Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-14 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, Qive your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 14, 2009 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. May 12,2009 Planning Commission Minutes 2. May 26,2009 Study Session Minutes 3. June 23, 2009 Study Session Minutes IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00551 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 426 A Street APPLICANT: Louis Plummer & Sidney Brown DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story mixed use building for the property located at 426 A Street. Also included are requests for a Mixed Use Parking Credit, a Variance to the parking requirements, an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 09 AS; TAX LOT: 6507 VI. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-00817 APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (This plan replaces the previously approved 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: S-O VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Officers VIII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND r., In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1 ). CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins, Chair Larry Blake Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Mike Morris Council liaison: Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted Kimberly A. Gray would be speaking on sustainability and the "Modern American City" on Thursday, May 14 at the SOU Stevenson Union at 7:30 p.m. He also commented on the Sign Code Guide that was distributed to the commissioners at the beginning of the meeting and explained Planning Division staff is working to inform local merchants of recent changes to the City's sign code and are helping them to come into compliance. He added the right of way portion of the Downtown Task Force recommendations is still working its way through the City Council and is scheduled to be reviewed at the June 16,2009 Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 14, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting B. Approval of Findings for PA #2009-00314,500 Strawberry Lane Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009-00314. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Dotterrer/Dimitre m/s to approve the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. OTHER BUSINESS A. Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan Planning Manager Maria Harris noted the site visit to the Croman Mills site that was conducted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 2009 and explained staff has taken the Draft Plan and have started working on the actual plan maps. She explained they have begun to identify areas, specifically in the proposed street and land use networks, which will likely need to be refined in order to conform to the topography of the site. Staff presented a digital elevation model and commented on some of the grade issues in relation to the street framework. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated the map illustrates well some of the difficulties that would exist with locating the streets as proposed in the Draft Plan. He explained significant issues exist at the riparian area located at the south end of the property. He stated as proposed, a number of crossings would be required, and he also commented on the additional grade issues on this section of the property. Mr. Goldman commented on the area at the north east of the property and stated there are some steep grade changes here as well that will affect the streets as proposed. Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented on the possibility of a residential overlay and explained a mixed use building design may be more compatible with the topography in these areas and with the adjacent uses that currently exist. Mr. Molnar also noted the railroad spur identified in the Draft Plan and suggested the Commission consider moving the light industrial area closer to the existing railroad. He clarified in order to create the connection with the railroad, staff is suggesting more of a north-south configuration of the industrial and office employment lands, rather than the east-west layout that was proposed in the Draft Plan. Comment was made noting the amount of fill on the portion of land to be used by Plexis and it was questioned if this material would need to be removed prior to construction. Mr. Molnar explained the property owner and Plexis have reviewed this issue and have looked into engineering a building at the southern portion of the lot on the fill. He stated they could engineer a building to structurally deal with the fill issues; however Plexis has also indicated the desire for an outdoor campus for their employees. Mr. Molnar stated the Plexis development would likely need to be completed in phases, and the first phase would be to construct a building at the southerly end, which might require removing some fill, and then deal with the northern portion of the lot which houses the more significant fill issues. The Commission continued their discussion on the land use framework and shared their preferences as to where the office space and light industrial areas should be located. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the 5-acre portion of land at the south end of the property. He explained this area has a Comprehensive Plan designation of E-1, but the land is currently occupied by a trailer park. He stated the Plan does include addressing the long term goals for this area since it is located within the City's urban growth area; however there have been no discussions with the property owner to annex this land at this point. Mr. Molnar clarified this portion of property is controlled by the same property owners as the Croman Mill site. Mr. Molnar noted that even after the final plan is approved, there may be instances where the plan needs to be adjusted slightly. He commented that once work begins you often find out things about a property that are unexpected and amendments to the concept plan may be needed. He explained any major amendments, such as removing a planned road or changing the land use designation, would need to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. While minor amendments, such as the adjustment of a street or circulation pattern of no more than 50 ft could be approved through internal department review. Gerry Powell/Addressed the Commission and voiced his support for a residential overlay on the west side of the Croman property near Hamilton Creek. Aaron Benjamin/Asked the Commission to consider including workforce housing units to service the new jobs that will be created on the Croman site. He stated this area is going to become an important micro-neighborhood of the City and asked that the Commission take into consideration the housing, transportation, retail, shopping facilities, and educational facilities that will be needed to service this area. Mr. Molnar announced the next step in this process is for staff to take the items discussed tonight and bring back options for the Commission to consider at their May 26, 2009 Study Session. He noted there is continuing interested in the community regarding this project and staff and Mayor Stromberg have discussed putting an advisory committee together to bring a different perspective to the planning process. He stated the advisory commission would be comprised of representatives from the various City commissions, and well as representatives from the neighborhood, Southern Oregon University, the Chamber of Commerce, and the City Council. Commissioner Marsh asked if there would be a neighborhood meeting included in this process and commented on the importance of making sure the adjacent neighborhood is aware and involved in this process. Commissioner Miller added the residents of the trailer park will also be impacted by the development of the Croman property and should be included in any outreach efforts. The Commissioners issued their final comments on the overall Plan. Mindlin asked if the 5-acre piece at the south end of the property could be preserved as a farm, or possibly zoned as a park or community garden. She also expressed concern that the Croman Plan did not fit into an economic development plan. Dawkins questioned if the Croman site is the best location for high density employment and felt in general, office oriented development should be centered toward downtown. Miller suggested they focus on economic health, not economic growth. Comment was made that the general concept of this Plan has already been determined and approved by the City Council. Mr. Molnar agreed and stated the Commission has some flexibility and can make minor adjustments to the Plan, but any major revisions will likely need to be approved by the City Council. Suggestion was made for staff to let the Commission know the major areas of discretion that are on the table. B. Planning Commission Annual Retreat Mr. Molnar noted the Commission's annual retreat is typically held in late May, early June and asked the Commission to select a date. Marsh questioned what would be on the retreat agenda and Mr. Molnar clarified this is their retreat and they can set the agenda. The Commission briefly discussed their schedules and preferences and it was decided the Commission would delay the annual retreat for a few months. The Commission determined it would be beneficial to wait until the Council has adopted their annual goals, the results of the City's transportation grant application have been provided, and the ninth member of the Planning Commission has been appointed. Suggested topics for discussion at the retreat included commissioner communication with the City Council and a discussion on what a sustainable city looks like. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES MAY 26, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins David Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Tom Dimitre Council liaison: Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted that two Open Houses on the 1-5 Bridge Redesign project have been scheduled for May 28,2009. He stated the meeting information has been posted on the City's website and the Oregon Department of Transportation will be leading the events. PRESENTATIONS A. SOU Pedestrian Mapping Project SOU Professor Pat Acklin explained she had previously met with City staff to develop a student project which would encourage people to walk by providing information on how far pedestrians have to travel to get to key locations within the City of Ashland. Ms. Acklin explained that tonight she is joined by the students from her class to present the information they have gathered. Students Matt Warnke, Alex Mattick, David Maynard, Serena Rittenhouse-Barry, Treasa Cordero, Helena Peterson, Chris Austin and Danny Fry addressed the Commission and provided their presentation titled "Encouraging Pedestrians: A Walking Distance Table of Ashland Destinations." The students presented a brief summary of their mission and the methods used to determine the points of interest and intersections identified in the Walking Distance Table. They explained GPS tracking systems, pedometers, Google Earth and Google Maps were used to gather the information and noted some of the issues that might affect the measurements include route choice, elevation changes, and physical abilities. The students presented the Walking Distance Table and issued the following recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1) Increase the number of water fountains, benches and shade trees. 2) Publish the Walking Distance Table on maps of bus routes, bicycle routes, and parks. 3) Post the Walking Distance Table on the City's website, the OSF website and the Chamber of Commerce website. 4) Make the Table available in hotels, motels, and as table tents in restaurants. 5) Post the Table at bus stops. 6) Continue to establish nodes of commercial development to serve dispersed neighborhoods. 7) Consider adding van routes connecting to bus lines to increase the use of buses. The Commission questioned if walking times could be included in the table. It was also suggested that the distance between bus stops be incorporated as well as putting the information into a map format. Professor Acklin and the SOU students were thanked for the work they did. Ms. Acklin noted the Distance Table was produced for the City and they are free to edit and distribute it as they see fit. B. Planning for Public Health - Staff Presentations Senior Planner Brandon Goldman gave a presentation on the connection between land use planning and public health. Mr. Goldman provided several statistics on U.S. public health, including: . 30% of U.S. adults are obese, 65% of Americans weigh more than is healthful, and one in five children and one in three teens are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. . Asthma affects 15 million Americans; 5 million of those are children. The number of asthma cases has more than doubled since 1990. Mr. Goldman noted a recent study which indicates that tree lined streets may be healthier for children's lungs than streets without trees. . Between 1994 and 2004 the prevalence of diabetes increased more than 50%, and one of every ten health care dollars spent in the U.S. goes towards diabetes and its complications. . The leading cause of death for women and men in the U.S. is heart disease. In 2003, 685,089 people died of heart disease, accounting for 26% of all U.S. deaths. Mr. Goldman explained one of the strategies to combat these health issues is through land use planning. He commented on addressing environmental conditions, providing recreational opportunities, access to quality local food, and access to health care. He indicated they have the ability to influence individual health behaviors by planning for neighborhood walkability, planning complete streets for multi-modal transportation, providing neighborhood parks, providing affordable housing and healthy homes. Mr. Goldman commented on neighborhood connectivity and the benefits of a "traditional" neighborhood pattern (gridded street system). He explained that complete streets reduce injuries and residents are 65% more likely to walk in a neighborhood if it has sidewalks. He added in Portland, Oregon, a complete streets approach resulted in a 74% increase in bicycle commuting from 1990 to 2000. Mr. Goldman also commented the amount of population that does not drive and how reducing vehicle traveling speeds can have a significant impact on pedestrian fatalities. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan -land Use & Street Framework Refinements Mr. Molnar provided a brief introduction and emphasized that while this plan will layout the conceptual ideas, as the area builds out they will need to factor in a degree of flexibility. He added the final ordinance will likely allow minor component shifts to be done administratively; however major changes to the plan will trigger a land use action and will come back to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Planning Manager Maria Harris began her presentation by providing a recap of the process to date. She explained in 2006 the City received a grant to do an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA), which is a required analysis that addresses Statewide Planning Goal 9. Ms. Harris stated the EOA requires the City to make employment projections for at least the next 20 years and identify the acreage needed to accomplish that projection. She stated the City's EOA was completed in April 2007 and it identified the Croman Mill site as an important resource to meet the City's future employment needs. Ms. Harris stated in December 2007 the City received a TGM grant to complete the draft master plan for the Croman site and she provided an overview of the 12 month public process that took place throughout 2008. In December of 2008, Ms. Harris stated the City received the Draft Master Plan from the consultants. Ms. Harris noted that during the public workshops, issues and concerns expressed by the community were incorporated into guiding principles that are included in the plan. In addition, several options were presented and voted on by the community until a refined hybrid option was finally selected. Ms Harris stated the preferred option identified both light industrial and office space to be included on the Croman site, as well as a neighborhood center. Ms. Harris stated they are now in Phase II, which is developing the package of Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code amendments that will implement the draft plan. Mr. Harris provided two plans that identify the original layout of land uses and the proposed revisions by staff. She explained the original layout in the draft plan has an east-west configuration, while the proposed plan adjusts the land uses to a north- south layout and converts a couple of areas to a mixed-use designation. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a further explanation of the potential redistribution of land uses. He commented on the potential to include mixed-use areas next to Hamilton Creek and the existing residential areas and noted this modification would include a slight increase of open space area. Mr. Goldman also provided a chart which outlined the proposed acreage by land use. Mr. Goldman explained that a revised street framework plan has also been proposed to address grade, physical constraints, and rail access issues. He provided images of the possible framework and indicated where the adjustments are proposed. Ms. Harris concluded the presentation by reviewing the Land Use Outline included in the Commission's packet materials. She asked if the commissioners had any questions or comments and asked for their feedback on the elements reviewed in tonight's presentation. Commissioner Ootterrer questioned if the adjustments proposed by staff would be acceptable to the Council. Council Liaison Eric Navickas voiced his support for what has been put forward and stated these are the types of revisions the Council was looking for. Several commissioners echoed Navickas' statement and voiced their support for the adjustments proposed by staff. Commissioner Mindlin shared her comments on preserving the railroad spur and asked about sustainability issues and received clarification regarding at what level these could be incorporated into the plan. Several other commissioners also voiced their preference to maintain access to the railroad spur. Comment was made questioning if the industrial traffic would be kept separate from the other traffic. Staff clarified a truck route that could be added if they didn't want these vehicles to use the main boulevard; however it was noted the central boulevard has been planned to accommodate the industrial traffic. Comment was made questioning the feasibility of OOOT vacating their property. Mr. Molnar clarified OOOT has shown interest in possibly moving their location; the issue is finding a suitable replacement. He added OOOT has indicated that long term their current location may not be the best option. Commissioner Mindlin expressed concern about certain types of industrial uses that are being precluded, specifically sorting yards. She asked that if this is not allowed at the Croman site that the City make sure there is a place in town that allows for this. Mr. Molnar thanked the commissioners for their input and stated if they have any other concerns or comments to contact staff. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: Larry Blake Michael Dawkins Tom Dimitre David Dotterrer Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: None Council liaison: Eric Navickas PRESENTATIONS A. Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP) - Discussion of Grant proposal, Project Scope and Tentative Timeline Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided a brief introduction on transportation planning and Oregon's land use system. He commented on State Planning Goal #12, which is the state's transportation goal, and stated the objective of this goal is to create a pattern of travel and land use that will avoid the air pollution and traffic movability problems faced by other areas of the country, avoid principle reliance upon anyone mode of transportation by providing increased transportation choices, evaluate land use designations and densities to support transit lines, and increase shopping areas with convenient walking and cycling distance of residential areas. Mr. Molnar also commented on the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and explained this document is an expression of the community's values towards transportation; however it is still required to be consistent with the overall State goal. Lastly, he explained the City has a Transportation System Plan (TSP), which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan. This document takes the vision that is contained in the Comprehensive Plan and states what actions need to be taken to implement the community vision. Mr. Molnar stated the TSP was adopted in 1998 and states that the underlying concept of Ashland's Transportation Element is modal equity (equal consideration of all travel modes); and through this modal equity concept, the City recognizes the need for a well designed, integrated, and convenient network of pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, and automobile systems in order to realize their vision. Mr. Molnar explained that the City's Public Works Department has applied for a grant to update the City's TSP, and he commented on the three key nodes that the City would evaluate as part of this project. Mr. Molnar concluded by stating the TSP update will ultimately coordinate what the Planning Commission is doing with land use with what the Transportation Commission is doing in terms of evaluating the citywide transportation system and brings them together to make a stronger system for the entire community. Public Works Director Mike Faught and Transportation Commission Chair Colin Swales came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Faught noted the importance as they move forward with the TSP update that they receive input from the Planning Commission about the needs in Ashland in terms of transportation and as they relate to the land use process. Mr. Faught commented on the grant application and noted several of the key objectives, including: . Improve quality of life and support economic prosperity; . Safe and efficient multi-modal networks based on existing and forecasted land use; . Increase bicycle and pedestrian trips; . Create a "green" template for other communities; . Develop mixed land use activity centers with a multi-modal focus; . Develop transit corridors using land use and transportation measures to support the public transportation system; . Update the Street Design Standards to provide more options for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities; . Plan for further safety and operational improvements such as bicycle and pedestrian lighting, bicycle boulevards and separated bike lanes. Mr. Faught commented on the plan update process and stated they will need to work closely and in concert with the Planning Commission in order to have a plan that works well for Ashland. He explained the adoption of the Transportation System Plan update is a land use process and will come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing and then onto the City Council for final adoption. Transportation Chair Colin Swales explained the Transportation Commission is mainly comprised of people who spent time on the Traffic Safety and Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissions. He stated they are all well equipped to deal with the task at hand; however there are many projects coming forward including the Croman Master Plan, the SOU Master Plan, and the development of the railroad property, and it would be best if they can consult with the Planning Commission as these move forward. Comment was made questioning how the improvements in the TSP would be funded. Mr. Faught explained the final plan will include funding options; some will be paid for through SDCs, while others will have to be incorporated into the City's Capital Improvement Plan. He added some of the projects may qualify for regional and state funding options, and the City will pursue these as they become available. Comment was made questioning how the City would go about creating the transportation vision. Mr. Faught explained the City will issue a very specific RFP for the consultant that will assist with this project. He stated the selected consultant will have to be open to other modes of transportation that would work well in Ashland and be able to take the input from the community and incorporate it into the plan. He added the Transportation Commission will also have a major role in making sure the plan meets Ashland's needs. Mr. Faught clarified the Transportation Commission and the Planning Commission will need to work together and it will be important for the Planning Commission to express any zone changes or large development plans they are considering so that the Transportation Commission can appropriately plan for the transportation needs. Mr. Molnar