The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-06-12 Planning PACKET Ò±¬»æ ß²§§±²» ©·¸·²¹ ¬±± °»¿µ ¿¬ ¿²§ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ³»»¬·²²¹ · »²½±«®¿¹»»¼ ¬± ¼± ±ò ×º §±« ©·¸ ¬± °°»¿µô °´»¿» ®·»» ¿²¼ô ¿º¬»® §±«« ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®»»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸¸» Ý¸¿·®ô ¹·ª» §§±«® ²¿³» ¿²¼ ½±³°´»¬» ¿¼¼®» º±® ¬¸» ®»½½±®¼ò Ç±« ©·´´ ¬¸»² ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± °»¿µò Ð´»¿¿» ²±¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸¸» °«¾´·½ ¬»¬·³³±²§ ³¿§ ¾» ´·³·¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÝÝ¸¿·® ¿²¼ ²±®³¿¿´´§ · ²±¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» Ð«¾¾´·½ Ø»¿®·²¹ · ½½´±»¼ò ßÍÍØÔßÒÜ ÐÔßßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÝÑÓÓÓ×ÍÍ×ÑÒ ÎÛÙËÔßÎ ÓÛÛÌ×ÒÒÙ ÖËÒÒÛ ïîô îðïî ßßÙÛÒÜß ×ò ÝßÔÔ ÌÑ ÑÎÜÛÎ ××òò ßÒÒÑÑËÒÝÛÓÛÒÌÌÍ ××××ò ÝÑÒÍÍÛÒÌ ßÙÛÒÜÜß ßò ß°°°®±ª¿´ ±º Ó·²«¬» ïòò ß°®·´ îìô îððïî Í¬«¼§ Í»·±² îòò Ó¿§ èô îðïî Î»¹«´¿® Ó»»»¬·²¹ í Ó¿§ îîô îðïî Í¬«¼§ Í»·±² òò ×ÊÊò ÐËÞÔ×Ý ÚÑÎËÓ Êò ËÒÚ×ÒÒ×ÍØÛÜ ÞËÍ×ÒÛÍÍ ßò ß°°°®±ª¿´ ±º Ú·²¼·²¹ º±® ÐÐßóîðïîóðððïïèô îîîð ß¸´¿²¼ Í¬®»»¬ò Ê×ò ÒÛÉ ÞÞËÍ×ÒÛÍÍ ßò Û´»½¬·±² ±º Ñººº·½»®ò Ê××ò ÐËÞÔ×Ý ØÛßÎ×ÒÙÙÍ ßò ÐÔÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ßÝÝÌ×ÑÒæ ýîðïîóððîêë ßÐÐÐÔ×ÝßÒÌæ ßß¸´¿²¼ Ú±±±¼ Ý±±°»®¿¬·ª» ÔÑÑÝßÌ×ÑÒøÍ÷ææ Ýóïó ú ÝóïóóÜó¦±²»¼ °±®®¬·±² ±º ß¸¸´¿²¼ù þØ·¬¬±®·½ ×²¬»®»¬¬ ß®»¿þ ÎÛÛÏËÛÍÌæ ß °®±°±¿´ ¬±± ¿³»²¼ ¬¸»» ß¸´¿²¼ Ó««²·½·°¿´ Ý±¼¼» øßÓÝ ïèòííîòðíëòÛ÷ ¿ ·¬ ®»´¿¬» ¬± ¼®·ªª»ó«° «» ·²² Ý±³³»®½·¿¿´ ¼·¬®·½¬ò Ü®·ª»ó«° «» ¿®» ½«®®»»²¬´§ ¿ °»½·¿´ °»»®³·¬¬»¼ «»» ·² ¬¸» Ýóï ¦±²·²¹ ¼·¬®·½¬ô ¾«¬ ±²²´§ ·² ¬¸» ¿¿®»¿ »¿¬ ±º ¿ ´·²» ¼®¿©©² °»»®°»²¼·½«´¿® ¬± ß¸´¿²¼¼ Í¬®»»¬ ¿¬ ¬¬¸» ·²¬»®»½½¬·±² ±º ß¸¸´¿²¼ Í¬®»»¬ ¿²¼ Í·µ·§±±« Þ±±«´»ª¿®¼ò Ü®®·ª»ó«° «» ¿®» ½«®®»²¬´´§ »¨°´·½·¬´§ °°®±¸·¾·¬»¼ ·²² ¬¸» Ø·¬±®·½½ ×²¬»®»¬ ß®® ¿ ¼»º·²»¼ ·² ¬¸» Ý±³°®®»¸»²·ª» Ð´´¿²ò Ì¸» °®®±°±»¼ ´»¹¹·´¿¬·ª» ¿³»»²¼³»²¬ · ¬± °®®±ª·¼» »¨½»°°¬·±² ´¿²¹«¿¹¹» ©¸·½¸ ©±«´¼ ¿°°´§ ±²²´§ ¬± »¨·¬·²²¹ ¼®·ª»ó«° ««» ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» Ø·¬±®·½ ×²¬»®»»¬ ß®»¿ ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ¿´´±©© ¬¸»³ ¬± ®»»´±½¿¬» ¬± ¿ ²»© ·¬» »´»©¸»®» ©·¬¸¸·² ¬¸»» Ø·¬±®·½ ×²²¬»®»¬ ß®»¿ °®±ª·¼»¼ ¬¸¿¿¬ ¬¸»§ ¿®» ´±±½¿¬»¼ °®»¼±±³·²¿²¬´§ «²²¼»®¹®±«²¼ ±® ±¬¸»®©·» ½®»»»²»¼ º®±³ ªª·»© º®±³ ¬¸»» °«¾´·½ ®·¹¸¸¬ó±ºó©¿§ò âúúÎÏÉÔÏÈØÙ×ËÎÎÐðÜÄ ÐØØÉÔÏÖà ×²² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©©·¬¸ ¬¸» ß³»®·½¿¿² ©·¬¸ Ü·¿¾·´·¬·» ß½¬ô ·º §±« ²»»¼ °»½·¿´ ¿·¬¿²½» ¬± °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» ·² ¬¸· ³»»¬·²¹ô °´»¿» ½±±²¬¿½¬ ¬¸» Ý±³³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±±°³»²¬ ±ºº·½» ¿¿¬ ëìïóìèèóëíðëë øÌÌÇ °¸±²» · ïóèððóéíëóîîçðð÷ò Ò±¬·º·½¿¬¬·±² ìè ¸±«® °°®·±® ¬± ¬¸» ³³»»¬·²¹ ©·´´ »²¿¿¾´» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬± ³¿µ» ®»¿±²¿¿¾´» ¿®®¿²¹»³»»²¬ ¬± »²«®» ¿¿½½»·¾·´·¬§ ¬± ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ øîîè ÝÚÎ íëòïðîîóíëòïðì ßÜÜß Ì·¬´» ï÷ò Ò±¬»æ ß²§§±²» ©·¸·²¹ ¬±± °»¿µ ¿¬ ¿²§ Ð´¿²²·²¹ Ý±³³··±² ³»»¬·²²¹ · »²½±«®¿¹»»¼ ¬± ¼± ±ò ×º §±« ©·¸ ¬± °°»¿µô °´»¿» ®·»» ¿²¼ô ¿º¬»® §±«« ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®»»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸¸» Ý¸¿·®ô ¹·ª» §§±«® ²¿³» ¿²¼ ½±³°´»¬» ¿¼¼®» º±® ¬¸» ®»½½±®¼ò Ç±« ©·´´ ¬¸»² ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± °»¿µò Ð´»¿¿» ²±¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸¸» °«¾´·½ ¬»¬·³³±²§ ³¿§ ¾» ´·³·¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ÝÝ¸¿·® ¿²¼ ²±®³¿¿´´§ · ²±¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» Ð«¾¾´·½ Ø»¿®·²¹ · ½½´±»¼ò Þò ÐÔÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ßÝÝÌ×ÑÒæ ýîðïîîóððëéë ÍËËÞÖÛÝÌ ÐÎÑÑÐÛÎÌÇæ ïïëëë Û¿¬ Ó¿·²² Í¬®»»¬ ßÐÐÐÔ×ÝßÒÌæ ÝÝ·¬§ ±º ß¸´¿²¼ñß¸´¿²¼ Ð±´·½» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ÜÛÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒÒæ ß ®»¯«»¬¬ º±® Í·¬» Î»»ª·»© ¿°°®±±ª¿´ ¬± ½±²¬®«½¬ ¿ íôðïê ¯«¿®» º±±±¬ ¿¼¼¼·¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿¿±½·¿¬»¼ ·¬» ·³°®±ª»³³»²¬ º±® ¬¸¸»ß¸´¿²¼ÐÐ±´·½» Ü»°¿®®¬³»²¬ ´±½¿¬»»¼ ¿¬ïïëë Û¿¬ ÓÓ¿·² Í¬®»»¬ò Ì¸· ¿¼¼·¬·±±² · ¬¸» º·®¬ °¸¿» ±º ¿¿ ³«´¬·ó°¸¿» °®±¶»½¬ ±ªª»® ¬¸»» ²»¨¬ º·ª» §»¿®å «¾»¯«»²¬ °¸¿¿» ©·´´ ·²²½´«¼» ¿ ïôççéë ¯«¿®» º±±¬ ¿¼¼·¬·±±²ô ¿¼¼¼·¬·±²¿´ °¿®®µ·²¹ô ¿²¼ ··¬» ·³°®±ª»³³»²¬ ¬± ¾®··²¹ ¬¸» ·¬» ³±®» ·² ´·²»» ©·¬¸ ½«®®»»²¬ ¬¿¿²¼¿®¼ò ÝÑÓÐÎÛØÛÒÒÍ×ÊÛ ÐÔßÒÒ ÜÛÍ×ÙÒßßÌ×ÑÒæ Û³°°´±§³»²¬å ÆÆÑÒ×ÒÙæ Ûóóïå ßÍÍêøêêîëjêÓßÐ ýæ íç ïÛ ïðå ÌßÈ ÔÑÑÌ ýæ çððò Ýò ÐÔÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ßÝÝÌ×ÑÒæ ýîðïîîóððëéí ßÐÐÐÔ×ÝßÒÌæ ÝÝ·¬§ ±º ß¸´¿²¼ ÔÑÑÝßÌ×ÑÒæ Ò±±¬ °®±°»®¬§ó°»½·º·½ ÑÎÎÜ×ÒßÒÝÛ ÎÎÛÚÛÎÛÒÝÛÛæ ïèòïðèòïéð Ô»¹·´¿¬·ª» ßß³»²¼³»²¬¬ ÎÛÛÏËÛÍÌæ ß Ô»¹·´¿¬·ª» ß³»²¼³»²²¬ · °®±°±»¼ ¬± ¿¼±°°¬ ¿ ²»© þþÝ¸¿°¬»® ÈÊÊ ó Î»»¹·±²¿´ Ð´¿²²þ »´»³»²¬ ¬¬± ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ß¸´¿²¼ Ý±³°®»¸»²²·ª» Ð´¿² ¬¬± ·²½±®°±®¿¿¬» ¿°°°´·½¿¾´» °±®®¬·±² ±º ¬¸»» Ù®»¿¬»® Þ»»¿® Ý®»»µ ÊÊ¿´´»§ Î»¹·±²²¿´ Ð®±¾´»³³ Í±´ª·²¹ Ð´¿¿² m¬¬¸» ÎÐÍ Ð´¿¿ÏlÜÏÙÉ±± ¿½µ²±©´»¼¹¹» ®»ª·»¼ °°±°«´¿¬·±² ¿¿´´±½¿¬·±²ºº±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º ß¸´¿²¼ò Ö¿½µµ±² Ý±«²¬§§ ®»½»²¬´§ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¬¸» ÎÐÐÍ Ð´¿² ©¸·½½¸ ·¼»²¬·º·» «®¾¿² ®»»®ªª» ¿®»»¿ ¬± ¿½½±³³³±¼¿¬» ¿ ¼±«¾´·²¹ ±º ÉÕØËØÖÔÎÏj °±°«´¿¬·±²ô ¾«¬ ¾»º±®» ¬¸» ÎÐÍ Ð´¿¿² ½¿¿² ¬¿µ» »ºº»½½¬ô »¿½¸ ±º ¬¸» ·¨ °¿®®¬·½·°¿¬·²¹ ½½·¬·» ·² ¬¸» ®»¹·±² øß¸´¿²¼ô Ì¿´»²²¬ô Ð¸¸±»²·¨ô Ó»¼ºº±®¼ô Ý»²¬®¿´´ Ð±·²¬ ¿²¼ ÛÛ¿¹´» Ð±·²¬÷ ³«¬ ¿¼±°¬ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¾¾´» °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸»» °´¿² ·²¬± ¬¬¸»·® ½±³°®»»¸»²·ª» °´¿¿² ¿²¼ ·³°´´»³»²¬·²¹ ±®®¼·²¿²½»ò øßß¸´¿²¼ · ¬¸» ±²²´§ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·²¹ ½·¬§ ©¸¸·½¸ ¸¿ ²±¬¬ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ «®¾¿² ®»»®ªª» ¿ ¬¸» ÚÔÉÄjÊØÅÔÊÉÔ²²¹ «®®¾¿² ¹®±©¬¸ ¾±«²¼¿®§ ©©¿ ¼»¬»®³·²²»¼ ¬± ¾» «ºº·½·»²¬ ¬± ¿½½±³³±¼¿¿¬» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»»¼ ¹®®±©¬¸ò ß¼±°°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ²²»© »´»³»²¬¬ ·²½±®°±®¿¬»» ¬¸±» °±®®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Î»¹·±²¿´ Ð´¿¿² ¿°°°´·½¿¾´» ¬± ßß¸´¿²¼ ¿ ¿¿ ·¹²¿¬±®§ °°¿®¬·½·°¿²¬ ©·¬¸ ²± ·¼»²¬·ºº·»¼ «®¾¿² ®»»»®ª»ò÷ Ê×××ò ßÜÖÑËÎÒÓÛÒÌ ×²² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©©·¬¸ ¬¸» ß³»®·½¿¿² ©·¬¸ Ü·¿¾·´·¬·» ß½¬ô ·º §±« ²»»¼ °»½·¿´ ¿·¬¿²½» ¬± °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» ·² ¬¸· ³»»¬·²¹ô °´»¿» ½±±²¬¿½¬ ¬¸» Ý±³³³«²·¬§ Ü»ª»´±±°³»²¬ ±ºº·½» ¿¿¬ ëìïóìèèóëíðëë øÌÌÇ °¸±²» · ïóèððóéíëóîîçðð÷ò Ò±¬·º·½¿¬¬·±² ìè ¸±«® °°®·±® ¬± ¬¸» ³³»»¬·²¹ ©·´´ »²¿¿¾´» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ¬± ³¿µ» ®»¿±²¿¿¾´» ¿®®¿²¹»³»»²¬ ¬± »²«®» ¿¿½½»·¾·´·¬§ ¬± ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹ øîîè ÝÚÎ íëòïðîîóíëòïðì ßÜÜß Ì·¬´» ï÷ò ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES April 24, 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller, absent Dennis Slattery PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Unified Land Use Code Kick-Off Planning Manager Maria Harris provided an introduction to the Unified Land Use Code project. Why are we doing this project? Ms. Harris explained the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) was originally adopted in 1964 and has been amended many times throughout the years; with each amendment prepared and adopted independently. In addition, the City has several documents containing approval standards that are not contained in the land use ordinance. The end result is a fairly old document that has inconsistencies, is repetitive, is formatted differently, and does not contain all of the approval standards. In 2006, a review of the ALUO was conducted by Siegel Planning Services and a phased work plan was presented. In 2008 the Planning Commission completed the first phase, which consisted of general housekeeping amendments. During the last Council goal setting process, the City Council adopted a goal to increase the clarity, responsiveness, and certainty in the development process, and to develop an action plan that responds to the recommendations in Siegel report. Project Approach Ms. Harris stated the goal is to take the existing standards and codes and put them into one document that is clear, consistent, concise, and user friendly. To do this, staff is presenting a four-step approach: Step #1– Evaluate and Review. Take the ALUO and separate documents and reorganize them, make the formatting consistent, add graphics, and reword it to make it easier to read. Step #2 – Review and Revise. Address inconsistencies. Substantive changes to code content will be flagged for discussion. Step #3 – Evaluate Planning Application Process and Green Development Measures. Review and prepare amendment options addressing concerns regarding timing and predictability of the development process and facilitating the use of green development