HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-10 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is
not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
April 10, 2018
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
IV.CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. March 13, 2018 Regular Meeting.
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2018-00154, 601 Washington Street.
VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00429
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 469 Russell Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/KDA Homes, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new 11,296
square foot, two-story mixed-use building at 469 Russell Street. The 5,648 ground floor
space is to be used for corporate offices while the second floor will consist of seven
residential condominiums ranging in size from 482 to 834 square feet per unit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1;
39 1E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2802
A. Planning Commissioner Representative for Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study Project
Advisory Committee
XI.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104
ADA Title 1).
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 13, 2018
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the zone change for PA-2017-02129 475 East Nevada would
go before the City Council March 20, 2018. Today, staff received an addendum from the applicant requesting flexibility
regarding the affordability requirements. The wildfire ordinance was scheduled for review during the March 27, 2018
Study Session. However, the changes were so minor there was no need to meet until it came back as a public hearing.
At this time, they were not sure there would be a Study Session March 27, 2018. A non-profit housing advisor was
working with the Rogue Credit Union regarding housing on the remainder of the property on Ashland Street.
Commissioner Dawkins added the Council had directed Planning staff during the last Council meeting to bring the
Croman Mill site back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar clarified it would take a few months. They would first
work on a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the property owners. Council wanted the Commission to at least
evaluate some changes regarding housing on the west side of the area.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.February 13, 2018 Regular Meeting.
2.February 27, 2018 Study Session.
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of February 13, 2018. DISCUSSION: Commissioner
Thompson wanted a clarification in the minutes of February 27, 2018, regarding the balancing test during the Wildfire
Lands ordinance discussion. Mr. Molnar explained staff would clarify the language pertaining to the criteria for
adjustments regarding balancing wildlife habitat and aesthetics. It seemed there were two approvals. Commissioner
Thompson did not think the minutes captured the clarification. Staff would provide some suggested wording later.
Commissioner Miller clarified the motion was to approve minutes from the meeting on February 13, 2018, not the
meeting February 27, 2018. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 1 of 9
Commissioner Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of February 27, 2018 with clarification.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Thompson wanted the last sentence before UPDATES on page 5 to read,
incorporate language regarding fences and revise wording in Section 2-
Voice Vote: Commissioners Norton, Thompson, Dawkins, Mindlin, and Brown, YES. Commissioner Miller was
not present for the meeting and abstained. Motion passed 6-1.
PUBLIC FORUM - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter. Commissioner Dawkins noted he had received
comments from individuals who supported his vote on the issue.
Commissioners Miller/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Commissioner Dawkins reminded the Commission the building at 181 A Street could house a range of outright
permitted uses and that marijuana retail was legal.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2018-00154
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 601 Washington Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: South Ashland Business Park LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural
Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a
light industrial business park for the property located at 601 Washington Street. The application
Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the
property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an Exception to Street Standards
for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree Removal
Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height
(d.b.h.).COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: Existing County RR-5,
Proposed City E-
Chair Pearce explained the planning action was a combination of Type II and Type III. The proposed
annexation and the rezone were both Type III decisions and the Planning Commission would make
recommendations to the City Council. The Commission would make conditional decisions on the site review
and the exception to the street standards. They would also make conditional decisions on the conditional
use permit, the limited use activity permits, the water resources and tree removal permit. It would go to
Council as a recommendation. Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use
hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Miller, Norton, Thompson, Dawkins, and Brown declared no ex parte and one site visit. Chair Pearce
and Commissioner Mindlin declared no ex parte and both drove past the site separately.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson explained the subject property was a 5.38-acre parcel near the curve on Washington
Street between Washington and Jefferson Streets. The subject property had the Knoll Creek water resource
protection zone. There was a possible wetland identified in the water resource map. Independent Way would
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 2 of 9
eventually connect from Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road. The City issued a ministerial extension and
obtained the right of way. Currently, the City was working on permits with the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), the Department of State Lands (DSL) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to complete improvements in
the creek corridor crossing. In the future Washington Street would extend and connect to Benson Road and
Crowson Road. Eventually a railroad crossing identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) would connect to
the Croman Mill site.
The first of four phases of the South Ashland Business Park included two flexible spaces, light industrial units, and a
space comparable to the buildings along Hersey Street. There would be a driveway system and parking around the
site. An office building would be at the south east corner of Washington Street. A stormwater outfall at the northwest
corner of the site near the driveway outlet would empty stormwater into the Knoll Creek corridor.
The application included a site section, utility, grading, planting, and tree protection plans. The tree protection plan
would currently protect the three Oaks along the driveway. The trees would go into the driveway when the later
phase was completed. The applicants proposed to protect the trees and address them when the Phase IV site
review happened. The Tree Commission reviewed and supported the application recommending approval as
submitted.
Staff had been trying to balance the constraints of the right of way that included the proximity to the freeway. Another
issue was the entire improvement was within right of way. The Street Standards envisioned Washington
Street as an avenue that would include bike lanes in both directions, automobile lanes, sidewalks and park rows.
The standard cross section included the potential for a third lane with a median return lane in the middle. Staff did
not think that would be appropriate in this location. The cross section required bike lanes in both directions. It was
problematic with the freeway. The Avenue function of the street would connect through all of the areas. The
Washington, Jefferson, Benson, and Croman areas comprised 77% of the buildable employment land in the
Buildable Land Inventory (BLI).
The applicants presented a number of options to address the standards and avenue functions. Options A & B would
install a multi-use path or a sidewalk on the property frontage without a park row to buffer pedestrians and bicyclists
from the travel lanes. There were concerns not having a buffer along the avenue given avenue speeds and truck
traffic. Staff supported Option C. It included a park row and sidewalk although it extended into the wetland. They
were recommending that improvement happen with the second phase. The applicants would go through the
permitting process at the state and federal level. It was appropriate to mitigate those impacts for the wetland along
the creek corridor. The issue was balancing a roadside emergent ditch wetland versus the long-term function of the
avenue.
Staff recommended the following:
An Exception was appropriate to not have sidewalks or park row planting strips on the freeway side of
Washington Street.
Automobile travel lanes and bike lanes were needed in both directions, placed so that no relocation of the
guardrail was required.
Seven-foot landscaped park rows and six-foot sidewalks were needed on the full frontage. They could be
installed over the first two phases but completed with the second phase. Wetland impacts could be
mitigated in the Knoll Creek corridor.
Staff would support a compromise if a federal or state wetland permits denial happened and the applicant
could not install a park row. The compromise would remove the park row in certain areas to avoid wetland
impact. The applicant would plant larger stature trees at the edge of the wetland instead.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 3 of 9
Option C was the compromise the applicants were proposing. The sidewalk would go into the wetland along the
northern portion of the site. The applicants proposed having the sidewalk go curbside with a full park row on the north
end during Phase 1. A park row would exist in a brief section from the south. Instead of a park row by the wetland,
the applicants would plant appropriate trees to provide canopy coverage. This configuration would also
accommodate a bike lane on the freeway side without relocating the guardrail. It was a reasonable option and it
addressed some of the concerns raised.
Another concern was the trip cap the applicants had proposed to address the state transportation planning rule. The
cap would limit trips to no more than 910 average daily trips for the uses of the site.
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan & Land Use Regulation Amendments (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a
local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met.
a)The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation and the
amendment does not change the Comprehensive Plan Map;
b)The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the
TSP; and
c)The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an
urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the areas was
exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP
amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area.
Staff could make a finding there was no significant impact on the transportation facilities without imposing the trip
cap. The proposed zoning was consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and Ashland had an acknowledged
Transportation System Plan (TSP). The subject property was not exempted from the urban growth boundary review.
The Commission could make a finding that the transportation rule should not apply. In this case, the zone change
was not changing the planned city zoning for the property. It was still zoned E-1.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson explained the applicants could speak to whether their transportation engineer factored in the proposed
improvements during their analysis. The allowance in the TPR was wfor
development within the urban growth boundary (UGB).
Commission concern commented this one development was pushing beyond the scope of what the facilities could
handle in the future. Would it end up being an aggregate impact that would dramatically increase the traffic problem?
Mr. Severson explained the improvements in the TSP with Independent Way and extending Washington Street to
Benson Way would provide the gridded system to accommodate future growth.
lands so there were significant connections. It envisioned avenue level improvements to accommodate growth.
The Commission expressed concern on the changes regarding the distance between the guardrail and wetland. It
now appeared there was more than initially presented. Mr. Severson responded the applicants determined they
could fit the improvement between the guardrail and the wetland.
Engineering the street would happen in Phase II. The City did not have a formal wetland delineation. The applicants
had a wetlands biologist look at the wetland boundary and prepared a preliminary delineation map. They were
striving to stay out of the wetland and needed a wetland delineation the state and federal departments would approve
prior to Phase II. Condition 12 requested the applicant to provide engineer design drawings before Phase II if Option
C was chosen. The applicant would prepare and submit a formal wetland delineation division of state lands and
secure the requisite city, state, and federal permits.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Mindlin noted a difference in wetland placement from
Mr. Severson explained Exhibit 9 in the application contained a preliminary delineated map that at this time had not
been approved by the state. It looked like the rendering was translated onto the drawings throughout their
application.
Commissioner Brown asked if it adversely affected the project to have the wetland delineation moved to Phase I. Mr.
Severson thought it was a reasonable request for the Commission to make.
Commissioner Norton could not find Independent Way in the Comprehensive Plan and wanted to know if it was in the
2012 TSP. The applicants had based their analysis and numbers on the installation of Independent Way.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar confirmed the TSP was amended in 2012. At that time, staff amended
the transportation and street dedication map and added Independent Way. It was one of many projects anticipated
over the next twenty years based on existing Comprehensive Plan designations. Some projects could be phased or
certain requirements of facilities could reach a level of capacity before specific improvements would occur.
The second bike lane would go in at the time a full city improvement occurred to the broader corridor. The Planning
Commission and City Council could also determine it was more appropriate to have it go in as part of this project
instead. As the applicants had proposed in Option C, they wanted to complete two 10-foot travel lanes and one six-
foot bike lane. The rest of the improvements would be paid for as a possible City street project or a Local
Improvement District (LID). Currently it was not identified in the TSP.
Staff had a concern about potential loss of employment to a conditional use for a storage unit business. The
Commission could attach a condition to block that from happening.
Mr. Molnar clarified Condition 8 required both bike lanes to go in at the time of Phase II. Mr. Severson further
clarified the applicants had amended that since and were now proposing not to install one bike lane. The
Commission could decide what was appropriate.
