october 10 2006 planning commission packet for pa 2006-00612 section 3.pdfdevelopment and...

OCTOBER 10 2006PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET

r Planning Department 51 Win Way Ashland Oregon 97520541 488 5305 Fax 541 552 2050 www ashland orus TTY 1 800 735 2900

CITY OF

ASHLANDPLANNING ACTION 2006 00612SUBJECT PROPERTY 160 Helman StreetOWNERAPPLICANT Siskiyou LLC James BatzerDESCRIPTION Request for a Site Review approval to construct a mixed use development comprised ofgeneraloffice space and six residential condominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St COMPREHENSIVE PLANDESIGNA TlON Employment District with Residential Overlay ZONING E 1 ASSESSOR S MAP 39 1E 04 CC TAXLOT 2100

NOTE The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on October 4 2006 7 00 PM in the CommunityDevelopment 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 CommunityDevelopment and Engineering Services building Siskiyou Room located at 51 Winburn WayASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OU 1 Ij 20th lO PM j i5nldnC VI pnter

T

YII

7 T

8i

1 SAJU

il I

I

I

f

PA 200600612160 HELMAN STSUaJl CTPROPERTY

L

jI

N

A o rL LL

Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before theASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER 1175 East Main Street AshlandOregon

The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this applicationeither 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 ofappeal 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 rightof appeal to LUBA on that criterion Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficientspecificity 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 beprovided 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 atreasonable cost if requested All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department Community Development and Engineering Services 51Winburn 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 rightto limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria Unless there is a continuance if a participant so requestsbefore the conclusion of the hearing the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearingIn compliance with the American with Disabilities Act if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting please contact the City Administrator s officeat 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 toensure 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 theAshland Planning Department 541 488 5305

G comm dev planning Notices Mailed 2001 2006 0061 10 100b do

SITE DESIGN AND USE STAPTARDS18 72 070 Criteria for Approval

The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an applicationA All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed developmentB All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be mete The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council forimplementation of this ChapterD That adequate capacity of City facilities for water sewer paved access to and through thedevelopment electricity urban storm drainage and adequate transportation can and will be provided toand through the subject property All improvements in the street right of way shall comply with theStreet Standards in Chapter 18 88 Performance Standards Options Ord 2655 1991 Ord 2836 56 1999

151O IoomIIHIevpIaDaiDglNoticos Mailed200612OO6 00612 1001006doc

0Tr

PA 2006 00612 39IE04CC 5100BAKER BARRYAMICHELLEA122 HELMAN STASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 2100BATZER JAMES HR ANDREW131 TERRACEASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 QQj12 391EQ4CC 2500D VIES RONALD L6795 R PP LN

TALENT OR 97540

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 1800FOLICK JOSHlBONNIE278 HELMAN STASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 39IE04CC 2200HADDAD JOANNE M

6795 RAPP LANETALENT OR 97540

PA 2006 00612 39IE04CC 2000KINNEY CHARLES RlMARY E

165 WATER STASHLAND OR 97520

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 1800

NEWHORIZONS WOODWORKS278 HELMAN STASHLAND OR 97520

PA2006 00612 39IE04CC 5200TALENT PROPERTIES LLC64 3RD STASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 39IE04CC 5300

WILSON DONALD A TRUSTEE ET AL

152 HELMAN ST

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 5100BAKER BARRYAMICHELLE A122 HELMAN ST

ASHLAND OR 97520

P 20Qj 00612 39lE04CC 1901

BATZER J MES H

131 TERR CE

ASHL ID OR 97520

PA200j 00612 391E04CC 7100R TZER J MES H ET AL

131 TERR CE STSHL lD OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 2600BROWN MICHAEL HlPHYLLIS R119 VANNESSASHLAND OR 97520

P 2QQ6 OOj12 391E04CC 5000

COMMUNITY HE LTHCENTER INC24j FOURTH ST

ASHL lD OR 97520RETURNED

PA 2006 00612 391 E04CC 2400DAVIES RONALD LARRY6795 RAPP LN

TALENT OR 97540

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 2300FOGELMAN LOREN173 HELMAN ST

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 39IE04CC 5500GRIFFITHS MICHAEL A

PO BOX 878ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 1401GRIMES DANIEUANGELA8152 HALL BLVD 152BEAVERTON OR 97008

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 1500

HAWKINS ROBERT R JR TRUSTEE1639 39TH AVB

SAN FRANCISCO CA 94122

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 1900HOBSON RONALD CLIFTONMARCIA102 PLEASANT VIEW

TALENT OR 97540

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 4700MACRORY ANN K TRUSTEE150 MYER CREEK RD

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 4600MYER LOU ANN

116 CENTRAL AVE

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 5600RUTLEDGE CRAIG E

PO BOX 878

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 4900SOMMERS ALANPHYLLIS NORRIS117 HELMAN ST

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA2006 00612 391E04CC 7200VAIL WESLEY D LUCINDA M

1425 PACIFIC AVE

SANTA ROSA CA 95404

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 4500

WILLSTATTER ALFRED TRUSTEEPOBOX 274

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391E04CC 4800WINTERS CHERYL ANN JEFF

131 HELMAN ST

ASHLAND OR 97520

PA 2006 00612 391 E04CC 1600

YOUNG BRIAN DMARGO S1351 NORTH VALLEY

ASHLAND OR 97520

P 2QQ6 00612 391E04CC 1901R TZER J MES H

131 TERR CE

SHLND OR 97520

P 200600612 391E04CC 7100R TZER JAMES H ET L

131 TERR CE ST

SHL ID OR 97520 rolJO IO otaw

I t

PA 2006 00612

GALBRAITH ASSOCIATES INC

318 SOUTH GRAPE STMEDFORD OR 97501

PA 2006 00612RDK ENGINEERING3350 GREEN ACRES DRIVE

CENTRAL POINT OR 97502

1 1

60 jjJ OIIO lJb

nJ

P6vm

CITY OF

ASHLANDASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING

MINUTESOCTOBER 10 2006

CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7 00 p m

Commissioners PresentMichael DawkinsOlena Black

Tom DimitreJohn StrombergPam MarshMelanie Mindlin

Mike MorrisAbsent MembersJohn Fields ChairDave Dotterrer

Council LiaisonKate Jackson Council Liaison does not attend

Planning Commission meetings in order to avoidconflict of interest

Staff PresentBill Molnar Interim Planning DirectorMaria Harris Senior PlannerSue Yates Executive Secretary

APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND FINDINGSMorris Marsh ms to approve the minutes ofthe September 12 2006 Planning Commission meeting Voice Vote Approved

StrombergMorris ms to approve the minutes ofthe August 22 2006 Study Session Voice Vote Approved

Approval ofFindings for PA2006 01294 There were no ex parte contacts declared MarshlDimitre ms to approve the

Findings for PA2006 01294 Park Street Apartments Voice Vote Approved

PUBLIC FORUMBRYAN HOLLEY 324 Liberty Street said as a Tree Commissioner he is concerned with the conditions ofapproval andmonitoring ofthose conditions along with applicants not adhering to the Tree Commission recommendations to the PlanningCommission He cited two recentexamples

Dawkins suggested Holley bring his remaining comments to the Study Session on October24 2006

ART BULLOCK 791 Glendower handed out Ex ParteIssues and Solutions Part 2 dated October 10 2006

MOLNAR introduced the new Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello

TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGPLANNING ACTION 2006 00612

REQUEST FOR A SITE REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED GENERAL OFFICESPACE AND SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 160 HELMAN STAPPLICANT SISKIYOU LLC JAMES BATZER

Site Visits and Ex Parte Contacts Mindlin had a site visit She drove into the parking area andnoticed the tightness ofthe area the steep grade and the high hill dominating the creek area Dawkins had a site visit and noted in particularthe setback and development pattern from North Main to Van Ness Black had a site visit and wasreminded oftheconsequences ofhaving industrial next to residential when she smelled the pungent fruit rotting odor coming from thedumpster She noted howmuch 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 Commissionhas some level ofdiscretionespecially in the Detailed Site Review Standards Staff feels it is important to balance a strong

ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSIONREGULAR MEETINGMINUTESOCTOBER 10 2006

1

I

III

commercial component because it is in the E l inventory and will target job creationin the future At the same time thereshould be a thoughtful and considerate building design and site layout to transition from the historic residential neighborhoodacross the street to this property The area on the east side ofHelman Street has been a light industrial area since thecommunity was established Staff believes the application meets mostofthe applicable approval criteria and design standards

Areas of Concern1 Finished ground floor level ofBuilding 2 comer building It appears the fInished floor level bottom floor appearsto be two feet below the sidewalk level at the intersection2 Setback ofthe comerbuilding 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 theneighborhood development pattern There is a historic district standard that applies to this project that speaks to maintaininghistoric 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 ofthe 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 TreeCommission did notobject to the tree removalpermit

The applicants propose to keep the existing parkrow width along Helman Street and widen the sidewalk to eight feet TheVanNess sidewalk is new and they propose to keep it in place

Ifthe 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 Everysite is different The applicant has considered the project all one building because it s attached by the above groundplazaThe ground floor is 65 percent ofthe project The Commission has to decide if they agree that it can be calculated that wayStaff 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 memofrom the City Attorney s office the Planning Commission has discretion The residential front yard setbacks up Helman on theopposite side ofthe 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 HEARINGMARK KNOX 320 E Main Street introduced two project architects and JimBatzer property owner They have been working on

this project since November 2004 The building is broken up into four buildings The comerbuilding was specifIcallydesigned to match the newer building across the street The intent was to create a gateway into the Railroad District Theyhave intentionally designed the building to be up near the street so pedestrians can see into the windows and people from thebuildings 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 tallestpoint ofthe building

The sidewalk up and down the street is proposed at eight feet while the remaining sidewalk up and down the street is fIve feetThe 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 thanthe building across the street on VanNess He agrees with Staff that the building works using either the 65 percent or50percent calculation

Knox said the property goes from 0 to 12 feet downhill They purposefully designed the comer building somewhere inbetween They were trying to achieve a reduced massheight by lowering the building a couple offeet He is sure they can liftthat building two feet up

With regard to vision clearance Knox believes there shouldbe enough room to put a planting strip along the curb andsidewalk This property has an excessive amount ofright ofway


2

l

JIM BATZER property owner 131 Terrace Street said he wants to create a Green building thus greatly reducing the energycosts

Dawkins said because we are bridging Residential with Employment it is important to maintain that visual green space feel allthe way downHelman

MARK MCKECHNIE MCKECHNIE ASSOCIATES 4406 San Juan Drive Medford OR 97501 said there is a four foot drop of thebuilding 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 isa main utility trunkand 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 bedone

ERIC NAVICKAS 363 Iowa noted that he is saddened there was no more effort to preserve the existing buildings and PyramidJuice as it was a real working class industrial part ofthe 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 ofproof is on the applicant to show it can be worked outboth 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 curbThere is no transition and it will adversely affect the view down the street He is also concerned about transportationspecifically bike transportation on both VanNess and Helman Tour buses park on Helman and it willbe made worsebecauseofthe added traffic from this development

Molnar said this is a classic infill project It is anunderdeveloped site in the midst ofa high value National Register historic

neighborhood Communities across the U S are now dealing with this type ofdevelopment or in other words theintensification ofland use and how to appropriately transition between uses Though Staff rarely disagrees with the HistoricCommission they do in this case Looking at thisproperty in the context ofthe whole neighborhood Staff feels one ofthe

contributing elements is the establishment of a curb planting strip sidewalk some sort ofplanting strip and then buildingfacade 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 ofthe 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 of50 percent or the 65 percent ratio They can raise the building on the VanNess side and that could reducethe ceiling height by a foot They can have a five foot sidewalk They can take a certain amount ofthe square footage and gointo a parking space McKechnie added that the building meets the 50 percent rule They wanted each piece ofthe building to

set back so it would reflect the neighborhood

COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND MOTIONBlackMorris 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 hasa 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 ofthe 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


3

1 4

historic neighborhood Along with this issue some ofthe Commissioners expressed concern over the bulk and scale ofthebuilding

Stromberg Black m s to extend the meeting to 10 30p m The motion was approved

Marsh said she would be willing if the applicant comes backwith pictures ofthe new grade to do some compromising withthe three foot setback on the Helman building She believes a strip oflandscaping is needed along the Building 2 fa9ade Shewould be willing to leave the building wall where it is with the sidewalk narrowed to five feet and three feet oflandscapingbetween Ifthe developer simply cannot move the building back three feet then she would be willing to go with three feet oflandscaping and a narrowersidewalk 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 daycontinuance of the 120 days

