having (2) 40 foot tall buildings across the street from us to now trying for 5 massive buildings that oer
no aordable housing, unless you call a million dollars per condo aordable (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 Helman
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 aer the Plaza asco.
Our original suggeson for the now 95 Van Ness Avenue building would be to make it the height limit of
the historic district, which is 30 feet. It should have a setback as well. The type of building that they are
wanng to build is one that is beer suited for the Clear Creek Drive area.
Here are our other concerns (again) with the project:
In our opinion the buildings do not meet the basic requirements of AMC 18.4.2.050. First, the buildings
Ǟźƌƌ ĬĻ ĭƚƓƭźķĻƩğĬƌĻ ƷğƌƌĻƩ ƷŷğƓ ƷŷĻ ͻŷźƭƷƚƩźĭ ĬǒźƌķźƓŭƭ źƓ ƷŷĻ ǝźĭźƓźƷǤͼ ƦǒƩƭǒğƓƷ Ʒƚ ЊБ͵Ѝ͵Ћ͵ЉЎЉ͵.͵Ћ͵ ŷĻ
buildings, in our opinion, also does not meet the criteria for the following secons: 18.4.2.050. B.3, B.4,
B.5, B.6, B.7, B.8, B.9, and B.10.
Ļ ğƌƭƚ ĬĻƌźĻǝĻ ƷŷğƷ ğĭĭƚƩķźƓŭ Ʒƚ !a/ ЊБΏЋ͵Ќ͵ЊЌЉ͵! Ǟŷźĭŷ ƭƷğƷĻƭ ƷŷğƷ ͻ5ǞĻƌƌźƓŭƭ źƓ ƷŷĻ 9ΏЊ ǩƚƓĻ ğƩĻ
limited to the R-overlay zone. See chapter 18-3.13 Residenğƌ hǝĻƩƌğǤ͵ͼ ŷźƭ ƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ źƭ ƓƚƷ źƓ ƷŷĻ
residenal overlay (gure 18.3.13.010) and should be held to R-2 standards. If this holds true, and with
the Historic District overlay, the maximum height is to be 30 feet not the 39.5 feet that is planned. It
would also need the proper setbacks as well. Having a building directly at the edge of the sidewalk also
does not t with AMC 18.4.2.050.B.6.
Again, the main topic is to have imparal meengs with regards to PA-T2-2022-00237, and yes I do
understand that the public is allowed their opinion. But when the commissions nd it funny then we
have unintended bias.
Respecully,
Mark and Donna Brouillard
159 Helman Street
Ashland, OR 97520
206-661-7085
Applicant’s Submittal
_________________________________
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
.
.
2100 391E04CC, 2000 391E04CC, 7100 391E04CC
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING REVIEW SET
Site Context / Historical Building Comparison
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
Phase 1 Landscape Materials Board
Boundary and Topographic Survey
Typical Section (Bldg 1-8 Similar)
Phase 1 Building Materials Board
Tree Protection & Removal Plan
Preliminary Erosion Control Plan
Development Phasing Diagram
Preliminary Subdivision Map
RESIDENTIAL / HISTORIC
Architectural Site Plan
Comment Responses
1.19 ACRE (51,897 SF)
Phase 1 Planting PlanPreliminary Utility Plan
Building 1 ElevationsBuilding 2 ElevationsBuilding 3 ElevationsBuilding 4 ElevationsBuilding 5 Elevations
Landscape Site PlanStormwater Diagram
Tree Planting Plan
A0.3Street ElevationsA0.4Street Elevations
Building 1 PlansBuilding 1 PlansBuilding 2 PlansBuilding 2 PlansBuilding 3 PlansBuilding 3 PlansBuilding 4 PlansBuilding 4 PlansBuilding 5 PlansBuilding 5 Plans
Street Views
Site History
SHEET INDEX
BASE ZONE:E-1
OVERLAY ZONES:MAP & TAX LOTS:
LOT AREA:
C1.0C2.0C3.0
SV-1SV-2A0.0A0.1A0.2A0.5A0.6A1.1A1.2A1.3A2.1A2.2A2.3A3.1A3.2A3.3A4.1A4.2A4.3A5.1A5.2A5.3
H1.0H2.0
L0.1L0.2L1.0L1.1L2.0L2.1L3.0
TERRAIN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
112 N. 5TH ST. SUITE 20033 N. CENTRAL AVE STE. 210
TALENT, OR 97540KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601MEDFORD, OR 97501
GIL LIVNICIVIL ENGINEER:MARC CROSSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:PIPER VON CHAMIER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457
TALENT, OR 97540CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES, LLCRHINE CROSS GROUP, LLC
ROGUE PLANNING AND
ASHLAND, OR 97501MEDFORD, OR 97501
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:SNYDER ENGINEERS
415 E. PINE ST.
SURVEYOR:SHAWN KAMPMANNLAND USE PLANNER:AMY GUNTER
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST /
POLARIS LAND SURVEYING, LLC
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES, LLC
95 VAN NESS AVE
441 TALENT AVE441 TALENT AVE
PO BOX 459
OWNER/PERMIT APPLICANT:
BUILDING DESIGNER:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
Concept Render: Van Ness Avenue & Helman Street
N.T.S.
Scale:
1
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
174 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
0'8'16'32'48'
" = 1'-0"
16
1
SCALE:
PHASE 1
PHASE 1
1
E
S
A
H
P
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
174 Hidden Lane - Ashland33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
AND REMOVAL PLAN
#DATEDESCRIPTION
TREE PROTECTION
PvC, CG, EG
2117
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
L0.2
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
-----
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
0'10'20'40'60'
E18E19E20
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
P
EPOR
L YTR
ENI
TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ)
DRIPLINE OF TREE TO REMAIN
TREE PROTECTION PLAN LEGEND
TREE TO REMOVE
SYMBOLDESCRIPTION
TPZ FENCING
REMOVE - WITHIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINT
E
N
I
L
Y
T
REMOVE - INAPPROPRIATE TREE FOR PARKROWREMOVE - INAPPROPRIATE TREE FOR PARKROWREMOVE - INAPPROPRIATE TREE FOR PARKROWREMOVE - INAPPROPRIATE TREE FOR PARKROWREMOVE - INAPPROPRIATE TREE
FOR PARKROW
R
E
P
O
R
P
REMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN
BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINTREMOVE - WITHIN BUILDING FOOTPRINT
E12E13E14
ACTION
E
N
I
L
Y
TPZ RADIUS
T
R
E
P
(FT)
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
O
R
P
E01OAK6"E02OAK0'-7"E03OAK0'-9"E04DECIDUOUS0'-4"E07DECIDUOUS0'-10"E08DECIDUOUS0'-8"E09DECIDUOUS0'-8"1'-4"1'-4"DECIDUOUS0'-4"E13OAK2'-0"MAPLE0'-10"DECIDUOUS0'-11"FRUITLESS MULBERRY0'-11"E18FRUITLESS
MULBERRY1'-3"E19DECIDUOUS1'-0"1'-4"
E05MAPLE0'-8"E06DECIDUOUS0'-3"E16DECIDUOUS0'-7"
TRUNK DBH
E15E16E17
(IN)
E11DECIDUOUS
E10DECIDUOUS
TREE NAME
TREE LEGEND
E20PINE
ENIL YTREPORP
E12E14E15E17
#
E01E11
E02E03E04E05E06E07E08E09E10
OFF-SITE TREE
PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION
DURING PAVING OF ALLEY
EXISTING
14. IF TEMPORARY HAUL OR ACCESS ROADS MUST PASS OVER THE ROOT AREA OF TREES TO BE RETAINED,
MATCH GRADES WITH SIDEWALKS AND CURBS, AND IN THOSE AREAS, FEATHER THE ADDED TOPSOIL BACK
TREE OR GROUP OF TREES. FENCES ARE TO REMAIN UNTIL ALL SITE WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED. FENCES12. BEFORE GRADING, PAD PREPARATION, OR EXCAVATION FOR THE FOUNDATIONS, FOOTINGS, WALLS,
7. IF INJURY SHOULD OCCUR TO ANY TREE DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTAND WATER UPTAKE CAPABILITIES OF THE REMAINING ROOT STRUCTURE. DISTRIBUTE MYCOAPPLY EVENLY
6. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF TREE PRUNING IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION CLEARANCE .
