HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-11 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
AUGUST 11, 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. July 14, 2009 Hearings Board Minutes
2. July 14,2009 Planning Commission Minutes
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for 155-157 Sixth Street, PA #2009-00662
B. Approval of Findings for 426 A Street, PA #2009-00551
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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Southern Oregon University; ZONING: S-O
VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00873
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1860 Ashland Street
APPLICANT: PSE Architects, Agents for the City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 10,076 square foot two-story fire
station building to replace the existing Fire Station #2 located at 1860 Ashland Street. Also included
are requests for a Variance to the front yard setback along Ashland Street, an Exception to Street
Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree, a 12-inch diameter blue spruce.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2;
ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 1 E 15 AA; TAX LOT: 6200
1. Adoption of Findings for 1860 Ashland Street, PA #2009-00873
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
HEARINGS BOARD
MINUTES
JULY 14, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Dawkins called the meeting to order at 1 :30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present:
Michael Dawkins
Melanie Mindlin
Larry Blake
Staff Present:
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009-00662
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 155-157 Sixth Street
APPLICANT: Allison Renwick
DESCRIPTION: A request for Conditional Use Permit approval to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area
within the Railroad Addition Historic District and a modification of a previous Site Review approval (PA #2005-
968) to construct a 279 square foot addition to an existing residence, constructed in 2006, at 155-157 Sixth Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP
#: 39 1 E 09 AC; TAX LOT: 3300
Commissioner Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedure for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
No ex parte contact was report. Blake and Dawkins both indicated they had passed by the property.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report for the planning application. He provided a brief overview of the
site and explained there are currently three structures on the property: 1) a 1,272 sq. ft. dwelling at the front of the property
built in 1903,2) a 216 sq. ft studio behind the front house along the alley, and 3) a 998 sq. ft. dwelling that was constructed at
the rear of the property in 2006. Mr. Severson stated the Applicant is proposing a 279 sq. ft. addition to the dwelling at the rear
of the property, and noted when this structure was built it received an award from the Ashland Historic Commission for
"Historically Compatible New Multi-Family Construction." Mr. Severson commented on the maximum permitted floor area
(MPFA) calculations and stated the proposed addition would put the property at 15% over the MPFA and therefore requires a
public hearing and conditional use permit approval.
Mr. Severson displayed several photos of the lot, structures, and proposed addition. He stated staff feels the addition is well
designed, has good attention to detail, and the placement minimizes impact to the neighborhood. He stated staff's
recommendation is to approve the application with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Mr. Severson clarified the parking requirement has been met and also clarified the garden shed currently located on the
property would be moved to the neighbor's lot. He added keeping the shed in the same location would require a variance and
if this was requested by the Commission staff would need to re-notice this action for a separate hearing.
Applicant's Presentation
Allison Renwick/157 Sixth Street/Clarified the garden shed is currently in a very inconvenient sport and moving it to the
neighbor's property will provide some needed screening between the two houses.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Mindlin/Blake m/s to approve PA #2009-00662 with the conditions proposed by staff. Voice Vote: All
AYES. Motion passed 3-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 1 :50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Apri/ Lucas, Administrative Assistant
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 14, 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
Mike Morris
Staff Present:
Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members:
None
Council liaison:
Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the first Croman Advisory Committee meeting would be held July 15,
2009, at 5 p.m. in the Community Development Building. He also noted the Council is scheduled to resume deliberations on
the Water Resources Ordinance at their July 21 meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. May 12, 2009 Planning Commission
2. May 26, 2009 Study Session
3. June 23, 2009 Study Session
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
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 #: 391E 09
AB; TAX LOT: 6507
Commissioner Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
All of the commissioners declared site visits; No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report for the planning application. He reviewed the condition of the
existing structures on the property, displayed several photos, and explained the Applicant's are proposing to demolish the
house, shed, and garage, and construct a mixed-use building at the site. Mr. Severson stated the property is located in a
Historic District, however the house is a non-contributing resource. He reviewed the site plan with the Commission and also
commented on the landscape plan. Mr. Severson explained there are five trees on the site that the Applicant's are proposing
to remove. One of those trees is a large cedar that has been topped heavily and is currently growing into overhead power
lines, while the other four are smaller trees. He noted the building is proposed to be constructed to LEED Standards, and
indicated the most significant portion of this application deals with the parking variance. Mr. Severson provided an explanation
of the parking requirements and indicated the total parking required for the proposal is eight spaces. He stated the Applicant's
proposal includes one handicap space and three standard spaces, and there is one on-street credit available, so the result is
a shortage of three spaces. Mr. Severson commented on the parking availability in this area and stated in general staff has
observed a 50% to 60% availability during business hours. He added that functionally there is an additional parking space
available in front of the site on A Street, however this space does not count towards their parking total due the substandard
width of A Street.
Mr. Severson stated staff is recommending approval of the application with noted conditions, however there are a few last
minute modifications to the conditions outlined in the staff report:
1) Condition 14d: Include that there is a small section of sidewalk along A Street that needs to be repaired;
2) Condition 1 and Condition 14g: Revise to allow issuance of certification of occupancy if the Applicant meets the
established criteria for LEED certification, with the final LEED certification to come after;
3) Condition 13c: Revise to indicate the maximum lot coverage is 85%.
Comment was made questioning how the two trees proposed for removal impact the parking. Mr. Severson clarified any effort
to move the parking further up would push the location of the building towards the street. He added if the trees are preserved
they would impact the options for the site.
Mr. Severson also provided clarification on the City's Demolition Ordinance and the process it entails. He stated the
Applicant's will have to go through a separate process to receive demolition approval and stated if someone wanted to
challenge the demolition, the Demolition Ordinance provides more teeth for this type of challenge than the land use process.
Applicant's Presentation
Christopher Brown/545 A Street/Applicant's Representative/Mr. Brown presented images of the structures on the property
and commented on their current state of decay. He stated the house is covered with black mold and a contractor assessor
indicated it would cost over $400,000 to bring it up to a state of livability. Mr. Brown reviewed the site plan and explained the
existing footprint is 1,855 sq. ft, and the footprint of the proposed mixed-use building is 1,998 sq. ft. He noted the two square
footage amounts are comparable and stated they are not trying to do something excessive with the site. He stated the
intention of the Applicant is to be very compassionate with the surrounding neighborhood and stated they see the two large
Cedar trees on the corner to be a significant contribution and want to retain these. Mr. Brown noted the green roof system that
will be installed and stated they will also be including permeable pavers, a permeable parking lot, and bioswales in the
parkway. Mr. Brown commented on the proposed parking layout and noted the availability of on-street parking in this area. He
stated in order to include the number of parking spaces required on the site, the parking lot would have to take up half of the
total lot. He concluded by stating they do not believe this area needs more large parking lots.
Comment was made that this looks like a modern building and it was questioned how it fits into the Historic District. Mr. Brown
commented on the elements taken from the adjacent Craftsman style homes and incorporating the heavy industrial influence
of the Railroad District. He stated their intent was to create moderation between these elements and noted the Historic
Commission's approval of the design.
It was questioned why the office space is not delineated on the plan. Mr. Brown responded that the owners are hoping to stay
flexible at this point in order to accommodate the future tenant. Mr. Severson clarified one of the conditions proposed by staff
requires the breakdown to be provided at building permit submittal.
It was questioned if the Applicant is working with the Public Works Department regarding the proposed storm drainage system
for the alley. Mr. Brown asked the project's engineer, Tom Sissel, to come forward and respond.
Tom Sissel/3501 Excel Drive, Suite 240, Medford/Clarified they have been in contact with the Public Works Department and
the City's Associate Engineer has come out to the site. He stated they have discussed taking some of the water drainage from
the alley and directing it onto the proposed parking area and to an on-site detention facility; from there it would flow into a
bioswale and to a catch basin at the corner of 3rd and A Streets. Mr. Sissel stated the City's Assoc. Engineer indicated that the
standard alley requirement is to have everything drain to the center and would not commit to whether they would allow this to
be changed. He stated if staff does not allow this to be changed, they will request to improve the existing drainage and catch
basin.
Commissioner Mindlin commended the Applicant for their efforts and hopes they will be able to implement this system.
It was questioned what level of LEED certification are they shooting for and Mr. Brown clarified that they are on track to
receive Gold Certification.
Public Testimonv
Philip Lang/ A letter from Philip Lang was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins. The letter voiced opposition to the
proposal, specifically the demolition of a 100-year old, historic Railroad District house. Lang recommended that the property
owners be asked to rebuild/reconstruct the property, preserving its authentic beauty and historic presence.
Collin Swales/143 A Street/Stated the building design is fine, but is disappointed another one of Ashland's small, historic
homes will be removed. Mr. Swales commented on the variance request and stated being located in a Historic District in itself
is not a sufficiently unique or unusual circumstance to qualify for the variance. He voiced his approval for the energy efficiency
of the building, but stated the fact that the Applicant is choosing to make it energy efficient should not qualify them for the
variance. He added approving the parking variance because they are getting a green building is not currently the law.
Anne Golden/247 Third Street/Stated she lives up the block from the proposed project and while she appreciates the efforts
of the Applicant, has concerns with the parking. Ms. Golden commented on the reduction from 8 parking spaces to the
Applicant's proposal of just 4 off-street spaces, and stated the on-street spaces mentioned by the Applicant are being used.
She noted the residences that use on-street parking on Third St. and stated it is a faulty assumption that the residences will
leave during the day and leave those spaces vacant for the office/retail use. Ms. Golden suggested the building design was
too large for the lot and stated a more modest size building would be a more appropriate scale for the neighborhood. She
thanked the Applicant for their green design, but requested 2-3 more parking spaces be provided on the site.
Rebuttal bv the Applicant
Christopher Brown/Stated they were aware parking was going to be an issue. He stated the Palace Cafe and Noble Coffee
businesses have created some congestion in the area; however at 10 a.m. this morning not one car was parked on the street.
Mr. Brown voiced his concern with limiting the potential of this site because of the ownership of automobiles and added that
this area is not zoned residential; it is an E-1 district. He commented on the necessity to create a commercially viable building
at this site and stated at some point something is going to get built on this corner. He stated his clients are trying to find a
solution that benefits the neighborhood, and noted the letter of support submitted by the neighboring property owner. Mr.
Brown concluded by stating in addition to the parking spaces they are providing on the site, there is potential for 5-6 cars to be
parked on Third Street, and 3-4 cars on A Street.
Letter of support submitted by Tom Bradley, 266/268 Third Street, was read into the record by staff.
Commissioner Dawkins closed the record and the public hearing at 8 p.m.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to approve PA #2009-00551, with the corrected conditions as noted by staff.
DISCUSSION: Marsh stated she is comfortable with the variance and commented on the need to look at the parking situation
in the Railroad District and the entire City as whole, and not on a case by case basis. Dotterrer concurred with Marsh's
statement and stated he is comfortable with the variance; however, he warned that building a LEED certified structure is not a
criteria for the variance and should not have been referenced in the staff report. Blake commented that anytime you introduce
a new building into a Historic District you face challenges. He noted the proposed building materials and voiced appreciation
for the way the building steps back and keeps with the scale of the historic houses in the neighborhood. Mindlin stated the fact
that A Street is too narrow to award an on-street parking credit is a circumstance beyond the Applicant's control and therefore
qualifies for the variance. She noted the way the parking has been laid out off the alley, which minimizes the pavement
surfacing is also a reason to support the proposal. Dimitre commented if the required parking cannot fit on the site, this tells
him that the building is too big. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Dotterrer, Blake, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin and
Morris, YES. Commissioner Dimitre, NO. Motion passed 7-1.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009-00817
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
DESCRI PTION: 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
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Blake recused himself from the public hearing due to his affiliation with Southern Oregon University. Dawkins indicated his
father was a teacher at the college and he attended SOSC. Mindlin stated she had received a communication from Rivers
Brown through her work with Transition Town, and noted this document has been distributed to the rest of the Commission
and made part of the record. She also indicated that she performed a site visit. Morris stated he lives a few blocks from the
University, was a student at SOSC, and also donates time to ScienceWorks, which is located on University property. Marsh
stated she performed a site visit, was a student at the University, and also lives a few block away. She added that she had
read the recent newspaper articles and had a brief conversation with Matt Marr regarding the placement of the faculty
housing, however no new information was shared in that conversation. Miller stated she has also read the newspaper articles
and frequently walks by the campus. Dimitre stated he had performed a site visit.
Staff Report
Community Development Director Bill Molnar addressed the Commission and provided a brief overview of the land use
process for this type of application and previous SOU Master Plan updates. He explained the University is required to go
through this process every ten years and this plan outlines the direction the University would like to take over the next decade
(2010 through 2020). Mr. Molnar stated the Commission's duty is to ensure that the proposed plan is consistent with the
Ashland Comprehensive Plan from a land use standpoint. He added this is a Type III hearing and the Commission will take
public testimony and forward a recommendation to the City Council, who will ultimately make the final decision.
Mr. Molnar delivered the staff presentation on the SOU Master Plan 2010-2020 Update. The presentation focused primarily on
the proposed University housing outlined in the plan, but also touched on campus parking standards and the need for
Transportation Demand Management strategies. Mr. Molnar displayed several photos of the various areas planned for future
development and presented the following staff recommendations:
1) SOU Facultv Housina at Ashland Street and Mountain Ave.
Staff Recommendations: a) Project be subject to a conditional use permit, b) Adopt additional design standards
addressing building scale, bulk, coverage, articulation, etc., and c) Conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis
prior to final design.
2) SOU Housina on Henrv Street.
Staff Recommendations match those outlined above for Item 1.
3) SOU Facultv Housina on Walker Avenue.
Staff Recommendations: a) Adopt additional design standards addressing building scale, bulk, coverage,
articulation, etc., and b) Conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis prior to final design.
4) SOU Mixed Use Housina on Ashland Street.
Staff Recommendations: a) Project be subject to Detail Site Review and Large Scale Development Standards, b)
Conduct a Transportation Impact Analysis prior to final design, and c) Adopt a Pedestrian Safety Plan and
timeline for implementation.
5) Campus Parkina Standards.
Staff Recommendations: a) Promote the use of alternate modes of transportation, and b) Refine campus parking
requirements.
6) Transportation Demand Manaaement (TOM).
Staff Recommendation: Require TOM strategies and a timeline for implementation.
Applicant's Presentation
Craig Morris, Vice President, SOU Finance and Administration DeptlMr. Morris introduced the University's consultants for
this project Eric Ridenour, SERA Architects and Greg Covey, Covey Pardee Landscape Architects. Mr. Ridenour stated
the University's Master Plan is the long range vision of where they would like to go in the next 10 year period. He explained
projects are generally identified in the Plan, and there will be a level of specific site planning that comes later.
Mr. Ridenour delivered a presentation on the Master Plan Update and outlined the following key elements of the Plan:
1) Renovate and expand the Theatre Arts building;
2) Upgrade the Science building complex;
3) Upgrade the McNeal Pavilion area and build a better visual connection;
4) Expand residential capacity by creating more housing for students and faculty on the north side of campus.
Mr. Ridenour's time expired before he was able to complete his presentation. Before he concluded he clarified the faculty
housing is proposed to be built around the existing park lot, the earlier proposal to move the community garden has been
abandoned, and there will be no attempt to build housing next to Beach Creek.
Public Testimonv
David Schieber/5S6 Glenwood/Stated he lives 100 ft. away from campus property and has a son who attends the University.
Mr. Schieber stated the University's adoption of green building practices is great, but expressed concern with the lack of
neighborhood participation in the development of this plan. He stated the data is mixed as to whether faculty housing would
work and stated any new buildings should fit into the existing neighborhood and not dwarf the surrounding structures.
Marcia McNamara/1007 Ashland/Stated the previous plan called for classroom buildings to be constructed in these areas
and likes the idea of faculty housing instead. Ms. McNamara stated she has a 2-story house and there are others in her
neighborhood as well, and to say any new structures have to be single story does not take into account what is currently there.
She voiced her support for daylighting Beach Creek and stated she has been favorably impressed by what has been
presented tonight.
Mary Margaret Modesitt/540 S. MountainNoiced concern that the only way she was aware of this plan was because a
citizen who opposed it contacted her. Ms. Modesitt recommended the University speak with the community before embarking
on this plan. She commented that there used to be housing along Mountain before the University built a parking lot, and now
they want to turn a parking lot back into housing.
Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview/Noted she was a Planning Commissioner when the previous Master Plan was adopted and
voiced her opposition to the amount of housing in the proposed plan. She stated student and faculty housing should be
integrated into the community and the proposed isolation seems like the wrong approach. She added the mission of the
campus administration should be providing education, not housing.
Carita Culmer/1069 Henry/Stated the thought of looking out her window at a multi-story monstrosity leaves her feeling cold.
Ms. Culmer voiced objection to the idea of faculty housing and stated this would destroy her neighborhood. She stated the
University already has a large number of houses and apartments that they rent out at lower rates, and if faculty cannot afford
to live in Ashland, the University should offer a stipend to compensate for the higher housing costs. Ms. Culmer commented
on the community garden and stated landscaping would only detract from its usefulness as an outdoor laboratory and the
University should leave it be.
Colin Swales/143 Eight/Agreed with the staff recommendation for this property to be brought into the Detail Site Review
Zone. He also stated the proposed conditions regarding the Transportation Demand Management strategies and the Traffic
Impact Analysis are appropriate. Mr. Swales commented on increasing student housing on the north side of campus and how
to handle the pedestrian traffic crossing Siskiyou Blvd. He stated there are creative options available and they have an
opportunity to create a pedestrian friendly node. Mr. Swales stated this plan needs a lot more study and far more public input
from the neighbors and the community as a whole.
Angie Thusius/897 Beach/Stated the Master Plan does have some sustainable approaches, but two of the elements are
inappropriate. Ms. Thusius stated the faculty housing would dwarf private homes, and moving 800 students below Siskiyou
Blvd would require them to cross this dangerous street to get onto campus. She stated the students are much safer in the
area they are in now. She also stated that it appears this plan was done in a hurry and with little input from the community.
Commissioners Dotterrer/Miller m/s to extend meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 7-0.
Art Bullock791 Glendower/Stated this plan is not up to the sustainability standards we need from a 10-year plan. Mr. Bullock
commented on the assumptions made in the plan and stated these may be drastically off a few years from now (including
what type of housing students prefer). He agreed with staff that the transportation plan needs to be completed first since it will
likely take time to make these types of changes. He stated allowing permitted uses in the plan removes the community's
option to check in and recommended all of the plan's components be subject to the City's Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process.
Keith Spear/570 Glenwood/Stated if a 2-story building is built as proposed, their mountain views would disappear. He stated
they paid a premium for their home because of the view and recommended the concept of viewscape be discussed. Mr. Spear
stated he would have liked to have seen some sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood and the University needs to do
more interfacing with the neighbors on a human scale. He noted a letter submitted into the record by Randall Hopkins and
recommended the City not sign away its power in regards to the CUP process.
Jesse Miller/430 Ashland/Stated he has been gardening in the community garden for three years and brought in a sample of
a new variety of garlic he has grown. Mr. Miller stated food security is becoming a bigger concern and community gardens
allow for local control of our food supply. He spoke to the benefits of the community garden and stated this is a place where
agricultural skills are kept alive in our community and the garden also serves as a community meeting place. He noted the
new version of the plan says the garden will be spared, however it is clear that the garden is not a priority. Mr. Miller voiced
concern with surrounding the garden with condos and is wary of the University's offer to enhance the garden. He stated if they
really want to enhance it, they should increase funding for it. He stated the current plan still moves the parking lot closer to the
garden and it is unclear what is going to happen. He stated he is in favor of affordable housing for faculty, but there are other
ways to accomplish this and faculty housing should be located on the north end of campus if it occurs.
