The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRecord for PA 2006-00612 CITY OF ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION 2006-00612 PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00612 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Helman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGN A TION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP#391E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. Date 1-11-07 12-27-06 12-27-06 12-20-06 12-26-06 12-15-06 12-12-06 11-14-06 10-10-06 Item Notice of Land Use Appeal submitted by Ron Davies Public notice of tentative appeal & criteria, affidavit of mailing, mailing list, newspaper publication Findings and Orders for PA2006-00078 dated 12-26-06 Public notice & e-mail to Tidings requesting publication of meeting to adopt findings Rebuttal Submission from Art Bullock - Supplement 3 (clean version) Memo from Susan Yates to parties that testified or wrote letters December 12.2006 Planning Commission Packet (cont'd. from 11-14-06) Planning Commission Minutes dated 12-12-06 New Information Since Last Month's Meeting: Project Highlights submitted by Urban Development Services, LLC E-mails in support of project dated 11-28-06 E-mail from Art Bullock dated 11-22-06 - Record Supplement E-mailed Pyramid Juice Site Petition without addresses from Art Bullock E-mailed Pyramid Juice Site Petition with addresses from Art Bullock November 14. 2006 Planning Commission Packet (cont'd. from 10-10-06) Public notice & criteria, affidavit of mailing, mailing list, newspaper publications Planning Commission Minutes dated 11-14-06 Staff Report Addendum III dated 11-14-06 Staff Report Addendum II dated 10-10-06 Applicant's Materials dated 10-24-06 October 10. 2006 Planning Commission Packet (cont'd. from 6-13-06) Public notice & criteria, mailing list Planning Commission Minutes dated 10-10-06 Staff Report Addendum II dated 10-10-06 2 Memos from Mike Reeder, Asst. City Attorney re: Vision Clearance Aerial map of property Site plans submitted by the applicant on 9-11-06 Site plans submitted by the applicant on 7-24-06 Plans submitted to the Historic Commission on 10-4-06 Paae # 1-4 5-12 13-25 26-27 28-30 31-40 41-90 41-43 44-90 44-78 79-83 84-88 89 90 91-157 91-97 98-100 101-108 109-131 132-157 158-344 158-161 162165 166-189 190-193 194 195-203 204-206 207-209 Rendering dated 8-2-06 Historic Commission Recommendations Tree Commission Recommendations E-mail Derek Severson to Maria Harris re: sidewalk measurements Staff Report Addendum dated 8-8-06 Staff Report dated 7-11-06 Historic Commission Minutes dated 8-2-06 Tree Commission Minutes dated 7-6-06 Applicant's Submittal dated 8-30-06 Traffic Impact Study dated 7-21-06 Letter from Ron Davies dated 7-2-06 Application 4-7-06 210 211 212 213 214-231 232-252 253-254 255 256-283 284-339 340-342 343-344 Notice of land Use Appeal Ashland Munici al Code 18.108.11 0.A.2 A. Name(s) of Person Filing Appeal: B. Address(es): 1. ? /t /e,-v r. 'J rJ /)11 (,/ e. 2. 1,- OJ/V /(}1l/' 1 (~: (-,I;,{),V(t/ C)' . '-57 Ic? ?I/J/l .f\../ Attach additional pages of names and addresses if oth r persons are joining the appeal. C. Planning Commission Decision Being Appealed Date of Decision: Planning Action #: Title QHlanning action:., _, -1 - -.. .1., V;.-u('vrJ".lJr;,/ "v1\\r;-:r/t (;,',; I T\'- ~ ~'(.G 1.:.1 / -~ j.... \_'- J...... I .,\t.'''- l..li~L / :;... 'f...( ! C l(.J ' (,IJ - .- vv, .. < . it / h'. N C . .?:/-- j 6. 'J D. How Person(s) Filing Appeal Qualifies as a Party For each erson listed above in Box A, check the a ro riate box below. The person named in l.@ J am the applicant. Box A.1. above .rl participated in the public hearing before the planning qualifies as a party commission, either orally or in writing. because: l.@ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. l.@ I am the applicant. -.(1 participated in the public hearing before the planning commission, either orally or in writing. l.@ I was entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. Attach additional pages if others have joined in the appeal and describe how each qualifies as a art. The person named in Box A.2. above qualifies as a party because: E. Specific Grounds for Appeal 1. The first specific ground for which the decision should be reversed or modified is (attach additional pages if necessary): h'D-ft;,/IC Ui.ff" .'('~ O('.J(j-/'VS/~(/"'~</Y"',.(S iv-C -I. /1c~.'I(! (r:>",-!I"'vlC/I(;,-../ iJ:4fi~t(llp . . I/IYV/p) I.~ ht'tC Ilf (fc;{ hI>.' I, 0//11 "11) 1-1/ (,'''1.C[IJI2..'\/ ThiS IS an error because the apphcabTe ~r1te:r1a Or procedure In the Ashfand Ml,/nlclpal code ~ or other law in rll'-c'l Sh~AI<<( C:..~.:,.I_~f-v::-c f G/?I'(,f,~vj:J h'1equires th~t d. . I'f IU//chl t.r. et(l~ .....,IV; 1'" rd..v;' I ,L::v~' ~ ~.-" I. $,"'" .~( attach ad Ibona a es I necessa : 1, ," / " .~~,J, I -~ I ~~,' '=-~ 1/ p. 2. The second specific ground for whic the decision s ould be reversed or modified is (attach ~ddition~1 pages ,if neces.sary): (/151 {; '/:c (J;jl-YI<./ !j){'S 15": 5h'f."'t.I~"./S I i,rl - I ,j lCl Ie /1 v ~', d b l,~' {'~."'!7J th1,t l"/ t, 691/~ l/{/i,J fi, C J' I'V1:J~" ~ I ~/ ILl Iq k tl1e ex /5'A ,,,,,,t; .5 c.q. Ie c f f~( ,4 veCl This is an error Defcause the a~plic~l.e criteria or p'ro~edure. i~ tne ,Ashland ~I,lnicipal. Code ~ or other law In r li -.. - ~ .~bi-'i-{!c( t (' ('1 (....~, ~ 5 :J( ./tyVc:{ reqUires that attach additional a es if necessa : foP..;r;--.t/,/s fo (1trvo.cu./;C h i-iAcl/jM4,j 3. The third specific ground for w~ich the deci~ion sh?uld b~Jeversed Qr mocw. ie' is (Cjlttach I additio~al pages if n~c~~sary): (~il..'O. 02~. iJvlVfD':.~ {~::IJ t~f C{rsrv,cf I:? C'(-sia,v'('( ~. O'~''';,ic~e ~C"L\ Vli\'V1,ef--[ t1r ~d S~K~ cO CffiCff relrtt/l..''''' ,'Vll'/yV;'\f(....h'\v/.'Vf' IJ J~r+ c~\:t'~~t r.~J\"'(,N;^n.~J- <",vO h.tW'I^'7' .:\ '''''1,V]/~'l--~ /h'1/)(;\ct u,A,,' 5/..WVv..' This (gran ~~ because the applicable criteria or procedure in the Ashland Municipal Code ~ or other law in ~ requires that (attach additional pages if necessary): p U v" P c5C Ci f b I ; fV p ,1 v t 15 h h,tv f f~1iI/'vII"'11/- II,~/...'/(((t (J I---/. I 5 (A v ,/ /) .(NJI'~ j i,t) CC;J' (j 6>( 0 .(Y2. (J 4. (On attached pages, list other grounds, in a manner similar to the above, that exist. For each ground list the applicable criteria or procedures in the Ashland Municipal Code or other law that were violated.) Appeal Fee With this notice of appeall(we) submit the sum of $ 286.00 which is the appeal fee required by ~ 18.108.11 O.A of the Ashland Municipal Code. Date: //'/~/O 7 ! I Signature(s) of person(s) filing appeal (attach additional pages if necessary): , (-. uf: lD;/7 . . (ii I /""""1',:. /J VUI .' '____ Lt.../~-I Note: This completed Notice of Land Use Appeal together with the appeal fee must be filed with the City Administrator, City Hall, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520, telephone 541-488-6002, prior to the effective date of the decision sought to be reviewed. Effective dates of decisions are set forth in Ashland Municipal Code Section 18. 108.070. ~ / Sf'e ('r (-I (' GViI t,l,V:./j' Fe"r '/'li~-f;:" / 'j- I p [.. ,,-/ ;' 'tv"1" I ~ ,A , , i I Vr, \f I If ~ f <""l t,' 1(' ,JD v/ .A ,I\/..,f ""v i/v'n.(' t; ;>- /7-c ,,-;/ c <<- IS I Cyv ..J t '-'( / ~ " .1) [h t'~, tel b (~ v' e ,-1(.y E<-J. () ,/ i-'~l:; (./i' h 'e(.'( 1.1 1~t' /hJ HVi ~r r;; (- 11 / 1./ () ~f 1~5 h/' Ie I r).d } ,tV )/1/1 /J iI" ,,'I ~ I I, ~' --I -/], (' )..' ((~'~v)7.1\''l(.u,'I/ /1-,,1' jh'tU(7 .5 v'e' ," 1 /" tv..J " I v -c - / /"/yZV/c' ) 1 /v"-" ;j~1t?i' ( fu~' h)"'; " if ~/ tv ~ / GvJ) -f ~i; i"'1 ( /,/( f~r I r' I /7 t1 if'f ,J' S' _ ", 1,/ 1,- I/o.. ~(I v 1(- ("-,VI 'f-; . 1 '< '" /'.." /I !.. -J" " v,''II .", L,/ I L __ . I 7, / .I t" VI /. V /1 .i V ('1/,:' V,'?'; ,,-,' I ; ( ,,/ / / " (1 (//c),r/ ~]~t!C' - \.,) (~ ('.2. ! !. ( ii. .1-)' .:),./ /.-" --.. .' IC 'I' /11" I 6 C 7r f 1"'-1 "l /j/ // '/ ,/ -,,' . ,') . <'/<.::'&/L-<' {/ ' f/ ./ l.. f ~! 1 v" \.;1 v'rc-:' i ' i , 3 Received from For CITY OF ASHLAND )?14-J<~ 6~ I2v~ &O/&<r._L<:Lj Date Cash By Account Number Amount /' I } ,~ Check Account Number 9324~ j //1/07 , I o ~ Amount J-L 4 =Y --L)5-L2 d- Y& ,cr) 1--- TOTAL $ _.!;2..;??" ov 1- .. ...'1 Planning Department 51 Winburn Way. Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TrY. 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND NOTICE OF TENTATIVE APPEAL PLANNING ACTION: #2006-0Ot,12 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Helman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums fOil' the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees el/1 site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #391'E 04 CC: TAX LOT: 2100. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING: I / / PA #'2006-00612 160 HELMAN ST SUBJECT PROPER'TV / N A Notice is hereby given that a TENTATIVE PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE has been scheduled before the ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL on meeting date shown above, assuming that the City of Ashland receives a written appeal request in accordance with 18.108.110 bv 5:00 p.m., January 11,2007. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 ITTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Department, at 541-488-5305. .~ (, LPmnhle\ r1annm~ '\01Kl..'S \tl1kd :0(11)(, :'IHlh-(I()(,12 1:>::"-U(1 ({lUllld Arrtd1 dlll SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 S6, 1999) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) ~ G:lcomm-dev'planning'Notices Mailed'2006\2006-00612 12-27-06 Council AppeaI.doc AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On December 27. 2006. I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2006-00612 Tentative Appeal 160 Helman St.. ~~)_~~/77f/v Signa e of Employee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this 27th day of December, 2006. . . .,ICiAL SEAL (t,~" a. BOSWELL , . NOTARY PUBLlc-oREGON COMMISSION NO. 391525 MY COMMISSION EX~IRES APR. 07, 2009 (dbe Notary Public for State of Oregon q My Commission Expires: Lf-I(-D f 7 G:lcomm-(jevlplanningIFonns & HandoutslAFFIDAVIT OF MAILING,doc PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 5100 BAKER BARRY AIMICHELLE A 122 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2100 BATZER JAMES H/R ANDREW 131 TERRACE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2500 DAVIES RONALD L 6795 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1800 FOLICK JOSH/BONNIE 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1401 GRIMES DANIEUANGELA 8152 HALL BLVD 152 BEA VERTON, OR 97008 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1900 HOBSON RONALD CLIFTON/MARCIA 102 PLEASANT VIEW TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5600 RUTLEDGE CRAIG E PO BOX 878 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5200 TALENTPROPERTIESLLC 64 3RD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 5300 WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL 152 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 /tf( - "<7 - O~, P A 20()6 00612 391E04CC 1901 BATZER Ji\MES H 131 TERR.:\CE f.SHLAND, OR 97520 P A 2006-00612 39IE04CC 2600 BROWN MICHAEL HIPHYLLIS R 119 VANNESS ASHLAND, OR 97520 Pi\. 2006 00612 391E04CC 2400 D"'\ VIES RONALD LARRY 6795 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4600 FOSTER LYNN Z 3850 RIO RD 28 CARMEL, CA 93923 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2200 HADDAD JOANNE M 6795 RAPP LANE TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4700 MACRORY ANN K TRUSTEE 150 MYER CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4900 SOMMERS ALANIPHYLLIS NORRIS 117 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 7200 V AIL WESLEY D/LUCINDA M 1425 PACIFIC AVE SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4800 WINTERS CHERYL ANN/JEFF 131 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 <? PA 200600612 391E04CC 7100 B"^.TZER JAMES H ET "'\L 131 TERRf.CE ST ASHL\ND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5000 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC 246 FOURTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2300 FOGELMAN LOREN 173 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5500 GRIFFITHS MICHAEL A PO BOX 878 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1500 HAWKINS ROBERT R JR TRUSTEE 1639 39TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 1800 NEW HORIZONS WOODWORKS 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2000 SOS PLUMBING & DRAIN SERVICE 165 WATER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4500 WILLST ATTER ALFRED TRUSTEE POBOX274 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1600 YOUNG BRIAN D/MARGO S 1351 NORTH VALLEY ASHLAND, OR 97520 \ ~:Lt PA 2006-00612 GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES 318S.GRAPESTREET MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA 2006-00612 RDKENGINEERING 3350 GREEN ACRES DRIVE CENTRAL POINT, OR PA 2006-00612 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 320 E. MAIN STREET SUITE 202 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 STEW ART LAND SURVEYS 6370 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 MCKECHNIE & ASSOCIATES 4406 SAN JUAN DRIVE MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA 2006-00612 MINDER MICHAEL 2936 COMICE DRIVE MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA 2006-00612 GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES 318 S. GRAPE STREET MEDFORD, OR 97501 '1 lIt ft '''" /J t)' \\ f"r 4 /~ .,j., 7-C? ;. f V l .~( PA-2006-00612 160 HELMAN STREET PARTIES OF RECORD as of 12/27/06 John Duffie 711 East Main Street Medford, OR 97504 Eric Navickas 363 ~ Iowa Street Ashland, OR 97520 Jim Teece Project A, Inc. 5350 Hwy 66 Ashland, OR 97520 Denise Delzell 110 Lithia Way Ashland, OR 97520 Brandon Overstreet 159 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Gina Lane 145 Helman Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 *Teri, Joshua, & Carmen Wilson 152 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Steven Fogelman 173 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dennis Richey 196 Central Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 J.;:< -;;< 7 -- CJh Art Bullock 791 Glendower Ashland, OR 97520 Kerry KenCaim 147 Central Street Ashland, OR 97520 Mark McKechnie 4406 San Juan Drive Medford, OR 97501 Jorge Yant Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 385 Williamson Way Ashland,OR97520 Brandon Kirkland 157 A Street Ashland, OR 97520 James Tharp 110 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 *Barry Baker 122 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Peter V oskes 171 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 *Michael Brown 119 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Joseph Tokarz 131 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 10 Mark Knox 320 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 *Ron Davies & Joanne Haddad 6795 Rapp Lane Talent, OR 97540 Graham Lewis 1284 Orchid Street Ashland, OR 97520 Drew Lamb P.O. Box 12 Ashland, OR 97520 Gabriel Lipper 923-1 Belview Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Ron Springfield 114 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 *Phyllis Norris & Alan Sommers 117 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Joanne Haddad 175 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 RETURNED 1/5/07 Kimberly Galloway 157 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Carolyn & Chris Hald 275 Cambridge Street Ashland, OR 97520 ~4' 3vv Julia Dekker 149 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 I ( 4e6Y-- /,) -.;:<'7 -'0 to ATTN: ANDREA - CLASSIFIED PUBLISH IN LEGAL ADVERTISING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland City Council on January 16, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. At such public hearing any person is entitled to be heard, unless the public hearing portion of the review has been closed during a previous meeting. Request for Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman S1. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meetilJg will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Barbara Christensen City Recorder Publish: 1/6/2006 P. O. No. 75771 E-mailed to Tidings: 12/28/2006 I;;'" CITY OF ASHLAND December 27, 2006 Siskiyou LLC James Batzer P.O. Box 4460 Medford, OR 97501 RE: Planning Action #: P A#2006-00612 Dear Mr. Batzer: At its meeting of December 12, 2006, the Ashland Planning Commission approved your request for a Site Review for the property located at 160 Helman Street -- Assessor's Map # 39 IE 04 CC; Tax Lot 2100 The Findings, Conc1u~ions and Orders document, adopted at the December 26, 2006 meeting, is enclosed. Please nole the fOUOW~: 1. A fInal map prepared by a registered surveyor must be submitted within one year of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. 2. A fInal plan must be submitted within 18 months of the date of preliminary approval; otherwise, approval becomes invalid. Q Q ~ There is a 15-day appeal period, from the date of this letter, which must elapse before a building permit may be issued. All of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission must be fully met. Planning Commission approval is valid for a period of one year only, after which time a new application would have to be submitted. Please feel free to call me at 488-5305 if you have any questions. cc: See attached label list DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 /3 rA' ^H~^"-09-o08-1. WO)'N8^e"MMM UO!pnJlSU!,P 811!n8J 81 z~lnSUO) P A-2006-00612 160 HELMAN STREET PARTIES OF RECORD as of 12/27/06 John Duffie 711 East Main Street Medford, OR 97504 Eric Navickas , 363 'l2 Iowa Street Ashland, OR 97520 Jim Teece Project A, Inc, 5350 Hwy 66 Ashland, OR 97520 Denise Delzell 110 Lithia Way Ashland, OR 97520 Brandon Overstreet 159 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Gina Lane 145 Helman Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 *Teri, Joshua, & Carmen Wilson 152 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Steven Fogelman 173 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dennis Richey 196 Central Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 T @09I.S@AlJ3^"~ lU8W86Jelp 8P SU8S ... Art Bullock 791 Glendower Ashland, OR 97520 Kerry KenCairn 147 Central Street Ashland, OR 97520 Mark McKechnie 4406 San Juan Drive Medford, OR 97501 Jorge Yant Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 385 Williamson Way Ashland, OR97520 Brandon Kirkland 157 A Street Ashland, OR 97520 James Tharp 110 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 *Barry Baker 122 Helman Street , Ashland, OR 97520 Peter Voskes 171 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 *Michael Brown 119 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Joseph Tokarz 131 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 /1 ~ r 8Jntea:f la8d Ase3 JO~ _ ~ ! taallS uo!t:mJtSul aas _ .091.5 eA1I3^" tlJeqe6 81 z8slll~n .I818d , sall,ej s~8nbp.i Mark Knox 320 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 *Ron Davies & Joanne Haddad 6795 Rapp Lane Talent, OR 97540 Graham Lewis 1284 Orchid Street Ashland, OR 97520 Drew Lamb P.O. Box 12 Ashland, OR 97520 Gabriel Lipper 923-1 Belview Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Ron Springfield 114 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 *Phyllis Norris & Alan Sommers 117 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Joanne Haddad 175 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 Kimberly Galloway 157 Van Ness Avenue Ashland, OR 97520 Carolyn & Chris Hald 275 Cambridge Street Ashland, OR 97520 Jaded paa:f r ~ @091.5 U\11dIl\lU@f..JaNf/ asn .. ! ~ slaqel laad Ase3 I I Easy Peel Labels Use Averye TEMPLATE 51&oe Julia Dekker 149 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 ~tiquettes fadles ill peler Utllisez Ie gabarit AVERy4.!lS160. ~ ... Sens de chargement I A 4 Feed Paper - See instruction Sheet I ~ --- fot EMy ....1 Feature! ~ ~AVERYe5'soe 1 /5' Consultez la feuille d'instruction www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BEFORE THE HEARINGS BOARD December 12, 2006 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612, A REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF GENERAL OFFICE SPACE AND SIX RESIDNETIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 HELMAN STREET. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO TREES ON SITE THAT ARE SIZED SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AND GREATER. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC and James Batzer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: ) ) FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS ) AND ORDERS ) ) ) ) ) 1) Tax lot2100 of391E04CC is located at 160 Helman St. and is zoned E-l (Employment). Theapplicant is requesting Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential units. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the Department of Community Development. 2) The criteria for Site Review approval are as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements ofthe 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. 3) The criteria for a Tree Removal permit are as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree pr~sents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page I I~ alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be.a condition of approval of the permit. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held public hearings on October 10, 2006 and November 14, 2006 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIDITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 2 17 Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that proposed mixed-use development comprised of office and residential uses is in compliance with the permitted and special permitted uses in the E-1 Employment District in Chapter 18.40. Offices are a permitted use in the Employment (E-1) zoning district. In addition, residential uses are a special permitted use in the E-1 zomng district with the residential overlay given that "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 shall be designatedfor permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential (18.40.13 0.E.1)." The property is located in the residential overlay. Opponents questioned whether the proposal satisfies the requirements of 18.40.130.E.1. Application information in the record provides calculations for the proposed development if calculated as one building or two buildings. If the development is considered one building because the plaza between the two buildings is structurally attached, 65 percent of the ground floor must be designated as permitted or special permitted uses that are not residential uses. The ground floor of the comer building (Building 2) is 2,332 square feet of designated office space, and the ground floor for the Helman St. building (Building 1) includes 2,641 square feet designated as office space. The total ground floor area designated as office space is 4,973 square feet which is 65.7 percent of the total square footage ofthe ground floor. The ground floor of the development is a total of 7,565 square feet. If the development is considered two buildings, than 18.40.130.E.1 allows an option where at least 50 percent of the total lot area must be designated for permitted or special permitted uses. The Site Usage Plan date stamped October 24, 2006 included in the record designates the non-residential portions of the lot including building square footage for designated office space, parking spaces and landscape areas. The total square footage of the non-residential use areas is 12,720 square feet or 66.4 percent of the total site area. The total site area is 19,150 square feet. Given the evidence in the record, it appears that either option for the required non-residential area in 18.40.130.E.1 is satisfied. The permitted density for residential units is 6.59 for the site (.440 acres * 15 dwelling units per acre). Six residential units are proposed in the development. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed development is in compliance with the setback and height requirements of the E-l Employment District in Chapter 18.40. The E-1 zoning P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 3 /~ district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject site is adjacent to properties with commercial zoning. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The maximum building height in the E-1 zoning district is 40 feet. The height of the corner building (Building 2) is 34 feet and 6 inches, and the height of the Helman St. building (Building 1) is 27 feet and 5 inches. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the project meets the parking requirements of Chapter 18.92. A total of 26 parking spaces are required for the project with 15.42 parking spaces required for 6,936 square feet of office space, and 9.75 spaces required for six residential units. Twenty-four spaces are provided on site with 18 surface parking spaces and four spaces in garages. Additionally, four off-street parking credits are available because eight on-street parking spaces are available on the Helman St. frontage of the project. A total of seven bicycle parking spaces are required with four spaces required for the general office use and three spaces required for the residential units without garages. Five of the bicycle parking spaces are required to be sheltered from the weather. Five bicycle parking spaces are shown on the site plan with three spaces near the entrance to the corner building (Building 2) and two spaces on the plaza area. A condition has been added requiring a total of seven spaces to be provided. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that there is adequate capacity of City facilities to serve the development. Water and sewer service is available from Helman St., and storm drainage will be directed to the public system in VanNess Ave. Electric service is available in the northeast corner of the site. Helman St. and the public alley south of the site provide paved access to and through the development. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project and has been included with the application. The study projects that the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with build out of the proposed project. The public alley will be paved to 20 feet in width as part of the development improvements. Additionally, a four-foot wide raised sidewalk will be provided on the southern boundary of the project, adjacent to the public alley, and provide public pedestrian access to the rear of the site by connecting the public sidewalk on Helman St. to the rear of the site. The existing sidewalk on the Helman St. frontage is damaged and will be replaced at the same width as the existing sidewalk. The planting strip will remain in place between the curb and sidewalk, but the trees and landscaping will be replaced and upgraded. The application findings in the record state that the planting strip is currently six and a half feet in width and will be retained. The existing curbside sidewalk on the VanNess Ave. frontage will remain as it is. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, the Detail Site Review standards, the Downtown Design Standards and the Historic District Design Standards. The primary orientation of the Helman St. building (Building 1) is to Helman St. with five front entrances with covered porch entries facing the street. The corner building (Building 2) is oriented to the corner of the intersection of the two streets and includes a generously sized entry alcove accented by columns. Four new street trees are proposed in the Helman St. parkrow and one new street tree is proposed on the VanNess Ave. frontage. Landscaping will be installed on site covering 15 P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 4 /1 percent of the site as required, and the plantings and irrigation plans are in accordance with the Site Review Chapter 18.72 requirements. The parking area is located behind the buildings as required, and separated from the east property line by a five-foot wide landscape planter. The Helman St. building is approximately 115 feet in length, and has distinctive changes in the buildings facyade. The front facyade of the southern end of the building is offset by nine feet from the front facyade of the remainder ofthe building. The building includes a series of bay projections and covered entries that provides three-foot offsets throughout the building frontage. Both buildings have numerous windows on the ground floor street elevations. Both buildings incorporate architectural elements and material changes to give emphasis to the entrances, and provide recessed entrances with covered roofs to provide ran and sun protection to pedestrians. Proposed exterior building colors are described as earth tones. The buildings are a total of approximately 16,000 square feet, well under the 45,000 square foot maximum. The buildings are separated by a plaza that includes sitting areas, protection from sunlight and wind, and a water feature. Opponents raised issues regarding that the bulk and scale is too large for the neighborhood, and that the buildings are too high for the neighborhood. The Site Design and Use Standards for Large Scale Projects require "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 patter of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees and small scale lighting." The Historic District Design Standards include the following standard related to height, scale and massing: 1) 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., 2) Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. Avoid buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale of the area., and 3) Break up uninteresting boxlike forms into smaller, varied masses which a re common on most buildings from the historic period. Avoid single, monolithic forms that are not relieved by variations in massing. The Planning Commission finds the proposed buildings include a variety of vertical and horizontal offsets, windows, covered entries, architectural details and variation in exterior building materials that serve to divide the building masses into heights and sizes that will be compatible to the human scale at the sidewalk level. Additionally, the offsets, windows, covered entries, architectural details and variation in exterior building materials are used throughout the buildings, and serve to break up the width of the buildings into smaller proportions that are similar to adjacent buildings. The majority of the proposed building heights are two stories, and this is reflected in both residential and commercial structures adjacent to and in the two-block vicinity of the site on Helman St. The third story of the comer building (Building 2) is stepped back from both street facades so as to provide a transition in height and scale. Similarly, the majority of the Helman St. building (Building 1) is two-stories in height. A partial third story that is 24 feet in length as measured from the Helman St. facade is located centrally in the Helman St. building. The Helman St. building is 112 feet in length. The third story portion ofthe P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 5 ~~ Helman St. building is located away from the south end of the building which is adjacent to residential properties to the south. The Planning Commission finds the use of partial and stepped back third stories on both buildings provides a transition from the height of buildings adjacent to the site and across the street. The Planning Commission finds the landscape strip between the sidewalk and the Helman St. fa~ade of the comer building (Building 2) must be increased in depth to reflect the front and side yard development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood and a condition has been added to this effect. The character of the immediate and surrounding neighborhood is defined by a development pattern consisting of both residential and commercial buildings buffered from the sidewalk by an appropriately sized landscape strip. The Helman Street corridor is a transitional area comprised of modest-sized historic homes and a commercial business area with significant re-development potential. Consequently, business and mixed-used re-development projects along the west side of Helman Street are scrutinized and carefully evaluated against the City's development standards in order to minimize disruption to the historic residential neighborhood. Section 18.72.110 B., Landscaping Standards provides the authority to address the location of proposed landscaping and to require mitigatation for potential impacts of the project. 18.72.110 B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right- of-way or provide bufferingfrom 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. The Planning Commission finds the buffer provided by the three-foot deep landscape planter is inadequate and does not compare in terms of size and quality to similarly located landscape strips along the Helman Street corridor. The Planning Commission finds that the landscape planting strip must be increased to a minimum of six - feet in depth along the west side of the comer building (Building 2) in order to provide an appropriate transition between the building and the street, similar in aesthetic quality to those that exist elsewhere in the surrounding area. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds the proposal to remove two trees on the site meets the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit. The trees are a multi-trunked Black Locust tree and an eight-inch diameter at breast height White Oak tree. The Black Locus tree is located in the proposed parking lot and the White Oak tree is located in the building envelope of the comer building (Building 2). SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the application for Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater has satisfied all relative substantive standards and P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 6 ~j criteria and is supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each ofthe following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2006-00612. Further, if anyone or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2006-00612 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit, prior to work in the street right-of- way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. Plans to include street tree installation cross-sections, with the use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree Commission. The parkrow width on the Helman St. frontage shall be maintained at six and a half feet in width as measured from the back of the curb to the sidewalk. . 3) That a public pedestrian easement or right-of-way dedication shall be granted for any portion of the Helman St. sidewalk that is on the subject site and outside of the existing street right-of-way. 4) That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including the sidewalk and planting strip. 5) That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering. Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit and prior to work in the alley right-of-way. The drawings shall include an alley driving surface of 20 feet in width, and a raised sidewalk a minimum of four feet in width adjacent to the south side of the alley. 6) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to submittal of a building permit. Transformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears, and shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 7) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman St. and VanNess Ave. site frontages prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The street lights shall be consistent with the City of Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan. P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 7 ":<::1- 8) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Building and Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 9) That the re-routing of the irrigation line on site (Billings-Reynolds line) shall be approved by the Ashland Engineering Division and State Water Master prior to changes in the line. 10), That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit submittals identifying areas of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. 11) That a minimum of half of the unenclosed parking spaces (i.e. spaces not in garages) on site shall be 9 x 18 feet in size in accordance with 18.92.070.A. The back-up space for all parking spaces shall be a minimum of 22 feet. All parking dimensions and back-up spaces shall be delineated on the building permit submittals. 12) Seven bicycle parking space shall be provided with at least five spaces sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance in accordance with 18.92.040.1.3. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 13) That the recommendations ofthe Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 14) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including vehicular access and fire hydrant requirements, shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 16) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 17) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 8 ~3 inspect the identification of the two trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the four trees adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 18) That the landscape plan shall be revised to include two trees for mitigation of the two trees to be removed. The trees shall be either a minimum 1 ~ - inch caliper deciduous tree or a five-six foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed in accordance with 18.61.084.A. 19) That the revised landscape plans shall submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Calculations by square footage shall be provided for landscape areas both individual and in total. Landscaping coverage totals shall not include areas in the public rights-of-ways and shall not include areas covered by mechanical equipment such as heating and cooling units and trash enclosures. The total site landscaping with Jhe property boundaries shall be a minimum of 15 percent in accordance with 18.72.100. 20) That public utility easements and private utility and access easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 21) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the ground floor of the comer building (i.e. Building 2) shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 22) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the walls of Buildings 1 and 2 facing the plaza shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the plaza in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 23) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 24) That the windows at street level shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 25) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with. Detail Site Review Zone standard II-C-2f)2). P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 9 Atf 26) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 27) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 28) That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be functional and open to the public during all business hours. . 29) That the existing utility pole shall be relocated by the applicant to a location recessed from the building's Helman Street fayade near the proposed bicycle parking area. 30) That the planter between the sidewalk and comer building (Building 2) shall be a minimum of six feet in width, and that the parkrow and sidewalk widths shall match the existing Helman St. parkrow and sidewalks width adjacent to the property frontage. Da~~( %;0f P A 2006-00612 160 Helman St. Page 10 ~5" ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (ANDREA) MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ashland Planning Commission will meet for the purpose of adopting findings for the recently approved PA2006-00612, 160 Helman Street, Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR The public hearing has been closed and no written comments will be taken. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Interim Planning Director Bill Molnar Publish: 12/23/06 or 12/26/06 Date e-mailed: 12/20/06 Purchase Order: 75771 P4" ~ .J __' Be fdI: 'fji!!w Insert FQrmat Tools Table wroow ~ Adobe PDF Acrobat ~ments -J~a ...4 t; ~. :~ - ~Ad -." . Mail Dlspla: g ~ Ll 10 I2lJ ~ [J 8 <P <P - <P < : Qrcrw. Auto .t,:. 4 _n.l_ ~"'~~ liJ -, - 'ii MaH To: Tidingsbriefs@daHytidings.com bJltJ File ::dit VIe'/, A,I:tions Tools VlindO'/v Hef' ill Send ;( Cancel ~ Address &' ~e'/i Phone >> l;:l I... EI Spell Check a \2 !ill I!ij Send ()ptlons . :Cram Susan Yates cc: BC: TQ: SYbJect: Tldlngsbnefsl,Q:'c1allytldlngs com [,leetlng notlc e To ^ Olena Bla' "Susan y, Susan y, "Susan y, Susan Ya <sue'&as Susan Ya "Susan Y, 'y' a :ess':~ c "Susan y, "Housing "sue" <V, "sue" <'I', ! Susan Ya <sue(~as v ) Ariill Gn'" ~=:= ~~ i~ - - - - - - =- -=- ..a:;: ~ ~ = ~~~. B I !! 1(.... .... The Ashland Plannlllg Commission 1'1111 meet Tuesday December- 26 2006 at 500 pm at the Community Development Servlces BUilding 51 Winburn Way' Ashland. OR for tl1e purpose of adopting findings for 160 Helman Street (PA2006-00612 SIskiYOU LLUBatzer Const) The publiC hearing IS closed and no written comments 1'1111 be taken otal: 1007 /I"statt,'jj '}. 4 Novel Grou... .... m Microsoft Word ~ ~ 8,... ''.I., 1- ~ 10:23 AM ,/ " '~I'~'I9RI '"\i"I~_ Rebuttal Submission For PA 2006-00612, 160 Helman St Di:L: ~,) 6 art bullock City of ASOlall(j This is a submission for the Planning Commission (PC) decision regarding PA 2006-0061/2J-m@IRekiiWiCe 0 Cc This submission is pursuant to the Dec 15, 2006 memo from Planning Dept Executive Secretary Susan Yates to parties to this planning action. Memo said 7 letters were 'inadvertently' submitted to PC, and that PC found the materials to be irrelevant. Parties who con!;idered the materials relevant were required to submit any written rebuttal of relevant facts prior to PC meeting on Tue, Jan8, 2007. On Thu, Dec21, a 4pm call from Susan Yates explained the meeting was moved to Tue, Dec 26, 5pm in the Planning Building. This document has 6 procedural objections, then the factual rebuttals. Procedural Objections Objection #1. Documents were not submitted for the record. In past quasi-judicial matters, staff has kept out of the record submissions that didn't specifically request to be induded in the record. Yet in this instance, the record was reopened for letters submitted after the record closed, though none of the letters asked to become part of the record. Only 2 letters were even addressed to the Planning Commission. One of those was dated Oct 10, 2006 which means it should have been included in the regular record. The remaining 5 letters were addressed to "City of Ashland", "Various Ashland Officials", and "To whom it may concern". This may explain why these letters do not reference approval criteria, and instead refer to financial benefits and opportunities to the letter-writer, lower rents, and the personal situation of the letter-writer. City staff are being inconsistent in what documents they submit as the record for quasi-judicial decisions. When past dissenters submitted information it wasn't included in the record, yet in this instance when applicant supporters submitted late letters, they were 'inadvertently' submitted to PC. Objection #2. It was legal error to review late submissions. These documents were submitted after the record closed. It's too late at that point to submit record evidence. Although one document was dated Oct10, 2006 and another Nov30, 2006, all appeared timestamped by City as N0v29, 2006 (stamp was faint on the copy). PC should not have decided these documents were irrelevant. To be deemed irrelevant, a document has to be reviewed. Such a study potentially impacts decision-making, though PCers may attempt later to disregard it as irrelevant evidence. To consider their relevance, you have to effectively reopen the record. Instead, these documents should have been found to be untimely, and not considered as record evidence at all, whether or not relevant. It was a procedural error to consider relevance of an untimely submission after the record closed. Closed means closed. To allow these submissions unnecessarily adds meeting time and delays resolution of the planning action, as evidenced by the discussion on Dec12 and the follow-up submissions and discussion on Dec26 , 2006. Objection #3. Newly created procedure to rebut irrelevant information is in error. Staffs letter then invited rebuttal to these late, irrelevant submissions, which gives them further discussion and potential impact. Given that it was improper to consider late submissions as relevant or irrelevant, it is also improper to allow rebuttal of irrelevant evidence. According to the letter, we now need to argue that tardy submissions deemed by PC to be irrelevant are in fact relevant, then rebut them. This additional burden-shifting is a procedural error and a requirement that those submitting rebuttals should not be required to satisfy. Objection #4. Opening the record if rebuttal is received and a request approved. Staffs letter also indicated that "If any rebuttal is received, the Planning Commission will be asked to briefly reopen the record to admit any rebuttal facts and the Commission can discuss the rebuttal facts as part of the adoption of the final decision." This too is improper. Neither parties nor staff should be in a position of requesting opening of the record based on a rebuttal submission. The proper course would be to announce and schedule the rebuttal opportunity, reopen the public record, then receive and respond to any rebuttals submitted at that time. On what legal basis would you make the decision to reopen the record based on a staff request? You can't decide the character of the rebuttal until you review, in which case it has already become part of the record. If you rely on a staff summary of the submission, on what legal basis would the decision be to NOT reopen the record for rebuttal? ~~ You effectively (and improperly) reopened the record to accept the late submissions and declare them irrelevant. That forces you to provide an opportunity to rebut, and no additional steps are required of any other party to secure that right or request the rebuttal. You have to provide that opportunity, whether or not any rebuttal has been received, and regardless of staffs opinion on the submissions. Once the rebuttal period is open, you must consider and resolve the information received, whether or not staff approves or has reviewed. The public's right to rebuttal is not contingent on a staff request, or prior review by staff. Staffs newly created procedure put staff in a position of power to request or not request based on their opinions and biases. Staff is not a gatekeeper for what materials are submitted to PC. All parties have a right to rebut, and PC is required as a matter of law to provide that opportunity, whether or not staff asks for it, whether or not staff wants it, and whether or not staff has reviewed any documents to be submitted for that review. When you reopen the record, it is open to any submissions that qualify. Staff has no right under the law to insert themselves into this process to generate more staff power to approve the rebuttal, review the rebuttal, or request the record be open to allow the rebuttal. This combination of 'creative' procedures is outside the law. We're in Neverneverland. There was no legal basis to consider the relevance of untimely submissions. There's no legal basis to consider a factual rebuttal to irrelevant submission. There's no legal basis to require prior submissions of potential rebuttals to allow staff to review and pre-digest, then talk to PCers off the record to make a pre-decision about whether to open the record to allow rebuttals PC has already discussed off-record. There's no legal basis for you to respond to a staff request other than to automatically fulfill the law by announcing and opening the record and providing an opportunity to rebut. It would be much easier for PC to simply follow the law than to follow staffs newly created procedures outside the law. These illegal procedures continue staffs pattern of shifting burden to the parties and power to staff. Objection #5. You've now set precedent that you'll consider relevance of late submissions" which means lots more in the future. In this case, you decided that late submissions were irrelevant. That means to applicants that in the future, you'll consider relevance of untimely record submissions. The purpose of a preset date and time to close the record is to ensure the playing field is even for all parties. By considering submissions by application supporters after the record closed, you've un leveled the playing field. The tilt is back. Reopening the record is a significant event. PC is now setting precedent that an applicant's supporters can submit late materials, have them considered, and reopen a public hearing long enough to get them in the record. That's not fair. As a result of your improper precedent, you'll probably get more untimely submissions in the future after the public has completed their submissions. This will waste more PC time, lead to more meetings, discussions of relevance, reconsideration of already-made decisions in the light of the new evidence, etc.. Just say no. The appropriate thing to have done with late submissions is to just say no. Don't read the submissions. Don't have the conversations. Stop the conversation in mid-sentence if necessary. Don't 'inadvertently' submit or read late submissions or ex parte communications. Just say no. Once you read the late submissions, you have effectively reopened the record or generated ex parte contact, both of which require as a matter of law the opportunity to rebut. Until PC follows the law, and stops late and off-record communication, public confidence in Ashland's planning process will continue to deteriorate, and unnecessary planning meeting time will continue. Objection #6. Improper notice of an off-camera meeting. PC is reopening the public record on short notice, after scheduling the meeting for Jan8, then rescheduling the meeting without adequate public notice. It's improper to reopen the record 'briefly' just to slip new information under the door. When you reopen the record, anyone can submit new evidence and arguments, including those members of the public who haven't been party to the case before. All members of the public, not just current parties with standing, are entitled to proper publiC notice, which in this case has NOT been accomplished. To reopen the record on Dec26 without adequate notice would be a separate error that compounds, not resolves, your prior errors. i object to this meeting being held off-camera, in the planning building, on short notice, changing the schedule after proper notice of the Jan 8 meeting. This meeting should be in council chambers where RVTV can video the meeting. Even if the meeting is too short or too late to be scheduled for live broadcast, it should be captured for later broadcast. ;21 Holding this meeting off-camera in the Planning Building further undermines confidence by reducing transparency. Given that we're in Nevemeverland procedurally, all of Ashland should be able to watch the video of these new procedures, which have no basis in the law. In this situation, PC should: (1) Vacate the prior PC decision that these documents are irrelevant. 0 E C ? 6 7 rl '1 h (2) Rule all 7 letters to be untimely and not part of the public record. . (3) Not open the public record on Dec26 due to lack of proper public notice. City of ASnJand (4) Describe in detail how 7 late submissions were 'inadvertently' submitted to egReMl~e 0 Coumy appropriate steps to not let that happen again. (5) Clarify that this planning action does NOT set precedent for late submissions, and that in the future PC will NOT consider relevance of late submissions. RE~r=I\/ED Rebuttal In the event that you reopen the record, here is the rebuttal for potentially relevant evidence. (1) The undated letter from Graham Lewis asserted the project "is compatible with the neighborhood.", and the Nov 28, 2006 letter from Gabriel Lipper asserted that "Mr. Batzer's plans demonstrate a willingness to blend with local neighborhoods [sic] ...". If these assertions relate to bulk and scale, they are relevant. The assertions are rebutted by the facts that: (a) The building is designed to be a 3-story office building, across the street from 100+ year old 1-story homes that would be completely dwarfed by the project. (2) The lack of a proper setback is NOT compatible with the setback on the other side of Helman St, or with other buildings on the same side of the street between the site and Main St. and (3) Moving the sidewalk to the curb is incompatible with code and the neighborhood sidewalks, which have a proper park row. (2) The undated letter from Graham Lewis also asserted "Our city commissions...have to be supportive of the projects you continue to say you want." and the Nov30, 2006 letter from Denise Delzell (which was somehow timestamped as received on Nov29) also asserted "I hope you will support him in this project.". If these refer to your jurisdiction, they are relevant. It's NOT your jurisdiction to "be supportive" of projects brought to you or "support him" (the applicant). It's only your jurisdiction to determine if the project satisfies the law as you interpret it. You have several legal grounds to deny this project or to require conditions that would bring it into accordance to your interpretation of the law. Your jurisdiction is defined under Outline Plan code and other laws, as documented in the main body of the record. (3) The undated letter from Graham Lewis also asserted that this is a ''wonderful addition to a blighted area of Ashland." If 'blighted area' refers to the neighborhood, it is relevant-- and factually incorrect. The neighborhood is not at all blighted. It's a historic 100+ year old neighborhood with much charm, history, and pride. Some neighborhood homes have no driveways because they were built before cars. Neighborhood homes have a front porch and welcoming feel. The neighborhood has many families, long-term residents and homeowners, with pride in their homes. The applicant's site may be 'blighted' as asserted by this letter ("The corner is an eyesore."); the neighborhood is not. (4) The Nov 28, 2006 letter from Drew Lamb asserted "This [development] would have little impact on the neighborhood as owners or employees could both live and work at the site." If that refers to bulk and scale or transportation criteria related to Outline Plan approval, it is relevant. Impact on the neighborhood is not merely the numbers of employees or owners, and whether they live upstairs or not. There's no commitment in the application to having employees live there, so we could easily have the situation where employees drive there each day and park on the street, while residents drive away from their separate, protected rear parking places. Also, the businesses will have customers and guests who add to traffic impact. Also, moving the sidewalk to the curb has impact that's both esthetic and pedestrian-traffic related. Also, the 3-story character and bulk and scale of the building have impact by blocking the sunrise and view from the historic 1-story residences across the street. Also, properties on the alley used to access the rear parking lot would also be negatively affected, since that alley is below regulation width. Also, moving the sidewalk adjacent to the curb negatively impacts children who walk and bike to Helman Elementary School. In this and many other areas, the negative impact is substantial. (5) i have previously responded to letters posted on the councillistserve and ask that my correspondence with Richard Appicello be included in the record. ao CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: 12/15/2006 TO: Those parties that testified or wrote letters FROM: Susan Yates, Executive Secretary RE: P A2006-00612, 160 Helman Street, Ashland Enclosed you will find materials that were inadvertently provided to the Planning Commission before the December 12, 2006 meeting. At that same meeting, the Planning Commission considered the . materials to be irrelevant. If, after reading the materials, you choose to submit any written rebuttal of any relevant facts contained in the materials, it must be submitted prior to adoption of the findings. The findings are scheduled for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 8,2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. Therefore, anything submitted to us needs to be received in writing, at our office located in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR, on or before 4:30 p.m., January 8,2007. If any rebuttal is received, the Planning Commission will be asked to briefly reopen the record to admit any rebuttal facts and the Commission can discuss the rebuttal facts as part of the adoption of the final decision. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 541-552-2041. Enclosure: 7 Letters c:z d4)-j;{>'.r( ;4'7/7 -{j;;tf~~ . ~ L (~. d tU.-L f>a.{Z_~;CD <' ~"'<~ r~~<--p ~ <<- / ;P-/:26 /c~.. f~ DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~l ,., - - ---rr-.--- Jam and Smudge Free PrInting Use AveryfP TEMPLATE 51608 KERRY KENCAIRN 147 CENTRAL STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 JOANNE HADDAD 6795 RAPP LANE TALENT OR 97540 On 12/15/2006 sent letters received since the 11/12/2006 meeting to these people. They -testified at a meeting concerning 160 Helman ,treet - P A2006-00612. Sent the attached memo along with it. Sue Yates ~ J, , .091.5 QbAHaJ\V $ - www.avery"com 1-800-GQ-AVERY \'i\ AVERYG!> 5160. - ART BULLOCK 791 GLENDOWER ASHLAND OR 97520 RON DAVIES 6795 RAPP LANE TALENT OR 97540 ERIC NA VICKAS 363 Y2 IOWA ASHLAND OR 97520 5~ AH3^"-o9-00S-~ WOJ",{,UtAe"MMM - .09~5 :i.!Jeqe6 al zas!I!:i.n aplde.. a6elp~s ~ :i.a a6e....noql:i.Ue UOIssa.ldwl - :;:Proj!~t~ November 28, 2006 To whom it may concern, I am writing in strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the corner of Helman and VanNess. I have been working as an interested business space renter with Jim on his project for almost two years. Sadly I had to make the choice to move my business outside of Ashland due in part to the delays in the planning process and unknown nature of timing from this project. I shake my head thinking of this incredibly long process and that there still is not an end in site for him. I could not simply wait for you to support this project. It took too long, had no end in sight, and I had to make another move. But that doesn't mean I still don't support the project. In fact I'm more supportive of it than ever. We can't afford to lose business in Ashland. His ideas around changing the neighborhood that borders Ashland's downtown from an industrial eyesore into one where bot.h people can live and business's can thrive is the right direction for Ashland. The spaces that have been designed are in line with the values we as a community seek. When I was the founding chair of the Chamber of Commerce's/City of Ashland joint committee on Economic Sustainability, we defined our core values, of which this project directly is in line with. Three of the most important are: · Clean Industry. · High Paying Positions. · Pedestrian Friendly. .... <II .c Take a look at the companies we want to keep. TreeStar, Megalodon and Plexis. > <II "0 .c <II ~ 340 A Street Building 1 Ashland, Oregon 97520 o 541 488 1702 0 541 488 1851 . projecta.com 10f2 33 !\iU ,I ;j" , , :, ~. J L., .! ,r; They et these values and they are all growing (hiring more people) and needing larger space. Plexis acquired a bUilding that sent tenants out looking for more space. ;;;Proj~rt~ Employees of these value based firms desire high tech space within walking distance of downtown plaza. As the downtown Core is defined, it's time for you to look to the peripheral and plan for its change to meet th~ needs and values of the community. Employers are faced with large office rent increases. Lack of available office space has helped create a sad situation. Employers are paying more for space, which drives them away from downtown zone, creating more traffic, or out of town completely. My rent in Ashland went from $..80 a SQFT to over $2.55 a SQFT in the time I had offices in Ashland. Mixed use space is the best way to accomplish lower rent for businesses. I applaud Jim Batzer for his efforts and encourage you to approve his plan. · The historic commission is in support of his design, he has made modifications several times to gain their approval. · His Green Building and Demolition methods will be a mode.l for all other projects in the community. · The need for more office space must be addressed. We need to work together to keep the employers here.. The delays have already cost you one employer in town. Please de not delay this project any further. c siuce;4 Jim Teece- President & CEO Project A, inc. w~=~~.:!~E~i~~_~~~~~ jim@ProjectA.com ... C1J c: 541-488-1702 x 106 .0 C1J ?; New Address: 5350 HWY 66, Ashland, Oregon, 97520 NO'! ' " .I 340 A Street Building 1 Ashland, Oregon 97S20 o 541 488 1702 0 541 488 1851 0 projecta.com 2012 ~'f I .' --I L .'li,.: ~ l:\,,;.~' ,1""'\, ("\" \\\ Jji 385 Williamson Way Ashland, OR 97520 PLEXIS Healthcare Systems, Inc. PbO/lC: 541.494.2500 Fax: 541.482.8396 Tlfrec: 877.475.3947 11'11'11', plexisweb.com October 10,2006 Community Development Building c/o Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to express support for the mixed-use project on Helman and Van Ness Streets. I am seriously considering those spaces that support office space as well as residences for our visiting employees and clients for the ongoing expansion ofPlexis Health Care Systems. Regards, ~ JY:akt I\J 1_; 35' Graham Lewis 1284 Orchid St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 TO: Various Ashland Officials I write in support of the project Jim Batzer proposes on the Pyramid Juice site, Helman and Van Ness. This development is what Ashland has said we want. Green, mixed use, the latest technology including solar electricity (in partnership with the city) solar hot water, passive solar, high efficiency appliances and windows, reuse rainwater for irrigation, free electricity for electric cars, etc. Residents and employees may walk to theater, restaurants, Lithia Park. The project meets zone codes, historical commission approval, etc. In any week I pass this intersection at least four times. The comer is an eyesore. The elevation drawings show a beautiful addition that is compatible with the neighborhood. The property will be an asset to the neighborhood when complete. Our city commissions, staff, and elected officials have to be supportive of the projects you continue to say you want. Why might you not approv~ this wonderful addition to a blighted area of Ashland? L~ t:lL- ~am LeWIS Business Person & Resident 541.292.0776 1\~ i,.i ''1 3" II -.--- 11/28106 5~~TRbl.fl5 Office: 50 Third St Mail: PO Box 12 Ashland, OR 97520 541-201-0010 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I would like to express my support of Mr. James Batzer's plan to redevelop the Pyramid Juice property located at 160 Helman Street. There is currently a need for office, retail, and residential space. Rates of vacancy have been going down, driving up rent rates. Mr. Batzer's plan for a mixed-use development would create opportunities for small businesses by increasing the availability of space in Ashland, This will have little impact on the neighborhood as owners or employees could both live and work at the site. I manage many properties in the neighborhood and the improvement of this property could provide amenities and services that WOuld benefit my tenants. In addition, the existing building is an eyesore that is inconsistent with the architecture of nearby properties. The proposed design would complement the three story Ashland Creek Condominiums and the four story Plaza Inn. A three-story building would provide for the most efficient use of the property, enabling the owner to charge a lower rate of rent per square foot than would be possible with a smaller building on the same site. The design of the proposed building promotes sustainability through responsible energy use and is aesthetically pleasing. Some neighborhood residents have opposed this project on the basis that the reconfiguration of the sidewalk would endanger pedestrians and cyclists. The current use of the property as an industrial site promotes truck traffic which is much more dangerous than a sidewalk without a park strip. Also, I hope that the commission would discourage bicycle riders from using the sidewalks instead of the street, as that would indeed endanger pedestrians. I recommend that you consider the numerous attributes of Mr. Batzer's plan and approve the application to develop this property. It will surely benefit the community. ~ te Property Manager 37 ~J \ ! \~ i,i f'J"1 ') .-' ",' ',:' , ' " V ;~ j /: " NA1U~ OF ASHLAND 0';), ~~ C~ (){--Pnh(lif\~ CC['. 0'k MclfY\-CuI\ 5tr<<J-~pJ- t 1 [", ' , t . t I~)~t' As V- nlA..\\Vce<;$ O\..Wlu~ l-n \i\)hLLu,JJ k(8'{cGU.S .-J~ ul).Ao \ \.I[.{. -\D uJvL h- '-till S l c+-iur l 1'1 )~t u + t.-H_Q. K,,( fY\ Cu 'I ~C~t- nrOJ~' ~J-'5~'-H,,-C- ctC:JoeruS \'1'\ H<;~\(uncJJ u--ho IVrXJ'--- e le u."r- \.J \ ~\ Ur, \n pc l n u) ~ (f" uc' '-etell J ufS u,J L dCUO~~+-~ , I ~l it \1'.. C L~ LX' \1- IxIIC_h k -{;C\Yl uf Scwrr--- -fu'Z..-- (jLuc-\~') U~--L :s\~ ()J-2c:r uJlO llu-uG c-.. ~ IJ \ ~ l ~ ~~'+hc Co.jI\1i\'\CQ.<\l *I c.c <;' o.~ - ~\(<; rlw~> 0Xc.- \\'1 \c1n +1 bJwJ , J.. ~d be\ ') 0,vy:d-- , UJ\J J c \ be... kl'l Cu)'\v-2.~ V7 S Cc (') Lt--- lL:I #z- C cRt u r {i-Wl (0./\ J/ - r ' ,'~ + I', ( J. \'-If..J2. '1lV--w\ l (!u..('(Li [\l uY\ \~, q(" S 0{Yj-ccr - . ll\uJ"\ l,-t ~\, '1\ . 110 L1THIA WAY I +J0(0~ !J.c( u( ( ASHLAND, OR 97520 I 541 . ~; \i512 I FAX 541 . 488 . 8028 II, I ~c/JanleJ/7ons/ rF Found In the Finest Homes o I' SOU 'I' It I~ R NOR Ii (j 0 N To Whom It May Concern, The A Street Market Place was recently sold and left us, the Enchanted Florist, wondering where we move to next. Leslie, my wife, and I went searching for a new location that had better parking, lower rent and a location that matched our tastes and philosophy of a healthy environmental practice. One morning on my way to the florist, I noticed a sign on the comer of VanNess and Helman announcing a new building that was in the process of getting their plan approved. I contacted the developers to find more information about the project and was presently surprise to hear about the great parking that would be available, the lower rent cost and that the building was very green. Being green, meaning environmentally conscious, is important to the Enchanted Florist. For two years in a row now, according to the two largest local organic floral farms, LeMera and Fry Family Farm, we have bought more than any other florist in Southern Oregon. We strive to work with free-trade organization and other farms that have like practices. It is important that we, the Enchanted Florist, finds a landlord who also shares our progressive thinking when it comes to fair practice and who is also pro-green. In conclusion, with a Bachelor of Science degree at the Southern Oregon University, with an emphasis in planning I can understand maintaining a low growth rate here in Ashland, but please consider those developers who are surpassing the regulations to be more environmentally responsible. In highest Regards, Brandon Kirkland- CEO Enchanted Florist www.chicflora1.com r\i iJ \/ o~ Gabriel Lipper 923-1 Be/view ave. Ashland OR, 97520 Phone (541) 552-0997 artist@tzrto/~abriel. CQ1JI November 28, 2006 To whom it may concern, My name is Gabriel Lipper a long-term Ashland resident and concerned citizen. The buildings plannedfor Helman and Van Ness represent a beautiful vision for Ashland's future. Mr. Batzer's plans demonstrate a willingness to blend with local neighborhoods while expanding Ashland's potential for higher density housing and small business. He's shown a desire to lead as a builder by introducing new energy efficient ideas into his designs along with open spaces. I've been following your meetings, 'and I believe strongly that these plans are up to Ashland's standards. This building is properly zoned and is beautifully designed with respect to its historic surroundings. As Ashland grows, let it be for the better. This plan is an improvement over the existing structures, and a fine addition to our community. r\~ 1-'0 DECEMBER 12,2006 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2006 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins 01ena Black John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (Council Liaison, does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Interim Planning Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Molnar said Bob Parker. ECONorthwest, will present his preliminary draft of the Economic Opportunities Analysis at a joint study session of the Council and Planning Commission on January 23,2007 at 7:00 p.m. Fields announced that PA2006-01371, 1955 Ashland Street, has been postponed until February. He asked if anyone had come to participate that they could leave with Staff any written materials for the record. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DotterrerlDawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: Approved. MorrislBlack m/s to approve the minutes of the October 24,2006 Study Session. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. TYPE II PLANNING ACTIONS PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF GENERAL OFFICE SPACE AND SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 HELMAN ST. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO TREES ON SITE THAT ARE SIZED SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AND GREATER. APPLICANT: SISKIYOU LLC/JAMES BATZER Fields explained that at the last meeting, the public hearing had been closed. There was a request to leave the record open for seven days to allow for a response from an opponent to submit any new evidence. The applicant then had time to respond. At tonight's meeting, Fields asked the Commissioners for those in favor or re-opening the public hearing to invite the public to speak to anything that was introduced into tonight's record. A copy can be provided if requested. Voice Vote: Approved unanimously. No one came forth to speak. Fields asked for ex parte contacts or site visits. Morris, Fields, Stromberg and Marsh had another site visit. Dawkins went by the site several times. Mindlin, Dimitre, Black and Dotterrer had no additional site visits. Fields asked for all those in favor of closing the public hearing. Voice Vote: Approved unanimously. Staff ResDonse - Molnar said there were two items of concern from the last meeting: (1) The fmished floor level that the applicant remedied to the Commission's satisfaction, and (2) the planting space between the building and the sidewalk. The record indicates that at the Historic Commission meeting, they had suggested one additional option. The last segment of ~I sidewalk would be curbside, creating a nine and one-half foot landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the face of the building. The applicant has indicated either option is acceptable to them. They are concerned about maintaining the existing six foot planting strip, reducing the sidewalk to five feet and increasing the planting strip beyond the three feet, creating changes to the architecture of the building, specifically to symmetry of the entrance. Marsh asked for Staff's comments concerning the third floor setback issue. Molnar said it would probably create a minor change but is not sure it would be visually noticed. The general standards for large scale development talk about breaking up the building into different forms and sizes relative to human scale. The primary issue is that there is a step back as that is the intent of the ordinance. Dotterrer asked about the proposed meandering sidewalk. Molnar said there probably isn't much difference in the two sections oflandscaping so the Commission should decide what's best for a pedestrian using the sidewalk. Staff doesn't believe there is much difference in the two proposed scenarios. Marsh believes the more important issue is the building setback. She really thinks the building needs to be set back an additional three feet. This is a large project with very small historic homes across the street. No one wants or expects the historic houses to be redeveloped as large developments. It's appropriate to look at what's on the ground rather than what might be on the ground under theoretical zoning. This block really stands on its own. If one looks down Helman from North Main Street, the proposed development relates to that block rather than relating to the commercial building across the street on VanNess. To minimize the bulk in the neighborhood, they need to move the building back three feet and add additional landscaping. She believes the meandering sidewalk would lose the historical sidewalk pattern that is so dominant in that neighborhood and so characteristic of the historic neighborhoods, and the street trees would be lost with the bulk of the building still sitting exactly where it is. Black disagreed. If the writers of the Comprehensive Plan had wanted this to remain low impact, small historic, they would have done so. The Commission does not have any guidance for interface. She doesn't feel like the bulk against the sidewalk is out of character with the neighborhood. The commercial emphasis on VanNess is the kind of transition that is inevitable. She is concerned about the angled elevation of the sidewalk. Dimitre is concerned with bulk and scale and would like to see the parkrow, a five foot sidewalk and the building moved back an additional three feet. The small homes across the street create a kind of transition zone. He does not like the meandering sidewalk. He would like six feet between the sidewalk and the building. Morris likes the sidewalk next to the curb. He can't understand the landscaping that will be planted in front ofthe windows. The east side of the street is all E-I up to Central. The building addresses V anN ess more than Helman. It is not necessary to meander the sidewalk. He can live with the proposal as it is. Mindlin is not that concerned with the sidewalk. She agreed with Morris that the landscaping will be coming so close to the level of the windows and will become a major detriment to having a large planting area in that spot. She suspects the Tree Commission was thinking about larger landscaping issues and when they recommended approval probably didn't realize the building would be sunken bringing the windows close to the ground with large plantings in front of the windows. Mindlin is disappointed about the plaza being so high up in the air. As a separation between buildings, she feels the sense of spaciousness is going to be lost because of the large masonry wall between the sidewalk and the plaza. There won't be a sense of the plaza being at street level. She would like more landscaping by the plaza. Dotterrer liked the idea of having the sidewalk stay where it is. Fields said he doesn't see this development as a gateway to anything. The property goes down to a residential floodplain area that is never going to be developed. Do we want to define this area to be a monument for urbanization or should it be softened, respecting the more residential pattern in a low rise industrial kind of building - single story, simple? Is it a fair judgment to ask the applicant to push the building back? We know that two couples walking on a six foot sidewalk can barely pass each other. Is this the density we are looking at in the future (two foot parkrow, eight foot sidewalk, and a landscape buffer)? Without explicitly telling the applicant how to develop, we are asking the applicant to give us their best shot and tell us how they comply with the ordinance. There is no obligation to the planning action to build a sustainable building. It's an act of faith that we trust that is the applicant's intention. The building is attractive. We are cramming a lot on a parcel. Dawkins said the west side is the historic side and the east side from North Main down is starting to become commercial. All of the homes built 100 years ago were looking at an old packing plant. This is a funny little district where there is a mix of ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 2 J./~ historic and heavy duty commercial industrial. He would like to see much more of a streetscape coming all the way down Helman. He is not as concerned with the bulk and scale. He doesn't know how pushing back the building will change things that much. Stromberg said this proposed building is in the Historic District and by our regulations, we have to adhere to the Historic District Design Standards, not the Comprehensive Plan. He sees three things: (1) Height -The height should be more congruent with what is in the neighborhood (see page 42 of Site Design and Use Standards). (2) Scale - The drawings in the Site Design Standards show all the existing buildings crammed together, yet Helman Street has buildings spaced out all along. This development is just one long building with nice break-ups in the detail but its compression is much more intense. (3) Line of Facade - The proposed building departs from that. With all of these things combined, the building will be pretty high and everything will be compressed and denser and closer to the sidewalk than the fayade line all the way down the street, thus moving away from the intention integrating new development into the Historic District. He is having difficulty with the applicant meeting the burden of proof based on the above three items. The Historic Commission's recommendation is not giving a rationale. Harris said the Historic Commission started looking at this project at least a year ago at a pre-application level and saw it a total of at least six times. They started out seeing something so different and it has evolved into something very different based on the Historic Commission recommendations to the applicant and subsequent adjustments made by the applicant. Appicello said there were letters submitted referring to green development and letters of general support attached to the applicant's materials that are not relevant to the approval criteria. The Commissioners discussed the issues further. Dimitre/Marsh adding a Condition that would meet the Historic Design Standards, mls that there be a six and one.half foot parkrow, a five foot sidewalk, and a six foot planter between the sidewalk and the building, including the corner building'(side on Helman) to the ramp. Roll Call: The motion carried with Marsh, Stromberg, Dawkins, Mindlin, Dimitre and Fields voting "yes" and Dotterrer, Black and Morris voting "no." DotterrerlStromberg mls to approve PA2006.00612, incorporating the Condition above that was just approved. There was discussion to maintain the current setbacks. Morris argued it won't be an easy fix for the applicants to redesign the building. Dotterrer summed it up that generally speaking, the Commission likes the design of the building but approximately a two-thirds majority of the Commission believes the building should be set back an additional three feet. Harris said Condition 14 should cover any changes to the building. Roll Call: The motion carried with Stromberg, Fields, Mindlin, Dimitre, Dotterrer, Dawkins and Marsh voting "yes" and Black and Morris voting "no." OTHER Appicello introduced revised Land Use Procedures and Citizens Guide for Land Use Procedures and Speaker Request forms to help the meetings run more smoothly. He will e-mail the draft to the Commissioners. Dotterrer will try to bring back the revised Roles and Duties for the January study session. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. RespectfUlly submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 12, 2006 3 "IJ NEW INFORMATION SINCE LAST MONTH'S MEETING 4~ , " '", f"'" ~' .' ...... II . URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 320 East Main Street, Suite 202 Ashland, Oregon 97520 PROJECT HILIGHTS FOR CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION P A-2006-00612; 160 Helman Street, Siskiyou LLC Submitted November 29th, 2006 · Proposed project meets or exceeds all applicable land use Criteria and all Development Standards required within Ashland Municipal Code. · Proposed project twice received unanimous approval by the Ashland Historic Commission after numerous preview meetings to ensure all Historic Commission members input were incorporated into the final design. · Two neighborhood meetings held onsite during the design phase (August 2005 and April 2006) brought to light a myriad of concerns. Neighbors within 200' of project were invited. Project was redesigned based on neighbors' input. Portions of site were reduced to two stories and the plaza space placed strategically to benefit light, air and views. · Proposed project is designed to transition from a residential feel on south end to a more commercial feel on north end as it approaches the more cop" ~nercial Van N ess/Helman corridor. · Proposed project is also designed to create gateway to and from the Skidmore Academy Historic District and Ashland Historic Railroad District. · Proposed project does not even approach the maximum possible square footage nor maximum building heights allowed in the zone so as to reduce impact on surrounding neighbors. · Proposed project has been designed to preserve Oak: trees on adjacent property (SOS Plumbing property). · Proposed project is upgrading, at project's expense, a number of area utilities. · Applicants have been up front and open with City of Ashland Planning Staff, neighbors, current Pyramid Juice tenant (for whom the applicant is assisting in the relocation of a new site within Ashland) and all other interested parties starting from the July 2005 Pre- Application submittal to the City of Ashland. Careful attention has been paid to address negative impacts, to highlight positive impacts, and to still meet Code. · As evidenced from neighbor comments, the proposed uses (office, shops, residences, etc.) will be much more compatible to neighborhood then existing manufacturing/industrial use which currently produce foul odors, loud noises and unsightly site conditions. . Applicant currently has several committed residential and commercial tenants, including businesses from inside and outside of Ashland, prepared to move into the building - including Plexis Health Care Systems. · Applicants and family have lived in the valley since the 1920's and specifically in Ashland since 1968 and are committed to constructing and maintaining a quality project. Phone: 541-482-3334 Fax: 541-482-3336 1\, ,; iJ t-fC o Field ,.( URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 320 East Main Street, Suite 202 Ashland, Oregon 95720 Ashland Planning Commission Additional Testimony & Response P A-2006-00612; 160 Helman Street, Siskiyou LLC Submitted November 29th, 2006 During the November 2006 Planning Commission hearing for the proposed Site Review Permit for the property at 160 Helman Street, Art Bullock requested the record for Planning Action 2006- 00612 remain open for an additional seven days in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(c) followed by the applicants request for an additional seven days to respond in accordance with ORS 197.763(6)(e). As such, please find below the applicants additional supporting testimony, including a response to Mr. Bullock's additional testimony. Does the project comply with all applicable criteria noted in the Ashland Municipal Code? Yes, the proposed project meets all applicable criteria and there are no requests by the applicants for a Variance or Exception. As evidenced within the application narrative, the project meets all criteria listed in Chapter 18.72 Site Design & Use Standards and the adopted Site Design & Use Standards guidelines (adopted August 4th, 1992) which include specific development standards for: Basic Site Review; Detail Site Review; Large Scale Projects; Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards; Street Tree Standards and Historic District Development Standards. Does the project comply with all applicable development standards noted in the Ashland Municipal Code? Yes, the proposed project complies with all other criteria listed in the Ashland Municipal Code which includes: Chapter 18.40: E-l Employment District: Permitted, Special Permitted Uses and General Regulations; Chapter 18.61: Tree Preservation and Protection: Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal Permit, Tree Protection; Chapter 18.68: General Regulations: Vision Clearance Area Chapter 18.70: Solar Access: Solar Setbacks Chapter 18.72: Site Design & Use Standards (ordinance) and Chapter 18.92: Off-Street Parking: Automobile Spaces Required, Credit for On-street Automobile Parking, Disabled Person Parking Places, Bicycle Parking, Compact Car Parking, Automobile Parking Design Requirements Phone: 541-482-3334 Fax: 541-482-3336 ~'- N, ,i 'i o Field- Does the proposal meet all applicable vard setbacks for the zoning district? Yes, the proposal meets all yard setbacks for the E-l, Employment District. Within the E-1 zone, no yard or setback is required unless adjacent to a residential zone, in which case a side and rear yard setback of at least 10' per story shall be required (Section 18.40.050, General Regulations). The properties to the north, south and east are zoned E-1 and the property to the west (across street) is zoned R-3. In this case, this project has no residential zone to its side or rear, just the front which by code doesn't require a setback. Nevertheless, through discussions with staff and neighbors, the applicants are providing a front yard setback ranging from 3' to 19' for the Helman Street building (Building #1) in an attempt to create a front yard similar to the project's adjacent residentially used, but Employment zoned, properties. Can the telephone pole on the corner of Van Ness and Helman Street be relocated so that it is less obtrusive to the streetscape? Yes, with the approval of the Ashland Electric Department, the telephone pole on the comer of Van Ness and Helman Streets can be relocated. As discussed during the Planning Commission's November 14th hearing, the applicants would agree to a condition requiring the pole's relocation to be behind the comer building's Helman Street fac;ade - near the proposed bike parking area. How were the proposed plans generated and what have the applicant's done to minimize the project's impact on the neighborhood? The site was surveyed and measurements and pictures taken of the site's surrounding buildings in an attempt to create a database of information to assist the project's architects. In addition, the applicants reviewed the City's Street Design Standards, Transportation Policies, and Site Design and Use Standards to help generate a site plan and design the buildings. The applicants also met with the neighbors on two occasions, met with the Planning staff and the Ashland Historic Commission on at least six occasions in an attempt to obtain input and direction. From these meetings, significant architectural changes were completed so that building mass and scale were allocated to the side of the property where it best relates to similar mass and scale elements on adjacent properties. Secondly, the applicants allocated the project's proposed uses so that the permitted uses are less impacting to surrounding uses such as the day care business across the alley (i.e., residential near residential and commercial near commercial). Finally, the applicants have agreed to a number of staff suggestions that should also lessen the project's impact on the neighborhood, such as increased setback/landscaping along the frontage of the Helman Street building, widening of the alley along the south side and installation of a 4' sidewalk along the alley. Should the Helman Street sidewalk "adjust" to a curb-side sidewalk near the intersection of Helman and Van Ness Streets? Would this be compatible with the neighborhood? First, the applicants are not proposing to meander or adjust the sidewalk with this application. The idea was originally brought up by and unanimously supported by the Ashland Historic Commission during their November 8th, 2006 hearing and again unanimously supported by the Ashland Tree Commission during their November 9th, 2006 hearing. The applicants agree the adjustment is a great idea and resolves not only the desires expressed by Historic Commission melllbers to have the Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541-482-3649 NU v ~7 o Field sidewalk align with the sidewalk across from Van Ness Street, but also staff's and some Planning Commissioner's recommendation for more green space between the comer building and the sidewalk along Helman Street, but the applicants are willing to accept either sidewalk scenario chosen by the Planning Commission. Second, the applicants contend that if the Planning Commission agrees with the recommendations of the Ashland Historic and Tree Commissions to adjust the sidewalk to be a "curb-side" sidewalk in front of the comer building only, it would contextually match the sidewalk pattern already in existence across the street to the north and along this property's Van Ness Street frontage (see photos). A curb-side sidewalk, in combination with the comer building's commercial style architecture, creates not only a consistent pattern, but a "gateway" entrance to both the Skidmore Academy Historic District and the Ashland Historic Railroad District. Does the project meet the City of Ashland's Solar Access Standards? Yes, Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Municipal Code is designed to protect an adjacent property's right to receive a reasonable amount of sunlight. The code specifically attempts to retain sunlight during the winter months for properties to the north of a development. In this particular case, the property to the north is across Van Ness Street and is a commercial business and complies with all Solar Access regulations. Applicant's Supplemental Information in Response to Art Bullock's Supplemental Testimony (Wednesday. November 22.2006): 1) Bulk and scale is too large for neighborhood / too high for this neighborhood and situation, 1) The applicants contend the proposal meets the applicable criteria and have sincerely tried to design a project that responds to not only the site's Employment zoning, but also the neighborhood's contextual mixture of uses and building sizes such as houses, offices, hotels, industrial uses, etc. The applicants recognize the sensitivity of the site's surrounding characteristics and have accordingly met with neighbors on at least two occasions and the Ashland Historic Commission on at least six occasions. During these meetings, the applicants listened to the various comments and suggestions and have many times. Furthermore, the applicants have hired an independent Architect to participate in the proposed design to further the applicants' desire to be put forth a development that is compatible with its surroundings, complies with the approval criteria and provides for quality housing and employment opportunity. The applicants further recognize the project site sits between two distinct neighborhoods and zoning districts with residential high density (R-3) to the west and Employment (E-l) to the north, south and east. The R-3 zone allows a maximum height of 35' and the E-l zone allows a maximum height of 40'. Both zones have a variety of building heights with the highest being approximately 25' (see cross sections, submitted August 2nd, 2005). In an attempt to also provide a variety of heights, the proposed building( s) have heights ranging from 17' to 33' with the lowest roof height being adjacent to the adjacent house across the alley (15'-3" to eave and 23'-3" to gable line) and the tallest being closest to the existing office building on the north comer of Van Ness and Helman Streets (25'). It should also be understood the second-story height ofthe proposed comer building is Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541 - 482 - 3 649 ~; ~~ O F",'eld - ,.' . ;.'1 26' to the cornice line and the third story 33'. However, the third story is recessed back 6' so that its overall height is lessened. Except for a 24 foot clerestory section in the middle of the Helman Street building, this is the only portion of the project that is three stories. Both zones have a "distinct" bulk and mass with the buildings west and south of the site being typically residential in character and the buildings to the north and east of the site being typically commercial in character. Nevertheless, because Architecture (The art or science of planning and building structures; Webster's Dictionary) is an art and art is typically a subjective and often times a controversial issue, the applicants have depended on the guidenance and knowledge of the Ashland Historic Commission who "twice" unanimously approved this application on October 4th, 2006 and November 8th, 2006. The Historic Commission is the one entity designated with the powers and duties (Ashland Municipal Code, Section 2.24.040) to: A. To survey and recommend to the City Council, areas or properties of significant historical value and interest to be designated historical properties; (Ord. 203785, 1979) B. To draft and recommend ordinances and other measures designed to protect and foster interest in the improvement of designated historical properties; C. To review literature and sources of funding concerning the protection and improvement of designated historic properties; D. To review and make recommendations concerning the improvement of designated historic properties in connection with the issuance of building permits, zone changes, conditional use permits, variances, sign permits, and site reviews; (Ord. 203782, 1979) E. To review and recommend project applications for funding; F. To promote public support in the preservation of Ashland's historic past; G. Advise citizens on aesthetic standards for historic areas. The Historic Commission is comprised of a variety of citizens appointed by the Mayor and reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for compliance with Certified Local Government Status (CLG). The Historic Commission unbiasly guide and monitor development within Ashland's Historic Districts so that the District's are protected and enhanced by new developments. The Historic Commission is currently comprised of nine members two of which are licensed Architects, another is a local Photographic Historian, and two are General Contractors. With the proposed project, the Historic Commission unanimously felt the design of the buildings were in keeping with the neighborhood. They particularly liked the vertical and horizontal play of the buildings on the site, which reflected the small residential units across Helman Street. Planning staff has concurred with the Historic Commission that the bulk and scale of the buildings is appropriate for the site, the neighborhood and the E-l zone. Overall, the applicants believe two unanimous approvals from the Ashland Historic Commission validates the project's design as being compatible with the neighborhood. Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541-482-3649 t\ . ~9 o Field 2) Setback is too short (referring to corner building's west wall parallel with Helman Street). 2) During the October 10th, 2006 public hearing, members of the Planning Commission requested the applicants explore a couple of design changes with one being the raising of the comer building so that its plaza space was flush with the Helman Street sidewalk. The other request was for the incorporation of three (3) additional feet of green space between the Helman Street sidewalk and the comer building. The change to the plaza area was easily made and should help the front of the building be more inviting. Unfortunately, it was later found the request for the additional 3' step back, although appearing to be a minor alteration, created major alterations to the building's design rendering it less attractive and less compatible with its surroundings. Specifically, the additional 3' step back would have: a) Virtually eliminated the building's second floor 45 degree comer element by altering the element's proportions and eliminating a prominent comer facing window. b) Created a more visible third story with less "step back" from the Helman Street plane. c) Caused the walls containing the plaza to protrude outwardly creating an awkward and unadorned wall adjacent to the public sidewalk. During the re-review by the Ashland Historic Commission on November 8th, 2006, the changes were explained in detail to the Historic Commission - specifically the three foot step back request. The Historic Commission concurred the alteration was not appropriate and that it would clearly diminish the building's architectural appearance. Nevertheless, after further discussion, the Historic Commission concluded that in order to provide a three foot step back, the sidewalk could "adjust" to the street's curb when adjacent to the comer building, thus creating a wider 9'-6" green space instead of the requested 6' green space and maintaining a consistent sidewalk pattern as found across the street. (NOTE: the term "meander" has been noted by Mr. Bullock as an improper use of the term for the sidewalk's adjustment. It is a typical term used to describe when a sidewalk transitions from a park strip to the curb. Technically, it shouldn't be used as there is likely a better term). The applicants believe the Historic Commission's suggested recommendation to adjust the sidewalk near the comer building is appropriate for this site and resolves the purpose behind staff and some members of the Planning Commission's initial request, but the applicants are willing to abide by whatever the Planning Commission decides. 3) Sidewalk and park row are improper/dangerous. 3) As mentioned previously, the applicants are willing to abide by whatever the Planning Commission decides. The applicants are not proposing the sidewalk's adjustment as recommended by the Ashland Historic Commission, but they do concur with the Commission's assessment the adjusted sidewalk, where it abuts the proposed comer building, is appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. As such, the applicants also contend a curbside sidewalk is not dangerous to pedestrians or bicyclist. Curbside sidewalks exist throughout the community, specifically near public schools - such as the newly constructed sidewalks on lower Helman Street near Helman Elementary School, the newly Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541 - 482 - 3 649 \ r,. 5tJ o Field constructed sidewalks (2006) on Nevada Street near Helman Elementary School, the newly built sidewalks along Tolman Creek Road near Bellview School, and the newly built sidewalks along Walker A venue in front of the Ashland Middle School - all are safe and to the best of the applicant's knowledge, no injuries or damages have ever been reported. Besides the aforementioned public school zones, there are many curbside sidewalks around our community where pedestrian traffic is very high and very safe. Lastly, there is a "relatively" new curbside sidewalk not only in front of the new commercial building directly across the street (see photos submitted November 14th, 2006), but already adjacent to this parcel's Van Ness Street frontage. 4) Neighborhood opposes the design. 4) Similar to the City's own noticing procedures, the applicants noticed neighboring property owners to attend two evening neighborhood meetings. During the second meeting the applicants presented a significantly different design based upon the comments heard during the first neighborhood meeting (in addition to staffs and the Historic Commission's recommendations). The applicants have been very attentive to neighborhood comments and have attempted to be as transparent and sincere as possible. Some of the neighborhood suggested changes included: a) The need for a view corridor from the street (homes). Originally the plans showed a continuous building volume extending along Helman Street, but in response to a neighbor's concern, the building's square footage was reduced and reallocated. The end result is the current plaza located between the comer building and the Helman Street building. b) The need to have a more transitional design as it relates to the one and two story residential structures across the street or south of the site. Originally, the building (previously one building volume) had a more "commercial" style form that included lots of glass and flat roof forms, but in response to neighbor concerns, the applicants changed the flat roof form for the Helman Street building to a gable style roof, lowered the roof height where adjacent to the house to the south, staggered the Helman Street building so that its roof and fayade volumes step back and the front yard landscape area increases as it gets closer to the south. The design now incorporates a small dormer (third floor) to help break the roof mass and to accommodate square footage lost with the addition of the plaza. c) The need to be considerate of residential neighbors. Originally, the ground floor area of the entire building was to be for commercial tenants, but in response the applicants have designated the ground floor area adjacent to the alley as a residence. Many of the neighbors are pleased with the multitude of changes made since the original plans. The applicant's have heard a number of appreciative comments since the project's initial conception in 2004. Obviously some neighbors, including some non-neighbors, oppose the proposed design. However, the applicants contend they have sincerely attempted to address the concerns raised thus far and have received praise for their efforts. The applicants have also received praise from Ashland Historic Commission members as well as many other Ashland citizens. Two-story vs. three-story: Contrary to the additional testimony, the two buildings proposed to be constructed on the site are primarily 2-stories in height, not 3-stories (see building elevations, submitted September 11th, 2006). The building at the comer of Van Ness and Helman matches the Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541-482-3649 ~~:" , !;/ [J Field bulk and scale of the recently constructed building across Van Ness Street to the north. It has a cornice line approximately at the same vertical elevation. That building does have a third story, which is set back from the building front 6-10 feet, depending on the elevation. Lastly, street cross- section elevations provided (August 2nd and October 4th 2006) show the buildings do anything but "overshadow" the homes across the street. 5) Failure to prove calculations for adequate employment area (permitted uses). 5) During the November 14th, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, applicants submitted written, graphic and verbal testimony that the project complies with Ashland Municipal Code, Section 18.40.030 E.l., which specifically states: 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 shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. The above standard is an "either or standard" depending upon the definition of one building or multiple buildings with the primary intent being the preservation of ground floor areas as employment uses (manufacturing, offices, shops, etc.). The standard also appears to provide some flexibility for alternative design scenarios as well as a reduction in the ground floor requirement if there are multiple buildings. The likely purpose behind this flexibility is to encourage multiple building volumes similar to the current proposal. Regardless, if the proposal is one or multiple buildings, the applicants have always contended the project complies with either standard: If considered one building (due to the plaza area being structurally attached): 65% of the ground floor area must be designated as permitted uses and the remaining 35% can be residential. The ground floor of the comer building (Building #2) is 2,332 square feet and is designated as office space. The ground floor for the Helman Street building (Building #1) is 5,233 square feet with 2,641 square feet as office and 2,592 square feet as residential. When the total ground floor area is combined, 4,973 square feet or 65.7% is designated as permitted office space and 34.3% residential space. If considered two buildings: Please see the Site Usage Plan, submitted October 24th, 2006. This plan shows the entire lot with the areas designated as residential "shaded". The entire site is 19,150 square feet in area and the shaded area represents 6,430 square feet (33.6%) and the non shaded or commercial area 12,720 square feet (66.4%). Again, if considered two buildings, up to 9,575 square feet of the total lot area is permitted to be residential space where as the applicants only propose 6,430 square feet. 6) The special case building on Van Ness is being improperly used as a precedent. 6) The applicants contend "all" of the surrounding buildings are being used as a precedent - not just the building across the street on Van Ness. Obviously there is a mixture of architectural styles, masses, heights, sidewalk patterns, etc. that make-up this area's context. For these reasons, the proposal includes a variety of elements that attempts to tie these elements together in a comprehensively planned way. Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541 - 482 - 3 649 I'~ : -' v S~ o Field - The applicants do agree the site across the street is unique. It was once part of the railroad spur line connecting the downtown to the main rail line. However, if that is considered unique, so would the subject site as a large portion of the property was also part of the same rail spur. Lastly, the subject property also has a severe grade changes - but in two different directions from north to south and from east to west. 7) Procedural errors. 7) The applicants do not believe any procedural errors have been made to date in the handling of the review of this project by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has an attorney present at its meetings who can and does advise if mistakes are either made or about to be made. Attachments . November 8th, 2006 Historic Commission Recommendations . November 9th, 2006 Tree Commission Recommendations . Photos (3) ofthe comer building across Van Ness Street (originally submitted 11/14/06) . Sidewalk/Plaza Partial Site Plan without sidewalk adjustment (originally submitted 10/24/06) . Sidewalk/Plaza Partial Site Plan with sidewalk adjustment (originally submitted 11/14/06) . Site Usage Plan (originally submitted 10/24/06) . Cross Sections (3) comparing various heights of buildings across streets (originally submitted 8/2/06 and 8/4/06) . Elevations (originally submitted 9/11/06) . Revised Elevations (3) Comer Building (originally submitted 10/24/06) . Owner's Statement, James Batzer . Letter of Support, Jim Teece, Project A . Letter of Support, Jorge Yant, Plexis Healthcare Systems . Letter of Support, Graham Lewis . Letter of Support, Drew Lamb, Street Rents . Letter of Support, Denise Delzell, Naturals . Letter of Support, Brandon Kirkland, Enchanted Florist . Letter of Support, Gabriel Lipper Phone: 541-621-8393 Fax: 541-482-3649 r\,-iV S~ o Field v_ -.O_~ V6-.N }.,JE.. ~5 STKEE.l '. o "lJ --l o Z )> =r ~. :1 p- L ~ - t~- ~ ~ ~ t ~ -4 ~ U Q ~ ~ ~ IT 1+ \tl_ ! . Q= ~ fJ [ll fi1 ---J "1 " ---I --1 \' I (j- I D_ "'I "'.,,;:;: ,,;:,~ ..) ,-' ) ~ ~ { ,- o ~ BJl ~ - ~I ~ .- .' .::r: -LU' rn -. Q 0 - s:- ~ I \J' -I ~Q - \J L I fl1 \,.- () 0 (j r ~f' t L "' ~L Gr .p- 2- r--- L .,. J ('\ ./'" ., , ~, = ~ ~ ~ ~ - -1 r ~' \J\ ~ .::l '" /' ? ~~ L \",J !~ 0 % tI ~! _WL~ ~.~ ~~ 7J..:...c Lei ~ -\ ~. -J ..l11 -~~8-G ~EL~ ~~~~ ~ \;. \f:\Jg l~~wl \JI~t~fI t~~~ ~tt~ -I~~ .~ ~. ~ ~~ ~L 9:"S\ ~ .~ ~. ~/ "V" __ -D_~ V6-N ~JE. '"S~ S1KEE.l " , , t O'~ t~ ~.... ~ .:z:. \~ rH ~"E) :c t r: F ~ --l .1 ~ p- L U Q "J1 ~ -!...\ I 1\ \l II + ~- I .0= ~ ~I fi' ---t 1 I' I V'_ , D_ :J.. . \ \P; " ~ / I - ~ ~Jl ~ I r= ~ .' .' -=r: '-L\J' f1l -, Q Q - ~~ I \f' 'T ~Q - \) L I f'1 ~o~r1 r rei' 5-L "' \J = \J .f'>. 1-- y 'e- Ir-- L II (\ ...-/ ., I \'I' , ,- o = \~ ~ ~ ~ r-'- \l\ .::t I" \) ~ L v - -4 ~I ~ % tL ~! _M- ~ ~11 ~~ U f t L Q ,..- ~t .~~ ~O ~ --I ..! -E ~~~~g ~.kiU'Q! ~. ~t~ lJ. \J H l~e~l: \JI~t~1' t~~~ ~tt~ -I~~ '~ ~~ c~ ~L 9:~ f-\ .9" ~. ~~/ o -0 ---i o Z )> ~.." 1, " Yeln Ne&& &treet. J II iI ! I I ' ,i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I ! I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I I 9; .=. ~r '^ ~ I r ~ II c I ~ '^ I !Io > ~ C'. r i ,-, " Alley --.4 ~~ - :b- e 1IIII ,'=J - _.~~ll c::> .' --------- ~,j : .', lit. .~ !!!tP u-< !~ (\ o -6 0004 ~ le 51 ~ !II'll ~ ~ 3" - i iil 77 :.77 ~ - - ~ ~ ! .. ~ ~ .!! ~~ ~ ~ t;ij . ~1Wo A Mixed Use Development For: .. REVISiONS Siskiyou LLC Mark McKechnie AlA -"" Prolect Location: 4406 San Juan Drive ~..., A1 160 Helman (betwe V Ashland Oregon 97~~0 an Ness and Central). Medford, Oregon 97504 39 1E 140 LOT # 2403 It\ 541-944-9886 crt '. '.: I -L ~~ :-.~ j~ ~ \jJ , ~ 'd " .-S \J\ T '\ ~ ~ ~ \f\ ~ ~ -+- - . - . \} () J. F -' o v -- I r {\ ~ ~ "'". ~ o ,~ \ r-~0' .s::-. --r-~ . '~.:N " ~ \"-. ' , C7"'-l '0', ~ 1 ) ~~ ".., '" ..J ...r--r- ~ =} -fv J < ~ J r: (\ '^ \J\ l ,. 26 "- c) ~ 3 a ~9 . ~ !a. I 7~ ~ =t' [ ~ ) ~ :n m o m < m o ~ rJ\ ,- " ~ ~ D C r r (' ~~ ,-, y- ~t;t: 7.,"' -i~ ~~ I ~ QO t . . \/ -0 0' ....r " ~ ::t:= ...r. ~ """.- ~ '^ ti ~ ~ ...r '> ., (} ~c:>t 0" ] 171_011 1't~. ''''It.. ~ o '--" jl'~ ~~ ...-f\) J/N J~ i<J ~ g 3 ::t- 3n 5~ c: ::n ~a Ci> m ~i: 0 N m !f ~ <: m 3 0 CD il I ~ -- r j- '~. ~ ~ ~ J ,- -J c r r C\ Q:1 ~\3' Z ~, :!! TO.. ~... OJ 1'17 1+t ~. ~ z:.. -.aI- ~ L ~ ~ t-. ~ ~ f\) ~ V' ~ ~ -- o =' ~~ ~~ f~ ~\Jl ~.tft c:..-I -c~ ~~ c ~ - Ii / ::t: ~ ; ~ :: 'i;. I . II '2<=1 - <0 "- ., te \<01.0_ g > 3(') c:: 3 -- m 5.:<' ~9. 5?~ N \[ it :D m o m ~ C B ~ 9 ~ 0\~' ;.j F' ~ C,~ C='\ 6 h- W '1\ ~ ~ ~o 9 S - 't~ ~T~ [rJ _rJ;l i'- <:. -:1 1; Ii" r // en b y I q;;K' 2:.-4"& ~~~ Z \l "I \~.Q; ~~ ~:-I f1i T';'> r) Q i- " .'~ @ ~~ ~1[,0 qR ~ W ~ 8'0 9 S \~- 0, IfC lJ 1- , , co l -(\ 'S r~ \\01] Iln, illl ,tl r~ , " I ' ' , \JT_ I/i i 6 ~ ~1 ,01 IT: If'' Ii: }l ~Il (- f' V ~~ T IL, i I" 21 \::"\\ ;n I 3\:- P ,cr, TO ,~~ " -" - 1': / c , L 11 - - p v_ @ ~@ ~ 9 'i ~ w ~ 8'0 9 S o :!1 co- na 0':<" 00 ~- --J:- ('")Cf) (0::3" "-' W ,'- ~ No" A4 <l"\.. ~ 11;'-:;;;91 !I!- :)=~'- I !~'7J r,Ol~~i I. "_.'''-.' : I'-rj" : \i!--H~ I , '--;-"-1"1 Ir~I'-'1 I Ilf 1'1 ' /1 I."'" I flLJ ! ' l--+r-i~, ~ L I :.9 " I' I; 1 i/ 1I-li " --,' - '--''T.!' ".J '\ 1(/ ~ 1'\ ~:s, 'I ... , .11 ~1 - ___",I, :i~f! - _.--- I '1:\ , .1. .".) ...., 'tJ .AJ '.f1 m i~J :: iTl A Mixed Use Development For: Siskiyou LLC .$ ~t t '-' )2 )L K- It :t - o~, ~ in Ii' .-\' ,\\ .3 [ 3: ' ~ ~ K' G "<I ,- J i I .'0' ~rl" -L.! ., .:j '~ " I ,- R 0, I,; ~ ~ ~ ,u~ ~~ 9RY: 7J o ~E ~~ ~n I~I ~~ y~. , il '" Lj) :..::,:]1.. ".... '~' \~'" I, I~ r ,/:, 'l It I! (j ,<. 'UJ;,,-- -- \' ~ ., ') ,,1 " .j \ \ 1 -- j'. ~-iJl [) -\ \~ L- f"1- ~ f{ P R- T L~ ~ ~ )' 7J ~ r J,' il I -'7:J1 ' 1 j~ ;~I'O. Me; I" , _, .___'__ 1';'- , " ,0= _ ' _ __ ~-i ----'-'t uT 8 ~~ ~ w ~ @]l R ~ ~ ~o 9 S , , ]['2 " I~ .~, i '~i 1---: .;;~~"- r -I I? ! !OJ ~ ltttijJ 'l'~ l:D [",., ~~ XE , ~ f"" I ' "- ,I ~ W ? i\ ~ -l \ tJ} ~ W ~ t I I'\ r- J; ~ I~ '--I ! - "----r i ~ ~~ it ~~ j 8I ~ zE . (.~ ,j . C- ~ 1J~ p: ,-r ~ 9, -'-\ --< 1 [' ~. ~I~ , " - 2'~__~ ~ ~ I it c il -'" L 1; 5\ R ~ fL ' ;:, .J ]; I'/ fi ~ r ,[\ E: ;;) k I~~ I~-\\ I'! t '2~~~\t [t " I?- c= Mark McKechnie AlA 4406 San Juan Drive Medford, Oregon 97501 541-944-9886 Project Location: 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central), Ashland Oregon 97520 391E 14D LOT#2403 J~ l)~ l)~ ARC HIT E C T (541) 194-::20::21 ill E. MClIn St, SUit. 14 M.c::t'ord, OR. C1"!504 ) ) , ) " ~~ ~~ <'i ~? (' (~ \(> ~\ 7' ~ @ ~ Bo 9 83 ~ ~ ~ u > o 0\.. .......... r llII. , ./ J.. 1 ~ -J .II I - 0>_ - Lh= - ~. , -;~ ~ ~_\ ~ 0:: C L r if ~~ V' SL \\~ " t - - - ( 0 .:: I ~ I~ '.t L t-l, L I~ ffi I ~ ~ I~ ? I ~ I ~I L _---" \ (I 3:'-0 J ., \ I. 2&;-0 -t - <:. ".- 0 ,D /~r . _.~ , )) 'L....- ) ~ \J v~_. ~ ~~" 'l"x\.. \.. m: -<~ oh- ~:. J~ 9 ~ ~" I )> ~<J' ~~.., ~ ~ ~, ' ~ rJ "'" ' t<.~ ~t ~~! .IE. ~ ~",,-.:.r ~ ~ ~J1 1 I f= :.4- Ii; ;:~~ I 1, ~ ',= ~ '. I! I I-~'': I~" II'I~ ill : . ~ ~ ~\:!:!I '~l\ .~ . ~.. { \ ~ I f-......'-h. I::'-,j l I <j JJ t l\..,'1\-' 11I111ill\ _ ~ im\1 I l v. f~. ~ '. !~/) '" Ie' 'mi.' $ -'[' I" , I i1 c . \ 1 . ~,~ ~ \-, I; '~4. le";.l~ '~,~' . 1-:: .... ~ .....~~, ....t... ~ ~ ..~ = ~U = '( . - y. ~~ = 1"' ~ f' J ,~ (1 ':, fI- ~\:" - - . . g :---. -- .. . r 1 ' f F' -1- . '.: '~-t-.__. 1/1' ~ h' ,t< W -j-. Jll: ~ _ I ~. ,t .~~ !'r. 1"\ . I ! "'':((7 ,:5 A. H L- J: 1-~ '!~J!~~l:~ ~ - ~.' '''-::'. "A\~ '. :r~ : r...- ~ . ::fi C. '~~ ..~ ::''2.~'''----T i, . .' . :: - " : ~ .. . .. t/ \ ~ ~, ~~1 ",' ~~ ~ . ~. ~ I r: ..,. '... ('.1 ww ~ L// 1 ~~J l~ ~I ~Jf! -- ____H -' "--)) I, ::.. I 'J-...... ......... ~ ~'. ...~ .~ - \ _ _~ ....1: 11-." J. ..:::,. ;J\11' ~ ~: . - ':~~~ " "1\ ,'. ....\... - '.......' ..". . ~^f ' ':. I .1 .1 ~'~ 1 ~ I~~. - R~. "'- Wi' -f-"u ~- I-_~~:- c '" . .. f'... ';'I~c-.. I~ _,=1'.-... '1.. l'- ..~ U IJ ,.~ ._ ' __ J_ . II r '>, .~ . ~~ ,...< I. ' , I. . ~~II~' l-i \ I{} -.r ~~ ~ \] L j\ -- _ ..---...--. 'U-U1!! ! .a., II..... r!:, . Ii 1 ~ 11_ '::1 I 'IIIIIIIII;:III!'\ 1 ~ \ mll!.\ II' t I ...!. \~\ 'I ' ill. JL I i-1~~- !,: " >> i ~~--~!:r--~qfJ!. ~ 1/ , I II I -. ...r:t. ..{ .111 ~ ..... '''..0: ) J -1 ) .. > '-I _J ::~~ .", =:> ~~ ~ ;~ q~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ c; t .- ~ ~ ~ V . I AI n_""",::rrr ,) ':'\ ....LI ,il ~I;; '411~!1 F- ;: . <.: GL:"- ,_~~.t,r,l I ,: " // Ll:L... "', ' R,' \ ::- i:jI. . ~. .1 II' ~'. ~""-r1f,~' '.,' . _~ ,h . .' '" '-11.1 ~" ...::: CJ. , ~~'~~.- H"~ ~'. ~ ',' 'r::'j., I f-.. 1 :~ . ~. .I~.",- ~;: . -'-~ ---~V' -< 1 I ~ $;." ~" I I , .~ .!. . G < ~ a ~ ~ ~ .' ~,.J\'!\}\~!Z ~ ~ ' Ill'!! ~ ' 31 / . 7JiJJf.:' :J I \) Y \-JL I" "- ----- ()' -. -~~ ~fJ 2<ir 0" ..\'j~\ ~ C .. -f'J 33-0' f- L ~ " ~ ) " J "n , :-IT;~'''' ~ I) ,J~<J :-\~f. ~. . : :n~i< 0) .- f; ~ ;e1-~~"I' II'~" -- \ __ I- b);;..2. J""""I I=>- Y :, ---.1- -+ . i- i R-..,.-: ~ 1- -!':jc=r -' lot r I c I , , . b.. ,-I :.-.. r' ~:= r- e \ \" I I I . _ I' L.I1 -11' < --i" . ~ \.~ . 7 ~ _ ~7 ! \. II i - i , .1 --1 '. H ! _- . IlIlT ~ .., _ _ 1_ -t r=r " t'Jl..,Lft. _ ,_ L- a....t.... r r- ';/ ~ ! f-: , ~ " b... . ." ....., .~. J 'f'1p ~ !.. . '~ __ III. l 'T=;o! . :...- . _ _ -t Fe ~, V ,Ill .~ ~ e-.... _:.c.:, ~ ~... ~. .. ,.:...-~ .- p...:;. ~ . ";' l!.c.,... ,~ ..~ ' . ~r. - ~ :> rQ. ,- ,,' = I . ' . .: " ' ' .c. T .- "10, II ,,- "\ ~ Ar-.(...." T . ,\ ~ f ~ ~~ >-- ~ = '-: 'r" (j '1 tl1 ~ - t. I-=-"::' '.:... '" - 1/ -:;;: '. '" - "'- r- ~-C- ~li: ~ ~ -1\ - ~f - 1- I..d ~. -; 1-1 .~ ~ ~Go.., _ .; ~ ~, ~. . .~ lf4g' ~ r' . " ..... I, --'I .\ I)' .'" Ib~ ~~.:\' ._' -'1:~ 1\ ;~ \ , ..ll'\ '!1lIIi - .llEEF.' \ ~~ . . ~_I =r~ I,~,?;-A .1' ~ , ~I 'T" """I ~I'~ U "'. -#i ' . .-r ~ . =. ~ ~' ~ . c) B-= th. ' .., .,'~ ,U-,=-, .r.... ~, ,B= =.:;1' L. ;?}-I - '. . l~ "- n U :> ~ ' , IJt= :::l L ..11 ~ - I I -t cj ~ \~ \J ~~ ~~ ~~ ~a . ~ tj ~ Lr; t V' \1' II )' 1\ cD L 6- ------- ~ ",'~1 <i"- }-.l I .. ~& ~TJ r_r) _ r\ L' -0i\ if-- ~ 3- ~ l/ r r{ ~~~,Jl ~ '- . G:::'.....~\ \ -~ ~- ~~rl./ ""- ., '--~ I! '-;: u. ,:-=-' ",-- I I \ I =r....I '11;1 . ,:; '1 ; · J..~'r I".,I~ ." ...;::: -r;;:::T l..'l:: l T'--' r ;"1 j .1 -eel j ~i --_-'-'1 ~:1 ,. ',:'::-:-:; .~ 'i I~ ,\ I ;L IlUJ T- ..l ,-t > T,.-f U r .,-, - . ...~ .-.,-: =~ -"1 ~ =-~ ~' II~ '''If M !: c L .--0 I _/ ( C\\1 LEi~ ~F~ ~~ <~ ~~ ~~ \ I~ IF L \] ", ' ~ (1\ l~ r; ~ ~. <- l ~ .,- \J 0 b L' j" \h IJ N flJ\ ~ 0 ~ ~.fi ~~ < ~r' J2 L J_M~(jlL.L 9? -:11-0 Z ~ F _}1l ~ ~i~ ~R IJ L\f' E Z~ ~ ~~ll ~T % ~ ~-r>- ~ ~. \J ~ ~ t~ ni ~ :) IJ ~ o z )> ~ \))- p 6~ ~ \ l~ =+ ~ ~ L _r-'\- c. ~ L f"I::' ~ 'V <i' C" Cll-g ill f)~ c 9lf6 K' fTl // I I o - c-. ) [';.' , ~ ',. I ,~o\ I " -';36-0 \,\ r '6" <( -70 S-1?U o' (r 7J 2- L \J " ." 11 11 : I / / / \ ,"I tf'I. .Jj - l- ~(y ..I _ -I - ;~ ~f J)rr\ t~ l ~:,-. .,. , . ~:''''TI~c::;", .'.....'..... "(. 00" , " ~. ~. 1 1"- ~~ . I, i! . , 'I \ I J &~~ ,- ~ ffi .t~r Wl-t ~tr\ ~-4 ~f'\) J-iE lJ{}\ lJ ~_I:"\- (J...; % In E!),: C- m2- 6 (llm t~ 1r z~ 5-F 9: J ~j :L ~ rv ~ N .:A ]) U\ ~ \) 9' (1"1 Q r t 'L ~ ..J\ - ( r L- L -f) '"" '\ , ~Q~~ ,,<:.... ~p~l ll~i i ~~ go \'ii~I~ ~ " ~~ t~ J{- ( C-l 7V 9" r ~ ~-5!l ~ -i r r' .. '. .I f11 ~ L \S\ [1l .. V 0 :i\ , j: \J' :I ~~ t- ~ (11 " . () \) r ~\)tc ~ oS' ~ }/' -;: \J r L- Or (, (\ " ,I .-- 0'\ y '}J ~ r-- ,...4 ~ .-l-\ CITY OF ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of November 8, 2006 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW Planning Action #2006-00612 Request for a Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman 51. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #391E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: SiskiyouLLC/James Batzer Recommendation to Planning Commission: Recommend Approval (Unanimous) of the Site Review with the following design recommendations: · Bump out the 5-foot Helman Street sidewalk to the curb beginning just past the plaza entry and continue to the Van Ness comer. Add a 10-foot planting buffer between the corner building and the sidewalk to soften the mass and bulk of the west wall and accentuate the entry. It would also make it easier for pedestrians to exit cars parked on Helman Street. · Provide exterior design details and material and color samples to full Historic Commission for approval prior to submitting for the Building Permit Community Development 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/488-5305 Fax: 541~488-6006 TTY: 800/735-2900 'l r: ' , J' r'~t1~r ~f 'Al ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW November 9, 2006 PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1 E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Recommendation: 1) That the street tree root barriers shall be installed laterally along the sidewalk, the building and the street. 2) That the Tree Commission supports the proposed meander of the sidewalk to increase the planting area at the corner of Van Ness & Helman streets. , I'. "'-1 i '. . . J ,,_. f ~("~;!,,' Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 G~ CITY OF ASHLAND - - , :_-:=.~ ~~~~~-: .~~- ~~~ ~- ~~ - .~ . I"!::""l;.- . .-." '~"~":"'.""'" .~.....:~::-~. :;--,d ~.' "-- .1 ~ . '-~ I, i , 1111 ill. " '11-- 't!i ~ -.~ ..... 0~ (" 7 \ , . '\ ~ 11 ,II I t 'ill'll '" J' '~ "I <l ~ ,':): ~ ~ I 1 p .""... CVl.~?-~..,.., '- .. ~..'" '.,'". ~ 1~ . __,. ._ ~~7 _'-', _._~_ I , {''''J1'': t , 4, II ,.1, 'i . '" ' 1 1 f J 1 I ~~ '" 11 &1 ~, .,..,...,.., Owner's Statement Philosophy: Major events of my life have always been guided by philosophy. I first came to Ashland in the 1960's because my goal was to help foster world peace and understanding not the accumulation of material things that my friends in Medford wanted. I found a like-minded community here in Ashland. After 35 years in the construction industry, (the last 15 as an environmental consultant) I want to do something environmentally sound and positive for the community. Our scientists tells us that we have about ten years to reduce our use of greenhouse gases or drastic effects of global warming will occur. Energy to heat and cool buildings account for 48% of the energy use in America, autos use 37%. The American Institute of Architects have effected the 2030 Challenge which has set a goal to reduce our energy use to the 1970 levels by the year 2030. In practical terms this means to reduce the energy load of all buildings by 50%. I intend to meet that goal. I want to be example of what we as a community can do. The last 2 decades have seen a net loss of jobs leaving Ashland, especially middle income sector. This has affected our community in three ways. The loss of tax revenue has put a burden on our schools and the support needed is placed heavily on the retired sector. Young families can't afford to live here. Two schools have closed, we are becoming less diversified than a healthy community needs to be.. I want to encourage healthy development of new businesses in the computer software and bio- sciences. Businesses that will not deplete our quality of life. The final effect is that we are driving cars more. The reality is that those who can afford to live here drive to Medford to work. Those who have service jobs here drive from the more affordable areas. ODOT has estimated the daily average of vehicle trips between Medford and Ashland at 30,000. (See Oregon.gov/ODOT). Figuring 15,000 vehicles@ 1500# of CO/year. We as a community are producing roughly 22.5 million pounds of CO per year. We can do better. We can reconsider how we live and our relationship to cars. (One side note, by creating a society where everyone drives we are in a sense supporting the WalMarts, Wincos and Costcos who take away customers from local businesses). Cars in my belief are the major hindrance to our quality oflife. I want to re-introduce the idea of living in a village, where you Jive where you work. I want to encourage the idea that you can walk to the store, restaurant, or see a play without getting in a car.( I personally walk 4 miles every day). This proposal includes free electricity for electric cars. I am currently building a prototype of a commuter car. I am recycling a 15 yr old car, (Volkswagen cabriolet) replacing the gas engine with an electric motor. It will have a range of 50 miles. It's batteries will be charged from solar panels. The goal is have the car pay for itself in 5 years by not needing to fill-up, plus it has zero emissions. I believe we as a community can cut our emissions from cars by 50% in 10 years. Think about it. We have only a ten year window. Design: The design of this project is based on an Italian 9th century village. People live where they work. Their homes are within walking distance to the market, local shops and 69 " i'" I, -j; . ~, , . , restaurants and such. By having common walls we can reduce the energy needs of both. We also can reduce the total costs of construction, to make spaces for new businesses more affordable. This project will use green building practices. I define green by the following concepts: 1. The current building will be recycled at least 95%. 2. No trees will be cut unnecessarily. The only wood components needed are some roof framing, window and door trim and some flooring. These can obtained from wood reclamation centers and certified renewable forests. 3. The major components will be IeF blocks, concrete floors, high yield steel windows and steel framing and roofs. The combination of these will reduce energy load by a huge margin. 4. Rain-water runoff will be collected in a underground water tank and reused for irrigation, 5. Solar hot water units will be used in conjunction with on-demand gas water heaters, 6. The project is committed to participate in the city's community solar project to offset energy needs with energy production see: Larry Giardina Conservation Analyst City of Ashland 541 552-2065 qiardin@ashland.or.us 7 . Solar collectors will provide shade at the plaza and power to run the fountain pumps and low voltage common lights. 8. Low voltage lighting and energy star appliances will be used throughout the project. 9. Trees and roof overhangs will provide shade to reduce energy load and soften the visual aspects of the building. 10. Window and vent placement will be set to work with the natural wind currents to cool the building during the summer and passively heat the building during winter. 11. We will eliminate the use of toxic chemicals. In conclusion, It is my goal to build a socially responsible building that will recognize the need to reduce greenhouse gases, offer opportunities for good jobs, consider alternatives in transportation and create living and working spaces that are healthy and respect the human element. Sincerely, ,.<./1 c;Y~ }{ &~t? t I., 70 '1' "" , . :::Proj~~l,!l November 28, 2006 To whom it may concernr I am writing in strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the corner of Helman and VanNess. I have been working as an interested business space renter with Jim on his project for almost two years. Sadly I had to make the choice to move my business outside of Ashland due in part to the delays in the planning process and unknown nature of timing from this project. I shake my head thinking of this incredibly long process and that there still is not an end in site for him. I could not simply wait for you to support this project. It took too long, had no end in sight, and I had to make another move. But that doesn't mean I still don't support the project. In fact I'm more supportive of it than ever. We can't afford to lose business in Ashland. His ideas around changing the neighborhood that borders Ashland's downtown from an industrial eyesore into one where both people can live and business's can thrive is the right direction for Ashland. The spaces that have been designed are ln line with the values we as a community seek. When I was the founding chair of the Chamber of Commerce's/City of Ashland joint committee on Economic Sustainability, we defined our core values, of which this project directly is in line with. Three of the most important are: · Clean Industry. · High Paying Positions. · pedestrian Friendly. ... Q) c Take a look at the companies we want to keep. TreeStar, Megalodon and Plexis. > Q) "0 .0 Q) ~ i '~ 340 A Street Building 1 Ashland, Oregon 97520 o 541 488 1702 0 541 488 1851 0 projecta.com 1 of 2 They eet these values and they are all growing (hiring more people) and needing larger space. Plexis acquired a building that sent tenants out looking for more space. :::Pro~.ect A ... . . solutions engineered with passion Employees of these value based firms desire high tech space within walking distance of downtown plaza. As the downtown core is defined, it's time for you to look to the peripheral and plan for its change to meet the needs and values of the community. Employers are faced with large office rent increases. Lack of available office space has helped create a sad situation. Employers are paying more for space, which drives them away from downtown zone, creating more traffic, or out of town completely. My rent in Ashland went from $.80 a SQFT to over $2.55 a SQFT in the time I had offices in Ashland. Mixed use space is the best way to accomplish lower rent for businesses. I applaud Jim Batzer for his efforts and encourage you to approve his plan. · The historic commission is in support of his design, he has made modifications several times to gain their approval. · His Green Building and Demolition methods will be a model for all other projects in the community. · The need for more office space must be addressed. We need to work together to keep the employers here. The delays have already cost you one employer in town. Please do not delay this project any further. c Sincerely, ~~ Jim Teec~-=- - ~ President & CEO Project A, inc. www ~~(::~j ec:_~~~_~c:>~ jim@ProjectA.com .... (lJ c 541-488-1702 x 106 > (lJ "0 New Address: 5350 HWY 66r Ashland, Oregon, 97520 .n (lJ 3: 340 A Street Building 1 Ashland, Oregon 97520 o 541 488 1702 0 541 488 1851 0 projecta.com 2 of 2 7,;L- ~)~ ~ 385 Williamson Way Ashland, OR 97520 PLEXIS PlJOllc: 541.494.2500 Fax: 541.482.8396 T(fi'cc: 877. 475.3947 Healthcare Systems, Inc. "'''''''. plexisweb.com October 10, 2006 Community Development Building c/o Planning Department 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to express support for the mixed-use project on Helman and VanNess Streets. I am seriously considering those spaces that support office space as well as residences for our visiting employees and clients for the ongoing expansion of Pie xis Health Care Systems. Regards, ~~t CEO and President JY:akt t\~ . . 76 I ., i J ~. ,"; Graham Lewis 1284 Orchid 8t. Ashland, Oregon 97520 TO: Various Ashland Officials I write in support of the project Jim Batzer proposes on the Pyramid Juice site, Helman and Van Ness. This development is what Ashland has said we want. Green, mixed use, the latest technology including solar electricity (in partnership with the city) solar hot water, passive solar, high efficiency appliances and windows, reuse rainwater for irrigation, free electricity for electric cars, etc. Residents and employees may walk to theater, restaurants, Lithia Park. The project meets zone codes, historical commission approval, etc. In any week I pass this intersection at least four times. The comer is an eyesore. The elevation drawings show a beautiful addition that is compatible with the neighborhood. The property will be an asset to the neighborhood when complete. Our city commissions, staff, and elected officials have to be supportive of the projects you continue to say you want. Why might you not approve this wonderful addition to a blighted area of Ashland? Loo~~ ~~LeW1S Business Person & Resident 541.292.0776 ~, ' I ~: I 11- ]!" ' 5'.1. .~.I;;"T.Rb.J.1T5 Office: 50 Third 51 Mail: PO Box 12 Ashland, OR 97520 541-201-0010 11/28106 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I would like to express my support of Mr. James Batzer's plan to redevelop the Pyramid Juice property located at 160 Helman Street. There is currently a need for office, retail, and residential space. Rates of vacancy have been going down, driving up rent rates. Mr. Batzer's plan for a mixed-use development would create opportunities for small businesses by increasing the availability of space in Ashland, This will have little impact on the neighborhood as owners or employees could both live and work at the site. I manage many properties in the neighborhood and the improvement of this property could provide amenities and services that would benefit my tenants. In addition, the existing building is an eyesore that is inconsistent with the architecture of nearby properties. The proposed design would complement the three story Ashland Creek Condominiums and the four story Plaza Inn. A three-story building would provide for the most efficient use of the property, enabling the owner to charge a lower rate of rent per square foot than would be possible with a smaller building on the same site. The design of the proposed building promotes sustainability through responsible energy use and is aesthetically pleasing. Some neighborhood residents have opposed this project on the basis that the reconfiguration of the sidewalk would endanger pedestrians and cyclists. The current use of the property as an industrial site promotes truck traffic which is much more dangerous than a sidewalk without a park strip. Also, I hope that the commission would discourage bicycle riders from using the sidewalks instead of the street, as that would indeed endanger pedestrians. I recommend that you consider the numerous attributes of Mr. Batzer's plan and approve the application to develop this property. It will surely benefit the community. 75' i '~ i "1 ~ ; _I' \~ : l I ~ , ; NA1U~L6 OF ASHLAND ~.. ~~ C, ot---F'Dh(W\tlJ ('1--- 0'k Kcl(Y(Cd\ Sh-CCr-(bpJ- Ill. ''ll'': . _ ~, ;it.-=-~ As V- D\A.\\ne<;5 GW'lu lY\ AihlLu,J) WLJ8l(cc.u-S ,T- \.w.Ad \\'l-c -\G uJ'vLR <-tillS let1u- (VI ~to+-<fi~ ~e.{/Y\WI ~a.J-- (1-o~' ,.------.., . J-5~'-tI,-C. cJcJcl~ \"'- H'iL1.(US\0 u---ho i\~k el[~ Ul'ilUn In V)'\.u,~cQ ~ (" u-ccJcl\5 Ufscde.... dcvJ~u--+- ~ :L ~l '11'\1'- ('l'~ lY\ \1 b.o-d{ h -{;U'Yl W ~ ~'Z-- cYue..\c,y;u'"S \ l t -L CS\ ~ huJ-2.cr uA,O hCJ--UC ~ ~ \Jl'\l~ ~'+hG c.~W'L~ Cc\' ~- ~\l<)r\(M\') CJC-l\'L\c(Jr\~ rlJW .T~d h.ls(ftVfd- woJc \ bL CJI Cu'Y\~~ n S c.. If e.j- -tv 't1--e- C L ~ ut- (t\ Il CW\..o :ITlf~-'1 cv-J-D\(\ 1U-frrff ~l~ l~' ~lS ~ I ~W\l~W, ~ 110 L1THIA WAY I ASHLAND, DR 97520 I ~\L, ~(u:...( ( 541 . 488 . 3512 I FAX 541 7 ~ . 488 . 8028 ""It f 'ftpchanled/)'o.l'.J:s/ Found in the Finest Homes () I S () II I II I It l' 0 It I (. 0 :"I; To Whom It May Concern, The A Street Market Place was recently sold and left us, the Enchanted Florist, wondering where we move to next. Leslie, my wife, and I went searching for a new location that had better parking, lower rent and a location that matched our tastes and philosophy of a healthy environmental practice. One morning on my way to the florist, I noticed a sign on the comer of VanNess and Helman announcing a new building that was in the process of getting their plan approved. I contacted the developers to find more information about the project and was presently surprise to hear about the great parking that would be available, the lower rent cost and that the building was very green. Being green, meaning environmentally conscious, is important to the Enchanted Florist. For two years in a row now, according to the two largest local organic floral farms, LeMera and Fry Family Farm, we have bought more than any other florist in Southern Oregon. We strive to work with free-trade organization and other farms that have like practices. It is important that we, the Enchanted Florist, finds a landlord who also shares our progressive thinking when it comes to fair practice and who is also pro-green. In conclusion, with a Bachelor of Science degree at the Southern Oregon University, with an emphasis in planning I can understand maintaining a low growth rate here in Ashland, but please consider those developers who are surpassing the regulations to be more environmentally responsible. In highest Regards, Brandon Kirkland- CEO Enchanted Florist www.chicfloral.com r,;,.: ''; /" 77 [J L", ~ . t :;;),tr,' ,; f.......;', Gabriel Lipper 923-1 Be/view ave. Ashland OR, 97520 Phone (5-11) 552-0997 artist@,artoff!abrie/.com November 28, 2006 To whom it may concern, My name is Gabriel Lipper a long-term Ashland resident and concerned citizen. The buildings planned for Helman and Van Ness represent a beautiful vision for Ashland's future. Mr. Batzer's plans demonstrate a willingness to blend with local neighborhoods while expanding Ashland's potential for higher density housing and small business. He's shown a desire to lead as a builder by introducing new energy efficient ideas into his designs along with open spaces. I've been following your meetings, 'and I believe strongly that these plans are up to Ashland's standards. This building is properly zoned and is beautifully designed with respect to its historic surroundings. As Ashland grows, let it be for the better. This plan is an improvement over the existing structures, and a fine addition to our community. <"""?'t"', , c;-- "7:-'- ,'~'.. ;:;J; --0~J'-- ~~:.:.. I, l',\. 7<1 I'll. - r > rill-.l..r" . '\..J. Page 1 of3 Susan Yates - Re: My strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the comer of Helman and V anN ess From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Graham Lewis <glewis@mind.net> Jim Teece <jim@projecta.com> 11/2812006 8:26 PM Re: My strong support of Jim Batz~r's project, on the comer of Helman and VanNess <yatess@ashland.or.us> Graham Lewis 1284 Orchid St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Here's my addition, Graham TO: Various Ashland Officials I write in support of the project Jim Batzer proposes on the Pyramid Juice site, Helman and Van Ness. This development is what Ashland has said we want. Green, mixed use, the latest technology including solar electricity (in partnership with the city) solar hot water, passive solar, high efficiency appliances and windows, reuse rainwater for irrigation, free electricity for electric cars, etc. Residents and employees may walk to theater, restaurants, Lithia Park. The project meets zone codes, historical commission approval, etc. In any week I pass this intersection at least four times. The comer is an eyesore. The elevation drawings show a beautiful addition that is compatible with the neighborhood. The property will be an asset to the neighborhood when complete. Our city commissions, staff, and elected officials have to be supportive of the projects you continue to say you want. Why might you not approve this wonderful addition to a blighted area of Ashland? Looking Forward, Graham Lewis Business Person & Resident 541.292.0776 Jim Teece wrote: To whom it may concern, I am writing in strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the corner of Helman and VanNess. I have been working as an interested business space renter with Jim on 19 file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 11/29/2006 III -----y---------- Page 2 of3 his project for almost two years. Sadly I had to make the choice to move my business outside of Ashland due in part to the delays in the planning process and unknown nature of timing from this project. I shake my head thinking of this incredibly long process and that there still is not an end in site for him. I could not simply wait for you to support this project. It took too long, had no end in sight, and I had to make another move. But that doesn't mean I still don't support the project. In fact I'm more supportive of it than ever. We can't afford to lose business in Ashland. His ideas around changing the neighborhood that borders Ashland's downtown from an industrial eyesore into one where both people can live and business's can thrive is the right direction for Ashland. The spaces that have been designed are in line with the values we as a community seek. When I was the founding chair of the Chamber of Commerce's/City of Ashland joint committee on Economic Sustainability, we defined our core values, of which this project directly is in line with. Three of the most important are: * Clean Industry. High Paying Positions. Pedestrian Friendly. * * Take a look at the companies we want to keep. TreeStar, Megalodon and Plexis. They meet these values and they are all growing (hiring more people) and needing larger space. Plexis acquired a building that sent tenants out looking for more space. Employees of these value based firms desire high tech space within walking distance of downtown plaza. As the downtown core is defined, it's time for you to look to the peripheral and plan for its change to meet the needs and values of the community. Employers are faced with large office rent increases. Lack of available office space has helped create a sad-situation. Employers are paying more for space, which drives them away from downtown zone, creating more traffic, or out of town completely. My rent in Ashland went from $.80 a SQFT to over $2.55 a SQFT in the time I had offices in Ashland. Mixed use space is the best way to accomplish lower rent for businesses. I applaud Jim Batzer for his efforts and encourage you to approve his plan. * The historic commission is in support of his design, he has made modifications several times to gain their approval. * His Green Building and Demolition methods will be a model for all other projects in the community. * The need for more office space must be addressed. We need to work together to keep the employers here. 80 file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM 11129/2006 --rr --.----- The delays have already cost you one employer in town. Please do not delay this project any further. Sincerely, Jim Teece President & CEO Project A, inc. www.Pro-jectA.com -jim@Pro-jectA.com 541-488-1702 x 106 ~I file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM Page 3 of3 11/2912006 Page 1 of2 Susan Yates - My strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the comer of Helman and VanNess From: To: Date: Subject: "Jim Teece" <jim@projecta.com> <yatess@ashland.or.us> 11/28120064:23 PM My strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the comer of Helman and VanNess To whom it may concern, I am writing in strong support of Jim Batzer's project, on the corner of Helman and VanNess. I have been working as an inter~sted business space renter with Jim on his project for almost two years. Sadly I had to make the choice to move my business outside of Ashland due in part to the delays in the planning process and unknown nature of timing from this project. I shake my head thinking of this incredibly long process and that there still is not an end in site for him. I could not simply wait for you to support this project. It took too long, had no end in sight, and I had to make another move. But that doesn't mean I still don't support the project. In fact I'm more supportive of it than ever. We can't afford to lose business in Ashland. His ideas around changing the neighborhood that borders Ashland's downtown from an industrial eyesore into one where both people can live and business's can thrive is the right direction for Ashland. The spaces that have been designed are in line with the values we as a community seek. When I was the founding chair of the Chamber of Commerce's/City of Ashland joint committee on Economic Sustainability, we defined our core values, of which this project directly is in line with. Three of the most important are: * Clean Industry. High Paying Positions. Pedestrian Friendly. * * Take a look at the companies we want to keep. TreeStar, Megalodon and Plexis. They meet these values and they are all growing (hiring more people) and needing larger space. Plexis acquired a building that sent tenants out looking for more space. Employees of these value based firms desire high tech space within walking distance of downtown plaza. As the downtown core is define~, it's time for you to look to the peripheral and plan for its change to meet the needs and values of the community. Employers are faced with large office rent increases. Lack of available office space has helped create a sad situation. Employers are paying more for space, which drives them away from downtown zone, creating more traffic, or out of town completely. My rent in Ashland went from $.80 a SQFT to over $2.55 a SQFT in the ~;;L- file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 11/29/2006 Page 2 of2 time I had offices in Ashland. Mixed use space is the best way to accomplish lower rent for businesses. I applaud Jim Batzer for his efforts and encourage you to approve his plan. * The historic commission is in support of his design, he has made modifications several times to gain their appro~al. * His Green Building and Demolition methods will be a model for all other projects in the community. * The need for more office space must be addressed. We need to work together to keep the employers here. The delays have already cost you one employer in town. Please do not delay this project any further. Sincerely, Jim Teece President & CEO Project A, inc. www.Pro4ectA.com jim@ProjectA.com 541-488-1702 x 106 <1; file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 11/2912006 ---.r-r Page 1 of5 Susan Yates - PA 2006-0612,160 Helman St, Record Supplement From: To: Art Bullock <ashlandconstitution@yahoo.com> Bill Molnar <bill@ashland.or.us>, Bill Molnar <molnarb@ashland.or.us>, Maria Harris <harrism@ashland.or.us>, Susan Yates <yatess@ashland.or.us>, Joanne Haddad <joannehad@ao1.com> 11/22120064:05 PM P A 2006-0612, 160 Helman St, Record Supplement Date: Subject: PC and PD staff, Below is a record supplement for PA 2006-0612, accompanied by a signed petition from neighbors opposed to the project's bulk and scale, inadequate setback, and improper sidewalk. All information on the petition is confidential to the fullest extent allowed by Oregon's Public Records Law and other laws. The signed petition showing addresses, and a separate copy with redacted addresses, are attached. The redacted petition should be used for records shown as public records. Thank you. Respectfully, Art Bullock Record Supplement For Planning Action 2006-0612: Pyramid Juice Site, 160 Helman St by: Art Bullock, Ron Davies, Joanne Haddad Unresolved Problems Warrant Application Denial Planning Commission (PC) is asked to deny the application as submitted for the following reasons. 1. Bulk and scale is too large for the neighborhood. The buildings are inappropriate bulk and scale for the neighborhood. The proposed 3-story buildings would completely dwarf the small historic homes across the street, built 100 years go. This historic residential neighborhood would be irreparably harmed by two 3-story buildings overshadowing their homes. The buildings are too high for this neighborhood and situation. Applicant speaks of the building being a transition, when in fact, the lack of transition is the problem. No other similar 3-story buildings are anywhere in the area. There IS no transition. Two stories would transition from employment zone to primarily I-story residential houses across the street. PC should deny the application based upon bulk and scale until building is redesigned to be no more than 2 stories high. 2. Setback is too short. At the first hearing, staff, public, and PC presented and discussed the setback issue. Proposed buildings didn't respect setback required for the situation, the houses across the street and beside it, or other buildings between them and Main St. Failure to allow adequate setback produces an 'in-your-face' building character that's unfriendly to pedestrians and neighborhood. PC specifically asked applicant if they could adjust the building setback; applicant said they could. Applicant explained they would keep the same square footage and reduce the gap between the 2 proposed buildings. For that redesign and other issues, PC continued the hearing. Assurances without follow-up. At the next hearing, applicant said they had raised the building 1.25' and had NOT changed the setback. Applicant testimony and record did not directly deal with the issue of why a smaller building could not be designed to accommodate the needed setback. Applicant's assurances during the first hearing that they were willing to work with PC to accommodate the setback had evaporated by the second hearing, with applicant clinging to the old setback, using an inadequate explanation about window alignment and similar issues. There's no reason these buildings can't be redesigned to be 2-story transition buildings, with the ~4- file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOI.HTM 11/22/2006 Page 2 of5 required setback and park row. Applicant wants to keep the same setback and square footage, which maximizes revenues at the expense of the public interests. PC should deny the application until the applicant complies with PC's and neighborhood's request to have an appropriate setback, to which the applicant has already agreed and not complied. 3. Sidewalk and park row are improper. The site currently has a sidewalk and trees in a park row ('planting strip'). The park row on Helman St extends from Van Ness St to Main St. Proposal revision. Applicant originally proposed a park row and 8' sidewalk. Instead of moving the building back to accommodate the required setback, applicant's revision proposed to move the sidewalk farther away from the building by decreasing the sidewalk from 8' to 5' and eliminating the park row, jamming the thinner sidewalk against the curb. Revision is unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists. This revision is a clear injury to the public interest of maintaining a pedestrian-friendly and bicyclist-friendly street. As the record shows, it's already a difficult street to bicycle, because of narrow 2-sided parking, no bicycle path, and tour buses and oversized vehicles using Helman Street as their near-downtown parking spots. As a result, some people bicycle on the sidewalk. By pushing the sidewalk to the curb, PC endangers sidewalk bicyclists coming down Helman St by car doors opening into them. Given that rear parking will be a hassle, people will park on the street in front, particularly visitors. Helman St will have more active parking turnover during the day, increasing car-pedestrian and car-bicyclist conflicts. PC should also be aware that some homes across from the proposed development are so old they have no driveways, because they pre-dated cars. Homeowners and property owners have to park in the street. NOT a meandering sidewalk. Applicant improperly claimed the sidewalk was meandering. It is not. A meandering sidewalk changed directions and curves several times in a park-like pattern. A truly meandering sidewalk is pedestrian friendly, and ajoy to walk. This sidewalk does not meander. It goes from its current position, with a park row, to its proposed position adjacent to the street and parking cars. It goes against the curb and stays there, which means it is NOT a meandering sidewalk. Applicant claimed the meandering sidewalk came from the Historic Commission, yet neighbors said Mark Knox had proposed it in the second neighborhood meeting. The changed design is more dangerous. The prior design was much safer, with an 8' sidewalk and 3' park row with trees and plants. This is a visual and physical buffer between car (car doors and loading/unloading) and pedestrians/bicyclists. Causes problems for Safe Route To School Program. This unsafe design is an even bigger problem when you consider the work to make Helman St a Safe Route To School street. Helman Elementary School entrance is on Helman St. Now that Briscoe School is closed, children who used to walk/bike to Briscoe could walk/bike to Helman School. To make this feasible and adequately safe, the key is a safe crossing across Main St (which we have at Helman St) and a safe collector street to the school (which we could have on Helman St). To encourage and allow parents to walk/bike with their kids to Helman Elementary School, and allow older children to bike to school alone and in small groups, PC needs to maintain and enhance a child-friendly sidewalk. This means having room for a child to bicycle on the sidewalk to school, without being endangered by car doors opening in front of them by office workers rushing to work and visitors unaccustomed to the area. Narrowing the proposed sidewalk and jamming it against the curb pushes more cars in the street as parents drive kids to school. If you've seen the needless traffic jams in front of Ashland schools as parents drive children a few blocks, you know the importance of kids walking and biking to school: getting exercise, learning skills of independence and navigation, reducing childhood obesity, and reducing unnecessary congestion and pollution. PC should not knowingly allow designs for sidewalks to school to be unfriendly to children and parents. Solution. The proposed building invades the setback line for existing buildings on Helman St, and application should be denied as submitted. PC shouldn't narrow the sidewalk and push it to the curb in a misdirected attempt to push pedestrians away from buildings with inadequate setback. The solution is to keep current trees and park row, keep the originally proposed 8' sidewalk, and require the building facade to align with existing buildings between them and Main Street and homes across the street. The <;~ file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 11/22/2006 Page 3 of5 solution is to redesign a smaller building with an adequate setback, not move the sidewalk to give the appearance of a larger setback. 4. Neighborhood opposes the design as inappropriate and not integrated into the neighborhood. Applicant claimed in the record that following 2 neighborhood meetings, neighbors were okay with the project. As you can see by the attached signed petition, neighbors are opposed to this project.. Almost every neighbor contacted was against the 3-story buildings as dwarfing 100-year old homes across the street, changing the historic character of the neighborhood, and failing to provide appropriate setback, sidewalk, and park row. The neighborhood would probably welcome the project on a smaller scale, though NOT as 3-story buildings. 