4. ALL PROPOSED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND DRAIN OR IRRIGATION LINES SHALL BE ROUTED OUTSIDE
13. ANY ROOTS DAMAGED DURING GRADING OR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE EXPOSED TO SOUND TISSUEWITHIN THE ACTIVE ROOT ZONE OF RETAINED TREES. APPLY 30 GALS. OF SOLUTION PER TREE 6" DBH AND
SHALL BE 6' TALL TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK PANELS INSTALLED WITH METAL CONNECTIONS TO ALL PANELSAND CUT CLEANLY AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO THE ROOT WITH A SAW. PLACE DAMP SOIL AROUND ALL
PEDESTRIANS AND/ OR VEHICLES THROUGH IT. FENCES DEFINE A SPECIFIC PROTECTION ZONE FOR EACH
TUNNELED OR BORED UNDER THE TREE ROOTS. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IF ANY
1. PRIOR TO DELIVERING EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT OR COMMENCING ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIESOR TRENCHING, ANY TREES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION ZONE SHALL BE ROOT PRUNED 1 FOOT
ROOTS WITH A SAW, VIBRATING KNIFE, ROCK SAW, NARROW TRENCHER WITH SHARP BLADES, OR OTHER
5. NO MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SPOIL, OR WASTE OR WASHOUT WATER MAY BE DEPOSITED, STORED, ORCUT ROOTS TO A DEPTH EQUALING THE EXISTING FINISH GRADE WITHIN 4 HOURS OF CUTS BEING MADE.
20. EXCEPTIONS TO THE TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IN EXTRAORDINARY
A ROAD BED OF 6 - 8 INCHES OF WOOD MULCH OR GRAVEL SHALL BE CREATED TO PROTECT THE SOIL.
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT CONSTRUCTION MAY BEGIN AFTER ALLDEPTH OF 24 INCHES. ROOTS SHALL BE CUT BY MANUALLY DIGGING A TRENCH AND CUTTING EXPOSED
PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND EXCAVATION SUPERVISOR PRIORFOR OAKS ALREADY IN THE VICINITY OF IRRIGATED CONDITIONS, AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS OR REGULARPRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION, ALL RETAINED TREES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL RECEIVE AN APPLICATION
16. NO BURN PILES OR DEBRIS PILES SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. NO ASHES,
B. QUERCUS/OAK: DEEP WATER IN MAY AND SEPTEMBER, DO NOT WATER DURING OTHER MONTHS.17. MAINTAIN FIRE-SAFE AREAS AROUND FENCED AREA. ALSO, NO HEAT SOURCES, FLAMES, IGNITION
8. WATERING SCHEDULE: WATERING PROTECTED TREES SHALL FOLLOW THESE STANDARDS, HOWEVERPERIODS OF EXTREME HEAT, WIND, RAINFALL OR DROUGHT MAY REQUIRE MORE OR LESS WATER THANWATERING SHALL
NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPRAY ON OR WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE TRUNK. THE WATER SHALL
IMMEDIATELY. ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION TO EXISTING TREES SHALL BE COMPENSATED
2. FENCES MUST BE ERECTED TO PROTECT TREES TO BE PRESERVED AS SHOWN IN DIAGRAM. FENCING
ABSORPTIVE SURFACE AREA OF THE TREES' ROOT SYSTEMS. THIS PROMOTES AND IMPROVES NUTRIENTGREATER, A MINIMUM OF 4" BELOW SOIL SURFACE IN QUANTITIES OF 1/2 GALLON AT EACH POINT OF
15. SPOIL FROM TRENCHES, BASEMENTS, OR OTHER EXCAVATIONS SHALL NOT BE PLACED WITHIN THE
18. DO NOT RAISE THE SOIL LEVEL WITHIN THE DRIP LINES TO ACHIEVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE, EXCEPT TOCIRCUMSTANCES WITH WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ANY WORK
THE ROAD BED MATERIAL SHALL BE REPLENISHED AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A MIN. 6 INCH DEPTH.
C. WATERING METHOD: HAND WATERING SYSTEMS, RECOMMENDED FOR TREES THAT ARE PART OF ADEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT MUST BE WATERED TO INSURE TREE SURVIVAL DURING THE COURSE OFOUTSIDE THE TREE
PROTECTION ZONE BY CUTTING ALL ROOTS CLEANLY AT A 90 DEGREE ANGLE TO A
19. REMOVE THE ROOT WAD FOR EACH TREE THAT IS INDICATED ON THE PLAN AS BEING REMOVED.
21. AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE TO COMPENSATE FOR CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS, TWO TO SIX WEEKS
TO COMMENCING ANY WORK ON THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE
MAY NOT BE RELOCATED OR REMOVED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
PROTECTION ZONES AT ALL TIMES. SEE DETAIL #1 "TREE PRESERVATION FENCING" FOR ADDITIONALOF MYCOAPPLY ALL PURPOSE SOLUBLE PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. THIS MYCORRHIZAE
OF THE DESCRIBED FENCING IS IN PLACE. FENCING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE PROJECT IS3. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, TRAFFIC AND STORAGE AREAS MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE FENCED TREE
CONTRACTOR 48 HRS. IN ADVANCE FOR ALL SITE VISITS REQUESTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAINSTRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE TO PREVENT
AREA INTEGRATED, THESE FENCES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW PASSAGE OF
A. MOST SPECIES: 1 TIME PER MONTH DURING IRRIGATION SEASON (USUALLY MARCH THROUGH
THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. IF LINES MUST TRANSVERSE THE PROTECTION AREA, THEY SHALL BE
9. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS SILT FENCING, DEBRIS BASINS, AND WATER DIVERSION
ON THE SITE, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR A
PRODUCT IS A SPECIALLY FORMULATED NATURAL ROOT BIOSTIMULANT WHICH ENHANCES THE
MYCOAPPLY IS AVAILABLE FROM MYCORRHIZAL APPLICATION, INC., PHONE (541) 476-3985.
APPLICATION. LOCATE THE ACTIVE ROOT ZONES WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRESENT.
DEBRIS, OR GARBAGE MAY BE DUMPED OR BURIED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
FOR BY THE OFFENDING PARTY, BEFORE THE PROJECT WILL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE.
SILTATION AND/ OR EROSION WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
TREE PROTECTION ZONE, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY.