Charles Culmer/399 S. Mountain/Felt that the plan has been kept secret and the neighborhood has not been informed of the
University's intentions. Mr. Culmer questioned if housing is built on the parking lot, how are they going to compensate for the
loss of parking. He stated the parking lot is there for a reason and requested they be kept better informed.
Sylvain Brown/1067 Ashland/Stated he is a neighbor and student of SOU and should have been informed of this plan a long
time ago. Mr. Brown commented on why he selected to attend SOU, including its small town feel and expressed concern that
the plan seems to be shifting to the idea that bigger is better. He suggested there are more preferable options that would
bolster the school's image.
Rhianna Simes/433 liberty/Stated she moved to her house because of the community garden and the feel of the
neighborhood. Ms. Simes stated she is pleased to hear the condos will not be placed on the garden, but said there is still an
air of mistrust and concern about what the plan actually entails. She commented on the benefits of the garden and stated the
community and the students should be allowed to provide input on any type of future enhancements.
Abraham Bettinger/367 BridgelStated he lives close to the University and feels he has been kept in the dark about their
plans. Mr. Bettinger stated he would have liked for the University to put more emphasis into educational programs, and while
he agrees that some of the facilities could be improved, thinks building new housing is a waste of energy. He noted he works
at the community garden and the garden could enhance the green image of the University. Mr. Bettinger stated he is
concerned with the plan and feels it needs to be a lot more transparent and made clear to the community.
Alex Goldman/1153 10walAgreed with the testimony previously delivered tonight and asked the Commission to not allow
SOU to pave over the garden.
Commissioners Mindlin/Dotterrer mls to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8-0.
Rivers Brown/1067 AshlandlStated he owns a home right next to the University and requested clarification on what happens
to his home in the plan. Mr. Brown stated he does a lot of interaction with the University, however he only heard about their
intentions by reading an article in the newspaper. He commented on the various houses included in the plan that the
University does not have ownership of, and noted how these homes were included in the plan maps detailing where
development would occur. He commented that 2-3 story buildings would block views for residents and the stated the
neighborhood does not want a faculty village placed here. Mr. Brown stated faculty housing is a flawed concept, but if it is built
it should be placed on the north side of campus and commented on why this is a better location. He stated the University
should work with what they have and try to enhance it instead of wiping everything out and starting fresh. He also commented
on the lack of input that has occurred in the development of this plan.
Dawkins noted that this concludes the public testimony portion and due to the limited amount of time remaining suggested the
Commission continue this item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioners Dimitre/Dotterrer mls to continue the public hearing to the August 11, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Commissioners Pam Marsh and Michael Dawkins were nominated as Planning Commission Chair.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Miller, Mindlin and Morris voted for MARSH.
Commissioners Dimitre and Marsh voted for DAWKINS. Pam Marsh was selected as CHAIR.
Commissioners Dave Dotterrer and Michael Dawkins were nominated as Planning Commission Vice Chair.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Dawkins, Marsh, Dotterrer, Dimitre and Miller voted for DAWKINS.
Commissioners Morris and Blake voted for DOTTERER. Michael Dawkins was selected as VICE CHAIR.
Commissioners Larry Blake and Melanie Mindlin were nominated as Planning Commission Second Vice Chair.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Miller, Marsh, Dimitre, Dawkins and Blake voted for MINDLIN.
Commissioners Morris and Dotterrer voted for BLAKE. Melanie Mindlin was selected as SECOND VICE CHAIR.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11th, 2009
IN THE MA TIER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-00662, A REQUEST FOR
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
FLOOR AREA WITHIN THE ASHLAND RAILROAD ADDITION HISTORIC
DISTRICT AND A MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUS SITE REVIEW APPROVAL
(P A #2005-00968) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 279 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCTED IN 2006, AT
155-157 SIXTH STREET.
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
APPLICANT: Renwick, Allison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #3300 of Map 39 IE 09 AC is located at 155 and 157 Sixth Street and is zoned R-2 Low
Density Multiple Family Residential.
2) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor
Area within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, and a modification of previous Site Review
approval P A #2005-00968, to allow the construction of a 279 square foot addition to the existing
residence, constructed in 2006, at 155-157 Sixth Street. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on
file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104.050 as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law
or program.
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of
the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use
of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the
target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
P A #2009-00662
August 11, 2009
Page 1
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
4) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 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.
e. 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 86, 1999)
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 14, 2009
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development ofthe site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "s"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
P A #2009-00662
August 11, 2009
Page 2
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed
the Maximum Permitted Floor Area within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, and
a modification of previous Site Review approval P A #2005-00968, to allow the construction of a
279 square foot addition to the existing residence, constructed in 2006, at 155-157 Sixth Street
meets all applicable criteria for a Conditional Use Permit described in Chapter 18.104 and for Site
Review approval as described in Chapter 18.72.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the existing unit at 157 Sixth Street received Site
Review approval in 2005 under P A 2005-00968, at which time all applicable Site Review
approval criteria were addressed, and as such consideration of the modification request is limited
to considering the proposed addition as it relates to the R-2 zoning district regulations and the
Site Design and Use Standards, as well as considering the impacts of the proposal relative to the
Conditional Use Permit approval criteria and Historic District Development Standards.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that Ashland's Historic Commission is supportive of the
proposal, and that the existing structure constructed in 2006 by the same applicant and designer
received an award from the Historic Commission for "Historically Compatible New Multi-
Family Construction." The Planning Commission further finds that the details of the proposed
addition, including the siding, windows and doors, paint and trim colors, and copper gutters will
identically match the existing house, and that the new bedlbath suite addition will duplicate the
pitch of the existing wrap-around extension, rising to a complete hip with a small widow's walk
just under the upstairs bathroom windows. The Commission further finds that in terms of
architectural compatibility with the surround neighborhood, this sort of hip roof addition is seen
on the original older home on the property (at 155 Sixth Street) and on nearby houses across the
alleys to the north and west, and that widow's walks can be seen in the Railroad District at
Eighth and B Streets and elsewhere in historic Ashland. The Commission finds that the proposed
addition is consistent with the development pattern found in the immediate neighborhood; that
the bulk and scale of the addition are in proportion to the existing house; and that the addition
itself is thoughtfully designed and placed toward the interior of the lot so as to be visible only
from the short alley to the west, effectively mitigating the modest proposed increase in floor area.
The Commission finds that the proposed addition is well suited to the site and will enhance the
existing structure while having little discernible impact to the surrounding neighborhood.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed addition will be six feet from the side
property line, 20 feet from the rear property line, and thus complies with the applicable setback
requirements. The Commission further finds that because the property is subject to "Class B"
solar access standards, which allow shadowing equivalent to a 16-foot fence on the north
property line, while the proposed single-story addition has only a nine-foot eave height and a
P A #2009-00662
August 11, 2009
Page 3
proposed 5/12 roof-pitch, the proposed addition satisfies the applicable solar setback
requirements. The Commission finds that only 35 percent of the subject property will be covered
with impervious surfaces, which is well below the 65 percent maximum allowed lot coverage for
the district. The Commission further finds that the required ten-foot separation between primary
buildings and accessory structures will be provided with the relocation of two existing garden
sheds.
The Planning Commission finds that there is adequate capacity of public services available to
serve the site and proposed addition. The dwelling was recently constructed, and as such the
addition can easily be tied in to existing electric, water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities on
the subject property and in the adjacent rights-of-way. A new underground electrical connection
to the pole across the alley to the north was made when the dwelling was constructed, and the
proposed addition will be directly adjacent to the electrical panel in the existing dwelling. The
addition is to be tied to the existing dwelling's gas-fired hot water radiant heat, and an electric
point-of-use water heater and in-wall air conditioning unit are to be provided. New water and
sewer lines, and a connection to the existing storm drainage system, will be installed to serve the
new addition, and both units on the subject property will continue to utilize the existing trash and
recycling facilities. Two fire hydrants are located within 150 feet of the property, one at the
corner of Sixth and B Streets and one at 131 Sixth Street; Sixth Street is fully improved along the
subject property's street frontage, with sidewalks and established street trees in place; and both of
the adjacent alleys are paved.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area within the
Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District, and a modification of previous Site Review approval P A
#2005-00968, to allow the construction of a 279 square foot addition to the existing residence at 155-157
Sixth Street is supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2009-00662. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2009-00662 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2) That all conditions of the previous approvals (P A #2005-00452 and P A #2005-00968) shall
remain in effect unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
the current Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approvals shall be submitted and approved
P A #2009-00662
August 11, 2009
Page 4
prior to issuance of a building permit.
4) That all conditions of the Historic Commission as detailed in their recommendations of July 8th,
2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and with final approval ofthe Staff Advisor.
5) That all conditions of the Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of July 9th,
2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor.
6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) 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 installation of tree protection fencing for the
dogwood tree to be retained near the proposed addition. The tree protection shall be
chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with AMC 18.61.200.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.
7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or approval of the final structural
inspection:
a) The two small garden sheds proposed to be moved shall be relocated, and their relocation
site verified by the Staff Advisor.
b) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties. Light placement, fixture specifications, and any necessary shrouding
shall be identified in the building permit submittals.
Planning Commission Approval
Date
P A #2009-00662
August 11, 2009
Page 5
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11th, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-00551, 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
OR GREATER.
APPLICANT: Brown, Christopher
RECITALS:
)
)
)
) FINDINGS,
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND ORDERS
)
)
)
1) Tax lot #10100 of Map 39 IE 09 AB is located at 426 A Street and is zoned E-l Employment.
2) The applicants are requesting Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story
mixed use building for the property located at 426 A Street. The application also includes 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. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 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.
e. 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 86, 1999)
4) The criteria for a Mixed-Use Parking Credit are described in Chapter 18.92.060.C as follows:
e. Mixed Uses. In the event that several users occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the
total requirements for off-street automobile parking shall be the sum of the requirements for
the several uses computed separately unless it can be shown that the peak parking demands
are offtet. In such case the Staff Advisor may reduce the total requirements accordingly, but
not by more than 35%.
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 1
5) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 as follows:
A. That there are unique or unusual circuW':Jristances 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.~;1, 1987)
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
(Ord. 2775, 1996)
6) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standardls 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 superio'Jif' 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.
7) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 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 hazcftrd and warrants removal.
1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physical.f.y 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 facilitie:.... or services cannot be relocated or the damage
alleviated. The applicant must demonsstrate that the condition or location of the tree
presents a clear public safety hazard o.r 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 l1'r$itigation 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
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 2
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, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 2883, Added, 06/04/2002)
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on July 14, 2009
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 3
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Review approval to construct a
3,992 square foot two-story mixed use building, 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 meets all applicable
criteria for Site Review approval as described in Chapter 18.72, for a Mixed Use Parking Credit as
described in Chapter 18.92, for a Variance as described in Chapter 18.100, for an Exception to
Street Standards as described in Chapter 18.88, and for a Tree Removal Permit as described in
Chapter 18.61.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance
requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan
provided delineates the proposed building location, design and associated site improvements.
The Commission finds that the proposed building will house a mix of uses (retail, office and
residential) consistent with those allowed within the district, and will have an average height of
22-feet 8-inches, well below the maximum allowed height within the district. The Commission
further finds that 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). The Commission finds that the
application results in 21 percent of the site, or 1,111 square feet, being landscaped, and that in
addition, while it cannot be considered to be landscaped area, two-thirds of the overall roof area
will 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. An 80 square
foot landscape buffer strip immediately adjacent to the 1,105 square foot parking area will
provide more than the seven percent of parking lot landscaping required, and the proposed
landscaping addresses the Site Design and Use Standards handbook's "Water Conserving
Landscaping Guidelines and Policies" while also seeking to meet LEED standards which call for
reducing potable water use for irrigation by 50 percent based on a baseline mid-summer water
usage. A trash and recycling area at the southeast corner of the property is to be screened
according to standards with a five-foot sliding wood and metal gate, and wall-mounted lights
providing exterior site lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties.
The Planning Commission finds that the existing home on the property is designated as the "John
Pelton Rental House" in the Ashland Railroad Historic District inventory document, and is found
to be a "Historic, Non-Contributing" resource within the Railroad District. Major alterations to
the house appear to have occurred since its construction, most notably the removal of a front bay
window and various other changes in window type, siding, and other aspects that dramatically
diminish the integrity of the Pelton Rental House and prevent it from accurately reflecting its
historic period of development. The Commission further finds that no information presented
during the public hearing established that the home had a greater historic significance than
indicated in the historic inventory documents.
The Planning Commission finds that the Basic Site Review, Detail Site Review and Historic
District Design Standards have been satisfactorily addressed by the proposal. The proposed
building is oriented to the higher order A Street, with secondary entrances and a plaza space that
P A #2009-005~ 1
August 11,2009
Page 4
establish a strong relationship to the corner of Third and A Streets. Vehicular parking is located
to the rear of the building, to be accessed from the alley, and entrances are provided to the
building interior directly from the street as well as from the parking area. The proposed
building's massing and materials provide emphasis to the building entries, and as part of the
applicant's efforts to preserve two large Cedar trees, the hardscape plaza space proposed for the
comer will be surfaced in permeable pavers. This space includes seating areas and sheltered
entries, and serves to create a public space which accentuates the relationship to the corner. A
continuous awning is proposed to provide shelter for pedestrians outside the building and at all
entrances. While the building frontage is less than 100 feet in length, the stepped fayade
maintains a comfortable pedestrian scale appropriate to the pattern of development in the
Railroad Addition Historic District. 26 percent of the A Street building frontage and 31 percent
of the Third Street building frontage are provided in windows and doorways; 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 a new street light is to be provided at the corner of Third and A
Streets.
New parkrow planting strips and sidewalks are to be provided 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. Additional street trees will be planted in the Third Street parkrow to meet the
spacing requirements of the street tree standards.
The proposed design references the character and architectural history of the surrounding
Railroad Addition Historic District, and Ashland's Historic Commission was supportive of the
design as presented.
The Planning Commission finds 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. Existing water,
sewer, storm sewer, electrical services and paved access are in place and serve the existing
residence on the site, and have been identified in a site survey provided with the application. A
new electric transformer, sized in consultation with the Electric Department, will be installed by
the applicants to serve the proposed building, and a supporting electrical distribution plan and
load calculations have been provided. A new parkrow planting strip and sidewalk are proposed
along Third Street; curb, sidewalk and corner repairs are proposed along A Street to supplement
the existing sidewalk; and vehicular access is to be provided from Third Street to the parking at
the rear of the site via the existing paved alley.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that 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 Commission further finds that four off-
street parking spaces are proposed to be provided at the rear of the subject property to be
PA #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 5
accessed from the alley, including the one required disabled person parking space. The
Commission also finds that one on-street parking credit is available for 48-feet of uninterrupted
curb frontage along Third Street, bringing the total parking to be provided with the proposal to
five spaces.
The Planning Commission finds that a 25 percent mixed-use parking credit as provided for in
AMC 18.92.060.C, which reduces the overall parking required by two spaces, is merited because
the peak parking demand of the commercial uses on the ground floor and the second floor
residential uses would be offset, with second floor residents typically away for work during
business hours and the business closed in the evening when these residents return. The
Commission finds that with this mixed-use parking credit, the overall off street parking required
of the project can be reduced from eight off-street parking spaces to six spaces. The Commission
further finds that with only five spaces proposed to be provided through off-street parking and
on-street parking credits, a one-space or 12Y2 percent Variance to the off street parking
requirement is required.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that there are unique or unusual circumstances which
necessitate a Variance to the parking requirement, that the benefits of the proposal will outweigh
any negative impacts of the proposed Variance, and that the need for a Variance is not willfully
or purposely self-imposed. The Commission finds that there are two large Cedar trees located
near the corner of Third and A Streets. The Commission further finds that these trees are an
integral element of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, and that the applicant's efforts to
preserve these trees have been a driving force in arriving at the current proposal, including the
placement and design of the building, plaza space, and parking area.
The Commission finds that the 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
Third Street streets cape, and the immediate neighborhood to remain intact by not necessitating
the installation of a driveway access along the project's Third Street frontage, in keeping with
City Street Standards which prohibit driveway curb cuts for lots where alley access is available.
The Commission further finds that the proposed design aids in the preservation of the two Cedar
trees while resulting in the creation of a public plaza space as a pedestrian amenity at the corner.
The Commission further finds that the sustainability measures proposed including storm water
management practices, green roof technology, low-intensity water conservation measures,
sustainable landscaping, and renewable energy measures further the purpose and intent of
Element XI of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with "Energy, Air and Water Conservation"
which calls for increased resource efficiency in new residential and commercial buildings. In
addition, the proposal 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 is directly in keeping with Element XI of the Comprehensive Plan policies which
emphasize education as a cornerstone of the efforts to conserve resources.
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 6
The Commission also finds that the subject property's A Street frontage has an additional 48 feet
of curb frontage to accommodate on-street parking. This frontage is unavailable for
consideration as an additional on-street parking credit, which would eliminate the need for the
requested one-space parking Variance, because A Street is not improved to the full width
required of a two-lane avenue. A Street is currently paved to a width of 31 feet, where a 32-foot
width is required to allow on-street parking credits on a two-lane avenue as noted in AMC
18.92.025.E. The Commission finds that 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 of the street and thus alleviates the impacts of the substandard
width to on-street parking. The Commission therefore finds that despite the A Street width in
this vicinity, with the presence of a driveway directly opposite the property the frontage functions
as it would for an on-street credit, and thus serves to absorb a significant portion of any negative
impacts associated with the Variance.
The Commission finds that the two large Cedar trees which the applicant are attempting to
preserve with the requested Variance are not a willfully or purposely self-imposed condition, as
both trees pre-date the current owners' 2008 acquisition of the property. The Commission
further finds that the Variance is necessitated by the applicant's attempts to preserve these trees,
as encouraged in the Site Review Chapter, while complying with other applicable standards,
including those which dictate the placement and orientation of the building and the relative
placement of the required parking.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that preserving the existing large Cedar tree (Tree #7)
creates a demonstrable difficulty in providing standard-width sidewalks and parkrow planting
strips along Third Street, and that meandering the sidewalk and increasing the park row width to
II-feet 2-inches 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. The
Commission further finds that once beyond the tree protection zone, the sidewalk and park row
will return to the installation pattern required by the Street Standards Handbook, and transition to
connect to the sidewalk and parkrow already in place to the south along Third Street. The
Commission finds that this installation will result in equal transportation facilities and
connectivity while remaining directly in keeping with the stated purpose and intent of the
Performance Standards Options Chapter.
The Planning Commission similarly finds that the other existing large Cedar tree (#5) represents
a demonstrable difficulty to providing new sidewalks and parkrow planting strips along A Street.
The Commission finds that retaining the existing seven-and-a-half foot curbside sidewalk along
A Street, which lacks a parkrow planting strip in this vicinity, will reduce the necessary
disturbance within the tree protection zone of the large Cedar (Tree #5) while maintaining the
established sidewalk pattern within the A Street pedestrian corridor.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that a total of seven trees which are six-inches in
diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater have been identified on or near the project site.
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 7
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 two large Incense
Cedars near the northwest corner of the site, identified as Trees #5 and #7, have been identified
as integral to the fabric of the site and the larger A Street corridor; these two trees are proposed
for preservation, with 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, to be removed. .
The Planning Commission finds that a third 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. The Commission further finds that the remaining tree
removals are necessary to accommodate development of the property in keeping with the
applicable zoning regulations and site design standards; 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 Planning Commission further finds that the additional recommendations of the project
arborist specific to the two large cedars (#5 and #7) to be retained shall be conditions of approval
in order to ensure their on-going viability during development of the site. These
recommendations 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.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Site Review approval to construct a 3,992 square foot two-story mixed use building, 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 is supported by evidence contained within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2009-00551. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2009-00551 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein,
including that the building shall meet the criteria for a LEED "Certified" building prior to the
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy.
