Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-14 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. AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION REGUULAR MEETING AUGGUST 14, 20112 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civvic Center Coouncil Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA A. Appproval of Minutes 1.. July 10, 20012 Regular MMeeting 2.. July 24, 2012 Special Meeting IVV. PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS Appproval of Finndings for PA-2012-007440, 160 Lithiaa Way A. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLLANNING ACCTION: PA-20012-00981 SUUBJECT PROOPERTIES:5541 Strawberrry Lane & 488 Westwood Street APPPLICANTS: Paul Conflittti and Doug Irvine, propeerty owners;; Mark Knox of Urban Deevelopment SServices as aagent DEESCRIPTIONN: The applicaation involvees a request for a Variance to the lot coverage limmitations of tthe Rural Ressidential zonning district ffor the propeerty located at 541 Strawberry Lane. The maxximum lot cooverage allowwed for the RRR-.5 districtt is 20 percennt, annd a 24.7 percent coveragge is requestted. As part of the requeest, the owneer of a coontiguous prooperty locateed at 48 Wesstwood Streeet has agreedd to deed resstrict their prroperty’s alloowed lot coveerage with a commensurrate reductioon to offset thhe additionaal cooverage requuested for 541 Strawberryy Lane. COMMPREHENSIVVE PLAN DESSIGNATION: Ruural Residential; ZONINGG: RR-.5-P; AASSESSOR’SS MAP #: 39 11E 08BD; TAAX LOT #: 5411 Strawberry Lane is Tax Lot #104; 48 WWestwood Strreet is Tax Loot #102. 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 July 10, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin 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 April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Richard Kaplan Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar updated the Commission on the plaza improvement project. He stated a preferred concept plan was presented at the second series of public workshops and the City Council is scheduled to review the plan at their July 16 study session. He stated the plan outlines more hardscape pavement and seating will be increased significantly, and while some trees need to be removed, the overall number of trees is increasing. Mr. Molnar also announced the City Council will be discussing the potential legalization of vacation rentals at their August study session, and they are likely to defer this item to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes. 1.June 12, 2012 Regular Meeting. 2.June 26, 2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Kaplan/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2012-00573, RPS Legislative Amendment. Commissioners Marsh/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2012-00573. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00575 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1155 East Main Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will re-open the public hearing on a request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site improvements for the Ashland Police Department Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 1 of 5 located at 1155 East Main Street. Re-opening of the hearing will allow consideration of new information with regard to the accessibility of the entry walkway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 10; TAX LOT #: 900. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Mindlin noted she was not present for initial hearing but has reviewed the materials and feels confident participating. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the existing conditions regarding the entrance to the building. He stated as originally proposed, the applicants showed a stepped walkway; however during the Planning Commission’s deliberations a condition was approved for no stairs to be added. He stated the concern was that stairs would be an impediment for wheelchair access. Following the Planning Commission hearing, the applicants approached staff and asked for reconsideration of this element. Mr. Severson stated it has been determined that the removal of the steps would require either a ramp with switchbacks, or a sloped ramp that does not meet ADA standards. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar clarified this issued has been discussed with the City’s building official and the existing accessible route does meet the requirements. He added a sloped ramp would be okay as long as they understand the slope is too great for this to be a second ADA ramp. Mr. Molnar stated staff does not support a switchback design for the ramp. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Miller voiced her support for retaining the stairs. She stated the stairs look nicer and a ramp out front is not essential since they already have an ADA accessible route from the building to the parking lot. Commissioner Kaplan stated he is also in favor of the steps. He stated if the ramp cannot meet ADA requirements it should not be installed, and they should not be enticing persons in wheelchairs to use an unsafe ramp. Commissioner Brown stated when he proposed this condition he did not know the slope was that great. In light of the new information, he voiced support for the steps and agreed with Kaplan that if it looks like an accessible ramp, people will use it as such. Commissioners Miller/Kaplan m/s to remove the ramp condition and incorporate the proposed grading plan design. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Heesacker, Brown, Marsh, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2012-00740 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Lithia Way APPLICANT: DRRAM L.L.C. (Doug & Dionne Irvine) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the façade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 09 BA; TAX LOT #: 10800. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Heesacker reported a site visit. Commission Dawkins reported a site visit and clarified he attended the Tree Commission hearing on this item. Commissioners Marsh, Kaplan, Miller and Mindlin noted they are familiar with the site. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson stated the application before the Commission is a request for site review and conditional use permit approval to construct a 13,800 sq.ft. three story, mixed use building at 160 Lithia Way. He stated the proposed building will have commercial space on the first floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residences on the third floor. He stated Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 2 of 5 the applicants have requested one exception pertaining to the plaza space requirement; one conditional use permit for the hotel use; one conditional use permit for the building height; and a tree removal permit to remove all 10 trees on the site. Mr. Severson provided more detail of the application and reviewed the applicant’s plan submittals. Regarding the conditional use permit for the building height, Mr. Severson explained there is an outright 40 ft. height allowance and applicants can go up to 55 ft. with the conditional use permit. He added the 6 foot parapet at the top of the building was specifically requested by the Historic Commission to emphasize the sense of entry. Mr. Severson commented on the applicant’s request for a partial exception to the plaza space requirement. He noted the current standard and stated the applicant’s have proposed to provide 60% (or roughly 800 sq.ft.) of the required plaza space with this development. Mr. Severson reviewed the proposed outdoor seating area and commented on the plaza space that would be provided along the existing corridor between the Jasmine Building and this site. He stated the applicants assert, and staff agrees, that if you were to increase the plaza space along the frontage of the building, it would push the building out of line with the facades of the other adjacent buildings. However he requested the Commission discuss whether the proposed design meets the intent of providing people-friendly spaces, and he provided an example of the plaza space area in the Clear Creek Development. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is supportive of the application with the proposed conditions of approval. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the adequacy of parking. Mr. Severson explained there are typically no parking requirements in the downtown, except for hotels, motels and hostels. He stated the proposed parking spaces at the back of the building meet the parking requirement and will be utilized by the hotel. Comment was made that Will Dodge Way is often used as a delivery route, and it was questioned how this development might impact that alleyway. It was noted that delivery vehicles block off the alley at times, and people parked behind the Kendrick and Jasmine buildings must wait for the vehicles to move before they can get out. Comment was made questioning the plaza space requirement when no one else downtown is required to do this. Mr. Severson explained large scale developments (buildings over 10,000 sq. ft. in size) are required to provide 10% plaza space and the intent is to mitigate the impact of large buildings and provide interface and space for human engagement. He clarified the Jasmine building, which is adjacent to this site, was required to provide plaza space and is the only building over 10,000 sq.ft. that has been built downtown since this requirement went into effect. Mr. Molnar added when this standard was looked at in the early 1990s, they were primarily looking at spaces outside of the downtown along major arterials, since most of the lots downtown are narrow and will not hit the 10,000 sq.ft. threshold even if they build to the maximum height allowance. Comment was made suggesting this one-size fits all requirement for plaza space might need to be evaluated in terms of how to apply this downtown. Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox, Applicants Representative/ Mr. Knox thanked staff for their thorough presentation and noted the obstacles with this site, including the utilities and curvature of the road. He stated they have been working on this project for one and half years and believe they have produced a very nice building. Mr. Knox noted the City’s policies and standards for infilling parking lots, and stated since this property was previously owned by the City it became a catchall for new development utilities along Lithia Way. He explained all of the nearby buildings utilities (storm drainage, sewer lines, etc.) extend through this lot without easements, and it has been complicated to work through this. Mr. Knox stated the design of the building was evaluated by the Historic Commission and they were very supportive of this application. He commented on the plaza space requirement and stated these standards have a good intent, but sometimes they create a situation where they don’t produce the desired results. He stated meeting the 10% plaza requirement would have really manipulated the design, and they believe their proposal meets the intent and is better product. Jerome White, Project Architect/Mr. White clarified the height of the building is 40 ft. to the cupola, and they are asking for an exception for the center portion above it. He commented on the public space design along the side of the building and stated Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 3 of 5 they have incorporated most of the elements displayed on the Clear Creek example. In regards to the plaza space out front, Mr. White stated be believes the large portion of front sidewalk could be counted towards this requirement. Mr. Knox added the 15 ft. sidewalks this building is providing allows for sidewalk tables and dining, which is exactly the definition of public space. He stated if you count this area they exceed the 10% requirement. He stated there was discussion early on in this project about whether to build two buildings on this lot instead of one in order to avoid these standards, but the property owner wanted this building to be right and was willing to apply for the additional variance requests. Mr. Knox stated they have created something that looks better, is better for the business to function, and hopes the Commission realizes this. Doug Irvine, Property Owner/Mr. Irvine stated he wanted to create something beautiful and something the community could be proud of. He commented on the proposed use and explained the first floor will be a tasting room and gourmet market for local wineries and artisans to sell their products. He added the wine industry and tourism is growing in Southern Oregon and they are trying to create opportunities for the shoulder season. He noted the small boutique hotel on the second floor and residential units on the third, and stated their goal was to create a fun, unique, beautiful building that the community would be proud of, and believes they have succeeded. Questions of the Applicant Comment was made questioning if they could do