Jay Harland/CSA Planning/4497 Brownridge Terrace/Medford, OR/Responded to the TPR question and
explained when a transportation impact analysis occurred for a development typically they only looked at existing and
funded projects the Public Works Department would build in the foreseeable future. The transportation analysis for
the project included Independent Way as one of those projects. Exceeding the mobility standards would happen in
the future when additional connectivity was present. For background growth, the traffic engineer used a 1.8%
increase in traffic per year. The study extended over 20 years to analyze the intersection performance. Some of that
growth was attributable to development occurring consistently with the Comprehensive Plan under the zoning
considered for the Comprehensive Plan.
Some of the target employment users for the proposed South Ashland Business Park included:
Small and expanding manufacturing.
Prototyping activities.
Small scale repair.
Small-scale niche wholesaling.
Target uses tend to be very price sensitive.
Absorption Rates is difficult to predict, which creates project risk.
Site plan design would include:
A respect for the environmental constraints wetlands and Knoll Creek corridor.
Orients buildings to the street where environmental constraints allow.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 5 of 9
Minimal parking between the buildings and the street is proposed.
Rooflines and elevations will create an attractive step-up from north to south.
Building design included:
Earthen tone color palate will complement environmental features on the site that are being retained.
Gable rooflines will be attractive as they step up from north to south.
Split-face block wainscoting will be wainscoting will provide a texture and surface relief from the rest of the
metal surface, while creating a product that satisfy price points for the target project users.
Regarding public facility adequacy, there was substantial evidence in the record that demonstrated:
The applicants professional transportation engineer prepared a transportation impact analysis (TIA) and
that analysis demonstrates that, with the applicants Trip Cap stipulation to build the project out as a
Business Park, adequate transportation facilities exist to serve the project.
uary 11, 2018 that stated:
Storm Drainage design will not increase storm drainage loading on the down-stream system for the
o
25-year design storm and a design that satisfies applicable water quality requirements is feasible.
The existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line is adequate to serve the project.
o
The existing 8-inch water main in Washington Street is adequate to serve the project.
o
Conversations between the applicant and Ashland Power did not identify any supply concerns for this area,
but care will need to be taken for power services to optimize tenant services.
The applicant objected to the wetland fill in Option C. Mr. Harland distributed 2-D drawings that showed the increase
in wetland area. The back of the sidewalk would require a handrail to prevent pedestrians from falling off the
retaining wall.
located the flags. The map accurately represented the wetland location. Schott and Associates thought getting the
permits to fill the wetland may be impossible to attain. It was common for cities to eliminate a park row and install a
retaining wall to avoid impact on the wetland. It was often done from a street standard standpoint.
Washington Street Improvements
The applicant had developed multiple street improvement options that avoided wetland impacts (as required
under state and federal law) while satisfying near-term and long term transportation needs over the last 9
months with City staff.
All of the options offered by the Applicant would result in adequate transportation facilities for the project.
Following receipt of the staff report on Tuesday afternoon, the applicant prepared an additional improvement
option that would be acceptable to the applicant.
Options A, B and C did not include a retaining wall. In the options with the bike lanes there may have been a small
retaining wall on the freeway side but not in the wetland buffer. The staff report and recommendation resulted in
Option E:
The applicant would construct a sidewalk, park row, a curb, a bike lane, and two travel lanes where this
cross-section can be achieved without filling any wetlands-leaving room for the city to construct a bike lane
and curb west of the ODOT guardrail.
The applicant would construct a retaining wall at the wetland boundary, a sidewalk, curb, bike land, and two
travel lanes leaving room for a future bike lane and curb west of the guardrail.
The above improvements would be completed as a condition of development prior to Phase 2 of the project.
The applicant requested the following:
The Planning Commission approve the application with Option A in the initial submittal or Option E, the
Washington Street Improvement presented this evening.
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 6 of 9
If the Planning Commission believes it needs specific details on its preferred improvement option prior to
formal approval, then the applicant requests the Planning Commission provide clear direction to staff on a
preferred Washington Street Improvement Option A or E. None of which require any wetland fill. The
Commission could leave the record open for fourteen days for this specific purpose.
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Harland addressed the bike lane adjacent to the freeway and explained even though they designed the option, they
did not want to install it due to costs. The retaining wall would cost $50,000. Typically, developments were required to
do a half street improvement. For this project, the half street would include the retaining wall, sidewalk, bike lane, and
two travel lanes. It came down to what the applicant was obligated to pay for versus what was a priority for the City. If
the City asked the applicants to complete the street improvement and waived SDC charges, most clients would take
that offer. It was a question of priority and if the City wanted the SDCs to go to other areas.
The multiuse path would accommodate walking traffic and two-way bike traffic. The retaining wall would go towards
the south and eventually catch up with the grade. Removing the park row would significantly reduce or eliminate the
retaining wall except south up the hill. The multiuse path was 10-feet. Option A had the multiuse path. Option E did
not.
Mr. Harland confirmed the applicant had not yet proposed the preliminary wetland delineation to the state. The wetland
delineation process would not affect Phase I. Mr. Severson added Exhibit 9 had the wetland at .148 acres.
Public Testimony
Mark DiRienzo/Ashland/Addressed a letter he submitted into the record. His concern was not just about controlling
self-storage. It was employment density. The annexation was an opportunity to enforce employment density. The City
needed to approve projects like this and ensure it provided jobs. The project looked like a potential storage facility. If
it was an incubator/prototype space, then the applicant should have no issue with conditions that forced it to remain as
such. Currently in Ashland, many employment buildings were being rented to people unrelated to the business in the
building to store belongings. In E-1 zones, any type of warehousing had to relate to the business on site. That was not
happening and enforcement was difficult. He asked the Commission to hold the applicant accountable to keeping the
space available for businesses with actual numbers and jobs.
Thomas Kennedy/Ashland/Suspected a large business would go into the location immediately. There were several
big truck docking spaces. It also looked like one building. Would small businesses move in and purchase space
later? He was concerned about potential truck traffic and the impact it could have on Ashland Street. The potential
of 900 trips a day was substantial for that intersection. Even with the connections to Crowson it would be
approximately 450 trips a day in an eight-hour period. Another concern was the wetlands and water flow. He wanted
more detail on the building design in terms of the docks and whether there would be more traffic than what the
applicant implied. Nine hundred trips divided by eight hours broke down to 100 turns on Ashland Street per hour.
Rebuttal by Applicant
Mr. Harland responded to traffic concerns. The truck percentages for the project were based on ones ODOT
required for their scoping letter. ODOT did not have any issues with what the applicant submitted.
Evan Archerd/1256 Eagle Mill Road/Provided his background in development. The project would meet the needs
did not
want a big business with one owner. However, if someone needed 5,000 square feet and had a viable business for
Ashland that would employ people, they would support that effort. The project offered a range of space from 2,000
square feet to 5,000. They were concerned about the wetland area. He was philosophically opposed to filling a
wetland. From a business standpoint, they needed a defined outcome. They could not move forward and build
Phase I and somehow figure the wetland area out in Phase II. They wanted an option for Washington Street that did
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 7 of 9
not involve the federal and state governments for approval. This was land owned by ODOT. The revised option
provided everything the City would like regarding bike and travel lanes except for 120-feet of the roadway that would
have a curbside sidewalk. It was the equivalent of two residential lots. It was a good trade off.
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioner Mindlin thought the freeway side needed a bike lane traveling northbound. She suggested not having
a bike lane going south. It would be easy for bike and pedestrian traffic traveling south to turn right onto other streets
without crossing traffic. If the Commission agreed, they might be able to negotiate an improvement for the entire
street. Mr. Molnar commented there was a couple months before the item went to Council. He was meeting with the
Public Works Director about possible cost sharing with the City. The City participating in the bike lane along the
freeway was a minor commitment and justified through SDC credits for the project. The System Development
Charge Committee recently reconvened. They wanted staff to evaluate the list of improvements. This was a logical
one to evaluate.
Commissioner Norton explained currently Jefferson Street and Washington Street did not have bike lanes. There
was a 42-foot right of way that allowed for 8-foot parking. The travel lanes were 13-feet wide. A wider travel lane
encouraged traffic to go faster. There were no bike lanes but there was a 13-foot travel lane that when cars parked,
it slowed traffic. There was a tremendous amount of bike traffic on Jefferson Street and the 13-foot travel lane
worked. He liked the idea of one bike lane and removing park rows when there was a retaining wall. Commissioner
Miller thought the wider lanes would benefit truck traffic.
Commissioner Norton added the new building for Modern Fan had nothing. It was unimproved. The other Modern
Fan building had either a 6-foot or 8-foot sidewalk with a park row following the curve.
Commissioner Miller appreciated
Commissioner
supported recommending Option E to Council. It would require bike lanes on both sides of the road and no park row
along the fence. The City would try and underwrite the bike lane next to the freeway.
The rezone was an allowed use and consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Miller was interested in
having something that prohibited using the property for storage. Chair Pearce explained as a Type III legislative
approval the Council had a wide range of discretion and could add that as a restriction. Mr. Molnar clarified Council
could make it clear one of the key findings for supporting annexation was the potential for employment. If a conditional
use permit came up in the future to convert to mini storage, it should come before the Planning Commission in a public
hearing. As part of that application, it should address how it will affect employment. There was an aspirational
guideline for the Croman Mill site having a target number of employees per 1,000 square feet but it was not codified.
Commissioner Brown addressed the trip cap in Conditions of Approval Item #1. From what Chair Pearce read in their
transportation study, except for the existing streets, the only improvement they assumed was the IPCO. The TSP
contemplated this use and it fit within the exception in OAR 660 12060 sub 9. He did not think a trip cap was necessary.
The Commission agreed. Commissioner Brown clarified that item #1 under Conditions would end the sentence at,
and delete language regarding a trip cap.
Mr. Severson confirmed the City had purchased the property for Independent Way. The project would begin soon. For
the Tolman Creek Road improvement, they were working on the design and right of way acquisition. Commissioner
Thompson was concerned about traffic on the Washington Street and Ashland Street intersection. Independent Way
provided an alternative but Tolman Creek Road needed the capacity to absorb additional traffic.
uarters. Mr.
Severson clarified the limited use permit and activity in the water resource zone was for the outfall in the northwest
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 8 of 9
corner of the site for storm water drainage. The Commission agreed with the permit and the tree removal permit.