Marsh Dawkins m s to continue this action to the next possible meeting and askthe applicant to address issues of grade inrelation 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 becreated by pushing backthe fa ade at Building 2 The intent is that theymaintain 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 liketo be able to give the applicants clear direction Bya show ofhands 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 PlanningCommission meeting at 7 00 p m in the Council Chambers

TYPE III PLANNING ACTION

PLANNING ACTION 2006 01696PROPOSED LAND USE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TOTHE MULTI FAMILY ZONING DESIGNATIONS R 2AND R 3 ZONESSECTIONS 18 24 030J AND 18 28 030J THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS MODIFY THE CRITERIA OF APPROVAL FOR THEISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONVERSION OF EXISTING RENTAL UNITS INTO FOR PURCHASE UNITSCONDOMINIUM 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 THEAPPLICANT CHOOSES TO CONVERT ALL OF THE APARTMENTS INTO FOR PURCHASE HOUSING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCEWOULD MAINTAIN THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT 25 OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS BE DESIGNATED ASAFFORDABLE HOUSING A SEPARATE PROPOSED RESOLUTION WILL ALSO BE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW THAT WOULDESTABLISH TENANT RIGHTS FOR RESIDENTS FACING DISPLACEMENT DUE TO CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS FOLLOWINGTHE PUBLIC HEARING THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL FORWARD ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITYCOUNCIL FORCONSIDERATION WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE HEARING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND TENANT RIGHTSRESOLUTION IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AT www ashland or us OR CAN BE OBTAINED AT THE ASHLANDPLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 51 WINBURN WAYAPPLICANT CITY OF ASHLAND

STAFF REPORTGoldman summarized the proposed ordinance amendment and resolution pertaining to tenant s rights as outlined in the Staff

Report

BlackDimitrems 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 oftheStaff Report for theconversion of rental units and for purchased housing 18 24030 strike four or more in order to insure thatwhen rental units are converted at least25 percent are affordable


4

I

ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENTSTAFF REPORT

Addendum IIOctober 10 2006

PLANNING ACTION 200600612

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 20t6 with 120 day extension

ORDINANCE REFERENCE 18 40 E lEmployment District

18 61 Tree Preservation and Protection18 72 Site Design and Use Standards18 92 Off Street Parking

REQUEST Site Review approval for amixed use development comprised ofgeneral 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 ofApplication

The planning action waspreviously noticed and scheduled for public hearings at the July11 2006 August 8 2006 and September 12 2006 Planning Commission meetings Priorto each meeting the applicant postponed the review The application was reviewed bythe Historic Commission at the August 2 2006 and September 4 2006 meetings TheHistoric Commission recommendations are attached The Tree Commission alsoreviewed the application at the July 6 2006 and October 5 2006 meetings and thecomments are attached

B Description of Revised Proposal

In the interest ofconsolidating the staff report materials for the Planning Commissionreview this report repeats the description ofthe site and describes the latest revised

Planning Action 200600612Applicant Siskiyou LLC James Batzer

Ashland Planning Department Staff Report mh

Page 1 of 23

Ih

proposal This report is designed toaddress the current application materials and anyoutstanding issues As aresult it is not necessary for Planning Commissioners to reviewthe previous two staff reports if so desired Note The previous staffreports are attachedas background information but many ofthe issues have been resolved The original staffreport form July 11 2006 provides adescription ofthe site and original proposalAdditionally the addendum from August 8 2006 further refines issues

The project site is located on the east side ofHelman St between Central Ave andVanNess 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 ofthe Pyramid Juice

Company

The site is bounded bypublic rights ofway on three sides with Helman St to the westVanNess Ave to the north and apublic alley known to the south A day care facility islocated across the alley to the south residential units are located to the west across

Helman St amixed use commercial building is located to the north across VanNessAve and the SOS plumbing yard and office is located to the east ofthe site

The area to the north east and south ofthe site is also located in the E 1 zoning districtThe residential neighborhood directly across from the site on the west side ofHelman islocated in the R 3 High Density Multi Family district The site as well as the area to thewest is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District The residences directlyacross the street on the west side ofHelman from VanNess Ave to the alley were

constructed ranging from 1888 to 1947 and the four homes are listed as historiccontributing in the National Register ofHistoric Places nomination

The site is located in a transitional area involving several zoning districts with five zoningdistricts 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 R2 and R 3 to the west The E 1 district is centered around the railroad tracks with the

subject site being the western edge ofa larger employment that goes north to Hersey Steast 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 ofthe Railroad District begins on theeastern side ofWater St Finally the C l commercial zoning district begins south ofCentral Ave and transitions into the C 1 D downtown commercial zoning district atLithia Way

The site is 19 602 square feet or45 acres in size and consists oftwo parcels which are

proposed to be combined The site is trapezoidal in shape with the property line adjacentto Helman St being 200 feet in length The site has approximately 145 feet offrontageon the alley and approximately 52 feet offrontage on VanNess Ave The property slopesdownhill to the north towards VanNess Ave and to the east towards the SOS plumbingsite

Currently the building and equipment associated with the food production company are

located on the site The building is awarehouse that was constructed in 1948 and hasbeen used for industrial uses see attached National Register ofHistoric Places

Planning Action 200600612

Applicant Siskiyou LLC James BatzerAshland Planning Department Staff Report mh

Page 2 of23

Ib7

nomination description StaffExhibit B

1 Site Review Approval

The application involves the construction oftwo mixed use buildings referred toas Building 1 and Building 2 in the application materials The buildings are

connected by aplaza area which is 1 690 square feet in size The plaza is

approximately two feet above the sidewalk level on Helman Street and nine feetabove the parking lot level

Building 1 is the longer building which faces Helman St and Building 2 is thecorner building with an entrance facing the intersection ofHelman St andVanNess Ave

In total the development includes 16 054 square feet ofenclosed space including6 888 square feet ofgeneral office space six residential condominiums and fourenclosed 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 fourfeet on the north side ofthe alley to expand the alley width to 20 feet In additiona four foot wide sidewalk is proposed adjacent to the north side ofthe alley to

provide pedestrian access from the back ofthe site to the Helman Street sidewalkand front ofthe buildings The alleywould be paved and improved to citystandard from the intersection with Helman Street to the eastern site boundary