added this is going to be a back and forth process and noted a Joint Meeting between the two commissions has been scheduled for August 25,2009. B. History of Resource Efficiency in Ashland Electric Director Dick Wanderscheid provided a presentation titled "Energy efficiency, renewables, and sustainability: a 25 year history of resource efficiency in Ashland." Highlights from the presentation included: . Ashland is the fourth oldest municipal utility in Oregon and has been in existence since 1909. . The City of Ashland has operated an electric efficiency program since 1982, a water efficiency program since 1992, and renewables since 1996. . In the last 25 years, per capita electric consumption has gone down and Ashland currently has one of the lowest consumption rates in the state. . Water use in Ashland has also been reduced approximately 28 gallons per person, per day, since 2000. . Ashland adopted one of the first Solar Access ordinances in the U.S. in 1982. That same year the City also adopted a performance development ordinance that included density bonuses for energy efficient housing and began offering a series of comprehensive energy efficiency programs in conjunction with BPA. . Between 1982 and 2006, Ashland has invested approximately $16.1 million in energy efficiency, conservation and renewables. . In 1990, the City turned to water use efficiency programs as a means to increase our water supply. These efforts have been successful and the City has been able to save 500,000 gallons per day during the summer months. In 1998 the Council adopted a new goal of saving 1.5 million gallons per day by 2050. . In 1986, the City began offering the Super Good Cents program, and in 2004 that program was replaced with Earth Advantage, which is a sustainable new home program that addresses all facets of green building. . The City has utilized density bonuses since 1982. Currently the City offers a 15% increase in density if all the homes are built to the Earth Advantage standards. . The City adopted the Valdez Principles in 1990, and every year staff updates the Council on all the things the City has done to support those principles. . The City purchases 1aMW (5% of load) of green wholesale power (wind) from BPA each year. . In 2004, the City and BPA won the "Innovative Application of Technology Award" for the Power Shift program. Mr. Wanderscheid concluded his presentation by speaking on what the future may hold. He noted the Governor's 2009 legislative plan and spoke on climate change, carbon reporting, and plug in electric vehicles. Mr. Wanderscheid explained the City's new 20 year contract with BPA that contains tiered wholesale rates that will require Ashland to meet its load growth at higher wholesale prices than it has under the current contract. He stated these new rates will take effect in October 2011 and will impact the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency programs in the City. Mr. Wanderscheid further explained the impacts electric vehicles will have on the City's electric utility. He stated as plug-in hybrids and other electric vehicles become available the City will need a carefully thought out plan to address this issue. He added it would make sense for the City to consider a smart grid, telecom and SCADA application to ensure that charging of vehicles occurs at off peak times. OTHER BUSINESS A. September Planning Commission Meetings Mr. Molnar announced the City Council has adjusted their meeting schedule in September and as a result the Planning Commission will not have access to the Council Chambers on their normal meeting dates. He suggested two options are to either shift the Planning Commission meeting dates to the first and third Tuesday in September, or shift the regular meeting to the first Tuesday and hold the Study Session on its regular date in the Siskiyou Room of the Community Development Bid. Staff was directed to send an email to the commissioners to gather their preferences. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant r., CITY OF ASHLAND 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: #2009-00551 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 426 A Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Louis Plummer & Sidney Brown DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story mixed use building for the property located at 426 A Street. Also included are requests for a Mixed Use Parking Credit, a Variance to the parking requirements, an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 09 AB; TAX LOT: 6507 NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on July 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on July 9, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Cl!CI2O Feet Pro~r4J lin~~ are for reftrenctJ only, not ~altJabl<l Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be atthe ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the deciSion maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitotional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages In circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony frOm the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. . The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony .and . require thatcomlTlent$berestrictedt()tbellP.pU~tlIe~teria.Unlesstherejsacontintlan~,ifa participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,therecordshallrel'rlaln. ()penf()ratJ~sevendaysaft~rthehearing. Inc()lTIpJ.iance with the Ameri~n with Disabilitie$ Act, if you need~~ll1lassistar'lcetoparti(:iptlteinithislTleeting,pleasecor'ltacttheCitv Administrlltor'soffi.ce at 54'-488-6002 (TTYphone number"soo.735-~EJOO).N()tificl1ti()n72l'l()ul'$pri()r to the me.Jtingwillenable the City tornake reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting, (28 CFR .35.1 ()2.-35, 104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact ttleAshland iPlal'lningOivision,541-4$8.5305. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (ORD 2655, 1991; ORD 2836, 1999) VARIANCE 18.100.020 Application The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That 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. (ORD 2425,1987). C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (ORD 2775,1996) EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.88.050 F - Exception to Street Standards An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 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 variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. (ORD 2951,2008; ORD 2836,1999) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. 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; and 3. 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. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density 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 or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002) Document3 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT July 14, 2009 PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00551 APPLICANT: Brown, Christopher LOCATION: 426 A Street 39 IE 09 AB Tax Lot #10100 ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l with Residential Overlay COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: July 4, 2009 120-DA Y TIME LIMIT: November 1,2009 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 18.61 18.72 18.88.050.F 18.92 18.100 E-l Employment District Tree Preservation and Protection Site Design Review Exception to Street Standards Off-Street Parking Variances REQUEST: Planning Action #2009-00551 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story mixed use building for the property located at 426 A Street. Also included are requests for a mixed use parking credit, a Variance to the off-street parking requirements, an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees six- inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application There are no planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site The subject property is located at 426 A Street, on the southeast corner ofthe intersection of A and Third Street. The project site consists of a single rectangular tax lot with an area of approximately 6,092 square feet, with approximately 50 feet of frontage along A Street and 122 feet of frontage on Third Street. Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 1 of 17 The subject property is generally flat, with an approximate three to five percent downslope to the north. The primary natural features of the site are limited to existing trees. A tree inventory prepared by local arborist Tom Myers has been provided with the application, and it identifies a total of seven trees on or near the subject property six-inches in diameter-at- breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. These include three large cedars ranging in diameter from 23- to 26-inches, a six-inch apple tree, a six-inch Euonymus which Myers indicates is really more of a shrub, and an eight-inch Big Leaf Maple on the subject property, and an eight-inch European pear tree located just over the property line on the property to the east.. The application proposes to retain the two large Incense Cedars near the northwest corner of the site, and to remove the four remaining trees over six-inch d.b.h. on the property and a fifth smaller tree, a five-inch diameter apple tree near the existing shed. The site contains an existing home, designated as the "John Pelton Rental House" in the Ashland Railroad Historic District inventory document. The home is a single-story wood dwelling of approximately 1,200 square feet originally constructed in 1889 as a rental unit. The inventory document goes on to note that in 1964, the home was used for commercial purposes as "Harold's Tune Up and Brake". The inventory indicates that in comparisons between the present structure and 1928 Sanborn Maps, major alterations to the house appear to have occurred, most notably the removal of a front bay window, and it concludes that various other changes in window type, siding, and other aspects have dramatically diminished the integrity of the Pelton Rental House to prevent it from accurately reflecting its historic period of development. The house is considered to be a "Historic, Non- Contributing" resource within the district. In addition to the Pelton Rental House, the property also contains an approximately 600-square foot detached garage/shop at the rear of the property, near the alley, and a smaller shed (described in the application as a chicken coop) between the house and the garage/shop. The existing street improvements on A Street, an Avenue or Major Collector, include pavement, curbs, and gutters, with seven-and-a-half foot wide curbside sidewalks in place along the subject property's full frontage. Along Third Street, a Neighborhood Street, pavement, curbs and gutters are in place but the subject property's frontage lacks sidewalks. There is presently a curb cut on Third Street to provide vehicular access to the site, but this cut does not align with the garage at the rear of the property and does not appear to have been in use for some time. Vehicular access to the site is also available from Third Street via an alley at the rear of the property. The subject parcel and surrounding properties to the north, east and west fronting on A Street are located in the E-l Employment District and include an R -overlay to allow residential use subject to the requirements of AMC 18.40.030.E. The subject property is also located within the Railroad Addition Historic District and the "North Main, Historic District and Oak Street" Detail Site Review Zone. Properties immediately to the south are located within the R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District. Site Review Proposal With the current application, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing non- contributing structures on the site as well as to remove four of the existing trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. The applicant then proposes to construct a two- Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 2 of 17 story 3,992 square foot mixed use building consisting of 1 ,850 square feet of retail or office space on the ground floor, and two residential condominiums on the second floor. The application notes that the proposed building would be LEED-certified. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is a green building rating system for new construction and on-going operations developed through the u.s. Green Building Council and provides a third-party certification that energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reductions, improved indoor environmental quality, stewardship of resources and sensitivity to development impacts are addressed in construction and through a building's lifecycle. The Green Building Certification Institute website confirms that the project has been LEED-registered. Mixed Use Credit and Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirements Requests The off-street parking requirements for the project are as follows: aces each) 8 The application proposes to provide four off-street parking spaces, including one disabled person parking space, at the rear of the subject property to be accessed from the alley. In addition, one on-street parking credit is available for 48-feet of uninterrupted curb frontage along Third Street bringing the parking provided to a total of five spaces. Three additional parking spaces are required, and the application proposes to address these through a 25 percent mixed use credit to off-set two of the required spaces, and to request a 12~ percent Variance to address the remaining one required off-street parking space. Exception to Street Standards The application proposes to make repairs to the broken curb near the corner of Third and A Streets and to retain the existing seven-and-a-half foot curbside sidewalk along A Street, which lacks a parkrow planting strip. The applicant also proposes to install a new six-foot sidewalk and a new parkrow planting strip along Third Street. In order to accommodate the tree protection zone of one of the large Incense Cedars to be retained (Tree #7 ), an II-foot 2- inch parkrow is proposed within that tree's protection zone; this arrangement would transition back to a standard seven-foot parkrow once beyond the protection zone. Tree Removal Permit Request The tree inventory provided with the application identifies a total of seven trees on or near the subject property six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. These include three large cedars ranging in diameter from 23- to 26-inches, a six-inch apple tree; a six-inch Euonymus which the arborist report indicates is more of a shrub, and an eight-inch Big Leaf Maple. An eight-inch European pear tree located just over the property line on the property to the east is included in the inventory as well, as required by ordinance. The application proposes to retain and protect the two large Incense Cedars near the northwest corner of the Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 3 of 17 site which are noted as being integral to the fabric ofthe site and the larger A Street corridor, and to remove the four remaining trees over six-inches d.b.h. on the property and a fifth smaller tree, a five-inch diameter apple tree, located near the existing shed. II. Proiect Impact The project requires Site Design Review approval since it involves the construction of a new mixed-use building on an E-l zoned lot. Within the Detail Site Review Zones, buildings with less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area may be approved administratively; however in this instance because the application includes a request for a 12~ percent Variance to the off-street parking requirements, a public hearing is required under the Procedures Chapter (see AMC 18.108.040.AA.e.) A. Site Design Review With the current application, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures on the site and to remove four ofthe site's existing trees over six-inch d.b.h. A two-story LEED- certified 3,992 square foot mixed use building consisting of 1 ,850 square feet of retail/office space on the ground floor, and two residential condominiums on the second floor is then proposed. The application is subject to review based on the Site Design Review Chapter 18.72, and the Basic and Detail Site Review Standards and the Historic District Development Design Standards from the Site Design and Use Standards handbook. The first criterion for Site Review approval is that, "All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development." By ordinance, the E-l zoning district is intended to provide for office, retail and manufacturing uses in an aesthetic environment while having a minimal impact on surrounding uses. Within the district's R-overlay, residential uses are permitted subject to certain restrictions, including an allowed residential density of 15 units per acre and a limitation that no more than 35 percent of the ground floor area that can be dedicated to residential uses. There are no specific yard area requirements within the district, and building heights are limited to 40 feet. As proposed, the building will house a mix of uses (retail, office and residential) consistent with those allowed within the district, and will have an average height of22-feet 8-inches, well below the maximum allowed height within the district. The two residential units proposed are within the density allowed for a 6,092 square foot property (0.14 acres x 15 units per acre = 2.1 units). As an E-I zoned lot, the property is subject to solar access standard "B" which limits the shadow which can be cast onto neighboring properties to no more than would be cast by a 16- foot high fence constructed on the subj ect property's north property line. In this instance, while no supporting calculations have been provided, the application notes that any shadow cast will fall within the adjacent A Street right-of-way to the north and as such will comply with the solar access requirements. Given that the lot is subject to standard "B", the proposed building height and the right-of-way to the north, it appears that that the building should comply with the solar access standard; however a condition has been recommended Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 4 of 17 below to require that the requisite solar calculations be provided with the building permit submittals. The application includes a conceptual detail of a sign which would be incorporated into the entry of the plaza. The proposed sign is described as using "metal frame infrastructure referencing the aesthetic of a railroad freight car" and accommodating flexible display options by allowing interchangeable elements. The detail drawing provided shows a six-foot high ground sign to be placed on a 1 Y2 foot high pedestal. In reviewing the sign for compliance with the Sign Ordinance, staff noted that while E-l zoned lots are permitted one ground sign, this sign is limited to no more than five feet above grade and the proposed sign appears to exceed the maximum allowable height. Conditions of approval have been recommended below to require that a revised sign program be submitted with the building permit demonstrating compliance with the height, area, number, changeable copy, and other regulations of the Sign Ordinance, and that a sign permit be obtained prior to installation of the proposed sign. The second criterion for Site Review approval is that, "All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met." Developments within the E-l zoning district must provide at least 15 percent of the site in landscaped area. As proposed, the application results in 21 percent of the site, or 1,111 square feet, being landscaped. In addition, while it cannot be considered to be landscaped area, two-thirds of the overall roof area is proposed to be provided in a green roof which will utilize native plantings on the roof to decrease the quantity of stormwater run-off from the roof surface, while increasing its quality. The application also indicates that an 80 square foot landscape buffer strip is proposed immediately adjacent to the 1,105 square foot parking area, providing slightly more than the seven percent of parking lot landscaping required in the standards. The application also points out that in addition to addressing the Site Design and Use Standards handbook's Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies, the proposed landscaping plan also seeks to meet the LEED standards which reduce the potable water use for irrigation by 50 percent based on a mid-summer baseline usage. The site plan provided identifies a trash and recycling area at the southeast corner of the property, to be accessed from the alley, and screened according to standards with a five-foot sliding wood and metal gate. The application proposes to utilize wall-mounted lights to provide exterior site lighting, and notes that all lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties. A condition of approval is recommended below to require that all lighting fixtures be identified in the building permit submittals, and that details oftheir shrouding and screening be provided as well. The third criterion for Site Review approval is, "The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter." The proposed design provides a primary entrance to the building from the higher order A Street sidewalk and a secondary entrance from Third Street. The submittal indicates that the massing and materials were designed to provide emphasis to the building entries. As part of the applicant's efforts to preserve the two large Cedar trees, a hardscape plaza surfaced in Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 5 of 17 permeable pavers has been proposed at the corner. This space includes seating areas and sheltered entries, and serves to create a public space that accentuates the building entries' relationship to the corner. A continuous awning is proposed to provide shelter for pedestrians outside the building and at all entrances. Parking is to be located at the rear of the property, behind the building as required in the Site Design and Use Standards, and will be accessed from the alley. The application notes that while the building frontage is less than 100 feet in length, the design provides a stepped fa<;ade in order to maintain a comfortable pedestrian scale appropriate to the pattern of development in the Railroad Addition Historic District. The application also indicates that 26 percent of the A Street building frontage and 31 percent of the Third Street building frontage are provided in windows and doorways, exceeding the 20 percent minimum requirement of the Detail Site Review standards. Wall-mounted lights are to be provided on the building at a height of no greater than 14 feet to provide site lighting for pedestrian circulation, and the applicant proposes to provide a new street light at the corner of Third and A Streets. The proposal includes installation of new parkrow planting strips and sidewalks along the subject property's Third Street frontage, and an Exception to Street Standards has been requested in order to allow a wider sidewalk and meandering sidewalk to provide protection for the large Cedar tree located along this frontage. The application notes that additional street trees will be planted in the Third Street parkrow to meet the spacing requirements of the street tree standards. The application notes that the proposed design is intended to reference the character and architectural history of the Railroad Addition Historic District while also utilizing current technologies and methods to achieve a sustainable design. While the full Historic Commission has not reviewed the final application as this document is being prepared, their initial review at the pre-application level indicated that the Commissioners felt that the building would be compatible with the historic neighborhood, and they expressed their appreciation for the proposed design and public spaces to be created. The full Historic Commission will review the application at their July 2009 meeting, and a condition has been recommended below to incorporate their recommendations from this meeting as conditions of approval. The Site Design and Use Standards require 15 percent of the site be landscaped with developments proposed in the E-1 zoning district. The application notes that 21 percent of the site is proposed to be landscaped with the included landscape plan, which includes a variety of trees, bushes and ground cover plantings. The Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the plans as this document is being prepared, and as a result a condition is proposed below to include the recommendations from their July 2009 meeting as conditions of approval. The final approval criterion for Site Review approval is, "That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-o.fway shall comply with the Street Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 6 of 17 Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options." Existing water, sewer, storm sewer, electrical services and paved access are in place and serve the existing residence on the site, and are identified in the site survey provided with the application. The