PA #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 8
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
if located 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 of the 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 of the 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. 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-
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 9
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 of the 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 85 percent as required in AMC 18.72.110.A. and the required 15
percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping shall also be provided.
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 stormwater 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 of the 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.
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 10
14) 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 18.61.200.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.
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.
15) 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
P A #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 11
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 of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees
shall be irrigated.
c) 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 of a 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 18.72.115.B.
d) The damaged curbs shall be repaired, the curb cut along Third Street shall be removed
and replaced with curbing, and damaged sidewalk sections replaced on A Street. All new
sidewalk and 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.
e) 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.
f) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties.
g) That the building shall meet the criteria for a LEED "Certified" building 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 Commission Approval
Date
PA #2009-00551
August 11, 2009
Page 12
TYPE III
PUBLIC HEARINGS
~
.
SOUTHERN
OREGON
UNIVERSITY
City of Ashland
Community
July 20, 2009
Bill Molnar, Director
Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Bill:
Southern Oregon University would like to request that its Campus Master Plan Update be
removed from the agenda of the August Planning Commission meeting. The University would
like to schedule a meeting with campus neighbors and the sUlTounding community in the month
of October to permit greater citizen involvement in the master planning process. The University
feels that this effort at outreach to the neighborhood will ease many of the concerns that were
raised at the recent public hearing.
Larry Blake will contact you when the University is ready to continue the review process of the
Campus Master Plan.
Sincerely yours,
Craig Man-is
Vice President for Finance and Administration
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, Oregon 97520-5033
Tel 541-552-6319
Fax 541-552-6337
.
~
Ii
RECEIVED
o 3 2009
~'.MMr~ tt/~
SOUTHERN
OREGON
UNIVERSITY
July 24, 2009
Dear Community Member:
Recently, Southern Oregon University presented a draft of its Campus Master Plan
update to the Ashland Planning Commission. At the meeting, some community
members expressed concerns about the draft document and asked to participate more
fully in the planning process.
As a result, the University has asked the Planning Commission to delay consideration of
the draft until the University has engaged broad segments ofthe neighboring community
in a deep discussion of issues that shape the draft plan.
Please take a moment to review the latest draft ofthe plan at www.sou.edu/master-plan.
You can post your comments online or plan to join us in October for an open house and
conversation about the Campus Master Plan. Within the next month, we will send you
an invitation to this event. Please let us know of others in the community who should be
invited to participate in our October conversation.
Southern Oregon University is committed to being a good neighbor. We look forward to
engaging community mel11bers, and we appreciate your participation as we plan a more
sustainable university campus.
Sincerely,
e_< -""...<,,.-1,
/ .~ .
L C-.e;t_.t-.Le<'''7
Craig MorriS
Vice President for Finance and Administration
Vice President for Finance and Administration
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, Oregon 97520-5033
Tel 541-552-6319
Fax 541-552-6337
TYPE II
PUBLIC HEARINGS
r~'
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Planning Department, 51 Wim Nay, Ashland, Oregon 97520
541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.asl1land.or.us T1Y: 1-800-735-2900
PLANNING ACTION: 2009-00873
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1860 Ashland Street
OWNER! APPLICANT: PSE Architects
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 10,076 square foot two-story fire station
building to replace the existing Fire Station #2 located at 1860 Ashland Street. Also included are requests
for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing non-conforming use, a Variance to the front yard
setback along Ashland Street, an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove one
tree, a 12-inch diameter blue spruce. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-
Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 15 AA; TAX LOT: 6200
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on August 6, 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: 11;
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the fOllowing request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before
the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street.
Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objt!Ction concerning this
ftpplication, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the d<<tCision maker an opporwnityto respond to the
issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (WBA) on that issue. Failure to specify Which ordinance criterion the
obj~onis based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues
relatin{Jto pro.posed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Cornrnission to respond to theissue.precludesan aCtion tor
dltrnagesin circuit court.
A copy oHM application, all docurnents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspectiM at .no cost and
win be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be availableforinspt!Ction seven days prior to. the hearing and will
beprovidedatreaso~able cost, if requested. All rnaterials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, ComrnunityDevelopment and
Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the PUblic Hearing, the. Chair shall allow testirnony frorn the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. .TheChair shallhaYe
the right to Iirnit the length of testirnony and require that cornrnents be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there isa continuance, if a
participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the recordshallrernain open for at least $even days after the hearing.
Incortlpliattcewtth the Arnerican with Disabilities Act,. if you need special. assistance.to participate in this. meeting, please contat:tthe City
Atirnini$trator'sofficeat541.0488-6002 (rrYphone nurnber .1..fJOO-735.2eoo). Notification 72 h()ur$prior to the rneetingwill enable the City t() m.ke
reason.ble .rrangernents to ensure acce$sibility to the rneeting. (28 CFR 35.102..35.104 A.DA Trtle I).
If YOl! have question$ or cornments concerning this request. pleasefeelfrfttocontact the AshlMd Planning Divi$iont, 541"-5305.
u:\cornm-oev p13nmng\Notlces Mal
-UU~73.doc
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)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
18.104.050 Approval Criteria
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of
conditions, with the following approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with
relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject
lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area
shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless
of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
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)
G:lcomm-devlplanninglNotices MailedI2009\2009-00873.doc
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)
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)
G: \comm-dev\planning\Notices MailedI2009\2009-00873 .doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
August 11 , 2009
PLANNING ACTION:
2009-00873
APPLICANT:
PSE Architects, agent for
The City of Ashland
LOCATION:
1860 Ashland Street
39 IE 15 AA Tax Lot #6200
ZONE DESIGNATION:
R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Low Density Multi-Family Residential
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE:
August 3,2009
120-DAY TIME LIMIT:
December 1, 2009
ORDINANCE REFERENCE:
18.24
R-2 Low Density Multiple-Family
Residential District
Tree Preservation and Protection
Site Design Review
Exception to Street Standards
Off-Street Parking
Variance
Conditional Use Permits
18.61
18.72
18.88.050.F
18.92
18.1 00
18.104
REQUEST: Planning Action #2009-00873 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a
10,076 square foot two-story fire station building to replace the existing Fire Station #2 located at
1860 Ashland Street. Also included are requests for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing
non-conforming use, a Variance to the front yard setback requirements along Ashland Street, an
Exception to Street Standards, and a the removal of one 12-inch diameter blue spruce tree.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background - History of Application
There are no planning actions of record for this site. The property was acquired by the City,
and the Fire Station constructed by volunteers in 1965, prior to the adoption of current land
use regulations.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 1 of 22
B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site
The subject property is located at 1860 Ashland Street, at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Ashland Street and Sherwood A venue. The project site consists of a single
rectangular tax lot with an area of approximately 1.05 acres, approximately 100 feet of
frontage along Ashland Street, and approximately 390 feet of frontage on Sherwood A venue.
The subject property is city-owned, and currently houses Ashland's Fire Station #2 on the
northern third of the propeliy, with the remaining southern portion of the site containing
Sherwood Park, a small neighborhood park with picnic areas and a playground. City-owned
cemetery land is located immediately to the west of the site, across Sherwood A venue, and to
the north across Ashland Street.
The subject property is generally flat, with an approximate four percent downslope to the
north. The primary natural features of the site are its existing trees; a tree inventory prepared
by local arborist Laurie Sager has been provided with the application, and it identifies a total
often trees on or near the subject property six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or
greater. These include oak, pine, spruce, maple, juniper on the subject property, as well as
three plum trees on the neighboring property to the east. The application proposes to retain
and protect all but one tree; a l2-inch d.b.h. Blue Spmce located near the corner of Ashland
Street and Sherwood Avenue is proposed to be removed to allow for sidewalk installation
and provide vision clearance for exiting emergency vehicles.
The existing street improvements on Ashland Street, a state highway under city jurisdiction
and classified in Ashland's Transportation System Plan as a boulevard or arterial, include
pavement, curbs, and gutters, with four-and-a-half-foot wide curbside sidewalks in place
along the subject property's full frontage. Along Sherwood A venue, a neighborhood street,
pavement with curbs and gutters are in place, and there are four- foot wide curbside sidewalks
along the southerly 250 feet of street frontage. Vehicular access to the existing Fire Station
#2 is via a curb cut to two vehicle bays which enter and exit from Ashland Street. There are
two additional curb cuts located along Sherwood Avenue (one at approximately 25 feet south
of the Ashland Street intersection and another approximately 70 feet south of the
intersection) serving driveways and unmarked parking areas that provide staff, visitor and
additional emergency response vehicle parking and circulation. There are temporary carport
structures outside of the existing building to provide covered parking for emergency vehicles,
and some outdoor training facilities are in place near the parking area as well. On-street
parking is currently available on both sides of Sherwood Avenue.
The subject parcel and surrounding properties immediately to the north, south, east and west
are zoned Low Density Multi-Family Residential (R-2). Further to the east, beginning at
Park Street, properties along both sides of Ashland Street are zoned Employment (E-1).
Further west, beginning at Normal A venue, properties along both sides of Ashland Street are
zoned Commercial (C-l). With the exception of this relatively small section ofR-2 zoned
property, the remainder of the Ashland Boulevard corridor to the east and west is located
within the Detail Site Review Zone. (See Staff Exhibit S-l).
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 2 of 22
Site Review Proposal
With the CUlTent application, demolition of the existing approximately 2,886 square foot Fire
Station #2 building is proposed. It is to be replaced by a new building with an approximately
6,950 square foot footprint and overall building area of 10,076 square feet. The proposed
building would be two-stories, surfaced in brick veneer and integral color ground faced CMU
veneer. Vehicular access would be shifted from Ashland Street to the lesser-order Sherwood
A venue, and two of the three existing curb cuts removed. A single driveway on Sherwood
would serve three vehicle storage bays, and parking is proposed to be addressed through on-
street parking credits along Sherwood A venue, with a mix of head-in spaces and parallel
spaces. Sidewalks are to be widened and a parkrow planting strip installed along Ashland
Street, and a plaza space created near the comer with space to accommodate the potential
future installation of a public art piece. Curbside sidewalks are proposed to be extended
along the northern pOliion of the Sherwood frontage both to preserve existing trees and to
continue the established pattern on this block. While the proposal calls for an increase in
size for Fire Station #2, the Fire Station use is proposed to remain confined to the northerly
portion of the site and the park area is not to be impacted with the exception of sidewalk
installation along a portion of the park's Sherwood Avenue frontage.
Conditional Use Permit
Within the Low-Density Multiple Family Residential (R-2) zoning district, public buildings
are neither a permitted nor a conditional use. The existing Fire Station has been in
continuous use on this site since approximately 1965, and as such it pre-dates Ashland's
CUlTent land use regulations and is considered to be a pre-existing legal non-conforming use.
The R-2 Low Density Multiple Family Residential District regulations in Chapter 18.24
provide for changes to non-conforming uses through the Conditional Use Permit process, and
refer to the additional requirements in AMC 18.68.090.
Non-conforming uses are addressed in the Land Use Ordinance in AMC 18.68.090.A. where
it is noted that "a non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered except as follows:"
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of
the same or a more restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use
Permit need not be obtained when the use is changed to a permitted
use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), nonconforming structure may be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or the footprint modified, except that a
Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the addition or
extension meets all requirements of this Title.
In this instance, the existing structure is conforming in that it meets the setback, height, lot
coverage, and other requirements of the zoning district, and it is the use which is the non-
conforming element. The proposal involves enlarging the existing building, which cUlTentIy
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 3 of 22
has a footprint of approximately 2,886 square feet, to encompass a footprint of approximately
6,950 square feet and a total building area of 10,076 square feet. As such, because the
building housing the non-conforming use is being enlarged a Conditional Use Permit is
necessary.
Variance Proposal
Within the R-2 zoning district, standard setbacks requirements call for side yards to be a
minimum of six feet, except that side yards on a comer lot abutting a public street are to have
a ten-foot setback. Rear yards are required to be a minimum often feet plus ten feet for each
story in excess of one story. Along Ashland Street, front yard requirements are based on
special baseline setbacks detailed in AMC 18.68.050 rather than on the standard front yard
requirements. These special setbacks require that a 65-foot setback be provided from the
centerline of the Ashland Street right-of-way and that a front yard of no less than 20 feet be
provided. In addition, setbacks must comply with the solar access requirements of Chapter
18.70. The Ashland Street right-of-way along the subject property's frontage is 80-feet in
width.
The new building proposed complies with both the side and rear setback requirements,
however when the special 65-foot baseline setback is applied, buildings on the subject
property must be set back at least 25 feet from the front property line along Ashland Street.
The new building is proposed to be placed at 15-feet eight-inches from the front property
line, and a proposed trellis pedestrian accent is to be placed to within five-feet eight-inches of
the front property line along approximately fifty feet of the building frontage. The placement
of these elements within the special baseline setback area requires a Variance.
Exception to Street Standards
Street standards for Sherwood A venue, a residential neighborhood street, call for the
installation of a parkrow planting ship between the curb and sidewalk. The existing
sidewalk configuration in this vicinity is curbside, and while some modifications to the
sidewalk on the northern half of the property's frontage are proposed to accommodate the
installation of head-in parking spaces and driveway improvements, the proposal would retain
curbside sidewalks, with no parkrow planting strip along the full Sherwood frontage of the
site. Three landscape bays are proposed to be installed within the Sherwood right-of-way to
delineate parking and driveway areas, and these bays would accommodate three additional
street trees. There are also five existing, established trees along the street frontage in
Sherwood Park. These trees are relatively evenly spaced, and modifications to the existing
sidewalk pattern would likely necessitate their removal. As such, an Exception to Street
Standards is required.
Tree Removal Request
An existing 12-inch diameter Blue Spruce tree is located along Sherwood A venue,
approximately 60 feet south ofthe Ashland Street intersection and five feet from the subject
property's western boundary. The application proposes to remove this tree to accommodate
sidewalk installation and to provide for necessary vision clearance for emergency vehicles
exiting the site's driveway.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 4 of 22
II. Project Impact
The project requires Site Design Review approval since it involves the construction of a new
structure other than a single- family home on an individual, residentially-zoned lot. Both the
size of the structure and the requested Variance to the required setbacks along Ashland Street
trigger that the application be reviewed through a public hearing (i.e. a Type II action).
A. Site Design Review
With the current application, the applicants propose to demolish the existing approximately
2,886 square foot Fire Station #2 building and replace it with a new building. This new Fire
Station would have an approximately 6,950 square foot footprint and overall building area of
lO,076 square feet. The proposed building would be two-st0l1es, surfaced in brick veneer
and integral color ground faced CMU veneer.
Vehicular access to the site would be shifted from Ashland Street, where fire vehicles must
now at times stop traffic to back into the apparatus bays, to the lesser-order Sherwood
A venue. Two of the three existing curb cuts are to be removed, and a single driveway on
Sherwood would remain to serve three vehicle storage bays. Parking is proposed to be
addressed through on-street parking credits along Sherwood A venue, with a mix of head-in
spaces and parallel spaces.
Sidewalks are to be widened and a parkrow planting strip installed along Ashland Street, and
a plaza space created near the comer with space to accommodate the potential future
installation of a public art piece. Curbside sidewalks are proposed to be extended along the
northern portion of the Sherwood frontage both to preserve existing trees and to continue the
established pattern on this block. While the proposal calls for an increase in size for the Fire
Station #2 building, the Fire Station use itself is proposed to remain confined to the northerly
portion of the site and the Sherwood Park neighborhood park is not to be impacted with the
exception of some sidewalk installation along a portion of the park's Sherwood Avenue
frontage.
Basic Site Review
The first criterion for Site Review approval is that, "All applicable City ordinances have
been met or will be met by the proposed development." While the Low-Density Multiple
Family Residential (R-2) zoning district is "intended for residential uses and appurtenant
community services", public buildings are listed neither as a permitted nor a conditional use.
The existing Fire Station has been in continuous use on this site since approximately 1965,
and as such it pre-dates Ashland's current land use regulations and is considered to be a pre-
existing legal non-confOlming use. The R-2 Low Density Multiple Family Residential
District regulations in Chapter 18.24 provide for changes to non-conforming uses through the
Conditional Use Permit process, and refer to additional requirements for non-conforming
uses and structures listed in AMC 18.68.090. The proposal as it relates to the Conditional
Use Permit approval criteria and additional requirements for non-conforming uses is
addressed in the Conditional Use Permit discussion beginning on page 11 below.
Minimum lot size within the R-2 district is 5,000 square feet, and R-2 zoned properties are
subject to standard setbacks requirements which call for side yards to be a minimum of six
feet, except that side yards on a comer lot abutting a public street are to have a ten-foot
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 5 of 22
setback. Rear yards are required to be a minimum of ten feet plus ten feet for each story in
excess of one story. Along Ashland Street, front yard requirements are based on special
baseline setbacks detailed in AMC 18.68.050 rather than on the standard front yard
requirements. These special setbacks require both that a 65-foot setback be provided from
the centerline ofthe Ashland Street right-of-way, and that a front yard of no less than 20 feet
be provided. In addition, setbacks must comply with the solar access requirements of
Chapter 18.70. Base density for the district is calculated at 13.5 dwelling units per acre, and
minimum density requirements are in place to require that properties generally develop to at
least 80 percent of their calculated base density. Building heights are limited to 35 feet.
The subject property exceeds the minimum lot size for the district. In terms of setback
requirements, the new building proposed complies with both the side and rear setback
requirements, however when the special 65-foot baseline setback is applied to Ashland
Street's 80-foot light of way, buildings on the subject propeliy must be set back at least 25
feet from the front property line along Ashland Street. The new building is proposed to be
placed at 15-feet eight-inches from the front property line, and a proposed trellis pedestrian
feature adjacent to the pedestrian corridor is to be placed to within approximately six-feet of
the front property line along approximately fifty feet of the building frontage. The placement
of these elements within the special baseline setback area requires a Variance, and is
addressed in the Variance discussion beginning on page 13 below.
As a residentially-zoned property, the site is subject to solar access standard "A" which limits
the shadow which can be cast onto neighboring propeliies to no more than would be cast by a
six-foot high fence constructed on the subject property's north property line. Solar
calculations demonstrating compliance with the standard have been included in the
application.
At 13.5 dwelling units per acre, the base density for this 1.05 acre site is 14.175 dwelling
units, and the minimum density is 11 units. AMC 18.24.040.A.2 provides that lots with
proposed conditional uses may be exempted from the minimum density requirements for that
portion ofthe property subject to the conditional use, and the remainder ofthe lot would be
unchanged in terms of its potential to provide the minimum density. The building has a
proposed height of29 feet, well below the 35-foot maximum height allowed.
