Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-12 Planning PACKET 2. 1 2 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES- Draft December 8, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Kerry KenCairn Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stef Seffiner, absent g II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained Chair Norton provided the annual commission update during the City Council meeting on December 1, 2020. The presentation went very well, and the Commission would receive a copy of the report. During the meeting the City Council passed the second reading of the Affordable Housing Standards amendments and approved first reading for the annexation on 1511 Hwy 99. The Housing Capacity Analysis Advisory Committee met December 7, 2020. Commissioners Thompson and KenCairn participated. The group will address Ashland’s existing and future housing needs for the next twenty years. Mr. Molnar provided the background that resulted in forming the committee. Both Commissioners KenCairn and Thompson spoke to the thoroughness and importance of the committee. Mr. Molnar went on to explain the applicants had submitted the building permit for the final phase to the downtown project for Plaza West, South, and North. Commissioner Pearce asked if it was possible for the Commission to access the reports and planning material from the Housing Capacity Analysis Advisory Committee. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman would forward the Power Point presentation to the Commission. III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. November 10, 2020 Regular Meeting Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the meeting on November 10, 2020. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. IV. The Commission declared no ex parte contact on the matter. Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2020-00021. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2020-00023 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 196 & 200 Clear Creek Drive Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 1 of 5 3 OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC/Bryan & Stephanie Deboer DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of an 11,220 square- foot, two-story mixed-use building for the properties at 196 and 200 Clear Creek Drive. The proposed building would consist of 1,268 square feet of office space, 8,052 square feet of warehouse space, and a single 1,584 square foot residential unit on the second floor. The application also includes requests for a property line adjustment to allow the consolidation of the two lots and a Variance/Major Modification of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA-2000-096) to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive where the “Vehicular Access and Circulation Standards” in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.5 and the subdivision approval both prohibit driveway access from Clear Creek Drive because alley access is available. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; MAP: 39 1E 09AB; TAX LOT #: 6604 & 6605 Chair Norton read the rules of the electronic public hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins declared no ex parte contact but knew the site. Commissioner Thompson and Pearce had no ex parte contact but had driven by the site. Commissioner KenCairn had walked the site but had no connection to the project and no ex parte contact. Commissioner Harper declared no ex parte contact and no site visit. Chair Norton had no ex parte contact but had visited the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Proposal Vicinity Map Clear Creek Frontage New Addition Subdivision Commissioner Dawkins asked if the bike lane came up to the railroad property. Mr. Severson explained it went 10-feet into the railroad property towards the tracks. There was approximately a 70-foot distance from the property line. The alley was 20-feet wide and another 10-feet for the bike lane that went onto the railroad property. Schematic Parking Lay-Out from Subdivision App. Alley/Bike Path Section Drawing Commissioner Thompson wanted to know if the bike path was improved and who was responsible for improving it. The bike path was not improved. The condition of approval stated the applicant would post a deposit to complete the improvements. Once that happened, the City would assume the maintenance. New Addition Architect’s Rendering Front Elevation (street-facing) Side Elevations Rear Elevation (alley-facing) Main Floor Plan Upper Floor Plan Site Plan Grading, Utility Preliminary Electric Plan Planting Plan Landscape Site Plan Plaza Space Variance & Subdivision Modification Schematic Parking Lay-Out from Subdivision App. Adopted RR Street Network Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 2 of 5 4 Parking & Parking Management Strategies Staff was generally supportive of the application provided the Commission thought the variances were merited and the parking was satisfactorily addressed. Questions of Staff Commissioner KenCairn asked about the wall and gate to the alley. Mr. Severson explained the applicant was proposing having a gate on the railroad property side. Commissioner KenCairn noted the two lots were originally supposed to share parking. Mr. Severson responded the conceptual plan showed circulation between the parking areas. The only condition requirement was that the two lots shared parking. Commissioner Thompson asked if the whole parking area was paved. Mr. Severson responded it was. Commissioner Thompson confirmed that circulation would be available only to the owner. Mr. Severson replied it would and explained the driveway at Clear Creek Drive could be used as a hammerhead to pull in then back out. Commissioner KenCairn observed it would remain a dead end alley for any other development. Mr. Severson responded the applicants had explained the driveway and the handicap parking place might combine to provide somewhat of a hammerhead for circulation back out. Commissioner KenCairn commented the dead end driveway would work for the applicant but would not help the rest of the development. Mr. Severson explained the original subdivision did not include any easement to support this and did not change the situation. Additionally, the conditions did not require it to be provided. Commissioner Thompson asked if the trucks could pull in from either direction to access the loading area. Commissioner Pearce noted there were two loading areas. Commissioner Thompson added the only way to access the front was through a separate loading dock. Commissioner Pearce commented that a 20-foot alley was large and used in urban settings. He disagreed that if a delivery was happening, another vehicle would not be able to pass the truck. Mr. Severson responded the paved area would be 16.5 feet wide. Commissioner Pearce clarified it could also be 20-feet wide. The alley would be the primary access for trucks. The other was intended to support circulation without using a turnaround. Commissioner Pearce asked if vehicles parked in the alley would have to back out. Mr. Severson confirmed they would. Commissioner Pearce asked what the code allowed. Mr. Severson explained the code did allow backing to an alley. Commissioner Pearce wanted the Commission to consider the correct standards during deliberation because practical difficulties were not a variance standard. Commissioner Dawkins did not think the paved portion of the alley was anywhere close to 20-feet. The parking spaces for buildings 1 and 2 went up to the alley. There did not appear to be enough space to add width on the north side of the alley. Adding four more feet would encroach on the bike