application notes that the applicant has met with the Electric Department to determine the necessary size and placement for a new electric transformer to serve the proposed building, and an electrical distribution plan and load calculations have been provided. A new parkrow planting strip and sidewalk are proposed along Third Street, and curb and comer repairs are proposed along A Street to supplement the existing sidewalk. Vehicular access is to be provided from Third Street to the parking at the rear of the site via the existing paved alley. In staff's opinion, the Basic Site Review, Detail Site Review and Historic District Design Standards have been satisfied by the proposal. The proposed building is oriented to the higher order A Street, with secondary entrances and a plaza space that also establish a strong relationship to the corner of Third and A Streets. Vehicular parking is located to the rear of the building, and entrances are provided to the building interior directly from the street as well as from the parking area. The A Street entrance includes awnings for pedestrian protection. B. Mixed Use Credit and Variance to Off-Street Parking Requirement A total of eight off-street parking spaces are required for the project as proposed. Four spaces are required for the proposed ground floor retail space, one space is required for the proposed ground floor office, and three spaces are required to serve the two one-bedroom second floor residential units. The application proposes to provide four off-street parking spaces at the rear of the subject property to be accessed from the alley, including the one required disabled person parking space. In addition, one on-street parking credit is available for 48- feet of uninterrupted curb frontage along Third Street bringing the parking provided to a total offive spaces. Three additional parking spaces are required; the application proposes to address these through a 25 percent mixed use credit to off-set two of the required spaces, and requests a 12 ~ percent Variance to address the remaining one required off-street parking space. The applicant has requested a 25 percent mixed-use parking credit, which would reduce the overall parking required by two spaces, because the peak parking demand of the commercial uses on the ground floor and the second floor residential uses would be offset, with residents typically away for work during business hours and the business closed in the evening when the residents return. The Off-Street Parking Chapter provides for such mixed-use credits in AMC 18.92.060.C, with allowances for the Staff Advisor to reduce the total parking requirement by up to 35 percent when mixed uses are shown to have an offset peak parking demand. With the proposed mixed-use parking credit, the overall off street parking required of the proj ect can be reduced to six spaces, and only five spaces are proposed to be provided. As such, a one-space or 12 ~ percent Variance to the off street parking requirement is requested. The first criterion for a Variance is, "That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere." The application emphasizes two unique or unusual circumstances which apply to the site and which do not typically apply Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 7 of 17 elsewhere and that lead to the requested Variance. The first, and most significant, of these is the presence of the two large Cedar trees located near the corner of Third and A Streets. The application notes that these trees are an integral part of the site and the existing neighborhood, and emphasizes that the desire to preserve them was a determining element in arriving at the proposed design, including the placement of the building, plaza space, and parking. In addition, the application explains that the location of the project within the Railroad Addition Historic District posed additional design constraints in that the building design, while modern, needed to respond to the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The application includes a number of exhibits showing options that were considered to address the parking requirements, and concludes that the proposal provides as much parking as is feasible while providing a design that is in keeping with the neighborhood scale. The applicant notes that if more parking were required, nearly 50 percent of the site would be dedicated to parking and the resulting reductions in the building area would make it difficult for the building to fit the neighborhood scale. The second criterion for a Variance is, "That 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." The applicant asserts that use of the existing alley to provide access to the proposed parking, and the placement and configuration of that parking, allows the character of the site, the surrounding neighborhood, and the Third Street streetscape to remain intact by not necessitating the installation of a driveway access along the project's Third Street frontage. The application further points out that the proposed design aids in the preservation of the two Cedar trees and the creation of the public plaza space as a pedestrian amenity at the comer. The application also emphasizes the sustainability measures proposed, including stormwater management practices, green roof technology, low-intensity water conservation measures, sustainable landscaping, and renewable energy measures, as beneficial to the neighborhood and community, noting that the applicant's intention is to allow the building to serve as an educational resource providing information and education about the benefits of green practices in the built environment and the extent to which they can positively contribute to the immediate neighborhood and the community at large. While the application does not speak directly to the potential negative impacts associated with increased parking demand in the area, in visiting the site and reviewing the survey provided with the application staff noted that the A Street frontage of the property does have 48 feet of curb frontage to accommodate additional on-street parking. This frontage would be available for an additional on-street credit, eliminating the need for the requested one- space parking Variance, if A Street were improved to the full width required of a two-lane avenue. (A Street is currently paved to a width of31 feet, where a 32-foot width is required to allow on-street parking credits on a two-lane avenue in AMC 18.92.025.E.) While this frontage cannot be counted for an on-street parking credit due to its width, the presence of a driveway for the Grange directly across from the frontage limits parking on that side ofthe street and thus alleviates the width issue to some degree. The frontage thus functions as it would for an on-street credit, although it cannot be counted, and serves to absorb a good deal of the negative impact of the Variance along the property's own frontage. Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 8 of 17 The final Variance approval criterion is, "That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed." Neither the two large Cedar trees which the applicant proposed to retain nor the location within the Railroad Addition Historic District have been willfully or purposely self-imposed as both pre-date the current owners 2008 acquisition of the property. Instead, the Variance is necessitated by the applicant's attempts to respond to both of these conditions while complying with other applicable standards, including those which dictate the placement and orientation of the building and the relative placement ofthe required parking. In staffs view, the application has demonstrated that there are unique or unusual circumstances necessitating the proposed Variance, and that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the associated negative impacts, and staffbelieve that both the requested mixed-use credit and the Variance merit approval. C. Exception to Street Standards The application proposes to make repairs to broken curbs near the corner of Third and A Streets and along the A Street frontage, and to retain the existing seven-and-a-half foot curbside sidewalk along A Street, which lacks a parkrow planting strip. The applicant also proposes to install a new six-foot sidewalk and a new parkrow planting strip along Third Street. In order to accommodate the tree protection zone of one ofthe large Incense Cedars to be retained, an II-foot 2-inch parkrow is proposed within the tree protection zone; this arrangement would transition back to a standard seven-foot parkrow once beyond the protection zone to connect with the sidewalk and parkrow located to the south along Third Street. The application notes that preserving the existing large Cedar tree (Tree #7) along Third Street creates a demonstrable difficulty, and that meandering the sidewalk and increasing the park row width beyond the street standards within the tree's protection zone will alleviate the difficulty while avoiding possible damage to the tree by minimizing the impacts to the tree's root system, and once beyond the tree protection zone the sidewalk and park row will return to normal. In staff's view, the efforts to preserve the trees by meandering the sidewalk and widening the park row satisfy the approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards and will result in equal transportation facilities and connectivity while remaining directly in keeping with the stated purpose and intent ofthe Performance Standards Options Chapter, which is: [TJo allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage, provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, be aesthetically pleasing, provide for more efficient land use, and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. In terms of the A Street sidewalk, staff believe that retaining the existing sidewalk is similarly consistent with the approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards as this will Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 9 of 17 reduce the necessary disturbance within the tree protection zone of the large Cedar (Tree #5) along A Street, while maintaining the established pattern within the A Street pedestrian corridor. D. Tree Removal The tree inventory submittal identifies a total of seven trees on or near the project site which are six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. These include: three large cedars ranging in diameter from 23- to 26-inches; a six-inch apple tree; a six-inch Euonymus which the arborist report indicates is more of a shrub; and an eight-inch Big Leaf Maple. An eight-inch European pear tree located just over the property line on the property to the east is included in the inventory as well, as required by ordinance. The application proposes to retain and protect the two large Incense Cedars near the northwest corner of the site which are noted as being integral to the fabric of the site and the larger A Street corridor, and to remove the four remaining trees over six-inches d.b.h. on the property and a fifth smaller tree, a five-inch diameter apple tree, located near the existing shed. The application materials note that the large cedar tree (Tree #1) which is to be removed from the rear of the property is in poor condition due to severe pruning that has been done to accommodate overhead power lines, and indicates that the requested removal of the remaining trees is necessary to accommodate development of the property in keeping with the applicable zoning regulations and site design standards. The application notes that these removals will not have negative impacts to the site or its surroundings in terms of erosion, soil stability, flow or surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or existing windbreaks, and that mitigation trees will be planted to replace the trees being removed. The arborist has provided general tree protection recommendations for the project, and additional recommendations specific to the two large cedars to be retained. These include: that an arborist must supervise any grade changes to be made within the tree protection zones; that a sandy loam fill be used within the tree protection zone of Tree #5 to minimize any root system damage caused by proposed grade changes; and that any excavation for paver installation within the tree protection zone of Tree #7 be done by hand. The arborist concludes that with these measures, the two trees to be retained should survive the proposed construction process. III. Procedural. ReQuired Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review are described in 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 10 of 17 property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for a Variance are described in 18.100 as follows: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. B. That 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. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The criteria for Tree Removal Permits are described in 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Planning Action 2009-00551 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Brown, Christopher Page 11 of 17 Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. 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; and 3. 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. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density 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 or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staffbelieve that the application has satisfied the applicable criteria for Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story mixed use building; a 25 percent mixed use parking credit and Variance to the off-street parking requirements; an Exception to Street Standards; and Tree Removal to remove four trees six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. We believe that the application merits approval with the conditions recommended below. In staff's view, the most significant issue to be considered with the request is the proposed reduction in required parking through a mixed use parking credit and Variance. As detailed above, staffbelieve that the application successfully demonstrates that this reduction satisfies all applicable approval criteria by identifying the two large Cedars to be preserved and the location within the Historic District as unique or unusual site specific circumstances and demonstrating that the benefits of the proposal both in preserving the two trees and in responding to the character of the streetscape and surrounding historic neighborhood outweigh the negative impacts. While the proposed sustainable design measures are not a specific criteria for approval in themselves, staff believe they are a benefit to the site, the neighborhood and the community that can be considered with the Variance request. The Land Use Ordinance currently offers some incentive to encourage the preservation and restoration of existing structures within Ashland's Historic Districts through commercial redevelopment. This incentive takes the form of a Variance of up to 50 percent of the off- street parking requirement (see AMC 18.92.055). While the current proposal is for the Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 12 of 17 redevelopment of a Railroad District lot through the construction of a new building, staff believe that this application could be found to merit similar encouragement through the approval of the requested reductions in required parking. Staff note that this year's adopted Council goals include the adoption of land use codes to create strong incentives for new development that is energy, water, and land-efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system (see City Council Goals 2009-2010, adopted June 16, 2009). The current application provides the opportunity to use existing development codes to encourage just such a development using existing land use codes, and to do so with approval of a request which has been demonstrated to be merited in its own right. Planning staff are supportive of the application and recommend its approval. Should the Planning Commission choose to concur with this recommendation, we recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including that the building shall achieve LEED certification at a minimum "Certified" level prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 2) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage, and all signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96, including the requirements of 18. 72.120.C iflocated within a vision clearance area. 3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 4) All conditions of the Historic Commission as detailed in their recommendations of July 8, 2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval ofthe Staff Advisor. 5) All conditions of the Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of July 9,2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. 6) That the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building, and the front entrances adjacent to Third and A Streets shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 7) That engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Third Street shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to any work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of six feet in width with seven foot landscaped parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting, shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site. Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 13 of 17 The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of Ashland Street Standards. Because the property located within one of Ashland's Historic Districts, any new concrete work in the public right-of-way will need to meet Engineering Division's standards for color within a Historic District. 8) If necessary to accommodate required street improvements or to allow for their proper alignment, additional right-of-way shall be dedicated or public pedestrian access easements provided. 9) That Demolition/Relocation Permit approval shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to issuance of a demolition permit or commencement of demolition work on site. 10) That mitigation trees to replace the four trees removed shall be identified on the revised landscape plans. These trees shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In lieu of the planting mitigation trees on site, the applicant may propose replanting off site or payment in lieu of planting if it is determined that there is insufficient available space on the subject property for mitigation planting. 11) That the maintenance agreement or CC&R' s for the Condominium Owners' Association shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of a condominium survey plat. Agreements shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, plaza space, parking areas, bio-swales, planting strips and street trees, and shall note the approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance. The maintenance agreement or CC&R' s must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation ofthe Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. 12) That the 450 square feet of the ground floor space approved herein for general office use shall not be used for a more intense use such as a retail space or medical office, which would require additional off-street parking spaces, without first receiving Site Review approval. A floor plan shall be provided with the building permit submittal clearly identifying the areas to be dedicated to office and retail use. 13) That the building permit submittal materials shall include: a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utility easements, public pedestrian access easements, and any applicable reciprocal access and maintenance agreements. b) Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula [(Height-16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point( s) and the height( s) from natural grade. c) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, as well as parking lot landscaping calculations. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 15 percent as required in AMC 18.72.110.A. and the required seven percent parking lot landscaping shall also be provided. Planning Action 2009-00551 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds Applicant: Brown, Christopher Page 14 of 17 d) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage system must be designed so that post-development peak stormwater flows will be less than or equal to pre-development peak flows, and must also include storm water quality mitigation measures if deemed necessary by the Engineering Division. e) Exterior building materials, paint colors and light fixtures shall be consistent with those approved as part of the application and compatible with the surrounding area. Exterior building color and material samples, and specifications ofthe light fixtures and any necessary shielding or shrouding, shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with II-C-2f) of the Detail Site Review Standards. f) That a final utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering, Building and Planning Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines, and electric services. 13) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) That the applicant submit an electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. Electrical services shall be installed underground, and any transformers or cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. b) That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including building demolition, storage of materials, or permit issuance. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the three trees to be retained on and adjacent to the subject property. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC l8.6l.200.B and the approved Tree Protection Plan, and shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work including demolition, storage of materials or permit Issuance. c) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including the installation of any required fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, and knox box, shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever applicable. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities, and if a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk corridor. Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 15 of 17 d) That all requirements of the Building Division, including but not limited to providing necessary information for the approval of alternate methods of construction, shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. e) That revised landscaping, irrigation and tree protection plans incorporating: the recommendations of the Tree Commission; irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies; parkrow improvements on Third Street; and any additional measures recommended by the arborist to provide for the protection of Tree #3 located on the adjacent property to the east shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit. f) An encroachment permit from the Ashland Public Works Department shall be obtained for any stairs, planters or other encroaching construction into the adjacent rights-of-way. Any required stair handrails shall be detailed in the building permit submittals; no projection of handrails into the sidewalk pedestrian corridor shall be permitted. 14) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. a) Five covered bicycle parking spaces shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan and the design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and the building permit submittals shall verifY that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. b) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed on the Third Street frontage prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section E ofthe Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated. That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards prior to the issuance ofa certificate of occupancy. An opportunity-to-recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with l8.72.ll5.B. The damaged curbs shall be repaired and the curb cut along Third Street shall be removed and replaced with curbing. All new curb installation shall be permitted through the Engineering Division and installed to city standards, inspected, and approved prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That all public improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, street trees, and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. c) d) e) f) Planning Action 2009-00551 Applicant: Brown, Christopher Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Page 16 of 17 g) That the building shall achieve LEED certification at a minimum "Certified" level prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. h) That all hardscaping, landscaping, and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Planning Action 2009-00551 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds Applicant: Brown, Christopher Page 17 of 17 PROJECT NARRATIVE/FINDINGS 5.05.09 J f:' PROJECT NAME: 426 A St. Project TYPE OF PLANNING ACTION: A request for a Site Review Approval(Chapter ~8.72) for a Mixed-Use Project in the E-~ Zone District(Chapter ~8.40). PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER: Louis Plummer & Sidney Brown ~~7 Almond St. Ashland, OR 97520 DESIGNER: Christopher Brown 545 A St. Ashland, OR 97520 SURVEYOR: Terrasurvey, Inc. 274 Fourth St. Ashland, OR 97520 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Greg Covey Covey Pardee Landscape Architects 295 East Main Street, Suite 8 Ashland, OR 97520 CIVIL ENGINEER: Tom Sisul Sisul Engineering 350~ Excel Drive, Suite 240 Medford, OR 97504 PROJECT ADDRESS: 426 A Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 39-~E-09 AB Tax Lot 6507 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment ZONING DESIGNATION: E-~(w/Residential Overlay) ,) 4 'nt ,JUN SITE DATA: Area of Property: f' 6/092'S~F.