The application includes conceptual details of a monument sign which would be incorporated
into the concrete seating wall in front of the building, echoing the signage in place at the
commercially-zoned Fire Station #1. Because the subject property here is residential, signage
is permitted only in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit. These signs are generally
limited to one ground sign not exceeding five feet in height or a sign area of 15 square feet,
or a wall sign in lieu of the ground sign. The ordinance also includes provisions that
governmental agencies may obtain approval for signage which exceeds these limits through a
Conditional Use Permit, where necessary to further the agency's public purpose. As such, an
a condition has been recommended below to require that the sign either be modified to
comply with the signage regulations for residential districts or a Conditional Use Permit for a
government sign obtained, and that a sign permit be obtained plior to installation of the
proposed sign.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 6 of 22
Neither the Ashland Municipal Code's Off-Street Parking Chapter (18.92) nor the Institute of
Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation manual identify a specific parking requirement
associated with fire stations. With regard to "unspecified uses", AMC 18.92 provides that
where automobile parking requirements for any use are not specifically defined, such
requirements are to be determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use
specified in this section and other available data. The applicants, who previously designed
Ashland's Fire Station #1 and have extensive experience in the public sector designing over
55 fire stations, five training towers, and emergency headquatiers and dispatch centers
throughout Oregon and Washington, note that by comparison, Fire Station #1 is 15,000
square feet and provided 16 parking spaces. They suggest that Ashland "Industrial Use"
parking requirements, which call for "one space per two employees on the largest shift", are
the most comparable option, but add that they recommend providing one space per two
employees at shift change. They note that this would require twelve parking spaces, and they
have proposed to provide 12 head-in and 5 parallel on-street spaces along Sherwood Avenue,
including one handicapped accessible space, to accommodate the parking requirements of the
station, in addition to the three proposed emergency vehicle bays which are to accommodate
up to six emergency vehicles. Given that these spaces address the off-street parking required
entirely through on-street credits, which require that the first four credits be granted at one
credit per two spaces provided and the remainder counted on a one for one basis, these 17
spaces equate to 13 off-street spaces and thus just exceed the 12 space requirement suggested
by the applicants. In staff's view, the parking requirement proposed by the applicants seems
to be applicable to the use and surroundings. In other instances, staff might consider
providing parking to address the full potential parking demand overlap at shift change to be
unnecessary, however in this instance because the spaces are to be provided on-street and any
excess parking available will also serve users of Sherwood Park, staff believes that the
parking to be provided is at the appropriate level.
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 R-2 zoning
district must provide at least 35 percent of the subject property in landscaped area. As
proposed, the application retains approximately 69 percent of the subject property in
landscaped area, in large part due to the presence of Sherwood Park on the site. No off-street
parking is proposed, and as such, the requirements for parking lot landscaping do not come
into play, however the application includes three landscape bays with trees in the Sherwood
A venue right-of-way to buffer the on-street parking and provide shade.
The site plan provided identifies a covered trash and recycling area at the southeast comer of
the building, and notes that this area will be screened according to standards with a six-foot
high solid masonry enclosure. The application notes that site lighting luminaires will be
pedestrian scaled and will comply with LEED "dark sky" requirements as well. A condition
of approval is recommended below to require that all lighting fixtures be identified in the
building pelmit submittals, and that details of any necessary shrouding and screening be
provided as well, to insure that prohibitions on direct illumination of adjacent propeliies are
to be observed.
Access to the emergency vehicle bays is to be shifted from Ashland Street, where vehicles
must at times now stop traffic on Ashland Street to back into the existing bays, to the lesser
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 7 of 22
order Sherwood Avenue. Two existing curb cuts are to be removed with this shifting of the
access, and the proposed new driveway on Sherwood satisfies the controlled access
requirement that driveways on a residential street be located at least 35 feet from the nearest
intersection.
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." While the application is subject to Site Design Review because it involves the
construction of a new structure other than a single-family home on an individual,
residentially-zoned lot, Ashland does not have specific Site Design Standards for public
buildings in residential zones. These applications have historically been held to the Basic
Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, as was recently the case with the
school projects which are now under construction. It should be noted that while the subject
property is residentially zoned, it is located on the Ashland Boulevard Corridor and is within
the only area on Ashland Street not located in the Detail Site Review Zone.
Basic Site Review Standards
The proposed design provides a primary entrance to the building from the higher order
Ashland Street sidewalk, and also creates a plaza space that draws the orientation to the
comer. The existing four-and-a-half foot curbside sidewalks are to be replaces with a full
residential-style parkrow planting strip to accommodate larger stature street trees, and the
sidewalk widened to arterial standards. Landscaping is to be provided in the parkrow
planting strip, in bays along Sherwood Avenue, and on the east side of the building to
provide a buffer to adjacent uses, as well as through Sherwood Park, which shares the site.
Only a single tree, a 12-inch d.b.h. Blue Spruce is to be removed, with the remainder ofthe
site trees to be preserved and protected. While parking is to be provided through on-street
credits, landscaped bays with trees are proposed within the street to buffer and shade these
parking spaces.
Detail Site Review Standards
The subject property is not located within one of Ashland Street's Detail Site Review Zones,
However, in staffs view, the site is prominently located on Ashland Street and as such while
it is not subject to the Detail Site Review standards it was important as a civic project that the
building's design respond to the level of urban design expected along Ashland Street
streetscape.
The "people areas" called for in the Detail Site Review streetscape standards have been
defined with hardscape and a plaza area created, and the building is entirely within 20 feet of
the sidewalk to provide a strong relationship to the pedestrian streetscape. Landscaping is
proposed to be provided on the east side of the building to buffer the adjacent use and
enhance the small covered patio proposed there. The building design includes changes in
relief, materials, and fenestration, and a covered canopy is provided to both emphasize the
entry and provide pedestrian protection from sun and rain. The building mass is divided into
heights and sizes which relate to the human, pedestrian scale as it presents both to Ashland
Street and Sherwood A venue, and this is emphasized through the use of materials and
fenestration. And finally, public plaza space is included along the street frontage,
incorporating both bench seating and a low seating wall, street trees, and public art. On the
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 8 of 22
whole, the building seems in keeping with the level of urban design envisioned for the
redevelopment of the Ashland Boulevard COlTidor in the Site Design and Use Standards, and
consistent with the level of civic architecture encountered elsewhere in Ashland, most
notably Fire Station # 1 and the Community Development and Engineering Services Building.
Ashland Boulevard Corridor Standards
The subject property is located along the Ashland Boulevard COlTidor. Section V of the Site
Design and Use Standards Handbook discusses development along this corridor as follows:
.... This City arterial is an important transportation element because it is one of the
three entrances to Ashland, it links the downtown with hotel accommodations and
the airport, and it is a commercial and retail center, primarily for local residents....
The City Council and Planning Commission have recognized the potential of the
corridor and requested special design studies be performed to insure its planned
development. During those studies it was determined that the image of the corridor
portrays a typical "strip development." These types of development are in the fringe
areas of towns throughout the United States. Vast areas of asphalt paving, minimal
landscaping, and uninspired architecture are indicative of these strip developments,
resulting in large part to the dominance of the automobile as the only form of transit.
In Ashland, a town noted for its charm, natural beauty and culture, this type of
development is a contradiction. The corridor does offer opportunities such as views
to the mountains and foothills, landscaped open space, and large lots.
Recognizing these opportunities, the City of Ashland desires to develop this area
according to standards which will create an environment reflective of Ashland's
community image. A key factor in achieving this goal is to reduce the auto-
orientation of this environment by encouraging pedestrian amenities and urban
design strategies, thereby instilling a sense of community pride in the property
owners and merchants of this area.
The [Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards] provide the City with direction
for the future development of this key commercial and retail corridor. It is important
to note that this work must be a cooperative effort between the private and public
sectors of the community."
The Ashland Boulevard Corridor Standards speak to the design of improvements within the
Ashland Street right-of-way which are intended to provide an attractive street environment to
encourage pedestrian usage and public safety in concert with the Commercial and Detail Site
Review Design Standards for development along the corridor. Specifically, it provides
detailed standards for landscape median installation within the roadway, for sidewalk
corridor enhancement, and for the creation of special pedestrian areas with street furniture
including benches, drinking fountains, news racks, etc. to provide for the comfOli and
convenience of pedestrians.
When the City took over jurisdiction for this portion of Ashland Street and completed the
street redesign improvements in 2002, the landscape medians called for in the standards were
installed and are now in place, and with the CUlTent application, the sidewalk and special
pedestrian area standards are proposed to be addressed within and adjacent to the right-of-
way through the widening of the sidewalk to the required six feet, seven foot parkrow
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 9 of 22
planting strip and street tree installation, the proposed comer plaza space, the addition of
benches and a low-seating wall, the proposed trellis pedestrian amenity, as well as a
placeholder for a public art installation.
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-of-way shall comply with the Street
Standards in Chapter 18.88, Pelformance Standards Options." Existing water, sewer,
storm sewer, electrical services and paved access are in place and serve the existing Fire
Station. The application notes that the subject property's street frontages are to be improved,
private utilities undergrounded, and that a new four-inch sewer line will be connected to the
existing service in the Sherwood right-of-way. A conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan has
been provided; it illustrates a design to reduce stormwater outflows to below a 25-year storm
level on the unimproved site, with storm water to be contained on site with trench drains at
the driveway apron and sloped drainage of all hardscape areas. All water run-off from the
vehicle bays is to be run through an approved oil-water separator prior to outflow into the
city system. The application also notes that the existing water meter on Sherwood A venue
and the existing electrical vault may be relocated to provide for sidewalks and protect
adjacent trees. A new hydrant and associated piping are to be installed adjacent to the
northernmost apparatus bay, and the building will be fully sprinklered.
The application materials provided include a memorandum from Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Transportation Engineering/Planning. This memo summarizes findings and
recommendations based on their analysis ofthe adequacy oftranspOliation facilities relative
to anticipated trip generation, intersection operational analysis, and a broader safety analysis;
their findings conclude that:
./ Intersection performance was considered acceptable based on Kittleson's engineering
experience, and meets ODOT mobility standards.
./ Emergency vehicles are not expected to experience any operational or safety issues
egressing the subject property.
./ No identifiable or COlTectable safety issues were identified for the studied
intersections.
./ To ensure adequate sight distances at the intersection and the proposed driveway,
trimming oflandscaping and placement of utilities should be considered according to
vision clearance requirements.
./ No immediate safety mitigation treatments are recommended at this time, however
Kittelson notes that in the future the location might benefit from the installation of a
crosswalk across Ashland Street with a pedestrian/emergency service signal to
provide additional protection to pedestrians. The memo notes, however, that as no
difficulties are anticipated for emergency vehicles accessing the site, a standalone
emergency service signal should be considered a low priority.
./ "The proposed Ashland Fire Station #2 redevelopment project can be developed
while maintaining safe and efficient operations on the sUlTounding transportation
system. The new facility will allow the City to improve its services to the
community. At this time, a pedestrian signal or emergency service signal is not
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 10 of 22
recommended at the Ashland Street/Sherwood Street intersection due to the relatively
low pedestrian traffic and limited number of emergency calls."
In staffs opinion, the application satisfies the approval requirement for Basic Site Review
and complies with the Ashland Boulevard Corridor design standards. In addition, staff
believe that the proposal responds well to its unique context - that it is a long-established
public institution on a residentially zoned parcel shared with an established neighborhood
park, but is also located on an arterial conidor that the city has identified for a higher
standard of pedestrian-fhendly redevelopment through the Ashland Boulevard Corridor
design standards and nearby Detail Site Review Zones. The proposed design manages to
avoid impacts to nearby Sherwood Park by limiting the disturbance to the area long-
established for use by the Fire Station. The new building provides a level of urban design
that is compatible with the nearby Detail Site Review Zone, and represents a significant
improvement over the current building's relationship to the pedestrian streets cape, and
vehicular impacts are to be reduced with the removal of two curb cuts and relocation of the
vehicular access to the lesser order Sherwood A venue. The design incorporates a new public
plaza space and a pedestrian corridor enhanced by amenities including seating areas, a trellis,
and public art in response to the Ashland Boulevard Corridor standards. The required
residential park row planting strip will accommodate larger stature street trees which directly
relate to the heavily treed nature of the nearby cemeteries, park and established residential
neighborhood.
B. Conditional Use Permit
As noted above, while the purpose of the district is to accommodate residential uses and
appurtenant community services, public buildings are not specifically listed as either a
permitted or conditional use in the R-2 zone. The existing Fire Station, which was
constructed and has remained in use on the site since the mid-1960's, pre-dates current land
use regulations and is thus considered to be a pre-existing legal non-conforming use. The R-
2 zoning regulations provide for changes to non-conforming uses through the Conditional
Use Permit process, and refer to the additional requirements in AMC 18.68.090, where it is
noted that "a non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed,
substituted, or structurally altered except as follows:"
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(8 and
C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more
restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the use is changed to a permitted use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.050(8 and
C), nonconforming structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or
the footprint modified, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be
obtained when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
The existing Fire Station structure is conforming in that it meets the setback, height, lot
coverage, and other requirements of the zoning district, and it is the Fire Station use itself
which is the non-conforming element. The proposal here involves enlarging the existing
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 11 of 22
building, which currently has a footprint of approximately 3,000 square feet and additional
outdoor storage and parking areas of approximately 1,800 square feet to encompass a new
footprint of approximately 6,950 square feet and a total building area of 10,076 square feet.
As such, because the building housing the non-conforming use is being enlarged a
Conditional Use Permit is requested.
As noted in the Site Review discussion above, adequate city facilities are in place in the
adjacent rights-of-way and serve the existing building. Additional improvements are
proposed to both the Ashland Street and Sherwood Avenue frontages, a new on-site
stormwater detention and treatment system will be provided, and a new hydrant and fire
sprinkler system will be installed with the new station.
In terms of the impacts on the livability of the surrounding area when compared to the
development of the subject lot in keeping with the target use ofthe zone, the subject property
is 1.05 acres in size and could accommodate 14 residential units ifit were to develop at R-2
base density.
The application includes a traffic report which concludes that the proposed station will not
increase traffic or negatively affect the adjacent neighborhood. In addition, by removing two
curb cuts and consolidating access to the lesser order Sherwood A venue the proposal brings
the site into compliance with controlled access standards, minimizes conflict points, and
eliminates the need for fire apparatus to stop Ashland Street traffic to back into the existing
bays. In addition, the application notes that pedestrian and bicycle amenities to be provided
along the Ashland Street corridor offer an enhanced urban streetscape which the current
station lacks.
In discussing architectural compatibility with the surrounding area, the submittal materials
emphasize that the existing station offers no pedestrian amenities, and that the building itself
is lacking in architectural interest. Staff would concur here, noting that the existing narrow
sidewalks and lacking streetscape presence of the current station provide little pedestrian
interest on a cOlTidor that is intended to develop with an increased focus on the pedestrian
environment, and that this is further exaggerated by landscaping which tends to emphasize
this perceived disconnect. The proposed station, by contrast, will provide parkrow planting
strips, street trees and sidewalks to bring the frontage up to current standards; create a public
plaza space with pedestrian amenities in keeping with the Ashland Boulevard Corridor
standards; and provides a building design that establishes a strong relationship to this much-
improved pedestrian streetscape. In addition, by avoiding impacts to Sherwood Park,
preserving all but one of the existing trees on site, and adding new street trees along Ashland
Street and three landscape bays on Sherwood, the proposal attempts strengthens the
relationship between the Fire Station, the park, cemeteries, and surrounding neighborhood.
The application further notes that the new building is to be constructed to LEED gold
standards, and will result in significantly less waste stream, more sustainable building
methodologies, the incorporation oflow volatile organic compound (VOC) materials to meet
stringent LEED air quality requirements, and the use of lighting to satisfy LEED light
trespass standards, and addresses the Conditional Use Permit criteria for air quality,
environmental pollutants, light, noise, and glare.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 12 of 22
In addition to the Conditional Use Permit criteria, AMC 18.68.090 provides that a
nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted nature. The application
explains that while the size of the building is increasing, the underlying nature of the use itself will
remain unchanged. It notes that the portion of the subject property dedicated to the Fire Station use is
not being expanded, that the number of employees and vehicles assigned to the station is not
increasing, and that the area served by the station is not proposed to expand. Rather than an
intensification of the use, the increased size of the building is intended to allow the structure to
accommodate AD A -compliant restrooms and separate men's and women's facilities which the current
station lacks. The new station also includes: protected, conditioned interior space for all of the
vehicles, equipment and maintenance facilities; living quarters; training and exercise facilities;
Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) space; offices and support areas to enhance
community safety and facilitate fire personnel readiness. The application clarifies that the current
building, built in the mid-l 960 ' s, is constructed of un-reinforced masonry block, does not meet current
seismic regulations; has asbestos in the ceilings, walls, and floors; and suffers from a poor ventilation
system which allows contaminants and exhaust from the apparatus bays to enter the firefighter living
quarters.
Staff believes that the materials provided have adequately addressed the Conditional Use
Permit approval criteria, and demonstrate that while the proposal involves an enlargement of
the fire station building, the underlying nature of the non-conforming fire station use remains
essentially unchanged with the enlargement simply better accommodating the long-
established use.
C. Setback Variance
Along Ashland Street, front yard requirements are based on special baseline setbacks detailed
in AMC 18.68.050 rather than on the standard residential front yard requirements. These
special setbacks require that a 65-foot setback be provided from the centerline of the Ashland
Street right-of-way and that a front yard of no less than 20 feet be provided. The Ashland
Street right-of-way along the subject property's frontage is 80-feet in width, and when the
special 65-foot baseline setback is applied, buildings on the subject property would need to
be setback at least 25 feet from the front property line along Ashland Street to comply.
The new Fire Station is proposed to be placed 15-feet eight-inches from the front property
line, and a proposed trellis pedestrian accent is to be placed to within approximately six-feet
of the front property line along approximately fifty feet of the building frontage. The
placement of both the building and the trellis within the special baseline setback area requires
a Variance.
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." Here, the southem portion
of the subject property is an established neighborhood park, and there are large stature trees
located in the area between the park and existing Fire Station. These trees add greatly to the
character of the park site, providing a buffer between the park and the station while relating
to the generally treed character of the neighborhood. The plan as proposed proceeds from a
desire to avoid impacts to the park and preserve these buffering trees, and to do so while
complying with the required setback would necessitate elimination of one of the three
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 13 of 22
proposed apparatus bays. The materials provided note that a three-bay station is the
minimum necessary to adequately house the existing emergency response and fire fighting
equipment needed to support the community, and emphasize that the current two-bay
configuration requires storage of numerous apparatus outdoors where they are subject to
vandalism and adverse weather. The materials submitted also note that while the city owns
additional property in the vicinity, this property is long-established as a cemetery with old
graves located very near the edge of right-of-way which not only removed it from any
consideration in pursuing alternate designs, but also greatly limited the ability to make
changes within the Sherwood Avenue right-of-way.
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 willfurther the purpose
and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City." The application
materials identify a number of benefits associated with the proposal. First and foremost, it
explains that the site, which has housed a fire station more than 40 years, has been
determined to be virtually ideally located to ensure desired emergency response times in
conjunction with Fire Station #1, and notes that with redevelopment the new station is the
minimum size necessary to house the existing equipment necessary to serve the community
with appropriate space available for staff, equipment and maintenance facilities. Second,
with the Variance the building can be constructed without compromising the current or future
operational needs of Ashland Fire and Rescue while fully preserving Sherwood Park and its
trees. Third, with the removal of two of the three existing curb cuts and relocation of the
apparatus bays and access entirely to Sherwood A venue, the need for equipment to stop
heavy traffic to back into the existing bays is eliminated, remedying a potential safety hazard
and bringing the site into compliance with controlled access standards. Finally, while the
proposed building encroaches into the setback, the design has focused on enhancing the
pedestrian corridor by widening the sidewalks, adding parkrows, and creating a public plaza
space with seating and pedestrian amenities.
The final Variance approval criterion is, "That the circumstances or conditions have not
been willfully or purposely self-imposed." The application asserts that the site has housed a
Fire Station for more than 40 years, and that the current proposal represents an attempt to
upgrade the aging structure to meet the current and future operational needs in providing fire
protection to the community while responding to the site constraints of the adjacent trees,
park, cemetery, residential neighborhood and the associated street system and is thus not
willfully or purposely self-imposed.
In staffs assessment, 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 staff believe that both the requested setback
Variance can be found to merit approval.
