Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-10 Planning PACKET Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak, please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord. You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed. ASSHLAND PLAANNING COMMMISSION REGULAR MEETINNG APRRIL 10, 2012 AAGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER II ANNUNCEMENS ..OOTT IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA A. Appproval of Minutes 1.. March 13, 22012 Regularr Meeting. IVV. PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS A. Appproval of Findings for PPA-2011-015223, Revised HHistoric Distrrict Design SStandards. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLLANNING ACCTION: #2012-00018 SUUBJECT PROOPERTY: 2220 Ashland SStreet APPPLICANT: SSummit Inveestments DEESCRIPTIONN: A request ffor Site Reviiew approvall to construcct a new 4,1225 square fooot, sinngle story, reetail buildingg and associated site impprovements for the property located at 22220 Ashland Street. Thee former Pizzza Hut buildding is currently located on the sitte. COOMPREHENSSIVE PLAN DDESIGNATIOON: Commerccial; ZONINGG: C-1; ASSEESSOR’S MAAP: 399 1E 14BA; TAAX LOT: 17000. VII. ADJOURNMENT Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104 ADDA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Derek Severson, Associate Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Dennis Slattery and announced he is the Commission’s new council liaison. City Administrator Dave Kanner introduced himself and stated he is always available if the Commission has questions or concerns regarding City business. Commissioner Marsh announced the Planning Commission will hold its annual retreat on May 5; and asked the group to submit agenda topics and places to visit on the field trip. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the Green Codes public hearing before the City Council last week, and noted the significant amount of public testimony regarding the keeping of chickens. He stated when the Commission held their hearing no one came to speak, and wished they had received this same level of input. Councilor Slattery stated it was an interesting meeting and the term “urban farming” was used quite a bit. He added the Council will likely be looking at this as a new Council goal. Commissioner Marsh questioned how to raise more awareness of the issues before the Planning Commission in order to improve public participation, and stated it would have been better if they could have been aware of the public’s concerns before this item went before Council. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.February 14, 2012 Regular Meeting. 2.February 28, 2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Council Memo – Pedestrian Places Re-Review Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the Pedestrian Places Re-Review will be on the Council’s April 3 agenda. No rd objections were raised to forwarding this Memo to the City Council. Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2011-01523 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to revise the Historic District Design Standards found in Section IV of Ashland’s Site Design and Use Standards. These standards are approval criteria for Site Review applications for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial applications in the four National Register-listed historic districts, as well as for exterior modifications requiring building permits on single family residential properties that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide greater internal consistency within the standards themselves. In conjunction with the revisions, supporting educational materials have been created to further explain and illustrate the standards with regard to specific topics including living with historic buildings, windows, exterior materials, additions, garages and outbuildings. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a general overview of the Historic District Design Standards update. He explained the Standards have served the City well since the 1980s, however in preparing the Historic Preservation Plan it was found that there are occasions where the existing Historic District Design Standards contradict with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Severson stated this update is intended as a fine tuning of the standards to address those conflicts. Mr. Severson explained the Historic District Design Standards apply in the City’s four historic districts, and only apply to construction that requires site review or conditional use permit approval. He reviewed the locations of the Ashland historic districts and also provided the contributing and non-contributing property figures for each district. Mr. Severson provided an explanation of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and reviewed the specific sections of the Ashland Historic District Design Standards that are proposed to be changed. He noted the Historic Commission met several times to review these changes and have recommended approval by the City Council. Mr. Severson also commented briefly on the Historic Briefs that were prepared, which provide additional information on: Living with Historic Buildings, Windows, Exterior Materials, Additions, and Garages/Outbuildings. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Mindlin suggested two minor corrections to page one: 1) she stated the word “lavish” is used incorrectly in the first paragraph, and 2) she stated the following sentence in paragraph three seems dated, “Wrought iron columns, asbestos shingles, and aluminum frame windows have only one thing in common – the local hardware store.” She also commented that some of the language makes it sound like these things are required and not advisory, and asked staff to clarify. Mr. Severson clarified for single family homes that do not require site review or a conditional use permit, the standards are advisory. He added the Historic Commission Review Board has the opportunity make recommendations to the applicant, and typically meets with homeowners or contractors and makes recommendations when the building permit is issued. Commissioner Mindlin asked what would happen if someone wants to tear down their home and build a brand new one. Mr. Severson stated the applicant would have to first obtain a demolition review permit, and the Historic Commission is notified and given opportunity to comment. He also clarified as part of the demolition review, the applicants must provide sufficient evidence that rehabilitation is financially unfeasible. Commissioner Dawkins voiced concern that the standards don’t have enough “teeth”, and that ultimately it is all just a recommendation. Mr. Severson noted the Historic Preservation Plan outlines a request for the City to consider residential site review for homes in the historic districts, and review by the Historic Commission for things that do not require permits (replacement of siding, etc.). He