A total oftwenty 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 rearofBuilding 1 The application describesthe surface and under plaza spaces as common parking and the enclosed garagespaces as residential parking Three parking credits are used in the proposal forthe parking spaces available on the Helman St frontage The applicationdelineates 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 ofHelman St and VanNess Ave A

planting strip and sidewalk are in place adjacent to the Helman St frontageHowever the sidewalk is in disrepair and the street trees or described as damagedand 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 replacethe street trees The sidewalk on the VanNess Ave frontage is acurbsidesidewalk and is relatively new The proposal is to leave the VanNess Stsidewalk as it is However there is an area ofunused VanNess St right of waybetween the back ofthe existing sidewalk and the north property line The

proposal includes installing landscaping in the unused right of way area



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 sidewalkat the rear Building 1 and between the surface parking spaces and the east

property line The application includes aTree Protection and Removal Plan whichidentifies two trees on site and three trees are located in the planting strip on theHelman 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 amulti trunk Black Locust in the locationofthe proposed parking area In addition the plan identifies three trees near theeast property line and one tree near or in the alley and includes tree protectionmeasures 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 ofgeneral office space fourresidential condominiums and four enclosed garages Building 1 is 9 687 squarefeet in size and approximately 115 feet in length The building is mostly a two

story structure and includes asmall partial third story is located centrally in the

building

Building 2 is the comerbuilding which has the entrance oriented towards theintersection ofHelman St and VanNess Ave The building mixed use structure

including 4 247 square feet ofgeneral office space and two residentialcondominiums The building is 6 367 square feet in size and is a three storystructure The entrance is angled and oriented towards the intersection ofHelmanSt and VanNess Ave The second and third stories are cantilevered over thecomer entrance The third story is stepped back from the second story on thestreet elevations

Building 1 has more residential architectural components rather than commercialfeatures such as gabled roofs extended eaves horizontal siding and residentialdoors and windows The Helman St facade will incorporate awide variety ofmaterials including brick stucco corrugated galvanized metal siding corrugatedmetal awnings and a standing seam metal roof

Building 2 is commercial in character with storefront windows symmetricalarchitectural features and exterior materials abelly band dividing the first andsecond floors and acornice The exterior ofthe ground floor is ground faceblock 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 upgradesinclude



Page 4 of23

I

II Proiect Impact

Electrical service from a transformer located in the northeast comer ofthesite adjacent to VanNess Avenue

The proposed building is shown connecting to the existing water andsewer lines in Helman St

The storm drain line in VanNess Ave is delineated on the site plan butthe connection from the proposed development is not addressed

Paved vehicular access is provided from Helman St and the public alleylocated south ofthe 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 placebetween 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 thesite plan delineates the planting strip as four and ahalffeet in width

The existing curbside sidewalk on the VanNess St frontage will remain as

it is

The alley will be increased to20 feet in width and paved to the citystandards The application states that according to a recent survey ofthe

property to the south ofthe alley the telephone pole straddles the alley s

southern boundary The application says that the short wall and telephonepole 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 necessaryretaining if any completed by the applicants

The project requires Site Review approval since it involves the construction ofnew

buildings in the E l zoning district

The project is in the Detail Site Review Zone and therefore is subject to the Detail SiteReview 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 isin excess of 100 feet in length and the total project square footage exceeds 10 000 squarefeet Finally the project is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District andtherefore is subject to the Historic District Design Standards

In accordance with chapters 18 72 and 18 108 the application is required to be reviewedunder the Type II process with apublic hearing because the project is located in the


Applicant Siskiyou LLC James Batzer


Page 5 of 23

17D

Detail Site Review Zone and the size ofthe buildings is greater than 10 000 square feetin size and greater than 100 feet in length

Four issues related to the approval criteria are raised in this report that Staff believes needto be addressed before the Planning Commission makes adecision on the applicationThe four issues include the gross floor area ofnon residential uses finished ground floorlevel ofBuilding 2 Helman St fa ade line ofBuilding 2 and the vision clearance area

The issues ofStaff concern are in the subsections identified by small letters and bolditalic type such as a Gross Floor Area ofNon ResidentialPermitted or SpecialPermitted Uses

A Site Review

1 Requirements of the Employment Zoning District

The project proposes amix ofuses including general office space and housingunits Office uses are permitted use within the E 1 Employment District Theresidential units are aspecial permitted use in the E l zoning district

The E l zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property linesunless aparcel abuts a residential zoning district In this case the subject parcel is

entirely surrounding by properties with commercial zoning except to the westacross Helman St The zoning district division between the Employment E 1district and the Low Density Multi Family R 2 district is located at the center lineofHelman St As aresult standard setbacks from property lines are not required

The E 1 zoning district does not regulate the amount oflot coverage as in theresidential districts However the Site Design and Use Standards do include

landscaping requirements based on percentage ofcoverage ofthe square footageofthe site For the E 1 zoning district aminimum of 15 percent ofthe site is

required to be covered in landscaping The application includes a landscapingplan While the findings state that 16 ofthe site is proposed landscaping thesite plan delineates 15 ofthe site in landscape areas It appears several itemssuch as aheating and cooling unit and trash enclosure are located in the landscapeislands 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 beenadded requiring verification of landscape coverage and deduction ofnon

landscape items such as the trash enclosure

The tallest point on Building 1 being the ridgeline ofthe roof is the three storysection in the middle ofthe building at 29 feet in height The majority ofthe

building is two stories and height and the ridgeline ofthe gabled roofranges from23 feet to 27 feet in height Building 2 is 30 feet in height Both buildings fallbelow the maximum of40 feet in height for the E 1 zoning district

The proposed number ofmotor vehicle parking meets the requirements ofChapter



Page 6 of 23

I 7

18 92 The proposal is deficient by two bicycle parking spaces Five bicycleparking spaces are delineated with three spaces near the front entrance ofBuilding2 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 units5 and 6 in Building 2 The location ofthe additional parking spaces is of some

concern as it will potentially detract from the plaza or landscaping area Acondition 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 aTree Removal Permit for two trees on thesite including an eight inch diameter at breast height dbh Oregon White Oak inthe location ofthe building envelope for Building 2 and amulti trunk BlackLocust in the location ofthe proposed parking area The Tree Commission hadnot yet reviewed the Tree Protection and Removal Plan and request for aTreeRemoval Permit at the time ofwriting

a Gross Floor Area ofNon Residential Permitted or Special PermittedUses

The E 1 zoning district requires a minimum of65 ofthe total gross floorarea ofthe ground floor or at least 50 ofthe 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 ofthecombined ground floors ofBuilding 1 and Building 2 as anon residential

pe itted or special permitted use being general office space

For the purposes ofthe gross floor area calculation the application treats

the development as one structure The assertion is that the development isone structure because ofthe plaza connecting the buildings This approachis consistent with the definition ofastructure or building in the AshlandLand Use Ordinance in 18 08 750