3-story buildings problem. The 3-story buildings are so high, they'll change the character of the street, and block the morning sun for homes they'll overshadow. They'll also block view from homes up the street looking across the valley. The bulk and scale of these office buildings, their invasion of setback to increase square footage, and narrowing and moving the sidewalk to the curb combine to make these buildings neighborhood-unfriendly. Property owners on Helman St bought small, historic homes built in the 1800s and early 1900s. They're small, mostly I-story with large setback, large front yards, porches, and a welcoming, neighborly feel. The proposed office buildings have none of these characteristics. After seeing building design and developer's lack of responsiveness, one property owner concluded they would not live across from such a building. Owners of 100-year homes are losing the sunrise, the early morning sun, their view of the mountains, and losing the character of their neighborhood by a building that's too big for the lot, too high for the neighborhood, and too close to the street. Past problems with this property. PC should be aware that this property has a history of not complying with El code and CUPs. Enforcement of the code and CUP is rarely done. 5. Failure to prove calculations for adequate employment area. Since this building is in an employment zone, the 50%/65% employment area requirements apply. Applicant claimed their buildings satisfied 50%/65% requirements, yet failed to show calculations supporting how those percentages would be met. After public hearing testimony closed, applicant claimed a portion of the parking lot had been included without showing what portion. Since the burden of proof for calculations is on the applicant, and has not been adequately presented, application should be denied as submitted. Employment zones are designed to increase living wage jobs, and are being bypassed in Ashland to build more lucrative condominiums. The spirit and letter of the law--to maintain E-l employment zone to create jobs--should be maintained. 6. The special-case building on Van Ness is being used improperly as precedent. The building across Van Ness that the applicant repeatedly used as precedent was a special-case situation, on a small sliver ofland between the street and railroad on a rapid incline street, with no next-door neighbors. That building does not set precedent for setback, or bulk and scale, or character, or entrance because of its narrowness and site limitations. That building was a special case, not an E 1 precedent. Procedural Errors PC needs to correct continuing procedural and record errors. 1. Last-minute substantive submissions. PC continues to have a problem with last minute and at- the-meeting substantive applicant submissions that deny the public's right to review and rebut. Documents given to PC were not in the public records or made available to the public at the hearing. Photographs were given to PC without showing them on the document camera. 2. New data after public testimony. Applicant repeated the ongoing error of providing new data after public testimony. This time it was done in square footage calculations verbally presented without written documents, and in providing other new information in answering PC questions. ~& file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.HTM 11/22/2006 Page 4 of5 3. Denial of access to the public record the day of the hearing. Planning Dept continues to deny access to the only existing copy of the public record on the day of the hearing by removing it from the Planning Building. Bill Molnar and Maria Harris physically take the only existing copy of the public record to the 1 pm Hearings Board meeting, though that particular Planning Action is not on the agenda. This makes it possible for the developer to make last-minute submissions to the Planning Dept the morning of the public hearing, and for no member of the public to be able to see it anytime that afternoon, before the hearing. 4. Rebuttal period turned into negotiation session. PC continues to approach the rebuttal period as a 2-way discussion between PC and developer. PC apparently feels that with pesky public testimony out ofthe way, PC and developer can talk without public response. PC continues to ask the applicant questions soliciting new information NOT in the record. Even PC's request of the applicant at the first hearing, to redesign the building to accommodate the required setback, elicited information not in the record. Negotiating with the developer during the rebuttal period is a continuing legal error that should be stopped. 5. PC request and pressure for continuance. City attorney Mike Franell established that it's inappropriate for PC to request a continuance. It's only appropriate for the applicant to volunteer the continuance. Yet PC initiated and pressured the applicant to allow the continuance. PC's Refusal To Deal With Procedural Errors 1. Forcing the 7-day record extension. PC's refusal to deal with multiple procedural errors forces the request for a 7-day record extension, just to see what hasn't been shown and to have time to consider it and rebut it. Two parties independently tried to review this application the afternoon of the hearing and both were denied access. PC's refusal to correct the procedural errors means the 7 -day extension may become the norm. Since assistant city attorney Richard Appicello required PC to keep the record open until the following Wed at 5pm, and to give the applicant 7 more days beyond that, the 15 days extension goes beyond the regularly scheduled study session on the 4th Tuesday. This forces the hearing at the earliest to the second Tuesday of the next month. Thus 7-day extensions will regularly add 1 month to an already burdensome process. This needless extension is only required because PC refuses to correct obvious procedural errors that deny the right to review and rebut applicant submissions in the public record. 2. Solution to procedural errors. The solution is not to perpetuate procedural errors and pressure applicant for a continuance. The solution is to: (1) Put all documents in the public record, including the staff report, well in advance of the hearing to allow review and rebuttaL (2) Require that the public record always be available when the Planning Dept is open, with the exception of the public hearing on that application. (3) Put the public record online so it's available 24-7 without staff having to manage public requests. (4) Require that any document shown to PC at the public hearing be shown on the document camera to attendees and TV audience so everyone gets the same information as PC and at the same time. Summary And Conclusion Private interests. Because ofland values and condominium prices, Ashland continues to face developers' push to maximize revenue at the expense of public interests. Developers make the most money with large, imposing, squarish buildings that go unacceptably high and push to the curb, with as many condominiums as possible. Ashland developers have a strong financial interest to maximize square footage, which leads them to design 3-story office buildings in a residential neighborhood, and <21 file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 1.HTM 11/22/2006 Page 5 of5 push the building envelope toward the curb to gain even more square footage. Public interests. PC needs to balance this profit interest with public interests to: (1) Maintain a livable neighborhood. (2) Protect the historic character of this 100+ year neighborhood, with yards, porches, large setbacks, and a welcoming neighborly feeL (3) Prevent oversized buildings from becoming 'in-your-face' office buildings with minimal visual distance from sidewalk to facade. (4) Maintain land for plants and rain-absorbing soil, rather than hardscaping almost the entire lot. (5) Not convert a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk to a pedestrian-unfriendly sidewalk by forcing it to the curb, where car doors endanger children bicycling to Helman Elementary SchooL Conclusion. The proposed buildings are too big for the lot, too high for the neighborhood, and too close to the street. This application should be denied. Everyone ~s raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. <if( file://C:\Documents and Settings\yatess\Local Settings\Temp\GW}OOOOl.HTM 1112212006 ~------ Pyramid Juice Site Petition We the undersigned property owners/residents ask the Planning Commission to not allow any buildings higher than 2 stories on the Pyramid Juice site, because of the existing historic character of Helman St, with small, 100-year homes, We also ask you to require the same setback as other houses and businesses on Helman St, and to require a planting area ("park row") between the sidewalk and curb for pedestrian safety, aEt . G1b':1:C>de. Name Address =t~..~. . - . 'J .~c ~ < ,_ . R. . t' "-- '..','" . k,.. """..i'*" T. V ~1 Pyramid Juice Site Petition We the undersigned property owners/residents ask the Planning Commission to not anow any buildings higher than 2 stories on the Pyramid Juice site, because of the existing historic character of Helman St, with small, 10o-year homes. We also ask you to require the same setback as other houses and businesses on Helman St, and to require a planting area ("park row') between the sidewalk and curb for pedestrian safetyl a,,' . ~e. -J,Jo -' lo Va.1l. Ne 5f t.: 111- 'tA-l ~~ 1r6f~ \ '(.<. ~fl.\ f'v\6>"f\. 6t- ,1 nl ~\w."-W -;..+ H <?;-: - 1 '1 " 'CL t'M. A f'J S r // 16"2.. t\ e.t't<\t;!<.I,'\. ~~ ~,.....\ o.\-..C). C' "Z . . /~ IIEIMI7 s1' 15"2 IItlA1'~rl sr !i?LW~.5f I?-I 1I~1'l'" s-r. , 7.- HJrrLA.,^ r{-. nJ.- t-h1~~.. 11-" \" ~ l\f:. \~ ~,... ~ ~~?#~ I:;" ") V AIoJ l\If'SS. l .$ -I V..." Iv \,\,I';"~'" { 7 (:; f "d""1 t >/",.(,,( '11) NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET ~.., Planning Departmenl 51 Winburn Way. Ashland. Oregol1 97520 541-488-5305 Fax 541-552-2050 wwwashland.or.us TT\ 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00612 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Helman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer DESCRIPTION: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at tlreast height and greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Employment District W/Residentiai Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #391E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on November 8, 2006, 7:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room). located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on November 9, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: I / . .------ ~.- -~<-:. ... -~_._~. '. ~~~ 88 AJ.- . V'"~~ . ~~ PA #2006-00612 160 HELMAN ST SUB.JECT PROPER TV / / ./ Ii; /A!! '~ /, C"'.) / ~;. /# , ~ .4Y / ""C,; // ,N '1\ ' ~.. ~.~ Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER. 1175 East Main Street. Ashland. Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application. either in person or by letter. or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue. precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application. all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost. if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost. if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services. 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance. if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing. the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department. 541-488-5305. 1/ (i l'l'THIll-de\ plimninl: l'W1Kt":, \li1ilcd ~(I()(, ~(l(Jh-(IOhl~ 11-1'+ (1(> d,_ SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval 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. e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 56, 1999) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for lssuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2883 added 06/04/2002) 1~ G:\comm-dev'planning' Notices Mailed'2006\2006-00612 11-14-06.doc .,.---,- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On October 25. 2005, I caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached Public Meeting Notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action # 2006-00612. 160 Helman St. ~.~~ Signat e of Employee SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this ~5 dayof Qif .2006. ~'~' ---,,,,. . \, .)f!::ICIAl SEAL " d. BOSWELL NOTARY PUBlIC-OREGON MYGO'jM'SS~~~~~~ ~o. 39'525 "'n~..-." .---!,.R. 07, 2009 (!1Jz;~ Notary Pu~li~ for Sta~e of ~~on6 1 My CommiSSion Expires: ---' 73 G:\comm-<levlplanning\Forms & HandoutslAFFIDAVIT OF MAILlNG,doc PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5100 BAKER BARRY AlMICHELLE A 122 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2100 BATZER JAMES H/R ANDREW 131 TERRACE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2500 DAVIES RONALD L 6795 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1800 FOLICK JOSHIBONNIE 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1401 GRIMES DANIELl ANGELA 8152 HALL BLVD 152 BEA VERTON, OR 97008 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1900 HOBSON RONALD CLIFTONIMARCIA 102 PLEASANT VIEW TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5600 RUTLEDGE CRAIG E PO BOX 878 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 5200 TALENT PROPERTIES LLC 64 3RD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5300 WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL 152 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 N Ill.....',,;, 011 .., I .;J..I V VJ P}.200600612 391E<HCC 1901 BATZER JAMES H 131 TERR:\CE }.SHL\ND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2600 BROWN MICHAEL HIPHYLLIS R 119 VAN NESS ASHLAND, OR 97520 P.^.2006 00612 391E04CC 2400 D.^.VIES RON}.LD LARRY 6795 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97510 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4600 FOSTER LYNN Z 3850 RIO RD 28 CARMEL, CA 93923 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2200 HADDAD JOANNE M 6795 RAPP LANE TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4700 MACRORY ANN K TRUSTEE 150 MYER CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4900 SOMMERS ALANIPHYLLIS NORRIS 117 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 7200 V AIL WESLEY D/LUCINDA M 1425 PACIFIC AVE SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4800 WINTERS CHERYL ANN/JEFF 131 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 0,4- PI.200600612 391E04CC 7100 Bi\TZER J:\MES H ET :\L 131 TERRf.CE ST ASHL:\ND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5000 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER INC 246 FOURTH ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2300 FOGELMAN LOREN 173 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5500 GRIFFITHS MICHAEL A PO BOX 878 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1500 HAWKINS ROBERT R JR TRUSTEE 1639 39TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1800 NEW HORIZONS WOODWORKS 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2000 SOS PLUMBING & DRAIN SERVICE 165 WATER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4500 WILLS TATTER ALFRED TRUSTEE POBOX 274 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1600 YOUNG BRIAN DIMARGO S 1351 NORTH VALLEY ASHLAND, OR 97520 (, k,r \ ,) " ,\ '~. --yr--r------- -- PA 2006-00612 GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES 318 S. GRAPE STREET MEDFORD, OR 97501 P A 2006-00612 RDK ENGINEERING 3350 GREEN ACRES DRIVE CENTRAL POINT, OR PA 2006-00612 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 320 E. MAIN STREET SUITE 202 ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A 2006-00612 STEWART LAND SURVEYS 6370 HWY 66 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 MCKECHNIE & ASSOCIATES 4406 SAN JUAN DRIVE MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA 2006-00612 MINDER MICHAEL 2936 COMICE DRIVE MEDFORD, OR 97504 PA 2006-00612 GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES 318 S. GRAPE STREET MEDFORD, OR 97501 q~ tr ;1",- f) if \'\ y ~J j\I.-..,) 142 ()Qf..p ~I" ....,./-.... / III ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS (ANDREA) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance will be held before the Ashland Planning Commission, November 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (T1Y phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). By order of the Planning Manager Bill Molnar Publish: 11/02/2006 Date e-mailed: 10/27/2006 Purchase Order: 72116 q~ ATTN: LEAL PUBLICATIONS (ANDREA) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing on the following items with respect to the Ashland land Use Ordinance will be held before the Historic Commission on November 8, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the offices of Community Development and Engineering Services (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. At such Public Hearing any person is entitled to be heard. PLANNING ACTION #2006-01999 Request for Site Review approval to construct a 2,254 square foot addition to an existing commercial building for use as a restaurant and dance club. In addition, the request includes Conditional Use Permit to exceed the 40- foot height limitation in the Downtown Commercial District for the property located at 25 N Main St. PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 Site Review approval for a mh~ed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to partidpate in this meeting, please contact the aty Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (T1Y phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the dty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR . 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). . By order of the Planning Manager Bill Molnar Publish: 10/30/2006 Date e-mailed: 10/27/06 Purchase Order: 72116 &11 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Chair John Fields called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: John Fields, Chair Michael Dawkins Olena Black John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members: None Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (Council Liaison, does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Interim Planning Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Dotterrer had a meeting with the subcommittee on commissions within the City. He gave them an update of the Planning Commission Roles and Duties and how it might fit into what they are working on. The subcommittee encouraged them to continue moving forward with their work on Roles and Duties. MINUTES AND FINDINGS DawkinslBlack mls to approve the minutes of the October 10,2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: Approved. There were no findings to be approved. PUBLIC FORUM BRENT THOMPSON, 582 Allison, using Billings Ranch Subdivision as an example, thought the Land Use Ordinance Review Committee should look at having open space areas graded flat, shrinking the building footprint for large houses, allowing the houses to be two to two and one-half stories in order conserve land, increase the setback from six feet to eight feet to allow more flexibility in remodels, particularly in existing neighborhoods. He also believes the Fire Station should consider building up and not wasting land. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 REQUEST FOR SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A MIXED.USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF GENERAL OFFICE SPACE AND SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 HELMAN ST. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE TWO TREES ON SITE THAT ARE SIZED SIX INCHES DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT AND GREATER. APPLICANT: SISKIYOU LLC/JAMES BATZER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Dotterrer and Fields were not present at the last meeting but watched the video and read the packet and will participate at tonight's hearing. Black had another site visit, noticing that there is a two-story vintage house across the street that would provide some balance to the bulk and scale of the proposed building. Dimitre had a site visit and noticed the site is steep. Morris and Marsh had site visits. Dawkins, Stromberg and Mindlin had no ex parte contacts or site visits. STAFF REPORT Molnar explained that this action is continued from last month. The two areas of concern were: 1) The ground floor elevation of the building and how it relates to the adjoining sidewalk and 2) the physical or visual buffering of Building 2 (comer building) from the street - how much, if any, landscape buffering should be introduced between the sidewalk and the building fa<;ade. 1rt III The applicant has made some changes since last month (applicant's Addendum Option A) showing the building raised slightly over a foot keeping the entry level elevation flush with the sidewalk, eliminating the need for any steps. Staff believes this change has made a significant difference in the design. In Option A, the sidewalk has been reduced from eight feet to five feet, similar to those in the neighborhood, creating a three foot space between the building and the sidewalk. The building footprint in Option A remains unchanged. Staff would still like to see a landscape strip between the building and the sidewalk that takes the surrounding neighborhood into consideration. The three foot strip does not do a lot and does not leave very much room for plant material. The applicant's addendum mentions they considered going to six feet but the increase by three would diminish the overall design of the building. There were no elevations identifying what those undesirable changes to the building design would be so the Historic Commission was unable to evaluate how the changes would look. The applicant presented one alternative at the Tree Commission meeting in order to address the concern about introducing more landscaping between the sidewalk and the building. However, Staff believes the context of the neighborhood is created by a planting strip, a sidewalk and another planting rather than a curbside sidewalk. The footprint of building 2 is taking up a good portion of the lot area PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 320 E. Main Street, stated that they were able to raise the building enough to reach the Helman Street grade and were able to lower the building height. When looking at the landscape buffer between the building and the sidewalk, they found that the whole building changes. They went back to the Historic Commission who did not feel the change to the building was appropriate and they came up with the meandering sidewalk. It creates a gateway to match the building across the street on VanNess. The Tree Commission thought it was a good idea too. There would be a five and one-half foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb and nine and one-half feet from the sidewalk to the building and the building design would not have to change. MCKECHNIE showed two landscape plans and explained how the sidewalk and buffering would work. There will be bike parking in two places. The utility pole at the corner will be buried. JOHN DUFFIE, 711 E. Main Street, Medford, OR 97504 said there were several architectural issues they had to take into consideration in making changes requested regarding the three foot strip, but they believe they have offered an ample landscape buffer. He said the setback for Option A is six feet and the setback for Option B is three feet. KERRY KENCAIRN, 147 Central Street, said that she is not opposed to the project in general. On Helman, across from the project site, it is historic residential with sidewalks and setbacks. She does not believe, in this instance, that the curbside sidewalk is appropriate. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, believes the building does not meet the code for setback. How does the fayade of the proposed building relate to the other buildings on Helman? Currently, it is close to the sidewalk with a very heavy look and feel and out of scale with the historic residential homes on Helman. The application should be denied until the setback issue is resolved. Bullock said the calculation issue in E-I and use of the parking area has still not been resolved since the last meeting. Also, the Commission was given pictures that the public did not see along with items handed out at the last moment and the public has not had an opportunity to review and respond to the recent changes. Lastly, a curbside sidewalk is inappropriate on this project. He strongly agrees with the Planning Department that this project needs a parkrow, a standard sidewalk and a setback that is compatible with the rest of the street. RON DAVIES, 6795 Rapp Lane, Talent, owns two houses at 159 and 171 Helman, across the street from the proposed development. A three story building across the street from a one and two story neighborhood will dwarf the neighborhood. It would set a questionable precedent if this three-story building is granted approval. Molnar announced the photographs are available if the public wishes to view them. JOANNE HADDAD, 6795 Rapp Lane, Talent, OR, owner of 175 Helman Street, said she objects to the size of the proposed building. Her neighborhood is smaller and older. She lives on a 50 by 100 foot lot. They will lose the sunlight in the morning. ERIC NAVICKAS, 363 % Iowa, believes the interpretations that are being used for this proposed development are undermining the E-l zoning and their purpose. E-l is supposed to provide square footage for employment in our community. In this project, an E-l zone is turning into condominium zones. The issue is the gross floor area for permitted uses. Sixty-five percent of the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES ~9 2 gross floor area of the ground floor must be used for employment or 50 percent of the total area of the lot relative to the square footage of the building ifusing multiple buildings. Is this one building or is it two? Navickas believes this project has multiple buildings as established in the Northlight project. He would argue that the only way it can meet the 50 percent requirement is to allow parking to be included as a permitted use in an E-l zone. This means we would be allowing parking to fulfill what should have been employment square footage. Stromberg asked Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney, if it is a problem when we get new materials, typically from the applicant, at the very last minute and the public has not had an opportunity to view it. Appicello said it is not uncommon to have evidence submitted at a public hearing. Getting a written document is not that much different than hearing testimony for the first time. However, if anything is submitted in writing, especially items that are complicated, at the public hearing, there is a risk that someone will ask for a continuance or to leave the record open. Stromberg remembered Mike Franell, City Attorney, making an interpretation for looking at the criteria for multiple buildings. Molnar said Franell gave the Planning Commission options. He believed the parking required for the commercial space was accessory use to the permitted use. Rebuttal . Gross floor area calculations - Knox said they calculated the square footage/lot coverage two ways. He explained how they made their calculations and concluded they meet the requirement whether using the 65 percent or the 50 percent. . Building setback - Knox argued for a balance of the historic area with a predominant landscape strip by using a meandering sidewalk. . Bulk and scale - Knox said the E-l zone allows for buildings 40 feet in height. Dealing with the shape and grade of the property, they have tried to create square footage and mass so it is less impacting to the R-3 neighborhood across the street. Fields closed the public hearing. Art Bullock requested, and the Planning Commission granted the record be left open for seven days. The written record will close no sooner than seven days from today (November 22, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.). The applicant expressed a desire to submit final written argument before November 29,2006 at 5:00 p.m. The applicant agreed to an extension to the 120 days of 14 days. Final deliberations will occur on December 12,2006 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION #2006-01663 REQUEST FOR AN ANNEXATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP CHANGE FROM JACKSON COUNTY ZONING RR.5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING R-2 (LOW-DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL), R.1.3.5 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) AND R-1 (SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL) FOR AN 11.64-ACRE SITE COMPRISED OF FIVE PARCELS LOCATED AT 87 W. NEVADA ST. AND 811 HELMAN ST. (ASHLAND GREENHOUSES). THE ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP IDENTIFIES THE SITE FOR SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (R.1 ZONING). AS A RESUL Tn THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE TO MODIFY THE SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R.2) AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-1-3.5 ZONING) DESIGNATIONS. THE PROPOSAL REQUIRES OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS A 78.UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS CHAPTER 18.88. THE PROPOSAL REQUIRES SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR MULTI. FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUESTED TO REMOVE A 36.INCH DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT OAK TREE. EXCEPTIONS TO THE STREET STANDARDS ARE REQUESTED TO INSTALL A CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF ONE OF THE PROPOSED STREETS, FOR NOT LOCATING A STREET ADJACENT TO NATURAL FEATURES AND FOR NOT CONNECTING TWO OF THE PROPOSED STREETS. VARIANCES ARE REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE ON.STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FROM 78 TO 38 SPACES, TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SIX OF THE TOWNHOMES IN THE NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE SITE FROM 20 FEET TO 12, 14 AND 16 FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR THE 27 COTTAGES IN THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF THE SITE. AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS IS REQUESTED TO HAVE THE PRIMARY ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH RATHER THAN THE STREET AS REQUIRED. ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: (CURRENT) SINGLE.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL TO (PROPOSED) MUL TI.FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL & SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; ASHLAND ZONING: (CURRENT) R.1 TO (PROPOSED) R-2, R.1.3.5 & R.1.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 4B; TAX LOTS: 800 & 1100 AND ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 391E 4BB; TAX LOTS: 700,800, & 900. APPLICANT: GREG & VALRI WILLIAMS Site Visits Ex Parte Contacts ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES 3 I 't) 1) ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Addendum III November 14, 2006 PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00612 APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer LOCATION: 160 Helman St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: May 19,2006 120.DA Y TIME LIMIT: January 13, 2006 (with 120-day extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-l Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application This planning application was most recently reviewed at the October 10, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Much of the Commissioner discussion centered on two areas of concern highlighted in the Planning Staff Report (Addendum II) and reflected in the meeting minutes. The Commission ultimately continued the application to the next meeting in order for the applicant to address the following: ./ The Finished Floor Level of Building 2 in relation to the finished elevation of adjoining public sidewalks along Van Ness and Helman Streets; and ./ The installation of a landscape planting strip between the ground floor fayade of Building 2 and the adjacent public sidewalk along Helman Street. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 1 of 8 101 B. New Information Provided by the Applicant The applicant has provided a short written description of the proposed changes as well as several additional exhibits to assist in providing clarification. After reviewing the documents, it appears that two notable changes have been made and are described in greater detail under Option A ofthe applicant's materials. Ootion A v' The height of Building 2 has been increased by approximately 1.25 feet, resulting in a finished floor elevation at the main entrance equal to the finished elevation of the proposed public sidewalk along Helman Street (immediately abutting the entry plaza). The configuration of the entry plaza has been modified and stairs have been eliminated due to the changes in the finished floor level. v' The first floor footprint of Building 2 has remained at the same location. The proposed public sidewalk along Helman Street is reduced in width from eight to five feet. The reduction in sidewalk width permits the installation of a three-foot deep landscape planter along the west side of Building 2. Additionally, the applicant has addressed to some degree the possibility of increasing the proposed landscape planter width along Helman Street by an additional three feet. Consequently, by reducing the sidewalk width (eight feet to five feet) and setting the building back an additional three feet from what was represented in the initial proposal, a six-foot deep landscape planter can be installed along the west side of the building. In the opinion of the project's architects, this scenario, Option B, causes problems with the building elevations and plaza area. The application notes that this issue will be elaborated further upon at the November Commission meeting. II. Proiect Impact The applicant has made changes to building height that has resulted, in Staff s opinion, in a more favorable relationship between the building's entrance elevation and the elevation of the adjacent sidewalk along Helman Street. The modification permits the elimination of stairs to the front entrance and the incorporation of a spacious, level entrance plaza to the building. The applicant's preferred site plan (Option A) maintains the building footprint at its original location, but through a reduction in sidewalk width enables the design to incorporate a three-foot deep landscape planting strip alongside the building fa~ade. As noted on the landscape plan, this permits the installation of seven, one gallon lavender plants within the narrow, three-foot deep strip adjacent to the building. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 2 of 8 !O:L III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described AMC 18.72.070 as follows: 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Tree Removal Permit are described AMC 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 3 of 8 )CJ3 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Changes to building design that now permit the installation of a relatively level entry plaza leading from the public sidewalk to the building's front entrance is a significant improvement over the initial proposal. However, by retaining the building at its original location, only enough space for a marginal, three-foot deep landscape planting strip is possible. In the previous report, Staff noted that the character of the immediate and surrounding neighborhood is defined by a development pattern consisting both residential and commercial buildings buffered from the sidewalk by an appropriately sized landscape strip. The Helman Street corridor is a transitional area comprised of modest-sized historic homes and a commercial business area with significant re-development potential. Consequently, business and mixed-used re-development projects along the west side of Helman Street should be scrutinized and carefully evaluated against the City's development standards in order to minimize disruption to the historic residential neighborhood. Section 18.72.110 B., Landscaping Standards, clearly provides the Commission with the authority to address the location of proposed landscaping should the Commission find it necessary to mitigate potential impacts of the project. 18.72.110 B. Location. Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible from public right-of-way or provide bufferingfrom 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. In Staffs opinion, the buffer provided by the three-foot deep landscape planter is inadequate and does not compare in terms of size and quality to similarly located landscape strips along the Helman Street corridor. While the applicant has stated that increasing the depth ofthe landscape strip to six-feet "significantly diminishes the Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 4 of 8 10 'I III building's design by creating an unusual comer shape and eliminates an important window element on the second and third floor", building elevations showing such changes have not been providing for evaluation by Staff or the Commission. Additionally, building design changes resulting from an increase in the area of landscaping still must comply with design standards relating to scale and massing, as well as applicable historic district standards. Staff believes a minimum landscape planting strip of six-feet in depth should be incorporated along the west side of Building 2 in order to provide an appropriate transition between the building and the street, similar in aesthetic quality to those that exist elsewhere in the surrounding area. Consequently, Staff suggests that the Commission strongly consider imposing as a condition of approval that the depth of the landscape strip be increased to no less than six feet. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to address concerns raised at the previous hearing as well as all other approval standards, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit, prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. Plans to include street tree installation cross-sections, with the use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree Commission. The parkrow width on the Helman St. frontage shall be maintained at six and a half feet in width as measured from the back of the curb to the sidewalk. 3) That a public pedestrian easement or right-of-way dedication shall be granted for any portion of the Helman St. sidewalk that is on the subject site and outside of the existing street right-of-way. 4) That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including the sidewalk and planting strip. 5) That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit and prior to work in the alley right-of-way. The drawings shall include an alley driving surface of 20 feet in width, and a raised sidewalk a minimum of four feet in width adjacent to the south side of the alley. 6) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ("'.. It)~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 5 of 8 of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to submittal of a building permit. Transformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears, and shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 7) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman St. and VanNess Ave. site frontages prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The street lights shall be consist of the City of Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the pedestrian corridor along Ashland Street. 8) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Building and Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 9) That the re-routing of the irrigation line on site (Billings-Reynolds line) shall be approved by the Ashland Engineering Division and State Water Master prior to changes in the line. 10) That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit submittals identifying areas of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. 11) That a minimum of half ofthe unenclosed parking spaces (i.e. spaces not in garages) on site shall be 9 x 18 feet in size in accordance with 18.92.070.A. The back-up space for all parking spaces shall be a minimum of22 feet. All parking dimensions and back-up spaces shall be delineated on the building permit submittals. 12) Seven bicycle parking space shall be provided with at least five spaces sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance in accordance with 18.92.040.1.3. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 13) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 14) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 6 of 8 I tJ6 and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including vehicular access and fire hydrant requirements, shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 16) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 17) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the two trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the four trees adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.8. 18) That the landscape plan shall be revised to include two trees for mitigation of the two trees to be removed. The trees shall be either a minimum 1 Y2 - inch caliper deciduous tree or a five-six foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed in accordance with 18.61.084.A. 19) That the revised landscape plans shall submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Calculations by square footage shall be provided for landscape areas both individual and in total. Landscaping coverage totals shall not include areas in the public rights-of-ways and shall not include areas covered by mechanical equipment such as heating and cooling units and trash enclosures. The total site landscaping with the property boundaries shall be a minimum of 15 percent in accordance with 18.72.100. 20) That public utility easements and private utility and access easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 21) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the ground floor of the corner building (i.e. Building 2) shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 22) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the walls of Buildings 1 Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 7 of 8 107 and 2 facing the plaza shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the plaza in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard I1-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 23) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 24) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 25) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with Detail Site Review Zone standard I1-C-2f)2). 26) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 27) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 28) That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be functional and open to the public during all business hours. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 8 of 8 ) 0 ~ ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Addendum II October 10,2006 PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00612 APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer LOCATION: 160 Helman St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: May 19,2006 120.DA Y TIME LIMIT: January 13, 2006 (with 120-day extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-l Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. . I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application The planning action was previously noticed and scheduled for public hearings at the July 11,2006, August 8, 2006 and September 12,2006 Planning Commission meetings. Prior to each meeting, the applicant postponed the review. The application was reviewed by the Historic Commission at the August 2, 2006 and September 4, 2006 meetings. The Historic Commission recommendations are attached. The Tree Commission also reviewed the application at the July 6, 2006 and October 5, 2006 meetings, and the comments are attached. B. Description of Revised Proposal In the interest of c~nsolidating the staff report materials for the Planning Commission review, this report repeats the description of the site and describes the latest revised Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 1 of 23 10'1 proposal. This report is designed to address the current application materials and any outstanding issues. As a result, it is not necessary for Planning Commissioners to review the previous two staff reports if so desired. (Note: The previous staff reports are attached as background information, but many of the issues have been resolved. The original staff report form July 11, 2006 provides a description ofthe site and original proposal. Additionally, the addendum from August 8, 2006 further refines issues.) The project site is located on the east side of Helman St., between Central Ave. and V anNess Ave. The property is located in the Employment zoning district (E-l). Currently, the site is used for food production as it is the location of the Pyramid Juice Company. The site is bounded by public rights-of-way on three sides with Helman St. to the west, VanNess Ave. to the north and a public alley known to the south. A day care facility is located across the alley to the south, residential units are located to the west across Helman St., a mixed-use commercial building is located to the north across VanNess Ave., and the SOS plumbing yard and office is located to the east of the site. The area to the north, east and south of the site is also located in the E-l zoning district. The residential neighborhood directly across from the site on the west side of Helman is located in the R-3, High-Density Multi-Family district. The site, as well as the area to the west, is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The residences directly across the street on the west side of Helman from VanNess Ave. to the alley were constructed ranging from 1888 to 1947, and the four homes are listed as historic contributing in the National Register of Historic Places nomination. The site is located in a transitional area involving several zoning districts with five zoning districts being with 500 feet ofthe site (see attached map, Staff Exhibit A). Helman St. generally divides the commercial and employment zones from the residential districts (R- 2 and R-3) to the west. The E-l district is centered around the railroad tracks with the subject site being the western edge of a larger employment that goes north to Hersey St., east to N. Mountain Ave. and south to mid-block between A and B Streets. The western edge of the R-2 zoning district that includes much of the Railroad District begins on the eastern side of Water St. Finally, the C-l commercial zoning district begins south of Central Ave. and transitions into the C-I-D downtown commercial zoning district at Lithia Way. The site is 19,602 square feet or .45 acres in size, and consists oftwo parcels which are proposed to be combined. The site is trapezoidal in shape with the property line adjacent to Helman St. being 200 feet in length. The site has approximately 145 feet of frontage on the alley and approximately 52 feet of frontage on VanNess Ave. The property slopes downhill to the north towards VanNess Ave., and to the east towards the SOS plumbing site. Currently, the building and equipment associated with the food production company are located on the site. The building is a warehouse that was constructed in 1948 and has been used for industrial uses (see attached National Register of Historic Places Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 2 of 23 I/O nomination description, Staff Exhibit B.) 1. Site Review Approval The application involves the construction of two mixed-use buildings referred to as Building 1 and Building 2 in the application materials. The buildings are connected by a plaza area which is 1,690 square feet in size. The plaza is approximately two feet above the sidewalk level on Helman Street, and nine feet above the parking lot level. Building 1 is the longer building which faces Helman St., and Building 2 is the comer building with an entrance facing the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. In total, the development includes 16,054 square feet of enclosed space including 6,888 square feet of general office space, six residential condominiums and four enclosed garages. The residential units include five, two-bedroom units and one studio unit. Vehicular access to the site is by way of the public alley adjacent to the site. The existing alley right-of-way is 16 feet in width. The proposal is to dedicate four feet on the north side of the alley to expand the alley width to 20 feet. In addition, a four-foot wide sidewalk is proposed adjacent to the north side of the alley to provide pedestrian access from the back of the site to the Helman Street sidewalk and front of the buildings. The alley would be paved and improved to city standard from the intersection with Helman Street to the eastern site boundary. A total of twenty-four parking spaces are provided on site. Fifteen surface parking spaces would be provided behind Building 1 running along the eastern site boundary. Three parking spaces are provided under the plaza. Six enclosed spaces are provided in garages at the rear of Building 1. The application describes the surface and under-plaza spaces as "common" parking, and the enclosed garage spaces as "residential" parking. Three parking credits are used in the proposal for the parking spaces available on the Helman St. frontage. The application delineates five bicycle parking spaces with three near the front entrance of Building 2 and two spaces on the plaza between the buildings. Pedestrian access to the site is by way of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. A planting strip and sidewalk are in place adjacent to the Helman St. frontage. However, the sidewalk is in disrepair and the street trees or described as damaged and dying. The proposal is to install a new sidewalk that would be increased to eight feet in width along the Helman St. site frontage, and to remove and replace the street trees. The sidewalk on the VanN ess Ave. frontage is a curbside sidewalk, and is relatively new. The proposal is to leave the VanNess St. sidewalk as it is. However, there is an area of unused VanNess St. right-of-way between the back of the existing sidewalk and the north property line. The proposal includes installing landscaping in the unused right-of-way area. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 3 of 23 I I ( A landscape and irrigation plan is included in the application materials. Landscape planters are provided between Building I and the Helman St. sidewalk, at the rear Building 1 and between the surface parking spaces and the east property line. The application includes a Tree Protection and Removal Plan which identifies two trees on site, and three trees are located in the planting strip on the Helman St. frontage. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater including an eight-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon White Oak in the location of the building envelope for Building 2, and a multi-trunk Black Locust in the location of the proposed parking area. In addition, the plan identifies three trees near the east property line and one tree near or in the alley, and includes tree protection measures to retain the nearby trees. Building I is the longer building that is oriented to Helman St. The building is a mixed-use structure including 2,641 square feet of general office space, four residential condominiums and four enclosed garages. Building 1 is 9,687 square feet in size and approximately 115 feet in length. The building is mostly a two- story structure, and includes a small partial third story is located centrally in the building. Building 2 is the comer building which has the entrance oriented towards the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The building mixed-use structure including 4,247 square feet of general office space and two residential condominiums. The building is 6,367 square feet in size and is a three-story structure. The entrance is angled and oriented towards the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The second and third stories are cantilevered over the comer entrance. The third story is stepped back from the second story on the street elevations. Building 1 has more residential architectural components (rather than commercial features) such as gabled roofs, extended eaves, horizontal siding and residential doors and windows. The Helman St. facade will incorporate a wide variety of materials including brick, stucco, corrugated galvanized metal siding, corrugated metal awnings and a standing seam metal roof. Building 2 is commercial in character with storefront windows, symmetrical architectural features and exterior materials, a belly band dividing the first and second floors, and a cornice. The exterior of the ground floor is ground face block, the second floor is stucco and the recessed third floor is brick. 2. Public Facilities Existing and proposed public facilities and utilities necessary to service the project have been identified on the site plan. A Traffic Impact Study was performed and submitted with the application. Existing and proposed upgrades include: Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 4 of 23 / I ~. II. Proiect Impact . Electrical service from a transformer located in the northeast corner of the site adjacent to VanNess Avenue. . The proposed building is shown connecting to the existing water and sewer lines in Helman St. . The storm drain line in VanNess Ave. is delineated on the site plan, but the connection from the proposed development is not addressed. . Paved vehicular access is provided from Helman St. and the public alley located south of the site. . The existing sidewalk on the Helman St. frontage will be replaced with an eight-foot wide sidewalk. The existing planting strip will remain in place between the curb and sidewalk, but the trees and landscaping will be replaced and upgraded. The findings state that the planting strip is currently six and a half feet in width and will be retained. However, the site plan delineates the planting strip as four and a half feet in width. . The existing curbside sidewalk on the VanNess St. frontage will remain as it is. . The alley will be increased to 20 feet in width and paved to the city standards. The application states that according to a recent survey of the property to the south of the alley, the telephone pole straddles the alley's southern boundary. The application says that the short wall and telephone pole will be removed and the services located under ground. The application goes further to say that "any physical encroachments such as the pole or fencing will be either removed or relocated and any necessary retaining (if any) completed by the applicants." The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of new buildings in the E-l zoning district. The project is in the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards in addition to the Basic Site Review Standards. Additionally, the project is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Project since Building 1 is in excess of 100 feet in length, and the total project square footage exceeds 10,000 square feet. Finally, the project is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and therefore is subject to the Historic District Design Standards. In accordance with chapters 18.72 and 18.108, the application is required to be reviewed under the "Type II" process with a public hearing because the project is located in the Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 5 of 23 II ~ Detail Site Review Zone, and the size of the buildings is greater than 10,000 square feet in size and greater than 100 feet in length. Four issues related to the approval criteria are raised in this report that Staff believes need to be addressed before the Planning Commission makes a decision on the application. The four issues include the gross floor area of non-residential uses, finished ground floor level of Building 2, Helman St. fa<;ade line of Building 2, and the vision clearance area. The issues of Staff concern are in the subsections identified by small letters and bold, italic type such as a) Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses. A. Site Review 1. Requirements of the Employment Zoning District The project proposes a mix of uses, including general office space and housing units. Office uses are permitted use within the E-l ;,Employment District. The residential units are a special permitted use in the E-l zoning district. The E-l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning except to the west, across Helman St. The zoning district division between the Employment E-l district and the Low Density Multi-Family R-2 district is located at the center line of Helman St. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The E-l zoning district does not regulate the amount of lot coverage as in the residential districts. However, the Site Design and Use Standards do include landscaping requirements based on percentage of coverage of the square footage of the site. For the E-l zoning district, a minimum of 15 percent ofthe site is required to be covered in landscaping. The application includes a landscaping plan. While the findings state that 16% of the site is proposed landscaping, the site plan delineates 15% of the site in landscape areas. It appears several items such as a heating and cooling unit and trash enclosure are located in the landscape islands, but it is not clear if the square footage for landscaping has not been accordingly reduced. While these areas appear to be relatively minor amounts, the landscape coverage is currently at the minimum amount. A condition has been added requiring verification of landscape coverage and deduction of non- landscape items such as the trash enclosure. The tallest point on Building 1, being the ridgeline of the roof, is the three-story section in the middle of the building at 29 feet in height. The majority of the building is two stories and height and the ridgeline of the gabled roof ranges from 23 feet to 27 feet in height. Building 2 is 30 feet in height. Both buildings fall below the maximum of 40 feet in height for the E-l zoning district. The proposed number of motor vehicle parking meets the requirements of Chapter Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 6 of 23 II 'f 18.92. The proposal is deficient by two bicycle parking spaces. Five bicycle parking spaces are delineated with three spaces near the front entrance of Building 2, and two spaces on the plaza area. According to Staffs calculations, seven bicycle parking spaces are required with four spaces required for the office uses and three spaces required for the residential units without enclosed garages (units 5 and 6 in Building 2). The location of the additional parking spaces is of some concern as it will potentially detract from the plaza or landscaping area. A condition has been added requiring a total of seven bicycle parking spaces to be provided, and the building permit submittals to be revised accordingly. The proposal includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit for two trees on the site including an eight-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon White Oak in the location ofthe building envelope for Building 2, and a multi-trunk Black Locust in the location of the proposed parking area. The Tree Commission had not yet reviewed the Tree Protection and Removal Plan, and request for a Tree Removal Permit at the time of writing. a) Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses The E-l zoning district requires a minimum of 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 to be used for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential uses. The subject proposal designates 65.8% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as a non-residential permitted or special permitted use being general office space. For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. This approach is consistent with the definition of a structure or building in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in 18.08.750. SECTION 18.08.750 Structure or building. That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures eighteen (18) inches in height or less are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. The application notes that Unit 1, the residential unit located on the ground floor on the south end of Building 1, is located adjacent to the alley to . provide a transition from the residential structures and less intense commercial uses (i.e. day care and traveler's accommodation) to the south of the alley. It is also important to note that the second floor of the corner Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 7 of 23 I'~ building, Building 2, includes an additional 1,908 square feet of general office space. 2. Site Design and Use Standards The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. The Historic Commission reviewed the preliminary building design as part of the pre-application conference prior to submission of the application. The Historic Commission reviewed the previous version of the formal application at the August 2, 2006 meeting. The Historic Commission had not reviewed the revised application at the time of writing. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards, the ultimate determination of the proposal's compliance with the standards can still be subjective. Staff has identified two elements of the proposal where we have raised concern with building design and questioned whether the project meets the full intent certain standards. The discussion below outlines Staffs concerns. a) Finished Ground Floor Level of Building 2 The latest revision of the application shows the ground floor of Building 2 at the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. as being approximately two feet below the sidewalk at the comer of the intersection and three below the elevation of the sidewalk on Helman St. According to discussions with the applicant, this change is a result of more accurate information about the grading of the site. Additionally, it appears the ceiling height of the ground floor has been increased from earlier versions of the application. The elevations from the original application are included for comparison (labeled "previous submittal). Staff believes the Planning Commission should consider the finished ground floor elevation of Building 2 in relation to the public sidewalk in the evaluation ofthe orientation to Helman St. The applicable approval standards are listed below. II.C.1 a) Orientation and Scale - Basic Site Review 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrance shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street'along the street frontage. 2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 8 of 23 /1' pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale - Detail Site Review 3) Any wall which is within 30 feet 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 30 feet of the street are prohibited, Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward a loading or service areas. In the past, the Planning Commission had interpreted that the primary orientation to the street required the building and the front entrances to be at the same level as or above the sidewalk. The reasoning has been that for the front of the building to present an interesting fa<;:ade that is inviting to pedestrians and includes visual permeability into display areas, the building must be at the same level and visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk. Prior to this interpretation, the shopping center at the northeast comer of Ashland St. and Tolman Creek Rd. was built. The front entrances facing Ashland Street are five feet below the sidewalk, and are not visible from the street (see photos below). After this development, the Commission was concerned about buildings appearing to be built in a hole, and the loss of connection to the streetscape. ~ I 1 - ........_':c;.;;..~~j " ,.~,'" ....~.~~ Figure 1: Tolman Creek Shopping Center from Across Tolman Creek Rd. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 9 of 23 / / 7 =3 ; Figure 2: Tolman Creek Shopping Center from Adjacent Sidewalk on Tolman Creek Rd. If the Commission continues to be in agreement with this approach, the finished ground floor elevation would need to be raised to the sidewalk elevation. An alternative would be for the Commission to accept a certain amount of elevation difference as reasonable. Staff suggests the Commission request the applicant to address the feasibility of constructing the finished ground floor of Building 2 at a higher elevation. b) Helman St. Fa~ade Line of Building 2 The Helman St. fa<;:ade of Building 2 is located adjacent to the sidewalk. This section of the building is 28 feet in length and does not include offsets in the building fa<;:ade. The height from finished grade to the top of the second story in this location is 22 feet, and the height to the top of the stepped back third story is 30 feet. Building 2 is 6,367 square feet in size. Staff is concerned that the placement of Building 2 adjacent to the sidewalk is not consistent with the development pattern in place on the Helman St corridor in this area. A review of the color aerial photograph shows a consistent green, landscape area between buildings and the sidewalk on both sides of the street from N. Main St. to VanNess Ave. Landscaped front yards of the historic homes on the west side of the Helman and on the east side of Helman south of the subject site range in Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 10 of 23 / (~ depth from 12 to 25 feet (see Staff Exhibit C). The newer commercial developments between N. Main St. and Central Ave. including the Plaza Inn and Suites and the Bard's Inn have landscape buffers between the buildings and sidewalks. While these commercial landscape areas are not as deep as the residential front yards, there is a consistent setback pattern. The photo below is of the Plaza Inn and Suites building at the southeast comer of the intersection of Helman St. and Central Ave. This two-story building is approximately 10,000 square feet in size, The landscape buffer between the Helman St. sidewalk and the building fa<;:ade feet ranges from 12 to 16 feet in depth. While the Helman St. fa<;:ade line at approximately 74 feet in length is longer than proposed Building 2, the photo demonstrates the ability of a landscape area to soften the impact of the mass of the building on the streetscape. f~ Figure 3: Plaza Inn and Suites. Helman St. Fa9ade and Landscape Buffer Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 11 of 23 /19 Staff believes a landscape buffer situated between the Helman St. sidewalk and Building 2 would create a more compatible transition from the low- profile residences with front yards opposite of the project on Helman St. to the three-story, mixed use building at the comer of the proposed project. Without a landscape buffer, the mass and scale of the new building may feel somewhat imposing and out of balance in relation to the rest of the street corridor. The final product should complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. The following Detail Site Review and Historic District Design Standards address the setback issue. In addition, section 18.72.100 gives the Planning Commission the power to amend plans "if they find it necessary to meet the intent and purpose and the criteria for approval." Specifically, this section allows the Planning Commission to "Require such modifications in the landscaping plan as will ensure proper screening and aesthetic appearance,", and "Require the modification of the placement of any new structures, new accessory uses, parking and landscaping on the project site to buffer adjacent uses form the possible detrimental effects of the proposed development." Historic District Design Standard IV-C-4) Maintain the historic fayade lines of streescapes by locating front walls of new buildings in the same plane as the facades of adjacent buildings. Avoid violating the existing setback pattem by placing new buildings in front or behind the historic fayade line. II-C-3a) 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. 3. Adequacy of Public Facilities a) Vision Clearance The northwest comer ofthe first floor of Building 2 is angled so that the ground floor does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. The second and third stories are cantilevered over the vision clearance area and supported by two columns. The elevations show nine to ten feet from the finished grade to the bottom of the cantilevered portion of the second floor. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 12 of 23 I~b According to the attached December 9,2005 memo from the Legal Department, the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion of the building is greater than eight feet in height. This is based on the intent that the vision clearance standards in 18.72.120.C.l which allows for trees to be in the vision clearance area as long as the canopies are above eight feet in height. The memo also addresses the location of support columns in the vision clearance area. See the attached memos dated December 9,2005 and November 2,2005 from the Legal Department for further information. III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described AMC 18.72.070 as follows: 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Tree Removal Permit are described AMC 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 13 of 23 I~( B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The subject site presents a variety of design challenges including an oddly shaped parcel, cross slopes, close proximity to a historic residential neighborhood and location at the eastern edge of the light-industrial zone. It is important to note that the transition between the residential neighborhood to the west of Helman S1. and the light industrial to the east of Helman S1. is based on historic development patterns. The area between Helman S1. and Ashland Creek has been used as a light industrial and industrial area since the establishment of the community. In Staffs opinion, the project layout and design should maintain a strong commercial component, and should be a positive contribution to the area while utilizing considerate and thoughtful building design to transition from the existing historic residential neighborhood on the west side of Helman S1. to the existing employment development on the east side of Helman S1. Ideally, the final product should complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. In Staffs opinion, the proposed development largely addresses the requirements of the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 14 of 23 / ~ :2... Standards. Staffs main concerns are the finished floor elevation of Building 2 and the Helman St. fa<;ade line of Building 2. Additionally, the Planning Commission must decide if the approach used for the calculation of the gross floor area for non-residential uses and the interpretation of the vision clearance standard to allow cantilevering are appropriate. At this point, Staff recommends that the application be continued due to the issues identified with the finished floor elevation and Helman St. fa<;ade line of Building 2. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards for the Detail Site Review Zone, the ultimate determination by the Planning Commission of the proposal's compliance with the site and building design standards can still be subjective. The Commission should carefully consider the recommendations of the Ashland Historic and Tree Commissions and provide clear direction to the applicant with respect to the primary issues raised in this report. Staff has identified a list of issues related to the approval criteria and design standards applicable to the project. The issues raised in the body of this report are summarized in the list below. · Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses The subject proposal designates 66% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as a non-residential permitted or special permitted use being general office space. The E-I zoning district requires a minimum of 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 to be used for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential uses. For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. · Finished Ground Floor Level of Building 1 The latest revision of the application shows the ground floor of Building 2 at the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. as being approximately two feet below the sidewalk at the comer of the intersection and three below the elevation ofthe sidewalk on Helman St. In the past, the Planning Commission has interpreted that primary orientation to the street required that the building and the front entrances be at the same level as the sidewalk. The reasoning had been that for the front of the building to present an interesting fa<;ade that is inviting to pedestrians and includes visual permeability into display areas, the building must be at the same level and visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk. If the Commission continues to be in agreement with this approach, the finished ground floor elevation of the front of the building would need to be raised to the sidewalk elevation. An alternative would be for the Commission to accept a Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 15 of 23 ):;,a certain amount of elevation difference as reasonable. Staff suggests the Commission request the applicant to address the feasibility of constructing the finished floor of Building 2 at a higher elevation. · Helman St Fafade Line of Building 2 The Helman St. fayade of Building 2 is located adjacent to the sidewalk. Staffis concerned that the placement of Building 2 adjacent to the sidewalk is not consistent with the development pattern in place on the Helman St. corridor in this area. A review of the color aerial photograph shows a consistent green, landscape area between buildings and the sidewalk on both sides of the street from N. Main St. to VanNess Ave. . Staff believes a landscape buffer situated between the Helman St. sidewalk and Building 2 would soften the transition from the low-profile residences with front yards opposite of the project on Helman St. to the three-story, mixed use building at the comer ofthe proposed project. Without a landscape buffer, the mass and scale of the new building may feel somewhat imposing and out of balance in relation to the rest of the street corridor. The final product should complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. . Vision Clearance The northwest comer of the first floor of Building 2 is angled so that the ground floor does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. The second and third stories are cantilevered over the vision clearance area and supported by two columns. The elevations show nine to ten feet from the finished grade to the bottom of the cantilevered portion of the second floor. According to the attached December 9,2005 memo from the Legal Department, the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion of the building is greater than eight feet in height. This is based on the intent that the vision clearance standards in 18.72.120.C.l which allows for trees to be in the vision clearance area as long as the canopies are above eight feet in height. The memo also addresses the location of support columns in the vision clearance area. See the attached memos dated December 9, 2005 and November 2,2005 from the Legal Department for further information. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions: I) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 16 of 23 I'::: 'I- St. and VanNess Ave. shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit, prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. Plans to include street tree installation cross-sections, with the use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree Commission. The parkr9w width on the Helman St. frontage shall be maintained at six and a half feet in width as measured from the back of the curb to the sidewalk. 3) That a public pedestrian easement or right-of-way dedication shall be granted for any portion of the Helman St. sidewalk that is on the subject site and outside of the existing street right-of-way. 4) That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including the sidewalk and planting strip. 5) That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit and prior to work in the alley right-of-way. The drawings shall include an alley driving surface of20 feet in width, and a raised sidewalk a minimum of four feet in width adjacent to the south side of the alley. 6) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to submittal of a building permit. Transformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears, and shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 7) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman St. and VanNess Ave. site frontages prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The street lights shall be consist ofthe City of Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the pedestrian corridor along Ashland Street. 8) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Building and Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 9) That the re-routing of the irrigation line on site (Billings-Reynolds line) shall be approved by the Ashland Engineering Division and State Water Master prior to Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 17 of 23 I c:<. S- changes in the line. 10) That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit submittals identifying areas of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. 11) That a minimum of half of the unenclosed parking spaces (i.e. spaces not in garages) on site shall be 9 x 18 feet in size in accordance with 18.92.070.A. The back-up space for all parking spaces shall be a minimum of22 feet. All parking dimensions and back-up spaces shall be delineated on the building permit submittals. 12) Seven bicycle parking space shall be provided with at least five spaces sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance in accordance with 18.92.040.1.3. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 13) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 14) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including vehicular access and fire hydrant requirements, shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 16) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. . 17) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the two trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the four trees adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 18) That the landscape plan shall be revised to include two trees for mitigation of the two trees to be removed. The trees shall be either a minimum 1 Y2 - inch caliper Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 18 of 23 I ::;, " deciduous tree or a five-six foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed in accordance with 18.61.084.A. 19) That the revised landscape plans shall submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Calculations by square footage shall be provided for landscape areas both individual and in total. Landscaping coverage totals shall not include areas in the public rights-of-ways and shall not include areas covered by mechanical equipment such as heating and cooling units and trash enclosures. The total site landscaping with the property boundaries shall be a minimum of 15 percent in accordance with 18.72.100. 20) That public utility easements and private utility and access easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 21) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the ground floor of the comer building (i.e. Building 2) shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 22) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the walls of Buildings 1 and 2 facing the plaza shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the plaza in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 23) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 24) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 25) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with Detail Site Review Zone standard II-C-2t)2). 26) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 19 of 23 I~ 7 27) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 28) That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be functional and open to the public during all business hours. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 20 of 23 /:( ? Staff Exhibit A Zoning Map of Surrounding Area Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 21 of 23 / ..., c-::; {,:,-:/ j Staff Exhibit B Property Description from National Register of Historic Places Nomination NPS Fonn 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: -L- Page: -.lQ. Skidmore AadeIny HlltOric District, Ashland, OR extreme Welt. The Henry and Alwilda Emery HOU$(' retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. 14.0 STANSBURY WAREHOUSE 1948c: 160 HELMAN ST 391E04CC 2100 Other: Utilitarian Historic Contributina This industrial structure was apparently buiJdina shortly after the property was purchased by Phil and MarchiaJ Stansbury in 1948. (JeD 291:301) The original use is unclear but the property wulonc occupied by Pacific Northwest Bell, who renWned here as late u 1971. 1'hc! Stansbury's apparently sold the property in 1976 and a $UCc:e&lion of tenants including Nimbus Manufacturing (a leather goods company), King of Hearts Ice Cream and, tlnaIly, Lenny's Pyramid Juice company, have been located in this building. The Stansbury Warehouse is one of the only remaining industrial 'IRS in this area, which once included the Bagley Canning Company and then the Newbry Packin, House, to the south. The warebouse consists of two simple ,.ble wlumes, Eorminc an ~M. shaped roof. Corrupted metal sidinc, multi-ltght windows and the basic configuration remain, successfully relating the original utilitarian chal'llcter during the period of liplficance. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 22 of 23 /~a Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 23 of 23 /3 ( Applicant's Materials 10-24-2006 I ~.~ ---------Tr-----r- RE~FI\/J.;;D ocr z 4 7nns URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC City of Ashland 320 East Main St. Suite 202 Ashland, OR 975200 Field 0 Office 0 County Date: October 24th, 2006 To: Ashland Planning Commission Ashland Historic Commission Maria Harris, Senior Planner From: Urban Development Services, LLC. Mark Knox, Principal Planner, AICP Subject: 160 Helman Street, corner of Van Ness & Helman Please find attached the revised drawings for the Site Review Permit for 160 Helman Street. The revisions were made at the request of staff and the Planning Commission at their October public hearing. The revised drawings show the comer building being raised to the Helman Street sidewalk grade and the sidewalk width being reduced from 8' to 5' which was an attempt to not only be more consistent with the surrounding area's sidewalks, but to also provide an additional 3' oflandscaping between the building and the sidewalk. A number of Planning Commission members also requested an additional 3' setback along the Helman Street fal(ade which would have created a 6' landscape strip between the sidewalk and the comer building. Unfortunately, during the plan revisions the additional 3' step back option was not fully developed as the project architects realized that it caused some design problems with the elevations and plaza area. The project architects intend to further address this issue as well as further explain the revisions submitted herein at the November hearings. The plans submitted include: Entry Elevation (Option A): This elevation illustrates the comer building being viewed from the comer of Helman & Van Ness streets. This angle is somewhat difficult to understand as it attempts to show three different planes of the building (Helman, Van Ness, and the comer plane) as well as the site's cross slope. North Elevation (Option A): This elevation shows the elevation facing Van Ness Avenue with the comer of the building being "flush" with the Helman Street sidewalk grade. West Elevation (Option A): This elevation shows the elevation facing Helman Street with the comer of the building being "flush" with the Helman Street sidewalk grade. Partial Site Plan (Option A): This plan identifies the "entry plaza" for the comer building with the entry area being flush with the Helman Street sidewalk and the main plaza area between the two buildings. The main plaza area has been further revised in an attempt to create a "lower" plaza for its adjacent commercial space and an "upper" plaza for comer building's second floor. First Floor Plan (Option A): The first floor plan is also the project's site plan. The revisions include a 5' sidewalk along HeIman Street, a 3' landscape buffer along Helman Street and a revised entrance to the comer building. The plan also shows the two adjacent buildings' (across Van Ness Phone: 541-482-3334 Fax: 541-482-3336 133 Avenue and across the alley) setbacks and their relationship with the adjacent sidewalk and landscaping buffer. Second Floor Plan (Option A): No significant changes. Third Floor Plan (Option A): No significant changes. First Floor Plan "Site Usage Plan" (Option A): This plan attempts to simplify the question regarding the project meeting the requirements of AMC 18.40.030.E.1, if the Commission believes the proposal is for two buildings. AMC 18.40.030.E.1 essentially attempts to preserve the ground floor areas for permitted uses in the E-1 zone. This section of code also attempts to provide some flexibility if there is one building or two buildings. In this projects case, the applicants contend they meet either provision: If considered one building (due to the plaza area being structurally attached): 65% of the ground floor area must be designated as permitted uses and the remaining 35% can be residential. The ground floor of the comer building (Building #2) is 2,332 square feet and is designated as office space. The ground floor for the Helman Street building (Building #1) is 5,233 square feet with 2,641 square feet as office and 2,592 square feet as residential. When the total ground floor area is combined, 4,973 square feet or 65.7% is designated as permitted office space and 34.3% residential space. If considered two buildings: The code allows an option where at least 50% of the total lot area can be designated for permitted uses and 50% can be designated as residential uses. This plan shows the entire lot with the areas designated as residential "shaded". The entire site is 19,150 square feet in area and the shaded area represents 6,430 square feet (33.6%) and the non shaded or commercial area 12,720 square feet (66.4%). Again, if considered two buildings, up to 9,575 square feet of the total lot area are permitted to be residential space where as the applicants only propose 6,430 square feet. First Floor Plan (Option B): This option shows an additional 3' setback along the comer building's Helman Street side for a 6' landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the corner building. Second Floor Plan (Option B): This option shows an "odd" 45 degree comer element created by the additional 3' setback. As mentioned, this odd 45 degree comer significantly diminishes the building's design by creating an unusual comer shape and eliminates an important window element on the second and third floors. Third Floor Plan (Option B): Same as above, but in order to retain the third floor's square footage, the third floor's footprint get "pushed" towards the south or directly adjacent to the main plaza which creates a taller mass along that side. Again, the project architects intend to further explain these issues at the scheduled public hearings. Thank you again for dedicating your time to review the application materials. Hopefully the revisions help answer all or most of your questions. Sincerely, RE~FI\/~D Phone: 541-482-3334 ClCT 2 4 (0['16 Glty Of Ashland o Field 0 Office 0 County Fax: 541-482-3336 13l.f 0 "1J -I - ~~~~ 0 ---1 z ~:( )> I II -70 0' .:r -~-O frtu ' ., " m ~ L \\\ fll Il~O\ \ ,\ '- '6.t O' .. v 0 G' Z~ ' :r :I " W~ z: I " 11 7J (T1 \1 ? -\ , 2- " . () 0 r 1 'If" \) ~ c :1 L ( \J o 6' ~ }7 . . . -::: \J r L- ~0 ,I '\1 ..- [11\ 'S ~- Y ( .I " f' I , ) / '\, 'lJ ~ ',', \ ~ ~~ " "-- '1 i l' , ", ,r' ,-- ,. . "i ! I <ft ill ~ ~~~~ If) ~lf ~ ..J.-j , . , , , , ~~rv]) I ' . I A' ~---" (1' ~ t-Z i f11 ,,- ~ - g'u r rn /1 \~~ l~ ~ Z ~ " ~ Ql~ ...... ~ I Y J .K I t~ I I ~ ..~ ( I :'j ....- - \) 0 - ~~ c_ 1 - 7V - V f'1 . j' , 0 L, i . m~' r 6 .m \) N fJl\ I, , : ! ' ~", ()' 0 E!! fil.fi ~ 8' ~>> &~~ < r' 12 L : :...- '-J' I - --'-I ~ (j\ L L \ 'cIV ffi ~ 31-0 Etfr Z ~ W L" w't ~ft- -~ R I ~ J ~~ t~~ z~ ~--4 ~. ~ ~l] ~ ~~ 0\. .J) ~ <J) . L ~ ~-r>- - ,- ~JU I lJtj\ % ~tY_ ...:t' ffi2. 0 \) C- /1l-~- -I - S rv r 7J ~. \J~ ~ ;~ ' (f} N cr_ ~ t~ ~B .:! ]) l)\ ,{T' :\= ~ ~ U\V' \J ~E ~ r' 0 fT\ -X r L Z-m t P' ~ Y L ~ ~rrl ~F ~ r t~ 7- _r-J\- [-' C -J ~ L -.., -f) ~ ~ '-. ~ L '0\ ~, ~ V o "lJ --., o z )> -- ~ ~ ! L-J ,.. ".~ .. , .'........ ~ ~ i ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ S Q ~ -. ~ ~ ~ V -1 ~() \) ~~ ~A -- c.. tI ~ \ . ~ ~ ..., r' -~ -~_. ~~ 0 ~ ~ti ~ 'Ai<1 ) LT?) :-- :s-:;/ ,( L f\ ~: F.(i~(~ .- f: l ~ ~ ~ ,,., ,..... 'LHI I -(3: ~ " I ~ '7 ~ Ji-L""I-Vf-.I\;:;: ?t .,.- J '1-1=' , ,.,~ I 1 ' ~ ~ t - '-,' ~ -., . 1=1__'1'2 I ~ ~ ~~ 1_ ::.J~i--1,,~ I' .' .L~I \ \ r ~~ J7ia ",-! \ ~1 I- I.. ~ ,- 1- "~':1-#1' ) :--" \ I" i \ I !" ~. 'I \,.) 'K.'I I )' , I 1::>...' 1 ( )" .....~I' "ll..7,1 ., ~C"" ~"'-J. . I. 1. 7r 1_ ,>>-"r ,r ! I\., rt . J- . "'-." - l~' ~ I - ' -.; ~ __ - -ij ri =r ~ --: ../ 13 " r .~_~. " -" vnr I ~ ~:;- V ' ' "--h"6f~ . 'J' _ _ . .:t' 10.... t: __ . . --' .. - .. c, ~ _ _--l:: .,.- ':: .a= -- ~. I":" - - '=': -. ~ ~ _ !S <( , " 11- "-.. '-i"- ' &. './, ~ ,,,,,;- Ir '.... ~...... -~ .- r/~~ ~~ f- _ ~ "J-~ 'f'rJ 10\ - - .~'Ia,.~ ~ - I II "It "-I ~ ~~ - ~ -': f - I- I-- 1. k- .. 1 ~ . ".~~. 'i- ' '.'4 l;.. ~ [5= ~~":J~a:~f =\\~~' ., ,I " i~ . - , L:~ Iit'= -- I) ....\'.. ," .' p - / = . ',..I~' .';f \ /~-","",,~ ~ .' " " = '::, . "=::=t.. ' ~ 1:>-_ "'- ,..:r '. I -J . i " ~ .1"-' .;;~. lr.:rJ j.,\-. I"'-:.'~~ .~'. 1~f--H:C~~,j II . J .t ,v;-.......- r '1 .', , - '.' ',__ ,._', ~. ,N" I.I~~ , . ~~. . ~.: :(,-. S V I . ~r1 . ----.. " ~ .1I ~ -1: ~;;~ ' , "'" {\1 1 r-1 . <1 --=-1 ~ L : I --: · / '. G Q. i ~..f If . .L---Y r \} \T -'--( f ~ ~r' IT t~ I . ,\"..," " t1 \ ("\. '\ . 7J \J...:-, \' / \ _~) V' \.-:.-t. \ l,,_..____-- _, ({ .- -ilP ----.:J,t- H::.:;;'~ \ J k/ i Ii ...... \ ,= i "", : F '" '11" ::; ',I . , ~ \ ,"\ ..... - ~--- .1k le,,1 " J ... ~ -:- 1 '1, I J I o.,,~:1 =:1 ~~T I-::~, _u_ .-.-:'--~ T I IT'.::.,,; .) rs= ~ "., I) l~" e:-I-.----" i '" -1 , "I I ;,L IIldd r n ~I . :-:.. T" ) ~1 ~t LC \' V' ,11 I J\ OJ_ I 0"" ~ r 3) ~ 1'l E: -------....c {'11 tiJ G , ,,-"1:3 ~ 2<0 - 0 C. \ \ .. ~r0 33-0' If t C L ...\\ .. / . i ( C'" L~~ ~.~~ ~~ r::"' ~) ~~ ~5h , In P{II l(- L \] '}>--t --I Q \\~ \) <:P_ I J) <'i ~i- ~ V'- ~~ @ ~ ~o ~ 83 ~ ~ ~ . It o "1J -I o Z )> - l..>-~ \~ o -~ r ~ II I = ;~ ~ ~- ~ 0:: C L r t~- 1~ ~~ \J' t - , \~ I', II r - - - ( O_ r- ~ I~' P t-l L I"P' ~ I~ ~ I~ ~ I ~ I ~I L___ ~\Y' ~ ~ h- .,~! -IE . I ~ ~".I ~ l\ .1\ I !j ,,~ ~..Ii t;\~ i I'IT l:;' '11!i ~ . I ~iliil' ill! /. mTII! : ~,\, .f----- .8,. 'I ~ \ r"-J Jj! "I .' ! II' I I ! I ~.: ! iJ JJ '1m'; 'I ~ /. ~ ~ " . !~!.) "' ' ~ " 'mi' ~ ~', i"-.. 'I 'il t . \.i\ 'S=- ~ ~ ~ . - ~ \-, lIT, I I~. - ': I~ . III i'f':- 1=. ..I ~ ,..~ , l' , .'. .,. . .~,~ < ~I= ::; , ;, V' , i.r :-:-1 ,_ ~ ! ", 1= ' I r- 1. I' f= ~~..,,,, 1 . t= , ,... ~ J r- r : !' 1 '1- 1'1 ' r.-~'; rl- ~'I' ':==]i~I)1 ~~ ~ !- I ~ .. ~cl, ,.' W If. z::. -n ' 'I:' ,. ~.;p ---1 Il /i -L'V :' . ' ;'U.... ,,=> ^. . J ~-~" ~~[~'~~ ~~ "~~') ~~c ,.,-< L' ~, '-< . -', ~ L-...l sp.~'" ... .... I' .- - ''-. .. "..' .. I I . '- .- -- () ~ · 'I i. '.:'J'-'; ~ ." I' ~) ~ r" "I; {.- c.. r , ~ .!\fj;JK=_l~j \ (I 3::'-0 \ II '2V:J-o -t " ~_ - .-)) ,IJ ~~r . , ' , '"" IJ ( / ) ~ \J I Vt100 T ~~. "!"I \ . \ \. - I 1-< [~ ~',: , ~ ~.'. J~ I . R l- ~~~ '~, - r= 'l-, -L.::::::':::-:...,I__~ ~~ ~.'.,"'. -r ~.-l -..d: ~J, M'1 I:.), ~~~ .. l) . 'II' : .: e '.;:-~ ....... . m=-,~' ! l f~ 1'- ! ~"- I~ . "- .... i:@' ~; ,'" ..... . '~':~J:::::! -".........~ l :..~ . -4/ - . ~'. I J W' .~ :=1 '-'1'-, ~ ~ '~.s~ ~ - l(.-~ " ~. ] . LMJ W ~~. , ~ri c/ -s:!.....: ~ - ........-.... .......'" l--- .. I ~ 0.." - , :-- 1'" I 'J I ' J :.-1 ..J . .'1 D-: 'J - ~ . ", i . "'~ I" l'- . ..l 11 . " "I rr '=r=ill. 'lL-B ~ ., )> ! . ------4. I I 'L1 -:r ~~ ~ o L j\ 1M -l 1 U I o ""0 --i o Z l> :r: ~ :1 ? L 1 --------. - .j / // ~ ...., ~ ...b=~ V~N ~JE:. ~s ST~E~ 1 '. ", \f _ ~~_ s i--- P ~ t Y 4 ~ ~ /I ~' ~. ~. '. r . ~ '1 \ , I .' Q - - . "ej ~ l ',"~~'i: ~ 1m =: b)- . ~ ';''1 -..... ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~-- :' 1 \...'\-'1 T~ Il ~" " , ~ I~,~) , '> ~;tc:-:c:1 ~>'" , ' ',:: . ,~. j~ ' '. . I ,~\...'-"........-- /,,/"- . I L'~','" "'~\'~~.--~--':--':~' r~~ ~ \;1'''< ".., \'.. 'c r '""1\ ~~J I I~ "~-lC ,~o L ...... .._~-= r '.' '... '~.~ / - -~.~ -c- \..- - · v'~ ~~:/'7; ',/ '. '. '" ' "'~ I t.. t.. J' ..r - . ,.,:," , . Jr-t.. ~"'..'( 0 ~. ~.' . :'It.,..;,:;j">ii: h~JL_.I. ~ -r tiE / ~~ ~,,!:!1 ~- / ~~ l- "iQ\ I ---~ ~:.::r-'-:-- .--=- .. ",." . \)- I~~ < , ' I . 'If'~'~", '. . ,>.. . ~;', t:i. ',<;~. ',"; - . I .;: ~ ~ i I . ~ '\ ,: -d,I' t I~"~~, I I -. J L-... ~. I E 0' ~11 ~ t ,~. 1tl(1 ~r ~j~~,_ ~ i ~.~~. ~ <l \. . . , - .~ ~~.... Ja.gI .~~ ,'~~ ~ ~~,':1lIt ~/~"'!j.,:' (1\1 II ]J ;..;' )'li~. 2-, (1" .p I\)~" P m ~'..: i) I)...-~. ..4 ' ~. _".F ~ IJ, /'. ,___ / ;:;- . : iIir. \ J. ....loo"" .'. -' '."j ~ ,.. '\::: "i .-J~V iV,:: F, ~.4 .......~ ....-" . .' ~ _'I:: II -l ~~ ,'lj.ft. . 'I"'~1.?'./~ . x :>:~. "7~n ~, "!II. Ii: - -I""" v-'~ ~.~~,. ,....-::" 'Jl. 1\," " '\"'\,:\, -.f '------.:'0, " II-::::A.]~ ....0::: ~ -;;;\ lJr / . . \. " -~~-. ~..:, ~ t7:,. ..v ~ "'7' ~11 ?- ~?<~ ..-'L~ ' .~ q ~} r> t ". ~ ,I ~. ~ ..~~~. !:f~ J~;,.---? . .I~ ....- "~', . J~V ~ ~ 1L~ 'Kr Y./":;.-- {l1 .......-/ '.. '-r (-. ,:;;';3'. c:- '", v:---: ~~ ?: ~ ~.--: po y .]J.:---/. ~' / .~. ,.;, I"' .r' "'1" ~~Ll.----'~ ~/ ;:::;,/ // . ~~// , \.ll. . ~ .;:-"';' tJ:?-:: 7 ~ . _ ._......;.'/ q_.\.: ~ ~. '<. ~ ~;;:..--- ;:::: ~ ............... " . .":-. ..... J ~;1i -;:::::- , ~ ~~, ., .. 1'\-- / ~h ._,''''; ;:-'Jf'~ -,. , ~'.1 - \J ~1:t. ../ ~. . l~ , ~:... '. -<_ ',. ~m.~ ___~ /<' I \). I .< ,l- i ?'.~ : .,' ,r~'''l~'';' " .. I I 11 11 \' I \P_ I Do: ~ \l II I cy_ , 0_ V Q J:I ~ ~ I 1\ \1 - II + \f_ I 0: ---r r .~ ~~ ~ / I = ~ E~ ~ w- ~, f' " " ~ -LU' \" -, Q Q - -s:-~ I ~ .I ~Q _ \) L!: ~ ~O~r1 r \rf'~L' = \J ,__ P- E- ,,- L "1' (\ - /,' ~, I--- /' ~ ~ ~ ~ , V\ .:t f" \l ~ L \~ ~ % fL ~ - .-\ ~I ~ r Wi '~,M-~ ~ fJ La' {j f t L Q tj\ E~ ~~ ~o 'V ~ f/ fi l~i~ ~i~~ ~ iJti~l \f'~t~1' t~~~ ~tt~ -I~~ .~. ~; ~L ~-1\ ~ ~. ~/ o "'1J --i o Z l> I!~g~ Go~~ l-;l o i> ~"....... .. " ~ ~ '" Hi 0 ~ " ::;; ~ ~ .. l' i '" z '" -< -< i~ "tI"tIO -< Gl ~~~ 0 ~ l> ~ ~ ;:; ..nt"'IJ .. Gl ~e !l) m ~ ~ ~ 0- Gl l> ~ ~ .....w.::. f'\.) '" ...~ -...l ............tt. 01(1,) -., Ul ~ ~<O c.n N (.1)<0 <D c.n...... ...... o <00 ...., (Xl...... (Xl OCDJ:>.CD ... '" a> NOl\)O cncncn en en en en en (f) en (J) 'Tl" 'Tl ." ,., ,.,,., " 'Tl" 'Tl <5 ~ "'''' ..... .......... CD o a> ~ o m......c.n 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ", II ""~mzCl'l di~~g r ~ en 0 81 ~ ~co~0 ~zm~ ~hP~ " z U> r-C3l:~ ; ~ ~~~i~ o {:J n ::u ~~~..8~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~ril~~ . ~B" ~ '~5;!! m 0 ~ '" ~ ~ .. z ~P ~ fu.l~ ~~: ~ IGJ z i~~i~' ~; ~B ~ o"'~ m ~ (f) mm~ -0 ~ ~ Il(l gin ~~);: i c:" !l:s::8: ." ~ ~i ~~~ ~ {; .. 0 l!o Cii~;t "(!. .8 "ill M "en 0 ..", .....CD"tI c "11 ~~i'; ~ i'1!grn 0 ml) ~ IJl van Ne&& &treet. ~ II I I' u; '" 0 .... r.> (II.... ..... '3 ~ -e 0 -< ~ 1f. .." 0 m m ~ - U> ... . ! U> N ~ U> H~~ ~ 11 ~ ~ z g ~ ~~~ '" '" 0 z ~~~ !l 0 ~ ill ~~~ !:l !~g ~ I "'>> I ~..." !!1 In" ~...~ ~~ l!!ffic II ..",,, ...",.. Zz sg~ .0.. II ~~ ~~~ i QrC ~ ~~ ~~:l ~"'~ 3 ~~~ OJ ....... "'~ :J me';; 0 iil~ , Oi~ ;;. i I I 9~ . !I '1 r LJ l 'IN-,"i-: ...,., " (, 'i '" \ Alley ell)" N 6S 44'32.. 117.50' -2 lUll __@_l~_____________ I ~ ~ - ~ ~ II lI- -K !!~ Q- !~ o - " ".} ...... 111oo A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA - Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive REVISIONS Proiect Location: Medford, Oregon 97504 ..... ... 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). -... A1 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E 140 lOT # 2403 .. r -l ....,.,~...~'"._.J-,,""_ Yon Ness :,treet t .,~,. ._.........ild. .... .u.....'~ ..'a. ,.~.- ........ o ""'0 -I o Z l> I (b 3 OJ :5 (J) c+ ., (b (b c+ ~r i r -",; l i i.t, / iL 28.85' --~ , \ , , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \. , \ , , \. \ , , \ , , \ , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , \ 'f- \. ~. \. , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , , \. \ \ \ \ , , \ \ , \ \ , , - - -- - ---- -- -- - - -- - - - - ---- -- - - - --- - - ---- -- -- - ----- -- - - - ---- ----- - - - -+ - -- - -- -- -,-- ---~ N 63D44'32"W 117.50' 28.85 Alley .......- "r~ 1"O\1l ~~t \1'" ..it o m ~ ..--- ,': \ , , \ , , \ \ , \ \ , \ \ , !:~ -' - -t W... \ , \ , , \ '. \ \ , , \ \ \ , , \ \ , \ , , \ \ , , \ , , \ , \ , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \ '. \ \ , , \ , , \ Lot 6 \ \ , , \ , , \ , \ , \ \ , , \ , , \ , , \ ['-.. :," . ' (J) (J) - ~! '. , \ 1InIolot1llo A Mixed Use Development For. Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive IIolc REvISIONS Proiect Location: Medford, Oregon 97504 .... ... 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). -.... A2 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E 140 LOT # 2403 , ,,', I ~ i : 'I 'I',> I ....':., . .,,' 'I' ", I :0 i ", ~ ..--- " , . '-,' ['-.. (J) (J) w o C'J .." " ~ '.+ I""') ~ ',....\'..: Z ..:". 'T" " ,'j:... " I. :, :}:. '.: " ' , I.... , "'1 ' ':"j,., " J', .'. ,j., ;', I',': <::, ":":1',' o .. . '. . I . o .' -i' o . "".:j., ',' : ':. I::, " '" . . " ~. . . . I.." " I " . " ," ",'" , , , :, 'r . ", . '1": ~', . . '. '., )' ,..' I' I, " . . ,'" :. J: .' "I : 1 " ,', '. ~ .. r Van Ne&& &treet I (b 3 OJ 3 (J) ...... -, (b (b ...... '1 . , . '. "I '"..::,'::,:..::' ,,:\::! ' ::~. 'I . . . ',.1.,' ,"] .' . "', :g . J. ~ ",' ,I . I,' ,"\' . ': 'I' , . '1 , , 'I', . 28.85' __~ , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ '. \ '. \ , \ , \ , , \ \~ ,'tl, 'u! \ <.1'. , <e.. \~ '. '<e.. \ , , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , --------------~ 28.85' o '"'0 --i o Z )> . ""1'" ',\'. ,,', ',. " . . to,' . ....1. . ,. . ' I'. '. J.. '.' "'1 :", ,',,'. ':':. ., . . ,'" 'I . : . .',' . z ~. ~.:. " ..; ~ ,.., <D. <D . ~:' g' ~. , " ,I ",', , , ..' . . . J" I :: , . I . "'1" ", ': ..... ',. . I,,' , " " I,. . N 6J44'32"W 117.50' o -;il " ; I Alley -,., A Mixed Use Development For; Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive .... RtV1510NS Proiect location: Medford, Oregon 97504 ..... "'" 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). -"'" A3 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E14DLOT#2403 o -0 -I o Z )> ~.." ~ ,i I I i , I , I I , , I I I \ I i I \ I I , I I I ..-- Van Nee& &treet ~ II I I II '!r I i:~ I @~ ~ ~ I I'n', i8~ . ! i I II II. 0. 3 fu :3 i I I I i 91 I II CHl\ .:;, ~r '^ I -' -;; I r i I 4- c I ~ '^ ~ C". l ,..... "-1 --:J LJ - ~":"\i 1> (, t '", - lilll _@_l~_____________ . II '.,' 1lI- -lS. !!!: i~ (\ - . . 'J i IIteIlot ,.. A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive DoIc REvISIONS Prolect Location: Medford, Oregon 97504 I'nfocIIt.: 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 ilo'aooIotllo.: A1 39 1E 14D LOT # 2403 -L i I II II (b 3 l.h :J ~"......... o -0 --i o Z CD .... "U"Uo ~~~ ., ~"'D rJel .. m () .... l o Cl )> ~ Cl .p;! .... ~a~ ~~~ ",-0 r-" m o z o =! ~ f:: (/) ~d G)~ o~ )>cn Z ~ ~6 0.. Clm ;n ro~ g ~ ~ II~ ~ -6 ->.w.-;' I\J en N"" W CDtn~CD 00'1 CD J:a, (j) CI)(IJ en i1"11"T1 "Tl '" ,.- o -co ... "' co "' ... '" (/) (/)(/) " "" "" .........~ Ul NW(O en Q).....-.J O'lONW en Cf) CJ) en "T1 "i1"'Tl ..-- van Ne&& &treet ~ II III . i '" " n-i OO(j)(J)<:r~ ~~ oZ5i-i~R8 Fn~ ~~~~'1l~ ~ 1ia '" ~ Jl ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~~~~~ ~ d ~ ~ gg~~~ o ~ 0 " 0" ~~5~~ ~~~~8 ~~~~ "'DZ~ZN ~ ril ~;1 Co::D m ~ Q .. ~ ~ . . ~ 5", ~ ~ ~ ~ " Gl m .~~ ~ ~ .. ~ I~ w z ~ z z 151 ;; ~:g ~ NO m i"j;: ~~ '" I ':1 g l; " C :I: :; ~~ " ..0 z go ~ "ill " ~~ " ~ ;g 8! Be; w~ @J III" h . ~ ~ 0 ~to) CD U) ..... ~ ~ ~ "0 0 m m " ~ en d t 3~~ ffi Of'o)~ m mCD(n "'D ~~~ ~ i::i:O "II i~~ ~ ~~~ ~ q A en n "'1>>'11 C ~~1; > lfi!QUI ~ m1'; '" rn I I In" e~ . N ~ o coo ~; ~ nl!~ z 1; ~ ~~~ Ii Gl 0 0 ~~~ <;j m '" menD ~ C"z :g~~ !,Bm)> ~ r>" !!! >:1: ~~~ "'m rmo ~~ "'GlC -';0'" Zz Oom .0", g~~ ~ 0-' ;0;0 ~~~ ~m ~~~ " :I: 0", ~" Rl~ "'''' ~~ 3" I' i I i I I I , I . ! I I . I 9; -f .s.:- v-> ~r r l ~I i \ Alley rur N 63"44'32"W 117.50' r-l L-.J lUll __@_l~_____________ i Ii ~ II ." .. , .11 illS. !I!~ ~li II , '.,1 .... .. A Mixed Use Development For. Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive ... REVISIONS Proiect location: Medford, Oregon 97504 .... ... 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). ...... ... A1 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E 14D LOT # 2403 o "lJ --., o z OJ , . ", , .':.1 - ..- ,,:.. .. , r--: ''-:', (J) . ".' (J)" ' : "~I .".: '. .... '. , , I 0) 3 lD ~ (J) c+ -. 0) 0) c+ , I', I ,',. 'I',. I .. "'I "':, 'I - ..- . .: I , , r--... en .... ,: (J) .,.- ',',: I "', I w o N ......, "<;j- I") lo N :z o o o o ~r i f c:::a l I / L ~ I~ r' .c, " :1',,'-',: 1- . , 'Ian Neee Street '- 28.85' :n~ii "Do\)) ~o:;: '-~.. \ , \ , , \ , , \ '- \ , , \ , :,1 ~~ "Oil (\ .. :;~ 10- .... W'" , , \ , , \ , , \ , . \ , , \ , \ \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ '- \ '- \ , , \ \ , , \ , , \ \ , \ , , \ , , Lot 6 \ '\ , , \ \ , , \ , , \ '- \ , , \ , , \ , , ~ i :n~;V ,-OJ> ~w~ ~~ -0 - .... w... .... .. A Mixed Use Development Far. Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive DoIc REVISlONS Proiect Location: Medford, Oregon 97504 .......... 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). ..... .... A2 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E 14D LOT # 2403 I o -0 -I o Z CD - II ~ U\ r ,"' LJ l ~ 'ri' U;,. ' ( Ydn Ne&& &lreel I Q) 3 OJ 3 (J) r+ ., Q) Q) r+ ~ ''t>. to . . I to ',' .' ~. "'" I 28.85' __~ , \ , , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ \ , \ , \ , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ \-t- ,~ 'v! \ 0'. , 't>. \~ .. ''t>. \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ , , \ , , \ .. \ .. \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , , \ , \ .. \ , \ , \ .. \ , \ , , \ , , \ ': " . :,', I 'I . ',. I , II z', . o "', b"":' ',I A., ....,...: " ': I , , '" I , , " . ". "'I ..', \ , 1 , " " .,' I "; , , " I , --- - - - - - - - -- -- -- - -- - - - -- - ---- - -- - - -- - ---- - --- - -- --- -- -- - - - -- - -- ----- +-- --- - - -;- -- - -- ~ N 63'44'32"'N 117.50' 28.85 Alley /' ..... .. A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive loll: REVISIONS Proiect location: Medford, Oregon 97504 ..... "'" 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). ....."'" A3 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E 14D LOT # 2403 PLANT KEY 5YM 60T ANICAL NAME P5 ACER 'PACIFIC 5UN5ET' GR GlJERCI!5 RlA3RA ZEL ZELKOVA 5. 'GREEN VASE' COMt'ONNAME PAC. 5UN5ET MAPLE RED OAK ZELKOVA 51ZE GUAN. 2' CAL. 1 2' CAL. S 2'CAL. I LANDSCAPE NOTES lANDSCAPE ~TRACTDR IS HEREBY ROTERtD TO AS -CONTRACTOR" ~ BERflERI5 ROSY GLOt'l' CAN IBERI5 SEMPERVIRENS CV CEANOTHJ5 VICTORIA' E5C E5CALLONIA 'PINK PRINCESS' LAV LAVANDtA.A 'HIDCOTE' ROSY GLOt'l BARBERRY CANDYTIJFT SLUE BL0550M E5CALLONIA LAVENDER 2 GAL. 4 I GAL. es 5 GAL. 10 2 GAL. II I GAL. 52 . PLNfrS SHALL BE GlRANTEED FOR 60 DAYS rR04 OVNERS' ACCEPTANCE. <EXCEPT IN CASES or NEGLECT BY D\nER, VANDALISM. [R 'ACT or GD~) . USE UNIVERSAL RlllIT BARRIERS III AU. TREES IIITHIN 6' IF PAVED SURrACES. . RllTIlTlLL 3" IF lRGANIC Son. AMENDMENT INTO AU. PLANTERS. ADD 5 LIS/lOGO Sa. n. OF UNITED HIlRTICUl. TURAL SlPPLY 16-14-12 'GARDEN GREEN" FtRTIJlZER PRIeR TO TIWNG. MR MAHONIA REPENS CREEPING MAt'ONIA I GAL. NMR NANDINA l-lO'fERS RED' t'O'(ERS NANDINA 5 GAL. PIE PIERI5 JAPONICA ANDROMEDA 2 GAL. POL f'Rlk.l.I5 'OTTO LlI'I'KEN' LlI'I'KEN LAUREL 5 GAL. ROS ROSEMARIN1!5 PR05TRA TI!5 CREEPING ROSEMARY I GAL. RTB ROSEMARIN1!5 'T1J5(;AN 6LIJE' Tl!5CAN ROSEMARY 5 GAL. 5PI SPIRAEA 'A. I"lATERER' 5PlRAEA 2 GAL. r;&I PLANT 1 GAL. KINNICKINICK S' ON CENTER MRE INDICATED 6'( HATCH. · M:1TE, SEE IEXT SlEET FOR LOCATIOI6 OF I'fI?OL Y 1HYIt: PI.AN11N65 . KJLCH ALL Pl...ANTERS WITH 3' LAYER OF HILTON ~ARK Kl..TI-BARK', 1 20 II 10 IS 2 (SEE NEXT SHEET IS FOR LOCATION) . BACK nu. PLANTS PER DETAD... AND ADD AGRIF'tRM FERTD..IZER TMlLETS PER MANlFACTUERS REC04ENDATUH . STAKE TREES AS REOUIRED. REMOVE STAKING FnlUJ\lING SEatm SEASON ArTER PLANTING. . APPLY SENTRY XL2G PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE TO ALL PlANTERS l.MJER HLl.CH LAYER. . AU. TDPSon. IS TO BE "HIL. TON FllREST LOAM". . ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO I€ET [R EXCEED ClRRENT D.A.N. STANDARDS. /~\ , (IS/~" /~ .:::': <' m:l:t:--~:+;'.t.\l.,~II/ (66)c'AN~~~~. /E' ""l..l :"""' ~.." ....I.OC:~. ~ "'" ~ ~ ~,< ':. i~{;:.I,~: .' - (~' :, Oii.plI> · .... ....".- ':': '. ~,..., (l)ZEL (e)C,AN . CDNTRACltR IS TO VERIF'Y SITE CONDITIDNS AND MEASlREMENTS PRIIR TO BIDDING PROJECT. NDTIrY MJM or At{'( DISCREPANCIES. . CllNT1lACTllR TO VERIrY OUANTlTlES IF PLANTING MATERIALS PRIIJl TO BIDDING PROJECT, NlITIF'Y M.I4 IF ANY DISCREPANCIES. . ~ADE ALL PLANTERS TO IRAtN AVAY F'R[J4 BlIJL.DINGS AT A 2% MINIHl.J4 SLOPE. INSURE ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS IIRAIN TO SUITABLE LDCATIlJlS. VAN IE56 ST. SPREAD ~ (5)LAV . PlANT SO tHAT lOP OF ROOT BAlL IS ," ABO't'E fINISHED GRADE Iii I '\. "-----/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \.lAI \\,~ ~ \..ti<1 I / SEE SlEET L102 ,,\ ~ I----"" FOR PlAZA DETAIL .&V" /. .. . PI ANTW.,c; ~ "," \ " ,,/'~" \@ '\. ~.:'1" /",;, '\ \ ~ /' " \. ~.....~ 'I' \ ' ~~' ,\ .. ~:x ,.) \ \ \ ~~' \, \ ~ ~~\ \ \ .. \. ~ ~~7( ~ \~ \. ~~~~ \~~~ , ~~ OO:,~ \ .. ~ ~ \ \. ~" \ "\. \., ~ ~~;j -------- \. # ~ \~ ,,-- 1: _______ , ~........ r; \ \ ":~ ~~; \ \., ~~"\~~'~t}"" \. ~. \ \ \ \ ., r\ ," ~ ~ \ ~ . \ L,) , \ A\c- \.. '-,':."- 'V)"~. . ~.... ~ \ ,,-4 ~ '.(I'\l" ""'l~~':.1' 'Xl(t.\3";_ I . ~.J ~ \.. >.., .'....~ Ij ;.::x~ -........ ,\ (.....,.' 11\ ~ ~ \ ~~ . (\ IV-:~ "~d1 Ij ~" ::: \ '< ~ I I~PT r 1 I I I All Y I I;T r T ~ \\~~ '. \)1 j ------------- ~20_-~------------l--------------------------~ - / (6~S/ (2)C,AN- / (4!5P (' NOTE, iA'lDERGROIW T.lD. , LINE IN THI5 AREA ,,!~ '\ (6JP5 (SCI)LAV (1)NMR (Il)PIE '''PlASllC "aiAlN" lREE l1E-LENGlH AS REQUIRED HAROYItK)[) STAKES 1-3 STAKES 2" X 2" DRMN (11.1. ,..) ARlIL Y INTO SUBGRADE PRIOR TO BAatRWNC :RAP'- STAKE ABOVE FIRST BRANDiES ~~~~ECESSARY FOR FlRN FORM 5O,/SO IIIX NAn\/[ SOIl. ili a: lOPSOIL ADD AGRI- FORM FERTUZER TABS _ PER MANUFACTURER. WAtER 6: TAMP TO ...Ill ROIOVE AIR POCKETS i ~ ~ .. f\ \ NOIT: :'" I ---- = B~.rER ":~ (TYP) EXTEND 3' BOTH DIRECnClNS FROM CEN1ERt.IIIE CF lRUNK \ STAKING AS REQUIRID Ill;;: ~ 2 X /. ..' (S)E5C TREE PLANTING wi ROOT CONTROL BARRIER ~ NOT TO SCALE ( / I) '~ ~~ " ~~ L\< 1:: ~ (S)LAV ~f1>t (l)GR ~' I:. (6)C,AN ~k"" .:. ....... [> ~ '"'"". 1/ ~.~ I ( ~~..:..:. \\1< ..' 0-. , I ( , :. ,....)> .' A": ". .,;, . , '7. ~ \'<~, 'JJ('JJ TOPSOIL Ii NATI\{ SOIL T AUP AND SET \11TH WATER. AGRlfORU fER TABS PER U r UUlCH ~ 1 xC"''.::':I' .~.? / ,~ ~iLj ~'~I ( [i8l)',(" 1\ ~>l\'~ V "lJ1 II 11111 1111 . ~71l"i f D......Jt~ \"\ ,~* ~'l I ~...>~ I 0 .: r-"i/ (3Jtt.R ~ (4,\'0\. - j'\ ~~ I 0) S)POL fORU SAUCER r CONTINUOUS \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL no scde C7 \j (6)E5C (4)~ (l)GR r\ I ~ ..:' ~ LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ SCALE 1"=101 - ~ l~ I (n rJ " '" ~ it i ~ Sl1eet: LIOI ~ "\1 " I V;' HELMAN STREET MIXED-USE ~. MICHAEL J. MINDER o' ;;. ~ SISKIYOU LLC (O~NER) ~ ~~~ 6' LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL C. " l!1~~ 131 TERRACE iE www,landscaredeSil1nbum 1m ,com II '" ~s~ >t. 0..... ASHLAND/OREGON " ~~~ l' (541)776-0409 m~ i~i~ ~~m ~~ ~ :l> ~ ::t: ~ ~ [@ POINT OF CONNECTION. ADD 3/4' 1110 ~ILKIN5 PRESSURE REDu::.ING VALVE (SET TO 40 P.5.I), AND ~ILKIN5 .qSO XL T DOUBLE CHECK VALVE. ADD 3/4' ISOLATION VALVE (flRA55 BALL VALVE) AT POINT OF CONNECTION) RAIN6IRD xc.Z-015 DRIP ZONE KIT 1/2' DRIP 1'RIMK LINE i\J5E 3/4' sc.H 40 PVC IN ALL UNDER PAVING SLEEVES) Q)pvc 5CH 80 NIPPLE (CLOSE) @VAlVE BOX WITH COVER: 24-INCH SIZE 0)10 TAG o WA.TER PROOf CONNECTION (1 OF 2) 0) 3O-INCH UNEAR LENGTH OF WIRE. COILED ; nNISH GRAQE 7 TOP or MULCH 6 PVC SCH .0 COUPUNC 9 PVC 5CH 80 NIPPlE (LENGTH AS REOUIRED) @P\IC 5CH 40 Ell @PVC 5CH 60 NIPPlE (2-INCH LENGTH. HIDDEN) AND PIIC SCH 40 ELL ~2 PVC 5CH 40 TEE OR Ell 13 BRICK (1 OF 4) 14 3.0-INCH "'N'"U" DEPTH OF 3/4-INCH WASHED GRAVEL @PIIC t.tAJNUNE @CONTROl ZONE K~: RAIN BIRD LtOOEl XCI-075 @PIIC SCH BD UNION FDR SERVICING A$SEUBLY @PIIC SCH 40 IAAl.E ADAPTER tSOlATIl)N VAlVE FROt.I POM OF COtH:CTlON PRESSURE REDUCN; VAlVE (SIZE 6: TYPE PER PlAN) IRRIGATION LEGEND /! ~ Inigotion PVt moin 1M 1 1/2~ walfted 9fOY8I 3/4' sc.H40 PVC DRIP LATERAL ~ ~ 3' sc.H 40 PVc. UNDER PAVING SLEEVE RAIN6IRD 133 GUICK c.oIJPLlNG VALVE HUNTER PRO-C PC-bOO TIME CLOCK (INSTALL ~ERE DIRECTED 6'1' WILDER) I' 5c.H40 PVC MAIN LINE 3/4' 5c.H40 PVC DRIP 5UPPLY LINE TO CONTAINERS N01[: 1. NSTALl BACKFtOW PR[V[NT[R AS REQURED BY l~ CODES AND HEAlTH DEPARTMENT. VERIFY LOCAl REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. Van Ness Street XERIGATlON CONTROL ZONE KIT DOUBLE CHECK VALVE w/PRES. RED. VLV. NO SCALE ". " IRRIGATION NOTES (IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS HERE6'I' REFFERRED TO AS 'CONTRACTOR') · CONTRACTOR SHALL 1N!:lJRE ALL I5>OVERNING 6Ac.KFLO~ PREVENTION CODES ARE FOLLL~D. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AN'!' REGUIRED PERMIT AND/OR DEVICE TESTING. · CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL lWER PAVING SLEEVES AT A MINIHJM Ie" DEPTH. · MAIN LINE DEPTH SHALL ElE 15'.le' DEPTH. EltJR'( DRIP 1Rl!NK LINES AT 4' DEPTH. DA'l'LIGHT EMlffiRS . PLANTS. . FLUSH ALL PIPINGI1U6ING PRIOR TO INSTALLING VALVE5/EMITTERS. · PROVIDE OMR ~ITH I GUIC.K c.oIJPLER KEY AND HOSE S~IVEL. . SPLICE ~IRES ONLY IN VALVE BOXES. lI5E '14 U.F. ~IRE AND COLOR CODE. · INSTALL TIME CLOCK MRE DIRECTED 6'1' WILDER. · SAND ElED PIPING ~ERE ROCK IS ENGOUNTERED ~ILE TRENCHING. ElED ~ITH 3' MINIMUM LAYER OF SAND AT ALL SIDES OF PIPING. c o E OJ :r: ~ SCALE 1"= 10' nNISH GRAOE/TOP OF MULCH QUICK-COUPLING VAlVE: RAIN BIRD MOOEL JJOLRC VAlVE BOX W~H COVER: 6-INCH SIZE PVC SCH BD NIPPlE (LENGTH I>S REQUIRED) 3-INCH "'N'MU" OEPTH OF 3j4-INCH WI>SHED GRAVEL I'VC SCH 40 STREET ELL BRICK (1 OF 2) ......, OJ OJ '- ......, U') I'VC SCH BD NIPPLE (LENGTH I>S REQUIRED) I'VC SCH 40 STREET ELL NOTE: ,. FURNISH FITTINGS AND PIPING NOMiNAlLY SIZED IDENTICAl. TO NO"'NAl QUICK COUPLING VAlVE INlET SIZE. I'VC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL I'VC IotAINlINE PIPE I'VC SCH 40 ElL Z. , z. REDWOOD STAKE wj STAINLESS STEEL GEAR CLAMPS OR EQUIVALENT SUPPORT SYSTEM QUICK-COUPLING VALVE SINGLE-OUTLET E""mrR: RAIN BIRD XERI-BUG E"ITTERS XB-1D 1/4-INCH vtNYl DISTRIBUTION TUBING: RAIN BIRO DT -025 lt4-INCH TUBING STAKE: RAIN BIRD TS-025 3- MULCH LAYER INSERT nrnNG: RAIN BIRD U~BI~'b~lN'i:~'{ot'~~~~25 PE PIPE: RAIN BIRD XERI-TUBE XT-050-2DD BURY TUBE 4. BElOW SOlL LEVEL NOTE: 1. USE RAIN BIRD BUG GUN "ODEL EIotA-BG TO INSERT BARB CONNECTOR DIRECTLY INTO XERI- TUBE. EMITTER INTO 1/4" TUBING DRIP EMITTER SCHEDULE - ALL DRIP EMITTERS ARE TO BE PRESSURE COMPENSATING RAINBIRD XB SERIES DR EQUAL -t... -...1 I GAL. GRoUNDCoVER ONE 1/2 GPH EMITTER I GAL. SHRUB 2-3 GAL. SHRUB ONE 1 GPH EMITTER TIJo 1 GPH EMITTER 5 GAL. SHRUB THREE 1 GPH EMITTER TIJo 2 GPH EMITTERS 4j ,,\ 0# ' IRRIGATION PLAN \ \, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ (n tI i'2 ~ffi~~ J> ('> '" '<j ~ ~ ft ;:;, HELMAN STREET MIXED-USE "" II )r~ 7' no tc, ~, MICHAEL J. MINDER t~~~ -+ ~ " ('> ~ ~ r!" ~ SISKIYOU LLC (Ov-iNER) ii 0...... .n. Zi\j d' LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL c.. ~~~C' j Ot.::::;!O" W U1 .n ;g j;)- j;) (S ~ "" s eet: ~~~ ~ 131 TERRACE ~ www,landscar:>edeSIC1nbumlm,com lill ....~rn '" -~ ~-~ LIOS (!". 0...... "";'ij ASHLAND, OREGON " <I- i: (541)776-0409 ~ PLANT KEY S'I1l BOTANICAL NAIl[ PS ACER 'PACIFIC SUNSE1' QR QUERQJS RUIlRA m mxOVA s. 'GREEN V<< caIIOl NAIl[ PAC. SUNSET IIAPlE RED OAK mxOVA SIZE :tCAL 7 :tCAL 3 :t CAL 1 WAN. LANDSCAPE NOTES l.MIlSCN'E aJIlT1lAC1lIt IS HEIlDY IlEFfUED 10 AS 'CllIITUCTlIl" IlRG IIERIlERIS 'ROSY Q.cY/l CAN lIDS SEIIPEIMlENS CV CEAN01HUS \1C1lJlIA' ESe ESCAU.CMA 'PH< PRINCESS' LAV LAVANlULA 'HlDco1E' ROSY GlOW BARBERRY CANDY11JT Il.UE IllOSS(II ESCAU.CMA LA'teIlER 2GAL 1 GAL 5 GAL 2 GAL 1 GAL 4 82 10 11 55 7 22 11 10 13 2 (SEE NEXT SIET 13 tal LOCAlQ) . I'UlHTS IHM.L IE ~ F'IIl 110 IlI\YS F1IlIII lMEJtS' ACa:PT1INCE. CElCCEI'T IN eASES IF IlDlUI:T IV IMlER. V-.JSM. .. 'ACT IF GIIII'> . USE lIGVERSAL ra:rr IMRIERS [It ALL TREES VITHIN ,. IF PAVED SlW"M:ES, . IlIIT1lTll.I. 3' IF lIlGNOC SIlL _ IN1U M.L PLNmJlS. ADD S ~ sa n. IF IMI1D HIIITttUl.n-. SlPPl. Y 16-1+-12 'GMIIEN GIlEEN' F'EIlTIJIZER I'IlIIIl TO TlL.LING. . MlLat IILL Pl.NfTDI \lITH :r LAYER IF NlL.1IIf..,.. u.n-lMlI(#. ($Av III IIAHONA REPENS CREEPING IIAHONA 1 GAL NIIR NAMllNA 'IIo'tERs RED' MOYERS NNONA 5 GAL PIE PlERIS JAPlHCA ANlR<IIEIlA 2 GAL PQI. PRUNUS 'ann W'tKEN' W'Il<EN l.AUREl. 5 GAL ROS ROSaIARINUS PROS1RAlUS CREEPING ROSEIIARY 1 GAL RTB ROSaIARINUS '1USCAN IlWE' lUSCAN ROSaIARY 5 GAL SPl SPIRAEA 'A. WAlERER' SPIRAEA 2 GAL ~ PLANT 1 GAL I<IlNICI<NCK "S ON CENlBl YHRE NlICAlED BY HAlal · II01E: SEE lOT HEr fill Llx:AlIIIS If ItlXlY lHl1E PINl1IlGS . IIlQ( FILl. I'UlHTS _ DETAIL, _ ADII __ F'EIITIUZER TAILETS _ -.FM:1IDS _TIIII. . STIlICE TREES AS REQlJEIL IDIJVE STMDG F1I..LINJHG SEaIID SEAS1It N'TER fIlMTDrIi. . IIPPL Y SEN1'RY XU!G PRE-oIEIGDfT taIJCIII[ TO M.1. PLNIT'ERS UNDER tII..Dt LAYER. . M..L. TtPSDIl. IS TO .: ....1IIf F1IIEST LIWI"'. . M..1. PLMT MTERIALS /lIE. 1tI t€ET lit EXCEED aatlEJfr DAN. STMGWIDS. . aJNTRIICT1JI IS TO VERIF'Y SITE: aJIIIITIDNI AND ~ PIUIIR TO MIIDING PMI.ECT. JrIJ11FYMJMIF""~ . aJIlT1lAC1lIt 10 VERIFY lIIMNTtTIES IF "'--ING ....TtIlLlU I'IlIIIl 10 IIIIDING PlnttT. IIITIF'Y ..... IF _ DISCIlEI'NlCIES . -- M.L PUIlTDS 10 _ AVAY F1IlIII IUILIIIII6S AT A ex _ SUI'[. __ M.L l.MIlSCN'E MEAl _ 10 surTAILE LlICA'I1IIIS. SPIlE.OO SfMINQ AS RE'QlRI) !i: I . PlANT so 1IIAT TIP OF IIOOl" IIM.L IS ,. Mt:Nf _CIlAllE ,'PIASlIC "OWN" 1II!E lE-uIIlml AS__ _ lITAICES 1-3 lITAICES r x r ::"~~Y 10 IIAaCFlUlO P - lITAIC[_FIllIT_ ~-FllR-FIlIIII SMlCUt :~ NA==- RRI fD1IJZEIt TABS P!II IllNU'AC1UIIIIl .mt . TMP 10 _ ... POCICE1lI WAUC/tUII HOlE: 'llIIP lIOCI1" UN-. IIOOl" __ pt....2 (TYP) EX1IIID :r 101M IRC1IClNS __ C8I1UlIJN[ OF _ TREE PLANTING WI ROOT CONTROL BARRIER !ICN.r: NOT 10 lICAIL filfJJ 1IP.D. a: !lAR9l. TMI' NIl SEI1\.E 1Il.1ER. MIl AGIlfIIII RnllBl TAlIS PER IINIFACRIIR SHRUB PLANTING DEl AIL no_ \ L.-1 -r ~~ a If -- LANDSCAPE PLAN ~ SCALE 1"=10' -t:. ~ (J) tJ C> '" ~ 't ~ i See: L1 01 HELMAN STREET MIXED-USE SISKIYOU LLC (OWNER) 131 TERRACE ASHLAND, OREGON "t! "' ~, >1- ;; ci> ~ '" ~, ~ LAJlIDlKlAPE DIl8ION PIl0RUlONAL WNW la1ds{L1oede'5ic.flbumlm ,com I ~ ~~il l~~~ I~ii ~~J ). ~ .:j: ~ " ::I MICHAEL J. MINDER (541)776-0409 ;1? \ \ fi' il " t} .:;:l:;- ~ .- ~ .::I ~ -- . .... l ~ - '-- J ~1 --- I ' I I 4" ....-- ......-. CITY OF ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of November 8, 2006 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW Planning Action #2006-00612 Request for a Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman 51. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1 E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Recommendation to Planning Commission: Recommend Approval (Unanimous) of the Site Review with the following design recommendations: · Bump out the 5-foot Helman Street sidewalk to the curb beginning just past the plaza entry and continue to the Van Ness comer. Add a 10-foot planting buffer between the corner building and the sidewalk to soften the mass and bulk of the west wall and accentuate the entry. It would also make it easier for pedestrians to exit cars parked on Helman Street. · Provide exterior design details and material and color samples to full Historic Commission for approval prior to submitting for the Building Permit Community Development 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/488-5305 Fax: 541-/488-6006 TTY: 800/735-2900 15/ rA' ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW November 9, 2006 PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1 E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Recommendation: 1) That the street tree root barriers shall be installed laterally along the sidewalk, the building and the street. 2) That the Tree Commission supports the proposed meander of the sidewalk to increase the planting area at the corner of Van Ness & Helman streets. Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2050 TTY: 800-735-2900 CITY OF /5;J- ASHLAND I , , . \ I ," ~ ~--l 1\ if - =- =11 mil .'~ ; '-.. )"'11 ~ ~ ~J .." l \ 'rI r ~ dfD ., 'II -'-l ,.J1'O ... ~~1 -;.:0,,] ~ ~-' ~1 . ~. -" "'= ~- .~~ ~.'.'.....; I~ r- r- 't- :I ,\', I; , .,. .../.... ,,- -j c~ ~ 'I ". ... 11- I I.-- ~ ~ "- "-' Ipo- ~ ~ j r::.....~ .........lfmffIll II I ilrmlllrmrm ~- I I / I / .... T - r .. . -- ....- w- .. ~ !:" --~- L r L --..,.,, ---... 1 . ,,- 2" - ..-. ..1 -...... ..--- Owner's Statement Philosophy: Major events of my life have always been guided by philosophy. I first came to Ashland in the 1960's because my goal was to help foster world peace and understanding not the accumulation of material things that my friends in Medford wanted. I found a like-minded community here in Ashland. After 35 years in the construction industry, (the last 15 as an environmental consultant) I want to do something environmentally sound and positive for the community. Our scientists tells us that we have about ten years to reduce our use of greenhouse gases or drastic effects of global warming will occur. Energy to heat and cool buildings account for 48% of the energy use in America, autos use 37%. The American Institute of Architects have effected the 2030 Challenge which has set a goal to reduce our energy use to the 1970 levels by the year 2030. In practical terms this means to reduce the energy load of all buildings by 50%. I intend to meet that goal. I want to be example of what we as a community can do. The last 2 decades have seen a net loss of jobs leaving Ashland, especially middle income sector. This has affected our community in three ways. The loss of tax revenue has put a burden on our schools and the support needed is placed heavily on the retired sector. Young families can't afford to live here. Two schools have closed, we are becoming less diversified than a healthy community needs to be.. I want to encourage healthy development of new businesses in the computer software and bio- sciences. Businesses that will not deplete our quality oflife. The final effect is that we are driving cars more. The reality is that those who can afford to live here drive to Medford to work. Those who have service jobs here drive from the more affordable areas. ODOT has estimated the daily average of vehicle trips between Medford and Ashland at 30,000. (See Oregon.gov/ODOT). Figuring 15,000 vehicles@ 1500# of CO/year. We as a community are producing roughly 22.5 million pounds of CO per year. We can do better. We can reconsider how we live and our relationship to cars. (One side note, by creating a society where everyone drives we are in a sense supporting the WalMarts, Wincos and Costcos who take away customers from local businesses). Cars in my belief are the major hindrance to our quality oflife. I want to re-introduce the idea ofliving in a village, where you live where you work. I want to encourage the idea that you can walk to the store, restaurant, or see a play without getting in a car.( I personally walk 4 miles every day). This proposal includes free electricity for electric cars. I am currently building a prototype of a commuter car. I am recycling a 15 yr old car, (Volkswagen cabriolet) replacing the gas engine with an electric motor. It will have a range of 50 miles. It's batteries will be charged from solar panels. The goal is have the car pay for itself in 5 years by not needing to fill-up, plus it has zero emissions. I believe we as a community can cut our emissions from cars by 50% in 10 years. Think about it. We have only a ten year window. Design: The design of this project is based on an Italian 9th century village. People live where they work. Their homes are within walking distance to the market, local shops and 15 " restaurants and such. By having common walls we can reduce the energy needs of both. We also can reduce the total costs of construction, to make spaces for new businesses more affordable. This project will use green building practices. I define green by the following concepts: 1. The current building will be recycled at least 95%. 2. No trees will be cut unnecessarily. The only wood components needed are some roof framing, window and door trim and some flooring. These can obtained from wood reclamation centers and certified renewable forests. 3. The major components will be ICF blocks, concrete floors, high yield steel windows and steel framing and roofs. The combination of these will reduce energy load by a huge margin. 4. Rain-water runoff will be collected in a underground water tank and reused for irrigation. S. Solar hot water units will be used in conjunction with on-demand gas water heaters. 6. The project is committed to participate in the city's community solar project to offset energy needs with energy production see: Larry Giardina Conservation Analyst City of Ashland 541 552-2065 qiardin@ashland.or.us 7 . Solar collectors will provide shade at the plaza and power to run the fountain pumps and low voltage common lights. 8. Low voltage lighting and energy star appliances will be used throughout the project. 9. Trees and roof overhangs will provide shade to reduce energy load and soften the visual aspects of the building. 10. Window and vent placement will be set to work with the natural wind currents to cool the building during the summer and passively heat the building during winter. 11. We will eliminate the use of toxic chemicals. In conclusion, It is my goal to build a socially responsible building that will recognize the need to reduce greenhouse gases, offer opportunities for good jobs, consider alternatives in transportation and create living and working spaces that are healthy and respect the human element. Sinre~ Jt ~ /51 OCTOBER 10, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET r.' Planning Department, 51 Win"..,) Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.orus TTY: 1-800-735-2900 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: #2006-00612 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Helman Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA TlON: Employment District with Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. NOTE: The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 4,2006, 7:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: OU'1/ ,",( I(j 20th lO! PM j~i5nldn(/ C VI( (pnter --T--Y--- I . . .I / ~ ..",.- 7-....---T- .--- ....-...- -.-.. ~~ ~./ ~~8 i 1 ;SAJ~- ~~U~ il ...... .' ~I...... ........ ;" ....... -.~ ' ~ .,/~ ~ I~ ../ ~ / I~ .~ / ~- / f/ PA #2006-00612 160 HELMAN ST SUaJl!CT PROPERTY / . L ;" j'. I ./ N A--o. r .._~, ___L __L-------.L_____~~~ Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request contact Susan Yates at the Ashland Planning Department, 541-488-5305. G:'comm-dev'.planning"Notices Mailed 200/1 2006.0061 ~ 10-10-0b,do( SITE DESIGN AND USE STA PT)ARDS 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval 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. e. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655, 1991; Ord 2836 56, 1999) 15'1 O:IoomIIHIev\pIaDaiDglNoticos Mailed\200612OO6-00612 10010-06.doc -0Tr--.--- PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 5100 BAKER BARRY A/MICHELLEA 122 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2100 BATZER JAMES H/R ANDREW 131 TERRACE ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A 2006 QQ(j12 391EQ4CC 2500 D;\. VIES RONALD L 6795 R:\PP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 1800 FOLICK JOSHlBONNIE 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 2200 HADDAD JOANNE M 6795 RAPP LANE TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 2000 KINNEY CHARLES RlMARY E 165 WATER ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 1800 NEW HORIZONS WOODWORKS 278 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA2006-00612 39IE04CC 5200 TALENT PROPERTIES LLC 64 3RD ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A 2006-00612 39IE04CC 5300 WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL 152 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 5100 BAKER BARRY A/MICHELLE A 122 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 P,^.20Q(j 00612 39lE04CC 1901 BATZER J:\MES H 131 TERR.^.CE ASHL~ID, OR 97520 PA200(j 00612 391E04CC 7100 R^.TZER J:\MES H ET AL 131 TERR.^.CE ST ,^.SHL~lD, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 2600 BROWN MICHAEL HlPHYLLIS R 119 VANNESS ASHLAND, OR 97520 P,^.2QQ6 OO(j12 391E04CC 5000 COMMUNITY HE:\L TH CENTER INC 24(j FOURTH ST ASHL~lD, OR 97520 RETURNED P A 2006-00612 391 E04CC 2400 DAVIES RONALD LARRY 6795 RAPP LN TALENT, OR 97540 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 2300 FOGELMAN LOREN 173 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 39IE04CC 5500 GRIFFITHS MICHAEL A PO BOX 878 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 1401 GRIMES DANIEUANGELA 8152 HALL BLVD 152 BEA VERTON, OR 97008 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 1500 HAWKINS ROBERT R JR TRUSTEE 1639 39TH A VB SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 1900 HOBSON RONALD CLIFTON/MARCIA 102 PLEASANT VIEW TALENT, OR 97540 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4700 MACRORY ANN K TRUSTEE 150 MYER CREEK RD ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4600 MYER LOU ANN 116 CENTRAL AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 5600 RUTLEDGE CRAIG E PO BOX 878 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4900 SOMMERS ALAN/PHYLLIS NORRIS 117 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA2006-00612 391E04CC 7200 VAIL WESLEY'D/LUCINDA M 1425 PACIFIC AVE SANTA ROSA, CA 95404 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4500 WILLST ATTER ALFRED TRUSTEE POBOX 274 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA 2006-00612 391E04CC 4800 WINTERS CHERYL ANN/JEFF 131 HELMAN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 P A 2006-00612 391 E04CC 1600 YOUNG BRIAN D/MARGO S 1351 NORTH VALLEY ASHLAND, OR 97520 P;\. 2QQ6 00612 391E04CC 1901 R^.TZER J;\MES H 131 TERR;\CE :\.SHL\ND, OR 97520 P,^.200600612 391E04CC 7100 R^.TZER JAMES H ET ;\L 131 TERR.^.CE ST ,^.SHL~ID, OR 97520 rol; JO/IO /ota /w I ~t) ~ PA 2006-00612 GALBRAITH & ASSOCIATES INC. 318 SOUTH GRAPE ST. MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA 2006-00612 RDK ENGINEERING 3350 GREEN ACRES DRIVE CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 1'1 /60 jj.J~ (OIIO/lJb nJ P6v~ m-. CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2006 CALL TO ORDER - Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins Olena Black Tom Dimitre John Stromberg Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris Absent Members: John Fields, Chair Dave Dotterrer Council Liaison: Kate Jackson (Council Liaison, does not attend Planning Commission meetings in order to avoid conflict of interest.) Staff Present: Bill Molnar, Interim Planning Director Maria Harris, Senior Planner Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGS Morris/Marsh m/s to approve the minutes of the September 12,2006 Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: Approved. Stromberg/Morris m/s to approve the minutes ofthe August 22, 2006 Study Session. Voice Vote: Approved. Approval of Findings for PA2006-01294: There were no ex parte contacts declared. MarshlDimitre m/s to approve the Findings for PA2006-01294, Park Street Apartments. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM BRYAN HOLLEY, 324 Liberty Street, said as a Tree Commissioner, he is concerned with the conditions of approval and monitoring of those conditions along with applicants not adhering to the Tree Commission recommendations to the Planning Commission. He cited two recent examples. Dawkins suggested Holley bring his remaining comments to the Study Session on October 24, 2006. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, handed out "Ex Parte-Issues and Solutions, Part 2" dated October 10, 2006. MOLNAR introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Richard Appicello. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION #2006.00612 REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED GENERAL OFFICE SPACE AND SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 HELMAN ST. APPLICANT: SISKIYOU LLC/JAMES BATZER Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - Mindlin had a site visit. She drove into the parking area and noticed the tightness of the area, the steep grade, and the high hill dominating the creek area. Dawkins had a site visit and noted, in particular, the setback and development pattern from North Main to Van Ness. Black had a site visit and was reminded of the consequences of having industrial next to residential when she smelled the pungent, fruit-rotting odor coming from the dumpster. She noted how much farther away from the street Buildings I and 2 look on the site map versus standing on the site. Marsh and Stromberg had a site visit. STAFF REPORT Harris reviewed the project as outlined in the Staff Report. In applying the Site Review standards, the Planning Commission has some level of discretion especially in the Detailed Site Review Standards. Staff feels it is important to balance a strong ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2006 1 I'~ III . commercial component because it is in the E-l inventory and will target job creation in the future. At the same time, there should be a thoughtful and considerate building design and site layout to transition from the historic residential neighborhood across the street to this property. The area on the east side of Helman Street has been a light industrial area since the community was established. Staff believes the application meets most of the applicable approval criteria and design standards. Areas of Concern 1. Finished ground floor level of Building 2 (comer building). It appears the fInished floor level (bottom floor) appears to be two feet below the sidewalk level at the intersection. 2. Setback of the comer building from Helman Street or from the sidewalk. Staff said up and down the street, there is a consistent green area between the buildings and the sidewalk. The current design doesn't seem to be consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. There is a historic district standard that applies to this project that speaks to maintaining historic fayade lines along the street and also dividing the building mass in heights and sizes that relate to human scale. The Historic Commission has reviewed the application several times informally and then two times after the application was submitted. Their recommendations are in the packet. They recommended approval of the applications adding some suggestions about giving more emphasis to the comer entry. The Tree Commission has reviewed the application two times and their recommendations are included in the packet. The Tree Commission did not object to the tree removal permit. The applicants propose to keep the existing parkrow width along Helman Street and widen the sidewalk to eight feet. The VanNess sidewalk is new and they propose to keep it in place. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the application, Staffhas suggested 28 Conditions. Harris said there is language under Chapter 18.72, Power to Amend Plans that is intended to allow for some flexibility. Every site is different. The applicant has considered the project all one building because it's attached by the above-ground plaza. The ground floor is 65 percent of the project. The Commission has to decide if they agree that it can be calculated that way. Staff believes it would still work if it was calculated as multiple buildings. . Dimitre asked about vision clearance. Harris said there is cantilevering over the vision clearance area and according to a memo from the City Attorney's office, the Planning Commission has discretion. The residential front yard setbacks up Helman on the opposite side of the street range from about 12 to 25 feet. Further up the street towards Main the commercial buildings tend to be closer to the street. PUBLIC HEARING MARK KNOX, 320 E. Main Street, introduced two project architects and Jim Batzer, property owner. They have been working on this project since November, 2004. The building is broken up into four buildings. The comer building was specifIcally designed to match the newer building across the street. The intent was to create a gateway into the Railroad District. They have intentionally designed the building to be up near the street so pedestrians can see into the windows and people from the buildings can see the street activity. The gap in the plaza is to give a break oflight and air. The width is the same as the tallest point of the building. The sidewalk up and down the street is proposed at eight feet while the remaining sidewalk up and down the street is fIve feet. The three extra feet can be green space. Knox said they have planned for a six and one-half foot planting strip and an eight foot sidewalk so they are further back than the building across the street (on VanNess). He agrees with Staff that the building works using either the 65 percent or 50 percent calculation. Knox said the property goes from 0 to 12 feet downhill. They purposefully designed the comer building somewhere in between. They were trying to achieve a reduced mass/height by lowering the building a couple of feet. He is sure they can lift that building two feet up. With regard to vision clearance, Knox believes there should be enough room to put a planting strip along the curb and sidewalk. This property has an excessive amount of right-of-way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2006 2 l~~ JIM BATZER, property owner, 131 Terrace Street, said he wants to create a Green building, thus greatly reducing the energy costs. Dawkins said because we are bridging Residential with Employment, it is important to maintain that visual green space feel all the way down Helman. MARK MCKECHNIE, MCKECHNIE & ASSOCIATES, 4406 San Juan Drive, Medford, OR 97501, said there is a four foot drop of the building around the comer. They need to maintain vision clearance on the comer. He tried to have the front door at grade to VanNess, but below grade if the front door runs to Helman. Knox said all the utilities will be undergrounded on the site. They cannot underground everything. McKechnie said the pole is a main utility trunk and the City would have to underground it. McKechnie explained the parking circulation. Dawkins asked what would happen if the Commission asked to have the building moved back six feet. Knox said that could be done. ERIC NAVICKAS, 363 % Iowa, noted that he is saddened there was no more effort to preserve the existing buildings and Pyramid Juice as it was a real working class industrial part of the City that is being destroyed. This building is similar to the Northlight project that was considered two buildings. He believes it should be looked at as one building. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show it can be worked out both ways. The bigger issue is consistency. He thinks calculations are being done to benefit the developer. ART BULLOCK, 791 Glendower, stated his concerns are with bulk and scale across the street from a one story residential neighborhood. The buildings will completely dominate the view and will be exacerbated by bringing the building to the curb. There is no transition and it will adversely affect the view down the street. He is also concerned about transportation, specifically bike transportation on both VanNess and Helman. Tour buses park on Helman and it will be made worse because of the added traffic from this development. Molnar said this is a classic infill project. It is an underdeveloped site in the midst of a high value National Register historic neighborhood. Communities across the U.S. are now dealing with this type of development or in other words, the intensification of land use and how to appropriately transition between uses. Though Staff rarely disagrees with the Historic Commission, they do in this case. Looking at this property in the context of the whole neighborhood, Staff feels one of the contributing elements is the establishment of a curb, planting strip, sidewalk, some sort of planting strip and then building fac;:ade keeping it consistent with the six-block area. With the residential buildings, there is generally a platform stepping up to the building. One rarely walks down to a residence. It would be up to the applicant's design team to pull the building back. Harris said Building I is mostly a two-story volume with only a small three story portion. Balancing the volume and mass of the building with the smaller setback seems reasonable. Rebuttal - Knox said Pyramid Juice will still be in production in Ashland. The building or buildings, whether one or two, meet the requirements of 50 percent or the 65 percent ratio. They can raise the building on the VanNess side and that could reduce the ceiling height by a foot. They can have a five foot sidewalk. They can take a certain amount of the square footage and go into a parking space. McKechnie added that the building meets the 50 percent rule. They wanted each piece of the building to set back so it would reflect the neighborhood. COMMISSIONERS' DISCUSSION AND MOTION Black/Morris m/s to accept PA2006.00612 with the existing Conditions. The Commission discussed the two issues raised by Staff. This is a designated historic neighborhood and the Commission has a responsibility to look at how that sidewalk setback continues down the street and mirrors in a similar way the residential neighborhood across the street. The majority of the Commissioners favored the applicants coming back with other drawings that show the building relating to the Helman Street grade with the door accessible at street grade on the Helman Street side. This is also in keeping with the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2006 3 1'4 historic neighborhood. Along with this issue, some of the Commissioners expressed concern over the bulk and scale of the building Stromberg/Black m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. The motion was approved. Marsh said she would be willing, if the applicant comes back with pictures of the new grade, to do some compromising with the three foot setback on the Helman building. She believes a strip of landscaping is needed along the Building 2 fa9ade. She would be willing to leave the building wall where it is with the sidewalk narrowed to five feet and three feet of landscaping between. If the developer simply cannot move the building back three feet, then she would be willing to go with three feet of landscaping and a narrower sidewalk and the building at street level. Black rescinded her motion. Batzer came forward. The Commissioners asked if the applicant would agree to a continuance. He agreed and agreed to a 60 day continuance of the 120 days. Marsh/Dawkins m/s to continue this action to the next possible meeting and ask the applicant to address issues of grade in relation to Helman Street and the issue of fa~ade at Building 2, and the addition of landscaping alongside the building. Also, that they address the issues of bulk and scale that may be created by pushing back the fa~ade at Building 2. The intent is that they maintain the same scale as it now appears on Helman Street. Some of the members have strong feelings that the fa~ade needs to be pushed back three feet and do not feel as strongly about pushing it back. Dimitre thought the Commission should be very specific in what they want. Do they want the three feet or not? He would like to be able to give the applicants clear direction. Bya show of hands, Dimitre, Stromberg, and Dawkins wanted to see the building moved back three feet. Marsh would like to hear them respond to the issue. Roll Call: Marsh, Dawkins, Morris, Dimitre, Mindlin, Stromberg voted "yes" and Black voted "no." Dawkins re-opened the public hearing. He announced the hearing will be continued to the November 14,2006 Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. TYPE III PLANNING ACTION PLANNING ACTION 2006.01696 PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE MUL TI.FAMIL Y ZONING DESIGNATIONS (R-2 AND R.3 ZONES SECTIONS 18.24.030J AND 18.28.030J). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MODIFY THE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONVERSION OF EXISTING RENTAL UNITS INTO FOR.PURCHASE UNITS (CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS). THE PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT THAT HALF OF THE UNITS IN AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX ARE TO BE RETAINED AS RENTALS UPON CONVERSION. IN THE EVENT THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO CONVERT ALL OF THE APARTMENTS INTO FOR PURCHASE HOUSING, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD MAINTAIN THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT 25% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS BE DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. A SEPARATE PROPOSED RESOLUTION WILL ALSO BE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW THAT WOULD ESTABLISH TENANT RIGHTS FOR RESIDENTS FACING DISPLACEMENT DUE TO CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS. FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC HEARING THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE HEARING. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND TENANT RIGHTS RESOLUTION IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT www.ashland.or.us OR CAN BE OBTAINED AT THE ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 51 WINBURN WAY. APPLICANT: CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF REPORT Goldman summarized the proposed ordinance amendment and resolution pertaining to tenant's rights as outlined in the Staff Report. Black/Dimitre m/s to continue the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The motion was approved. Staff has suggested a change from what was presented in the packet. Under Conditional Uses ((2) at the bottom of page 3 ofthe Staff Report) for the conversion of rental units and for purchased housing (18.24.030), strike "four or more" in order to insure that when rental units are converted, at least 25 percent are affordable. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 10, 2006 4 I~~ ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Addendum II October 10,2006 PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00612 APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer LOCATION: 160 Helman St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: May 19,2006 1; M. ft-. I (). I () . 0 ~ 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: January 13, 20t}6 (with 120-day extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-l Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of general office space and six residential condominiums. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application The planning action was previously noticed and scheduled for public hearings at the July 11,2006, August 8, 2006 and September 12,2006 Planning Commission meetings. Prior to each meeting, the applicant postponed the review. The application was reviewed by the Historic Commission at the August 2, 2006 and September 4, 2006 meetings. The Historic Commission recommendations are attached. The Tree Commission also reviewed the application at the July 6, 2006 and October 5, 2006 meetings, and the comments are attached. B. Description of Revised Proposal In the interest of consolidating the staff report materials for the Planning Commission review, this report repeats the description of the site and describes the latest revised Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 1 of 23 Ih(" proposal. This report is designed to address the current application materials and any outstanding issues. As a result, it is not necessary for Planning Commissioners to review the previous two staff reports if so desired. (Note: The previous staff reports are attached as background information, but many of the issues have been resolved. The original staff report form July 11, 2006 provides a description of the site and original proposal. Additionally, the addendum from August 8, 2006 further refines issues.) The project site is located on the east side of Helman St., between Central Ave. and VanNess Ave. The property is located in the Employment zoning district (E-1). Currently, the site is used for food production as it is the location of the Pyramid Juice Company. The site is bounded by public rights-of-way on three sides with Helman St. to the west, VanNess Ave. to the north and a public alley known to the south. A day care facility is located across the alley to the south, residential units are located to the west across Helman St., a mixed-use commercial building is located to the north across VanNess Ave., and the SOS plumbing yard and office is located to the east of the site. The area to the north, east and south of the site is also located in the E-1 zoning district. The residential neighborhood directly across from the site on the west side of Helman is located in the R-3, High-Density Multi-Family district. The site, as well as the area to the west, is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The residences directly across the street on the west side of Helman from VanNess Ave. to the alley were constructed ranging from 1888 to 1947, and the four homes are listed as historic contributing in the National Register of Historic Places nomination. The site is located in a transitional area involving several zoning districts with five zoning districts being with 500 feet of the site (see attached map, Staff Exhibit A). Helman St. generally divides the commercial and employment zones from the residential districts (R- 2 and R-3) to the west. The E-1 district is centered around the railroad tracks with the subject site being the western edge of a larger employment that goes north to Hersey St., east to N. Mountain Ave. and south to mid-block between A and B Streets. The western edge ofthe R-2 zoning district that includes much of the Railroad District begins on the eastern side of Water St. Finally, the C-l commercial zoning district begins south of Central Ave. and transitions into the C-1-D downtown commercial zoning district at Lithia Way. The site is 19,602 square feet or.45 acres in size, and consists of two parcels which are proposed to be combined. The site is trapezoidal in shape with the property line adjacent to Helman St. being 200 feet in length. The site has approximately 145 feet of frontage on the alley and approximately 52 feet of frontage on VanNess Ave. The property slopes downhill to the north towards VanNess Ave., and to the east towards the SOS plumbing site. Currently, the building and equipment associated with the food production company are located on the site. The building is a warehouse that was constructed in 1948 and has been used for industrial uses (see attached National Register of Historic Places Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 2 of 23 Ib7 nomination description, Staff Exhibit B.) 1. Site Review Approval The application involves the construction of two mixed-use buildings referred to as Building 1 and Building 2 in the application materials. The buildings are connected by a plaza area which is 1,690 square feet in size. The plaza is approximately two feet above the sidewalk level on Helman Street, and nine feet above the parking lot level. Building 1 is the longer building which faces Helman St., and Building 2 is the corner building with an entrance facing the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. In total, the development includes 16,054 square feet of enclosed space including 6,888 square feet of general office space, six residential condominiums and four enclosed garages. The residential units include five, two-bedroom units and one studio unit. Vehicular access to the site is by way ofthe public alley adjacent to the site. The existing alley right-of-way is 16 feet in width. The proposal is to dedicate four feet on the north side of the alley to expand the alley width to 20 feet. In addition, a four-foot wide sidewalk is proposed adjacent to the north side of the alley to provide pedestrian access from the back of the site to the Helman Street sidewalk and front of the buildings. The alley would be paved and improved to city standard from the intersection with Helman Street to the eastern site boundary. A total of twenty-four parking spaces are provided on site. Fifteen surface parking spaces would be provided behind Building 1 running along the eastern site boundary. Three parking spaces are provided under the plaza. Six enclosed spaces are provided in garages at the rear of Building 1. The application describes the surface and under-plaza spaces as "common" parking, and the enclosed garage spaces as "residential" parking. Three parking credits are used in the proposal for the parking spaces available on the Helman St. frontage. The application delineates five bicycle parking spaces with three near the front entrance of Building 2 and two spaces on the plaza between the buildings. Pedestrian access to the site is by way of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. A planting strip and sidewalk are in place adjacent to the Helman St. frontage. However, the sidewalk is in disrepair and the street trees or described as damaged and dying. The proposal is to install a new sidewalk that would be increased to eight feet in width along the Helman St. site frontage, and to remove and replace the street trees. The sidewalk on the VanNess Ave. frontage is a curbside sidewalk, and is relatively new. The proposal is to leave the VanNess St. sidewalk as it is. However, there is an area of unused VanNess St. right-of-way between the back of the existing sidewalk and the north property line. The proposal includes installing landscaping in the unused right-of-way area. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 3 of 23 / ,~ A landscape and irrigation plan is included in the application materials. Landscape planters are provided between Building 1 and the Helman St. sidewalk, at the rear Building 1 and between the surface parking spaces and the east property line. The application includes a Tree Protection and Removal Plan which identifies two trees on site, and three trees are located in the planting strip on the Helman St. frontage. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater including an eight-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon White Oak in the location ofthe building envelope for Building 2, and a multi-trunk Black Locust in the location of the proposed parking area. In addition, the plan identifies three trees near the east property line and one tree near or in the alley, and includes tree protection measures to retain the nearby trees. Building 1 is the longer building that is oriented to Helman St. The building is a mixed-use structure including 2,641 square feet of general office space, four residential condominiums and four enclosed garages. Building 1 is 9,687 square feet in size and approximately 115 feet in length. The building is mostly a two- story structure, and includes a small partial third story is located centrally in the building. Building 2 is the comer building which has the entrance oriented towards the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The building mixed-use structure including 4,247 square feet of general office space and two residential condominiums. The building is 6,367 square feet in size and is a three-story structure. The entrance is angled and oriented towards the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The second and third stories are cantilevered over the comer entrance. The third story is stepped back from the second story on the street elevations. Building 1 has more residential architectural components (rather than commercial features) such as gabled roofs, extended eaves, horizontal siding and residential doors and windows. The Helman St. facade will incorporate a wide variety of materials including brick, stucco, corrugated galvanized metal siding, corrugated metal awnings and a standing seam metal roof. Building 2 is commercial in character with storefront windows, symmetrical architectural features and exterior materials, a belly band dividing the first and second floors, and a cornice. The exterior of the ground floor is ground face block, the second floor is stucco and the recessed third floor is brick. 2. Public Facilities Existing and proposed public facilities and utilities necessary to service the project have been identified on the site plan. A Traffic Impact Study was performed and submitted with the application. Existing and proposed upgrades include: Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 4 of 23 I" II. Proiect Impact . Electrical service from a transformer located in the northeast comer of the site adjacent to VanNess Avenue. . The proposed building is shown connecting to the existing water and sewer lines in Helman St. . The storm drain line in VanNess Ave. is delineated on the site plan, but the connection from the proposed development is not addressed. . Paved vehicular access is provided from Helman St. and the public alley located south of the site. . The existing sidewalk on the Helman St. frontage will be replaced with an eight-foot wide sidewalk. The existing planting strip will remain in place between the curb and sidewalk, but the trees and landscaping will be replaced and upgraded. The findings state that the planting strip is currently six and a half feet in width and will be retained. However, the site plan delineates the planting strip as four and a half feet in width. . The existing curbside sidewalk on the VanNess St. frontage will remain as it is. . The alley will be increased to 20 feet in width and paved to the city standards. The application states that according to a recent survey of the property to the south of the alley, the telephone pole straddles the alley's southern boundary. The application says that the short wall and telephone pole will be removed and the services located under ground. The application goes further to say that "any physical encroachments such as the pole or fencing will be either removed or relocated and any necessary retaining (if any) completed by the applicants." The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of new buildings in the E-l zoning district. The project is in the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards in addition to the Basic Site Review Standards. Additionally, the project is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Project since Building 1 is in excess of 100 feet in length, and the total project square footage exceeds 10,000 square feet. Finally, the project is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and therefore is subject to the Historic District Design Standards. In accordance with chapters 18.72 and 18.108, the application is required to be reviewed under the "Type II" process with a public hearing because the project is located in the Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 5 of 23 17D Detail Site Review Zone, and the size of the buildings is greater than 10,000 square feet in size and greater than 100 feet in length. Four issues related to the approval criteria are raised in this report that Staff believes need to be addressed before the Planning Commission makes a decision on the application. The four issues include the gross floor area of non-residential uses, finished ground floor level of Building 2, Helman St. fa~ade line of Building 2, and the vision clearance area. The issues of Staff concern are in the subsections identified by small letters and bold, italic type such as a) Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses. A. Site Review 1. Requirements of the Employment Zoning District The project proposes a mix of uses, including general office space and housing units. Office uses are permitted use within the E-1; Employment District. The residential units are a special permitted use in the E-l zoning district. The E-l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning except to the west, across Helman St. The zoning district division between the Employment E-1 district and the Low Density Multi-Family R-2 district is located at the center line of Helman St. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The E-1 zoning district does not regulate the amount of lot coverage as in the residential districts. However, the Site Design and Use Standards do include landscaping requirements based on percentage of coverage of the square footage of the site. For the E-1 zoning district, a minimum of 15 percent of the site is required to be covered in landscaping. The application includes a landscaping plan. While the findings state that 16% of the site is proposed landscaping, the site plan delineates 15% of the site in landscape areas. It appears several items such as a heating and cooling unit and trash enclosure are located in the landscape islands, but it is not clear if the square footage for landscaping has not been accordingly reduced. While these areas appear to be relatively minor amounts, the landscape coverage is currently at the minimum amount. A condition has been added requiring verification of landscape coverage and deduction of non- landscape items such as the trash enclosure. The tallest point on Building 1, being the ridgeline of the roof, is the three-story section in the middle of the building at 29 feet in height. The majority of the building is two stories and height and the ridgeline of the gabled roof ranges from 23 feet to 27 feet in height. Building 2 is 30 feet in height. Both buildings fall below the maximum of 40 feet in height for the E-1 zoning district. The proposed number of motor vehicle parking meets the requirements of Chapter Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 6 of 23 I 7 ( 18.92. The proposal is deficient by two bicycle parking spaces. Five bicycle parking spaces are delineated with three spaces near the front entrance of Building 2, and two spaces on the plaza area. According to Staffs calculations, seven bicycle parking spaces are required with four spaces required for the office uses and three spaces required for the residential units without enclosed garages (units 5 and 6 in Building 2). The location of the additional parking spaces is of some concern as it will potentially detract from the plaza or landscaping area. A condition has been added requiring a total of seven bicycle parking spaces to be provided, and the building permit submittals to be revised accordingly. The proposal includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit for two trees on the site including an eight-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon White Oak in the location of the building envelope for Building 2, and a multi-trunk Black Locust in the location of the proposed parking area. The Tree Commission had not yet reviewed the Tree Protection and Removal Plan, and request for a Tree Removal Permit at the time of writing. a) Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses The E-1 zoning district requires a minimum of 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 to be used for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential uses. The subject proposal designates 65.8% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as a non-residential pe~itted or special permitted use being general office space. For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. This approach is consistent with the definition of a structure or building in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in 18.08.750. SECTION 18.08.750 Structure or building. That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures eighteen (18) inches in height or less are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. The application notes that Unit 1, the residential unit located on the ground floor on the south end of Building 1, is located adjacent to the alley to provide a transition from the residential structures and less intense commercial uses (i.e. day care and traveler's accommodation) to the south of the alley. It is also important to note that the second floor of the corner Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 7 of 23 I 7,;L.. building, Building 2, includes an additional 1,908 square feet of general office space. 2. Site Design and Use Standards The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. The Historic Commission reviewed the preliminary building design as part of the pre-application conference prior to submission of the application. The Historic Commission reviewed the previous version of the formal application at the August 2, 2006 meeting. The Historic Commission had not reviewed the revised application at the time of writing. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards, the ultimate determination of the proposal's compliance with the standards can still be subjective. Staff has identified two elements of the proposal where we have raised concern with building design and questioned whether the project meets the full intent certain standards. The discussion below outlines Staff's concerns. a) Finished Ground Floor Level of Building 2 The latest revision of the application shows the ground floor of Building 2 at the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. as being approximately two feet below the sidewalk at the corner of the intersection and three below the elevation of the sidewalk on Helman St. According to discussions with the applicant, this change is a result of more accurate information about the grading of the site. Additionally, it appears the ceiling height of the ground floor has been increased from earlier versions of the application. The elevations from the original application are included for comparison (labeled "previous submittal). Staff believes the Planning Commission should consider the finished ground floor elevation of Building 2 in relation to the public sidewalk in the evaluation of the orientation to Helman St. The applicable approval standards are listed below. II.C.1 a) Orientation and Scale - Basic Site Review 1) Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather than the parking area. Building entrance shall be oriented toward the street and shall be accessed from a public sidewalk. Public sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage. 2) Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 8 of 23 173 pedestrians directly from the street to the building interior. This entrance shall be designed to be attractive and functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours, II-C-2a) Orientation and Scale - Detail Site Review 3) Any wall which is within 30 feet 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 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward a loading or service areas, In the past, the Planning Commission had interpreted that the primary orientation to the street required the building and the front entrances to be at the same level as or above the sidewalk. The reasoning has been that for the front of the building to present an interesting fa<;:ade that is inviting to pedestrians and includes visual permeability into display areas, the building must be at the same level and visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk. Prior to this interpretation, the shopping center at the northeast comer of Ashland St. and Tolman Creek Rd. was built. The front entrances facing Ashland Street are five feet below the sidewalk, and are not visible from the street (see photos below). After this development, the Commission was concerned about buildings appearing to be built in a hole, and the loss of connection to the streetscape. Figure 1: Tolman Creek Shopping Center from Across Tolman Creek Rd. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 9 of 23 / 7'1 ~ .. " c::;IIC;::27 -c.-- - Figure 2: Tolman Creek Shopping Center from Adjacent Sidewalk on Tolman Creek Rd. If the Commission continues to be in agreement with this approach, the finished ground floor elevation would need to be raised to the sidewalk elevation. An alternative would be for the Commission to accept a certain amount of elevation difference as reasonable. Staff suggests the Commission request the applicant to address the feasibility of constructing the finished ground floor of Building 2 at a higher elevation. b) Helman St. Faf;ade Line of Building 2 The Helman St. fa<;:ade of Building 2 is located adjacent to the sidewalk, This section of the building is 28 feet in length and does not include offsets in the building fa<;:ade. The height from finished grade to the top of the second story in this location is 22 feet, and the height to the top of the stepped back third story is 30 feet. Building 2 is 6,367 square feet in size. Staff is concerned that the placement of Building 2 adjacent to the sidewalk is not consistent with the development pattern in place on the Helman St. corridor in this area. A review of the color aerial photograph shows a consistent green, landscape area between buildings and the sidewalk on both sides of the street from N. Main St. to VanNess Ave. Landscaped front yards of the historic homes on the west side of the Helman and on the east side of Helman south of the subject site range in Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 10 of 23 175 depth from 12 to 25 feet (see Staff Exhibit C). The newer commercial developments between N. Main St. and Central Ave. including the Plaza Inn and Suites and the Bard's Inn have landscape buffers between the buildings and sidewalks. While these commercial landscape areas are not as deep as the residential front yards, there is a consistent setback pattern, The photo below is of the Plaza Inn and Suites building at the southeast comer of the intersection of Helman St. and Central Ave. This two-story building is approximately 10,000 square feet in size. The landscape buffer between the Helman St. sidewalk and the building fa<;:ade feet ranges from 12 to 16 feet in depth. While the Helman St. fa<;:ade line at approximately 74 feet in length is longer than proposed Building 2, the photo demonstrates the ability of a landscape area to soften the impact of the mass of the building on the streetscape. - Figure 3: Plaza Inn and Suites. Helman St. Fa!;ade and Landscape Buffer Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 11 of 23 11(. Staff believes a landscape buffer situated between the Helman St. sidewalk and Building 2 would create a more compatible transition from the low- profile residences with front yards opposite ofthe project on Helman St. to the three-story, mixed use building at the comer ofthe proposed project. Without a landscape buffer, the mass and scale of the new building may feel somewhat imposing and out of balance in relation to the rest of the street corridor. The final product should complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. The following Detail Site Review and Historic District Design Standards address the setback issue. In addition, section 18.72.100 gives the Planning Commission the power to amend plans "if they find it necessary to meet the intent and purpose and the criteria for approval." Specifically, this section allows the Planning Commission to "Require such modifications in the landscaping plan as will ensure proper screening and aesthetic appearance.", and "Require the modification of the placement of any new structures, new accessory uses, parking and landscaping on the project site to buffer adjacent uses form the possible detrimental effects of the proposed development." Historic District Design Standard IV-C-4) Maintain the historic fa~de lines of streescapes 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 fa~de line. n-C-3a) 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. 3. Adequacy of Public Facilities a) Vision Clearance The northwest comer ofthe first floor of Building 2 is angled so that the ground floor does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. The second and third stories are cantilevered over the vision clearance area and supported by two columns. The elevations show nine to ten feet from the finished grade to the bottom of the cantilevered portion of the second floor. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff .Report mh Page 12 of 23 177 According to the attached December 9,2005 memo from the Legal Department, the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion of the building is greater than eight feet in height. This is based on the intent that the vision clearance standards in 18.72.120.C.l which allows for trees to be in the vision clearance area as long as the canopies are above eight feet in height. The memo also addresses the location of support columns in the vision clearance area. See the attached memos dated December 9,2005 and November 2, 2005 from the Legal Department for further information. III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described AMC 18.72.070 as follows: 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Tree Removal Permit are described AMC 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 13 of 23 171 TIT -. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (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 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The subject site presents a variety of design challenges including an oddly shaped parcel, cross slopes, close proximity to a historic residential neighborhood and location at the eastern edge ofthe light-industrial zone. It is important to note that the transition between the residential neighborhood to the west of Helman St. and the light industrial to the east of Helman St. is based on historic development patterns. The area between Helman St. and Ashland Creek has been used as a light industrial and industrial area since the establishment of the community. In Staffs opinion, the project layout and design should maintain a strong commercial component, and should be a positive contribution to the area while utilizing considerate and thoughtful building design to transition from the existing historic residential neighborhood on the west side of Helman St. to the existing employment development on the east side of Helman St. Ideally, the final product should complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. In Staffs opinion, the proposed development largely addresses the requirements of the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 14 of 23 /79 Standards. Staff's main concerns are the finished floor elevation of Building 2 and the Helman St. fa~ade line of Building 2. Additionally, the Planning Commission must decide if the approach used for the calculation of the gross floor area for non-residential uses and the interpretation of the vision clearance standard to allow cantilevering are appropriate. At this point, Staff recommends that the application be continued due to the issues identified with the finished floor elevation and Helman St. fa~ade line of Building 2. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards for the Detail Site Review Zone, the ultimate determination by the Planning Commission of the proposal's compliance with the site and building design standards can still be subjective. The Commission should carefully consider the recommendations of the Ashland Historic and Tree Commissions and provide clear direction to the applicant with respect to the primary issues raised in this report. Staff has identified a list of issues related to the approval criteria and design standards applicable to the project. The issues raised in the body of this report are summarized in the list below. · Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses The subject proposal designates 66% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as a non-residential permitted or special permitted use being general office space. The E-l zoning district requires a minimum of 65% of the total gross floor area ofthe ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings to be used for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential uses. For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one 'structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. · Finished Ground Floor Level of Building 2 The latest revision of the application shows the ground floor of Building 2 at the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. as being approximately two feet below the sidewalk at the comer of the intersection and three below the elevation of the sidewalk on Helman St. In the past, the Planning Commission has interpreted that primary orientation to the street required that the building and the front entrances be at the same level as the sidewalk. The reasoning had been that for the front of the building to present an interesting fa~ade that is inviting to pedestrians and includes visual permeability into display areas, the building must be at the same level and visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk. If the Commission continues to be in agreement with this approach, the finished ground floor elevation of the front of the building would need to be raised to the sidewalk elevation. An alternative would be for the Commission to accept a Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 15 of 23 I Fie; certain amount of elevation difference as reasonable. Staff suggests the Commission request the applicant to address the feasibility of constructing the finished floor of Building 2 at a higher elevation. · Helman St. Fafade Line of Building 2 The Helman St. fal(ade of Building 2 is located adjacent to the sidewalk. Staffis concerned that the placement of Building 2 adjacent to the sidewalk is not consistent with the development pattern in place on the Helman St. corridor in this area. A review of the color aerial photograph shows a consistent green, landscape area between buildings and the sidewalk on both sides of the street from N. Main St. to VanNess Ave. . Staff believes a landscape buffer situated between the Helman St. sidewalk and Building 2 would soften the transition from the low-profile residences with front yards opposite ofthe project on Helman St. to the three-story, mixed use building at the comer of the proposed project. Without a landscape buffer, the mass and scale ofthe new building may feel somewhat imposing and out of balance in relation to the rest ofthe street corridor. The final product should complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. . Vision Clearance The northwest comer of the first floor of Building 2 is angled so that the ground floor does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. The second and third stories are cantilevered over the vision clearance area and supported by two columns. The elevations show nine to ten feet from the finished grade to the bottom of the cantilevered portion of the second floor. According to the attached December 9, 2005 memo from the Legal Department, the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion of the building is greater than eight feet in height. This is based on the intent that the vision clearance standards in 18.72.120.C.I which allows for trees to be in the vision clearance area as long as the canopies are above eight feet in height. The memo also addresses the location of support columns in the vision clearance area. See the attached memos dated December 9, 2005 and November 2, 2005 from the Legal Department for further information. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 16 of 23 /~I St. and V anNess Ave. shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit, prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. Plans to include street tree installation cross-sections, with the use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree Commission. The parkrow width on the Helman St. frontage shall be maintained at six and a half feet in width as measured from the back of the curb to the sidewalk. 3) That a public pedestrian easement or right-of-way dedication shall be granted for any portion of the Helman St. sidewalk that is on the subject site and outside of the existing street right-of-way. 4) That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including the sidewalk and planting strip. 5) That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal of a building permit and prior to work in the alley right-of-way. The drawings shall include an alley driving surface of20 feet in width, and a raised sidewalk a minimum of four feet in width adjacent to the south side of the alley. 6) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to submittal of a building permit. Transformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears, and shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 7) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman St. and VanNess Ave. site frontages prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The street lights shall be consist of the City of Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the pedestrian corridor along Ashland Street. 8) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Building and Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 9) That the re-routing of the irrigation line on site (Billings-Reynolds line) shall be approved by the Ashland Engineering Division and State Water Master prior to Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 17 of 23 I?.:l- changes in the line. 10) That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit submittals identifying areas of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. 11) That a minimum of half ofthe unenclosed parking spaces (i.e. spaces not in garages) on site shall be 9 x 18 feet in size in accordance with 18.92.070.A. The back-up space for all parking spaces shall be a minimum of 22 feet. All parking dimensions and back-up spaces shall be delineated on the building permit submittals. 12) Seven bicycle parking space shall be provided with at least five spaces sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance in accordance with 18.92.040.1.3. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 13) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 14) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part ofthis application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 15) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including vehicular access and fire hydrant requirements, shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 16) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 17) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the two trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the four trees adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 18) That the landscape plan shall be revised to include two trees for mitigation of the two trees to be removed. The trees shall be either a minimum 1 12 - inch caliper Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer 1'13 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 18 of 23 deciduous tree or a tive-six foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed in accordance with 18.61.084.A. 19) That the revised landscape plans shall submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. Calculations by square footage shall be provided for landscape areas both individual and in 'total. Landscaping coverage totals shall not include areas in the public rights-of-ways and shall not include areas covered by mechanical equipment such as heating and cooling units and trash enclosures. The total site landscaping with the property boundaries shall be a minimum of 15 percent in accordance with 18.72.100. 20) That public utility easements and private utility and access easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 21) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the ground floor of the comer building (i.e. Building 2) shall contain at least 20. percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 22) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the walls of Buildings 1 and 2 facing the plaza shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the plaza in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 23) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 24) That the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 25) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with Detail Site Review Zone standard II-C-2f)2). 26) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ;g'f Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 19 of 23 27) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 28) That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be functional and open to the public during all business hours. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer 1~5 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 20 of 23 Staff Exhibit A Zoning Map of Surrounding Area Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant Siskiyou LLCIJames Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 21 of 23 I ' .\ \ Staff Exhibit B Property Description from National Register of Historic Places Nomination NPS Fonn 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8--86) United States Department of the Interior National ParX Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number. --1- Page: -1Q.. Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR extreme west. The Henry and Alwilda Emery House retains subsuntial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. 14.0 STANSBURV WAREHOUSE l!U8c 160 HELMAN ST 391Eo.4CC 2100 Other: Utilitarian Historic Contributing This industrial structure was apparently building shortJy after the property wu purchased by Phil and Marchial Stansbury in 1948. (JCD 29]:301) The original use is unclear but the property was lone occupied by Pacific Northwest Bell, who remained here as late as ]97]. The Stansbury's apparently sold the property in 1976 and a succession of tenants including Nimbus Manufacturing (a leather goods company), King of Hearts Ice Cream and, flnaIly, Lenny's Pyramid Juice company, have been located in this building. The Stansbury Warehouse is one of the only remaining industrial uses in this area, which once included the Bagley Canning Company and then the Newbry Packing House, to the south. The warehouse consists of two simple gable volumes, fonning an AM" shaped roof. Corrupted metal sidina. multi-light windows and the basic configuration remain, successfully relating the original utilitarian character during the period of significance. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer / S:" 7 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 22 of 23 11' I Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report mh Page 23 of 23 I~? Staff Exhibit c] I /( '\ \ CITY OF ASHLAND Memo ***DRAFT*** DATE: TO: FROM: RE: December 9, 2005 Planning File (not distributed to Planning Commission) Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney 11 First Street--Application of the Vision Clearance Standards of ALVO 1 8.72. 120(C) (1) ************************************************************************************ NOTE: This memorandum was drafted in response to the possibility that the applicant would ask the Planning Commission to allow for a design of the building that would either cantilever the 2nd and 3rd floors with or without a support column. Since the applicant revised their application to conform to the vision clearance standard without cantilevering, this memorandum was never distributed to the planning commission and was discussed only at the staff level. If the issue arises, this memorandum may be used as guidance by planning staff. In other words, neither the Planning Commission, nor the City Council has yet to interpret this ordinance to allow for cantilevering as discussed in this memo. ************************************************************************************ The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with possible reasonable interpretations for the Vision Clearance Standards of Section 18. 72. I20(C) (1). Two questions have arisen in the 11 First Street planning action since it was determined that the vision clearance standard impacted the proposed design. In order to answer these two questions, we must first look at the text of the ordinance which reads in relevant part: No obstructions greater than two and one half feet high, nor any landscaping which will grow greater than two and one 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... Ouestion #1: May the proposed building be designed in such a way as to cantilever the second and third story floors above the vision clearance area? Answer #1 : The ordinance attempts to regulate vision for pedestrian and vehicular safety. It states that "no obstructions greater than two and one half feet high.. . may be placed in a vision clearance area." The CITY OF ASHLAND Legal Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 WWN.ashland.or.us Tel: 541488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2092 m: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary 'A' I 9'0 dictionary definition for obstruction is "a condition of being clogged or blocked."l The intent of the ordinance is clear: to allow for sufficient vision for drivers entering and exiting from intersections and for pedestrian safety. The Planning Commission may find that allowing cantilevering above 8 feet does not conflict with the intent of the ordinance. The ordinance delineates that the vertical range of vision clearance that is to be free from obstruction is from 2 1/2 and 8 feet because landscaping (except for trees) must not grow above 2 ~ feet and tree canopies must be above 8 feet in height. A building that cantilevers above 8 feet may be found to not be an obstruction because it does not clog or block the vision of a driver. Therefore the Planning Commission has the authority to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor (as long as the cantilevering it is greater than 8 feet high). Although the Planning Commission may make such a reasonable interpretation, it is under no obligation to do so. Ouestion #2: May the proposed building be designed to allow a load-bearing support column that is within the vision clearance area which supports the second and third floor of the building? Answer #2: If the Planning Commission decides that cantilevering is not allowed (as discussed in Question and Answer #1), the answer to Question #2 is almost certainly no. However, of the Planning Commission decides that cantilevering is allowed, it must then decide if, and under what circumstances, a load-bearing support column may be allowed. This is a closer question than cantilevering because a column will be present in the vertical range of the vision clearance area (the area between 2 Y2 feet and 8 feet in height). Again, the Planning Commission must look at the intent of the ordinance. Would a column supporting the second and third floor ofthis building "clog or block" the vision clearance of a driver negotiating the intersection? Likely the question turns on the particular dimensions of the column. For example, since the ordinance exempts trees, without regard to the tree trunk circumference, it is reasonable to find that a support column is also not an "obstruction," as long as such support column dimensions are that of a typical street tree trunk. Arguably, the drafters of the ordinance determined that the dimensions of a street tree (other than its canopy height) would not pose a significant risk to pedestrian and vehicular safety. Again, the Planning Commission is not obligated to make such a determination. However, such a determination would be reasonable and can be supported by the text and context of the ordinance. G:\legal\Reeder\PLANNING\ll First Street\ll First Street Vision Clearance Planning Staff Memo (12-OS).doc I Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 803 (lOth ed. 1995). 2 CITY OF ASHLAND LI9II Department 20 East Mail Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or us Tel: 541488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2092 TTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Franell, City Attorney Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City Attorney Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary I~/ ,. , -.r-.- CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 2, 2005 Planning Commission Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney 11 First Street (P A 2005-01674) Reconsideration - Vision Clearance Issue This memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with guidance regarding the vision clearance standard of ALVa 18.72.120.C.1. At the September 27,2005, Planning Commission meeting, I erroneously stated that the Planning Commission had the ability to "interpret" Section 18. n.120.C.l to allow the vision clearance to be measured from the curb of the street to the alley, rather than from the lot lines of the subject property. After further consideration, it is clear that this is not an area for inte1l'retation and that the ALVa standard for vision clearance means that we must measure from the intersection of the lot lines, rather than from the curb. The relevant portion of Section 18.72.120.C.l reads: The vision clearance area at the intersection of two streets is the triangle formed by a line connecting points 25 feet 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... (Emphasis added). The reason this ordinance is not open to interpretation is because there is no ambiguity in the standard. "Vision clearance area" is a clearly defined term. The definition of "vision clearance area" in Section 18.08.820 states: A triangular area on a lot at the intersection of two (2) streets or a street and a railroad, two (2) sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the lot lines for a distance specified in these regulations. The third side of the triangle is a line across the corner of the lot joining the ends of the other two sides. Where the lot lines or intersections have rounded corners, the lot lines will be extended in a straight line to a point of intersection. This definition for vision clearance is clear and unambiguous, and therefore not open for interpretation. The definition clearly identifies the lot lines (not curbs) as the measuring point for vision clearance standards. CITY OF ASHLAND Lepl OepIrtment 20 East Main Street Ashland. OR 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541--488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2092 TTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Franell, City AtlDmey Micheal M. Reeder, Assistant City AtlDmey Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal AssistantIClaims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Seaetary t'.l 1 /1~ An argument was made that the vision clearance standard for Section 18.72.130.C.l is ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean that the measuring point could be taken from the curbs (rather than the property lines). If the code did not specifically define "vision clearance area" this argument may have validity. However, "vision clearance area" is specifically defined. Furthermore, even if "vision clearance area" was not specifically defined the above argument fails. The language of the vision clearance standard (18.72.130.C.l) states: "...the triangle is formed by a line connecting points ten feet along the alley and 25 feet along the street." There is no mention of curbs in this standard. As with "vision clearance," "alleys" and "streets" are specifically defined in the land use ordinance. These definitions support the fact that the vision clearance measurement is taken from the lot lines of the property. Section 18.08.060 defines "alley" as: A narrow B!:UJ, twenty (20) feet or less in width, through a block primarily for vehicular service access to the back or side properties otherwise abutting on another street. (Emphasis added). By definition an "alley" is a "street." Section 18.08.670 defines "street" comprehensively and includes alleys: A public right-of-way for roadway, sidewalk, and utility installation including the terms "road, " "highway, " "land, " "place, " "avenue, " "BlkJ?" or other similar designations. The entire width between the right-of-way lines of every way which provides for public use for the purpose of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. (Emphasis added). The Planning Commission does not have the flexibility to "interpret" the vision clearance standard to be measured from curb to curb because "alley," "street" and "vision clearance" are all clearly defined terms. Therefore, the vision clearance area standard for this application must be measured from the lot lines of the subject property. G:\legal\Reeder\PLANNING\11 First Street Reconsideration PC Memo (II-05).doc 2 CITY OF ASHLAND LIlIII [)epIrtment 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-5350 Fax: 541-552-2092 TTY: 800-735-2900 Michael W. Franell, City Attomey Micheaf M. Reeder, Assistant City Attomey Sharlene P. Stephens, Legal Assistant/Claims Manager Nancy Snow, Legal Seaetary F.' 1'13 ". --------yr T - ------ ----- -ij -- ili , I . . I , . I , , I , , I . . I , , I , . I , , I , , I , , I . . I . , I , , I , . I . , I , , I , , I , , I . . I . , I , I . , I i i I : I I , . I , , I I , . I , , cb~ UL "'- ~ l\ i I'" ~,(:' I - ;, i il:",::;q; ~"k"i-~ 1:' .'~;~", L m ~~~8~~~;;:J:~ r-~m;;:CJl~~zg" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0" ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~.. ~ 3S ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 0...,,,, m ..... -< ...... -l Ct.I t..) ern ~ ~ ~ fi o~" '^ i :: ~ E DO DO -4 -cg) -t2SI T I""l8I I U ~~ 00'1 If r ~ l ~ I r d: I D.: ~ '. I (~ 0_ :Fi::t> (") en co:::r II i II I 0.0' 11111 e i (pP) ~',."; ~ ;. /' >~:::. IJ ;~ - ~"tI~mz~ ~ > C ~ '" o ~ (fJ ~:J> $i $i ~ aD iR ~~~~~ ~~ ~ .~ : a;: ~ !~~~-~ ~!~ j~ ~~~ ~g .2: if m c '" ~ - --' ""C "'0 -l -l en S;z>~ ~~d ~~m-l G');OO:!! ~ F:-!;Qo-lcn:!!8~)>m:g~ ";;:-0 ~;Jd i5hlZ~ ~~n--l ~e~8 ~"~H ~~rD5 8~;t! ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ;0" ~ .. Gl ~ ~ ~ ->'N~A '" ~ ..~ "'",,, '" " ~~.. "'0" " 0 ~"' '" 0"''' '" "'0 " "''''"' .. "'''' "'~'" m m m m m mm '" 0"'0 ."."." ." ." m mmm ."." ." ."."." '" '" "'''' '" ~~'" 0 "'~ 0 ~w "',,'" "" '" 0 tow CD '#-cft "" rft-t:.-.t. ) ~~s~~~ggc~CJl() ~~~El~~ng~~~~ ~~~~6;~~~~~~;ri ~~~filhi~~Q ffiel~ mm6;/:;l; ~n ZB i; ,. F;; n:- ~ 0 e: m z ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ -i~~~~i~:)i~w= ~ ~ I~~:z m CUI }> ~ ~ [; 0 .9 ~ ~ ~ gJ ~ :0 m ~J ",.. S ~~!il~ .II~ :J> !!?Q2~ c: r oon z ;;c mmrn C:l 1S;j~ fil t:;i~"f! g ill"''''''': 161 ~-IO m C/J 01'\)(..:1 m ~ ~m~ ~ rn ~~~ z ;;:;;:0 "T1 CC II 0 ~~~ ~ II 11 C/l ~ ....co""C C !G~~ 5: ~~rn g m> Z rn en ~ ~ ~ ti pl ;; " Z 0 ~ p iR ~ ~ .l>o :!l :;::i'Ji:I: )> ~ ~ ~~ ~ rn ~ _s~ s 9 g~ ~ ~ ~ 11!!1 :;; .; (01 z .~ ~ I! ~ - 800 ;i f0~ 61 o en('*! ~ ~~~ ~ ~1!il~ ~~~ mUle C~Z ~f;~ ~m> ::ii~~ <~X m~m ~mO "'nc ~~'" ~~~ ~;:~ .~~~ ~i"~ ~>~ ~Z~ c~ ~" ~N ~~ ~~ ~ ~; a ~ .- --- --- _ _ -L-.J - ,""",me LJ:j .~ A Mixed Use Development For: 00.. ' 4<, / ' Dolo l\tvIslONS , Siskiyou LLC Mark McKechnie AlA -- Pnjod No., Proiect Location: \~:~ 4406 San Juan Drive ,""",No., A1 160 Helman (between Van - Ashland Oregon 97520 Ness and Central). ~edford, Oregon 97504 39 1E 140 LOT # 2403 41-944-9886 TI .... l ~ . I " , I . , I . . I 28.85' --~ , \ " \ " \ " \ , , \ , \ " \ " \ , , \ " \ " \ , \ " \ " \ " \ , , \ " \ " \ " \ " \ '1- \. ~, \. \ " \ , \ " \ , , \ " \ , , \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ \ " \. \. -------------------------------------------------------------------+---------;----~ N 63"44' 32"W 117.50' 28.85 Alley " , ~! " ..~ \4t- -I WV' \ " \ " \ " \ " \ --...- "'r~ ~8Q1 "~w \1'" ...i\. o IQ " . , r--- m m " , , I (b 3 ., . lli ' .' , 3 .' , (J) c-+ ,. . , (b (b , ; c-+ r--- m m w C> N . , "'<;j- I f") Ln , I N , '. :z: I .. , I , . i , . , I , I , I C> I C> C> C> \ " \ " \ !:~ -I _ -I W... \ " \ " \ \ \ " \ , , \ " \ " \ " \ , \ " \ , , \ \ " \ , \ " \ , , \ " \ " \ , \ , \ \ Lot 6 \ \ \ , , \ , \ \ " \ " \ " Ii ~ r c=a ~ I 0 ~ I ~ ..........L-o ---l\ 0 -. ~ o~ :) C') 0) ~- <D :::T ~,_ m . :ni';D '!'~J> ~w~ i==- " r--, ,.-! 1InNb>t1lllo:- a. 1 A Mixed Use Development For. Mark McKechnie AlA ~ Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive - :::I REVlS~"lf' Proiect Location: Medford, Oregon 97504 p "'Iod~ '<<.'Y"'!' 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 1InNb>t""' A2 391E 14DLOT#2403 I (b 3 lh :::s (J) ro- -. (b (b ro- !~ f t:t l ~ O~ -.J 00 i?:b "" Co , LI ::::r -- I van Nsee &trest 23.89' 28.85' __~ , \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ I , I , I <0 <0 '::! z' \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -- - -- - -- - --- ------ - ------ ------ - -- -- - - -~ ~'-4~'32~- ~.50:- ---------- - - - - - --+- - - - -28~85:- - - - - - ~ 18 \~~ '..r. \ U'. \ ~. \~ " '<e.. \ \ , , \ " \ , , \ , , \ " \ " \ " \ " \ " \ , \ " \ \ \ " \ , , \ " \ " \ " \ \ " \ o o o q ;:JJ Alley r-- n\" ." , Dnowint 1110 L....J a. ~", A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA &; ;.':o'p. Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive 0."" ~ REv1SI0N~ . . ."""""~ Proiect Location: Medford, Oregon 97504 PtoIod~ ,', l' 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). llnNbog"" A3 ."",. Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 391E 140 LOT# 2403 05) ~~ (44)GAN (6)PS !51!LAV .-. Q) Q) '- .-. U) C o E Q) :r: ..__ I 3". 2)LAV _ (5)1Hl (4.FOL -...... ~ ~[J :n ~. 0:- [J~ 00 ~~ & en . (f! ~ ~ f~ "- PLANT KEY 5YM BOTANICAL NAME PS ACER 'PACIFIC !Ml5ET' GlR GIlJERaJ5 RUeRA ZEL ZELKOVA 5. 'GREEN VA5E' COI+ION NAI'E PAC. !Ml5ET MAPLE RED OAK ZELKOVA 51ZE GlJAN. 2' CAL. 1 2' CAL. 3 2' CAL. I LANDSCAPE NOTES BR6 BERBERI5 'R05Y 6I.Orl' CAN IBERI5 5EMPERVlREN5 CV CEANOTK15 VICTORIA' E5C E5CALLONIA 'PINK PRINCE55' LAV LAVANDl.\.A l-lIDCOTE' R05Y 6I.ort BARBERRY CANDYTU'T ElI.U: ElI.055OM E5CALLONIA LAVENDER LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS t-EREBv RErrERED TO AS "C[J4TRACTQR- 2 6AL. 4 I 6AL. 66 5 6AL. 10 26AL. II I 6AL. 52 . PlANTS SHALL BE GURANT(ED rDR 60 DAys rRo.. [JWNERS' ACCEPTANCE. <EXCEPT IN CAStS Dr NEGLECT BY OVNER. VANDAl.ISH. OR -ACT Dr OOD") . USE ~IVERSAL ROOT BARRIERS ON AlL UtES '-'I THIN " OF' PAVED s~rACES. . ROTOTILL 3" OF ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENT INTO ALL PlANTERS. ADD :5 LBS/IGOO SQ. FT. OF UNITE:D IOITlCUI. TlRAl Sl.PPl..y 16-14-12 "GARDEN GREEN" rERTIJlZtR PRICR TO TilliNG. MR MAHONIA REPEN5 CREEPIN6 MAHONIA I 6AL. NMR NANDINA 'MO'fER5 RED' MOYER5 NANDlNA 5 6AL. PIE PIERI5 JAPONICA ANDROH:DA 2 6AL. POL PRl.N.'5 'OTTO L.UYKEN' LUYKEN LAlftL 5 6AL. R05 R05EMARIIlJ5 PR05TRA11JS CREEPIN6 R05EMARY I 6AL. RTS R05EMARIIlJ5 '11JSCAN ElI.u:' 11JSCAN R05EMARY 5 6AL. 5P1 5PIRAEA 'A. rlATERER' 5PIRAEA 2 6AL. I2Q PLANT I 6AL. KINNIc.KINIc.K 3' ON CENTER I'tIERE INDICA TED BY HA TOl , I<<>TE. SEE IfXT SlEET FOR LOGATlOIlS a' Ifi?Ol. y T1lYIt: f'I.ANTII&5 e 22 II 10 15 2 (5EE NEXT SlEET 13 FOR LOCATION) . Hl.R.CH ALL PlANTERS VITH 3" LAYER or HllTttI "DARK HlR.Tl-BARK". /1: ~~ ___ I sa ~ A... ~ ..,.,." - ..., . ,. . ~!~ ~lfEI ~' I' \V rr I I ~\ '.~n .~~- \. ij .. r ~ / ~ ~Ev \~ij ~ V ' .~ // \ \ ~ l ;//"" \ ~ ~ i'-~ /~ \. :0~<;!. f"~ \. A" ~~r'~ \ ~ \ ~~~~ + \ / ~L ~ \ \ \ \ ~~ \. ~~G \\/' \ ~~, ~ , \~ iA. \. ~ ~~~'J. \. ,C'::lb\ ~i ~ \' loo..... ~ , ...... ~ __ . 1',\ , ~\ .~\~ , \ - ;..\ \ ' '-' , .-\ \ ,- ~ \ , /\ ~ \ \ ,'~ . ~'. , \ -L,-\ - a \. ~ a~l\ ~ ~ \. /' \ --\ ~"'.l'~'~~- ..'. ~.\. I ~:-L:4':-,' \ '/ ~'/:-~x.. , ))(... ~~'\\ (3)GAN (iJNMR ./ I I ,.(/1 I I ~ \\ --u----------v- - - ----------------________n__________n_n___-+ (4)NMR (3)POl: (b)$P1 (2)GAN...J (41o<~ Van Ness Street I I1~N l(~'~ \ ..... 1/ ~. I I o i. Wi & , i i ."" 1\ ?D ~ l\lld. ~tf1 :~~ I 0 ~ ! ;z:JJJlllllliJ l~ ~ I~ i ~ ,/17'"'" --~~ c--:-.1 f ./ "" ..'i: i ..At ~ l' ~ -1 :,:!l~ ""P' ~ ',...-...>>: s~eet: ,. ,. CJt!J I . .."'" .-J Y: /\ / /~ I.,<I~ 1/:\ 0 F-: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ II )' ^' '" 5EE SlEET U02 ~ ---' FOR FWA IlETA1l. I f'I.ANTII&5 ';~ -;:; .. , , '~/c: . BACK F'lLL PLANTS PEA IE T AIL. AND ADD AGRlrCRM rUTlLIZER TABLETS PER MANUF'ACTUERS R[CDMENDATlIX . STAKE TREES AS REQUIRED. REMOVE STAKING r[l.LD'JING SECOND S[A$[J\I AFT[R PLANTlfrKJ. . APPLY SENTRY lCL2G PRt-[t€RGE:NT t€RBICIDE TD ALL PLANTERS UNDER I'IJLCH LAYER. . AlL TCPSOIL IS TO BE "HILTON rCREST LOAH.. . ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO MEn [R EXCEED CURRENT DAN.. STANDARDS. . CONTRACTOR IS T[] VERlrY SITE C[JtD1TJONS AND MEASUREMENTS PRIl:R TO BIDDING PROJECT. NOTIFY "...1M or ANY DISCREPANCIES. O!ZEL (II)GAN . CONTRACTOR TO VERlrY QUANTITIES OF P\.ANTlNCo MAT[RIAlS PRUR TO BIDDINQ PROJECT. NDTlFY "..1M or ANY DISCREPANCIES. . GRADE AU. PLANTERS 10 DRAIN A\lAY rRCJ4 BuiLDINGS AT A ax MINIMUM SLIFE. IN$l.RE ALL lANDSCAPE: AREAS DRAIN TO SUITABLE: lDCAlIlJIIS. SPREAD , }---(13!LAV r\ ; . PV.NT so THAT TOP rI ROOT SAU. IS J. ABOVE FINISHED GRADE (' NOTE, il'lDER6ROIW T.lD. LINE IN THI5 AREA l"PLASnc "OtAlN"' TREE TIE-LENGtH AS REQUIRED HARDWOOD STAKES 1-3 STAKES 2" x 2" ~ r"'""\. I) :~~i.cin:~y " I "- TO SACKf'l.UNO ::'~R- ~ STAKE ASO~ FlRST BRANCHES ~~~ECESSARY FOR FIR" FORM I MULCH SAUCER '''''' 'I. ~/~ ..X NA DYE SOIl a: TOPSOIL. AClO ACiRI- FCRI FERDUZER TASS PER NANlJFACTURER. WAtER I: TAMP ro REWO\Jt AIR POO<t: 15 l ~ '\ (1)NMR OI)pIE >' % ONCRETE WAlK/CURB ~ ~~: B~Ru:.~~ (T'tP) EXTEND J' BOTH OIRECUONS FRQU CENTERUNE or TRUNK ;- NOTE: ~ ~;:OI,"! STAIONG AS RECMREO '. (5)E5C TREE PLANTING WI ROOT CONTROL BARRIER SCALE: NOT TO SCAlE o ) , ... -!POL ~ '\.,.-' ~ i~~ fOOll SAlJC(R ITH '0 r C(llIHJ(XJS RIM I ~ oJ -"' ~- lIEllal] ~/~ IlfS(lL =ifETIE> a: NAD\{ soo.. -=IItjj ......... . I:~S[l~ I~M AlBOOII FERIQ.lZER .'818181 fABS PER IIANLf ACIURER ., ~ I a I El ~~~ ~ ~ ~ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL no sed (1)E5C (4)BR6 (l.lGR ~ (3)1oR ~~)NMR (~ I ~ O!aR OoJc.V '. . ~ \ '\ L ~ "- \ ~'. ( ~ . . \ .'::::.. ..~,\ \ '\ =J\ " , (5)LAV ~ SCALE 1"=10' () ~\ \ \., LANDSGAf'En P~_A~________ n_ _____ _n_______ n 7 , ~ "" ,. ;;. ~ " HELMAN STREET MIXED-USE ~. MICHAEL J. MINDER c g. ;> '" SISKIYOU LLG (O~NER) )' ~~~ ~ ~ 6' LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL 131 TERRAGE ~ www,land5caredeSi<1nbum 1m ,com ~~~ ~ ~ ~. ASHLAND, OREGON ~ (541)776--0409 "- ~ \.. l!3i!! . c.. l!3i!! . ~jU~ II~; ~~~i ~lilrn ..~~ ~ J> i'1 () :j: ~ () j o :II (I)' era O~ .', os. ~~ C") cn CD:::::J O~ no' o c ::s ~ / -...,...... l1li-....0... W' ........~ IlNil!MI2'~ --- MIa I'U.IIII --.-.... 1fII___ .. QlIIIIII!It w____ .........- ........1fII IRll:\Y 1II1II ff' "'" r ~"'" 11 ~1QIt't.Or UI'IIR""'.... (C(lI..ClR GIC..... r_MUM. . ....,lIllIIIlIf'atoM_ 1M1..,...1'U. VliLWIfII ...-.....,...... FLaJJ CAPACITY t).~ CsR1 FLaJJ ACUTMENT . ~ CsR11 5' " STONEViEAR FOUNTAIN MODEL SADF A3018 5~T CCIIfECTklNS (ElY OTIolEI<5J SECTION 'A-A' NO 5CALE @,rK'M~ o LEVELE~ DETAIL ....... STONE WEAR FOUNTAIN INSTALLATION GUIDE NO 5CALE 'Ian Nsee cireSi I (b 3 OJ ~ (J) , (b (b ..... t.>>II ~....1I!IIClI PfI N.Je:A YII.LCI'I CiIDM SA1I1'n1'J CMiIlIIW) ~ PIA.wH1I!GI'5I'LM IllIMlI 'RlQ.1WICIB1lIlII IlIaCK ""11I!IlII""NfII!D CQlC;llI!lfJ. (4.tlIt 11:) N!DIIf.... ~ WlICIMOMlMuealWlNl I'U. VA." ifillif' ato M'" 1M11A111t11L"'1al_~ IIIIrilII'ACGaI'Ie" ----- AI". NOTES , BOl. T eet:IfS TO GOIt:RETE /liTH 3ltlX 2 1/2' LA6 BOI. TS ~ $ilIaD ~. 5RlIBI!M W IlIA. .....T1LI!' I'tlIIIrAII IGlIL IllIIlI'MClIt "'"ftAY-'~ I1aBIl,fA 2W>> L<<IHII!!D MY CMICIN c:rrY, w, ~ @ L102 'INSTALL 314' POIER GOIQJIT FOR FONTAIH f'LM' ~ lIS '1M,. LI6HTIH6. 'INSTALL 314' SGH 40 f^IC, "'TER LIIf FROM IRRl6ATION SYSTEM MAIN FOR FaMAlN FLOAT FILL VALve. , INSTALL 314' GOIQJIT TO PI..ANTER LcX.ATION:> FOR DRIP 1leIN6. INSTALL DRIP 1IRI:USH BOTTOM OF F'LANTER. PLAZA PLAN , ALL a~TRUl.1tlRK IS TO fIE DOlt: Ell' A LIGfNSED ELECTRJC.AL CONTRACTOR ?2 <: ~ c ~ HELMAN STREET MIXED-USE SISKIYOU LLC (O~NER) 131 TERRACE ASHLAND, OREGON -:; i~~~ ). I (11 ~- MICHAEL J. MINDER " I g. II...... t ~~ =i ;; ~ ~~i m cr LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL " ~ ~~m ::I www,landscaoedesianbumi'11,com tI ~~ 5 0...... ~ (541)776-0409 :: ~ '" ~ CD P'.1: 5CH 80 NIPPLE (ClOSE) @V....VE BOX WITH COVER, 24-1NCH SIZE <!> 10 TAG 0WATER PROOf' CONNEcnoN (' 01' 2) @3Q-1NCH LtIOR LENGTH 01' ;':'::'D 7 TOP 01' II\JLCH 8 P'.1: 5CH 40 COUPI.t<G tP'.1:5CHllOtoPPLE (lENGTH AS REDU1RED) @)pvc SOt 40 ELL @P'.1: 5CH 80 NIPPLE (2-1NCH lENGTH. HIllllEN) NIl P'.1: 5CH 40 ELL !2 P'.1: 5CH 40 TEE OR ELL 13 BRICK (. 01' 4) 14 J.O-INCH UINIIIUW DEPTH Of , J/4-1NCH WASHED GRAVEL @P'.1:1IoINJl[ @CllNTROI. 20HE KIT, ..... BRO IIOOEL XCl-07$ @P'.1: 5CH 80 UNION fOR SOMCING ASSEMBlY @P'.1: 5CH 40 UAl.E AlW'TER [@ A hilJolior'l PVC main lne t 1/2- wotIhed 9'CMl ~ ~ NOTE, 1. ..sTALL 1W:Kf1.CM' PRtvtNTER AS REOURtD 8r l.OCAI. CClOES AND I€N.TH OEPAR'IuEN1. VERIFY lOCN. REOUREYENTS PRlCR TO I6TAUATOt. DOUBLE CHECK VALVE w /PRES. RED. VLV. NO SCALE XERIGATION CONTROL ZONE KIT fiNISH GRAOE/TOP or MULCH QUICK-COUPLING VALVE, RAIN BIRO MODEL J.lOt.RC VALVE aox WITH COVER: 6-INCH SIZE PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE (lENGTH AS REQUIRED) J-INCH MINIMUM DEPTH Of J/' -INCH WASHED GRAVEL PVC $CH 40 STREET ELL 8RICl< (I Of 2) PVC $CH eo NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) PVC SCH 40 STREET ELL PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL PVC lIAlNLlNE PIPE PVC SCH 40 ELL 2" , 2" REOWOOO STAKE wi STAINLESS STEEL GEAA ClAIotPS OR EOUIVALENT NOTE, SUPPORT S'tSTEN 1. fURNISH fiTTINGS AND PIPING NOMIIlAU.Y SIZED 10ENTICAl TO NOMINAL OUICK CQUPLlNG VALVE INLET SlZL iii! QUICK-COUPLING VALVE SINGLE -OuTlET EMmER, RAIN BIRD XER1-BuG EMITTERS X8-10 -- 1 / :u~~;~ ~~l &~$JR6~~1,~~ l/~WC~RW~.:hfJAAE: J - MUlCH LA~'E.R INSERT fiTTING: RAIN BIRD 1/4-INCH SELr-PIERCING SAAe CONNECTOR Sl'll-02S PE PIPE: RAIN BIRD XtRI-TU9E XT-050-200 BURY TUBE .- snow SOIL LEVEL. NOTE: L USE RAlN BIRD Bue GUN UOOEL EMA-BG TO INSERT BARB CONNECTOR DIRECTLY INTO XERI-TuBE, EMITTER INTO 1/4" TUBING ~~ 181 181 181 DRIP EMITTER SCHEDULE ~ ALL DRIP EMITTERS ARE TO BE PRESSURE COMPENSATING RAINBIRD XB SERIES DR EQUAL tij =;:~ , I GAL. GROUNDCOVER ONE 1/2 GPH EMITTER I GAL. SHRUB 2-3 GAL. SHRUB ONE 1 GPH EMITTER o :II (1)" 0. o tJ .;t :00 ~- -"~ '0 en (1):;1 tJ~ (")0. o :c:: 1::3 r< TIoIO 1 GPH EMITTER 5 GAL. SHRUB THREE 1 GPH EMITTER TIJO 2 GPH EMITTERS TREES ._\, l ;:t!!t~~ IRRIGATION PLAN i~~1 t~~~ ~~~~ ....:O:i!; ....~m ~~~ ~ HELMAN STREET MIXED-USE SISKIYOU LLG (O~NER) 131 TERRAGE ASHLAND, OREGON LS!! iP-!lI ~ LS!! iP-!lI ~ () () ~ iiI <J ~ ~ ~S'~!l!,!l! ~~'~.'...~'~ ~l!t~ f!. L103 - d~ 1?b' ,,>-"(1 ~:J t' 01\ - jr '~ J; 1; I( r ~ ~~ ~ 9 ~2\ ~<]\'-" t::::;;::j 't i) ~ B t, m ~\ ~ \'\' ~O '~ 9 I 8 -- 'if$1 L,->~ ~\l'~; '$0 0\' (~ ~~, ~~ '~, <h i'r) ~ (- ~ ~)j ,-'1 [" P T) I' 1'" tL~ ''L' '~ ~\\ ?', 1 J; \:- f' Ll 11' ,JI- ~:; I .~ ::'- () 1'\ p; I' j \~I 1'0 !': c L .A' I ,cr -" @ ~@ ~ 9 i~ ~ m ~ 8'0 9 8 I ~ ...ff,t''',~.,._qC~'m--t ~ ' ,J ,',\:.-cL~c.",l1.-, ",",' ,:,7".11 l 'I'v",i 'Ii', \ ,t" ':T":"'~",,;\~, ", -.-.----m~ ,'"C.J ~:J "-~~.- \-: l,r,~cJ:~",., \, ,11-,,-...,..- . ;~~J 'I ' Ii ',T'I,=l~[ :I,~~. !:.:tt: , I ',--"c',!, fF'~ ~j , :I I i i' ,I t-'T~ ,: ,I .1 .} . o :!1 CO. ao Do<!' kOS ~)> (")w co::::r """- Q5' I I :0 ,l}') m r.;.J 'J ',' -\il <;;) ,'T' ",..-., 'a., @ ~~ 11 qR ~ ~ ~o 9 8 \~. 0, 8 ~~ 0: ~ " "1':1 I;@ 'R ~ ~ ~o 9 8 IF I'll I~. ~__.:H r 1 1- v',~ I' ~1] \V [" f' -'1, ~~ .\. if: ;J:i -, I :!J 0 -" I~ ,~ r; c -" ]:. -I \ I If) if, F- 1\ \~ 7' (J -1 I r- j ~ 1~0'1 h:1- \i; -\ Ii\ 1\' fj,\'- 1; ..::iI' PI 'L~ ::Ql -I Q:: ~ '<..L . 1 (h ~~ , '- "l'1J' ~ '~I-~ pi " I ~ ~ Ill~ L !? € ~ 'P il '- ,0 L L. 1'i J\ e; ~ .G p fC- 1 Z .1 J;, l] 1'l \r V- I- i- 4 ,1\ ~ 7 1'\ -l} IE I P' ~... r-~ ;::J ~ ~ " r A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA J~ l)~ l)~ 5; ,-"'}' Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive A R C H I T E C T ~ R~,(' Project Location: Medford, Oregon 97501 No.: 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). (541) 194-:20:21 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 '111 E. M~ln st, SlJlte 14 Mocltorc::i, OR Q-rS04 Ne,: A4 391E 140 LOT#2403 I\" " 1 -. i'5 l (\ ~ f" -l-:i r~ iI' }l (\ 'f l -,~ III ~t t '-l ,] )L ~, It.t -' () 1" ,~ to ~ ..-\.S\ .3 [ J; , r; ~ ~ ~ ~' '" i4, ? J s,' ~l\" C .. .:{' \\ I-;-~ ~ D, '1' ~ :'[1' i t,- " :0, j'. I~ \Ii v 1,,\ v r!'~ L rli J'd ~\ r..! ~ Rz:. '1' 1:..0 ~ ~ " r ( , -- / / I~' \~ lr ?~O" ~'. ~'~___'H i~- ( I, [00, :>';''1-.- .. 'l--.~'-- -- 11 11 I .. .-.-t- j, 2~0.t~ I liD i !? , " 22'0 '1 - i "[7 I 'I jJ rr; I 51! l~ I Ji 1 ":1 . \ I C I fie I ,I.. ' ,'I i I to'.1 <61 L~ I I'I-I \1'", \~ I '1 & [il " -'-1 .~ , (,. [' IS'. 2," ~~I_~'I riP " 10. Co - ....- ! , I I , r-- <ST/>IJr:>~, ~I ",IS,~ / IZ=F- - C;(ct.J-Z.E 1 __.__/1- . STDiJJIC::: STEf.L CHIMiJE:~ FL.u \ Bp<.,c.K. - I!-E:.D L. - sTJ= - &JeoF _~ /oillt1 SlDjLE:Ff2aJ-r 0=j2. eCct</I'1EeDAL EWTrue=-J I \'1'=0 CC<:::,~ 'oJ / <S1OELlqtT I ~ [/L~cE-i-lllt,.L BJ1J2IIz.'''' <S1tt.l- -:::c.~ ItJoJS1KI6L ""TILE- \\/,iJ~s "1Ii~l-t- D'-'T - E':U>G K. t:>E.l,b.1 L _ MII';:I Ld' ~ I ! '" I ]11 : II '~- c~~ ME:1b.L CCf'ifJCj oJ E:R /':f4GK ~ Trt 11-l.,C) flo=>[Z. '~Sl~<:2ltJC, 'SEt'l1 "1E::To.L iZ6r- ~,y' -~- g,p.10-- =p, ~ _" SE.CONO F~ 'I "il. ,I. "_II:I[ 11"1' ", ,Ii ','Ii III' ,,~ I ~ =f2+:Ll:::t"'-1E-D c;4LU. / Mq,,-L lZ0T ~LDi-.<J ~ PES(CEI,h,,,-L ~iZ.\ -r"" UtJlT *2 ' _ I!II &.::>t-1ME:.j2.C..I6J~ E:ftTi2-\, l r---- ?-?t1""t:N E-f-J'Te.I"1::> Res. "" I uf.itT':> ~, ~, '4 rl~~I FLD~ I I c-_ PP€.q,."':,T C~ ClJEQ. / PE-TbliJlhlc; \y'A.LL - :::Tu= r=ltJl~r-j v- I . SR.f''S r::-c;." rJ o .:t1 CD' QC) O~ r~ oS :J;):; OW CD::1 D~ 00. o :JJ m :J 'n {D ~~:::$:l\1J1@l1ll lDJ~_ ,.;~. '0~ '....,~4>:. TIll" a ,~".~.,i A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA b.'< Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive ~ REVISIONS Project Location: Medford, Oregon 97501 HI!'-' 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). ~" AS Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 39 1E 140 LOT # 2403 <;;1~Jr",Jq ~ 1-1E::Tb.I- f2c:::>"::::f --------\ , ., ST,Jc-<.:.o e-o~F;;:::;1 i ""'~\-;-r ""+-!C::, >= --------\ -... \ ~_ -.\.. l ~ ........ \-.l",.f' \ -------~---"""""'- :~ ---~--t~ IIi, ':)/,..,,; lKJ 1'-1 ~-;..:.-lL;;" .J~~ , I --J /~:..,~ , /,/~"'\~" , ''<t~----\--,<~(L- \~ -'--- 4'< -' --- - ----~-------+ ~l~ ---------~----- --------------"<...., SlrWc..1Ji.-~ 'DTe:.e.L ~\.v'NI~C~ -------------- ----- --"", _ ! r- ,ri-;-I---- 51Ju:::o " -"~,' I j : ~ . E./o., \.1 E... HI' J ,~~ ~c_"'r;-~~"i"- ';-:t'UW"- ." ,r- --.~'-"'- 1"-'-"" /" ,/j "HEl" - ---I ! , " . , , j i ] .... ,-.:--- -- -~ "" lIT"" ~, It: t~-{ , - ~~-:'-. .. I j .. ,- ~. II i::' . i "1 r~c.f".., , ! ' ..--- -+ -------t----- - , I Qm~'-I~I - ~-,-",II ,...,1. . -,-- -8" '...t --'.--1:11- ii i \\li . , I; 1 I i I l~ . I 11r!lIni~-'I!' H r-'i -li II .. . 'I " f _L,i _' +1 ili I, I I" '~i ,i!l t t-: I trJ- ~ ; i ---;--1' il , ~ j I ; I i ---1 "j . "il "0\1 t 'i FtlJ ~ i<. J ' <J II 'oJ I -r C\li I -6: I ;-\)1 C'Ji v I I 1 II I I j r EL," ~~-? -S? I I I , -1/__f~_FC~JJ SI CE,-v'6l..J<:. - tj I J:. \ 0" , a:" ~_~_ _j 'd) I ~If..lc::< L::--\./EL_ I' _~ I _ __ + \.a. '" -11'-0" '------.-- --- c:.::>~Jc-p.e lc_ PL..p-."'!.p" c;ec..\4.., oW =-T.:.Jc.l Ji2~ STEEL - o-JE:F-. ~H.uct 2::f I d,-J ~ . -,//j;'>' ~.f/ ~ i - 1'1 ~ef.:::di--Jr::> F~ &-oc::..\<.... _________.___.______-i' t-tCfZrzoIJT6L 6(DI~'1 . b ~~Jl2it ---- o ~~~ IEnce~Uft@illl 0 JF~ ---"""-.-- - .....,--"-;---~- - ~.~.....~ _...<~~ Ft&.1.~ lI2E-Lu-S -\\ r- Rl~E.. '::::K'(J'1~1 ! '/S-- /.t - I 1-11.,.. ' ,! it ,-_.-''j" '] /r--- ~c:.K / - +"~ \.Joe:r:;? 1EE:L.U'? - ",/) '? +------- I-" _ = i 1 i- F ,,~1-T. -~-, ~--~+-~.J-t :- . '/'-~ Ii /-+- coe.2Jc;b.Tto 1--1 E:--lbL " i f:,..\vtJl\.Jc; - :-"'1---- \, . --\-"----~-----,--~-~ -~----,----- :: ri Wi ~. o. _r -, ,,--= I _ ~ ~~~""ir-~'~-:=:::r;f:j-- ;t~: _ ~; :, ;: -.,...,. -:1 'i ; '>. t---:i I ) j --I L i I f=lt-l FL K .I - - --f'" =n t . I -~i +-- _L:l -i:L ~ _\ I - -a C'-1 "::;, :/E..,\v AU..... -:- :tL. '" - (0- ":> r:l6-,"'l..b, .. ~ i ~-- ,- -0 --:) / / f\ F'-1::-- :-b L?i,,/t...C.. tl- ::: _r=,'_o' ,J:?-r-eP- SL = -+ 3'-0' - - -- -- P---p- 2~ b-lt-.Ji ~ IlJ -1- ~1"==rc-s c:::tl?oJ.r-J? FDG2. ~ \" :...- RECEIVED .....'.....,.;-, ~- ~ o ~.~~ JEllcewmlUiiC01illl 0 IP~ ocr -4_ City of Ashland Community Developmd DnwIng 1110: A Mixed Use Development For: Mark McKechnie AlA Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive - REVISIONS Project Location: Medford, Oregon 97501 I'nojod No., 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central)_ DnwIng No.: A6 Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 39 1 E 140 LOT # 2403 I] 1-3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 1-3 ~ n 1-3 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -< > ~ ~ ~ > ~ \l'I 111 i"(\ ::"-f ,,- .() ~z ~ I "i 111 11 )II () iiI (\ -f ~ " 111 ~ Z (/I ~ il~1 ~II ~~~:1 Ii i lJliJfj~ . ~ . ~!~ ~ II IJl gll iJ-t III ; i I ~ Ii 00 -.... G L~ · . ( ) · ~ fW ,- ~ i ~ H ~ ~ ;:;. x ~ ;a I~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ ill ~ :c. 0 !:~ a a g H ;: I ~ ~, !l! % H ~ .~ OJ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ is G) m z o <...."."1 gOI un'OOI ::t:a.OGm P'" "I ""1 ~fii i~i~ ~-.!!o~.~o. O:1::riJ.::r 3s-oox. a a 0 ::.. i i:l -<' , ~~!~~~- ~ ~ ~~H ~::r~l~ ~~.liM"g~ ~tt.!:-i~l~ ~~~ _.~: : H~U:.hh i~~~.:f fl-:l~:. Hi! s-hr-ll!o ""2 Ig:.~ ~;~..:;. ~ ;.~ i~ ~;~~ !;- ~ig-~ ;!~!~~ gl!d ~g;.CI!_ p~i ~.~:oi 3.~..a g. o ~ i~~:ai-;! !~~ig ~~~ i . :~i~i~~ ~83a~l!l.;:i1 ~~g! 11.=:;:1. i!;ii~~!;! ~:I~l~~ ~ i~ i.~ !!!ii~ g~g ~ g~gga!lCl !-i.o !i!iif~ .', :Iii ~.o~ ~~i.a ~1f~~ G iifi!~il~!~. ::r.~5 .ctl~.ot ~~~ I ~"1JiiCl ~ ~ ~ t ~~ H.~lf ."ogl ~~g;~~ g 3:1~2"a"03~O~. :;:Js~!f ii ~ ~;!. . i~~~ l~~=i~~~i~: nF~ ~ig~~a. ~ig!l:~ i: if~5'~ !l-s!.:;J!lo~~ eo9'a. ~:Q~~g~ !;~ I; . i~~i~ ~.~~~ !~~ iU~ "0:;).0 ~;t~~~~g;li ;'N~~ ~i:Z.~:f --g :;)"~~ ~ .ge." ~ af5.!lcr !!. ~ i~ fi : n. ~ a !lg,- ~! t i~l i a 1:"0)> Ii ~:;) ~.'g. ~il:l~ i~!~il.: I :~::~.~:~~:l~ ~~i5 ~!g~~ :=!i!l!~g -g,.5C1Q3~.~g~ ~!lt. ~;~~i~~ fi~i !}~~ i1!~g~! i~.gl~~!L~.~: o a..e . ~g~~S- ~gli ~~i;;i:!~fi! i~--g ~ !~s!~~~ ....i....g. ~:~~ ... ="0 i:::ll 0 g 1,= g.R~:~i~ :::-;~: "O~. 0 :~l: t:~~l....~i ? f~lf~: ;-! ~ 8 _~.a !!:! ; ~~IJ' g~:~::g.! i!l?! ii!~~~:' ;:~ , 1~5i!!i~!~i ~.:.:!oi!a,,"~ ~~Iil ~;l~ a..~aCl ~!~!~ig ~~W.i~al~K:ii ii~ f. ~~~a.;~~ --00 ~C1 < g. ~~i~~g~ ~;i~~ ~~~! .!!."" ;iig-il:iJ.g~_ 'Il~~ i3:a"'!!J2-a i~!~ =~G'~~'P~ ;:';!l~~~~:g,;;g CI"g.-l ~~~:~~ !i ~~ ~ I ~ ~!~~ ~~~S.i~~ fl iJt~i!lf~ ~ i!~: ~~J~g-~~ i;;i ;~l N-gn.'.:i il'~ ~!l- t~~ ! i r;"l~:":~l~~ ~ it ~~!~!~~ ;~a~~ f" - " !: g~ f :J = .. ~" ~ =!;- g, ! ~ " ;a - So ~g g" i g !!. il .033:~ eml "'I HI O=-l Iii "1 'B'j ;ill ~g ~-'! ~!: ~i ~~~~~ oil ~:i i.. ~~I~ ~ig~ , g ~i ~. _.~ ~ i-::- _"0 _2 oa...3 ~.. ~o~ .g g.g g ~ 0 !~[~ ~i~=~ ~. i~ a..IS 199 :g~ ~:1~ oo.:;.2"Q. ill '" aa .~~ !e ~ . l;;~ il;~ .oa..3s::: <. g~a~ . ~:~.~ ~~ :; . i~~ a~ ~j ~:~~ i~;;~ i go ~~::i ~~ i!i . g ih s._~ ~o 0" . ~f~i ~o. f~ ~o. 0 .~ 3~, 3:3- -0 a a..ID o_!, ~~~ ~d c:J~ .. ; i~"~ . h i~3 ~ i~g,: ii .' oS-:::l. "1]'<90 : ~o~ g ~a ~ ~o :!.. '" . , :::s.:J!!- .~ g~~ ~o' if ~!l!!. .;-S!,~ ,.. ~i~ lf~~ ~ Q: Q. ~ H ,,, . ~ "02-g ~ ii ~.. ~i ~ i:~ -; H Hi ~ l! ~ ~ i;i ~ ... :;)""0 . i i! ~ . . ~ < g~~ i~~f o~ ~i: . a: i~ ~li ~ ~~ ~~g,o : ~ [ 0 ~. ! iH ii-2~ 0 ~~ :a~~ !:i 8 ~-:f ,." ~. !~;! . . g a. 3~ I .2-3 ' 3: o~ ~ 0 ~1 . ~. S ~ ~3 ,.~ i-~i~ 'l. K3 :: ~ ii! . 0' 'i H [g . i~~~ -< ' ~ ~ ~i ;: Ii ji !' ~l !j ~ 3~~" a " -< ? ~:.... it~~i .-, ~. 0 if , I! ~ , i if:l. ~~ "Ii -f C;~e:::L~2"(')N-1I: ~ m Z < m Z -f o ;u -< ~~~g~g~f~f~ ,~~H~2222~ ;. ~.tj. ~~2~~ .~ ~ 3333 . . 0 . i: :;. fit:;) . ~. . GJo>omo:;u:;u:;u 0 fti3iifi&~X.X.~ ~g~g~g~f~f~ ~~ ~8~..~..~z s.: =""r: ~ o 0 0 i: ~ ~ ~ m ~iqC:;I~-?~~:;;~ Ji ~ ~ q ~ ~ 0 (,) -.......... 0..0..... ~~~~ ~~~~ -0 ;0 ~ 'l o Z N o ili I I I /// v ~ ~~' "G:lG:l"(;) <""'''I !!.oo!!.oglJ!!!"!!!"~m .... _8. ~ i ~ it-g ~ ~ g ~ o _=;":;. a .... g _.... _.... -.... :J=- K~g~!l;'a~:Lr 0'0 :Jg-:=-3.I~ 3t!2'gg,;~;~:;u ifti~:~:;~~ a..;;It" .-g.~3~ ~- ~!-~~ l!-. ~_o - I.~ ::-ii~~ i:i ~ __ _ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~" ~ . 2 0 ~ lfglf ~~" ~~- ~G: . . a a . .. . I ,. ~ ~ ~~~~ l>t> ~ = :0 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ rfl ~ ,. ~ t"'" ~ ~~~ > a= -< ~ () ~ = > '-.' ~ r;: 2: ~ :z ~ ,!:l \IJ ~ 0 t-3 I := ~ ~ t-3 ~ "1] "1] ""'0 ""0 :;U:;lll :;Ill:::U :;Ill :::0. ;0 p.iii~H.~~\'l a!\a!\~~~!~~~ ;: on z ~ o z '" ~ " II ~t\" '1 ~ :> . Z ~ ,.~ ..S; ')C:; ~ <1>~ -"" ",00 ~n oq ... !li 5<"' O~ @~ " 0" >~ J' ~r ... ~ ~~ p~ ". z........ ~ U1 ,,~ ~cr ~ i I -i 0"' ~~ !: ? ~~ ~~ 7.:5 ~~ ~/ ~ ~ z;;J g~ s~ "8 -t-- 1'!'CT . ~ ~E} , ~$ '--, Ytt: ~~ --it! ~~ ~ 0' ...r " ~ .-r '^ ~ --l- . , (} J (j\ .".. " " ,-.. ~ o c F (\ j~ ... \) ~ g: ,- r ]- I " QO-O -j:: ~ ,,- ~ ~ ~ I II ~G,-o ~ 3 ::r:. :n 3 (') c::: '3~ c-, m ~a g 1(;: ~ <: ~ ~ r" m o8a g 0 3 0') CD ~ Q.... :r ~\!' z. ft:J :t: ~~ ~,. ~z: ~ ! -* ~ t.. ~ ~. ~ ~ f\) ~ \j\ (\\ ~ -- o :J / ,. I II 2q - <0 II \<0'.0 . \J\ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :F ,.. ~ ~~ C ~~ ,.4.\J-l 9 )> :D 3 c- r 3Q G; m ~tft 5-< 0 r ~9. m (\ t:..-I 0> N :< ~ ~~ 11l~ m ~iii" ~ 0 'f,o. ~a. () $~ i to c .- ~ - 1i ~~ :-.~ j~ ----./ \jJ . ~ d ..., ~ V\ 1- ..., ~ ~ ~ \f\ ~ f\ -+- - . - . tJ () J. 'F ,... o v -- I r f\ }.> ~ -......l ~ ~~'~. c 'f> ,~ Z-~0' .~ Co ; ~ I J ~~ ;" oJ-. V' --r--r- ~ 1 -S0 J ,I 3 < ~ =' -C- f\ '" \f\ l I, 26 '- CJ ~ 0 19 ~ , g, I . 1l: .p.. ::r [ ~ :n m o m <: m o , ~ o L .' I .m \l 0_ 7Jl\ t ~?lii J!;~ _ ~ cJ\ yL I ~ ~~! _!} h\ t\r' ~ F~ 7b ~~~ L "})-Y ITI en ~ ~ 6 s ~- I' ,-- (1' ,-- !< Y ~ ~ l>" ~.L t). -~- ()('. c. '~ L -t::.- f'l.:' __, ill ~:)'~ (It ,.- ') v c: ~v ;;.. \:'. - -:$ ~' \ y_:>? ( ~ CY ? () , ,,-.I<- -:> A \ II '2-0~ =-r-9 ~Lll, \42'0' ~- J:\, -n I 10'-<::,," t I~ ~ ,=11 -tll ru~b I ," I,I,~ I ., ~J ! ~Ii ' ~ I ! ' 1 II - ' :~! H=f-"' ~'" ~I, ~ , . '-- "'- ~ ' .' ., I~~' m),~~1 .,,' . .' ,\~'~"_,llllm: (' ' _/~' .,', \ 'I~,L- iI 'qf - 'I: ' ' ,,-'KL-'...., , " "_:,".~I, i i l' IT' e" ~, - I.' j' ,',' ' ~l ~' -~, 1 i I- ': ('--;1\ -,- ~" II 1 I II) (PR-D~ ~(J)c. .?A ~ ~,1']: ,"' j ~~. .', ~ T---;- I -' ' ~' . . , '" ' ~/' ~~ g ~':' ~ ' ',,' . ~ b . " "., ---' ,- ~j-l= n. ' I ," ' - ill i TI,h R' _:...' _!t!lP i"l' w ' ,''' f1' \~r= II 1111Lt' T,1 No. u,,:-r=' i / _~ 1_ "I c:"'U " H T' 1 / ,1:fR=l~,' i tttu-'\' ft= ' I \ ! ,~r'1fFi1iIIU d'-'" II -iJ ~ Ib!lt, .. i" , ,'Ol ' · +-'1- <-< , ,"II L-," -'.' " l' ~,,--,711 I ' or-' 'r'" I ~ ~"'~ , ,,"---, ~,'1: ,1 II Im=I 1\ " Iii:'. +::;t" '\ r~'J~ill~ ' . I~ \ I"_~ ! iB'" " -',,', ,II '=- 1= I,' 'I, ' ' , W!l '~II~ ~~ ~ L~ ."h. -,' I -'-l : ,I I "- , ' : i . L*9~n' , ' i ~~ !~~~~" ?\ If) ~6o ~ *'E- ~j ~(\ ~ f'!~ TV ~ ~~ 0 t2 3 ~ JJI 7> \II &' ~ =v f!.~ c -r ,- ~ f" <T 0;:- (P, r 'E' -'--J ,r.. ~ ? ~ 1/ t% L.(n t F ~ L ~ ,.f) 'F;:t= II T ......J tt d+=i ..... L- ==i~ ~~ )\ ~'"1 j; =:,/ i, : i : --t'- I 1E (\ 7' rn 0 n ~ ::l~ -f ~a ~~ 0 -'="- m _Ill <: .sa. ~ m 3 0 (1) a. , <( -7J fr~ o' (J( 7J 2- L a &~~ }~~ W -C ~~ ~--\ !~ l)U\ \) l1'-\'l\~ G'_ % , '. , 1/ , ) @ ~~ q~ ~ ~ ~ Bfa @ f~ IT ,r I ~ , , 'IIII,WI" lil]!. :'1 I I 7 ,I!.. i:.- @ ~@ ~ 9 ~J ~ rn ~ Bfa @ !I -, <\ -,Ii i"-'J7 ,:;l1[] j i \\~'\i +'\ '~ \ .~\'\ 'I' II i -:-----:]1 ~ ''.:-0 ~g D :D --~_J m ~g, N 0 m i~ 0 <: l!!..- m t~ C ~ ~ ~ "'-0' @ ~~ ~~ q~ ~ ~ l 9 S r' ,;.!,,: ' r,r-,i -Jr ,- - ( " ~g'. ~,",-~#~~. ~~. ~'lf' ~) --'.,) 4-:- H~i '1 , -- ,I J J . J : U 'UTI xu eEl, i c , \ ~ :::::j]J. ~ ,t, . -r~--c. : i r-' ."'. ,=- ~.l' JfJ) .IIJ ] I 1,If'.j,""'..J 0' , i".~ ~i~:! ILJ~,{: , ~ I I, "', : I, I' ~..:::J.J, ~ I " ',', '1]; 'j" )I "-", 'Ir ,'"", ' :"""d,=:...c, 'f ] Ii I, ',,' " , ], ",]", -, ' 1 ',0"-', "{ .- _.!i i -'. :'i ! I ]~". ,j.3Jj II:. ' I <'<~l'bG.~J"~' 1, ~3Ji-r ~. 1 III tJ' I, ), , " ' I, I <., ^,', II" i" :~,:.tl'~,Ti,"'" I;P~.IU;,III !JI. ji ,~ D '11LLJI .~_'. 1 ,~, llL' Ie' ':;>J_: . 'J : '-, '" I ,,~,' '-------'- .f'~ r, ;/~.. '- !~~, \ r I' :11 f-_ .-",JI ~~LJ ) ! -I~ ..=."e". I \ / ~-<) t. , ~~ ~~.r ~~,-. t) A- G j' J (f '" ;I I'l .) ( c I ~ I lJ ' --" \11' [EJ_LJ 'U=.' ~lli CO) l i I I ~./ II;' ! ( ,~~ - -., ., ' ,~,c /',:1 t ~4\;-~-- J ~ Ilgl21]'" ~2Jj -"-=::- re,; , ~" -=- .:::J [:r .I'll, - "> " fj ~~ 8 ~~ ~ @ ~ rQ] hi'- ~ rn ~ Bfa 9 S l ,) c ,I J; . ~J1J 'I~' (' . : c ~ Q:: \ '1FFI41 '= J i ~ 1~~4t-r 1_' \ '\1.... l;fl;-~:jJ'~j'~ . .. . ii LIIJJi.J ~ u~ JJ,='~ ( '\. ~ I \ 1'- i\~~ 'r[IlTI f ,T I j ! 'l"tUj ,'~I t. I ~ IJ J ~~l~ f; , I ;e,; .~ R I, l-~.JJ ~ !!J~wj I ! 0' I> . \ - - ''1" ~:, \, \ , '~, :IJ", ffi31',1 i )~.~ ",,-,~,.. " ,~ 5 -- i'_~..__ __ -----1.... I I i I -,} ';' t ~.~ Cb '~ ,~ " DrowingTiflr. A Mixed Use Development For: McKechnie & Associates Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive Dote: REV,SIONS Project Location: Medford, Oregon 97501 ProJecI Mo,; 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). Ashland Oregon 97520 541-944-9886 Drawfng No.: A3 391E 14D LOT # 2403 . ~}i r;j ~ Ii ~ if ^ II r! ;1 ~ ;! ~ ;1 ~~~.. n ~ ': ~ "-- {J --q '\ ! d \ ) .\ j ~...., ':f .... " II L. ":t.. \ ~.~ \ \. , i ~ r I . .. :. ~. i ~ ; , , , (~.; \. II II :\ I. f! 11 'I . . t ~ 'q ~ , it \ ,I \ I ~ I ( I l \f " ....., \' ) , '~"''"''~ \j\ .I '" t ('\ V " ( :...'::::."......, I I 9 3 39 5-< ~e. OJ> CD C/l <2: CD III .ga :3 (1) a. > c: Q :IJ m o m <: m o I'-> r"-....> .~-, .:.J ...,., CITY OF ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting of October 4, 2006 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW Planning Action #2006-00612 Request for a Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 1 E 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Recommendation to Planning Commission: Recommend Approval (Unanimous) of the Site Review with the following design recommendations: . Building 2 o Corner entry feature needs more emphasis, strengthen vertical emphasis. The strong horizontal bands of the building on both street elevations need to be broken up. o Make the Helman & Van Ness corner entrance more prominent adding canopy roof to break up strong horizontal banding and using a common exterior finish such as stucco to differentiate the entrance from the sides. o Rework corner entrance "plaza" to be more pedestrian friendly including the relocation of the bike rack. o Second story awnings have too little depth to be in proportion to the building. · Provide exterior design details and material and color samples to full Historic Commission for approval prior to submitting for the Building Permit Community Development 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541/488-5305 Fax: 541-/488-6006 TTY: 800/735-2900 ,., j./j ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Date: 10.5.06 Address: 160 Helman St. Commercial: X Residential: Proposed Action: PLANNING ACTION #2006-00612 Request for a Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment District W/Residential Overlay; ZONING: E-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP #39 IE 04 CC; TAX LOT: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Recommendation: 1) Tree Commission recommends that a certified arborist be on-site for the pruning of the trees along the east property line. 2) Tree Commission supports changes made to plan increasing planter sizes and moving of utility lines away from trees. 3) Tree Commission recommends directional boring instead of trenching when installing new utility lines if within tree protection zones. Commission Representative: Date: 10.6.2006 Follow-up: . :2./~ Harris - PhotoslSiie Visits ~ .~ ~::~~ ~ - ".~=::: : :== Pa -(;1!j From: To: Date: Subject: Derek Severson Maria Harris 10/5/2006 1 :35:23 PM Photos/Site Visits BANK OF AMERICA/BONSAI TERIY AKI The difference here between the finished floor levels and the sidewalk on Ashland Street is 5 feet... At the upper (Bonsai Teriyaki) end, there is a stairway, and I measured from the ground level to the sidewalk at exactly 60"; on the lower (Bank of America end) there is a stairway at the corner which comes down 42" to a plaza, and the plaza sits 16" above the floor level. PLAZA INN & SUITES On the Helman side, there is a 5 foot sidewalk and a 5 foot parkrow. The distance from the sidewalk edge to the building varies from 16' near the intersection, to 12' where the building has a bump-out in it, to 13' at the end nearest the courtyard. On the Central side, the sidewalk is also 5 feet but the parkrow is 8.5 feet, and the landscape strip width from sidewalk to face of building varies rom 13.5-16 feet. I'll download the photos and let you know where they are momentarily. - D. ~/.E ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Addendum August 8, 2006 PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00612 APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer LOCATION: 160 Helman St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: May 19, 2006 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 16,2006 (with 30-day extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-l Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of7,141 square feet of general office space and six residential condominiums. Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees on site that are sized six inches diameter at breast height and greater. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application On July 5,2006, the applicant requested to continue the review of the application to the August 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The planning action was previously noticed and scheduled for a public hearing at the July 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The July 11 Staff report was complete at the time of the request for a postponement, and is attached. B. Description of Revised Proposal The attached Staff report form July 11, 2006 provides a description of the site and original proposal. For clarification purposes, the July 11 Staff report refers to Building 1 and Building 2 which was the system used in the original application materials. Building 1 is the longer building which faces Helman St., and Building 2 is the comer building Planning Action 2006-00612 AppIlclnt: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ,,2/~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 1 of 18 with an entrance facing the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The revised proposal is similar to the original application. Modifications have been made in the building and site design to address the issues raised in the July 11 Staff report. The primary changes to the application include the following. . Building Size and Dimensions Reduced - The total project square footage, currently 16,077 square feet, was reduced by 664 square feet. Building 1 was reduced in length from the previous 120 feet to 115 feet. The dimensions of Building 2 are essentially the same except for the portion of the building that was pulled out of the vision clearance triangle. Building 1 is proposed to be 9,443 square feet in size, and Building 2 is proposed to be 6,634 square feet in size. A total of7,141 square feet is proposed for general office use, and 8,936 square. feet is dedicated to six residential units including four garages. The general office spaces are located on a portion of the ground floor of Building 1, the ground floor of Building 2 and a portion of the second floor of Building 2. . Residential Density - The residential density was reduced to six units. Previously, 6.75 units were proposed including a studio unit less than 500 square feet being considered .75 of a unit. . Vision Clearance Area - The northwest comer of Building 2 was reduced in size so that the first floor of the building does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. . Off-Street Parking Spaces - One parking space was eliminated on site and replaced with a landscape planter. . Bicycle Parking - Five bicycle parking spaces were added with three spaces near the front entrance of Building 2, and two spaces on the plaza area. . Generation of Traffic - A Traffic Impact Study was performed and submitted with the application. . Landscaping - The current proposal includes 16.5 percent of the site covered in landscaping. The landscape areas in front of Building 1 were increased in depth and size because the front of Building 1 is setback further from the Helman St. sidewalk than in the original application. Additionally, the landscape planter in the parking area and the landscape planter between the parking area and the east property line were increased in size. Finally, a planter was added between the plaza and the Helman St. sidewalk. . Tree Protection and Removal Plan - A Tree Protection and Removal Plan was prepared and submitted with the application. The plan identifies two trees on the Planning Action 2OOfHlO612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 2 of 18 ~/b site that are proposed for removal including an eight-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon White Oak in the location of the building envelope for Building 2, and a multi-trunk Black Locust in the location of the proposed parking area. In addition, the plan identifies three trees near the east property line and one tree near or in the alley, and includes tree protection measures to retain the nearby trees. In addition, written findings are included in the amended application to include a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of the two trees on site. . Plaza Size - The plaza size was increased in size by 159 square feet for a current total square footage of 1,571 square feet. . Alley Design and Improvements - While the revised plan submittals do not clearly address the location ofthe alley right-of-way or the nature of the alley improvements, a written description has been provided in the revised findings. The application states that according to a recent survey of the property to the south of the alley, the telephone pole straddles the alley's southern boundary. The application says that the short wall and telephone pole will be removed and the services located under ground. The application goes further to say that "any physical encroachments such as the pole or fencing will be either removed or relocated and any necessary retaining (if any) completed by the applicants." II. Proiect Impact The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of new buildings in the E-l zoning district. The project is in the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards in addition to the Basic Site Review Standards. Additionally, the project is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Project since Building 1 is in excess of 100 feet in length, and the total project square footage exceeds 10,000 square feet. Finally, the project is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and therefore is subject to the Historic District Design Standards. In accordance with chapters 18.72 and 18.108, the application is required to be reviewed under the "Type II" process with a public hearing because the project is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and the size of the buildings is greater than 10,000 square feet in size and greater than 100 feet in length. In the July 11 report, Staff raised issues regarding residential density, vision clearance, generation of traffic, design of Building 1, bicycle parking, landscaping, plaza size and functionality, alley design and improvements, and pedestrian circulation. The revised application has addressed the issues previously raised by Staff except for the design of the front entrances to Building 1, number of bicycle parking spaces and the pedestrian circulation. Two additional issues are raised in this report including the cantilevering of the second and third story in the vision clearance area and parking space design. Finally, Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 3 of 18 ~/6 two previous discussion items are included in this report including the residential density and the I>erCeI1tage of ground floor commercial. A. Site Review 1. Requirements of the Employment Zoning District a) Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses The project proposes a mix of uses, including general office space and housing units. Office uses are a permitted use within the E-l; Employment District. The residential units are a special permitted use in the E-l zoning district. The E-l zoning district requires a minimum of 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 to be used for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential uses. The subject proposal designates 66% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as a non-residential permitted or special permitted use being general office space (5,203 square feet of office on ground floor/2,604 square feet of residential including garages on ground floor/7,807 square feet total on ground floor). For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. This approach is consistent with the definition of a structure or building in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in 18.08.750. SECTION 18.08.750 Structure or building. That which is built or constructed; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner and which requires location on, in, or above the ground or which is attached to something having a location on, in or above the ground. Structures eighteen (18) inches in height or less are exempt from the side and rear yard requirements and from half (1/2) the yard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street. The application notes that Unit 1, the residential unit located on the ground floor on the south end of Building 1, is located adjacent to the alley to provide a transition from the residential structures and less intense commercial uses (i.e. day care and traveler's accommodation) to the south of the alley. It is also important to note that the second floor of the comer building, Building 2, includes an additional 1,938 square feet of general office space. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLClJames Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 4 of 18 ~/1 b) Residential Density The base density for residential units is 6.75 for the site. The revised application includes six residential units including five, two-bedroom condominiums and one studio less than 500 square feet in size. The original application included 6.75 residential units including six, two- bedroom condominiums and one studio unit. The 6.75 unit density was based on considering the studio unit as .75 of a unit. Initially, Staff suggested that one of the units had to be eliminated since the provision for fractional units is not included in the Employment (E-I) zoning district. However, after further research, Staff believes the language in 18.40.030.E is open to interpretation because it does not specifically prohibit the use of the fractional unit approach. In the Multi-Family Residential Districts (R- 2 and R-3), units less than 500 square feet in size are counted as .75 units for the purpose of density calculations. In Staff's opinion, the .75 unit provision for units less than 500 square feet is based upon the fact that smaller units create less of an impact than larger units (i.e. larger one-bedroom or multi-bedroom units). Units less than 500 square feet are less impacting because the units tend to house one person and have up to one car associated with the unit. Generally, smaller units generate half the amount of traffic than larger units and require half the amount of parking. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Traffic Generation Manuals, the impacts of smaller units have been shown to be further lessened when the units are located within or close to transit and commercial business districts. The applicant has not indicated a desire to return to the 6.75 unit proposal. Nevertheless, Staff felt it is an important issue for the Planning Commission to discuss because of the implications for future applications. From a planning perspective, a mix of housing types and sizes is considered a positive benefit to a community. Recent trends have resulted in larger housing unit sizes whether in an attached, detached or mixed-use format. A strict interpretation of the residential density sections for the E- I and C-1 zones as Staffhad previously suggested may in the long run discourage the inclusion of residential units less than 500 square feet in size in mixed-use projects. c) Parking Space Design In the revised application, all of the parking spaces adjacent to the east property line include 16 feet in depth of pavement. Chapter 18.92 requires parking spaces to be 9 x 18 feet in size, and allows 50 percent of the spaces to be compact in size, 8 x 16 feet (see 18.92.070.A below). Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 5 of 18 ;llff' An additional two feet is delineated as parking space depth in the landscape area. In past applications, the required 18 feet in depth has been considered the paved parking area. Though not addressed in the application, Staff believes the applicant is proposing to use the curb along the parking spaces as a wheel stop. This approach would allow the end of vehicles to hang over the landscape buffer between the parking area and the east property line. In Staff's opinion, this approach should not be permitted because the vehicles hanging over the landscape area can impact the ability of the plant material to grow. In addition, the previous Staff report identified the landscape buffer in this location between the parking and property as being less than the required five feet in width. Functionally, when vehicles hang over the landscape area, the effective landscape buffer that remains between the overhanging cars and property line is reduced. A condition has been added requiring that half of the surface parking spaces are the required 18 feet in depth in paving, and the building permit submittals to be revised accordingly. The following sections from Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking and the definitions are applicable to the situation. SECTION 18.08.530 Parking Space. A rectangle not less than eighteen (18) feet long and nine (9) feet wide together with access and maneuvering space sufficient to permit a standard automobile to be parked within the rectangle without the necessity of moving other vehicles, said rectangle to be located off of the street right-of-way. 18.92.070.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 18 feet, except that 50% of the spaces may be compact spaces in accord with 18.92.050 and shall have a 22 foot back-up space except where parking is angled. 18.92.070.E.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. d) Bicycle Parking Five bicycle parking spaces are delineated with three spaces near the front entrance of Building 2, and two spaces on the plaza area. According to Staff's calculations, eight bicycle parking spaces are required with four Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer 01/0/ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 6 of 18 spaces required for the office uses and four spaces required for the residential units without enclosed garages (units 5 and 6 in Building 2). As a result, the proposal is deficient by three bicycle parking spaces. A condition has been added requiring a total of eight bicycle parking spaces to be provided, and the building permit submittals to be revised accordingly. e) Vision Clearance The northwest comer of Building 2 was reduced in size so that the first floor of the building does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. The elevations show eight to nine feet from the finished grade to the bottom of the cantilevered portion of the second floor. According to the attached December 9, 2005 memo from the Legal Department, the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion of the building is greater than eight feet in height. This is based on the intent that the vision clearance standards in 18.72.120.C.l which allows for trees to be in the vision clearance area as long as the canopies are above eight feet in height. See the attached memos dated December 9, 2005 and November 2, 2005 from the Legal Department for further information. j) Trees The proposal includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit for two trees on the site including an eight-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) Oregon White Oak in the location of the building envelope for Building 2, and a multi-trunk Black Locust in the location of the proposed parking area. The Tree Commission had not yet reviewed the Tree Protection and Removal Plan, and request for a Tree Removal Permit at the time of writing. 2. Site Design and Use Standards The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. The Historic Commission reviewed the preliminary building design as part of the pre-application conference prior to submission of the application. The Historic Commission had not reviewed the formal application at the time of writing. a) Building Design The project has evolved in a positive direction during the past year. The applicant has worked with the Historic Commission to address building Planning Action 2006-00612 AppllClnt: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~Dt~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 7 of 18 design issues as well as the transition of the architecture from the site to the residential zone across the street. In Staff's opinion, the building and site design largely address the requirements of the applicable Site Design and Use Standards from Chapter 18.72 including the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards for the Detail Site Review Zone, the ultimate determination by the Planning Commission of the proposal's compliance with the standards can still be subjective. The discussion below outlines an issue related to the building design that Staff questions whether the project meets the full intent of certain Site Design and Use standards. Staff has one concern with the design of the entrances facing Helman St. in Building 1. (1) Emphasized Entrances and Pedestrian Protection Building 1 includes five entrances facing Helman St. of which four are to the residential units and one is to the office space. The entries are three feet in depth, and are covered with a porch-like roof. The office entrance is three feet in depth and appears to be six feet in width. The revised application responded to this item by pointing out that the area ofthe commercial entry on Helman St. has been pushed back away from the sidewalk and additional three feet. The application states that "In doing so, the entry to the commercial frontage has doubled its entry depth to 6' creating an improved sense of entry." This seems to indicate that the commercial entry treatment and building design has changed to create a six-foot deep alcove. However, the site plan and elevations do not reflect any changes in the architectural treatment of the commercial entry. Instead, this new three-foot deep area between the sidewalk and entrance is shown on the site plan and landscaping plan as an additional paved walfway area. In Staff's opinion, more dramatic changes in size and treatments should be considered for the Building 1 entrances, especially the office entrance, so that the Helman St. fa9ade compliments rather than overshadows the adjoining pedestrian environment. Recessed ground floor entries or alcoves are features that can serve to not only break up the building footprint, but also provide a distinct change in the plane of a multi-story building fa93de in the form of a 1 st or ground floor step back. The above cited Detail and Large Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLClJames Batzer ~ :t..) Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 8 of 18 Scale Site Review Standards as well as the following Detail Site Review Standards are relevant to the entrance issue. 1I.c.2a) 4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. II.C.2a) 6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. II.C.3a) 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. (2) Vision Clearance Area and Building 2 Ground Floor Design Changes The building footprint of Building 2 has been redesigned so that the comer of the first floor of the building is not located in the vision clearance triangle. This results in the angled portion of northwest comer of the building being longer and the first floor walls adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. being shorter in length. This will likely result in fewer windows on the Helman St. and V anNess Ave. first floor walls, and perhaps opportunities for more glazing on the angled wall facing the intersection. The elevations included in the current application have not been revised to reflect these changes. Staff does not believe this is a critical issue in meeting the applicable approval criteria. A condition has been added requiring the building permit submittals to demonstrate that a the ground floor shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, window or doorways. 3. Adequacy of Public Facilities a) Generation of Traffic A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project and has been included with the application. The study projects that the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. will continue to operate at acceptable levels with build out of the proposed project. Planning Action 2OOEHXl612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 9 of 18 :(~~ b) Pedestrian Circulation In Staff's opinion, the proposal needs to be revised to provide a safe pedestrian route from the parking area at the rear of the buildings to the front of the buildings. In Building 1, the rear entrances to the four residential units are limited to the enclosed garages. If guests visit the residential units in Building 1, they will need to access the front entrances adjacent to the Helman St. sidewalk. The office space in Building 1 has an entrance from the parking lot. In Building 2, there appears to be an entrance on the south side of the building. Presumably, this would provide access to the three floors in the building including the office spaces and two residential units. In Staff's experience, the rear entrances to office spaces are not always open, nor are they necessarily designed to access individual tenant spaces. Because of the limited front access to the residential units in Building 1 and the unpredictability of rear office entrances, Staff believes it is likely that pedestrians will regularly need to travel from parking area at the rear of the building to the front entrances of both buildings adjacent to the sidewalks on Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The two options for pedestrians to get to the front of the building or to walk through the plaza space or walk with the cars in the alley. The plaza route is circuitous and not accessible because a pedestrian would need to walk up the stairs onto the plaza from the parking lot, cross the plaza, and then walk down the stairs to the Helman St. sidewalk. The plaza is approximately ten feet above the finished grade of the parking lot, and is approximately three feet above the finished grade of the Helman St. sidewalk. Staffhad previously suggested two options for providing a safer and direct route to the front of the buildings: 1) a path or passage way located centrally in the project to provide a route to the front of building one, or 2) a sidewalk adjacent to the alley. The revised application addresses this issue by stating that the applicants believe the plaza and rear entrances accommodate the intent of the connection. Additionally, the application raises a concern about the use of a mid-project pedestrian path or tunnel in that the low level of pedestrian traffic in the project and general area would create a situation that would lead to "public safety issues and loitering." Staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion that the low level of traffic in the alley in itself provides a safe condition for pedestrians to share the space with vehicular traffic. In Staff's experience, drivers using commercial alleys are not necessarily overly cautious or anticipating pedestrians. In addition, the side of the proposed building is immediately Planning Action 2OOEHlO612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~ "t.3 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 10 of 18 adjacent to the south side of the alley and the yard adjacent to the north side of the alley is fenced in and has a slight uphill grade change from the alley. As a result, if a pedestrian were using the alley driving surface to walk on and needed to get out of the way of two-way traffic, there isn't a space for pedestrian refuge. III. Procedural. Reauired Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described AMC 18.72.070 as follows: 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Tree Removal Permit are described AMC 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~~'1 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 110118 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 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The subject site presents a variety of design challenges including an oddly shaped parcel, cross slopes, close proximity to a historic residential neighborhood and location at the eastern edge ofthe light-industrial zone. In Staff's opinion, the project layout and design should maintain a strong commercial component, and should be a positive contribution to the area while utilizing considerate and thoughtful building design to transition from the existing historic residential neighborhood on the west side of Helman St. to the Employment zoning district on the east side of Helman St. Ideally, the final product should provide a transition from the multi-family residential to employment zoning district, and complement, rather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. The area to the north, east and south of the site is also located in the E-l zoning district. Helman St. divides the commercial and employment zones from the residential districts (R-2 and R-3) to the west. The E-l district is centered around the railroad tracks with the subject site being the western edge of a larger employment that goes north to Hersey St., east to N. Mountain Ave. and south to mid-block between A and B Streets. The transition between the residential neighborhood to the west of Helman St. and the light industrial to the east of Helman St. is based on historic development patterns with the area between Helman St. and Ashland Creek being used as a light industrial and industrial area since the establishment of the community. Staffhas identified a list of issues related to the approval criteria and design standards applicable to the project. The issues raised in the body of this report are summarized in Planning Action 2006-00612 Appllclnt: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ;<;;.S- Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 12 of 18 -r------ the list below. . Gross Floor Area of Non-Residential Permitted or Special Permitted Uses The subject proposal designates 66% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as a non-residential permitted or special permitted use being general office space. The E-l zoning district requires a minimum of 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 to be used for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential uses. For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. This approach is consistent with the definition of a structure or building in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in 18.08.750. . Residential Density The original application included 6.75 residential units including six, two- bedroom condominiums and one studio unit. The 6.75 unit density was based on considering the studio unit as .75 of a unit. Initially, Staff suggested that one of the units had to be eliminated since the provision for fractional units is not included in the Employment (E-l) zoning district. However, after further research, Staff believes the language in 18.40.030.E is open to interpretation because it does not specifically prohibit the use of the fractional unit approach. In the Multi-Family Residential Districts (R-2 and R-3), units less than 500 square feet in size are counted as .75 units for the purpose of density calculations. The applicant has not indicated a desire to return to the 6.75 unit proposal. Nevertheless, Staff felt it is an important issue for the Planning Commission to discuss because of the implications for future applications. . Parking Space Design In the revised application, the parking spaces adjacent to the east property line include 16 feet in depth of pavement. Chapter 18.92 requires parking spaces to be 9 x 18 feet in size, and allows 50 percent of the spaces to be compact in size, 8 x 16 feet (see 18.92.070.A below). An additional two feet is delineated as parking space depth in the landscape area. In Staff's opinion, this approach should not be permitted because the vehicles hanging over the landscape area can impact the ability of the plant material to grow. In addition, the previous Staff report identified the landscape buffer in this location between the parking and property as being less than the required five feet in width. Functionally, when vehicles hang over the landscape area, the effective landscape buffer that remains between the overhanging cars and property line is reduced. A condition has been added requiring that half of the surface parking spaces are the required 18 feet in depth in paving, and the building permit submittals to be revised accordingly. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLClJames Batzer ~~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 13 of 18 . Bicycle Parking Five bicycle parking spaces are delineated with three spaces near the front entrance of Building 2, and two spaces on the plaza area. According to Staff's calculations, eight bicycle parking spaces are required with four spaces required for the office uses and four spaces required for the residential units without enclosed garages (units 5 and 6 in Building 2). As a result, the proposal is deficient by three bicycle parking spaces. A condition has been added requiring a total of eight bicycle parking spaces to be provided, and the building permit submittals to be revised accordingly. . Vision Clearance The northwest comer of Building 2 was reduced in size so that the first floor of the building does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer of the site. According to the attached December 9,2005 memo from the Legal Department, the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearance ordinance to allow a building design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion of the building is greater than eight feet in height. The elevations show eight to nine feet from the finished grade to the bottom of the cantilevered portion of the second floor. . Building Design - Emphasized Entrances and Pedestrian Protection Building 1 includes five entrances facing Helman St. of which four are to the residential units and one is to the office space. The entries are all three feet in depth, and are covered with a porch-like roof. In Staff's opinion, more dramatic changes in size and treatment should be considered for the Building 1 entrances, especially the office entrance, so that the Helman St. fa~ade compliments rather than overshadows the adjoining pedestrian environment. . Pedestrian Circulation In Staff's opinion, the proposal needs to be revised to provide a safe pedestrian route from the parking area at the rear of the buildings to the front of the buildings. In Building 1, the rear entrances to the four residential units are limited to the enclosed garages. If guests visit the residential units in Building 1, they will need to access the front entrances adjacent to the Helman St. sidewalk. Additionally, in Staff's experience, the rear entrances to office spaces are not always open, nor are they necessarily designed to access individual tenant spaces. For these reasons, Staff believes it is likely that pedestrians will regularly need to travel from parking area at the rear of the building to the front entrances of both buildings adjacent to the sidewalks on Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou llC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ~;;7 Page 140118 The two options for pedestrians to get to the front of the building or to walk through the plaza space or walk with the cars in the alley. The plaza route is circuitous and not accessible because a pedestrian would need to walk up the stairs onto the plaza from the parking lot, cross the plaza, and then walk down the stairs to the Helman St. sidewalk. The plaza is approximately ten feet above the finished grade of the parking lot, and is approximately three feet above the finished grade of the Helman St. sidewalk. Staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion that the low level of traffic in the alley in itself provides a safe condition for pedestrians to share the space with vehicular traffic. In Staff's experience, drivers using commercial alleys are not necessarily overly cautious or anticipating pedestrians. In addition, the side of the proposed building is immediately adjacent to the south side of the alley and the yard adjacent to the north side of the alley is fenced in and has a slight uphill grade change from the alley. As a result, if a pedestrian were using the alley driving surface to walk on and needed to get out of the way of two-way traffic, there isn't a space for pedestrian refuge. The project has evolved in a positive direction during the past year. The applicant has worked with the Historic Commission to address building design issues as well as the transition of the architecture from the site to the residential zone across the street. In Staff's opinion, the building designs largely address the requirements of the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards for the Detail Site Review Zone, the ultimate detennination by the Planning Commission of the proposal's compliance with the site and building design standards can still be subjective. Staff recommends that the Commission carefully consider the recommendations of the Ashland Historic Commission and provide clear direction to the applicant with respect to the primary issues raised in this report. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions: I) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building pennit, prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. Plans to include street tree installation cross-sections, with the use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree Commission. 3) That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including the sidewalk and planting strip. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ~~f Page 150118 4) That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to work in the alley right-of-way. The drawings shall include an alley driving surface of 20 feet in width, and a raised sidewalk a minimum of four feet in width adjacent to the south side of the alley. 5) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to building permit issuance. Transformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears, and shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 6) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman St. and VanNess Ave. site frontages prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The street lights shall be consist of the City of Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the pedestrian corridor along Ashland Street. 7) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Building and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 8) That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit submittals identifying areas of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. 9) That a minimum of half of the unenclosed parking spaces (i.e. spaces not in garages) on site shall be 9 x 18 feet in size in accordance with 18.92.070.A. The full depth of 18 feet shall be paved surface so that cars shall not hang over the landscape area between the parking and east property line. 10) Eight bicycle parking space shall be provided with at least six spaces sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance in accordance with 18.92.040.1.3. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. Planning Action 2006-00612 Appllclnt: Siskiyou LlC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ~ ~ t:f Page 16 of 18 11) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 12) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 13) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including vehicular access and fire hydrant requirements, shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 14) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 15) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the two trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the four trees adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 16) That the landscape plan shall be revised to include two trees for mitigation of the two trees to be removed. The trees shall be either a minimum 1 ~ - inch caliper deciduous tree or a five-six foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed in accordance with 18.61.084.A. 17) That public utility easements and private utility and access easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 18) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the ground floor of the comer building (i.e. Building 2) shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the street in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 19) That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the walls of Buildings I and 2 facing the plaza shall contain at least 20 percent of the wall area facing the Planning Action ~12 Applicant: Siskiyou LLClJames Batzer ~a~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 17 of 18 plaza in display areas, windows or doorways in accordance with Detail Site Review standard II-C-2a)3). Windows must allow views into working areas or lobbies, pedestrian entrances or display areas. Building permit submittals shall include calculations of total.square footage of ground floor wall area and total square footage of glazing. 20) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 21) That the windows shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 22) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with Detail Site Review Zone standard II-C-2f)2). 23) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 24) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 25) That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be functional and open to the public during all business hours. Planning Action 200fH)()612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer rA~ I Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 18 of 18 A~tlLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT July 11,2006 PLANNING ACTION: 2006-00612 APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer LOCATION: 160 Helman St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-l COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: May 19, 2006 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: October 16, 2006 (with 30-day extension) ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.40 E-l Employment District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.92 Off-Street Parking REQUEST: Site Review approval for a mixed-use development comprised of 7,841 square feet of general office space and seven residential condominiums. Administrative Variances to the Site Design and Use Standards are required to reduce the landscape strip between the parking area and property line to less than the required five-foot minimum and for the plaza size. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application In February 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary use of a refrigerator trailer as part of the food manufacturing operation being Pyramid Juice Company (P A 92-024). In August 1988, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for a food manufacturing use (PA 88-121). There are no other planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The project site is located on the east side of Helman St., between Central Ave. and Planning Action 2006-00612 Appllc:lnt: Siskiyou LLClJames Batzer J'6~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 1 of 21 V anNess Ave. The property is located in the Employment zoning district (E-l). Currently, the site is used for food production as it is the location of the Pyramid Juice Company. The site is bounded by public rights-of-way on three sides with Helman St. to the west, VanNess Ave. to the north and a public alley known to the south. The day care facility is located across the alley to the south, residential units are located to the west across Helman St., a mixed-use commercial building is located to the north across VanNess Ave., and the SOS plumbing yard and office is located to the east of the site. The area to the north, east and south of the site is also located in the E-l zoning district. The residential neighborhood directly across from the site on the west side of Helman is located in the R-3, High-Density Multi-Family district. The site, as well as the area to the west, is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The residences directly across the street on the west side of Helman from VanNess Ave. to the alley were constructed ranging from 1888 to 1947, and the four homes are listed as historic contributing in the National Register of Historic Places nomination. The site is located in a transitional area involving several zoning districts with five zoning districts being with 500 feet of the site (see attached map, Staff Exhibit A). Helman St. generally divides the <?Ommercial and employment zones from the residential districts (R- 2 and R-3) to the west. The E-I district is centered around the railroad tracks with the subject site being the western edge of a larger employment that goes north to Hersey St., east to N. Mountain Ave. and south to mid-block between A and B Streets. The western edge of the R-2 zoning district that includes much of the Railroad District begins on the eastern side of Water St. Finally, the C-l commercial zoning district begins south of Central Ave. and transitions into the C-I-D downtown commercial zoning district at Lithia Way. The site is 19,602 square feet or.45 acres in size, and consists of two parcels which are proposed to be combined. The site is trapezoidal in shape with the property line adjacent to Helman St. being 200 feet in length. The site has approximately 145 feet of frontage on the alley and approximately 52 feet of frontage on V anNess Ave. The property slopes downhill to the north towards VanNess Ave., and to the east towards the SOS plumbing site. Currently, the building and equipment associated with the food production company are located on the site. The building is a warehouse that was constructed in 1948 and has been used for industrial uses (see attached National Register of Historic Places nomination description, Staff Exhibit B.) The application states that the site currently does not contain landscaping or trees, and is covered in pavement. Three trees are located in the planting strip on the Helman St. frontage. 1. Site Review Approval The application involves the construction of two mixed-use buildings referred to as Building 1 and Building 2 in the application materials. The buildings are Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 2 of 21 ~~E> connected by a plaza area. The plaza is approximately three feet above the sidewalk level on Helman Street. Vehicular access to the site is by way of the public alley adjacent to the site. The existing alley right-of-way is 16 feet in width. The proposal is to dedicate four feet on the north side of the alley to expand the alley width to 20 feet. The alley would be paved and improved to city standard from the intersection with Helman Street to the eastern site boundary. A total of twenty-five parking spaces are provided on site. Sixteen surface parking spaces would be provided behind Building 1 running along the eastern site boundary. Three parking spaces are provided under the plaza. Six enclosed spaces are provided in garages at the rear of Building 1. The application describes the surface and under-plaza spaces as "common" parking, and the enclosed garage spaces as "residential" parking. Three parking credits are used in the proposal for the parking spaces available on the Helman St. frontage. The application does not address bicycle parking. Pedestrian access to the site is by way of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. A planting strip and sidewalk are in place adjacent to the Helman St. frontage. . However, the sidewalk is in disrepair and the street trees or described as damaged and dying. The proposal is to install a new sidewalk that would be increased to eight feet in width along the Helman St. site frontage, and to remove and replace the street trees. The sidewalk on the VanNess Ave. frontage is a curbside sidewalk, and is relatively new. The proposal is to leave the VanNess St. sidewalk as it is. However, there is an area of unused VanNess St. right-of-way between the back of the existing sidewalk and the north property line. The proposal includes installing landscaping in the unused right-of-way area. A landscape and irrigation plan is included in the application materials. Landscape planters are provided between Building I and the Helman St. sidewalk, at the rear of both buildings and between the surface parking spaces and the east property line. Building 1 is the longer building that is oriented to Helman St. The building is 9,642 square feet in size and approximately 120 feet in length. The building is mostly a two-story structure, although a small partial third story is located centrally in the building. Building 1 includes 2,814 square feet of general office space on the first floor, four residential condominiums and three residential garages. Building 2 is the comer building which has the entrance oriented towards the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The building is 7,093 square feet in size with approximately 30 feet of building frontage facing each street. The building is a three-story structure. However, the ground floor will not appear as a full story from Helman Street because the site drops from south to north. Building 2 includes 5,271 square feet of general office space on the first and Planning Action ~12 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~3'f Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 3 of 21 ~ ,...---_._...__._~-_.__...__.._'_._._.._--_. - - ~- second floors, and three residential condominiums. Building 1 has more residential architectural components (rather than commercial features) such as gabled roofs, extended eaves, horizontal siding and residential doors and windows. The Helman St. facade will incorporate a wide variety of materials including brick, stucco, horizontal siding, block, corrugated metal awnings and a standing seam metal roof. Building 2 is commercial in character with storefront windows, symmetrical architectural features and exterior materials, a belly band dividing the first and second floors, and a cornice. The exterior of the ground floor is block, the second floor is stucco and the recessed third floor is horizontal siding. 2. Public Facilities Existing and proposed public facilities and utilities necessary to service the project have been identified on the site plan. Existing and proposed upgrades include: · Electrical service from a transformer located in the southeast comer of the site adjacent to the alley. · The proposed building is shown connecting to the existing water and sewer lines in Helman St. · The storm drain line in VanNess Ave. is delineated on the site plan, but the connection from the proposed development is not addressed. · Paved vehicular access is provided from Helman St. and the public alley located south of the site. · The existing sidewalk on the Helman St. frontage will be replaced with an eight-foot wide sidewalk. The existing planting strip will remain in place between the curb and sidewalk, but the trees and landscaping will be replaced and upgraded. The existing sidewalk on the VanNess St. frontage will remain as it is. II. Proiect Impact The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction of new buildings in the E-l zoning district. Administrative Variances from the Site Design and Use Standards are required for the width of the landscape buffer between the parking spaces and the east property line, and for the plaza size. The project is in the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is subject to the Detail Site Review Standards in addition to the Basic Site Review Standards. Additionally, the project is subject to the Additional Standards for Large Scale Project since Building 1 is Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~ar Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 4 of 21 -- 1---- ~----- _nn________ - - ----- in excess of 100 feet in length, and the total project square footage exceeds 10,000 square feet. Finally, the project is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and therefore is subject to the Historic District Design Standards. In accordance with chapters 18.72 and 18.108, the application is required to be reviewed under the "Type If' process with a public hearing because the project is located in the Detail Site Review Zone, and the size of the buildings is greater than 10,000 square feet in size and greater than 100 feet in length. Staff has raised a variety of issues that need to be addressed before the Planning Commission makes a decision on the application. The most critical issues include the residential density, vision clearance area, the generation of traffic and the design of Building 1. Staff believes the changes that will result from addressing these items will significantly affect the site plan and building elevations. The remaining items that need to be addressed primarily focus on site planning issues including bicycle parking location, landscape issues, plaza size and functionality, the alley design and improvements, and pedestrian circulation. While these site planning issues can be resolved, Staff believes the details are key in making the development work well, in providing a transition from the residential zone across the street to the E-I zoning district and in meeting the Site Review requirements. Due to the number and scope of concerns raised below, Staff recommends the application be continued. The issues of Staff concern are in the subsections identified by small letters and bold, italic type such as a) Bicycle Parking. A. Site Review 1. Requirements of the Employment Zoning District The project proposes a mix of uses, including general office space and housing units. Office uses are permitted use within the E-l; Employment District. The residential units are a special permitted use in the E-l zoning district. The E-l zoning district requires a minimum of 65% of the gross floor area of the ground floor of the building to be used for permitted or special permitted uses. The subject proposal designates 66% of the combined ground floors of Building 1 and Building 2 as general office space (5,271 square feet of office on ground floor/2,736 square feet of residential including garages on ground floor/8,007 square feet total on ground floor). For the purposes of the gross floor area calculation, the application treats the development as one structure. The assertion is that the development is one structure because of the plaza connecting the buildings. This approach is consistent with the definition of a building or structure Ashland Land Use Ordinance in 18.08.750. The application notes that Unit 1, the residential unit located on the ground floor on the south end of Building 1, is located adjacent to the alley to provide a transition from the residential structures and less intense commercial uses (i.e. day Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~a~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 5 of 21 ,____ n__ _ _~_u_________________ __ ~__ care and traveler's accommodation) to the south of the alley. It is also important to note that the second floor of the comer building, Building 2, includes an additional 2,072 square feet of general office space. The E-l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts a residential zoning district. In this case, the subject parcel is entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning except to the west, across Helman St. The zoning district division between the Employment E-l district and the Low Density Multi-Family R-2 district is located at the center line of Helman St. As a result, standard setbacks from property lines are not required. The tallest point on Building 1 is the three-story section in the middle of the building, and it is 29 feet in height. Building 2 is 30 feet in height. Both buildings fall below the maximum of 40 feet in height for the E-l zoning district. a) Residential Density The density of residential units exceeds the permitted density for the property. The base density for residential units is 6.75 for the site. Seven residential units are proposed including six, two-bedroom condominiums and one studio less than 500 square feet in size. The application counts the studio unit as .75 ofa unit. While this approach is permitted in the Multi-Family Residential Districts (R-2 and R-3), the provision for fractional units is not included in the Employment (E-l) zoning district. In Staff's opinion, one unit must be eliminated to meet the requirements of residential density requirements of the E-l zoning district (18.40.030.E). b) Bicycle Parking While the bicycle parking rack detail is called out on the site plan, the location and number of bicycle parking spaces are not addressed in the application. A total of eleven bicycle parking spaces are required. If the required bicycle parking is located in one cluster, it will require an area approximately eight feet by 16 feet in size. Given that the site is below the landscaping percentage minimum and the site generally appears to have little extra room, Staff recommends that the site plan be revised to delineate the location and dimensions of the bicycle parking. Eleven bicycle parking spaces are required with four spaces required for the office uses and seven spaces required for the residential units. Nine of the spaces are required to be sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance and not farther from the entrance than the closes motor vehicle parking space. In addition, the bicycle parking design and rack standards of 18.92.040.1 and J must be satisfied. Planning Action 2006-00612 AppIlclnt: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 6 of 21 ~ 01 -- ,- -- --_... ---- -- --- --. - .---- c) Trees There appear to be trees located on or near the narrower parcel included in the subject site, tax lot 7100, that are not addressed in the application. The application states that there are no trees located on the site and that the entire site is paved. In reviewing the city's aerial maps, it appears this is the case for the parcel currently occupied by Pyramid Juice, tax lot 2100. However, the site is comprised of two parcels with one 'parcel being a narrow, long lot that used to be a piece of the railroad spur (tax lot 7100). The location of the property lines, and the fencing on site in relation to the two tax lots is unclear. Additionally, there appear to be trees located on or near the narrower parcel, tax lot 7100. Staff believes this item needs to be addressed, and a Tree Protection and Removal Plan prepared and submitted in accordance with 18.61.200. The Tree Protection Plan requirements include defining the location, species, diameter and drip line of each tree on the site and within 15 feet of the site. 2. Site Design and Use Standards The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore Academy Historic District. As a result, the application is subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. The Historic Commission reviewed the preliminary building design as part of the pre-application conference prior to submission of the application. The Historic Commission had not reviewed the formal application at the time of 'writing. a) Vision Clearance Building 2 at the comer of the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. does not meet the vision clearance requirement of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. Section 18.72.120.C.l requires that no obstructions greater than two and one half feet in height can be located in the vision clearance area. The entry alcove for Building 2 creates a vision clearance area. However, 18.72.120.C.l requires the triangular vision clearance area to be measured from 25 feet from the comer of the property line at the intersection of two streets. The vision clearance area formed by the proposed entry alcove is 11 to 14 feet from the property comer at the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. The purpose of the vision clearance requirement is to provide vehicles at intersections adequate visibility to see oncoming traffic. The vision clearance area is the triangle formed by a line connecting points of a required distance from the intersection of the property line at the intersection of two streets or at the intersection of a street and an alley. No obstructions greater than two and a half feet in height are permitted in the Planning Action 2OOXlO612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 7 of 21 ~ .38"' ,-- vision clearance area. In practicality, the large unused portion of VanNess Ave. right-of-way forces the north side of Building 2 to be approximately 18 feet from the back of the VanNess Ave. sidewalk. This unused right-of-way creates a sizable vision clearance area outside of the property lines. However, in November 2005, the Legal Department determined that the vision clearance requirement in 18.72.120.C.l was not open to interpretation, and that the vision clearance area must be measured from the intersection of lot lines reather than from the curb line. Additionally, the 18.72.120.C.3 prohibits variances to the vision clearance requirements. b) Landscaping The Tree Commission had not reviewed the formal application at the time of writing. (1) Percentage of Landscaping and Planter Sizes The proposal provides approximately 13% of the total developed lot area in landscaping. The landscaping coverage does not meet the Chapter 18.72 requirement that 15% of the total developed lot area is landscaped in accordance with the Site Review Landscaping and Parking Lot Landscaping requirements. The additional 2% in landscaping is the equivalent of approximately 400 square feet of landscaped area. Additionally, Staffhas concerns with the size of some of the proposed planters. The planters on the Helman St. side of the northern half of Building 1, the planter at the entrance to the parking lot from the alley, and the planter at the rear of the rear of Building 1 are two to three feet in width. In Staff's opinion, the planters are not in scale with the height or width of the proposed buildings, or in scale with the asphalt parking area. Staff believes larger landscape areas should be used on the Helman St. frontage of Building 1 to create a transition from the residential neighborhood across the street. Additionally, Staff believes an increase in the size of the planters is necessary to provide adequate planting room for sizeable plantings. (2) Coordination with Mechanical and Utility Equipment Mechanical equipment (i.e. HV AC) and utility equipment (i.e. electric transformer) are shown on the application Preliminary Site Plan as being located in landscape planters. However, the landscape plan does not delineate the mechanical and utility equipment. Instead, the same locations are shown as being fully Planning Action 2Q06.00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 8 of 21 ~31 landscaped. The landscaping percentage of approximately 13 % would be further reduced when this equipment is installed. (3) Parking Lot Landscaping Two-thirds of the length of the planter located between the parking area and the east property line is approximately four feet in width. The Site Design and Use Standards require parking abutting a property line to be screened by a five-foot wide landscaped strip. Since an undersized planter is proposed, an Administrative Variance from the Site Design and Use Standards is required. The application does not address the planter size or Administrative Variance approval criteria. Staff believes there are two additional factors that may impact the landscape planter adjacent to the parking area. A Talent Irrigation Ditch (Till) line is shown parallel to the east property line and running through the planter. Staffs concern is that the easement for the Till line, and or the placement of the line itself may interfere or prevent landscape plantings in this area. The required parking lot shade trees are proposed in the landscape planter. In keeping with the intent of the parking lot landscaping standards, five large stature trees are proposed in the planter. However, it is unclear if the narrow planter with the Till line beneath it will in practicality support the required parking lot shade trees. The second issue is that the representative of the property owner of 81 Central Ave. has indicated to staff that the southwest comer of the site contains a vehicular back-up easement for the property located at 81 Central Ave. The property located at 81 Central Ave. is on the south side of the public alley to the east of the subject site, and contains a recently completed mixed-use building. This would be in the location of the larger landscape planter area at the south end of the parking area. c) Plaza Size and Functionality The plaza located between the two buildings is approximately 200 square feet below the required square footage. The Large Scale Project Standards require one square foot of plaza or public space for every ten square feet of gross floor area. The total project square footage is miscalculated on the Preliminary Site Plan - the total project square footage is shown as 14,741 square feet. However, the total project square footage is 16,741 square feet. It appears that the third floor square footage of Building 2 was inadvertently left out of the total project square footage. The result is that 1,674 square feet of plaza is required while 1,412 square feet is proposed. Here again, an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 9 of 21 -1.40 --.--- ,----~________.____..___ - __m___________________ Standards is required for an undersized plaza. The application does not address the plaza size or Administrative Variance approval criteria. Staff believes the plaza design and location is a positive element of the development proposal. The plaza provides a separation to break up the mass of the two buildings and provides a space that has the potential to give the development an outdoor amenity. Staff does question whether the plaza will be regularly used with the adjacent office uses. While the elevations depict people seated at tables and chairs suggesting a cafe setting, this scenario would not be possible under the proposal because of limited parking. The proposed number of parking spaces for the commercial use is based on a general office requirement. Chapter 18.92 requires the least amount of spaces for general office uses. More intense uses such as retail, person services and restaurants require more parking spaces than general offices. Since the proposal is to provide the minimum amount of parking for the commercial component of the development, there are no extra parking spaces to provide the flexibility to the commercial spaces to transition to more intense uses such as a cafe. d) Building Design The project has evolved in a positive direction during the past year. The applicant has worked with the Historic Commission to address building design issues as well as the transition of the architecture from the site to the residential zone across the street. In Staff s opinion, the building designs largely address the requirements of the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design Standards. While the City of Ashland has adopted relatively specific design standards for the Detail Site Review Zone, the ultimate determination by the Planning Commission of the proposal's compliance with the standards can still be subjective. The discussion below outlines several issues related to the site and building design elements of the proposal that Staff questions whether the project meets the full intent of certain Site Design and Use standards. Staffhas two concerns with the design of Building 1 regarding the prominent eave line and the entrances facing Helman St. (1) Building Offsets and Mass Building 1 is 120 feet in length. The Helman St. fa~ade of Building 1 includes a series of bay projections and changes in materials. The bay projections are three feet in depth, and vary from one to two stories in height. While Staff believes the undulation created by the projections and varied materials will provide changes in relief, it is unclear if this treatment will divide Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 10 of 21 ~ 'II the building mass. In particular, the main roof form facing Helman St. has an eave that creates a prominent horizontal line for the length of Building 1. Staff's concern is that the mass of the building will read as a large mass because of this prominent roof form and horizontal line. The following Detail and Large Scale Site Review Standards are relevant to the mass issue. II-C-1 a) 2) Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs or have other distinctive changes in the building fayade. II-C-3a) 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. (2) Emphasized Entrances and Pedestrian Protection Building 1 includes five entrances facing Helman St. of which four are to the residential units and one is to the office space. The entries are three feet in depth, and are covered with a porch-like roof. The office entrance is three feet in depth and appears to be six feet in width. In Staff's opinion, more dramatic changes in size and treatments should be considered for the Building 1 entrances, especially the office entrance, so that the Helman St. fayade compliments rather than overshadows the adjoining pedestrian environment. Recessed ground floor entries or alcoves are features that can serve to not only break up the building footprint, but also provide a distinct change in the plane of a multi-story building fayade in the form of a 1 st or ground floor step back. The above cited Detail and Large Scale Site Review Standards as well as the following Detail Site Review Standards are relevant to the entrance Issue. II-C-2a) 4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface or finish to give emphasis to entrances. II-C-2a) 6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awnings that protect pedestrians from the rain and sun. Planning Action 2OOlHlO612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 11 of 21 I-~. .-----.~ --.-.----.-.--...... A4/.~ 3. Adequacy of Public Facilities Existing public utilities are in place to service the project, and have been identified on a site plan. Water and sewer service are available from Helman St., and storm drainage will be directed to VanNess Ave. Helman St. provides paved vehicular access to the site. Helman St. is classified as an avenue (major collector). In Staff's opinion, the site is well connected to existing sidewalk systems, and will have adequate pedestrian facilities. a) Generation of Traffic The application does not address the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development, or the impact on nearby intersections. In Staff's opinion, this information is necessary to make an evaluation and finding regarding adequate transportation. b) Alley Design and Improvement Staff believes the more information is needed about the location of the existing alley right-of-way, and the proposed alley design. The application states that an additional four feet will be added to the alley to create a 20- foot wide driving surface. Additionally, the application states that the alley will be paved to city standards. The public alley to the south of the project is 16 feet in width, and is currently surfaced with a narrower unpaved driving surface. The application's Preliminary Site Plan does not delineate the full width of the alley, and it is unclear the location of the boundaries of the alley. Additionally, there is a power pole and possibly retaining wall and fence intrusions in the alley right-of-way on the south side of the alley. The northern boundary of the proposed alley is immediately adjacent to the southern end of Building 1. Typically, there would be a pedestrian path or a landscape planter between the edge of the alley and the building to provide a buffer between the vehicular traffic and the building. c) Pedestrian Circulation In Staff's opinion, the proposal needs to be revised to provide a direct pedestrian route from the parking area at the rear of the buildings to the front of the buildings. The two options for pedestrians to get to the front of the building or to walk through the plaza space or walk with the cars in the alley. The plaza route is circuitous and not accessible because a pedestrian would need to walk up the stairs onto the plaza from the parking lot, cross the plaza, and then walk down the stairs to the Helman St. sidewalk. The plaza is approximately ten feet above the finished grade of the parking lot, and is approximately three feet above the finished grade Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 12 of 21 ~~~ ... r-- ~.. --~._--- ~"'-"""-'---'------"'--"-"-~-- of the Helman St. sidewalk. Ideally, a pedestrian connection would be located centrally in the project to provide at a minimum a direct route to the front of building one. A sidewalk adjacent to the alley would be an alternative. III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Review approval are described AMC 18.72.070 as follows: 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. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for an Administrative Variance from the Site Design and Use Standards are described AMC 18.72.090 as follows: 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. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staffhas raised a variety of issues that need to be addressed before the Planning Commission makes a decision on the application. The most critical issues include the residential density, vision clearance area, the generation of traffic and the design of Building 1. Staff believes the changes that will result from addressing these items will significantly affect the site plan and building elevations. The remaining items that need to be addressed primarily focus on site planning issues including bicycle parking location, landscape issues, plaza size and functionality, the alley design and improvements, and pedestrian circulation. While these site planning issues can be resolved, Staff believes the details are key in making the development work well, in providing a transition from the residential zone across the street to the E-l zoning district and in meeting the Site Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 13 of 21 ~"'I ,-- ----_~__~___ ___ ___u_m~______ Review requirements. The following is a summary of the concerns raised by Staff that are discussed in the body of this report. · Residential Density The density of residential units exceeds the permitted density for the property by one unit. Seven units are proposed and six units are permitted. . Bicycle Parking The bicycle parking location and number of bicycle parking spaces are not addressed in the application. A total of eleven bicycle parking spaces are required, and will necessitate a sizeable area on the site. Given that the site is below the landscaping percentage minimum and the site generally appears to have little extra room, Staff recommends that the site plan be revised to delineate the location and dimensions of the bicycle parking. . Trees There appear to be trees located on or near the narrower parcel included in the subject site, tax lot 7100. Staff believes this item needs to be addressed, and a Tree Protection and Removal Plan prepared and submitted in accordance with 18.61.200. . Vision Clearance Building 2 at the corner of the intersection of Helman St. and VanNess Ave. intrudes into the vision clearance area, and therefore does not meet the vision clearance requirement of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. · Landscaping The proposal provides approximately 13% of the total developed lot area in landscaping. The landscaping coverage does not meet the Chapter 18.72 requirement that 15% of the total developed lot area is landscaped in accordance with the Site Review Landscaping and Parking Lot Landscaping requirements. The additional 2% in landscaping is the equivalent of approximately 400 square feet oflandscaped area. In addition, the landscape plan does not reflect the mechanical and utility equipment located in landscape planters on the Preliminary Site Plan. Finally, the landscape planter between the parking area and east property line is less than the required five feet in width. The reduced planter width requires an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, and is not addressed in the application. Planning Action 2OOEHlO612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~46' Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 14 of 21 r- ----- . Plaza Size and Functionality The plaza located between the two buildings is approximately 200 square feet below the required square footage. The plaza size requires and Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards, and is not addressed in the application. Additionally, while the elevations depict people seated at tables and chairs suggesting a cafe setting, this scenario would not be possible under the proposal because oflimited parking. · Building Design o Building Offsets and Mass Building 1 is 120 feet in length. While Staff believes the undulation created by the projections and varied materials will provide changes in relief, it is unclear if this treatment will divide the building mass. In particular, the main roof form facing Helman St. has an eave that creates a prominent horizontal line for the length of Building 1. Staff's concern is that the mass ofthe building will read as a large mass because of this prominent roof form and horizontal line. o Emphasized Entrances and Pedestrian Protection Building 1 includes five entrances facing Helman St. of which four are to the residential units and one is to the office space. The entries are all three feet in depth, and are covered with a porch-like roof. In Staff's opinion, more dramatic changes in size and treatment should be considered for the Building 1 entrances, especially the office entrance, so that the Helman St. fayade compliments rather than overshadows the adjoining pedestrian environment. · Generation of Traffic The application does not address the traffic that will be generated by the proposed development, or the impact on nearby intersections. In Staff's opinion, this information is necessary to make an evaluation and finding regarding adequate transportation. · Alley Design and Improvement Staff believes the more information is needed about the location of the existing alley right-of-way, and the proposed alley design. The application's Preliminary Site Plan does not delineate the full width of the alley, and it is unclear the location of the boundaries of the alley. Additionally, there is a power pole and possibly retaining wall and fence intrusions in the alley right-of-way on the south Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~41c Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 15 of 21 n____n ,____________ _ ________________ __ ______ side of the alley. · Pedestrian Circulation In Staff's opinion, the proposal needs to be revised to provide a direct pedestrian route from the parking area at the rear of the buildings to the front of the buildings. Staff believes it is critical that a project of this size and scale is thoroughly evaluated in the context of Ashland's approval criteria and design standards, so that the final product provides a transition from the multi-family residential to employment zoning district, and complements, rather than overshadows the architectural fabric established by the pattern of historic buildings. Based upon issues raised in this report, Staff does not believe the application should be approved at this time. At this point, Staff recommends that the application be continued. The Commission should carefully consider the recommendations of the Ashland Historic Commission and provide clear direction to the applicant with respect to the primary issues raised in this report. If the Commission believes that legitimate concerns have been raised regarding Building l' s eave line and entrances, and the particular role these play in affecting the outward appearance of each building's mass, then general direction should be provided to the applicant rather than deliberating with the intent of trying to put together options for detailed design changes. Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approve the project, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit, prior to work in the street right-of-way and prior to installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. Plans to include street tree installation cross-sections, with the use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree Commission. 3) That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including the sidewalk and planting strip. 4) That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to work in the alley right-of-way. 5) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~~7 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 16 of 21 - -I-~ transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. Additionally, the placement of any portion of the structure in the public utility easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to building permit issuance. Transformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears, and shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. 6) That the required pedestrian-scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman St. and VanNess Ave. site frontages prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The street lights shall be consist of the City of Ashland's commercial streetlight standard, and shall be included in the utility plan and engineered construction drawings for the pedestrian corridor along Ashland Street. 7) That a final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering, Building and Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. 8) That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit submittals identifying areas of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights. 9) That a parking plan shall be submitted verifying that all on-site parking areas provide adequate maneuvering room so that all vehicles may enter the alley in a forward manner, and that the minimum 22 feet of back-up space is provided in accordance with 18.92.070. 10) Eleven bicycle parking space shall be provided with at least nine spaces sheltered from the weather. Bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a well-used entrance in accordance with 18.92.040.1.3. The inverted u-rack shall be used for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.92.040.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.92.040.1. 11) That the recommendations of the Historic Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be incorporated into the building permit submittals. 12) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 13) That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including vehicular access Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~'-It Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 17 of 21 --- T-.-~_u_----- -- --- - -- .----.-.---. -- and fire hydrant requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 14) That the landscape plan shall be revised so that a minimum of 15% of the total lot area is landscaped in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards and 18.72.110. 15) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission with final approval of the Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The recommendations shall be included on a revised tree protection plan, landscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time of submission of building permit. Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 16) That a Tree Protection Plan in accordance with 18.61.200 shall be submitted for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to issuance of a building permit. The Tree Protection Plan shall be reviewed by the Tree Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. If any trees six inches dbh or greater are proposed for removal, a Tree Removal Permit shall be applied for and obtained prior to issuance of a building permit. 17) That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, building demolition, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the three trees in the public parking area to the east of the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 18) That public utility easements and private utility and access easements on the property shall be shown on the building permit submittals. No portion of the structure shall intrude into a public utility easement without approval by the Ashland Engineering Division. 19) That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St. and VanNess Ave. Location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 20) That the windows shall not be tinted so as to prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building. 21) That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the building permit submittals. Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with Detail Site Review Zone standard II-C-2f)2). 22) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ~"I-l:f Page 18of21 r-- 23) That a comprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of new signage. Signage shall meet the requirements of Chapter 18.96. 24) That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St. and VanNess Ave. shall be functional and open to the public during all business hours. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~5tJ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 19 of 21 I -~--~---- -,-_._.~_.. - _._-------~-_..._.._-~---_.._--_._- Staff Exhibit A Zoning Map of Surrounding Area Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer .' t Staff Report Ashland Planning Departmen Page 20 of 21 Staff Exhibit B Property Description from National Register of Historic Places Nomination NPS Fonn 10-900-A OMS Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: -L- Page:.J.Q.. Skidmore Academy Historic District, Ashland, OR extreme west. The Henry and Alwilda Emery House retains substantial integrity and effectively relates the period of significance. 14.0 STANSBURY WAREHOUSE 1948c 160 HELMAN ST 39IE04CC 2100 Other: Utilitarilln Historic Contributing This industrial structure was apparently building shortly after the property was purchased by Phil and Marchial Stansbury in 1948. (lCD 291:301) The Original use is unclear but the property was long occupied by Pacific Northwest Bell, who remained here as late as 1971. The Stansbury's apparently sold the property in 1976 and a succession of tenants including Nimbus Manufacturing (.Ieather goods company), King of Hearts Ice Cream .nd, flnally, Lenny's Pyramid Juice company, have been located in this building. The Stansbury Warehouse is one of the only remaining industrial uses in this area, which once included the Bagley Canning Company and then the Newbry Packing House, to the south. The warehouse consists of two simple g.ble volumes, fOrming an "M" shaped roof. Corrugated metal siding, multi-light windows and the basic configuration remain, successfully rel.ting the original utilitarian character during the period of significance. Planning Action 2006-00612 Applicant: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer ~s~ Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report Page 21 of 21 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes August2,2006 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Molly Owens-Stevenson, Terry Skibby, Henry Baker, Sam Whitford, Rob Saladoff, Absent Commission Members: Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Keith Swink Council Liaison: Vacant Hiah School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Maria Harris, Senior Planner Staff Absent: Billie Boswell, Administration CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING At 7:05 pm, Chairman Dale Shostrom called the regular meeting to order. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Whitford made a motion to approve the minutes and it was seconded by Mr. Baker. The motion passed unanimously by the commissioners present. PUBLIC FORUM: No speakers PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action 2006-00612 160 Helman Street Site Review Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Chairman Shostrom read the description of the project and verified there were no conflict of interest issues. Ms. Owens-Stevenson abstained since it was her first meeting and she had not been present at the previous discussions. Mark Knox of Urban Development Services and Mark McKechnie, architect for Batzer Construction, described the changes they made to the plan per previous suggestions from the Historic Commission. They answered several questions about the color and type of detail materials such as green metal roofing, cream stucco with stipple finish, red brick, grey ground block, blue horizontal siding with wood trim, vinyl windows and shiny metal chimneys. Chairman Shostrom pointed out several discrepancies between the different plan views and elevations and commented how confusing they were. Mr. Knox requested that Condition 21 be amended to add "heavily" to the window tinting sentence so that it reads"... the windows shall not be heavily tinted so as to prevent view from outside....) There being no further questions of the applicant, the meeting was opened to public comment. Ron Davies, 6795 Rapp Lane, who owns 129 & 159 Helman and a business at 157 Helman, said that the City of Ashland promised to have transition at Central and Helman in the Haines development. He said the E-1 district Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 10/4/2006 ;( S-3 CITY OF ASHLAND on A Street from Eighth Street to Van Ness Avenue would have no three-story buildings. He was in favor of the building but not three-stories high. In rebuttal, Mr. Knox pointed out that the zoning allows building heights to 40 feet and other 3-story buildings have been approved for construction in the area. He said this is the "gateway" into the railroad district. Building 1, on the southern portion of the site, is designed to blend with the residences in that area. Mr. McKechnie described the third story as more of a clerestory that will contain two bedrooms. Mr. Knox explained that the idea of the clerestory was taken from a historic photo of a mill that was located on the site. Since there was no one else in the audience wishing to speak, the public meeting was closed. Chairman Shostrom was concerned that compared to other buildings in the area, this project seemed larger in bulk and scale because of the minimal setbacks from Helman Street. Mr. Saladoff and Mr. Whitford felt the way the Building 1 was broken up minimized the impact and made it more comparable to the new building at the corner of Helman and Van Ness as well as the existing Pyramid Juice building. Mr. Saladoff pointed out that the redesign of the corner building was not shown in the plans. He was also concerned about all the varied materials used on the bump-out elements of the buildings and the lack of a sense of entry. Chairman Shostrom and Mr. Saladoff pointed out numerous discrepancies in design details throughout the different site and elevation plans making it difficult to know what is be proposed. Mr. Skibby commented that he supports the project and would not want to see it denied. Mr. Saladoff stated that there was enough uncertainty in the drawings that he would recommend a continuance. Chairman Shostrom made a motion to recommend a continuance because current inconsistencies and lack of detail on the plans make it too hard to figure out if the proposal meets applicable criteria. Without accurate information, the Historic Commission can not make an evaluation of the proposal's mass, bulk and scale as it relates to the applicable standards. Recommend submitting revised plans to include the following items: 1. Need consistency between plan views and elevations 2. Show change in design of the corner building 3. Show architectural details 4. Enhance sense of entry on Building 1. Also, show ALL entrances on the elevation views. 5. Provide description of hard materials such as stucco finish, brick type, etc. 6. Provide sections of the exterior walls in order to show materials, windows, trim, and overhang. 7. Recommend increasing the size of the :J"d story step-back on the corner of Building 2. (Currently 2 feet). A cascade effect would lessen the impact of the :J"d story on the Helman Street side to provide a better transition with the residences on the West side of Helman. a. The:J"d story needs a top or cornice added for compatibility. Mr. Saladoff seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with Ms. Owens-Stevenson abstaining. DISCUSSION ITEMCS): Planning Action #2005-01674 11 First Street Design Modifications Bill Emerson Mr. Emerson explained to the Commissioners that the property owner is concerned about the cost of the building and they are looking at cost cutting changes to the original design. One proposal is to change the brick veneer exterior to a brick textured plaster or possibly stucco. Another alternative is to reduce the building size to two stories instead of three. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 10/4/2006 ~Si 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES July 6, 2006 CAll TO ORDER --Chair Bryan Holley called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. on July 6, 2006 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council liaison B_ryan Holley David Chapman, absent Marv Pritchard Laurie Sager Staff Present Ted Loftus Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Steve Siewert Anne Rich, Parks Department Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk APPROVAL OF MINUTES Page 2 last paragraph Adam will be posting the ballot not ballet on the website. Loftus/Siewert mls to approve the minutes of June 8, 2006. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of June 8, 2006 were approved as corrected. Amy reported that the Hearings Board approved two trees for mitigation instead of the recommended three at 1505 Siskiyou Blvd. PUBLIC FORUM None present PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION 2006-00612 is a request for Site Review approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised of 7,841 square feet of general office space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St. An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards is requested to reduce the required landscape strip between the parking area and property line to less than the required five-foot minimum. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment ZONING: E-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP #: 39 IE 04 CC; TAX LOT#: 2100. APPLICANT: Siskiyou LLC/James Batzer Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts - All the Commissioners did a site visit. Amy read the staff report explaining staff s concerns and the conditions of approval. Because of various issues the applicants have requested a continuance to next month. Applicant testimony: Mark Knox, Urban Development Services, and Mike Mindor were present to answer questions. Mr. Knox confirmed the request for a continuance though he still wanted the Commissioners to review the project so they could help with regard to the tree and landscaping efforts. At next months meeting they will address the trees on the property after first getting an arborist report. The Commissioners discussed the size of the planter boxes. Sager commented that sometimes small planters can be a liability on a project. In the heat when the plants are struggling sometimes its better not to have a planter at all. Sager also stated that along the Parkrow on Helman Street there needs to be some parking spaces where the paving comes right up to the street so that people parking can get out. Rich reported that the trees on this site have been poorly maintained only sighting one that was in good condition. The opportunity to plant new ones would allow for larger and better trees. Loftus would like to wait for the arborist report before making any decisions regarding the trees. It was suggested that there might be a possibility of using pervious concrete at this site. Amy asked Mr. Knox to supply a small scale utility plan for the Commissioners to review. ~5~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR SISKIYOU LLC FORA SITE REVIEW & TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR CLARIFICATION REASONS. THESE FINDINGS ARE BEING REPLACED IN THEIR INTIRETY AND ARE (BASED UPON THE AUGUST 30TH. 2006 SUBMITTALS) SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC. 320 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 202 ASHLAND, OR 97520 R(=r;:"',, )~O ..- AUG 3 0 2006 t-O,I,.- j5G. ~ I. PROJECT INFORMATION: PLANNING ACTION: The applicants are requesting a Site Review Permit to construct a mixed-use development of 6,888 square feet of general office space and six residential condominium apartments consisting of 7,886 square feet. The application includes a Tree Removal request to remove the four street trees along the Helman Street frontage and replace the trees with six new street trees. The subject property is located on the southeast comer of Helman and Van Ness Streets (Pyramid Juice site). ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 160 Helman Street, 391E 04CC Tax Lots 2100 & 7100 OWNER: Siskiyou LLC Jim & Andy Batzer, Managers 131 Terrace Street Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-301-2974 ARCHITECT: McKechnie & Associates Mark McKechnie, AIA 4406 San Juan Drive Medford, OR 97501 Tel: 541-944-9886 LAND USE PLANNING: Urban Development Services Mark Knox, AICP 320 E. Main Street, Suite 202 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-482-3334 LANDSCAPE DESIGNER: Michael J. Minder 2936 Cornice Drive Medford, OR 97504 Tel: 541-776-0409 SURVEYOR: Stewart Land Surveys Martin Stewart 6370 Highway 66 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 488-2831 ARBORIST: Galbraith & Associates John Galbraith 318 S. Grape Street Medford, OR 97501 Tel: 541-770-7964 TRAFFIC ENGINEER: RDK Engineering Robert Kortt 3350 Green Acres Drive Central Point, OR 97502 Tel: 541-664-0393 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment ZONING DESIGNATION: E-l (Residential Overlay) R" t=~~r, n=" D" ,- ,;, /. ,,' ^ .".' --- ".<,;,' -:II 'ti l~ AUG 3 0 2006 (' ~ <l\.., '! If"" ' .- -1\~'''''' ~~/" "./ '.'.,.., ~ ..1- b. ....i' ~ ,..., ..J ~ ~..,' 2 :;':57 LOT AREA: Lot # 1 : Lot #2: Total Area: .32 acres I 13,939 square feet .13 acres I 5,662 square feet .45 acres 119,602 square feet COMMERCIAL DENSITY: Minimum 65% ground floor commercial RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: Permitted: 6.75 units (19,602 sq. ft. 143,560 sq. ft. X 15 units per acre) Proposed Density: 6 units BUILDING DATA: First Floor: Second Floor: Third Floor: 7,572 sq. ft. 6,104 sq. ft. 2,378 sq. ft. BUILDING COVERAGE (ground floor ratio - 18.40.030 E.1.): Commercial Permitted Uses: 4,980 sq. ft. or 66% Residential (includes enclosed garages): 2,592 sq. ft. or 34% BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Type V-A (wood construction with rated exterior walls) Plaza (concrete over steel beams) PARKING: General Office: Residential: 1 parking space per 450 sq. ft. 1 parking space per unit less than 500 sq. ft. 1.5 parking spaces per unit greater than 500 sq. ft. 1.75 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: Site Design & Use Standards, Chapter 18.72 Site Design & Use Standards (Design Standards) Basic Site Review, Section II Detail Site Review, Section II Large Scale Standards, Section II Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards, Section II Street Tree Standards, Section II Historic District Design Standards, Section IV Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 18.61 ADJACENT ZONING/USE: WEST: R-3; Multi-Family High Density Residential EAST: E-l; Employment (wI Residential Overlay) SOUTH: E-l; Employment (wI Residential Overlay) R.'.. Eh'I"""'."~"'''~'' '-D' , ,3laI tl: --~, """- , '..F ." '" ,.~~, AUG 3 0 2006 3 ~5~ 4'v"'..... ,.",;..,... tCf- ...... i,~"/:./'" ,," .. ,~~. NORTH: SUBJECT SITE: E-1; Employment (wi Residential Overlay) E-1; Employment (wi Residential Overlay) II. SITE DESCRIPTION: History of Site: The subject property is located at 160 Helman Street and is on the southeast comer of Helman and Van Ness Streets. The site is known by locals as the Pyramid Juice property and historically known as the Stansbury Warehouse site. The structure on the property was constructed in 1948 and over the years has been used by industrial and manufacturing businesses such as Pacific Northwest Bell, Nimbus Manufacturing, King of Hearts Ice Cream and Pyramid Juice. The site is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District and its structure is listed as a Historic Contributing resource building. The property in question is triangular shaped and consists of two parallel parcels which are proposed to be merged. The rear parcel is narrow and extends from Van Ness Street to the adjacent alley directly south of the property. This narrow sliver of land at one time was a railroad spur and extended tracks from the main line to the Plaza and specifically to the Ashland Woolen Mills building. Over the years, remnant sections of the spur have been merged and re-developed. Two of the most recent developments include the white two-story building on the northeast comer of Helman and Van Ness Streets (180 Helman Street) and the other is located at 81 Central Street and is currently under construction. Both of those buildings are also mixed use developments. Boundaries: Adjacent to the property is a 16' wide public alley which extends approximately 145' along the property's south boundary. The alley serves the site, the adjacent property to the south and the new building located at 81 Central Street. The alley's right-of-way technically extends from Helman Street to Water Street, but due to a significant difference in grade elevation, the alley stops at the property line. Along the property's Helman Street frontage is a 5' sidewalk and 6'-6" planting strip extending approximately 200' in length from the alley to the Van Ness Street intersection. Four trees sit within the planting strip all of which appear to have been neglected over time, damaged, topped and are now dying. The trees have also caused the sidewalk to lift and crack in some places. Along the street's curb, seven parallel parking spaces exist. The Van Ness Street frontage is approximately 52' wide is the acute side of the semi- triangular shaped parcel. A curbside sidewalk parallels the street leaving approximately 12' of excess public right-of-way along the property's comer. Currently this area is full of weeds and debris (trash, shopping cart and a washing machine). The rear of the property parallels the SOS Plumbing site located on the comer of Van Ness and Water Streets. There is a significant grade change between the ~~;-,,.~~ P~-D (approximately 6' to 8'). The boundary is approximately 222' and is currently fdiiJar;t~ ,- -~; ~. :~:~ . AUG 3 0 2006 4 :;. Sf ~t" :" 4,0'" ' -. - Site: In general, the property slopes approximately 6% (12') from south to north and 3.5% (5') from west to east. No significant natural elements such as trees or rock outcroppings exist and because of the site's history as an industrial and manufacturing site, the property has been practically "paved-over". Currently the site is surrounded with obscured fencing that is falling apart in many areas. The site's structure was built in 1948( c) and is also in disrepair. The south side of the structure is below the sidewalk and alley grade by approximately 14" causing constant water problems. The building has little street presence and is solely listed as a Contributing Resource due the building's appearance remaining consistent since its original construction. Surroundings: The subject property, as well as the adjacent properties to the south, east and north, is zoned Employment (E-l). The properties west of the site, across the street, are zoned High Density Residential (R-3) and allow up to 20 units to the acre. The buildings south of the site as well as across the street are comprised of small single family and multi-family structures built between 1887 and 1947. The buildings across the street are primarily residential used and still retain their original appearance. The buildings south of the site are also primarily residential, but due to the area's employment zoning has caused some of the buildings to convert to commercial uses (medical office, hotel/traveler's accommodation, etc.). Site's Zoning: The property is within the E-1 zoning district (Chapter 18.40, Employment-Residential Overly District) which is intended to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail, manufacturing and residential in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses. As evidenced herein as well as the enclosed plan submittals, the applicant's contend the proposed development will be in concert with the types of uses listed above and will have a minimal impact on the surrounding uses. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Introduction: The applicants are requesting a Site Review Permit to construct a mixed-use development of 6,888 square feet of general office space and 6 residential condominium apartments consisting of 7,886 square feet. Within the rear of the development are two two-car garages and two one-car garages totaling 1,280 square feet. The planning and design efforts for this project started in November of 2004 with the applicants holding two neighborhood meetings with each meeting resulting in significant design changes, use alterations and building size reductions. In addition, the applicants have met with the Ashland Historic Commission on at least five occasions to further refine the plan's details. Site Plan: The applicants intend to construct two distinct mixed-use buildings referenced herein as Building #1, Helman Street building and Building #2, comer building. The buildings have been designed in accordance with the City's Site Design and Use Standards with the two buildings lining the street and vehicular parking in the rear. The buildings are designed to relate to the adjacent streets rather than the rear parkiRE!~tE::~,r;~D AUG 3 0 2006 5 ~~o .'~~~ lI\ . pedestrian access from both the street and parking area. The two buildings will be connected, but only via an elevated plaza area with parking underneath. The elevated plaza provides not only a common area for people to enjoy with parking underneath, it creates a 34' separation between the buildings providing the space with natural light, view opportunities, a break in the building mass and a clear distinction between buildings. A total of 24 parking spaces are located on-site and 3 parking spaces are along Helman Street as permitted by AMC 18.82.025. Of the site's 24 parking spaces, 18 will be "common" parking spaces open to customers, employees and residents and 6 will be "enclosed" in garages and dedicated to the residential units. Vehicular access will be from the existing 16' public alley along the south side of the property. The alley will be widened an additional 8' and improved with a 4' raised sidewalk and a 20' asphalt surface in order to accommodate ingress and egress movements, in accordance with AMC 18.92.070 B.3. The existing sidewalk along the Helman Street frontage is currently substandard at 5' and will be replaced with a new 8' sidewalk. The existing 6-6" planting strip will be retained and six new street trees will be added. The proposed sidewalk and street tree plan will assist the project in becoming integrated into the fabric of the historic neighborhood. Building #1 (Helman Street Building) is primarily a two-story building with a small three story volume in the middle of the building. The building has many residential components such as multiple gabled. roofs, extended eaves, horizontal lap siding, trim around windows and doors, residential style windows, etc. The building is approximately 115' in length with multiple fa9ade setbacks ranging from 4' to 13' providing the streetscape some variety and character. The building's south end has a gabled roof and measures 15'-3' at the eave and 23'-3" at the gable (ridge line). The building's north end has 19' eave height and a 27' gable height. The building's three story section has a building height of approximately 24' to the eave and 30' to the gable line. The floor plan and use allocation of the Helman Street building was specifically designed to mitigate against possible impacts associated with the neighboring residence across the alley by "decreasing" the intensity of the uses as the building gets closer to the alley. As described on Sheet A2, the portion of the building closest to the alley is 100% residential with Unit #1 being downstairs and Unit #2 upstairs. The use allocation for Building #1 is as follows: 3rd Floor: Residential Unit #1 1,312 sq. ft. Unit #2 1,417 sq. ft. Unit #3 751 sq. ft. Unit #4 1,530 sq. ft. Unit #3 756 sq. ft. General Office 2,641 sq. ft. none Other 1,280 ( 4 garages) 1 st Floor: 2nd Floor: none Three of the four residential units in Building #1 have second floor exteri<fl~~'~:\":~D AUG 3 0 2006 6 :J...,( ,. , 'A'l'.. .~. i, ' one has a ground floor patio area. Also, two of the four units have two-car garages and two have one-car garages. Building #2 (comer building) is a traditional commercial building reflective of the commercial building across the street that was approved by the Ashland Planning Commission in 2001. The new building is three-stories averaging approximately 30' in height (measured at the midpoint of its four sides). The building is basically square shaped, but for a couple of decks and small patio spaces on the third floor and an angled entrance facing the intersection similar to the building across the street. The building is symmetrically balanced with its windows, doors, cornice, and scoring being consistent throughout. Overall, the design of the building was intended to reflect the mass and scale of the building across the street giving the appearance of a gateway into the Railroad District as well as distinguishing the boundary line between the area's commercial and residential districts. The use allocation for Building #2 is as follows: 1 st Floor: 2nd Floor: 3rd Floor: Residential none Unit #5 Unit #6 498 sq. ft. 1,622 sq. ft. General Office 2,339 sq. ft. 1,908 sq. ft. none Plaza: The plaza area is approximately 1,690 square feet in area and sits between the two new buildings. The plaza's approximate dimensions, although oddly shaped, measure 33' in width by 52' in depth. The plaza area is slightly elevated from the Helman Street sidewalk by approximately 3' allowing for a multi-use opportunity with three parking spaces underneath and plaza space above. The plaza space is accessible from the sidewalk along Helman Street, the rear parking area, from the ground floor office of Building #1 and the second floor office area of the comer building. The plaza space is designed to comply with Section II-C-3b #2 and consist of a small water feature, covered tables and benches for outdoor seating as well as for bike parking. Note: the bike parking area is not part of the plaza's square foot measurements and its area has already been reduced from the plaza's minimum requirements. Parking: In accordance with 18.92.020, the project's parking demands are as follows: General Office: 1 parking space per 450 sq. ft. Residential: 1 parking space per unit less than 500 sq. ft. 1.5 parking spaces per unit greater than 500 sq. ft. 1.75 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit Required: General Office: Residential: 6,936 sq. ft. /450 = 15.41 parking spaces 5 two-bedroom condominium apartments X 1.75 = 8. 75 parking spaces 1 studio apartment less than 500 sq. ft. = 1 parking space R"''li, ~.b' t"~l ""-'D' , J,- ~..:'-i'ill .~ -'l\:"' "\' '~.~~., " f..."", . '" ;c"",., AUG 3 0 2006 7 2" 2... ,:."'."" _'f '>-" Total Parking Required: 25.16 (26) spaces Provided: On-site (common) On-site (residential) On-street (common) 18 6 3 Note: There are actually 8 on-street parking spaces along Helman Street, but only 3 spaces are permitted as on-street parking credits by code. See AMC 18.92.020. Total Parking Provided: 27 spaces Landscaping: The project's landscaping and irrigation plans comply with the adopted landscaping, irrigation and street tree standards. The plans show landscaping and irrigation throughout the property which will significantly improve the site's aesthetics compared to its current detracting appearance. The primary elements of the landscaping plan include new landscaping within the planting strip along Helman Street with six new street trees and low lying ground cover, added landscaping between the sidewalk and buildings, added landscaping at the Helman & Van Ness Street intersection and added landscaping along the back property line - between the parked cars and the current SOS Plumbing site. The site's landscaping coverage consists of 3,103 square feet (16%) not including hard surface areas or planter areas within the plaza, decks, or right-of-way improvements. Of the 16% landscaping, approximately 50% of the landscaping is within the parking area (minimum 7% required) with the remaining amount in the front of the buildings - between the building and the back of sidewalk. Utilities: All utilities associated with the development of this property will either be directed towards or come from Helman or Van Ness Streets. No utilities are planned within the existing alley right-of-way. Storm drains will be installed within the parking lot area and drain to Van Ness Street. Electric service will extend from a transformer within Van Ness Street to the rear of the buildings and parking lot area. An existing irrigation line (historic Billing's Irrigation Line) will continue to traverse the east side of the property, but will be replaced due to its age and deteriorating condition. Water, sewer, phone and cable lines will extend directly to the buildings from either Helman or Van Ness Streets. Adequate public facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way. The applicants have worked with the various utility companies to ensure both existing and proposed utilities are available to provide the necessary services. At no time has there been any indication by these companies that services or capacity of services is unavailable. All improvements within the right-of-way, including construction detouring, will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Engineering Department. Applicants have addressed or will address at the time of the building permit all code issues relating to the Ashland Fire Department. All work will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Building Department and/or Fire Department. All proposed utilities will be designed by a licensed Architect or Civil Engineer and presented with the project's BUild~E)~it:'~~~t..-:[} AUG 3 0 2006 8 26~ plans. IV. FINDINGS OF FACT: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the Site Design & Use Standards as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Section 18.72.070 and Site Design & Use Standards (Design Standards Booklet, adopted August 4th, 1992) and the Tree Preservation & Protection Ordinance, Chapter 18.61 For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. CHAPTER 18.72.070 SITE DESIGN & USE STANDARDS: A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. To the applicant's knowledge all City regulations are or will be complied with. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions or variances. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. As noted below, all requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter (18.72) have or will be complied with. Specifically, the landscaping will be irrigated and maintained, the trash/recycling area will be screened and light and glare concerns will be addressed with down lighting and screening where necessary. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. As noted below, all requirements listed in the Site Design Standards (booklet) have or will be complied with. Specifically, the applicants have addressed the pertinent requirements of the Basic Site Review Standards, the Detail Site Review Standards, Large Scale Standards, Parking Lot Landscaping & Screening Standards and Street Tree Standards. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. R~2":>~' < ;'" ""':D AUG 3 0 2006 9 2t.'i- Utilities: All utilities associated with the development of this property will either be directed towards or come from Helman or Van Ness Streets. No utilities are planned within the existing alley right-of-way. Storm drains will be installed within the parking lot area and drain to Van Ness Street. Electric service will extend from a transformer within Van Ness Street to the rear of the buildings and parking lot area. An existing irrigation line (historic Billing's Irrigation Line) will continue to traverse the east side of the property, but will be replaced due to its age and deteriorating condition. Water, sewer, phone and cable lines will extend directly to the buildings from either Helman or Van Ness Streets. There is an existing overhead line extending from across Helman Street to the neighboring property at 152 Helman Street (south of alley) which will be undergrounded. Capacity: Adequate public facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way. The applicants have worked with the various utility companies to ensure both existing and proposed utilities are available to provide the necessary services. At no time has there been any indication by these companies that services or capacity of services is unavailable. All improvements within the right-of-way, including construction detouring, will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Engineering Department. Applicants have addressed or will address at the time of the building permit all code issues relating to the Ashland Fire Department. All work will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Building Department and/or Fire Department. All proposed utilities will be designed by a licensed Architect or Civil Engineer and presented with the project's Building Permit plans. Transportation: Per the request of staff, the applicants have completed a Traffic Impact Study. The applicants have hired RDK Engineering to complete the study (attached) which concludes the development only generates 14 A.M. and 14 P.M. peak hour trips with the project having minimal impact on the surrounding street system and the adjacent intersection of Helman and VanNess Streets retaining its current Level of Service "A" status. However, it should be noted that at the time of the traffic study, the overall area of the project's commercial space was larger and the residential units greater and has since been reduced. The alley will be improved to City standards with the alley being widened an additional 4' to the already 16' alley right-of-way for a total improvement area of 20' as required when parking lots exceed 7 parking spaces. In doing so, the applicants are providing sufficient ingress/egress for not only the proposed development, but also the recently constructed development facing Central Street, but accessing through this alley as well as the adjacent neighbor to the south of the alley. Currently, the alley is unpaved, but will eventually be paved to 20' to meet City width and weight carrying capacity standards. The alley will be widened from Helman Street to the rear parking area with all "widening" occurring on the applicant's property. There is also a short wall (6" to 9" in height) and a telephone pole directly on the alley's south property line which will be removed and services undergrounded at the expense of the applicant. A survey was recently completed on the adjacent neighbor's property indicating the edge of the alley's right-of-way which shows the telephone pole straddling the alley's property lfiU:9~~:e":":~J;::D AUG 3 0 2006 10 ;t'~ ~'.,,,.," 4" "'" , "'-~." ,. .... """'...,~ .. '+#'. completed, the alley will be paved to 20' and any physical encroachments such as the pole or fencing will be either removed or relocated and any necessary retaining (if any) completed by the applicants. The applicants have discussed the alley's improvement with the adjacent neighbor who expressed no concerns. Pedestrian Access: The applicants have also added a 4' raised sidewalk along the edge of the alley extending from the street's sidewalk to the rear of the building. The sidewalk, as well as the additional alley width, will be recorded on the property's title as a "public access easement" allowing perpetual use of the facility by the general public. Pedestrian access will also occur via the stairwell on the plaza or through direct access from the commercial spaces rear entrances. II-C BASIC SITE REVIEW STANDARDS: As noted previously, the applicant's have met with the site's neighbors and Ashland Historic Commission on a number of occasions in an attempt to identify the community's values and concerns as they relate to new development being integrated into existing development. A primary point of concern was to make sure the building's architecture and mass was contextually compatible with other buildings found in the area, but not to the degree that it mimics a specific building or architectural period. Besides the meetings with neighbors and the Historic Commission, the project applicants, architect and land use planner have walked the Helman and Van Ness Street neighborhood in an attempt to generate the proposed design. It is the applicant's belief the proposed design addresses the issues raised by the Historic Commission, neighbors and Site Design Standards listed herein. II-C-la) Orientation and Scale 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. 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. BuildiJigs shall be located as close to the intersection corner as practicable. 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. The entrance shall be designed to be clearly visible, functional, and shall be open to the public during all business hours. These requirements may be modified if the building is not accessed by P~r:t~~'~'~..P':~D 11 ~~, AUG 3 0 2006 j such as warehouses and industrial buildings without attached offices, and automotive service stations. The submitted building elevations show the Helman Street building oriented towards Helman Street and the corner building facing the intersection. Each building has an attractive and functional main entrance with the building facing Helman Street having multiple entrances directly accessed from the Helman Street sidewalk and the corner building having direct access from the intersection. II-C-Ib) Streets cape 1) One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street. Four new street trees are proposed along the frontage of Helman Street and one street tree is proposed along the frontage of VanNess Streets. The trees will be planted in accordance with the specifications shown on the landscaping attached plan. II-C-Ic) Landscaping 1) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs after one year and 90% coverage occurs after 5 years. 2) Landscaping design shall use a variety of low water deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species. 3) 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 form adjacent public rights-of-way, except in M-l zones. Loading facilities shall be screened and buffered when adjacent to residentially zoned land. 4) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping success. 5) Efforts shall be made to save as many existing healthy trees and shrubs on the site as possible. The landscaping and irrigation plans have been designed by a professional landscape designer and will be installed by a local landscape company. The submitted plans comply with the above standards and can be verified at the time of installation. II-C-ld) Parking 1) Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides. 2) Parking areas shall be shaded by deciduous trees, buffered from adjRE;~~~'_'5:D AUG 3 0 2006 12 ~~ 7 ~,~..." '" ''"'.. f'! ,.. , ..er~ ~.. t"",,' .j~. J ....-... "'.'" \.., , lIII";'d residential uses and screened from non-residential uses. Parking is located directly behind the two proposed buildings. A 5' landscape buffer separates the parking from the rear property line. In addition, intermittent landscaping areas with shade trees and ground cover help soften the parking lot's hard asphalt appearance. II-C-le) 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 the adjacent to the creek to enhance the creek habitat. Not applicable. There is no creek associated with the subject property. II-C-lt) Noise and Glare 1) Special attention to glare (AMC18.72.110) and noise (AMC9.08.170(c) & AMC 9.08.175) shall be considered in the project design to insure compliance with these Standards. The proposed uses permitted in this zone (business professional office for architects, land use planners, surveyors, therapists, residential, etc.) will not generate noise beyond what is legally permitted. The applicant is proposing wall mounted lights for the project. These lights will be directed downward along the sidewalk along Helman and Van Ness Streets as well as into the parking lot. II-C-lg) Expansions of Existing Sites and Buildings 1) 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, e.g., if the building area is to expand by 25%, then 25% of the site must be brought up to the standards required by this document. This standard is not applicable considering the applicants intend to re-develop 100% of the property. It is the applicant's intention with the re-development plan to conform to all current development standards. II-C-2. DETAIL SITE REVIEW: 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 R E' ',,,,,",, ',""" r'i ,r,'-- 0,' .' .~~ ~ ""'\ ~ i ,~~ , ....- ~,\..' .;'~ ~ -~k) . II" \: l\ ')P0S P !.J' ,! \' {',I. 13 ~"9' ,t"t', ., " ". '-'" Ii... .1 ~ iii J~"'''4JI ~ ..>i. ~...., .. ,~..... ,J 1) 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. Not applicable as the site is within a Historic District and can exceed the maximum floor area ratio. 2) Building frontages greater than 100 feet in length shall have offsets, jogs, or have other distinctive changes in the building facade. The Helman Street building is approximately 115' in length (width along Helman Street) and has distinctive changes in the building's facade. The architecture incorporates a number of distinctive elements such as increased offsets for various portions of the building's frontage. 3) Any wall which is within 30 feet 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 30 feet of the street are prohibited. Up to 40% of the length of the building perimeter can be exempted from this standard if oriented toward loading or service areas. The proposed buildings have their walls directly adjacent to the Helman & Van Ness Street rights-of-way consistent with the other buildings along the street. The submitted elevations show this standard has been complied with actual window and doorway glazing area exceeding 20% with no wall sections having a blank surface. 4) Buildings shall incorporate lighting and changes in mass, surface of fmish to give emphasis to entrances. As shown on the elevations, the applicant is providing a recessed entrance for the comer building and various entry elements for the Helman Street building such as changes in material along the front fayade as well as surface material changes to give emphasis to the entrance and architectural interest to the building. 5) Infdl of buildings, adjacent to public sidewalks, in existing parking lots is encouraged and desirable. This project is exactly what this standard is attempting to do; replace unattractive surface parking lots with attractive buildings along the sidewalk that encourages pedestrian activity. 6) Buildings shall incorporate arcades, roofs, alcoves, porticoes and awning that protect pedestrian from the rain and sun. R E :r~ .~ :~ J':::: D i~U'~ ;. (1 70CS 14 ~t:,; r:.... ~' /t-- ~~ '....,1..-.) Villi J-\t.'6lI" Oi.""",,~", .'li......,.. The proposed design incorporates a recessed entrance as well as covered roof entrances providing rain and sun protection to pedestrians. II-C-2b) Streets cape 1) Hardscape (paving material) shall be utilized to designate "people" areas. Sample materials could be unit masonry, scored and colored concrete, grasscrete, or combination of the above. In addition to the proposed plaza, the recessed entrance area for the corner building will have hardscape surface materials designating "people" areas. This is evidenced within the attached plan submittals. 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 650.10 of the aggregate building frontage shall be within 20 feet of the sidewalk. The proposed buildings are slightly stepped back or directly behind the public sidewalks along Helman and Van Ness Streets and at their furthest point do not exceed 13'. 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 100 feet in average width or depth. 2) Parking lots with 50 spaces or more shall be divided into separate areas and divided by landscaped areas or walkways at least 10 feet in width, or by a building or group of buildings. 3) 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. The parking in the rear of the property is approximately 145' in width and accommodates 15 parking spaces. A raised walkway extending from the center of the parking area to the rear of the building will be provided as shown on the site plan. II-C-2d Buffering and Screening 1) Landscape buffers and screening shall be located between incompatible uses on an adjacent lot. Those buffers can consist of either plant material or building n'!""'* 'A' '....."'li "'=-on. . ~t~~i' _~ ~ 't~ ~.~~,J 15 ~ 70 1~,Ui~ ;; (I (Des ~~iiO..", ';- ~ ~iiiw.. .;J '~iJ J-"'.....,.. ...."'.....""'u *.......... .I materials and must be compatible with proposed buildings. Landscaping is being provided between the rear parking area and the SOS Plumbing site to the east. In addition, landscaping is provided between the parking area and the adjacent public alley. All adjacent uses are compatible with the proposed uses. 2) Parking lots shall be buffered from the main street, cross streets and screened from residentially zoned land. The parking area is screened from the adjacent rights-of-way by the two proposed buildings, elevated plaza space and perimeter landscaping. The adjacent house to the south is zoned E-l (Employment) but remains buffered from the parking area by a single story garage, landscaping and the existing alley. II-C-2e) Lighting Lighting shall include adequate lights that are scaled for pedestrians by including light standards or placements .of no greater than 14 feet in height along pedestrian path ways. The applicant will provide wall mounted lights which will be placed no greater than 14 feet in height along both street frontages. No pole mounted street lights are proposed with this project unless required by the Planning Commission. II-C-2t) 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. The submitted elevations show both building fa9ades having changes in relief significantly greater than 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. The proposed colors for the building will be earth tone. No bright colors to attract attention are proposed for either building. II-C STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENTS Developments (1) involving a gross floor area in excess of 10,000 square feet or a building frontage in excess of 100 feet in length, (2) located within the Detail Site Review Zone, shall, in addition to complying to the standards for Basic and Detail Site review, shall conform to the following standards: p:~. ~~'.. . -:' ~ ~ 'M'" '''=, D 16 ;2.1/ . ' ,', .; '. 70nc I~, ,,;:~ 1~! lJ '- L'D '.~oi\,.. ;' i",~.. I1i \;;.'v......"""..."iJ ,.'....,1.0 .I II-C-3a) Orientation and Scale 1) Developments shall divide large buil~g 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. The proposed buildings have divided building masses and heights that are in keeping with human scale elements such as changes in building mass and direction, covered entries, windows, trees and small scale lighting. The applicants believe the proposed development will provide pedestrians a more pleasant experience compared to the existing environment which consists of barbed wire fencing with broken wood slats, excessive curb entry, and sometimes heavy equipment noises. 2) 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 300 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. The proposed buildings, even when combined, do not exceed 45,000 square feet or a building length of 300'. 3) 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 240 feet in length, the separation shall be 60 feet. Although the building elevations appear that two distinct buildings are proposed, technically the raised plaza space "connects" the two buildings and makes them one building and thereby "exempt" from this standard. However, while meeting with the Ashland Historic Commission and some of the adjacent neighbors, concerns were raised about building separation to help protect views, increase distinction between buildings, increase natural light, etc. As such, the applicants increased the plaza's width and reduced the size of the building in an attempt to visually create two buildings. By doing so, the actual separation is 33' and the building's heights are 30' and 26' feet from their highest point to the adjacent sidewalk's grade. II-C-3b) Public Spaces 1) One square foot of plaza or public space shall be required for every 10 square feet of gross floor area. 2) A plaza or public spaces shall incorporate at least 4 of the 6 following elements: F..-I'< ......" 'i'~D ,I'~' *' ,- J '-, , 1'1 ,~' , ., .. ... "'..........'1) ~ .. .. ~ 17 ~7~ , " .. r, ' (Ir ::: AUI1'-'~' fl.,) r>" '. I r : .....,ii"*"j. v- J-\r..."......o .."..-.1".\.olV.. a) Sitting Space -at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. b) A mixture of areas that provide both Sunlight & Shade c) Protection from wind by screens and buildings. d) Trees- provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of 1 tree per 800 square feet, at least 2 inches in diameter at breast height. e) Water features or public art t) Outdoor Eating Areas or Food Vendors. The proposed plaza space is 1,690 square feet in area. The attached plans (sheet L102) show how the site's plaza space incorporates 4 of the 6 units. The applicants contend the space has been creatively planned with parking underneath and its existence creates a separation between building masses providing views, natural light and air circulation, but it also includes sitting areas for resting or outdoor dining, a mixture of areas that provide both shade and sunlight, areas for wind protection, landscaping and a water feature. The plaza space is centrally located between the two building's commercial spaces with easy patron or staff access for lunch hour dining, relaxation, a private meeting, etc. The space could also "one day" easily accommodate restaurant/cafe seating for a small restaurant/cafe in either building, but at the present time, this type of use is not being planned for. II -C-3d) Recycling 1) Recycling areas shall be provided at all developments. The plans show a trash and recycling area directly adjacent to the alley. II-E. STREET TREE STANDARDS: All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant stmt trees in accordance with the foBowing standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees found in this section. II-E-l) 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. The application identifies six new street trees along the Helman Street frorfi?Eah~ ;oo~.I'~ D 18 .:1.7.3 ;' '\'~ .u: ~ ?'l0~ ~ , i ~,\~ l ,.i L ...J {'~" r'" '..# ~ '.;.. j' ',,-..,I': .J-~....".. ....: _~,J 10 .~.. on the Van Ness Street frontage. The planting of the trees will include root barriers, staking and irrigation to ensure survival. The proposed street trees are listed on the project's landscaping and have been chosen from the City's adopted Street Tree List. II-E-2) Spacing, Placement, and Pruning of 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: a) Street trees shall be placed the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. The proposed landscaping plans show six new street trees along the Helman Street frontage and one along the Van Ness Street frontage. The trees are planted 30' on center and have been strategically placed so as not to interfere with vision clearance issues. The added street trees, in combination with their equal separation and the elimination of the existing curb cut, will dramatically enhance the site's streetscape perspective. b) Trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than 10 feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk), fire hydrants, or utility poles. The landscape plan identifies the proposed trees and shows the trees' placement being in compliance with this standard. c) Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than 10 feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. Three standard street lights are proposed within the planting strip - similar to the street lights found up and down Helman Street. It is the applicant's contention the proposed lights will provide for a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment. d) Trees shall not be planted closer than 2!1z feet from the face of the curb except at intersections where it shall be 5 feet from the curb, in a curb return area. All trees to be planted on-site will be at least 2'i2 feet from the face of curb. The street trees planting specifications are shown on the attached landscaping plan complying with the street tree planting standards. e) Where there are overhead powerlines, tree species are to be chosen that will not interfere with those lines. t"""~- r, ~''i( ,..=--~ H :;'-"1 :' ~ ',j'~ """ Ii i ""~ _ __......_r:P 19 ~ 7'1 tU~ ;:, n'tJCS ,r'~"', I r: . ,,' "~6ii,,",./ '~.ll J,-,.,,,, ~.'''''\lI,J .'u.'... The applicants have chosen a tree from the Street Tree List that is not going to interfere with overhead power lines or any other type of overhead utility. No overhead lines exist or are proposed with this development. J) Trees shall not be planted within 2 feet 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. All trees to be planted near a hard surface area will be setback at least 2'. If for any reason a tree is less than 2' from any hard surface area, a root barrier system will be installed with the planting of the tree. All trees to be planted will exceed a 10' square feet area for air and water percolation. g) Trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least 8 feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. The proposed trees and their placement have been chosen by a professional landscape designer with the intent to provide for a nicely landscaped site that also complies with the above standard. The applicants intend to have the landscaping periodically maintained by a professional landscape company. h) 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. The applicants intend to replace the existing street trees along the frontage of the property with new trees that were specifically chosen for their location. Unlike the existing trees, the new trees will be planted with an irrigation system. II-E-3) Replacement of Street Trees 1) 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. The applicants intend to replace the existing street trees along the frontage of the property and the two other trees within the center of the property with new trees that were specifically chosen for their location. The proposed trees and their placement have been chosen by a professional landscape designer with the intent to provide for a nicely landscaped site with new trees that will eventually grow beyond the size and stature of the existing trees. All trees were chosen from the City's adopted street tree list. F .~IS,:.~ ;.>:':\ ''':'';:,"'3'''' ''1'''':''''D : .;f ;.; '"' 0; .... ~ '<,:, . I ' ,:1 ~i ~ ".:~~ "'~ ' ';0:/ '. " 20 ~7S- AU',1 ~ (i '(Ul:J f''.." '," ., t .. J ' ~. J \......,_. .,. -',II., . '~...';.. 'I~ .. .......l ,," II-E-4) Recommended Street Trees 1) Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The applicants have chosen the street trees from the adopted Street Tree List. The trees chosen are appropriate to the urban environment of the area. IV-C HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 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. NOTE: The following standards appear to be "residential design standards" and not applicable to this mixed-use "commercial" project. However, in order to insure compliance and avoid procedural error, the applicants have submitted the following responses to the standards. 1) 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~ As evidenced with the attached plan submittals, the proposed building heights do not vary too high or too low from the older buildings within the area. The three story comer building is approximately 8' higher than the two-story mixed-use building across the street. The Helman Street building is 15' -3" in height at the eave line and 23' -3" in height at the gable line whereas the adjacent house across the alley is approximately 21' in height. Overall, the standard is subjective, but it is the applicant's belief the design complies with the standard's intent. 2) Relate the size and proportions of new structures to the scale of adjacent buildings. Avoid buildings that in height, width, or massing, violate the existing scale of the area. The subject buildings have a similar proportion in height, width, and mass as other buildings found along the street. The Helman Street building is not tall at 15'-3" or 23"- 3" especially when considering the allowed building height for the E-l zone is 40'. In addition, the buildings' width and mass is significantly mitigated when considering the step back variations in the fa<;ade range from 3' to 16'. Overall, the standard is subjective, but it is the applicant's belief the design complies with the standard's intent. 3) 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 R ~,~c.\ ;'~''-'''~.., '!'7"'6IIlD ' c_' ! " .1 ..j . ". 21 :J., '7 t, AtltJ ;:.' \ t X; ... 7 1 '...,;.>ti'.. __'",./ '..;:./ io1I. d \i...:J. ...; ,,,,'~,I ~ . The proposed building designs have an interesting architectural appearance and do not have large masses or monolithic box-like forms with little to no relief. From a plan view perspective, the building along Helman Street does appear to have a continuous roof line, but in reality, the gable line is not only broken by a small third story projection, but also one side sits back from the other building plane by an additional 13'. Overall, the standard is subjective, but it is the applicant's belief the design complies with the standard's intent. 4) Maintain the historic facade 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 facade line. The property is zoned E-I allowing a zero setback at the sidewalk, rear property line and side property lines. The applicant's have intentionally designed the buildings so they avoid having a front setback that is not too significantly less then the existing street patterns. Furthermore, the design attempts to provide a transitional step back in an attempt to meet this standard. 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. The design of the two buildings are distinctive due to the Architect's attempt to better relate each building with their existing adjacent neighbor. In doing so, the Helman Street building has a more residential character with a pitched roof, brick, stucco, stepped back entrances, residential style windows, etc. The corner building is more commercial and relates to the building across the street at 180 Helman Street with a "flat" roof similar to the many other roof shapes found on commercial buildings. In addition, the third floor sits back from the north, south and west building sides in an attempt to reduce the building's mass as well as to create an outdoor recreational space for the residents. 6) Respect the alternation of the wall areas with door and window elements in the fa~ade. Also consider the width-to-height ratio of bays in the fa~ade. Avoid introducing incompatible fa~ade patterns that upset the rhythm of openings established by the surrounding structures. The two building designs comply with the above standard and clearly respect the idea of symmetrical window patterns. The designs also respect the window-to-height ratios often found in office buildings. 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 the building straight out of the ground without a sense of platform. The proposed buildings are designed with a platform base giving the building a sense of a platform. R~--.....'(;-~.. ""10. ~. 'tOl_ ~ -~: : -\ / -"" ~,L..,.. :\l..'~ -..i ~r :!- -=~. t"'t t lJ r: ? (\ 7006 22 ~17 .(t~ ,1/ \~. 7 1- .\:.;' iiI <.t' .j' :6..1" J "..."" <II .... '~.j. ol ~""J .I 8) Articulate the main entrances to the building with covered porches, porticos, and other pronounced architectural forms. Avoid facades with no strong sense of entry. Each main entrance is attractively designed with a sense of entry. Each entrance has is either a covered entrance either by structure, gable frame or awning. 9) 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. The applicants have met with the Ashland Historic Commission on five occasions and prior to the Planning Commission's review will have met with the Historic Commission a sixth time to ensure the proposed design is in keeping with traditional architecture. The end result is two distinct buildings with front fa~ades that do not "mimic" existing buildings nor replicate a false style (Tudor, Gothic, etc.). The applicants believe the proposed buildings are traditional, yet contemporary and will add positively to the Helman and Van Ness streetscapes. II-D PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING & SCREENING STANDARDS 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-l) Screening 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. 2) The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the C"mished grade of the parking area, except for required vision clearance areas. 3) The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. 4) Elevated parkinglots shall screen both the parking lot and retaining wall. The project's parking area is screened from the adjacent rights-of-way by the two proposed buildings, elevated plaza space and perimeter landscaping. The adjacent house to the south is zoned E-l (Employment) but remains buffered from the parking area by a single story garage, landscaping and the existing alley. II-D-2) Screening Abutting Property Lines ~.''1 ,""'- -'''''I ,;W1 i'''' ,~,i'- fD F . ~,... ,"\' ~"I ,\ / L,.." . ',h.. - ~ I -1 J '.J L...." AUG 3 0 Z006 ""'\, :''\'' ,- , "\.., .,""__ _. f \_ '.' .I ~', - j jJ ~ 1 ,J \ j 23 ~1~ ''-. " ., '.' ,I Parking abutting a property line shall be screened by a 5' 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. The property abutting the rear property is screened by a 7' landscape strip. 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 1 tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. Approximately 50% of the parking area consists of landscaping. Of the 15 open parking spaces, a total of three new and one existing (4) trees are to be planted which is essentially 1 tree for every 4 parking spaces. 2) 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. The proposed parking lot trees and their placements have been chosen by a professional landscape designer with the intent to provide shade and a canopy effect over parked automobiles. In addition, there are two Oak trees and one Almond tree on the adjacent property the applicants intend to minimize disturbance even though a portion of the tree's canopy crosses over the subject property where the parking will be. Because of this association, the project's arborist has submitted a tree preservation plan to mitigate potential harm and will be available for surgical root and limb pruning during initial construction. In addition, all parking lot trees were chosen from the City's adopted street tree list which includes a variety of tree species recommended for parking lots. 3) The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is a least 2 feet from any curb or paved area. All trees to be planted near a hard surface area will be setback at least 2' . 4) The landscaped area shall be planted with shrubs and/or living ground cover to assure 50% coverage within 1 year and 90% within 5 years. The proposed parking lot landscaping plans were completed by a professional landscape designer with the intent to provide for a nicely landscaped site that complies with the above standard. 5) Landscaped areas shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. The submitted landscape plan shows the parking lot landscaping being evenly distributed ~~"""'" "''''''''c r-.. throughout the parking lot. f"'5 ~: h .' .... ,..~=:) ~ ""- 9 (\ ?~0S 24 ~71 ,"~., .~ ~~:.,::! C. J .~. " . J .' 6) 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 landscaping required for interior parking stalls. The project complies with the above standard. II-D-6) Other Screening 1) Other screening and buffering shall be provided as follows: Refuse Container Screen: Refuse containers or disposable areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All refuse materials shall be contained within the refuse area. The project's refuse area is located along the alley and behind a screened fence enclosure that will be at least five feet in height. Service Corridor Screen: When adjacent to residential uses, commercial and industrial service corridors shall be screened. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. No service corridors or large delivery service doors are proposed with this application. Light and Glare Screen: Artificial lighting shall be so arranged and constructed as to not produce direct glare on adjacent residential properties or streets. No offsite direct light or glare will be directed towards any residential uses as all on-site lighting is intended to be directed either on the building or for the site's adjacent pedestrian sidewalks. AMC 18.61 TREE PRESERVATION & PROTECTION 18.61.042 Approval & Permit Required A person who desires to remove a tree, not otherwise exempted in 18.61.035, shall first apply for and receive one of the following tree removal permits before tree removal occurs: TREE REMOVAL - STAFF PERMIT: 1. Tree Removal-Staff Permits are required for the following activities: ~. ~'''~o,l<''S.~ "11(. ..~ r:;:~', :':..'. ,0 25 ~ f1z;, \ i ;""<""" .- 'f .-;- "',J,6IP' .. "~ ..t/ v;,,;..l .. ~ -. .... _,... I a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, or HC. 2. Applications for Tree Removal - Staff Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.030 (N otice Requirements). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely f"Iled, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. With the Site Review Permit application the applicants are also requesting a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of four street trees within the Helman Street parkrow and two trees within the property's boundary. The property is zoned E-l and the trees proposed to be removed are greater than 6" DBH. The four trees within the parkrow are all Maple trees with two having a 9" DBH measurement, one having a 12" DBH measurement and the other having a 14" DBH measurement. The two trees on-site to be removed are a multi-trunked Black Locust tree and an 8" White Oak tree that sit near the rear of the property. NOTE: There are also three trees along the property's east boundary line, on the neighbor's property, the applicants intend to save. A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted further describing the preservation efforts. Other than the two on-site trees, all of the site's trees appear to be dying due to a lack of care and maintenance. The trees were most likely planted at the time the warehouse was constructed in 1948 but because of the industrial nature of the business, no one consistently monitored the health of the trees. For this reason, the trees appear to have had a stunted growth pattern and really don't offer the site or the streetscape much value when it comes to sidewalk shading, parking space shading, traffic calming or aesthetics. The applicants do intend to plant six new street trees, chosen from the City's adopted Street Tree List, along the Helman Street frontage and one on the Van Ness Street frontage. The planting of the trees will include root barriers, staking and irrigation to ensure survival and prosperous growth. The trees are plated 30' on center and have been strategically placed so as not to interfere with vision clearance issues. The added street trees, in combination with their equal separation and the elimination of the existing curb cut, will dramatically enhance the site's streetscape perspective. In addition, three new trees and one existing tree to remain will exist along the rear east boundary line. PLAN CHANGES / CLARIFICATIONS: A number of changes and clarifications to the plans have been made since the June 2006 application submittal. These changes and clarifications were mostly completed in an attempt to address the Planning Staff's concerns. The changes include: 1) Removal of 4' of building along the south boundary and the addition of a 4' raised pedestrian sidewalk. 2) A relocation of an electrical transformer from within a landscaping area off the a~.~....to._.. ':>.. ',.......... ,_ an area along Van Ness Street; t'~ t:"" '.~ . .~ ,::: D f I' ~ ~ n 7"n~ 26 r:.. Y I ~'~>.!It"" . "'1"."( If.... ',<:o'~ - \;.~, '" J ..." .. .. . . d 3) Modification of the landscape strip along the east property line providing a full 7' landscape buffer between the parking area and the neighboring property line; 4) Elimination of one parking space; 5) Addition of a landscape island (replaces parking space); 6) Increase front step back of Building # 1 (Helman Street Building) an additional 3' thus increasing landscaping between the building and improving the sense of entry to the office door; 7) Reduction of 3' of depth in certain areas of building; 8) Adjustment of landscaping; 9) Adjustment and replacement of a portion of the existing irrigation line along east property line to provide for better tree protection and enhanced landscape space; 10) Elimination of a 2-bedroom unit; 11) Increase of setback for comer portion of Building #2 (comer building) to address vision clearance area; 12) Increase in Plaza area size by increasing the depth of the plaza as well as the width between buildings; 12) Increase in landscaping coverage; 13) Conversion of one two-car garage to two one-car garages; 14) Added and dispersed bike parking. Bike parking is located within the plaza area (not calculated within plaza's percentages) and at entrance of Building #2 (comer building). Bike parking is also provided within the 4 garages and within each residential unit; 15) Provided a Tree Protection and Tree Preservation Plan for trees off-site on Tax Lot #2000 (SOS Plumbing Site); 16) Provided a Traffic Study; 17) Re-designed certain elements of the building elevations and site plan based upon input from the Historic Commission. These changes include streamlining the use of materials on Building #1 to give it a more consistent rhythm, re-designing the various roof forms of Building #1 to have a consistent roof pitch, adding a small dormer to the south end of Building #1 for relief, adding corrugated metal siding to the large dormer reflecting the site's historic industrial use, revising the plaza area by adding access from the office area of Building #1, revising the front entry areas of Building #1 increasing the sense of entry, adding an open deck area and through access point for the second floor office in Building #2, adding a water fountain and seating area to the plaza, adding an additional rear office entrance for Building #1, revised the garage facades and further reduced the height of the building along the south property line of Building #1. In addition, the third floor of Building #2 was stepped back significantly from both the Helman and Van Ness Street facades in order to minimize its height and volume. Also, certain elements of the third floor have been re-designed such as the patio arbors, lowered skylight, and symmetrical window pattem;and 18) Correction of various drafting errors. Conclusion: The applicants have gone to great lengths to incorporate the opinions heard from staff, the Historic Commission, the Tree Commission and surrounding neighbors and at the same time, have been able to retain their vision for the property. The applicants contend the end result will be an efficient use of the property close to the City's core o ~- "r~ '!"'