HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-24 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, give 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
SPECIAL MEETING
JANUARY 24, 2012
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. PUBLIC FORUM
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011-01576, 1554 Webster (SOU North Campus Village).
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01174
DESCRIPTION: A public hearing to review the ordinance amendments that were recently
adopted as part of the Pedestrian Places project. The zoning the land use ordinance
associated with the Pedestrian Places project were approved by the City Council on
November 15, 2011 and went into effect on December 16, 2011. Subsequent to the
approval, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to re-review those
ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone and citywide, and
make recommendations to the Council for changes as appropriate.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
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).
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
th
January 24, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2011-01576, A REQUEST FOR )
SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-STORY )
DINING HALL NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF WIGHTMAN AND WEBSTER )
STREETS, TWO NEW FOUR-STORY RESIDENCE HALLS NEAR THE INTER- )
SECTION OF WEBSTER AND STADIUM STREETS, TWO PARKING LOTS, )
AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SOUTHERN OREGON )
FINDINGS,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS AT 1554 WEBSTER STREET. ALSO INCLUDED ARE )
CONCLUSIONS
REQUESTS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW )
AND ORDERS
BUILDINGS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LENGTH AND VARY FROM THE )
LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE SOU MASTERPLAN AND TO EXCEED THE )
40-FOOT HEIGHT ALLOWANCE IN THE SO ZONING DISTRICT, AND A )
REQUEST FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE 27 TREES THAT ARE )
18-INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OR GREATER. )
)
APPLICANT:
American Campus Community Services )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lot #4200 of Map 39 1E 10 CD is located at 1554 Webster Street and is zoned SO, Southern
Oregon University.
2) The applicants are requesting Site Review approval to construct a new single-story dining hall
near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the
intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements on the
Southern Oregon University campus at 1554 Webster Street. Also included in the application are
requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and
vary from the locations identified in the SOU Masterplan and to exceed the 40-foot height allowance in
the SO zoning district, and a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 27 significant trees (defined
as being 18-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 Southern Oregon University Campus SOU Plan Update (“the SOU Plan”) was adopted by
the Ashland City Council in June of 2010 to achieve compliance with Oregon Statewide Planning Goal
#2 (Land Use Planning) as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statutes which requires that the
planning activities of Southern Oregon University be coordinated with the City of Ashland to ensure
compatibility with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and local land use ordinances. The SOU Plan
provides both a conceptual framework and design guidelines for the on-going development of the 164-
acre Southern Oregon University campus, which is zoned SO (Southern Oregon University). Zoning
regulations within this district are found in AMC 18.64, which generally provides that those uses which
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 1
are directly related to the educational functions of SOU, which are indicated and located in conformance
with the adopted SOU Plan, and which are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned property are
permitted outright subject to Site Review approval, while allowing a measure of flexibility to the
adopted SOU Plan where project-specific site planning varies from the larger conceptual framework by
providing that any “use, site design, or construction or alteration of same” not agreed upon in advance
is subject to discretionary review as a Conditional Use Permit.
4) The application also involves the proposed demolition of four to five single family residences
and their associated accessory structures near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets to
accommodate the proposed development. The demolition and relocation of structures is not regulated
through Ashland’s Land Use Ordinance (AMC Chapter 18) or subject to land use approval, and must
instead be reviewed and approved separately pursuant to AMC 15.04.210-.218 which regulate the
demolition and relocation of buildings within the city. The approval of Demolition/Relocation Review
Permits is subject to review by the Building Official and/or the Demolition Review Committee.
5) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 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.
6) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC 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, bicycle,
and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities.
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 2
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.
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 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
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 3
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.
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 13,
2011 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This hearing was continued to the
next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 10, 2012 at which time additional testimony
was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning
Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the
site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Review, Conditional Use and Tree
Removal permit approvals meets all applicable criteria for Site Review approval as described in Chapter
18.72, for Conditional Use Permits as described in Chapter 18.107, and for Tree Removal Permits 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 Planning Commission further
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 4
finds that the application involves requests for Site Review approval to construct a new single-story
27,500 square foot Dining Hall near the intersection of Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-
story Residence Halls near the intersection of Webster and Stadium Streets with the South Residence
Hall to consist of 105,000 square feet in 128 semi-suite units to house 429 students and the North
Residence Hall to consist of 89,443 square feet in 78 suite units to house 273 students, two parking lots
and associated site improvements on the northern portion of Southern Oregon University’s campus at
1554 Webster Street. The Planning Commission finds that with the proposal, the existing Cascade
residential complex on the southern campus will cease to be used to house students, and the proposed
new North Campus Village development will replace the lost Cascade beds and potentially provide
accommodations for up to an additional 100 students. The Planning Commission also notes that while
the application makes mention of the possibility of a future 50,000 square foot Recreation Center
addition which would be constructed between the nearby McNeal Pavilion building and Wightman
Street, this future addition is not part of the current proposal and is not considered here.
The Planning Commission finds that the first criterion to be considered for Site Review approval is that,
“All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.” The
Planning Commission further finds that development within the SO zoning district is guided by the SOU
Plan, which provides the conceptual framework for the development of the campus over the coming
decade through an adopted map detailing proposed developments as well as through specific site and
building design standards applicable to the campus which supplement the zoning regulations found in
AMC 18.64 and the site design standards found in Ashland Site Design Review Chapter (AMC 18.72)
and the city’s Site Design and Use Standards. In AMC 18.64, the SO zoning district regulations
generally provide that those uses which are directly related to the educational functions of the university
are considered outright permitted uses, provided that such uses are indicated and located in conformance
with the adopted, city-approved SOU Plan, and are greater than fifty (50) feet from privately owned
property. In addition to the SOU Plan, development on campus is also subject to the Site Review, Sign
Regulations, Off-Street Parking and Tree Preservation & Protection chapters, as well as to the
Conditional Use Permit chapter which applies to: any use, site design, or construction or alteration of
same not agreed upon in advance by the city and the university in the SOU Plan; any use, site design, or
construction within 50 feet of privately-owned property; any construction over 40 feet in height; and
wireless communication facilities not permitted outright and authorized pursuant to Section 18.72.180.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed residence and dining hall buildings are directly
related to the educational functions of the university, however the location of the dining hall, residence
halls and associated parking lots are not as identified in the SOU Plan, the 400+ foot length of the
residence halls exceeds the maximum 250 foot length allowed in the SOU Plan, and the height of the
residence halls is greater than the 40 feet allowed outright in the district. As such, the Commission finds
that these components of the application require Conditional Use Permit approvals to address these areas
of nonconformity. Findings with regard to these Conditional Use Permits are provided in Section 2.4
below.
The Planning Commission finds that there are provisions within the SOU Plan for the applicants to
consider parking standards specific to the university in collaboration with city staff. Currently, the
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 5
applicable parking standards in AMC 18.92.020 call for two off-street parking spaces for each three
guest rooms in a dormitory. Overall campus parking requires one and one-half spaces per classroom
plus one space for five students, plus the required parking for on-campus resident students the campus
can accommodate within dormitories. Based on observed parking demand across campus, the applicants
propose to adjust the parking required for residence halls from two off-street parking spaces for each
three guest rooms in a dormitory to only one space per three beds. The applicants also propose to
increase classroom parking required from one and one-half spaces per classroom plus one space for five
students to two spaces per classroom plus one per five students, and to clarify that required parking for
on-campus resident students the campus can accommodate within dormitories should be considered only
once, rather than being counted for the dormitory and then again at the overall campus level. The
Planning Commission finds these proposed parking requirements to be reasonable and based on the
observed demand discussed in the applicants’ submittals, and further notes that 350 double rooms would
accommodate 700 students with a parking requirement of 231 spaces based on the current municipal
code requirement, while 700 beds considered under the proposed adjusted standard would require 234
spaces.
The application notes that there are currently 570 existing off-street parking spaces available on the
northern portion of the campus, and that these spaces currently have a utilization rate of roughly 36
percent. The application materials also point out that on-street parking currently has a peak utilization
rate of 91 percent, and goes on to suggest that based on the applicants’ observations, approximately 50
percent of the current on-street demand is tied to the university. As part of the application, the
applicants propose to construct two parking lots – one off of Stadium Street at College Way, where
parking is already in place, and another at the corner of Stadium and Webster Streets. The application
explains that with the removal of some existing parking lots to accommodate the proposed buildings and
the addition of these two parking lots, there will be a net reduction of 44 parking spaces, leaving 526
off-street spaces to accommodate demand on the north campus. The application notes that with the
proposed north campus development, a utilization rate of approximately 77 percent could be obtained
for off-street parking on the north campus, and that there would be a possibility to absorb the additional
demand currently associated with on-street parking into the campus at a future date.
Application materials provided relative to transportation and parking demand management note that
while some actions are entirely within the University’s control, such as setting policies on where
students and employees park, other items such as a bus pass program or neighborhood parking permit
program are dependent upon the expansion of working partnerships between the City, Rogue Valley
Transportation District (RVTD) and the surrounding neighbors, and further indicate that the proposed
North Campus Village project is in effect transportation demand management strategy unto itself in that
it seeks to make living on campus more attractive to students who might otherwise commute by car, as
well as providing substantial bicycle parking to support student bicycle commuting. The application
states that the university will implement variable pricing between parking lots when the residence halls
open in fall of 2013, and will re-designate parking lots on the north and south campus areas to ensure
that resident students have sufficient parking available on the appropriate side of Siskiyou and that
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 6
parking resource utilization efficiency is maximized. It further suggests that while the university would
be willing to adjust parking pricing further and pursue other measures such as restricting the sale of
parking permits to first year students they believe that a neighborhood parking permit program would be
needed prior to implementation to avoid having parking impacts spill over to the surrounding
neighborhood streets. In terms of additional transit strategies, the applicants have indicated a
willingness to meet with RVTD, university staff and administrators and students to discuss transit
subsidies, noting that they would like to reinstate a bus pass program in an appropriate form provided
there are changes in transit service to meet student needs such as adequate evening hours to support
students who commute to the Higher Education Center in Medford, and will also explore options for
providing some sort of express shuttle service for students traveling to the Medford Higher Education
Center campus and from outside of Medford as well.
While the application suggests that parking management strategies including parking pricing, parking
restrictions, and specific parking lot designations can reduce demand in conjunction with transportation
demand managements measures such as transit subsidies and a targeted shuttle service, the submittal
materials ultimately conclude that because the proposed parking is adequate for the request these
measures are not necessary in association with the current proposal. The Commission finds that because
the application primarily involves a shifting of existing student population from one side of Siskiyou
Boulevard to the other, it is appropriate that providing adequate parking within a reasonable proximity
to the new halls and addressing pedestrian safety enhancements at the likely crossing points for residents
be key areas of focus for the application, and that these are two issues are adequately addressed in the
materials provided. However, the Commission must also note that without a more detailed explanation
of the future Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion including the nature of proposed
uses and the number, type and frequency of potential events, a finding cannot be made at this time that
the parking proposed now will be adequate to serve that future construction, and further finds that at the
time that project is considered through Conditional Use Permit review, more aggressive parking
management and transportation demand management measures such as neighborhood parking permit
programs may be necessary to minimize vehicular impacts to the surrounding neighborhood from the
combined demand of the currently proposed North Campus Village housing and future Student
Recreation Center addition which is not part of the current request.
The Planning Commission further finds that with regard to bicycle parking, AMC 18.92.040 typically
requires that colleges and universities provide one bicycle parking space per five automobile parking
spaces, with half of these spaces required to be covered. The applicants have indicated that they intend
to provide bicycle parking in an amount at least equivalent to the requirements of AMC 18.92.040. A
site plan has been provided illustrating five proposed covered outdoor bicycle parking locations near the
entry points to the proposed buildings and the existing Greensprings dormitory, where the applicants
propose to install two-level racks which can accommodate up to 20 bikes on each level similar to those
widely used on the southern campus and which have become a de facto standard for campus bicycle
parking. The applicants have indicated that 100 percent of the outdoor spaces to be provided are to be
covered, and that these two-level racks will accommodate twice the number of bicycles in the same
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 7
surface area. The Commission finds that the proposed bicycle parking provisions are consistent with the
placement standards of the land use ordinance, and will ultimately exceed both the overall number of
spaces to be provided and the number of those which must be covered. The Commission further finds
that while the two-level bicycle parking structures will not accommodate all users or bicycle types on
their upper levels, the lower levels provide options for locking bicycles securely by the frame similar to
those provided by the standard inverted U-rack as required in AMC 18.92.060.J, with the upper level
providing for a doubling of the number of spaces in the same surface area, and that these racks are an
appropriate treatment for on-campus bicycle parking. The Commission finds that the applicants will
also provide additional bicycle parking within the proposed residence halls in amount equivalent to one
bicycle parking space per bed in the form of hooks or racks in each room and/or locking bicycle parking
rooms on the lower floors to accommodate indoor bicycle parking for students on upper floors and thus
further exceed the minimum required number of bicycle parking spaces.
The Planning Commission finds that the second criterion for the approval of a Site Review permit is
that, “All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.” Within the Site
Review chapter, both commercial and multi-family residential developments requiring Site Review
approval are required to provide an “opportunity-to-recycle” site for use of the project occupants. The
“opportunity-to-recycle” site must be of a size equal or greater than the solid waste receptacle, and both
the waste and recycling facilities must be screened from view by adjacent properties and public rights-
of-way. The plans provided identify a “recycling hub” as a central element in the floor plans for each
floor in the residence halls, and a trash compactor location is identified between the southern residence
hall and Ashland Street. The existing trees and topography already screen the compactor location to a
degree, and the applicants have provided details of enhanced landscape screening to be planted for
further screening in their landscape plan submittals. Once constructed, the future mixed-use building
identified to be built along Ashland Street will provide further screening of the proposed compactor
placement. The applicants have also indicated that solid waste and recycling facilities for the dining hall
are to be contained entirely within the building and not to be visible from adjacent properties or rights-
of-way. A condition has been included below to require that the building permit submittals include
final details for the solid waste and recycling facilities’ placement and screening in a manner consistent
with the details provided in the land use application.