added the Historic Commission has also voiced their desire to revise the demolition ordinance and give it more teeth. He clarified when the ordinance was first adopted, you could not prohibit demolition based on a structure’s historic significance. He added as future grant cycles come up, this might be something the City wants to pursue. Commissioner Dawkins asked if the City could require an additional fee if people decide to not follow the standards; and Commissioner Miller asked if it is legal to have more restricted standards for single family homes in the historic districts. Mr. Molnar commented that 95% of people who purchase properties in historic areas do so because they like the resource and want to maintain those features. He stated more often than not people choose to follow the guidance given by the Historic Review Board, even if it is not mandatory. Mr. Severson commented that in some cases, removing the old building is not bad. He cited the LEED certified mixed-use development on A Street and stated the old building was dilapidated, had no discernable historic features, and Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Page 2 of 3 was a non-contributing structure. He added there are some instances where demolition is appropriate and supported by the Historic Commission. Commissioner Marsh commented that one of the best things they can do is to affirm as a community people’s choices when we see them doing great projects; to give them easy to understand handouts; and to continue to applaud and promote the historical buildings in our community. She also suggested the City assemble a map of the national historic structures in Ashland and believes this would be a great promotional piece for the City. Commissioner Marsh noted the planning application at 400 Allison and questioned if the Floor Area Ratio issue that came up with that action has been resolved. Mr. Molnar indicated staff will add this to the list of items that need to be addressed. Commissioners Miller/Heesacker m/s to approve the Historic District Design Standards as revised and forward to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated he is supportive of these standards, but would like to reopen this discussion as it relates to the Downtown Plan, particularly on Lithia Way. Suggestion was made for this to be an agenda topic at the Commission’s annual retreat. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Dawkins commented further on Lithia Way. He stated this is a transition zone and suggested they discuss rezoning the north side of the street. He commented on the Northlight property and suggested this area be rezoned as high density residential; and stated a viable downtown needs smaller housing units where people can live, work, and walk. He added he does not believe the downtown area needs to get any bigger. Comment was made questioning if the City has the ability to rezone a property and increase the density to allow for a much taller building. Staff clarified this is possible, however when you rezone a piece of property you do not own, it is best to have support from the property owner. Commissioner Mindlin stated she has some of the same concerns as Dawkins and noted her desire to talk about pocket neighborhoods and denser neighborhood communities. Commissioner Marsh stated she would like to hear about the research Mindlin has done in these areas and asked her to bring this forward for discussion at the retreat. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Page 3 of 3 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon April 10, 2012 ) IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2011-01523, A REQUEST ) TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER OF THE ASHLAND LAND ) USE ORDINANCE BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS 18.08.622 AND ) RECOMMENDATION 18.08.636 AND TO AMEND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN ) STANDARDS AND DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE SITE ) DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS FOR GREATER CLARITY AND ) CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S ) STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. ) APPLICANT:) City of Ashland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)The application is to amend the Definitions Chapter (AMC 18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance by adding new sections 18.08.622 “Rehabilitation” and 18.08.636 “Restoration” and to amend the Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. The Historic District Design Standards serve as approval criteria for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit applications for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial applications in Ashland’s four National Register-listed historic districts, as well as for exterior modifications requiring building permits on single family residential properties that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide greater clarity and internal consistency within the standards themselves. In conjunction with the revisions, supporting educational materials have been created to explain and illustrate the standards with regard to specific topics including living with historic buildings, windows, exterior materials, additions, garages and outbuildings. 2) A Legislative Amendment is defined in AMC 18.08.345 and is subject to the requirements for a Legislative Amendment described in AMC 18.108.170 as follows: SECTION 18.08.345 Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. SECTION 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments. A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances PA #2011-01523_Historic Design Standards April 10, 2012 Page 1 and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. 3) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice as required in AMC 18.108.170.D., held a public hearing on March 13, 2012 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following the closing of the public hearing, the Planning Commission held their deliberations and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Definitions Chapter (AMC 18.08) and to the Site Design and Use Standards’ Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland 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, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS PA #2011-01523_Historic Design Standards April 10, 2012 Page 2 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a recommendation based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Legislative Amendment to amend the Definitions Chapter (AMC 18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance by adding new sections 18.08.622 and 18.08.636 and to amend the Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for greater clarity and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation meets all applicable criteria for the approval of Legislative Amendment as described in Chapter 18.108.170. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendments as proposed. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan includes Policy I-7 which directs that, “The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant.” The Commission further finds that the City’s Site Design and Use Standards have included Historic District Design Standards to guide development in Ashland’s four historic districts since their adoption in 1985. The Planning Commission finds that Ashland’s four existing historic districts are the Ashland Downtown District, the Siskiyou-Hargadine District, the Skidmore Academy District, and the Railroad Addition District. These districts were established by the city in 1982 with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and each district was subsequently individually considered and ultimately listed on the National Register of Historic Places between 1998 and 2002. A map of these districts is provided as staff’s “Exhibit D – Historic Districts Map.” The Commission finds that the Site Design and Use Standards and the Historic District Design Standards found in Section IV thereof already apply within these districts for projects subject to Site Review or Conditional Use Permit, and further finds that the proposed revisions do not expand the applicability of the standards beyond those areas where they already apply but are instead intended to provide greater consistency both with accepted national standards and with other sections of the Site Design and Use Standards and Land Use Ordinance. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and for advising agencies on the preservation of historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation were originally developed to determine the appropriateness of proposed project work on registered properties supported by federal grants. These standards address rehabilitation, the most typical treatment to historic buildings, which is defined therein as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or architectural values.” As stated in the definition, the treatment of rehabilitation assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed to provide for efficient PA #2011-01523_Historic Design Standards April 10, 2012 Page 3 contemporary use; however, the standards seek to ensure that these repairs and alterations not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining a building’s historic character. The Commission finds that The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are intended to assist in the long-term preservation of historic materials and features, and as such pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes and occupancy and consider both the building site and the surrounding environment which provides its context. To be certified for federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation project must be found by the Secretary of the Interior to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is located. The Commission further finds that over the years since their creation, the Secretary’s Standards have been used to determine if a rehabilitation project qualifies for federal tax incentives as well as to guide federal agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for properties in federal ownership or control. In addition, they have come to be used by state and local officials across the nation to review rehabilitation proposals and have been adopted by historic and planning commissions across the country. The Planning Commission finds that the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) administers the Certified Local Government (CLG) program, which is a federal program to promote historic preservation at the local level. SHPO also assists property owners, local governments, and interested citizens in listing Oregon’s most historically important resources on the federal National Register of Historic Places. As a Certified Local Government with four National Register-listed historic districts, there is an expectation that the city will support historic preservation programs with adequate funding, staff, and access, and ensure that ordinances and other legislation designed to protect historic cultural resources are enforced. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that, as noted in the “Ashland Preservation Plan 2009- 2018”, some of the existing Historic District Design Standards from Section IV of the Site Design and Use Standards conflict with or contradict the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that this could be a potential problem for properties in the Oregon Special Assessment program as SHPO utilizes the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation when evaluating projects. Any work that does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation could cause a property to be removed from the program. Here, the Commission notes as an example that existing standards IV-B-1, 3, 4 and 5 encourage new additions to match existing features as much as possible, which contradicts the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9 which requires, “The new work shall be differentiated from the old.” Another example of a conflict is found in IV-B-3 requiring that roof ridge lines be extended where possible, which poses potential conflicts with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10 which requires, “New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” The Commission accordingly finds it necessary and appropriate that the existing standards be PA #2011-01523_Historic Design Standards April 10, 2012 Page 4 amended to provide greater consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as a way to further protect the character and integrity of Ashland’s four National Register-listed historic districts. To this end, the Commission finds that the addition of a new, twelfth standard to Section IV-B which states that, “The latest version of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings shall be used in clarifying and determining whether the above standards are met,” will allow the use the federal standards as a supporting reference for clarification when questions arise in the application of the Historic District Design Standards. The Planning Commission finds that the addition of a new standard and illustration as IV-C-11 “Additions” which encourage additions that are visually unobtrusive and do not obscure or eliminate character defining features and discourage additions on the primary façade or any elevation that is visually prominent or which obscure or destroy character defining features is in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation which calls for addition to protect the historic integrity of both the historic property and its environment. The Planning Commission finds that the addition of a new standard and illustration as IV-C-12 “Garage Placement” is appropriate and necessary. Development patterns in Ashland’s historic districts in many cases pre-dated the automobile’s current dominant role in modern life, and the placement of new garages behind primary historic buildings with access from a side street or alley rather than in front of the primary historic building is a key element in ensuring historically compatible development and preserving district character. 