measures. Step #4 – Adoption Process. Conduct the formal public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Ashland Planning Commission April 24, 2012 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Harris stated staff is anticipating a 12 month timeline, beginning now and ending March 2013. She stated the Planning Commission will oversee this project and it will come back in pieces at each Study Session. Public Involvement Ms. Harris explained staff has put together an approach that has multiple opportunities and includes different ways for people to participate in the process, including: Open Houses. Two to three open houses will be held to introduce the project to the public and offer opportunities for questions and comments. Planning Commission Study Sessions. Advisory Commission Updates. Staff will be attending City advisory commission meetings to explain the project and bring forward potential changes that may affect their areas of specialty. Local newspaper notices, project bulletin by subscription, project webpage, and online Open City Hall forum. One-on-one staff assistance. Two types of work Ms. Harris explained there are two types of work being done. One is reorganizing the code, reformatting, and making the graphics consistent. The other is amending the code to address any problem areas that are discovered, and drafting options to improve the timing and predictability of the development process and facilitate the use of green development measures. Commission Feedback for Staff The commissioners issued the following comments to staff: Suggestion was made for the Commission to have a stronger role in the open houses. Comment was made that the general public is not going to be interested in this project and staff should do a concerted mailing that targets the members of the professional community and those who have recently gone through the land use process. Comment was made that this is a constrained, technical project and staff’s resources would be best spent trying to engage those in the professional community who use and are familiar with the ALUO. Comment was made questioning if the Commission will have backlash from the public if their input is not solicited early in the process. Commissioner Marsh stated they need to keep in mind that they don’t anticipate changing a lot of things; they may find places where the existing language is in conflict, but this project is about taking a document and organizing the material to make it more user friendly, and they do not want the intent of this project to be misperceived. Concern was expressed with not taking public input until the first public hearing in November; since by that point the Commission will have already spent several months working on the project. Comment was made that the Siegel Report outlined four phases and it appears they are jumping from phase one to phase four, with phases two and three being the downtown plan and a policy on infill. Mr. Molnar clarified this project is based on the current Council goal and the Council would need to issue specific direction to the Commission before they can take on the downtown plan and infill issue. Staff added the Council has been talking about the downtown plan and infill issue as potential future goals. Comment was made that if they wrap too many controversial items into this it could cause the whole project to implode, and support was voiced for the project scope as put forward by staff. Council Liaison Slattery voiced his support for targeting people who have gone through the land use process. Commissioner Mindlin voiced concern with not being able to address some of the larger issues, and explained one change in particular she would like to see is changing our standards for passive and active solar orientation. Mr. Molnar clarified solar orientation is one of the areas identified by staff for potential changes since it relates to the green development component. Comment was made that as issues arise they should group them together and do targeted publicity to make sure the public is aware of what is being discussed. Concern was expressed with the project timeline and whether it will be difficult to get people to participate during the holiday season. Ashland Planning Commission April 24, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Marsh noted the importance of undertaking this project. Staff thanked the Commission for their feedback and clarified they will bring forward an outline for discussion at the next study session. B.TSP Follow up – Sidewalks / Fourth Street Crossing / Downtown Plan Sidewalks Commissioner Dawkins explained the street standards mandate the installation of sidewalks, but in certain areas he believes they are unnecessary and a waste of resources. He stated he is bringing this issue forward for discussion and hopes they can move to a more common sense approach. Commissioner Dawkins presented a slide show of sidewalks in the north-west hills of Ashland and listed the issues he has observed, including: On steep roads, there is more traction when walking on the road than walking on the sidewalk. Unused sidewalks in steep areas can accumulate dirt and gravel, and exacerbate the safety issue. Sidewalks vary in width, with some sections being very narrow. Some sections of sidewalks have obstacles placed in the center, including mailboxes and fire hydrants. Sidewalks are not contiguous in certain areas, while others lead to nowhere. Commissioner Dawkins suggested rather than requiring a sidewalk they consider creating a fund that could be used to install sidewalks where they are most needed. Commission Discussion Commissioner Marsh asked whether the commission wanted to maintain the current standards, which require a sidewalk and parkrow on both sides of the street, or whether the standards should be modified so that in certain areas of town sidewalks are either not required or required on one side of the street only. She added the next question they should address is whether there is a way to use requirements or funding more efficiently, and prioritize sidewalks in specific areas. Ms. Harris stated there is a bit of misinformation that has been occurring in the TSP discussion and clarified the basic standard is for sidewalks to be installed on both sides of the street, however there are exceptions for areas that have physical constraints (hillside areas or steep slopes) or for projects that involve retrofitting a street (rather than building a new street). She also clarified that sometimes individual property owners are responsible for the patchwork of unconnected sidewalks. She stated in her experience the most common reasons are the owner wanting a place to unload or if someone is in a wheelchair. Commissioner Dawkins acknowledged the exceptions mentioned by staff, but stated he believes these are still too rigid. He commented on the decomposed granite soils in Ashland and believes this is a suitable alternative to sidewalks in some locations. Staff requested clarification on whether Dawkins would recommend some kind of spacing requirement so that pedestrians could step off the roadway when vehicles approach. Commissioner Dawkins answered Yes, and stated he thinks the City should support a land-banked area rather than a specific requirement for sidewalk installation. Commissioner Marsh gave her opinion that every street in town needs a sidewalk on at least one side in order to make it safe for children. She stated in order to obtain continuous sidewalks throughout town they should start talking about how to plan this ahead of time so that they are not relying on scattered development for installation. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his disagreement with Marsh’s statement and believes not having a sidewalk is appropriate in certain locations. Councilor Slattery was asked to comment on whether the downtown plan and infill issues were on the Council’s list of goals. Slattery clarified these are not current goals, and the Council will undertake their next goal setting session in January 2013. It was noted that the TSP Update project is evaluating sidewalks and recommendations have been made for where sidewalks on one side only is acceptable. Regarding the question about setting priorities for where sidewalks are most needed, support was voiced for having this discussion. Commissioner Dawkins clarified he is not anti-sidewalks, but still believes there is no need for them in some of the hillside areas. No other comments were issued regarding this topic. Ashland Planning Commission April 24, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Fourth Street Crossing Commissioner Marsh stated she will be bringing this topic forward at the next joint Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, and explained she has given more thought to whether there should be a car crossing at Fourth Street and the railroad tracks. She stated the more she thought about it and considered the way a true commuter railroad works, she realized and now strongly believes this should be a pedestrian and bicycle crossing only. She stated if they plan to put a transit station at this location than this is not the place you want cars to be crossing. She voiced her desire for vehicle access to be taken off the work plan and for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing to be installed instead. She added she believes this is necessary whether or not the transit station goes in. Mr. Molnar provided a short slideshow of the at-grade pedestrian crossing in Lake Oswego. He commented on how well it functions and believes this is a good example for Ashland to consider. Downtown Plan Mr. Molnar announced the City Council is interested in undertaking some interim improvements to spruce up the downtown; and stated the Council will be discussing this at their upcoming Study Session. OTHER BUSINESS A.Planning Commission Retreat Topics The commission briefly discussed the upcoming retreat and the following topics and site visit locations were suggested: Agenda Topics: Plaza Development What is a small town and small town character? Rolling curbs vs. 90°curbs How to get the word out on Planning Commission discussions and decisions Look Ahead/Work Plan for the next year Field Trip Suggestions: LEED Building on A Street Clear Creek Development Area Fourth Street/Railroad area Fordyce Co-Housing Development ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission April 24, 2012 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 8, 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: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Eric Heesacker Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Troy Brown Jr. to the Commission and noted his background in architecture and redevelopment. She also explained the absence of Commissioner Miller and noted Miller has applied to be reappointed. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.April 10, 2012 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. [Commissioner Brown abstained] PUBLIC FORUM Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated he is disappointed to hear that Commissioner Miller has been removed from the commission and stated he suffered the same fate and had to go through the reappointment process for his position on the Transportation Commission. Mr. Swales stated there seems to be a new definition of what qualifies as an excused absence that hasn’t applied before. He stated he hopes the City Attorney will look at the rules and sort this out so that this does not happen again. Commissioner Marsh stated Miller’s removal from the Commission was a surprise to all of them, and stated in the past notifying the Commission chair ahead of time was all that was needed to constitute an excused absence. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.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. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 14BA; TAX LOT: 1700. [Continued from April 10, 2012 meeting. Public Hearing is closed.] Commissioner Marsh noted the public hearing is closed and the Commission will not be taking further public input. Ashland Planning Commission May 8, 2012 Page 1 of 6 Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the packet materials include new information, including a revised site plan from the applicant, a staff memo that addresses the issues raised at the last meeting, the applicant’s written response, and a staff report addendum. Ms. Gunter commented on the applicant’s revised site plan. She noted at the last meeting staff raised concern with the proposed median extension and how it would impact site circulation, and explained the applicant’s are now proposing to not extend the median as far and instead will add striping to the pavement. She added they are also proposing a rolled curb divider and directional signage. Ms. Gunter stated another issue from the last meeting was the pedestrian plaza area, and explained the revised site plan includes low seating walls, benches, colored and scored concrete, and a food vendor area. Lastly, Ms. Gunter stated the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was identified by the Commission as a significant concern, as well as whether the applicants meet the exception criteria. She noted the staff report addresses this issue is further detail, but summarized the proposed FAR is 0.35 and the functional FAR is 0.40. She stated the applicants have also provided a shadow plan, even though this is not technically allowed. She explained they have proposed a building that will accommodate a 2,000 sq.ft. second floor addition, and with that future addition the functional FAR would be 0.53. Ms. Gunter noted the applicants findings address the demonstrable difficulty criteria and stated the multiple driveway locations and existing businesses could be seen as a case for the exception. She added the findings also show the applicants have made significant efforts to meet the purpose of the Site Design & Use Standards. Ms. Gunter stated the proposed development would not negatively impact the surrounding sites, and would actually improve them and could be a springboard for a master plan and improvements to the shopping center as a whole. She reviewed the conditions of approval suggested by staff, and noted Condition #8 which states as the site develops over time, the applicants must work towards meeting the overall FAR. Questions of Staff Ms. Gunter clarified the criteria for granting an exception to the Site Design & Use Standards is 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. She added it would be helpful for the findings if the Commission could specify whether they believe one is more applicable than the other. Commissioner Marsh suggested better clarifying the phrase “under control of the applicant” in Condition #8. Staff agreed and indicated this condition could reference the map and tax lot numbers. Ms. Gunter clarified there are 20 excess parking spaces on the larger shopping center property, and this site could develop further and still be able to accommodate the parking requirement. She added if a residential use was proposed for the second story addition the parking requirement would not increase. Comment was made questioning if staff had included the public sidewalk in the calculation for plaza area. Ms. Gunter clarified the public sidewalk along the Ashland Street frontage is not included, however the sidewalk along the driveway, which is not required, is included in that calculation since they are going above and beyond what is required. Ashland Planning Commission May 8, 2012 Page 2 of 6 Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not want to turn down the application, but is not confident that the applicants have met the exception criteria. Commissioner Dawkins stated this development will be a step in the right direction in the overall development of the shopping center, however he encouraged the property owners to provide a way for nearby residential patrons to cross over to this property. He added the subject lot size is only 3/10 of an acre short of qualifying for the shadow plan option and does not want to halt the redevelopment of this area. Commissioner Mindlin stated she could be supportive of this application if: 1) references to the shadow plan are removed from the findings and instead they acknowledge that they are granting the applicants a lower FAR; and, 2) they modify Condition #8 to state: “That future land use applications shall address the Floor Area Ratio standard and circulation plan…”. Support was voiced for the modifications proposed by Mindlin. Commissioner Marsh commented that this application illustrates the importance to dealing with this area in a comprehensive manner and noted her desire to work and collaborate with the property owners. She also voiced her opinion that exception criteria ‘B’ applies to this project and stated this is the first step towards a larger redevelopment project that will move this shopping center towards the desired FAR. Staff requested clarification about the circulation plan component. Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not feel compelled to make this more specific and believes the applicants understand what the Planning Commission is looking for. Ms. Gunter indicated Condition #8 would be revised as indicated and would also specify the map and tax lot numbers as previously discussed. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve PA-2012-00018 with conditions as stated during discussion. DISCUSSION: Ms. Gunter clarified the condition modifications include the revision to Condition #8 as discussed and the addition of Condition #10 regarding the landscaping and irrigation plan. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Dawkins, Heesacker, Kaplan, Brown and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 6-0. B.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00265 APPLICANT: Ashland Food Cooperative LOCATION(S): C-1- & C-1-D-zoned portions of Ashland's "Historic Interest Area" REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC 18.32.035.E) as it relates to drive-up uses in Commercial districts. Drive-up uses are currently a special permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, but only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. Drive-up uses are currently explicitly prohibited in the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed legislative amendment is to provide exception language which would apply only to existing drive-up uses within the Historic Interest Area and would allow them to relocate to a new site elsewhere within the Historic Interest Area provided that they are located predominantly underground or otherwise screened from view from the public right-of-way. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the request before the Commission is a proposal to modify the regulations in the C-1 and C-1-D districts relative to drive-up uses in the Historic Interest Area. Mr. Severson reviewed the existing regulations and stated drive-up uses are currently prohibited in the Historic Interest Area. He explained this proposal would modify Section 18.32.025.E to read: “Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland’s Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan; except that drive- up uses already existing and located within Ashland’s Historic Interest Area may be relocated to another property or site within Ashland’s Historic Interest Area subject to the following additional requirement. a. Existing drive-up uses within Ashland’s Historic Interest Area seeking to relocated to another site or property within Ashland Historic Interest Area must be either underground drive-up uses or drive-up uses that are predominately screened, as defined in Section 18.08.805. Mr. Severson stated the applicants are also proposing to define underground drive-up uses as: “Underground Drive-up Uses are located within the underground portion of a building where a majority of the drive-up facilities, such as the teller window or ATM Ashland Planning Commission May 8, 2012 Page 3 of 6 kiosk, are either located underground or are predominately screened and have limited visibility from the adjacent public right-of- way. Underground drive-Up Uses within the Ashland Historic Interest Area shall be subject to Type II review.” Mr. Severson explained the Ashland Historic Interest Area consists of the four historic districts in town (Skidmore Academy, Downtown, Railroad, Siskiyou/Hargadine), and the four drive-up uses that would be impacted by this proposal are Umpqua Bank (250 N Pioneer), Wells Fargo Bank (67 E Main), U.S. Bank (30 N Second), and Chase Bank (243 E Main). Mr. Severson reviewed the policies and standards that have been adopted that discourage drive-up use and asked whether the Planning Commission would support a change in policy as a means to encourage relocation and redevelopment of these four uses; and if so, does the Commission support the request as submitted or wish to impose additional performance standards as outlined in the staff report and supported by the Historic Commission. Questions of Staff The following comments and questions were issued to staff: Comment was made questioning why they would want to force the drive-ups underground, since underground entries can be more disruptive than a driveway leading to a window. Umpqua Bank currently has three drive-up stalls, if they were to relocate would the city limit the number of stalls? Mr. Severson clarified at the time of transfer the new location would be only be granted one stall. What is the difference between a conditional use permit and the process for obtaining a special permitted use? Mr. Severson clarified the conditional use process provides more discretion and allows the Commission to compare the propose use with the target use of the zone. What is the difference between a Type II and Type III Planning Action? Mr. Severson clarified the City Council makes the final decision on Type III actions. Comment was made expressing concern with limiting the number of drive-up uses in town; with the recent talk of the gentrification of Ashland’s residents, there may be a need for drive-up pharmacies in the downtown. Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox, Applicant’s Representative and Richard Katz, General Manager of Ashland Food Cooperative addressed the Commission. Mr. Knox stated they have been working on this proposal for over a year and have had lots of dialogue with City staff. He stated this is a straightforward, good idea and the two main objectives are to encourage redevelopment of the existing drive-up sites in the Historic Interest Area and allow some flexibility to relocate a drive-up use. He added they are not suggesting an increase in the number of allowed drive-up uses, but rather the ability to improve the sites that are already there. Mr. Knox stated this amendment would be a tune-up of an ordinance that has been working well, but has created a lockdown on these four sites. He spoke against the conditional use permit process and stated this process is too subjective and as a result the owners of these properties are not willing to attempt it. He commented on the City’s desire to be pedestrian friendly and believes this proposal will allow these four sites to be improved. Mr. Katz stated the Ashland Food Cooperative has been in Ashland for 40 years, they employ 160 people, sold $27 million in products this year, and are one of the larger employers in Ashland. He added half of the citizens of Ashland are not only shoppers, but are owners of the Co-op. He explained most everyone agrees there is a parking issue at the store, and overall congestion in the railroad area. He stated there is almost a constant gridlock of cars idling for parking spaces and it is not a good situation. Mr. Katz stated they have looked at many alternatives, and they believe if Umpqua Bank had the ability to relocate in the downtown, this would free up some needed space for the Co-op. He stated the bank has expressed interest in this idea, but they do not want to relocate outside of the downtown area. He stated this is an awkward position for the Co-op, but this is the only step they can take. He added the bank properties downtown are eyesores, and there is currently no initiative for them to do something different. He voiced his support for this proposal and believes this is a win-win situation. Ms. Knox noted the Q&A in the packet materials explain the intent and what they think will happen. He stated they believe they are on the right track with this amendment and would like the approval process to be less subjective and contain more tangible criteria. Public Testimony Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Stated he has never seen a legislative amendment from a private party and it appears a private party is trying to change our planning laws for their benefit. Mr. Swales clarified he is a member of the Transportation Ashland Planning Commission May 8, 2012 Page 4 of 6 Commission but is speaking on his own behalf. Mr. Swales stated the Transportation Commission is required to comment on Type III Actions at the pre-application level, and he was looking forward to this application coming forward at a regular meeting. However when it did come before them, it was under Public Forum and not as a discussion item. Mr. Swales requested the Planning Commission postpone this action until the Transportation Commission has had a chance to review this application. He questioned the need for bank drive-up lanes and stated the laws were adopted to cut down on auto-centric uses in the downtown core. He stated even if the Co-op was able to acquire the bank’s parking, they are not allowed to exceed the required parking by more than 10%, and he is not sure how this amendment would help their situation. Rebuttal by the Applicant Mark Knox/Clarified citizens are permitted to request legislative changes and he believes this proposal will help solve the non- confirming issues of the downtown drive-up sites. He stated the current regulations have locked these banks in and it is short- sighted to think these sites will improve on their own. Mr. Knox voiced his support for additional public input, however does not want to delay this action from moving forward. He suggested the Planning Commission move forward with their deliberations and for the Transportation Commission to review this action before it is presented to the City Council. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar confirmed there is a code provision that allows an applicant to exceed the parking requirement by 10%; however, the property could apply for a parking variance. He added most people would agree that parking is in high demand in that area. Commissioner Brown commented that underground and above grade parking has the tendency to create skateboard ramps, and there may be a need for a barrier at the sidewalk level when the bank is closed. He added he would not support underground drive-ups for a community this small and with such an established walking relationship. Mr. Molnar commented there is a clear history of policies that discourage drive-up uses, and it boils down to redevelopment vs. relocation. He stated redevelopment is possible, however the applicants must obtain a condition use permit. He stated if the Commission believes this process is too onerous, they could choose a process like the applicants have recommended. He stated with the issue of relocation, right now that is prohibited. He added if the Commission believes that should be changed, what would be the appropriate approval process – Conditional Use Permit or Site Review? Commissioner Dawkins stated he is reluctant to send this on to Council and wishes this had been vetted more thoroughly through the Transportation Commission before it came before them. He stated an action of this magnitude warrants more public input and he does not support moving it on to Council as this point. Commissioner Brown questioned why the Transportation Commission would have a major impact on this issue, since the concerns are regarding the site itself and not the traffic. Commissioner Heesacker stated if nothing else, sending this back to the Transportation Commission will allow the public more time to review this and provide comment. Commissioner Marsh stated there appears to be general agreement that they want input from the Transportation Commission, but added they can still hold general discussion on this action and bring it back at their next meeting. Commissioner Mindlin stated the applicants have a goal for their store, and there is nothing wrong with that, and it would benefit the community to keep the Co-op downtown. She stated this proposal raises some important issues regarding the potential to redevelop those sites and create a better environment. Commissioner Kaplan stated anything they could do to foster redevelopment of those businesses would be a positive, and noted they would be keeping the same number of drive-ups. Commissioner Dawkins commented that they are not getting enough public input about what the negatives might be. He agreed that the redevelopment opportunities are good, but would like to hear more from the public. The Commission continued their general discussion of this action. Support was voiced for limiting relocated drive-ups to a single lane, and the question was raised regarding whether this proposal should be limited to financial institutions. Commissioner Heesacker stated his opinion that it should not be limited to banks; and suggestion was made to exclude food uses. The Commission also discussed and agreed these actions should require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar clarified staff would take this issue before the Transportation Commission and it would come back for deliberations and decision at the Commission’s June meeting. Ashland Planning Commission May 8, 2012 Page 5 of 6 Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to continue the public hearing to June 12, 2012. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Dawkins recommended they hold all future annual retreats on the first Saturday in May, and stated he would bring this up at the next meeting when they select their officers. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 8, 2012 Page 6 of 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES May 22, 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Eric Heesacker Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Senior Planner Brandon Goldman stated Professor Pat Acklin has been working on two projects with her SOU students. The first is a homeless strategy and the second is an evaluation of housing options for working families. Both will be presented to the Housing Commission at their meeting tomorrow night, and the Planning Commissioners are welcome to attend. Mr. Goldman stated the students were asked to present their materials to the Planning Commission but the scheduling did not work out. He added the final report will can be forwarded once staff receives it. Commissioners Kaplan and Dawkins indicated they would attend the meeting and report back to the full commission. Commissioner Marsh reviewed the group’s upcoming meeting schedule. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the master planning effort for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan is soon to begin. He stated a neighborhood meeting was held and was very well attended, and the project is scheduled to start June 1. Mr. Goldman provided an overview of the project area and displayed several photos of the area. He explained while there are buildings and houses in this area, it is largely undeveloped. He also commented on the wetlands and floodplains, and private railroad crossing. Mr. Goldman reviewed the 15-month project timeline and stated staff will try to maintain constant communication with the neighbors and those who are interested in the project. He stated the City will utilize the online Open City Hall forum and will also have a dedicated project website so that citizens can stay informed and up to date. Commission Discussion Mr. Goldman clarified at the conclusion of this project, this property will not be annexed into the city limits; that decision rests with the individual property owners and they will still have to go through the land use annexation process. He noted the Housing Needs Analysis and Housing Framework will be done in the beginning stages of this project, and stated a Housing Market Analysis will also be completed as part of this process. Mr. Goldman further clarified that in order to annex into the city limits, the applicant must demonstrate there is less than a 5-year housing supply. Ashland Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 1 of 4 Staff was asked whether property owners can still develop under the county standards. Mr. Goldman clarified the owners can still develop their property under the current country standards and they will not be required to annex into the city limits. Request was made for the Commission to do a site visit, and staff indicated this could be arranged. Support was voiced for this and Commission Marsh suggested the field trip be scheduled prior to a regular commission meeting. Mr. Goldman commented on the neighborhood meeting and stated some of the larger issues that came up were the railroad crossing, concern of increased traffic along Normal generated by new development, and future connections through the area. Commissioner Dawkins questioned how the City will address the railroad crossing and stated he is still unclear about whether an existing crossing will need to be closed for a new one to open. Mr. Goldman stated the Normal crossing is a legal crossing for the private residences, but it is not legal in terms of a public access road. He stated if its designation were to change that would trigger the requirement to close another crossing. Commission Marsh stated Public Works Director Mike Faught told them this was not the case at a recent TSP meeting and asked staff to follow up with him and get clarification about this. Commissioner Marsh noted that their three big projects (TSP, Unified Land Use Ordinance, and Normal Avenue Plan) all have December conclusions, and is concerned this will be a problem. Planning Manager Maria Harris stated staff is aware of this and is keeping an eye on it. She stated the timelines may be too optimistic and it is likely there will be some shifting. B.Unified Land Use Ordinance. Planning Manager Maria Harris stated staff would like feedback on three issues tonight: 1) Outline, 2) Simplifying the Lists of land uses, and 3) Policy issues and recommendations from the 2006 Siegel land use ordinance review. Outline Ms. Harris explained the proposed outline takes similar code functions and groups them together. The sections would be grouped as follows: 18-1 General Provisions, 18-2 Zoning and Plan Districts, 18-3 Site Development and Design Standards, 18-4 Administrative Procedures, and 18-5 Definitions. Ms. Harris stated grouping the sections in this manner is more intuitive and understandable for