The Site Review chapter also requires that project lighting not directly illuminate any adjacent
residentially-zoned property. While the plans provided do not identify details on the type or placement
of lighting, the Commission finds that the primary area where lighting might impact adjacent
residentially-zoned property is at the front of the proposed dining hall building on Wightman Street,
which is located directly across the 60-foot street right-of-way from residential property. The
Commission further finds that given the physical separation and the options available for lighting
selection, placement and screening, there should be no difficulty in complying with this standard,
particularly given that the applicants have noted that they will pursue dark sky standard lighting as part
of their proposed LEED® certification. A condition has accordingly been included to require that
lighting specifications including details of specific light fixture placement and any shrouding or other
screening necessary to prevent direct illumination of adjacent residential properties be provided with the
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 8
building permit submittals.
The Site Review chapter further requires that prior to final approval, the proposal be reviewed by
Conservation Division staff to assess energy use estimates and conservation strategies provided by the
applicants and to provide any applicable recommendations as to available cost-effective means to
further reduce energy consumption. The applicants have indicated that the project will be pursuing
LEED® certification to at least the Silver level, have provided details of the energy use and
conservation strategies anticipated for the project, and have been in on-going discussions with
Conservation Division staff since the early stages of project planning to identify available means to
reduce energy use for the project. Given the scale of the project and the level of detail involved with
LEED® certification, the Commission has included a condition to provide for the Conservation
Division’s final review of the building permit submittals to allow for the fine-tuning of energy
conservation strategies.
The Planning Commission finds that the third criterion for Site Review approval criterion is that,The
“
development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of
this Chapter.” The Site Design & Use Standards handbook includes specific design standards for both
commercial and residential developments. The Commission finds that institutional buildings, including
public buildings and schools like the residence and dining halls considered here, are to be reviewed
under the basic site review standards for commercial projects, and further finds that the council-adopted
SOU Plan also includes specific design standards for campus development which are be considered with
this criterion, or as part of the Conditional Use Permit discussion in Section 2.4 below, as appropriate.
The Planning Commission finds that the Site Design & Use Standards generally seek to improve each
project’s appearance while creating a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and
the streetscape to encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel, lessen the visual and climatic impacts of
parking, and screen adjacent uses from any adverse impacts of development. To these ends, the
standards require that buildings have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas,
with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street,
and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Buildings on corner lots are to orient to the higher order
street or to the corner, and sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties’
frontages, with automobile parking and circulation areas not to be placed between buildings and the
street.
The Commission further finds that the SOU Plan details additional Design Guidelines for campus
development seeking to provide buildings at a density appropriate both to a significant university and to
the scale of Ashland, to ensure that the scale and articulation of buildings enhance the “sense of place”
of the campus and support walking within the campus environment, and to express the permanence and
long-term role of the university in the community. These goals are addressed through standards for
building massing and orientation which limit new construction to four stories; strongly discourage
single-story buildings; limit residential buildings to a maximum length of 250 feet, and to a maximum
footprint of 35,000 square feet; and provide articulation guidelines which call for design elements
including offsets or jogs in the plan or significant recessed entry or courts of at least 25 feet in width on
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 9
buildings longer than 200 feet to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet. Buildings facing
major streets are to have significant, strongly articulated and clearly understandable entries to the street,
and buildings facing both a significant street and a campus open space are to have entries provided to
both. The SOU Plan also includes standards calling for the use of materials and construction selected
for long-term durability, with a preference noted for materials similar to the more significant buildings
on campus which have typically used red brick, concrete and stucco.
In considering the initially proposed building designs in light of both the Site Design & Use Standards
and the SOU Plan’s Design Guidelines, Planning Department staff identified concerns with the sense of
entry and orientation to the street of both the Dining Hall and Residence Hall buildings. The proposed
dining hall faces the Wightman Street streetscape to the west and a small area of campus open space to
the east. TheSOU Plan Design Guidelines call for strongly articulated and clearly understandable
entries to both the street and the open space. Planning staff noted that in initial design submittals, the
Wightman Street entry to the Dining Hall was not strongly articulated enough to establish a clear sense
of entry and relationship to the pedestrian corridor to meet either the university’s or the city’s design
standards, and the placement of a kitchen/support service entrance so near the Wightman Street
storefront entry further detracted from a clearly articulated and understandable sense of entry. Staff
recommended that the building’s sense of entry be better articulated in the building design and site
planning. With regard to the residence halls, staff noted that the buildings’ primary entrances were
shown to be to the interior quadrangle space being created, and further pointed out that the street-facing
entries were labeled on the floor plans and treated in the designs more as back doors. Staff stated that
this was of particular concern for the South Hall, which was placed well back from Ashland Street, with
parking and circulation between the building and the street and no clear pedestrian connection to the
streetscape despite the strong likelihood that the developing University District would draw student
pedestrian traffic to the grocery shopping, banking, dining, coffee shops, fitness center and wireless
communications services available just across Ashland Street.
Staff suggested that a primary reason that the SOU Plan had envisioned placement of this residence hall
in a mixed use building along Ashland Street, was that it would more effectively engage and
complement the streetscape and nearby University District. The applicants explained that in the current
market, a mixed use building with commercial rental space is not feasible, and suggested that the
development of the current proposal could help to create a market for such a building in the future by
bringing a significant portion of the campus’s student population to this side of Siskiyou Boulevard. As
such, the application retains a future building envelope with the Detail Site Review Zone along Ashland
Street. Staff noted that the reservation of a future building envelope along Ashland Street for
development at some unspecified point in the future provides a basis for the placement of parking and
circulation between the currently proposed South Hall and Ashland Street, in a location that will be
behind that future building. However, staff asserted that until that future building ultimately develops,
the length and size of the South Hall building, its relative to proximity to Ashland Street and the
developing University District, and the magnitude of the shift in student population to this new portion
of campus merited a substantially stronger sense of entry to Ashland Street and a clearly defined
pedestrian connection from the entry to Ashland Street with city-standard streetscape improvements
including sidewalks along Stadium Street. Staff provided the conceptual illustrations in the form of
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 10
exhibits, including: S-3) a conceptual example of how a stronger sense of entry might be achieved with
a raised central entry element that would also break up the length of the building; S-4) a photograph of a
four-story multi-family building in Medford which successfully incorporates more of a recessed entry
court as envisioned in the SOU Plan; S-5) an illustration of how an arched entry at the sidewalk and
walkway to the entry might better achieve a relationship to the pedestrian streetscape, as with Churchill
Hall which is similarly setback from the street; and S-6) an illustration from Princeton University’s
master plan showing a concept for their New South Green incorporating landscaping, walkways, and an
arched entry through the building to a central quadrangle to create a stronger relationship to the
streetscape and the “sense of place” sought in the standards.
Staff also indicated that the initial designs proposed for the residence halls exceed the maximum length
allowed under the university’s own Design Guidelines, and did not in staff’s view adequately
incorporate the SOU Plan’s Length and Articulation Guidelines to mitigate the building length’s
proposed. The SOU Plan calls for buildings not to exceed a maximum length of 250 feet, and further
requires that any building greater than 150 feet in length provide jogs, offsets, or a significant recessed
entry or court of at least 25 feet in width. As initially proposed, both residence halls exceeded 400 feet
in length on the primary elevations while no significant recessed entry or court was provided, and the
jogs and offsets shown were generally shallow and repetitive notching which, particularly on the South
Hall were not reflected through the building’s roofline and thus did little to break up the effect of the
length. Staff suggested that a building 1.64 times the maximum allowed length required stronger
articulation, and that the length proposed without adequate articulation exacerbated concerns with the
building’s sense of entry. Staff indicated that better articulation with a significant recessed entry or
court at the significant street-facing entries could address the length as well as sense of entry as
illustrated in the staff exhibits, and recommended that the building and site designs be modified to
address these issues and be brought back to the January meeting.
th
In response to the discussion at the December 13 hearing, the applicants presented revised elevation
drawings and site plans to address both the Wightman Street entry to the dining hall and the Ashland
Street-facing entry of the South Hall. The Dining Hall revisions included the removal of the service
entry from the Wightman Street elevation, a clarification of the treatment of this façade to emphasize the
material treatment, use of columns and a recessed entry from Wightman Street, as well an alternative
site design proposal to enhance the Wightman Street pedestrian corridor along the dining hall’s frontage
to include standard five-foot width commercial tree grates, new street trees, eight foot sidewalks, and
widened pedestrian circulation routes and landscape treatments to strengthen and emphasize the
importance of this entry as a key point in the relationship between the proposed North Campus Village
development and the broader community. The South Hall revisions included the addition of dormer
elements over the previously proposed bay window projections so that the recesses were reflected
through the roofline to more effectively break up the building’s length and provide greater architectural
interest; revised street-facing entries to be incorporated into the designs of both residence halls featuring
a large arch element over a stronger entry, with a recessed entry area to provide refuge from the
elements at the entry; a slightly raised roof on the central building element to more effectively
distinguish the massing of the building into three parts and emphasize the central entry; and a pedestrian
connection to better integrate circulation to and from the South Hall entry into the existing campus
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 11
pedestrian circulation system and provide a clearly defined pedestrian connection out to Ashland Street
and the nearby University District. The Planning Commission finds that, when taken in sum, these
revisions greatly improve the building’s sense of entry and relationship to the adjacent streetscapes,
while also more effectively addressing the South Hall’s length and articulation. The Commission finds
that with these revisions, the buildings comply with the Site Design and Use Standards.
The Planning Commission finds that the final criterion to be considered for the approval of a Site
Review permit 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, Performance Standards Options.” Each of these
facilities is discussed individually below.
Water:
Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that there is an eight-inch water main
available to serve the project within Stadium Street, as well as a six-inch water main available in
Webster Street. After review of the existing facilities and the preliminary utility plans submitted
with the application materials, Public Works and Engineering staff indicated that with the
extension of facilities to the site from the adjacent rights-of-way, these existing mains should be
adequate to serve the project.
Sewer:
Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that a 12-inch sanitary sewer main is
available in Wightman Street. Additionally, a six-inch sanitary sewer main is available in
Stadium Street. Public Works staff has noted in their review of the existing facilities and
preliminary utility plans submitted that this Stadium Street line as it exists is undersized and
inadequate to serve the project, and the applicants have proposed to upgrade this line to provide
a new 12-inch main out to Wightman Street as part of the application request.
Paved Access:
Siskiyou Boulevard and Ashland Street along the property’s south boundary are
both classed as boulevards or arterial streets under the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Both
are also state highways, but in the vicinity of the subject property they are under city jurisdiction
as part of the jurisdictional exchange and street improvement project completed in 2002. Both
are fully improved with paving, curbs, gutters, curbside sidewalks and street trees in place along
the subject property’s southern frontages.
The Transportation Commission recommended that the existing curbside sidewalk installation on
Ashland Street from Walker Avenue to Siskiyou Boulevard be reconstructed to full city street
standards for an arterial street. In considering this recommendation, the Planning Commission
finds that Ashland’s Street Standards call for a consideration of existing trees in street design,
and both the Site Design & Use Standards and Street Standards handbooks require preservation
of natural features including existing, established trees to the greatest extent possible. In this
case, the Commission finds that reconstruction of the existing sidewalk would necessitate the
removal of 29 or more trees along the subject property’s Ashland Street frontage, and given the
topography present would also require that either a safety railing (creating physical barrier
between the property and the pedestrian streetscape) or a fill slope (requiring additional tree
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 12
removals) be installed. The Commission further finds that full reconstruction to widen the
existing sidewalks in this vicinity could also pose complications to utility installations that would
be necessary to serve a future mixed-use building on Ashland Street, as well as any potential for
a future reconfiguration of the right-of-way in this vicinity. The Commission therefore finds that
sidewalk reconstruction in this vicinity would be more appropriately linked to the future
construction of a new mixed-use building fronting on Ashland Street to allow for more careful
planning of the relationship of the pedestrian corridor, buildings and plaza space as well as more
efficient and coordinated installation of utility infrastructure necessary and/or underground
parking to serve that future building, while retaining the large, established trees along Ashland
Street until their removals are necessary.
The Planning Commission also finds that the Connectivity Standards detailed in Section II-7 of
the Street Standards Handbook provide for the use of off-street pathways connected to the street
network as a viable component of the transportation system. These standards explain that such
pathways should not be used in lieu of traditional streets with sidewalks, but can be appropriate
to supplement traditional streets and sidewalks. In this instance, street improvements including
sidewalks are already in place along Ashland Street, and the Commission finds that the use of an
off-street pathway to supplement the sidewalk and accommodate likely pedestrian circulation
interior to the site, as envisioned in the Connectivity Standards, is an appropriate treatment until
development occurs within the Detail Site Review Zone along the property’s Ashland Street
frontage. The applicants have provided a revised Landscaped Site Plan (Sheet L001 revised
December 30, 2011) which details a pathway installation of this nature, and the Commission
finds that this off-street pathway will link the existing pathway system from the gateway
intersection and Greensprings dorms through the grassy area along Ashland Street, through the
parking along South College Way with a materially-distinct crossing to the entrance of the
proposed South Hall and out to the sidewalk on Ashland Street near its intersection with Stadium
Street and the crosswalk leading to the nearby University District. The Commission finds that
this pathway provides a more direct route to the most likely pedestrian destinations arising from
the shifting of the resident population to the north campus in a manner which would be better
integrated into the existing campus pedestrian circulation system, while helping create a clear
relationship between the new South Hall’s southern entry and the Ashland Street pedestrian
streetscape and accommodating more coordinated planning of sidewalk improvements with
future development at the street.