D. Exception to Street Standards
Street standards for Sherwood A venue, a residential neighborhood street, call for the
installation of a parkrow planting strip between the curb and sidewalk. The existing
sidewalk configuration in this vicinity is curbside, and while some modifications to the
sidewalk on the northern half of the property's frontage are proposed to accommodate the
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 14 of 22
installation of head-in parking spaces and driveway improvements, the proposal would retain
the established curbside sidewalk pattern, with no pal'krow planting strip along the full
Sherwood frontage of the site. There are five existing, established trees along the street
frontage in Sherwood Park, spaced relatively evenly and near the street, and modifications to
the existing sidewalk pattern would likely necessitate their removal. The application speaks
to this request in terms of a Variance to the requirements for a planting zone between parking
and the sidewalk when an Exception to Street Standards is the required approval. In staffs
view, the argument made can be applied to the applicable criteria.
The materials presented indicate that the request to continue the established curbside
sidewalk pattern and limit sidewalk installation any fuliher east into the park arises from a
desire both to preserve the existing trees and to protect the character of the park, and that
plantings that would otherwise have been included within the parkrow could be distributed
elsewhere on site to upgrade the current park landscaping. The application also notes that in
addition to the five existing trees along the Sherwood Park street frontage, three new
landscape bays are proposed to be installed within the Sherwood right-of-way to both
delineate and buffer the parking and driveway areas. These bays will accommodate three
additional street trees along the frontage.
In staffs view, the effort to preserve the existing trees and minimize impact to the park by
continuing the existing curbside sidewalk pattern on Sherwood satisfies 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 of the
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.
D. Tree Removal
A tree inventory prepared by local arborist Laurie Sager has been provided with the
application; it identifies a total of ten trees on or near the subject propeliy six-inches in
diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. These include oak, pine, spruce, maple, juniper
on the subject property, as well as three plum trees on the neighboring property to the east.
The application proposes to retain and protect all but one tree; a 12-inch d.b.h. Blue Spruce
located near the comer of Ashland Street and Sherwood Avenue is proposed to be removed
to allow for sidewalk installation and provide vision clearance for exiting emergency
vehicles.
The application submittal notes the proposed tree removal, findings addressing the
requirements for a Tree Removal Permit have been provided, and notices sent to neighbors
addressed a Tree Removal Pelmit, however AMC 18.61.042.D.l.d. notes that for lands under
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 15 of 22
the control of the City of Ashland, only those trees defined as significant, with diameters
over 18-inches, are subject to Tree Removal Permits. As such, while staff believe that the
requested tree removal satisfies the applicable criteria for approval in that it is proposed to
address other ordinance criteria (vision clearance and sidewalk requirements) no Tree
Removal Permit is ultimately required for the proposed removal.
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
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 Conditional Use Permit are described in 18.104 as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning
district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with
relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City,
State, or Federal law or program.
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the
subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the
proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the
impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review
of the proposed use.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 16 of 22
The criteria for modification of a non-conforming use are described in 18.68.090 as follows:
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended,
reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
1. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one
of the same or a more restricted nature, except that a Conditional Use
Permit need not be obtained when the use is changed to a permitted
use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided
in Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section
18.104.050(8 and C), nonconforming_structure may be enlarged,
extended, reconstructed or the footprint modified, except that a
Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the addition or
extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitatedJf is not
changed in size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not
changed except if in conformance with the procedures of Section
18.68.090.A.1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal
maintenance and repair of a non-conforming structure or its
restoration to a safe condition when declared to be unsafe by any
official charged with protecting public safety.
5. A legal nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that is
damaged to an extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be
restored only if the damage was not intentionally_caused by the
property owner and the nonconformity is not increased. Any
residential structure(s), including multiple-family, in a residential zone
damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such
as fire that is not intentionally caused by the owner, may be
reconstructed at the original density provided the reconstruction is
commenced within 2 years after the catastrophe.
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.
8. 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.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 17 of 22
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
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
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 18 of 22
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 as presented can be found to satisfy the applicable approval
criteria for Site Review, a Conditional Use Permit, a setback Variance and an Exception to
Street Standards to construct a 10,076 square foot two-story fire station building to replace
the existing Fire Station #2 located at 1860 Ashland Street.
In staff's view, the application results in a significant improvement to the Ashland Street
pedestrian corridor, a building that better relates to that corridor and the surrounding
neighborhood, and a facility that can accommodate the current and future operational needs
of Ashland's fire service. The most significant issues to be considered by the Commission
appear to be the need for a Conditional Use Permit to make modifications to an existing non-
conforming use, and the necessary Variance to the mierial setbacks in order to accommodate
the building placement. In both instances, the application materials provided have
demonstrated that the use is long-established, and that the proposed redevelopment of the site
has been planned in a way that improves the streets cape and relates to the sUlTounding area
while avoiding expansion ofthe use into the adjacent Sherwood Park, its established trees,
and the nearby neighborhood. 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:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise
modified herein.
2) That any signage installed shall comply with the standards listed for signage in a
residential zone in AMC 18.96.070, or a Conditional Use Permit obtained for the
installation of government signage as provided in AMC 18.96.150. In either case, 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 confOlmance
with those approved as pmi ofthis 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 Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of
August 6, 2009 shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable
ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 19 of 22
5) That the windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from
outside of the building into the interior ofthe building, and the front entrance at the
comer of Ashland Street and Sherwood Avenue shall remain functional and open to
the public during all business hours.
6) That engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalks along Ashland Street
and Sherwood A venue shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland
Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to any work in the street right-of-way and
plior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The Ashland Street
sidewalk shall be a minimum of six feet in width with seven to eight foot landscaped
pm"krows between the sidewalk and the street. The Sherwood A venue sidewalk shall
be a minimum of five feet in width. All frontage improvements, including but not
limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and in-street landscape bays shall be constructed
as per the approved plans. Sidewalks shall be constlUcted to City of Ashland Street
Standards except for those areas where an Exception to Street Standards has
specifically been approved.
7) 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.
8) That, if deemed necessary by the Building Official, a Demolition/Relocation Permit
approval shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to issuance of a
demolition permit or commencement of demolition work on sitc.
9) That the building pelmit submittal materials shall include:
a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public utility
easements and public pedestrian access easements.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, and
vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, as well as landscaping
calculations. Landscaping provided shall be at least 35 percent of the site, as
required in AMC 18.72.110.A.
d) That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements
associated with the project, shall be submitted forreview 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 stormwater 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 matelial samples, and
specifications of the light fixtures and any necessary shielding or shrouding,
shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval
of the Staff Advisor.
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
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 20 of 22
lines, and electric services.
g) Identification of vision clearance areas. Any utilities, landscaping, street
furnishing, or public art installations shall be installed and maintained to
comply with the vision clearance requirements in AMC 18.68.020.
10) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the applicant submit a final 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 Blue Spruce tree to be removed and the installation of
tree protection fencing for the other trees that are 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 18.61.200.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 and fire sprinklers shall be complied with prior
to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials,
whichever is 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.
d) That all requirements of the Building Division, including but not limited to
providing necessary information for the approval of any "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 applicable recommendations of the Tree Commission and providing
irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use
Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies shall be
provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Planning Action 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Page 21 of 22
11) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
a) Three 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
Ashland 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 of the Site
Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
c) 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 of a
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 18.72.115.B.
d) The two existing curb cuts shall be removed and replaced with standard
curbing as proposed by the applicants. New curb and driveway approach
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.
e) That all public improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, plaza
space, street trees, and proposed on-street parking 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.
f) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
g) 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 2009-00873
Applicant: PSE Architects/Fire Station #2
Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report,dds
Page 22 of 22
!;
t,; "
"CK $M"" 'HUN+
architects
r"
~,>,
Narrative for Site Review Approval for a new Fire Station at Ashland Blvd and
Sherwood Ave., Ashland Oregon.
1. General Applicant Information
The City of Ashland Fire Department, the emergency and fire protection services provider for
the City and surrounding Jackson County wishes to remove the existing dilapidated station and
replace it with a new Fire Station. The new structure will comply with current codes, provide
essential services to the city and present a civic image that reflects the City's values. The
existing fire station was built in the mid 1960's and would require extensive and expensive
upgrades in seismic bracing and internal services in order to effectively serve as a modern fire
fighting facility and meet current codes. The new station will include living quarters, a training
room, exercise and office areas, support areas and space for five to six apparatus. The existing
site will be improved with public plaza space, landscaping, and will be sustainable built to meet
LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), Gold standard. The existing site will
be improved with new hardscape, landscaping, and storm water systems.
This application complies with the Comprehensive plan by fulfilling the criteria for providing for
public safety and upgrading existing infrastructure to accommodate a growing population.
Recent studies have confirmed that both Fire Station 1 & Fire Station 2 are appropriately
located to serve the emergency response needs for the City of Ashland.
The new building will house 6 staff fire fighters, a CERT office (Community Emergency
Response Team), ambulance/EMS service, and one engine company. The facility can
accommodate five to six apparatus at one time, all though only 3 spaces can be used for the
first-out apparatus, due to the nature of a back in style fire station. The apparatus stationed here
will be the main engine, a rescue rig, and 2 ambulances, as well as space for a visiting or future
apparatus. The layout should accommodate future growth in Ashland for many years.
2. Applicable Municipal Code Zoning Standards
A. Zoning:
1. The zone is R-2, Multifamily
The adjacent properties are also zoned R-2.
2. See attached Zoning map.
B. Allowable Uses:
1. Per section 18.12.0050 - Similar Uses: Where a particular use is not listed
as permitted or conditional use in a given zone, the Planning Commission
may, after appropriate analysis, determine that the use is similar to those
listed in type, kind and function, and therefore properly allocated to that
zone.
4412 SW Corbett, Portland, OR 97201
tel 503.248.9170 fax 503.248.0223
www.psearchs.com
2. The building currently located on 1860 Ashland Blvd, is a fire station, the
proposed new building would serve the same function and use as the
existing fire station. However, the new station will adequately house the
necessary equipment and personnel needed for efficient deployment of
resources. Other Fire Department goals which would be improved with a
modern fire station include: Emergency Medical Services, interaction &
communications with the local community, fire prevention & accident
awareness and child safety seat inspections.
C. Minimum Lot Size:
1. There are no minimum lot sizes or dimensions required. The lot size is
approximately 38,760 SF. (Fire Station 2 & Sherwood Park are located on
a single lot).
D. Setbacks:
1. Front Yard: 20' Note there is also a special 65' setback from the
centerline of the right-of-way required for properties along Ashland Blvd.
2.
Side Yard:
10'
3.
Rear Yard:
10'
*
A variance will be required for the front & side setbacks: the proposed
Station 2 is approximately 15.5' from the front yard (north) property line,
additionally the proposed Station's screened trash/recycling and
emergency generator area is approximately 8.5' from the east side
yard/property line. The functional footprint of this 3-bay fire station can
not be reduced without eliminating one of the apparatus bays.
Eliminating an apparatus bay critically reduces the capabilities of the fire
station.
E. Height:
1. Maximum height allowed 35'-0"
2. The max height proposed for Fire Station 2 is 29'-0"
3. Land Use
A. Tree Preservation Protection 18.61.050
1. See attached tree protection plan, and arborist information regarding existing
trees.
." .'~:~nt
2. An existing tree will need to be removed along Sherwood Ave; this tree is
located at the corner of the proposed apparatus bay apron. The tree in
question conflicts with the site clearance requirements.
B. Solar Setbacks 18.70.40
1. The required setback from the north property line is defined by setback
standard A which is "H - 6'-0", The height of the building at the north side is
29'-0", therefore our setback requirement (SSB) is 50'-0". The actual setback
is 15'-8" and abuts a right-of way of an additional 60'-0". There will be no
solar infringements on adjacent northerly lots because Ashland Blvd abuts
the northern property boundary.
C. Landscaping 18.72. 110:
1. See attached Site Plan & Landscape plan for layout and species information.
2. The landscaping is 69% of the site or approximately 26,850 SF (again the
Fire Station and Sherwood Park share the same lot). Conversely the
impervious/hardscape lot coverage is 31 % (approximately 11,910 SF).
3. Drip irrigation will be used at all shrubs and trees and be controlled by an
automatic timer/controller with soil moisture sensors. Indigenous plants will
be used wherever possible to reduce irrigation demand.
4. A hardscape plaza is located at the NW corner of the site, this plaza provides
opportunities for public art, casual pedestrian seating, and incorporates a
trellis feature as well as sheltered bicycle parking.
5. A parkrow planting strip between the curb and sidewalk has been selected in
lieu of street trees along the north frontage (Ashland Blvd).
D. Trash & Recycling 18.72. 115:
1. See attached Site Plan for layout and location of Trash & Recycling Area.
2. A 6 foot high solid masonry wall shall enclose & screen the trash and
recycling storage area, there will be a 6'-0" wide access gate serving this
area. The trash & recycling area is located at the SW corner of the apparatus
bay.
E. Off-Street Parking 18.92:
1. See attached Site Plan for the parking layout, quantity and size.
2. Ashland Municipal Code does not provide parking calculations specific to Fire
Stations. As such the Fire Station is considered an "Unspecified Uses" and
subject to provisions which state "Where automobile parking requirements for
any use are not specifically defined in this section such requirements shall be
determined by the Staff Advisor based upon the most comparable use
specified in this section and other available data" Fire Station 2's typical
staffing will be 6 people, and all of the stations parking will be on-street
parking.
Fire Station 1 shall serve as reference for the parking needs of Station 2,
Station 1 is a 15,000 sf building with 16 parking spaces. Ashland Municipal
Code's Category "C-Industrial" closely matches the conditions for a Fire
Station and shall also serve as reference. Ashland's category C requires 1
space per 2 employees on the largest shift. In most jurisdictions PSE
Architects recommends providing the number of spaces at shift change which
would be 12 spaces total. 12 spaces have been provided, 1 of the spaces is a
dedicated ADA car or van accessible space, and 1 is dedicated for
carpool/hybrid parking which is a LEED credit requirement. Additional
parallel street parking is being maintained along Sherwood Avenue south of
the new 'head-in' parking spaces.
3. New parking spaces will be located between the proposed fire station and the
existing bocce courts, along Sherwood Ave. These new spaces do not do
not provide for the 7'-8' parkrow planting zone between the curb and the
sidewalk as required by Ashland's standards. This condition is due to the fact
that there are existing mature trees which would be removed if the sidewalk
were relocated further to the east. The proposed improvements provide for a
5' sidewalk along the west face of Sherwood Park; the new sidewalk & curb
will tie into existing 5' sidewalk and curb near the midpoint of the park.
*
A variance will be required for the proposed parking design.
4. The area immediately south of the new parking spaces provides a
landscaped buffer zone between sections of new sidewalk and the street
curb.
5. Wheels stops will be provided at all new head-in parking, (set back 3'-0" from
the curb).
6. Bike parking: 2 sheltered bike spaces are provided at the NE corner of the
building, appropriate signage will be provided indicating the location of bike
parking.
F. Controlled Access 18.72.120:
1. The existing curb cut access along Sherwood Ave will be modified to align
with the new 3 bay apparatus portion of the station. The proposed Station
requires a 55' wide curb cut for emergency vehicles onto Sherwood.
2. There is an additional existing curb cut along Sherwood Ave adjacent to
Ashland Blvd which is not needed for the new station and will be replaced
with appropriate curbing and hardscape, creating a plaza space with public
amenities, additionally a striped crosswalk will be implemented where
Sherwood intersects Ashland Blvd.
3. The existing station's primary apparatus curb cut is located along Ashland
Blvd, backing into the existing apparatus bays is a public safety hazard and
will be eliminated by the new station design, The proposed station will
remove this curb cut and provide the required frontage improvements
including an eight foot park row planting strip and six foot wide sidewalk, The
proposed sidewalk & building fac;ade configuration will establish a strong
pedestrian streetscape while emphasizing the building's corner entry. A
strong relationship to the street through enhanced public space and a definite
sense of entry will anchor the building within the streetscape.
* Ashland Blvd frontage setback requirements require a variance as previously
noted under item D or section 2,
G, Light & Glare (site Lighting) 18.72. 140:
1. The new site lighting luminaires will not exceed the 14' tall pole standard and
will comply with LEED's dark sky requirements.
H, Signs 18.96.060:
1, 12" high metal street address signage is located on the North elevation near
the Ashland & Sherwood intersection, A concrete monument sign facing
Ashland Blvd incorporates 14" high letters cast in relief.
2. Appropriate signage will be permanently located in front of the ADA space,
carpool space and bicycle parking.
3. Public Improvements
A. Improvements:
1. The abutting street fronts along Ashland Blvd and Sherwood Ave, will be
improved. The plans show new sidewalks, curbs and on site on-site storm
water treatment/detention system, New sidewalk and curbing will be provided,
2, New ADA accessible curb will be installed at intersection of Ashland &
Sherwood and at the Sherwood crossing,
B. Water Supply:
1, The sites existing water meter will need to be relocated,
2, A new fire hydrant and associated piping will be incorporated in the new site
layout.
C. Electrical Vault:
1. The existing electrical vault may need to be relocated; the project arborist has
concerns about the proximity of the trees root systems in relation to the new
sidewalk and existing electrical vault. Additional investigation is needed to
determine if the electrical vault needs to be relocated.
D. Sanitary Sewers:
f?I
(..,\
1, The site is served by an existing sanitary sewer line in Sherwood Ave, A new
4" sanitary line will be connected to the existing service,
2, All water runoff from the apparatus bays will be run through an approved oil-
water separator prior to connection to the sanitary system,
E. Storm Water:
1, The proposed storm water control and treatment is shown on the Grading
and Drainage Conceptual Plan, and will be designed to City standards and to
reduce outflow to below a 25 year storm on the unimproved site.
2, All storm water is contained on the site with trench drains at the drive apron
and via sloped drainage of the hardscape,
E. Fire protection:
1. There will be a new fire hydrant on the property adjacent to the most northerly
apparatus bay,
2. The building will be fully fire sprinklered.
G, Private Improvements:
1, All private utilities will be placed underground.
4. Additional Comments:
A. The traffic engineering report will be submitted as soon as it is received from
Kittleson Engineers,
8, We do not have storm water calculations at the schematic level. Normally these
are submitted at permit application. This design is based on our civil engineer's
experience with City requirements and sized conservatively for the areas shown,
If any changes are required, the system should only get smaller,
6'''. .
('. '
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, IN
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING I PLANNING
610 SW Alder Street, Suite 700. Portland, OR 97205 503_228.5230 503,273,8169
MEMORANDUM
City of Ashland
Community Deveiopment
Date:
July 8, 2009
#: 10242.0
From:
To: Hans Ettlin
Peck Smiley Architects
4412 SW Corbett Ave
Portland, OR 97239
Wen Si and Marc Butorac, P.E., P,T.O.E.
Ashland Fire Station #2
Trip Generation and Site Review
7/~/o~
Project:
I
i_'
This memorandum summarizes our findings and recommendations based on the transportation
study prepared for the proposed Ashland Fire Station #2 redevelopment project in Ashland,
Oregon, This memorand'!1m focuses on the trip generation, intersection operational analysis, and
safety analysis.
BACKGROUND
The City of Ashland is upgrading an existing fire station facility located at 1860 Ashland Street
(Oregon Highway 66). The site is currently zoned R-2 and is located in the southeast comer of
the Ashland Street/Sherwood Street intersection. Figure 1 shows a site vicinity map. The total
parcel size is approximately 1.05 acres and the existing fire station is approximately 2,886 square
feet. South of the property is Sherwood Park, a public park operated and maintained by Ashland
Parks & Recreation Department. There is also a cemetery adjacent to the property.
The City is proposing to remove the existing building and replace it with a new 10,478-square-
foot structure, with a building footprint of approximately 7,200 square feet. The replacement
station will remain completely inside the fire station portion of the property. The proposed
redevelopment is shown in Figure 2.