SECTION 18 08 750 Structure or buildingThat which is built or constructed an edifice or building of any kind or anypiece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together insome 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 theyard requirements for the front yard and side yard abutting a public street

The application notes that Unit 1 the residential unit located on the groundfloor on the south end ofBuilding 1 is located adjacent to the alley to

provide a transition from the residential structures and less intensecommercial uses i e day care and traveler s accommodation to the southofthe alley It is also important to note that the second floor ofthe corner



Page 7 of 23

I 7L

building Building 2 includes an additional 1 908 square feet ofgeneraloffice space

2 Site Design and Use Standards

The project lies within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Skidmore AcademyHistoric District As aresult the application is subject to the Basic Site ReviewStandards for Commercial Development Detail Site Review StandardsAdditional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District DesignStandards

The Historic Commission reviewed the preliminary building design as part ofthe

pre application conference prior to submission ofthe application The HistoricCommission reviewed the previous version ofthe formal application at the

August 2 2006 meeting The Historic Commission had not reviewed the revised

application at the time ofwriting

While the City ofAshland has adopted relatively specific design standards theultimate determination ofthe proposal s compliance with the standards can still be

subjective Staff has identified two elements ofthe proposal where we have raisedconcern with building design and questioned whether the project meets the fullintent certain standards The discussion below outlines Staff s concerns

a Finished Ground Floor Level ofBuilding 2

The latest revision ofthe application shows the ground floor ofBuilding 2at the intersection ofHelman St and VanNess Ave as beingapproximately two feet below the sidewalk at the corner ofthe intersectionand three below the elevation ofthe sidewalk on Helman St According to

discussions with the applicant this change is aresult ofmore accurate

information about the grading ofthe site Additionally it appears the

ceiling height ofthe ground floorhas been increased from earlier versionsofthe application The elevations from the original application are

included for comparison labeled previous submittal

Staffbelieves the Planning Commission should consider the finishedground floor elevation ofBuilding 2 in relation to the public sidewalk inthe evaluation ofthe orientation to Helman St The applicable approvalstandards are listed below

II C 1 a Orientation and Scale Basic Site Review

1 Buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street rather thanthe parking area Building entrance shall be oriented toward the street andshall be accessed from a public sidewalk Public sidewalks shall beprovided adjacent to a public street along the street frontage

2 Buildings that are within 30 feet of the street shall have an entrance for



Page 8 of 23

173

Staffbelieves a landscape buffer situated between the Helman St sidewalkand Building 2 would create amore compatible transition from the lowprofile residences with front yards opposite ofthe project on Helman St tothe three story mixed use building at the comerofthe proposed projectWithout a landscape buffer the mass and scale ofthe new building mayfeel somewhat imposing and out ofbalance in relation to the rest ofthestreet corridor The final product should complement rather thanovershadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern ofhistoricbuildings

The following Detail Site Review and Historic District Design Standardsaddress the setback issue In addition section 18 72 100 gives the

Planning Commission the power to amend plans if they find it necessary tomeet the intent and purpose and the criteria for approval Specifically thissection allows the Planning Commission to Require such modifications in thelandscaping plan as will ensure proper screening and aesthetic appearance andRequire the modification of the placement of any new structures new accessory

uses parking and landscaping on the project site to buffer adjacent uses form thepossible 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 violatingthe existing setback pattern by placing new buildings in front or behind thehistoric fa de line

n C 3a 1

Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes thatrelate to human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or directionsheltering roofs a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces windows trees andsmall scale lighting

3 Adequacy of Public Facilities

a Vision Clearance

The northwest comerofthe first floor ofBuilding 2 is angled so that theground floor does not intrude into the vision clearance area in thenorthwest comer ofthe site The second and third stories are cantileveredover the vision clearance area and supported by two columns Theelevations show nine to ten feet from the finished grade to the bottom ofthe cantilevered portion ofthe second floor



Page 12 of 23

177

According to the attached December 9 2005 memo from the LegalDepartment the Planning Commission has the ability to interpret thevision clearance ordinance to allow abuilding design to cantilever thesecond and third floor as long as the cantilevered portion ofthe building is

greater than eight feet in height This is based on the intent that the visionclearance standards in 18 72 120 Cl which allows for trees to be in thevision clearance area as long as the canopies are above eight feet in heightThe memo also addresses the location ofsupport columns in the vision

clearance area See the attached memos dated December 9 2005 andNovember 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 forimplementation 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 beprovided to and through the subject property All improvements in the street right of way shallcomply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18 88 Performance Standards Options

The criteria forTree 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 tofall 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 applicantmust demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safetyhazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazardor danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning

2 The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard treepursuant to

AMC 18 61 084 Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit



Page 13 of 23

171TIT

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 beconsistent with other

applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards e g other applicableSite Design and Use Standards The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of thedevelopment 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 ofsurface 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 havebeen 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 bereduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone In making this determination theCity may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscapingdesigns that would lessen the impact on trees so long as the alternatives continue to complywith other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance

4 The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approvalpursuant 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 avariety ofdesign challenges including an oddly shaped parcelcross slopes close proximity to ahistoric residential neighborhood and location at theeastern edge ofthe light industrial zone It is important to note that the transition

between the residential neighborhood to the west ofHelman St and the light industrial to

the east ofHelman St is based on historic development patterns The area betweenHelman St and Ashland Creek has been used as a light industrial and industrial area sincethe establishment ofthe community

In Staffs opinion the project layout and design should maintain a strong commercial

component and should be apositive contribution to the area while utilizing considerateand thoughtful building design to transition from the existing historic residential

neighborhood on the west side ofHelman St to the existing employment development on

the east side ofHelman St Ideally the final product should complement rather than

overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern ofhistoric buildings

In Staffs opinion the proposed development largely addresses the requirements oftheBasic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development Detail Site ReviewStandards Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects and Historic District Design