Wightman Street is classified as a collector street in the TSP and is improved with paving, curbs,
gutters, five-foot wide curbside sidewalks and street trees in place along the subject property’s
western frontage. The established street trees are just behind the sidewalk and consist of a row of
eight to nine large established sycamores ranging in size from 11 to 21 inches in diameter at
breast height. These trees provide a buffer between the sidewalk and adjacent surface parking,
and two more rows of sycamores containing a total of 17 trees ranging in size from seven to 20
inches in diameter line an off-street pedestrian circulation pathway that leads roughly from the
gateway intersection to the location of the new Dining Hall. The established curbside sidewalk
pattern on the east side of Wightman Street, with only a few small disconnected sections of
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 13
sidewalk in place along the west side, is carried on all the way to Iowa Street, with a number of
large established trees planted very near the back of the sidewalk. Discussion during the hearing
in December raised the issue of whether the existing narrow sidewalks were adequate to serve
the increases in pedestrian traffic anticipated with the proposal, and raised the issue of
potentially widening the sidewalks to city standard widths. In considering this possibility, the
Commission finds that the shift to a standard parkrow configuration with wider sidewalks for the
full Wightman Street corridor would need to be considered not only for its immediate impact to
the established sycamore trees on the subject property, but also to the other trees further up the
Wightman Street corridor as development of the north campus continues. The Commission
further finds that one of the key opportunities noted to improve the quality of the campus noted
in the SOU Plan was to continue to reinforce the main pedestrian spine with new plantings and
the development of plazas and new outdoor activity nodes, improved sightlines, and better
orientation and articulation of building entries.The plan also recognizes that the north campus
area has substantially less tree canopy established than the south campus, and the existing
sycamore-lined pathway here adjacent to Wightman Street is already in place with an established
canopy corridor creating a promenade to draw students from the gateway intersection’s plaza
area to the new dining hall location, likely lessening the use of the Wightman Street sidewalks
by provided a strongly articulated and attractive route. The Commission finds that this currently
one of the few areas on the north campus where the landscaping is already working to reinforce
the main pedestrian spine, and further finds that this existing pattern could be easily be further
reinforced to create a strong line of sight connecting the gateway intersection plaza to the new
dining hall. The Commission finds that when the sycamore street trees and the adjacent
sycamore-lined off-street pathway are considered in combination with the established pattern of
existing sidewalks and large stature trees further down Wightman Street, a significant
reconstruction of sidewalks and the associated removal of established trees would not be
appropriate. However, the Commission further finds that given the likely pedestrian circulation
from the gateway intersection down the sycamore-lined corridor to the dining hall, students and
guests are likely to circulate to the main Wightman Street entry from the corridor and that the
pathway to the Wightman Street entry and the pedestrian corridor in front of the building need to
better reflect the prominence of this entry. The Commission accordingly finds that the
alternative Wightman Street pedestrian corridor alternative design submitted by the applicants on
th
January 9 and identifying a widened pathway from the sycamore-lined corridor, new street
trees, widened sidewalks, and enhanced landscaping and pedestrian treatments along the dining
hall’s full Wightman Street frontage is a more appropriate treatment given the details of the
proposal and anticipated use of the dining hall and shall be incorporated into the final site plan
for the project.
On the subject property, Webster Street is a private street which provides an east-west
connection from Walker Avenue to Wightman Street. North and South College Ways, both
private streets, provide circulation primarily to existing surface parking in place between
Ashland Street and the existing tennis courts, which are to be removed. With the proposal, North
College Way will be removed and South College Way will be improved as a parking lot serving
the proposal South Hall, as well as providing fire apparatus and service corridor access.
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 14
Stadium Street, which is currently within public right-of-way for its southerly 270 feet and
becomes a private street for its remaining length, provides a north-south connection from
.
Ashland Street to Webster StreetHere the Commission would note that Public Works staff have
recommended that this street be vacated to clarify responsibility for its maintenance in a manner
consistent with other internal campus streets and drives; while the Commission finds that such a
vacation would be appropriate, no vacation requirement is incorporated in this decision as a
vacation requires Council action and would need to be pursued separately.
The Planning Commission finds that with the relocation of the dining and residence hall
buildings, the installation of 150 parking spaces in lots not originally envisioned in the SOU
Plan, the partial closure of Webster Street to motor vehicles, and the likely eventual construction
of a new 50,000 square foot Student Recreation Center addition to McNeal Pavilion, Stadium
Street will ultimately serve as a gateway street for the developing North Campus Village
neighborhood. The Commission accordingly finds that despite its being located largely on
university property, it merits improvement to city street standards to include full sidewalks,
parkrow installation and pedestrian scale street lighting along its length between Webster Street
and South College Way, and curbside sidewalks along the remaining length between South
College Way and Ashland Street in order to preserve a number of large, established trees near
the Ashland Street intersection. The applicants have provided revised submittals identifying
these improvements, and the Commission finds that with their installation Stadium Street would
take some of the vehicular traffic off of the intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard and Wightman
Street, and off of Wightman Street itself, thus lessening the impacts on the surrounding
residential neighborhood from the dining hall’s relocation, while also providing an attractive and
clearly articulated route to better focus pedestrian circulation on the north campus. Conditions to
require improvements to Stadium Street are thus included below.
Storm Sewer:
Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that a 24-inch storm sewer line is
available in Webster Street. The application materials provided note that the site’s stormwater
facilities are in the form of existing large diameter concrete stormwater piping that collects run-
off from up-gradient streets, and indicates that this piping is to be reconstructed by the applicants
as necessary to route around the proposed structures. The application materials further indicate
that stormwater within the project is to be collected by new area inlets within the parking areas
and landscaped open space areas, with roof drain leaders and area inlets then linked by new
subsurface conveyance piping that ultimately connects to existing down-gradient public
stormwater lines in Webster Street. The materials also indicate that run-off collected by surface
inlets is to be pre-treated by means of bio-swales in the landscaped areas, or by mechanical
inserts in the parking lot catch basins. Preliminary calculations in the submittal suggest that with
the removal of some parking areas and tennis courts, the project will lead to a reduction in
impermeable surface area within the primary development limits of the residence halls and
dining facility and thus a net decrease in stormwater run-off to downstream facilities.
Engineering staff has indicated that the storm drain system improvements proposed to be
installed by the applicants as detailed in the application will be adequate to serve the needs of the
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 15
proposal, subject to final review and approval of civil drawings that are to include all design
calculations.
The Commission notes that in addition to the Engineering Division’s standards to address
stormwater, the SOU Plan includes parking lot standards which require that “to the greatest
degree feasible, parking lots shall be designed to include localized stormwater treatment and
infiltration facilities. Whenever possible, these stormwater treatment facilities should be above
ground structures that incorporate appropriate plantings for pre-treatment and filtering of
(SOU Plan, p. 59)
particulates and pollutants.” Initial application submittals had indicated that
stormwater from the new parking lot at the corner of Webster and Stadium Streets was to be
piped, but the applicants subsequently provided revised drawings identifying above ground
detention facilities. In addition to standard conditions that final drainage plans be provided for
Engineering Division review prior to building permits, the Commission has included a condition
that the drainage and site plans incorporate above ground stormwater treatment and infiltration
facilities consistent with the SOU Plan’s parking lot design requirements for new parking areas.
Electric:
Electrical facilities are available from all of the surrounding street rights-of-way, and
city Electric Department staff has indicated that these facilities have adequate source and
capacity to serve the project with the extension of services onto the subject property by the
applicants. The applicants continue to work with the Electric Department to develop a final
electric service plan while considering the requirements of the Electric Department, project
logistics and potential costs, and a condition has been included below to require that a final
electric service plan be provided for the review and approval of the Electric, Engineering,
Building and Planning Departments with the building permit submittals.
Transportation:
The Planning Commission finds that with the shifting of so substantial a
portion of the campus’s resident student population to the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard as
currently proposed, issues of adequate transportation and specifically pedestrian safety are
among the most significant considerations with the request. Subsequent to a pedestrian fatality
along the campus’s Siskiyou Boulevard frontage in 2008, the City Council convened the
Siskiyou Boulevard Ad Hoc Safety Committee which met for a number of months and ultimately
recommended a number of measures to improve pedestrian safety for the corridor including a
reconfiguration of the Garfield and Siskiyou intersection, the installation of rumble strips to alert
vehicles as they enter the campus corridor, speed limit reductions, and the installation of
pedestrian-activated flashing beacons at several of the intersections adjacent to the campus.
With the recent adoption of the SOU Plan, there were requirements that a number of
transportation-related studies be completed prior to a development application in order to
provide for a complete consideration of transportation issues. These included: a Transportation
Impact Analysis (TIA) and Access Management Standards; a Pedestrian Safety Plan to include
but not limited to improved crossings with enhanced pavement design and access controls with
on-going monitoring of pedestrian flow and safety issues; Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Strategies to be accompanied by a timeline for their implementation; an Emergency
Vehicle Access Plan to be provided for the review and approval of Ashland Fire & Rescue to
demonstrate that all modifications to vehicular and pedestrian circulation are in compliance with
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 16
emergency access provisions of the Oregon Fire Code; and the creation of parking requirements
specific to SOU’s ,on-campus student housing to be developed through collaboration with city
staff.
The Planning Commission finds that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has
reviewed the application and made a determination that the construction of the Dining and
Residence halls will not adversely affect state highway facilities (Siskiyou Boulevard or Ashland
Street) and thus does not trigger further ODOT review. The Commission further finds that
ODOT has recommended that the city and university update the current crosswalk lighting to
replace the existing flashing beacons with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) now in use
elsewhere around the state, as also recommended by the applicants’ consultants Kittelson and
Associates. ODOT notes that RRFBs have demonstrated effectiveness in improving pedestrian
safety in areas where there are conflicts between pedestrians and motor vehicles, particularly at
uncontrolled or mid-block crossings, and has provided a copy of the RRFB section of the Oregon
Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (pg. 5-17) as a reference informing this recommendation.
The Planning Commission finds that the project’s transportation consultants Kittelson &
Associates have provided detailed recommendations for the treatment of the intersections along
the university corridor to provide for the safety of pedestrians crossing between the north and
south campus areas while also seeking to minimize the disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic
through the corridor. They conclude that with implementation of the recommended measures the
project can be completed as proposed while maintaining safety at the intersections and
acceptable traffic operations. Kittelson’s specific recommendations for each of the intersections
are detailed below, along with corresponding recommendations from city staff and the
Transportation Commission and the findings of the Planning Commission:
Intersections of South Mountain Ave. & Siskiyou Blvd., and of Ashland St. & Siskiyou Blvd.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were to replace the pedestrian signal heads with
pedestrian countdown signal heads and add a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing
of each of these intersections’ signals.Both staff and the Transportation Commission
concurred with these recommendations, with the added stipulation that the pedestrian
countdown signal heads should include audible countdown indicators. Based on the
Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning
Commission finds that the proposed treatments for these intersections are sufficient and has
accordingly included conditions that they be implemented with the project.
Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at University Way
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were that the existing flashing beacons here be
replaced with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) which have proven more effective in
getting drivers to stop for pedestrians in similar installations elsewhere in the state, as noted
in recommendations from ODOT. Kittelson also recommended that the adjacent street trees
be pruned and maintained to improve visibility. Staff concurred with the recommendations
to install RRFBs in this location, and noted that the Parks Department could prune and
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 17
maintain the street trees in this location. The Transportation Commission concurred with the
recommendation, and asked that the RRFBs to be installed include an audible indicator.
Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review,
the Planning Commission finds that the proposed treatments for this crossing are sufficient
and has included conditions that they be implemented with the project.
Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at Avery St.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were that the existing flashing beacons be
replaced with rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs), and that the “Stop Here for
Pedestrians” sign at the westbound approach be relocated to provide adequate clearance for
the crosswalk signage and beacons. Staff concurred with the recommendations to install
RRFBs in this location, and noted that the city crews could complete the sign relocation. The
Transportation Commission asked that the RRFBs to be installed include audible indicators.
Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review,
the Planning Commission finds that the proposed treatments for this crossing are sufficient
and has accordingly included conditions that they be implemented with the project.
Crossings of Siskiyou Blvd. at Garfield St. and at Bridge St.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were that the existing flashing beacons be
replaced with RRFBs at both of these pedestrian crossings. Staff concurred with the
recommendations to install RRFBs in these locations, and the Transportation Commission
recommended that the RRFBs to be installed include audible indicators. Based on the
Kittelson recommendations and staff and Transportation Commission review, the Planning
Commission finds that the proposed treatments for these crossings are sufficient and has
accordingly included conditions that they be implemented with the project.
Gateway Intersection of Wightman St., Indiana St. & Siskiyou Blvd.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommended the replacements of the existing pedestrian signal
heads with pedestrian countdown signal heads; the adjustment of lead times for the
pedestrian phasing of the signal to accommodate a 36-second “scramble” phase, requiring
two additional pedestrian signal heads; and the installation of high visibility markings for a
diagonal crossing of the gateway intersection. A hybrid of this scramble phase was
presented as a new applicants’ “Figure 12” at the Transportation Commission hearing,
involving a reconfiguration of the crossing to a single, pedestrian-activated crossing shown
with new high visibility pavement markings. Under this proposed treatment, the two existing
Siskiyou Boulevard crossings at the intersection would be closed, and the signalization
designed to minimize the time automobiles wait due pedestrian-activated phasing. Staff
supported this configuration, subject to final designs by Kittelson, and noted that this would
require the applicants to upgrade the existing signal cabinets and controllers at both
Wightman Street and Ashland Street (Highway 66) to accommodate the necessary signal
modifications. The Transportation Commission recommended that the existing pedestrian
signal heads be replaced with pedestrian countdown heads which include an audible indicator
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 18
of signal timing. Based on the Kittelson recommendations, and review by staff and the
Transportation Commission, the Planning Commission finds that the recommended
improvements to the gateway intersection are merited and a condition that they be
implemented with the proposal has accordingly been included below.