Staff would provide a brief statement in the Findings that the rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that
was found consistent with the goals when adopted.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve PA-2018-00154 and the approval for the annexation of a 5.8-
acre parcel, and a zone change from County RR-5 to City E-1; Site Review approval of a phased development
of a light industrial business park located at 601 Washington Street. Also approving the request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a wat
Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a possible Wetland on the property; an Exception to Street
Standards for the frontage improvement Option E; and approval of the Tree Removal Permit to remove four
trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). With the exception of taking out the last part
of the sentence in the proposed Condition 1. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins thought it was a great project
and well needed. Commissioner Mindlin added the applicants did a good job meeting the requirements for the road.
Commissioner Miller wanted to ensure 8-C conformed with Option E. Mr. Severson responded staff would adjust C-7,
C-8, and C-12 in the Findings. They would base the adjustments on Option E and the discussion during the meeting.
He confirmed installing a sidewalk in the internal driveway with a different color was already in the Conditions. Chair
Pearce wanted it clear the annexation and rezone were recommendations to City Council. The site plan approval and
other permits were conditional upon Council enacting that recommendation. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce,
Brown, Dawkins, Thompson, Norton, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
March 13, 2018
Page 9 of 9
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 10, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2018-00154, A REQUEST FOR )
ANNEXATION OF A 5.38-ACRE PARCEL, ZONE CHANGE FROM COUNTY RR-5 )
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY E-1 (EMPLOYMENT), AND SITE DESIGN RE- )
VIEW APPROVAL FOR THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
BUSINESS PARK FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 601 WASHINGTON ST. )
THE APPLICATION INCLUEDES A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PER- )
- )
MITS WITHIN THE WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONES OF KNOLL CREEK)
FINDINGS,
AND A POSSIBLE WETLAND ON THE PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT A STORM- )
CONCLUSIONS,
WATER OUTFALL AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS; AN EXCEPTION TO STREET )
ORDERS &
STANDARDS FOR THE FRONTAGE IMRPROVEMENTS ALONG THE PROPER- )
RECOMMENDATIONS
)
TO REMOVE FOUR TREES GREATER THAN SIX-INCHES IN DIAMETER AT )
BREAST HEIGHT(D.B.H.) )
)
OWNER/APPLICANT:
South Ashland Business Park LLC )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)
Tax lot #2800 of Map 39 1E 14AB is located at 601 Washington Street, which is presently outside
the city limits, and is zoned RR-5, Jackson County Rural Residential.
2)
The applicants are requesting Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from County RR-5
Rural Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the phased
development of a light industrial business park for the property located at 601 Washington Street. The
Limited
Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland
on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an Exception to Street
Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree
Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). The
proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3)
The criteria for Annexation are described in AMC 18.5.8.050 as follows:
An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made
to conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of the following approval criteria.
A.
The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B.
The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 1
on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the
annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C.
The land is currently contiguous with the present city limits.
D.
Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public
Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant
as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as
determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public
Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless
the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity,
it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities.
E.
Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For
the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of
vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards.
1. For vehicular transportation a 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be
constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved
collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be
improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20-foot wide
driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development,
require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets
located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. Where
future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by
the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these
streets and included with the application for annexation.
2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and
will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike
lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle
destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible
bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist or can
and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side
adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area.
Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the
annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing
sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend
and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project
site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving
those destinations shall be indicated.
4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely
to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 2
transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit
facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation
improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property.
F.
For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the
development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent
of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary
to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar
physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be
recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future
development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development
plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area
containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes
greater than 35 percent, shall not be included.
G.
Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential
density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or
commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall
meet the following requirements.
1.The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying
renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated
using the unit equivalency values set forth herein.
a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit.
b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent
the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60
percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit.
2.As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the
applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development
complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-
profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created
under ORS 456.055 to 456.235.
a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the
standards set forth in 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 6.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 3
b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed
for transfer.
c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred
to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of
government, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation
created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235.
d.
affordable housing program requirements.
3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with
the market rate units in the development.
a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the
residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of
bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential
development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area
in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square
footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required
floor based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3.
Table 18.5.8.050.G.3
Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area
(Square Feet)
Studio 350
1 Bedroom 500
2 Bedroom 800
3 Bedroom 1,000
4 Bedroom 1,250
b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit
types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the
development.
4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the
affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made
available for occupancy, as follows.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 4
a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building
permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first
50 percent of the market rate units.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market
rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued
certificates of occupancy.
5. That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project
6. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building
materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units.
a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential
development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the
development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially
the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units
b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior
finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are
provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have
generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including
plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling
systems.
7. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may
be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the
following.
a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish
additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter,
than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2.
b. That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to the
City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a
proportional mix of unit types.
c. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection
18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that
the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion.
d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an affordable
housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 5
e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed
would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the
purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution
requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5.
f. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the
development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection
18.5.8.050.G.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable
Housing standards or financing limitations.
8. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed
restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with
affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing
affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum
density bonus of 25 percent.
H.
One or more of the following standards are met.
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than
a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use
zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which,
due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing
development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the
planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and
redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections
from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1, or C-1 under the Comprehensive
Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Design Review approval for an outright
permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request.
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary
sewer or water services.
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary
sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year.
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service
extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has
been filed and accepted by the City.
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an island completely surrounded by
lands within the city limits.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 6
4)
The criteria for a Zoning Map Amendment are described in AMC 18.5.9.020 as follows:
Type II.
A. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections.
Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following.
1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable
housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or
Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed
circumstances.
3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an
action.
4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one
zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed
base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth
in subsection 18.5.8.050.G.
5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial,
employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not
negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in
the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density
as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection
18.5.8.050.G.
6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5,
above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest
whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to
guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60
years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions.
Type III.
B. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order
to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or
conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale
implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an
ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone
changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text
amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban
growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type
III procedure.
1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except
where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II
procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 7
2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other
official maps.
3. Land Use Ordinance amendments.
4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments.
5)
The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows:
Underlying Zone:
A. 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.
Overlay Zones:
B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
Site Development and Design Standards:
C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.
City Facilities:
D. 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.
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.
E. 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.
6)
The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows:
A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application
meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
1. 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
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 8
policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.
2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation
can and will be provided to the subject property.
3. 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, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. 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.
a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian,
bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of
facilities.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
e. Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the
proposed use.
4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted
pursuant to this ordinance.
5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the
approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
WR and RR.
a. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed
at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
R-1.
b. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the
density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.
R-2 and R-3.
c. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements,
developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential
Zones.
C-1.
d. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with
all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an
intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
C-1-D.
e. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying
with all ordinance requirements.
E-1.
f. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses,
developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance
requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 9
floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements.
M-1.
g. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements.
CM-C1.
h. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill
District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with
all ordinance requirements.
CM-OE and CM-MU.
i. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill
District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all
ordinance requirements.
CM-NC.
k. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District,
developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all
ordinance requirements.
HC, NM, and SOU.
l. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care
Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon
University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements.
7)
The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows:
1. Hazard Tree.
A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions.
a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents
a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or
a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and
such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation,
or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard.
A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall
be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following
criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including
but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4
and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
b. 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.
c. 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
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 10
City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal
have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to
be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to 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 this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
8)
The criteria for a Limited Activities and Uses Permit are described in AMC Section
18.3.11.060.D as follows:
All Limited Activities and Uses described in section 18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I
procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a Limited Activities and Uses Permit shall be
approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria.
1. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable,
designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection Zone and disturb as
little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable.
2. The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation,
grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse
impacts on Water Resources.
3. On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent
or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of
impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where no
practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure
slope stability.
4. Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid
exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands.
5. Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement,
and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of
a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section
18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements.
6. Long term conservation, management and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection
Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as
described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for
residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures.
9)
The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows:
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 11
a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to
a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site.
b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity
considering the following factors where applicable.
i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride
experience.
ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of
bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic.
iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level
of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway.
c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.
d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in
subsection 18.4.6.040.A.
10)
The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 13, 2018
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing,
the Planning Commission approved the application
the requested Annexation, subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, orders 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. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Annexation, Zoning Map Amendment, Site
Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Limited Activity/Use Permit, Tree Removal Permit and Exception
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 12
to Street Standards approvals meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval described in AMC
18.5.2.050; for a Conditional Use Permit described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A; for a Limited Use/Activity Permit
described in AMC 18.3.11.060.D; for a Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B; and for
Exception to Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1. The Planning Commission further finds
that the requested Annexation and Zoning Map Amendment meet the applicable criteria in AMC 18.5.8.050
and AMC 18.5.9.020.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the approval standards for an Annexation require that the
subject property be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary, that the proposed zoning for the
annexed area be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation, that the applicant obtain
Site Design Review approval for an outright permitted or special permitted use concurrently with
annexation, and that the land be currently contiguous with the present City limits. In this instance, the
subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is contiguous with the existing city
outright permitted uses.
The Commission finds that the requested annexation complies with the applicable approval standards, and
the re-zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of the property and is in keeping with
the Economy Goal to ensure that the local economy
increases in its health, and diversifies in the number, type and size of businesses consistent with the local
social needs, public service capabilities and the retention of a high quality environment.The
Commission finds that the approximately 72,000 square foot flexible space light industrial development
described will have similar benefits to the economy as have the developments along Hersey Street which
provide options for a variety of businesses to establish themselves and grow in Ashland.
The Commission further finds that annexation requests must demonstrate that adequate public facilities can
and will be provided to and through the subject property. With three recent annexations in the immediate
vicinity, for Oak Street Tank and Steel, Brammo Motorsports and Modern Fan, utilities in the area have had
recent upgrades and there are eight-inch water and sanitary sewer lines in place within the Washington Street
right-of-way. The application explains that the applicants have engaged Thornton Engineering, Inc. to
evaluate public facilities and prepare preliminary utility plans for the project which have been provided as the
Exhibit 7 and on Page 3.3 of the materials indicate that based on
research and analyses completed, the stormwater management facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, and water
service facilities are adequate in condition, capacity and location to serve the proposed development on the
subject property. Individual utilities are discussed in the application as follows:
Water:
The application notes that there is an existing eight-inch water main within the Washington
Street right-of-way. The applicants propose to connect to the existing main and stub individual
services to the proposed buildings, and each building is to have its own meter. Industrial buildings
are to be served from the north while the office building will connect at the southeast corner of the
site.
Sanitary Sewer:
The application notes that there are existing mains within the Washington Street
right-of-way. One of the mains runs along the eastern project boundary; the office building is
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 13
proposed to connect to this line. The other main is
propose to run a new eight-inch private sewer line along the western circulation driveway to the
north and tie into the public sanitary sewer in this location.