Page 14 of 23

79

Standards Staff s main concerns are the finished floor elevation ofBuilding 2 and theHelman St fa ade line ofBuilding 2 Additionally the Planning Commission mustdecide if the approach used for the calculation ofthe gross floor area for non residentialuses and the interpretation ofthe vision clearance standard to allow cantilevering are

appropriate

At this point Staff recommends that the application be continued due to the issuesidentified with the finished floor elevation and Helman St fa ade line ofBuilding 2While the City ofAshland has adopted relatively specific design standards for the DetailSite Review Zone the ultimate determination by the Planning Commission oftheproposal s compliance with the site and building design standards can still be subjectiveThe Commission should carefully consider the recommendations ofthe Ashland Historicand Tree Commissions and provide clear direction to the applicant with respect to the

primary issues raised in this report

Staff has identified a list ofissues related to the approval criteria and design standards

applicable to the project The issues raised in the body ofthis report are summarized inthe list below

Gross Floor Area ofNon ResidentialPermitted or SpecialPermitted Uses

The subject proposal designates 66 ofthe combined ground floors ofBuilding 1and Building 2 as anon residential permitted or special permitted use beinggeneral office space The E l zoning district requires aminimum of65 ofthetotal gross floor area ofthe ground floor or at least 50 ofthe total lot area ifthere are multiple buildings to be used for permitted or special permitted uses

excluding residential uses For the purposes ofthe gross floor area calculationthe application treats the development as one structure The assertion is that the

development is one structure because ofthe plaza connecting the buildings

Finished GroundFloor Level ofBuilding 2

The latest revision ofthe application shows the ground floor ofBuilding 2 at theintersection ofHelman St and VanNess Ave as being approximately two feetbelow the sidewalk at the comer ofthe intersection and three below the elevationofthe 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 ofthe building to presentan interesting fa ade that is inviting to pedestrians and includes visual

permeability into display areas the building must be at the same level and visibleto pedestrians on the sidewalk

Ifthe Commission continues to be in agreement with this approach the finished

ground floor elevation ofthe front ofthe building would need to be raised to thesidewalk elevation An alternative would be for the Commission to accept a



Page 15 of 23

I Fie

certain amount ofelevation difference as reasonable Staff suggests theCommission request the applicant to address the feasibility ofconstructing thefinished floor ofBuilding 2 at ahigher elevation

Helman St Fafade Line ofBuilding 2

The Helman St falade ofBuilding 2 is located adjacent to the sidewalk Staffisconcerned that the placement ofBuilding 2 adjacent to the sidewalk is not

consistent with the development pattern in place on the Helman St corridor inthis area A review ofthe color aerial photograph shows a consistent greenlandscape area between buildings and the sidewalk on both sides ofthe 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 buildingat the comerofthe proposed project Without a landscape buffer the mass andscale ofthe new building may feel somewhat imposing and out ofbalance inrelation to the rest ofthe street corridor The final product should complementrather than overshadow the architectural fabric established by the pattern ofhistoric buildings

Vision Clearance

The northwest comerofthe first floor ofBuilding 2 is angled so that the groundfloor does not intrude into the vision clearance area in the northwest comer ofthesite 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 thefinished grade to the bottom ofthe cantilevered portion ofthe second floor

According to the attached December 9 2005 memo from the Legal Departmentthe Planning Commission has the ability to interpret the vision clearanceordinance to allow abuilding design to cantilever the second and third floor as

long as the cantilevered portion ofthe building is greater than eight feet in heightThis is based on the intent that the vision clearance standards in 18 72 120 C Iwhich allows for trees to be in the vision clearance area as long as the canopiesare above eight feet in height The memo also addresses the location ofsupportcolumns in the vision clearance area See the attached memos dated December 92005 and November 2 2005 from the Legal Department for further information

Should the Commission believe adequate information and facts are provided to approvethe project Staff recommends the following conditions

1 That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwisemodified here

2 That the engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalk along Helman



Page 16 of 23

I

St and VanNess Ave shall be submitted for review and approval ofthe Ashland

Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to submittal ofabuilding permit priorto 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 withthe use of structural soil if deemed appropriate by the Ashland Tree CommissionThe parkrow width on the Helman St frontage shall be maintained at six and a

halffeet in width as measured from the back ofthe curb to the sidewalk

3 That a public pedestrian easement or right of way dedication shall be granted for

any portion ofthe Helman St sidewalk that is on the subject site and outside ofthe existing street right of way

4 That a fire vault shall not be located in the pedestrian corridor including thesidewalk and planting strip

5 That the engineered construction drawings for the alley improvement shall besubmitted for review and approval ofthe Ashland Planning and EngineeringDivisions prior to submittal ofa building permit and prior to work in the alleyright ofway The drawings shall include an alley driving surface of20 feet inwidth and araised sidewalk a minimum offour feet in width adjacent to the southside ofthe alley

6 That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including loadcalculations and locations of all primary and secondary services includingtransformers cabinets and all other necessary equipment Additionally the placementof any portion ofthe 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 permitTransformers and cabinets shall not be located in landscaped arrears and shall belocated in areas least visible from streets while considering the access needs oftheElectric Department

7 That the required pedestrian scaled streetlight shall be installed along the Helman

St and VanNess Ave site frontages prior to issuance ofthe certificate of

occupancy The street lights shall be consist ofthe City ofAshland s commercial

streetlight standard and shall be included in the utility plan and engineeredconstruction 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 ofabuilding permitThe utility plan shall include the location ofconnections to all public facilities in and

adjacent to the development including the locations ofwater lines and meter sizessewer 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




Page 17 of 23

I l

changes in the line

10 That a grading plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permitsubmittals identifying areas ofcut and fill and retaining wall heights

11 That aminimum ofhalfofthe unenclosed parking spaces i e spaces not in garageson site shall be 9 x 18 feet in size in accordance with 18 92 070 A The back upspace for all parking spaces shall be aminimum of22 feet All parking dimensionsand 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 ofa

well used entrance in accordance with 18 92 040 13 The inverted u rack shall beused for the bicycle parking and shall be installed in accordance with design andrack standards in 18 92 0401 and J prior to the issuance ofthe certificate of

occupancy The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parkingspacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18 92 040 1

13 That the recommendations ofthe Historic Commission with final approval ofthe

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

buildingpermit 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 ofabuilding permit

15 That the requirements ofthe Ashland Fire Department including vehicular access

and fire hydrant requirements shall be satisfied prior to issuance ofacertificate of

occupancy

16 That the recommendations ofthe Ashland Tree Commission with final approvalofthe Staff Advisor shall be addressed prior to the issuance ofabuilding permitThe recommendations shall be included on arevised tree protection planlandscaping plan and final irrigation plan at the time ofsubmission ofbuildingpermit Landscaping and the irrigation system shall be installed in accordance

with the approved plans prior to issuance ofthe certificate ofoccupancy

17 That aVerification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland

Planning Division prior to site work building demolition andor storage of

materials The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification ofthe two trees

to be removed and the installation oftree 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 ofthe

two trees to be removed The trees shall be either aminimum 1 12 inch caliper



113


Page 18 of 23

deciduous tree or a tive six foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed inaccordance with 18 61 084 A