Crossing of Siskiyou Blvd. at Frances Ln.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were that advance pedestrian signs with RRFBs
be installed in this location. In considering this recommendation, Public Works/Engineering
staff noted that based on the current pedestrian crossings in this location, they did not believe
that the crossing improvements were merited and could instead be deferred until future
development necessitated their installation. However, during deliberations at the January
th
10hearing, it was noted that in addition to students who might wish to cross in this location
to patronize businesses in and around the University District, with the relocation of the
Dining Hall to the north side of Siskiyou Boulevard, current Dining Hall users including a
substantial number of patrons of the University’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI)
on Frances Lane would potentially be crossing in this location, and the improvements
recommended by Kittelson would not only increase safety at the crossing but would serve to
remind drivers coming from the southeast that they were entering the university corridor.
Based on the Kittelson recommendations and the potential for increased crossings by both
students and OLLI patrons, the Planning Commission finds that the Kittelson’s
recommended improvements to this crossing merited and a condition that they be
implemented with the proposal has therefore been included below.
Crossing of Ashland St. at Stadium St.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were that advance pedestrian signs with RRFBs
be installed. Staff concurred with these recommendations, and also recommended that
Kittelson look more closely at the possibility of other improvements to the existing
placement and configuration of the crosswalk and median in order to minimize the potential
for conflicts between pedestrians and drivers turning left onto Ashland Street from the PC
Market of Choice parking lot. The Transportation Commission concurred, recommending
that audible RRFBs be installed and that the applicants’ team further review the location of
the existing crosswalk, and if feasible and warranted that the crosswalk be relocated with
appropriate pedestrian ways and amenities provided for the new location.
The Planning Commission finds that the Kittelson recommendations to install advance
pedestrian signage along with the audible RRFBs recommended by the Transportation
Commission are appropriate treatments for this crossing, and a condition to this effect has
accordingly been added below. The Commission also finds that with the improvements to
Stadium Street proposed and discussed more fully above, city standard street lights will be
installed at the intersection of Stadium and Ashland Street and will provide additional
lighting in this location to improve nighttime visibility for pedestrians using the crossing.
The Commission recognizes the complexity of the Stadium Street crossing given the
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 19
configuration of driveways on the opposite side of Ashland Street near the crossing point,
and the potential impact of modifications to the median configuration or turning restrictions
on adjacent businesses, and accordingly finds that while the applicants should further review
the location and configuration of the crossing and median to determine whether additional
treatments are feasible and warranted, any substantial modification which would alter
circulation from or access to nearby businesses would need to be considered separately, with
notices to those business and property owners, and therefore could not be required as a
condition here.
Intersection of Ashland St. and Walker Ave.
Kittelson and Associates’ recommendations were that the existing pedestrian signal heads be
replaced with pedestrian countdown signal heads and that a five-second lead time be added
to the pedestrian phasing of the signal. Staff concurred with these recommendations, and
added that these improvements would also benefit children using this signal on their way to
or from Walker Elementary and Ashland Middle schools. The Transportation Commission
concurred and requested that audible pedestrian countdown heads with a five-second leading
pedestrian phase also be installed. Based on the Kittelson recommendations and staff and
Transportation Commission review, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed
treatments for this intersection are sufficient and has thus included conditions that they be
implemented with the project.
The Planning Commission finds that with the implementation of the Kittelson recommendations, as
supported by the Transportation Commission, signage and pavement markings will be upgraded, trees
pruned to improve visibility, and audible rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFB’s) installed at the four
existing crossing on Siskiyou; the crossings at Ashland and Stadium Street and Frances Lane and
Siskiyou Boulevard will have audible RRFB beacons and improved pavement markings and signage
installed, and the Stadium Street crossing and median configuration will further considered; the
crossings at Mountain Avenue and Walker Avenue will be upgraded with audible pedestrian countdown
signals and the addition of a five second pedestrian lead time; and the gateway intersection at Indiana
and Wightmans Streets will have its existing pedestrian signal heads replaced with pedestrian
countdown signal heads, new signal cabinets, and the addition of a hybrid 36-second pedestrian
scramble phasing lead time and high visibility markings to accommodate a diagonal crossing. In
addition, new sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Stadium Street between Webster Street and
Ashland Street, an additional off-street pedestrian path will be installed on campus parallel to Ashland
Street between Stadium Street and Siskiyou Boulevard to facilitate the likely new student circulation
patterns on the subject property, and the pedestrian corridor along the proposed Dining Hall’s Wightman
Street frontage will be enhanced to emphasize the Wightman Street entry. The Commission finds that
with the implementation of these measures the application has adequately considered and addressed the
potential pedestrian safety issues associated with a shifting of the resident student population across
Siskiyou Boulevard, and that adequate transportation facilities can and will be provided with the
implementation of the improvements described above.
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 20
The Planning Commission finds that based upon the plans provided by the applicants and review by the
Public Works, Engineering, Electric and Planning Department staff, and by the Transportation
Commission, that the existing facilities in place and those proposed to be extended or upgraded on site
and within the adjacent rights-of-way by the applicants to serve the project can and will provide
adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,
electricity, urban storm drainage and transportation facilities to and through the proposed development
with the conditions included below.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal requires Conditional Use Permit approval
because it varies from the adopted SOU Plan in the following ways: the residence halls, dining hall and
parking lots vary from the locations identified in the SOU Plan; the two residence hall buildings exceed
the 250-foot maximum length; and these residence halls are also more than the 40-foot height outright
allowed within the SO zoning district.
With regard to the changing location of the buildings and parking lots, the Commission finds that under
the adopted SOU Plan, the Dining Hall was to have been part of a strong quadrangle that would have
unified the dining hall, new residence halls and the existing Greensprings complex to create a “clear
residential zone.” The two proposed residence hall buildings were shown as four buildings enclosing
this new quadrangle, with the buildings separated to allow for both pedestrian access and views through
the quadrangle from both Ashland and Webster Streets. The southern residence halls were to have been
constructed in mixed use buildings fronting directly on Ashland Street, with the potential for ground
floor retail space to complement the adjacent University District businesses.
The current request has shifted the Dining Hall out of the quadrangle to the intersection of Wightman
and Webster Streets. The application materials note that the Dining Hall is significantly larger than was
shown when it was planned as part of the quadrangle in the adopted SOU Plan, indicating that the
relocation was due both to the need to accommodate this greater building size and the desire to put a
public building in a more prominent, visible location to provide optimum convenience for students. The
application notes that the proposed building is 40 feet tall, has a gross square footage of 27,500 square
feet, and is setback 15 feet from the Wightman right-of-way because it is opposite from private housing
across the street. The application goes on to suggest that the dining hall is relatively small, kept to a
single story, and features a hipped roof in an effort to remain compatible with the more residential scale
and character along the opposite side of Wightman Street. The application also explains that most of the
student activity for the Dining Hall will be concentrated to its east side entry, central to campus, and to
the south side, where an outdoor dining terrace is located, to lessen the impacts to Wightman Street, and
that exterior walls will be acoustically dampened and exterior lights will meet LEED dark sky
requirements. The application indicates that the dining hall is designed for compatibility with a future
student recreation center addition to adjacent McNeal Pavilion, and that the proximity will allow for a
grouping for service and loading functions on both sides of Webster Street, concluding that the Dining
Hall will serve as a small student union, a sort of living room for the campus’s resident student
population, and thus serves as a critical feature in accommodating and encouraging students to live on
campus as opposed to commuting long distances.
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 21
The Commission finds that the Dining Hall building’s proposed placement is appropriate to serve the
new proposed residence halls as well as the student population that is to remain on the south side of
campus, and that the building itself is of a scale and character appropriate to the Wightman streetscape.
With the changes to the Wightman Street pedestrian corridor proposed by the applicants during the
th
January 10 hearing, and discussed in greater detail above, the Commission further finds that the
building design and associated site planning provide a sense of entry that will engage the pedestrian
streetscape along Wightman Street, creating a strong relationship not only to the residence halls and
open space areas to the east but to the Wightman corridor and broader community to the west, as
envisioned in the Site Design and Use Standards and SOU Plan.
With regard to the modification in the location of the residence halls, staff have suggested that a primary
reason that the SOU Plan had envisioned placement of this residence hall in a mixed use building along
Ashland Street, was that it would more effectively engage and complement the streetscape and nearby
University District. The applicants have explained that in the current market, a mixed use building with
commercial rental space is not feasible, and suggested that the development of the current proposal
could help to create a market for such a building in the future by bringing a large portion of the student
population to this side of Siskiyou Boulevard. As such, the applicants have proposed to retain a future
building envelope with the Detail Site Review Zone along Ashland Street. During Planning
Commission discussion of the site configuration now proposed, it was noted that the SOU Plan had
originally envisioned the dining hall and four residence halls grouped around a larger quad which would
have better engaged the existing Greensprings complex in an effort to create a well-defined residential
life zone. In discussing the modifications to the residence hall locations and configuration of the
proposed quadrangle at the hearings, the applicants noted that the proposed quad had been reduced in
size to a more usable, human scale while remaining large enough at approximately 180 feet by 300 feet
to accommodate and encourage a variety of student use, and that efforts had been made in site planning
to retain a strong relationship with the Greensprings complex by retaining a human scale pedestrian
corridor between the Greensprings and the proposed new residence halls. The applicants emphasized
that this corridor was to be carefully landscaped and would also be treated with functional public art
pieces to encourage its use by students. Given that the applicants have proposed to reserve an envelope
to provide for future development along Ashland Street in a manner appropriate to the Detail Site
Review Zone corridor, and the applicants’ efforts to retain a human scale to the proposed quadrangle
and to enhance the corridor connection with the Greensprings dorms through landscaping and public art
to engage students and encourage its use, the Planning Commission finds that the revised location and
configuration of the residence halls is supported by evidence in the record.
With regard to the height of the proposed residence halls, the Planning Commission finds that the
regulations applicable to the SO zoning district, found in AMC 18.64, require that any buildings taller
than 40 feet in height are subject to Conditional Use Permit review. The Commission further finds that
the adopted SOU Plan generally envisions construction up to four stories high in seeking a degree of
density appropriate to a university and to supporting transit while maintaining a compact, walkable
campus. The plan notes that height will be dependent on specific construction types and further
recognizes that building to a four-story height may require Conditional Use Permit approval where the
40 foot height is exceeded.
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 22
Both the North and South Residence Halls are proposed at four stories, with a height of approximately
49 feet to the midpoint of their hipped roofs. The application notes that this height is less than the
adjacent Greensprings complex, which is five stories and 60-65 feet in height, and that the proposed
residence hall buildings are well setback from Ashland Street. The application also discusses the site
topography, noting that the ground floor of the South Residence Hall sits approximately 20 feet below
the level of Ashland Street, and the North Residence Hall sits approximately 27 feet below Ashland
Street, and suggests that this combination of distance and topography will significantly reduce the
perceived height of both buildings from the campus perimeter. The application details the architectural
treatment of the fourth floor in both residence halls as an “attic story” with different articulation and
color to create a more horizontal design which reduces the perceived height of the buildings, and goes
on to explain that architecturally the buildings are designed in keeping with the ‘SOU Mediterranean’
architectural character of earlier campus buildings such as Churchill Hall, Central Hall and Susanne
Homes which display common design features including stucco exteriors and red tile sloping hip roofs
in wings that are parallel to the slope of the hillside. This style has been identified as unique to SOU
among all other universities in Oregon, and the SOU Plan and current application seek to re-establish
the use of this style on campus to create an overall school identity. The Planning Commission finds
that the buildings’ placement relative to the campus perimeter, the site topography and the design efforts
pursued by the applicants effectively mitigate potential negative impacts of the proposed height, which
remains in keeping both with the four-stories envisioned in the SOU Plan and with its underlying goals
to create a compact, walkable campus developed at densities to support transit.
In considering the lengths of the proposed residence hall buildings, the Planning Commission notes that
the SOU Plan includes specific limits on the length of residence hall buildings, which are not to exceed
250 feet in length and which are to have offsets or jogs in the building façade or to incorporate a
recessed court of at least 25 feet in width and depth at entries on any elevations which exceed 150 feet in
length. As proposed, the four residence halls identified in the SOU Plan have been consolidated into
two, and the resulting buildings are each more than 400 feet in length - significantly exceeding the 250
foot length limitation in the Plan.
The application materials provided note that McNeal Pavilion, the Science Building and the Hannon
Library are of similar lengths to those proposed here, and go on to explain that with a future proposed
addition McNeal Pavilion will be 1,000 feet in length (assuming that a Conditional Use Permit to
exceed this same length standard is ultimately approved). The applicants’ submittals indicate that the
designs comply with the standards in providing design elements to prevent unbroken wall lengths
greater than 150 feet with an “offset or jog in the plan of at least 25 feet in width with a five foot
minimum offset” and in limiting the footprint to less than 35,000 square feet. The application explains
that each residence hall side wing is no longer than 175 feet in length, and that each of the residence
halls incorporates a “central neighborhood pavilion” element which is 60 feet wide to effectively divide
each building into three different components so that they appear as three linked buildings. The
materials go on to indicate that the wings are broken up with multiple bay window projections and jogs
in the plan to ensure that there are no long, unbroken wall lengths. The application concludes that the
new buildings avoid the long unbroken lengths discouraged in the SOU Plan through the use of
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 23
differentiated massing, building articulation, and roof forms, and go on to suggest that the proposed
longer buildings reduce the amount of site area required for the development; reduce the number of
stairs, elevators, exterior skin area, service and support space; and thus reduce the total gross square
footage (and associated environmental impacts) necessary for the same number of beds if they were
provided in the four buildings envisioned in the SOU Plan.