Storm Drainage:
The application notes that, with the exception of the office building proposed
at the southeast corner of the site, all new impervious surfaces are proposed to drain to Knoll Creek
at the northwest corner of the project. Thornton Engineering designs propose a Contech
Stormwater Quality Manhole or similar structure to detain water prior to releasing it onto an
engineered outflow structure designed to minimize velocities and prevent erosion and scour where
the storm drainage converges with the main channel of Knoll Creek. The office building is
relatively small and the applicants propose to discharge its low volume storm water into the
existing ditch that feeds the possible wetland along Washington Street.
Electric:
The application explains that there is existing electric at the property line where
Washington Street turns to the south. The applicants plan to replace the vault at this location with
easterly circulation drive to
extend power from the north to the south. The power will tie back in at the existing vault on
Washington Street in the southeastern corner of the site.
The Commission finds that the applicants civil engineer has provided preliminary drawings addressing
the siting of utilities for the project, and conditions have been recommended below to require that final
electric, utility and storm drainage plans be provided for the review and approval of the Public Works,
Electric, Planning and Building Departments prior to submittal of building permit plans.
The Planning Commission finds that annexations are required to provide necessary transportation facilities
to and through the subject property, and transportation facilities must address all modes including motor
vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit. To satisfy transportation facility requirements for motor vehicles,
annexation standards require that, at a minimum, a 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be
constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial
street and that all streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street
standard with a minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. Annexation standards further provide that the city
may, after assessing the impact of the development, require full improvement of streets adjacent to the
annexed area while all streets located within the annexed areas are to be fully improved to City standards.
The Commission finds that Washington Street is considered to be a commercial collector street or avenue
under the adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP). The City of Ashland Street Standards call for ten-
foot travel lanes, six-foot bike lanes, a six-inch curb, five-foot commercial hardscape park rows with street
trees in tree grates, and eight-
frontage improvements, even without a parkrow planting strip and sidewalk on the freeway side, will
simply not fit between the water resource protection zone of the possible wetland on the property and the
freeway guardrail.
hington Street frontage are detailed in their
-section cannot be completed
without large scale filling of the wetland and/or further encroachment toward the freeway, noting that at
the narrowest point there is only approximately 45½ feet between the freeway guardrail and the wetland
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 14
itself, and only 25½ feet between the guardrail and the wetland buffer. While the applicants recognize
n Avenue is reasonable and Washington Street is the logical
street to provide north-south connectivity in the area, they assert that the numerous connections that
contribute to this functionality are likely to occur many years in the future and that from a traffic use and
activity standpoint, Washington Street is much more like a local street in that it lacks transit service and
currently has some of the lowest travel demand for bicycles and pedestrians in the city. In terms of vehicle
trips, the applicants note that existing average daily trips (ADT) for motor vehicles are at 345 and the
applicants Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) only anticipates them to grow to about 1,350 ADT by
2034. The applicants attribute the low travel demand for all modes to isolated employment areas that are
primarily industrial in nature with a limited amount of office and commercial uses.
The applicants suggest that travel volumes now and in the near future do not necessitate separate,
dedicated bicycle lanes. They suggest that the TSP does not identify a project that would create bicycle
lanes on the existing portion of Washington Street, so it could be 20 years before bicycle lanes would
create a connected system. They further suggest that there is no need for a planting strip and sidewalk on
the freeway (east) side since it is adjacent to the freeway where there will be no connectivity or driveways
possible along that side. The applicants further emphasize that the segment of Washington Street that
fronts on the property has a parallel route for pedestrians and bicyclists along Jefferson Street, which has
sidewalks on both sides.
The applifour options for frontage improvements on Washington Street, noting
that their Transportation Engineer finds that any of the three options will provide safe and adequate
transportation facilities for the roadway users in current and future traffic scenarios. The options proposed
include:
Applicants Option A
The applicants Option A would provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities
on the west side of Washington Street in the form of a ten-foot wide multi-use path directly behind
the curb. This would extend approximately 12-feet into the wetland buffer area and maintains the
remainder with an approximate 3:1 slope which is similar to existing slopes. The applicants
-
way bicycle and pedestrian traffic and would not require any environmental permitting and only
minimal review by ODOT because it stays entirely within the existing guardrail. The applicants
suggest that the design does not preclude future widening for bicycle lanes because the 12
additional feet could be added in the future without a massive retaining wall on the freeway side,
although some retaining wall and guardrail relocation would be necessary. The applicants suggest
that this future widening would not be expected to be cost-prohibitive in the future.
-section with the
parkrow planting strip removed and the centerline located to avoid wetland filling. The applicants
would construct all improvements west of the guard rail including two travel lanes, the southbound
bicycle lane, and the west sidewalk. The applicants note that this option does not encroach into
the wetland itself, but that the buffer would need to be graded at an approximately 1 to 1.5 slope
to avoid wetland filling. They suggest that until the northbound bicycle lane is added, the street
would be incomplete, but would be adequate to serve local needs in the interim and that future
widening for a bicycle lane on the east side of the street would not be expected to be cost-
prohibitive.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 15
-section, which they
note would require substantial wetland filling. The applicants suggest that this option may have a
difficult time demonstrating compliance with State and Federal regulatory requirements. The
applicants suggest that this option would be dependent upon the City performing design work,
obtaining required environmental permits to fill the wetland, and installing any required wetland
mitigation. The applicants indicate they would agree to construct the cross-section shown by
Thornton Engineering as Option C including both travel lanes, and the requisite improvements
west of the travel lanes.
This option is not proposed and is provided for illustration purposes only
to show the extent of grade problems with the standard cross-section sited to minimize any wetland
impacts. The applicants note that this option would result in an eight- to ten-foot retaining wall
adjacent to and directly above the freeway on-ramp and would still place part of the sidewalk
within the wetland buffer.
The applicants note that their Options A and B relocate the right-of-way green space behind the sidewalk
for this road segment to retain as much wetland protection zone as possible, while Option C shifts the
improvements seven feet further into the wetland buffer to accommodate a planter strip. Exceptions to
Street Standards require a demonstration that the facilities and resultant connectivity proposed are equal
or superior to those required under the standards; that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary
to alleviate the difficulty, and that the exceptions are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Street
Standards. The Commission finds that over the long term a ten-foot multi-use path mixing pedestrians
with two-way bicycle traffic immediately adjacent to an avenue as illustrated in Option A, or placing
pedestrians on a curbside sidewalk immediately adjacent to an avenue as illustrated in Option B, both
without the benefit of a park row and street trees to provide a buffer from anticipated truck traffic at avenue
speeds, cannot be found to be equal or superior when users of all modes are considered. The Commission
further finds that park row planting strips with street trees between the sidewalk and roadway provide
right-of-way greenspaceto buffer pedestrians and adjacent land uses
from traffic, enhance street image and neighborhood character, calm motor vehicle traffic speeds, and
AMC 18.4.6.040.D.17
enhance neighborhood identity or sense of place (
th
During the March 13
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 16
the
Washington/Jefferson/Benson employment area, much of which is outside the current city limits but
within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), will see significant local job and housing growth in the near
future. This area consists of approximately 45 acres, including the commercial/employment area along
Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road, and is
downtown. These 45 acres developed to an approximate Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 and an employment
density of 20 employees per acre will equate to approximately 686,070 square feet of building floor area
and 900 employees ultimately being served in this vicinity.
The Commission finds that an
The project proposes two driveway access points to Washington Street. The main project access will be
located at the northwest corner of the site. This driveway will serve the industrial flex-space buildings in
the project, which constitute the majority of the development. The small office building proposed for the
southeast corner of the site in a later phase will have its own access to Washington Street because it is
separated from the rest of the site by the possible wetland. There is an unimproved flag pole for the
neighboring tax lot to the south (Tax Lot #100) that separates the subject property from the Modern Fan
II development (Tax Lot #200). There is a retaining wall on the north boundary of Tax Lot #200 which
makes it impractical to utilize a single consolidated driveway for all three properties, however the
applicants note that they would accept a condition of approval that the final design for the driveway access
for the office building project in Phase ## be configured to allow for cross access to the flag driveway for
Tax Lot #100. A condition to this effect has been included below.
The Commission further finds that Kelly Sandow PE, of Sandow Engineering, LLC has evaluated the
transportation impacts of the proposal, and her transportation impact analysis (TIA) is provided as the
All of the intersections studied meet mobility standards through the year 2023 with the
development of the proposed 72,606 square foot business park;
The proposed E-1 zoning will generate more traffic than the existing Rural Residential zoning,
triggering the need for Transportation Planning Rule analysis.
The intersections of Ashland Street at the I-5 northbound ramps, Ashland Street at the I-5
southbound ramps, and Ashland Street at Normal Avenue do not meet the applicable mobility
standards for the year 2034 background conditions.
-1 zoning will worsen the year
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 17
2034 intersection performance to not meet standards. In lieu of mitigation, the applicants note
that a trip cap could be imposed to limit daily trips to the level of traffic generated by the
proposed development scenario, i.e. no more than the 910 ADT anticipated to be generated by
the proposed watchman quarters and 72,606 square feet of light industrial space. Under such
a trip cap, all intersections projected to operate within the applicable mobility standards will
continue to meet applicable standards and all intersections projected to exceed applicable
mobility standards will operate no worse than the 2034 background conditions, with no further
mitigation needed.
In considering the proposed trip cap, the Planning Commission finds that the Transportation Planning
Rule in OAR
(a)
(b)
(c)
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.9.020, Zone Changes may be
processed as a Type II procedure when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In this instance,
designation. The approval criteria for a Type II Zone Change, where the Zone Change is consistent with
the existing Plan designation, require that one or more of the following be demonstrated:
1)
The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported
by the Comprehensive Plan;
2)
A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation
was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances;
3)
Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action;
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 18
4)
Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district
to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable
housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G;
5)
Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or
industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial
and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of
the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in
subsection 18.5.8.050.G; and
6)
The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be
determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or
similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period
of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated
actions. In terms of these crite
housing seems the most relevant.