2.6 In addition to addressing consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed revisions include changes intended to provide greater clarity and internal consistency between the Historic District Design Standards and other city standards. The Planning Commission finds that for the purposes of clarity in explaining the standards, the addition of shading in the illustrations is a simple and effective way to add emphasis to the points being made in each of the illustrated standards in Section IV-C. The Planning Commission finds that within the Site Design and Use Standards, Section IV-C-1 of the Historic District Design Standards calls for buildings to be constructed to the height of existing historic buildings on and across the street while Section VI-A-1 of the Downtown Design Standards seeks buildings which vary in height to maintain the downtown’s traditional staggered streetscape appearance. The Planning Commission finds that for the sake of internal consistency, the revisions proposed to Section IV-B have made clear that the rehabilitation and remodel standards are to apply primarily to the residential historic districts and to residential buildings in the downtown, and that the Downtown Design Standards are to take precedence for . commercial development within the downtown overlayIn addition, the revisions include clarification in Section VI-A-1 making clear that the restoration of a historic façade line which was not historically staggered would provide a basis for an exception to the standard calling for PA #2011-01523_Historic Design Standards April 10, 2012 Page 5 varying heights to maintain a generally staggered streetscape appearance. The Planning Commission further finds that the addition of definitions for “rehabilitation” and “restoration” to the Definitions Chapter (AMC 18.08) is necessary as the standards refer directly to rehabilitation and restoration and as such, their meanings should be clearly defined. The Planning Commission finds that in past applications, it has at times been questioned how to address the area of transitions between zones as the current standards often seek compatibility with buildings in the vicinity when on occasion that vicinity may include other zoning districts, which are subject to different regulations and different development standards. For instance, it was questioned during the “Northlight” application at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street how to best address the transition between the subject property’s C-1 Commercial zoning which was to be developed under Basic Commercial and Detail Site Review subject to both the Historic and Downtown Design Standards when the immediately adjacent property was residentially zoned R-2 property in the Railroad Addition along B Street. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed revisions to both Section IV-C and Section VI are intended to make clear that at the edges of zoning districts or overlays with differing regulations and standards, adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement or architectural and material treatment may be considered as a means to address compatibility within the area of transition while not losing sight of the underlying zoning or applicable standards for the subject property. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the five proposed “Historic Building Briefs” which address “Living with Historic Buildings”, “Windows”, “Exterior Materials”, “Additions” and “Garages and Outbuildings” provide issue-specific educational materials and guidance in support of the revised standards, and while these “Historic Building Briefs” are not to be codified they provide an appropriate mechanism to help explain the revised standards to homeowners, their designer professionals and contractors. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Action #2011-01523. April 10, 2012 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2011-01523_Historic Design Standards April 10, 2012 Page 6 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION #2012-00018 PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00018 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2220 Ashland Street APPLICANT: Summit Investments DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single- story, retail building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street. The former Pizza Hut building is currently located on the site. ITEMPAGE # Staff Report 1-12 Staff Exhibit – Aerial Photograph 13 ODOT letter 15 Applicant’s Re-Submittal: Findings of Fact, Addendum and Clarification 19-28 Applicant’s Re-Submittal: Site Plans and Elevations 29-38 Applicants Original Submittal: Findings of Fact and Demonstration of Compliance 39-75 Applicants Original Submittal: Site Photographs and Site Plans 76-94 Landscape Architect Letter of Compliance 95 Hazardous Waste Disposal Information 96-98 Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC Traffic Analysis Letter 99-105 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT April 10, 2012 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00018 APPLICANT: Summit Investments LLC LOCATION: 2220 Ashland Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: March 21, 2012 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: July 25, 2012 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.32 C-1 Commercial District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a new 4,125 square foot, single story, retail building and associated site improvements for the property located at 2220 Ashland Street. The former Pizza Hut building is currently located on the site. The property is subject to the Detail Site Review requirements and the Pedestrian Places requirements. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application In 1982 the subject property was developed as a Pizza Hut which was closed in 2005. From approximately 2006 until 2008 the Heartsong Tea Company operated a “Chai Hut” out the business. The site has been vacant since approximately 2008. There are no other land use application on record for the property. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property is 18,295 square feet and is located at 2220 Ashland Street in southeast Ashland. The property has a vacant 2,135 square foot building, formerly Pizza Hut which closed in 2005 and will be demolished. There is also landscaping, parking lot and other site improvements which will be modified as part of this proposal. Ashland Street is paved with curb, gutter, and a five foot wide curbside sidewalk along the entire frontage of the subject property. The property is zoned Commercial (C-1). To the east of the subject property is a vacant commercial building space. To the south is a dirt parking lot which is part of the larger parcel bound by the railroad tracks, Tolman Creek Road Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 1 of 12 ï and Ashland Street, under the same ownership as the subject property. The large property is the location of Bi-Mart, Shop N Kart, two restaurants, and the Oil Stop. Across Ashland Street is a bank, two mixed use residential/commercial spaces and two vacant commercial buildings. All immediately adjacent property is zoned Commercial, the properties to the south across the railroad tracks are zoned residential. The subject properties have an approximately three percent slope to the northwest, toward Ashland Street with a small, steeper slope from the front of the building to the sidewalk. The site has a five small trees less than six-inches in diameter at breast height and one Red Maple which is 13-inches in diameter at breast height, various other shrubbery and minimal parking lot landscaping. 1. Site Review The proposal includes the construction of a new 4,125 square foot single story retail structure. The building is oriented toward Ashland Street. The building is setback 12-feet from the sidewalk. The average height of the building is proposed to be 19-feet to the top of the cornice and 22-feet to the top of the pilaster. The applicant has also proposed to construct hardscape plaza areas on the front and east side of the building. Double, aluminum, store-front doors are proposed for the front and rear of the building with spandrel glass on either side of the door. Nine automobile parking spaces are proposed to be provided at the rear of the building and a shared parking agreement is proposed for an additional three parking spaces in the three northern most spaces of the parking lot for the Shop N Kart which is to the southeast. Four covered bicycle parking are proposed on the east side of the building. The exterior building materials includes, standing seam metal siding and awnings, split face CMU base, cement plaster, cultured stone pilasters, sheet metal wall cap and aluminum doors and windows. The colors of the exterior building materials are greens, beige and brown. 2. Tree Removal and Landscaping The applicant has proposed to remove six trees in total, one of which requires a tree removal permit because it is larger than six-inches in diameter at breast height. The proposal includes a detailed landscape plan. Eight percent of the parking lot area is to be landscaped, including a bio-swale landscape planter on the west end of the parking spaces. An additional 16 percent of the site is to be landscaped with low ground cover, shrubbery and a mixture of drought tolerant plant materials. The applicant has also proposed three street trees in five by five tree wells along the Ashland Street frontage, one shade tree in the hardscape plaza near the intersection of the site and the driveway and three trees in five by five tree wells along the driveway. 3. Site Circulation Modifications The applicant is proposing to create a streetscape presence into the larger complex property from the driveway directly adjacent the subject property. The existing parking lot landscape buffer between the subject property’s existing parking area Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 2 of 12 î and the driveway will remain and is proposed to be extended. The applicant has proposed this median to become a center median of a reconfigured driveway. The applicant has proposed to plant trees along a sidewalk on the east side of the new structure to frame the south traffic lane of the driveway. The proposed driveway is 45-feet wide at the intersection of Ashland Street, utilizing the existing curb cut and widens to 63-feet at the driveways intersection with the existing east to west driveway through the property. 4. Street Improvements Ashland Street which is classified as a Boulevard (arterial) street under the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and a state highway is fully improved with paving, curbs, gutters, and a five-foot wide curbside sidewalk. The curbside sidewalk and lack of parkrow does not comply with current street standards. The applicant has proposed to install thirteen feet of street improvements. These are comprised of five-foot wide tree wells and eight feet of sidewalk. The applicant has also proposed to install a Sternberg pedestrian scaled street light at the intersection of the driveway and Ashland Street. II. Project Impact The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of a new building in the C-1 zoning district. The property is subject to the Basic Site Review and Detail Site Review requirements. The property is also in the Pedestrian Place Overlay and is subject to the requirements thereof. A.Site Review Site Design and Use Standards The building is proposed as retail / commercial which is a permitted use in the C-1 zone. The subject property is located within the Basic and Detail Site Review Zones, and the Pedestrian Place Overlay. The proposed building is designed with its primary orientation toward Ashland Street. The Detail Site Review standards require a building to be setback no more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. The applicant has proposed a hardscape plaza area which varies in width but averages approximately eight-feet and is 832 square feet of hardscape between the building and the sidewalk. There is an additional five-foot of raised planter area between the building and the plaza area for a total setback of approximately 13-feet. The Basic Site Review Standards require the building to be primarily oriented to the street rather than the parking area, and require building entrances to be accessed from the public sidewalk. The building has entrances from the Ashland St. side of the building, and from the parking lot side of the building. Though the building has a more prominent entrance on the parking lot side of the building, the building could be found to be orientated towards Ashland Street given the architectural details, and double, storefront style aluminum doors. Aluminum storefront windows frame the Ashland St. doors. As Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 3 of 12 í proposed there is an additional column of windows on the left side which gives the front entrance a lopsided appearance. The floor plan of the space has restroom facilities at the front of the building and an office at the rear. These restrooms appear to be the controlling factor for the window placement. The floor plan and the locations of the office space and the restrooms could be modified to allow for increased window area. Staff Concern / Recommendation: The primary building orientation is directed to the parking area rather than Ashland St., and the street entrance is less prominent. Second column of windows adjacent to Ashland St. entrance create an off-center or lop-sided appearance. The building floor plan, through an adjustment of