applicants and anyone else using the code. Ms. Harris clarified the standards contained in the Street Tree Guide and Site Design and Use Standards will be included in this document, however there is additional background information contained in both those documents and they will need to determine how to handle that. Support was voiced for the proposed outline as well as the table format for the standards. Ms. Harris commented that it may be cleaner to leave the Croman and North Mountain overlay standards separate from the general zoning information. Suggestion was made that people should be able to find all the necessary information all in one place, and Ms. Harris clarified how the language could be organized. Commissioner Mindlin asked if it will be possible to propose changes to the site standards in this process. Ms. Harris stated it was her understanding that the Commission had agreed to stick with minor changes and the focus would be on reorganizing the code and making it easier to understand. She stated there will be some small to intermediate policy changes and this includes the Siegel recommended changes, but if large policy issues arise staff will need to review these with the Council and get direction. Commissioner Marsh stated if minor issues come up they should incorporate them into this project, but items that will generate lots of interest and comment might need to be handled separately. Commissioner Mindlin stated her desire to address solar orientation in this process. She stated she does not think these would be complicated changes, however it would be adding new language. Concern was expressed that this change could generate quite a bit of public interest and Commissioner Marsh clarified they will establish a white board where they highlight items they want to see addressed, and they will have to wait and see if these can be folded into this process. Simplifying the Lists of Land Uses Ms. Harris explained there are currently 12 base zones and there is a lot of repetition in the code. She stated the idea is to consolidate the information and this approach would simplify the land uses into general categories. She added this is considered a contemporary approach and would focus on the physical characteristics of the site rather than uses. Ashland Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Comment was made that dictating the use has been more of a political issue and people may think that you are opening the door to more uses if you have fewer delineations. Ms. Harris stated she does not believe this will open the floodgates to unusual uses and clarified our land use ordinance has language about unspecific uses and the unified code will include that same language. Commissioner Dawkins stated removing the use would put the emphasis back on the building’s design. He stated on one hand it is nice to know what the building will be used for, but in the end it does not matter much since the use is often temporary and the space is changed into something else. Ms. Harris stated if the use changes, they will still need to comply with the parking requirements for that use, and clarified all business license applications are routed through the Planning Division to ensure compliance with the zone and staff checks the parking demand for the new use at that time. General support was voiced for the simplification of the uses. Comment was made that there are safeguards already in place to ensure the uses stay consistent with the zone. Policy Issues and Recommendations from 2006 Land Use Ordinance Review Ms. Harris stated the Siegel report included recommended policy changes and staff is looking for direction from the Commission on which items they want to include in this project. Commissioner Marsh recommended they go through the list one by one. 1.Lot Coverage and Porous Paving. Ms. Harris stated the intent is to encourage more pervious areas. Commissioner Mindlin commented that pervious surfaces can become less effective over time if they are not properly maintained. Comment was made that porous materials will get better over time and if they believe porous is a good idea than they should give some incentive for people to use it. General support was voiced for included this change in the unified land use code project. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her concern that people might use this to increase the surface area on their lots. She added she would support this change as long as applicants don’t get to increase the size of their house by using pervious paving. 2.Slopes. General support was voiced for restricting development to slopes of 35% of less. 3.R-1 Corner Lots. General support was voiced with reducing the minimum for corner lots to 5,000 square feet. 4.R-1 Lot Depth. Ms. Harris stated staff would like to take a closer look at this item. Comment was made questioning if they would be opening the door to flag lots by doing this, and whether there are other applications that would be controversial if they change this. Commissioner Marsh stated this change is worth looking at and the Commission agreed. 5.R-1 Front Porch. Support was voiced for changing the porch setbacks to 10 feet to be consistent with the R-2 and R-3 zones. 6.R-1-3.5 Housing Types. Support was voiced with clarifying desired multifamily housing types and encouraging innovative housing. 7.Distance Between Buildings in R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3. Support was voiced for including this change in the unified land use code project. 8.Affordable Housing Density Bonus in R-2 and R-3. Support was voiced for this change. 9.North Mountain Core Overlay – MultiFamily. Ms. Harris stated she is not sure this change is worth pursuing since so much of the North Mountain area is already built out. The Commission agreed and indicated they do not want to pursue this change. 10.C-1 Residential Uses. Commissioner Marsh questioned if this is a language clean-up or a change to the actual numbers. Ms. Harris clarified the intent is a language clean up and some minor language changes could clarify this provision. Support was voiced for pursuing this change. Ms. Harris clarified staff will perform additional research to make sure they are keeping with the intent of the ordinance. 11.Solar Access Setback in C-1. Commissioner Mindlin stated the solar setback requirements make it difficult to obtain the desired density levels for commercial developments, however the solar access requirements should be maintained for commercial properties that abut residential zones. General support was voiced for pursuing this change. 12.C-1 Building Height. Commissioner Dawkins voiced his interest in taller, denser buildings in the C-1 zone, and in particular would like to see higher density housing on the Copeland lumber site. The Commission agreed to pursue this change. 13.HC Lot Depth and Yards. Ms. Harris stated this is another recommended change that may not be worth pursuing. The Commission agreed and indicated they do not want to pursue this change. 14.Non-Conforming Uses. Commissioner Marsh questioned why we would want to give someone more time. Opposing comment was made that given the current economic climate, allowing longer might be a good idea. Ms. Harris stated this issue does not come up that often and staff does not have a strong opinion about this. Mr. Goldman noted the Commission could consider clarifying when the 6-month clock starts. Ashland Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 3 of 4 15.Parking for Small MultiFamily Units, Assisted Living, Etc. Support was voiced for this change. 16.Parking for Medical Offices. Ms. Harris clarified when development was more active parking for medical offices was enough of a problem that several offices received approval for standalone parking lots because they did not have enough space to accommodate their clients. She added this was six years ago and had a lot to do with the location of those offices. Commissioner Marsh suggested allowing medical offices to go 20% above the required parking amount and support was voiced for this change. 17.Accessory Residential Units. Ms. Harris recommended removing the CUP requirement and having these go through site review only. Support was voiced for this change. 18.Railroad District Conditional Uses. Ms. Harris stated this is probably one of the bigger hot button issues and applies to all of the historic districts, not just the railroad district. Commissioner Marsh commented on the value of having residential stability in these neighborhoods and that too many professional offices or commercial uses can have a cumulative effect on the neighborhood. Commission Dawkins stated he likes the mix of uses, but does not want to see the district overcome with professional uses. General support was voiced for looking into this change. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 22, 2012 Page 4 of 4 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION June 12, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-00018, A REQUEST FOR ) FINDINGS, SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,125 SQUARE FOOT ) CONCLUSIONS SINGLE-STORY RETAIL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE ) AND ORDERS IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2220 ASHLAND ) STREET. THE FORMER PIZZA HUT BUILDING IS CURRENLTY LOCATED ) ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ) REQUIREMENTS AND THE PEDESTRAIN PLACES REQUIREMENTS. ) ) APPLICANT: SUMMIT INVESTMENTS ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #1700 of Map 39 1E 14 BA is located at 2220 Ashland Street and is zoned C-1, Commercial. 2) The applicants are requesting 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. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The application also involves the proposed demolition of the existing 2,135 square foot structure 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. The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows: 4) 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. In addition, 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 PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 1 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) Lastly, the criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows: B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on April 10, 2012 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This hearing was closed and the record was left open. The action was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 8, 2012 at which time new information 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: PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 2 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 project complies with the Site Review standards for commercial developments within the Detail Site Review Zone, including the request for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards required Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and a Tree Removal permit. The application proposes to construct a 4,125 square foot single story, retail building at the front of the property adjacent to Ashland Street. Off-street parking is located to the rear of the building with automobile access provided from Ashland Street via the common drive way which serves the larger shopping center properties to the south and east. The site plan incorporate direct pedestrian access from Ashland Street to the main building entrance. In addition, outdoor pedestrian plaza spaces will be developed at the front and east side of the building, providing a shaded, sheltered environment for patrons as well as employees and public transit commuters. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that proposal complies with the first criterion to be considered for Site Review approval 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 Commercial (C-1) zoning district is guided by the site design standards found in Ashland Site Design Review Chapter (AMC 18.72) and the city’s Site Design and Use Standards, Sign Regulations, Off- Street Parking and Tree Preservation & Protection chapters. The Planning Commission finds that adequate parking is provided to meet the demands of the proposed use as a 4,125 square foot retail establishment, particularly a paint store with half of the floor area utilized for storage and mixing areas, off limits to customers. Nine parking spaces are to be provided at the rear of the building accessed via a sidewalk along the rear of the structure and three parking spaces are provided on the adjacent property to the southeast under the same ownership as the subject property. The Planning Commission finds that the parking provided on the larger shopping center property is in excess of that required by ordinance, which allows for providing a parking easement to the subject property. Additionally, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed parking lot design complies with AMC 18.92.080.B and has been designed to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the surface parking area. PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 3 The Planning Commission further finds that the proposed bicycle parking complies with AMC 18.92.040. The site plan provided illustrates four proposed covered bicycle parking racks near the rear entry of the proposed building. The Commission finds that the proposed bicycle parking provisions are consistent with the placement standards of the land use ordinance. The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a tree inventory identifying six trees on the subject property, one of which is more than six-inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater. Trees greater than six-inches in DBH necessitates Tree Removal Permits within the subject property’s C-1 zoning district in accordance with AMC 18.61. The five trees less than six-inches in diameter are exempt from the land use requirements. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the second criterion for the approval of a Site Review permit that, “All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.” Within the Site Review chapter, commercial 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 area on the west side of the building behind a wall and landscape area screening it from Ashland Street and the adjacent business to the west. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the third criterion for Site Review approval criterion 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 commercial developments. The Commission finds that the proposed building, are to be reviewed under the basic and detail site review standards for commercial projects. 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 five feet of the street unless the area is utilized as a pedestrian plaza area, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. 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. In considering the initially proposed building designs in light of the Site Design & Use Standards and Planning Division staff identified concerns with the sense of entry and orientation to the street of the building. Planning staff noted that in initial design submittals, the Ashland Street entry was not strongly articulated enough to establish a clear sense of entry and relationship to the pedestrian corridor to meet the city’s design standards. Staff had recommended that the building’s sense of entry be better articulated and emphasized by modifying the widows on the front of the building and modifying the pedestrian plaza area between the building and the street. The Planning Commission found that the building was oriented towards Ashland Street and not the parking lot, that there is a clear sense of entry provided with the stairs, awning, windows and doors to emphasize the primary entrance of the building. PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 4 th In response to the discussion at the March 13 hearing, the applicants presented revised site plans to address both the pedestrian plaza area amenities and whether the proposed plaza area will function as such and the larger site circulation issues raised during the Planning Commission hearing. According to the applicant’s site plans, significant modifications to enhance the Ashland Street pedestrian corridor along the buildings frontage are proposed. These include standard five-foot width commercial tree grates, street trees, eight foot sidewalks, and widened pedestrian circulation routes and landscape treatments. The Planning Commission finds that, when taken in sum, these revisions greatly improve the building’s sense of entry and relationship to the adjacent streetscape, while also more effectively addressing the buildings setback of more than five feet. The Commission finds that with these revisions, the building and pedestrian plaza areas comply with the Site Design and Use Standards. 2.6 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 Ashland Street, as well as a six-inch water main available in Webster Street. Sewer: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that an eight-inch sanitary sewer main is available in Ashland Street; with the proposed development no modifications are necessary. Paved Access: Ashland Street along the property’s north boundary is classified as a boulevards or arterial streets under the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Ashland Street is fully improved with paving, curbs, gutters, and a five foot wide curbside sidewalk along the subject property’s frontage. The applicant’s proposal includes plans to reconstruct Ashland Street to full city street standards for an arterial street. The Planning Commission finds that applicant’s proposed street improvements comply with Ashland’s Street Standards including a five-foot wide hardscape park row and eight feet of sidewalk. A landscaped parkrow may be substituted for the five-foot tree grates in some commercial areas where on-street parking is not in place. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed site circulation modifications will begin to address some of the large site circulation issues and with the proposed directional signage and pavement markings site circulation will be better addressed and that adequate transportation facilities can and will be provided with the implementation of the improvements described below. Located partially on the subject property is a wide common driveway which provides a north-south connection from Ashland Street to the shopping center properties to the south and to the west. This driveway provides circulation primarily to existing surface parking in place behind the existing buildings fronting Ashland Street and between the Bi-Mart and Shop ‘N Kart buildings and the street. The applicant has proposed to modify the existing driveway with a landscaped center median dividing the two travel lanes. The median is comprised of the existing PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 5 eastern parking lot buffer and the existing north / south driveway, the driveway will be divided into a distinct south entrance to property and north exiting. The commission finds that the revised, extended median is being expanded in part to protect the existing fire hydrant and irrigation boxes. The commission finds that the proposed will also 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 10-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. The applicant’s site plan also provides painted directional arrows, curbing and traffic warning signs to provide more clear direction to motorist and cyclists traversing the properties. Storm Sewer: Public Works and Engineering staff has noted that a 15-inch storm sewer line is available in Ashland Street. The application materials further indicate that stormwater drainage in the parking lot within the project area is to be collected and pre-treated in a landscape bio- swale within the parking areas 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 proposal, subject to final review and approval of civil drawings. Electric: Electrical facilities are available from all of the Ashland Street right-of-way, and city Electric Department staff has indicated that these facilities have adequate source and capacity to serve the project. The main transmission line for the area is along Ashland Street on the same side of the street as the proposed development. There is a pole and electric cabinet at the front of the property, the electric department indicated that the cabinet needs to be rotated so that it opens away from the structure so to have adequate clearances for their equipment. A condition to this effect has been included. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable criteria for approval for an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards requiring a minimum Floor Area Ratio of .50 for the parcel due to the proposed building and pedestrian plaza area a total of 5,910 square feet and an FAR of .32. One of the primary reasons that the Floor Area Ratio requirements along Ashland Street were adopted were to more effectively engage and complement the streetscape and to create more density along the arterial streets in close proximity to shopping, public transit and other amenities. 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 redevelopment of a large vacant site. Additionally, the application states that a future second story may be added to the building which would in the future increase the FAR along Ashland Street. The Planning Commission finds that the exception will result in a design that better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards as the pedestrian corridor is being brought up to current City Standards through the installation of sidewalks and that pedestrian amenities and refuge is being proposed. The Planning Commission finds that the reservation of a future second story building addition along Ashland Street for development in the future does not constitute a shadow plan but does show how in the future the properties under the ownership of Summit Investments / Peaks Ranch Development etc. are moving towards compliance with the Floor Area Ratio requirements of properties in the shopping center complex. PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 6 The Commission finds that the building’s proposed placement is appropriate, and that the building itself is of a character and design that is appropriate to the Ashland Street streetscape. With the changes to the Ashland Street pedestrian corridor and the plaza area proposed by the applicants to accommodate and encourage a variety of uses, efforts were made in site planning to retain a strong relationship with the Ashland Street by creating a human scale pedestrian corridor between the street and the proposed building. The Commission further finds that the building design and associated site planning provide a sense of entry that will engage the pedestrian streetscape along Ashland Street. The Planning Commission finds that the revised pedestrian plaza area, including the provision of a food vendor location, trees, benches as envisioned in the Site Design and Use Standards is supported by evidence in the record and results in an overall design that better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards. 2.8The Commission finds that the approval of a Tree Removal Permit requires the applicants to demonstrate that: the tree 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 the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of 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 tree proposed for removal is within the proposed building footprint 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 finds that the removed tree will be adequately mitigated with the proposed landscaping. 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 4,125 square foot, single-story retail building associated site improvements including a tree removal permit to remove one 13-inch in diameter at breast height tree 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 conditions, we approve Planning Action #2012-00018. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2012-00018 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 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. PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 7 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 could 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: 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. g) That a revised Landscaping and Irrigation plan demonstrating compliance with the Site Design and Use Standards shall be submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the building permit. PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 8 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. 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. 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: 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 PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 9 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. 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. 8)That future land use applications for the properties located at 391E 14BA, tax lots, 1200, 1300, 1500, 1800 and 1700 shall address the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard. The applications shall demonstrate how future development may be intensified over time to meet the required Floor Area Ratio requirements. 9)That a site circulation plan demonstrating vehicular and pedestrian safety shall be provided with all future applications. 10)That the selected street tree shall be a columnar type, high-branching species which complies with minimum height requirements (13-foot clearance) over Ashland Street. Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2012-00018 June 12, 2012 Page 10 ÔÛÙ×ÍÔßÌ×ÊÛ ßÓÛÒÜÓÛÒÌ ÐËÞÔ×Ý ØÛßÎ×ÒÙ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ýîðïîóððîêë ÌÇÐÛ ×× ÐËÞÔ×Ý ØÛßÎ×ÒÙ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ýîðïîóððëéë ÔÛÙ×ÍÔßÌ×ÊÛ ßÓÛÒÜÓÛÒÌ ÐËÞÔ×Ý ØÛßÎ×ÒÙ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ýîðïîóððëéí APPENDIX [Reserved for future Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA) to be agreed to jointly by Jack- son County and the City of Ashland at the time Urban Reserves are identified for Ashland. ] Regional Plan Element Page 19 of 19