path. Mr. Severson explained the paved portion of the alley was 16.5-feet, but the right of way was 20-feet. Commissioner Pearce added the right of way was planned at 20-feet and the bike path was separate. Commissioner Harper asked if the applicant provided staff with turning radius diagrams to show it would not interfere with the handicap parking space. Mr. Severson confirmed they had not, but the Commission could ask for that. Commissioner Harper asked about the prohibition for driveways onto Clear Creek Drive. Mr. Severson explained the standard had been in place for a long time. If there was alley access, a driveway from the street was not allowed. It was also supported in the Comprehensive Land Plan. Commissioner Harper asked why it was included as a condition when it was already in the code. Mr. Severson explained it was done so a buyer purchasing property and not aware of the code clearly understood they would not be able to have a driveway. Commissioner Thompson asked why the applicants wanted the Commission to grant them modifications to the parking standards. There was enough room on the site to satisfy the entire standard. Mr. Severson thought the applicants themselves Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 3 of 5 5 could respond better to the question. He thought they could have a few more parking spaces, but the backup dimension and circulation pattern did not allow enough room. Commissioner KenCairn commented having large trucks move through the site without the driveway would make it prohibitive. They did design it to themselves but in this instance, the original approval was not a good solution to the problem. Applicant’s Presentation Amy Gunter/Rogue Development Services/Carlos Delgado/Carlos Delgado Architects/Ms. Gunter explained the parking reduction was not an exception or a variance. It was an allowed joint use or mixed-use credit per the code. The code allowed for onsite reduction in parking by using the joint use of facility credits and mixed-use credits to allow reduction in pavement. It would also allow for uses that did not generate traffic and reduce parking on the site. It was a discretionary decision for staff or the Planning Commission. The requested number of spaces was based on the joint use or mixed use. It was sometimes predicated on what other developments or future developments were occurring in the vicinity. They wanted the driveway curb cut because the functionality of the site was challenging due to the size, shape, and the 8%-12% slope along the frontage of the property. The building was set at the grade of the alley. The distance and curve of the alley inhibited visibility and it was not gridded. It did not work well for employment properties seeking to have .50 floor area ratio uses that increased employment numbers. The applicants were trying to accommodate the four types of uses that were potential for the site. There was 32-feet between the sidewalk and the gate. Ms. Gunter addressed the driveway coming off the street. That area was not intended to be used as a parking space. It was for trucks to pull in and back into the gate. The condition spoke to a standard-length semi-truck. It would not be functional to move the gate back to accommodate a 53-foot semi-truck. The space was intended as a hammerhead and to access the site. Due to these issues with the site, this was their best effort to make it functional. When the subdivision was originally approved, they had not gone through the block standards. They could not dedicate an easement for the general public. The alley functioned as a dead end. The driveway would allow vehicles to turnaround and exit. The surface space of the alley would provide 22-feet of back up space. For adaptive reuse, when and if the uses intensified, there was potential to add additional parking to the site. Mr. Delgado concurred with Ms. Gunter’s comments on the back up space and parking. The alley was 18-feet or less paved. Ms. Gunter thought the design enhanced the neighborhood and area. There had not been development on this section of road in fourteen years. The application gave the ability of an E-1 zoned site to develop to E-1 level intensities. The variance request was merited because the subdivision did not meet subdivision spacing standards and the gridded street system. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Pearce read from the parking management strategy for mixed uses. The parking requirement was the sum for the several uses unless it could be shown by the applicant that the peak parking demands were offset. He asked if there was anything in the applicant’s submittals that showed peak parking demands were offset. Ms. Gunter responded the only joint use they were requesting was for the residential to offset the business use on the ground floor. The other ones were the on- street parking credits. The residential use was considered an evening use versus the daytime use of the office on the ground floor. Commissioner Thompson asked why additional parking spaces on the property would not work. Ms. Gunter explained the way the site was set up, additional parking spaces would be along the east side in the travel lane of the driveway. If the site intensified and modified, they would make accommodations for the tenants and add the additional parking spaces. The backup dimensions of the head in parking spaces in the covered parking area was 22-feet, almost to the door of the warehouse space. There was conflict in the different travel patterns that would happen on the site. Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 4 of 5 6 Commissioner Harper asked what the applicant’s position would be if the Commission found no basis for the variance. There was not a compelling reason to support a variance. Ms. Gunter responded it would not be developable as an E-1 property with large vehicle deliveries due to the lack of visibility in the alley. Mr. Delgado explained the reason both properties were purchased was to make it feasible. The subdivision approval made the lot practically unworkable due to the set up. The drive through made it workable. Public Testimony -None Chair Norton closed the public hearing and the record. Applicant’s Rebuttal - None Deliberation and Decision Commissioner KenCairn thought the difficulty of the site was not created by the client and the variance was warranted even though she thought the parking could be better designed. Originally, the alley should have been designed to come back around to Clear Creek Drive and connect. It was not a workable site with the long alley. She did not fully agree to the visibility issue. However, the alley was too long of a stretch to not be able to get back to the street. Commissioner Dawkins agreed. There was a conflict in the code previously pointed out. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Harper. It did not qualify for a variance. The alley width was 20-feet. There was plenty of space to unload and have vehicles get past. It was currently 16.5-feet but could be built out. The difficulty with the turnaround was the applicant did not design for it. The site was basically flat and not difficult in terms of the topography. The standard for a variance was having a unique, physical circumstance of the site. The final criteria for a variance was that it was not self-imposed. An applicant could not request a variance because a previous land use approval was granted. The conflicting uses was due to the applicants putting conflicting uses on the site. There was plenty of possible access from the alley, yet they were asking for access from the front. He would not support a variance approval and did not have a strong opinion regarding the amount of parking. Commissioner Harper/Pearce m/s to deny application for PA-T2-2020-00023. It did not meet the standards as outlined in the code and did not meet the criteria for a variance. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper reiterated Commissioner Pearce’s comments. The variance statue was manmade and not the reason the Commission should grant a variance. There was no basis for undermining the condition in the original approval that would justify the major modification. He thought they wanted to do more with the site than merited. That was not a reason for a variance. Commissioner KenCairn noted the subdivision was designed incorrectly and approved. What would have to happen to fix that. Commissioner Harper thought the applicants could dedicate the alley as a public alley way. They could wait for the adjacent property to be developed. Or, they could build a smaller E-1 building on Clear Creek Drive and create the circulation that fit the design. Commissioner Thompson had the same concerns about the variance standard. She would not go as far to say the subdivision was incorrectly designed. She thought the design did not easily accommodate the use the applicant wanted to apply to the site. The variance requirements were not satisfied. Chair Norton thought one of the things driving this was that the two lots were put together. It created a much larger warehouse but did not achieve the physical hardship necessary for a variance. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Norton, Harper, Thompson, and Pearce, YES; Commissioner KenCairn and Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 4-2. VI. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:27 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission December 8, 2020 Page 5 of 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION December 22, 2020 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Maria Harris, Planning Manager Kerry KenCairn Derek Diamond, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Lynn Thompson Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: lan Harper Stef Seffiner, absent Ag II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Norton introduced Lisa Verner as the new Planning Commissioner. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council passed second reading approving the annexation for 1511 Hwy 99 North at their meeting on December 15, 2020. During that meeting, they adopted the Vertical Housing Development Zone by resolution in the Transit Triangle Zone. The applicants for 196-200 Clear Creek Drive had been in contact with staff since the planning action denial during the Planning Commission meeting on December 8, 2020. The applicants were revisiting the design with a possible modification. If that happened, the planning action would be re-noticed, and the item would come back to the Commission. The Planning Commission would have an electronic joint commission meeting with the Housing and Human Services Commission, Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. Commissioner KenCairn joined the meeting at 7:14 p.m. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Changes in commercial space needs – A developer’s perspective Mr. Molnar provided background on the topic. During the Planning Commission’s retreat in 2018, they had discussed the impacts of technology on land use planning. This included autonomous vehicles and ecommerce. Also discussed were potential impacts to neighborhoods due to increased truck deliveries. In terms of commercial site planning, they had discussed how to accommodate loading facilities and service aisles differently. Another topic was how online purchasing might influence commercial employment as well as land and space needs. COVID-19 had the City evaluating working from home once the pandemic ended. National research suggested many communities had a surplus of land zoned for retail. The Commission had addressed some of that during the Transit Triangle Zone discussions on reducing commercial ground space to 35%. There was a potential for commercial and employment Ashland Planning Commission December 22, 2020 Page 1 of 3 17 land to be used to accommodate housing needs. He introduced Mark Knox and Laz Ayala who were present to speak to that potential. Laz Ayala/ Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks Court/Ashland/Spoke to the impact ecommerce, the wildfires and the pandemic had on the local economy. There was also the ongoing shortage of housing while there was a surplus of commercial space. They suggested using the surplus commercial space as temporary residential. The building would be built to commercial standards with 1 to 2-bedroom apartments until market demands changed. This would apply to areas outside the downtown area like North Mountain Avenue, Laurel Street, A Street, B Street to Hersey Street. They also suggested applying the vertical housing development zone to those areas as well. When the demand for commercial returned, the temporary residential could convert back to commercial within 4-6 months. Commissioner Thompson asked who would determine the market demand for commercial. Mr. Know responded it would be market driven. There would be no incentives involved. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know how they would preserve non-retail commercial space. Mr. Knox explained the current code required the ground floor to be 65% permitted use commercial or employment and 35% could be residential. The code would retain the 65% commercial space so long as it prohibited condominiums. The residential use would be temporary until there was demand for commercial. Once there was a demand, it would take 4-6 months to convert back to commercial. The second third floors could be residential. Chair Norton suggested homebuilders add a delivery box to their designs to keep packages secure. Commissioner Verner asked about tenant landlord law and providing notice. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the City adhered to state law. Commissioner Verner noted some agreements required 90-days and wanted to know how that would fit into the four to six-month conversion time. Mr. Knox thought it could be a provision included in the rental agreement. Mr. Ayala added it could not be less restrictive than state law. Mr. Goldman explained the restrictions and that there were exemptions to the standards. Chair Norton thought the suggestion should go to the City Council. If they supported it, the Planning Commission would start working on it. B.Code Amendment Options for State of Oregon Middle Housing (Duplex) Requirements Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached): House Bill 2001 (2019) Duplex Code Options Attached 2 Unit Diagrams nd Single Family Home – 1 Unit o Side by Side Duplex – 2 Units o Side by Side Duplex – photo o Stacked Duplex o Stacked Duplex o Duplex Examples o Detached 2 Unit Images nd 84 and 88 Dewey Street diagram and photos o 426 B Street and 170 Third Street diagram and photos o 117 8 Street and 859 C Street diagram and photos th o 240 and 244 Van Ness diagram and photos o Ashland Planning Commission December 22, 2020 Page 2 of 3 18 Per state law, they an ordinance in effect no later than June 30, 2021. Staff would use the feedback the Commission provide tonight for a future study session. Chair Norton noted the three public comments submitted on the topic. All three agreed with the recommendation in the staff report. Mr. Harris explained allowing two units on a lot in any configuration, attached or detached gave the property owner the opportunity to use the best design for their lot. They could work around any lost issues. The other layer was the approval process. It