19 That the revised landscape plans shall submitted for review and approval oftheStaff Advisor with the building permit submittals Calculations by square footageshall be provided for landscape areas both individual and intotal Landscapingcoverage 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 unitsand trash enclosures The total site landscaping with the property boundaries shallbe aminimum 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 ofthe

structure shall intrude into apublic utility easement without approval by theAshland Engineering Division

21 That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the ground floor ofthe

comerbuilding i e Building 2 shall contain at least 20 percent ofthe wall area

facing the street in display areas windows or doorways in accordance with DetailSite Review standard II C 2a 3 Windows must allow views into working areas

or lobbies pedestrian entrances or display areas Building permit submittals shallinclude calculations oftotal square footage ofground floor wall area and total

square footage ofglazing

22 That the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the walls ofBuildings 1and 2 facing the plaza shall contain at least 20 percent ofthe 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 oftotal square footage ofground floor wall area and total

square footage ofglazing

23 That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from Helman St and

VanNess Ave Location and screening ofmechanical equipment shall be detailed

on the building permit submittals

24 That the windows shall notbe heavily tinted so as to prevent views from outside of

the building into the interior ofthe building

25 That the buildingmaterials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the buildingpermit submittals Bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with

Detail Site Review Zone standard II C 2f2

26 That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and

appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination ofsurroundingproperties



gfAshland Planning Department Staff Report mh

Page 19 of 23

27 That acomprehensive sign program in accordance with the requirements of

Chapter 18 96 shall be developed for the building and submitted for review andapproval with the building permit submittals That a sign permit shall be obtainedprior to installation ofnew signage Signage shall meet the requirements of

Chapter 18 96

28 That the front entrances adjacent to Helman St and VanNess Ave shall befunctional and open to the public during all business hours



1 5


Page 20 of 23

Staff Exhibit A

Zoning Map of Surrounding Area

Planning Action 2006 00612

Applicant Siskiyou LLCIJames BatzerAshland Planning Department Staff Report mh

Page 21 of 23I

Staff Exhibit B

Property Description from National Register of Historic Places Nomination

NPS Fonn 10 900A OMB Approval No 10240018 886

United States Department of the InteriorNational ParX Service

National Register of Historic PlacesContinuation Sheet

Section Number1 Page 1Q Skidmore Academy Historic District Ashland OR

extreme west The Henry and Alwilda Emery House retains subsuntial integrity and effectively relatesthe period ofsignificance

14 0

STANSBURV WAREHOUSE lU8c160 HELMAN ST 391Eo4CC 2100Other Utilitarian Historic ContributingThis industrial structure was apparently building shortJy after the property wu purchased by Phil andMarchial Stansbury in 1948 JCD 29 301 The original use is unclear but the property was loneoccupied by Pacific Northwest Bell who remained here as late as 97 The Stansbury s apparentlysold the property in 1976 and a succession of tenants including Nimbus Manufacturing a leather goodscompany King of Hearts Ice Cream and flnaIly Lenny s Pyramid Juice company have been located inthis building

The Stansbury Warehouse is one ofthe only remaining industrial uses in this area which once includedthe Bagley Canning Company and then the Newbry Packing House to the south The warehouseconsists of two simple gable volumes fonning an AM shaped roof Corrupted metal sidina multi lightwindows and the basic configuration remain successfully relating the original utilitarian character duringthe period ofsignificance



S 7


Page 22 of 23

11 I



Page 23 of 23I

Staff Exhibit c

I

CITY OF

ASHLAND

Memo DRAFTDATE

TO

FROM

RE

December 9 2005

Planning File not distributed to Planning CommissionMike Reeder Assistant City Attorney11 First Street Application of the Vision Clearance Standards ofALVO 1 8 72 120 C 1

NOTE This memorandum was drafted in response to the possibility that the applicant would ask thePlanning Commission to allow for a design of the building that would either cantilever the 2nd and 3rdfloors with or without a support column Since the applicant revised their application to conform to thevision clearance standard without cantilevering this memorandum was never distributed to theplanning commission and was discussed only at the stafflevel If the issue arises this memorandum

may be used as guidance byplanning staff In other words neither the Planning Commission nor theCity Council hasyet to interpret this ordinance to allow for cantilevering as discussed in this memo

The purpose ofthis 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 wasdetermined that the visionclearance standard impacted the proposed design In order to answer these two questions we must firstlook at the text ofthe ordinance which reads in relevant part

No obstructions greater than twoand one halffeet high nor any landscaping which will grow greaterthan two and one feet high with the exception of trees whose canopy heights are atall times greaterthan eightfeet may beplaced in a vision clearance area

Ouestion 1

May the proposed building be designed in such away as to cantilever the second and third story floorsabove the vision clearance area

Answer 1The 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 avision clearance area The

CITY OFASHLAND

Legal Department20 East Main StreetAshland OR 97520WWN ashland orus

Tel 5414885350Fax 541552 2092m 800735 2900

Michael W Franell City AttorneyMicheal M Reeder Assistant City AttorneySharlene P Stephens Legal AssistantClaims ManagerNancy Snow Legal Secretary

AI 90

dictionary definition for obstruction is a condition ofbeing clogged or blocked lThe intent ofthe

ordinance is clear to allow for sufficient vision for drivers entering and exiting from intersections andfor pedestrian safety The Planning Commission may find that allowing cantilevering above 8 feet doesnot conflictwith the intent ofthe ordinance The ordinance delineates that the vertical range ofvisionclearance that is tobe free from obstruction is from 2 1 2 and 8 feet because landscaping except fortrees must not grow above 2 feet and tree canopies must be above 8 feet in height A building thatcantilevers above 8 feet may be found to not be an obstruction because it does not clog orblock thevision ofadriver Therefore the Planning Commission has the authority to interpret the vision clearanceordinance toallow abuilding design to cantilever the second and third floor as long as the cantileveringit is greater than 8 feet high Although the Planning Commission may make such a reasonable

interpretation it is under no obligation todo so

Ouestion 2

May the proposed building be designed to allow a load bearing support column that is within the visionclearance area which supports the second and third floor ofthe building