(.1.39 acres)1.oo% Pavement(Parking/Walkways/Plaza) 2/81.8 S.F, 46% L..[Permeable Parking Lot] [1./1.1.1 S.F, of 2/818 S.F. = 39% P.P.L.] [Permeable Entry Plaza] [655 S.F, of 2/818 S.F. = 23% P.E.P,] [Parking Lot Landscape] [80 S.F. of 1./1.11. S.F, = 7.2% P.L.L.] Landscape/Recreation 1./278 S.F. 21.% Building Footprint 1./996 S.F, 33% L..[Green Roof Area] [1./500 S.F. of 2/155 S,F. = 70% G.R.A.] PARKING REQUIRED: Total Spaces Required: General Business/Retail: Office: (2) 1. Bedroom Units> 500 S.F, 1.AOO S.F./350 S.F. = 4 Spaces 450 S.F./450 S.F. = 1. Space 2 x 1..5 = 3 Spaces Spaces Required = 8 Spaces 25 % Mixed-Use Credit(2 Spaces) Total Spaces Required = 6 Spaces PARKING PROVIDED: Total Spaces Provided: Off-Street Spaces(lncluding ADA)= 4 Spaces 3rd Street On-Street Credit= 1 Spaces Total Spaces Provided = 5 Spaces BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED/PROVIDED: Total Spaces Required: 1. per 5 req. Parking Spaces = 2 Spaces 1. per 1 Bedroom Unit = 2 Spaces Total Spaces Required = 4 Spaces 50% Sheltered Total Spaces Provided: Total Spaces Provided = 5 Spaces 100% Sheltered PUBLIC SPACES: 635 S.F. Provided(10.4%) ! J SITE DESCRIPTION: LAND USE: 1"'. In the general area of the subject property there currently exist a variety of occupancies and uses, These range from Low and High/ Multi-Residential Unitsl Office Unitsl Commercial Unitsl Health Care Facilitiesl and Food Services(see Vicinity/Zone Map and Aerial Photograph). There is also a combination of zoning districts which include R-21 C-J.I and E-l. The Historic Railroad District and the Detail Site Review Zone Overlay District are also included along A St. Uses and Zoning Districts immediately adjacent to the subject property are as follows: North-A Street and Commercial/Retail; Zoned E-J. South-Single/Multi Residential; Zoned R-2 West-3rd Street and Commercial/Retail; Zoned E-J. East- Single Residential; Zoned E-J. The subject property is Zoned E-J.I Employment with the Residential Overlay. The purpose of the E-J. District is to provide officel retaill and services in an aesthetic environment while having a minimal impact on surrounding uses, The R-Overlay Designation in the E-J. Zone allows for Residential development at J.5 units per acre. There are no yard requirements for this Zone Designation except those required in the Site Reviewl General Provisions and Solar Access chapters. The maximum allowable height of a building is 40 feet. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: The property located at 426 A St. is approximately 6/092 S.F.(.J.39 acres) in size 1 and currently has a J./800 S,F, residencel along with an adjacent chicken coop and garage/shop. The property slopes down to the northwest at a 3.2% fa III refer to City Topo Map. 3.02 Northern Frontage from Corner of 3' fA St, 3.03 Western Frontage from across 3' St, The concurrent demolition permit application is requesting permission to clear the site of the existing structure(s). The potential for re-use and/or salvage is not a feasible optionl and the applicant seeks to rehabilitate the site in a manner which would provide greater benefit for the local community. ACCESS TO PROPERTY: Vehicle access to the property is from 3rd St. and the shared service alley between A St. and 8 St, Pedestrian access is from 3rd St., A St., and the adjacent alley. 3rd St. is classified as a Neighborhood Collector, and A St, is classified as an Avenue(Major Collector), 3rd St, has a 50'-0" ROW wi 36'-6" of paving(Face of Curb). A St, has a similar 50'-0" ROW wi 31'-6" of paving(Face of Curb), The rear access alley has 13'-6" of paving and is accessible to both pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare, There is a 7'-6" sidewalk along the property on A St., however the sidewalk does not extend along the property border on 3rd St. ------ ,<:} ,.<41.....1.... 4#oJ/alr SlRCC1______ & I") "- ~ o Q:: "- V) ~ I, ' ~ "'" . JUN 4.0J. Site Plan of Existing Building(s) at 426 A Street ,., <. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REQUEST: 0, ,- The applicant seeks approval to clear the site of existing structures, and proposes the construction of a LEED certified 3,992 S.F. mixed-use building. The ground floor would be potentially available as an ~,850 S.F. retail/office condominium(w/ the potential of division into 3 spaces), and the second floor will consist of (2) condominium units. .~ ~s:' j- / 1;;:'\ ,.... " l" ;.-. L ,/ i --~ .1 l'-{J '~'(l (1:- j ~ I - , ir-A'-'-~_~--,- I 11' '-_ I II i 1/ / .<l ! " - L" f' ,_ ------ --_.. 5.0J. Site Plan of Proposed Design at 426 A Street EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT ZONING COMPLIANCE: The proposed uses comply with the E-~ Zone District(Chapter ~8,40) in regard to permitted uses, setbacks, lot coverage, and height. ACCESS/PARKING: "" The off-street parking ordinance requires 8 spaces ( 5 spaces for the 1st floor[retail!offic'e] I 3 spaces for the 2nd floor[residential]), The applicant is providing 4 parking spaces on site, and will receive 1 on-street credit(for the frontage on 3rd St,). The applicant is requesting a 25% mixed-use credit(2 spaces) for the project, due to the fact the parking requirements attributed to the first floor(5 spaces) would operate under the assumption of impacted business hours(7 a.m.-6 p.m.) and therefore clear available parking(5 spaces) for the residential tenants during off-hours, In a typical scenario the tenants of the residential units would be leaving home for the workplace during the day(peak on-site parking hours) and thus making available the credits(3 spaces) attributed to the residential use, The applicant would still require 1 additional credit to fulfill the parking requirements and is therefore requesting a standard variance, for 1 credit. The applicant seeks to underline the motive for the preservation of the two existing Cedar trees, on the corner of 3rd and A St., as an integral part of the existing neighborhood and a predominant condition in the subsequent placement of the building and parking, to be taken into consideration for the granting ofthe requested variance. r~'--"-'_~._~'m""~'_~-"~~-'---<-----'--"--'--m,.""m-^"fl_~'~~~'"_"'~____~~"~"~__~~'~~_'_~,~~,,~~,~~__,,~______._~_<~~._._~.~__,~"~__w.~._..__..~,.._~._.__,.~"""-1 -~~ ~""""'''''' ~~~ '~, i i i I I I I I I I I 6.01 Proposed Site Plan at 426 A Street ~ j <D On Street Parking [1 credit-8s'-0" curb] .. Restricted On Street Parking t [0 credits total-40'-0" curb] r -I I J Unparkable Area 5 Spaces of Bicycle Parking The applicant will utilize the existing sidewalk on A St., and make repairs to the curb on the corner of 3rd and A St, The applicant will also install a new sidewalk and parkrow(per street standards) along 3rd St, as shown in figure 6.01. The applicant will provide 4 covered bicycle parking spaces along the North- West corner of the building, as indicated in figure 6.01, lANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE: r', The applicant intends to provide the majority oftraditionallandscaping along the Southern facade of the building(1.8% of site), and is proposing a permeable hardscape surface for pedestrian traffic in the Northern courtyard/plaza(23% of site). It is the goal of the applicant to attain LEED certification for restoring 50% of the site(excluding the building footprint) with native/adaptable plants and will be achieving this goal with the installation of 1.,500 S.F. of green roof. -'f ! Proposed Green Roof Area Permeable Paver Surface Run-off Filtration Bio-Swale Permeable Parking Lot Landscape Area Proposed Transformer 7.01 Site Plan at 426 A Street The green roof will assist substantially in both the quantity and quality control of stormwater run-off from the roof surface area. The applicant also intends to install permeable paving surfaces in the parking lot to alleviate flooding and excess run-off, and all site water will be channeled into a bio-swale located on the west of the site for filtration and a metered release into the City storm-water drainage system. UTiliTIES: Existing sewer, water, and storm sewer lines are located within the ROW of both 3rd and A Street. The electrical/CTVtelephone utilities are located overhead for both streets. The applicant has met with the electrical dept. to determine an approved location for an above ground transformer, and the proposed location is shown in figure 7.01.. ARCHITECTURE: The site of the proposed building is located within the Railroad Historic District and the Detail Site Review District. The applicant has provided digital renderings as well as exterior design elevations for the proposed building. It is the intention of the applicant to provide a building that references both the character and architectural history of the Railroad District, while also utilizing current technologies and methods of sustainable design. 8.01 East Elevation 8.02 North Elevation 8.05 North-East Perspective ii l.i 9.1 First Floor Plan 9.2 Second Floor Plan FINDINGS: N SITE REVIEW(Chapter 18.72) The planning Staff/Commission can approve a Site Review when the following criteria have been addressed: A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. EMPLOYMENT ZONE DISTRICT (CHAPTER 18.40) PERMITTED USES The City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map shows the subject property to be Employment E-1.. "This district is designated to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail or manufacturing in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses. II The applicant is proposing a mixed-use building with 1.,850 S.F. of appropriated retail space on the first floor, and (2) residential condominium units on the second floor. This proposal is consistent with the City's designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map which is subsequently Employment with a Residential Overlay. The proposed project is also in conformance with the City's E-1. Zoning Designation, Chapter 1.8.40.020 which permits outright office, retail, and manufacturing uses. SETBACKS As shown on the Site Plan, the proposed project meets or exceeds the area, width, and yard requirements of this chapter (1.8.40.050). MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT As shown on the Preliminary Exterior Elevations, the average height ofthe proposed building is 22'-8", which is less than the maximum height requirement of 40'-0". GENERAL REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 18.68) FENCES There are no fences proposed. However, there is an existing concrete masonry block wall on the adjacent parcel to the east. VISION CLEARANCE The site plan shows the vision clearance on the intersection of the alley and 3rd Street. SPECIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The site has no specific setback requirements as an E-1 zoned lot. OFF-STREET PARKING/DRIVEWAY STANDARDS (CHAPTER 18.92) The off-street parking ordinance requires 8 spaces (1. space/350 S.F. for the general retail area and 1..5 space/unit>500 S.F.). The applicant is providing 4 off-street spaces(one is ADA compliant) and is requesting 3 on-street credits(1.8.92.025) in addition to a standard variance for the remaining required parking space. The applicant asks that the circumstances ofthe site and the preservation of an optimal FAR ration be considered in granting the proposed variance. 5 covered bicycle parking spaces are required(1. space/1. bedroom unit and 1. space/5 req. auto spaces). The applicant is providing 5 covered bicycle parking spaces at the north-east corner of the interior plaza, see fig.6.01.. SOLAR ACCESS (CHAPTER 18.70) The solar setback does not apply for the proposed project, as the cast-shadow is on the public row on A Street, see fig.6.01.. SIGNAGE (CHAPTER 18.96) The proposed signage will be incorporated into the entry of the plaza through the usage of a seating structure with a metal frame infrastructure referencing the aesthetic of a railroad freight car. The intention is for the signage to be interchangeable within the context of the frame, and allow for flexibility of display options. 10.01 Signage Study B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS The applicant is providing a Narrative and Findings in addition to exhibits for written documentation. The extent of the Graphic Document includes: Site/Landscape/Utility Plans, Floor Plans, Proposed Colors and Materials, and Building Elevation drawings. This information is provided in the Application Package and addresses the submittal requirements of Chapter 1.8.72.060. LOT COVERAGE/LANDSCAPE/OPEN SPACE The Site and Landscape plans delineate the paving, buildings and landscape areas. The area of paved surfaces is approximately 2,81.8 S.F.[48%] with 52% ofthat being permeable paving. The E-1. zone district requires a minimum of 1.5% of the lot area to be landscaped. The applicant is providing 1.,1.1.1. S.F. of landscaping [21.%], in addition to an extensive green roof covering 2/3 of the roof area. TRASH/RECYCLING The applicant has located the trash/recycle area adjacent to the 5'-0" buffer zone on the east property line, see fig. 7.01.. The area will be screened from view by a 5'-0" tall metal/ wood sliding gate. LIGHT AND GLARE The applicant is proposing wall mounted lights. All building lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for the implementation ofthis Chapter. II-C-1.BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS Approval Standard: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following development standards: II-C-1a. ORIENTATION AND SCALE Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall befunctional, and shall be accessedfrom a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public streetfrontage. Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive andfunctional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. As shown on the Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations, the entrance(s) are oriented toward A Street and the Public sidewalk, including a secondary entrance facing 3rd Street. The applicant seeks to preserve the existing Cedar trees at the 3rd/A St. corner, and provide a plaza area for pedestrians and building inhabitants complete with seating and sheltered entrances to the building. It is important to the applicant that the site and building were designed in keeping with the pedestrian thoroughfare as well as maintaining the integrity of the historical railroad district streetscape. II-C'1b. ORIENTATION AND SCALE 2. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street. II-C-1C. LANDSCAPING 2. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2. Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 20 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screenedfrom view from adjacent public right-of-ways, except in M-2 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. The Landscape Plan has been designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. The Landscape Plan has also been designed in accordance with LEED standards, which have in effect reduced the potable water use for irrigation by 50% from a calculated mid-summer baseline case. This will put the landscape irrigation system well within the standards established by the City of Ashland. There is no required 1.0'-0" landscape buffer between the building and the street, as the project is inside of the Historical District. There are currently 6 trees located on the site and 1. evergreen shrub. The applicant desires to save the (2)large cedar trees at the corner of 3rd and A St. The other existing trees and shrubs will be removed and are as follows: 1.-8" Bigleaf Maple, 1.-Evergreen Shrub, 2-Apple Tree, and 1.-Cedar Tree(On Alley) To ensure the health of the (2)cedar trees the Landscape Architect has prepared a tree protection plan and the applicant will additionally have an arborist, Tom Meyers, on site during excavation and construction to field verify protective measures. II-C-1d. PARKING 2. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. 2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screenedfrom non-residential uses. As shown in fig. 7.01., the parking area is located behind the proposed building with access off of 3rd St. and the Southern Alley. There will be deciduous trees planted along the Northern walk of the parking area, and there is also a 5'-0" wide planter area(buffer) along the East boundary, adjacent to the existing property line. II-C-1e. DESIGNATED CREEK PROTECTION Designated creek protection areas shall be considered design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. Not applicable. II,C-1f. NOISE AND GLARE 2. Special attention to glare (AMC2B12.l.l.0) and noise (A MC9. oB. 270 (c) & AMC9.oB.275) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards. There will be no activities performed outside of the building. II,C-1g. EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING SITES AND BUILDINGS 2. For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Not applicable. D. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING STANDARDS Approval Standard: All parking lots, which for purposes ofthis section include areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading shall be landscaped and screened as follows: II-D-1. SCREENING AT REQUIRED YARDS 2. Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining wall. The Landscape Plan shows compliance with this Finding. None of the parking areas are elevated. II-D-2. SCREENING ABUTTING PROPERTY LINES 1.. Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5'-0" landscaped strip. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. The Site and Landscape Plans show a 5'-0" wide buffer(plus 6" curb) adjacent to the east property line. The landscape architect has specified plant material that will both screen and buffer the parking area from adjacent development. II-D-3. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS: Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of 1. tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2 feet from any curb or paved area. The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within 1. year and 90% within 5 years. Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior parking stalls. The permeable parking area is 1.,1.05 S.F. of area and the landscape buffer strip is 80 S.F.. which is 7.2% of the parking area. This is compatible with the 7% minimum requirement. There will be shade trees, in accordance with City standards, planted along the green way just north of the parking lot, which will also provide shelter for the parking lot area. II-D-4. RESIDENTIAL SCREENING: Parking areas adjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8 feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. Not applicable. II-D-S- HEDGE SCREENING: The required hedge screen shall be installed as follows: 1.. Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is achieved within 2 years, 1.00% within 4 years. 2. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 1.00% coverage is achieved within 2 years. The Landscape Plan shows compliance with this finding where appropriate. II-D-6. OTHER SCREENING: 1.. Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows: Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screenedfrom view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area. Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. The Site and Landscape Plans show a trash/recycle area to be located to the North-East of the parking lot, along the East property line. This area will be screened with a wood clad gate. All wall mounted lighting within the site will be directed towards the ground. E. STREET TREE STANDARDS APPROVAL STANDARD: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section. II-E-1. LOCATION FOR STREET TREES Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right-of-way, or the sidewalk is greater than 8 feet wide. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Department of Community Development. The applicant seeks to preserve the existing Cedar Tree(s) on both 3rd St. and A St. and will add additional street trees as deemed necessary by Planning Staff. II-E-2. SPACING, PLACEMENT, AND PRUNING OF STREET TREES All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street tree"!; shall be as follow: 1. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. 2. Trees shall not be planted closer than 25feetfrom the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 1.0 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. 3. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 1.0 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. 4. Trees shall not be planted closer than 2 M feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. 5- Where there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. 6. Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 1.0 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks. 7. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 1.2 feet above street roadway surfaces. 8. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tee. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. II-E-3. Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. II-E-4. Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The Site and Landscape plans show both the existing sidewalk on A St., adjacent to the curb, and the proposed sidewalk on 3rd St., with the recommended park-row. The applicant seeks to preserve the two existing Cedar trees(A St., 3rd St.) and will subsequently plant additional street trees as required per the Landscape plan. The proposed sidewalk for 3rd St. is asking for an exception to the street standards in order to accommodate the existing cedar tree planted in the park-row. EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS An exception to the street standards regarding location of sidewalks is not subject to the variance requirements of Chapter 1.8.1.00 and may be granted if all the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect ofthe site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity. C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The Site and Landscape plans show the existing sidewalk on A St. and a proposed sidewalk on 3rd St. The existing sidewalk on A St.(i-i') is wider than the 5'-0" sidewalk required in the street standards. The applicant proposes to retain the existing sidewalk and perform the necessary repairs to the curb and sidewalk in order to bring it to an acceptable state of completion. The new proposed 6'-0" sidewalk on 3rd St. will provide an 1.1.'-2" park-row to accommodate the tree- protection radius for the existing cedar tree, and then once beyond the radius will return to the typical street standards requirement of a i-o" park-row and align with the sidewalk and parkrow south of the parking lot apron. This proposal would alleviate the difficulty and/or possible damage to the existing cedar tree on 3rd St. by minimizing invasive impact to the root system within the tree protection radius. II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards: II-C-2a. ORIENTATION AND SCALE 1.. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio Of.35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of.5for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ratio. The FAR for this project is currently at 66%. This was necessary in order to provide a medium density project able to accommodate a mixed-use of retail space and housing, without compromising open space on the site. 2. Building frontages greater than 1.00 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the buildingfa~ade. All building frontage is under 1.00'-0". However, the applicant has made a concerted effort to step the building fa<;ade in order to maintain the comfortable pedestrian scale of the Historical Railroad District. 3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. As shown on the North and West exterior elevations, there are numerous windows and doorways. The percentage on the North elevation is 26%, and the percentage on the East elevation is 31.%. Both frontages are greater than the required 20%. 4. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. The Applicant has sought to provide adequate emphasis to the building entrances through the use of massing and material usage as shown in the elevations, floor plan, and renderings. 5. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. Not applicable. 6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. The Applicant has provided a continuous awning that will provide shelter for pedestrians outside of the building and at all entrances. II-C-2b. STREETSCAPE 1.. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. The applicant is providing a small public plaza in the front of the building, see Site and Landscape Plans. It is the intention of the applicant to allow for pedestrians on the busy A St'/3rd St. thoroughfare to use the plaza and the seating area for rest and relaxation. 2. A building shall be setback not more than 20 feetfrom a public sidewalk unless the area is usedfor pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. (Amended September 23, 2003 Ordinance # 2900) The building setback on A St. is 6'-6" and on 3rd St. is 1.1.". II-C-2C. PARKING & ON-SITE CIRCULATION 1.. Protected raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than 1.00 feet in average width or depth. 2. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 1.0 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 3. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. One-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and to the internal circulation of the building. Not Applicable. II-C-2d. BUFFERING AND SCREENING 1.. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. 2. Parking lots shall be bufferedfrom the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. Reference Finding 1.1.-D-2, along with Site Plan and Landscape Plan. II-C-2e. LIGHTING Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 1.4 feet in height along pedestrian pathways. The applicant will provide wall mounted lights on the building, placed no greater than 1.4'-0" in height at the entrances. Furthermore, the applicant will also provide street lighting at the corner of 3rd and A St. II-C-2f. BUILDING MATERIALS 1.. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 1.5% of the exterior wall area. The applicant is providing Exterior Elevations and Renderings ofthe proposed building. These elevations exhibit compliance with the Historic District Standards. 2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Not applicable. C. HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commission for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District: IV-C-1. HEIGHT Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and across the street. A void construction that greatly varies in height(too high or too low) from older buildings in the vicinity. IV-C-2. SCALE Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. A void buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale of the area. IV-C-3. MASSING Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller varied masses which are common on most buildings from the historic period. A void single, monolithic forms that are not relieved by variations in massing. IV-C-4. SETBACK Maintain the historic far;ade lines of streetscales by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. A void violating the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic far;ade line. A void replicating or imitating the styles, motifs, or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if well done, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical areas. IV-C.S. ROOF SHAPES Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. A void introducing roof shapes, pitches, or materials not traditionally used in the area. IV-C.G. RHYTHM OF OPENINGS Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the fa<;ade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the fa <;a de. A void introducing incompatible fa<;ade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings established by the surrounding structures. IV-C-7. PLATFORMS The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older buildings in Ashland. A void bringing the walls of buildings straight out of the ground without a sense of platform. IV-C-8. DIRECTIONAL EXPRESSION Relate the vertical, horizontal, or nondirectional fa<;ade character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. A void horizontal or vertical fa<;ade expressions unless they are compatible with the character of structure in the immediate area. IV,C-9. SENSE OF ENTRY Articulate the main entrances to the building w/ covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms. A void facades with no strong sense of entry. IV-C-10.IMITATIONS Utilize accurate restoration oj, or visually compatibly additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. A void replicating or imitating the styles, motifs, or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if done well, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical area. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. As shown in the Survey and Site Plan, there are existing utilities and services in the ROW of both 3rd and A St. The applicant will connect the proposed on-site utilities and services to the existing lines in the ROW of these streets. The Site plan shows the proposed location of the electrical service equipment, and has been located, per Dave Tygerson, to provide the easiest route of access for maintenance and upkeep. The applicant is also providing an electrical distribution plan and load calculations, see attached. Vehicular access to the proposed project will be from the 3rd St. Alley. The existing sidewalk on A St. and the new sidewalk on 3rd St. will provide pedestrian access. VARIANCES (CHAPTER 18.100) The planning commission can approve a parking variance when all the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. Given the size and dimension ofthe lot, a conventional parking layout would require an additional entry from 3rd St., as opposed to the alley entrance proposed. The conventional solution would compromise both the intended green area ofthe site and the overall FAR ratio ofthe building, resulting in a decrease of density contrary to the intention ofthe E-1 zoning in the Historic Railroad District. If in fact the proposed building were sized according to the parking requirements it would result in a footprint of 1,050 S.F., a footprint smaller than the existing residence currently on the site. B. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent useSj and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City(Ord.2425 S1., 1.987) The intention ofthe applicant to use the existing alley entrance for parking access allows for the character of the site and surrounding neighborhood to remain intact, while also providing amenities, such as a public plaza and seating areas for an improved commercial thoroughfare. The applicant has also gone to extensive lengths to be considerate to surrounding neighbors and uses, by preserving the two existing cedar trees on the corner of 3'd and A St. and implementing extensive greening measures in order to provide an amicable building which would be viewed as beneficial and welcome in the neighborhood. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. The circumstances/conditions under which this variance is requested have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed, and the applicant has sought to provide the best solution possible for the site, neighborhood, and city as a whole. The applicant has balanced the intended requirements of the FAR ratio(although not required in the Historic District) to maintain the optimal balance of site preservation and building density. It has been the applicants understanding that the City seeks to increase density in the Railroad District, while preserving available green/open space, and combat the potential of commercial sprawl and excessive paving. The applicant has concluded that the application put forth is the best possible solution in this case. ! j ! ; '" " >t.p Exhibit A Building Footprint: 1,250[20%] Landscape Area: 650[10%] Parking Area: 2,345[38%] FAR: 40% Exhibit B Building Footprint: 1,250[20%J Landscape Area: 266[4%J Parking Area: 2,624[43%J FAR: 40% Exhibit C Building Footprint: l,050[17"AJ] Landscape Area: 2,02683%J Parking Area: l,111[18%J FAR: 34% Exhibit O[Proposed Solution] Building Footprint: 1,996[33%] Landscape Area: l,278[21%J Parking Area: 1,111[18%] FAR: 66% See 11 x17 exhibits at end of packet The applicant is requesting that a Variance be granted for:l of the 8 required parking credits. The proposed design and use of the site in question at 426 A St. would benefit adjacent uses, the pedestrian corridor along A St., and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the densification ofthe E-1. area. Chapter 1.8.92.055 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District, states that a variance of up to 50% of required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within the Ashland Historic District as a Type 1. Variance. However, "It is the intent of this clause to provide as much off- street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing them to develop to their full commercial potential." Although the applicant is not preserving the existing structure(s) on the site, the basis for the application ofthe variance is based upon this same logic. The applicant has provided as much "off- street" parking as is feasible for the site in question, and in the case that the applicant were forced to provide more parking on site it would commit nearly 50% of the site to parking. The FAR of the building has been concentrated to the extent that if the building wererequired to reduce its footprint further, it would not meet the required FAR threshold, as stated in II-C-2a, and would compromise the intention of the E-1. zoning to create densification in the Historic Railroad district without creating commercial 'sprawl'. The applicant has sought to preserve a predominant feature of the A Street corridor, namely the two Cedar trees at the corner of 3rd and A St., which contribute greatly to the pedestrian experience and are a fixture in the neighborhood surround. The effort to preserve the two large trees has dictated the placement and form of the building to a certain extent, as well as limiting the extent to which parking could impact the site, and the applicant asks that this gesture be taken into consideration also when considering the potential variance. The applicant seeks to provide the City of Ashland with a LEED certified building in a unique district that has the potential to integrate the timeless character of the historic railroad era, with the methods and practice of current green technology. The railroad district has been a hub of town commerce and industry, and the applicants project seeks to contribute to this intention, while remaining sensitive to the existing uses and neighboring residences currently in the district. The proposed building is an integration of several disciplines, including storm-water management practices, green-roof technologies, low-intensity water conservation measures, sustainable landscaping, and renewable energy. The intention of the applicant is to allow forthe building to function as an educational resource, one which could inform and educate as to the benefit of the usage of green practices in the built environment and the extent to which they can contribute both to the immediate community and greater whole as well. It is the applicants sincere hope that the preservation of the existing street arbor, neighborhood scale, and attributes of the proposed building, are found to be worthwhile in the consideration of the variance forthe required parking credit. Estimated Energy Usage: The applicant intends to provide Heating/Air-Conditioning to the building through the use of (2)1..5 ton HV AC units for both of the upstairs 1. bedroom units, in addition to a 3 ton unit for the ground floor with the potential of (2) additional units(if the space is divided into three seperate areas). The applicant intends to use high SEER rated mechanical equipment and in order to achieve LEED certification must achieve an optimal level of efficiency. Pursuant to LEED requirements, the energy usage of the building will seek to demonstrate a minimum of 1.0.5% performance increase in comparison to the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.-2004 baseline building model. The applicant also intends to fulfill State and Federal rebate/tax credit requirements for the installation of resource-efficient appliances, and the use of photo-voltaic collection panels. At this point it is not feasible for the applicant to estimate the energy usage of the building for a prospective year, however the proposed building intends to meet and/or exceed the required qualifications. SECTION 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit. An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 2. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. 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; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of of the subject property. There are currently 6 trees located on the site and 1. evergreen shrub. The applicant desires to save the (2)large cedar trees at the corner of 3rd and A St. The other existing trees and shrubs will be removed and are as follows(See Sheet L2): 1.-8" Bigleaf Maple, 1.-Evergreen Shrub, 2-Apple Tree, and 1.-Cedar Tree(On Alley) The trees that are proposed to be removed will not have a significant negative impact on the factors listed in criteria number 2, and are not likely to be deemed essential to the character of the site in any way, shape, or form. The applicant has made great effort to preserve the (2)Cedar trees at the corner of 3rd and A St., which are of an integral nature to the fabric of the site and the A St. corridor. Tom Myers, Upper Limb-It Tree Service, performed the initial tree survey of the site, and has evaluated the Cedar Tree on the alley to be in 'poor' condition, as it has been severely pruned on several occasions to accommodate overhead power lines. The Bigleaf Maple, Evergreen Shrub, and (2)Apple Trees, are in fair condition but will not be replanted on the site and vary between 6-8" DBH. The requested removal of these trees is necessary to accommodate the proposed building footprint, and the applicant intends to provide replacement tree(s) per sheet L3, which should compensate for the removal of the aforementioned trees. STORM IJRAIN NARRATIVE FOR 426 uA H STREET PROJECT ASHlAND, OREGON April 2009 PREP ARED BY SISUL EN(;INEERIN(i .if Divi#tm {1j'Sj!if>lI1J~4rprl5~ Ene. 3501 EneI Drive,. S.iite 240 Medford, OR 975114 pl:\(me: (,541) 1:J:7.f,719 (3...'(: {S41) 842~1{)3S STORM DRAIN NARRATIVE fClr 426 LLA" s.trcet Proj C(:( a Conunercial / Re.sidential Duplex Development E .. s,. (' d" xlstmg. . I te .0:1 Ihon: On the nearly 6100 SF paro::] the existing impmvemems cOflsist of a one story residence of approximately 1150 SF, a 600 SF garage and a sma!] shed ofapproximately 7.5 sri. Proposed Site hllprovernent~: The ttJotprint of the prop(lsod building will be approximately 2032 SF~ the parking lut and other miscellaneous hardscape 'will constitute- approximately another 2&40 SF. Therefore gross impervious area ..vill be less than 5000 SF, but that num.ber will be reduced further by a green roof proposed for approximately t\"o~thirds of the roof an;~. Existin~ S ire Drainage Conditiot15i: The-re is not a formal drainage facility on the site currently_There is an existing street calchbaSiin in the middle of the curb return at the SE comer of the Third and A Street Lolersection. T1r:s cacchbasin (:olll1ects Co a stornl drain sYtJ;1em that appears to drain undcr the Grange building across the street from the. subject site_ At the rear .of the site in the alle)''\vay there is a c:.atchha.sin east of the Third s.treet sidc.';\'VaJk that drains ....ia a small diameter pipe too.:"ugh a wccphole in the Third Street curb. It has been noticed this ""inter that tire storm runoff backs up around this alley c.atchhasin and Qverflows .onto the suhj eel she, \Vhile 00 geote-dmkal investigation has yet been performed on the site, according to the National Re..sour;;e Conversation Service Soil Survcy, the site's soils are Coker clay soil. Coker day is a Class "D" soil and has a 'very slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet Required DrahU!2e lm.pt'QvementF The Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual has performance guideline...;; for flo\.\' control anc water quality design stand.ards. In regards to flow control, the City of Ashland generally requires the default standard of 0.25 CFS per acre be used for a desig.n of onshe storm faci lities, However.. we also lmders(and that in recent years it has been a general policy 10 waive the detention standard when the total nev..- impervious area created by a development is less than 5000 SF. FO.1t poHutton reduc.tic)fi the ma.in pollutants of (.'j)f;c;.em are suspended solids and oils and grease. 1 Discussion Of What Is Proposed~ GEl'1rERA.L The applicants. are proposing a green facility and are working to obtain a LEED rating for the proposed developm4;nt To meet this gual. the;:y are proposing that appwximately t W(}-t hi rd 5 of the roof 'Ni.ll have green roof system to reduce runoff and improve water quality tbat does. drain into tile City system. (111e otoer third t1f J:'0l1f area is curl'enH)' pltmned to hold sol~r panels.) Thereror4; to further detain and trea( the nmolf fmm the nmf will yield Jittle value. 'n)ere are some pedestrian hardscape are~5 (primarily the p'hl,z~t ~rea located on the N\.V corner of the sile) that ,"vill be impcnriOlls and will not detention or water quail ty as currently proposed. FLO W COlvTRO[ We looked arowld to see what could be Improved.and would be most beneficial for flow control and water quality a.nd \....e felt 10 detain and treat the alley nJnol1 ~.. \....ell as. the small p~uking area proposed for the site wtluld provide the most benefit. While we dQ oot have good topographic information on the alley ea..,t of tJIe site, it appears that possibly 31'4 quarter~ of :he alley df'a.in.~ tow-aros Third Street, While the ~Iley ha" t\O f(mnaJ detention facilitj', ic docs in M\'e for all intents and purposes a delention system as the outlet pipe is so t1at and slll.all that drainage backs up around the alley catchbasin and overflows onto the subject site. This (lVert1ow onto the subject site aHows t:tx a slow release inttl the subject site soils or a long time of concentration flow across the site. Th.is "'overt1o"/~ detention system wiII be lost with the redevelopment ofttle subject site. It would be dc~irable for the applicant if a puddle did not occur around the aUey catchbasin as th~t will be the entrance tQ their pn1posed parking 101. For that reason and for general detention and water qualit)' reasoDS+ the applicant \Vt)uld like to remove the aile)" catchbaslD and allow the alley to sheet drain across the applicants proposed parking area into a small landsc;.ape detention btl-.":lln south of the proposoo building. \l.le understand th~t it is standard City policy lhat the alleys have an Inverted c.ro~n und what we are proposing would deviate from the standard at the most western edge of the alley. Wf, neverthe.less are pmpo~jng rf;mcvaJ of the alley catchbasin and regrading the alle.y in a limited way tu allow alley drainage now ~Jiretted toward the catcboos.in be directed towards the onsite detention facility. 'While \I;i'e fan below the threshold tor storm detention based on recent City policy we still plan to provide a detention facility. If the City staff d.ecides that the alley catchhasin must remain~ Vi'e will still plan for ~ detention facility ~ but adjust the detendon orifice fOf a smaner base flt)w and plan for the detention system to handle the proposed parking area and overflow from the, alley. Most of the detentiQrl area \1,<'i11 consist of landscaping and SQme sHghtl>, elevated hardsc;.ape area bat could see inundation during the biggest storm events. The delenlion area ma.ximum ,rolmue "vi II be approximately 60 CF, The primarily outlet from the 'l ~ detention area w,:mld be to a bubbler drain in the street side pla.nter. T11€ overt1ow path from the detenticn area would be over the detention area embanknient towards the l)ubHc side\.valk and st.reet sjd~ planter. IrA TER QlIALfJ'Y Water quatity will be provjd~~1 through a treatment t['".;tin of facilities, First, the landscaping in the dete.alion area \\~n include plants that trap some of the suspended solids and ...vill abstlrb nutrients out of the runoff s(~ch a.s phosphQrus that is an airborne nu~rient found in runoff. The ;st;,,-'{md clement in the treatment train will be the trap an.d siphon calchbasin. that ,....ill also sente as the flo'\.v control for the detention area. The trap and siphon catdibasin will trap pc)lhJ.1ao(s .Hmt are lighter than \vater su~h as hydwcarbons above the submergt.'tl outlet of the catchbasin, The c3lchbasin wi.1l also OO,,'c a sediment SUl11p to cateh sediments carried in the runoff that are heavier than then \'later. The lhird. eLement l) f the trealmeut tra.in will be t\uther water polishing b>' having the runo1I bobble up out of an area drain in the street side phmter to dmin across 30 feet of vegetated landscape swalc for further nutrient removal from the runoff. At that point the nlnoff\vill be picke.d. up by another area dt;'ain and piped to the extsting carehbasin at the interse~tit)n of Ihird and " A"'. 3 ." '." KOGAP Enterprises, Inc. ELECTRICAL DIVISION , , . . ; . ~ .' . .- ',"'"..", :;/'-.:. ." . '''''1',/,',0-9:,,'> ,.', ". .'" 0- j'~..iII. . ......~"'.. ""., "._~ /." .,.' _ ..,0......, ..... \ r ',. .'., I " .\: .,{ "~"; "~!> ~~,~... ..1 ~E-.....-:!",,! P.O. BOX 1608 . MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 PHONE (541) 776-6500 . FAX (541) 770-6551 Kistler & Small & White Architects 545 A St. Ashland, OR 97520 Revised 2-23-09 Chris Brown Re: Load Calculations for 426 A St., Ashland, OR Chris, Here are the load calculations for 426 A St. Ashland, OR Condo A: (1050 Sq. Ft.) General Lighting Loads (2) Small Appliance Loads (1) Laundry Load (1) Range (1) Dryer (1) Dishwasher (1) Garbage Disposal (1 ) Water Heater (1) Range Hood (1) 1.5 Ton HV AC w/Heat Load Total = 26576 VA / 240V = IlIA (1) 125A 120/240V 1 Phase Service (Used Optional Calculation for One Family Dwelling) Condo B: (850 Sq. Ft.) General Lighting Loads (2) Small Appliance Loads (1) Laundry Load (1) Range (1) Dryer (1) Dishwasher (1) Garbage Disposal (1 ) Water Heater (1) Range Hood (1) 1.5 Ton HV AC w/Heat Load Total = 26336 VA / 240V = Il0A (1) 125A 120/240V 1 Phase Service (Used Optional Calculation for One Family Dwelling) Retail # 1: (430 Sq. Ft.) General Lighting Loads (1) Sign Lighting Load (6) General Use Receptacle Loads (1) 2 Ton HVAC w/Heat Load (Future) Total = 19193 VA / 240V = 80A (1) 100A 120/240V 1 Phase Service Retail # 2: (415 Sq. Ft.) General Lighting Loads (1) Sign Lighting Load (6) General Use Receptacle Load (1) 2 Ton BV AC wlHeat Loads (Future) Total = 19136 VA / 24PV = 80A (1) IOOA 120/240V 1 Phase Service Retail # 3: (755 Sq. Ft.) General Lighting Loads (1) Sign Lighting Load (10) General Use Receptacle Loads (1) 3 Ton HV AC w/Heat Load Total = 21131 VA / 240V = 88A (1) 100A 120/240V 1 Phase Service House Panel (1) Exterior Lighting Loads (70W at Each Door) (4) General Use Receptacle Loads (Restrooms & Hallway) (1) Water Heater Load Total = 5745 VA / 240V = 24A (1) 50A 120/240V 1 Phase Service Total VA Loads= Condo A Condo B Retail # 1 Retail # 2 Retail # 3 House Panel 26576 VA 26336 VA 19193 VA 19136V A 21131 VA 5745 VA Grand Total 118117 VA / 240V = 492A I would recommend a 600A,120/240V, 1 phase service. The retail spaces are basic loads as listed above. Loads could increase depending on the tenallt requirements. KOGAP Electric ~~-- Randy Templeton Shop Foreman 4/30/2009 Mike Broomfield Building Code Official City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: 426 A St., Ashland, OR The Owner(s) of the property at 426 A St., louis Plummer & Sidney Brown, are hereby applying for the demolition of the existing 1,800 sq. ft. structure(s) at this locale. I am preparing this letter and the information substantiating their position as the Designer for the project. The property at 426 A St. is in an advanced state of decay, and the Owner(s) are requesting that a demolition permit be granted for the removal of the structure(s) at this site. The building(s) are no longer safe to occupy(due to failing roof conditions, exterior decay, contamination of black mold) and are both a liability, if not a hazard, while they remain standing. North Eave(Main Entrance) West Profile(Parking lot Facade) West Exterior Wall (Adj. to 3" St.) When purchasing the parcel, the current Owner(s) considered the restoration of the aforementioned structure, as it would have been the path of least possible resistance in terms of permitting, and also would allow for an expedient turnaround of a rental property to initiate a return on the purchase investment. However, upon further evaluation, the extent of damage and required repair was above and beyond what they were prepared to invest into a 2-bedroom rental house. In speaking with the City Planning Staff it was evident that there was a preference to see the existing house a primarily Residential use phased out in order to accommodate the current E-1 zoning w/Residential Overlay. The Owner(s) have proposed to replace the existing residence with a 3,990 s.f. mixed-use structure, allowing for 3 leasable retail units on the ground floor, and 2 condominiums on the upper floor. The structure at 426 A St. has questionable value in its role as a historical landmark, and little or none in its inherent structure. The value in this property as perceived by most in our community, is in the location and size of lot. This is the main reason, given current market forces, that a majority of people would consider buying this property, and indeed is the main reason for the Owner's decision to demolish. Determinative value is in the vernacular style and its historic relevance to our town's history. This structure relates to neither and is in essence a dilapidated structure without a place in either the present-day built environment or the preservation efforts of the historical. During a Pre-Application hearing at the Historical Commission the existing structure was reviewed, and there was unanimous approval throughout the committee that the contribution of this residence to the historical character of the Railroad district is void, and that it is regarded as more of an eyesore than a historical landmark. North Elevation(Garage) South Elevation(Rear Entrance) North Elevation(Main Entrance) The owner of this property intends to build a sustainable lEED certified mixed-use building according to the demands and needs of the commerce and housing market in the unique and historical Railroad district of Ashland. The decision by the Owner to demolish this structure has not been taken lightly. After considerable thought, and after evaluating the economic feasibility of rehabilitating the existing structure on-site, the decision has been made to proceed with the filing of this application for demolition. The Owner hopes to contribute to the intrinsic value of the community while providing a beneficial model for sustained growth and development within the context of the historical fabric of Ashland. Sincerely, Christopher Brown, Project Designer DEMOLITION NARRATIVE For demolition of existing structure at 426 A St., Ashland, Oregon Prepared by: Christopher Brown, Designer 06/03/09 Pursuant to Section 15.04.216, Demolition and Relocation Standards, the Owner of the property at 426 A St. is hereby applying for the demolition of the existing structure based on the following findings. 