SOURCES, OR SMOKING IS ALLOWED NEAR MULCH OR TREES.
PARKED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE (FENCED AREA).
CONSTRUCTION UNTIL AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION IS INSTALLED.
NOT BE ALLOWED TO POOL OR DRAIN TOWARDS THE TRUNK.
PROJECT PLANS CONFLICT WITH THIS REQUIREMENT.
TO EXISTING GRADE AT APPROXIMATELY 3:1 SLOPE.
TREE PROTECTION AND REMOVAL NOTES
APPROVED ROOT-PRUNING EQUIPMENT.
RECOMMENDED IN THESE NOTES.
COMMENCING.
REQUIREMENTS.
COMPLETED.
SEPTEMBER)
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
174 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SEE ARCHITECTURAL
development (4 covered, 10 uncovered). The remaining 12 spaces
26 TOTAL SPACES
parking space for every five required automobile parking spaces,
16 UNCOVERED
whichever is greater. Fifty percent of the bicycle parking spacesBIKE SPACES
Uses required to provide off street parking, except as specifically10 COVERED
DRAWINGS
required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be
PROPOSED
noted, shall provide two spaces per primary use, or one bicycle
PER CITY OF ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE - SECTION 18.4.3
NOTE: Fourteen (14) spaces will be installed during Phase 1 of
located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve.
will be installed during Phase 2 (6 covered, 6 uncovered).
SEE ARCHITECTURAL
0'8'16'32'48'
MIN. BIKE SPACES
PRIMARY USES)
(2 SPACES X 10
Bicycle Parking for Non-Residential Uses.
DRAWINGS
20 SPACES
REQUIRED
" = 1'-0"
NON-RESIDENTIAL
USE CATEGORY
16
1
SCALE:
RESIDENTIAL
STORMWATER PLANTER, TYP.
STREET TREE WITH GRATE,
DRIVEWAY APRON, SCD
TYP. IN WATER STREET
PERMEABLE PAVERSPERMEABLE PAVERS
CURB RAMP, SCD
ASPHALT PAVING
BENCH, TYP.
GUARDRAIL
POLE LIGHT
PARK ROW
STORMWATER PLANTER
POLE LIGHT
PHASE 1
PHASE 1
ACCESSIBLE RAMP
WITH HANDRAILS
RAIN GARDEN
CORNER PLAZA
G
N
GRAVITY RETAINING WALLS, SCD
ITRANSFORMER, SEE CIVIL DWGS
KALLEY STAIRWAY CONNECTION
R
A
P
T
E
GARBAGE & RECYCLING
E
R
T
S
-
N
O
AREA LIGHT, TBD
PHASE 2
BIOSWALE
COVERED BIKE PARKING
CONCRETE STEPS
PARKING LOT
RAIN GARDEN
BIKE PARKING
LOWER
(6 SPACES)
G
N
I
K
POLE LIGHT
(6 SPACES)
R
A
P
T
E
E
R
T
S
-
N
O
GARBAGE & RECYCLING
ASPHALT PAVING
EASEMENT
LIMIT OF WORK
PHASE 1
G
K
R
O
NW
F
I
O
T
I
KMI
1L
E
S
RA
H
P
A
P
T
SAND FINISH CONCRETE
E
E
R
T
S
CURVED PATH WITH
-
N
O
RETAINING WALL
UPPER PARKING LOT
RAIN GARDEN
GUARDRAIL ON
WHEEL STOPS
BIKE PARKING
(10 SPACES)
COVERED BIKE PARKING
STORMWATER PLANTER
CONCRETE SEATWALL
UPPER PLAZA
PAVERS, TYP.
PERMEABLE
WITH BENCH
(2 SPACES)
CONCRETE STEPS
PHASE 1
TRANSFORMER, SEE CIVIL DWGS
PERMEABLE PAVERS
CONCRETE STEPS
TREE WITH GRATE
STORMWATER PLANTER, TYP.
BIKE PARKING
STREET TREE WITH GRATE,
SEE TREE PLANTING PLAN
(2 SPACES)
STORMWATER PLANTER
HANDRAIL
COVERED
CURB & GUTTER, SCD
BENCH
PAVERS, TYP.
UNIT PAVERS
BENCH, TYP.
PERMEABLE
LIMIT OF WORK
DRIVEWAY APRON, SCD
PARK STRIP PLANTING
PHASE 1
SEE ARCH DWGS
AWNING, TYP.
ASPHALT PAVING
UNIT PAVERS
STREET TREE
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
174 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
COR EDDCORNUS X 'EDDIE'S WHITE WONDER'EDDIE'S WHITE WONDER DOGWOOD
ZEL VILZELKOVA SERRATA 'VILLAGE GREEN'VILLAGE GREEN SAWLEAF ZELKOVA
YULAN MAGNOLIA (SPECIMEN)
TIL GSPTILIA CORDATA 'GREENSPIRE'GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN
FRAXINUS AMERICANA 'JUNGINGER'AUTUMN PURPLE WHITE ASH GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN
MAG LO2MAGNOLIA X LOEBNERILOEBNER MAGNOLIA
MAGNOLIA BLOSSOMS
PAR PERPARROTIA PERSICAPERSIAN PARROTIA
ACE FJRACER RUBRUM 'FRANK JR.'REDPOINTE MAPLE
SYMBOLCODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAME
H
PROPOSED TREE SPECIESPROPOSED TREE SPECIESPROPOSED TREE SPECIES
S
A
ACE CIRACER CIRCINATUMVINE MAPLE
BET RIVBETULA NIGRARIVER BIRCH
E
T
I
H
W
E
L
P
R
U
P
N
M
U
T
U
245
A
MAG DENMAGNOLIA DENUDATA
PRELIMINARY TREE LIST
PROPOSED TREE SPECIESPROPOSED TREE SPECIES
REDPOINTE MAPLE
FRA JUN
A
I
L
O
N
G
A
M
R
E
N
B
E
13
O
L
IN TREE GRATE,TYPICAL ONWATER STREET
ACE CIR
TIL GSP
0'8'16'32'48'
" = 1'-0"
16
1
SCALE:
ZEL VIL
BET RIV
TYPICAL AT PROMENADE
FRA JUN IN PLANTER
MAG LO2,
ACE FJR IN TREE GRATESACE FJR IN PLANTING STRIP, TYPICAL
COR EDDMAG DENACE CIRPAR PER
ON HELMAN STREET
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
174 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
HEUCHERA X 'AMETHYST MIST' / AMETHYST MIST CORAL BELLS1 GALLYSIMACHIA NUMMULARIA / CREEPING JENNY1 GALDISTYLIUM X 'BLDY01' TM / JEWEL BOX DISTYLIUM1 GALCEANOTHUS SPP5 GALCISTUS X BLANCHE
/ WHITE ROCKROSE5 GALDRYOPTERIS ERYTHROSORA 'BRILLIANCE' / BRILLIANCE AUTUMN FERN1 GALLIRIOPE MUSCARI / LILYTURF1 GALFESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE' / ELIJAH BLUE FESCUE1 GALHELIANTHEMUM
NUMMULARIUM / SUNROSE1 GALIRIS SIBIRICA 'BLUE KING' / BLUE KING SIBERIAN IRIS1 GALIRIS SIBIRICA 'LAVENDER BOUNTY' / LAVENDER BOUNTY SIBERIAN IRIS1 GALPOLYSTICHUM MUNITUM / WESTERN SWORD
FERN1 GALFICUS PUMILA / CREEPING FIG1 GAL
CAREX FLACCA 'BLUE ZINGER' / BLUE ZINGER SEDGE1 GALMISCANTHUS SACCHARIFLORUS / SILVER BANNER GRASS1 GAL1 GALMISCANTHUS CAPENSIS / SILVERGRASS1 GAL1 GALCISTUS X OBLONGIFOLIUS / ROCK ROSE1
GALSEDUM X 'AUTUMN JOY' / AUTUMN JOY SEDUM1 GALMUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS1 GALVERBENA BONARIENSIS / TALL VERBENA1 GALJUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH1 GALMAHONIA
REPENS / CREEPING MAHONIA1 GALARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI / KINNIKINNIK1 GAL
PARKING ISLANDS1,056 SF
STORMWATER PLANTERS1,001 SFGROUNDCOVER PLANTING1,026 SF
FOUNDATION PLANTS - SOUTH824 SFHELMAN PARK ROW899 SF
FOUNDATION PLANTS - NORTH649 SF
PLAZA FEATURE PLANTER115 SF
62 SF
0'8'16'32'48'
NOTE: SEE L2.0 PRELIMINARY TREE PLANTING PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY TREE LIST.