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
The Ashland Fire Station #2 operates one shift every 24-hour period. There are three firefighters
on each shift. The firefighters stay on shift for 24 hours before being replaced by the new group
of three firefighters at 8:00 a.m. on weekday mornings. At the time of shift change, there would
be a maximum of six firefighters on site. On average there are about 3.5 emergency calls every
day, and 0.3 emergency calls take place during weekday p.m. peak hour. Based on historical
data, the maximum number of emergency calls during weekday p.m. peak hour on any day was
two.
FILENAME: H:\PROJFILE\10242 - ASHLAND FIRE STATION\REPORT\DRAFT\10242REP-07082009.DOC
w
>
<
..J
i
a:
~
July 2009
Ashland Rre Station 112
~
~
I
j
~
~
~
~
~
~
!
~
i
I
j
l
I
~
~
I
:i::
L
m
(NO SCALE)
City of l\shland
CQmrnunity Development
!;; CLAY ST
0
z ~ !;;
..J a: ::.::
>- w W
J: a: >
< CJ) < <
a: ll.
iE
~
FREMONT T
MAE ST
w
:(
W
..J
<
o
z
W
..J
Cl
........
........
~
........
........
~
........
........
SITE VICtNrTY MAP
ASHLAND,OREGON
m KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES,INC.
~ TRANSPORTATION ENGINE:ERNG I PLANNING
Ashland Fire Station #2
July 8, 2009
Project #: 10242.0
Page 4
To ensure a conservative analysis, two visitors were assumed during the weekday p.m. peak hour
in addition to the emergency calls. Therefore, the maximum trip generation potential of the new
fire station is eight trips (4 in, 4 out) during the weekday p.m. peak hour.
The site-generated traffic is assumed to be equally distributed to the east and west along AsWand
Street, resulting in two trips departing and arriving to/from east and two trips departing and
arriving to/from the west.
INTERSECTION OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Traffic counts were collected at the AsWand Street/Sherwood Street intersection on June 30, 2009
during typical weekday evening peak (4:00 - 6:00 p.m.) traffic conditions. The peak hour of the
adjacent street traffic period was identified to occur between 4:05 and 5:05 p.m. In order to
account for the regional traffic growth in the study area, a two-percent growth rate was used to
calculate year 2010 background traffic volumes. The estimated weekday p.m. peak hour trips (8
trips) generated by the proposed fire station were added to the year 2010 background traffic
volumes to arrive at the year 2010 total traffic volumes for this analysis. Figure 3 shows the
existing year 2009 and future year 2010 total traffic volumes at the AsWand Street/Sherwood
Street intersection, Existing weekday p,m, peak hour traffic counts are provided in Appendix A.
An operational analysis was performed at the AsWand Street/Sherwood Street intersection with
the estimated analysis traffic volumes. The analysis was performed in accordance with the
procedures stated in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Reference 1),
The study intersection is expected to operate at LOS C with an average control delay of 17.2
seconds and volume to capacity ratio of 0.04. Without an established intersection operational
standard in the City of Ashland, this performance is considered acceptable based on our
engineering experience. It should also be noted that the intersection meets the Oregon
Department of Transportation mobility standards per the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan.
In the case that an emergency vehicle needs to egress the fire station, traffic on AsWand Street is
expected to yield if the siren and flash lights are activated upon the vehicle's departure from the
station. As a result, emergency service vehicles are not expected to experience any operational or
safety issues egressing the proposed redevelopment site. Existing 2009 and Future 2010 operation
analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix B.
TRANSIT FACILITIES
Rogue Valley Transit District's Route 10 serves both AsWand Street and Siskiyou Boulevard;
however, there are no stops in the proximity of our study area,
, i , , 1 ') fv"n'9
,J U L ,J {.till;
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
Ashland Fire Station #2
w
>
<
..J
i
a::
~
CLAY ST
Z
..J
>-
<
a::
t;
~
a::
<
a..
w
~
~
~
FREMONT T
MAE ST
w
>
<
W
-J
<
o
z
W
-J
Cl
~
~
!
I
I
~
g
~
t
!
~
j
f
l
J
I
I
:i::
eM = CRITICAL MOVEMENT
LOS = CRITICAL MOVEMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Del = CRITICAL MOVEMENT CONTROL OELA y
VlC = CRITICAL VOLUME.TQ.CAPACITY RATIO
YEAR 2009 EXISnNG, AND 2010 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDmONS
WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR
ASHLAND, OREGON
~ KITTELSON & ASSOCIA TES,INC.
~ TRANSPORTATION ENGINEEJ'lII<<i I PLANNI'fG
July 2009
m
(NO SCALE)
Ashland Fire Station #2
July 8, 2009
Project #: 10242,0
Page 6
SAFETY ANALYSIS
The study intersection and the proposed fire station were also analyzed from a safety perspective.
The following sections summarize the analysis findings and recommendations in regards to crash
history, traffic control, public interest, and intersection sight distance.
Crash History
The crash histories of the study intersection were reviewed in an effort to identify potential
intersection and street safety issues. Crash records were obtained from the Oregon Department of
Transportation for January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007, No crashes were reported at the
Ashland Street/Sherwood Street intersection in that time period. However, six crashes were
reported at the Ashland StreetfNormal Avenue intersection and one at the Ashland Street/ Park
Street intersection, Each of these locations experienced one pedestrian-related crash during the
study time period, Both pedestrian crashes resulted in injuries and no fatalities were reported,
Based on an evaluation of the crash data and existing geometric conditions, no identifiable or
correctable safety issue was identified at the study intersection, Table 1 summarizes the crash
data, Crash data are included in Appendix C.
Table 1
Intersection Crash Summary (January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2007)
Collision Type Severity Crash
Number Turning Rate'
of / Side Fixed Personal Fatal (per
Intersection Crashes Swipe Angle Object Pedestrian POOl Injury Crash MEV')
Ashland Street/Sherwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Street
Ashland Street/Normal 6 2 1 2 1 4 2 0 0.27
Street
Ashland Street/Park Street 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0,04
1 Property Damage Only
2 MEV - Million Entering Vehicles
3 Crash Rate = (Total Crashes) / (365 days/year x daily entering vehicles / 1,000,000)
Traffic Control Review
The Ashland Street/Sherwood Street intersection is currently two-way stop-controlled on the
Sherwood Street approaches. Based on crash history analysis, no immediate safety mitigation
treatments are recommended at this time. However, in the future, this location may benefit from
the construction of a crosswalk across Ashland Street with a pedestrian/emergency service signal
to provide added protection to pedestrians. In addition, as shown in the operational analysis, we
do not anticipate that emergency vehicles will have difficulties accessing the site; therefore, a
standalone emergency service signal at this intersection should be considered a low priority at
this time.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc,
Portland, Oregon
Ashland Fire Station #2
July 8, 2009
Project #: 10242,0
Page 7
Public Interest
The proposed fire station redevelopment provides a life safety operation to the citizens of
Ashland. Improving the facilities at this location would be considered a benefit to the community.
PARKING
Because of the nature of the proposed redevelopment and adjacent Sherwood Park, the proposed
street improvements along Sherwood Street call for shared 90-degree parking along the easterly
side and no-parking along the westerly side of the street.
SIGHT DISTANCE
To ensure adequate intersection sight distance at the Ashland Street/Sherwood Street intersection
and the site-access driveway to Sherwood Street, it is recommended that landscaping should be
trimmed and utilities be placed accordingly at these intersections.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Ashland Fire Station #2 redevelopment project can be developed while maintaining
safe and efficient operations on the surrounding transportation system. The new facility will
allow the City to improve its services to the community, At this time, a pedestrian signal or
emergency service signal is not recommended at the Ashland Street/Sherwood Street intersection
due to the relatively low pedestrian traffic and the limited number of emergency calls.
We trust that this memorandum adequately addresses the trip generation, operation, and safety
of the proposed Fire Station #2 redevelopment. If you have any questions regarding this analysis
and subsequent findings and recommendations, please contact us at (503) 228-5230.
REFERENCES
1, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
"CK SMILEY ETHIN+
architects
Variance Application - Fire Station 2
Front & Side Yard Setbacks (18.68)
1. Unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere,
The proposed Fire Station 2's front yard setback (north) is approximately 15.5'; Ashland
requires a 20' front yard setback for R-2 zonings. Along the North face of the property there
is a trellis feature located approximately 6' away from the North property line. Additionally the
proposed station has approximately an 8.5' side yard setback at the trash/recycling and
emergency generator areas,
Ashland typically requires a 10' side yard setback for R-2 properties. While the site appears
relatively large for R-2 zoning district, a public park occupies the majority of the property. The
area actually available for development of the Fire Station is constrained by a number of
circumstances which are unique to the site:
A. The rear (southern portion) of the property is the site of Sherwood Park, a park to which
the adjacent residential neighborhood holds a strong attachment.
B. Within the adjacent park and very near the rear of the existing building there are a
number of large, established trees which add greatly to the character of the park site and
which relate to the generally heavily-treed character of the area. The plan as proposed
proceeds from a desire to both preserve these tress and the character of the park, and
to enhance the relationship to the area at large by providing additional large stature
street trees as an addition to the streetscape.
C. The adjacent property to the west, which is city-owned, is a long-established cemetery.
This not only removes the site from design consideration, but the presence of old graves
very near the edge of the right-of-way is a significant limiting factor in site planning
relative to the Sherwood Avenue corridor.
D. Despite its location along a largely commercial arterial street, the subject property is
residentially zoned and located very near to an established residential neighborhood.
The building design and associated circulation remain mindful of its impacts to the
adjacent trees, park and cemetery, and nearby neighborhood street system and the
street system serving it while also trying to also respond to the Detail Site Review level
design standards along the Ashland Street corridor.
2. The Proposal's benefits will be qreater than any neqative impacts on the development of
adiacent uses.
A. The site has housed a fire station for 50-plus year, and in studies done around the time
when Station #1 was being planned, it was determined that both stations were virtually
ideally located to ensure desired response times to any locations within Ashland.
4412 SW Corbett, Portland, OR 97201
tel 503,248,9170 fox 503,248,0223
www.pseorchs.com
li'L:<,\,';'::, ,::.;)
B. The existing 2 bay station currently has numerous apparatus which must be stored
outside due to space constraints. These vehicles are subject to vandalism and adverse
weather conditions; a 3-bay fire station is the minimum sized station which can
adequately house the existing emergency response & fire fighting equipment needed to
support the community, A 3-bay station will also support visiting apparatus and future
vehicles. The proposed new stations does note infringe upon the existing park, but at
the same time it does not meet Ashland's set back requirements. The physical size of a
modern fire station with appropriate staff & equipment spaces as well as maintenance
facilities can not be reduced to meet the lot size and setback requirements. The
proposed station utilizes a 2-story layout which is a very efficient and compact design.
The massing and timeless-ness of the building's architectural features relate to the
urban nature which the City of Ashland is looking to reinforce along the Ashland
Boulevard Corridor. The building also provides pedestrian amenities such as trellis,
canopies, benches and public art space which engage both the corridor and the
residential community.
C. As proposed the design responds to the site specific constraints detailed above (trees,
park cemetery, and neighborhood) without compromising the current or future
operational needs of Ashland Fire and Rescue in providing fire protection to the
community.
D. A forthcoming traffic study will verify that the traffic volumes along Sherwood Ave and
adjacent streets support the proposed design. The existing Fire Station 2 site
arrangement requires the apparatus back into the station from Ashland Blvd.; this is a
public safety hazard which will be remedied with the new station layout.
E. The proposed design provides for pedestrian scale amenities, features such as a trellis
structure, site seating, distinct concrete hardscape, and public are invite pedestrians to
this site and interact with one another as well as the built environment.
3. Circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
Again, the site housed the Fire Station for 50-plus years and the current proposal represents an
attempt to upgrade the aging structure to meet the current and future operation needs to provide
fire protection for the community while respond to the site constraints including the adjacent
trees, park, cemetery, residential neighborhood and associated street system.
Off-Street Parking (18.92)
1. Unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply
elsewhere.
A. The limited space available to the proposed Fire Station eliminated the possibilities for
on-site parking. The adjacent City owned properties, the cemetery and the park do not
provide any opportunity for additional on-site parking. Off-street station parking has been
proposed, landscaped islands along Sherwood Ave, provide buffered landscaping for 10
head-in parking spaces. New sidewalk has been designed as far east as possible
without requiring the removal of a least (2) established park trees. Typically Ashland
requires a parkrow planting zone to be located between parking and sidewalks.
B. The plan as proposed proceeds from a desire to both preserves these tress and the
character of the park, and to enhance the relationship to the area at large by providing
additional large stature street trees to augment landscaping within the park. Adjacent to
the park's the west curb & sidewalk line there are a number of large, established trees
which add to the character of the park and which relate to the generally heavily-treed
character of the area.
C. Reducing Sherwood to a one way road was considered, however, given that this street
currently serves the Fire Station, Sherwood Park, and the established neighborhood it
was considered too restrictive.
2. The Proposal's benefits will be qreater than any neqative impacts on the development of
adiacent uses.
A. In lieu of the required 7' parkrow planting strip followed by a five foot sidewalk we are
proposing only a 5' sidewalk and that the amount of trees & plantings which would have
gone into the parkrow shall be distributed elsewhere in Sherwood Park.
3. Circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed.
The current proposal represents an attempt to upgrade the current park landscaping without
disrupting existing mature trees or reducing the size of the park. The exact location of the new
trees & plantings would be determined with input from the City of Ashland and the community,
"" SM'''V ETTUN+
architects
Fire Station 2 Conditional Use Permit
Ashland Municipal Code lAMC) Section 18,104.050 Conditional Use Permit Approval
Criteria.
The existing Fire Station 2 building footprint is approximately 3,000 sf plus approx. 1,800 sf of
exterior equipment parking and storage areas for a total of 4,800 sf. The proposed new Fire
Station 2 will have a 6,950 sf building footprint and wtll provide protected, conditioned interior
space for all of the emergency vehicles, equipment storage and maintenance facilities. While
the size of the building is increasing the nature of the use remains the same. The proposed
enlargement does not constitute an intensification of the non-conforming use. In keeping with
18.68.090.A.1 the portion of the site dedicated to the proposed fire station use remains the
same as the existing fire station, as does the number of employees and the number of EMS
vehicles assigned to the station. The area served by the Fire Station 2 remains the same;
however, the additional apparatus bay will provide a reserve apparatus for larger structural fire
incidents. The proposed fire station 2 will provide a seismic code compliant, safe and secure
environment for staff, EMS vehicles and equipment needed for efficient deployment of
resources.
The proposed Fire Station 2 accommodates on site training & exercise facilities, ADA compliant
restrooms, separate men's & women's facilities which the current station lacks. The new
station will include living quarters, Community Emergency Response Team office spaces, and
support areas which enhance community safety and facilitate fire personnel readiness, The
current facility is constructed of un-reinforced masonry blocks, there is asbestos in the ceilings,
walls and floors and the building suffers from a poor ventilation system, which allows
contaminants and exhaust from the apparatus bay to enter the sleeping & living quarters.
Findings:
A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use
conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following
approval criteria.
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which
the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
The proposed Fire Station complies with the Comprehensive plan by fulfilling the criteria of
continuing to providing public safety while upgrading the Emergency Response Systems
capabilities in a growing and aging Ashland population. As described above the current
non-conforming zoning use of 1860 Ashland Blvd is a fire station, the proposed design will
continue to operate and serve the City as a fire station of the same staffing levels,
B. 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.
4412 SW Corbett, Portland, OR 97201
tel 503.248.9170 fax 503,248,0223
www.psearchs.com
Given that the number of users and types of use of the fire station are not changing it has
been determined that the water, sewer and electrical utilities serving the site are adequate
for the proposed building. On-site storm water treatment/detention system will be provided
with the proposed new fire station, The abutting street fronts along Ashland Blvd and
Sherwood Ave. will also be improved.
C, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the
impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the
zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors
of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone:
1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
The portion of the site dedicated to the proposed fire station use remains the same as the
existing fire station. The proposed station is an efficient 2 story floor plan which is in scale
with the buildings and homes of the immediate neighborhood. Vertical programmed space
preserves a small footprint and minimizes impact to the site.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and
mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
The submitted traffic report indicates that the proposed fire station will not increase traffic for
the neighborhood it serves. Orienting the apparatus equipment's access from Ashland
Blvd. to Sherwood Ave. significantly increases public safety. The pedestrian plaza and
bicycle accommodations along the Ashland Blvd's facade offer an urban character which the
current station lacks. This urban character is designed to attract and accommodate
pedestrians as well as mass transit opportunities.
3, Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
The existing fire station offers no pedestrian amenities, nor does the building offer any
architectural character or interest. The proposed fire station includes a hardscape plaza
located at the NW corner of the site, this plaza provides opportunities for public art, casual
pedestrian seating, and incorporates a trellis feature as well as sheltered bicycle parking.
The new design proceeds from a desire to both preserve the tree character of the adjacent
park, and surrounding cemeteries, and to enhance the relationship with both the
neighborhood and the developing Ashland Corridor. The nature of the design provides a
civic landmark for the neighborhood
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants.
The new building and systems within the building will be much more efficient than what
currently exists. Construction of the new station will comply with local and national codes as
well as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) requirements this will result
in construction scraps and building material wastes being redirected away from landfills and
into the appropriate recycling or reuse centers. The new building will be much more
sustainable and environmentally friendly building than what currently exists. The stations
design incorporates low vac materials and stringent air quality requirements.
5, Generation of noise, light, and glare.
Modern equipment including the mechanical and lighting systems are significantly quieter
than the types of systems currently being used at the existing fire station 2. The new
building will meet the United States Green Building Councils (USGBC) LEED requirements,
which include requirements dictating light trespass and similar concerns. This will result in a
building which is much healthier to build, and live in while reducing the amount of energy
and resources needed to maintain the building.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan,
The existing and proposed fire station's adjacent properties include a public park, cemeteries
and a privately owned retail tire store. It is unlikely that any of these adjacent facilities or uses
will be changing in the immediate future. The proposed fire station does not increase densities
or intensity of the current site. The proposed design complies with the Comprehensive Plan as
well as the Ashland Boulevard Corridor Design Standards and provides public safety to both the
immediate and adjacent neighborhoods.
Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use.
The existing site will be improved with public amenities such as a hardscaped plaza for
public art, park row landscaped areas, environmentally responsible materials and building
methods will be implemented, and the new building will be sustainable built to meet LEED
Gold. Currently the bulk of Ashland Street is commercially zoned and either undeveloped
or underdeveloped, the proposed fire station 2 will relate to the City's development
standards as well as the intended redevelopment of the Ashland Boulevard Corridor. The
new fire station incorporates a high standard of urban design and will become a sense of
community pride. There is an identifiable visual relationship to the existing main fire station
in the use of similar materials and detailing, This reinforces the civic quality of the new
station and provides a cultural landmark for the neighborhood.
i1
LAURIE SAGER AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC.
700 MISTlETOE ROAD, SUITE 201 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520
u [)
July 29, 2009
Proiect: Ashland Fire Station #2 - Tree Removal FindinQs
AMC 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
perm it.
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.
Not applicable
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
The proposed removal of the Blue Spruce tree is necessary to provide vision clearance
along both Sherwood Avenue and Hwy 66/Ashland Street. Proposed street trees within
the park row areas will provide shading, and canopy while complying with the
requirements of vision clearance for exiting vehicles. The Blue Spruce tree location
also impeded the design of the sidewalk in its appropriate location. With these two
factors being identified, the applicant has chosen to request a removal.
