Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-08 Historic PacketII. III. IV. CITY OF kSHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Agenda October 8, 2003 SONJA AKERMAN CITY OF ASHLAND CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in Community Development/Engineering Services Building (51 Winburn Way) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 3rd and 17th, 2003 CITY SOURCE DIscuSsION: Discussion with Ann Seltzer about articles for City Source PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING ACTION 2003-110 is a request for modification of a previously approved Site Review approval to construct a third dwelling unit for the property located at 230 and 232 Van Ness Street. The request includes a Variance to allow the applicant an additional on-street parking credit by utilizing the adjoining property's 20-foot wide street frontage. Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 !E 05 DA; Tax Lot: 1600. APPLICANT: Serin Eggling PLANNING ACTION 2003-122 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to enclose the front porch of Ashland Hardware with black iron railings in order to create a secure display-retail area for the sale of garden and outdoor products. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-l; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BA; Tax Lot: 14602. APPLICANT: John Fields PLANNING ACTION 2003-127 is a request for Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed- use (condominium and commercial) building with underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. A Variance is requested to allow less than 65 percent of the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a permitted or special permitted uses. In addition, an AdministratiVe'Variance and ~ception'is requested to Site Design and Use standards relating to separation between buildings {11-C-3a(3)} and to allow balconies on street facing elevations {VI-B-(3)}. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 100. APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis V. OLD BUSINESS: B. C. D. Review Board =, appointments/volunteers Project Assignments for Planning Actions Possible National Register Nomination for Lithia Springs Property Carnegie Library Restoration VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: There will be a meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 21 in the Siskiyou Room to discuss the various aspects of design and styles. The next Historic Commission meeting will be on November 5, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. IX. ADJOURNMENT I reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA'I'~Iel). 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 number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make Historical Open Houses in Jackson County October 2003 Chavner Family House Barber-Riddell House Reginald Parsons Dead Indian Lodge Cabin 5, Block A Peerless Rooms Hockenjos/Fick House Wagner Creek School 12162 Blackwell Road Central Point (close to Gold Hill) 836 Minnesota Avenue Medford Hyatt Prairie Road Mile Post 4 Ashland Union Creek 243 Fourth Street Ashland October 4 10:00 to 2:00 October 5 noon to 4:00 October 14 October 14 October 20 10:00 to 2:00 10:00 to 2:00 11:00 to 3:00 345 North Fifth October 28 10:00 to 2:00 Jacksonville 8448 Wagner Creek Road October .31 5:00 to 9:00 Talent NOTE: The monthly open house list for the State of Oregon is now available on the State Historic Preservation Office website. To look up other open house sites in the state, go to www shpo state or us, then click on the Historic Open House Schedule on your right. · ' ' ' ' CITY OF kSHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes September 3, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:07 p.m., Acting Chairperson Terry Skibby called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. In addition to Skibby, members present were Alex Krach, Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Joanne Kdppaehne, Rob Saladoff and Sam Whitford. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox, Council Liaison John Mordson and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Member Dale Shostrom was unable to attend and member Keith Chambers is on sabbatical. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Kdppaehne moved and Giordano seconded to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2003 meeting as submitted. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action 2003-108 Conditional Use Permit 115 Church Street Nancy Seward and Tim Bond Knox reported this application is for the construction of an 818 square foot accessory residential unit that will be located at the rear of the property and occupied by a family member. There is currently an existing non-historic building that occupies the space where the new unit will be built. The unit, which will be 42 feet from the front property line, will also include an attached single car garage with access off Church Street. A pedestrian walkway will connect the new unit to Church Street. Because the unit will be built behind the existing house, only half the structure will be visible from the street. The design incorporates a hipped roofline with two gables on the south side. Six-inch horizontal siding (hardi-plank), vinyl windows, composition roofing and 1" x 4" comer and window/door trim will be utilized. Knox also related that most of the existing landscaping will remain. However, the removal of an apple tree near the west property line is proposed due to the placement of the accessory unit. Skibby opened the public headng. Applicant Nancy Seward stated the existing garage/workshop building that will be removed is made of corrugated tin with a plastic roof. The new unit will basically be built on that site. Designer Doyle Bdghtenburg clarified that the new structure will be located a little closer to the property line to preserve as much of the backyard as possible. As a result, the removal of one tree is necessary. Also, some of the existing retaining will need to be removed but it will be replaced and incorporated with the foundation of the new accessory unit. He also noted there is an easement that runs down the side of the property, which although not part of the property, can be utilized. The existing house does not have exterior historic detail because of previous remodeling. Since there is a variety of structural styles in the neighborhood, Bdghtenburg said he did not try to emulate any of them, including the existing house. He also stressed the fact that only half the unit will be visible from the street. Giordano stated he has two minor concems. One is that backing out into Church Street can be hazardous because of speeding cars coming down the steep street. He wondered if the applicants looked at providing a turn around Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 CITY OF ASHLAND on the property. The second concem is the contemporary use of the windows on the south elevation. Bdghtenburg responded that a turnaround on the property would take up too much reom. As for the windows, he acknowledged they are contemporary but that portion of the unit will be hidden behind the existing home. Krach asked if there were plans to renovate the existing house. Seward replied they will not be doing anything to the house right now except to paint it to match the new unit. It will also need a new roof before long. Krach proclaimed the design of the new unit feels very contemporary. Brightenburg stated he created the gable on the unit to be sympathetic with the main house. The number of windows grew as they were considering designs to make it more comfortable. The family liked the feel and the design. He admitted it looks a little contemporary, but there will be landscaping and the unit will be partially hidden. Skibby stated the applicants came to the Review Board and the visibility of the new unit was discussed at that time. Whitford said he sees no problem with the proposal, as it will be mostly hidden from the street. He would, however, like to see the existing house renovated as it was rather than remodeled to look like the new unit when the time comes. Seward agreed and stated that Skibby was looking for a historic photo of the house. Knox related that staff had discussed the safety issues of backing onto Church Street, but it had to look at the existing conditions and it was difficult to assess how bad the situation would be. If a turnaround were provided, it would use up a large portion of the property, as Bdghtenburg stated. As a result, staff felt there would not be enough of an impact to require redesigning the project. Skibby closed the public hearing. Whifford moved to recommend approval of Planning Action 2003-108. Giordano seconded the motion and it passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2003-110 Modification of Previously Approved Site Review and Variance 230 and 232 Van Ness Avenue Serin Eggling This application, Knox explained, is being requested in order to modify one of the conditions of a previously approved planning action. The odginal request was to replace the existing garage with a third dwelling unit on the property. At the time of approval, the adjacent neighbors had given verbal agreement for the shared use of their driveway, thus enabling the owner to provide four off-street parking spaces. These neighbors have changed their minds, however, so the owner will need to provide one more on-street parking space. Knox further explained that several years ago, this property was partitioned. At that time, each property needed at least 20 feet of access to a public street. Since the lot that was created to the north would have only had alley access, it was necessary for it to have a 20 foot "flag" to maintain access off Van Ness Avenue, although only a pedestrian path was constructed from the street to the rear property. Since then, the necessity of having a 20-foot access has changed. Therefore, the owner has received permission from the property owner to the north to use his 20 feet in order to count it in the required footage for on-street credit. Whitford asked for clarification on the 20-foot access. Knox explained that now, only an 8-foot pedestrian path is needed; 20 feet of access is no longer required. Skibby opened the public hearing. Designer Doyle Bdghtenburg clarified that the owner had a reciprocal easement with the neighbors, but after the garage was tom down, it was found that the proper names were not on the easement and they backed down. ^fter he met with the owner, he found out she had a legal agreement with the owner of the property to the north that she would maintain the pedestrian walkway and had the right to use the rest of the flag for her landscaping. There is Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 2 CITY OF ASHLAND a possibility that she may be able to purchase the 12-foot strip. Since the 20-foot strip does not need to remain open, they are all hoping this solution will work in order to provide the required number of parking spaces for the project. Giordano stated he feels the design layout with the landscaping and sidewalk is better than what was previously approved. Bdghtenburg added they had to encroach a little on the 5-foot buffer but also agreed it looks better. Skibby closed the public headng. Giordano moved to recommend approval of Planning Action 2003-110. With a second by Kdppaehne, the motion was unanimously approved. Planning Action 2003-092 Site Review and Variance 124 Alida Street Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov Because he is the architect for this project, Giordano stated he has a conflict of interest with this Planning Action and stepped out of the room. Knox reported this project was heard last month and involves the relocation of the existing home to the south side of the property and the construction of two additional units in a single structure. The Commission had voted to recommend the Headngs Board call the project up for a public headng because of the massive scale on the Blaine Street side. The following day, the applicants decided to postpone their application and focus on the scale of the project. As a result, the square footage of the new duplex has been reduced by 291 square feet. The applicants feel strongly that this is a better application. They are proposing to put the sidewalk along the curb rather than as a parkrow, allowing 14~ feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the building. Knox stated Shostrom and Chambers were the most outspoken about this project at last month's meeting and pointed to the letter submitted by Shostrom. In it he offers numbers and thoughts about the bulk and scale of the proposed duplex and stated if the existing house was located on the corner rather than moved south, it could mask the bulk of the proposed duplex and be an anchor for the Histodc District. Knox confirmed for Saladoff the biggest concems were that the existing house would no longer be on the corner and the scale of the design for the new duplex is massive. Knox stated that to remedy these concerns, the applicants have removed square footage to soften the bulk and scale. In order to assess the project, it is necessary to look at it as a pedestrian feeling the effects of the design. Knox said he feels a parkrow would be better for the sidewalk because it is more traditional, but by locating the sidewalk next to the curb allows more buffer (landscaping) between the sidewalk and the building. Leighton asked how the height of a building determines the distance between buildings and Knox replied to establish the distance, the top of the gable points of the two buildings are added, then divided by 2. The existing building is 23 feet high and the proposed duplex will be 24 feet, so the required separation would be 23~ feet. The applicants are requesting 14 feet of distance. Skibby opened the public hearing. Applicant Kirt Meyer listed changes they had made since last month. According to calculations, the average distance between buildings in the neighborhood is 11' 8', so the request of 14 feet does not seem out of the question. The overall size of the duplex has been reduced by 291 square feet, so it is now proposed for 3,470 square feet. He also clarified that Shostrom's calculations in the letter were incorrect and he stated he felt they were treated unfairly last month because the Commission focused on the maximum house size ordinance and how it would relate to this project, and it hadn't even been adopted. Meyer then pointed out the landscaping would exceed the requirements, thus providing more of a buffer. The mass and bulk of the project were heavily criticized last Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND month, so the wall has been reduced from 35' to 29', the wall well is now more articulated, entrances will be on Alida and Blaine Streets, and the overall height of the new building is now only one foot higher than the existing house. He also pointed out the existing duplex across the street is about 120 feet long. He then stated he thought it was more important to blend a project into the neighborhood than to meet all the ordinances. The total square footage of the duplex will now be 3,470. Each unit will be approximately 1,700 square feet, including garages. The last point he wanted to make was that the existing house is more compatible with the neighborhood on Alida and that it would blend in better than the new duplex. Applicant Vadim Agakhanov added that even if the ordinance limiting the maximum square footage were in place, they would only exceed the maximum by approximately the size of a garage. If the garage was not built or was detached, the project would comply. He also pointed out that most people usually ddve on Alida, not Blaine Street. By keeping the existing house on Alida Street, it keeps the district more historic. Skibby asked if it would be possible to move the existing house to the corner and build the duplex on the south portion of the lot. Meyer said it would be doable if that was the only way to get approval, but that they preferred the layout as submitted. Leighton asked if any adjustments could be made to inset the duplex more. Knox explained a conceptual drawing has been done. Leighton commented that the 25% Vadance is a planning action so there should not be an automatic assumption. She also acknowledged the new maximum house size ordinance is not in effect and agreed the Commission wasn't exactly fair to the applicants last month in this respect. This application needs to be reviewed with cdtedon now in effect. Knox interjected that if the Commission requests the applicant to switch the plans and relocate the existing house to the comer, the proposal would need to be re-noticed, thus delaying it further. All concems need to be addressed by the Site Design & Use Standards, which is in effect. In closing Agakhanov stated he thought Giordano had addressed the mass issue - the duplex is not as bulky and he thinks it looks much better. He added there have been no objections from the neighbors. Skibby closed the public hearing. Whitford commended Giordano for addressing concems the Commission had last month. He disagreed with Commission concerns about locating the existing house on the comer. He does have an issue with building such a large structure on such a small parcel of land. Kdppaehne stated she thinks it is legitimate to discuss the new ordinance with this project because it serves as proxy as most members feel about this issue. She also doesn't necessarily agree with the ordinance. To her, the proposed duplex feels compatible with the neighborhood and provides for multi-family housing. Once the decision was made for the area to be zoned for multi-family units, legitimate proposals and ideas should be accepted. She said that moving the house to the south and building a larger structure on the corner is a good treatment for the property. It adds more vadety. She feels Giordano made a successful effort to provide an interesting facing to Blaine Street and she is in favor of approval. Saladoff said there are several issues here - variances and exceptions, bulk and scale. He would not necessarily recommend switching the proposal. The scale (as it is now), as well as the articulation and entry, will improve the corner. Giordano's elevations on Blaine Street represent an improvement over what is there now. He admitted having mixed feelings because of the bulk and scale issue, but feels this would be an appropriate addition to the neighborhood. Although the building is a little large, it will benefit the neighborhood. Krach stated there was strong opposition to moving the existing house last month and understands the value of not moving historic structures. However, if newer larger structures are built between historic ones, it ruins the progression of size on the block. He said his only concem with the project at this moment is the size. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND Leighton commented she also has mixed feelings about this application. If the existing structure is left as is, a garage would need to be added, thus creating about the same scale. The proposed duplex still has bulk to it and is larger than the histodc home. Referring to the long duplex across the street, Leighton noted it does not have the bulk because it is one story. The proposed duplex will have more bulk. Skibby said he feels much better about moving the house now than he did last month and can see the benefits. The duplex has been scaled down, the application could have been a house with a large additiOn, and the applicants have responded to concerns resulting from the meeting last month. He also stated this project is at the edge of the Histodc Distdct and it is necessary to look at the fact that the histodc house will be saved. Knox asked for input on the sidewalk placement - curb v. parkrow. Leighton stated that as a pedestrian, she personally prefers parkrows. She also said it needs to be acknowledged that landscaping comes and goes and is not necessarily permanent. Kdppaehne said that this does not do much to mitigate other issues. By providing trees along the street, there is more to mitigate. Morrison reminded the Commission that the new ordinance is not in effect and the cdtedon that is in effect is what must be taken into consideration. It may be six weeks before the new ordinance is in effect. Skibby commented the design is now vaded so it is not so massive. He also noted the applicants have worked with the Review Board to scale it down. Kdppaehne moved to recommend approval of this application as presented with the exception of the sidewalk, which would preferably be constructed as a parkrow and Krach seconded the motion. It passed with Krippaehne, Skibby, Saladoff, Krach and Whitford voting YES and Leighton voting NO. Giordano did not vote. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the September schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: September 4th September 11th September 18th September 25th Skibby, Leighton and Giordano Skibby, Saladoff and Krippaehne Skibby, Krach and Saladoff Skibby and Whitford Proiect Assignments for Planninq Actions PA #2000-120 485 "A' Street (Steve Hoxmeier) Shostrom PA #2002-075 SE Comer of "A" & Pioneer Streets (Alan Sandier) Saladoff PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) Leighton PA #2002-125 44 North Second Street (Tdnity Episcopal Church) Skibby PA #2002-127 NW Comer North Main & Maple Streets Intersection (ACHF) Kdppaehne PA #2003-005 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) Kdppaehne PA #2003-035 665 East Main Street (Kirk McAIlister) Shostrom PA #2003-045/110 230/232 VanNess Avenue (Serin Eggling/Sherri Morgan) Leighton PA #2003-090 125 North Main Street (Lynn Thompson) PA #2003-094 45 Wimer Street (Paul Crafft) PA #2003-108 115 Church Street (Nancy Seward and Tim Bond) Saladoff PA #2003-092 124 Alida Street (K, irt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) Krippaehne Came,qie Library Restoration - Whitford explained he is on the Jackson County ~ Board and there is currently no money to finish the restoration work in the back of Ashland's library. He suggested the Ashland Fdends of the Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 5 CITY OF SHLAND Library have a fundraiser. Skibby stated he is a member of the group and will bdng it up. He will also compose a letter for the Historic Commission to send to the Mayor and Council asking that this not be forgotten. Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Spdn.qs Prope~- There has been no change on this as there is no longer an intern available to work on it. Knox will keep the Commission informed on the status. NEW BUSINESS: Topics for Potential Goals - Goal topics will be discussed at the orientation meeting on September 17 and the regular meeting on October 8. Election of Officers - This was postponed until the next meeting, since Shostrom was not in attendance. ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Leighton stated an Ashland citizen had spoken to her about the Letter to the Editor wdtten by Andy Kuzmitz pertaining to light pollution, what the City of Ashland is doing about it and Kuzmitz' solicitation in support of an ordinance compliant with the International Dark Sky Association. The dtizen thought it was an issue that the Histodc Commission should address. Knox stated the City of Ashland's lighting policy has been to replace streetlights as needed with those in conformance with Dark Sky. The Electdc Department also has standards for new developments. Giordano suggested asking someone from the Electdc Department do a presentation to the Histodc Commission. Skibby said that while he basically agrees with Kuzmitz, perhaps there could be a few exceptions, as he would not want to change the lights on such histodc structures as the Perozzi Fountain. He also noted he has photos of all the streetlights throughout the years since the 1860s. He will put these together and bdng in for further discussion. Skibby related a person whose mother had recently passed away had contacted him regarding the possible donation of an histodc steam train bell. The bell was actually purchased in Arizona. The Commission felt that since the bell most probably didn't have anything to do with the history of Ashland, this person should contact the Medford Railroad Park. ANNOUNCEMENTS Election of officers will be on the October 8th agenda. Officers include Chair, Vice Chair, Planning Commission Liaison and City Council Liaison. Project sites to visit on October 18r" will be on the October 8~h agenda, as well as topics for potential goals. Leighton announced she will have to miss the Goal Setting meeting on October 18 due to a conflict. She will be overseeing a booth for Southem Oregon Historical Society at North Mountain Park. The booth will have information about "Food through the Ages". ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Leighton and second by Kdppaehne, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes September 3, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes September 17, 2003 At 5:00 p.m., the Histodc Commission met for its annual orientation meeting. Present were members Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Joanne Kdppaehne, Tom Giordano, Rob Saladoff, Alex Krach, Jay Leighton and Sam Whitford. In addition, Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja Akerman were in attendance. Keith Chambers is on sabbatical. ORIENTATION Land Use Basics Knox explained the basics of land use planning, nOting differences between the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and the Ashland Municipal Code. The Comp Plan serves as a guiding document for all development within the City. The Land Use Ordinance, which is chapter 18 of the Municipal Code, contains all the policies of the Comp Plan. Because the Land Use Ordinance incorporates adopted ordinances, it is more specific and includes the cdtedon necessary for implementing the Comp Plan. Knox also described the sections of the Site Design and Use Standards that pertain to the Histodc Districts and the Downtown District, and stressed the importance of becoming familiar with the specific sections. ~ Land Use Entitlements Entitlements (or planning actions) the Historic Commission is involved with include Site Reviews, Conditional Use Permits and Variances. Knox explained what is involved with each. Land Use Precedures Knox described the differences between projects involving only Building Permits and projects requiring Staff Permits, Type I, Type II and Type III planning actions. Discussion was based on precedures that entail public notices, time frames and appeal periods. There was also a discussion on whether the Commission should seek more authority in decision making. Knox assured the Commission that all recommendations and advice from the Commission are held in high regard from the staff level to the City Council. He then explained the functions of the Planning Commission and the Hearings Board. In discussing the Historic Commission Review Board, the design review form was breught up to consider its revision. Saladoff volunteered to spearhead this. Maximum House Size Ordinance Knox informed the Commission the ordinance was unanimously passed by the City Council and has now gone through the first and second readings. It will become effective on October 16. Leighton volunteered to work on a handoUt with simple illustrations that will be helpful to homeowners, contractors and designers. Bi.q Box Ordinance Knox explained this ordinance, which amends the Site Design and Use Standards, was also passed by the Council and will become effective on October 16. Items Not On Aqenda Knox advised the Commission to not set goals in October. He would rather see the members study and cleady understand the ordinances, implement them, and educate themselves and then the public. In discussing this, the members acknowledged they already have the goals of getting the Lithia Spdngs property on the National Register, making sure the Brown Bag Workshops take place, being able to articulate recommendations and suggestions clearly to the public, and redoing the design review form. Therefore, the October 18 meeting was postponed. Because the Commission still has the need to discuss and understand such elements as styles, remodels, likes/ dislikes and how far to go with mimicking certain elements, the members agreed to meet from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Orientation Meeting Minutes September 17, 2003 CITY OF SHLAND on October 21. It was also decided it would be helpful to have photos of buildings in Ashland and graphics so current interpretation of historic styles can be discussed. The members would also like to talk about the National Histodc Preservation Standards and how they work/don't work. It is hoped that as a result of the meeting, something will be created that can be presented to the community, perhaps through a Brown Bag Workshop. ADJOURNMENT At 7:30 p.m. the meeting adjourned. Ashland Historic Commission Orientation Meeting Minutes September 17, 2003 2 Notice is hereby given that a PUBUC HEARING on the following request with respect'to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be .held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS BOARD on October 14, 2003 at t:30 p.m. at the ASHLAND CMC CENTER, t175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. NOLO: This planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commi~ion on October 8, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winbum Way. PLANNING ACTION 2003-t10 is a request for modification of a previously approved Site Review approval to construct a third dwelling unit for the property located at 230 and 232 Van Ness Street. The request includes a Variance to. allow the applicant an additional on-street parking credit, by utilizing the adjoining prope ,~s 20-foot wide street frontage; Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Multi-Family Residential; Zoning: R-3; Assessor's Map #: 39 !E 05 DA; Tax Lot: 1600. APPUCANT: Serin Eggling SITE REVIEW .18.72.050 Criteria 'for Approval. deny a site plan: The following criteria shall' be used to approve or All applicable-City ordinances have been met and will be met by the, proposed development. 13. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met. Co The site design complies with the guidelines .adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chap.ter. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, pavecl access +.o'~nd throug.R. the development, e!ectric!t¥, urben _~tnrm drninage-, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) '' CRITERIA F, OR VARIA'NCF .The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as follows: · 1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not apply elsewhere. 2) That the proposal's benefits .will .be ~1 ater than any.negative impacts on the development' of the adjacent uses; and will fu~her the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the COmprehensive Plan of the City. lOrd. 2425 S1 1987) ' 3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purpOsely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996) Doyle Brigl~enburg and Teresa Zoll 545 'A' Street Ashland, OR. 97520 (541)482-6535 (541)552-9512 August 8, 2O03 Department of Planning Staff Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 E. Main Slmet Ashland, OR. 97520 Re: 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, Existing'Garage Demolition Dear Panning Staff and Commission, This profx)sal is a modiflcalion of a previously approved site review with a valance to allow an on- street parking credit by utilizing a portion of the adjacent prope~ies frontage. This use of the ne'~hboring frontage requires a valance in that the ordinance requires that on-street credits only be new structure increases. The owners would like to take advantage of this by moving the south wall of the new structure 3 fee{ toward the street. In these findings, we will present the reasons for your approval of this vaiance. Regards, .IILIL~ ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FI/qD~GS OF FACT SUBIVffITAL For SERIN EGGLING & SHF. RRI MORGAN 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page I of 3 8/8/2003 18.92.025 Credit tbr On-Street Automobile Parking A. The amount of off-street parking required .