~"" ~ It r'-- D rl ~~:~'" ~~, ,-~ ~ "~ ~ '.~ ::. 'v'" r. 'i'"'ir~ 27 ~P:;.... ~p~~>.! ,"rr 4" ~~ iii "'- .,; \....., a .,J \""""",.. ... ~...il '" .v.... .I where its tenants will be encouraged to live a less consuming life-style and be close enough to essential services to use alternative transportation options for their daily needs. 28 J. f.3 R~"""'>:-~'''-D ., ,__', . ~ '\ Lr-. ~ ~ -'om . . ,-~. u .~ ~ _. ." AUG 3 0 2006 f"~\", r," \ ' 1, ,~-< ,- ~ \,_"; " ! \". .i ~.: ,.: ,j; l rJ . . TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 160 Helman Street 0.47 Acre Site Ashland, Oregon July 12, 2006 Prepared by: RENEWAL DATE 6-30-07 RDK Engineering for " ;'i. RECEIVED :~:r"J\~. J.. tVJ1: :(.f J U L 2 1 "i?~ - :{.;';' Siskiyou, LLC City t'Jf ~"hl,md Comrnurllt'r' Development . . ~,.~ -.,.....-- . . TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 160 Helman Street 0.47 Acre Site Ashland, Oregon July 12, 2006 Prepared by: RENEWAL DATE 6~3()..()7 RDK Engineering for RECE1VED \Ti;' ,}i~'1 Siskiyou, LLC f ..;,. i 2' .:}:~ ,; ~ :'.<t r;~,1""'; ~.:':~I."!~rl Corrnlu~.'I":! :.:w,,'oprTIent . . ;( ('If RDK Engineering TRAFFIC ENGINEERING/SIGNAL SYSTEMS 3350 Green Acres Dr., Central Point, OR 97502 - Phone (541) 664-0393 Fax (541) 664-9320 July 18, 2006 Mark Knox Urban Development Services, LLC 320 East Main Street - Suite 202 Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Revised Site Plan, 160 Helman Street Dear Mark: The revised site plan for the 0.47 acre site at 160 Helman Street provides for 6 Condominium/Townhouse units, and 7,200 sq. ft. of General Office space. The trip generation for the revised site plan is shown below: AM. Peak Hour: 6 Condominium/Townhouse units @ 0.44 trips/unit = 3 trips 7,200 sq. ft. General Office space @ 1.55 trips/1,000 sq. ft. = 11 trips Total AM. Peak = 14 Trips P.M. Peak Hour: 6 Condominium/Townhouse units @ 0.52 trips/unit = 3 trips 7,200 sq. ft. General Office space @ 1.49 trips/1,OaO sq. ft. = 11 trips Total P.M. Peak = 14 Trips The traffic impact study was based on an impact of 17 A.M. peak hour trips and 18 P.M. peak hour trips. The revised site plan will produce 14 AM. and P.M. peak hour trips. The reduced number of trips based on the revised plan will not change the results or conclusions of the traffic study. If there are any questions, please let me know. Best regards, RECEIVED JUL 2 1 2006 City of Ashland Community Developmert ~t(;' -:--------------.---. ~ ~ ..--~.---------.__r___---'- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ I II. INTRODUCTION Project Location ......................................... .............................................................................. 3 Project Description.................... ............................................................................................... 3 Study Process and Organization .............................................................................................. 3 III. EXISTING CONDITIONS Traffic Counts............................................................................................ .4 Roadway Classifications........................................................................... ......4 IV. TRAFFIC SAFETY Accident Surnrnary ........................................................................................4 Roadway Accident Surnrnaries ........................................................................ 4 V. GROWTH VOLUMES Pipeline Traffic. ......... ..... .... ... . .... .. .. .. ... .... . .. ........ ..... .. . .. ...... . .... . .. .. . .............. 4 Background Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 5 Seasonal Volume Adjustment. . ... ......... ...... .. . .. . ..... . ... . .. .... ................................ 5 VI. SITE TRAFFIC Access Analysis............................................................................................ 5 Trip Generation......................................................................................... ...5 VII. INTERSECTION ROADWAY ANALYSIS Intersection Capacity and Level of Service Analysis .............................................................. 6 VIII. INTERSECTION SUMMARIES.. .. . ..... ...... . .................... . ............ . .... .............. 7 IX CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ 8 APPENDIX A. Figures B. Turning Movement Counts C. Level of Service Description D. Trip Generation E. Accident History CALCULATIONS: Year 2006 Existing Level of Service Year 2007 Combined, No Build Year 2007 Combined, With Project RECEIVED :wHji 2 ~ ~ ;'1' C"v {.~ A~~~ C.ornm:;';.iifj JJ\~.\iS1~ Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 LIST OF FIGURES (APPENDIX A) Vicinity Map Site Location Preliminary Site Plan . Existing Lane Configurations Year 2006 Existing A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Year 2007 A.M. & P.M. "No Build" Peak Hour Volumes Year 2007 A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Site Trip Percentages Year 2007 A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Site Trip Assignment Year 2007 A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project Traffic LIST .OF TABLES Roadway Classifications. l . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. . 4 Accident Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4 A.M. Peak Hour Site Trip Generation .. ..... .... ... ..... .... ........ .... ... ..... ...... ..5 P.M. Peak Hour Site Trip Generation ..... ............ .............. .... ......... ........6 A.M. Peak Hour Capacity and Level of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..7 P.M. Peak Hour Capacity and Level of Service...................................... ...7 RECEIVED ; ~ ! ~ ') 1 !.. C:y ot I.sr::md Community Development 11 ~~7 Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street. ~ I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY " ( Study Summary C!t1! o.f t~c:1..1::1nd CormnW:ity Geveiopment This report provides an analysis of the potential traffic impact from a proposed mixed-use residential and general office development in the City of Ashland. The 0.47 acre site is located on the southeast corner of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. The site is currently occupied by the Pyramid Juice Co. The site is zoned Employment E-l, permitting the proposed uses. No zone change is required. The proposed project will include 3 Townhouse/Condo units,S single family units, and 7,442 sq. f1. of general office space. Access to the site will be from the existing alleyway on Helman Street. The existing street access to the site on Helman Street will be removed, along with the existing access location on Van Ness Ave. Peak hour impacts were analyzed [()If three scenarios: . The existing year 2006 weekday A.M. & P.M. peak hour level of service at the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. . The year 2007 weekday AM. & P.M. peak hour projected level of service at the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. "No Build Option." . The year 2007 weekday AM. & P.M. peak hour projected level of service at the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. with the project completed. "Build Option. " Conclusions The findings ofthe traffic impact study show that the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. is currently operating at level of service A during both the AM. and P.M. peak hour periods. The intersection will continue to operate at level of service A in the year 2007 with the project completed and in service. Helman Street is classified as a "Neighborhood Collector." The 24 hour volumes on an average weekday, in the year 2007, with the project, indicate 960 daily vehicle trips south of Van Ness, and 1,290 trips north of Van Ness. By Ashland City Standards a neighborhood collector has a range from 1,500 to 5,000 trips per day. Van Ness Ave. is classified as a "Neighborhood Residential Street." The City design standard for this classification is 1,500 daily trips. Van Ness Ave. has exceeded this figure since 1997. Currently the daily traffic volumes on Van Ness are 2,320 west of Helman, and 2,660 east of Helman. Van Ness is functioning as a "neighborhood collector" street for the industrial areas to July 12, 2006 Page 1 ~ '?9 RDK Engineering Traffic Impact Analvsis 160 Helman Street. Ashland. OR the north and east. Year 2007 project traffic will add 20 daily trips to Van Ness west of Helman, and 10 trips to the east on Van Ness. The impact on the street system from this development is minimal. The total project at build-out generates 15 P.M. peak hour trips, with only 3 trips using Van Ness Ave. (see Figure 8 in Appendix A). The A.M. peak hour also indicates 3 project trips on Van Ness. As noted, the level of service at the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. is A, with the project completed and in service. There have been no reported accidents at this intersection in the last five years. The additional trips generated by this development do not change the level of service or the vie (volume to capacity ratio) of the intersection operation. The traffic impact study concludes that Van Ness Ave. will not be adversely impacted by this proposed 0.47 acre development. RECEIVED ;! ! : ') 1- COtv c1 lsf"''.:md Commu"nilj lJevelopment July 12, 2006 Page 2 :< ff RDK Engineering Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street, Ashland, OR II. INTRODUCTION This'report summarizes the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for a proposed multi-use development on a 0.47 acre site on Helman Street in the City of Ashland. The purposes of this analysis are to identify any traffic related impacts generated by the daily operations of the proposed project and to determine the need for any improvements to the nearby road system, where appropriate, to maintain a satisfactory level of service. The analysis years reviewed in this report for the City of Ashland include the existing 2006 base year, the year 2007 "No Build," and the year 2007 Combined traffic (with Project). Project Location The proposed site is currently occupied by the Pyramid Juice Co. The site is located on the southeast corner of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. A vicinity map is shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A. The site location i~ shown on Figure 2. A pr~li111imry site plan is s~o'.'.'!l en Figt:~e 3. Project Description The 0.47 acre site is currently zoned City of Ashland Employment E-l. The zoning will permit the proposed development plan. The site plan includes 3 Townhouse/Condo units, 5 single family dwelling units, and 7,442 sq. ft. of General Office space. Study Process and Organization The process used in preparing this traffic analysis follows a generally accepted approach for preparation of a traffic impact study. This process conforms to the general requirements of the City of Ashland This report is formatted to first analyze existing traffic conditions, which will provide an existing framework or reference for the remainder of the analysis. Next, background traffic along with the traffic generated by this development are assigned and distributed into the existing street network and added to future projected traffic volumes. The report will analyze the projected traffic flow at the study area access locations and note any mitigating measures that may be required to maintain an acceptable level of service. RECEIVED III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ') Existing Site Development (;<1 C' t's,..,'.,r:d The 0.47 acre site is currently occupied by Pyramid Juice Co. Pyramid Juice co.C;iil\~~i'~~ce;t~~ment and is not part of the proposed development plan. July 12, 2006 Page 3 :t 9z; RDK Engineering ~i.. ,".'i.,;.'t.,-t;l ~"'" Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street. Ashland. OR Traffic Counts A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic turning movement counts at the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. were obtained by RDK Engineering. Turning movement counts were taken in June, 2006. Existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4 in Appendix A. Roadway Classifications The following is a summary of street classifications and description in the study area. TABLE 1 - ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION Roadway # Lanes Classification Posted Speed Helman Street 2 Neighborhood Collector 25 Van Ness Ave. 2 Neighborhood Residential 25 I~T , . TRAFFiC SAFETY Accident data for the study area intersec.tion of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. was obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation for the five-year period from January 2001 through December 2005. Accident rates are calculated in accordance with standard guidelines and average daily volumes obtained from P.M. peak hour approach volume manual counts adjusted to Average Daily Traffic. The accident history for this intersection indicates that there have been no accidents. TABLE 2 - ACCIDENT SUMMARY Street Section 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total ADT Rate Helman St./ Van Ness Ave. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,590 0.00 Street Section Accident Summaries RECEIVED No accidents reported. i I 2 1 V. GROWTH VOLUMES Pipeline Traffic Ci~J of )\~hl;Jnd ComITIuni:y Development Pipeline traffic is traffic generated by recently approved projects that have not been completed at the time of analysis. City of Ashland staff has indicated that there are no pipeline trips from adjacent development in the area. July 12, 2006 Page 4 ~91 RDK Engineering -, Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street, Ashland, OR Background Growth A growth rate of2.0% per year was applied to the future year 2007 traffic volumes on Helman Street and on Van Ness Ave. Seasonal Adjustment The ODOT Seasonal Trend Table was used as the basis to obtain the adjustment factor. Season high traffic volumes are shown to be during the month of June. Traffic volumes for this project were obtained during the month of June. No seasonal adjustment is necessary. The Seasonal Trend Table is provided in Appendix B. RECEIVED \) U L 2 1 VI. SITE TRAFFIC ~!TE, ACCESS ellv of Jlsh!and Commu~ity Development Access to the development will be from the existing alley located 207 ft. back from the northbound Helman Street stop line at Van Ness Ave. The existing access located 86 ft. back from the stop line will be closed. Helman Street has on-street parking. On the day of the intersection count, June 28, 2006, there were four available parking spaces on the east side of Helman Street from the alley to Van Ness Ave. and five on the west side. The development provides on site parking. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation calculations were prepared utilizing the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Total trip generation anticipated from completion of for an average weekday and the A.M. & P.M. peak hour are summarized in Table 3 below and Table 4 on the following page. A. . ea our Ite np enera Ion Weekday A.M. ITE Daily Peak Hour Land Use Size Code Trips Total In Out Townhouse/Condo Units 3 Ea 230 18 1 0 1 Single Family Dwelling Units 5 Ea 210 48 4 1 3 General Office 7,442 sf 710 82 11 11 1 TOTAL TRIPS 148 17 12 5 Table 3 M P kH S' T' G f July 12, 2006 Page 5 ~9:J- RDK Engineering Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street. Ashland. OR . ea our Ite rIp eneratlOn Weekday P.M. ITE Daily Peak Hour Land Use Size Code Trips Total In Out Townhouse/Condo Units 3 Ea 230 18 2 1 1 Single Familv Dwelling Units 5 Ea 210 48 5 3 2 General Office 7,442 sf 710 82 11 2 9 TOTAL TRIPS 148 18 6 12 Table 4 PM P kH S. T. G TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution is based on evaluation of existing traffic patterns at study area intersections. YEAR 2007 COMBINED (FUTURE) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Year 2007 combined traffic volumes include the 2006 base year traffic, plus background, and site traffic. Figure 9, Appendix A illustrates the total combined traffic after full development of the proposed 0.47 acre site. RECEIVED VII. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS :, j 2 1 1\.,1 .. INTERSECTION CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE City c1 P,sh~Jnd COmlTlUii'Y Deve,opment Intersection capacity calculations were conducted utilizing the methodologies presented in the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity and level of service calculations for stop sign controlled intersections were prepared using "SYNCHRO" traffic analysis software. Copies of the calculations are included in the "Calculations" sections of the report. Appendix C gives a detailed description of Level of Service measurements for stop sign controlled intersections. The City of Ashland standards consider the minimum acceptable level of service for Ashland Street to be "D." The city will require mitigation to level of service "D" if future traffic projections indicate that the existing conditions will drop to an "E" or "F" condition. Table's 5 & 6 on the following page summarizes the level of service calculations for year 2006 & 2007 A.M. & P.M. peak hour level of service conditions. July 12, 2006 Page 6 ~t?.E RDK Engineering Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street. Ashland. OR TABLE 5 - A.M. Peak Hour Cat: acity & Level of Service Year 2006 Year 2007 Year 2007 Intersection Combined No Build With Project Helman St./ Van Ness Ave. 0.16-7.9-A 0.16 -7.9- A 0.16 - 8.0 - A Capacity - Delay - Level of Service TABLE 6 - P.M. Peak Hour Call acitv & Level of Service Year 2006 Year 2007 Year 2007 Intersection Combined No Build With Project Helman St./ Van Ness Ave. 0.17 - 8.4 - A 0.17 - 8.4 - A 0.17 - 8.5 - A Capacity - Delay - Level of Service The level of service calculations address the fvllv."T/ing: . Existing year 2006 A.M. &: P.M. peak hour traffic conditions. . Future year 2007 P.M. peak hour traffic conditions, without the project (No Build). Combined traffic includes existing and background traffic volumes. . Future year 2007 P.M. peak hour traffic conditions, with the project. Combined traffic includes existing, background, and project traffic volumes. RECEIVED VIII. INTERSECTION SUMMARIES j U L 2 1 Helman Street & Van Ness Ave. City of Ashland Commu:'1lty Development This is a standard 4-way intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches (4-Way Stop). The year 2006 existing A.M. & P.M. peak hour level of service is "A." The year 2007 A.M. & P.M. peak hour traffic volumes, without the project, indicate that the level of service will remain at "A." In the year 2007, with the project completed, the A.M. & P.M. peak hour traffic volumes show that the level of service will remain at "A." No mitigation is required. July 12, 2006 Page 7 021'1 RDK Engineering Traffic Impact Analvsis J 60 Helman Street. Ashland. OR IX. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the traffic impact study show that the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. is currently operating at level of service A during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hour periods. The intersection will continue to operate at level of service A in the year 2007 with the project completed and in service. Helman Street is classified as a "Neighborhood Collector." The 24 hour volumes on an average weekday, in the year 2007, with the project, indicate 960 daily vehicle trips south of Van Ness, and 1,290 trips north of Van Ness. By Ashland City Standards a neighborhood collector has a range from 1,500 to 5,000 trips per day. Van Ness Ave. is classified as a "Neighborhood Residential Street." The City design standard for this classification is 1,500 daily trips. Van Ness Ave. has exceeded this figure since 1997. Currently the daily traffic volumes on Van Ness are 2,320 west of Helman, and 2,660 east of Helman. Van Ness is functioning as a "neighborhood collector" street to the industrial areas to the north and east. Year 2007 project traffic will add 20 daily trips to Van Ness west of Helman, and 10 tri~:; t~ the e~st on Van Ness. The impact on the street system from this development is minimal. The total project at build-out generates 15 P.M. peak hour trips, with only 3 trips using Van Ness Ave. (see Figure 8 in Appendix A). The A.M. peak hour also indicates 3 project trips on Van Ness. As noted, the level of service at the intersection of Helman Street and Van Ness Ave. is A, with the project completed and in service. There have been no reported accidents at this intersection in the last five years. The additional trips generated by this development do not change the level of service or the VIC (volume to capacity ratio) of the intersection operation. The traffic impact study concludes that Van Ness Ave. will not be adversely impacted by this proposed 0.47 acre development. RECEIVED i'J! 2 1 ory of AshL:md Community Development July 12, 2006 Page 8 :1.95' RDK Engineering Traffic ImDact Analvsis 160 Helman Street APPENDIX A FIGURES RECEIVED II!' 2 1 ~',~ 'J :. ' C!tv (If .t ~~MJ:"~nd Commu: :i!y iJev;;,cpment July 12,2006 ~~ RDK Engineering . W. NEV A[)l,>.'ST. G RA1\1T ST. GREENBRIAR PL. G MAPLE ST. 1.;; · ... j HOSPITAL ~ ~~2t (,,; CAT~" <Ii c ~ z ~ (,,; OIl ~ OIl ~ U o or: .j\!':-~D 1;"";-' IrI . L- o PATTERSON ST. ::5 0:: <: ;.; ~ 'TYST C, ~ ;:: ~ ~ J :r. I>. ...J ~ :t I>. '" z z <: :r. z z ~ ~ 0: WlLUA,l[ 3 'S~ x x 'i]~ & ,.: ;).97 :r." FIGURE NO.1 VICINITY MAP , i- rr. ,. ~,~ /1"/\ ,No 7- ~ ;-1 v "' ,,,,,( tlollO' ) < 1800 _ />-----~ ~,.~~/ '\// I ,/",1 / ;"_.... ~"c.- i d / /...__. 1200) ~"- _ / .. 391E04CC. {' .-........ ,/ ...~ \" ~ "/ %~/7 ~\e \-?CQ(\00~ ~ I'~ I ~ ) I / ::~IJ '0 "0./ '~"'" I "~-"""<~ //' / -.....0 - /~ /~ .,s~~ ...."1 '~~ I,., f,. -......... I;' I I -""""";$ , ,.2.~' '-....J I, ./^'--...:." f..~. f....... ""';' , ,r ~ ~z ---_Jt2 '"/ ~_/ /..... l~ 1100 ~ ~ l 1 I .'/ ...... / ~ A~D~), /~~ it _'''"/ / ."~ ' j' L -1- - _ ~.~ J9lt .- ._ .,.. ~, _ 19i1O RECEIVED 2 Ctv (. l sh'.1nd Cornmu'nIt/ Development ~4( FIGURE NO.2 SITE LOCATION (0 ~~ "'0 ;:--< ~o r m iU J> o ~ q ~. 1\ H dl ~ "'OJ, ~a~ 5.!~ ~rf, ~ tl~ .~~ - 8~~~ I!]l A y~ i~~"'5 A . , ,.'x ~ffi ~ r i~~~ " ~ I ~,.."., . Mr.:..; ~ hI,.-" o~h ~ . ~ ~ " <to :u I':~ ~H ~H" ~ ~ ~ LH ~!! i!i ill:;,~l) ~ r ;11 '2;;l 'i i~&~~ ;;l II P () ~ l< ~~ & -I .. ~ i Ii ~ F " ,,~, ~ E ~ Ii 11 '~ .' ,,+ 1'0 I 0) /~- 8 ~m - '11 ~c ,,(Jl '\In ~~ ~(j ffiH :;: 1) 1:; () ~'j J, :.: f,l; ~t! i~ (., . h' ~'.4. 311" . ~.. ----34 "__._....... _--1- --.q___ . per rTllr. .:::::" .~ :' .::.:: :.:::_- I ~ I "~l ,;p ;i;'~ l''; f~ ill. r-, 'j\; ,..In 0.'< ~ 'P \I . t'"t L.'9 i!~ ~ 'n" :;iil :\1; r;?I ~ \Jill I".~ '^ ~ in~ Gf{~ 9\'; ~I~ ~~ ~t.~, ,'" f." ~ ~'n ~~ ~ti jJ~ &~ ~6 Ii C: " I;: r: ~ I~ 8" WATER SANITARY SEWER 8" WATER SANITARY SEWER 8" WATER SANITARY SEWER 8" WATER SANIT MY SEWER Helman Street i!ft :~.. .'... I I . :pi ro\ '<: I : / I .' ~.- ,1// ~: z: 1-- ~ ': ~H c".i I. N " ~:l ::; .: ~:I " 't-- ./ ,~~ /' ~=t 1Il- .., NO co .., - .., .0 1Il...... .., I -I ~ 1Il .... o ;;0 !II:: <0 o~ ::lz :z:1 ro ~ I l./) ~ .., ro ro ....... ,,""'" / .,/' : , , . I'I: III I I , Ol -0 ~~ 1Il.... ..,...... :::0 ~~ 1/1 <;) .., ...... I ":'0 I..~ ,C> > ;' VlCl I .., I'T'l ./ I , .0 .> o~ 1/10 .., ...... JEI : , I / : / : I I r- o I I i ;7~.:~:;'~': " I "c.',I- , ~ I I~ '; :~ . ':j >'.' ~~ ~ -I .... i1~~~~d~ j!:;'" j!:!!!~.... !!! >:~ "lil;J!f7ljl ~ e~g ~ ~17;\l 17 ~ (J) " ~ d ~~~~ ~ ~ ~an:;: 0.. G>mro r- ." ro Z 0 r -l 0 g ~;\l ~ . Ii ~ m Q 0 g ~ i Z F) 9Cl~i~ ~ In ~ ~.. ~ i il ~ c "" S '" ~ ~ s 5 d ~i'ri~ i -t WW"lt z; ~ ~~i:i ~ ill ~~ '" ~ ~~ g ~ CD .......... Ot ow......... o ..............t ..., 00)..... en en en en " "'n""'n 0; '-I......w". .... i:i ... ~~ ~ 0.; "1; 0 Joo ~ Cl ~ g . ~ m t ~ Ei ~ ~.!! ~ In 01>,)... m "at.1n ~ Joo mm"lt ~ 0011: In ~~~ c; c:c... :u ~~!" n ulull:: ~ ;;.~ "a~ ~ ~.. " ~'ll 2 ~ .. III II I~ ;!~q .. ~~gcl ~ t ~ ~ Dr [TI "' ~;U E " " ~!i ~~ J:~~~ go ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ rD ~ c ~ ~ 1ft ~ ~ ! '" ~ 2 i ~ l:l '" ~ ~ ~ ~ "' 81 ~S t!i)~ ~ . n '" ~ ~ ~ )oJ: ~~ ~. Zz "''' o~ ~~ 2 I 3~~ m vrEUI ~ ~~~ 7.~~ ~~~ ~.~ ;J;t,. ~i~ ~ ,...",c ~ :~5i ::c 00'" ~ ~~; m _00 ~~; ~i"~ ~~~ n. ~.~ "'~ m" .... [,j~ 3 r- ~~ i ~ h ~ 1?0O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ >-~ ~Cj ~e CI:l~ r ." . It r m, :1;~!,~'~' ;, .f ~'" ..'" ~m "'''' (J)(J) "" m .. m ~m .. (J) ~ " (J) " m "'''' o "'0 m "'... m mm (J) (J)en " "" t ... N Z ~ ... ~~~~g':: ~Ka"';:i f::~ ~~ ~t~ !!;: " \l ~ m c: !'! ~ ~~~~~Iij~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ In ~ i ~ EJ o ill " ~ ii: ,!l, i ~ I ...a. U'lA ..... ........0'1 o 0 CD'" om.....t01 ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I ~ l-3 A Mile<! Use Development For: McKechnie & Associates ::i ::0 w ~~ -- trj - - Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan Drive ::'J "'- m lo"C ~ r:l. r', 0 ~ Prolecl Loc.llon: Medford, Oregon 97501 c'" m 160 Helman (between Van Ness and Central). m ;f; < >- <: :..J Ashland Oregon 97520 g"!_ f;? t9 ~ 541-944-9886 o :) 39 IE 140 LOT n 2403 '00. (1 <Il ::J .-to 160 Helman Street LEGEND -. - - STOP SIGN I I I RDK Engineering I RECE:i'JEU / No Scale 'i )~"'\t:"l\ Figure 4 Existing Lane Configurations And Traffic Control Devices .3 () () 160 Helman Street Siskiyou. LLC CCUr!j'] -,: "- Cf)"'Jco 0'" :E\ 70/' ~~ ;:? 8. (8) J "- 8(87) ..JA.... i ~ 6(8) ..... '\ '\ ..... (9)<8 , 1 ,. rr (~5<)778 ;y. :::'\ ~6 ;;:;$f~ ~Cf ,., .... 160 Helman Street No Scale o I / RECEIVED / (XX) = AMP k H .. ea our Volume XX = P.M. Peak Hour Volume I I RDK Engineering I (', '~"" ,....t _" ,-'- Cornu: ill' ,jl"\"l,~~~ment Figure 5 Year 2006 A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes 301 160 Helman Street Siskiyou, LLC Cl::J ~;<~ 1 ~~O' 9 0(8) '-.;.-::: 0(8,J) J<~ I ~ 8(8) ..... '\. '\. ..... (9)<9 , 1 ,. ~ (~S,J)l<O C\i' ~8 '-.: =='::-. 1i)"'J~ ~o "'J.... 160 Helman Street (XX) = AMP k H .. ea our Volume XX = P.M. Peak Hour Volume /' Figure 6 Year 2007 No Build A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour ..."' II""': ~'" er) ......,... ~ RECEIVED (.(j, fJ,': ':'~\':",( )tJr;: 'nt No Scale I I RDK Engineering I 160 Helman Street Siskiyou, LLC (XX) = XX = ~t! o")~ ~~o o~ -2 ~ ~ o~ o.%) ,J. '--2 9 ~o.%) ~, I ~8.%) ~ 1lt , .4111 " [0.%)0>. ~ r ~ rr ~<>O.%)o;' o 4- I <.1>.1 rv (3 ~ 0/9>- fi~~ ~!J!} It) '60 f.tf!/, _ I"r)O ~ !-~ ""- ~ s. !J !3 . <rf!f! ~~ t o ,If; \..:...;:: , ~t t ~ (50.%) ~ rr ( /5>- ti ~ 'IIo.%) ~ ~ <5>- o~ ~ A.M. Peak Hour Percentages P.M. Peak Hour Percentages ~ ~ RECEIVED No Scale C:~1 (1 ,t,t':hL1nd Cornml":,,:; Jeve:opment I I RDK Engineering I Figure 7 Year 2007 Site Trip Percentages A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour dO'::>'. '_cd' 160 Helman Street Siskiyou, LLC ~~ ~ i;)'~ 0(0) \,.;.~ 0(0) ..;A ~ ~ ~ 1(1) ~ '\ " ...... (0)0 1 ,. wr- (0)0 2' ;::) =- (,), ...~o rv~ ~ No Scale i" ~<o ~R' "- ~ ~ 1,. '\ (.1).1 ~:=\ wr- (<), o~ Irj RECEIVED (XX) = XX A.M. Peak Hour Volumes P.M. Peak Hour Volumes I C;ty c~ t'?~'.1!""\d Cornmu; "J' .Jevc:opment I I RDK Engineering I Figure 8 Year 2007 Site Trip Assignment A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour 2ci 160 Helman Street Siskiyou, LLC It) ~ fQ Vi';;:;-~ 70/ ~-! f2 9 18) ~~ '- O(8J) ~..../ ~ 7(9) ..... '\ '\ ...... (9)<9 , 1 ..... Wf"> /SJ)7<0 ;;:;-::-- ~ 4)7 iii/:]CO' ;;s-?f "'j - i8 CO'fQ .!:2.i0 /~ 1,. '\ (J)J :"\ Wf">(. ~ Vi' <)7 ai-;;f .,. RECEIVED (XX) = AMP k H .. ea our Volume XX = P.M. Peak Hour Volume / (;"."J' COnl:,-';. : ;..' I ~r:,i }'-"'~:,CJp'npnt No Scale Figure 9 Year 2007 Volumes With Project A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour :2, t) S- ,,' I I RDK Engineering I 160 Helman Street Siskiyou, LLC Traffic ImDact Analvsis 160 Helman Street APPENDIX B A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT RECEIVED illl ? 1 \. "...l" l_ GJtv r'f _~ ~f:hnd Comrnun;t> Uf~\T.rOprl1ent July 12, 2006 3'" RDK Engineering N - S Street: Helman St. E - W Street: Van Ness Ave. Day of Week: Wednesday Weather: Clear & Warm RDK Engineering Intersection Turn Count GrQlJj)S Printed-All Vehicles From North From East f--- Start Time, Left j Thr~ I Ri9h~-=-+__L=~Thru ! Right I I FactL~ 1.0 J1.9 I 1.0 I 1.0 j 1.0. 1.0 I --o''r:06--- AM 2 3 0 1 1 7 1 07:15 AM 3 4 1 1 0 5 1 07:30 AM 0 4 0 1 1 10 5 07:45 AM 3 9 1 0 5 16 4 Total 8 20--2-----3-- T-- 38 11 08:00 AM 08:15 AM 08:30 AM 08:45 AM Total 8 9 8 12 37 o o o 5 ----.-- 5 4 3 1 2 10 Grand Total Apprch % Total % 18 57 20.5 64.8 3.8 12.2 7 8.0 1.5 6 6.8 1.3 o o o _31_ 3 , 1 o o 2 3 15 12 15 10 52 10 90 20 8.0 72.0 16.0 2.1 19.2 4.3 Peds I I 1 2 2 4 9 File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : HelmanVanNessAM : 00000001 : 6/28/06 : 1 From South From West Left 1- ~~ui~~~t pe~s_! Left ~ru ~~i9htl ~Qju~~,___1.0~ 1.0. 1.0 1.(j i 1.0 . 1 1 2 0 1 18 1 o 1 1 0 0 20 1 2 3 2 1 0 21 0 o 5 0 1 0 22 2 3 10 521----1---81 4 1.0 --efT o o 3 31 o o 1 1 2 1 o o 1 2 5 4.0 1.1 : 5 40 8.1 64.5 1.1 8.5 3C7 7 6 10 7 30 1 1 2 2 6 2 5 10 1 o 1 26 3 1; 1 24 2 1 : 1 21 2 4'--8-81----8 11 17.7 2.3 6 9.7 1.3 9 162 4.6 83.5 1. 9 34.5 RECDVED pedS! 1.0. o ! o! 1 1 2 I 12 6.2 2.6 11 5.7 : 2.3 I ,... ~!' Int:' Total I 39 38 51 72 200 1 5 . 2 i 1 9- 57 68 69 75 269 469 RDK Engineering Intersection Turn Count N-S Street : Helman St. File Name : HelmanVanNessAM E-W Street : Van Ness Ave. Site Code : 00000001 Day of Week: Wednesday Start Date : 6/28/06 Weather: Clear & Warm Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Trucks & Buse!i - - ------------,- From North From East From South pe~~ I Left 1 ::~ i~;~tli~~~:iJ r--------- 1 Thru I Right -~ 1 Thru! Right! Start Time! Left I Peds Left Thru I Right I Peds Left I ________.1- I Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 I LO_:_ 1.0 , 1.0 I 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 l ~ 1.0 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ---o-r-- 0 0 0 0' 0 0..0 <5l 0 07:15 AM 0 0 0 o , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 01 1 07:30 AM 0 0 0 o I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 o i 1 I 07:45 AM 0 0 0 ()j 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 3 --------- --0--0.... Total 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 1 08:30 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 2 0 0-; 0 3 0 0-;- 0 1 n 0---0-;-- 0 1 0 .o!-- 7 Grand 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 12 Total Apprch % 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 Total % 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 ! 8.3 41. 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 R~=Ct_.:\iL[) j: r,~ ( _.),:1;' _ ,\ )~;'")-',ef11 ~ ~i .,.,0 RDK Engineering Intersection Turn Count N - S Street: Helman St. E - W Street: Van Ness Ave. Day of Week: Wednesday Weather: Clear & Warm File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : HelmanVanNessAM : 00000001 : 6/28/06 : 1 -r-- -- I r-- -' From ,NonJl ,- i From East Start Time ~ Thru i Right I Peds' Left Thru 1 Right i ~ - 1 -+-1nf- ~ j I , Factor ,J~~.O ~ 1.0L l.L~n 1.01 1.0 . 07: 00 AM 0 0 1 0 , 0 0 2 07: 15 AM 0 0 0 0 I 0 1 2 07: 30 AM 0 0 0 0 . 1 0 1 ~~~ AM ~--.Jl 0 0+ 0 1 1 Total 1 0 1 0 . 1 2 6 Groups Printed- Bicycles From South P~ Left i~ru ! Right r-~~dS I 1.0 I 1.0~ l.0 I lb 1.0 o. 0 0 0 01 0 o 0 0 0 0' 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o I 0---0--- 0 0 0 Left From West I . I Thru I, Ri~ peds! 1.0 ' 1.0.L 1.0 t 000 1 1 0; 2 0 0 ! 1 0 0' 4 101 Int.I Total I 3 5 4 4 16 08:00 AM 0 1 0 o 1 0 1 0 0, 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 2 08:15 AM 2 0 0 0' 0 0 0 01 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 08:30 AM 0 1 0 o . 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 08:45 AM 1 1 0 o ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o . 0 0 0 o i 2 Total 3 3 0 5-;--T 2 1 0 1 2 0 ----I 0 01 0, 4 0 16 Grand 4 3 1 0 1 4 7 01 1 2 0 01 0 8 1 01 32 Total , Apprch % 50.0 37.5 12.5 0.0 1 8.3 33.3 58.3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.9 11. 1 0.0 i Total 0 12.5 9.4 3.1 0.0 3.1 12.5 21.9 0.0 3.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 25.0 3.1 0.0 ! -0 RECUVEu "'< ~'''::. ,pc l..i 'f) i; ~. .'1); 601 N - S Street: Helman St. E - W Street: Van Ness Ave. Day of Week: Wednesday Weather: Warm & Humid RDK Engineering Intersection Turn Count Groups Printed-All Vehicles From North From East Start Time' Left i Thru i Right "-~~~~~. Left, Thru r Right ....~-f:actor ; ~ ~ 1.0 ~O T Lot 1.0 i 1.0 04: 00 PM 6 13 3 0 ' 1~ 29 - 4 04:15 PM 5 9 1 4 2 33 9 04:30 PM 3 7 1 0 2 27 7 04: ~;t=~ 1~.- -3~-------~---~+---~-- fi~ 2~ 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM 05:45 PM Total Grand Total Apprch % Total % 2 o 4 4 -- 10 7 2 8 1 7 6 6 2 --- 28 11 26 65 23.0 57.5 3.8 9.5 16 14.2 2.3 1 o o 1 2 40 1 27 2 21 1 22 -6-110 6 i 12 228 50 4.0 75.2 16.5 1. 8 33.4 7.3 5.3 0.9 f File Name Site Code Start Date Page No : HelmanVanNessPM : 00000001 : 6/28/06 1 Peds 1.0 3 4 o o 71 i From South ~ From West ,_----+__ Left~Thru I Ri9ht~ds 1-- Left 1 Thr~~~1pedS~_T~~~'I: . 1.~ i 1.~, 1.~ ; log. 1.~l.. 12~ iJ+-1.~1 97 ' 2 14 2 0 2 19 1 2 i 109 1 6 0 0 1 25 1 0 81 o 3 5 5 5 22 3 0 i 91 5 30 10 5-; --15-S8 6 3 i 378- 8 4 5 5 22 3 2 o 2 1 1 2 3 -------!---------. --.- 6 8 13' 13 57 4.3 14.4 63.3 1.9 1.9 8.4 6/V 8 7 6 6 27 o 1 1 3 5 0' o Of 0' 0+ 15 16.7 2.2 5 5.6 0.7 2 2 o 2 6 14 1 14 3 11 2 14 1 ---- 53 7 2 94 o 70 o 67 1 , 73 3~304 16 141 9.1 80.1 2.3 20.7 13 7.4 1.9 6 3.4 0.9 682 REt:El\r[~i) l. U. ~1. .u. :."!~ .....,~:~) . i',~nt RDK Engineering Intersection Turn Count N-S Street : Helman St. File Name : HelmanVanNessPM E-W Street : Van Ness Ave. Site Code : 00000001 Day of Week: Wednesday Start Date : 6/28/06 Weather: Warm & Humid Page No 1 ---~--- Groups Printed- Trucks & Buses From North J From East From South From West I Thru i Right I 1 I I Left I Right I - --I Int. Start Time Left 1 Thru 1 Right. Peds 1 Left Peds Left Thru I Right I Peds I Thru Peds! Total I ~~ctor ~ 1.0 I . ..-+----L---L- _' I -------+----- .1.QJ ---- -r 1.0 I 1.0 ' 1.0 I 1.0 ! 1.0 1.0 I 1.0 I 1.0 [ 1.01 1.0 I. 1.0. 1.0! 1.0 1.0.1 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 -o--o~-o-. 0 0+- 2 04:15 PM 0 0 0 o I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 04:30 PM 0 0 0 o : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o' 0 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 01 0 Total 0 0 0 0- 0 1 0 ~ 0 2 0 51 0 1 0 -6T 4 05:00 PM 0 0 0 o I 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 01 1 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o , 0 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 01 0 -..-- ------------ .u 0 .. ---0--oi---6- I Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0' 1 Grand 0 0 0 1 0 0, 0 2 I Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 01 5 Apprch % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0 0 Total % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 ! ;1 L~ (~t V t-. i_' ..::2 II \.-...t , ! .i"'..:'. :it:,n,\' RDK Engineering Intersection Turn Count N - S Street: Helman St. E - W Street: Van Ness Ave. Day of Week: Wednesday Weather: Warm & Humid File Name Site Code Start Date Page No Groups Printed- Bicycles : HelmanVanNessPM : 00000001 : 6/28/06 : 1 i . +--_Fr()1l1 North ___J From, East ~ ~ From~ , From West ~ Sta~ Time " L~ I Thru I Ri9ht~peds ( Le~+-~hru I Right I Peds Left! Thru. Right Peds! Left Thru I Right I r- FactorJ ~~ 1.0~ 1.~~ 1.0( 1.0 I 1,oL=Dn---l.ot--l.o1-ToT_-i-:-6b~Ll.Oi 04: 00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 04: 15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04: 30 PM 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 0 1 0 04:~;t:~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~----~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-.- 05:00 PM 2 0 05:15 PM 3 0 05:30 PM 1 0 05:45 PM 0 0 ----- 6 0 Total Grand 8 1 Total Apprch % 88.9 11.1 Total % 22.9 2.9 o 0 I 0 o 0 I 0 o 0 1 o 0 ' 0 o ------6+--c- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o i 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 O~ 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 0.0 i 0.0 1 4 1 1 7 o o o 1 1 o ! 1 10 8 o 0.0 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 28.6 22.9 5/~ +- , Int. Peds I Total' 1.0r-- --. ( o 8 o ! 2 o . 4 o 3 17 o 1 o 1 2 o o o o o o o o . o ; -+-- 01 3 8 3 4 18 5 0 0 35 100. 0.0 0.0 . 0 14.3 0.0 0.0 ! R.f:(~t:i\, LU ;~~ _ I r' :,; : ,~., Corq;,.-: '--'; ::t . ~')8\ '~".0pr~1el'1t .~~ ~ " ? ~ ~ '" " ~ ~ " ,~ T ,~ T i .. ,. ~.:c3 ~ " ,-, ~ta ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ,; " ,; " " " " .; ,; , .; = ~ .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ 3 ~ N ~ .. .. t N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - - .; .; - - .; .. - - - N ~ .. ~ " ~ .. ~ .. ~ ~ .. .. .. N i " .. .. N .. .. .. .. ~ '" ~ .. .. " ~ - - .; - .; - .; = 3 N ~ ~ .. ~ .. ~ N ~ ~ , .. .. ~ i .. ~ .. ~ .. .. .. .. ~ .. " N .. " .; .; .: .: .; - .. ~ ~ ! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ .. i ~ ~ .. ~ i i " N .. ~ ~ .. N " .. .. - .; - .; - .: - .; - - .; = .. .. ~ .. .. " ; N ~ , .. .. ~ " ~ N .. ~ ~ ~ " ~ " .. N .. .. .. .. " .. .. - - .; - - .; .. .; .. - .. ~ ~ .. ~ .. .. " ! .. i .. ~ .. .. ~ N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. - ~ - .; " .; - .. .. .; .; = " ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ .. .. ! .. N ~ .. N N .. ~ ~ " ~ .. N .. .. ~ N ~ N .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. - ... " .; .; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ ~ " .. .. " ~ ~ ~ .. ~ " .. ~ ~ ~ N ~ N .. ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .; .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i ~ " N N .. ~ N .. .. ~ t .. " ~ .. i ~ N ~ ~ .. ~ II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. " ~ ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. .. ~ .. " " .. .. " .. N .. .. ~ .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. w ~ ! .. $ ~ ! .. .. ~ ~ ~ i ~ .. .. N ~ .. ..J i ~ .. .. ~ .. .. al " - .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. 4( I- ~ ~ ~ ~ .. i N ; ~ .. i .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. N C .. ~ .. :;: .. ~ " .. .. .. .. .. '" Z N .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " w I a: ~ ~ .. .. ~ s: " .. ~ I- :' .. .. ~ ~ .. .. .. " .. i .. ..J 1 " .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - .; .. .. .. " " .. .. " .. 4( Z ~ .. .. .. I .. ~ 0 :' N ~ .. N ~ .. .. , (I) 1 ~ ~ " .. .. " " " .. .. .. 4( - .; - .; .. - - .. " .. .. w I I I (I) = .. .. .. .. ~ .. ~ ~ i .. ! " " ~ N ~ I .. .. .. .. ~ .. .. " " .. 0 - .; - .. - - - .. .. , .. 0 N I N - .. ~ .. ~ .. .. .. i ~ N ~ .. ~ I .. " .. ~ .. .. ~ .. .. .. " " .. . .. - - - .; - - - .. - , " ~ I ~ ~ " .. .. I ~ ~ .. = .. " .. " .. .. I ~ .. .. i .. ~ .. " .. N .. " , .. .. " .. - - - .. - - - " - - .. - N .. " I " .. I ~ " .. ~ .. .. .. i ~ .. .. .. ~ .. ~ .. ~ .. " " N .. " , .. - - .. - - .. - - .. = ~ " .. .. .. .. .. .. ~ , ~ .. .. .. .. .. N N ! .. ~ .. " " N .. " - .. - .. - - - .. - - - - " ~ .. ~ N .. N N .. N .. ~ .. " .. ~ ! .. .. " - .. - .. - - - " - - - ~ .. .. .. .. ~ I .. . I .. .. ~ N .. .. .. ~I .. .. .. .. .. .; .. " - - .. - - - " - - - - .. .. N ~ ~ N .. ~ .. .. .. ~ .. N ; ~ .. .. .. ~ N .. .. - ~ .. ~ " ~ - .. - - - - - - - - - " .. .. .. I .. " I .. :' .. .. ~ .. i, " ~ ~ .. I ~ .. N N ~ .. i .. ~ N - - - - - - - - - - I .. I ~ I .. ~ " I ~ I . .. :' ~ ~ N .. .. .. .. .. " .. " .. i - .. - - - - - - - - - ~ z a , . ~ a i i ~ ~ . i . ~ . ~ I ~ ~ ~ . i ; 5 . . = ~ ~ o z ~ ~ . . - n ! ~ :l ~ - \J ~ 'loo , . ~ tl -tJ ... ...... ~ E -+ '^ ~ '-:-> ~ <( f;J Z ~ 01 o ..:J .,.J , ~ .... ~) Lu 0: Bj~ Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION RECEIVED JUL L : Cit'/ C'~ /'.~:h>lntl Commu~:'1 u")q ""~O' rr","'nt . - '-, I ... \".'~.. ... July 12, 2006 314/ RDK Engineering Tra(fic Impact Analvsis 160 Helman Street, Ashland LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) DEFINITION A <10 Most vehicles arrive on green phase. Very little delay. Great signal progression. Short signal cycle lengths. B > 1 0 - 20 Good signal flrogression. Short s~'cle !engths. Some vehicles must stop. Stable flow. c >20 - 35 I Fair signal progression. Longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through without stopping. Some cycle failures begin to appear. D >35 - 55 Congestion becomes noticeable. Approaching unstable flow. Many vehicles stop. Long cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures are more common. E >55 - 80 Poor progression. Long cycle lengths. High vehicle delay. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F >80 Arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the Intersection. Forced flow. High delay unacceptable to most motorists. Many cycle failures. SOUfCe: Transportation Research Board. Special Report 209 r', ~.., '~ .~! j L. ~) ( ,. i ~ RDK Engineering Level of Service Signalized Intersections .515 " .'. "'''':''.,'' ~... ; Traffic Imoact Analvsis 160 Helman Street. Ashland LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) DEFINITION A <10 Little or no delay. B > 1 0 - 15 Short traffic delays. C > 15 - 25 Average traffic delays D >25 - 35 Long traffic delays. E >35 -'50 Very long traffic delays. F >50 Long waiting queues which may cause congestion and other traffic movements in the intersection. Source: Transportation Research Board. Special Report 209 FiECEIVE.rJ .1. " " .., ,",' i' ~ ; r/, 'lj": . ;O;{)f-'nt RDK Engineering Level of Service Unsiznalized Intersections 3/~ . Traffic ImDact Analvsis 160 Helman Street APPENDIX D TRIP GENERATION RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOUSE GENERAL OFFICE RECEIVED JUi 2 c:~:/ of ,t:l:?1-:jar.d CommunitY iJevehJprnent July 12, 2006 d 17 RDK Engineering Land Use: 210 Single-Family Detached Housing Description Single-family detached housing includes all single-family detached homes on individual lots. A typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision. Additional Data The number of vehicles and residents have a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. The use of these variables is limited, however, because the numbers of vehicles and residents was often difficult to obtain or predict. The number of dwelling units is generally used as the independent variable of choice because it is usually readily available. easy to project and has a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. This land use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in trips generated within this category. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away from the central business district (CBD) h3d a higher rate of trip generation per unit than those smaller in size, less expensive, or closer to the CBD. Other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and nearby development, may also have had an effect on the site trip generation. Single-family detached units had the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses, because they were the largest units in size and had more residents and more vehicles per unit than other residential land uses; they were generally located farther away from shopping centers, employment areas and other trip attractors than other residential land uses; and they generally had fewer alternate modes of transportation available, because they were typically not as concentrated as other residential land uses. The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the 2000s throughout the United States and Canada. Source Numbers 1,4,5.6,7,8,11,12,13,14,16,19,20,21,26,34,35,36, 38, 40, 71, 72, 84, 91, 98,100,105. 108,110,114,117,119,157,167,177,187,192,207,211, 246, 275,283,293,300,319,320, 357, 384, 435, 550, 552, 579 RECEI\iED ,~ .' ~~! r i :'. " '. "(J , .. 'I. " ,.";::;Jrnt::nt Trip Generation, 7th Edition alG 268 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 274 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 201 Directional Di,stribution: 25% entering, 75% exiting H~:::C)V[D Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 0.75 ..,."\ Range of Rates 0.33 2.27 Standard Deviation H'l.),). "f;"! I 0.90 Data Plot and Equation 3.000 Vl "0 C UJ 0. ~ ell U 1: ell > ell Ol co Cii > <( II f- y .~;. ",y 2,000 :, 1.000 -: ' , x , x ,,<- .."..... >( ;( _ 4 ^ , ~ X', Z., ",' ~~',4;...X:..i i x 0<, ' '{.~ , . , . ' o o x 1000 2000 3000 x = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -. Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.70(X) + 9.43 R2 = 0.89 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 270 ..3 / '1 Institute of Transportation Engineers ,-- Single-Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. RECEIVED Number of Studies: 302 Avg. Number of Dwelling .Units: 214 Directional Distribution: 63% entering, 37% exiting ., Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 1.01 C:t'J of !\sk!;:lnd Comn"!U;;llj' De\'<.;,opment Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 2.98 1.05 Data Plot and Equation 3000 , ' " X, // ./ rJl "0 <:: L.:J .9- ~ ell U :.c ell > ell Cl e ell > < II r- 2.000 - /.// //// ~ / '. 1.000 - . o 10CO 2000 3000 x = Number of, Dwelling Units ... Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -. Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.90 Ln(X) + 0.53 R2 = 0.91 3;<0 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition 271 Single-Family Detached Housing (210) RECEIVED Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: Avg. Number of Dw~lIing Units: Directional Distribution: t.,I'~./ ct AS::'l;-:d 350 tOfnn. CICI, ,,;,mment 197 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 9.57 Range of Rates 4.31 - 21.85 Standard Deviation 3.69 Data Plot and Equation 30.000 " (j'J '0 C W a. ~ Q) u :c Q) > Q) 01 ~ Q) > <: II r- xi - - I 20.000 -; - x :" x 10.000 1 - x x o 3000 o 1000 2000 x = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.71 R2 = 0.96 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 269 3.::u Institute of Transportation Engineers land Use: 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse Description Residential condominiums/townhouses are defined as ownership units that have at least one other owned unit within the same building structure. Both condominiums and townhouses are included in this land use. The studies in this land use did not identify whether the condominiums/townhouses were low-rise or high-rise. Low-rise residential condominium/townhouse (Land Use 231), high-rise residential condominium/townhouse (Land Use 232) and luxury condominium/townhouse (Land Use 233) are related land uses. Additional Data The number of vehicles and the number of residents had a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. The use of these variables was limited, however, because the number of vehicles and residents was often difficult to obtain or predict. The number of dwelling units was generally used as the independent variable of choice because it is usually readily available, easy to project and had a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. The sites were surveyed from the mid-1970s to the 2000s throughout the United States and Canada. Source Numbers 4,92,94,95,97,100,105,106,114,168,186,204,237, 253, 293, 319, 320, 321, 390, 412, 418, 561,562,583 F1ECi:::lijED ': (".. '", ':.,,1 r'o f 1,Y::i, ~,~)t'\;'. _,prnent Trip Generation, 7th Edition 366 g~ Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential CondominiumfTownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units " ,J'u':, :) On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 59 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 213 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting I:.'nt' Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.44 0.15 1.61 0.69 Data Plot and Equation 600 500 - rJl '0 c:: W Cl. ~ Q) 13 :c Q) > Q) OJ co ~ > <l: II r- 400 - . ^ 300 - . ~. ,/.................. . c --x. 200 --: . x 'X: xX,, / / " ^ .X: >< :'\.: /' ;~x. . 100 -; . . . ;.:" . . ,Y x X ><x / ^'1<,/~ X ; yt1( y ,t),'~ ..;. x 'x. li. o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 , 300 x = Number of Dwelling Units :oe: Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) "" 0.80 Ln(X) + 0.26 R2 = 0.76 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 368 .3 ~..:S Institute of Transportation Engineers , Res ide nti a ICo n d 0 m i n i u mrr own h 0 u se (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: Dwelling Units Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. c ,:'~.:\![:i) Number of Studies: 62 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 205 Directional Distribution: 67% entering, 33% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit \ Average Rate I I 0.52 'r~'" ~r;'nt Range of Rates 0.18 1.24 Standard Deviation 0.75 Data Plot and Equation 700 600 - 500 - - rn "C C UJ a. ~ OJ U 1: OJ > OJ 01 ~ Q) > < II ~ x 400 - - 300 - / 100 - J< ~ /' -:~, ,,/~//,// /' /'~ / x " >, x x ' ' 'X ': x -< " x - - :>S,.' -/ - x ),>!" '0'7;;( vf!x <~;$: xj!''*' x " 200 - - o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 11 00 1 200 1 300 x = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.82 Ln(X) + 0.32 R2 = 0.80 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 369 2> ~ 'i Institute of Transportation Engineers Residential Condominiumrrownhouse (230) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday nZ:CEI'VED Number of Studies: Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: Directional Distribution: 54 183 50% entering, 50% exiting ( ,~ -.f,t ......./ 'w~d , :nrnn ::,." ;'; L-"<..~Vtr.t1prnent Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 5.86 Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.83 11.79 3.09 ! Data Plot and Equation , t ; 8.000 t ~ . t . 7.000 - . 6.000 - (f) "0 C UJ 0. ~ Q) U .;:: C3 > <ll OJ co ai > <: II ~ / >. )' 5.000 - . 4.000 - 1.000 - //' / /. ~/./ // ,/.,)/ "x .. < x ;<~'" /.; "r )' "-':/.' .;(.(y, . Y"''' ,~x w........ ~~/. .-:--<:~' ^ x 3.000 - 2,000 - . o o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1 100 1200 1300 x ;:: Number of Dwelling Units / Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.85 Ln(X) + 2.55 R2 ;:: 0.83 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 367 :3~ 5' Institute of Transportation Engineers F\' II L'D Land Use: 710 General Office Building Description ~..:;:i , -:~:Gpn~'f;'nt 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 institution, a restaurant or cafeteria and service retail facilities. Nearly all of the buildings surveyed were in suburban locations. Corporate headquarters (Land Use 714), single tenant office building (Land Use 715), office park (Land Use 750), research and development center (Land Use 760) and business park (Land Use 770) are related uses. 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 and should be used when a breakdown of individual or 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 multiuse project. On the other hand, if the office park category is used, internal trips are already reflected in the data and do not need to be considered. When the buildings are interrelated (defined by shared 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. When the individual buildings are isolated and not related to one another, it is suggested that trip generation be calculated for each building separately and then summed. Additional Data Average weekday transit trip ends- Transit service was either nonexistent or negligible at the majority of the sites surveyed in this land use. Users may wish to modify trip generation rates presented in this land use to reflect the presence of public transit, carpools and other transportation demand management (TOM) strategies Information has not been analyzed to document the impacts of TOM measures on the total site generation. See the ITE Trip Generation Handbook for additional information on this topic. The average building occupancy varied considerably within the studies where occupancy data was provided. For buildings with occupancy rates reported, the average percent of occupied gross leasable area was 88 percent. Some of the regression curves plotted for this land use may produce illogical trip end estimates for small office buildings. When the proposed site size is significantly smaller than the average- sized facility published in this report, caution should be used when applying these statistics. For more information, please refer to Chapter 3, "Gulde!ines for Estimating Trip Generation," of the Trip Generation Handbook. In some regions peaking may occur earlier or later and last somewhat longer than the traditional 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 400 p.m. to 600 p.m. peak period time frames. The sites were surveyed from the 1960s to the 2000s throughout the United States. Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1149 Institute of Transportation Engineers 3.<f.o General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday RFCEIVCD Number of Studies: 78 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 199 Directional ,Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting /" . .;, . <:'1(," f'n"' i" Jr, . ~1,L Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 11.01 3.58 - 28.80 6.13 Data Plot and Equation <II "0 c:: UJ c. ~ Cll u r. Cll > Cll Cl co (jj > <l: II I- 15,000 I I 1 I 14,000 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ i 13,000 1 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 1 12,000 i . . . . . : . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ~ 11,000 i . . 1 10,000 l' 9,000 I . I 1 I 8,000 1 . . . . . . . i i 7,000 1 . 1 I 6 000 --: . , i 5,000 l' 4,000 1 . j 3,000 I . 1 I 2,000 1 . 1000 j . .' '- , ~, ... . x I ......... .~.....~.....:.. ./i " > . . . . '. . . . . . '. . . . . . ~ . . . "/ r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - '. . . . ; ,,0":- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . ;. ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . .. . . '.< . . j I I ...... -.. -. j I I . . . . . . 1 I . . . . . I . . . . . I f .. 1 I I i . . . . . . . . I i I .>< .'. . , /, ~, j' ,,'X . . __.X ,.. x .. .. .. .. ..x . x * .. x. "x x x X' x x: o i o 100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 200 x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points - Fit1ed Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.77 Ln(X) + 3.65 R2 = 0.80 11 58 3 tR.. 7 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour RECEIVED Number of Studies: Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: Directional Distribution: 217 223 88% entering, 12% exiting t::-, C" /'- ~:h '~<;d (Off',',:',:'" ",>\"',oprnent Trip Generation per 1 000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.55 0.60 5.98 1.39 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 " " 3,000 rJ) '0 c: UJ ,9- ..:: Q) u E Q) > Q) Ol <0 Q; > <: II f- ,x 2,000 x " / /// "'y', / , . ",>( i /,/ // 1,000 I ' ' , " " ;<., ;-';/' , I x" .~'5 y '~, X^f.f;~:tf:: x 1 x ~ "x ,>( I X ;x; ". ' .<'v<.>( x I ~., ,-0/.)( x i ,';'!''/ X o " o 1000 2000 3000 x = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area '< Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 1.55 R2 = 0.83 Trip Gemeration, 7th Edition 1159 :3 ~ ~<' Institute of Transportation Engineers General Office Building (71 0) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour Rr~ :':.Tl\/[D Number of Studies: 235 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 216 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting '>" " .":<;::1 :'- 'c'.-:''''~:el it Trip Generation per 1 000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.49 0.49 6.39 1.37 Data Plot and Equation 4.000 I I I I j I I 3.000"': . . . x x ,./y /..... , v~~~~'~ // /// xX x CIl "C C UJ Cl.. ~ <Il U E <Il > <Il 01 <ll Cii > <( II I- 2.000 /'11, 1,000 -; . - >( ... x x o o 1000 2000 3000 x:: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area >< Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - - - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 1.12(X) + 78.81 R2 = 0.82 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1160 ;::;,::J .c:? "'- / Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Imoact Analvsis APPENDIX E ACCIDENT HISTORY 160 Helman Street RECEIVED ,JU L 2 .i ' ,I- Cfty oll~~h!,'U'1d Cornrnunir/ ~)evelopment July 12,2006 RDK Engineering sae Page 1 of 1 Robert Kortt From: To: Cc: Sent: Attach: Subject: "RIFE Christina M" <Christina.M.RIFE@odot.state.or.us> <rdkeng@charter.net> "RIFE Christina M" <Christina.M.RIFE@odot.state.or.us> Monday, June 19, 2006 4:09 PM CRVanNess@Helman(CrookCoLCDS150.pdf Crashes in Ashland at Van Ness Street and Helman Street Mr. Kortt, Attached is the Summary report (only) for the above intersection for 1-1-2001 through 12-31-2005 that you requested. Since there were no crashes reported at that intersection, I only sent a Summary report. Christina "Chris" Rife <<CR.VanNess@Helman(CrookCoLCDS150.pdf>> Crash Data Technician Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit Transportation Data Section 555 13th Street NE, Suite 2 Salem, OR 97301-4178 503-986-4239 Fax:503-986-4249 mailto:[ christina .lJl. rif~@Qdot. state . or. us] a 31 6/20/2006 LU t.? < 0.. Z o U) :> Of- f-Z Z::::J UJt.? ~~ g~ UJo >o..UJ UJUJo.. 00::>- ZOf- "C o Z Z ~ ~<Q :2 < U) U) ~ CU):J o ~ 0 ,5 0.. < u a; U) Z >- ~ Z < a:l ii5 ~ :r: 0:: e: ~ f-U)L5 100 < EN Ie::: _ I ZU>- ~... Q , ~ - g f-Z ION ~Q~ll 0:: f- - ... o u ~ ii5 0.. UJ::E '" U) U)::E '" ~ ~::::J ~ 0:: < U) e: f-O:r: 10 u.. Z U) > 00< f--O:: Zf-U UJ~ ::Eo:: ~O <B; o..z ~~ Zf- o t.? UJ 0:: o <0 o o N Oi ... <0 o o \l} en o u '0 u..< u..o 00:: 'zo O::OUJ UJ-f- ~ti:5 -UJUJ U)O:: 'z 0::0 UJ_ f-f- ZU -UJ U) :,,:: 0:: < o >- C3 f-u.. UJO:: S::::J U) >-u.. 0::0:: O::::J U) UJO ...JUJ 0.....J O:::! UJ:,,:: 0.. ...JU) <UJ f-:r: OU) f-< 0:: U >-UJ>- f-t.?...J o::<Z UJ::EO 0..< 00 0:: 0.. '...JU) Z<UJ Of-:r: Z<U) u..< 0:: U ...JU) <UJ f-:r: <U) u..< 0:: U UJ 0.. >- f- Z o U) :J 8~ >- ...J ~ o f- Ql -= .5 e: o 'Iii ::l U ,5 ... .2 Ql ::c :2> Qj Cl e: 'Qi .&J '" Ql .s::; '" e! U >- "2 o Ql Cl 10 E 10 "C ~ Q. o C. ... Ql ~ ~ ,5 '"5 '" ~ >- 10 E "t' o o ~ ... ~ ... o Ql ,2 ti ~ Ql '" 'E Ql E ~ ''5 CT ~ Cl e: t o Co ~ .s::; '" 10 t; Ql U :c ~ '" :> ::E o .s ...J < I- o f- ...J < Z u:: '" Ql Ql= Clu.. e: 10 10_ .s::; 10 Uo Ql.s::; .~ U) - 10 10 ... iiiU '0, Ql Ql"C ...J '3: .. Ql Ql- - 10 0_ ZU) ""' t__.J' UJ :::::. t,L , " ....,.' ll' '..I CC 86~ c: 0- r ...~ l. ',1' . . CALCULATIONS *** LEVEL OF SERVICE YEAR 2006 EXISTING TRAFFIC YEAR 2007 NO BUILD YEAR 2007 WITH PROJECT *** RECEIVED Ji.!! 2 ,,',:; "..; c'" " ".~~,_-::,:) (,OriLl,l:; ~ ~-."r~'.~.,;)n-lent . . a!3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Van Ness Ave & Helman St. Yr. 2006 Existing, A.M. Peak Hour 7/8/2006 ". -. ,. .f ~ "- ~ t /'" \. + .; Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 8 81 8 3 52 9 2 30 6 10 37 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.78 0.67 0.50 0.87 0.57 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.77 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 104 12 6 60 16 4 40 8 16 48 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 . Volume Total (vph) 132 82 52 74 Volume Left (vph) 16 6 4 16 Volume Right (vph) 12 16 8 10 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.07 -0.04 0.00 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.10 0.06 0.09 Capacity (veh/h) 811 811 766 761 Control Delay (s) 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.9 Approach Delay (s) 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.9 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection SulTilflC:IIY Delay 7.9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 RECEIVED '" J,:l-'. ", !: It" . )Df. ;-;('17 160 Helman Street 1:10 pm 7/6/2006 Year 2006, Existing RDK Engineering Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 631- HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Van Ness Ave & Helman St. Yr. 2006 Existing, P.M. Peak Hour 7/8/2006 ~ ...... "t of +- "- "\ t ,. \. ! ~ Movement EBl EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4t 4t 4t 4t Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 10 88 6 6 118 28 5 30 10 16 37 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.88 0.50 0.75 0.90 0.78 0.63 0.54 0.50 0.80 0.72 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 100 12 8 131 36 8 56 20 20 51 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 132 175 83 81 Volume Left (vph) 20 8 8 20 Volume Right (vph) 12 36 20 10 Hadj (5) 0.01 -0.08 -0.09 0.01 Departure Headway (5) 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.17 0.21 0.11 0.11 Capacity (veh/h) 762 781 723 703 Control Delay (5) 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.3 Approach Delay (5) 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.3 Approach LOS A A A A intersection Summary Delay 8.4 HCM Level of Service AI Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 RECEIVED " ", \.~\~":/ L"'" ~.. 'n;'~rrsi C;Aflm" .... . . ' , i~/ UI->1;C:oprnen! 160 Helman Street 1: 1 0 pm 7/6/2006 Year 2006, Existing RDK Engineering Synchro 6 light Report Page 1 335' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Van Ness Ave & Helman St. Yr. 2007 No Build, A.M. Peak Hour 7/8/2006 ~ .. ~ ..- "- , t I" \. + .; -+ Movement EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR lane Configurations +t. +t. +t. +t. Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 8 83 8 3 53 9 2 31 6 10 38 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.78 0.67 0.50 0.87 0.57 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.77 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 106 12 6 61 16 4 41 8 16 49 10 Direction, lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 134 83 53 75 Volume left (vph) 16 6 4 16 Volume Right (vph) 12 16 8 10 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.07 -0.04 0.00 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.09 Capacity (veh/h) 809 799 763 759 Control Delay (s) 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.9 Approach Delay (s) 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.9 Approach LOS A A A A Intersection Summary Delay 7.9 HCM level of Service A, Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 RECEIVED IUi 'j ,) L L. City of Ashlm.t Community Developmert 160 Helman Street 1: 1 0 pm 7/6/2006 Year 2007, No Build RDK Engineering Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 ~3' HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Van Ness Ave & Helman St. Yr. 2007 No Build, P.M. Peak Hour 7/8/2006 ~ -+ "'t ~ ...- '- ~ t I" '. + .J Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 4+ 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 10 90 6 6 120 29 5 31 10 16 38 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.88 0.50 0.75 0.90 0.78 0.63 0.54 0.50 0.80 0.72 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 102 12 8 133 37 8 57 20 20 53 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 .,.~ i Volume Total (vph) 134 179 85 83 Volume Left (vph) 20 8 8 20 Volume Right (vph) 12 37 20 10 Hadj (s) 0.01 -0.08 -0.09 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 Degree Utilization, x 0.17 0.22 0.11 0.11 Capacity (veh/h) 759 778 719 700 Control Delay (s) 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.3 Approach Delay (s) 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.3 Approach LOS A A A A inier::;~tion Summary '>-, Delay 8.4 HCM Level of Service A, Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 RECEIVED iU' 'j \J L ~ City of Ashland Community Development 160 Helman Street 1 :10 pm 7/6/2006 Year 2007, No Build RDK Engineering Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 ~37 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Van Ness Ave & Helman St. Yr. 2007 With Project, A.M. Peak Hour 7/8/2006 .,J- -+ t of +- '- ~ t ~ \. + ..I Movement EBl EBT EBR WBl WBT WBR NBl NBT NBR SBl SBT SBR Lane Configurations * * * * Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 8 83 9 4 53 9 3 33 6 10 43 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.78 0.67 0.50 0.87 0.57 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.63 0.77 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 16 106 13 8 61 16 6 44 8 16 56 10 Direction, lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total (vph) 136 85 58 82 Volume Left (vph) 16 8 6 16 Volume Right (vph) 13 16 8 10 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 Departure Headway (s) 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.5 Degree Utilization, x 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.10 Capacity (veh/h) 803 790 758 755 Control Delay (s) 8.2 7.8 7.8 8.0 Approach Delay (s) 8.2 7.8 7.8 8.0 Approach LOS A A A A llllerse<.-Uon Summary Delay 8.0 HCM Level of Service A, Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 RECEIVED 'UL ') J L City of Ashland Community Development 160 Helman Street 1:10 pm 7/6/2006 Year 2007, With Project RDK Engineering Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 33 ~~ HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Van Ness Ave & Helman St. Yr. 2007 With Project, P.M. Peak Hour 7/8/2006 ,J .. of +- "- ~ t I" \. ~ ..I --.. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ ~ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 10 90 7 7 120 29 6 33 10 16 42 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.88 0.50 0.75 0.90 0.78 0.63 0.54 0.50 0.80 0.72 0.50 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 102 14 9 133 37 10 61 20 20 58 10 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB1 NB 1 SB 1 . .'1 Volume Total (vph) 136 180 91 88 Volume Left (vph) 20 9 10 20 Volume Right (vph) 14 37 20 10 Hadj (s) 0.00 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.8 Degree Utilization, x 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.12 Capacity (veh/h) 753 771 714 697 Control Delay (s) 8.5 8.7 8.3 8.4 Approach Delay (s) 8.5 8.7 8.3 8.4 Approach LOS A A A A intersection Summary Delay 8.5 HCM Level of Service A, Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 RECEIVED C:tv r': J;~' ~r-~ ~~'ri COrr;tLun,'. ~~~';';'IO~rr1ent 160 Helman Street 5:50 pm 7/7/2006 Year 2007, With Project RDK Engineering Synchro 6 Light Report Page 1 ::; .... t:j -', ""\ "" l,.~ <...,,4 , ~(;( f!-t ~ " ') #- Z () ub - Cd b (<. i - ',i~ - (..~/ or;, RECE\VED JUL 0 6 2006 City of Asbland fJ /4 '-v (~ i ('Jj ~:1 ( 17' j iV ~ u j :..or./- /i t/ij ,Je ,,-^It ' \./ 1"--. /1'1 ,:Y I i, ~ I J ./ (,~ I 0 I) ,1'1 C (j 'lv1J,A1 J. (,Jf~ " .I ./ ;, ,,' -t ~-, ,,~/p J ,J f.., 'fWd .,.! ' ,/ t"A/'- ",/t '"", /7 oJ/. '/'A ~ ~,f'i'~:'i/'r-t'viC/./trn T':--v.. .. ~-' V L -''''c" " ( -r,rv;~, "" I' " {" f j ct / ~u, [rz;4~':J .J-;r. f~/) /~'(;~ /L.-e t1>~ lJ~ I /001,.t'M) '-f/'tV '0 .~of ( aJ..nrrH \~V;"'vCu:J '~"'1 J~ d LU4Ai" '4~ "'JJ d #,,' " ~ iU . J I Jj. i<U:;J~l"'\.f" 1";71.L~<:] I J,.., Iv(;~) tt-~'6.;.~"'''' -r..-h..,; l. ta/'yVQ - f "i 7 _j." . '4 ! .' II, 'l..,' " ~!AJOYj !;, t"'~....{ ';"'5/~v1:.~ Y"v.:t ..4ICu:0Y1-.(Y'J/:~CJ:'/'''(vr;t;..d/l q., u!~ iV"C7A,i-;l LA! it .' ":.tve (.'1/; ..)(Vtt~;'''''Vh..,t/i'Y'l (.-.-; , ...... ' ~..L,.f . J -fA"",..:;;' "')'1- ;" /' / r " / " 'rA tv /1 ... V v,j .-~..l,..A4 f../'t/h' 'f.ct~~Y" ( <..I', (:.V 1...,. ( ! ~ .. /' ., ~ ,-I 1 f- '/~" I.. ", ! "- _ _ //\.I./' " '..1 ,-- I l i,t!;YlfJ4L) 1/h.,A.. /{V4/{" ;:T(/~"~i,( /"';"Y/ TYj,K--.../.J I/Y(..jYv( ,..... ~ " ,:~u1/l..ttAJ.fJ ;rVut/h / '2 r, ~/! '- jl /(,0 '/-/e/?ma"''''''' I /1 1'1 I ~. '. Ii ~-.Li 1;-1/ "'Vz.~~ (f'Y1 ~t/w:JI/( ~<,,:..t.~ fA,..Wli/1 d ,II~~I ~ ~ (~( W~M""""~ r>-y ), "~"'wUe i/'V"""""':/ /"' . I. 'J i.fi,.-J.. .,; ~ ", , ':i:: " / ~. . ~ ,I , /..1/.'.-11,/\..{ -77~ .>'"J 7'r~' .'[,{/~/ -I'~_...1L1 ~(...d~t~ ,--,' ;;t ,f ' l'h ;' ,Yi .,.,;v I'> ^ ,) - fI- :'~ n I /.2/ f'tr...t ! ~:m...(/eUl"" .1: CI (/ (.(/v ,..........., t;, u::.e;t/, \ I i )Ju t,pt (u+ tj,J ~ 0--6' //e-0~ J U:;"1-'] ~ iildf- E+ t'2VyO, b y ;~- tl;-jJr/V.tp ~J4 ,',. J/1-U~ " -r "~ /\ f;;{~ ~ or --- .P' '7 (!../~1-4/C~.'J c~ I ~ 1/ ~ ...J ' d Au f ( -1-- # j /J1IvJJUYf IA ?l v~ CttvU Chv,;6JJ ai--~;)' tI.....~Lf;...1 )~. _1f,c/ f/~ . ""'~J, .;~i.\.<, /~Ai. J" iLV$'v<J ,t;A"vR ~ fZ-1JY"v! #/..-,....., (' '~yt'ftUti, j r.l" /':,: ~?'~-" '] .::ut ~ ' /.59 Wl''l"iY1 ; 7 / Ilr(',?wv~ /'{;u ,}vo...ij' ;'-'t~~ .: V(>'C~.JL) -Co vt1 v"JJi:;.~ v'J&~~ I j~-o I' ,J '" f' 7 //e'Ll/\Aatn i/) /J/ i..-trw!,f, v,/v'-..o-{ t.a , t....(..t...- J ..:..v~ ((J/ 1 J t : V~ ' 0A"n; ./ J -)3 .....; 1 ' l.e 1:F/V~,/ ,)VvV~, ?;~ (j ~D1"K/ f J ~ J(T)1N.. t'-/1-t~ ~ o.A':~~ :vf' /60 D ~ ~ ~ ~ ::/~ # ./Ci/',LO/ /~ / ~ :7. VI ~ ct j'{ay aif LpNJ1 vel Fr,(1t/!rno.-vs ~~ / C1 ~/(/~ . Arid, ~ -vtw /~~ twA ,,1 ~ Ot ~ ,,/&,O(/t~), i~t/~ faN~'~ WJ -~<[~~ /Jf~ #hr-J ~~'h v-U~1 /yvy;t/k! t;c> rl /J;;v~1 t:ki;f , ,,,L,/i, ,I, -..., -/ ".-{ --;/, () J I . :0 V("IJI .f~""~( /,.A/lz.---:; tl-l)-~ ,ry~ 0' i--C/'tJ'wV[/' -'" 'J. __ /1 I {,,(.( ,~L,4~~ ,01' &i ~ {;'i..--{' f-::?/Jt1.C'~.A"~ {Tlf flW'VY...' , / ,-- ' / . 1/ " 'V' (; ,,11 ." ,I '.: ~ ,,') "':J VZV'V~ i,:vvd ~ l,- ,;(,CV't....'l ~' ;~..~ I~' 1/ a 1/ /;n ~ I IIZcJx.4', 0?L~~ IV~ ~tk4 . '-&~ J'~1 IJ~ (>~~t71 w~ ~~~ )240 ~ ~ ~~ " II '\,' M\.I ~'~ w~ ~ ~/Je~ u~~ - I ~ . . / !<;V~ ~ /~ Cl ;Q/.".~j ~ti> .J-{ /J-Y'lvM-< f l.L." - ~ ---, I j .,I~ 1/'~ -'~ /~ !~ I ~ ,~~ V J~'t('{I1)J-V if.0'10~D/O Pttrz){/sr; 1,' J~~"-J t / . ~ At ~r ( ~ I) ':7 (A~A1/~ Q (~~it ~ Ci ~ t>f Uru.c ,~h P\0 ~ / /t~~ I . , \ (Y) f/'r'V'~ ,/n t::l4-1 ,f)tK/J/I;4~ ~vt.Uv~- ~'-i~ ~ ~ ~ trYlf~c/f in ~~I , , E-I tW~J r Ir ~ (~ .A..' (;-"\.1 * I ~ ~ /, _ '.4-"., . 'I' 'J ( ~,' i'~t-:'),/1 /l1rlr~ k1J""1 J L<VY\.oVt..Q C 'tIvt\ -oV'v~-'J . '~.v./ l/ ~ I'~~ C~ ~ .r"~~3::3 -t...rv ~ fJ'c'{ 'L ~ ~!J -f.:-.._ ........ -:f,../I A .~. ~ . .'"14FO. -":..k- 1/7 V~ " -. / ur~ # -:-.c ~ '~?'~ ._;~~. f/~ ?<~/JrwL/ {H /"~ It " j' , ;.,1 ( /h1-rv v:~ .,.~ / '" U ./YVV~ ' Jfw..t ;;"'/1 q rw'~ -tV .<>>"' &l / ;1 . 4 V~ ../.2~ ~wl t~"1 -rf-v;;' !~!~tu>:J h -f/tu,~ ,'~. ~ ~ ~ vf/~ -f1v -hM;,&, -I4,A- ~ ~ 5/; ..- ;:, ;r-y-; , :'" /> ..J -"-4.; ~ / LVI) ~V0_) ./~ ) .,-- G, I -; . p /1 -.::> / d /./ / ?~)</C'; b ) / ,.. '/:""'(::"-l~ a~~ f '\;~P- 3 ~.. IF _ ~ Planning Department CITY Of 51 WinbumWay,AshlandOR97520 ASHLAND 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 PLANNING APPLICATION File # fJ/l-,;God- - 00(,/ ;L Date Received 1-:- 1- 0 b Zoning C - / Type / Filing Fee $ 1 y 8 S. so Minor Land Partition Outline Plan (# Units) Zone Change Variance Final Plan Comp Plan Change Conditional Use Permit Site Review StatIPermit Boundary Line Annexation Solar Waiver Comp Plan Designation E rJ11/J1 n; h1~ rr+- I APPLICATION IS FOR: Application pertains to (chapter, section, subpart) of the Ashland Municipal Code. ..... APPLICANT E-Mail /,l\a,kec.t,'1(edJAW/t L L ~ ~ /l \--z:-_ . (for -wlingStatrReport) ,tIC. Name t/(,{, ~(~/bt.--( LLC "'JJ-trh1e..{ Vfl~Phone 1Jf~-cn-$C-. ~ 113-~SS3 Address f!.O /J"6()( Lt'fi: () City ,It(~d-lorLV( Zip 110'6/ PROPERTY OWNER Name ~ -A'J1~-r~d7 iJlr72-~~ Address 15 I ~~ Phone ~b(-3L5 L-g - . City A:su~~ Zip f:M).:D SUVEYO~ ENGINEE~ ARCmTECT. LANDSCAPE ARcmTECT Name /ribtk Me Lc~cIt;,)~~<L . Phone r'f'f J'/7~b Address (PDe g()Jc /i',/t,O CityH~tf~ Zip ??S'lJl DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address / " 0 !I~~~ Assessor's Map No. 39 IE otf CC Tax Lot(s) 7.../ DO On a separate sheet of paper, list any covenants, conditions or restrictions concerning use of the property or improvements contemplated, as well as yard set-back and area or height requirements that were placed on the property by subdivision tract developers. Give date said restrictions expire. OVER >> G:\comm-dev\pll1lninglForms 8< Handouts\Planning Application Fonn.doc d'f~ FINDINGS OF FACT Type your response to the appropriate zoning requirements on another sheet(s) of paper and enclose it with this form. Keep in mind your responses must be in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that SUDDortS it. I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced suffi~ient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings offact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and aSSlS e. 1/:;/0 h Date ' of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete n and its consequences to me as a property owner. ~ X D1/-1/66 NOTICE: Section 15.04.240 of the Ashland Municipal Code prohibits the occupancy of a building or a release of utilities prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Division AND the completion of all zoning requirements and conditions imposed by the Planning Commission UNLESS a satisfactory performance bond has been posted to ensure completion. VIOLATIONS may result in prosecution and/or disconnection of utilities. G:\comm-devlplanninglFonns &. HandoUlsIPlanning Application Form.doc 3# --vYl_' ' " I' 'f~ >(~~ f <lOb PII1,-I;ff;'rvJ o,(h'j)V :# Zu tJ' ~- uJ b I ( s'wJjecf fVT;fevly /6 ~ !";e/r'1/t~Y- RECEIVED JUL e i 2006 City of Ashland '. ~':' ., .11 .1.' . J/c;;,'_~ ..?J~ L/~rrl /~ it~, ~ I . 1; /~ t/11P.A ~ ~ ~ YvV) /~ (etktrH ~ /ur-~ W'~ I /~) -6/r-w ~"1 )~ d ~,f'~~ a/ 11-11 J' .1 {}..I , . I. ~"' ...L/. A JI , /:7~t.-~ /~ . ~ l~ ,tc:-Ct#'ia,/ V"'Lf' T~- -/.-.' /J ~ M /:;A..,~, A L ' I .\ j -,I..' /7 t.-'lAtJY1 4 v ~ ~r~ ujvYl/f ~ ,/l..RA/I~f 4-1.iZ-Clt ~ be "tD /~ c: /f~ cj ---twD ~.~__4' J,txA( '~ ,r#~ t'~ 'tlvt,f-- .~~~ I/~ #'~ ~ (~ .~ /2rt~ ~f' /~() J/~V11 liu~ (fri ~ ~ ~ d /I~, t<> q r~ rY/'J//~~ N~ '; -#toft t/) ~ ~ /~ '&tv( ~~ fn ;.-/ 4/fv..d" ~,51'?, v'" 61h (g&'~ y/~f; 'iAl iAPf a.;f- titJ ~ ~ /IWrha/n (I V4J ~ #vNf S+ ~ ~ y'~, 4t~ f1.,q-~~ ~t~ ~ .J:,.IJ /~ t<) tt ~ ~ ~ a'lA<7( ~ ~. JIv !I~ ".c;;~ h.,~ ~tz h ~ ~ LiZ1uJt ~ #tv /~, :l t/ ,f~~ tVf, 159 ~l /7/ M~ t:t~ /fWf ~ C'VC/tt/~ -to e1fI /~ f~' Jh ~. al ) ~~ )I~n 0 10 wu1-l WV1-<7( kJ :uu;1 ty -t::vvv ~ .1tivw *~ ~ ~~ Q fJlhlJ JO)'N. fi -t,~ ~ (/..;C;~~ ,p.;f, ,/ 6 0 ~ I~ ~ ~ !/'~ # /C;>"';.Lr)/ /'~ / ~ ::z- '-1 ~ ct ,/'{ay - ..J J j- , ' f " l J W! . ()? N 11 V C7T ;- Y I f f/' I'1-'?clI1/ S Ctrrurlll/VV<./l.A';vt_/' ./ 0 ~,f/~ '/frld. ~ -i/tw /~::V~ ~ 0 Ut ~ /~~~), i.~7 t/~ ,{j fcv1/~ "~ WJ _~/,~ ~ -/::vf~/ I~ ~~h l/-e/~1 /rra:W ttQ i/l. /-q::t/l/~! ~ , , ,~~A"i ,"." ~""')r ! J,m",., .,t~v-~ "y~ JY <.-t/"t1.,vir;l :'0 v. \JI' ,::-- ., () - _, V".... ~ t/~~; {vJrl.C'~~ -t ,L ~ J.#.-':; /; ,,(,r<.rr.'_'l >"l ;<..,-( I - ~~ ~ ' t/ () (,I #/ ;j~ t i/':c/-<-4 < ,,0U:,{;~ Vi~ /U/4 . t~ ~'(~1 IJ4.A~! (.l~~ ~vz)'f ~ ~fVl,hA..-!ifz..I +- / -;/~.l /, . -L . n fa c.:v '" - '".,.,.m. "V t'Atl/'~l41fJ'''V1 I'l...fv? (~ V(,"I ~,t./ Mv. I~ ~ o;~ f.~to ~ I) i'nr~:? L~':-7 I/;'~ Wt"'vv&i ./~~ 01 ..Q/~~ ./ ~~ ,C{ ,/)-y'l~ f I..L. .iT -..... Ii ./~ 1/11Aft'Y) 'i"~ I ~,~ I ('> i <I , ,'J CIA 0 I /) V .'-';0 ((fiC^( ,../0'. i.(O~ {) ;",t, y"'/')(/sr;, . . :71v t~ (,C /) ":) (:)~..~ ~ ~/J..--4~'U ~ 0 ~ sf tN:2to . ;j~1, ~<:; .;;V~ / /Li~~ I' ,-.J, , en ,/"/~ .'y., W1-? J,;eA!../.vv1~ JZVl.</v'VCvt';- '/ , ~ c,i~ f~ c:~ ~' kr'YLfJr:f/vt tIh ~~~I . _ 1::.-1 (J(Li1"11,__~~> fi 15 ~ I~ vl.- ev, . .J:;;". ...... " , ",' ;/ ' i.':Z{~ J"'~ ~~ ~ j' ~~' (,'(/vf, r;-:vt/vv\"r~-1 c.~fvvvJ tlVUv ,~>ttn~ {/J ~J ~ 3 t,L! l,-t.( r?1 ~ r/! (.1 ,[I U.rl ~rvC< v~ ~ "-,, (ft"J{ <L ~ ~b ur[.~, .-':' ~ ,://n.46 ,:;i/vK:// ~ --at;~ r~ ?0Yu/V !/--f /~1. " ) '() d t /h1rV vt~ ~ /~ /T{/~. ;J~ ~0 q ,~ ~b'() ..<..i:.1 ~ ~ , {/~ h;'~ d'~1 p'1 'i4~-V' !~:~:d ~ .,.' /l, ,j '. _ ~. ,/ ~ ""I- \f)A~ t7 --j " Vi/'I,A, /~ /YY~/A.V'T ~ ---''' f ~1.(j)f (/f/~ -r1v ~~ ~ 0v1L ~ 51; a~..L. /;'LC-// .!..41/'tL,-':} 6/1 J,r;-7 d /~)) /4-/~/l~~ ?-')2/Cb f flv~P- 3