15.04.216 Demolition and Relocation Standards A. "For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of application: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply: a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review Committee may require... " Inventory of Buildable lands- Property is on the City of Ashland 'inventory of Buildable lands' under 'Redevelopabte Parcels. This property has been identified as being underdeveloped relative to the surrounding neighborhood by the City's own inventory. Redevelopable Parcels: Those tax lots where the surrounding land uses are compatible with more intensive use, and the improvement value is less than or equal to 30% of the total property value, were listed as redevelopable (RD) in the City's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database The relative historic significance was not addressed in this inventory, but it does recognize the potential for intensified redevelopment. Present market forces in conjuction with the state of disrepair make this property a prime candidate for' more intensive use~ The owner of the property, desires to develop the lot in accordance with the statutes of the E-1 zoning and within the guidelines and direction of the Planning Dept. In addition, the Owner deems the additional cost of remodeling the existing structure on site as being economically infeasible. Economic Feasibility- Two cost estimates were prepared to compare and contrast for the development of this property. Cost estimates included all hard and soft costs associated with developing this property and included land cost, professional fees, government fees (i.e. City of Ashland), construction costs, miscellaneous costs, and construction financing costs. The following figures are based on my knowledge of construction costs through my experience as a Designer here in Ashland, through conversations with local builders, and from information gathered from recent projects completed within the area. These numbers reflect my best estimate and are based on my experience and qualifications as an Designer practicing in Ashland in both commercial and residential construction. I make no claim to having market knowledge equivalent to that of a certified Appraiser or Real Estate Agent. The first alternative, Scheme A, proposed a remodel of the existing residence on site as a residential rental property with the option of renovating the existing garage in the rear for use as a commercial/office studio. The practicality of this scheme was immediately shown to be faulty as the initial cost alone for renovating the existing residence, due to its extreme degradation, came out nearly equivalent, +/-$350,000 to the estimated cost of demolishing the structure and rebuilding from a clean slate. With the potential for investment return greatly diminished due to the faltering rental market and no viable benefit to be gained from this solution the owners hope to pursue the second option, Scheme B. Scheme B, proposed demolishing and rebuilding on the property, in accordance with the City zoning ordinance of E-1 wi Residential Overlay. The proposed mixed-use scheme would encompass (3) condominium retail spaces on the ground floor and (2) condominium apartments upstairs. This format is compatible with the surrounding community in several regards, and it also allows for a financially viable model for the owners and potential investors. The projected construction cost of Scheme B is budgeted at +1-$450,000. These projected development costs were then compared to the potential capital invested in the current property and as can be imagined the figures resulting from Scheme A exceeded any potential return that the investment could possibly facilitate. It should also be noted that in the Pre-App hearings for the project the Historical Commission stated that the existing structure is void of any notable historic value, and in general an eyesore for the surrounding community, and that demolition would be an approved avenue for the redevelopment of the property. Scheme A clearly exceeds the current market value of the property and is not a feasible solution for the Owners' budget. It is my conclusion that NThe structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. N b. "The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure." Existing Structure- Exterior of building is in state of decay, vandalism, and neglect. The roof is no longer functioning. No existing insulation noted, and single-pane windows are in need of considerable repair. Extensive black mold throughout the wall and floor. The building as is, could not be purchased with a bank loan due to possible structural inadequacies and the general state of disrepair. Structural Integrity- Hazardous: A qualified structural engineer would have to make the determination regarding the overall structural integrity of the building. From field observation the footings were in a degraded state-cracked and uneven, water damage throughout the roof structure, and generally unsafe. 2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also: a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated... Proposed Redevelopment - (See enclosed plans dated 30 APR 09) b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site. Practicality- it is, from a physical standpoint, given its current condition a~d construction type, impossible to move this structure. C. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, if feasible and cost-eRective as determined by the Demolition Review Committee. The Committee may consult with the Conservation Commission or others in making such a determination. Following are the steps that will be taken to comply with this section: 1. Relocation - Attempts to find someone to relocate the structure to another site is, given the size and condition of the structure, impractical. 2. Inspections - Second, the Contractor will coordinate inspections for Asbestos and other bio-hazardous materials and will properly dispose of any found according to all applicable laws prior to demolition. 3. Architectural Salvage - Third, we will contact Joel Morrow of Morrow's in Medford to assess the value of any fixtures or materials found on site and contract with him, should any be found, for their removal. 4. Metals Salvage - Fourth, Contractor will remove all metals (I.e. copper, brass, aluminum, steel, appliances etc...) and deliver to 'Schnitzer Steel Inc.' in White City. 5. Wood Salvage - Contractor will demolish and remove all acceptable woods and deliver to 'Biomass One', In conclusion I believe, based on the information provided, that this permit should be approved unconditionally. The demolition criteria have been met both from an 'economically infeasible' standpoint and due to the structurally deficient nature of the existing building. Respectfully, Christopher Brown, Project Designer NPS Form 10-900-A OMS Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) . United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: 7 Page:M- AmtIded-Harch 2002 Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, Ashland, OR ID # 94.0 Survey #144 GANIARD, LUCINDA RENTAL HOUSE IV 450 A STREET 1899 391E09BA 300 Builder: Goff, Edgar Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing Yet another of the many rental dwellings built for Mrs. Ganiard in the late 19th and early 20th century, this Ganiard Rental House IV is a single story hipped roof volume with a full front porch and simple vernacular cottage details. In 1899 the Ash/and Tidings reported "Mrs. Lucinda Ganiard has let a contract to E. W. Goff to build two neat cottages for rent on A Street...the two will cost $1000." (Tidings, 27-Mar-1899, 3:2) In 1910 the house was rented to Ralph Bluett, a concrete worker and H. L. Taylor lived here in 1948. The Ganiard Rental House IV retains high integrity and effectively relates its historic period of development. ID # 95.0 Survey #145 GANIARD, LUCINDA RENTAL HOUSE V 438 A STREET . 1899 391E09BA 400 Builder: Goff, Edgar Other: Vernacular Historic Contributing Similar in both design and history to the house at 450 A Street, the Ganiard Rental House V was on~ of many rentals owned by Mrs. Lucinda Ganiard in the Railroad District during the early 20 century. A one-story wood frame vernacular cottage, the house is differentiated from its neighbor by the small shed donner centered above the full-width front porch. James Robinson, a frUit vendor? lived here in 1910 and in 1948 the house was occupied by L. A. Daly. A widow, Mrs. Clara PIerson, owned and occupied the Ganiard Rental House V in 1964. The house retains high integrity and effectively relates its historic period of development. ID # 96.0 Survey #146 HN RENTAL HOUSE . 1890c 391E09BA 500 Historic, Non-Contributing This small single-story wood-frame dwelling was originally constructed in 1889-89 as rental for John and LottIe Pelton, lon,gtime residents of the Railroad District. Lottie Pelton was the child and heir of Oscar and Lucmda Ganiard. The Peltons sold the house in 1894 to Charles Cook and by 1905 it was owned by Mrs. M. F. Goble, whose family remained here until the 1930s. In 1964 the building was apparently used for commercial purposes, as "Harold's Tune Up and Brake" is listed at this address in city directories. ComparIsons of the present structure with that depicted in 1928 Sanborn Maps inoicate major alteration, notably the removal of a front bay window. Various other changes in window type, siding and other aspects dramatically diminish the integrity of the Pelton Rental House and prevent Its from accurately reflecting Its historic period of development. ID # 97.0 Survey #157 ENDERS-CORBETT HOUSE 1909c 248 THIRD ST 391E09BA 2900 Other: Vernacular IQueen Annel Historic Contributing This one and one-half story vernacular dwelling exhibits several typical Queen Anne details and is notable for its fine two-story front porch and balcony with a central front-facing gable that creates a well-articulated facade elevation. The property was purchased by local merchant Henry G. Enders in 1908 and he may have initiated construction shortly thereafter or purchased a completed building. In 1910 John M. Easterling, a noted Railroad District merchant lived Page 1 of 1 Derek Severson - Fw: 426 a street - arborist's supplemental information From: To: Date: Subject: CC: "Greg Covey" <greg@coveypardee.com> "Derek Severson" <dereks@ash1and.or.us> 5/27/2009 12:38 PM Fw: 426 a street - arborist's supplemental information "Christopher Brown" <cbrown@kistlersmallwhite.com> Derek, This email from Tom Myers addresses specific protection requirements during construction for the two incense cedars. Please include this information with the Site Review application. Chris will give you a copy of the full arborist's report when he returns. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks, Greg Covey Covey Pardee Landscape Architects 295 East Main Street, Suite 8 Ashland, OR 97520 541 5521015 ph 541 5521024 fx greg@coveypardee.com 7 ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Myers To: Greg Covey Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: 426 a street Greg, It will be necessary to protect the two cedars during construction as we have discussed and specified in the tree protection plan. The two cedars must have an arborist supervise any change in grade within the tree protection zone. Tree #5 will require a sandy loam fill in order to minimize any damage to the root system caused by a change in grade. Tree number 7 must be hand excavated for the paver installation, any area within the tree protection zone. If these measures are taken the two trees should survive the construction process. Please call me if you have any further questions at 601-2069. Thanks, Tom Myers Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by A VG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.3251 Virus Database: 270.12.19/2099 - Release Date: 05/05/09 13:07:00 file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 5/27/2009 Upper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Phone: 541-482-3667 Kistler + Small + White Architects 545 A Street Ashland, OR 97520 11/5/2008 Tree Protection Plan for 426 A Street The Tree Protection Plan for 426 A Street is designed to address the needs of all existing trees within the project. The trees should be identified by number on the plan as well as by numbered tag attached to the tree in the field. The specified tree protection zones (as stipulated in the enclosed tree inventory) will be drawn on the plans as well as delineated on the site by approved fencing. Trees with protection zones that extend within the foundation lines of the building, as well as trees that are within the area of the foundation will need to be removed. All other trees within the building project boarders will need protection. The enclosed specifications detail exactly how the trees are to be protected. The building contractor and subcontractors will meet with a certified arborist before and during construction to insure that the correct measures are in place. A certified arborist must supervise any work done within the specified tree protection zone. A certified arborist will conduct an inspection of the trees during and after construction. If you have any questions regarding this tree protection plan please call me at 482-3667. Tom Myers, Certified Arborist DBA Upper Limb-it pper Limb-it Tree Service PO Box 881 Ashland, OR 97520 Tree Inventory for 426 A Street 11/5/2008 Phone 541-482.3€67 Tree Crown protection relative DBH in Height Radius in zone radius tolerance to Tree # Species inches in feet feet in feet construction Condition notes Calocedrus decurrens 23 23 12 23 moderate poor topped Malus domestica 6 20 6 3 good fair 3 Pyrus communis 8 20 6 6 moderate fair 4 Euonymus 6 12 6 4,5 900d good shrub, remove 5 Ca/ocedrus decurrens 26 60 8 26 moderate 900d 6 Acer macrophyllum 8 20 6 8 poor fair remove 7 Calocedrus decurrens 23 55 10 23 moderate good Specifications for Tree Preservation During Construction, 1. Before beginning work, the contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. 2. Fences must be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific protection zone for each tree or group oftrees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the consultant. 3. Construction trailers and traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 4. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the tree protection zone. If lines must traverse the protection area, they shall be tunneled or bored under the tree. 5. No materials, equipment, spoil, or waste or washout water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the tree protection zone (fenced area). 6. Additional tree pruning required for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. 7. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. Any pesticides used on site must be tree-safe and not easily transported by water. 8. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, the tree consultant should evaluate it as soon as possible so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 9. The consulting arborist must monitor any grading, construction, demolition, or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots. 10. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the consultant. Irrigation shall wet the soil within the tree protection zone to a depth of 30 inches. 11. Erosion control devices such as silt fencing, debris basins, and water diversion structures shall be installed to prevent siltation and/or erosion within the tree protection zone. 12. Before grading, pad preparation, or excavation for foundations, footings, walls, or trenching, any trees within the specific construction zone shall be root pruned 1 foot outside the tree protection zone by cutting all roots cleanly to a depth of 24 inches. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, vibrating knife. rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment. 13. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound tissue and cut cleanly with a saw. 14. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a road bed of 6 inche~ of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. 15. Spoil from trenches, basements, or other excavations shall not be placed within the tree protection zone, either temporarily or permanently. 16. No burn piles or debris pits shall be placed within the tree protection zone. No ashes, debris, or garbage may be dumped or buried within the tree protection zone. 17. Maintain fire-safe areas around fenced areas. Also, no heat sources, flames, ignition sources, or smoking is allowed near mulch or trees. II u Specifications for Demolition and Site Clearing 1. The demolition contractor is required to meet with the consultant at the site prior to beginning work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures. 2. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field. 3. Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy oftree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree( s) and under story to . . remam. 4. Any brush clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment. 5. Trees to be removed shall be felled so as to fall way from tree protection zones and to avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. Ifroots are entwined, the consultant may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root-pruning equipment.] 6. Trees to be removed from within the tree protection zone shall be removed by a qualified arborist. The trees shall be cut near ground level and the stump ground out. 7. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with equipment sitting outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material out, not by skidding it across the ground. 8. Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches 9. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the smallest equipment possible and operate from outside the tree protection zone. The consultant shall be on site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity 10. All trees shall be pruned in accordance with the provided Pruning Specifications 11. A six-foot chain link fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree protection zone 12. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within six hours so that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health. 13. If temporary haul or access roads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The roadbed m"aterialshaI:t: be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth. Specifications for Tree Pruning 1. All trees within the project area shall be pruned to: a) Clear the crown of diseased, crossing, weak, and dead wood to a minimum size of 1 1/2 inches diameter. b) Provide 14 feet of vertical clearance over streets and 8 feet over sidewalks. c) Remove stubs, cutting outside the woundwood tissue that has formed around the branch. d) Reduce end weight on heavy, horizontal branches by selectively removing small diameter branches, no greater than 2 to 3 inches near the ends of the scaffolds. e) Remove any mistletoe. 2. Where temporary clearance is needed for access, branches shall be tied back to hold them out of the clearance zone. 3. Pruning shall not be performed during periods of flight of adult boring insects because fresh wounds attract pests. Pruning shall be performed only when the danger of infestation is past. 4. All pruning shall be performed by a qualified arborist. 5. All pruning shall be in accordance with the Tree-Pruning Guidelines (International Society of Arboriculture) and/or the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard (American National Standard for Tree Care Operations) and adhere to the most recent edition of ANSI Z133.1. 6. Interior branches shall not be stripped out. 7. Pruning cuts larger than 4 inches in diameter, except for dead wood, shall be avoided. 8. Pruning cuts that expose heartwood shall be avoided whenever possible. 9. No more than 20 percent oflive foliage shall be removed within the trees. 10. While in the tree, the arborist shall perform an aerial inspection to identify defects that require treatment. Any additional work needed shall be reported to the consultant. 11. Brush shall be chipped and chips shall be spread underneath trees within the tree protection zone to a maximum depth of six inches leaving the trunk clear of mulch. ~ >- w :> z Ii 0 ~ f- J iJJ. w w ( W it U to .....f-. J: If,. 0 Q. 1 Z -< (OJ (y' (\j I .. l' d rJJ o < 0.. r""\ V I :-- i ~ f- ~ :t v ~ I- ~ UV) Z6 '"'"">- :.tJ ~ ~ ~ W V) :::;: ~ h...... a ~)o: ~ ~ I r"2i~Ct;~1'. tv' '" '" <.' '" c ., ~.J~~~:~d " Yv~_:z ~ ~ 8~ ;i ~ i (fJ~~j'-- ~ """ o-~ ~ ~ ~~ CC[2 CCi) Wg: f-- CJ :z: IlJ Cl OJ -J ~ ~ ~ ! II !!! lil~~ii ~ I I I 11 I ~~"~G 1 I I I I ~ ~ ~!i;~~~! ~ ~I- ~'" ~E ~ a~~iIi~m~~ ~ K!i~i1i i 1I5 ~ I I ~ I :1 Ii!; ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~i ~l:~t I-~ '!:o. Oill~\,;! ~~~ ~d~ ~ ~ !l I:: ~ i a fl <il ~ ;j ~ c ~ ~ Ii! , I I. / k ! (Ii" ^ I I l;~ f "'o~~ \ l " ON1071f}8 lu '~. I. -00", , 4J j If..'~' .~' 4", '....f "-4.. "", J ,,/ "'III l ! \ ". "'.0 '" ~ , \ I 0: i~! ~,t ", ~~,~~~ ll~-,-L~_ -1. "" "'" / ~ ;/ I' ;~'~~Jr~:lfffJ f !r, ""~~~~-i-~'~--\~-"-'=_-'-~~_,~,~_ ",I't J. ' ' .. .;j , I" ~ '1(1_ 0 ~ G f :'~ -, _", I v J . 7! · ~! W { t; ~. ;, I' ".. '~" I >_ II I ~{ r ~ I!.. VI ell ~! . ,I i 'i ~ 't I 1..$. ..... f \ \. \ ".'...:.....: y ~! I I ~ . ilL .... I. \ \ (j .........: J ~i I !'U'''(I~" L . \~~ 4'<~i ' lP;';'>Jt\ .....".~..../ \ 'l--~<. ///1 Il~--::~7~~::~~ \ / II~ / /~. ~ ------------.---------------- .~~~>~ ---c._._.-........__~. -, ~,.\ .I....-~ ~ I / I / , , '________< o --'~.l II .! J. .f j CJ /_ ~_______, \ \ ' 't..<~l -c S'" '_~_ .~_ "~" /1 1-'-------..--=. .~-----.__~_ c---_ "~o CfI>~ \\_________ ______ Ss ~_~ III ______.__= ~~--___ , \ / I f~___, ~:.,----_ "- " I i -'-.~-<~-.:::",~:_~ i' / -------~--~~L. "~ ~o\ ~____ & ~~ ~" to!! 2:" i=~ ~<( ....~ ~5 ~~ jii;e: ~~ ",,, ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ !>J :>9~ '" ",...t i 2:1<::; GO ~~s ~ ~~~ f;! ~~~ :) o & / g / ~, l:J \.. 2 h~ ; ---$- ~.l~.!.. Z '" - l; 7 - ~ ~ ~ ~H 1;1 2 t::! ~ '" 0996'(;917 ~17'" NMOl:J8 A3NOIS 'CJ3lNl^Jnld SlnOl l:JO 'ON'ilHS'i l'iIJ1:l3v'H"JOJn IV 13l:J l~erOJd l88JlS "tj 9lv :gj' I 10:: .~ 1 10 :e> z;.! ._,:"" :5:0, "w:E' u..'ZIW.JIS ::::~::;:~I~ 0;;':0:00;0 I- w w :r: U) (j) ~ z :5 Q.. LU t r.n coR' (')~ 0 " " ",... LU ~;s I r.n 9<1 0 00 ~0J a.. H II o :-:- ~18- Q..' , J \ z, 0 \,,,) & I:i I J....... It..; L.v ct J....... V) I f " '( I !~ U~ IJi I I ,/ ~ / /S~ --l I ! cil rr'.Cr:' cr:: fI::': ~ a! i i i i :i ~I t "' " ~I ~~I~ <L ..:f l() >- rr <( ~ ~ :J f) !(9 :z Z Z <( ....J Il. t'$.'if-I'$. Ult---NN ~~cDr-,: t!Jt!)--t~ 1-1 01 -'I ...1 o '$.. 'if- N ~~<:I ~~ ~~ ~ ~ z ~ 0 ~ ~~u: i= ~ ~;;] o ""'I tij 88<: ~ ~ ~~ ~ - 1-0 ~U~ ~~~I z w <<: - "W 0- 0 I- -,<( 0::;: ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~wl .q;o::-{)~o.JQ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ tij tij 0 ow'" <<:w u.J ~ >- [(M u..D:::1 o ~ 0 I- 00; 0-, (j I- ~ ffi <(ll ~~ zW-Il.'I:I"c(-w ZOIO":::;OZ I 0 '" W l.