The Planning Commission finds that because greater efficiency and a substantial lessening of
environmental impacts of the proposal are key to the applicants’ arguments to justify the shift from the
four residence halls envisioned in the SOU Plan to two substantially longer buildings, and because the
applicants have also indicated that the buildings will be certified to at least a LEED® Silver standard,
that LEED® Silver certification should be required of the approval to allow for third party verification
that the gained efficiencies and lessening of environmental impacts are in fact obtained with completion
of the project. Given the uncertainties of the timeline for certification, a condition has been included
below to require that the applicants provide evidence that they have submitted to be certified to at least a
LEED® Silver standard within 12 months of occupancy, and that certification be obtained within 36
months.
th
During the December 13 hearing, Planning Department staff suggested that, as with their heights, that
the buildings’ lengths would be somewhat mitigated by their placement relative to the campus
perimeter, the buffer provided by topography, and the varied character of the buildings on campus,
however staff raised a concern that the buildings’ lengths in the initially-submitted designs needed to be
better addressed to comply with the “Building Length and Articulation Guidelines” of the SOU Plan.
Staff had also raised concerns with the buildings’ sense of entry and relationship to the street, and
suggested that the length and sense of entry could likely both be addressed by a stronger application of
the Building Length and Articulation Guidelines.
Residence hall building lengths are limited to a maximum of 250 feet in the SOU Plan, and with regard
to the Length and Articulation Guidelines, the plan text indicates that “For any building longer than 200
feet, the plan shall include design elements to prevent unbroken wall lengths greater than 150 feet.
These elements shall be an offset or ‘jog’ in the plan or a significant recessed entry or court of at least
25 feet in width.” The illustration provided in Figure 15 of the SOU Plan shows an L-shaped building
with one wing at 250 feet in length, and a 25-foot wide courtyard placed at the 150-foot length within
that wing. This courtyard appears to have a depth of at least 25 feet as well to provide for its functional
use as a courtyard, although this depth is not called out explicitly. The other wing has a jog with a five
foot minimum offset shown, not as part of a court but simply as a change in the articulation of the wall
surface.
During the December hearing, Planning Department staff argued that both the text and illustration in the
plan call for a recessed entry or court of at least 25 feet in width and depth or for an offset of at least five
feet in the face of the building.They noted that in the initially proposed designs, the 60-foot wide
‘central neighborhood pavilion’ component had five foot recesses at either side of the central element in
the South Residence Hall’s building face, and approximately ten foot recesses on the North Residences
Hall’s building face. These recesses were repeated at approximately 35-foot intervals along the South
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 24
Hall’s exterior and every 30 feet along the North Hall’s exterior. Staff asserted that particularly on the
South Hall, the use of these repeated recesses, which were not reflected through into the building’s
roofline, had the effect of notching the building while providing little real articulation over a 400-foot
length. In addition, staff suggested that the lack of a deeper recess with a functional depth at the entry,
combined with a long, unbroken roofline failed to adequately break up the expanse of the building’s
length while also detracting from the buildings’ sense of entry.
th
In response to the discussion at the December 13 hearing, the applicants presented revised elevation
th
drawings of the South Hall at the January 10 hearing. The revisions included the addition of dormer
elements over the bay window projections on the south hall so that the recesses are reflected through the
roofline to more effectively break up the building’s length and provide greater architectural interest.
The applicants also proposed to revise the street-facing entries on both the north and south halls to
incorporate a large arch element over a stronger entry, with a recessed entry area to provide refuge from
the elements at the entry, a slightly raised roof on the central building element to more effectively
distinguish the massing of the building into three parts, as well as proposing a pedestrian connection to
better integrate this entry into the existing campus pedestrian circulation system and provide a
pedestrian connection out to Ashland Street and the nearby university district.
The Commission finds that the revised building designs as they relate to standards for length and
articulation as well as for sense of entry for relationship to the street, very effectively address the
previously-raised concerns and satisfy the applicable approval standards. The Planning Commission
finds that when taken in sum, these revisions greatly improve the building’s presence to the Ashland
Street streetscape and relationship to the broader community.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a tree inventory identifying 265
trees on the subject property which are six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater. Of these, 27
trees 18-inches d.b.h. or greater are proposed for removal. Trees greater than 18-inches d.b.h. are
deemed significant by code, and the removal of significant trees necessitates Tree Removal Permits
within the subject property’s SO zoning district.
The Commission finds that a 24-inch Catalpa Tree (Tree #71) near the intersection of Wightman Street
and Siskiyou Boulevard has been approved for removal on the subject property in conjunction with a
separate land use action (Planning Action #2011-00530) which was recently approved. The
Commission finds that while this tree removal may be occurring concurrently with completion of the
current proposal, its approval is a distinct action and is not regulated under the current application.
The Commission finds that the approval of a Tree Removal Permit requires the applicants to
demonstrate that: the trees proposed for removal are in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards; the removal of trees
will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 25
adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; 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. In
addition, as a condition of approval for Tree Removal Permits, applicants are required to mitigate for the
removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to the requirements of AMC 18.61.084. The
Commission finds that the project’s arborist Tom Myers has indicated that the trees proposed for
removal are in or near the proposed building footprints or in the path of utility easements or grade
changes and would not survive the proposed development. The Commission further finds that with the
required mitigation, the proposed removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The Commission also
finds that the applicants have made considerable effort in planning development of the site to retain a
36-inch d.b.h. Silver Maple (Tree #13), one of the most notable trees on the site, and to incorporate it as
a prominent central landscape feature in the new quadrangle.
Myers, the project arborist, has also provided tree protection recommendations and identified the radius
of a protection zone to be fenced for each of the trees to remain on the property. Myers provides general
specifications for tree preservation during demolition, site clearing and construction, as well as detailed
requirements for pruning. These recommendations include that a certified arborist is to approve and
supervise any work within the identified tree protection zones and carry-out required pruning; additional
tree-specific recommendations are provided to address proposed sewer line excavation within the
protection of a large redwood and incense cedar (Trees #200 and #201) in a parking lot southeast of the
intersection of Wightman and Iowa Streets. The Commission hereby includes all of Myers’
recommendations as conditions of approval, including the additional recommendations intended to
ensure the on-going viability of the large redwood and incense cedar (Trees #200 and #201). These
recommendations specify that, in lieu of the full tree protection zone being protected with fencing, the
project arborist instead be present on site to supervise any excavation within these trees’ root zones, and
that any excavation be done by hand. The Planning Commission further recognizes that the goal of
these additional efforts is to preserve the large redwood (#200), and that the incense cedar (#201) which
has previously been severely topped may ultimately need to be removed; this removal will be dependent
on the arborist’s assessment during and following excavation, and with this in mind it has been included
as one of the 27 trees considered with this Tree Removal Permit.
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 new single-story dining hall near the intersection of
Wightman and Webster Streets, two new four-story residence halls near the intersection of Webster and
Stadium Streets, two parking lots and associated site improvements; Conditional Use Permit approval
to allow buildings that exceed the maximum length and vary from the locations identified in the SOU
Masterplan and to exceed the 40-foot height allowance in the SO zoning district; and Tree Removal
Permits to remove 27 significant trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 26
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2011-01576. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2011-01576 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein, including but not limited to the requirement that the applicants shall submit materials to
the US Green Building Council (USGBC) requesting certification of all buildings to at least a
LEED® Silver status within 12 months of final occupancy, and receive final certification within
36 months.
2)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
the Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals shall be submitted and approved prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
3)That prior to submittal of the building permit application, the applicants shall consult with
Conservation Division staff to allow for the fine-tuning of energy conservation strategies for the
proposed buildings.
th
4)That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their January 5, 2012
meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval
of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
5)That building permit submittals shall include:
a)The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public and private utility
easements and fire apparatus access easements.
b)The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in
accordance with the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards, and the colors
and materials selected shall be consistent with those approved with the application.
c) Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the
property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties.
d) Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review
and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. This plan shall
th
address: 1) the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their January 5, 2012
meeting relating to the preservation and protection of Trees #200 and #201; 2) the
identification of 27 mitigation trees to be planted on site or details of alternative
mitigation measures proposes; 3) the required irrigation plans, including the requirements
for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with
seasonal modifications; 4) the identification of parking lot landscaping equivalent to at
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 27
least seven percent of the parking surface area, at least one parking lot tree for each seven
parking spaces, and required landscape buffers and screening consistent with the Parking
Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards.The applicants shall also obtain the required
plumbing permits and inspections for installation of the required double-check valve(s)
associated with the irrigation system; 5) incorporation of the removals of the four
sycamore trees (#100-#103) to be removed along the Dining Hall’s frontage and of the
catalpa (Tree #71) near the gateway intersection.
e) That a revised stormwater drainage plan, including any necessary on-site detention
measures, shall be provided for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and
Planning Departments with the building permit submittal. The drainage plan shall be
designed to ensure that post-development peak stormwater flows are less than or equal
pre-development levels as required by the Engineering Division. In addition, the plans
shall incorporate above ground stormwater treatment and infiltration facilities consistent
with the parking lot design requirements of the SOU Plan for the new parking lots to be
constructed.
f) That a final utility plan for the project shall be provided for the review and approval of
the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the
location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development,
including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services,
manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any necessary service
upgrades shall be completed by the developer at developer’s expense.
g) The applicant shall 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 Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of
demolition, excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be
located in areas least visible from streets and sidewalks, while considering the access
needs of the Electric Department.
h) That a pedestrian circulation plan for the new North Campus Village area shall be
provided which identifies an integrated pedestrian pathway system, including a new
connection from the southeast corner of the Greensprings to the new South Hall’s south
entry and to the intersection of Ashland and Stadium Streets, with routes and material
treatment of the paths, landscaping including the new gateway plaza treatment,
pedestrian scale lighting, and way finding measures clearly detailed.
i) Revised plans to address Fire Code requirements including approved addressing; fire
apparatus access, turn-around, angle of approach; fire flows; fire department connections;
fire hydrant distance to structures and clearance; firefighter access pathway; emergency
responder radio coverage provisions (if applicable); key box; and storage and collection
of combustible and recycle materials. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall
not be located in the sidewalk. In keeping with city standards and the SOU Plan, which
both seek to maintain a pedestrian scale for campus improvements, driveways and other
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 28
access ways shall be limited to no more than the minimum required under the driveway
standards in AMC 18.92, with any additional width necessary to accommodate fire
apparatus requirements to be achieved through alternative treatments such as a rolled
curb and materially distinct sidewalk next to the paving, or the use of grasscrete or
similar alternative treatments which will support fire apparatus access in a manner
acceptable to the Fire Marshal and Staff Advisor without requiring wider than necessary
swaths of paving. Fire apparatus and their width, radius and material treatment shall be
clearly identified in the building permit submittals.
6) That prior to the issuance of the building, excavation or demolition permits or the
commencement of site work or storage of materials:
a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed,
inspected and approved by Staff Advisor.The Verification Permit is to inspect the
identification of trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the
trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site. Tree protection measures
shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed and maintained in
accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.61.200.B. The project arborist’s
recommendations and specifications, as detailed in the submittal materials dated
November 1, 2011 from Thomas M. Myers, and subsequent revisions, shall be conditions
of approval.
b) The approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review and associated permits and inspections
shall be obtained from the Building Division prior to demolition of existing structures.
c) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit civil design
drawings for the implementation of improvements detailed in the materials provided by
Kittelson & Associates (included as part of the application in the Supplemental Land Use
Information dated December 5, 2011) and modified with this decision for the review and
approval of the Public Works, Engineering and Planning Departments and Oregon
Department of Transportation. These civil plans are to be reviewed and approved prior
to the issuance of building permits, and required improvements are to be completed
according to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a final
occupancy permit. The required improvements include public and private street
improvements and pedestrian crossing treatments as detailed more completely below:
i.Replace existing pedestrian signal heads with audible pedestrian countdown
heads and add a five-second leading pedestrian phase to signal timing for the
intersections of South Mountain Avenue & Siskiyou Boulevard, and of Ashland
Street & Siskiyou Boulevard.
ii.Replace existing flashing beacons with audible rectangular rapid flash beacons
(RRFBs) for the University Way pedestrian crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard.
iii.Replace existing flashing beacons with audible rectangular rapid flash beacons
(RRFBs), and relocate the “Stop Here for Pedestrians” sign at the westbound
approach of the Avery Street pedestrian crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard to
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 29
provide adequate clearance for the crosswalk signage and beacons.
iv.Replace existing flashing beacons with audible rectangular rapid flash beacons
(RRFBs) at the Garfield Street and Bridge Street pedestrian crossings of Siskiyou
Boulevard.
v.Replace the existing pedestrian signal heads with pedestrian countdown heads
which include an audible indicator of signal timing, and reconfigure the
“gateway” intersection of Siskiyou Boulevard with Wightman and Indiana Streets
with a single diagonal crosswalk as shown in conceptual drawings presented at
th
the December 15 Transportation Commission meeting as new “Figure 12”, and
install high visibility pavement markings for a diagonal crossing. The crossing
treatment is to be designed to minimize the time automobiles wait due to the 36
second pedestrian-activated “scramble phasing”, and will also require that the
applicants upgrade the existing signal cabinets and controllers at both Wightman
Street and Ashland Street (Highway 66) to accommodate these signal
modifications.
vi.Install advance pedestrian signs and audible rectangular rapid flash beacons at the
Stadium Street pedestrian crossing of Ashland Street/Highway 66, and at the
Frances Lane crossing of Siskiyou Boulevard. The applicants are also to explore,
and if warranted and feasible implement alternative crosswalk placement and
median configuration at the Stadium Street crossing to address concerns with
pedestrian crossings conflicting with left turning movements from PC Market of
Choice site onto Ashland Street.
vii.Replace pedestrian signal heads with audible pedestrian countdown signal heads
and add a five-second lead time to the pedestrian phasing of the signal at the
intersection of Ashland Street and Walker Avenue.
viii.Install city standard seven- to eight-foot width parkrows with street trees, five- to
six-foot sidewalks, and pedestrian scale street lighting on both sides of Stadium
Street from Webster Street to South College Way consistent with city standards
for a neighborhood street, with the sidewalk improvements to transition to
curbside to preserve established trees between South College Way and Ashland
Street.
ix.Install standard five-foot hardscape tree wells with new street trees and eight -foot
sidewalks and associated landscaping and circulation modifications along the full
Wightman Street frontage of the dining hall as illustrated in the applicants’
th
alternative proposed designed submitted on January 9.