The Planning Commission finds that the requested zone change and associated development of the
property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plandesignation of the property and with
the Economy Goal of the Comprehensive Plan which strives for a healthy economy, diverse in the number,
size and types of businesses. The Commission further finds that the 72,000 square foot flexible space
developments along Hersey Street which provide an option for a variety of businesses to establish
themselves and grow in Ashland.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal requests Site Design Review approval for the
phased development of a light industrial/flexible space business park which when completed will consist
opment accommodating
small manufacturing and fabrication activities. The applicants are requesting approval for the first phase
here, which includes the watchman quarters and two industrial units in a 3,156 square foot building
fronting on Washington Street on the northern portion of the site and Building Group 1, a 15,944 square
foot flexible space building. The applicants will also complete rough grading and underground utility
installation for the rest of the site in keeping with the proposed master plan with Phase 1. Future building
designs for the later phases will require Site Design Review approvals of their own, but the plan here
establishes the preliminarily planned orientations, footprints, and site circulation.
The first criterion for Site 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 Planning Commission finds that the
property is more than 100 feet from a residential zone, and as such has no minimum setbacks, and further
finds that the buildings will be no more than 40 feet in height as allowed in the E-1 zone. The proposed
light industrial, manufacturing, fabrication and office uses described in the application are outright
permitted uses within the E-1 zoning district.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 19
The second criterion for SThe proposal complies with applicable
overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).the Commission finds that the subject property
includes some areas that are within the Water Resources Protection Zones overlays. These areas are
addressed in the discussion of Limited Uses and Activities below. The Commission further finds that the
property is not proposed for inclusion in other overlay zones.
The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and
Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.The Commission finds that
the subject property will be located within the Basic Site Review Zone and is subject to the Basic Site
Review Standards in AMC 18.4.2.
The application explains that the project contains five multi-tenant buildings, of which only two abut
Washington Street: the Phase 1 office with watchman quarters and the Phase 4 office building. The
Commission finds that each of these is oriented to the street and has no parking located between the
buildings or the street; parking is behind and to the side of the buildings. The other three buildings are
separated from the street by the wetland. Building Group 1 has the entrances for the end unit oriented to
the street although no access is possible due to the wetland, while the other tenant entries face the
driveways.
street frontage, and to avoid designs which incorporate gaps between building frontages. In this case, the
Planning Commission finds
protection zones for creeks and wetlands, with the remaining frontage split in two between an area at the
north frontage and another on the east frontage. The proposed plan places buildings at the street in each
of these locations, where driveways have also been located. All of the area between the proposed buildings
is taken up with wetland and related landscaping.
The Commission finds that both buildings with street frontage have entrances oriented to the street, located
within 20 feet of the street, with stairs leading from the sidewalk directly to the entries. The remaining
units are interior to the site and cannot be located adjacent to the right-of-way due to the wetland. The
applicants further suggest that with the exception of the Phase 4 office building, the remaining buildings
are intended for industrial use and would have little need for public pedestrian access.
The Commission finds that projects adjacent to a designated creek protection area are to incorporate the
creek into the design while maintaining required setbacks and buffering and complying with applicable
water quality protection standards. Developers are to plant native riparian plants in and adjacent to creek
protection zones. The applicants explain that the plan minimizes impacts to the drainage and includes
riparian plantings in any area impacted by construction and complies with water quality protection
standards. The Commission finds that the standard seeks to have creeks more incorporated into site
planning as a project amenity for tenants which enables tenants to engage the creek corridor, and a
condition has been included below to require that the application for Phase 2 include a revised site plan
which better incorporates the creek into the site design through means such as pedestrian access points,
an unpaved trail and a small patio/seating area.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 20
The application includes parking calculations identifying a parking demand of 73 spaces for the
development as proposed, and 84 parking spaces are proposed including seven accessible parking spaces
of which two are to be van accessible. The Commission finds that the limited additional parking proposed
provides a measure of flexibility to respond to the variety of potential uses which might occur over the
life of the development. With 73 automobile spaces required, 15 bicycle parking spaces are required and
one-half of these must be covered. The Commission finds that the applicants have proposed to provide
18 bicycle spaces distributed around the site, and 11 of these are to be covered satisfying the requirements
of the ordinance.
The Pedestrian Access and Circulation standards in AMC 18.4.3.090 call for a continuous walkway
system within the development which provides safe, direct and convenient connections providing for
pedestrian connectivity within the development. The applicants suggest that because the project is made
up of several multi-tenant building and does not have primary building entrances, but rather separate
entrances to each tenant space, and typically relies only on automobile and truck access regular pedestrian
access is not anticipated to be needed as pedestrian movements are expected to be only from related
parking spaces to the individual tenant space and as such no internal pedestrian circulation is proposed.
The applicants emphasize that roll-up doors will be used for deliveries to each space, and it is not practical
to provide walkways that we interrupted every 20 feet with door. They conclude that this configuration
is typical and appropriate for a light industrial park and as such meets the standard. The Commission
finds that the standard is intended to enable someone to easily walk to a workplace or to circulate on site
from a space at the southeast corner to the office at the northwest corner, and requires that pedestrian
facilities be provided. The Commission has accordingly included a condition below to require a revised
site plan which addresses these standards. The Commission finds that, at minimum, this could be
addressed by providing a materially-distinct pedestrian walkway within the proposed driveway system to
support pedestrian circulation from the office and along the driveway connecting to each of the buildings.
The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a grading plan with calculations illustrating
that at least 50 percent of the parking and circulation area is surfaced in concrete or shaded with new tree
canopy to address the standards of AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5.00
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
ems have been addressed completely in the Annexation
section above.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that
that a dwelling for a caretaker or watchman requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the E-1 zone.
The application materials provided explain that the applicants have not made a final decision whether to
, but are requesting a CUP be approved so they can construct
The applicants emphasize that the watchman quarters will have no effect on the scale, bulk or coverage of
the project as the space, if not utilized this way would be used as additional office space. As such, the
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 21
likely reduce vehicle trips because an on-site staff person
would not need to travel to and from the workplace. The application further suggests that the watchman
quarters would have no appreciable impact on air quality, noise, light or glare, or upon the development
of adjacent properties, versus either development of the property as flex space as proposed or office space
as envisioned in the target use of the zone.
The Planning Commission finds that prior to the most recent Unified Land Use Ordinance update,
watchman quarters were not addressed in the Ashland Municipal Code and were generally considered as
a reasonable accessory use to certain primary industrial uses (e.g. Caldera Brewing was approved with
upstairs quarters for the brewmaster to live on-site in order to allow after hours monitoring of the brewing
process). The Commission further finds that on-site watchman quarters will have no greater adverse
material impact on the livability of the impact area than would the implementation of the primary use by
much human
presence afterhours.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that there are two Water Resource Protection Zones on the subject
property.
western boundary is traversed by Knoll Creek, an
intermittent or ephemeral stream with a Water Resource Protection Zone consisting of the stream itself
and a buffer extending 30 feet upland from the centerline of the stream on both sides. Knoll Creek does
not have an associated floodplain. The applicants indicate that their surveyor James Hibbs has determined
the extent of the protection zone on the site, and that through most of this reach of the stream there are no
encroachments in the protection zone. However, at the north end of the property, the applicants propose
protection zone.
The Planning Commission further finds that AMC 18.3.11.060.B classifies the construction of a storm
water outfall discharging treated storm water from an adjacent developed area as a limited activity and
use, provided that the discharge meets local, state, and federal water quality regulations. AMC
18.3.11.060. D requires that limited activities: be located as far away from the stream as practicable,
designed to minimize intrusion into the protection zone, and disturb as little surface area as practicable.
Limited activities are to be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, impervious
surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on the stream. Excavation, grading,
installation of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation is to be avoided on stream beds,
banks within bank full stage, wetlands and areas of slopes over 25 percent except where no practicable
alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. This section
also specifically requires that storm drain systems be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure
to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges into the stream.
The application materials explain that the outfall will disturb approximately 0.02 acres and is necessary
in this location as the only logical place to drain stormwater from the site. The outfall has been engineered
so that stormwater will pass through a treatment manhole prior to entering the protection zone outfall
structure.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 22
The Commission finds that the limited use and activity criteria require that the stream channel and riparian
habitat be restored through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the
Mitigation Requirements-term
conservation, management and maintenance of the protection zone be ensured through the preparation and
recording of a management plan as described in AMC subsection 18.3.11.110.C. The applicants are
proposing to mitigate the protection zone impacts through the prescriptive option in AMC section
18.3.11.110, and a plan detailing the proposed mitigation has been prepared by the project landscape
architect John Galbraith. Conditions requiring final mitigation and management plans be provided for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a building permit have been included
below.
The Planning Commission further finds that
Possible Wetland (PW) along the propert east property line at the edge of the Washington Street right-
of-
sible wetlands, the
water resource protection zone consists of all lands identified to have wetland presence on a wetland
delineation plus all lands within 20 feet of the upland edge.
Possible wetland W11 is described in the LWI as a roadside emergent wetland dominated by meadow
foxtail, with lesser amounts of blue wild rye, birdsfoot-trefoil and catchweed bedstraw. While not deemed
to be locally significant in the inventory, this wetland is connected to the Knoll Creek drainage by the
roadside drainage ditch at its downstream end. The LWI notes that the wetland boundary is defined by
on
is a draft Wetland Delineation map prepared by Schott & Associates, Inc.
deemed necessary to maintain a functional system and upon finding that no other reasonable, alternate
location outside the Water Resource Protection Zone exists. This ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan,
Transportation System Plan, adopted utility master plans, and other adopted documents shall guide this
determination.et and utility installation in considered a limited activity and use. The Planning
Commission finds that in this instance, Washington Street is classified as an avenue in the adopted
Transportation System Plan and the Street Design Standards in AMC 18.4.6.040 set forth the specific
improvements determined necessary to support the functions of an avenue within the street system. The
application includes several options for frontage improvements in seeking to address necessary street
improvements to the degree possible while minimizing impacts to both the wetland and its buffer, and
requests an Exception to Street Standards in order to reduce the extent of the street improvements and
thereby limit impacts to the wetland. The Planning Commission finds that t
presented at the hearing, which generally provides for motor vehicle and bicycle lanes in each direction,
and sidewalks and park rows on the property side of the street with only a short section of curbside
sidewalk proposed to avoid wetland impacts provides the best balance of improvements support the
functionality of an avenue and encourage users of all modes. This will necessitate disturbance into the
wetland water resource protection zone, which the Commission finds could be appropriately mitigated
within the stream bank water resource protection zone of Knoll Creek elsewhere on the property.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 23
The Commission finds that the requirements of land use approval are clear that for annexation approval,
the applicants must demonstrate that they can and will provide adequate transportation to city standards
to and through the subject property, and where transportation improvements require other permitting the
burden is on the applicants to obtain the necessary approvals of a wetland delineation and any resulting
permits. Conditions of approval are included recommended below requiring that prior to the second phase
of the development, the applicants provide engineered design drawings for the required frontage
improvements consistent with the proposed Option E, prepare and submit a formal wetland delineation
and obtain any required city, state and federal permits should any required work impact the delineated
wetland, and complete appropriate mitigation within the Knoll Creek corridor on the subject property.