PRELIMINARY PHASE 1 PLANT PALETTE
TRIANGLE CORRIDOR CENTER PLANTERS
" = 1'-0"
VINES AT RETAINING WALL
16
1
SCALE:
SPIRAEA SPP
SALVIA SPP
PHASE 2
W FO TIMIL - 1 ESAHP
KRO
K
R
PHASE 1
O
W
F
O
T
I
K
M
I
R
L
O-
1
W
E
F
S
O
A
T
IH
P
M
I
L
-
1
E
S
A
H
P
HP
KROW FO TIMIL - 1 ESA
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
174 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
0'8'16'32'48'
DOWNSPOUT ART INTO PLANTERS
CONCEPT IMAGE
" = 1'-0"
16
1
SCALE:
7
TYPICAL IN WATER STREET
PERMEABLE PAVERS,
STORMWATER PLANTER
CURB EXTENSION FOR
PARK ROW
PERMEABLE PAVER PLAZA
CONCEPT IMAGE
RAIN GARDEN, WITH BRIDGE
6
OVER LOW POINT
PERMEABLE
PAVERS
FLOW THROUGH PLANTER
CONCEPT IMAGE
BIOSWALE
RAIN GARDEN
5
PERMEABLE
PAVERS
RAIN GARDEN BRIDGE
CONCEPT IMAGE
4
BRIDGE OVER LOW POINT
RAIN GARDEN, WITH
FLOW THROUGH PLANTER
PERMEABLE
PAVERS
CONCEPT IMAGE
STORMWATER
PLANTER
3
STORMWATER PLANTER, TYP.
STORMWATER PLANTER, TYP.POROUS PARKING AREAS
PERMEABLE PAVERS,
PERMEABLE PAVERS,
CONCEPT IMAGE
TYP.
TYP.
2
RAIN GARDEN PLANTERS
CONCEPT IMAGE
1
Grading & Drainage
DATE: JANUARY 2022
Preliminary
ASHLAND OREGON
CHK'D BY: MDC
DRAWN BY: TDC
C 1.0
1821
Plan
(541) 482-8005
SHEET NAME:
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
TALENT, OR 97540
JOB NO.
441 TALENT AVE
Magnolia Terrace
C1.0PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
C3.0PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN
C2.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
8
6
1
6
8
8
8
RUNOFF AREA SUMMARY:
/
/
/
/
6
3
/
/
7
5
6
//
//
/
7
/
//
8
8
/
/
4
6
2
/
/
8
2
bS
bS
8
8
6
/
/
8
/
/
/
/
//
bS
6
6
6
6
8
NEW STORMTECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM
PROPOSED MINOR CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STORM
PROPOSED STORMTECH ISOLATOR ROW FOR WATER
PROPOSED MAIN STORM POINT OF CONNECTION TO
PROPOSED INFILTRATION PLANTER INCORPORATED
PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN INCORPORATED INTO
GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES:
PROPOSED FLOW CONTROL MH
PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS
LINE IN VAN NESS STREET
INTO LANDSCAPE DESIGN
QUALITY TREATMENT
LANDSCAPE DESIGN
IF NECESSARY
EXISTING MH
12345678
DATE: JANUARY 2022
ASHLAND OREGONASHLAND OREGON
Preliminary
Utility Plan
CHK'D BY: MDC
DRAWN BY: TDC
C 2.0
1821
(541) 482-8005 SHEET NAME:
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
TALENT, OR 97540
JOB NO.
441 TALENT AVE
Magnolia Terrace
1
6
6
1
4
8
2
2
3
3
10
/
/
7
7
10
/
/
/
/
//
//
/
/
//
3
/
/
9
10
7
2
11
6
/
/
10
7
2
10
7
bS
bS
3
9
2
6
/
/
/
/
/
/
11
11
//
10
10
10
7
7
7
/
/
2
2
2
3
53
5
8
6
1
1
4
UNDERGROUND CONDUIT TO BUILDING AS SHOWN. FINAL LOCATIONS TO BE
BACK-FLOW DEVICES FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL SPACE. METER LOCATIONS TO
POWER, TELEPHONE, AND CABLE TV POINT OF CONNECTION TO BUILDING,
SANITARY SEWER POINT OF CONNECTION TO CITY SYSTEM. CONNECT TO
POWER, TELEPHONE, AND CABLE TV POINT OF CONNECTION TO EXISTING
EXISTING POWER POLE TO BE RE-LOCATED FOR CONSTRUCTION. WORK
SANITARY MAIN LINE WITH 6" LATERAL IF EXISTING LATERAL IS NOT SIZED
NEW TRANSFORMER LOCATION TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE POWER
BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY OF ASHLAND WATER DEPARTMENT
COMMERCIAL GROUND FLOOR SPACE AND (16) NEW 1" METERS AND
INSTALL (8) NEW 1" METERS AND BACK-FLOW DEVICES FOR EACH
EXISTING 18" IRRIGATION LINE TO BE RE-ROUTED THROUGH THE
LINES IN VAN NESS STREET AND WATER STREET. ROUTE LINE IN
SANITARY SEWER POINT OF CONNECTION TO BUILDING
SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY COMPANIES
COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH UTILITY COMPANIES
DEVELOPMENT SITE APPROXIMATELY AS SHOWN.
NEW GAS LINE CONNECTION TO EXISTING MAIN
GAS LINE POINT OF CONNECTION TO BUILDING
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN
DETERMINED BY UTILITY PROVIDER
UTILITY NOTES:
CORRECTLY
COMPANY
1011
12356789
4
Erosion Control
DATE: JANUARY 2022
ASHLAND OREGON
Preliminary
CHK'D BY: MDC
DRAWN BY: TDC
C 3.0
1821
Plan
(541) 482-8005 SHEET NAME:
REVISIONS:
SHEET NO.
TALENT, OR 97540
JOB NO.