__.,___... N II i:J! u:... woo NUl 0101 001 <<J~ rI: u.. u.,u. <6<1iw e, a:'(N 01,...", ~~,q ""'N:"I"'" (J) I- Z :::> << "I ~~I~ 000 0","' "":."=t~ ~ ,... 5: b W OJ o ~i ~ ~I 0- W, (/) o I- .,.,.,' Z <( :::> i= [J z :!: ~ -' ffi ~ << 0 . ill << 0 .. <( It ~ ~~ w ~ ~Q:!:t:(() (jl-~"I~ Z~I-Zo "'0 00- b~~~~~ ~~~(')(l~ O",,,,;E(()::; <("'000- ~~35~5 <('.:)lJ..<!lII- ,j) 1-' Z W ::;:, '" :5 0' W, "'. ~! <(, ~I ~I ~ ffil ~ 0::1 ..Jw.o:: 31 <( Q 0 gl tu tt g '" ",0lJ.. C) cr:Ct::ti z 88::; ~ ....J...Jo;( Cl:: u..l4j- ~ ~~2 ~"~ C'-' "'~s ~~~ $I;~O," ~ ,~ ~<:~~ ~hi~ e~~~8 h ON/G),,, "'-'078 _llld ~J..J&:' Jlvo:) I ~ o '-I. "-J '{ Os --........... ~~I-~ ~ I(HOC 0 ~"':ri 00 CL ~CL CL ~11'l (()1/J!1J!/Jrl)</) OOQOOO Mci~N~~ ~I ~ (lQ.(l 0..0..0.. !1Jrl)rl) ifJifJrl) 000 aDO NN..t lOOtri ~CQ'1 <ill'" :J:J11. 00:::> "''"0 OO!>: Cl "'LL 6(}) :r::ll ~"', ,,", > uJ 1'l ~ riD: 00 1-1- 0;'"' 0'';' II -- t:t:a:: 55:i a: a: If)rl) 00 ~tq >- 0::: <( ~ ~ ::J if) c.9 z o ....J :J CO <( UJUJ ll",. ~<(~ ZO~ O;!;I- -0>- t):c:O :J~Z....J ",m<;;: 1-0)0..1- (l)rt};:)w 20U'" O"'() OCJO >- -' ! ~ i= 0 -J ~ :J '" ::; < - II ..J III <( If) i= >- Z 0 ~ z iij ~ UJ :J << 0 o o 91 ~ 0; ~ ~~!~ 01'--11'0-- In (")~ co qrolOCl;. Ol-UJOO ~Offirr:c:r: ~~0i;3~ z:;;rl)zz <(OUJ<(<( I-()()I-I- ifJ 00000 <( S~ "':z " :J "'- "a' eW c: ~ ~ ~ '" <(I '"' ~I (0 <I ." c~ :::>" -' c <(-:::> ,::~::: zo~ w"'... oQ.(l1 ifjC~ W:;;::; ~88 O"'!l': 000 -'Ww u.o:l<!l '" , c~~ N o w 00 :;w oQ "'> 1'.0 U)<< o w11.o ~ ~f;11'i :5 ~~~ o 011." '" WOlD.. ...J 1l::1'X..... ~ ~~~ 2 86 8 001 c- Zi ~; w: 0,::; W 5i I::: O! ro ~i ~ w. ~ 0. <(. a. -' U). II o 0 ::J :J '" '" :::> :::> II 1'l w -' '" < i= I- ;'1 o 0 is v (j W W z, ~~ ~ ~I tu ~ ~~! LU 0. ~ Wi ~..J 6~! "? ~ ll1}-i a2 ~~, o w It :5 o w It -' <( I- o I- ij z Q '" if o w 2~1'l1 i!!~~ iiiCijiii zzz 000 . 1J1 :~ {4- (S ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ SU Li\",\5 ~ fE E- ~ \~ . sl:~~I~)lI'r ?d~JS<!~lf1 ]30~~~^OJ o z w CD UJ --l z <l: :;?; I,lJ " o r- I,lJ I,lJ t( l- e,; I- ~ W rtJ\;vv, \:) I llJO".lJ.tpltl~f.a~,o"rt!",~l~ q t~'n ~5~ !y!r Ld ;r.:n ~g~ ng lIMOJg Aeup!s 1<? Jau.rwnld SInOl uoSaJO 'pU!~14SV lepJaWwoJ ( [!e~a(j p8fOJd 188J15 V 9lt n Os ~ t ,", ~ ~ ~a go ~ " " ~ S! 2 <Jj II 1,1) <- ol> ;; ~ --I ~ () ~ CJ &f <0 ~ ~;:; l" L lJ hi a..u~ ~g:~~ " " O,~'::6 ~() '1im~~i;I 6G~ 'Xi)!3i 'O"d 8tf- "1\!\:Iri ..;.S~3 ~6c- ~~i~~ W .J iO: z <l: oc Q 2~ cr:: ~ o 0 r-a; (/) al Q ,,; W '" ([) '0 2: z ~ ~ a..~ d -5 .& ~ >. ~ l'i'] g; ~ 52 ~ 7~C: tj) .0,,'" ~ ,~~'~ ~ ::..Q vi' E fr~'~ TJ ::J c Q,. ~ >,.Q) r-n "S: ..0 ~ Q.l ~ ~~~ ;:: :2 ~ ~ . (!) ~1-:55 ~ Q.B~:2 ~ ct Ol-g t) B'i~8 :g, ~cr::5"O ~ ~ ai'~ ~ o ~ ,~ E al "- OJ i:: 0 c o i:: ~ 'I- 0 I- I-W.!::N ~(t ..J ..J ~ LL o ::L o (f) UJ I- o Z OJ ,!;; Q):2 .0 '5 =aJ IJJ... .r: 0 on Q) 6,.~ 00- 0) (j) TIf; 0)- 0l<1J IJJ .. C I]) .~ ~ 1) ,- OJ .. C 2w IJJ_ . ~ '> m E l'i ~ .. " E .8.0.0 ~-g~ IJJ TJ :!::: .E':> E - 0 :D ::c 5.a.. o '" N z o f= <( > UJ -' w o UJ ([) o 0. a cr:: 0. (J) Il:: < r- ([) LL o :;?; o l- I- a !ll '" (f) oc <i' r- ell LL o Cl. ~ z 115 <( oJ I l) ~ lJ z :;;: oc o <( w Cl: <( I- ::J o Z <( UJ -' [) 10 r- .0 " . o o I!i "" 0 ~ <( M o lJ {j) I- ~ ro lJ (J) III .....: N f... I J I f I I I I ~~ ~ I !/ l~ :)A;/(j )f007s II()e .)J.:;CI~^, J,vo:] ~ ~ ). li.J ....; ....; "'l: '1 --- " ! !~ ~ ,.~11 --I---- t /~ / ~ -- ~ I ..____ ~------ ! ---- t......--- Ss ' 6 ~ / I Os _____ . $ tq of' ..... '" \~ . tJ~~4- is ~ ~ ::, ~ f-I :1' ~ " i:q % s() Ul..,,\l o z w C!) W ...J I I j ,f I / / Ii /./ I 'iJ ~/ ~f ~~ Os~ ~ I:JO:.:J9~ JHC:,~MO~ ~~!.lt ~j ~1:J: 1:!r. :t~ ~.o' St:.![ zs:s no; U;;.lll~~r;.'U'f:'ooM U^\OJ8 A<lUp!S "if Jt:lwwnld Slnol uo8aJO 'puEl4sV IEpJ<lWWO) I [!El<lll pafOJd laaJlS V 9lv '3301l11d AJAO'J ~t:-~~ l!(l'~~:~~L.:SI;" 55S xoa 'Cog' a~'M'1i11:_SI;'JSE;;: D C '" =:E I)J " ..<l: ,s.s::. ~'Ji ~8ai o c . ..,,0 ~DO ., ""I w 0 ' ;:'u~ -u<D ro(lJoo .s::.l;;~ ~.~ ro .sma. U E '" C0.s::. ~l...U I: .9 ill .2 rn -g ~$O o~lt ~Olo. ~c ,- ID '.;;:l.2 a).~ ~ ~j:2 ~~ Zz ~ 2 ill ~ o~ 0< >lJ -( S ;--' '" ,;. Gtl.. ~ -ll ~ ~ C ",-' ~ N i-< "' 0> " <II ,:! 0::0 " ...J III . F tl..:?: VI ~ - ~ t. IJ.J W W ~ B go LU ~tt:: w ~ "' !;; w ~ i- -0 ~ :I: .,J 0 III " VI G: ~<t 0 " 0 " 0 z (( ~ llJ ct o I- llJ I.lJ ~ o I.lJ > o 2. llJ a; IJJ co o 1- W W ~ J C c .2 ~ ~ Cii ~ ~ ~812 ~ .t:::-2 c.. \J) .6:gri ~ Em.!:i ro .....:.... 00 I- -:.2 <Ii ~ ~ 2>~ u g~ ~ ~ >, C1l IfJ 'S: ..a ~ III g U - ~ 0. ClJ!],l'"""'" ~ ~ ~ ~ . '" ol-,-C C: a.9~~ ~ >,l....O)U U .s~~~ ~ ~Ct:~~ {Ij ,..:.p!;; g E.~~ro~ a. (J)~~<ll ~ ~\D-E5 I- (j) .0: "I '" Ql ~ ~ OJ <ll :SlD:5 ,~ is c: (]-gB oj) '" C fj>.~ ~~E... ;J) :; oj) L) ~ ~ ~ ~ 2LE~8 'U)c.c-o .~ ~.~ ~ a1:2] ~ 'o12.!: 1;,j ~~.s~ Q.'_ r:_ 9)rJfOm t}uu..c ~ ffi.~ ~ :1~ ~ ro {) .:: .- E c ~~D~ 5 ~~.f I I I / ~ ~ ..../// I 5 ------~-' >< /1" ~~ w ~:>~ ~ 5 r-: z ~ " I:l:-.; ~w ~"- ~~ ~~ LJ~- ';J"----~--_____ !! '-1:3 :t & J. S / > -~------_ ~" 0 & / ------------:. ~~_ ~ I H J. I -----------~~~~~~~~, I ~I --<:~/ o " " ~ z 1J z llJ LL Z o i= o llJ~ I- . 0"" C( .s c. 0 w Z W <ll n: <ll I-~ i:3 o ct ffi LlJ > en 5 :!: ;J) ::J ;J) z f: llJ (/J llJ ... IY ~ I- 0 .€ 8 <l: CfJ (!J X (!J W ~ ~ I- en x w ~ I- (j) X W (f) W I- o Z ~ (:") @ EJ ~ N oi ! t I I BiMo: "'< L{) ~~ _U ~ ;...... IJ.J l.i.! I I I ~ I I I J..... I I CI) I I I I I I I 1 "{' \ , ~ ;;i $' '" ~ OIVIO )(007/] 71 fI& 1J.)&O., 'yOO I I I ! (;0 Os _____ t I I~ !~ G ;--"1'1 ~-",-- J. ~ ~ H J. 1 ~ l~~ S", rr / / I · ~______~><~>>< "'" 0 H I f-{ J.1 / --------<::~~<~:::~ / :~~~~~----J ~/--- . JJ8<t1,y .~ " '-h ~ :,{ :'"< (", " , <& ~ ~ ~~ en ~ ry. ~ % SU Lt\\,\\l 1,,1 I~ I ~" I ~! I~ I !~: I I 11 i I .1 I,: "I:.: i. ~ ) e I "-I f3 : I! ,I ! ! I I 01 ~II (91 wi ..JI i ~I Zk ...... i% .......... [~ -I i~ a.. i~ f' j 1/ t .1 'I I ;,1 II I / I ~/ .,/ // q~~ ,~ ~ lJJ~:)'e~p<~a~o.,\Q:J!ilI;::;:J"f, XJ ~~Q I ;:-s~ 1'\'~ ~~HCl 2'?~ It.; UMOJ8 t..;JUpIS 7'J J;Jll1Wnld S!nOl UO~dJO 'PUE[YSV IEpJ<lWWO) / !!El;:l~ pafOJd l8aJlS V get SJ~~.. 'H:;~~ U\':i~a-Nl"l ]3G1fl::d Aa^OJ :;<:',i,t6 ~\) '1r;~'''jn$'J;' 6~S m~.:::..c il~ '~I't~~ lS'H "6~ !il W ..:; ro;. ,.~ ....;...l.l:l ..J --.J" ,j ,'( ,~ '.' c- c (j o ... ._ R'O .~J J ~J .J .,..J ~ 8 ;:; is, I~~' ;5 t'; L1 & ,1 & 0 CJ 0 0 ~ 031;3~~j ~ r":. (.. '" 21 .g t~~ @ ,~: IS ;1 f ;." ~~ ':t :~~~ (l _~;~g~~m ~'~3~~2 "~f~~~~ ~ :;, li.I /, ~ Q ~ I'" X r: ;1; .;: ~ ~ ~tJ ~~j~ % WZ rr 8~ffi~<~~ ft ~g; ~~~~~U:JJi~~ 1"9E~W~ ?:5?J,~u~(,~(;2 G{i~~Q~t)r~68~~~o ~n~U~~8~~n~~ :~ " ~~ 3~ .1.: ~ ;~ 2 ~ ~lt ~ l::,~ J)-~~ {,:; T ~ 0 '3 ~~~,~~:~ F~g~g:$5 ~i " " " r2 r.,:, [f " :'i '{ <i f >; " 1: :l (/) ~ " f- ,., .c D ill D ';; o C. >- " c: :l "' <) :c Cl. ~ 01 o 0. o f- l: .2 lJJ_tl ill '" " ,-co f-O~ EO. "'1""U " .c l:J " E 1'Il,~ .- OJ) ...J 0 . ...- "' 8. c,!!! c..9 ~ :JCCl. '" <Il"' .c ~ " -0-;:: Q)Q.'l-l-' :!2~0). p-,~ c o.B~~ ~ID g-g o ~ '- 0 ~rq~ > .:;= I:: C <Il I'll tIl ~~~Q) tV :.... 0 C I.. IJ.lIt- 0 f- (IJ .~ N ~, "' '" ~ '" ~ W z (\ " L( , ~~ :z j; " o ;: b ;.:..1 Oi W ~ ~l ~~ 7 ~. 5j~ ~ Q ,{ ~ ~~~'~,6 m!ll o U I) l;t ,l-....' ...:: ., C) u,..... 0 " ::::..: ~- : :,!U ,; RI ~ if cr:. o.:J D n ,t y:-- t.;; ~h~~:~~h;~~~~ .', Q:. ~ w 1 ~ :; g 5 ~ X -; g ") ~ i~~~~~~~~~H~~~ ~~ 8 ~,t) ~ ! I)I!! ~ ~~;~~~~ .. , ct: ti j ~8~~~h (7 3 ~ (j) UJ I- o Z 8 ~ ~ % ~{ ..' I- Z P ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ,'{ < :;-. i i~.'1 ~ t=: ~.. ~ GiL' g .ruG R8~<[~_2__ ,;~~tr~~%~'~5 III N rj:t -- ~ B ~ "2 :~~.~:~,(..a & Ii ,/ / f.... i.J.J lJ.J It f.... (f) ~ ~ "'8 ~ Sl ~ il1 ~ ~~ Z <D <: ... & < " '" ~ '" ;"...J ~ ~ M ~ I ",,,- -<() " '. "1 ~z or -J !'lol' EO N ::l . I- ~~ _ii tu :JZ w ~ W w'<" OJ 5 go w ",,:j ~ ill w W J: 'l ::: ~ '" c..c.. '" '" UJ ~<t 0 " 0 ~^ " ~E o ~ - " ~Cl DOl os: .5 0'0 Cis "rn .c_ O '~ E E:;: *2 ",- f/I- 11I .~ ~ - ill 11I ~ 0l11l tel .- c 0:;: ~ c: 11I 11I E- . o Cl. ro :;;:~ m (!) E l:.c ;;;_::l ....1iI[fJ ...; / I I I l I I I I I 9 o ~ B ::; " ~ 1 " >. , es ----. ,p({.fl. UJ~\Oj8 AtlUP!S "'t j;:Jwwnld S!nol ~I~ I I 8 912 iJ) .: . <" " I!i ~ j $ o ij o ~ .. WO:J'~;J-p,.jj:Ijj.il~I;I'Jill!DeJiI ?;- N * \l ,~ " ~ 'J n:QI ;;~; H!f UO~al0 'puel4sV ~ ~ ~ ~[j ';!Cr Z~~ It; Ci . w Do ..5::: 4 I "- ~ ~ ~-- t.~ rr, SmllH:llir'3o:i\'J~'lJWl lepJ8WWOJ Il!e~a~ " . W -( IT .....J en " C8~ g: 02"SH l!C ''JW~~S\f' '" .J U'" C'l w' I \ 66S XO~ '0'.1 pafOJd laaJ1S V 9Zv OJ " ~ 1..r....J ~ " Q "' . I- C1:;:: SlI '1JI\11'j 19~3 95Z: "'I" w ~ 8 gl: w z r- '" ~ '" Ie, ';\ls w <w t;: OJ J: ..J . L"'-" ! iJi -,0 0 '" " >l '" Ii: ~ '" If! Cl - _ <51 2~ Iflr J:\l~ ~~\S)~ ~~ lI.loJl~ ~~~> Z ~s ~~H 0 j:: 0 UJ Z Z 0 0 LL I( 0 )- Z 0 a. ~ ~ ~ Z 0 2i ~~ i ~ ~~ 2~ i=~ ~~ ~ <(.. -I- ~ (9g ~..J -lLL ..J~ ,Z -0 ~ ~~ I z: ~- ..J1l1 0:: " ~I- ~ - f:~ h 0.:::0 >~ (l i!: L", - Z M I I- ~2t ~n~ ~p~ ~~h {-<ii..J ~U~ ~~~ ~1j~~ ~~~~ ~h~ ~~~~~ ~~~f=~ 1l!J! ~~C> ~. ~;~ i~ ~ ~~ ~ ~&f ~~ ijl @~ ~ ~o ~ ~~ II- oj,. ~ u U ~~ ~ ~rc ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~t ~ J ~ J N~~~ \Il~ ~ i}l~ ! ~~ I LL C> -.i -l iJ: Ii ~ Q "' ii: OJ ~ <l\ (9 z i= z <( ...J a. w CD~ ::Jw !to I~ (f)g (\jl (9 z j:: z <( ...J Q.':J < l.lJg l.lJo !t~ )-g ~I (01 I 1 0996"Z8tnpg NMOtl8 A3NOIS 't131i'J1i'Jn1d SlnOl tlO 'ONVlHS'V l ifl:) t13lN V>l mnrlf 13 tI 1~8fOJd 188JIS 'if 9lv "t m (t) ~I ,,0-,17 I I I 1'\ J )8T~ ,,0-.2:17 ~ ...II.!. -00 ~o wl!) oc~ [t) I -< ~ ) ----l "O-,t~ ,,0.,8 "o-.9~ "O-,9v rn~ M LJ I I I I ____J I "O-,S 9 b N b I <t ,... b I N .- g:;u ~I~ ~~~ ~.;;: -:-:0 U') 0 ffi c: .sg 0:: o o , -~ -' 0~ u. ~ B t- !:!:: (f), :I 0:: ;; u: ~ 9 (0 to (;) o I cc !<l. 1.( '0 '" I". " ~<( (!) o I 1:0 C\l M] 0996'C':8n"175 NMOti8 A3NOIS 'ti3V11l^Jnld SlnOl tiO 'ON'v'lHS'v' lVI8H3VlV'108n1'\" 13H 18afoJd laaJlS V 9lP Ii I,' I: ~ i 1- ll! 1--1 ~ I ~ I I fa I L_~~ rm I z i W I U f- ~ ,,0- ,<:':17 f) "- I) ..... 11 ~' lDJlOj C) z z Cl fn ou: o. zU) Or--. u~ (9 z 2: ..J ffi c ('(l a::: o o -.J LL o ~€ 2;;,;: Ow o LU (/) <1 o C\l 19i ~ CI: I ~ Q.. i i<(i 1::,'1' ::"l; j",;']" ". '0,,,. !~!~: :0.<( :J!O N <( 0996<Z<iW ~ vg NMOtl8 A3NOIS 'tl3V"llflJnld SlnOl tlO 'ON'v'lHS'd l\lIJti31/'JV"lOJnl\f 13 ti l89fOJd 199JlS 'if 9Z17 \ \ 1-- f \ , ) ....' \: .... :r::: cr.c: co 0_1 I:: wi ow: '" I: ct J: ~ "', o co "' z ZI ~. [~ iZ o "I " ~. rrl:,1j ;: (f)' m. ~I 9' Ui ,. 0' N NI 00 '0 0 ci OJ Z ..J ~; J '": (f) z o i= 4: > w ~s ...J "" wE ...... tf) CD ~ I- l- X' '" I !;: ~. 01 g B '1' g!~! [j}, u. ," I (') O~V "' ;: 2';;;; 0 '" O,:Y 09: ;:j, il':ii' 0:' rD: (I); ?: ~ I 'I. ~] ~! ~i 0 ;::~: 0 N 0 00 0:' a!, o _L u. o! LlJ J:, u> ;:: u.. 9' o. o Q) Q ll: D- o<( Q " C'J <( z o ~ w "", -I ,,- UJ &E .c. ~9 to J,;; "" t: ;::;:: 0: o g u. " "' J: '" ;; LL:i :;- b o 0996.l8t,.~vS NMOtl8 A'3NOIS 'tl3V\Jl^Jnld SlnOl tlO 'ONVlHSV lVlJt!3l^JIJIJOJnIV13t! 1:J8foJd 188J1S V 9Z17 "'. I '" W I Ul '" "' 0: '" ". o i Ii: I '" " ;: <( 00 5' ? o 1-1 ~: ~! ~- ~: z _ o 0: ~ if Ch rI:; '" 9' ;:"5:! ~ ci .. !wil~; z w;-!.3: co f-'<Cj<C o <co,a:, -, PU)IC,: 0: o o .J CL " Ul I " Z u: z o i= ~ W ......J ~ ~ W ~~ .c: :; o r/) '" I f2 "' I W " " ;: ~, ~. o g, iii I o z ii' '" Ul " ~ o I I I'"- ~ 3' ~; ~ w ~ 1:. ~: ~' Zl~ 0'0: U <, w:l!,; ~l 00 '" o 0:: n. <(' 0: "C"",II ~ <( I- W W :r: 0) 0: q ii: " Ul T '1! ~ '" " z o i= <( >M W ~S I~~ --' oJ ~ W ~~ _ ~5' ~ .IIJI Q) ~ ~ ~ / / --vr ~ ~ ~ "{ ~ ! ~ I -....t \ \ \ \ " ""- "' --. ~--- 1 .J Jey J S Gijr <r '0 >< -+b '" ~ \ ''" :sf u "" r-=-::' ~ \;ti: .-,"",,"", ~ ~.. ....;:,. f...... ~ 4.; / / Q: / f...... / I VJ f I ( \ \ \ '( \ / / ~ ?I f f "- -~ A I ~ I -....j \ \ \ \ "- ""- ......... I '-J 't I / / ./ -- --- - j .J .) -LJ CJ J S 06'r '0 l~ ..., -e, - - .'\ S~. ('1...\ C'f ~4- , - V'-S.. '-...,...- '-, 5~ :::\ ."" .:.:: 10 ~:::- q~ / I ~ ~ l 0.J /'/---1' f1::: I f f-...., / I o f I ( \ \ \ 't \ -.... ~ -.... -.... \ \ \ \ \ ""- "'- ..........-----.-- j J .J & J S O(jr )-, I I ~ I I '-J '\ 'j- t; S <..:> ~. \ = 'J v'\ i + :+- "'-' .- ~ .,~ ~ '- u ~. .. - --.;,. -~. (i;r':" . ,"'-- \ 'L "::t: r~' Planning Department, 51 Wir Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-~u60 www.ashland.or.us TlY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00817 OWNER! APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for adoption of the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. (This plan replaces the previously approved 2000-2010 Campus Master Plan.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University ZONING: S-O ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: o 250 500 1,000 Feet Property line.s are for reJi!!:rence only, not ~aleabte Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on this request to adopt the Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan 2010-2020 as part of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the related documents is available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department in the Community Development & Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony. To receive a notice of the final decision, a person must participate in the public hearing submitting oral or written testimony and must submit a written request to receive a notice of the final decision. 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 (TlY 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). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:\comm-dev\planninglNotices Mailed\2009\2009-00817 _ REVISED.doc 18.108.170 Legislative amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT July 14, 2008 PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00817 APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University LOCATION: SOU Campus Boundary ZONE DESIGNATION: SOU - Southern Oregon University COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.64 Southern Oregon University STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 2 - Land Use Planning OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS) Chapter 197 - Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULE (OAR): 660-030 Review and Approval of State Agency Coordination Programs REQUEST: Adoption of the Update of the Master Plan for Southern Oregon University: 2010- 2020 I. Relevant Facts A. Background. History of Application Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning, as well as chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes requires that the planning activities of Southern Oregon University be coordinated with the City of Ashland to ensure compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan and local land use ordinances. In February of2000, the Ashland City Council adopted the "Southern Oregon University Campus Master Plan - 2000-2010" as prepared by Southern Oregon University with amendments by the City of Ashland. In August 1990, the Ashland City Council adopted the "Southern 2000 Campus Master Plan" as prepared by Southern Oregon State College with amendments by the City of Ashland. Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southem Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 1 of 8 B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The plan's Executive Summary notes that the updated Master Plan has been prepared to guide the Southern Oregon University campus over the next decade (2010 - 2020). Student enrollment is projected to increase over this period from 5,082 to 6,000. The plan prioritizes projects within several distinct campus areas, which includes expansion and renovation projects for the Theater Arts and Science buildings, as well as deferred maintenance projects for five key facilities. The plan proposes a key shift in the structure of the campus through the relocation of existing housing and a significant increase in future student housing within north campus areas. New housing will be designed and constructed to contemporary standards on the university lands north of Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. By transitioning housing to the north campus area, existing locations currently dedicated to housing, such as the Cascade Complex, can be identified for the long range growth of the academic core of the campus. The Master Plan update includes an evaluation of the overall structure of the campus, providing descriptions for proposed and recommended projects that the University would likely undertake over the next ten year cycle. Future projects are grouped into several distinct categories, including Open Space, Buildings (Academic and Housing), Athletics, Other Campus-Related Development and Circulation. The plan also includes design guidelines for future development, for both buildings and open spaces, which would be in addition to as well as complement existing City of Ashland site design standards. Lastly, the Master Plan update provides a framework for sustainable planning, describing the University's commitment to set goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts as well as specifying strategies that outline specific actions. II. Proiect Impact The campus boundary encompasses approximately 164-acres that is roughly split north and south of Siskiyou Boulevard. The Master Plan update does not propose an expansion of the existing Southern Oregon University campus boundary and its corresponding City of Ashland SO zoning designation. Overall, staff is excited about the changes being proposed over the next 10-years and is in agreement with the majority of elements of the Plan. A representative from the Community Development Department was invited to participate in the update of the Master Plan and was included in the Steering Group. As with most comprehensive planning efforts, however, there are several areas and issues covered by the Plan document where staff believes additional clarification of the city's position is needed and has recommended some modifications. Provided below is an overview of key aspects of the Master Plan where additional coordination with local land use policies is recommended through suggested conditions of approval. These are organized in sequence Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southern Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 2 of 8 with the proposed projects identified in several sub-sections of the report, which starts on page 29 with a discussion ofthe Framework Plan and Campus Structure. Academic Buildings - Renovations and Expansions (page 34) Two buildings are identified as in need of significant renovation and expansion over the planning period. An expansion of the Theater Arts complex was identified in the SOU 2000-2010 Plan update and is considered a top priority project. The Science building cluster is also identified for significant reinvestment and expansion. Figure 12, shown on page 36, identifies structures slated for removal or relocation. The University owns approximately 30 single family homes that are located within the campus boundary. Several of these structures may be removed in order to accommodate new uses. The Plan states that existing structures will be relocated to new sites, except when structurally unsound. If relocation is not feasible, structures will be dismantled to recover materials or for recycling potential. Sustainable Guidelines accompanying the Plan require that recyclable material collection facilities be available for new construction and renovations projects. It should be noted that building demolition and/or removal is subject to the City's Demolition and Relocation Standards. Staffhas suggested that the following condition be adopted as part of the Plan approval process: . Demolition and Relocation of Existing Campus Housing That in addition to the requirements set forth in the Campus Master Plan for construction waste reduction and on-site recycling collection facilities, proposals involving the demolition or relocation of existing campus structures shall comply with the provisions AMC 15.04. Housing and Student Life (page 37) The Master Plan Update proposes major changes in the physical structure of the campus with respect to the location of student and faculty housing. Currently, the University houses approximately 25% of its students in campus housing, with almost 700 residents residing in the Cascade Complex (corner of Indiana and Oregon). The University's goal is to replace the quantity of beds in Cascade Complex, with the long term ambition of land banking the area for the growth of the academic core. As noted earlier in the staff report, the University is proposing a significant shift in the location of housing on the campus, with an overall strategy of accommodating up to 2000 students in campus housing and developing the majority of new housing on lands north of Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street. This long term direction with respect to the location of future housing raises concerns about pedestrian safety, due to the projected, considerable increase in the number of students expected to cross the two highways. The Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southern Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 3 of 8 potential impacts of these projects on the local transportation system also must be carefully evaluated, with needed improvements to the system planned for well in advance. Lastly, potentially large mixed-use buildings are proposed at prominent locations along one of the community's most visible transportation corridors. The design of these developments should be consistent with local design standards related to site planning and building design. Staffhas suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval process: Student Housing . Pedestrian Safety Plan Prior to submission of a planning application for the development of new student housing north of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, the University will work with the City, Oregon Department of Transportation and other stakeholders in developing a specific plan for implementation that addresses pedestrian safety issues. The Plan may include but not be limited to improved crossings with enhanced pavement design and on-going monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety issues. Design strategies shall be coordinated and prepared based upon input from both a traffic engineer and urban design professional. · Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management That all future housing projects proposed within the north campus area shall be subject to a transportation impact analysis and access management standards as described in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final scope of this requirement will be evaluated at the pre-application meeting preceding the land use application for Site Design Review approval. . Building Design In addition to the mandatory Design Guidelines described in the Master Plan update, the area designated for new development adjacent to Ashland Street, east of Walker Avenue, and along Walker Avenue, south of Webster Street, shall be subject to Ashland's approval standards for development within the Detail Site Review Zone (II-C-2), including those additional standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3). Faculty Village Housing Faculty Village Housing is proposed for sites where the campus borders existing, established residential neighborhoods. Consequently, issues of neighborhood context and building design with respect to existing neighborhood pattern and character are important to nearby residents. In staff s opinion, the Design Guidelines provided in the Plan do not sufficiently take into account the full spectrum of issues related to Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southern Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 4 of 8 infill projects adjacent to existing neighborhoods. The Master Plan states that building heights adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods will typically be lower in order to make an appropriate transition to the surrounding context. While consideration has be given to building height, the 35,000 square foot maximum footprint for residential buildings is likely inappropriate for some of these infill sites at the edge of campus. In addition to the following recommendations, staff would suggest that the University consider changes and additions to the proposed Design Guidelines, which clearly address specific elements of neighborhood character including but not limited to bulk, scale, building footprint size and building articulation. Staffhas suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval process: . Conditional Use Permit Approval Faculty Village Housing proposed along Ashland @ Mountain and Henry Street is approximately 50-feet from privately-owned property and therefore shall be subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. . Building Size and Design Design Guidelines in the Plan shall be amended to make it clear that the current maximum length and footprint standards for residential buildings shall not apply to Faculty Village Housing proposed along Ashland Street (across from Glenwood Park) and Henry Street. Infill strategies and/or design guidelines for Faculty Village Housing shall be amended to include specific design standards related to building scale, bulk, footprint, coverage and articulation that are sensitive to existing neighborhood character, while still recognizing the need to accommodate faculty housing at locations and densities that create short walking distances to campus and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. Circulation (page 44) The draft Master Plan states that a combination of circulation and