In applications for the Modern Fan II property to the south, the Division of State Lands (DSL) indicated
that stormwater flows feeding this wetland needed to be maintained with development, and conditions of
approval were included to require that the storm drainage plan incorporate necessary water quality,
retention, and wetland flow maintenance requirements prior to building permit submittals. A similar
condition has been included below.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a Tree Protection and Removal Plan
and associated narrative prepared by Certified Arborist and Landscape Architect John Galbraith of
Galbraith & Associates, Inc.Exhibit 10 identifies 22 trees on the subject
property which are six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater. All of these are Oregon
white oaks (quercus garryanna) located along the Knoll Creek corridor, and of these 22 trees, six are
proposed for removal while the remaining 16 are to be preserved and protected with development of the
property.
The application requests permits to remove Trees #4, #6, #7 and #9, and proposes to mitigate their
removals with Oregon white oaks planted along the driveway near the Knoll Creek corridor. The arborist
asserts that all of these trees would be hazardous if the development were constructed around them, as
most have severe dieback as the result of fire damage. The application emphasizes that large limbs have
died, large areas of the cambium layers have been destroyed and one tree (#9) has erosion under the root
flare. Photos are included with the application documenting these conditions.
4½-feet above the ground and multiplying the diameter in inches by 1½ to arrive at a protection zone
radius in feet. So, a ten-inch diameter oak tree would have a 15-foot radius for its protection zone. A
Tree Protection Plan illustrating the required protection zones for the trees to be preserved has been
provided as Sheet L1 in Exhibit 10.
The Planning Commission finds that the Ashland Tree Commission reviewed the application
Protection and Landscaping Plans at its March 8, 2018 regular meeting and recommended that the
application be approved as presented. The Planning Commission further finds that the fire which
impacted the property in 2010 severely damaged or killed trees on the property, and that Trees #1 and #2
are dead and will be removed. The Commission further finds that Trees #4, #6, #7 and #9 are in poor
condition and are located in the area proposed for development, and that their removals are merited. The
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 24
Commission also finds that three of the trees identified to be preserved and protected (#15, #18 and #21)
are located within the driveway area of the third phase of the development, and that the applicants have
proposed to preserve and protect them here and to revisit them with the application for the third phase.
2.9 The Planning Commission finds
The Commission conditionally approves the requested Zone Change from County RR-5 (Rural
Residential) to City E-1 (Employment); Site Design Review approval for the phased development of a
light industrial business park; Conditional Use Permit to allow a wa
Use/Activity Permits within the Water Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland
on the property to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements; an Exception to Street
Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree
Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) for
Planning Action #2008-00154, subject to City Council approval of the requested Annexation. The
Council may wish to formally adopt the approvals prior to
acknowledgment of the Annexation by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) by adopting these findings as well, or could alternatively send the conditional approvals back to
the Planning Commission for final approval following acknowledgment.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 The application includes a request for the Annexation of a 5.38-acre parcel, Zone Change from
County RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City E-1 (Employment), and Site Design Review approval for the
phased development of a light industrial business park consisting of approximately 72,000 square feet of
light industrial, manufacturing and fabrication space for the property located at 601 Washington Street.
Limited Use/Activity Permits to construct a stormwater outfall and street improvements within the Water
Resource Protection Zones of Knoll Creek and a Possible Wetland on the property; an Exception to Street
Standards for the frontage improvements along the property's Washington Street frontage; and a Tree
Removal Permit to remove four trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).
The Commission finds that the proposed building designs are appropriate for th
materials proposed reflect a utilitarian design comprised of off-white standing seam metal roofing, beige
horizontal metal siding and a textured brown split face block base. The Commission finds the project
overall to be well-thought out and to address a need for incubator spaces within the community. The
application is generally a straightforward one with the primary issue being determining the appropriate
-of-way constrained by a
r
major collector serving the Washington/Jefferson/Benson employment area, with avenue-level truck
traffic and travel speeds, ultimately necessitates full sidewalk and parkrow improvements with street trees,
and bike lanes, to provide a street which will accommodate and encourage users of all travel modes as the
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 25
-addresses these needs well
while managing to minimize the impacts to the wetland by meandering the sidewalk to curbside for a
short, approximately 140 linear foot section, and the applicants efforts in designing the street are much
appreciated.
The requested annexation complies with the applicable approval standards, and is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the property and with the Economy Goal of the Comprehensive Plan
which strives for a healthy economy, diverse in the number, size and types of businesses. The Commission
supports the annexation request and believes that the 72,000 square foot flexible space light industrial
as have similar developments along
Hersey Street which provide an option for a variety of businesses to establish themselves and grow in
Ashland. Overall, the Commission finds that application merits approval, and further recommends that
the City Council approve the Annexation request.
Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the
proposal for Annexation, Zoning Map Amendment, Site Design Review approval, Exception to Street
Standards, Conditional Use Permit, Limited Use/Activity Permit, and Tree Removal Permit is supported
by evidence contained within the whole record.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, the Planning
Annexation, and we further approve the Zoning Map Amendment, Site Design Review, Exception to Street
Standards, Conditional Use Permit, Limited Use/Activity Permit and Tree Removal components of Planning
Action #2018-00154 subject to the Council approval of the Annexation. Further, if any one or more of the
conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2018-00154 is
denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1) That all proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those
approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify
this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
3) That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. Signage shall meet
the requirements of Chapter 18.4.7.
4) That prior to any work within the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) right-of-way, the
applicants shall obtain any necessary permit approvals from ODOT. The applicants shall provide
evidence of permit approval, including copies of all approved plans, for all work to be done within
ODOT right-of-way prior to the commencement of work.
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 26
5) That prior to work in the City of Ashland right-of-way, the applicants shall obtain any necessary
permit approvals from the City of Ashland Public Works Department. The applicants shall obtain
all required inspection approvals for work completed within the City right-of-way.
6) That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their March 8, 2018 regular meeting shall
be conditions of approval where consistent with the applicable regulations and standards, and with
final approval by the Staff Advisor.
7) That the applicants shall obtain required land use approvals, as well as any necessary federal or
state approvals, for the remaining phases of the development including but not limited to Site
Design Review approvals for Phase 2, 3 and 4 buildings; Limited Use/Activity Permits for frontage
improvements within the wetland water resource protections zone for W11; and Tree Removal
Permits for Trees #15, #18 and #21 in Phase 3. The current approval is limited to the improvements
specifically associated with Phase 1 and the conceptual approval of the site master plan, with the
recognition that limited grading and utility installations will occur with Phase 1 to lay the
groundwork for later phases.
8) That prior to the submittal of a building permit:
a) Building permit submittals shall include identification of all easements, including public
and private utility easements, fire apparatus access easements, and a conservation easement
or other similar recorded development restriction to perpetually protect the portion of the
Knoll Creek stream bank water resources protection zone and the wetland water resource
protection zone on the property according to the requirements of AMC Section
18.3.11.110.C.8.
b) A final stormwater drainage plan, including any details of on-site detention for storm water
and necessary water quality mitigation, shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions. The drainage plan shall also
demonstrate that stormwater flows into the existing roadside wetland will be retained at
their current levels to ensure the continuing recharge of the wetland.
c)
Phase 1 Washington Street frontage, from the existing terminus of the sidewalk at the
northwest corner of the site to the eastern extent of the proposed watchman quarters
building shall be provided for review and approval by the Oregon Department of
o
the issuance of the Phase 1 building permit or any work within the street right-of-way or
pedestrian corridor. Engineered construction drawings for the remaining frontage, from
the watchman quarters building to the southeast corner of the site, shall be provided for
review and approval with the Phase 2 Site Design Review application. The required
improvements shall be consistent with the applicants Option E including paved ten-foot
motor vehicle travel lanes, six-foot bike lanes, six-inch curb, gutter, a seven-foot
landscaped parkrow with irrigated street trees, a six-foot sidewalk and city standard
Washington Street frontage with the exception of an
approximately 140-foot length where the sidewalk shall be installed curbside to avoid
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 27
impacts to the possible wetland on site. The final engineered designs shall include details
of the transition from the existing curbside sidewalk at the northwest of the property. Any
additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate these city standard avenue
improvements shall be provided through a right-of-way dedication if deemed necessary by
the Public Works/Engineering Department. The applicants shall obtain necessary
approvals from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for improvements
within the ODOT right-of-way and necessary federal, state and local permits for work in
the wetland water resource protection zone based on a formal wetland delineation prior to
installation of those improvements.
d) A final utility plan for the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning, Engineering and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit. The
utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent
to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and
services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Utility
installations, including any necessary fire protection vault, shall be placed outside of the
pedestrian corridor, and necessary public utility easements on the property shall be shown
on the building permit submittals.
e) The applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and
locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all
other necessary equipment. With annexation, the property will no longer be served by
Pacific Power and Light; servic
expense. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Engineering and
Electric Departments prior to building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall
be located outside of the pedestrian corridor, in those areas least visible from the street
while considering the access needs of the Electric Department.
f) The building permit plan submittals shall include lot coverage calculations including all
building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. These plans shall
demonstrate that at least 15 percent of the site is surfaced in landscaping, and that at least
seven percent of the parking lot area is provided in required parking lot landscaping, as
required in the Site Design & Use Standards.
g) The building permit plan submittals shall include and sample exterior building colors and
materials for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. The exterior building materials and
paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with those
described in the application materials.