441 TALENT AVE
Magnolia Terrace
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
/
/
//
/
/
/
/
bS
bS
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
/
/
GRADING AND EROSION LEGEND
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS FOR SITE DESIGN
INCLUDING PATHS, HARDSCAPE, LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING,
DESIGNATED TRASH AREAS, TURNING SPACE, ETC.
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
74 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
1
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING
G
N
IBUILDING SCONCE
MATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENT
L
I
APENDANT LIGHT
R
L
CABLE RAILA
T
E
M
D
E
T
A
R
O
F
1216
R
357
E
P
HORIZONTAL / VERTICAL WOOD GRAINED PANELS
SMOOTH HARDIE BOARD
MATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENT
SMOOTH STUCCO
VERTICAL SIDING
G
N
I
D
I
S
L
A
T
N
O
Z
I
R
1115
246 O
H
PRECAST CONCRETE SILL
CONCRETE BASE WALL
MATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENT
1014
SHARE THE SAME MATERIALS PALETTE. SEE ARCH DWGS FOR FURTHER MATERIALS INFORMATION
NOTE: ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING 1 ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE; REMAINING BUILDINGS WILL
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
BLACK FRAMED WINDOWS AND DOORS
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT DOORS
MATERIAL PRECEDENTMATERIAL PRECEDENT
13
9
textures draw on the historical context of the commercial/industrial neighborhood.
pedestrian scale width-to-height ratio. The array of facade treatments and materialsbreaks up the forms of the buildings. The design of the business entrances providesclear, visible,
and functional openings with direct access to the public sidewalk. RoofThe classic materials combined with modern styling and variations in the facadespresence, consistent with historical
examples near the site and more significant
overhangs and awnings emphasize public entrances to the buildings. Upper storyfloors provide pedestrians shelter from the rain and sun, while the recesses in the
The proposed facades include a rhythm of openings adjacent to the sidewalk with aWood, metal, concrete, and stucco comprise the material palette since thesebring multiplicity to the
site. The site will include an assortment of building bases. Somewill be prominent similar to downtown developments. Others will have less of a
ALUMINUM AND GLASS GARAGE DOORS
commercial/industrial buildings in the area.
REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
facade provide arcades.
MATERIAL PRECEDENT
s
n
o
i
N.T.S.
t
a
v
e
l
Scale:
E
1
g
n
i
d
l
i
8
1
u
B
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 1
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A1.1
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL
04'8'12'
COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.42 SPACES
FOOTPRINT AREA 2590 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1713 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4566 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 810 SQ. FT.
PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 68% MIN.
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 1
STAIR
987654321
E
UP
101112131415161718
C
A
OFFICE/BEDROOM
P
L
L
CL.
S
A
A
I
BLD 1 (ELEVATION 1858')
I
E
C
T
S
R
N
U
E
E
E
D
DM
YI
C
E
M
ES
A
X
BATH
I
KEO
P
RSCM
N
HALL
A
L
P
R
O
O
BATH
L
f
l
F
e
h
LAUNDRYPOWDER
s
M. BATH
LIVING
n
i
t
KN-04
l
i
1
u
#
b
T
N
I
.
A
NT
A1.3
L
F
1 U
P
.
L
Q
E
A
I
S
L
T
P
3
STORAGE
N
.
8
M
E
p 2
M. BEDROOMCLOSET
,
.A
f D
2
I
X
ES
d
E
e
d R
i
s
2
DINING
DRYWASH
A0.5
1
PANTRY
BALCONY
2nd FLOOR
KITCHEN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
BALCONY
F
ODW
A1.1
2
04'8'12'
ENTRANCES
SRET
EM
@ RESIDENTIAL
SA
G
SRETEM E
2'-3' AWNING
2-PH1-PHELEVATOR
UTILITY
987654321
UP
101112131415161718
LOBBY
RES. 1 GARAGE
L
A
S
I
D
E
E
C
@
C
RR
N
G
EE
A
VN
IM
R
11 O
N
M
T
C
ON
W
'
7ACE
A1.3
1
GG
L
COMMERCIAL
A
I
NN
C
30
5
R
II 9
61
80
E
5
47
,1,
,4
M
82
121
M
:
O
L
:
RES. 2 GARAGE
C
A
/
A
DD
I
D
E
C
:
E
R
R
E
X
A
:
I
E:
G
Y
LL
A
M
LL M
A
BA
A.
E
M
RT
TT
B
%
R
A
II A0.5 F
O
OO8
O
A
1.
T6
CLTG
EQ
S
G
A
0
1
R
UU 8
A
G
1st FLOOR
BB
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
L
A
S
DI
E
EC
@
C
RR
N
G
EE
A
N
V
M
I
R
O
N
M
T
C
O
N
W
'
7ACE
A1.1
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 1
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A1.2
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
12'
04'8'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF
A1.2
2
KN-13
04'8'12'
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 1
STAIR
987654321
UP
101112131415161718
CL.
OFFICE/BEDROOM
BATH
HALL
BATH
f
l
e
h
s
M. BATH
LIVING
n
i
t
l
i
1
u
#
b
T
N
I
.
A
NT
L
F
U
P
.
L
Q
E
A
I
S
L
T
P
3
STORAGE
N
.
8
M
E2
p
M. BEDROOMCLOSET
,
.A
f D
2
I
X
d ES
E
e
d R
i
s
2
DINING
DRYWASH
PANTRY
3rd FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
KITCHEN
BALCONY
F
A1.2
1
ODW
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 1
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
A1.3
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
KN-15
04'8'12'04'8'12'
KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16
AWNINGAWNING
HEAT PUMPS
E METERS
GAS METERS
RESIDENTIAL
ENTRANCE
N
G
I
S
LEFT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
SPRINKLER RISER, ETC.)
(TRASH STORAGE,
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UTILITY SPACE
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
A1.3
±4'-8"
OVERHANG
2
7'-0"
KN-10KN-07KN-03 COVEREDENTRY
A1.3
4
04'8'12'
JELD-WEN WINDOW FRAME & SASH
(OR SIM) - SIDING TO WIN FRAMEKN-11
VERTICAL LONG BOARD OR SIM
HORIZONTAL HARDIE SIDING
NO EXTERIOR APPLIED TRIM
STUCCO OR HARDIE PANEL
COMMERCIAL SPACE SIGN
SCONCE FIXTURES (TBD)ALUMINUM STORE FRONT
MATCH ROOF THICKNESS
04'8'12'
SOFFIT FIXTURES (TBD)
CAST CONCRETE BASE
HARDIE PANEL SOFFIT
PERFORATED RAILINGPERFORATED RAILING
LIGHTING IN SOFFIT
BUILT-UP FASCIA,
PANEL BAND TRIM
VERTICAL SIDING
STEEL BALCONY
STANDING SEAM
ABOVE ENTRY
METAL ROOF
OVERHANG
PANELSPANELS
KN-09
L
AE
I
C
C
N
R
A
E
R
M
T
M
N
O
E
C
190.25 sq ft
224.5 sq ft
E
E
C
GN
225.5 sq ft
)
A
A
D
RR
'
AT
Q
N
G
E
E
R
%369 sq ft
..
0
.
FF
..2
C(
S
S
L 382 sq ft
A34%
577
C
51.25 sq ft
536
G
N
I
Z
A
L
:
G
A
LE
E
:
A
G
IR
A
A
A
C
E
T
R
G
R
N
E
AN
E
I
M
L
ZC
L
M
AR
A
L
OE
WGP
C
.