7) That prior to the final approval of the project and issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That all landscape improvements and the irrigation system shall be installed according to
the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor.
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 30
b) All service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric,
Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments’ specifications, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor.
c) The screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with
the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. An opportunity to
recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be identified in
the building permit submittals and shall be in place, inspected and approved by the Staff
Advisor.
d) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department including approved addressing; fire
apparatus access, turn-around, angle of approach; fire flows; fire department connections;
fire hydrant distance to structures and clearance; firefighter access pathway; emergency
responder radio coverage provisions (if applicable); key box; and storage and collection
of combustible and recycle material requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
e) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the installation of
sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street lighting on both sides of
Stadium Street shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the
Public Works Department in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved
by the Staff Advisor.
f) All hardscape improvements including parking, driveways and off-street pathways shall
be installed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the final certificate of
occupancy.
g) That the bicycle parking facilities shall be installed according to the approved plans,
inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify the design and placement of
covered bicycle parking both indoors and outdoors as described in the application.
h) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent residential proprieties.
th
January 24, 2012
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2011-01576
January 24, 2012
Page 31
Memo
DATE: January 24, 2012
TO: Ashland Planning Commission
FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager
RE: Re-review of Pedestrian Places Ordinance Revisions
Question:
Does the Planning Commission have questions on the ordinance amendments that apply city wide and to
the Detail Site Review Zone that were adoptedas part of the Pedestrian Places Project, and does the
Planning Commission wish to make recommendations to Council for further changes?
Background:
At the December 6, 2011 City Council meeting, a question was raised regarding the ordinance
amendments from the Pedestrian Places Project that apply throughout the city. It is staff’s
understanding that the Council passed the ordinance revisions without fully realizing that some of the
provisions apply outside of the Pedestrian Place Overlay Zone.At the December 20, 2011 meeting, the
City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the ordinance changes made city wide and to
the Detail Site Review, and make recommendations to Council for changes as appropriate. The
Planning Commission has the option of recommending changes to the previous ordinance amendments,
or recommending that the ordinance stay in place as approved.
The Pedestrian Places Project began with a series of three public workshops on October 27, 2010,
December 9, 2010 and January 2, 2011. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held three study
sessions on March 29, August 23 and September 13 of 2011 on the proposed ordinance amendments
designed to implement ideas, proposals and recommendations developed as part of the Pedestrian Places
Project, and on October 11, 2011 held a public hearing and made a recommendation to approve the
ordinance amendments. The City Council held a public hearing and approved first reading of the
ordinance amendments on November 1, 2011, and approved second reading of the amendments on
November 15, 2011. The ordinance amendments became effective on December 16, 2011.
The January 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting has been properly noticed as a public hearing in
the newspaper as required in Chapter 18.108 Procedures. Additionally, a postcard notice was mailed to
property owners in the previously used notice area for the Pedestrian Places workshops and public
hearings, as well as to property owners in the Detail Site Review Zone.
The first attachment, Ordinance Amendments by Chapter – Pedestrian Places Project, includes the
recently adopted code revisions with notations about the specific changes. This document parallels the
outline of “Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location – Pedestrian Places Project” which is
-
2-
the second attachment. The third attachment is maps of the Detail Site Review Zone, and of the Detail
Site Review Zone and the Pedestrian Place Overlay.
The fourth and fifth attachments are the adopted ordinances in question and are provided for reference.
These documents can be helpful because they show the old as well as the new text. Ordinance 3053
includes the changes to the Site Design and Use Standards that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone,
and Ordinance 3054 includes changes to various chapters of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance that apply
city wide.
deleted text in bold line throughadditions in
The adopted Ordinances 3053 and 3054 show the and
bold underline
. This is the standard ordinance format used at the City Council, and can be confusing
because text that is moved as part of reformatting is shown in one location as deleted and in another as
an addition. For example, Chapter 18.92 Parking, Access, and Circulation was reformatted to improve
the flow, group requirements in logical sections and consolidate parking and circulation requirements in
one chapter. Unfortunately, the standard strikeout and underline format does not distinguish between
reformatting amendments and those amendments that are introducing new standards. Staff is working to
improve the way ordinance revisions are presented in the future so that a concise outline is provided, as
well as the full text of an ordinance amendment which distinguishes between reformatting,
housekeeping and new material.
Options:
The Planning Commission may recommend changes to the previous ordinance amendments, or
recommend that the ordinance stay in place as approved. In either case, the recommendation is made to
the City Council, and the City Council makes the final decision on any legislative amendments.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance Amendments by Chapter, Pedestrian Places Project, January 24, 2012
2. Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location, Pedestrian Places Project, December 20, 2011
3. Maps of the Detail Site Review Zone and of the Detail Site Review Zone and Pedestrian Place
Overlay
4. Ordinance 3053, An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards
Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project
5. Ordinance 3054, An Ordinance Amending AMC 18.08, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080,
18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.040, 18.108.060 AND 18.108.080 of the Ashland
Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the Recommendations of the Pedestrian
Places Project
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Ordinance Amendments by Chapter
Pedestrian Places Project
Note: This document shows the ordinance language with the
adopted amendments fully incorporated.
1. GENERAL REGULATIONS – 18.68
SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements.
The setback from an arterial street shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, or the width
required to install sidewalk and parkrow improvements, consistent with the City of
Ashland Street Standards in Section 18.88.020.K, whichever is less.
Comment [h1]:
New language reserves the space
for sidewalk and parkrow improvements.
Exceptions to the standard for the downtown (C-1-
D), north side of Lithia Way (C-1) and Croman Mill
district (CM), and “special base line setbacks” for E.
2. SITE DESIGN REVIEW – 18.72
Main St. and Ashland St. deleted.
SECTION 18.72.090 Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards.
An exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the
requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18.72.080 if, on the
basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following
circumstances are found to exist:
A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Design and Use Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing
structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not
Comment [h2]:
Added to provide consistency
with standards for an Exception to the Downtown
substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is
Design Standards.
consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards; and the
exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or
B. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting
the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated
purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards.
Comment [h3]:
New language.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 1
3. PARKING, ACCESS AND CIRCULATION – 18.92
(Formerly OFF-STREET
PARKING)
CHAPTER 18.92
PARKING, ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
SECTIONS:
18.92.010 Purpose.
18.92.020 Applicability.
18.92.030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required.
18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places.
18.92.050 Parking Management Strategies.
18.92.060 Bicycle Parking.
18.92.070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District.
18.92.080 Parking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements.
18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation.
18.92.100 Construction.
18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements.
18.92.120 Availability of Facilities.
SECTION 18.92.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for development of vehicle and
bicycle parking, and to ensure developments provide safe and effective access and
circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles.
SECTION 18.92.020 Applicability.
In all districts, except those specifically exempted, whenever any building is erected or
enlarged, parking or access is reconfigured, or the use is changed, parking, access and
circulation shall be provided as set forth in this chapter. The City may require a study
prepared by a qualified professional to determine offsets in parking demand, access,
circulation and other transportation impacts.
SECTION 18.92.030 Automobile Parking Spaces Required.
Uses and standards are as follows:
Residential Uses
A.. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
1. Single family dwellings.
Two spaces for the primary dwelling unit and the following for accessory
residential units:
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units --1.75 spaces/unit.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 2
d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit.
2. Multi-family dwellings.
a. Studio units or 1-bedroom units less than 500 sq. ft. -- 1 space/unit.
b. 1-bedroom units 500 sq. ft. or larger -- 1.50 spaces/unit.
c. 2-bedroom units -- 1.75 spaces/unit.
d. 3-bedroom or greater units -- 2.00 spaces/unit.
e. Retirement complexes for seniors 55-years or greater -- One space per
unit.
3. Clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, rooming and boarding houses, dormitories.
Two spaces for each three guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 square feet shall be
equivalent to a guest room.
4. Hotels and motels.
One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager.
5. Manufactured housing developments.
Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.84.
6. Performance Standards Developments.
Parking requirements are as established in Chapter 18.88.
Commercial Uses.
B. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces
are required.
1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses.
One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land
area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square
feet of gross land area; and one per two employees.
2. Bowling Alleys.
Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in
this section.
3. Business, general retail, person services.
General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and
appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area.
4. Chapels and mortuaries.
One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel.
5. Offices.
Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General -
one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area.
6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses.
One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor
area, whichever is less.
7. Skating rinks.
One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area.
8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, gymnasiums and similar uses.
One space per four seats.
Industrial Uses.
C. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are
required.
1. Industrial and Warehousing uses.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 3
One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees,
whichever is less, plus one space per company vehicle.
2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices.
One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company
vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required.
Institutional and Public Uses.
D. For institutional and public uses the following
automobile parking spaces are required.
1. Child care centers having 13 or more children.
One space per two employees; a minimum of two spaces is required.
2. Churches.
One space per four seats.
3. Golf courses, except miniature.
Eight spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses set forth in this
section. Miniature golf courses -four spaces per hole.
4. Hospitals.
Two spaces per patient bed.
5. Nursing and convalescent homes.
One space per three patient beds.
6. Rest homes, homes for the aged, or assisted living.
One space per two patient beds or one space per apartment unit.
7. Schools, elementary and junior high.
One and one-half space per classroom, or the requirements for public assembly
areas as set forth herein, whichever is greater.
8. High schools.
One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per 10 students the
school is designed to accommodate, or the requirements for public assembly as
set forth herein, whichever is greater.
9. Colleges, universities and trade schools.
One and one-half spaces per classroom, plus one space per five students the
school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student
housing.
Unspecified Uses.
E. 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.
Maximum Allowable Number of Automobile Parking Spaces.
F. The number of
spaces provided by any particular use in ground surface lots shall not exceed the
required number of spaces provided by this ordinance by more than 10%. Spaces
provided on-street, or within the building footprint of structures, such as in rooftop
parking, or under-structure parking, or in multi-level parking above or below surface
lots, shall not apply towards the maximum number of allowable spaces.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 4
SECTION 18.92.040 Disabled Person Parking Places.
The total number of disabled person parking spaces shall comply with the following:
Required Minimum Number
Total in Parking Lot
of Accessible Spaces
1 to 25 1
26 to 50 2
51 to 75 3
76 to 100 4
101 to 150 5
151 to 200 6
201 to 300 7
301 to 400 8
401 to 500 9
One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, must be van accessible. A
van accessible parking space is required to be at least nine feet wide and have an
adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. Required Disabled Person Parking
spaces shall be designed in accord with all requirements of the State of Oregon,
including minimum widths, adjacent aisles, and permanent markings. Disabled Person
Parking space designs are included at the end of this chapter.
SECTION 18.92.050 Parking Management Strategies.
The amount of required off-street parking may be reduced up to 50% through the application of
Comment [h4]:
Previously allowed up to a 35%
reduction and up to 50% in a Historic District.
the following credits.
On-Street Parking Credit.
A. The amount of off-street parking required shall be
reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking
space credit for every oneon-street parking space.
Comment [h5]:
Previously allowed one off-street
parking space credit for every two on-street spaces
1. Dimensions. On-street parking shall follow the established configuration of
up to four credits, there after one space credit for
existing on-street parking, except that 45 degree diagonal parking may be
each on-street parking space.
allowed with the approval of the Public Works Director, taking into account traffic
flows and street design, with the parking spaces designed in accord with the
standards on file with the Public Works Department. The following shall
constitute an on-street parking space:
a. Parallel parking, each 22 feet of uninterrupted curb.
Comment [h6]:
Previously was 24 feet.
b. 45 degree diagonal, each 12 feet of uninterrupted curb.
Comment [h7]:
Previously was 13 feet.
2. Location.
a. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which
requires the parking.
b. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along
the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other
parking configuration that violates any law or standard of the City or State.
c. Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if
the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums established by
the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 5
d. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 200 feet of a C-1-D or SO
zone.
3. Availability.On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be
used exclusively by that use, but shall be available for general public use at all
times. No signage or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall
be permitted.
Alternative Vehicle Parking.
B.Alternative vehicle parking facilities may be
Comment [h8]:
New standard.
substituted for up to 25 percent of the required parking space on site.
1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. One off-street parking space credit for four
motorcycle or scooter parking spaces.
2. Bicycle parking. One off-street parking space credit for five additional, non-
required bicycle parking spaces.
Mixed Uses.
C. 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 offset. In such case, the mixed-use credit shall
reduce the off-street parking requirement by a percentage equal to the reduced
parking demand.
Joint Use of Facilities.