restroom location, could be modified in order to increase the window area facing Ashland Street consistent with the City’s design expectation for the primary frontage. The front entrance is approximately three feet above the sidewalk level and will have three to five steps up to a landing at the entrance. There are low landscape planters adjacent to the plaza space and surrounding the power pole, transformer, telephone cabinet and gas meter. The applicant has proposed to protect these utilities instead of removing or relocating by building low walls and low growing ground cover plantings. Between the building and the pedestrian plaza area there is a five foot wide planter on either side of the entrance stairs, approximately two feet above the plaza area. There is a four foot wide awning proposed for the front of the building over the walkway from the sidewalk and plaza area over the landing for the entrance stairs. The awning extends for approximately twenty feet on either side of the entrance stairs. The awning covers just the landing of the entrance stairs and the planters between the building and the sidewalk grade plaza area. This awning does not provide protection for pedestrians from the rain and sun as required in the Detail Site Review. Staff Concern / Recommendation: The current proposal does not adequately provide protection from rain and sun for the pedestrian plaza area. The awning shown on the building plans does not extend over the pedestrian plaza area. The application should address this either by extending the awning and creating covered outdoor spaces adjacent to the building and incorporating free standing trellis structures over outdoor spaces as noted in the City’s Design Standards. The proposed average building height is 20-feet, which is below the maximum building height of 40-feet in the zoning district. Buildings within the Pedestrian Places Overlay are exempt from the Solar Setback Ordinance. Floor Area Ratio The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed development is .29. This area is comprised of the proposed 4,125 square foot building and the approximately 1,200 square pedestrian plaza and landscape area between the building and the sidewalk. The applicant has also provided a wide hardscape sidewalk area of approximately 585 square feet along the east side of the building which also will function as part of pedestrian plaza area. The addition of this area brings the total proposed FAR to 5,910 square feet or .32. As proposed the site is .18 below the current standard of .50 as required in Section II-C-2a of the Detail Site Review Standards and the Development Standards. The applicant has proposed an Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 4 of 12 ì Exception to the Site Review Standards for an Exception to the required Floor Area Ratio. Staff Concern: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is required to be .50 of the lot area and is proposed to be .32 of building and pedestrian plaza area. Exception to the Floor Area Ratio The applicant has requested an Exception to the Site Design Standards to allow a Floor Area Ratio below the required minimum of .50. The criteria for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are that there is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirement due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards, and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; or that 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. According to the applicant’s findings, a variety of factors such as lot size, tenant needs, parking demands and shared access easements serving adjacent properties creates a difficult burden for the applicant. The applicant’s findings also contend that the requested exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty in order to mitigate the exception requested. The applicant had entertained the possibility of a lot line adjustment to reduce the lot size to be low enough to the meet the code requirement. This would have placed all of the required parking on the adjacent tax lot and would have necessitated cross easements. The applicants didn’t feel this was the intent of the recently adopted code. The applicants had also entertained the idea of enlarging the parcel to the minimum lot half-acre lot size that would have permitted the utilization of a shadow plan to achieve the FAR. This posed another set of cross easements for access to adjacent properties and didn’t feel that this also met the intent of the code provision. Also with the existing building being demolished the shadow plan is not an outright permitted option. The applicant has provided an approximately 2,000 square foot area of possible second story addition. There is not a design or elevation of the second story provided and the applicant has not provided a time-line for the future construction. If this addition was added the FAR would increase.43. The future addition does have some aspects which will be required to be addressed in the initial design and structural engineering for the proposed structure. According to the City of Ashland Building Inspector this entails at time of construction a more substantial foundation and other structural elements such as roof beams that can withstand the structural load that a second story requires. A condition requiring the necessary engineering and construction to allow for the future addition has been added. Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 5 of 12 ë The findings also state that the project Architect has deliberately designed the building so that the greatest mass parallels Ashland Street and the plaza areas provide articulation fronting the street instead of parking and landscaping. There is an additional approximately 440 square feet of landscaping on the east side of the building that could be converted to additional pedestrian plaza area. This would increase the FAR to .45. The pedestrian places code modifications discussed provision of outdoor seating areas and the creation of gathering places to encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. The ground floor of the building could also be enlarged which would allow for additional FAR. The subject site is at the entrance of one of Ashland main shopping centers, and is served by an existing transit stop. The proposed development provides an opportunity to set the stage for future development, and will provide a connection to the large anchor stores and the public street. The proposal is using pedestrian plaza area to justify the requested exception and staff is concerned that the lack of definition of the pedestrian areas and provision of amenities will not result in a functional plaza area. Additionally without a timeline for the future addition of a second story, the proposed shadow plan is lacking merit. The building design and orientation has a stronger presence towards the parking lot and with the modifications listed above the Ashland Street presence could be