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
P 541 488 1446 f 541 488 0636
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.
The proposed removal of the Blue Spruce tree will not have a significant negative
impact on erosion, soil stability flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or
existing windbreaks. This particular tree is currently in an area surrounded by paving.
In the proposed plan, there will be significantly more trees in the vicinity.
Removal of this tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. This
property is located adjacent to Sherwood Park and directly across the street from
Mountain View Cemetary. Both of these open spaces have many mature trees and
provide shade, greenery and species diversity within 200 feet of this property.
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 perm it.
The applicant proposes to mitigate the removal of the Blue Spruce tree with one
ornamental Maple tree to be planted along the east side of the new building. Due to the
proposed use of the property, the available planting areas are limited to several small
zones. With this in mind, the applicant has taken advantage of the park row areas and
proposed a variety of street trees to provide shade, canopy and visual appeal to the
project.
,.'
w
o
, '~':~J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
John Karns
Derek Severson
7/22/09 11 :42:07 AM
Station 2
Derek,
You may not have been make aware but just prior to the submission of the AFG application, the
contracted grant writer, Marcia Williams noted that the change from 6 individual bedrooms to 2 individual
and 2 doubles would make the application ineligible. Apparently this is in conflict with NFPA 1500, I
understand there is an iteration of the plans that shows 6 individual bedrooms. This are the plans we'll
have to move forward with if the grant passes initial review, If you have any questions please contact me.
Thank you
John Karns, Fire Chief
Ashland Fire & Rescue
455 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
Phone 541-482-2770
Fax 541-488-5318
karnsj@ashland,or.us
This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to Oregon public records law for
disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me.
cc:
Bill Molnar; Scott Hollingsworth
CEMETERY
-"-
en
q
C/)
C/)
OJ
II
~
ASHLAND
BLVD.
STATION 2
o
o
o
m
q
;0
o
~
@
"
SO LA R S~ ET13A/" i<.
CALCULATION
SLOPE=S = 0
30' _
FORMULA 1: .445 + 0 - 67.4
10' _
FORMULA 2: .445 + 0 - 22,5
N-S DIMENSION = 389' GREATER
THAN FORMULA 1
51' STANDARD A
SSB = .tJ~~'o = .4~~ = 51'
EXISTING R.OW = 60'
SHADOW WILL NOT CAST OVER
PROPERTY LINE ACROSS R.OW.
,JUL
I"
'. .
,)
"~
;:'\:
".-:1
600Z ^I"r 10
uo6aJO 'PUDIYSV
l# NOI1V1S 3~1:I
ON'V1HSV :10 All::>
....-.-.,
,~.
,91
,'I ,y 0
~) ~;;d ~OOl;;~~
r-:::::::I
~
'!::J01~3foi3~
Ellili:tr;;: leo!;) :xv=' OLLli~;rt" (t'(IS] ;3NQHd LDZl6 N093~Cl 't'lN',('l.UIOi:lo3I1V lli8~Q:) illS ~I~~ .
'p.114>J0 NI1ll3 ,,3111'15 llJ3d
.-
//
/'
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
..--
'....
,
...l..
P l:-
e: 4 -. ;.,--~
I~ ,
..
,:l 0'1
r0 :: -.... '. . ~
i
, ' 0 g
i 0
:, i.O
,I
;::,
'""
'"'~
,
,j
,,....~
(,.,\
;. ....
!~
'....1
\j
':..~(:r:t
.001
DD
,0
o
o
Oi
, r:--~l
tJ
MECH.
SHAFT
+PECK SMILEY ETTLIN orchitect,
44'2. SW CORBETT A.VE. ?ORnA,NO, OREGON 972.01 PHOl-lE; {5DJ)2.4B-9-170 FAX~ (503) 148-0213
2nd FLOOR PLAN
1/6'.1'-0'
:ll4:l5.F.
4' 13'
~
Ib'
CITY OF ASHLAND
FIRE STATION #2
Ashland, Oregan
01 July 2009
(:
9:2'
rJi
~.::': .1
"'~'..~
r::
t."'
. "
('
(i:)
--"
~
t..;
I
\
\r
II
I
'io-
II
~
Q
~ II
/!e
o
~
'" i"-
I c..L_~____
"'-~ - -I ......
-..... - - I " I I
" ,\, I I J.. -1-
----~~::.:':--...-"--- .~:~.~~)Ny!HSV- ~-------)
............. ..... -... ..,~-~ ~.... P"'i'l
~--.......... -~~. --..,...1...... ""do'"P"'l
,;~i......l /! __=-___~
ON
~lIt:
I:%
~~
u.~ J
~~ II
Uu. l:;
8
i
;::)
co
i :
i "
:J 9
~ ~ D
a.~
;..
II
~ to
Cl ::> II
~ ffi :i
O ~ :;;
(t ~ rr
m Ct: ~
~ ::J ~
~ ~ ~
II) ~
~ ~ 8 ~
::>
2
z
o
()
C,
<I
:t
~ i I
~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ~
nIl
g ~ ~
o Il:: III
Z
ill
CJ
W
.J
rr I
8
'" ~
~ ~
.il oh
1l;5S ~
~~~ ~
"'O\~:E
H.~
'i; l!::~ 0
~O~l
'" 'E~~
!iH
~
'"
~
.,~
..:;
....
~~
..",
;~
Uw
"~
Cl:t:
...
z~
-.,.
-'z
....s
....3
"-'0
>~
...'"
-'~
-~
:t<1
"I~
III
:.:8
u~
1Ol:;:!
a.::!
.
0<;<;L6 NOD3~O 'GNVlHS\f ~
[0(: 31lns 'GVO~ 301mSIW oaL
:JNI Sl:J31lH:}~\f 3dV:JSGNVl S31lfl:JOSSY ONIf
~3DlfS mn\f]
G
;l
NOO"O 'ON'I'lHS\f
'OAlg oNmslf 098 L
(; NOUV1S.~I~ ON'(1HSV 03S0i01d
~
o
...
-i ~
c,_ F~
("-'
(;.~
CD
-:)
~
O~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ""1.1"",, .,
I-----____~-
I
'"
~
'"
'"
'"
~
~
fl
o I~C:
~~ II
80 I
~~
~w !
~~
~~ I
g.
i~ t
l o~ ~
~ ~, 8
~i "AMH ,
~i 1J^1E- ONVlH$1:f ,;
i
Ht
I I I i
I , i i
1 I I I I ! t i I I I I
!!'2fi~J~!!!t
~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
111 1 1 1 111 1 1 1
. I
j \
!! ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . " . ~ ~ ~
.
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;: '" '" ~ ~ 1
~I
~
H
~l (II
~I :
~f !
! i !. ~ H
~ i I ~ ~ ~ ! i i ~ ~ ;
~ 1 } l i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.. (\I (>1 ...- 111 '" ... ~ ~ ~ .;:: ~
f.
Uhf!
dHh~
'ill
iI
11 5
!J ~
ill
~
"
~ i
~(~i
f: B'..
U ,
~o ·
" '~f
0. ~"l:;'~tJ{ ?!
~ (\'l,.p~
...
o
~
~
~
I
.
~
...
z
:5
a.
~ ~
~
~
w
'"
o
Z
-(
Z
~ Q
ti
w
....
o
'"
"-
w
w
'"
....
$
~
~
~
~
11
s
.
~
t--
r
~
or;!;L6 Nm:mo '()NIflHSV ~ ~ 2) NO""O 'ONVlH'V q
10(; ,1Ins 'O\>'D~ ;lDBllSIW DoL f: ~
" w, 'O^'B ONVlH'V 0981
2 ~;.. <'l
:lNI Sl;)31IH;)~V 3dy;)saNV"] S31VI:lOSSI;f ONV ~ -" ~ NOlnlS3l1~ CMVlHSV 03So.IOld ! ~
~3~VS mn\1 !l
r;:
,"
z
~
o
Z
t=
Z
::s
0.
"
C~~~)
~
~
0"
=1
,,)
~
~
ffi
~
f
I
I
I ~ ~
I ~ 8
I 0 .
~ ~
~ ~
i · I ~ !
:rNllN.!:ISdOl:i..l LJ
1-------______
I
.
~
~
g
i<
~ I
. I~ II
. g ~ ~ r:
cl. ~~'"I
~~ ~~ ~~
,~ ~ H
~! ~ ~~
IIj 2; . u
~~ ffiu~ ~~
~. < ~~
g~ ~
-'
~
o
'"
z
;:
z
:5
<C
3 "'I
~ l:!
'" 0
" z
I :~ co ~ 0 ~; s ~
" :011 "ll ~ j~ 1l h;;~
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ;e ~ ~ ~ ~ i i =8"~ i ~
~~~ ~~ j~!~ 68; ;!-g~
;;j; K ~o .~". ~-~ ~'2'1l
~~E ~~ f~5~ ~ir:-.E"'t~
~~B ;1 l~ic i6~~~~~~
~~~ "~ ~..~ -~~"~~5o
~o~ f~ ."~~ ~~.~.<u~
~;~_~a ~~~B ~;~~~~~~
~$~~~~ ~a~m ~~~~~~~~
~; [~r~ ;~im ;J~~~}!8~
~~f~~~ ~~f~ ~~fi~w*~
~i8.i~.t~~ ~ :?Jt~,~~~1i
!Ee]s~~ig~~ ~2~~~i~&
~E.~i~~ ~~~~!~~lilj~~
~~~~a~~ ~_o~~~ QW~O~
,,=-E o....,~,., ~ ,,_
~Z=U~~~8~j~~R~~iu~~8
R~~e~E~~2 ~8eE~~~2~<.
e~~E~~~~ . ~~~~"e8g~
;~t!,~~~i~'r~I~!0:~~1
~~~EN~~~~~~~~~wO~hmI~
,
~o
~L
~~~
:~e
~~~ 9
hfr ~
~
~
~~ n
~ ~~
~~ g tc
il ~ ~i
I
,,-
-QAlI301'fV1HS\'
~ ~ s; .
~.l ~ ~ !;U
;;'~~ ~o: ~ ;:J~~~
~ ~t~ ~~; ~~~~
~rt~ z"" ~ ~gS2
~ ~~!~~g~Sm
~ Q 8 ~ ~ ~ h ~", ~
. ~ g ~ ~ I g g ~ 3~ l
i
~.
"
~~
.<
illi
,~
o'
~I
~~
~8
i~ ~
~2 -
~~8 ~
~g~ ~
m~
W~
~
~~
~:;
d
~~
~N
~~
~~
~~
,.
~
p
"'
2
~
j
~
w
w
~
f-
.. ...~.'):
I~ -,
'.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ~ ~ I
J-;
fJ)
~ ~~ &~
~ I
'--- ~-----------..... ~~
\~,~)I - ~:s
~~e !' I ~~
: "I "
.cJ,.~., ~L_
r-____J ~Q)
I
I I
I
I.l.i
~g
~~ .
------~:::::::SSFi1lX1-~----J~~--~-J~-~---------
~--..... --~
. II C
1 I I
~ II
---1 .+ - .. ~
I I
I I
=~~~74~7~~:~~:V
~
rj
~
.:"L;
'i:!"
',n
~..;
o
ZC\I
<(*
..JZ
I
000
<(I-c
LL ~ ~2
OOOo~
~W".~
_a:~~
OLL~re
'1"
~ -
.....:I t.i~
<- ~
D ~
(f), ..... I
~
. -
o
f')
W
..J
<(
o
(f)
z
<(
..J
n..
..J
<t
:::>
l-
n..
W
o
Z
o
o
~
..J
I-
:::>
I ~
J!f
Iii
!I~
()
~)
-:-~:)
_0............
"
..
I,
~ ~ ~
5 ~ ~
~ !; ~
~ B ~
~ ~ ~ i
:)
o
l-
~
o
~
g) ~ ~
~ ~!
~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~
it ~ l/) ~
~ ~U
o ~ ~ ~ ~
z
w
o
UJ
..J
~ 1
r"'"":,
~. .pI
'f"~'
~~
~~:,:
\
I
I
I~ ../
~J'
I .. ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\1
J/ !
\( ~~
IJ, U ~
l ~S: ILl
\ ...oj-;
\ ~~~
~\
8
~ -- ~---.......
\' r---i
I, ~\'" I
. ..-..... I i7::!jI; ! f
LL~~!:0
", -. . - . "', . -:. ' "-,,,-..; .', ~ - ,.' , "
=2S;~t~~~~'~1~c~!!t~~i)~......
'~~. ~. .. i J
~ - (~':~,,~---- ~e
- - - ., '- - -~ ;;1~. _ \ B.31:U8 aN\fl~SV
-=-:::~=- -=~~T\~~ - ---- ~-,-.-=-:::.=~~
,
~
~
~
o
ZC\j
<(=IF
..Jz
IO
CJ)_
<:(I-c
<( 0
U.I-~Ol
OCJ)o~
>-w-g~
I- a:: (lj :J
- :C:;'
OLL~ro
.~
.
II1 ~
,..;j t~
<I !::
(J ~
tn. ~.
]
. .
o
t'1
Z II
<(~
..J ..
a..w
...J
..J0
<((j)
::::>
h:
w
o
z
o
o
w
o
<(
z
<(
0:1
01
o
z
<(
o
z
o
<(
([
"
; !
11~
Jl
flJ
~d
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11 th, 2009
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2009-00873, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 10,076 SQUARE FOOT TWO- )
STORY FIRE STATION BUILDING TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FIRE STATION)
#2 LOCATED AT 1860 ASHLAND STREET. ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS ) FINDINGS,
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY THE EXISTING NON- ) CONCLUSIONS
CONFORMING USE, A V ARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ) AND ORDERS
REQUIREMENTS ALONG ASHLAND STREET, AN EXCEPTION TO STREET )
STANDARDS, AND THE REMOVAL OF ONE l2-INCH DIAMETER BLUE )
SPRUCE TREE. )
)
APPLICANTS: PSE Architects, agents for the City of Ashland
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #6200 of Map 39 IE 15 AA is located at 1860 Ashland Street and is zoned R-2 Low
Density Multiple Family Residential.
2) The applicants are requesting Site Review approval to construct a 10,076 square foot two-story
fire station building to replace the existing Fire Station #2 located at 1860 Ashland Street. The
application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing non-confonning
use, a Variance to the front yard setback requirements along Ashland Street, an Exception to Street
Standards, and the removal of one l2-inch diameter blue spruce tree. Site improvements are outlined on
the plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in Chapter 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.
e. 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 S6, 1999)
4) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in Chapter 18.104.050 as follows:
A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 1
or program.
B. 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.
C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of
the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use
of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the
following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the
target use of the zone:
I. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
5. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the
proposed use.
5) The criteria for modification of a non-conforming use are described in 18.68.090 as follows:
A. A non-conforming use or structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed,
substituted, or structurally altered, except as follows:
I. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.05 OrB and C),
a nonconforming use may be changed to one of the same or a more restricted
nature, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained when the use is
changed to a permitted use within the zoning district.
2. When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in
Conditional Use Chapter 18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.05 OrB and C),
nonconforming_structure may be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or the
footprint mod~fied, except that a Conditional Use Permit need not be obtained
when the addition or extension meets all requirements of this Title.
3. A non-conforming structure may be restored or rehabilitated)f is not changed in
size or shape, provided that the use of the structure is not changed except if in
conformance with the procedures of Section 18.68. 090.A.1 above.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the normal maintenance and
repair of a non-conforming structure or its restoration to a safe condition when
declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting public safety.
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 2
5. A legal noncoriforming structure or nonconforming use that is damaged to an
extent of 50% or more of its replacement cost may be restored only if the damage
was not intentionally_caused by the property owner and the nonconformity is not
increased. Any residential structure(s), including multiple:family, in a residential
zone damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost by a catastrophe, such as .fire
that is not intentionally caused by the owner, may be reconstructed at the original
density provided the reconstruction is commenced within 2 years after the
catastrophe.
6) The criteria for a Variance are described in Chapter 18.100.020 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. (Ord.2425 S1, 1987)
C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfidly or purposely self-imposed.
(Ord. 2775, 1996)
7) 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.
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on August 11,
2009 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission
approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 3
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Review approval to construct a
10,076 square foot two-story fire station building to replace the existing Fire Station #2, a
Conditional Use Pelmit to modify the existing non-conforming use, a Variance to the front yard
setback requirements along Ashland Street, an Exception to Street Standards, and the removal of
one 12-inch diameter blue spruce tree meets all applicable criteria for Site Review approval as
described in Chapter 18.72, for a Conditional Use Pelmit as desclibed in Chapter 18.104, for
Modification ofa Non-Conforming Use as described in Chapter 18.68, for a Variance as described
in Chapter 18.100, and for an Exception to Street Standards as desclibed in Chapter 18.88.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the approval requirements for
Basic Site Review and complies with the Ashland Boulevard Corridor design standards. The
Commission further finds that the proposal responds well to its unique context - that it is a long-
established public institution on a residentially zoned parcel shared with an established
neighborhood park, but is also located on a commercial arterial corridor that the city has
identified for a higher standard of pedestrian-friendly redevelopment through the Ashland
Boulevard Corridor design standards and nearby Detail Site Review Zones. The design manages
to avoid impacts to nearby Sherwood Park by limiting the proposed site disturbance to those
areas already long-established for use by the Fire Station. The new building provides a level of
urban design that is compatible with the nearby Detail Site Review Zone, and represents a
significant improvement over the current building's relationship to the pedestrian streetscape,
and vehicular impacts are to be reduced with the removal of two curb cuts and relocation of the
vehicular access to the lesser order Sherwood A venue. The design incorporates a new public
plaza space and a pedestrian corridor enhanced by amenities including seating areas, a trellis, and
public art in response to the Ashland Boulevard Corridor standards. The required residential
park row planting strip will accommodate larger stature street trees which directly relate to the
heavily treed nature of the nearby cemeteries, park and established residential neighborhood.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of
the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan provided delineates
the proposed building location, design and associated site improvements. The Planning
Commission finds that the subject property exceeds the minimum lot size for the district, and that
the proposed building complies with both the side and rear setback requirements. The
Commission further finds that when the special 65-foot baseline setback is applied to Ashland
Street's 80-foot right of way, buildings on the subject property must be set back at least 25 feet
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 4
from the front property line along Ashland Street. The Commission finds that the building is
proposed to be placed at 15-feet eight-inches from the front property line, that a proposed trellis
pedestrian feature adjacent to the pedestrian corridor is to be placed to within approximately six-
feet of the fi"ont property line, and that the placement of these elements within the special
baseline setback area requires a Variance, which is further discussed below. The Commission
fUliher finds that the solar calculations provided with the application demonstrate compliance
with the applicable Solar Access Standard A.
The Planning Commission finds that at 13.5 dwelling units per acre, the base density for this 1.05
acre site is 14.175 dwelling units, and that the minimum density is 11 units. The Commission
further finds that AMC 18.24.040.A.2 provides that lots subject to Conditional Use Permits may
be exempted from the minimum density requirements for that portion of the property subject to
the conditional use, and that the remaining undeveloped portion of the lot would be unchanged in
terms of its potential to provide the minimum density. The building has a proposed height of 29
feet, which is well below the 35-foot maximum height allowed.
The Planning Commission finds that within the R-2 zoning district, signage is permitted only in
conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit and that such signs are generally limited to one
ground sign not exceeding five feet in height or a sign area of 15 square feet, or a wall sign in
lieu of the ground sign. The Commission further finds that proposed signage will either need to
be modified to comply with the signage regulations for residential districts or a Conditional Use
Permit for a government sign obtained, and a condition to this effect has been attached to the
approval.