~1 be reduced by the following credit provided for on-street parking: one off-street parking space credit for every two on-street .spaces up to four credits, thereafter one space credit for each on- B. On-street parking follow the established configuration of existing on- street, except that 45 degree allowed with the approval of thg Public Works Dirc~or, taking into account traffic flows and meet design, with on file with the Public Works Departmen~ The following .~_i! constitute an on-slreet parking space: 1. Panfllcl parking, each 24 feet of-ninterrupted curb. 2. 45 degree diagonal, each 13 feet of uninterrupted curb. C. Curb space must be contiguous to the lot which contains the use which requires thc pad g. D. Parking spaces may not be counted that are within 20 feet measured along thc curb of any comer or intersection of an alley or street, nor any other parking A. This proposal is to lessen the off-street parking from (4) to (5) spaces. This requires that (2) parking spaces be supplied by on- street spaces. The on/off street ratio for credit is 2/1. Therefore, (4) on-street parking spaces are reft,ired. By removing one off-street parking space, the landscaped area between the off-street parking and the new structore increases. The owner~ would like to take advantage of this by moving the south wall of new structure 3 feet toward the street. 1. A compressed parallel parking configuration is proposed in which the spaces are 20' and each (2) spaces have a 4 foot isle for backing or moving fonvard. 2. C. This is the par~ of the ordinance that we would like a variance ~om. The lot needing parking, has a contiguous curb measurement of 79.92 feet as shown on the attached drawings. This suppo~s (3) 20 foot spaces, two back up isles, and a 9 foot space for the drive to utilize. D. N/A ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTAL For SERIN EGGLING & SHERRI MORGAN 230 & 232 van Ness Street, ASHLAND, OREGON configuration that violates any law or stamlard of the City or State. E. Parking spaces located on arterials and collectors may only receive credit if the arterial or collector is greater in width than the minimums e~ablished by the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance 2836 S14, 1999) F. Parking spaces may not 1~ GO~mted tl~ ~ within 200 feet ofa C-I-D er SO G. On-street parking spaces credited for a specific use shall not be used exclusively by that use, but ~H be available for general public use at all times. No sJ~ge or actions limiting general public use of on-street spaces shall be permitted. 18.100.020 Application The owner or las agent may nmke application with the Staff Advisor. Such application .~5~!1 be accompanied by a legal description of the property and phn.~ and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application ~mS~ll b~ a statement and evidence showing ,ha~ all of the following ciro~m~lances exist: A. That there arc unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. Page 2 of 3 8/8/2003 E. The paved street is 56'-8" (F.O.C.), which is wider than required for a neighborhood collector street. Credit for off-street parking is provided. F. N/A G. No specific designation of the spaces will occur. ~ The concerned lot has an adjacent lot to the north. The northerly lot is a flag lot with the pole (20 feet wide) adjacent to the east side of the concerned lot. The pole of the flag lot is used by pedestrians and as an extension of the concerned lot's yards. The flag lot has (4) units on the flag portion of the lot. The units are accessed only by an ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FINDINGS OF FACT SUBM1TrAL For SERIN EGGLING & SHF. RRI MORGAN 230 & 232 Van Ness Street, ASHLAND, OREGON Page 3 of 3 8/8/2OO3 alley. It appears that the pole of the flag will not be used for access, only utilities if needed. Thus, the curb contiguous to the pole portion of the flag will remain as public street parking. Therefore, due to configuration of the 20 foot wide curb to the 80 foot width of the concerned lot, a 1OO foot street parking length could be considered. B. That thc pn~'s B. This variance provides the ability to use less area of the site for ben¢ti~ will be greater than any negative impacts on thc parking and more area for landscaping. This can happen while development o£the ~ljaceat complying with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan of uses; and will further the the Cit:~. purpose a~! intent o£ this ordinance ~nfl the City. (Ord. 2425 SI, 1987) C. Tha~ 1~ ci~nm~ _n~s or conditions have not been' C. The space for placement of the parking was not created by the willfully or l~n~osely self- owners. impo~a. (Ont 2~75, 18. 100.030 Effect No I~ildiag ~ zomag Fifteen days after the approval of the variance, the building permit will ~ermit~l~Ubeissue~inany be available if no appeals are filed. case where a variance is after al~ o£the varimce by ~e Commi~o~ ami lhen only is accordance with the tem~ nad conditions of the action o£ the Commission autom__~ically stay the issuance o£ the building or thereo~ In the event the Council acts to grant ~aid variance, the building or zoning penait may be i~ue~ immediately thea~l~er, in aeconlance with such terms and conditions as may have been imlx~ed on mid _ I JIULI I (O~V t Oeg 0 tg - gNOl..kl) ( £-~1 ~9NOZ NI) J. INI'I "IVLLN:I~Iff:rbl (3blII,.,LL Y /? // // // /il ., JILILI NPS Form 10,900-A United States Department of the Intedor National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: 7 OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) Page: Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR 62.0 S=.~ey #738 SHEETS-ROSE HOUSE 243 LAUREL ST 20th Century American: Bungalow 1911 391E05DA 1400 Builder: Sheets William Historic Contributing William T. Sheets, a carpenter, purchased this property from Susan Helman in January 1911 and built this structure shortly thereafter, moving from the bungalow he was renting next door. In 1912 Sheets left Ashland and sold the house to Charles Rose, of Rose Brothers Confectionary. Rose retained ownership until 1924. Walter Mauzey is listed as residing here in 1948. The single-story Sheets-Rose House is a front facing bungalow form, with a projecting gable front porch. The house retains its original siding, glazing and trim. A compatible accessory unit was built to the rear north in 1999 by Medinger Construction. (Permit 9808015) The Sheets-Rose House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. 63.0 S,,n, ey #808 MORRIS WILLIS HOUSE 1880c 212 VAN NESS AVE 391EOSDA 1500 Other: Vernacular [l-House ] Historic Contributing Abel Helman granted this property to his daughter Martha Jane in June 1876. Soon afterward Martha married John Carter, a painter, and the couple may have. constructed this dwelling for their own use at that time. By 1880 Willis Morris bought the property for $200 and less than two years later sold it for $800, the significant increase likely indicating the house had been constructed. The Morris House, oriented toward Van Ness, is built in the I-House vernacular form, with a small kitchen wing to the rear. Although somewhat modified with rephcement windows, the dwelling retains original siding, trim and other detailing. The Morris House retains sufficient integrity to relate its period of construction. STUBBLEFIELD, RAYMOND J & VERA HOUSE 230 VAN NESS AVE Modem Period: 1940s Era Cottage 1945c 391E05DA 1600 Historic Contributing Raymond J. Stubble field, and his wife Vera, apparendy built this house jus{ after their purchase of the property in 1945. Mr. Stubblefield was employed as a mechanic and lived at 178 Skidmore in 1942. City directories for 1948 show the couple residing in this dwelling, where they remained at least into the late 1970s. The Stubblefield House is a locally unusual example of concrete block construction and retains its shallow pitched roof, small projecting porch stoop and broad multi-windows, all typical elements of the post-war housing built in the district during the 1940s. Attractively landscaped and well maintained, the Stubblefield House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. 0111~ I~1~' V I I-' V V ;18,72;050 Criteria 'for ApprOval, The 'following criteria shall' be used to approve or deny a site plan: All applicable'City ordinances have been met and will be met by the. proposed d.evelopment. ° All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met. The site design complies with the guidelines .adopted .by the City Council for implementation of this Chap.ter. That adequate capacity of City facilitieS.for water, sewer, paved access to-and through the develo, pment,' electricity, urban storm drainage-,-and adequate transportation .can. and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) '' CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE The critera for the apprOval of a Varinace are found in 18,100,020 and are as follows: 1| .i That there are unique .or unusual circumstances-which apply to this site which do not apply elsewhere, 2) ~rhat the proposal's benefits .will ·be ~t'~ater than any.negative impacts on.the development of the adjacent use~; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 Sl, 1987) .. 3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purpOsely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996) To: REQUEST for PUBIC HErO AsMand Planning Department 20 Bast Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Herbert M Sweeten 240 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: Planning Action 2003-110 This action does not the meet the criteria stated in Section 18.92.025 Credit for On-Street Parking (A) and (B, 1). This action should not be approved on the basis that an off street parking space credit is for 48' of curb parking and property only has 20' of curb footage, after already using 48' of curb footage for one off street parking credit. The 20' in question is already a single undersized on street parking for the use of residents of 220-226 Van Ness Avenue, four units of two bedroom townhouses. Also street access for the 4 unit building in the rear of 230-232 Van Ness Ave. In the center of the 20' section is walking access to 220, 222,224, 226, Van Ness Avenue. A sign is posted on the gate to that effect. And, it is to my understanding it is also for fire fighting access to the four plex in the rear. At 212 Van Ness adjacent to this parking space is a main trunk line junction box for Qwest Telephone Service, often the Qwest technicians park their service truck, paxtially in the space in review, while working on the main ~Iunction box for the neighborhood. My point is this spacc is uscd by Qwest to keep phone service working, when repairs or upgrading is required. 230 and 232 is 80' wide, minus 12' for driveway, = 68'minus 48'=20' lei~ 4'short of one on street parking space. And to add the proposed 20' in front of 220-226 Van Ness Avenue which is 4' short of the 24' required to be considered an on street parking space, combined they would be 8' short of the rcquircment of 48' to be considered, two on street parking spaces to equal a credit of off street parking. The amount of curb footage gained by this action plus the amount of curb footage at 230-2 Van Ness that is not already serving as an off street parking credit on street parking is 8' short of the requirement for an off street parking credit, and this is a new action, thus does not come under any kind of grandfather clause, It does not meet the current standard, it does not meet the requirements, as stated in Section 18.92.025 Credit for On-Strcct Parking (A) and(B, 1). The parked car density at 220-232 Van Ness Avenue is already congested enough in regard to parking spaces on the affected curb footage in this request.. Thus: In my opinion this variance should not be approved. = / n ~/5~ ' The Ashland Planning Department [.-e;rrdnarily approved lhis request If a hearing is requested, it will be sc~duled for the followingmonth. on September 24, 2003. This action will be reviewed by the Ashland Planning Commission Heatings Board at 1:30 p.m. on. October 14, 2003 at the Ashland CMc Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. No public testimony is allowed at this review Any affected property owner or resident has a right to request, AT NO CHARGE, a public heating before the Ashland Planning Commission on this action. To exercise this right, a WRITTEN request must be received in the Planning Department, 20 East Main Street, pdor to 3:00 p.m. on October 6, 2003. The written request for the pubU~ hearing must include yOUF name, eddFe~ the file number of the Phnnin~ tction and the specific ~ounds for wMch the decision should be reyeFsed or modified, based on the applicable criteria. If you do-not SPECIFICALLY REOUEST A I~IBUC tlEARIN(~ by the time and date stated above, there will be no public testimony permitted. Unless them is a continuance, if a palJcipant so requests before the condu'sion of the heating, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the heating. b based off also pmckides l~xr flgN o( appeal to. LIJBA m that cflteflo~ Faille of Ihs Street, Ashlaml, Omgo~ 97520. Our TI'Y ~ nurnber is 1-800-735-2g00. NOTE: This planning Action will also be heard by ~Mand Historic Commi.~.sion on October 8, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in tho Commtulity Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. PLANNING ACTION 2003-122 is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to enclose the front porch of Ashland Hardware with black iron railings in order to create a Secure display-retail area for the sale of garden and outdoor products. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Employment; Zoning: E-l; Assessor's Map #: 39 1E 09 BA; Tax Lot: 14602. APPLICANT: John Fields ~18.72.070 Criteria for Approva!. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development,-electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) ~OND~TIOI~ . USE ~.~0~.050 -.A~roval Criteria. ~ conditional use pe~lnit shall granted if the approval authority finds that ~he proposed use conforms, or can 1~ made to confo~ough the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A.- That the:use would be in-conformance with all standards within the zoning district inwhich the use is proposed to be located, and in conformande"~ith relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for-water, sewer, paved access.to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect On the livability of the impact areawhen compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of.the zone. When evaluating the effeCt of the proposed use on the impact area, the following fact°rs of livability of the impact area shall'be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: Se Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity °f'facilities.. Architectural'compatibility with the impact area. Air qualitY, including the generation of dust, odors, or other-'environmental pollutants. '. Generation of noise, light, and glare. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Other factors foUnd to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proPosed use. .18,72.070 Criteda for Approval, The following criteda shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design .Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the deveJopment,-electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) ' .eONOZTZONRL _USE P'm~MZTS ~8.104,0S0 -,~DDroval..Criter.~a. A conditional Use permit, shall-be . granted if ~he approval authority fi~s ~a2 ~e pro~s~ use confo~, or ~n ~ made ~o confo~ ~ough ~he ~osi2ion co~i2iOnS, .wi~ ~e 'following approval criteria. A.- ~at ~e:use would ~ in-conffo~ance w[~ all. wi~in ~e zoning dis2ric2 in-~hi~ ~e use is DrowSed '1~, and in conEo~d&'.'~i~ relev~t 'COmp~ensive pl~ -~licies ~a2 are nO2 'iapl~en2ed by any Ci2y', 8~te, or Fed~al . - . .B~ '.'~at ade~ate ..apacity of.citY facilities '~or :Water',. ~sewer, ,prOvided to and;:~ough ~e'subjeCt proper2y. ' C~ ~at ~e COnal~onal..uSe..~Wii~ have nO ~eater aQv~rse ' ~. ..materia.1` effect'.' ~n 'the..!lvabil:ity of ~e .i~pact ?rea :when .. coaPared .to ..~e development of .~e s~jec~.~:lot w~ ~e ~ge~ use.. of the. zone:. ~en evaluating ~e effect Of .the proposed use l~ac2-a~ea.'~ha-11: be Cons~d~ed. in. re,ticn to ~e't~get...use of . ~e.. ~o~e: 1. Similarity in s~le, bulk, and coveragel 2. Generation of ~affic and effects on -~s~rounding s~ee~. Increases in pedestri~, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered ~neficial regardless of capacity of 'facilities.. 3. ~chitectural compatibility wi~ the ~mpact area. .4. Air ~alitY, including ~e generation of dust, ~ors, or other. ,enviro~ental pollueants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. · 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the ~Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by ~e Hearing Authority for review of the proposed US~. Tlrl[r 9/11/2003 To: Planning Commission and Ashland Planning Department City of Ashland Zone: Site Review Application & Findings for Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for Ashland Hardware at 249 A St. Ashland, Oregon E-1 Employment with Residential Overlay within the DetailSite Review Zone District: Railroad District Applicant: Golden-Fields Construction and Design, Ltd. John Fields 845 Oak Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland Hardware Paul Comstock Project Team: Engineer:. Jerome White Architectu~ Phil McCullough Proposal Summary. W.e..would .li?e to endose the front porch of Ashland Hardware with black iron ~/ railings. This will create a secure display-retail area for the sale of garden and ~hUetdoor ~ucts._ Ashland Hardware intends to expand their retail visibility with presentatmn of garden and home products. This will not be dead storage of unsightly junk, but an enhanced, lively display of products. It Will contribute to the vitality of A Street. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for this type of merchandise display. Our contention is that this kind of display is similar in nature to the requirement of a minimum of 20% area of windows for on a buildings frontage. FINDINGS This project is subject to Ashland's Site Design and Use Guidelines and is within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Historic Railroad district. We have endeavored to meet or exc~%cd all City requirements. We believe that there is a huge need for Ashland Hardware in our community. The successful design of the original SEP 1 g 003 Findings for Site Review and CUP 9/11/2003 building creat~l in 1996, and the added amenKy of the Hot Dog s~and have proven this type of design and use is appropriate in ~ neighborhood and serves to justify the Planning Commissions support of this Use. Within this application we are presenting findings for a modification of the original si~e review which was approved in 1996. To this end, included are the Si~e Plan, Exterior Elevations of the new A Street enclosure, and the following written findings for the proposed minor alteration of Ashland Hardware. SITE DESIGN AND USE SECTION 18. 7Z070 Criteria for Approval. The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: .d. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. · We have met or exceeded ail requirements B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. · We have met or exceeded all requirements for Site Review Chapter C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards _.ad. opted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. · We have met or exceeded all requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Counc'fl. D. That adeqt_,._~__e ~ity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Ail improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street S _tam~_____ ds in Chapter 18.88, Performance Stam!____~_ ds Options, (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999} · There ~ be no additional demand on the City of Ashland facilities. · We are not adding impervious surfaces, nor changing draim, ffe patterns. The current storm drainage has proven to be adequate. .SECTION l& 72.050 Delail,Rite Review Zone. A. The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Staml__.ards adopted pursuant to Section 18. 72. 080. · This project lies within the defined area. B. tiny development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Stam!___ards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 1 O, 000 square feet or is longer than l OO feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure · No new buildings are presented in this application. Therefore it will not be exceeding 10,000 square feet nor will it be greater than 100 feet in width or depth. C. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45, 000 square feet or a combined contiguous Page 2 $£P 1 2 2003 Findings for Site Review and CUP 9/11/2003 building length of SOO feet, Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may extxmd up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. · The gross square footage is under 45,000 sq.ft and there is no combination of contiguous buildings. SECTION 1K 72.115 - Recycling Requirements. · We have a recycling/trash enclosure that will continue to serve the commercial needs of this building. The garbage enclosure is a masonry structure with cyclone gates. Two 6' · 10' enclosures will allow for two 2 yard dumpsters. SECTION 18. 72.120 Controlled access. C. L No obstructions greater than two and one half feet high, nor any landscaping which will grow greater than two and one half feet high, with the exception of trees whose canopy heights are at all times greater than eight feet, may be placed in a vision clearance area determined as follows: The vision clearance area at the intersection of two streets is the triangle formed by a line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting points ten feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street. When the angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the disttmae shall be 25feet. No stntct~e or portion thereof shall be erected within ten feet of the driveways. · The two driveway egr~es for A Street meet the vision clearance standards. Please refer to site plan. SECTION l& 72.140 Light and Glare Poformance Stan~ There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C-I, E-I or M-I, SO, or HC lot. · This development has E-1 zoning on either side and will not create direct illumination on the R-2 zone across A street. SECTION 18. 72.150 Review by Conservation Coordinator. · There is no lost or new landscaping within this proposal Landscaping/Buffering and Screen~g/Parking Lot Landscaping SECTION 18.72.160Landscaping Maintenance. ,4. ,411landscaped areas must be maintained in a weed-free condition. Page 3 SEP 1 2 2OO3 Findings for Site Review and CUP 9/11/2003 All lands~ areas required by this Chapter must be maintained according to the approved landscaping plans. (Ord. 2228, 1982) * There are no new landscaped area proposed in this application. SECTION 18.72.110 LandscapingStaadards. E-I- 15% of total developed lot area (Oral 2825S3, 1998) · We meet the 15% landscape requirement per the original Site-Review. Locatiott Ixmdscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas where it provides for vi~:a! and acoustical buffering, open space uses, sha__.ding and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualifies~ * We have met this requirement through the landscape design and plans submitted with the original f'mdings. Irrigatior~ Ali landscaping plans stol either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property owner shall replace them. · We have met this requirement through the landscape design and plans submitted with the original f'mdings. A. Parking Lots. ~even percent of all the parking lot area shall be landsc~d. Such landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of the ~ areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs and _sl~__.ed by the trees. · We have met this requirement through the landscape design and plans submitted with the original findings. Building Materials · ~We. will be enclosing the front porch area with a rustic black iron gatt sysllm. ~ This will create security while at the same time create visual interest on the street.\ · The rear driveway access will be made of galvanized roofing and 4" x 6" painted ] steel columns. · There will be no new additional walls. · This alllration will add needed dry loading, unloading and storage. Orientation and Scale · Currently cement products are being stored in the front area. Covered storage would better be served in the back of the building. There us better truck and pallet access Page 4 SEP 1 2 2003 Findings for Site Review and CUP 9/11/2003 · During open hours customers will be able to browse oukioor produds and ~/ seasonal offerings. This will enhance the shopping experience on A Sh'eeL Currently the display on A Sh~et is uninteresting and uninviting. This enclosure will connect the shopping experience to the sidewalk. · We will be expanding retail opportunities to existing customers. · Creating a better inventory making more products available without a return trip as well as reducing vehicle trips to Medford. Sense of Enh-y · We have met this requirement through the original design and plans submitted with the original findings. · The enclosure of the porch area will serve as an entry into the store utilizing the~ existing front door that cannot be used due to security concerns. Streel~cape/rransit Amenities[Recycling · We have met this requirement through the original design and plans submitted with · the original findings. Parking and On-site CirculatiOnfL/gh~ · We have met this requirement through the original design and plans and the modified plan submitted with the attached sheet designated Zoning Information. . CrrY ORDINANCES Noise and Glare · The int~_nded uses do not generally generat~ any high noises that are of a nuisance with the exception of the occasional delivery trucks. Deliveries of this nature will be made during working hours and will not affect existing businesses or our future residential uses. · We have met this requirement through the original design and plans submitted with the original findings. · This alteration will not noticeably incremse tr~ffi~ and the requisite noise and glare. Signs · No new sign are proposed with ~h!s application. Driveways · N.o .new accesses shall be created. W.e have met this requirement through the original design and plans submitted w~th the original findings. Page 5 SEP 1 2 2003 Findings for Site Rev,,,w and CUP 9/11/2003 SECTION 18. 72.120 Controlled aceess~ Variance from Street standards and Controlled access. ZONING We have met or exceeded the zoning criteria on this project as shown in the Site Plan, Elevations and drawings of the various buildings, and as outlined above in the preceding written findings. ENERGY CONSERVATION · We have met this requirement through the original design and plans submitted with the original findings. CITY SERVICES Water: · There is adequate services for this Alteration Sanitary Sewer: · We have met this requirement through the original design and plans submitted with the original findings. Storm Sewer: · No additional storm run-off will be created. There is no additional impervious area. Electric: · No changes for electric demand for this proposal. Fire water supply: · Existing hydrants and fire sprinkler system will serve the from covered area. · Additional fire sprinklers in the expanded covered driveway area shall be provided as required by the Building Code and the Fire Marshall. The above evidence and supporting documents confirms that there is adequate City services for this development. Page 6 SEP 1 2 2003 ZONING IN OR ^T ON ZONE: E-I ADJACENT ZONE: LOT AREA: STRUCTURE: E-l, M-1 50,112 S.F. (1.15 ACRES) 14,180 S.F. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE: 28.4% TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA= 16,412 S.F. LN~IDSCAPING AREA (SUPPUED): 7,519 S.F. (15%) LANDSCAPING COVERAGE: REQUIRED- (50112 x 15%=) 7,517 S.F. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: 85% PARKING (REQUIRED) (E) RETAIL-12,849 S.F. (M - 1:415_HARDWARE) (N) RETAIL- 903 S.F. (M - 1:415_HARDWARE) (E) OFFICE- 2,232 S.F. (B - 1:450) (E) STORAGE- 1,316 S.F. (S2 - 1:1000) (N) EXT. STORAGE- 670 S.F. (S2 - 1:1000) (E) FOOD SERVICE- 180 S.F. (B - 1:100) 31.0 SPACES 2.2 SPACES 5.0 SPACES 1.3 SPACES 0.7 SPACES 1.8 SPACES TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL SPACES SUPPLIED: 42.0 SPACES 42SPACES NOTE: PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL BASED ON RESEARCH BY THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.. HARDWARE STORE (4,000 -100,000 S.F.) = 2.41 PARKING SPACES PER 1000 S.F. OF STORE (WEEK DAY) THIS RATIO = 1:415 SEP 1 2003 BUILDING INFORMATION BUILDING OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS: (B) - OFFICE, EATING & DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS WI OCCUPANT LOAD LES~ THAN 50 (M) - GENERAL RETAIL (82) - WAREHOUSE (EXISTING) BUILDING AREAS: OCCUPANCY AREA (GROSS) FLOOR 1 RETAIL GROUP M 12,515 8.F. FLOOR 1 STORAGE GROUP $2 1,316 S.F. FLOOR 1 BATHROOMS GROUP B 169 $.F. FLOOR 1 FOOD SERV. GROUP B .180 S.F. TOTAL AREA FLOOR 1 14,180 S.F. FLOOR 2 OFFICE8 GROUP B 1,899 S.F. FLOOR 2 STORAGE GROUP S2 207 8.F. FLOOR 2 BATHROOM GROUP B 60 S.F. FLOOR 2 STAIR '* 66 8.F. TOTAL AREA FLOOR 2 2A32 S.F. (EXISTING) TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA (EXISTING) EXT. STORAGE CANOPY TO BE REMOVED (PROPOSED) NEW EXTERIOR STORAGE (PROPOSED) SECURE EXT. RETAIL SPACE 16,412 S.F. (-)363 S.F. 1,030 S.F. EXTERIOR WALL RATINGS AND OPENING PROTECTION: AL/. EXTERIOR WALLS CAN BE NON-RATED DUE TO DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY UNES AND THE ADDmON Is A'I'FACHED TO THE EXISTING BUILDING BY THE ROOF. AU. OPENINGS CAN BE UNPROTECTED. OCCUPANCY SEPARATIONS: (M) TO (B) - NOT REQUIRED AS (B) OCCUPANCy 18 LESS THAN 25% OF (M) OCCUPANCY SEP 1 2 2OO3 m I11 -4 ENTRY 109.24FT. ASHLAND HARDWARE 249 'A' ST., ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASSESSOR'S MAP T.39, R. 1E, S.09BA, TAX LOT 10700 OWNER: JUDY & PAUL COMSTOCK JEROME WHITE ARCHITECTURE 5 4 5 A STREET SUITE NO. 3 ASHLAND, OR 9 7 5 2 0 tel 541.488.2830 fax 541.552.9512 ~C:\cad projects~hardware- canopy-security fence~site plan.dwg. 08111/2003 10:08:45 AM 5' l-Il I II I \\ // ~ T' ~// ITl I-- ITl Z I I ASFILAND NAP. J::)LLIAFRE STEEL CANOPY ADDITION t PORCN 5ECUtRITT ENCLOSUP. E 2~ 'A' E~TI~EET, A~-ILAN~, OREGON MAP- }aa IE ~ T,L.- 14e,~2 P A III Al,ID .JlJ I-J ¥ Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC I~"~ING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND L, , USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on October 14, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1 t75 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. is besed ea also la'ecludes your rlght of appeal to LUBA oa that critatoa. Failure of ~'te A copy of the apprmatJon,,-ll documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are ~ ~ for inspec~Jon at no cost and will be provided at reasortable cost. if reque~..