)L
A
DE
'I
C
C
Q 213.75 sq ft
N
ER
A
E
R
%%%%%R
%
M
%23132%
%1T
52121131M
5
N
1
OE
(
C
F
4
E053 04
25
I
1197
88272
L
511
832322
E
R
N
I
S
E::::::::E
345678
12E
GC
L
NAAAGN
AAAAA
A
AEA
EEEEEEETA
HRRRRRRRRRR
O
FRONT ELEVATION
AAAAAATAT
CAA
N
G
E
REAR ELEVATION
88.5 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
KN-05
A1.3A1.3
13
38'-4"
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 2
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A2.1
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL
04'8'12'
FOOTPRINT AREA 2354 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1544 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 1355 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2040 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 3395 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 1110 SQ. FT.
COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.1 SPACES
PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN.
CL.
E
C
BLD 2 (ELEVATION 1853'/1847')
A
M. BEDROOM
P
L
L
S
BEDROOM 1
A
A
I
I
E
C
T
S
R
N
U
E
E
E
D
DM
YI
C
E
M
ES
A
X
I
KEO
RES. 2 GARAGE P
RSCM
N
A
BATH
L
P
R
W/D
O
O
L
F
KITCHEN
KN-04
FO
BALCONYBALCONY
A2.3
1
LIVING
DW
#
N
T
AI
.
L
NT
PF
U
.
EL
Q
L
A
I
S
P
T
5
M
N
5
A
E3
,
X
D
1
I
E
RES. 1 GARAGE
S
E
R
DINING
CL.
RESIDENTIAL LOBBY
UPUP 2nd FLOOR
998877665544332211
ELEVATOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UTILITY
101011111212131314141515161617171818
A2.1
2
04'8'12'
SRET
EM
SA
G
SRETEM E
2-PH1-PH
COMMERCIAL
L
A
I
C
R
4
E
4
5
M
,
1
M
O
:
C
L
/
A
ID
E
C
X
R
I
E
M
M
%
M
0
O
0
C1
1st FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
A2.1
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 2
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A2.2
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF
A2.2
2
KN-13
04'8'12'
FO
BEDROOM 1
BALCONY
KITCHEN
DINING
DW
LIN.
CL.CL.
BATH
HALL
2
#
N
T
A
I
.
L
LIVING
NT
BALCONY
P
F
U
.
E
L
Q
L
A
I
S
P
T
0
MM. BATH
N
4
A
E
0
,
X
D
2
EI
S
E
R
ENTRY HALL
CL.
OFFICE/BEDROOM
BALCONY
M. BEDROOM
DRYER
WASH
3rd FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
UPUP
STAIR
998877665544332211
CLOSET
ELEVATOR
101011111212131314141515161617171818
A2.2
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 2
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
A2.3
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
KN-15
KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16
04'8'12'04'8'12'
S
N
O
I
S
N
E
RESIDENTIAL
M
ACCESS
I
D
D
N
A
S
L
A
I
R
E
T
A
M
FOR SITE SLOPES AND RETAINING
R
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE
O
F
3
.
1
A
E
E
S
:
e
t
RIGHT ELEVATION
o
N
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LEFT ELEVATION
A2.3
4
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
04'8'12'
KN-09KN-10KN-07KN-03KN-11
A2.3
2
)
D
'
Q
E
.
R
)
04'8'12'
D
'%
..
0
.
Q
FF
2
..
C
E(
SS
L
R
A34%
%%%%%%
577
%12024%7
%C
36
521211315
5
G
1
(
N
I
F
0
Z
E
11713 74
I1A
72427606
1
LL
132322631
:
E
G
A
R
LE
E
:
A
NG
IR
I
A
A
A
C
SET
R
G
ER
::::::::N
E
12345678AN
GE
LI
M
L
NAAAAAAAAZC
A
L
M
AEEEEEEEETAR
A
L
OE
HRRRRRRRRO
P
CAAAAAAAATCWG
306.75 sq ft
E
E
C
G
N
AA
R
R
AT
GN
E
371.25 sq ft
347.75 sq ft
221.75 sq ft
65.5 sq ft
221.75 sq ft
273.25 sq ft
FRONT ELEVATION
E
E REAR ELEVATION
C
GN
AA
RR
AT
N
G
E
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
111.25 sq ft
A2.3
KN-05
A2.3
3
1
41'-3"
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 3
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A3.1
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL
FOOTPRINT AREA 2590 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1701 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4566 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 810 SQ. FT.COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500SQ. FT.) 3.4 SPACES
PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN.
04'8'12'
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 1
E
STAIR
181716151413121110
C
A
P
L
L
S
A
UP
A
I
BLD 3 (ELEVATION 1860')
I
CL.
E
C
T
123456789 S
R
OFFICE/BEDROOM N
U
E
E
E
D
DM
YI
C
E
M
ES
A
X
I
KEO
P
RSCM
N
A
L
BATH
P
R
HALL
O
O
L
F
BATH
f
l
KN-04
e
h
s
M. BATH
LIVING
n
i
t
l
i
1
u
#
b
T
I
N
.
T
N
A
F
U
L
.
PL
Q
A
E
I
S
L
T
3
PSTORAGE
N
.
8
E
M2 p
M. BEDROOMCLOSET
,
.
D
A f
2
I
X
S
d
E
E e
R d
i
s
2
DINING
WASHDRY
PANTRY
2nd FLOOR
BALCONY
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
KITCHEN
BALCONY
F
DWO
A3.1
2
04'8'12'
SRETEM
SAG
HP-2HP-1
181716151413121110
UP
123456789
L
A
I
C
0
21
R
9
70
0
9E
475
,
,2,1
M
12182
M
:
O
L
:
C
A/
A
I
ED
C
:
E
R
R
E
X
A
:
E: I
G
Y
LL
MM
A
B
AA
MR
TT
B
%
A
O
OO8
O
6
CLTGT
1st FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
S
R
E
T
E
M
E
A3.1
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 3
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A3.2
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
A3.3
4
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF
A3.2
2
KN-13
04'8'12'
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 1
STAIR
181716151413121110
UP
CL.
123456789
OFFICE/BEDROOM
BATH
HALL
BATH
f
l
e
h
s
M. BATH
LIVING
n
i
t
l
i
1
u
#
b
T
N
I
.
A
NT
L
F
U
P.
L
Q
E
A
I
S
L
T
P
3
STORAGE
N
.
8
M
E2 p
M. BEDROOMCLOSET
,
A.
D f
2
I
X
S
d
E
E
e
R d
i
s
2
DINING
WASHDRY
PANTRY
3rd FLOOR
KITCHEN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
BALCONY
F
DWO
A3.2
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 3
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
A3.3
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16KN-15
04'8'12'
04'8'12'
96.25 sq ft
L
A
E
I
C
C
N
R
A
E
R
M
T
M
N
O
E
C
212.25 sq ft
S
N
199.5 sq ft
O
361.75 sq ft
52.25 sq ft
I
349 sq ft
S
N
203 sq ft
E
M
I
D
D
N
A
S
L
A
I
R
E
151 sq ft
T
A
47.25 sq ft
M
R
O
F
3
.