The Planning Commission finds that in terms of parking requirements, fire stations are an
"unspecified use" as they are addressed neither in the Ashland Municipal Code's Off-Street
Parking Chapter (18.92) nor in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Parking Generation
Manual. With regard to "unspecified uses", AMC 18.92 provides that where automobile parking
requirements for any use are not specifically defined, such requirements are to be determined
based upon the most comparable use specified in this section and other available data. The
applicants, who previously designed Ashland's Fire Station #1 and have extensive experience in
the public sector designing over 55 fire stations, five training towers, and emergency
headquarters and dispatch centers throughout Oregon and Washington, note that by comparison,
Fire Station #1 is 15,000 square feet and provided 16 parking spaces. They suggest that Ashland
"Industrial Use" parking requirements, which call for "one space per two employees on the
largest shift", are the most comparable option, but add that they recommend providing one space
per two employees at shift change. They note that this would require twelve parking spaces, and
they have proposed to provide 12 head-in and 5 parallel on-street spaces along Sherwood
A venue, including one handicapped accessible space, to accommodate the parking requirements
of the station, in addition to the three proposed emergency vehicle bays which are to
accommodate up to six emergency vehicles. The Planning Commission finds that the on-street
parking spaces to be provided address the off-street parking required entirely through on-street
credits, which require that the first four credits be granted at one credit per two spaces provided
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 5
and the remainder counted on a one for one basis. The Commission therefore finds that the 17
spaces equate to 13 off-street spaces and thus just exceed the 12 space requirement suggested by
the applicants. The Commission finds that additional parking available outside of the shift
overlap will be available to serve users of Sherwood Park, and that the parking to be provided is
at an appropriate level to serve the proposed use.
The Planning Commission finds that approximately 69 percent of the subject property is to be
provided in landscaped area, in large part due to the presence of Sherwood Park on the site. The
Commission further finds that because no off-street parking is proposed, requirements for
parking lot landscaping do not come into play. The application includes three landscape bays
with trees in the Sherwood A venue right-of-way which will buffer the on-street parking and
provide shade. The Commission finds that a covered and screened trash and recycling area will
be provided at the southeast corner of the building, and that site lighting will be pedestrian scaled
and will comply with LEED "dark sky" requirements as well.
The Planning Commission finds that the shifting of vehicular access for the fire apparatus bays
from Ashland Street, where vehicles must at times now stop traffic on Ashland Street to back
into the existing bays, to the lesser order Sherwood A venue results in the removal of two existing
curb cuts, and that the proposed new driveway on Sherwood satisfies the controlled access
requirement that driveways on residential streets be located at least 35 feet from the nearest
intersection.
The Planning Commission finds that while Ashland does not have specific Site Design Standards
for public buildings to be constructed in residential zones, the Basic Site Review Standards for
Commercial Development have historically been applied and are the most appropriate standards
for considering such applications. The Commission further finds that while the subject propeliy
is residentially zoned, it is located on the Ashland Boulevard Corridor and is within the only
small area on Ashland Street not within a Detail Site Review Zone.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed design provides a primary entrance to the
building from the higher order Ashland Street sidewalk, and that it creates a public pedestrian
plaza space that draws the orientation to the corner. The existing four-and-a-half foot curbside
sidewalks are to be replaces with a full residential-style parkrow planting strip to accommodate
larger stature street trees, and the sidewalk widened to arterial standards. Landscaping is to be
provided in the parkrow planting strip, in bays along Sherwood Avenue, and on the east side of
the building to provide a buffer to adjacent uses, as well as through Sherwood Park, which shares
the site. Only a single tree, a 12-inch d.b.h. Blue Spruce is to be removed, with the remainder of
the site trees to be preserved and protected. While parking is to be provided through on-street
credits, landscaped bays with trees are proposed within the street to buffer and shade these
parking spaces.
The Planning Commission further finds that while the subject property is not located in the
Detail Site Review Zone, it is a civic project prominently located on Ashland Street and as such
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 6
should provide the level of urban design expected along Ashland Street streetscape. The
Commission finds that the "people areas" called for in the Detail Site Review streetscape
standards are proposed and will be defined with hardscape in the plaza area to be created, and the
building is entirely within 20 feet of the sidewalk to provide a strong relationship to the
pedestrian streetscape. Landscaping is proposed to be provided on the east side of the building to
buffer the adjacent use and enhance the small covered patio proposed there. The building design
includes changes in relief, materials, and fenestration, and a covered canopy is provided to both
emphasize the entry and provide pedestrian protection from sun and rain. The building mass is
divided into heights and sizes which relate to the human, pedestrian scale as it presents both to
Ashland Street and Sherwood A venue, and this is emphasized through the use of materials and
fenestration. Public plaza space is included along the street frontage, incorporating both bench
seating and a low seating wall, street trees, and public art. The Commission finds the building to
be in keeping with the level of urban design envisioned for the redevelopment of the Ashland
Boulevard COlTidor in the Site Design and Use Standards, and consistent with the level of civic
architecture encountered elsewhere in Ashland, most notably Fire Station #1 and the Community
Development and Engineering Services Building.
The Commission finds that the subject property is located along the Ashland Boulevard Corridor,
and subject to the design standards established in Section V of the Site Design and Use Standards
Handbook for development along this corridor. The Ashland Boulevard Corridor Standards
speak to the design of improvements within the Ashland Street right-of-way which are intended
to provide an attractive street environment to encourage pedestrian usage and public safety in
concert with the Commercial and Detail Site Review Design Standards for development along
the corridor. Specifically, it provides detailed standards for landscape median installation within
the roadway, for sidewalk corridor enhancement, and for the creation of special pedestrian areas
with street furniture including benches, drinking fountains, news racks, etc. to provide for the
comfort and convenience of pedestrians. The Commission finds that the landscape medians
called for in the standards were installed in the right-of-way by the City in 2002 and are now in
place, and with the current application, the sidewalk and special pedestrian area standards are
proposed to be addressed within and adjacent to the right-of-way through the widening of the
sidewalk to the required six feet, seven foot parkrow planting strip and street tree installation, the
proposed comer plaza space, the addition of benches and a low-seating wall, the proposed trellis
pedestrian amenity, and future public art installation.
The Planning Commission finds that existing water, sewer, storm sewer, electrical services and
paved access are in place and serve the existing Fire Station. The Commission further finds that
with the proposal, the subject property's street frontages will be further improved, private utilities
undergrounded, and a new four-inch sewer line will be connected to the existing service in the
Sherwood right-of-way. A conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan has been provided illustrating
a design to reduce stOlmwater outflows to below a 25-year storm level on the unimproved site,
with storm water to be contained on site with trench drains at the driveway apron and sloped
drainage of all hardscape areas. All water run-off from the vehicle bays is to be run through an
approved oil-water separator prior to outflow into the city system. The application also notes that
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 7
the existing water meter on Sherwood Avenue and the existing electrical vault may be relocated
to provide for sidewalks and protect adjacent trees, that a new hydrant and associated piping are
to be installed adjacent to the northernmost apparatus bay, and that thee building will be fully
sprinklered. The Planning Commission finds that based on a memorandum provided from
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Engineering/Planning, the proposed Ashland Fire
Station #2 redevelopment project can be developed while maintaining safe and efficient
operations on the surrounding transpOliation system, that this new facility will allow the City to
improve its services to the community, and that due to relatively low pedestrian traffic and the
limited number of emergency calls no pedestrian signal or emergency service signal is necessary
at this time.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that while the purpose of the R-2 zoning district is to
accommodate residential uses and appurtenant community services, public buildings are not
specifically listed as either a permitted or conditional use within the R-2 zone. As such, the
Planning Commission finds that the existing Fire Station #2, which was constructed and has
remained in use on the site since the mid-1960's, pre-dates current land use regulations and is
considered to be a pre-existing legal non-conforming use. The R-2 zoning regulations provide
for changes to non-conforming uses through the Conditional Use Permit process, and refer to the
additional requirements in AMC 18.68.090, where it is noted that "a non-conforming use or
structure may not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, substituted, or structurally altered except,
"When authorized in accordance with the same procedure as provided in Conditional Use Chapter
18.104 and the criteria of Section 18.104.05 OrB and C), a nonconforming use may be changed to one of
the same or a more restricted nature... "
The Planning Commission finds that the existing Fire Station #2 structure is conforming in that it
meets the setback, height, lot coverage, and other requirements of the zoning district, and it is the
Fire Station use itself which is the non-conforming element. The proposal here involves
enlarging the existing building, which currently has a footprint of approximately 3,000 square
feet and additional outdoor storage and parking areas of approximately 1,800 square feet to
encompass a new footprint of approximately 6,950 square feet and a total building area of 10,076
square feet. The Commission finds that because the building housing a non-conforming use is
being enlarged, a Conditional Use Permit is required.
The Planning Commission finds that adequate city facilities are in place in the adjacent rights-of-
way and serve the existing building, and that additional improvements are to be provided
including sidewalk improvements on both street frontages, a new on-site stormwater detention
and treatment system, and a new hydrant and fire sprinkler system. The Commission further
finds that if the subject property were to develop in keeping with the target use of the zone, the
subject property's 1.05 acres could accommodate 14 residential dwelling units at the R-2 base
density.
The Planning Commission finds based on the submitted traffic report, the proposed station will
not increase traffic or negatively affect the adjacent neighborhood. In addition, the Commission
finds that by removing two curb cuts and consolidating access to the lesser order Sherwood
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 8
A venue the proposal brings the site into compliance with controlled access standards, minimizes
conflict points, and eliminates the need for fire apparatus to stop Ashland Street traffic while
backing into the existing bays. The Commission also finds that pedestrian and bicycle amenities
to be provided along the Ashland Street corridor offer a greatly enhanced urban streetscape over
the current station.
The Planning Commission finds that the existing narrow sidewalks and lacking streetscape
presence of the current station provide little pedestrian interest on a corridor that is intended to
develop with an increased focus on the pedestrian environment, and that this is further
exaggerated by landscaping which tends to emphasize this perceived disconnect. The Planning
Commission finds that parkrow planting strips, street trees and sidewalks are to be provided
along Ashland Street to bring the frontage up to current street standards; that a public plaza space
with pedestrian amenities will be created in keeping with the Ashland Boulevard Corridor
standards; and that the proposed building design will establish a strong relationship to the much-
improved pedestrian streetscape. The Commission further finds that by avoiding impacts to
Sherwood Park, preserving all but one of the existing trees on site, and adding new street trees
along Ashland Street and three landscape bays on Sherwood, the proposal strengthens the
relationship between the Fire Station, the park, cemeteries, and surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Commission finds that the building is to be constructed to LEED "Gold" standards,
resulting in significantly less waste stream, more sustainable building methodologies, the
incorporation of low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials to meet stringent LEED air
quality requirements, and the use of lighting to satisfy LEED light trespass standards, and as such
satisfactorily addresses the Conditional Use Permit criteria for air quality, environmental
pollutants, light, noise, and glare.
The Planning Commission finds that while the proposal involves an enlargement of the Fire
Station building, the underlying nature of the non-conforming Fire Station use will remain
essentially unchanged with the enlargement simply better accommodating this long-established
use. The Commission finds that that the portion of the subject property dedicated to the Fire Station
use is not being expanded, that the number of employees and vehicles assigned to the station is not
increasing, and that the area served by the station is not proposed to expand. Rather than an
intensification of the use, the increased size of the building is intended to allow the structure to
accommodate ADA-compliant restrooms and separate men's and women's facilities which the current
station lacks. The new station also includes: protected, conditioned interior space for all of the vehicles,
equipment and maintenance facilities; living quarters; training and exercise facilities; Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT) space; offices and support areas to enhance community safety and
facilitate fire personnel readiness. The application clarifies that the current building, built in the mid-
1960' s, is constructed of un-reinforced masonry block, does not meet current seismic regulations; has
asbestos in the ceilings, walls, and floors; and suffers from a poor ventilation system which allows
contaminants and exhaust from the apparatus bays to enter the firefighter living quarters.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds the fact that the majority of the southern portion of the
subject property contains an established neighborhood park, with established large stature trees
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 9
located in the area between the park and eXlstmg Fire Station, to be a unique or unusual
circumstance which would not typically be encountered elsewhere. These established trees add
greatly to the character of the park site, providing a buffer between the park and the station while
also relating to the generally treed character of the neighborhood. The new Fire Station building
is proposed to be placed IS-feet eight-inches from the front property line, and a proposed trellis
pedestrian accent is to be placed to within approximately six-feet of the front property line along
approximately fifty feet of the building frontage. Both of these placements are within the special
baseline setbacks established along Ashland Street, which would call for a 25-foot front yard to
be provided here. The plan as proposed proceeds from a desire to avoid impacts to the park and
preserve these buffering trees by moving the building nearer to the street than would otherwise be
allowed. The application notes that preserving the trees while also complying with the required
setback would necessitate elimination of one of the three proposed apparatus bays which are
needed to adequately house existing emergency response and fire fighting equipment which serve
the community. The materials submitted also note that while the city owns additional property in
the vicinity, this property is long-established as a cemetery with old graves located very near the
edge of right-of-way which not only removed it from consideration in pursuing alternate designs,
but also severely limited the ability to make changes within the Sherwood A venue right-of-way.
The Planning Commission finds that the site, which has housed a fire station for more than 40
years, has been determined to be virtually ideally located to ensure desired emergency response
times in conjunction with Fire Station #1. The proposed new station is the minimum size
necessary to house the existing equipment necessary to serve the community with appropriate
space available for staff, equipment and maintenance facilities. The Commission further finds
that with the requested setback Variance, the building can be constructed without compromising
the current or future operational needs of Ashland Fire and Rescue while still fully preserving
Sherwood Park and its established trees. The Commission also finds that with the removal of
two of the three existing curb cuts and relocation of the apparatus bays and access entirely to
Sherwood A venue, the need for equipment to stop heavy traffic to back into the existing bays is
eliminated, remedying a potential safety hazard and bringing the site into compliance with
controlled access standards. The Commission finds that while the proposed building encroaches
into the setback, the design presented greatly enhances the Ashland Street pedestrian corridor by
widening the sidewalks, adding parkrows, and creating a public plaza space with seating and
pedestrian amenities.
The Planning Commission finds that the site has housed a Fire Station for more than 40 years,
and that the current proposal represents an attempt to upgrade the aging structure to meet the
current and future operational needs in providing fire protection to the community while
responding to the site constraints of the adjacent trees, park, cemetery, residential neighborhood
and the associated street system and is thus not willfully or purposely self-imposed.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that there are five existing, established trees along the
Sherwood A venue street frontage in Sherwood Park, spaced relatively evenly and near the street
which present a demonstrable difficulty in installing standards parkrow planting strips and
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 10
sidewalks along this frontage. The Commission further finds that given the tree locations
relative to the existing curb line, modifications to the existing curbside sidewalk pattern along
this frontage would likely necessitate the removal of some or all of these trees. The Commission
finds that the request to continue the established curbside sidewalk pattern, with no parkrow
planting strip, and to limit sidewalk installation any further east into the park will preserve the
existing trees while protecting the character of the park, and that plantings which would
otherwise have been included within the parkrow planting strip will be distributed elsewhere on
the site to upgrade the current park's landscaping. The Commission further finds that three new
landscape bays proposed to be installed within the Sherwood right-of-way will serve to delineate
and buffer the parking and driveway areas, functioning much like a standard parkrow planting
strip and accommodating the planting of three additional street trees along this frontage. The
Commission finds that connection of the new sidewalks to the existing network and the proposed
addition of the landscaped bays within the street right-of-way will result in equal transportation
facilities and connectivity while remaining directly in keeping with the stated purpose and intent
of the Performance Standards Options Chapter.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that a total of ten trees which are six-inches in diameter-
at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater have been identified on or near the subject property. These
include oak, pine, spruce, maple, juniper on the subject property, as well as three plum trees on
the neighboring property to the east. The application proposes to retain and protect all but one
tree; a I2-inch d.b.h. Blue Spruce located near the comer of Ashland Street and Sherwood
Avenue is proposed to be removed to allow for sidewalk installation and provide vision clearance
for exiting emergency vehicles. The Planning Commission finds that AMC I8.61.042.D.1.d.
notes that for lands under the control of the City of Ashland, only those trees defined as
significant, with diameters over I8-inches, are subject to Tree Removal Permits. The
Commission further finds that while findings have been provided by the applicants to
demonstrate that the requested tree removal satisfies the applicable criteria for approval in that it
is proposed to address other ordinance criteria relating to vision clearance and sidewalk
requirements, no Tree Removal Permit is required for this proposed removal as the tree's I2-inch
diameter does not constitute a significant tree.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Heming on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Site Review approval to construct a 10,076 square foot two-story fire station building to
replace the existing Fire Station #2, a Conditional Use Permit to modify the existing non-conforming
use, a V miance to the front yard setback requirements along Ashland Street, an Exception to Street
Standards, and the removal of one I2-inch diameter blue spruce tree is supported by evidence contained
within the record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2009-00873. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2009-00873 is denied. The
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 11
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicant be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That any signage installed shall comply with the standards listed for signage in a residential zone
in AMC 18.96.070, or a Conditional Use Permit obtained for the installation of government
signage as provided in AMC 18.96.150. In either case, 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
penni t.
4) All conditions of the Tree Commission as detailed in their recommendations of August 6, 2009
shall be conditions of approval where consistent with applicable ordinances and standards and
with final approval of the Staff Advisor.
5) 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 entrance at the comer of Ashland
Street and Sherwood A venue shall remain functional and open to the public during all business
hours.
6) That engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalks along Ashland Street and
Sherwood A venue shall be submitted for review and approval of the 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 Ashland Street sidewalk shall be a minimum of six
feet in width with seven to eight foot landscaped parkrows between the sidewalk and the street.
The Sherwood A venue sidewalk shall be a minimum of five feet in width. All frontage
improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and in-street landscape bays
shall be constructed as per the approved plans. Sidewalks shall be constructed to City of Ashland
Street Standards except for those areas where an Exception to Street Standards has specifically
been approved.
7) 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.
8) That, if deemed necessary by the Building Official, a 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.
9) That the building permit submittal materials shall include:
a) Identification of all easements, including but not limited to public utility easements and
public pedestrian access easements.
b) Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, and vehicular and
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 12
pedestrian circulation areas, as well as landscaping calculations. Landscaping provided
shall be at least 35 percent of the site, as required in AMC l8.72.ll0.A.
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 stormwater 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 pmi of the application and compatible with the surrounding area. Exterior
building color and material samples, and specifications of the light fixtures and any
necessary shielding or shrouding, shall be provided with the building permit submittals
for review and approval of the Staff Advisor.
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.
g) Identification of vision clearance areas. Any utilities, landscaping, street furnishing, or
public art installations shall be installed and maintained to comply with the vision
clearance requirements in AMC 18.68.020.
10) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) That the applicant submit a final 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 pelmit issuance.
The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the Blue Spruce tree to be
removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the other trees that are 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 l8.61.200.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 and fire sprinklers shall be complied with prior to issuance of the
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 13
building permit or the use of combustible materials, whichever is 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
within the sidewalk corridor.
d) That all requirements of the Building Division, including but not limited to providing
necessary information for the approval of any "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 applicable
recommendations of the Tree Commission and providing irrigation details satisfying the
requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping
Guidelines and Policies shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff
Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) Three 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 thc 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 Ashland 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 of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees
shall be irrigated.
c) 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 of a 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 18.72.115.B.
d) The two existing curb cuts shall be removed and replaced with standard curbing as
proposed by the applicants. New curb and driveway approach 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.
e) That all public improvements including but not limited to sidewalks, plaza space, street
trees, and proposed on-street parking 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.
f) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties.
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 14
g) 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 Commission Approval
Date
P A #2009-00873
August 11, 2009
Page 15