D. Required parking facilities of 2 or more uses, structures, or
parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking facilities used jointly, to the
extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators that the need for the facilities
does not materially overlap (e.g., uses primarily of a daytime vs. nighttime nature)
and provided that such right of joint use is evidenced by a deed, lease, contract, or
similar written instrument establishing such joint use.
Shared Parking.
E. One off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in
designated off-site shared parking areas, or through payment of in-lieu-of-parking
fees for a common parking.
Comment [h9]:
New standard.
TDM Plan Credit.
F. Through implementation of an individual Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking
demand by a percentage equal to the credit requested.
Comment [h10]:
New standard.
Transit Facilities Credit.
G. Sites where at least 20 spaces are required, and where at
least one lot line abuts a street with transit service may substitute transit-supportive
plazas for required parking as follows.
Comment [h11]:
New standard.
1. Pedestrian and transit supportive plazas may be substituted for up to ten percent
of the required parking spaces on site.
2. A street with transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period
transit service frequency.
3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions.
4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus
stop along the site’s frontage, the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 6
5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a ten
foot by ten foot square will fit entirely in the plaza.
6. The plaza must include all of the following elements:
a. A plaza that is open to the public. The owner must record a public access
easement that allows public access to the plaza;
b. A bench or other sitting area with at least five linear feet of seating;
c. A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20
square feet and the plaza must be landscaped. This landscaping is in addition
to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas by the Code.
SECTION 18.92.060 Bicycle Parking.
A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-
1-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces.
B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage,
shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows:
Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit
1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit
2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit
Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units (80% of the occupants are
55 or
older)
C. In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted,
shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces.
Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifty percent of the
bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall
be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve.
(Ord 2697 S1, 1993)
D. All public and commercial parking lots and parking structures shall provide a
minimum of one bicycle parking space for every five auto parking spaces.
E. Elementary, Junior High, Middle and High Schools shall provide one sheltered
bicycle parking space for every five students.
F. Colleges, universities, and trade schools shall provide one bicycle parking space for
every five required auto parking spaces, of which one half is to be sheltered.
G. No bicycle parking spaces required by this standard shall be rented or leased,
however, a refundable deposit fee may be charged. This does not preclude a bike
parking rental business.
H. The required bicycle parking facilities shall be constructed when an existing
residential building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 7
dwelling units, or when a non-residential use is intensified by the addition of floor
space, seating capacity, or change in use.
I. Bicycle Parking Design Standards.
1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists
and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage.
2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways:
a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building.
b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure,
underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building.
c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by
City of Ashland Public Works Department.
d. Providing secure storage space inside the building.
3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of well-
used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle
parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-
of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple
buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle
parking shall be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists.
4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to
provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all
facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor
vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as
well lit as automobile parking.
5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each
row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the
illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter.
6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another
bicycle.
7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved
for bicycle parking only.
8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter
meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial
bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. A bicycle
parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parking shall be a
minimum of six feet long by 3 feet wide by 4 feet high, unless adequate room is
provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this
chapter.
9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include
the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter.
10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage
to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed.
11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall
not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking
facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 8
Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street
furniture.
J. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards.
1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack
specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple
rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in
the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be
approved after review by the TransportationCommission and approval by the
Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this
section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely.
(Ord 3054, amended
12/16/2011)
2. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are
designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue
inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental
damage.
a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame
shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a
manner that will damage the wheels.
b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate:
i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high-security U-
shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and
ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-
shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle;
and
iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not
longer than 6 feet without removal of the front wheel.
c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in
the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two
inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar
material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a
smooth, durable, and well-drained condition.
SECTION 18.92.070 Variances for Commercial Buildings in the Historic District.
In order to preserve existing structures within the Ashland Historic District, while
permitting the redevelopment of property to its highest commercial use, a variance of up
to 50% of the required automobile parking may be granted to commercial uses within
the Ashland Historic District as a Type I Variance. It is the intent of this clause to provide
as much off-street parking as practical while preserving existing structures and allowing
them to develop to their full commercial potential. Additionally, to identify redevelopment
of existing commercial and residential buildings for commercial use within the Ashland
Historic District as an exceptional circumstance and unusual hardship for the purposes
of granting a variance.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 9
SECTION 18.92.080 Parking, Access and Circulation Design Requirements.
Parking Location.
A.
1. Except for single and two-family dwellings, required automobile parking facilities
may be located on another parcel of land, provided said parcel is within 200 feet
of the use it is intended to serve. The distance from the parking lot to the use
shall be measured in walking distance from the nearest parking space to an
access to the building housing the use, along a sidewalk or other pedestrian path
separated from street traffic. Such right to use the off-site parking must be
evidenced by a deed, lease, easement, or similar written instrument establishing
such use, for the duration of the use.
2. Except as allowed in the subsection below, automobile parking shall not be
located in a required front and side yard setback area abutting a public street,
except alleys.
3. In all residential zones, all off-street parking of automobiles, trucks, trailers and
recreational vehicles in the front yard shall be limited to a contiguous area which
is no more than 25% of the area of the front yard, or a contiguous area 25 feet
wide and the depth of the front yard, whichever is greater. Since parking in
violation of this section is occasional in nature, and is incidental to the primary
use of the site, no vested rights are deemed to exist and violations of this section
are not subject to the protection of the nonconforming use sections of this
ordinance. However, a 24-hour warning notice of violation shall be provided prior
to the issuance of a citation to appear in Municipal Court, and it shall be
rebuttably presumed that the vehicle was parked with permission of the person in
control of the property. Subsequent violations shall not require a warning notice.
Parking Area Design.
B.Required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with
the following standards and dimensions.
1. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18 feet.
2. Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be
designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be
8 x 16 feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words
"Compact Car Only."
3. Parking spaces shall have a back-up maneuvering space no less than twenty-
two (22) feet, except where parking is angled, and which does not necessitate
moving of other vehicles.
4. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas. Parking
areas may be divided into separate areas by a building or group of buildings,
landscape areas with walkways at least 10 feet in width, plazas, streets or
driveways with street-like features. Street-like features, for the purpose of this
section, means a raised sidewalk of at least five feet in width, six-inch curb,
accessible curb ramps, street trees in planters or tree wells and pedestrian-
oriented lighting.
Comment [h12]:
New standard, previously
required to Detail Site Review Zone.
5. Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and
microclimatic impacts of surface parking through design and material selection.
Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall meet the following
standards.
Comment [h13]:
New standard, previously
applied to Croman Mill zone.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 10
a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put
50% of parking underground.
i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar
Reflective Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a
minimum of 50% of the parking area surface.
ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at
least 50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface.
iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area
surface within five years of project occupancy.
iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports,
canopies or trellis structures over the parking area surface.
b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and
treats runoff with landscaped medians and swales.
Vehicular Access and Circulation
C. . The intent of this section is to manage access
to land uses and on-site circulation, and to preserve the transportation system in
terms of safety, capacity and function.
1. Applicability. This section applies to all public streets within the City of Ashland
and to all properties that abut these streets. The standards apply when
developments are subject to a planning action (e.g. Site Review, Conditional Use
Permit, Land Partition, Performance Standards Subdivision).
2. Site Circulation. New development shall be required to provide a circulation
system that accommodates expected traffic on the site. All on-site circulation
systems shall incorporate street-like features as described in Section
18.92.090.A.3.c. Pedestrian connections on the site, including connections
through large sites, and connections between sites and adjacent sidewalks must
conform to the provisions of Section 18.92.090.
Comment [h14]:
Mew standard.
3. Intersection and Driveway Separation. The distance from a street intersection to
a driveway, or from a driveway to another driveway shall meet the minimum
spacing requirements for the street’s classification in the Ashland Transportation
System Plan (TSP).
a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the
bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.
b. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1,
CM or
M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If
applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all
properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points.
c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 or M-1 zone shall
be limited to the following:
1. Distance between driveways.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
on collector streets - 75 feet;
on residential streets - 50 feet.
2. Distance from intersections.
On arterial streets - 100 feet;
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 11
on collector streets - 50 feet;
on residential streets - 35 feet.
d. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the
requirements of the Croman Mill District Standards.
(Ord 3036, added, 08/17/2010)
e. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments.
i. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in
excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway
access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by
the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
ii. Creating an obstructed street as defined in Section 18.88.020.G is
prohibited.
4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts.
a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate
how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use
of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements.
Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the
City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following
situations.
i. For shared parking areas;
ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited; and
iii For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots.
b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and
driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or
the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with
standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be
done under permit of the Engineering Division.
c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles
must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage.
Driveways and Turn-Around Design.
D. Driveways and turn-arounds providing
access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions:
1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a
shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of 12 feet.
2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with
adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a
forward manner.
3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway
20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site,
with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and
permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be
served by a driveway 12 feet in width.
4. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shall have a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" for their entire length and width.
5. Vision Clearance. No obstructions may be placed in the vision clearance area
except as set forth in Section 18.68.020.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 12
Parking and Access Construction.
E. The development and maintenance as
provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings.
1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be
paved with concrete, asphaltic, pervious paving, or comparable surfacing,
constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have
provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet
flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private
property.
3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing
constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer.
4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces
permanently and clearly marked.
5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width
and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so
constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where
appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no
vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way.
6. Walls and Hedges.
a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen
hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall
be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way
line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required
screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or
hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately
maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be
maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be
designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians.
b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways
are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like
institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than
five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as
measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be
reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street
property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings
shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12
months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls,
fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking
areas.
7. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover
not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the
landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be
uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation
facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees,
plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven
parking spaces is required.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 13
8. Lighting of parking areas within 100 feet of property in residential zones shall be
directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light
element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property.
SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation.
Comment [h15]:
New section.
Ch. 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards previously
Site Layout and Design.
A. To ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian
included pedestrian and bicycle circulation,
standards, and lighting on pedestrian pathways in the
circulation, all developments, except single-family dwellings on individual lots and
Detail Site Review Zone, and streetscape
accessory uses and structures, shall provide a continuous walkway system. The
improvements for on-site circulation systems for
walkway system shall be based on the standards in subsections 1-4, below: Large Scale Development
1. Continuous Walkway System. Extend the walkway system throughout the
development site and connect to all future phases of development, and to
existing or planned off-site adjacent sidewalks, trails, public parks, and open
space areas to the greatest extent practicable. The developer may also be
required to connect or stub walkway(s) to adjacent streets and to private property
for this purpose.
2. Safe, Direct, and Convenient. Provide safe, reasonably direct, and convenient
walkway connections between primary building entrances and all adjacent
streets, based on the following definitions:
a. Reasonably direct. A route that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight
line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-direction
travel for likely users.
b. Safe and convenient. Routes that are reasonably free from hazards and
provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations.
c. "Primary entrance" for commercial, industrial, mixed use, public, and
institutional buildings is the main public entrance to the building. In the case
where no public entrance exists, street connections shall be provided to the
main employee entrance.
d. "Primary entrance" for residential buildings is the front door (i.e. facing the
street). For multifamily buildings in which each unit does not have its own
exterior entrance, the “primary entrance” may be a lobby, courtyard, or
breezeway which serves as a common entrance for more than one dwelling.
3. Connections within Development. Walkways within developments shall be
provide connections as required in subsections a -c, below:
a. Connect all building entrances to one another to the extent practicable, as
generally shown in Figure 1;
b. Connect all on-site parking areas, recreational facilities and common areas,
and connect off-site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable.
Topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not
making certain walkway connections, as generally shown in Figure 1; and
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 14
Figure 1 PPedestriann Pathway System (TTypical)
c. Install protected raaised walkkways through parkinng areas oof 50 or mmore
spaces, oor of more than 100 feeet in averaage width or depth.
Walkkway Design and Construction.
B. Walkwways shall conform to all offthe
standdards in subsections 11-4, as generally illustrrated in Figgure 2:
1.VVehicle/Walkway Sepaaration. Exxcept for ccrosswalks (subsectioon 2), wheere a
wwalkway abuuts a drivewway or streeet, it shall bbe raised sixx inches annd curbed aalong
thhe edge of the drivewway/street. AAlternativelly, the deciision body may approove a
wwalkway abuutting a drivveway at thhe same graade as the driveway iff the walkwway is
protected froom all vehiccle maneuvvering areass. An exammple of suchh protectionn is a
roow of decoorative metal or concrrete bollardds designedd to withstaand a vehiicle’s
immpact, with adequate minimum spacing betwween them to protect pedestrianss.
2012-01-24Planning Comission Pedestrin Places Re-reiewPge | 15
mmaavvaa
2.CCrosswalks.. Where waalkways crooss
Figure 2 PPedestriann Walkway
a parking aarea or drivveway, cleaarly
Detail (Typical)
mmark crossswalks with contrastting
paving matterials (e.gg., light-coolor
concrete innlay betweeen asphaalt),
wwhich may bbe part of aa raised/hummp
crossing areea. Painted or thermmo-
plastic stripiing and simmilar types of
non-permannent applicaations may be
approved for crossswalks nnot
exceeding 224 feet in length.
3.WWalkway Surface and Widdth.
WWalkway surfaces shall be
concrete,aasphalt, bbrick/masonnry
pavers, or other duraable surfacce,
and at leasst five feet wide. Muulti-
use paths (i.e. for bicycles aand
pedestrians)) shall be concrete or
asphalt, andd at least 10 feet widee in
accordance with the AAshland Streeet
SStandards inn Section 18.88.020.KK.
4.AAccessible routes. Waalkways shhall
comply withh applicablle Americaans
wwith Disabilities Act (ADA) aand
SState of Oreegon requirements. TThe
ends of all raised walkkways, wheere
thhe walkwayy intersects a drivewway
or street shhall providee ramps thhat
are ADA acccessible, aand walkwaays
shall proviide directt routes to
primary buildding entrannces.