1
A
E
RIGHT ELEVATION
E
LEFT ELEVATION
S
41.5 sq ft
:
e
t
o
N
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
)
D
'
Q
E
.
R
)
D
' %
..
0
.
QF
F
..2
7'-0"C
E(
SS
L
COVEREDENTRY
R
A
%%%%38%
%%
10%%%%20517
%11C
121282311535
52
1G
(
N A3.3
I A3.3
F
5
Z
E 1 2 1
2390
I
A 4
572177
60402 2
L
L
5291
3232414
:
E
G
A
R
L
E
E
A:
N
G
IR
I
A
A
CA
SE
T
:
R
G
E::::::::0RN
:
E
34567891
12AN
GE
L I
M
NAAAAALC
AAAAAZ
A
ML
AEEET
EEEEEEEAR
A
L
HRRRRRRRRRROE
O
AAAAAAAATCWGP
CAA04'8'12'04'8'12'
KN-10KN-07KN-03KN-09
KN-11
CAST CONC
)
D
'
Q
E
BASE
R
%
..
.0
FF
..2
C
(
SS
L
A%
35
593
C
525
G
N
I
Z
A
L
S
:
GE
A
K
LE
EI
A:
RGB
I
/
A
A
CA
H
E
T
R
S
RG
N
E
A
N
AE
I
MR
L
ZC
T
L
M
/
AR
AL
OL
E
I
CWGP
A
M
114.5 sq ft
140.5 sq ft
378.5 sq ft
93.75 sq ft
L
AE
I
C
T
N
N
A
E
R
D
I
T
S
N
E
E
R
271 sq ft
L
A
E
I
C
C
N
R
A
E
R
M
T
M
N
O
E
C
REAR ELEVATION
362.5 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION
256 sq ft
A3.3
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3
.
NON-RESIDENTIAL
)
D SOFFIT LIGHTING
'
STORE FRONTS
Q
E AT OVERHANG
R
IN FRONT OF
%%
%%
%%%5
%626
RECESSED
72
12168
5
1
(
F
5
E
621 0481
I
56744176
A3.3
L
23291131
E
R
1
KN-05
N
I
S
E::
:::::
1234567
G
L
NAAAAAAA
A
AEEEEEEET
HRR
RRRRRO
AT
CAAAAAA
38'-4"
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 4
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A4.1
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL
FOOTPRINT AREA 2590 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1701 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4566 SQ. FT.
COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.4 SPACES
1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 810 SQ. FT.
PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN.
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 1
STAIR
987654321
E
UP
101112131415161718
C
CL.
A
P
OFFICE/BEDROOM
L
L
S
A
A
I
BLD 4 (ELEVATION 1863')
I
E
C
T
S
R
N
U
E
E
E
D
DM
YI
C
E
M
ES
A
X
I
BATH KEO
P
RSCM
N
HALL A
L
P
R
O
O
BATH
L
f
F
l
e
h
s
M. BATH
LIVING
n
i
KN-04
t
l
i
1
u
#
b
T
N
I
.
AT
N
LF
U
.
P
L
Q
EA
I
S
L
T
3
P
STORAGE
N
.
8
M
E
p 2
M. BEDROOMCLOSET
,
.
A
f D
2
I
X
S
d
E
e E
d R
i
s
2
DINING
DRYWASH
PANTRY
2nd FLOOR
BALCONY
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
KITCHEN
BALCONY
F
ODW
A4.1
2
04'8'12'
GAS
METERS
ELEVATOR
HP-2HP-1UTILITY
987654321
UP
101112131415161718
LOBBY
RES. 1 GARAGE
A
.
E
T
R
F
A
.
E
Q
GS
A
0
R1
8
A
G
A
.
T
E
F
R
.
A
Q
Y
S
B
5
B
3
O
2
L
COMMERCIAL
L
A
I
C
0
21
R
709
90E
75
4
,2,1,
M
182
12
M
RES. 2 GARAGE
:
O
L
:
C
A
/
A
I
ED
C
:
E
R
R
E
X
A
:
EI
:
G
YL
L
MM
A
B
A
A
MR
T
BT
%
A
O
O
OO8
TGT6
CL
1st FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
S
R
E
T
E
M
E
A4.1
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 4
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A4.2
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF
A4.2
2
KN-13
04'8'12'
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 1
STAIR
987654321
UP
101112131415161718
CL.
OFFICE/BEDROOM
BATH
HALL
BATH
f
l
e
h
s
M. BATH
LIVING
n
i
t
l
i
1
u
#
b
T
N
I
.
A
T
N
L
F
U
P.
L
Q
E
A
I
S
L
T
P
3
STORAGE
N
.
8
M
E
p 2
M. BEDROOMCLOSET
,
.A
f D
2
I
X
S
d E
e E
d R
i
s
2
DINING
DRYWASH
PANTRY
3rd FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
KITCHEN
BALCONY
F
ODW
A4.2
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 4
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
A4.3
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
04'8'12'
KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16KN-15
KN-11
COVERED
KN-09
)
ENTRY
D
'
Q
7'-0"
E
.
R
)
D
'
%
..
0
Q.
FF
..2
E
C(
SS
L
R
%%%
%%%A38%
22%%%
%%8181517
C
11292
51111535
5
1G
(
N
I
F
0
Z
E8 7
009547
I
A
9
7704221189
L
L
93232225141
:
E
G
A
R
L
E
E
:
NA
G
IIR
A
A
A
C
SE
T
R
E::::0G
:::::R
N
E
891
1234567
GAN
E
L I
M
NAAAAAAAAAALC
AZ
L
AEEEEEEEEEETM
AR
A
HRRRRRL
RRRRROOE
49 sq ft
AAAT
CAAAAAAACWGP
E
E
C
G
N
A
A
S
RR
AT
N
G N
E
O
I
188.5 sq ft
S
N
E
M
I
D
D
N
A
S
L
A
I
200.5 sq ft
370.5 sq ft
50.5 sq ft
R
E
224.25 sq ft
T
A
349 sq ft
M
E
E
C R
G
N
A
A
O
RR
AT
F
GN
E
3
.
1
A
216.75 sq ft
E
E
S
:
e
t
RIGHT ELEVATION
o
N
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
96.5 sq ft
L
AE
I
C
C
N
R
A
E
R
M
T
M
N
O
E
C
A4.3
A4.3
2
4
KN-09KN-10KN-07KN-03KN-11
04'8'12'
04'8'12'
)
D
'
Q
E
R
%
..
.0
FF
..2
C
(
SS
L
A35%
3
59
C
525
G
N
I
Z
A
L
:
G
A
LE
E
A:
G
IR
A
AA
C
ET
R
RG
N
E
AN
E
I
M
L
261 sq ft ZC
L
M
AR
A
OL
E
CWGP
376 sq ft
93.75 sq ft
274 sq ft
L
AE
I
L
C
T
A
E
IN
N
C
CA
E
N
RR
D
I
AT
E
S
R
N
M
E
65.75 sq ft T
E
M
NR
OE
C
97.75 sq ft
378.5 sq ft
84.75 sq ft
84.5 sq ft
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
H
S
A
R
T
/
L
I
A
M
/
S
E
K
I
B
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
.