~ A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department. City Hall, 20 East Main Street. Ashland, Oregon 97520. NOTE: This Planning Action will also be heard by the Ashland Historic Commission on October 8, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the Commullity Development and Ent~~ Services building (Sisldyou Room), located at 51 Winbum Way. NOTE: This Plannin~ Action will also be heard by the Ashland Tree Commi~ion on October 9, 2003 in thc Comrm.lnity Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at $1 Winbum Way at 5:00p.m. PLANNING ACTION 2003-127 is a request for Land Partition and Site Review to construct a multi-floor, mixed-use (condominium and commercial) building with underground parking upon the area occupied by the existing Ashland Springs Hotel surface parking area at 212 E. Main Street. A Variance is requested to allow less than 65 percent of the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a permitted or special permitted uses. In addition, an Administrative Variance and Exception is requested to Site Design and Use Standards relating to separation between buildings {11-C-3a(3)} and to allow balconies on street facing elevations {VI-B-(3)}. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Zoning: C-l-D; Assessor's Map #: 39 1 E 09 BC; Tax Lot: 100. APPLICANT: Ed & Tanya Bemis CRITERIA FOR MINOR LAND PARTITION (Section 18.76.050) The criteria for approval of a Minor Land Partition are as follows: A. The future use for. urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Bo C. D. E. Go The development of the reminder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter on Subdivisions. When there exists'~dequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the public Works Director and specified by City documents for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial .street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist: The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The ~enterline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district .to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include pa;in~, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. Where an alley exists adjacent to Ihe partition, access may he required to be pi'ovided from the alley and prohibited from the street. (amended Ord. 2757~ 1995) SITE REVIEW '1'8.72.O50 .Criteria for Approval, The following criteria shall' be used to approve or deny a site plan: . All applicable'City'ordinances have been met and will be met by the proposed development. Bo All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met. The site design complies with the .guidelines .adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chap.ter. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to-and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage-, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to a.n.d through the subject property. (Ord. 2655, 1991) CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE The critera for the approval of a Varinace are found in 18.100.020 and are as follows: 1) That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not apply elsewhere. 2) That the proposal's benefits will be grater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent useS; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. (Ord. 2425 S1, 1987) 3) That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self-imposed. (Ord. 2775, 1996) SECTION 18.72.090 Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards. An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted Under Section 18.72.080 if, on the basis Of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to'exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AND VARIANCE REQUEST for ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon (Structured Parking with Residential Lofts and Commercial Condominiums to be construction on an existing parking lot adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel) TL100, Assessors Map Page 39-1E-09BC SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 Submitted to CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT Submitted for ED & TANYA BEMIS Prepared by OGDEN KISTLER ARCHITECTURE I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I ! i I ! ! I ! ! I i I I I I I I I I ! ! I I I I I ! ! I i ! ! ! I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I i I I I I I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I i I I i I ! ! ! I I i ! ! ! I ! i ! i ! I ! I I ! ! ! I I I I i I i ! ! ! I i I ! ! i ! ! I I I I I i I I , I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I ! I I ! I I i I I ,~, Jl I I I I I I I I i I ! I ! ! I I ! ! i I I I i ! ! I ! I ! ! I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I ! I i I i ! I i I ' ' I ! ! I ! ! i I ! I i ! II fl i I I ,, I I I I I I 1]]~i$ ]NIQV~VH Tab 1. Tab 2. Tab 3. Tab 4. APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AND VARIANCE REQUEST ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Directory .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Applicant ............................................................................................................ Consultants ......................................................................................................... Property Description .......................................................................................... Current Zoning ................................................................................................... Current Use ........................................................................................................ Proposed Uses .................................................................................................... Request ............................................................................................................... Project Narrative ......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Site Description .................................................................................................. 3 Proposed Development ...................................................................................... 3 Site Coverage ..................................................................................................... 4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities ............................................ 4 Review Criteria .................................................................................................. 5 Ordinance Requirements ............................................................................................ 7 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 Definitions (18.08) ............................................................................................. 7 Districts and Zoning Map (18.12) ....................................................................... 7 C-1 Retail Commercial District Regulations (18.32) ........................................ 8 Tree Preservation and Protection (18.61) ........................................................ 10 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72) ............................................................ 12 Partitions (18.76) .............................................................................................. 17 Off-Street Parking (18.92) ............................................................................... 18 Variances (18.100) ........................................................................................... 23 Procedures (18.108) ......................................................................................... 25 Site Plan Review Criteria .......................................................................................... 27 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Ordinance Landscaping Requirements (II-A) .................................................. 28 Basic Site Review Standards (II-C-l) .............................................................. 29 Detail Site Review Standards (II-C-2) ............................................................. 33 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3) .................................. 38 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (II-D) .............................. 43 Street Tree Standards (II-E) ............................................................................. 46 Historic District Design Standards (IV-C) ....................................................... 48 Approval Criteria for Downtown Area Development (VI-1 thru VI-6) .......... 50 Downtown Design Standards (VI-A thru VI-K) .............................................. 52 APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL AND VARIANCE REQUEST ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT First & Hargadine Streets, Ashland, Oregon TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Tab 5. Tab 6. Tab 7. Summary Conclusions ............................................................................................... 61 Exhibits ....................................................................................................................... 63 6.1 Exhibit 1 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (contained in Tabs 1-5) 6.2 Exhibit 2 Site Review Plan Submittal Drawings 6.3 Exhibit 3 6.4 Exhibit 4 6.5 Exhibit 5 6.6 Exhibit 6 Drawing 1.0 Drawing 3.0 Drawing 3.1 Drawing 3.2 Drawing 3.3 Drawing 3.4 Drawing 7.1 Drawing 7.2 Drawing 7.3 Drawing L. 1 Drawing P. 1 Site Plan Floor Plan, Conservatory Level Floor Plan, Plaza Level Floor Plan, Mid Level Floor Plan, Condo Level 1 Floor Plan, Condo Level 2 Exterior Elevations Exterior Elevations Exterior Elevations Planting Plan Preliminary Partition Map Topographic Survey and Existing Utilities Plan. By Aerial Photographs of Downtown Ashland Tax Map Ashland City Council Meeting Minutes (August 19, 2003) and proposed Ordinance amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 7.1 City of Ashland Traffic Study Findings of Fact and Conclusio~ ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED · September 12, 2003 Law ~ DEVELOPMENT Page 1 of 62 1.1 Owner 1.2 Applicant 1.3 Consultants 1.4 1.5 Property Description PROJECT DIRECTORY Mark Antony Historic Property LLC 212 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ed & Tanya Bemis P.O. Box 1018 Ashland, OR 97520 Current Zoning OgdenKistler Architecture 2950 East Barnett Road Medford, OR 97504 Hofbuhr & Associates, Inc. Surveying 3155 Alameda Street Medford, OR 97520 Zbinden - Carter, Civil & Structural Engineering 104 N 1 lth Street Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Greg Covey, Landscape Architect 295 East Main Street, #8 Ashland, OR 97520 1.6 Current Use 1.7 Proposed Uses Tax Lot 100, Assessor Map Page 39-1E-09BC 1.8 Request C-l, Commercial Retail with Downtown Overlay, Historic District Overlay, and Detail Site Plan Review Overlay Surface Parking Lot for adjacent hotel use Structured Parking for adjacent hotel use (existing conditional use to be maintained) Professional Offices / Retail Storefronts (permitted use) Multi-family Residential, including affordable unit (special permitted use) Site Plan Review for new residential and commercial development Preliminary Approval of Minor Land Partition of existing tax lot Variance Approval for exception to required minimum amount of permitted use Approval of minor exceptions to Site Design and Use Standards SEP 1 003 Findings of Fact and Conclusio 'Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~..E DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 3 of 62 PROJECT NARRATIVE 2.1 Site Description The subject property is situated at the northwest comer of Hargadine and First Streets in downtown Ashland, directly behind the landmark Ashland Springs Hotel. The site is bounded by Hargadine Street on the west, First Street on the south, the city's municipal parking garage and alley on the north, and the alley behind the hotel on the east. The site slopes 26 feet from west to east (15% grade) and has a few trees on the two street sides. Currently, the site is used as a surface parking lot for hotel guests and is completely paved. The site is designated "Downtown" on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, and represents one of the largest under-developed parcels in downtown Ashland. Although parking is required by the hotel's use and supports the hotel's operation, this surface lot lacks the pedestrian amenities and other design standards that would enhance its contribution to the city's economic, cultural, and aesthetic base. This bare stretch of asphalt stands in stark contrast to the Downtown Plan's image of a pedestrian-friendly downtown area where "the attractive setting, high density of development, and amenities, combine to produce our enviable "European" environment." 2.2 Proposed Development Any development envisioned for this site must accomplish several broad goals in order to comply with the city's ordinances and design standards: · Provide commercial and residential uses that are in keeping with the stated development goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan · Accommodate the existing parking requirements of the adjacent hotel use without impacting vehicular traffic flow in and around the site · Create a pedestrian-friendly streetscape "edge" on both Hargadine and First Streets that is in keeping with the aesthetic of Downtown Ashland and the surrounding buildings · Establish a pedestrian "link" in the alley directly behind the hotel, connecting the pedestrian way behind the New Theatre and municipal garage to the north with the proposed mid-block pedestrian path behind Earthly Goods to the south · Locate retail and commercial spaces directly adjacent to the sidewalks and plaza, to further enhance and enliven the streetscape · Locate residential units above the retail and commercial spaces, in keeping with the Downtown Plan's stated goal of"living above the store" · Comply with stated limitations on size, height, mass, and scale Since the existing surface parking lot occupies the entire site, any further development will by necessity entail some sort of'structured parking' that will leave a portion of the site available for more desirable uses. SEP 1 2 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusio ' Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,. ~,~ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 4 of 62 The Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development retains the existing hotel parking capacity (68 spaces) while screening it from public view in an enclosed parking environment that provides convenient vehicular access from First Street and the alley. The project also creates a pedestrian- friendly street edge with commercial and retail storefronts on First Street and the new Pedestrian Plaza adjacent to the hotel. Due to the sloping nature of the site, these storefronts are located on three different levels of the building, so that each space has a direct connection to the adjacent sidewalk or plaza. The Pedestrian Plaza connects with the mid-block paths to the north and south, creating an important new pedestrian route through the downtown area. The project also includes professional office space in the form of commercial condominiums. These spaces are located on Hargadine Street, to provide the same downtown-type streetscape edge in an area where retail storefronts would be neither appropriate nor viable. Lastly, the Ashland Springs Mixed Use Development provides tree downtown living in an urban setting with 14 residential units (including one affordable unit) above the commercial uses. These units will be configured to suit the individual residents' tastes and needs. To avoid overloading the limited on-street parking and to enhance security, private parking will be provided for residents and guests adjacent to the hotel parking. 2.3 Site Coverage Based on the proposed partitioning of the property (See Exhibit 2, Drawing P. 1 - Preliminary Partion Map), the project site will contain 24,265 square feet. The gross building area footprint is 19,937 square feet. Thus, the building occupies 82.2% of the site. The Pedestrian Plaza is 1403 square feet, or 5.8% of the project site. The balance of the site area is devoted to public sidewalks (between the building and the property lines) and circulation elements required for connection to the existing hotel. 2.4 Available Public Facilities, Services, and Utilities The project site is well served by a full range of public utilities and transportation services, including municipal water, sanitary sewer service, electrical service, natural gas, underground storm drainage. The existing overhead electrical lines along Hargadine and First Streets will be removed as part of this project, and the existing underground electrical lines (which were upgraded as part of the New Theatre project) will be used to service the facility. Additionally, new underground storm drainage lines will be mn to the existing 10" line located in East Main Street. Since the project site is located on First Street only a half block from East Main Street, it is well served by public streets. The site is also served by a public transportation bus stop located in front of the Ashland Springs Hotel, near the comer of East Main and First Streets. Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_ .E DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 5 of 62 2.5 Review Criteria This project must comply with the City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). This project also must comply with the applicable sections of the 'City of Ashland Site Design and Use Standards' for projects subject to Basic Site Review, Detail Site Review, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards, Street Tree Standards, Historic District Design Standards, and Downtown Design Standards. This project also is subject to the goals and principles of the Ashland Downtown Plan, which the Site Design and Use Standards refer to as the "guiding document for all downtown site design." 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusic 'Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,~ oE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 7 of 62 ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Definitions (18.08) ! 8. 08.280 Grade or Ground Level The average of the finished ground level at the center of all walls of the building. In case a wall is parallel to and within five (5)feet of a sidewalk, the ground level shall be measured at the sidewalk. 18. 08. 290 Height o_f buildings The vertical distance from the "grade" to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof. Finding: The above-referenced definitions have been used, both in the findings and in the attached drawings, to establish the finish grade and maximum height for this project. Finding: The project site slopes steeply from Hargadine Street on the west to the Pedestrian Plaza on the east. Accordingly, the grade at the perimeter of the property intersects the building at three different levels: Hargadine, First Street, and the Pedestrian Plaza. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that, due to the peculiar nature of the site, the 'ground level' (ground floor) of the building does not occur on the lowest level of the building, but instead must be allocated among the three floor levels where they intersect the sloping grade, in order to provide ground level access to the street or sidewalk. 3.2 Districts and Zoning Map (18.12) 18.12. 030 Zoning Map A. The location and boundaries of the districts designated in Section 18.12. 020 are established as shown on the map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Ashland," dated with the effective date of the ordinance codified herein, and signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and hereafter referred to as the "zoning map." Finding: The Zoning Map shows the subject property to be located within the C-1D zone, Commercial Retail District with Downtown overlay. Finding: The subject property is included within the Basic Site Review Zone, the Detailed Site Review Zone, and the Historic District. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project must comply with the standards for Basic Site Review, Detailed Site Review, and Historic District Design. J~L Findings of Fact and Conclusior '.aw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L_~ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 8 of 62 3.3 C-1 Retail Commercial District Regulations (18.32) 18.32. 020 Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments such as beauty and barber shops, launderette, and clothes and laundry pick-up stations. B. Stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services, such as a department store, antique shop, artists supply store, and including a regional shopping center or element of such center, such as a major department store. C. Restaurants. (Ord 2812, S2 1998) Finding: Professional service establishments are an outfight permitted use in this zone. Finding: Stores, shops, and restaurants are outright permitted uses in this zone. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the professional offices (commercial condominiums) and retail storefronts (commercial tenant spaces) included in this project are an outright permitted use in this zoning district. 18. 32. 025 Special Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18. 72, Site Design and Use Standards. D. Residential uses. 1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shah be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. Finding: The residential units included in this project are a Special Permitted Use, permitted outright when at least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor is designated for an outfight permitted use. Finding: The total gross floor area of the building footprint at its maximum extents is 19,740 square feet. Finding: The plans indicate that a total of 11,033 square feet at the various ground floor levels of the building is designated as commercial space. Finding: Therefore, a total of 55.9% of the ground floor footprint area is designated as commercial space. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the amount of space at the various ground floor levels designated as professional offices and retail storefronts is less than 65% of the ground floor footprint area, a variance is required to allow the residential units as a special permitted use. Findings of Fact and Conclusion ,aw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED L o~ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 9 of 62 Residential densities shah not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-! District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. Finding: 14 residential units are included in this project. The site is approximately 0.5 acre. Therefore, the density is 28 dwelling units per acre. Finding: The residential uses comply with the setback, landscaping, design, and parking requirements of the C-1-D district. Finding: 14 residential units are provided. One unit has been designated as affordable.. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the residential units indicated on the drawings comply with the criteria 2 through 5 above. 18.32. 030 Conditional Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with the chapter on Conditional Use Permits: D. Hotels and motels. Finding: The parking spaces designated as 'Hotel Parking' are accessory to the adjacent Hotel use. Finding: These parking spaces are provided as a replacement for the existing surface parking lot, with no change in quantity of spaces. Finding: According to city records, the existing surface parking lot is included in the Conditional Use Permit issued to the hotel. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the existing conditional use of hotel parking will remain without being enlarged or altered, a new Conditional Use Permit is not required for this use. 18. 32.040 General Regulations A. Area, Width, Yard Requirements. There shall be no minimum lot area, width, coverage, front yard, side yard, or rear yard, except as required under the Off-Street Parking and Solar Access Chapters; where required or increased for conditional uses; where required by the Site Review Chapter or where abutting a residential district, where such setback shall be maintained at ten feet per story for rear yards and ten feet for side yards. JlJJL Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~_ or2 DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 10 of 62 B. Maximum Building Height. No structure shall be greater than 40feet in height. Finding: Finding: No front, side, or rear yards are provided, except where required to align the building faCade with adjacent buildings. The building height does not exceed 40 feet vertical distance, measured from the top of the parapet to "the average of the finished ground level at the center of all walls of the building". Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above requirements regarding mass and size. 18. 32. 050 "D" Downtown Overlay District A. In all areas within the "D" Downtown Overlay District, all uses are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for hotel, motel or hostel uses. All parking areas provided shall comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site Review chapter. Finding: Off-street parking is not required for the commercial spaces, and none has been provided. Finding: Off-street parking is not required for the residential units, but has been provided (2 spaces per unit) as a convenience to the residents. Finding: Off-street parking has been provided as required for the adjacent hotel use (i.e, in the same quantity as the existing surface parking lot). Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project meets the above applicable requirements for projects in the Downtown Overlay District. 3.4 Tree Preservation and Protection (18.61) 18. 61.042 Approval & Permit Required A person who desires to remove a tree, not otherwise exempted in 18.61.035, shallfirst apply for and receive one of the following tree removal permits before tree removal occurs: D. TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT: 1. Tree Removal-Staff Permits are required for the following activities: a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-l, E-l, M-l, or HC. Finding: The project is located in a C-1-D zone. Findings of Fact and Conclusic 'Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,~ oF, DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page I1 of 62 Finding: The project site contains five existing trees that are greater than 6" DBH (see Exhibit 2, Drawing 1.0 - Site Plan). These trees fall within the footprint of the proposed new building. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a Tree Removal Permit is required. 18. 61.080 Criteria.for Issuance o_f Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shah demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates aH of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In maMng this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18. 61.084. Such mitigation requirements shah be.a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: The existing trees on the site must be removed in order to comply with Site Design and Use Standards for Downtown projects, including setback requirements. Finding: The existing trees (three sycamore and two ash, all in poor condition) will be replaced by 13 street trees that comply with the Site Design and Use Standards for downtown development. These trees will provide a more cohesive canopy effect than the existing trees. Also, additional trees will be planted at the Pedestrian Plaza and at the entry court for the residential units. Findings of Vact and Conclusio' ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED September 12, 2003 · Law Page 12 of 62 A DEVELOPMENT Conclusion: The applicant concludes that issuance of a Tree Removal Permit is appropriate for this project. 18. 61.084 Mitigation Required An applicant may be required to provide mitigation for any tree approved for removal The mitigation requirement shall be satisfied by one or more of the following: A. Replanting on site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 ~-inch caliper healthy and well-branched deciduous tree or a 5-6foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. The replanted tree shall be of a species that will eventually equal or exceed the removed tree in size if appropriate for the new location. The tree shall be planted and maintained according to the specifications in the City Tree Planting and Maintenance Guidelines as approved by the City Council. B. Replanting off site. If in the City's determination there is insufficient available space on the subject property, the replanting required in subsection A shall occur on other property in the applicant's ownership or control within the City, in an open space tract that is part of the same subdivision, or in a City owned or dedicated open space or park. Such mitigation planting is subject to the approval of the authorized property owners. If planting on City owned or dedicated property, the City may specify the species and size of the tree. Nothing in this section shall be construed as an obligation of the City to allow trees to be planted on City owned or dedicated property. C. Payment in lieu of planting. If in the City's determination no feasible alternative exists to plant the required mitigation, the applicant shall pay into the tree account an amount as established by resolution of the City Council. Finding: This project includes the installation of a number of new trees, as noted above (see Exhibit 2, Drawings L. 1 - Landscape Plan). Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the removal of the existing trees is mitigated by the installation of new street trees and other trees throughout the project site. 3.5 Site Design and Use Standards (18.72) 18. 72. 03 0 Application Site design and use standards shall apply to all zones of the city and shall apply to all development indicated in this Chapter, except for those developments which are regulated by the Subdivisions (18. 80), the Partitioning (18. 76), Manufactured Housing (18. 84) and Performance Standards (18. 88). Finding: This project is located in a C-1-D (Commercial Retail) zone. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Site Use and Design Standards apply to this project, including the standards for Basic Site Review. 18. 72.050 Detail Site Review Zone Findings of Fact and Conclusio· ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED September 12, 2003 · Law Page 13 of 62 2 DEVELOPMENT The Detail Site Review Zone is that area defined in the Site Design Standards adopted pursuant to Section 18. 72.080. Finding: This project is situated in the "North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak Street" Detail Site Review zone. Any development in the Detail Site Review Zone as defined in the Site Review Standards adopted pursuant to this chapter, which exceeds 10, 000 square feet or is longer than 100 feet in length or width, shall be reviewed according to the Type 2 procedure. Finding: The length of the proposed building is 160 feet. C. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall exceed a gross square footage of 45, 000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 3OO feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. Neither the gross square footage or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074). Finding: On August 19, 2003, the Ashland City council approved (with modifications) the First Reading of a proposed Ordinance amending Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings (see Exhibit 6). This proposed ordinance limits the size of buildings in the Downtown Design Standards zone to 45,000 gross floor area, not including "under-structure" parking. Finding: This project contains two floors of commercial and residential units located on top of a parking structure that contains 2 '/2 floors of enclosed parking spaces. This parking structure also contains some retail storefronts, as required by the AULO and the Site Use and Design Standards. Finding: According to the previous interpretation of the City Council, the calculated size of the proposed building is 19,937 square feet (gross square footage footprint size). Finding: According to the proposed ordinance amendment, the calculated size of the proposed building is 39,303 square feet (gross floor area not including enclosed parking spaces). Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Type 2 procedure and the Detail Site Review standards. Findings of Fact and Conclusio' ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED September 12, 2003 'Law Page 14 of 62 c; DEVELOPMENT Conclusion: The applicant further concludes that, according to both the interpretation of the City Council and the proposed ordinance amendment, this project complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion C above. 18. 72. 055 Downtown Desi~,n Standards Zone A. The Downtown Design Standards Zone is that area defined in the Site Design and Use Standards Section VI, adopted pursuant to Section 18. 72.080. B. Development in the Downtown Design Standards Zone shall be subject to the Downtown Design Standards. Finding: This project is situated in the "North Main Street, Historic District, and Oak Street" Detail Site Review zone. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Downtown Design Standards. 18. 72.070 Criteria_for Approval The following criteria shah be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. Finding: The proposed development meets or will met all applicable City ordinances, applicable requirements of the Site Review Chapter, and applicable portions of the Site Design and Use Standards, as outlined in items A through C above. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right- of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18. 88, Performance Standards Options. Finding: Adequate capacity of City facilities and utilities are provided to the project site. The following existing utilities are referenced on the survey plan prepared by Hofbuhr & Associates (see Exhibit # 3): · Water: There is an existing underground water line located in First Street and Hargadine Street. There is a fire hydrant in the sidewalk adjacent to the subject property, at the intersection of First and Hargadine Streets · Sanitary Sewer: There is an existing 10" underground sanitary sewer line in Main Street, and a 6" line in Hargadine Street. · Urban Storm Drainage: An 8" underground storm drain line exists at East Main Street, with a catch basin on First Street at the mid-block alley. Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED 2 DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 15 of 62 · Electricity: The electrical lines are located overhead along the Hargadine property line and the First Street property line. Underground electric lines are located in the alley adjacent to the parking garage. · Natural Gas: An underground natural gas line is located in First Street and the adjacent parking garage alley.. · Transportation access: The nearest public transportation bus stop is located near the comer of East Main and First Street, approximately ½ block from the subject property. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this application meets all the criteria required for approval of the application. 18. 72. 090 Administrative Variance_from Site Design and Use Standards An administrative variance to the requirements of this chapter may be granted with respect to the requirements of the Site Design Standards adopted under section 18. 72.080 if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted, all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of the Site Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use of a site; B. Approval of the variance will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; C. Approval of the variance is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter; and D. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the difficulty. Finding: One of the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan is the promotion of mixed use developments (residential uses above commercial uses) in the downtown area. This project contains residential units above commercial uses. Finding: The Downtown Design Standards for building facades require a zero setback at property lines, with no recessed or projecting balconies or other useable space above the ground floor incorporated into a street facing elevation. Finding: In order to provide the residential units with private outdoor spaces and to enliven the streetscape with residential activity, the design of this project incorporates small balconies and other outdoor spaces typically found in urban residential uses, which create the effect of 'setbacks' in the faCade. Finding:: The setbacks in the building faCade have been designed in accordance with the Multi-Family Residential Development standards contained in the Site Design and Use Standards. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the unique and desirable nature of this mixed-use project (residential units above commercial uses) creates a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirement of the Downtown Design Standards for zero setback at property lines, and requests an Administrative Variance to allow the Findings of Fact and Conclusio, Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_ _,z DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 16 of 62 Conclusion: use of balconies and other openings in the facade, in accordance with the Multi- Family Residential Development Standards. The applicant further concludes that approval of this Administrative Variance will not negatively impact adjacent properties, is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Design and Use Chapter, and that the variance requested is the minimum variance that will alleviate the difficulty. !8. 72.110 Landscaping Standards A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: C-1-D None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the landscaping and screening standards in Section ILD. of the Site Design and Use Standards. B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or provide buffering from adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be distributed in those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering, open space uses, shading and wind buffering, and aesthetic qualities. C. Irrigation. All landscaping plans shall either be irrigated or shall be certified that they can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. If the plantings fail to survive, the property owner shall replace them. D. Parking Lots. Seven percent of all the parking lot area shall be landscaped. Such landscaping shall consist of the proper mixture of deciduous trees and shrubs so that all of the landscaped areas shall be covered within five years by a spreading evergreen ground cover or by shrubs and shaded by the trees. One street tree per 30feet o f frontage shall be required on all projects. Finding: The above referenced section of the ALUO does not require a minimum amount of landscaping for projects in this zone. (NOTE: Refer to Section II-A of the Site Design and Use Standards for additional landscaping requirements.) Finding: As shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L. 1 - Landscape Plan, the landscaping has been located according to criterion B above. Finding: As shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L.2 - Irrigation Plan, an irrigation system will be installed. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Finding: Exhibit 2, drawing L. 1 - Landscape Plan, indicates that street trees have been provided at least every 30 feet along Hargadine and First Streets. Findings of Fact and Conclusio 'Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~ od, DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 17 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project complies with the criteria for landscaping outlined above. 18. 72.115 - Recl:cling Requirements All commercial and multi-family developments, requiring a site review as indicated in 18. 72.040, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site for use of the project occupants. A. Commercial. Commercial developments having a solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its on-route collection program f or purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. B. Multi-Family Residential. All newly constructed multi-family units, either as part of an existing development or as a new development, shall provide an opportunity-to-recycle site in accord with the following standards: 1. Multi-family developments NOT sharing a common solid waste receptacle shah provide an individual curbside recycling container for each dwelling unit in the development. 2. Multi-family developments sharing a common solid waste receptacle shall provide a site of equal or greater size adjacent to or with access comparable to the common solid waste receptacle to accommodate materials collected by the local solid waste franchisee under its residential on-route collection program for purposes of recycling. Both the opportunity-to-recycle site and the common solid waste receptacle shall be screened by fencing or landscaping such as to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. Finding: This project is subject to site review as indicated in 18.72.040, and contains both commercial and multi-family uses. Finding: As indicated on Exhibit 2, Drawing 3.0 - Floor Plan / Conservatory Level, the Opportunity-to-Recycle site and the solid waste receptacle will be located on the lowest floor level of the project, and will be accessible from other levels via elevator. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project complies with the recycling requirements outlined above. 3.6 Partitions (18.76) 18. 76.020 Preliminary Step The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a preliminary map of the proposed partition. Finding: The existing project site is situated on the same tax lot as the adjacent hotel. Findings of Fact and Conclusio, Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_ _.z DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 18 of 62 Finding: Conclusion: This project includes the proposed partitioning of the site into two lots, under separate ownership. The applicant concludes that a preliminary map of the proposed partition is required, and the same is included as Exhibit 2, Drawing P. 1 - Proposed Partition Map. 3.7 Off-Street Parking (18.92) 18. 92. 020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required Uses and standards are as follows: A. Residential Uses. For residential uses the following automobile parking spaces are required 4. Hotels and motels. One space for each guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager. Finding: The existing surface parking lot provides one space per guest room, plus one space for the owner or manager Finding: The existing parking capacity for the hotel will remain unchanged under the proposed application. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the structured parking areas shown on the design provide the required parking for the hotel use. 18.92. 040 Bicycle Parking ~ A. All uses, with the exception of detached single-family residences and uses in the C-1-D zone, shall provide a minimum of two sheltered bike parking spaces. B. Every residential use of two units or more per structure, and not containing a garage, shall provide bicycle parking spaces as follows: Multi-Family Residential: One sheltered space per studio and 1-bedroom unit 1.5 sheltered spaces per 2-bedroom unit 2.0 sheltered spaces per 3-bedroom unit Senior Housing: One sheltered space per 8 units (80% of the occupants are 55 or older) In addition, all uses which require off street parking, except as specifically noted, shall provide one bicycle parking space for every 5 required auto parking spaces. Fractional spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Fifiy percent of the bicycle parking spaces required shall be sheltered from the weather. All spaces shall be located in proximity to the uses they are intended to serve. (Ord. 2697 SI, 1993) Bicycle Parking Design Standards 1. The salient concern is that bicycle parking be visible and convenient to cyclists and that it provides sufficient security from theft and damage. Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~ ~E DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 19 of 62 2. Bicycle parking requirements can be met in any of the following ways: a. Providing a bicycle storage room, bicycle lockers, or racks inside the building. b. Providing bicycle lockers or racks in an accessory parking structure, underneath an awning or marquee, or outside the main building. c. Providing bicycle racks on the public right of way. This must be approved by City of Ashland Public Works Department. d. Providing secure storage space inside the building. 3. All required exterior bicycle parking shall be located on site within 50feet of well-used entrances and not farther from the entrance than the closest motor vehicle parking space. Bicycle parking shall have direct access to both the public right-of-way and to the main entrance of the principal use. For facilities with multiple buildings, building entrances or parking lots (such as a college), exterior bicycle parking shah be located in areas of greatest use and convenience for bicyclists. 4. Required bicycle parking spaces located out of doors shall be visible enough to provide security. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent walkways or motor vehicle parking lots during all hours of use. Bicycle parking shall be at least as well lit as automobile parking. 5. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained between each row of bicycle parking. Bicycle parking shall be designed in accord with the illustrations used for the implementation of this chapter. 6. Each required bicycle parking space shall be accessible without moving another bicycle. 7. Areas set aside for required bicycle parking shall be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only. 8. Parking spaces configured as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter meet all requirements of this chapter and is the preferred design. Commercial bike lockers are acceptable according to manufacturer's specifications. ,,I bicycle parking space located inside of a building for employee bike parla'ng shall be a minimum of six feet long by 3feet wide by 4feet high, unless adequate room is provided to allow configuration as indicated in the figure at the end of this chapter. 9. Sheltered parking shall mean protected from all precipitation and must include the minimum protection coverages shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. 10. Bicycle parking shall be located to minimize the possibility of accidental damage to either bicycles or racks. Where needed, barriers shall be installed. 11. Bicycle parking shall not impede or create a hazard to pedestrians. They shall not be located so as to violate vision clearance standards. Bicycle parking facilities should be harmonious with their environment both in color and design. Facilities should be incorporated whenever possible into building design or street furniture. Bicycle Parking Rack Standards. 1. All required bicycle parking racks installed shall meet the individual rack specifications shown in the figure at the end of this chapter. Single and multiple rack installations shall conform with the minimum clearance standards shown in Findings of Fact and Conclusio? Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~_..~z DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 20 of 62 the figures at the end of this chapter. Alternatives to the above standard may be approved after review by the Bicycle Commission and approval by the Staff Advisor. Alternatives shall conform with all other applicable standards of this section. Bicycle parking racks or lockers shall be anchored securely. The intent of this Subsection is to ensure that required bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage. a. Bicycle racks shall hold bicycles securely by means of the frame. The frame shall be supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall to one side in a manner that will damage the wheels. b. Bicycle racks shall accommodate: i. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a high- security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists removes the front wheel; and ii. Locking the frame and one wheel to the rack with a high-security U-shaped shackle lock, if the bicyclists leaves both wheels on the bicycle; and iii. Locking the frame and both wheels to the rack with a chain or cable not longer than 6feet without removal of the front wheel. c. Paving and Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as the automobile parking area or with a minimum of two inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers, or similar material) and shall be relatively level. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. Finding: As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, bicycle parking and covered bicycle parking has been provided the quantities outlined in criteria A, B, and C above. Finding: As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, bicycle parking and covered bicycle parking has been provided the locations and configurations outlined in criteria I above. Finding: Bicycle racks meeting the requirements outlined in criterion J above will be specified for use on this project. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of this section. 18.92. 050 Compact Car Parking Up to 50% of the total automobile parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars. Minimum dimensions for compact spaces shall be 8 x 16feet. Such spaces shall be signed or the space painted with the words "Compact Car Only." Finding: As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, parking for compact cars has been provided the size and quantities outlined above. Findings of Fact and Conclusio~ Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_ oe; DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 21 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of this section. 18. 92.070 Automobile Parking Design Requirements A. Size and Access. All required parking areas shall be designed in accordance with the parking layout chart at the end of this Chapter. Parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 x 18feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050 and shall have a 22foot back-up space except where parking is angled. Do Driveways and Turn-Arounds. Driveways and turn-arounds providing access to parking areas shall conform to the following provisions: 1. A driveway for a single dwelling shall have a minimum width of nine feet, and a shared driveway serving two units shall have a width of l 2 feet. 2. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces per lot shall be provided with adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner. 3. Parking areas of more than seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway20 feet in width and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety, and shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined. Parking areas of seven spaces or less shall be served by a driveway 12feet in width. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Developments subject to a planning action or divisions of property, either by minor land partition or subdivision, shall minimize the number of driveway intersections with streets by the use of shared driveways with adjoining lots where feasible. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Plans for property being partitioned or subdivided or for multi-family developments shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and shall indicate all necessary access easements. c. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter or sidewalk as appropriate. All replacement shall be done under permit of the Engineering Division. C. Vertical Clearances. Driveways, aisles, turn-around areas and ramps shah have a minimum vertical clearance of 13 '-6"for their entire length and width. Vision Clearance. No signs, structures or vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall be placed in the vision clearance area. The vision clearance area is the triangle formed by a line connecting points 25feet from the intersection of property lines. In the case of an intersection involving an alley and a street, the triangle is formed by a line connecting points ten (lO)feet along the alley and 25feet along the street. When the angle of intersection between the street and the alley is less than 30 degrees, the distance Findings of Fact and Conclusio~ Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED t_ oc; DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 22 of 62 shall be 25feet. No signs, structures or vegetation or portion thereof shall be erected within ten (lO)feet of driveways unless the same is less than two and one-half feet in height. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. Development and Maintenance. The development and maintenance as provided below, shall apply in all cases, except single-family dwellings. 1. Paving. All required parking areas, aisles, turn-arounds and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphaltic or comparable surfacing, constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage. All required parking areas, aisles and turn-arounds shall have provisions made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. 3. Driveway approaches. Approaches shall be paved with concrete surfacing constructed to standards on file in the office of the City Engineer. 4. Marking. Parking lots of more than seven spaces shall have all spaces permanently and clearly marked. 5. Wheel stops. Wheel stops shall be a minimum of four inches in height and width and six feet in length. They shall be firmly attached to the ground and so constructed as to withstand normal wear. Wheel stops shall be provided where appropriate for all spaces abutting property lines, buildings, landscaping, and no vehicle shall overhang a public right-of-way. 6. Wails and Hedges. a. Where parking abuts upon a street, a decorative masonry wall or evergreen hedge screen of 30-42 inches in height and a minimum of 12" in width shall be established parallel to and not nearer than two feet from the right-of-way line. Screen planting shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. The area between the wall or hedge and street line shall be landscaped. All vegetation shall be adequately maintained by a permanent irrigation system, and said wall or hedge shall be maintained in good condition. The required wall or screening shall be designed to allow for free access to the site and sidewalk by pedestrians. b. In all zones, except single-family zones, where parking facilities or driveways are located adjacent to residential or agricultural zones, school yards, or like institutions, a sight-obscuring fence, wall, or evergreen hedge not less than five feet, nor more than six feet high shall be provided on the property line as measured from the high grade side. Said wall, fence or hedge shall be reduced to 30 inches within required setback area, or within 10 feet of street property lines, and shall be maintained in good condition. Screen plantings shall be of such size and number to provide the required screening within 12 months after installation. Adequate provisions shall be made to protect walls, fences or plant materials from being damaged by vehicles using said parking areas. Landscaping. In all zones, all parking facilities shall include landscaping to cover not less than 7% of the area devoted to outdoor parking facilities, including the , Findings of Fact and Conclusio Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_.~E DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 23 of 62 landscaping required in subdivision 6(a) above. Said landscaping shall be uniformly distributed throughout the parking area, be provided with irrigation facilities and protective curbs or raised wood headers. It may consist of trees, plus shrubs, ground cover or related material. A minimum of one tree per seven parking spaces is required. Lighting of parking areas within 100feet of property in residential zones shall be directed into or on the site and away from property lines such that the light element shall not be directly visible from abutting residential property. Finding: As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, the size, layout, and location of the parking spaces, drive aisles, and turn-arounds conforms to the requirements of criteria A and B above. Finding: As indicated on the various floor plans included in Exhibit 2, vision clearance areas will be maintained per criterion D above. Signs, structures, and vegetation within 10 feet of driveways and vehicular entrances will be less than 2 ½ feet in height. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Finding: With the exception of criteria E.6 and E.7, the construction of the parking spaces will comply with criteria E above. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the project meets the requirements of this section. 3.8 Variances (18.100) 18.100. O10 Variances - Purpose Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of this Title may result from the strict application of certain provisions thereof, variance may be granted as provided in this Chapter. This Chapter may not be used to allow a use that is not in conformity with the uses specified by this Title for the district in which the land is located. In granting a variance, the City may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole. Finding: According to AULO Section 18.32. 025, Special Permitted Uses, residential uses are a Special Permitted Use in the C-1-D zone, permitted outright when at least 65% of the total gross floor area of thc ground floor is designated for an outright permitted use. Finding: In this project, a total of 55.9% of the ground floor footprint area (as calculated in Section 18.32 above) is designated as commercial space. Findings of Fact and Conclusio: Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED t_ ~Z DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 24 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that since the amount of space at the various ground floor levels designated as professional offices and retail storefronts is less than 65% of the ground floor footprint area, a variance is required to allow the residential units as a special permitted use. 18.100. 020 Application The owner or his agent may make application with the Staff Advisor. Such application shall be accompanied by a legal description of the property and plans and elevations necessary to show the proposed development. Also to be included with such application shall be a statement and evidence showing that all of the following circumstances exist: A. That there are unique or unusual circumstances which apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. Finding: An existing surface parking lot occupies the entire site and provides required parking for the adjacent hotel use. Any further development of this site must accommodate the hotel parking requirements, including space for parking and vehicle movement onto and through the site. Finding: The project site slopes steeply from Hargadine Street on the west to the Pedestrian Plaza on the east. Accordingly, the grade at the perimeter of the property intersects the building at three different levels: Hargadine, First Street, and the Pedestrian Plaza. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the existing parking use that must be maintained, and the peculiar topography of the site, create unique and unusual circumstances that essentially restrict the amount of commercial space that can be provided. Both commercial space and parking areas must be accessible at grade level. Since the amount of space required by parking is fixed by the hotel use requirements, the amount of space left for commercial uses is decrease.. That the proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses; and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Finding: The existing surface parking lot lacks the pedestrian amenities and other design standards that are required by current city development standards. This project provides a mix of commercial and residential uses, completes an important pedestrian link, and replaces a marginally beneficial use with a use that provides much greater esthetic and economic benefit to the downtown area and to the city. Findings of Fact and Conclusio' Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ,_ ~E DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 25 of 62 Conclusion: As noted elsewhere in this document, this project not only satisfies the particular requirements of the ALUO, and the Downtown Design Standards, but that it also furthers one of the stated goals of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Plan by maximizing the development potential of this site through infill construction. The applicant concludes that this project's benefits will not only outweigh than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent use, but also will further the purpose and intent of the ALUO and the Comprehensive Plan. C. That the circumstances or conditions have not been willfully or purposely self- imposed. Finding: Both the steep slope of the site and its use as a surface parking lot are historical facts that are well-documented in city records. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these circumstances are not self-imposed.. 3.9 Procedures (18.108) 18.108.160 Ordinance Interpretations A. When in the administration of the Land Use Ordinance there is doubt regarding its intent, the suitability of uses not specified or the meaning of a word or phrase, the Staff Advisor may interpret the provision in writing or refer the provision to the Commission for interpretation. The Commission shall issue an interpretation in writing to resolve the doubt. Neither the Staff Advisor's interpretation nor the Commission's shall have the effect of amending the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Any interpretation of the Land Use Ordinance shall be based on the following considerations: 1. The comprehensive plan; 2. The purpose and intent of the Land Use Ordinance as applied to the particular section in question; and 3. The opinion of the City Attorney. B. The interpretation of the Staff Advisor shall be forwarded to the Commission who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. The interpretation of the Commission shall be forwarded to the Council who shall have the authority to modify the interpretation. I~;henever such an interpretation is of general public interest, copies of such interpretation shall be made available for public distribution. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074). Although council records indicate considerable discussion on this issue, and a pending ordinance amendment that would clarify this wording, no further interpretations have been issued. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this interpretation may be relied upon in submitting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (this application) for this project. JIULJ Findings of Fact and Conclusio- Law ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED ~.ua; DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 26 of 62 Findings of Fact and Conclusion¥~ ~w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 28 of 62 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 4.1 Ordinance Landscaping Requirements (II-A) Ordinance Landscaping Requirements The following percentages of landscaping are required for all properties falling under the Site Design and Use Standards. Zone R-1-3.5 R-2 R-3 C-1 C-1-D E-1 M-1 % Landscaping 45% 35% 25% 15% 10% 15% 10% These percentages are the minimum required. At times, more landscaping is required to meet the needs of other sections of the Site Review Ordinance, such as screening of parking areas, landscaping of setback areas and providing usable outdoor space. In general, all areas which are not used for building or parking areas are required to be landscaped. You shouM also be aware that, as a condition of approval of your project, you will be required to submit a site and species specific landscape plan to the Planning Division for Staff Advisor approval. Finding: The project site is located within the C-1-D zone, and also is subject to the Site Design and Use Standards. Per the table above, a minimum of 10% landscaped area is required. Finding: The Downtown Design Standards require a zero setback at sidewalks and property lines, leaving no area available for landscaping Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this requirement is inapplicable. However, landscaped areas will be provided at the Pedestrian Plaza. Findings of Fact and Conclusionsl/-- ~w :~-- ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED 1_~. -)EVELOPMENT ~ Page 29 of 62 September 12, 2003 4.2 Basic Site Review Standards (Il-C-l) Approval Standard: Development in all commercial and employment zones shall conform to the following development standards: II-C-la)Orientation and Scale 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be functional, and shall be shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street frontage. Finding: The primary building entrances for the retail spaces are oriented to First Street and the new Pedestrian Plaza. Individual entrances for the professional offices have been oriented toward Hargadine Street, along with the primary entrance courtyard for the residential units. Existing public sidewalks along Hargadine and First Streets will be improved to match recent adjacent improvements. Buildings that are within 30feet of the street shall have an entrance for pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shah be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 3.0 through 3.4, and 7.1 through 7.4, the parking area has been internalized within the structure, and is not visible from any of the public streets other than the alley. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the project's orientation and scale, as well as its arrangement of primary building entrances, address the street and public sidewalk and therefore satisfy these criteria 1) and 2). II-C-lb) Streetscape 1) One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street. Finding: Exhibit 2, drawing L. 1 - Landscape Plan, indicates that street trees from the approved list have been provided at least every 30 feet along Hargadine and First Streets. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Landscape Plan design complies with this criterion. II-C-lc) Landscaping 1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. SEP 1 2 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclumons~ ~w i Page 30 of 62 ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED UL JEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Finding: The landscaping plant materials shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L. 1 - Landscape Plan, have been specified at an appropriate size to attain the above listed coverage amounts. Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. Finding: The proposed landscape design uses a variety of low water-use deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and flowering plant species. Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas at least 10 feet in width, except in the Ashland Historic District. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-1 zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. Finding: As per the Downtown Design Standards, the building edge is located adjacent to the public sidewalks, except at entrances, plaza and seating alcoves. Planter and container landscaping has been incorporated in the public plazas and entrance ways. No outdoor storage or loading zones are proposed in this application. 4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. Finding: An irrigation system is planned for all landscaped areas and is shown on Exhibit 2, Drawing L.2 - Irrigation Plan. Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. Finding: The five existing trees are in poor condition as a result of long-term neglect and lack of irrigation. Additionally, the root structures of some of the trees may have been compromised as a result of previous grading activities on the site. Finding: As noted in Section 18.61 above, the existing trees are within the zero setback building line required by the Downtown Design Standards. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the criteria pertaining to landscaping (1 thru 6 above) will be satisfied by the Landscape and Irrigation design included in this application. II-C-Id)Parking Parla'ng areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjacent non-residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. S£P I 2 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions(~ ~w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED UL_ .JEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 31 of 62 Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 1.1 through 1.3, the parking area has been intemalized within the structure and is only visible from the exterior from the alley. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these two criteria are inapplicable due to the fact that parking is housed within the building structure. II-C-l e)Designated Creek Protection 1) Designated creek protection areas shall be considered design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. 2) Native riparian plant materials shall be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. Finding: The subject property has been previously developed as a parking lot and does not contain any natural waterways, creek protection areas, or planting materials. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these two criteria are inapplicable due to the fact that it does not contain the above-mentioned natural features. II-C-l_19 Noise and Glare Special attention to glare (AMC18. 72.11 O) and noise (AMC9. 08.170(c) & AMC 9. 08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these standards. Finding: The design of the project includes appropriate measures to prevent undue noise, including locating the vehicular parking areas within the building structure. Finding: Outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment will be enclosed as required by code to prevent nuisance noise in the adjacent residential zone. Finding: The design of the project includes appropriate measures to prevent glare problems, particularly in the fenestration patterns of the exterior window glazing. Finding: Outdoor lighting will be specified and shrouded to prevent the direct illumination of the adjacent residential zone. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the proposed design complies with ordinance standards pertaining to noise and glare. lI-C-lg)Exvansion of Existing Sites and Buildings For sites which do not conform to these requirements, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with these standards as the percentage of building expansion, Findings of Fact and Conclusions(-' ?w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED UL_ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 32 of 62 e.g., if building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. Finding: There are no existing buildings on the site. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable due to the fact that the entire site is being developed. 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions(~- ~w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED UL_ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Jltlki Page 33 of 62 4.3 Detail Site Review Standards (II-C-2) Developments that are within the Detail Site Review Zone shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic Site Review, conform to the following standards: II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale Developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of.35 and shall not exceed a maximum Floor Area Ratio of .5 for all areas outside the Historic District. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum floor area ratio. Finding: The project site is located within the Historic District. Finding: The Downtown Design Standards require a zero setback to property lines. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable due to the fact that the project is located in both the Downtown area and in an Historic District. Building frontages greater than l OO feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the buiMing fafade. Finding: The building frontage is approximately 160 feet on First Street and at the garage alley, and approximately 127 feet on Hargadine Street and at the Pedestrian Plaza. Finding: As shown in the Elevations (Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.4), a series of distinctive multi-story vertical projections break up the facades and provide the appearance of a multi-building development, as required by the Downtown Design Standards. Finding: Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, offsets and jogs in a building's fagade are discouraged in the Downtown Design Standards, which mandate a zero setback to property lines. Finding: Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design to minimize the apparent length of the building. Finding: The character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been developed which express the individual living units and retail spaces beyond. Varied roof heights and parapets also provide distinctive changes to the building's faCade. Any wall which is within 30feet of the street, plaza or other public open space shall contain at least 20% of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows, or doorways. Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Blank walls within 30feet of the street are prohibited. Up to $£P 1 2 2003 , Findings of Fact and Conclusions(' ~w 'ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~o._ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 34 of 62 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, ample glazing and showcase windows have been provided in the retail frontages along First Street and the Pedestrian Plaza in the areas where they are not in conflict with the sidewalk grade. This glazing comprises well over 20% of the grade level elevation. Buildings shah incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. Finding: The applicants have provided a primary entrance for both the residential units and the parking garage off of First street by incorporating a Pedestrian Plaza to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's alley which in turn addresses the public plaza requirement of the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 thru 7.3 individual retail entrances on First Street and the Pedestrian Plaza, and the professional office entrances on Hargadine Street have been recessed and defined by protective elements (awnings, balconies and canopies) to enhance a sense of entry, provide additional public seating and ultimately provide architectural relief along the pedestrian fronts. InfiH of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. Finding: This application specifically addresses this requirement for redevelopment of under-utilized parking areas. The existing site is an asphalt parking lot with no landscaping, and adjacent to two public sidewalks. Finding: This project would infill the airspace above this site, consistent with the Downtown Development Standards, resulting in a screened parking lot and additional commercial and residential space in the downtown area. Buildings shah incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Finding: As shown on the Elevations (Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4), a series of protective awnings, balconies and canopies have been introduced that will provide pedestrian protection from the rain and sun, while defining entrances to retail and commercial spaces. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project not only satisfies these particular Detail Site Review criteria 2) thru 6) above, but that it also furthers one of the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan by maximizing the development potential of the site through infill construction. 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions("- ~w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~_ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 35 of 62 II-C-2b) Streetscape Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, Scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combinations of the above. Finding: A public Pedestrian Plaza area has been provided. The paving in this area is a combination ofpattemed concrete and inset pavers. Raised concrete planters provide designated landscape areas and providing public seating areas. A building shall be setback not more than 20feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% of the aggregate building frontage shah be within 20feet of the sidewalk. Finding: The building setback is adjacent to the public pathways, with a few exceptions at required entry alcoves and sitting areas, along the First Street and Hargadine and alley edges. The building has been set back further along the Ashland Springs Hotel edge to address the Large Scale Project Standard setback requirements, and to provide a Pedestrian Plaza. This plaza links the existing pedestrian path behind the New Theatre with the one proposed for the area behind Earthly Goods, completing an important pedestrian pathway through the downtown area. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project not only provides appropriate "people spaces" and ample opportunities for pedestrian activities, but that it also furthers one of the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan by improving pedestrian traffic flow through the downtown area. II-C-2c) Parking & On-site Circulation 1) Protected, raised walkways shall be installed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or more than l OO feet in average width or depth. Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least lO feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. Finding: None of the parking areas contain more than 50 spaces per floor level. Finding: Due to the configuration of the project, the structured parking is not used for pedestrian circulation through the site. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). SEP 1 g 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions {~- ~w ~ ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~ JEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 36 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that these two criteria are inapplicable due to the fact that the parking is provided within a parking structure, not in a surface lot. Developments of one acre or more must provide a pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan for the site. On-site pedestrian walkways must be lighted to a level where the system can be used at night by employees, residents and customers. Pedestrian walkways shall be directly linked to entrances and the internal circulation of the building. Finding: The project site contains less than one acre. Finding: A pedestrian plaza / walkway has been provided in accordance with the Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. This Plaza is connected to the public streets and sidewalks and thereby provides access to all building entrances. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the Pedestrian Plaza meets the criteria for 'on-site pedestrian walkways'. II-C-2d)Buffering and Screening 1) Landscape buffers and screening shah be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Finding: Each edge of the proposed development has been designed to respond to the adjacent neighboring uses. The First Street edge reflects the retail uses found at grade level across the street and throughout the downtown area. The Hargadine Edge reflects the professional office uses and second story residential uses found throughout the downtown area. The alley edge reflects the parking structure across the alley, and the Ashland Springs Hotel edge has introduced retail functions that relate to the new Pedestrian Plaza. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable because no none of the uses on adjacent lots are incompatible with this proposed development. Parking lots shah be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. Finding: The proposed structured parking areas are completely enclosed within building structure and are screened by architectural grilles. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted tho ~ "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parkipr structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Findings of Fact and Conclusions(-' ;w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US~ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 JIULI Page 37 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this criterion is inapplicable due to the fact that parking is provided within a parking structure, not in a surface lot. Nonetheless, the parking areas are properly screened from adjacent streets or from residential areas. II-C-2e) Lighting Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements of no greater than 14feet in height along pedestrian pathways. Finding: Lighting will be designed and engineered to provide sufficient pedestrian illumination through the use of light standards, wall mounted sconces, and recessed down lighting. No light standards will exceed 14 feet and light overflow will be minimized by appropriate screening. II-C-2_19 Building Materials 1) Buildings shall include changes in relief such as cornices, bases, fenestration, fluted masonry, for at least 15% of the exterior wall area. 2) Bright or neon paint colors used extensively to attract attention to the building or use are prohibited. Buildings may not incorporate glass as a majority of the building skin. Finding: The Elevations (Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4) show that the exterior materials will provide appropriate color differentiation to enhance the varying building forms, but bright garish colors will not be utilized. Glass has not been used as a primary building surface. Finding: The following materials have been integrated into the overall design aesthetic: concrete, smooth plaster, natural stone, and brick. Finding: Windows and door openings have been detailed with appropriate raised plaster surrounds. Plaster panels have been articulated with patterned control jointing, cornices and edge projections have been defined with precast watertable details. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the variety of surfaces, heights, and complimentary materials have been designed and specified to create an urban imagery compatible and in context with the materials and design details found in the downtown core. , Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( ' iw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US_ DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 38 of 62 4.4 Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects (II-C-3) Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of lO, O00 square feet or a building frontage in excess of l OO feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site review Zone, shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic and Detail Site Review, shall conform to the following standards: II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 1) Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. Finding: The building's distinctive multi-story vertical projections break up the facade and create the appearance of a multi-building development, as required by the Downtown Design Standards. Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design. The character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been created to help express individual living units and retail spaces. Finding: A strong control joint articulation and the alignment of the window mullions help bond the pattern horizontally (within the vertical windows) and define the interior functions. Differentiating colors and materials help highlight the various surfaces and design features. The street level retail spaces feature large expanses of clear display glazing, while the residential fenestration above has been defined by the use of mullion divisions. Finding: A residential scale has been maintained along the Hargadine Street edge. Individual unit entrances are located slightly above the existing sidewalk elevation. This street frontage has been articulated to break up the overall massing by recessing portions of the upper level back from the street level units. This articulation creates private outdoor living space for the upper units while reducing the overall impact of the building along the pedestrian pathway and the scale of the building face from the neighbors across the street. Finding: Street trees have been introduced to the sidewalks along Hargadine and First Street. Additional treescape has been incorporated into the new Pedestrian Plaza. Finding: New light standards have been designed throughout the public plaza. Wall lighting at retail entrances, seating alcoves and under canopies provides additional human scale illumination. No new buildings or contiguous groups of buildings shall exceed a gross square footage of 45, 000 square feet or a combined contiguous building length of 3OO feet. Any building or contiguous group of buildings which exceed these limitations, and which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. SEP 1 g 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions ("-~- iw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U$~ .JEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 J~L] Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted "gross square footage of 45,000 square feet" as meaning 45,000 square foot footprint, and not the gross floor area square footage (Planning Action 2000-074). Finding: On August 19, 2003, the Ashland City council approved (with modifications) the First Reading of a proposed Ordinance amending Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings (see Exhibit 6). This proposed ordinance limits the size of buildings in the Downtown Design Standards zone to 45,000 gross floor area, not including "under-structure" parking. Finding: This project contains two floors of commercial and residential units located on top of a parking structure that contains 2 ½ floors of enclosed parking spaces. This parking structure also contains some retail storefronts, as required by the AULO and the Site Use and Design Standards. Finding: According to the previous interpretation of the City Council, the calculated size of the proposed building is 19,937 square feet (gross square footage footprint size). Finding: According to the proposed ordinance amendment, the calculated size of the proposed building is 39,303 square feet (gross floor area not including enclosed parking spaces). Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this project is subject to review under the Type 2 procedure and the Detail Site Review standards. Conclusion: The applicant further concludes that, according to both the interpretation of the City Council and the proposed ordinance amendment, this project complies with the size limitation outlined in criterion C above. Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240feet in length, the separation shall be 60feet. Finding: The applicant is requesting an exception to this requirement based on Section V1- K. 1 of the Downtown Design Standards. This site is unique due to the fact it is located adjacent to the tallest building in Ashland. The tower of the Ashland Springs Hotel stands approximately 120 feet tall. The subject parcel as shown in Exhibits 2 and 3 is approximately 140 feet x 195 feet. Finding: For this property to provide any residential development, or any use other than the existing surface parking lot, the hotel parking will have to be incorporated into the design. This parking square footage automatically becomes "building area". This SEP 1 2 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions { iw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~ --~EVELOPMENT September 12,, 2003 Page 40 of 62 alone, along with the required 65% permitted use necessitates a building area that would exceed the maximum allowable. Finding: If the setback from the property line is required to be 120 feet due to the height of the tower, more than sixty percent of the site is absorbed by setback. When this is combined with the extreme topographical variation of the property, the site then becomes un-buildable for any use other than commercial, which in turn would have to be located along the Hargadine residential edge. Finding: If the 120 foot setback is initiated from the base of the tower, this leaves a reasonable buildable area. The building heights of the existing hotel adjacent to the subject parcel vary from a few feet above finished grade to approximately 25 feet. The building setback shown in this application is based on a set back from the base of the tower. Conclusion: With the topography change, the lowered height of the sun'ounding hotel, the massing of the proposed development, and the introduction of the public/Pedestrian Plaza as a buffer, the applicant concludes that the intent of the ordinance to limit uninterrupted mass has been achieved. The setback as shown on the Elevations (Exhibit 2, drawing 7.1 through 7.4) complies with this interpretation. All on-site circulation systems shah incorporate a streetscape which includes curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian scale light standards, and street trees. Finding: The new public plaza and the existing sidewalks have been enhanced by the introduction of the street trees, landscaping, seating amenities and lighting as demonstrated in the drawings in Exhibit 2 and described above. II-C-3b) Public Spaces 1) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square feet of grossfloor area. Finding: The existing parking lot is not landscaped, nor does it provide any public plaza. The gross floor area building footprint is 19,633 square feet. A new 2,359 square foot public plaza has been integrated into the design. The new plaza area represents 12.0 % of the proposed building footprint. 2) A plaza or public spaces shah incorporate at least 4 of the 6following elements: Sitting Space - at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shah be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. Finding: Approximately 40 sitting spaces have been provided in the Pedestrian Plaza. This equates to 1 space for every 490 square feet of building footprint. SEP 1 g 2003 Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( }w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED U~,~ OEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 41 of 62 b) A mixture of areas that provide both Sunlight & Shade Finding: The building entrances and overhangs, and the seating areas located beneath trees provide oppommities for shade. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that a mixture of sunlight and shaded areas has been provided. c) Protection from wind by screens and buildings. Finding: The plaza is inherently protected from the wind from the North and South by both the existing hotel and the proposed structure. Alcoves within the plaza, adjacent to the building provide some East/West screening. Trees -provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of l tree per 800 square feet, at breast height. Finding: Four trees have been provided in the public plaza, this equates to 1 tree per 590 square feet of plaza area. e) Water features or public art. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing L. 1 - Landscape Plan, two water features have been incorporated into the public Plaza. J) Outdoor Eating Areas or Food Vendors. Finding: An area has been allocated for a coffee or snack vendor, within the retail space adjacent to the new public plaza. II-C-3c) Transit Amenities 1) Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts and designated bike lanes shah be required in accordance with the City's Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Finding: East Main Street is a City arterial street, and has bus shelters, pullouts, and bike lanes located appropriately. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that this requirement has been met by existing features found in the immediate downtown vicinity. II-C-3d) Recycling Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments. SEP 1 2 2003 ,Findings of Fact and Conclusions o~ ~ ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE oEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 42 of 62 As shown in Exhibit 2, Drawing 3.0 - Conservatory Level Plan, a trash and recycling enclosure has been provided on the lower level parking area adjacent to the alley. Findings of Fact and Conclusions c~r ~v ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 43 of 62 4.5 Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards (II-D) Approval Standard: All parking lots, which for purposes of this section include areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading shall be landscaped and screened as follows: II-D- 1) Screen ing at Required Yards 1) Parking abutting a required landscaped front or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obscuring hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. The screen shah grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. 4) Elevated parking lots shah screen both the parking and the retaining walk Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Conclusion: With regards to items #1 through g4 above, it is the applicant's opinion these criteria are inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve an onsite parking lot, nor are there any required landscaped yards adjacent to the parking areas. II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines 1) Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5feet landscaped strip. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Conclusion: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not involve an onsite parking lot, nor are there any required landscaped yards adjacent to the parking areas. II-D-3) Landscape Standards: 1) Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of 7% of the total parking area plus a ratio of! tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~r~' ~v ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 44 of 62 The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least 2feet from any curb or paved area. The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within $ years. Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior parking stalls. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Conclusion: With regards to items #1 through #6 above, it is the applicant's opinion these criteria are inapplicable by reason that this application does not provide an onsite parking lot, the parking provided is housed within a parking garage, and screened from view by alternate building functions. Landscape is not appropriate within the parking structure. II-D-4) Residential Screening 1) Parking areas adjacent to a residential dwelling shall be set back at least 8feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. Finding: Parking is located within the structure, and below the living units, not adjacent to them. Conclusion: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not provide parking adjacent to the residential units. II-D-5) Hedge Screening The required hedge screen shall be installed as follows: Evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that 50% of the desired screening is achieved within 2 years, 100% within 4years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100% coverage is achieved within 2 years. Finding: The Ashland City Council previously has interpreted the definition of parking "area" to refer to surface parking lots, not to parking located within building structures (Planning Action 2000-074). Findings of Fact and Conclusions { ~v ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 45 of 62 Conclusion: With regard to items # 1 and #2 above, it is the applicant's opinion these criteria are inapplicable by reason that this application does not produce the need to utilize landscape as a screen for the parking area. The parking structure has been internalized within the building core and is surrounded by retail space. II-D-6) Other Screening 1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows: Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement ora solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing 3.0 - Conservatory Plan, the trash / recycling area has been screened from public view by 6 feet masonry walls. Service Corridor Screen: }Yhen adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. Finding: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not locate any service corridors adjacent to residential uses. Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. Finding: All lighting will be engineered with the appropriate screening and orientation as to prevent direct glare on adjacent residential properties and streets. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~(~ }w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE OEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 46 of 62 4.6 Street Tree Standards (II-E) APPROVAL STANDARD: AH development fronting on public or private streets shah be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section. II-E-i) 0 Location for Street Trees Street trees shall be located behind the sidewalk except in cases where there is a designated planting strip in the right of-way, or the sidewalk is greater shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standard established by the Department of Community Development. Finding: The street trees are located in a planting strip in the right-of-way. II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning o_f Street Trees All tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions which may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall be as follows: Street trees shah be placed the rate of one tree for every 30feet of street frontage. Trees shah be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. Finding: Street trees are provided at the rate of one tree per 30 feet along First Street, and one tree per 20 feet along Hargadine Street. Trees shah not be planted closer than 25feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than lO feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. Finding: All trees shall be located at least 25 feet from the intersection of First and Hargadine Streets, and at least 25 feet from the intersection of Hargadine Street and the parking garage alley. c) Street trees shah not be planted closer than 20feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than I O feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20feet distant. Finding: All trees shall be located at least 20 from existing light standards. Trees shall not be planted closer than 2~ feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5feet from the curb, in a curb return area. Finding: All trees shall be located at least 5 feet from the face of the curb. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~ pv ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 47 of 62 }Yhere there are overhead power lines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. Finding: All tree species will be selected to avoid interference with existing overhead utility lines. Trees shall not be planted within 2feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees shall be at least 10 square feet, however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Space between the tree and such hard surface may be covered by permeable non-permanent hard surfaces such as grates, bricks on sand, or paver blocks. Finding: All sidewalk cuts for trees shall be at least 10 square feet. Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12feet above street roadway surfaces. Finding: Trees will be pruned to maintain required minimum clearances above sidewalks and roadways. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. · Finding: The existing trees, which were not planted intentionally but sprang up in the strip between the sidewalk and the existing surface parking lot, are in poor health and likely will not survive the stress imposed by development of the property. II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the approved street tree list. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. Finding: The existing trees will be replaced with trees from the approved list (see Exhibit 2, Drawing L1.1 - Planting Plan), and will be of an approved size and species. II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. Finding: The trees shown on this project (see Exhibit 2, Drawing L1.1 - Planting Plan) have been selected from the approved street tree list. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the street trees shown on this project conform with all street tree development standards. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ( ~¢ ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE OEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 48 of 62 4.7 Historic District Design Standards (IV-C) In addition to the standards found in Section II, the following standards will be used by the Planning and Historic Commissions for new development and renovation of existing structures within the Historic District: IV-OD Construct buildings to a height of existing buildings from the historic period on and across the street. Avoid construction that greatly varies in height (too high or too low) from older buildings in the vicinity. Finding: The height of the new building is similar in height to adjacent historic buildings (not including the tower of the Ashland Springs Hotel). IV-C-2) Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. Avoid buildings that violate the existing scale of the area, in height, width or massing. Finding: The scale of the new building is similar to adjacent buildings, and is typical of buildings in the downtown area. 11,'-03) Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which are common on most buildings from the historic period. Avoid single, monolithic forms that are not relieved by variations in massing. Finding: The mass of the building has been articulated and broken up into a number of smaller masses that are similar to adjacent historic buildings. IV-C-4) Maintain the historic faqade lines of streetscapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic faqade line. Finding: The front wall of the building on both First and Hargadine Street matches the faCade lines of adjacent buildings. IV-C-5) Relate the new roof forms of the building to those found in the area. Avoid introducing roof shapes, pitches or materials not traditionally used in the area. Finding: The new building has a flat roof behind a parapet, which matches adjacent buildings and buildings typically found in the downtown area. IV-C-b) Respect the alternation of wall areas with door and window elements in the faqade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the faqade. Avoid introducing incompatible faqade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings established by the surrounding structures. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~ W ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 49 of 62 Finding: The fagade has a traditional, vertically oriented pattem that mimics the pattern of other buildings in the downtown area. The proportion of wall to glazing also is similar to neighboring buildings, and glass areas are recessed slightly to create a shadow line. The openings align with, and repeat the rhythm of, those found on the neighboring Ashland Springs Hotel. A segmented arch is used to tie these elements together and continue the rhythm of the adjacent buildings. IF-C-7) The use of a raised platform is a traditional siting characteristic of most of the older buildings in Ashland. Avoid bringing the walls of buildings straight out of the ground without a sense of platform. Finding: The base of the building, which contains the parking areas and some retail storefronts, clearly reads as a "base". To prevent a monolithic appearance, this portion of the building is articulated in a fashion similar to the rest of the building, including openings into the parking garage on the alley facade that resemble the window openings. Relate the vertical, horizontal or non-directional faf adc character of new buildings to the predominant directional expression of nearby buildings. Avoid horizontal or vertical fafade expressions, unless they are compatible with the character of structures in the immediate area. Finding: Like the adjacent hotel annex and the buildings on the opposite side of the street, the building mass has a primarily horizontal orientation. As stated above, this mass is articulated into vertical bays, similar to neighboring buildings. IV-C-9) Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos and other pronounced architectural forms. Avoid facades with no strong sense of entry. Finding: The main entrances, including the entrances to the pedestrian plaza, are expressed through canopies, awnings, and marquees to provide a clear sense of entry for both vehicles and pedestrians. IV-C-lO) Utilize accurate restoration of, or visually compatible additions to, existing buildings. For new construction, traditional architecture that well represents our own time, yet enhances the nature and character of the historic district should be used. Avoid replicating or imitating the styles, motifs or details of older periods. Such attempts are rarely successful and, even if well done, present a confusing picture of the true character of the historical area. Finding: The new building features a fagade design that complements the neighboring buildings, especially the historic Ashland Springs Hotel. The use of strongly expressed vertical bays with segmented arches at the top, acts as a visual cue to surrounding buildings, while still expressing this building. Findings of Fact and Conclusions (( ~ ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 50 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the height, scale, massing, proportion, and fagade articulation of the new building complies with the downtown design standards, as shown on Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.3 -Elevations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~(~'~ iw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US}: DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 51 of 62 4.8 Approval Criteria for Downtown Development (VI-1 through VI-6) VI-I) Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited Finding: The pedestrian pathway (public sidewalk) along the First Street edge has been buffered from the parking garage by retail space. The pedestrian pathway along Hargadine Street is lined with residential entrances and living spaces to reflect the existing residential edge across the street. The parking garage does open up for means of pedestrian entrance and egress to the new public plaza space to be located along the existing hotel edge of the development. No pedestrian pathway is currently located along the existing alley edge. This is primarily a vehicle access route. The garage is proposed to open to the alley way for ventilation and is consistent with the existing use across the way. V1-2) Pedestrian amenities such as a broad sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticos, awnings, and sidewalk seating shah be provided where possible and feasible. Finding: The existing sidewalks are to be widened to align with the recently improved Oregon Shakespeare Festival's sidewalk along Hargadine, and the Ashland Springs Hotel's sidewalk along First Street. Sidewalk seating has been integrated into the new public plaza, and at rest areas at 1/3 points along the First Street incline. Retail entrances have been recessed, creating additional alcoves along First Street. Awnings and architectural features define entrances and provide weather protection to the pedestrian pathway. V1-3) Weather protection on adjacent key pedestrian paths are required by aH new developments. Finding: Weather protection has been provided by means of awnings and architectural projections, as previously defined in section V1-2 above. V1-4) Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians shah be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to sidewalks are prohibited. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, ample glazing and showcase windows have been provided in the retail frontages along First street and the Pedestrian Plaza in the areas where they are not in conflict with the existing grade. VI-5) Two-story development is encouraged downtown, with the second stories in commercial, residential, or parking uses. Finding: Based upon Exhibits 2 and Exhibits 3 the existing grade and topography of the site requires this development to respond to the varying grade changes. Inherently, this has resulted in a multi-story solution. The 3 level parking Findings of Fact and Conclusions'~{ }w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 52 of 62 structure has utilized grade entrance points from First Street and the alley, allowing the upper two levels of residential units to be slightly above grade on Hargadine, addressing the requirement for entrances to be above adjacent walk elevations. Uses which are exclusively automotive such as services stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Conclusion: It is the applicants opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not create new automotive related uses, rather it internalizes existing hotel parking currently housed on an above grade asphalt covered highly visible parking lot. Findings of Fact and Conclusions (' ~w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 53 of 62 4.9 Downtown Design Standards (VI-A through VI-K) VI-A) Height 1) Building height shall vary from adjacent buildings, using either "stepped" parapets or slightly dissimilar overall height to maintain the traditional "staggered" street scape appearance. An exception to this standard would be buildings that have a distinctive vertical division/facade treatment that "visually" separates it from adjacent buildings. Finding: As shown on Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, the applicants have shown that no portion of the building will exceed the maximum 40'-0" as required by ALUO Section 18.32.050 "D" 03). The proposed building elevations have been articulated with stepped parapets and varying overall heights to break up both the roof lines and the building surfaces. Building cornices have been architecturally detailed and varied to further break up the massing and scale. 2) Multi-story development is encouraged in the downtown. Finding: Based upon Exhibits 2 and Exhibits 3, the existing grade and topography of the site requires this development to respond to the varying grade changes. Inherently, this has resulted in a multi-story solution. The three level parking structure has utilized grade entrance points from First Street and the alley, allowing the upper two levels of residential units to be slightly above grade on Hargadine, addressing the requirement for entrances to be above adjacent walk elevations. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building, particularly its multi-story nature, complies with the criteria regarding height. Vt-B) 0 Setback Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features, buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line. Areas having public utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard. Finding: The building fa¢ade maintains a direct property line adjacency except where entrances, public plazas and pathways, have been incorporated as a response to city required design criteria. Ground level entries are encouraged to be recessed from the public right-of-way to create a "sense of entry" through design or use of materials. Finding: The design incorporates a primary entrance for the residential units, the retail storefronts, and the parking areas off of First street through the use of a Pedestrian Plaza adjacent to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's pedestrian pathway. This plaza addresses the public plaza requirement ofALUO 11-C-3b. As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3, individual retail entrances along First Street, the Pedestrian Plaza and the residential entrances along Hargadine have been Findings of Fact and Conclusions/~iw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED US~, DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 54 of 62 recessed to enhance a sense of entry, provide additional public seating and ultimately provide architectural relief along pedestrian fronts. Recessed or projecting balconies, verandas or other useable space above the ground level on existing and new buildings shall not be incorporated in a street facing elevation. Finding: This project is a mixed-use project that includes residential units above commercial enterprises, in keeping with the stated goals of the City of Ashland's Downtown Plan. Finding: While the subject property is "downtown", it is not contiguous to a row of existing buildings where a continuation of prominent storefront architecture is at issue. This building addresses the design standards that meet the requirements of the downtown core in terms of massing, roof articulation, setback and commercial frontages. Finding: Certain elements of the city's Multi-Family Residential Development Design Standards have been incorporated into the project, to enhance the livability of the residential units and to introduce additional outside private spaces. Terraces and balconies have been integrated into the upper levels of the First Street and Pedestrian Plaza facades. Finding: A large terrace has been incorporated into the design as an element to both define and buffer the impact of the vehicular entrance on First Street. Smaller terraces help to differentiate between residential units, and provide space for additional landscape integration. These terraces also differentiate between the ground and upper levels, as required in section V1-E2 of the Downtown Design Standards. The detailing of these terraces, with wrought iron railings similar to those found on other downtown buildings, articulates the faCade and reduces the massing of the building, in keeping with numerous other design standards for projects in the Downtown area and the Historic District. Conclusion: Based on the mixed-use nature of this project, and based on the findings outlined above, the applicant concludes that an exception to this particular criterion is required, based on Section V1-K of the Downtown Design Standards (see below). The applicant requests this exception based on the applicant's understanding that this criterion was intended for buildings fronting Main Street and the Plaza. VI-C) Width The width of a building shall extend from side lot line to side lot line. An exception to this standard would be an area specifically designed as plaza space, courtyard space, dining space or rear access for pedestrian walkways. Finding: The footprint as shown on Exhibit 2, drawing 1.X clearly shows the extent of the building has been extended to maximum property bounds not constrained by public access easements or pathways, with the exception of the property line Findings of Fact and Conclusions c~-' pt ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Jltlld Page 55 of 62 immediately adjacent to the Ashland Springs Hotel. The new public Pedestrian Plaza it proposed to be located between the new development and the existing hotel. Lots greater than 80 feet in width shall respect the traditional width of buildings in the downtown area by incorporating a rhythmic division of the facade in the building's design. Finding: This lot is greater than 80 feet in width and is subject to this criterion. As shown in Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.3 - Elevations, the distinctive multi-story vertical projections, help break up the frontage to provide an appearance of a multi-building development as required by Section V1-C of the Site Design and Use Standards. Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design. The character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been developed to help express individual living units and retail spaces. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria regarding building width. VI-D) Openings 1) Ground level elevations facing a street shall maintain a consistent proportion of transparency (i.e., windows) compatible with the patternfound in the downtown area. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, ample glazing and showcase windows have been provided in the retail frontages along First street and the Pedestrian Plaza in the areas where they are not in conflict with the existing grade. Scale and proportion of altered or added building elements, such as the size and relationship of new windows, doors, entrances, columns and other building features shall be visually compatible with the original architectural character of the building. Finding: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not alter or add to existing buildings on adjacent lots. This application is for a new building, however, the design of the new building does incorporate architectural details compatible with, and complementary to, the existing hotel. 3) Upper floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3, the majority of the fenestration has been oriented vertically, with greater height than width. 4) Except for transom windows, windows shall not break the front plane of the building. , Findings of Fact and Conclusions"'~[ ")w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 56 of 62 Finding: Windows have been configured to open inward, or open as double hung units and do not break the front plane of the building. 5) Ground level entry doors shah be primarily transparent. Finding: Glass entrance doors have been provided for the ground level commercial/retail entrances along First Street and the Pedestrian Plaza. Solid doors have been provided for the Hargadine Street residential entrances. Windows and other features of interest to pedestrians such as decorative columns or decorative corbeling shall be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Blank walls adjacent to a public sidewalk is prohibited. Finding: Wall areas in residual spaces created by the sidewalk elevation changes on the First Street edge have been treated as a stone base with appropriate control jointing and design detailing. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria regarding door and window openings. VI-E) Horizontal Rhythms 1) Prominent horizontal lines at maintained. similar levels along the street's street-front shah be Finding: Due to the extreme topographical change of level along the First street edge, a stair stepped base has been provided to transition between the multiple "ground" levels. A strong control joint articulation and the alignment of the window mullions help bond the pattern horizontally (within the vertical windows) and define the interior functions. Differentiating color and materials help define the various surfaces and design features. The street level retail, implements the use of clear display glazing, while the residential fenestration above has been broken up by lite divisions. 2) A clear visual division shah be maintained between ground level floor and upper floors. Buildings shah provide a foundation or base, typically from ground to the bottom of the lower window sills, with changes in volume or material, in order to give the building a "sense of strength" Finding: Regarding items 2 and 3, As defined in the response to item # 1 above, and shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, the stair stepped base, which houses the on grade retail elements while screening the parking structure, has integrated a stone base, large retail display windows and entrances. The upper floor finish material changes to plaster and changes colors. The fenestration changes to vertical proportions, with divided lites. Garden terraces and balconies help differentiate the residential zones of this development. Findings of Fact and Conclusions { pv ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 57 of 62 Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria regarding horizontal rhythm of the facade. VI-F) Vertical Rhythms 1) New construction or storefront remodels shall reflect a vertical orientation, either through actual volumes or the use of surface details to divide large walls, so as to reflect the underlying historic property lines. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.4, the distinctive multi-story vertical projections, help break up the frontage to provide an appearance of a multi-building development as required by Section V 1-C of the Site Design and Use Standards. Vertical fenestration has been integrated into the design. The character of the proposed development is consistent with an urban residential scale and streetscape. A series of architectural forms have been developed to help express individual living units and retail spaces. Storefront remodeling or upper-story additions shall reflect the traditional structural system of the volume by matching the spacing and rhythm of historic openings and surface detailing. Finding: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not alter or add to existing buildings.. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria regarding vertical rhythm. VI-G) Roo_f Forms 1) Sloped or residential style roof forms are discouraged in the downtown area unless visually screened from the right-of-way by either a parapet or a false front. The false front shall incorporate a well defined cornice line or "cap" along all primary elevations. Finding: It is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not incorporate sloped roofs. VI-H) Materials 1) Exterior building materials shall consist of traditional building materials found in the downtown area including block, brick, painted wood, smooth stucco, or natural stone. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3 the following materials have been integrated into the overall design aesthetic: concrete, smooth plaster, natural stone and brick. In order to add visual interest, buildings are encouraged to incorporate complex "paneled" exteriors with columns, framed bays, transoms and windows to create multiple surface levels. , Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~[f )w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 58 of 62 Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 7.1 through 7.3, multiple surfaces, varying heights and complimentary materials have been designed and specified to create an urban imagery compatible and in context with the materials and design detailing found in the downtown core. Windows and door openings have been detailed with appropriate raised plaster surrounds. Plaster panels have been articulated with patterned control jointing, cornices and edge projections have been defined with precast watertable detailing. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria regarding suitable materials. VI-I) Awnings, Marquees or Similar Pedestrian Shelters 0 Awnings, marquee or similar pedestrian shelters shall be proportionate to the building and shall not obscure the building's architectural details. If mezzanine or transom windows exist, awning placement shall be placed below the mezzanine or transom windows where feasible. Finding: As indicated on Exhibit 2, Drawings 7.1 through 7.3 - Elevations, the primary pedestrian and vehicular entrances are articulated by glass and steel marquees that complement, rather than obscure, the design and detailing of the building. These marquees are proportional to the entrance that they designate, and the materials allow light to filter through, further highlighting the entrance below. Except for marquees - similar pedestrian shelters such as awnings shall be placed between pilasters. Finding: Where used, awnings are of a small scale and are located between pilasters. Marquees are cantilevered from the building structure and relate clearly to the bay patterns of the fagade. Storefronts with prominent horizontal lines at similar levels along the street's front shah be maintained by their respective sidewalk coverings. Finding: The marquees and awnings continue the horizontal lines of the design of the building fagade. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with the criteria regarding awnings, marquees, and pedestrian shelters. VI-J) Other 1) Non-street or alley facing elevations are less significant than street facing elevations. Rear and sidewalls of buildings should therefore be fairly simple, i.e., wood, block, brick, stucco, cast stone, masonry clad, with or without windows. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~ tw ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 59 of 62 Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawing 7.4 the alley edge of the proposed building design on the exposed multiple "ground levels" an exposed concrete parking garage structure is visible. The upper residential units will have the same design integrity that has been described in the previous paragraphs. Visual integrity of the original building shall be maintained when altering or adding building elements. This shall include such features as the vertical lines of columns, piers, the horizontal definition of spandrels and cornices, and other primary structural and decorative elements. Restoration, rehabilitation or remodeling projects shall incorporate, whenever possible, original design elements that were previously removed, remodeled or covered over. Finding: In response to items #2 and #3 above, it is the applicant's opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not alter or add to existing buildings. This application is for a new building, however, the design of the new building does incorporate architectural details compatible with, and complementary to, the existing hotel and the downtown imagery. Parking lots adjacent to the pedestrian path are prohibited (Refer to Site Design and Use Standards, Section II-D, for Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards). An exception to this standard wouM be paths required for handicapped accessibility. Finding: The parking structure has been concealed fi.om view on all edges (with the exception of the vehicular alley) by alternate building functions. A pedestrian entrance with direct visual access to the parking garage is provided fi.om the new public plaza. Pedestrian amenities such as broad sidewalks, surface details on sidewalks, arcades, alcoves, colonnades, porticoes, awnings, and sidewalk seating shall be provided where possible and feasible. Finding: As shown in Exhibit 2, drawings 1.1 through 1.4, the existing sidewalks will be removed and replaced with new sidewalks that align in width, match surfacing texture, and continue the street tree pattern generated by recently improved neighboring properties. New covered building entrances, public plazas and seating areas generated by the proposed development will provide consistent amenities found elsewhere in the downtown core. Uses which are exclusively automotive such as service stations, drive-up windows, auto sales, and tire stores are discouraged in the downtown. The city shall use its discretionary powers, such as Conditional Use Permits, to deny new uses, although improvements to existing facilities may be permitted. Finding: It is the applicants opinion this criteria is inapplicable by reason that this application does not create new automotive related uses, rather it internalizes , Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~. }w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USE I~EVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 60 of 62 existing hotel parking currently housed on an above grade asphalt covered highly visible parking lot. Conclusion: Except where noted as being inapplicable, the applicant concludes that the design of the building complies with all of the above criteria. VI-K) Exception to Standards: An exception to the Downtown Design Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of Section 18.100 of the Ashland Municipal Code and may be granted with respect to the Downtown Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: 1) There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site, an existing structure or proposed use of the site; Finding: The unique mixed-use nature of this project, which includes residential units above commercial space, creates a conflict between the requirements of the Downtown Design Standards and the programmatic needs of the residential uses. Finding: It is the applicant's understanding that the criterion prohibiting useable outdoor space above the ground level was intended for buildings fi:onting on Main Street and the Plaza. There is demonstrable evidence that the alternative design accomplishes the purpose of the Downtown Design Standards and Downtown Plan in a manner that is equal or superior to a project designed pursuant to this standard or historical precedent. Finding: Mixed-use projects with residential units located above commercial enterprises are a stated goal of the Ashland Downtown Plan. Finding: Residential units without outdoor living spaces do not contribute to the streetscape or enliven the neighborhood. The design of this project incorporates outdoor living spaces (terraces and balconies) that are designed in compIiance with the remainder of the Downtown Design Standards, the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards, and the Historic District Design Standards. The exception requested is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty of meeting the Downtown Design Standards. Finding: With the exception of the criterion prohibiting useable outdoor space above the ground level, this project complies with the Downtown Design Standards. Furthermore, the design of the non-compliant element (balconies and terraces) complies with the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards. Conclusion: The applicant concludes that the use of balconies and terraces as outlined above meets the requirements for an exception to the Downtown Design Standards, and that this exception should be granted. Findings of Fact and Conclusions ~ .w ASHLAND SPRINGS MIXED USI: DEVELOPMENT September 12, 2003 Page 62 of 62 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS As noted American urbanologist Lewis Mumford noted in a speech to the City Club of Portland in 1938: "Rebuilding our cities will be one of the major tasks of the next generation . . . In providing for new development you have an oppommity to do a job of city planning like nowhere else in the world." Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, The applicant concludes that this application for Site Plan Review Approval has satisfied all of the relevant substantive standards and criteria contained in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards, in addition to the stated goals of the Ashland Downtown Plan. The applicant further concludes that the Request for a Variance fi:om the minimum amount of permitted commercial uses on the ground floor satisfies all the criteria required to grant this variance. The applicant ultimately concludes that, based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, that both the application for Site Plan Review Approval and the Request for Variance comply with all requirements of the City of Ashland and of the State of Oregon. © © I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ~ I I ! ! I I I i {t i I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ! I ! I I I I i I ! ! I I I I I ! ! I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ! ! ! ! ! I i ! I I i ! I I i I ! ! ! I ! i ! I i I ! I i I I ! i i ! ! i I i I i I I I i I ! I I I I I I I I ! ! ! ! ! i I I I i ! i ! ! ! ! ! i I ! J JELl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I ! I ! I ! I I ! ! I i I ! I ! I i I I ! I ! I I ! I I I ! I I i ! ! ! i i ! I I I I I I I I I I ! ! ! I [] , ! ! I ! [] , I ! i I I I I I I I I i I ! ! I I ! I i I ! I i i I I I I I I I I I I I i I i ! I I I ! I I ! I I ! ! I ! I I I i I ! i ! ! I ! ! :Li~ 9~ H 1j ~t v v I ,i. ! II o< I i ! : t ! KRRGAOINE STREET MAIN STREET -; I~X'HII~IT .fl' ~ Exhibit 6.4 6.4.1 Caberet and Set Design Building 6.4.2 City Parking Behind Goldenfields Building Exhibit 6.4 6.4.3 City Parking Lot between Harrison's and Gen Kai 6.4.4 Downtown Aerial View SEP 1 2 2003 Exhibit 6.4 6.4.5 Downtown Roofs 6.4.6 Hotel and Main Street Aerial View JIUILI Exhibit 6.4 6.4.7 New Parking and Theater 6.4.8 Parking across Lithia from Post Office SEP 1 ~ 2003 Exhibit 6.4 6.4.9 Parking Lots 6.4.10 Plaza Aerial View 2003 Map Output Page 1 of 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.72 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE STANDARDS FOR LARGE BUILDINGS, AND AMENDING SECTION II-C-3a)2) OF THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 18.72.050.C. of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is replaced in its entirety as follows: 18.72.050.C. Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of eXisting buildings in the Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards: a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the exterior walls. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. , e. AnY building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992; may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any vadance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. 2. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions: a. Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor area. b. Automobile parking areas located Within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. Ordinance amending Ch. 18,72 - Big Box Page I SECTION 2. Section I1-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards is replaced in its entirety as follows: Outside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in tlie Detail Site Review Zone shall conform with the following standards: a. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. b. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside the exterior walls. c. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception: Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gross floor area. d. Buildings shall not exceed a combinedcontiguous building length of 300 feet.- e. Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations, which were in existence in 1992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their 1992 area or length. The building footprint area, gross floor area, or combined contiguous building length as set forth in this section shall not be subject to any variance authorized in the Land Use Ordinance. Inside the Downtown Design Standards Zone, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 sq. ft. or a gross floor area of 45,000 sq. ft., with the following exceptions: a. Gross floor area associated with non-ground level residential uses shall not count toward the total gross floor ama. b. Automobile'parking areas located within the building footprint, such as rooftop parking and under-structure parking, shall not count toward the total gm,ss floor area. SECTION 3. Section II-C-la) of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read as follows: 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrances shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Where buildings are located on a comer lot, the entrance shall be oriented toward the higher order street or to the lot corner at the intersection of the streets. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. Buildings shall be located as close to the intemection corner as practicable. Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72 - Big Box Page 2 SEP 2003 2) Building entrances shall be located within 20 feet of the public right of way to which they are required to be oriented. Exceptions may be granted for topographic constraints, lot configuration, designs where a greater setback results in an improved aCcess or for sites with multiple buildings, such as *shopping centers, where this standard is met by other buildings. Automobile circulation or parking shall not be allowed between the building and the right- of-way ~,,:~'~;.'-,~ ,ho~ ..... ~,~;., '~n ~,~,+ ..~ ~,....~.~,~, c~,, have .... designed to be clearly visible, attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. 3) These requirements maybe waived modified if the building is not accessed by pedestrians, such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service station~. SECTION 4. Section II-C-2b)2 of the Site Design and Use Standards is amended to read as follows: 2) A building shall be setback not more than 20 feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. This standard shall apply to both street frontages on corner lots. If more than one structure is proposed for a site, at least 25% 65% of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the ~ day of ,2003, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~ day of ,2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of ,2003. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Ordinance amending Ch. 18.72 - Big Box . Page 3 ($EP l 2003 JIRl~ Page 1 of 7 -ASHLAND Friday, September 12, 2003 Minutes City Council 08/19/2003 These Minutes are preliminary pending approval by Council at the September 2, 2003 City Council Meeting. MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETZNG ASHLAND CZTY COUNCTL August 19, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chamberst 1175 E. Hain Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CAL~ Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present. APPROVAL OF MZNUTE$ The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 5, 2003 were approved as presented. SPECZAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARD-_~ (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Approval of Quitclaim Deed to remove easement on Perozzi Property. 3. Grant an Access and Utility Easement over the Street Plug on Ashland Creek Drive. Hartzell requested to have items #2 and #3 removed for further discussion. Councilor Laws / Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. It was clarified for the council there is no relationship between the Perozzi SEP 1 2 2003 httn'/Ammxr a~hlanrl nr ndPrintCnnt~ntVimx~ am?TB=l '~292r A cmnda=Tma 0110/hQ ~ (-~ i Page 2 of 7 easement and the existing trail easement. Councilor Hartzell / Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified for the council the location of the easement in relation to the house, and assured council this was purely an access easement and would have no impact on the City's ownership or future use. Councilor Hartzell / Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing regarding Levying of Special Benefit Assessments for three Local Improvement Districts: 1) Central Avenue Improvements in the amount of $60,606.29; 2) Penny Drive/Palmer Road Improvements in the amount of $46,000.00; and, 3) Helman Street Improvements in the amount of $36,109.50. Public Works director Paula Brown gave a brief history of the three local improvement districts, Central Avenue LID: · this is the oldest of the three I_IDs · the two original tax lots have been combined into one · staff has not received any objections regarding this LID Penny/Palmer LID: · no sidewalks were built and were deferred indefinitely · the $4000.00 cap was set by Resolution 99-09 · some individuals were only charged for half lot assessments · this LTD was completed in conjunction with the Helman LID · the cost was $534,00 per unit Helman LID: · sidewalks were installed on only one side of the street · there has been four objections within this LID from: Brad Roupp, John Engelhardt/Diane Williams, Susan Shulters, and Fred Roberts. Brown explained how each objection has been acknowledged, and what is being done to resolve the disputes. · this LID came in slightly over budget at a cost of $6.00 per unit, but staff recommends the council retain the original $534.00 assessment. Public Hearing OPEN: 7:18 p.m. The mayor acknowledged the four letters of dispute received. Public Hearing CLOSED: 7:18 PUBLIC FORUM .lack Blackburn/805 Oak St./Feels the council should find someone to investigate whether the Mt. Ashland expansion would interfere with the quality of Ashland's water and stand behind their report. He also stated the council has the power to influence growth. Tf the council is unable to decide which direction to take, Blackburn suggests taking it to the people and see what they SEP i % 2003 O/1 ")/~'2 Page 3 of 7 support. UNFINISHED BUSINES~ 1. quarterly Financial Report - May - June, 2003. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained this is a preliminary report, as staff is continually doing reconciliations and adjustments. He noted on the cash and investments report, the balance has decrease by 5.6 million dollars between this year and last, with an ending fund balance up 9.6 million. Revenues were just slightly over what was projected, and expenditures came in at about 90% of what was budgeted. The audit is scheduled to be completed and a final report will be delivered to the council in November. 2. Ashland Fiber Network Quarterly Report. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg reported the AFN cable television connections and cable modems services are doing well, with the shortfall happening with the high speed data services. He explained there is a meeting in September to talk about the revised business plan and discuss what they can be doing and should be doing. He also stated they will be reconveying with the Budget Committee on September 18th at 7:00 p.m. Council expressed their concerns for the reduction in revenue. NEW AND MzSCELLANEOUS BUSZNE$; 1. Report on Proposed Process - Mt. Ashland response to DEIS. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained the Forest Service had granted the council's extension request, and presented the following process for approval: September 24 - noon. Study Session September 30 - 7:00 p.m. Public Input October 7 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting - Council decision. October 21 - 7:00 p.m. Regularly scheduled Council meeting (if needed) October 23 - Comments due to Forest Service The City Administrator suggested having the Study Session on September 22nd instead of the 24th to resolve some scheduling conflicts. The council discussed the pros and cons of moving the Study Session date to September 22. Councilor Laws / Jackson m/s to approve process with change of Sept. 22 for the Study Session. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, YES. Hartzell, Morrison, Hearn, NO. Mayor DeBoer~ YES. Motion passed. Tom Rose/430 Wimer St/ Discussed flaws within the DEIS, including: lack of historical content, no financial or operational data, forecast based solely on the number of skiers, and based on incomplete and biased data. Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Stated he supports the process proposed by the staff. He explained some history regarding the attempt of this project and relayed some information on the dry years Mt. Ashland has faced. He stated the expansion would drop one mile into the watershed, and believes this expansion is a very bad idea. Marilyn Briggs/ 590 Glenview Dr/ Does not believe the expansion can be SEP i 2 2003 Page 4 of 7 stopped, and explained her views on each of the six DEIS alternatives. Bill Little/80 High Oak Dr/ Board member of the Mt. Ashland Association. Expressed he is comfortable with the associations' financial position and would like to assist in providing information to the city. .left Hanson/13880 Hwy 66/General Manager of the Mt. Ashland Association. Welcomed the city staff to use the association as a resource. Explained the association can be of assistance in guiding the city, especially in the area of operational construction. Discussion developed amongst the council as to whether or not to allow public input at the September 22nd Study Session. It was established that the public was welcome to attend, but it is undeterminable whether there will be enough time for them to speak. 2. Update and Discussion on Youth Activities Levy Commission. Bill Cobb/Committee Chair/Presented a brief history of the commissions' activities. He expressed the need to fell the two open positions on the committee. He also explained how other schools in the area are cutting programs due to funding, and is concerned that Ashland's youth athletic teams will not have any competition to play against. .lull DiChiro/Superintendent of Ashland School District/ Explained that she was there to answer any questions the council may have regarding the commission. She clarified the role of the committee is to over see what the district is doing, and expressed the need to find a vehicle for student voice. Council discussed what attributes they are seeking in the new applicants for the commission, and how to stay better informed of the commissions' activities. Mayor DeBoer extended the application deadline for the Youth Activities Levy Commission to August 29, 2003. 3. Hargadine Parking Structure Report - .lanuary - 3une, 2003. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the updated parking facilities revenue report to the council. He stated this year's revenue was up from last. He also explained the parking garage is heavily used by the Shakespeare Theatre and usage is expected to decline slightly when the tourist season ends. Councilor Laws / Amarotico m/s to approve report. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Council discussed options to keep the parking structure filled year round. 4. Report on .lune 2003 Water Revenue Bond Sale. Finance Director Lee Tuneberg gave a brief summary on the Water Revenue Bond Sale. He explained how refinancing saved the city $373,000.00. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.72 SEP i g 2003 Page 5 of 7 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Amending the Detail Site Review Zone Standards for Large Buildings, and Amending Section II-C-3a)2) of the Site Design and Use Standards." Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave/Wants the council to strictly limit the down. town square footage to 45,000 in order to preserve the character of Ashland. He also expressed concern with some of the larger lots in the area, including the Wells Fargo and Elks Lodge sites. 3ack Hardesty/575 Dogwood Way/ Does not support the new ordinance, and asks the council to adopt an interim resolution that would limit the gross square footage. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St/Suggested putting a separate height limit on the North side of Hain Street. Stated he would like to preserve the look of this area for future children, and does not believe residents want to have big, commercial buildings in the downtown area. Bill Street/180 Head St/Stated he felt the need for a very lengthy discussion amongst the council tonight, and would like to close the window of opportunity for someone wanting to build a huge site. Community Development Director John McLaughlin came forward and prompted the council discussion on the first reading of the proposed ordinance, as well as answered their questions. Councilor Hartzell / Morrison m/s to extend meeting to 10:30. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. The council discussed which elements they wanted to keep in the Ordinance, and which ones needed to be modified. The following is a list of sections the council wants to be modified before the second reading (determined by a straw vote): · Section I - Item 1.~ Needs to be better defined to clarify whether parking or an interior courtyard is part of the "footprint". · Section I - Item 1.~ Eliminate "rooftop parking" and better define "under-structure parking" · Section 1 - Item I.F Eliminate "Any building or contiguous groups of buildings which exceed these limitations~ which were in existence in :[992, may expand up to 15% in area or length beyond their :[992 area of length." · Section I - Item 2 Leave footprint area at 45,000 sq.ft, but clean up the language for clarity. · Section 1 - Item 2.A Eliminate entire item · Section I - Item 2.R Eliminate "rooftop parking" and better define "under-structure parking" · Section 2 Keep verbiage consistent with changes in Section 1 · Section 3 - Item 2 Change "This entrance shall be designed..." to "The entrance shall be designed..." SEP I 2 2003 htt~-//xxrxxr~x, nehl~nrl r~r ~le/l:)~4nt~nt~nt~/ioxxr ~engTFl___l 229 £7 A ~a~l~--~T,~ ~/~ ~/no Page 6 of 7 Eliminate the word "attractive" Councilor Hartzell / Morrison m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hearn, Hartzell, Amarotico, 3ackson and Morrison. All AYES. Motion passed. 2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of $36,:1.09.50 for the Helman Street Sidewalk Zmprovement District for Improvements Consisting of Sidewalks and Associated Improvements for Helman Street~ Between Van Ness Avenue and Nevada Street." Public Works Director Paula Brown explained the sidewalk was only placed on one side of the street, though each participant in the LID was assessed the same amount. Councilor Laws/3ackson m/s to approve Resolution #2003-29. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Morrison, Laws, Jackson, Hearn and Hartzell. All AYES. Motion passed. 3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of $46,000.00 for the Penny Drive and Palmer Road Local Improvement District for Tmprovements to Palmer Road and Penny Drive consisting of Paving~ Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements." Councilor Morrison / Laws m/s to approve Resolution #2003-30. Discussion: Public Works Director Paula Brown reminded council they had delegated excess funds to be used for a connection to the Helman St. project, located between Oak and Helman on Nevada Street. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, 3ackson, Hearn, Morrison, Amarotico and Laws. All AYES. Motion passed. 4. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the amount of $60,606.29 for the Central Avenue Local Zmprovement District for Zmprovements for Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains and Sidewalks on Central Avenue from its existing Terminus East of Helman Street to Water Street, for the Central Avenue Local Tmprovement District." Councilor Amarotico/ Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2003-31. Roll Call Vote: 3ackson, Laws~ Morrison, Amarotico, Hearn and Hartzell. All AYES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCZL MEMBERS Mayor DeBoer announced the RVTV City. television show has been moved to the first Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m., starting in October. He also stated the evaluation for the City Administrator and City Attorney has been postponed. ADJOURNMENT SEP i 2 2003 Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor End of Document - Back to Top Page 7 of 7 htm ://www.ashland.or.us/PrintContentView.ast~?ID= 1332&Aeenda=Tme 9/12/03 Land Use: 710 General OffiCe Building Description A general office building houses multiple tenants; it is a location where affairs of businesses, . commercial or industrial organizations, or professional persons or firms are conducted. An office building or buildings may contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, Insurance companies, investment brokers, and tenant services.such as a bank Or savings and lOan, a restaurant or cafeteria, and Service retail facilities. Nearly all of the buildings surveyed were in suburban locations. Related land uses include Corporate Headquarters (Land Use 714), Single Tenant Office Building (Land Use 715), and Office Park (Land Use 750). If information is known about individual buildings, it is sUggested that the general office building category be used rather than office parks when estimating trip generation for one or more office buildings in a single development. The office park category is more general in nature, and should be-used when a breakdown ofindividualOr different uses is not known. If the general office building category is used, and if additional buildings, such as banks, restaurants, or retail stores are included in the development, then the development should be treated as a multi-use project. On the other hand, If the.office park category is used, Internal trip making is already reflected in the data and does not need to be considered. When the buildings are Interrelated (defined by ihared parking facilities or the ability to easily walk .between buildings) or house one tenant, it is suggested that the total area or employment of all the buildings be used for calculating the trip generation. It' Is further suggested that area or employment of eaCh Individual building in a single project be used when the individual buildings are Isolated and not related to one another. Additional Data Average weekday.transit trip ends: ~ Transit service at a majority of the sites surveyed was either nOn-exiStent o~"negligible. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Vehicle occupancy: 1.2 persons per automobile. Varies by quantity and cost of parking, location of office, and region. Peak hours of the generator: Weekdays - Typically the same as the A.M. and P.M. peak hOurs of the adjacent street traffic. In some regions peaking may occur eadier or later and last somewhat longer than the 7:00 to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. time frames. T#p Generation, January 1991 939 · Institute of Transportation Engineers SEP i ?, 003 Jllllki ...... These studies were conducted in the 1960's through 1990at sites throughout the United States, with an average of 673 employees, 205,000 square feet gross floor area, and 700 parking spaces. Average densities are summarized in the following table: _______ Table 1: General Office Buildin Ag._~..y~ age Densities Inde ndent Variables Em Io ees Per I 000 S uare Feet Gross Floor Area - Em~es Per Parkin_g_.~_ace ~es Per Gross Acre+ ~uare Feet Gross Floor Area Per Parkin S a.g__~.~__ ~uare Feat Gross Floor Area Per Gross Acre+ ~aces Per Gross Acre+ 3.29 7.91 0.28 7.02 0.28 - 12.82 0.23- 3.44 1.33 - 245.90 0.34 - 49.89 + The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies considerably and is a function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of parking provided (at-grade, below the building, or in a separate parking structure). It is suggested that when only the acreage of the office building site is known, the probable building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per acre as shown in the above table. For office buildings exceeding 100,000 square feat gross floor area, as the building size increases, the employea density tends to decrease, as shown in Table 2: Table 2: Genera; Office Building Employea Density ~uare - ~~uare Feet Gross Floor Area) feet GFA ------__ Avem__9~ ------____ Ran_9~_ __._.._..___ 0.79- 8.03 ._______ 1.74 - 12.82 -_._______ 0.28 - 10.13 L__._.___ess than 100 100 to200 _______201 to $oo · Mo..__._.~re than 500 All ---------- 3.39 --------_ 3~84 ------___ 3.22- . 