5.PProvide peddestrian sccale lightinng no greaater than 14 feet inn height aalong
pedestrian faacilities.
SECTIONN 18.92.1000 Construcction.
The reqquired parkking, accesss and circculations faacilities, shaall be instaalled prior to a
release of a certifficate of usse and occcupancy orr a releasee of utilitiess, and shaall be
permaneently mainttained as a conditionn of use. HHowever, tthe Building Official may,
unless ootherwise directed byy the Plannning Commmission or Staff Advvisor, releasse a
temporaary certificate of use aand occupaancy and a temporaryy release off utilities beefore
the instaallation of ssaid facilitiees providedd: (1) theree is proof thhat the ownner has enttered
into a ccontract witth a reputaable installeer for the ccompletion of the parking, incluuding
designsstandards, wwith a speccified time, and that thhere remainns nothing ffor the owner to
do prior to installattion; or (2) the owner has postedd a satisfacctory perforrmance bonnd to
ensure tthe installattion of said parking faccilities within a specifieed time.
2012-01-24Planning Comission Pedestrin Places Re-reiewPge | 16
mmaavvaa
SECTION 18.92.110 Alterations and Enlargements.
The required parking, access and circulation facilities shall be constructed when an
existing building or dwelling is altered or enlarged by the addition or creation of guest
rooms or dwelling units, or when a use is intensified by the addition of floor space,
seating capacity, or change in use.
SECTION 18.92.120 Availability of Facilities.
Required parking, access and circulation shall be available for use by residents,
customers and employees only, and shall not be used for the storage or display of
vehicles or materials.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 17
4. SITE DESIGN REVIEW – 18.72
Site Design and Use Standards
C. Commercial, Employment, and Industrial Development
II-C-1 Basic Site Review Standards
APPROVAL STANDARDS
Development in all commercial and employment zones
shall conform to the following development standards:
II-C-1a) Orientation and Scale
1. Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than
the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and
shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a
corner lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to
the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be
provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall
be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable.
2. Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to
which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for
topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback
results in an improved access or for sites with multiple buildings, such as
shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. Automobile
circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right-
of-way. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and
shall be open to the public during all business hours.
3. These requirements may be waived if the building is not accessed by
pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached
offices, and automotive service stations.
II-C-1b) Streetscape
One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of
frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street.
II-C-1c) Landscaping
1. Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year
and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years.
2. Landscaping design shall utilize a variety of low water use and deciduous
and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species.
3. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least
10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District and Detail Site
Review Zone. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from
Comment [h16]:
New language.
adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be
screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land.
4. Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 18
5. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on
the site as possible.
II-C-1d) Parking
1. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides.
2. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent
non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses.
II-C-1e) Designated Creek Protection
1. Designated creek protection areas shall be considered positive design
elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project.
2. Native riparian plan materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to
enhance the creek habitat.
II-C-1f) Noise and Glare
Special attention to glare (AMC 18.72.110) and noise (AMC 9.08.170(c) & AMC
9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with
these standards.
II-C-1g) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings
For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of
the site must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of
building expansion, e.g., if a building area is expanded by 25%, then 25% of the
site must be brought up to the standards required by this document.
II-C-2 Detail Site Review
APPROVAL STANDARDS
Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall,
in addition to complying with the standards for Basic Site Review,
conform to the following standards:
II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale
1. Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50. Plazas
Comment [h17]:
Previous minimum was .35
FAR, and there was a maximum FAR of .50 outside
and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting
the Historic District. Provision for a shadow plan is
the minimum FAR. Projects including existing buildings or vacant parcels of
new language.
a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR, or
provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development
may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 19
2. Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or
have other distinctive changes in the building façade.
3. Any wall which is within 30 feet of the street, plaza or other public open
space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display
areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow view into working areas
or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or displays areas. Blank walls within 30 feet
of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter
can be exempted for this standard if oriented toward loading or service
areas.
4. Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to
give emphasis to entrances.
5. Infill or buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is
encouraged and desirable.
6. Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes, and awnings
that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun.
II-C-2b) Streetscape
1. Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate “people” areas.
Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete,
grasscrete, or combinations of the above.
2. A building shall be setback not more than 5 feet from a public sidewalk
Comment [h18]:
Previously buildings could be
setback no more than 20 feet from the sidewalk.
unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside
eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. This standard shall
Comment [h19]:
New language.
apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is
proposed for a site, at least 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be
within 5 feet of the sidewalk.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 20
II-C-2c) Buffering and Screening
1. Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible
uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist or either plant material or
building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings.
2. Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and
screened from residentially zoned land.
II-C-2d) Building Materials
1. Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases,
fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area.
2. Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the
building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a
majority of the building skin.
II-C-3 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects
APPROVAL STANDARDS
Developments (1) Involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 sq. ft.
or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length , (2) located within
the Detail Site Review Zone, shall, in addition to complying to the
standards for Basic and Detail Site review, shall conform to the
following standards:
II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale
1. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that
relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or
direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces,
windows, trees, and small scale lighting.
2. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or
expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform
to the following standards:
a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or
above grade shall be considered as one building.
b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000
square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and
including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an
interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides
by walls but not a roof.
c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square
feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor
retail and storage areas, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and
in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area.
For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level
below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same
meaning as provided in the building code.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 21
d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length
of 300 feet.
Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions
of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000
square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top
parking, with the following exception:
Automobile parking areas locate within the building foot print and in the
basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose
of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a
building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building
code.
3. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance
equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet
in length, the separation shall be 60 feet.
II-C-3b) Public Spaces
1. One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10
square feet of gross floor area.
2. A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following
elements:
a. Sitting Space – at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet
shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16
inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have
a minimum depth of 30 inches.
b. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight & shade.
c. Protection from wind by screens and buildings.
d. Trees – provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree
per 500 square feet, at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height.
e. Water features or public art.
f. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors.
II-C-3c) Transit Amenities
Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be
required in accordance with the City’s Transportation Plan and guidelines
established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District.
II-C-3d) Recycling
Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments.
2012-01-24 Planning Commission Pedestrian Places Re-review Page | 22
Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location
Pedestrian Places Project
I. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay and
throughout the entire City
GENERAL REGULATIONS 18.68
1.
SECTION 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements.
Previous Standard
Required an approximately 20-foot front yard setback along arterial roads.
New Standard
Requires a 20-foot yard or a setback equal to the width required to install sidewalk
improvements (park row and sidewalk), whichever is less.
SITE DESIGN REVIEW 18.72
2.
SECTION 18.72.090Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards.
Previous Standard
Described (4) approval criteria for allowing an exception.
New Standard
Describes (4) approval criteria for allowing an exception; or
Allows and will result in a design that equally or better
achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards.
12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 1
OFF-STREET PARKING CHAPTER 18.92
3.
SECTION 18.92.050 Credit for On-street Automobile Parking Management Strategies.
Previous Standard
Through implementing specific strategies, allowed up to a 35% reduction in required
parking; 50% in a Historic District.
New Standard
Through implementing specific strategies, allows up to a 50% reduction in required
parking.
Permits the City to require a study by a qualified professional to provide supporting
justification for offsets in parking demand, access, circulation and other
transportation impacts.
4.
SECTION 18.92.050On-Street Parking Credit.
Previous Standard
Allowed one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street spaces up to four
credits, thereafter one space credit for each on-street parking space.
Parallel parking = 24 feet of uninterrupted curb.
45 degree diagonal = 13 feet of uninterrupted curb
New Standard
one
Allows one off-street parking space credit for each on-street parking space.
22
Parallel parking = feet of uninterrupted curb.
12
45 degree diagonal = feet of uninterrupted curb.
5.
SECTION 18.92.050 Alternative Vehicle Parking.
New Standard
Allows alternative vehicle parking facilities to be substituted for up to 25 percent of the
required parking spaces on site.
1. Motorcycle or scooter parking. Permits one off-street parking space credit for four
motorcycle or scooter parking spaces.
12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 2
2. Bicycle parking. Permits one off-street parking space credit for five additional, non-
required bicycle parking spaces.
6.
SECTION 18.92.050 Shared Parking.
New Standard
Allows one off-street parking space credit for every space constructed in designated off-
site shared parking areas, or payment of in-lieu-of-parking fees for a common parking.
7.
SECTION 18.92.050 TDM Plan Credit.
New Standard
Allows implementation of an individual Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan
that demonstrates a reduction of long term parking demand by a percentage equal to the
credit requested.
8.
SECTION 18.92.050 Transit Facilities Credit.
New Standard
States that projects that require at least 20 spaces and abut a street with transit service
are eligible for a 10% reduction in parking through meeting the following standards:
1. Construct a pedestrian and transit supportive plaza
2. Transit service shall have a minimum of 30-minute peak period transit service
frequency.
3. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions.
4. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. .
5. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area The plaza must include all of the
following elements:
a. A plaza that is open to the public.
b. A bench or other sitting area
c.
A shelter or other weather protection.
9.
SECTION 18.92.080 Addressing Environmental and Microclimatic Impacts of Surface
Parking
New Standard
(currently applies to Croman Mill zone)
Requires that parking areas of more than seven parking spaces meet the following
standards:
a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50%
of parking underground.
i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective
Index (SRI) of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the
parking area surface.
12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 3
ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least
50% pervious for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface.
iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface
within five years of project occupancy.
iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or
trellis structures over the parking area surface.
b. Design parking lots and other hard surface areas in a way that captures and treats
runoff with landscaped medians and swales.
10.
SECTION 18.92.080 Site Circulation
New Standard
Requires that new development provides a circulation system that accommodates
expected traffic on the site, with street-like features such as sidewalks, accessible curb
ramps, trees and pedestrian scale lighting.
11.
new section
SECTION 18.92.090 Pedestrian Access and Circulation ()
New Standards
A.
Requires projects to design a walkway system through the project that addresses the
following:
1.
The walkway system shall extend throughout the site and connect to all future
phases of development.
2. The walkway shall be safe, direct, and convenient with connections between primary
building entrances and all adjacent streets.
3. Walkways within developments including multiple buildings shall be include
connections between building entrances, and provide walkway connections between
parking area and recreational facilities and other common areas.
4. Install protected raised walkways large parking area (>50 spaces)
B.
Sets standards for Walkway Design and Construction, which address the following:
1. Vehicle/Walkway Separation.
2. Crosswalks.
3. Walkway Surface and Width.
4. Accessible routes.
5. Pedestrian Scale Lighting
12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 4
II. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay and Detail
Site Review Zone
(Commercial & Employment zoned land adjacent to major
streets)
1.
Minimum Floor Area Ratio (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS)
Previous Standard
Minimum .35 FAR; Maximum FAR .5
New Standard
Minimum .5 FAR; No Maximum FAR. (FAR).
In addition, an allowance is added for a shadow plan to phase in FAR requirement
for projects including existing buildings or greater than 1/2 acre.
2.
Building Setback from Sidewalk (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS )
Previous Standard
A building setback of no more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is
used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas.
New Standard
A building setback of no more than 5 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is
used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a
required public utility easement.
3.
Landscape Buffer (II-C-2 DETAIL SITE REVIEW STANDARDS)
Previous Standard
A 10-foot wide buffer required between buildings and the street, except in the
Ashland Historic District.
New Standard
A 10-foot wide buffer required between buildings and the street, except in the
Ashland Historic District and Detail Site Review Zone.
12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 5
III. Amendments that apply to Pedestrian Overlay ()
exclusively
1.
SECTION 18.18.56.040 Special Permitted Uses
New Standard
Commercial uses such as professional offices, stores and restaurants up to 2,500
square feet permitted in residential zones in Pedestrian Overlay if minimum housing
density requirements are met.
2.
SECTION 18.56.040 Solar Setback
Previous Standard
New buildings and additions required to meet the solar access setback which limits
the height of the shadow permitted at the north property line, and thereby limits the
height of the building.
New Standard
The solar access setback applies only to those new buildings and additions which
have residential zones located to the north.
3.
SECTION 18.56.040 Plazas and Landscaping Ratio
New Standard
Outdoor seating areas, plazas and other useable paved surfaces may count for up to
50% of the required landscape area.
12.20.2011 Council Meeting Pedestrian Places Update Page 6
I. The city did not comply with the notice requirements in §18.108.080.A through E;
2. Such error adversely affected and prejudiced a person's substantial rights; and
3. Such person notified the Staff Advisor within 21 days of when the person knew or should
have known of the decision, the Staff Advisor shall schedule a hearing before the Board,
Commission or Council that heard or would have heard the matter involving the defective
notice.
a. The Staff Advisor shall notify by mail all persons who previously appeared in the
matter and all persons who were entitled to mailed notice but were not mailed such
notice.
b. The hearing shall be conducted as provided in §18.108.100 if it is a hearing before the
Board or Commission, except that the record of the previous hearing shall be
reviewed and considered by the Board or Commission. If it is an appeal before the
Council, the Council may hear such matters as are permitted in §18.108.1 10.
A decision made after the hearing shall supersede the previous decision.
H. Notwithstanding the period specified in subsections F.3 and G.3 of this section, the period for
a hearing or appeal shall not exceed three years after the date of the initial decision.
SECTION 15. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 16. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City
Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word,
and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections'l,
22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references
and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the / day of , 2011,
an my PASSED aa�nd ADOPTED this /S' day of /,Q?,t( i , 2011.
AiW4 �vL A02��- �
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this l� day o?Uzzw
Jo n Stromberg, Mayor
m
Rev we as to for :
avid Lo an, City Attorney
An Ordinance Amending Misc. Section of Ch.18 Page 31