open space improvements to the campus structure are intended to support Plan goals through promoting a strong "sense of place" for the campus. A variety of circulation changes are proposed that involve the existing University Way and adjacent service roads, while improving pedestrian movements and way finding through campus. While staff is generally supportive of the proposed changes, it is imperative that the plan concepts are appropriately reviewed and approved by City staffto ensure that emergency access to campus facilities is not impeded and that potential impacts to the local transportation system are evaluated and mitigated. Eastern Gateway Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southern Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 5 of 8 The intersections at Siskiyou! Ashland and Siskiyou!Indiana/Wightman are critical crossing points for pedestrian traveling between north and south campus areas. Potential improvements to this eastern gateway were discussed during the planning process and several suggested changes are described in the Plan. As noted above, staff would like to reiterate the need to comprehensively evaluate potential impacts with all concerned parties in advance of any changes. Staffhas suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval process: . Transportation Impact Analysis and Access Management Strategy Modifications to the University's Eastern Gateway area shall be subject to a transportation impact analysis and access management standards as described in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan (TSP). The final scope of specifications for preparation of a transportation impact analysis shall be coordinated through Ashland Public Works Department. . Pedestrian Safety Plan Concurrently with the transportation impact analysis and access management strategy, the University will work with the City, Oregon Department of Transportation and other stakeholders in developing a specific plan for implementation that addresses pedestrian safety issues. Design strategies shall be prepared based upon input from both a traffic engineer and urban design professional. Changes to Campus Circulation System The City of Ashland Fire Department has evaluated the proposed Master Plan update and would like to make sure that any changes to the existing circulation system do not compromise their ability to service the campus. Staff has suggested that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval process: . Emergency Vehicle Access Prior to any changes to the campus circulation system including vehicular and pedestrian access ways, a site plan shall provided to and approved by Ashland Fire & Rescue which demonstrates that that the proposed modifications are in copmliance with the emergency access provisions of the Oregon Fire Code. Parking University campus parking is provided by numerous off-street parking lots of various sizes dispersed throughout the campus. A complete inventory of campus parking Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: South em Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 6 of 8 facilities, as well as total space count, has been detailed in Table 2 found on page 23 of the draft document. Currently, there are approximately 100 more parking spaces located within the campus than required through a strict application of the City's off- street parking requirements. Given that the update proposes a significant increase in the number of students housed on campus, the draft Plan recommends that parking standards inline with a more residential campus be developed. The City's current policies support the Plan's goal to reduce the potential for over-provision of parking. Staff suggests that the following conditions be adopted as part of the Plan approval process: . Parking Requirements for On-Campus Student Housing Prior to submission of a planning application for campus housing, the University shall development, through collaboration with city staff, specific parking standards for on- campus housing. The standard is intended to reduce an over provision of off-street parking and stress the use of alternate modes of transportation, by maximizing the efficiency of established and future campus parking facilities through consideration of the following strategies: * The University's development and implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies listed in the Master Plan; Review of contemporary research and professional publications evaluating parking generation; Analysis of shared parking scenarios; and Review of potential impacts to neighborhood on-street parking supply * * * . Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies That a list of potential Transportation Demand Management strategies accompanied by a time line for implementation be developed and submitted in conjunction with campus housing applications. III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof 18.108.170 Legislative amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southern Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 7 of 8 by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Ashland is fortunate to have Southern Oregon University within the community. The university adds to the community's diversity, the richness of our culture, and strengthens the local economy. The master planning efforts of the university ensure that it will remain a strong and viable institution within the Oregon University System, as well as make certain that it recognizes the values and concerns of the Ashland Community. Staff endorses approval of the Master Plan update with the suggested conditions noted in the staff report. Planning Action 2009-00817 Applicant: Southern Oregon University Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES MARCH 31, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Tom Dimitre David Dotterrer Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Maria Harris, Planning Manager April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Eric Navickas Larry Blake (Recused himself due to his affiliation with SOU) ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the Recommended Council Goals Memo that staff had prepared and stated if needed they could discuss this after the Master Plan Presentation. SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY MASTER PLAN UPDATE Mr. Molnar provided a brief history of the Southem Oregon University Master Plan. He explained the first plan was done in the 1950s and updated in the 1960s to establish the campus boundaries. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the City became more actively involved in the Plans after the adoption of the Oregon Statewide Planning Program which created a coordination requirement. In 1979 the City approved a Cooperation Agreement with the University, adopted the 1980-1990 Campus Plan, and added Chapter 18.64 to the Municipal Code. The Master Plan has continued to be updated every 10 years and the Cooperation Agreement signed in 1979 is still in place. Mr. Molnar explained a few months ago the University began the process to create the 2010-2020 Master Plan and tonight Eric Ridenour with SERA Architects is here to present some of the options the University has been discussing. Mr. Eric Ridenour introduced himself to the Commission and explained SERA Architects was hired by the University to assist with their Master Plan update. He stated the University has conducted site visits, spoke with key stakeholder groups, have held general public forums and are at a point where they are honing in on a preferred altemative. He stated the next steps in this process will involve preparing the Draft Master Plan, coming back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, and continuing on to the City Council for adoption of the Plan. Mr. Ridenour delivered a presentation to the Commission which addressed the following objectives and options for the 2010- 2020 SOU Master Plan: · Renovate and make modest expansions to the existing academic buildings. The Theatre Arts building would be the first priority, followed by the Sciences Complex and McNeal Pavilion. · Improve the quantity and quality of residential facilities. Option 1 proposes new residential housing to the north of campus, but retains the existing residence halls with minor renovations. Option 2 proposes more or less the same strategy as Option 1, but would remove dining services from the Cascade Complex and relocate it to a separate facility. Option 3 proposes to begin moving residential life to the Planning Commission Study Session March 31, 2009 Page 1 of 2 north side of campus and would preserve the location of the Cascade Complex for future academic needs. Mr. Ridenour explained the preferred option is consistent with Option 3 but would retain the newer Madrone apartment complex and the Suzanne Holes building. It would move the bulk of the residential housing to the area between Ashland Street and McNeal Pavilion, and if this mixed use housing is successful, future residences could be added in that same area east of Wightman. Mr. Ridenour added if funding became available, the University would also like to pursue additional faculty housing. · Enhance the pedestrian core. Mr. Ridenour stated the idea is to "bookend" the two ends of the pedestrian core of the campus and to further enhance the pedestrian experience. · Enhance the athletic facilities. Ideas include adding field turf to the stadium field, developing a soccer field north of Iowa Street, and renovating the existing recreation building north of Iowa Street into a new women's athletics facility. The tennis courts could also be relocated to this area should housing be added on the east side of Wightman. Additional ideas include improving the circulation into McNeal Pavilion and creating a more grand entry to the stadium from Wightman. · Improve the campus gateways and transportation circulation. Ideas include improving the way you approach the campus along Siskiyou Blvd and changing University Way to a two-way street (right in, right out only). It was noted pedestrian safety is an ongoing issue, especially as more housing becomes available north of campus. Various options have been discussed, including a pedestrian ramp, pedestrian underpass, center lane underpass, and traffic circles. However because all these suggestions have significant constraints, the most likely option is to improve the crosswalk configurations and increase pedestrian visibility by using pavement and color more aggressively. Mr. Ridenour added at some point there may be enough pedestrian traffic during peak times to have an all pedestrian phase to the traffic signal. Mr. Ridenour's presentation also indicated the University would incorporate sustainability by: 1) increasing efficiency of the residence halls and academic buildings, 2) utilizing renewable energy development and water conservation measures, and 3) integrating sustainability teaching into the curriculum. He also commented on transportation demand management and encouraged the Commission's input on this subject. Mr. Ridenour noted the City's parking space requirement and commented on possible amendments to this requirement for the University. Mr. Ridenour concluded his presentation by proving the timeline for the 2010-2020 Master Plan adoption process and asked if the Commission had any questions. He clarified approximately 25% of students currently live on campus and the goal is to increase this figure to 35%-50%. Several comments were made voicing support for the preferred plan, including the creation of a sense of entry along Siskiyou Blvd and development of mixed use housing along Ashland Street. Additional suggestions were made to include transportation planning in this process and looking into possible amendments to the University's parking requirements. Mr. Molnar noted the timeline reviewed by Mr. Ridenour and stated staff would bring forward updates as this process moves forward. OTHER BUSINESS 1. Recommended Council Goals Memo No changes where requested to the Memo. Mr. Molnar indicated staff would submit the Memo as presented for inclusion in the Council's Goal Setting packet. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Planning Commission Study Session March 31, 2009 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS COVER SHEET FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN & GLENWOOD PARK NEIGHBORHOOD "WORKING GROUPS" PROPOSAL TO IMPROVE THE SOU 2020 MASTER PLAN SUBMITTED BY RIVERS BROWN 1067 ASHLAND STREET ASHLAND, OREGON Community Garden & Glenwood Park Neighborhood "working groups" Proposal to Improve the SOU Master Plan: 1. Direct SOU to move "Faculty Village" from Ashland/Henry Streets area to its most suitable location on North Campus where its architectural scale and population density does not clash with neighborhood, but fits in and compliments it. * 2. Direct SOU to explore the "Garden and Neighborhood" "Preferred Alternative" of "Sustainability Village" which is already structurally in place on West Campus and design such into Master Plan. * This would eliminate opposition to University intrusion into neighborhood, large student opposition, and create a far reaching and lucrative academic, housing, and outreach option for the University. It would also be the correct "interface" with the surrounding community there. 3. Student Housing - Cascade Complex - remove and relocate dining services to space below Cascade, (west of Cox, and above Health Center). Renovate Cascade Complex for student housing, one wing at a time. The massive student transfer to below Siskiyou Blvd, and all the traffic congestion and safety issues it would bring is close to unbelievable, especially given the existing difficulties and recent tragedy on Siskiyou. 4. Abandon major landscape and open space overhauls in Campus Core. The current landscape pattern in campus core is fine for students to congregate in and for "first time visitors" finding their way. To cut back all the wondeIfuI trees and install a tight grid plaza would not be an enhancement, only a regimentation. Students are already using these areas just fine, and a little signage will help visitors. Do a creative project like a "daylighted" and flowing Roca Creek down along central path to pool near plaza, where it exits and goes back underground just above the boulevard. Something like this would preserve and enhance the fine "woodlands and meadows" theme there now and would definitely be a "show stopper" for new visitors. Not to mention great PR for the University's crowing "sustainability," and hands on expertise for the Environmental Studies Department. Summary: - Re- Locate and Create Right Village for the Right Neighborhood. * - Renovate Cascade and move Cafeteria just below. - Do modest enhancements to grounds and paths. - Do all academic core upgrades scheduled. In these times we need to get ourselves in place for a long drawn out transition toward sustainability, if not survival. Upfitting and retrofitting what we do have that is now working, supplemented by more modest (affordable) new projects, are the order of the day in reality based planning on all levels. Southern Oregon University should become a Leader in this (and it would help balance their budget). * see attached photos that illustrate "Right Villages" Community Garden and Neighborhood "working groups" overview of SOU 2020 Master Plan July 2009 The Master Plan needs to bring in the needs of all stakeholders. Some were left out and this is not right for any significant sized planning endeavor. "Stakeholder" was too limited and excluded those potentially most impacted by plans gone 'misguided.' Our local rights to decide for ourselves what form our community and neighborhoods take should not be abrogated by a flawed planning process. The process should now backtrack or start over to find the best solution for our little town that is not Portland, S.F. or L.A., but uniquely Ashland, Oregon. "Outsourced" won't do when planning so large in the center of our little town, especially when it has the potential to impact us in many ways and was done without due (actual) process. These factors, along with others, have compounded to create a poor outcome. Better now, to enter into fixative measures, than regret later with diminished community. After all, a totally good and positive outcome is just about assured with sufficient public participation. We can find win, win, win solutions to all our needs. The 'Right Village for the Right Neighborhood' is what we all deserve. The SOU 2020 Master Plan is not that now, but could easily be, when logic and sensitivity is applied to place and culture in design. Overbearing architectural scale and population density should not be forced upon an "elder neighborhood" with which it does not blend, but impacts negatively. The most appropriate place where developments of this size will prosper are where they fit in well with the local neighborhood density and architecture, and have all the best amenities nearby. Faculty Village belongs on North Campus near the current student family housing, and where it would have the middle and elementary schools just across the street, with high school just 4 blocks away. This, alone would work great, but it also has Science Works, Growers' Market, bike/pedestrian path and majestic views, and a 2-3 block walk to Campus Core. Feeder streets to choice of arterial streets give access by automobile or bicycle for needs based travel. This location also fits the bill on scale of architecture and population density to assure an easy fit with the neighborhood already there. Amazingly (or not), the University does not even mention in the 2020 Master Plan their greatest need: Student Family Housing is always 100% full with a very long waiting list. Regular Student Housing (what's called for in the MP) is only about 80% full. Sustain ability Village is already partially happening on West Campus with the 8 year old ECOS Community Garden and Bike Library. The handful of 9 houses just north of the garden and south of Henry Street could easily transition to become a research experiment zone for the Environmental Science Department in conjunction with ECOS and the Housing Department, if not others, also. Leading edge environmental science isn't just about saving the environment 'out there,' global climate change, and studying our natural heritage, but also, out of necessity, will swiftly evolve into how do we retrofit and upgrade our habitation environs so that we may more successfully negotiate the 'long emergency.' This not only just includes our homes, but our homes will become ever more critical to adopt sustain ability practices for. This knowledge and systems of accomplishment are what an exponentially increasing number of green jobs are indicating as already becoming a megatrend. The University can be at the forefront of finding whole system solutions in this emerging industry and export such out into the community around, and beyond, with outreach projects funded by public entities that will bare future financial fruit. An Agricultural Experimental Station is an example of a related concept. This would be a "Retro" Greening Experimental Station, to "sustainably" upfit the majority of our housing, not just the current primary focus on new construction, which constitutes only a small fraction of our housing base. Plus the related food factor, alternative energy generation aspects, and the social networks of small communities, can create quite an impressive interdisciplinary endeavor. We are hoping Commissioners will appreciate the win-win-win aspects of this "Garden & Neighborhood Plan," and help guide the SOU 2020 Master Plan accordingly. Thank you for your consideration. solutions in the , with Iturai Station Station, to con- networks D....C.~ Page 1 of 1 rat: t:.IVED Bill Molnar - Ashland Street condo From: To: Date: Subject: "Jean Taylor" <734jeant@charter.net> <"U ndisc1osed- Recipient:;"@madrone.ashlandfiber.net> 7/8/2009 9:42 AM Ashland Street condo City of Ashland Community Development Hello, I would like to respectfully register my opinion re: the Ashland Street Condo proposal. I strongly OPPOSE this development. Ashland Street has very few, if any. multi-family homes and I feel that this plan does not support the current nature of the neighborhood. It would put inappropriate strain on the facilities of Glenwood Park and add to the current congestion already experienced in the neighborhood when the university is in session. Please vote AGAINST this part of the proposed SOU 2020 Master Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jean Taylor 734 Glenwood Drive file://C:\Documents and Settings\molnarb\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 7/8/2009 Page 1 of2 RECEIVED Brent Thompson MAY 18 all From: To: Sent: Subject: "Brent Thompson" <brenttho@mind.net> <administrator@serapdx.com> Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:06 AM Forward to Eric Ridenour- RE Sou City of Ashland ~nity ~\lelop~ To President Mary Cullinan and Eric Ridenour of SERA, I recently (April 16) at the Ashland Transportation Commission meeting saw preliminary plans for the Southern Oregon University master plan update, and I want to offer the following. For decades SOU acquired additional land for future expansion. Thus, the campus has sprawled. That in turn contributes to sprawl pressures on the city. Likely because of having so much space, buildings built for the University such as the Schneider Art Museum, and for other entities such as the National Guard AmiOry, the Forensics Laboratory and for the NatuiaJ History Museum have tended to be one story which, of course, is a waste of land. Some . "-.,. ,,- " ';:B\:Jer bu":'!d1~::;.,..-,;:.;-:t bn.Jwoor threestor~~ ~>Lt,~"e.,!:'mf,iI:~rrthEtca01PJ.!~i~~g~n~r~H\;}I')\^!'d .n, A"y additio..al ;:Juilamgs should be at least three and one half 'jtories; The permitted height on the university campus is 55 feet. The idea of using land and other resources frugally should be carried over to any project on any of the various State University campuses. It should be in the respective construction! expansion University Mission Statements Three years ago the City of Ashland paid $25,000 for a study of rent rates to be completed. The study which is available from the City of from its website actually showed, contrary to the wishes of some City Counselors, that rental rates for housing in Ashland were not high relative to construction costs and property costs in Ashland and elsewhere. But that is not to say that housing should not be built on campus, but planners should recognize that Ashland housing was not considered expensive according to the consultants. One of the problems is that young students often don't yet have the work, credit, or life experience for them to compete with others for the best housing. And often they don't yet know how to present themselves as prospective responsible residents. Assistance or counseling for students about how to find housing might be more cost effective than building new housing. Regarding housing on or near campus, one unfortunate decision was that around 1999-2000 three or four houses were tom down or moved off campus from Mountain Street for more parking. The reasoning for this was undoubtedly that the houses were old and needed work, but I don't agree with this assessment. These houses could have been renovated and retained, but as a result of this decision, three or more faculty or staff members no longer could be housed across the street from campus. But there was room for a few more parked cars. This was a bad trade off, and one I hope will not be repeated. Regarding parking lots, I believe areas above them ought to be used for housing or something. The idea to locate housing along Ashland St. aka Highway 66 is as good one, but locating housing along Walker Street near the Middle School will result in too many additional vehicle trips due to the distances from shopping and anything but the Middle school. On the plans I hope I detected a sort of bicycle! pedestrian thruway above Siskyou Blvd. from one side of the University to the other. The University should not be a barrier for those who want to commute thru SOU by skate board. bicycle. roller skates or on foot. The campus should be inviting to the general public. A convenient pathway thru campus will help meet that goal. And any security concerns can be met with surveillance cameras, an 5/16/2009 Page 2 of2 unfortunate but necessary featrure of may public spaces.. One further thought is that no large grassy areas that are used for or could be used for sports and recreation should be developed. The University should be able to deal with future space needs by going up and not out, and again relevent mission statements hopefully will include wording about the desirability of using land and other resources thriftily in future constructionl expansion projects. I sit on the Transportation Commission and part of our concern is to advise of ways to reduce vehicle trip by promoting alternative forms of transportation to the automobile_ I hope some of these thoughts might help achieve that. ~:;~ ~~?ft~ arent Thompson Former Ashland Planning Commissioner and City Counselor cc Ms VViewe! { Ashland Planning Commission (j {~ &'-t.4/~(;./ Larry Slake 5/16/2009