9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The applicant shall provide a final Tree Preservation and Protection Plan consistent with
the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030 incorporating any recommendations of the Tree
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 28
Commission from their March 8, 2018 meeting, where consistent with applicable standards
and with final approval by the Staff Advisor.
b) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.4.5.050 shall be applied for and approved
by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of any trees from the site, and prior to
site work, storage of materials and/or issuance of a building permit. The Verification Permit
is to inspect the on-site identification of trees to be removed and the installation of tree
protection fencing to protect the trees to be retained. The tree protection fencing shall be
installed according to the approved Tree Protection and Removal Plan, inspected and
approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials and/or issuance of a
building permit. In conjunction with the Tree Verification, silt fencing or other measures
to delineate and protect the Water Resource Protection Zones on site shall be installed,
inspected and approved as well.
c) The applicant shall provide a revised Landscape/Irrigation Plan which addresses the
recommendations of the Tree Commission from their March 8, 2018 meeting where
consistent with applicable standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, and also
addresses the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines AMC 18.4.4.030.I, including
irrigation controller requirements to allow multiple/flexible calendar programming. The
revised landscape plan shall specifically identify mitigation trees on a one-for-one basis to
offset the trees being removed.
d) All exterior lighting shall be appropriately shrouded so as not to permit direct illumination
of any adjacent land. Lighting details, including a scaled plan and specifications detailing
shrouding, shall be submitted to the Staff Advisor for review and approval with the building
permit submittals.
e) At the time of building plan submittal, final bike rack details and shelter details shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Staff Advisor. The building permit submittals
shall verify that the bicycle parking design, spacing, and coverage requirements are met in
accordance with AMC Section 18.4.3.070.
f) Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Washington Street. The locations
of mechanical equipment and any associated screening shall be shown on the site plan and
elevations in the building permit submittals.
g) That the buildings shall meet Solar Setback B in accordance with AMC Section
18.70.040.B. The building permit submittals shall demonstrate compliance with Solar
Setback B and shall include solar calculations with shadow producing point(s) and height
to natural grade clearly illustrated and labeled.
h) The requirements of the Building Division shall be satisfactorily addressed.
i) The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be satisfied including: approved
addressing; fire apparatus approach, access, turn-around and associated easements; fire
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 29
flow; fire department connection; fire sprinklers and fire hydrants where applicable; key
box installation; hydrant clearances; high-piled storage requirements; and that any gates,
fences, or other impediments to required fire apparatus access width approved by Ashland
Fire and Rescue shall be addressed in the permit submittals and implemented on site prior
to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Final determinations of fire hydrant distance, fire
flow, and fire apparatus access requirements are to be based upon plans submitted for
building permit review.
j) A revised site plan detailing the proposed phased installation of buildings, parking, and
driveways detailing the extent of improvements proposed to be installed with each phase,
including street frontage improvements, shall be provided for the review and approval of
the Staff Advisor.
k) A revised site plan addressing the pedestrian access and circulation requirements of AMC
18.4.3.090. At a minimum, this would include a materially-distinct pedestrian walkway
within the proposed driveway system to support pedestrian circulation from the office,
along the driveway connecting to each of the buildings.
l) That the applicants shall provide a final management plan, including any easements,
providing for the long-term conservation, management and maintenance of the Knoll Creek
Water Resource Protection Zone as detailed in AMC 18.3.11.110.C prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
m) That a final size- and species-specific mitigation plan consistent with the requirements of
AMC 18.3.11.110.B.1. including irrigation details and details of the selection and
placement of landscape materials to mitigate the area impacted by the storm water outfall
installation shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. All
mitigation plantings shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and
approved by the Staff Advisor, and the management plan and any necessary easement
modifications recorded prior to final approval of the certificates of occupancy for Phase 1.
10) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a) That the screening for the recycling and refuse disposal areas shall be installed in
accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.040, inspected and approved by the Staff
Advisor.
b) All required parking areas shall be paved and striped according to the approved plan.
c) All landscaping and the irrigation systems shall be installed in accordance with the
approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
d) That street trees, one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the frontage of
the development in accordance with the approved final landscaping plan and prior to
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 30
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. All street trees shall be chosen from the adopted
Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in Section
E of the Site Design and Use Standards. The street trees shall be irrigated.
e) That required bicycle parking spaces with a minimum of 50 percent sheltered from the
weather shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the
Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Phase 2
11) That the application for shall include a revised Site Plan that better incorporates the creek into the
site design through means such as pedestrian access points, unpaved trail installation and a small patio/seating
area.
Phase 2
12) That in conjunction with the application for , the applicants shall provide engineered design drawings
for the required frontage improvements along Washington Street consistent with Option E; prepare and
submit a formal wetland delineation to the Division of State Lands; obtain any necessary city, state and federal
permits for the frontage improvements in the wetland water resource protection zone based on the delineation;
and complete appropriate mitigation within the Knoll Creek corridor on the subject property.
Phase 4
13) That the final design for the office building at the southeast corner of the property shall be configured
to allow for cross access to the flag driveway for Tax Lot #100 to the south. Cross easements providing for
use of this access shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for this building.
April 10, 2018
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2018-00154
April 10, 2018
Page 31
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION
FEASIBILITY STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
This project scope of work describes how Nelson\\Nygaard will deliver the Public Transportation Expansion Feasibility
Study. The goal of the Project is to evaluate the mobility needs of residents, employees and visitors in the City of Ashland,
and how public transportation might best meet those needs today and in the future. Outcomes of the project will be a
flexible set of strategies the City may consider for public transportation, and actions and partners needed to implement
those strategies.
All deliverables described in the tasks below include a draft and final version. The final version will include changes
reflecting one set of comments and revisions from the City of Ashland Project Manager or designated project participants.
A successful project relies upon the buy-in from community stakeholders and decision makers. Nelson\\Nygaard and the
City of Ashland will convene two new groups and use the Ashland City Council and Transportation Commission
throughout the project to act as a sounding board:
1.Technical Advisory Committee –This project-specific group will review deliverables and technical work, and will
include the key agencies who affect or are affected by public transportation. This group would be convened three
times and will have project-level decision-making responsibility.Members may include but not be limited to city
planning staff, a Transportation Commission member, a Planning Commission member, Rogue Valley
Transportation District staff, and Southern Oregon University staff.
2.Ashland City Transportation Commission -This group meets monthly and consists of seven commissioners
dedicated to transportation issues. This group would be convened twice and be advertised to stakeholders and the
public. A public workshop preceding the Transportation Commission meetings will allow the community to
comment on the content that will be presented to the commission. This group will be advisory and provide
comments to Ashland staff on draft materials.
3.Ashland City Council –This policy body hosts study sessions twice per month. The consultant will present to the
City Council twice. This group will review draft materials and ensure conclusions meet City expectations.
Definitions:
Project –Ashland Public Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study
Project Manager –City of Ashland Project Manager
Project Team –City staff and consultant team to manage day-to-day study tasks
Consultant –Nelson\\Nygaard Consulting Associates
TAC –Project Advisory Committee
TC –Ashland Transportation Commission
CC –Ashland City Council
TASK 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
1.1 –Kickoff meeting
Nelson\\Nygaard will facilitate a project kickoff meeting with the consultant teamand the City of Ashland staff. The
purpose of this meeting is to:
Establish administrative and communication procedures
Discussinitial project goals and objectives
Discuss work plan scope and schedule
Create stakeholderfocus group andinterview contact list
Obtain data and information for technical analysis
Visit locations of relevance to the project
1.2 –Project phone meetings
Nelson\\Nygaard will set up bi-weekly Project Teamphone meetings of up to 1-hour in duration throughout the project
period. The purpose of the calls will be to review current project work, discuss key questions or issues, review upcoming
tasks, and share comments on recent deliverables or other work products.
1.3 -Website information and project updates
Nelson\\Nygaard will provide project summary information for a webpage that will provide a platform for stakeholders to
learn about the project. Nelson\\Nygaard will work with the City to determine a website hosting service that best meets the
project needs (i.e. City website or 3party). Nelson\\Nygaard will provide website design that will facilitate regular
rd
updates. The updates will be provided at four project milestones and in coordination with stakeholder outreach tasks
(dates are approximate):
-Project start (March 2018)
-Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment (May 2018)
-Strategy Development (August 2018)
-Transit Expansion Feasibility Study (November 2018)
Deliverables
Nelson\\Nygaard
Kickoff meeting agenda; Kickoff meeting facilitation; Kickoff meeting notes including a summary of action
items
Website creation; four sets of project information and documents
Data and information request
Bi-weekly call agenda and meeting notes
City of Ashland
Kickoff meeting facility; Kickoff meeting invitations as needed; Kickoff meeting site visit itinerary
TASK 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NEEDSASSESSMENT
The purpose of this task is to understand typical travel patterns, assess existing transportation services, and understand
the existing public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure. Nelson\\Nygaard will usetechnical transportation
analysis(see task 2.1), conversations with key stakeholders, and an online survey. Nelson\\Nygaard and the City will
coordinate efforts with the Rogue Valley Transportation District’s (RVTD) Transit Master Plan.
2.1 –Transportation analysis
This task will help the project team understand typical origins and destinations for people traveling to, from and in
Ashland. The task will establish a baseline for the market for transit. Nelson\\Nygaardwill:
Create a combined population and employment density map using U.S. Census Bureauand/or Portland State
University population and employment data, notingchanges or trends evident from previous land use density
analysis.
Collect and analyze relevant origin and destination analysisfrom the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization(MPO)travel demand model, to theextent available and applicable; data will be presented in tabular or
graphic format showing travel demand into, out of and within the City of Ashland.
Analyze RVTD public transportation trip origins and destinationsand anyrider survey data available.
Assess existing public transportation services, based on information available from RVTD, including service hours,
frequency, revenue hours, revenue miles, ridership, operating cost, vehicle type, bus stop amenities, and farepolicies.
Inventory available transportation network companies and taxis, carsharing, carpooling, bikesharing, and any local
incentive programs to use public transportation.
Summarize pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure conditions from previously completed reports, noting connections to
bus stops. The City of Ashland will provide updates to existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure conditions.
2.2 –StakeholderGroupMeetings
Understanding transit needs requires talking topeople who ride buses today, people who don’t ride, and stakeholder who
represent community interests. Nelson\\Nygaard will create a stakeholder invitation list in tandem with the project team
during Task 1.1 Kickoff meeting. We typically group stakeholders by common interests or by geography. Examples include
education, major employers(e.g. DAREX),Southern Oregon University,social serviceorganizations,older adults, City
staff, medical facilities, or neighborhood groups.
We envision up to three stakeholder meetings, with 5-15 participants per meeting. Nelson\\Nygaard will provide a meeting
guide,introductory narrative for emails, letters, cards, or websites,facilitate the meetings,and summarize results. The
City of Ashland will assist in distributing invitations.Nelson\\Nygaard will schedule meetings with the Stakeholder Groups
as availableover one or two trips scoped for Task 2.
2.3 –Public and RiderOutreach
Input from community stakeholders will be complemented by feedback from bus riders and the general publicin Ashland.
RVTD plans to survey Route 10 passengers in May 2018. To reduce duplication of effort, the team will use the data from
RVTD’s surveys to understand rider travel patterns and needs.