strengthened. Staff Concern / Recommendation: The additional plaza space lacks the necessary amenities to create an inviting space for employees and the general public, such as seating, overhead covering to protect from rain or fun, seating walls to define the space, etc. The plaza space needs additional amenities to qualify for Pedestrian Plaza area and not be just a sidewalk adjacent to the driveway. The building orientation and window placement could be modified to strengthen the street orientation as well. Parking The materials submitted note that based on a 4,125 square foot retail space, 12 parking spaces are required. The site plan shows 9 parking spaces behind the building and three parking spaces on the adjacent tax lot under the same ownership. These spaces are approximately 160 feet away. The applicant has proposed two parking lot shade trees and the parking lot landscaping complies with the requirements of the code. There is space available on the subject site which would allow for additional parking if the building is enlarged. Site Circulation Property Circulation The applicants own the subject parcel as well as most of the surrounding eight and one- half acres to the east, west and south. There is a circulation issue on the site and the proposal seeks to remedy some of the issues. The applicant has shown a very conceptual master site circulation plan for the property. Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 6 of 12 ê A driveway with a landscaped center median dividing the two travel lanes is proposed. The median is comprised of the existing eastern parking lot buffer and the existing north / south driveway, to divide the driveway into a distinct south entrance to property and north exiting. It is Staff’s understanding that the median is being expanded and extended in part to protect the existing fire hydrant and irrigation boxes. The proposal will prevent north bound traffic from making left turns into the subject site and Oil Stop adjacent once past the east / west connection. The proposed median extension of 20-feet will offset the existing east / west connection and a vehicle will have to make a slight diagonal driving movement to cross the 63-foot wide driveway to enter the subject site or patronize the Oil Stop. Exiting the subject site drivers will have to cross an opposing lane of traffic at an angle which does not seem like a natural turning movement. The proposed median extension may cause additional circulation issues and Staff suggests that the median not be extended to the south until the circulation through the larger site is addressed, including formal intersections and turning movements. If the applicant wish to protect the existing fire hydrant and irrigation boxes staff is suggesting the installation of bollards. Staff Concern / Recommendation: The extension of the median creates an awkward intersection with the primary east / west driveway through the larger parcel. Staff suggests that the median not be extended until a larger site circulation plan is developed and that bollards be used to protect the hydrant from vehicle traffic. As evidenced in the attached staff exhibit, aerial photo, there is a large amount of run-off and siltation from the dirt lot to the south of the subject site crossing the east / west driveway to the Oil Stop which creates a track-out problem. Curbing along the edge of the new and existing pavement would prevent the dirt from washing across the east / west roadway. A condition to this effect has been added. C. Landscaping and Tree Removal One tree, greater than six inches in diameter at breast height is proposed to be removed. This tree is located behind the existing sidewalk within the footprint of the proposed building. The remaining five trees are less than six inches in diameter at breast height and are exempt for the land use requirements. The proposal will result in 16 percent of the site being landscaped with the additional pedestrian plaza areas the proposal exceeds the 15 percent minimum landscaping requirement of the C-1 zoning district. Eight percent of the parking lot area is to be landscaped, including a bio-swale landscape planter on the west end of the parking spaces, this also exceeds the minimum requirement of seven percent landscaping. The applicant has proposed six foot wide planters for the parking lot which will provide for an adequate area for growth and establishment of the parking lot landscaping and shade trees. The proposed landscape plan shows two parking lot shade trees, low ground covers, shrubbery and a mixture of drought tolerant plant materials. The applicant has also proposed three street trees in five by five tree wells along the Ashland Street frontage, one shade tree in the hardscape plaza near the intersection of the site and the driveway and three trees in five by five tree wells along the driveway. The project Landscape Architect has provided specifications for addressing the soils under the existing pavement Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 7 of 12 é which will be planted. The applicant may wish to utilize structural soil and/or the application of mycorrhizae fungi to aid the establishment and growth of the new plantings including the street trees since the site has been barren for a number of years. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) The criteria for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described in 18.72.090 as follows: 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 substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is 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. (Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011) IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff has raised a few issues concerning the Basic and Detail Site Review Standards in the body of this report that the Planning Commission will have to address in their decision and findings. Though the proposed site development will enhance a currently under-developed, blighted site and the addition of more building frontage along Ashland Street will be a positive addition to the streetscape it is not clear that the proposal meets the approval criteria for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to be below the required Floor Area Ratio minimum. Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 8 of 12 è Staff recommends continuing the application so the applicant can be revised to address the issues of building orientation and resulting Ashland Street presence, pedestrian plaza functionality, the Floor Area Ratio, Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards and site circulation. Staff believes that through floor plan modifications (relocating the office and restrooms) the Ashland Street orientation could be strengthened by having additional flexibility in window placement. The plaza areas could be enhanced by removing the landscape planter between the building and the pedestrian plaza area and installing additional hard surface and the width of the awning could also be increased as well. Free standing awning structures and trees could be used to make the plazas more functional. The Planning Commission may also chose to require that the applicant provide outdoor food service connections such as a hose bib and electric outlets adjacent to the pedestrian plaza area. The circulation through the site and how it relates to the existing businesses to the southeast and west will also have to be addressed. The landscape median could be reduced or removed until a larger master plan and site circulation plan is developed in order to reduce the potential vehicular conflicts at a slightly modified intersection of the reconfigured driveway and the east to west corridor. Staff suggest the following conditions of approval should the Planning Commission choose to approve the application. 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 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 this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That the areas previously paved and now proposed for planting shall have all base material and sterile soil removed to a minim of 24-inches and disposed of off-site in accordance with the proposed landscape plan. Additionally, structural soil and / or mycorrhizae fungi shall be added to the tree well areas to aid and encourage the long term growth and survivability of the trees. th 4) That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their April 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. 4) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 5) That prior to the submittal of a building permit: Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 9 of 12 ç a) That a stormwater drainage plan, including details of on-site bioswale for storm water and necessary water quality mitigation, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions. Post development peak flows shall be demonstrated to be less than or equal to pre-development levels. c) A final utility plan for the project shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. 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. Utility installations, including any necessary fire protection vault, shall be placed outside of the pedestrian corridor, and necessary public utility easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. d) The applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering and Electric Departments prior to building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, in those areas least visible from the right-of-way while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. e) The building permit plan submittals shall include lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. These plans shall demonstrate that at least 15 percent of the site is surfaced in landscaping, and that at least seven percent of the parking lot area is provided in required parking lot landscaping, as required in the Site Design & Use Standards. f) 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. 6) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) That the proposed structure shall be engineered and constructed to withstand the structural load, wind loading, snow load, etc. as adopted per State of Oregon Building Codes for a two story structure. b) That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall submit civil design drawings for the implementation of public right-of-way improvements provided 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 Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 10 of 12 ïð the issuance of a final occupancy permit. That a Public Pedestrian Access Easement or Right-of-Way Dedication shall be provided for the sidewalk improvements that are on the subject property. c) The applicant shall provide the approved Landscape/Irrigation Plan which addresses the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies of the Site Design and Use Standards, including irrigation controller requirements to allow multiple/flexible calendar programming with the building permit submittals. d) All exterior lighting shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit direct illumination of any adjacent land. Lighting details, including a scaled plan and specifications detailing shrouding, shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for review and approval with the building permit submittals. e) That the bike rack and shelter details shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking design, spacing, and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.I. f) Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Ashland Street. The locations of mechanical equipment and any associated screening shall be shown on the site plan and elevations in the building permit submittals g) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be satisfied, including that all addressing shall be approved prior to being installed; that fire apparatus access be provided and necessary fire apparatus easements identified and recorded; that adequate fire flow be provided and maintained. 7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: 7) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: a) That the screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards. b) All required parking areas shall be paved and striped. c) All landscaping and the irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. That at the time of planting and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, not less than two inches of mulch shall be added in all non-turf landscaped areas in the developed area after the installation of living plant materials. d) All public and private street improvements including but not limited to the installation of sidewalks, parkrows with street trees and standard street lighting on Ashland 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. Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 11 of 12 ïï e) That a minimum six-inch curb be provided along the southern most edge of the asphalt east / west driveway access to the subject site and the Oil Stop site to prevent siltation across driveway and trackout. e) That a bench or benches similar in style to the existing bench at Taco Bell along Ashland Street shall be provided as a pedestrian amenity. f) That required bicycle parking spaces according to the approved plan and in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. Planning Action PA # 2012-00018 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report Applicant: Summit Investments LLC Page 12 of 12 ïî ïí ïì ïë ïê ïé ïè ïç îð îï îî îí îì îë îê îé îè íç ìð ìï ìî ìí ìì ìë ìê ìé ìè ìç ëð ëï ëî ëí ëì ëë ëê ëé ëè ëç êð êï êî êí êì êë êê êé êè êç éð éï éî éí éì éë éê éé éè éç èð èï èî èí èì çë çê çé çè çç ïðð ïðï ïðî ïðí ïðì ïðë IZ WZ 3= E w �, W s W w oF ol Q21 . . . .�4 . �?,� , �s - —d — , z ui ah A A j An 4 lu 0- tl jl�r 11 w �- � 1 hF 1 .77 N iE fa La L x F7 I; I oo� 1. 6 FS r LU IL 4 u0 o ILI Z < uj 00. LL LU cc zu do LLJ LU LO O