could be difficult explained why some projects required a building permit and others planning approval. Design standards, it is an issue of applying new design standards to any …permit. We would have to apply it to everything. Commissioner Verner asked for clarification on the design standards for a single-family residence and duplex. Ms. Harris explained the new state law required the same standards for a single-family residence applied to a duplex. Building a single-family residence and adding a second unit two years later would require a building permit. Commissioner Thompson asked about building volume. Ms. Harris explained the lot coverage and height limitation was the same. The number of units depended on the lot size. The new law did not double the number units allowed. If someone wanted to build four units, the lot size would have to be at least 13,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Pearce asked what was the residential zone LCDC , LCDC what is a residential zone, just zones for residential or is it any zone that might allow a single-family unit. Maria, they do have a definition uses permitted are primarily residential. Maria will look it up and send it to the commission. Ms. Harris would look up the definition the LCDC used for residential zones. The Commission agreed with the staff recommendation. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission December 22, 2020 Page 3 of 3 19 20 (®´²¤ "¨«« ͷ͵͵Ͷ Ȩͷ͵Ͷ;ȩ $´¯«¤·#®£¤ /¯³¨®­² 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 Since the initial public hearing in December, requests for a Variance and Major Modification of the New Addition subdivision approval (PA-2000-096) to allow a driveway to be installed from Clear Creek Drive have been removed from the proposal. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:7:00 P.M. on January 12, 2021 33 34 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A.Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B.Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards:The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design 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 Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. 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 Development and Design Standards. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1.Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. 2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. 35 36 Memo Senior Planner Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 37 Variance/Modification Parking Recommendation Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 38 A.Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, 39 density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B.Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design 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 Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. 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 Development and Design Standards. 1.Parcel Creation. No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment. 2.Lot Standards. Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lot’s standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones). 3.Access Standards. All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak. 40 41 “ The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” “ The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” 42 proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.” 43 44 45 “ The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” 46 all necessary public facilities, utilities and services are available to serve the six tax lots. Public facilities are located within the right-of- way of Clear Creek Drive and within the public alley adjacent to the project. The Commission finds that the multi-use path adjacent to the alley is required in lieu of increasing the Clear Creek Drive right-of-way to accommodate bicycle lanes. As a result, the multi-use path is a required street improvement that must be either installed, or planned and bonded for as part of the subdivision. 47 No additional parcel or lot is created by the lot line adjustment.” . Except as allowed for nonconforming lots, pursuant to chapter 18.1.4, or as required by an overlay zone in part 18.3, all lots and parcels conform to the lot standards of the applicable zoning district, including lot area, dimensions, setbacks, and coverage, per part 18.2. If a lot does not conform to the lot’s standards of the applicable zoning district, it shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment. As applicable, all lots and parcels shall identify a buildable area free of building restrictions for physical constraints (i.e., flood plain, greater than 35 percent slope, water resource protection zones).” All lots and parcels conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. Lots and parcels that do not conform to the access standards shall not be made less conforming by the property line adjustment.” 48 49 50 Chair 51 52 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 200 Clear Creek Drive RECONSIDERATION of PA-T2-2020-00023 Site Design Review Property Line Consolidation 53 December 22, 2020 Request for reconsideration for Site Design Review Approval for new mixed-use commercial building to eliminate variance request Subject Property Address: 196 – 200 Clear Creek Drive Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 09 AB; 6604, 6605 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment Zoning: E-1 Overlays: Detail Site Review Zone Residential Overlay Property Owner: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer 85 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Architect: Carlos Delgado Architects 217 Fourth Street Ashland, OR 97520 Land Use Planner: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 33 N Central Avenue #213 Medford, OR 97501 Engineer: Mark Dew 815 Bennett Medford, OR 97501 Landscape Design: Terrain Landscape Architect 33 N Central Avenue #210 Medford, OR 97501 54 Request: Request seeks reconsideration of the proposal PA-T2-2020-00023 for Site Design Review for an 11,220 square foot, two-story, mixed-use commercial building. The original proposal included a request to modify a condition of approval from the October 2000, New Addition Subdivision approval and sought a variance to allow for a driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive. This modified application removes the requested subdivision modification and the variance request. Summary list of modifications: The building was reduced in length by four feet. The building area was reduced from 11,220 to 10,956 square feet. Removed driveway curb cut from Clear Creek Drive eliminating variance and subdivision modification. The screening wall along the frontage is extended to enclose the parking area. Additional surface parking provided on-site accessed only from the alley. Requested parking management strategy to allow for on-street parkingof two spaces. The overhead garage door on the East side of the structure shifted North about six feet. The pedestrian entrance door on Warehouse B moved to the east side of the garage door eliminating a walkway. The steepness of the ramp at the rear of the building is reduced some by reducing the overall length of the building. The trash/recycle area at the rear of the property was relocated slightly to accommodate a hinged gate vs. a sliding gate. Details of Modified Proposal: The request is for Site Design Review for a 10,956 square foot, two story, mixed-use, commercial building. The 10,956 square foot building is proposed to have 1,268 square feet of ground floor office space. The office suite has two separate