3.2~' 1.00- 4.10 0.28- 12.82 The employea density of office buildings will vary by the type of occupants or businesses, the length of time the occupants have been housed in the building, and the number of tenants occupying the building. New tenants in a building tend to have a lower employee density initially to leave space for future growth. Therefore, the measure of density and trip generation should be made at office buildings which are not new. As data are collected in the future, it is recommended that both the gross square footage and net rentable area be obtained. Trip Characteristics The trip generation for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours of the generator typically coincide with the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic; therefore, only one A.M. peak hour and one P.M. peak hour, which represent both the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, are shown for general office buildings. Trip Generation, January 1991 940 Institute of Transportation Engineers SEP 1 2003 The office building data collected (over 250 studies)indicate that the rate of trip generation decreases as building size increases. The logarithmic equations shown on the following pages best describe this rate of change. It is suggested that the equations be utilized as the most accurate method of estimating the driveway volumes for a building or Interrelated buildings smaller than 800,000 square feet gross floor area or where there are .less than 1,600 employees. For buildings of 800,000 square feet gross floor area or more, or where there are 1,600 employees or more, it is suggested that the applicable rates in the following tables be used to calculate trip generation. If the rates are used for buildings smaller than 800,000 square feet gross floor area or where there are less than 1,600 employees, one must Interpolate between size groups to estimate the trip generation rate for a size not shown in the tables. The relationship between building size and the number of employees, and trips generated is illustrated in the following tables, which approximate trip generation rates as derived from the trip generation equations shown on the following pages: Table 3: General Office Building Trip Generation , Vehicle Trip Ends (Two-Way Volume) Per Employee Derived From Trip Generation Equations' Employees Average Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. PeakHour. Vehicle Trip Ends (1 Hour Between (1 Hour Between 7 and 9 A.M.) 4 and 6 P.M.) Rate Volume Rate '. Volume Rate Volume 25 6.00 150 0.77 19 0.92 23 50 5.32 266 0.70 35 0.79 40 100 4.74 474 0.64 64 0.69 69 200 4 ~ 844 0.58 1'17 0.60 119 300 3.94 1183 0.55 166 0.55 165 400 3.76 1503 0.53 212 0.52 207 500 3.62 1809 0.52 258 0.49 247 600 3.51 2105 0.50 302 0.48 285 700 3.42 2393 0.49 345 0.46 323 800 3.34 2675 0.48 387 0.45 358 900 3.28 2950 0.48 428 0.44 394 1,000 3.22' ~0 0.47 469 0.43 428 1,200 3.12 3748 0.46 549 0.41 495 1,600 or more 2.98 0.44 0.39 Trip General[on, January 1991 941 Institute of Transportation Engineers SEP I 2003 _ Table 4: General Office Building Trip Generation Vehicle Trip Ends 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area 200 ________ 700 800 or more Derived From (Two-Way Volume) Per 1,000 Square Feat Gross Floor Area Source Numbers Generation uatiOns A.M. Peak.Hour (1 Hour Between AVerage Weekday Vehicle TriP Ends 7and Rate Volume Rate Volume 24.60 246 3.20 32 19.72 2.60 65 16.58 829 2.22 111 14.03 1.90 11.85 2369 1.64 327 10.77 3230 1.50 450 9.96 3984 1.40 561 9.45 4723 1.33 9.05 5432 1.29 773 8.75 6125 1.24 871 8.46 .1.20 P.M. Peak Hour (1 Hour Between 4 and 6 Rate Volume 3.40 34 2.68 67 2.24 112 1.87 1,56 311 1.40 420 1.30 519 1.22 608 1.17 700 1.12 78 1.08 2, 5, 20, 21, 51, 53, 64, 72, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98,· 100, i59, 161,i72, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 189, 193, 207, 212, 217, 247, 253, 257, 260, 262, 279, 295, 297, 298, 300, 301,302,303, 304, 321, 322, 323, 324~ 327 ' · Tdp Generation, January 1991 942 Institute of. Transportation Engineers SEP 1 2 2003 General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees On a: Weekday Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 50 619 '50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 3 N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation r~] 5,000 1,000 X × X X X X X X X× 0 0 X Actual Data Points F~tted~Curve Equation: Trip Generation, January 1991 1000 X = Number of Employees -- Fitted Curve Ln('r) = 0.832 Ln(X) + 2.330 2000 3000 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.89 943 Institute of Transportation Engineers ~I~D 1 ~) General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees On a:. Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 147 66O 89% entering, 11% exiting Trip Generation per Employee ._..____Average Rate Range of Rates See Table 3 N/A Data Plot and Equation Standard ,Deviation-~ 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 7O0 600 5O0 400 300 200 100 0 0 ... x~~~ ....... : ............... 1000 2000 3000 X = Number of Employees X Actual Data Pointa Fitted Curve Equation: 5000 ~ Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.865 Ln(X) + 0.176 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.88 Tr~p Generation, January. 1991 944 Institute of Transportatio l~n_gij3e_er.s__A r~Ep 3. z zuu~ General Office Building < 600 Employees (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Employees Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 147 66O 89% entering, 11% exiting Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 3 N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 5oo (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 944) 400 300 200 100 ,x x x ............ ~ ............ ~ ...... C .... ¢---~'-:::: .... i-~': ........ ............ ::.~.:~ ...... ~.~...~ ........... .~ ............ ~ ............ X ' X X 0 1 oo 20o 300 40o soo soo X = Number of Employees X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.865 Ln(X) + 0.176 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.88 Trip Generation, January 1991 945 Institute of Transporta~:)~~ General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 157 654 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates ~"~ee '~-ab~'e ~ N/A Standard'Deviation N/A Data Plot and Equation 1,300 · 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 70O 60O 5O0 400 300 2O0 100 0 0 ............... :. .............. ~ X X ........................................... X'xx x k ' X ...... : .............. : -: ............... 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 X = Number of Employees X' Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: -------- Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.794 Ln(X) + 0.575 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.83 Trip Generation, January 1991 946 Institute of Transportation General Office Building < 600 Employees (710) Average Vehicle Trip Endsvs: Employees On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 157 654 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per Employee I Average-Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 3 N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation · 500 (Subset of Data Plotted on Psge 946) 400 300 2o0 100 X X X X X':X . x x.:~ x "~'>e'"-xx: x Xx xJ ~ ~: ~ ! .. : x 'xx ~ x'~Xx ' ....... ............ i ............ ,;,' x..,,~""xX ~¥ ~ · I 0 100 200 300 400 500 X = Number of Employees ~ Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.794 Ln(X) + 0.575 X Actuai Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: ..... ~ Average Rate R2 = 0.83 600 Trip Generation, January 1991 947 SEP 1 ~ Z003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs-- On a: Employees Saturday Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 17 346 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Employee ~'-----Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation [ N/A N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 600 500 ._.9. E · 2OO II lO0 0 0 100 200 300 400. 500 600 700 800 900 X = Number of Employees X Actual Data Points ~ Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.845 Ln(X) + 0.135 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.56 1000 Trip Generation, January 1991 948 SEP ! 2, ?.003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Employees Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 10 427 54% entering, 46% exiting Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation N/A N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation II 7O 6O 40 20 10 ............................... , ................ , ............. <.' ...... .' ....... ....... :. ....... ,, ........ ; ........ : ........ : ......... ,, .... ;.:.. ....... .,, ....... .,. ....... X ' 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 X = Number of Employees x Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Eh(T) = 0.986 Ln(X) - 2.366 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.60 Trip Generation, January 1991 949 SEP 1 2 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (7 o) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Employees On a: Sunday Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 17 346 50% entering, 50% .exiting Trip Generation per Employee ~e' Range of Rates [ N/A N/A Standard Deviation N/A Data Plot and Equation 200 100 0 0 lO0 200 Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: X 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 X = Number Of Employees --------- Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.847 Ln(X) - 0.914 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.45 Trip Generation, January 1991 95O SEP 1 '~ 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Employees Sunday, 'Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 10 427 58% 'entering, 42% exiting · Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation Data Plot and Equation 30 · 20 II I-- 10 I . I , I , I , I , I , I , I , I , 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 X = Number of Employees x Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ...... Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.715 Ln(X) - 1.793 R2 = 0.55 5'L P ~ 2 2003 Trip Generation, January 1991 951 Institute of Transportation Engineers ,IILILJ General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 66 199 50% entering, 50% eXiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet .Gross Floor Area L_.~__~; ~a-~ge ~ Rates [ ~. ~'~ Standard Deviation N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 11 000 ' ' 10,000 .......... ; .......... , , ' ~ ................. 9,000 ° ..... ! ..... ! ..... ~ ..... '.' ...... : ...... i .... ×-. ........: . : ,.ooo~ i i .~ : ~~i ...... ; ..... ,.ooo_j ..... ~...×.~ ..... ~~---i ..... 2,000 .... x. ' x~ >;, i : : T '~' "i ...... i ...... : ..... i ..... i ..... . ' ;<~ .... i ..... i ..... i ...... i ...... i ...... i ...... !' "i ..... : : ~,ooo ..... : ..... : ..... . ..... : ..... .: ...... : ..... . . . o :x i i i i : : 'i ...... i ...... : ..... : ..... i ..... X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area x Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln('l') = 0.756 Ln(X) + 3.765 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.82 Trip Generation, January 1991 952 SEP i 2 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On e: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GF^: Directional Distribution: 192 2O9 89% entering, 11% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 4 'N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 2,000 II X 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Actual Data Points ~ Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) -- 0.777 Ln(X) + 1.674 0.81 ~LP ]. 2003 Tdp Generation, January 1991 953 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Uffice. Buildin l < 300,000 SF GFA Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 192 209 89% entering, 11% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area .___.___Average Rate Range of Rates See Table 4 Data Plot and Equation N/A 'Standard Deviation N/A 700 600 II 200 (Subset of Data Plotted on Page 953) X ............ .' ..... ~ . X . X :X Xx × ×~ xx )~x xxx X X X X X X 0 0 5O X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: 1 oo 150 200 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area -------- Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.777 Ln(X) + 1.674 · 250 300 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.81 Trip Generation, January 1991 954 SEP .1. 2 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 2O8 2O3 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip. Generation per 1000 Sq, Feet GrOss"FIoor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 4 N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 1,500 1,400 1,300 1 ~00 1,100 1,000 90O 800 700 600 500 4O0 3OO 2O0 100 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 12® 1300 X -- 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.78 Tdp Generation, January 1991 955 SEP 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003 General Office Building < 300,000 SF GFA (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet. Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 2O8 2O3 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area .___..__Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation See Table 4 N/A 'Data Plot and Equation 700 (Subset of Da#_~_ Plotted on Psge 955) N/A 600 300 II 2OO 100 0 × ~x x x x x x :~Xx : ......................... : ........... : ............. :... x..x., x.~.~.~... ! . x~:., ,¢ ~~-- .......... i ........ ;"!,~'"~ ....... !":,'~---× .... -.;---~ ....... ~-.-- ~× ;,x× x ~ ..~.-~x ...,,' ~.x x : . ~'x~X~.,- xX~X,. ,, !. ,, ! -- ............ ,x- - ~- - ~- - ~~...'...x;;~. ~. _X :x ×× ~~--.! .......... :x,X . ~< , : ...... ~.~.~x : '. '., ........... : ............. i ............. ............ ! x~ .. ' ............. : .......... .'":' ............ I 0 50 100 15~ 200 250 300 X = '1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points - Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.78 Trip Generation, JanuarY 1991 956 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Saturday Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 17 78 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation .per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross .Floor Area i Average RateN/A Range'of Rates N/A Standard Deviati°n I N/A :)ata Plot and 'Equation 600 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area x Actual Data Points ~ Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 2.136(X) + 18.473 Trip Generation, January 1991 957 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.66 SEP I 2 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: · On a: Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Saturday, Peak Hour of Generator 10 97 . 54% entering, 46% exiting L Trip Generation per 1000 Sq~ ~Feet Gross Floor Area .__.____Average Rate Range-of Rates Standard Deviation N/A N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 8O 70 e) 60 uJ Q. ._~ II I- 2O 10 50 70 90 110 130 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area - Fitted Curve 0 10 30 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.814 Ln(X) - 0.115 150 170 18{ ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.59 Trip Generation, January 1991 958 SEP ! 2 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Sunday Number of Studies: 17 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 78 ,Directional Distribution: 50%.entering,:50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area I .Average Rate Range .of Rates Standard Deviation N/A N/A N/A Data Plot and Equation 400 II 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Trip Generation, January 1991 · Fitted Curve ...... Average Rate Ln(T) = 0.863 Ln(X).+ 0.306 R2 = 0.50 SEP 1 ~ ~003 959 Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Sunday, Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 10 97 58% entering, 42% exiting Trip Generation ~__Average Rateper 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area ~ ~_~ Range of Rates Standard Deviation N/A N/A Data Pict and Equation 20¸ 10 X -. ...., .............. ;.>.: ...... ; ........ '.... . , : 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 X -- 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area x Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: ~ Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.605 Ln(X) - 0.228 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.56 Trip Generation, January 1991 960 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 715 Single Tenant Office Building Description A single tenant office building generally contains the offices, meeting rooms, and space for file storage and data processing of a single business or company, and possibly other service fUnctions including a restaurant or cafeteria. Related land uses include General Office BUilding (Land Use 710), Corporate Headquarters Building (Land Use 714), and Office Park (Land Use 750). Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Vehicle occupancy: Average of 1.1 for nine of the sites surveyed. The range is 1.03 to 1.10. Peak hours of the generator: Typically the same as the peak hours of the adjacent street traffic. 75% of the studies were conducted in the late 1980's, at sites throughout the United Statesl with nearly 90% of the studies from the Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Philadelphia, and San Diego areas. The sites average 541 employees, 159,000 square feet gross floor area, 27 acres, and 579 parking spaces. Average densities are summarized in the following table: Single Tenant Office Building Avera ~e Densities Independent Variables Average Range Employees Per 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area 3.39 1.03 - 8.57i Employees Per Parking Space Employees 'Per Acre* 1.02 0.58 - 1.64 16.95 1.67 - 81.08 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Parking Space 0.30 0.18 - 0.64 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Gross Acre+ 4.89 0.22 - 29.73 Parking Spaces Per Gross Acre+ 14.41 1.28 - 71.62 + The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies considerably and is a function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of parking provided. It is suggested that'when only the acreage of a building site is known, the probable building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per acre as shown in the above table. Source Numbers 89,92,212,262,273,279,303,304,322,323,324,327 Trip Generation, January 1991 968 SEP 1 Institute of Transportation Enginee'rs 2 Z003 Single Tenant Office Building (715) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Employees Weekday Number of. StudieS: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 12 349 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.55 2.09 - 7.61 2.43 Data Plot and Equation II 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 X = Number of Employees X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.756 Ln(X) + 2.701 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.78 Trip Generation, January 1991 969 ,.SEP 1 Z ZOO3 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single Tenant Office Building (715) Average Vehicle Trip Ends .vs: Employees -On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 35 555 89% entering, 11% exiting Trip Generation per Employee I Average Rate0.52 Range of Rates 0.27 - 0.95 Standard Deviati°nI 0.74 Data Plot and Equation 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 .................. 2 ...... .' ......... ~.~ ............ ;... ........... X ............ x.x ....... ' .......................... i .......................... I I 1000 2000 3000 X = Number of Employees X Actual Data Points -- Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.886 Ln(X) + 0.050 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.83 Trip Generation, January 1991 970 SEP i ~ 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single Tenant Office Building (7 5) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Employees Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: Average Number of Employees: Directional Distribution: 35 555 16% entering, .84% exiting Trip Generation per Employee Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.50 0.29 - 1.08 0.72 Data Plot and Equation 1,200 II 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 6O0 5O0 400 300 200 100 0 0 ................................. j/ X X X ', X X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: 1000 X = Number of Employees ~ Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.916 Ln(X) - 0.158 2000 3000 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.89 Trip Generation, January 1991 971 SEP 1 2 Z003 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single Tenant Office Building (7 5) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a-' Weekday Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 12 107 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation AverageRat?er 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area ~ ~'~."~'(~ i Range of'Rates Standard Deviation 5.33 - 35.68 8.60 Data Plot and EquatiOn 6,000 II 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area × Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.614 Ln(X) + 4.265 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.56 Trip Generation, January 1991 972 SEP i 2 2O03 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single Tenant Office Building (7 5) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 39 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: ,. 163 Directional Distribution: 89% entering, 11% exiting Trip Generation per. 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.78 0.75 - 4.57 1.51 Data Plot and Equation II 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 90O 800 7OO 600 5OO 400 300 20O 100 0 ::X-X; ~<- .......... .'.. ' 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 X -- 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.760 Ln(X) + 1.764 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.73 Trip Generation, January 1991 973 SEP 1 2 Z003 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single Tenant Office Building (7 5) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 39 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: . 163 Directional Distribution: 16% entering, 84% exiting Trip Generation ________verageRateper 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area ~ ~.~ Range of R~ Standard Deviation 0.79 - 5.14 1.50 Data Plot and Equation 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 6O0 50O 400 300 200 100 "i ............ ': ............. : ............ ;~--' ........... :. ........... X i X X ' ...... × .... ~---×---~ ............ i ..... x~.~.~× ii ' ........ i ............. i ............ .......... ×.: :' ........ , i ~ , X ~" '~ ............. i ........................... i ............ ....... >~; ............ ., ............. ; ............. ; ........... 0 I , I , I , I , ~ , 1 ~ 2~ 3~ 400 5~ 60 · X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points' Fitted Curve Equation: Trip Generation, January 1991 Fitted Curve Ln(T) = 0.784 Ln(X) + 1.614 974 ...... Average Rate R2 ~, 0.74 1 2 ~003 Institute of Transportation Engineers III JILl -=-Land Use: 720 Medicall'Dental Office Building Description A medical-dental office building is a facility which provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a routine basis but which is unable to provide prolonged in-house medical/sUrgical care. This type of building is generally operated by one or more private physicians or dentists. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Vehicle occupancy: Average of 1.37 for six of the sites surveyed. The range is 1.32 to 1.44. Peak hours of the generator:. Weekdays 10:15 t6 11:45 A.M. and 3:15 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. Saturdays 11 A.M. to 12 Noon. Most of the studies were conducted in the 1980's, at sites throughout the United States, with a number of studies from the New York, Louisville, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and San Diego areas. The sites average 163 employees, 37,000 square feet gross floor area, and 181 parking spaces. Average densities are summarized in the following table: Medical-Dental Office Building Average Densities Independent Variables Average Range Employees Per 1,000.Square Feet Gross Floor Area 4.83 2.25 - 6.54 Employees Per Parking Space 0.84 0.55 - 2.40 Employees Per Gross Acre+ 81.53 26.00 - 546.67 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Parking Space 0.17 0.13 - 0.60 1 i000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area Per Gross Acre+ 21.76 7.05 - 156.67 Parking Spaces Per Gross Acre+ 78.36 47.20 - 503.33 + The relationship between gross square footage and gross acreage varies considerably and is a function of the local zoning code, the nature of the development and landscaping, and the type of parking provided. It is suggested that when only the acreage of a building site is known, the probable building size in gross square feet be estimated from the average square footage per · acre as shown inthe above table. Source Numbers 8, 19, 98, 104, 109, 120, 157, 184, 209,211,253, 287, 294, 295, 304 Trip Generation, January 1991 975 SEP 1 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 810 Retail - General Merchandise .Description A general memhandise retail establishment is an individual free-standing st°re selling general merchandise. Additional Data Info~Tnation on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Weekday peak hours of the generator:. The generator peaks at the same time as the P.M. peak hour of adjacent street traffic. The study was conducted in 1979. Source Numbers 182 Trip Generation, JanUary 1991 1096 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land use','r 810' Retail - General Merchandise Independent Variables With One Observation The following trip generation data are for independent variables with only one observation. This information is shown in this table only; there are no related plots, for these data. Users am cautioned to use these data with care due to the small sample size. Independent Variable Trip Size of Number Generation Independent ':: of Rate Variable Studies Directional Distribution 1,000 Square Feet Gross Floor Area P.M. Pe~k Hour of 4.80 214 I 50% entering, 50% exiting Adjacent Street Traffic P.M. Peak Hour of 4.80 214 I 50% entering, 50% exiting Generator / T.,~p Generation, January 1991 1097 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 835 Drinking Place Description A drinking place contains a bar, where alcoholic beverages and snacks are.served; possibly with entertainment such as music, television screens, video games, or pool tables. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on pemon tdp ends is not available. · Information on truck trips is. not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Information on peak hours'of the generator is not' available. The studies were conducted in 1987 in Colorado. The sites average 3,500 square feet gross floor area (range of 1,134 to 5,355). Source Numbers 291 JlLllil Drinking Place (835) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a:'~ Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 8 AVerage 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3 Directional Distribution: 68% entering, 32% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq..Feet Gross Floor Area I Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 15.49 3~73 - 29,98 8.63 Data Plot and Equation 120 110 100 13. 80 70 60 ~) 50 II 40 30 2O 10 2 3 4 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 5 6 i X Actual Data Points ...... Average Rate Fitted Curve EqUation: Not given R2 _ **** 2 ~003 Trip Generation, January 1991 1325 Institute of Transportation Engineers Land Use: 870 Apparel Store Description An apparel store is an individual store specializing in the sale of clothing. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available: -' Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Information on peak hours of the generator is not available. These studies were conducted in 1984, at six stores in New England. These sites average 5,000 square feet gross leasable.area (range of 2,000 to 9,000). Source Numbers 210 Tdp Generation, January 1991 1444 SEP '1 Institute of Transportation Engineers 2 2003j 'Apparel .Store (870) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On.a: Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross.Floor Area Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 'p.m. 6 5 Not available Trip Generation ~~__~?r~ Rateper 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area. Range of Rates ~ 3.33 Data Plot and Equation 1.50 - 6.37 Standard DeV~ 40 20 10 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 1.386 Ln(X} + 0.402 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.77 Trip Generation, January 1991 1445 EP Institute of Transportation Engineers Apparel Store (870) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour of Generator Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 6 5 Not available Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.?/ 1.78 - 6.37 2.54 Data Plot and Equation II 50 2o 10 4 5 6 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 0 2 3 x Actual Data Points ~ Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = [(0.388/X) - 0.016]'1 7 8 9 ...... Average Rate R2 = 0.85 Trip Generation, January 1991 1446 SEP 1 2 2003 Institute of Transportation Engineem .... II[IILI Land Use: 895 Video Arcade Description A video arcade is a building or space in which video game units are played for a fee. Arcades generally contain 20 to 100 individual game units. Additional Data Information on transit trip ends is not available. Information on person trip ends is not available. Information on truck trips is not available. ~ Information on vehicle occupancy is not available. Peak hours of the generator (based on a limited sample): Weekdays and weekends 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. 'This study was conducted in 1982 at a video arcade in Connecticut. This site has 78 video game units, 5,000 square feet gross floor area, and 83 parking spaces. Source Numbers 219 Tflp Generation, January 1991 1466 Institute of Transnortatinn I::nain~e.m Ken Ogden From: · ent: I'o: Subject: Ed & Tanya Bemis [tanyab@mind.net] Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:51 AM Ken Ogden Fw: traffic study information needed TR2.xls (230 KB) ~en, Here is an Excel file from the City. I'm going to try to look at the ITE Trip Generation Manual tomorrow to find out what our sort of commercial space would generate for trips. I'll get it to you asap. Thanks! Tanya According to Ray Smith (Engineering Tech II) 552-2416 smithr@ashland.or.us : Between 1st and 2nd on Hargadine 869/day Between Pioneer and 1st 1043/day Between Hargadine and E Main on 1st 808/day Between Pioneer and 1st on E Main 13093/day Between 1st and 2nd on E Main 13349/day Residential units generate 10 trips/day Commercial units generate ?? Go look at ITE Trip Generation Manual ..... Original Message ..... From: "Ray smith" <Ray@ashland.or.us> To: <tanyab~mind.net> ~ent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 12:~9 PM jubject:-Re: traffic study information needed Tanya : I'm attaching the database for my existing traffic counts - should be pretty self-explanatory, but feel free to ask if you need any help with it. I talked to one of the Planners, and they told me the trip generation stuff is not just a "cut & dried" type issue : depends on the type of commercial usage (e.g. : fast food restaurant would generate a different volume of traffic than a hair salon, for instance) and the information on that can be found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Hope this helps, Ray SEP I [ 2003 O c.t'o-be~ 2003 Rew~ Boy.d,, October 9th Terry, October 1 6th Terry, October 23rd Terry, October 30th Terry, o 0 m 0 m m c~ 0 Ci --I m o rn Z Z Z Z m m m m 0 0 m ITl rn m m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: z m m m m m m m m (33 o o rn CZ m -< m 0 m z ~ ~ o z 0 0 z ~ ~ ~ m September 6, 2003 c/o Diane Schaffer 1016 Timberline Terrace Ashland, OR 97520 Mayor Alan DeBoer City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Dear Mayor DeBoer, I am v~xiting toaSk iyour approval'for a leave of absence:from .my P0sition on the Ashland 'Historic commission. As of 1 st September, 2003 I am on sabbatical from my position at Southern Oregon University. I leave the country in just two days, and will be conducting anthropological research, initially in Tuvalu, Central Pacific (September to early February, 2004) and then in Italy (February through June, 2004). I will retUrn to Ashland about July 1st, 2004. An eleven month leave would allow me to return to the Historic Commission with the August, 2004 meeting. Since my current term will expire during my absence, on April 30, 2004, I believe that your approval of this request would also require that I be reappointed again for a new term upon that expiration date. I understand this is a somewhat unusual request. I make it because I continue to enjoy my service on the Commission and I believe I am still able to make a reasonable contribution to its work and toward the betterment of Ashland. I have discussed this request with Planning staff, who have encouraged me to write you. If it appears best not to renew my position, or to grant this request, I will understand. I want to thank you in advance for your consideration, and also ask that you reply in due course to the address above, as I'll be in the central Pacific in just a few days. Yours sincerely, Keith S. Chambers Cc: Planning Director, Planning Staff, Historic Commission members t~IIr