something with the pedestrian environment out back to make it better. Mr. Knox commented on the design of the back of the building and stated they wanted to provide an attractive façade. He noted the imbedded sidewalk and enclosed trash enclosures, but wished there could have been more they could have done with the utilities. He explained they looked into merging these, but the City does not have the equipment to accommodate that size of transformer. He added while the residences have entrances in the front and back, the front door for the residences and the hotel is on Lithia Way. Comment was made questioning if it is possible to provide more plants at the back entry. Mr. White stated it is tight back there and while they did include landscaping, the location of the transformers was an issue. It was questioned if the applicant will ask the City to designate a loading zone in front of the building on Lithia Way. Mr. Knox stated they would like to talk with the Public Works Department and the Transportation Commission about this. He stated in addition to being a hotel guest check-in, mid-block is a good location for a 10-minute loading zone. Comment was made that this fits in with the alleyway issues mentioned earlier. The applicants were asked to comment on the round element in the walkway. Mr. White stated the landscape architect recommended the offset in the circular seating area between this building and the Jasmine building and believes it gives it more intrigue, as well as getting it away from the corner of the building. Comment was made suggesting the architect run the central pilasters all the way up to the top of the building, and to raise the seating wall height to provide for a better seating area. Public Testimony Dr. Vanston Shaw/180 Lithia Way, #208/Stated he is the president of the condo association for the Jasmine Building and has a balcony that will face this building. Dr. Shaw voiced his support for the building as proposed and thinks it is a nice design. He explained his concern is regarding the alley access and stated the only saving grace the Jasmine Building residences have had is being able to use the existing parking lot as ingress and egress, as the alley is often blocked on both ends. He stated this might be an enforcement issue, but believes the hotel parking in back will be a problem. He stated the delivery vehicles impact him as a resident, will impact the hotel and everyone else that parks in the alley, and recommended there be a comprehensive look at this. Dr. Shaw commented on the plaza space along the side of the building and noted he currently maintains the Jasmine Building’s walkway. He voiced his support for the design features on the walkway and stated he is not bothered by the offset circular seating area. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mark Knox/Stated when the City owned this property the intent was to sell it as an affordable housing project. Mr. Knox stated the design took access off Lithia Way and down into a sublevel parking lot, and while this would have worked it would have Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 4 of 5 been disastrous. He noted one side of the building has to act as the back, and noted the need for utilities and trash enclosures as well as parking for guests. He stated it has been challenging to provide all the best urban amenities and recommended the function of the alley be looked at comprehensively and at the leadership of the City. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing and the record at 8:30 p.m. Questions of Staff Commissioner Dawkins stated he is troubled by the delivery situation and asked if there is any way they can resolve this. Mr. Molnar provided some history and explained the City previously went through a process in which the property owners, fire department, building official, and police department looked at what could be done to improve the environment. He stated the City Council issued a directive to make the alley one-way and to limit where deliveries could occur. He stated it sounds like the deliveries are still a problem and this is an enforcement issue. Mr. Molnar stated the plan has always been to infill this site and stated this would be a good time to reinstitute neighborhood discussion about what options could be reviewed. He added the Transportation Commission has expressed interest in loading zones along Lithia Way and this would be a good time for them to bring this back up. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Marsh m/s to approve Planning Action #2012-00740 with conditions as presented by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Marsh asked if this includes a condition for a loading zone out front. Commissioner Dawkins stated he strongly suggests this be done, but it is not their purview to require this. Commissioner Brown requested a friendly amendment to add a condition for the seating wall height to be increased and also for the two pilasters to run all the way up the building. Commissioners Dawkins and Marsh stated they are more comfortable directing the architect to look into this, rather than including it as a condition of approval. Commissioner Marsh stated this is a beautiful building and will positively change the feel of Lithia Way, and recommended the plaza space requirements for downtown buildings be looked at. Commissioner Mindlin voiced her support for the building design, but stated she would have liked to have seen something more for the public spaces. She stated it would have been nice for the residences to have more outdoor space and stated the public space at the opposite end of the building is a long ways away. Commissioner Marsh noted the hotel guests will be coming and going through the alley and the owners will have an interest in making sure the alleyway is as comfortable and convenient as possible. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Kaplan, Dawkins, Heesacker, Brown, Marsh, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Dawkins recommended they look into requiring energy savings measures on future building applications. OTHER BUSINESS A.Bi-Annual Attendance Report (January – June 2012) Informational item only. Several commissioners voiced concern with the Transportation Commission/Planning Commission joint meetings counting towards their absence record. It was stated the regular and study session dates are established at the beginning of the year and the commissioners can plan their travel around these, but they were not told about the joint meetings very far in advance. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission July 10, 2012 Page 5 of 5 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES July 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Eric Heesacker Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh (arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented on the City Council’s study session on the plaza design. He stated the Council directed staff to consider some of the concepts they presented and to move ahead with a final design. He noted there were some reservations about the type of seating and comfort level, but the overall concept was supported. Commissioners Dawkins noted he had spoken with the councilors and encouraged the use of pavers for the ground treatment, which would allow water to penetrate through and be healthier for the trees. Mr. Molnar announced the City Council passed first reading of the changes to the wireless communication standards, and will be holding a public hearing for the changes to the drive-up ordinance in August. Commissioner Dawkins noted the keeping of chickens ordinance is coming back to the Commission and the Council asked them to look at including other animals. Commissioner Kaplan expressed concern with poor attendance at a Planning Commission hearing on changes, which is what happened last time. Mr. Molnar noted staff could contact the individuals who participate in the first round of hearings and encourage them to provide input. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-2012-00265, Drive-Up Uses Amendment. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Brown/Miller m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2012-00265. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Heesacker, Miller, Dawkins, Brown and Kaplan, YES. [Mindlin abstained]. Motion passed 5-0. B.Approval of Findings for PA-2012-00575, 1155 East Main Street. Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission July 24, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Commissioners Kaplan/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2012-00575. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Heesacker, Miller, Dawkins, Brown and Kaplan, YES. [Mindlin abstained]. Motion passed 5-0. PRESENTATION A.Grey Water Presentation by Building Official Michael Grubbs & Plumbing Inspector Rick Hackstock. Commissioner Mindlin announced the grey water presentation has been postponed. DISCUSSION ITEM A.Manufactured Dwelling Standards/SOU Student Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a short presentation on the SOU students’ report on manufactured dwelling standards. She stated the students in the Planning Issues class looked at the City’s manufactured housing standards in the context of affordable housing and provided the following recommendations to the City: 1)Revise the required size and dimensions for units. 2)Allow flexibility for siding and roofing materials. 3)Eliminate the garage/storage building requirements. 4)In developments, use the setbacks of the zoning district. 5)Reduce the required deck/patio size in developments. 6)Reduce the required site size for development. Ms. Harris explained the students report highlighted the significant advancements in the manufactured housing industry and put forth the following findings: 1) manufactured housing is high quality because it is built to undergo the stress of being transported, 2) there is less construction time and less costs, 3) manufactured homes can be built to be very energy efficient, and 4) there is less construction waste compared to conventional building. Ms. Harris provided some background data on the City’s issuance of manufactured housing building permits and stated in the past 11 years 22 manufactured home permits were issued; 20 of those were to replace or install new units in existing parks, and two were to place the homes on a standard single family lot. Ms. Harris noted Ashland has three manufactured housing parks: Wingspread, Tolman Creek Park, and the park at Walker Ave/Siskiyou Blvd/Ashland St., and explained state law identifies manufactured housing as a needed housing type and requires jurisdictions to allow manufactured housing in stand-alone lots and in parks in at least one zone. Ms. Harris stated staff believes some of the changes recommended by the students are policy changes and questioned if the Commission wanted to incorporate these revisions into the unified code project. She added this seems to fit into the same category of smaller policy changes and could be easily incorporated into the unified code project if the Commission wanted to do this. Commission Discussion Staff clarified manufactured housing is currently allowed in R2 and R3 zones; and also clarified the difference between mobile homes and manufactured homes as defined in Chapter 18.08 of the land use ordinance. Commissioner Kaplan noted he attended the students’ presentation before the Housing Commission and stated they should not be discouraging people who want to use this type of construction. Mr. Molnar asked Commissioner Mindlin if she has seen manufactured housing being used in cottage housing developments. Mindlin gave her opinion that manufactured housing is not as cost effective as some might anticipate, however she supports looking into relaxing the City’s requirements and stated this is a fairness issue. Commissioner Marsh commented that they should not care how the house is constructed as long as it meets the established standards. Ms. Harris asked the Commission if they were interested in incorporating this into the unified code project and received general consensus that this is worth pursuing. Commissioner Mindlin voiced concern with putting this forward as an affordable housing measure, but stated from a fairness standpoint this is a legitimate thing to do. Ashland Planning Commission July 24, 2012 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. and the commissioners were invited to stay and watch a short film titled “For the Love of Cities” by Peter Kageyama. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission July 24, 2012 Page 3 of 3 BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD August 14, 2012 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2012-00740, A REQUEST ) FOR SITE REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL ) FINDINGS, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 13,800 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY ) CONCLUSIONS MIXED-USE BUILDING IN THE VACANT, PRIVATE PARKING LOT ) AND ORDERS LOCATED AT 160 LITHIA WAY. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES ) REQUESTS FOR A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXCEED 40 FEET IN ) HEIGHT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL RELIEF IN THE ) FAÇADE, AN EXCPETION TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS ) WITH REGARD TO PLAZA SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND A TREE ) REMOVAL PERMIT TO REOMOVE TEN TREES GREATER THAN SIX ) INCHES IN DIAMETER-AT-BREAST-HEIGHT. ) ) APPLICANT : DRRAM L.L.C. (Doug and Divine Irvine) ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lot 10800 of 391E09BA is located at 160 Lithia Way and is zoned C-1-D (Commercial Downtown). 2)The proposal involves a request for Site Review approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way. The proposed building will consist of commercial restaurant space on the ground floor, five hotel units on the second floor, and five residential apartments on the third floor. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the façade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at- breast-height. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the Department of Community Development. The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: 3) 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. PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 1 The criteria for approval of an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards are described 4) in AMC 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. The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.104.050 as follows: 5) A. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. The criteria for Tree Removal Permit approval are described in AMC 18.61.080: 6) A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 2 facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternative 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 of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the 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. 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on July 10, 2012, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the Site Review, Conditional Use Permits, Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards and a Tree Removal Permit application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 3 Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds the project includes a mix of residential, hotel and commercial uses consistent with the underlying C-1-D zoning designation. Residential units are a special permitted use within the district, hotels are conditional uses, and commercial uses including retail and restaurants are outright permitted. The C-1 zoning regulations require that a minimum of 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building be used for permitted or special permitted uses other than residential units. The proposal designates approximately 68 percent of the ground floor for commercial, an outright permitted use, with the remainder taken up with parking to serve the hotel units on the second floor. The C-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The property is subject to the Arterial Street Setback Requirements of AMC 18.68.050, which provide for a setback on an arterial street of no less than 20 feet or the width required to install city-standard sidewalk and parkrow improvements, whichever is less. The building placement as shown accommodates the installation of city standard sidewalk and parkrow improvements, and the applicants have proposed to install a ten-foot wide sidewalk and five-foot commercial parkrow consistent with City standards. The building’s mass reaches approximately 42 feet in height along the Lithia Way frontage. The C-1-D district allows for buildings up to 55 feet in height, provided that those higher than 40 feet obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. Accordingly, the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an approximately six-foot high decorative parapet element PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 4 which exceeds 40 feet in height. Within the C-1-D district, there is no outright landscaping requirement. However, the application includes a preliminary landscape plan which identifies the required street tree plantings, and the landscape materials to be placed along the walkway corridor on the east side of the building. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the public utilities have capacity to serve the development and the proposed development meets the Ashland Street Standards. There are adequate facilities are in place within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended to serve the site by the applicants. Public facilities and utilities in place to service the project or to be installed as part of the improvements include the following: Electrical Service: The application identifies existing transformers, electric boxes and vaults o in place along Will Dodge Way which serve existing buildings along Lithia, Will Dodge and East Main. The applicants’ draft Site Utility Plan indicates that the transformer at the southeast corner of the site will be replaced with a new, upgraded 600 KVA transformer to serve the proposed building. The application notes that the electric meters and main disconnect are to be placed on the southwest corner of the building, with access from Will Dodge. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, it was noted that state law requires separate electric meters be provided for each of the residential units and the final electrical service plan must indicate this requirement will be addressed. Sanitary Sewer: The property is currently served by a six-inch sanitary sewer main within o Lithia Way. The draft Site Utility Plan indicates that a new four-inch sanitary sewer lateral will be extended to serve the proposed building. Storm Drainage: The property is currently served by a six-inch storm sewer main in the o north central portion of the tax lot; a 15-inch storm drain line is also in place within Lithia Way. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, it was noted that the existing six-inch storm sewer main may lack sufficient capacity if the proposal ultimately results in an increase in impervious area on site with the removal of existing landscaped areas, and would then necessitate on-site detention with new underground facilities. It is also noted that an oil/water separator and some type of storm water detention will be needed at the front (lower) end of the parking stalls. Easements: It was noted that existing sewer and storm drainage facilities cross this property o in serving buildings along East Main Street, and that some of the existing electrical equipment on the site is located outside of easements or rights-o-f-way. New public or private easements will need to be created, or these facilities re-routed, to accommodate the proposed new construction. Water: The property is currently served by a four-inch water main in Lithia Way, with an o existing ¾-inch water service and meter in place in the sidewalk available to serve the project. The application notes that 70 feet of new four-inch ductile iron fire sprinkler line will be extended from Lithia Way to the building’s riser room. In reviewing the draft Site Utility Plan, it was noted that the existing ¾-inch meter is insufficient to serve the project by itself, and have indicated that an additional new commercial water service will need to be PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 5 included in the final Utility Plan. The application also notes that Fire Department requirements including fire sprinklers and a Fire Department Connection (FDC) valve and vault will be identified in the building permit submittals. Given the potential impacts of an FDC and vault to the pedestrian streetscape, these elements are required not be placed within the pedestrian corridor. Paved Access and Adequate Transportation: Lithia Way is an arterial street and state o highway that is currently paved with curbs, gutters, on-street parking, bike lanes, and automobile travel lanes, and an eight-foot width sidewalk in place along the subject property’s full frontage. The applicants propose to provide ten-foot width sidewalks and five-foot commercial hardscape parkrows to comply with the City street standards. Will Dodge Way is a 12-foot wide public alley that is currently paved. The project transportation engineer completed a trip generation analysis based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ (ITE) standards, and made the determination that the proposal was below the threshold levels which would trigger a full traffic impact analysis. Based on this information, the Commission finds the proposal will not have any significant adverse impacts on the downtown transportation system. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds allrequirements of the Site Review Chapter will be met. The required street trees and additional landscaping and irrigation will be provided; trash and recycling areas will be provided and appropriately screened through placement within the building; and lighting will be down-directed or shrouded to avoid concerns with glare and comply with applicable standards. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, the Detail Site Review Standards, the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects, the Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Design Standards. The proposed building design meets the Basic Site Review approval standards. The building’s orientation is to Lithia Way, with pedestrian entrances directly from the public sidewalk and vehicular parking located within the building footprint and accessed from the Will Dodge Way alley. Streetscape and landscape amenities are being provided. Detail Site Review approval standards have also been addressed. All new buildings are now required to meet a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of at least 0.50, which on the subject 7,000 square foot lot would require a building of at least 3,500 square feet. The proposed building square footage is 15,276 square feet and significant exceeds the minimum FAR. While the building frontage is less than 100 feet, the building does provide distinctive changes in the façade including a recessed entrance, windows, vertical pilasters and horizontal bands. The building face incorporates storefront windows along the ground floor, and three fixed canopies adjacent to the sidewalk to provide pedestrians with protection from sun and rain. The building design incorporates a recessed entrance, and architectural treatments which break the building’s width into three vertical masses and a sense of entry emphasized by the central parapet element. The PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 6 recessed entry and outdoor seating area will have a different surface treatment in color and pattern to emphasize their role as “people areas.” The building is also subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects as it is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and has a floor area greater than 10,000 square feet. As noted above, the design has broken the building’s length into three more vertical elements emphasized by the proposed central parapet, and includes canopies over the pedestrian entries to shelter pedestrians and create a more human scale relationship to the streetscape. The building does not exceed the maximum square footage of 45,000 square feet. The building meets the Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Development Standards. The proposed building is a multi-story, Main Street-style building. The building extends from side lot line to side lot line, with the exception of a side setback from the existing pedestrian walkway originally created with the development of the adjacent Jasmine Building, and incorporates large street-level windows and transparent doors. The building incorporates horizontal and vertical rhythms through divisions on the facade as required by the standards. The upper floor windows are vertical. The building incorporates an architectural base, as is typical in historic buildings in the area. The roof is generally flat, and includes a cornice but its length is broken by the proposed central parapet. The building’s mass is roughly three feet taller than the adjacent Kendrick Building to the west, and slightly lower than the Jasmine Building to the east, in keeping with the height standards which seek a slightly dissimilar height in maintaining a staggered streetscape. The frontage of the building is primarily brick, with a stone base to give the building a sense of strength to anchor it within the streetscape. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds the application meets the requirements of an Exception to the Site Design and Use Standards to reduce the required amount of plaza area. Within the Detail Site Review Zone, the Site Design and Use Standards require buildings larger than 10,000 square feet to provide at least one square foot of plaza space each ten square feet of floor area. As proposed, the 13,800 square foot building would require 1,380 square feet of plaza area. The application provides 822 square feet of plaza space (558 square feet less than required) between a small outdoor plaza area to be provided at the northeast corner of the building’s front façade and additional space along the southeast side adjacent to the breezeway extending from Lithia Way to Will Dodge Way. The Commission finds there is difficulty in meeting the plaza requirements in this location because adjacent developments have been built to differing sidewalk width standards along a curved right-of-way. The physical conditions on either side of the proposed building create a need to balance installing the wider sidewalk improvements required in the downtown to accommodate high pedestrian volumes and positioning the building in a historically sensitive manner in the context of the Lithia Way streetscape. If the building were setback another five feet to provide the requisite plaza space, the building would be 12 feet behind the existing sidewalk and out of sync with the historic building placement on the corridor and thus counter to both the Historic District (IV-C-4) and Downtown (VI-B) Design Standards. The proposed building placement, related plaza spaces and sidewalk improvements create a smooth transition PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 7 between the varying building facades and sidewalk widths on either side so that the building fits well in the streetscape context. The Commission finds that the combination of the plaza areas at the northeast corner of the building and the expansion of the walkway area between the proposed building and 180 Lithia Way to the east will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties, and rather will create a elegant transition between the buildings on either of the subject property. Additionally, the Commission finds plaza area at the northeast corner of the building appears to be highly functional and well designed. Finally, the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Standards of having a positive impact upon the streetscape. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the requirements of a conditional use permit to exceed the 40-foot height limitation. Buildings in the C-1-D district may exceed 40 feet in height, with allowances for heights up to 55 feet possible through Conditional Use Permit review. The proposal is to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the façade in the form of a decorative parapet in the center of the front facade. The Commission finds that the approximately six-foot high parapet will give the building a stronger identity and sense of uniqueness along Lithia Way. Furthermore, the added height of the parapet will break up a relatively wide façade into three distinct vertical elements while strengthening the building’s sense of entry in a manner in keeping with historic downtown designs and the initial recommendations of the Historic Commission. 2.9 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height. The trees are not native to the site and were planted previously as parking lot shade trees. All of the trees are to be removed in order to allow development of the site in a manner consistent with applicable standards and requirements of the C-1-D district. The trees were evaluated for retention by both the project’s architect and arborist, but due to the nature of the proposed development and its close proximity to the trees, and the intent to provide a “Main Street” type facade in keeping with the Historic District and Downtown Design Standards it was determined that the removals were necessary. The removal of the trees will not have significant negative impacts to the site’s erosion, soil stability, flow of surface water, protection of adjacent trees, existing windbreaks, tree densities or sizes, canopies, or nearby species as the property will be built upon and landscaped with full development of the site. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds the proposal for a hotel meets the requirements for conditional use permit approval. The proposal includes five hotel units on the second floor. In the C-1-D district, hotel uses require Conditional Use Permit approval, and require that off-street parking be provided in conjunction with the hotel. The hotel will be in conformance with all standards of the C-1-D district.Compared to the target retail use of the zoning district, the five hotel units will generate little noise, fewer vehicle trips (41 trips for the five hotel units versus 835 trips for a department store of the same floor area) PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 8 and less demand on services than would retail use. Guest parking is perhaps the most noticeable impact for hotel use, and the C-1-D district accordingly requires that one off-street parking space be provided for each guest room and an additional space be provided for the manager. The proposal is to provide the six required spaces and a seventh ADA-accessible space on the ground level with access from the alley to address these requirements. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the application for Site Review approval to construct a new 13,800 square foot, three-story mixed-use building in the vacant, private parking lot located at 160 Lithia Way, a Conditional Use Permit to exceed 40 feet in height in order to provide architectural relief in the façade, an Exception to the Site Design & Use Standards with regard to plaza space requirements, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2012-00740. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2012-00740 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2) The windows on the ground floor shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building 3) That the front entrances adjacent to Lithia Way shall remain functional and open to the public during all business hours. 4) That prior to tree removal, site work, storage of materials, staging or building permit issuance, a Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree identification and protection measures installed, inspected and approved on site by the Staff Advisor. 5) That mitigation for the ten trees removed shall be provided in a manner consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.61.084 either through replanting on-site, replanting off-site, or through payment in lieu of replanting. The building permit submittals shall identify required mitigation. 6) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Lithia Way shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalk shall be a minimum of ten feet in width with five-foot commercial hardscape parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, parkrow with street trees and grates, and street lighting, shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 9 Ashland Street Standards, and the applications shall provide evidence that requisite permit approvals have been obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) prior to the issuance of permits by the City of Ashland or work within the Lithia Way right-of-way. If necessary for alignment of frontage improvements, area for street improvements shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way. The right-of-way dedication shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland. 7) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a) 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. b) That a landscaping and irrigation plan to include irrigation details satisfying the requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies and showing parkrow improvements shall be provided prior to building permit issuance. rd c) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission’s July 3, 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall become conditions of approval and be incorporated into the building permit submittals. d) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of any new signage, and all signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. e) All public and private easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals, including but not limited to any easements required to accommodate existing utilities which cross the site. f) That a final storm drainage plan, including any necessary measures for on-site detention or water quality mitigation, shall be submitted at the time of a building permit for review and approval by the Engineering, Building, and Planning Divisions. g) A final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved 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. Meters, vaults, fire department connections, and other utility equipment shall be located outside of the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the utility providers. h) The applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall identify separate services/meters PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 10 for each of the residential units, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Building and Electric Departments prior to building permit issuance. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. i) Any mechanical equipment installation shall be screened from view from Lithia way. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. j) Exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals along with appropriate shrouding to demonstrate that there will be no direct illumination of surrounding properties. k) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. The information shall be consistent with the colors, texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and approved as part of the land use application. Exterior building colors shall be muted colors, as described in the application. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the Detail Site Review Standards. l) The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.I. th m) That the recommendations of the Tree Commission’s July 5, 2012 meeting, where consistent with the applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall become conditions of approval and be incorporated into the building permit submittals. Street trees for planting on Lithia Way shall be selected from the “Lithia Way Recommended Street Tree List.” n) That a revised site plan shall be provided with the building permit which better addresses the space along the existing walkway to include “people-friendly” landscape treatments, details of pedestrian scale lighting design and placement, and a better connection between the walkway corridor and the front plaza space and/or entry to the side stairs, possibly to include steps of a height to accommodate occasional use for seating. The building permit submittals shall include identification of the four requisite plaza elements to be provided within the proposed plaza spaces and sidewalk pedestrian corridor. o) That the two required bicycle parking spaces shall be identified in the building permit submittals and installed prior to occupancy. The bicycle parking shall not be located in the building unless it can be demonstrated that the building meets the dimensional requirements for two bicycle parking spaces and all requirements of 18.92.060 including but not limited to that the bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50 feet of a well-used entrance and not farther from the entrance that the closest motor vehicle parking space. 8) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscape, landscaping, irrigation, parking, bicycle parking, walkways, sidewalks, street PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 11 trees, street lights and pedestrian scale on-site lighting shall be installed according to approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) Required bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.I and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. c) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, provision and maintenance of adequate fire apparatus access and access approach, adequate fire flow, fire hydrants and requisite hydrant clearance, a fire department connection (FDC), and a key box shall be satisfied. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered construction documents for public facilities. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor. d) An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with the Recycling Requirements of AMC 18.72.115.A. e) That the parking spaces provided shall be signed for hotel guest use only. f) That all public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalks, commercial hardscape parkrow with street trees, and city-standard street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupancy. ____________________________ ___________ Planning Commission Approval Date PA 2012-00740 160 Lithia Way Page 12 r' i F fix r�' yL PAM, has alp,_yr�io S Fv _ Y�iF-4YJt: ``yM k {NY Y L S f s Xf = L [ 1. 1 �r ;� oil t ry' 1 l