)
D
'
Q
E
NON-RESIDENTIAL
R IN FRONT OF
STORE FRONTS
RECESSEDAT OVERHANG
SOFFIT LIGHTING
%%
%%
%%%%2%111
%
456525221
5
1
(
F
5
E
8 4610
I
5584747767
L
6898392321
E
A4.3A4.3
R
N
13
I
S
E
:::::::::
KN-05
123456789
G
L
NAAAAAAAAA
A
AEEEEEEEEET
HRRRRRRRRRO
CAAAAAAAAAT
38'-4"
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 5
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A5.1
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL
COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.75 SPACES
FOOTPRINT AREA 2689 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1879 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2135 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2135 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4270 SQ. FT.
1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 810 SQ. FT.
PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 69% MIN.
E
C
LIVING
A
P
L
L
S
A
A
I
BLD 5 (ELEVATION 1850')
I
E
C
T
S
R
N
U
E
E
E
D
DM
YI
C
E
M
ES
A
X
I
KEO
P
RSCM
N
A
L
P
R
O
BALCONY
O
L
F
KN-04
DINING
BEDROOM 2
A5.3
1
BALCONY
1
#
N
T
I
.
A
T
N
L
F
U
P
.
L
E
Q
A
L
I
S
KITCHEN
PT
5
CL.CL.
LIN.
N
M
3
DW
E
1
A
,
D
X
2
I
E
S
E
R
FO
M. BEDROOM
WASH
DRYER
CL.CL.
BALCONY
UP
KITCHEN
987654321
2nd FLOOR
BEDROOM 1
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
101112131415161718
BEDROOM 1
M. BATH
ELEVATOR
CL.
A5.1
2
04'8'12'
1
-
P
H
2
-
P
H
GAS
E METERS
METERS
A5.3
1
COMMERCIAL
L
A
I
C
9
59
R
878
0
4E
86
6
,9,1,
M
1182
1
M
:
O
L
:
C
A/
A
I
ED
C
:
E
R
R
E
X
A
:
E: I
LOBBY
G
YL
L
MM
A
B
AA
MR
TT
B
%
A
O
O9
OO
TGT6
CL
UP
1st FLOOR
987654321
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
A
.
T
E
F
R
101112131415161718
.
A
Q
Y
S
B
0
B
ELEVATOR
3
UTILITY
O
2
L
A5.1
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
BUILDING 5
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
PLANS A5.2
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
ROOF
A5.2
2
KN-13
04'8'12'
LIVING
DINING
BALCONY
OFFICE
BEDROOM 2
CL.
1
#
BATHM. BATH
T
I
.
N
T
N
A
F
U
L
.
BALCONY
L
P
Q
A
I
S
E
T
LIVINGL
5
N
P
3
DW
E
1
M
,
D
2
AI
XS
EE
HALL
R
FO
M. BEDROOM
WASH
DRYER
CL.CL.
CL.
KITCHEN
3rd FLOOR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
DINING
BALCONY
BEDROOM 1
M. BATH
ELEVATOR
CL.
A5.2
1
MARKDATEDESCRIPTION
MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 1/7/22
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING 5
Talent, OR 97540
(510) 913-5110
441 Talent Ave
Ashland, OR 97520
A5.3
Gil Livni
165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
SHEET TITLE
DATE:
04'8'12'04'8'12'
KN-12KN-13KN-15
L
AE
I
S
C
T
N
N
A
E N
R
D
I
T
S
O
N
E
I
E
R
S
N
E
M
I
D
D
N
A
S
L
A
I
R
E
T
A
S
E
RIGHT ELEVATION
K
I M
KN-14KN-16
B
/
L
I
R
A
M
/
O
H
S
F
A
R
T
3
.
1
LEFT ELEVATION
A
E
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
E
S
:
e
t
o
N
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
KN-11
A5.3
KN-09KN-10KN-07KN-03
2
04'8'12'
A5.3
4
)
D
'
Q
E
R
%
..
0
.
FF
..2
C(
SS
L
04'8'12'
A60%
448
C
745
G
N
I
Z
A
L
:
G
A
LE
E
88.25 sq ft
:
A
G
IR
A
A
A
C
E
T
R
G
R
N
E
AN
E
I
M
L
ZC
L
M
AR
A
L
OE
GP
CW
L
A
E
I
C
C
N
R
A
E
383.5 sq ft
R
M
T
M
N
O
E
177.75 sq ft
C
98 sq ft
37.5 sq ft
153.25 sq ft
179.75 sq ft
244.25 sq ft310.75 sq ft179.75 sq ft
51.75 sq ft
E
E
C
G
N
A
A
RR
AT
GN
E
L
A
E
I
C
C
N
R
A
E
R
M
T
M
N
O
E
C
220.25 sq ft
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
E
E
C
G
N
A
A
RR
AT
GN
E
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
.
)
D
'24.5 sq ft
Q
E
R
%%
%%
%0%%%%9%%
2%5%
%
2815173
191811
5
1
(
F
8
E 47 4
4000 0 3
I
781
48185215888
L
82
213122513931
KN-05 E
R
N
I
S
:::
:
E:::023
::::::1
91111
12345678
G
L
AAA A5.3A5.3
NAAAAAAAAAA
A
E
AEEEEEEEEEEEET
HRRRRRRR
RRRRRRO
13
AAAAAT
CAAAAAAAA
38'-4"
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
74 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
1
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
he 2nd and 3rd floors.
ic district design
he material
al uses on a
standards and provide a solid neighborhood anchor for the future redevelopment of the adjacent employment zoned properties.
Each proposed building has numerous traditional architectural elements and materials. The scale, form, and massing of some of t
elements are more modern in styling. It can be found that the proposed buildings are architecturally compatible with the histor
Situated at the intersection of three preservation districts, this mixed used development will provide commerical and residenti
historically significant but vacant site. Eight buildings are proposed with 1st floor commerical uses and residental units on t
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
WOOD MILL
5
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
AERIAL OF SITE
2
ASHLAND WOOLEN MILLS
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
4
ASHLAND IRON WORKS
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
RAIL BRIDGE
1
3
33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon
74 Hidden Lane - Ashland
#DATEDESCRIPTION
2117PvC, CG, EG
PLANNING
TERRAINARCH.COM
REVISIONS
541.500.4776
REVIEW
PROJECT NO.
12.31.2021
ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
TEAM:
165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE
1
MAGNOLIA TERRACE
MATERIAL: VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL WOOD
MATERIAL: VERTICAL WOOD, GABLE ROOF
16 Van Ness Ave
USE: COMMERCIAL
USE: AGRICULTURE
SCALE: MEDIUM
SCALE: LARGE
r
e
b
m
u
L
d
n
a
l
h
s
36
A
MATERIAL: VERTICAL WOOD SIDING, GABLE ROOF
MATERIAL: CONCRETE, STEEL
Pyramid Juice
USE: INDUSTRIALUSE: INDUSTRIAL
SCALE: MEDIUMSCALE: MEDIUM
l
i
a
R
r
e
d
n
U
l
e
n
n
25
u
T
MATERIAL: VERTICAL METAL SIDING, STUCCO, STEEL, GABLE ROOF
MATERIAL: VERTICAL METAL SIDING, STUCCO
Proposed Mixed Use Development
USE: COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
USE: COMMERCIAL
SCALE: LARGESCALE: LARGE
t
S
n
a
m
l
e
H
5
14
5
2