It can be difficult to attract interest in surveysor public meetings. Therefore, Nelson\\Nygaardwill set up project stations
at two community destinations or events where people will already gathered. Nelson\\Nygaard will provide informational
material such as boardsor summary sheets about the project. Nelson\\Nygaard will ask people where they travel,opinions
about public transportation, and travel preferencesthat influence what makes them want to ride the bus, and what
prevents them from using it. Potential events may include:
-Ashland Market(Tuesdays8:30 am-1:30 pmstarting in Spring 2018)
-Southern Oregon University or location on campus (Spring Semester starts April 2, 2018)
-Rogue Community College Medford
-Ashland Plaza (will reach bus riders and thegeneral public)
The Consultant will time the meetings to complement, rather than overlap or compete with public involvement activities
related to the RVTD Transit Master Plan. The TAC representatives and City staff will guide the project team in identifying
the best meeting and event dates.
2.4 –TAC meeting #1
Nelson\\Nygaard will facilitate one meeting with the TAC in Task 2. The TAC will include key stakeholders related to the
project goals.
The goal of the TAC meeting will be to orient members to the project scope, schedule, and project team; and to get input
on the project vision and goals, public transportation needs and opportunities, findings to date, other potential
participants, and potential public transportation expansion strategies. The meeting outcomes will be a refined project
schedule as needed, data sources, consensus on vision and goals, and information or data on needs and opportunities.
2.5 –TC Meeting #1
Nelson\\Nygaard will facilitate a meeting with the TC in Task 2, at its regularly scheduled meeting. The goal of the meeting
will be orient the TC members to the project schedule and team, to verify the project vision and goals, and collect
information on transportation needs and opportunities. Meeting outcomes will be consensus on the vision and goals, and
further information on needs and opportunities.
The City may elect to provide a 2-hour informational session to the public before the meeting; Nelson\\Nygaard will
provide staff to support the session, and informational materials to be produced/printed by City staff. Nelson\\Nygaard
will facilitate a presentation and discussion with the Transportation Commission, discussing project findings to date,
public transportation needs and opportunities, project vision and goals,and potential project participants.
2.6Technical Memorandum #1 Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
Nelson\\Nygaard will write a technical memorandum documenting the analysis and outreach conducted in Task 2. The
memorandum will include the project team’s conclusions about City of Ashland transportation and land use in relation to
the project’s goals and objectives.
Deliverables
Nelson\\Nygaard
Technical Memorandum #1 summarizing transportation analysis, surveys, focus groups, and interview
findings
Facilitate up to 3stakeholder group meetings
Facilitate TAC meeting #1 in Ashland and create meeting notes
Facilitate TC meeting #1 in Ashland and create meeting notes
Facilitate public events #1, #2
Create informational materialneeded for public workshop andTC open house session
City of Ashland
Contact list compilation and survey distribution
Updates to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure condition assessment
Request and facilitate data sharing with RVTD, Southern Oregon University, Rogue Valley Council of
Governments/ MPO and other stakeholders
Arrange logisticsfor TAC meeting#1
Arrange logistics for TC meeting #1
Printmaterials needed for public open house session, as needed.
TASK 3 STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
This task will build from past and ongoing planning efforts by presenting public transportation strategies in ways that let
stakeholders and decision-makers assess strategy benefits and costs.
3.1 –Strategy development
Nelson\\Nygaard will identify strategies in three groups:
operating (e.g. routes and schedules),
capital (e.g. vehicles and bus stations), and
programs (e.g. transportation options).
Nelson\\Nygaard will base strategies on stakeholder inputcollected in Task 2, past bus service,andpast plans. The
Nelson\\Nygaard team will develop and propose potential new strategies, pullingexamplesfrom industry best practices
and innovative approaches in other cities today.
This task will allow the team to more fully explore specific expansion alternatives based on stakeholder interest such as
ride-hailing services and vehicles using electric, hybrid electric or other propulsion systems. These assessments will
include approximate unit and operating costs in the most common iterations. Some new or innovative strategies may have
less quantitative data available, for which the team willprovide more broad estimates and identify ways for stakeholders
to stay informed of future opportunities.
3.2. –Funding scan
Nelson\\Nygaard will summarize potential funding sources, partnerships and methods to support the city’s
implementation plan. The funding information will include sources accessible by the City of Ashland, and sources used by
RVTD and other partner agencies to support public transportation services. The funding information will provide
information for stakeholdersto understand public transportation fundingopportunities and constraints.
3.3–Strategy evaluation
Nelson\\Nygaard will summarize strategiesto help stakeholders understand the tradeoffs, or costs and benefits, of each
strategy. The specific data or performance measures will be determined with the project team to ensure the analysis
answers questions unique to Ashland’s transportation goals, stakeholder interests, and plans, as identified in Task 2.
Performance measure examples include:
Estimated quantitative descriptions such as route frequency, hours of service, and travel times.
Quantitative measures such as jobs and residents within one-quarter mile of stops, cost, ridership effects, and vehicle
emissions available from sketch planning tools.
Qualitative measures such as travel time reliability, safety and security, and traveler comfort.
3.4–TAC Meeting #2
The Nelson\\Nygaard team will use the evaluationinformation to facilitatediscussionswith the TAC about which strategies
are well-suited to the City’s long-term mobility goals. Strategies considered feasible based on costs and preliminary
operating plans will be carried forward to the implementation phase for more detailed analysis and strategy development.
3.5 –City Council Meeting #1(Study Session)
The City Council is an important sounding board for this project, to ensure that City leaders’ vision for the City’s
transportation system aligns with the findings and potential strategies considered. Nelson\\Nygaard, in partnership with
city staff, will present a summary of the project and record comments and questions to guide strategy development and
research. The goal of the meeting will be to introduce the City Council to the project goals and schedule, and collect
information about priority public transportation needs and resources. Outcomes will be agreement on project vision and
goals, and direction on strategies of most interest for the Study.
3.6–Technical Memorandum #2 Strategy Development and Evaluation
Nelson\\Nygaard will document strategy development, evaluation and stakeholder feedback in Technical Memorandum
#2. The Memorandum will include the project team’s conclusions about the analysis and feedback as it relates to the
project goals. The memorandum will identify public transportation expansion strategies that best meet City and project
goals.
Deliverables
Nelson\\Nygaard
Technical Memorandum #2 Service Options, summarizing task analysis conducted in Tasks 3.1 through 3.4
(Draft Memo may have placeholder for Stakeholder Input if memo is distributed prior to PAC meeting #2)
Facilitate TAC meeting #2 in Ashland and create meeting notes
Facilitate CC meeting #1in Ashland and create meeting notes
City of Ashland
Arrange logistics for City Council meeting
Arrange logistics for TAC meeting
TASK 4 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION EXPANSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
The final task will be for the Nelson\\Nygaard team to provide estimated costs, phases, strategic partners, and other
resources and processes needed to implement public transportationstrategies.
4.1 -Public Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study
The implementation plan will include operating, capital, and programmatic categories, reflecting annual and one-time
costs, funding resources, and other requirements. The Nelson\\Nygaard team will provide up-to-date and detailed public
transportation funding information.The Nelson\\Nygaard team envisions the results of this task toprovide a clear vision
and set of priorities or goals the public transportation system in Ashland should achieve over a long-term period (10+
years). The results will include individual public transportation strategies to carry forward in future planning and
budgeting processes.
Nelson\\Nygaard will create aPublic Transportation Expansion Feasibility StudyExecutive Summary documenting
analysis and results from the project tasks. The executive summary will be combined with Technical Memoranda #1 and
#2 as attachments or exhibits, to create a full project report. The executive summary will providea short and non-
technical summary of the Feasibility Study strategies, potential funding and costs, outreach conducted as part of the
planning process, and an implementation plan describing how the City will pursue the strategies in the near futureand
key resources to implement those strategies.
4.2–TAC Meeting #3
The third TAC Meeting will be an opportunity for the committee to review the findings to date, changes to strategy
evaluation results developed after TAC Meeting #2, and a draft of the Public Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study
Executive Summary. The TAC comments will guide development of the Draft Final Executive Summary before
presentation to the City Council.
4.3 –TC Meeting #2
It is important to circle back with stakeholders to discuss the plan findings and validate results from the strategy
evaluation. Nelson\\Nygaard will present the final plan to the Transportation Commission. The Commission meeting will
include a 2-hour open information session beforehand, allowing interested stakeholders time to learn about the project
work, share comments and information, and ask questions. The Commission members will have an opportunity to learn
about and comment on potential strategies andinformation describing them in the Draft Executive Summary.The goal of
the TC meeting will be to introduce strategies and next steps to pursue strategies. Meeting outcomes will be information
and questions to review with City staff for possible inclusionin the Final Plan.
4.4 –City Council Meeting #2
The City Council meeting #2 will be a presentation of the Draft Final Feasibility Study. The Council will review the
Executive Summary. Nelson\\Nygaard will facilitate the presentation in partnership with City staff, and a discussion about
potential strategies, key partners, and next steps. The goal of the City Council meeting will be to introduce strategies and
next steps to pursue strategies. Meeting outcomes will be information and questions to review withCity staff for possible
inclusion in the Final Plan.
The City of Ashland staff will be responsible for guiding the resulting Study through the City Council adoption process.
Task deliverables include:
Nelson\\Nygaard
Draft and Final Public TransportationExpansion Feasibility Study
TAC meeting #3
TC meeting and workshop #2
CCmeeting #2
City of Ashland
Arrange logistics for TAC meeting #3
Arrange logistics for TC meeting #2
Arrangelogistics forCCmeeting #2
OUTREACH SCHEDULE AND BUDGET
Nelson\\Nygaard expects to complete the outreach meetings in Ashland in six trips. The trips, expected schedule and staff
are described in Table 1. The budget is shown in Table 2.
Table 1: Stakeholder outreach schedule
PURPOSEDATEATTENDING
Task 1 Project Kickoff
1.1 –Kickoff meeting and site visitsMarchJamey,
Stephanie,
1-2 day
Paul
Task 2 Existing Conditions and Needs Assessment
2.2 –Stakeholder group interviews AprilJamey, Paul
2.3 –Public event table #13 days
2.4 –TAC #1
2.2 –Stakeholder group interviews (as needed) MayJamey, Paul
2.3 –Public event table #22 days
2.5 –TC #1 +workshop (standardschedule)
Task 3 Strategy Development and Evaluation
3.4 –TAC #2JulyJamey,
Stephanie
3.5 –CC #12 days
Task 4 Public Transportation Expansion Feasibility Study
4. 2 –TAC #3September Jamey, Paul
(week 1)
4.3 –TC #2 +workshop (special schedule)
2 days
4.4 –CC #2 NovemberJamey
1 day