office spaces and a shared conference room. Each office suite has a prominent public entrance facing Clear Creek Drive. A portion of the ground floor, 316 square feet is dedicated to the entry area of the second-floor residential unit. To the east of the ground floor office and residential portion, the façade of the building continues with a three-sided and covered carport structure that is integrated into the horizontal plane of the building along the public street. The roof of the carport provides private outdoor space for the residential unit above. To the rear of the office space is a 4,748 square feet warehouse space. This warehouse space, Warehouse A, is proposed to be accessed from the secure parking area with a large roll-up garage door and an entry door. A second, 3,040 square foot warehouse space, Warehouse B, is to the rear of the larger warehouse. This space is accessed via the rear of the building, with an entry door and a roll up garage door. The uses are shell space for warehouse tenant and office tenant. Warehouse uses and office are both permitted uses in the zone. 55 The second floor is proposed to be 1,584 square feet. The residence is accessed via the front of the property from the public sidewalk, or from the secure parking area. The 316 square foot entry area has a small foyer and ½ bath, stairway up to the two-bedroom, two-bath unit above. Residential uses in the Employment zone with the Residential Overlay are special permitted use in the zone. The structure as a mixed-use will have fire occupancy separations and sprinklers and necessary to allow for the adaptive reuse of the ground floor spaces and provides safety protections for the residential unit as well. The structure is setback the minimum distance to provide clearance for the 10-foot public utility easement and to provide of the pedestrian plaza area between the structure and the front property line. To comply with the minimum floor area ratio of .50 FAR; 656 square feet of pedestrian plaza area is required. The development is subject to detail site review overlaystandards and requires one square foot of plaza space for every ten square feet of gross floor area. The 10,956 square foot structure requires 1,095.6 square feet of the plaza area. At the front of the building between the structure and the public right-of-way, 1,215 square feet of pedestrian plaza areas provided. The plaza area includes features for sitting space, areas with sunlight and shade, weather protection, and functional use. The two-story building is proposed as a barrel roofed structure. Strong orientation to the public street with accessible pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the ground floor commercial tenant office space is shown. The structure is required to be elevated above the street per the conditions of approval from the subdivision, a short run of stairs connects the pedestrian plaza areas to the entrance to the offices. The proposed conceptual landscape plan complies with Wildfire Standardsfor plant materials, irrigation measures limited placement of mulch, etc. Additionally, the proposal includes Firewise landscaping along the east side of the structure where within five feet of the structure. There are shade trees within the pedestrian plaza area, and irrigated street trees will be planted within the landscape park row. Maximum lot coverage: Up to 85 percent of the site is allowed to be covered with impervious surfaces, this includes all impervious surfaces including driveway, parking area, paths, and other solid surfaces. The proposal has 19,611square feet of surface coverage. This is 84.45 percent lot coverage. There is 15.55 percent landscape coveragewhich exceeds the minimum landscape coverage allowed. 56 Parking: There are 13 parking spaces required for the proposed development. The 1,268 square foot office area requires 2.5 parking spaces (1268/500=2.5). The warehouse areas require 7.78 spaces (7,788 / 1000 = 7.78) and the residential unit requires 1.75 spaces for a total of 12.03 spaces or, 13. The proposal provides for 11 of the required 13 parking spaces on-sitedistributed in two parking areas. The vehicular access to the parking areas is from the alley. Adjacent to the alley, five, head-in spaces are proposed. Four are standard automobile size and one will be compact. The required 22-foot back-up dimension is provided to the south side of the alley right-of-way. Near the east property line, the access to the secure parking area and the tenant space, Warehouse Ais proposed. This parking area has six standard size parking spaces, one of which is an ADA space. Three spaces are provided within carport structure. Adjacent to the carport are two surface parking spaces, these spaces are presently proposed as standard size. A sixth space is provided in the cantilevered canopy along the east wall of the structure. The proposed parking plan includes a request for on street parking credit utilizing allowed Parking Management Strategies (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). The combination of the eleven on-site parking spaces, and an on-street credit for two parking spaces, more than 50 percent of the required parking is provided on- site and a 14.5 percent reduction is sought. This reduction is substantially less than what the Planning Commission has granted on other proposals of similar size, location and uses. The proposed on-site parking areas are behind the front façade of the structure, and fully screened from view from the right-of-way, and to the rear of the proposed building. The proposed internal parking area, and the property perimeter, is proposed to be screened with a block wall and an electric gate accessible from the alley, that fully screens the interior parking area. The full screening and security fencing allow for uses in Warehouse Unit A that need additional safety measures and the screening allows for the adaptive use of the warehouse space for a business in the E-1 zone and with a special permitted use or conditional use permit review, outdoor storage is allowed when fully screened from view. Along the 248-feet of driveway, vehicular maneuvering area, and parking area, the acceptable width of landscape buffering is proposed. Of this length, an 18-foot section is reduced to three feet. This space will be buffered with a six- to eight-foot-tall screening wall or fence. Adequate bicycle parking will be in various locations around the site to provide the most convenient parking for the various users. There is a U-rack proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building visible from Clear Creek Drive. Under the cover of the covered parking area, two spaces are proposed. Within each warehouse unit, additional spaces are proposed. All proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential parking area. 57 Residential Dwelling Unit: The allowed residential density is .54 X 15 = 8.1 dwelling units. The proposed development has one unit proposed. The 316 square foot ground floor foyer and stairway for the residential unit is less than 35 percent of the 9,372 square foot ground floor area devoted to permitted or special permitted uses in the zone. Property Line Consolidation: The shared property line between Lots 5 and 6 of the New Addition Subdivision will be consolidated into one tax lot of record. The proposed site development crosses the property line nullifying it. No new lot of record is created. Jackson County Assessor and Surveyors office requires a Lot Line Consolidation form, this will be provided for through the Jackson County Assessor’s office. Findings of Fact: The following information addressing the findings of fact for the applicable criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant’s responses are in Calbri font. 58 Findings addressing Criteria from the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Site Development Design Standards Approval Criteria: 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. A. Underlying Zone. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Finding: It can be found that the proposal complies with the standards for mixed-use, commercial/residential development from 18.2. from commercial development in the Employment zone. The property is zoned Employment (E-1). The lot area and dimensions are increased through the proposed property line consolidation. There is no minimum or maximum lot dimension, or lot area in the E-1 zone. The proposed uses of the site are uses that are allowed as permitted, special permitted, and conditional uses. The majority of the property is proposed to be utilized for commercial/employment uses such as office, and warehouse/storage. These are permitted uses in the zone. The residence is a special permitted use. The proposed structure is oriented towards the public street and the covered, visually prominent, pedestrian-oriented entrances. The entrances are setback 16-feet from the front property line, the remainder of the façade is 10-feet from the street. The area between the building and the street is a public utility easement and there is a pedestrian plaza area between the sidewalk and the structure. Along the south side of the structure, there is a ten-foot public utility easement but there are no required structural setbacks. The rear setback of the building is 32’-8” to accommodate for head-in surface parking, landscape swale area, pedestrian access, vehicular access, and site circulation. The west side setback provides a five-foot, one-inch setback where the five-foot public pedestrian access easement is located. Openings along this side of the structure will comply with fire separation and fire rating standards. The proposed single residential unit is less than the allowed density of seven units in the zone. The conceptual landscape plan was designed as a Wildfire Overlay zone compliant and where landscaping is within five-feet of the structure, the landscaping is Firewise compliant. The plan calls for more than 15 percent of the site area to be landscaped. The landscape area includes a stormwater filtration system before the stormwater enters the onsite detention system that then overflows to the public system. The conceptual landscape plan includes substantially more trees that the required street trees, and two parking lot shade trees. The conceptual landscape plan demonstrates substantial 59 compliance with the standards. Depending upon species sizes, conditions and availability of proposed tree and shrub types the final landscape and irrigation plan will demonstrate that 15 percent of the site area is landscaped, seven percent of the total landscape area is in the parking and vehicle maneuvering area, that two (2), large stature parking lot shade trees and five (5), street trees in the parkrow will remain on the landscape plan. All sides of the structure have architectural interest. The front façade is spatially defined through the use of different materials. The primary material is a standing seam metal siding on a vertical orientation. There is split face, concrete masonry unit block, Hardie-board, and clear coated horizontal wood plank wall. The two-story portion of the proposed structure has a barrel-shaped roof, the single-story portion is a flat roof that provides a rooftop deck for the residential unit. With 28-feet, 4 ½ inches at the apex of the roof, the building is less than the maximum building height in the E-1 zone. The proposed structure complies with solar setbacks and the right-of-way at 60-feet in width and the 16-foot setback from the subject property’s north property line, solar shadow will fall within the street right-of-way. 18.2.3.130 Dwelling in Non-Residential Zone A. Dwellings in the E-1 zone are limited to the R-overlay zone. See chapter 18.3.13 Residential Overlay. Finding: The property is within the R-overlay. B. Dwellings in the E-1 and C-1 zones shall meet all of the following standards: 1. Mixed-Use Developments. If there is one building on a site, ground floor residential uses shall occupy not more than 35 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor. Where more than one building is located on a site, not more than 50 percent of the total lot area shall be designated for residential uses. At least 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor shall be designated for permitted uses and uses permitted with special use standards, not including residential uses. Finding: There is one building on the site. The gross floor area of the ground floor is 9,372 square feet. Of this, 9,056 square feet is designated for permitted uses and special permitted uses. There is316 square feet of the ground floor that is designated for residential uses which is 3.5 percent of the total gross floor area of the ground floor (316/9056 = .0349). This is less than the maximum allowed of 35 percent. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 15 dwelling units per acre in the E-1 zone, 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 zone, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D zone. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. 60 Finding: There is one residential dwelling which is less than allowed densities. Theallowed density of the property is seven units. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying zone. Finding: The setbacks, landscaping, and design standards that have been applied to the residence isthe same as those of the underlying E-1 zone. 4. Off-street parking is not required for residential uses in the C-1-D zone. Finding: The property is in the E-1 zone. Residential use requires 1.75 parking spaces. There are 11 parking spaces on-site and two requested on-street credits of the B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Finding: The property is subject to Basic and Detail Site Design Review. The property also has a residential overlay. The proposal complies with the standards for the overlay zones. Findings are detailed herein. The proposed landscape plan also complies with the standards from the Wildfire Hazards Overlay requirements and does not use plants from the prohibited plant list. C. Site Development and Design Standards. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. 18.4.2.040 Non-Residential Development Finding: The proposed development of the Employment zoned land with a mixed-use commercial structure will have a positive impact upon the Clear Creek Drive streetscape. The building is proposed to have a minimal front setback area. The building façade occupies the majority of the façade and there is clear, pedestrian and access from the public street to the entrance The residential foyer is connected to the commercial space allowing for a live / work scenario. 61 B. Basic Site Review Standards. 1. Orientation and Scale. Finding: The proposed building’s primaryorientation is towards Clear Creek Drive. The proposed parking is behind the building. There is no automobile parking or circulation between the building and the street. The building’s façade is 104-feet of the 141-foot wide frontage. The building façade occupies nearly 74 percent of the lot frontage. The façade occupies the majority of the lot’s frontage. Along the west side is a five-foot pedestrian access easement, shared with the adjacent property to the west. This space will be improved with compacted gravel walking surface for pedestrian access between the structures that is fire resistant, minimal maintenance and allows pedestrian passage but not loitering The building entrances are located within 20-feet of the street right-of-way. The entrances are clearly visible, an eight-foot door with transom window, lighting, pedestrian covering, and material changes all provide emphasis to the entrances. Public sidewalk and landscape park row exist along a portion of the frontage. The improvements complied with the standards for Clear Creek Drive at the time of the subdivision development. Pedestrian plaza area, with hardscape surface treatments between the sidewalk and the property provides pedestrian access to the street-facing business entrances directly accessible from the public sidewalk. 2. Streetscape. Finding: There are street trees shown on the proposed landscape plan within the park row along Clear Creek Drive. The street trees species, size, spacing and planting depths complies with 18.4.4.030.E. 3. Landscaping. Finding: The conceptual landscape plan provides landscape area accounting for 3,947 square feet, or 17 percent of landscape coverage. This complies with the minimum required landscape standard of 15 percent of the site. A common recycle and refuse area is on the site, screened from view, and accessible from the alley. 62 The landscape area includes a stormwater filtration system before the stormwater enters the onsite detention system that then overflows to the public system. The conceptual landscape plan includes substantially more trees that the required street trees, and two parking lot shade trees. The conceptual landscape plan demonstrates substantial compliance with the standards. Depending upon species sizes, conditions and availability of proposed tree and shrub types the final landscape and irrigation plan will demonstrate that 15 percent of the site area is landscaped, seven percent of the total landscape area is in the parking and vehicle maneuvering area, that two (2), large stature parking lot shade trees and five (5), street trees in the parkrow will remain on the landscape plan. The conceptual landscape plan was designed as a Wildfire Overlay zone compliant and where landscaping is within five feet of the structure, the landscaping is Firewise compliant. 4. Designated Creek Protection. Finding: Not applicable 5. Noise and Glare. Finding: All artificial lighting will comply with the standards of 18.4.4.050. There are no residential zones in the vicinity of the project site. 6. Expansion of Existing Sites and Buildings. Finding: Not applicable C. Detailed Site Review Standards. Finding: The subject property is within the Detailed Site Review Standards Overlay. 1. Orientation and Scale. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Finding: 63 The proposed structure and the pedestrian plaza area complies with the Floor Area Ratio of .50 (11,761 square feet). The proposed structureis 10,956 square feet and there is 1,215 square feet of pedestrian plaza area proposed for a total FAR of 12,171 square feet which is more than the required 11,761 square feet. The building frontage is 104-feet in length. There are distinctive offsets and material changes in the façade and in the building height along the facade that break up the massing and scale of the structure. All of the front façade walls are within 30-feet of the public street. Substantially more than 20 percent of the wall areafacing the street is windows or doorways. The windows allow view into the working areas of the offices. There are large windows on either side of the commercial business entrance. There is a cantilevered overhang to protect pedestrians from the elements. No blank walls are proposed. 2. Streetscape. Finding: Colored and scored concrete isproposed to designate people areas from the public sidewalk. The building is required to be set back more than five feet due to the public utility easement. The area is proposed to be used for pedestrian activities and outside eating areas. 3. Buffering and Screening. Finding: Landscape buffers are proposed between the surface parking spaces adjacent to the alley and the west property line. A landscape buffer of five feet is proposed along the majority of the east side of the parking area. The parking area and the interior area of the site is proposed to be screened from the adjacent railroad property with a six-foot- tall solid panel and CMU building material screen. Where the landscape buffer reduces to less than five feet for 18-feet of the 285.62 feet of property line, an exception is sought to accept the reduced landscape buffer with the six-to-eight-foot tall, solid panel or masonry wall to buffer the parking from the adjacent property. 4. Building Materials. Finding: 64 More than 15 percent of the exterior walls have substantial changes in relief. There is a substantial base, there are changes in façade materials with the use of vertical standing seam metal siding, split-face concrete block, horizontal, wooden plank siding, and hardboard. There are bronze colored, aluminum storefront style windows and doors. No bright or neon paint colors are proposed the majority of the building is not glass. D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. Finding: The property is within the detail site review overlay and the structure is proposed to be more than 10,000 square feet in area. The building is oriented towards Clear Creek Drive. The buildings mass along the street is divided into two separate masses. The structure has a human scale incorporated though the changes in setback and orientation in materials. A sheltering roof to provide pedestrian shelter and adds a horizontal element to the front façade. The pattern of the windows and the doors is distinct and relates to the spaces within the structure. The building does not exceed 45,000 square feet with 10,956 square feet in area. The building length is not more than 300-feet. The proposed building requires 1,095.6 square feet of pedestrian plaza space. The plaza spaces are provided along the sidewalk between the building and the street. The plaza spaces incorporate sitting space, space for eating, a mixture of sunlight and shade areas under the marquee and near the plaza area trees. The plaza area surface includes colored and or scored concrete. 18.4.3 Parking Access and Circulation: Finding: There are 13 parking spaces required for the proposed development. The 1,268 square foot office area requires 2.5 parking spaces (1268/500=2.5). The warehouse areas require 7.78 spaces (7,788 / 1000 = 7.78) and the residential unit requires 1.75 spaces for a total of 12.03 spaces rounded to 13. The proposal provides for 11 parking spaces on-site. Five (5) of the parking spaces are accessed directly from the public alley at the rear of the property. There is a driveway from the alley leading into a fully enclosed, secure parking area. This parking area has six (6) spaces. Three of the spaces are provided within the carport structures. Two are surface and another space is provided along the east wall of the structure, parallel to the structure under a cantilevered canopy. 65 There are four on-street parking spaces along the frontage of the property. There are two on- street parking spaces credits sought with the proposal. Utilizing allowed Parking Management Strategies (AMC 18.4.3.060.A). One off-street parking space credit is allowed when there is more than 22-feet of uninterrupted curb frontage contiguous to the lot, when the arterial street is greater in width than the minimum established by the section and not within 200-feet of the C- 1-D or SOU Zone. The combination of the eleven on-site parking spaces, and an on-street credit for two parking spaces provides more than 50 percent of the required parking on-site and a reduction of 14.5 percent reduction is sought. This reduction is substantially less than what the Planning Commission has granted on other proposals of similar size, location and uses. The proposed on-site parking areas are behind the front façade of the structure, and to the rear of the proposed building or screened behind the wall / fence. The proposed internal parking area and warehouse vehicle and delivery maneuvering area is proposed to be screened with a block wall and an electric gate that fully screens the site from the public rights-of-way of the street and the alley, and from the adjacent properties to the east. The security fencing allows for uses in warehouses that need additional safety measures and/or, the screening allows for the adaptive use of the warehouse space for a business in the E-1 zone and with a special permitted use or conditional use permit review where outdoor storage is allowed when fully screened from view. Adequate bicycle parking will be in various locations around the site to provide the most convenient parking for the various users. There is a U-rack proposed behind the sidewalk at the front of the building visible from Clear Creek Drive. Under the cover of the covered parking area, two spaces are proposed. Within each warehouse unit, additional spaces are proposed. All proposed bicycle parking areas will comply with the bicycle parking standards. The bicycle parking will be located in a manner that provides adequate commercial customer and residential parking area. There is an ADA, van accessible parking space proposed in the parking area adjacent to the building with an accessible route to the pedestrian entrance. Vehicular accessis required from the public alley at the rear of the property. 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location 66 Finding: All proposed parking is behind the façade of the structure and is to the side of the structure and is access solely from the alley. B. Parking Area Design. Finding: A parking lot area is access via a driveway from the rear of the property. The parking area provides parking spaces of 9’ X 18’ deep and all have more than 22-feet of back up and maneuvering area. There are fivehead in spaces adjacent to the alley along the south property line. The parking spaces are buffered from the structure with landscape planters that will function as stormwater swales. This parking area is designed to capture and treat surface run-off through the landscape swale. These parking spaces have the necessary 22-feet of back up to the far side of the public right-of-way. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces are required to be covered in a manner which will reduces the microclimatic impacts of the parking spaces. Though not required, the proposal makes every attempt to comply with AMC 18.4.3.050.B.5. There are parking lot shade trees and parking lot landscape buffers that comply with the standards for parking area design. C. Vehicular Access and Circulation. Finding: The vehicular access to the site is allowed only from the public alley at the rear of the property. The alley is paved with asphalt and a concrete valley gutter. The alley has a 20-foot wide right- of-way and is paved with between 15-feet to 16.5-feet of asphalt. The surface of the alley is in poor condition with severe cracking and vegetation growth though the alley surface. The “as- builts” were unable to be located by the public works department thus, the construction techniques of the alley and the subgrade conditions are unknown. The alley being the only allowed access to the site for vehicular traffic causes concerns due to the distance from the property to the alley intersection with Clear Creek Drive and that the alley cannot be seen from the street right-of-way. Additionally, the alley surface is in a poor condition for nearly the entire length of the alley, the surface conditions concern the property owner as they cannot fix the entire length of the commercial alley to achieve minimum access for vehicles. The property owner is seeking agreement from the city of Ashland that the alley will be maintained by the city and improved to a level to with stand commercial vehicle access by the city. 67 The proposed development has proposed a circulation system that accommodates vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the site. There are all weather surfaced, pedestrian connections on the site that lead from the parking areas to the structure. There are pedestrian connections from the street to the structure as well. 18.4.7 Signs. Finding: The signs for the individual businesses will comply with the sign code standards for sign area based upon business frontage with the sign sizes varying based on the tenant needs. 18.4.8 Solar Access. Finding: To the north, there is a 60-foot-wide right-of-way for Clear Creek Drive. The proposed structure complies with the solar setback as the rights-of-way are allowed to be shadowed by development. D. City Facilities. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding: Adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed development. All plans will be submitted to the City of Ashland Public Works Department, Engineering Division and the City of Ashland Electric Division for review and approval. Sanitary Sewer - The property is currently served by an 8-in sanitary sewer main in Clear Creek Drive. The existing main ends short of the end of the current street improvements so the main will be extended from the existing terminus to a spot adjacent to the new development. Water - The property is currently served by an 8-in water main in Clear Creek Drive. City of Ashland Water Department will tap the existing water main and install the new water services and water meter boxes that are proposed. Storm Drainage - The property is currently served by a 12-in storm sewer main in Clear Creek Drive. Storm Water Facility Design Requirements 68 The development will create more than 2,500 square feet of impervious surface, the proposed stormwater drainage facility plans created by the project civil engineer complies with the requirements of the DEQ MS4 General Permit phase 2. The proposal follows the guidance and requirements set forth in the current Rogue Valley Stormwater Quality Design Manual. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design 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 Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty; Finding: Not applicable 2. 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 Development and Design Standards; or Finding: The parking space adjacent to the property line has three feet of landscape buffering where five feet typically required. In addition to the three feet of surface buffering with landscaping, a six- to-eight-foot tall, solid panel fence and masonry wall is proposed to fully screen the parking spaces. On the adjacent property that is to be screened, there is a 10-foot wide storm water easement and swale. There is no development on the adjacent property. The buffering of the parking space with landscape and a fence/wall better achieves the protection of public health and safety by creating a physical barrier between the parking space and the drop off into the storm water ditch. The screening will not have a negative impact on the livability of the adjacent employment zoned with no residential overlay. The exception seeks a reduction in buffer width for only 18-feet of a 258-foot length of parking and driveway surface. This is minimal when considering the length of the property along the shared property line. 69 3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. (Ord. 3147 § 9, amended, 11/21/2017) Finding: Not applicable 70 77