Answer 2Ifthe Planning Commission decides that cantilevering is not allowed as discussed in Question andAnswer 1 the answer to Question 2 is almost certainly no

However ofthe Planning Commission decides that cantilevering is allowed it must then decide if andunder what circumstances a load bearing support column may be allowed

This is acloser question than cantilevering because a column will be present in the vertical range ofthevision clearance area the area between 2 Y2 feet and 8 feet in height Again the Planning Commissionmust look at the intent ofthe ordinance Would a column supporting the second and third floor ofthis

building clog or block the vision clearance of adriver negotiating the intersection Likely the

question turns on the particular dimensions ofthe column For example since the ordinance exemptstrees without regard to the tree trunk circumference it is reasonable to find that a support column is alsonot an obstruction as long as such support column dimensions are that ofa typical street tree trunk

Arguably the drafters ofthe ordinance determined that the dimensions ofastreet tree other than its

canopy height would not pose asignificant risk to pedestrian and vehicular safety Again the PlanningCommission is not obligated to make such adetermination However such adetermination would bereasonable and can be supported by the text and context ofthe ordinance

G legalReeder PLANNING ll FirstStreet ll First Street Vision Clearance Planning Staff Memo 12OS doc

IMerriam Webster s Collegiate Dictionary 803 lOth ed 1995

2CITY OF ASHLAND

LI9II Department20 East MailStreetAshland OR 97520wwwashland orus

Tel 5414885350Fax 541552 2092TTY 800735 2900

Michael W Franell City AttorneyMicheal M Reeder Assistant City AttorneySharlene P Stephens Legal AssistantClaims ManagerNancy Snow Legal Secretary

I

r

CITY OF

ASHLAND

MemoDATE

TO

FROM

RE

November 2 2005

Planning Commission

Mike Reeder Assistant City Attorney11 First Street PA 2005 01674 Reconsideration Vision Clearance Issue

This memorandum is toprovide the Planning Commission with guidance regarding the vision clearancestandard ofALVa 18 72 120 C 1

At the September 27 2005 Planning Commission meeting I erroneously stated that the PlanningCommission had the ability to interpret Section 18 n 120 C l toallow the vision clearance to bemeasured from the curb ofthe street to the alley rather than from the lot lines ofthe subject property

After further consideration it is clear that this is not an area for inte1lretation and that the ALVastandard for vision clearance means that we must measure from the intersection ofthe lot lines ratherthan from the curb

The relevant portion of Section 18 72 120 C l reads

The vision clearance area at the intersection oftwo streets is the triangleformed by a line connecting points 25

feetfrom the intersection ofproperty lines In the case ofan intersection involving an alley and astreet thetriangle is formed by a lineconnectingpoints tenfeet along the alley and 25feet along the streetEmphasisadded

The reason this ordinance is not open to interpretation is because there is no ambiguity in the standardVision clearance area is a clearly defined term

The definition of vision clearance area in Section 18 08 820 states

A triangular area on a lotat the intersection oftwo 2 streets or astreet and arailroad two 2 sides ofwhichare lot lines measured from the corner intersection ofthe lot linesfor adistance specified in these regulationsThe third side ofthe triangle is a lineacross the corner ofthe lotjoining the ends ofthe other two sides

Where the lot lines or intersections have rounded corners the lot lines will be extended in astraight line to a

pointofintersection

This definition for vision clearance is clear and unambiguous and therefore not open for interpretationThe definition clearly identifies the lot lines not curbs as the measuring point for vision clearancestandards

CITY OF ASHLAND

Lepl OepIrtment20 East Main StreetAshland OR 97520wwwashland orus

Tel 5414885350Fax 541552 2092TTY 8007352900

Michael W Franell City AtlDmeyMicheal M Reeder Assistant City AtlDmeySharlene P Stephens Legal AssistantIClaims ManagerNancy Snow Legal Seaetary

tl11

An argument wasmade that the vision clearance standard for Section 18 72 130 C l is ambiguous andcould be interpreted to mean that the measuring point could be taken from the curbs rather than theproperty lines If the code did not specifically define vision clearance area this argument may havevalidity However vision clearance area is specifically defined

Furthermore even if vision clearance area wasnot specifically defined the above argument fails Thelanguage ofthe 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 ofcurbs inthis 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 lotlines ofthe property

Section 18 08 060 defines alley as

A narrowBUJ twenty 20 feet or less in width through ablockprimarilyfor vehicular service access to theback or sideproperties otherwise abutting on anotherstreet Emphasis added

By definition an alley is a street

Section 18 08 670 defines street comprehensively and includes alleys

Apublic rightof wayfor roadway sidewalk and utility installation including the terms road highwayland place avenue BlkJ or other similar designations The entire width between the rightof way

lines ofevery way which providesforpublic use for thepurpose ofvehicular andpedestrian traffic Emphasisadded

The Planning Commission does not have the flexibility to interpret the vision clearance standard tobemeasured from curb to curb because alley street and vision clearance are all clearly definedterms

Therefore the vision clearance area standard for this application must be measured from the lot lines ofthe subject property

G legal ReederPLANNING 11 First Street Reconsideration PC Memo II05 doc

2CITY OFASHLAND

LIlIII epIrtment20 East Main StreetAshland OR 97520wwwashland orus

Tel 5414885350Fax 541552 2092TTY 800 735 2900

Michael W Franell City AttomeyMicheaf M Reeder Assistant City AttomeySharlene P Stephens Legal AssistantClaims ManagerNancy Snow Legal Seaetary

F113

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 ii I I

I I I I I cb UL

l

i I I i ilq

ki

1

L

m

8J

r

mC

Jlzg

0

3S

0m

lC

tI

ter

n fio i

E

DO DO

4

cg

t2S

I

TIl8

I

IU 001

If r lI

r dI

DI

0F

it en cor

II iII I

00

11111 ei

pP

IJ

tIm

z

Co

fJ

J

ii

aD

iR

a jg

2if

m

cC0

ll

en

Sz

dml

GO

O

FQolcn

8mg

0Jd

i5hl

Znl

e8

H

rD5

8t

8 0

Gl

NA

00

00

mm

mm

mm

m

00

mm

mm

00

w0

tow

CDcf

trf

ttt

sggc

CJl

Eln

g

6ri

filh

iQ

ffiel

mm

6l

nZ

B

iF

n0

em

z

ii

iw

Iz

mC

UI 0

9gJ

0 mJ

Sil

IIJ

Q2c

roon

z

cm

mrn

Cl

1Sjfil

tif

g

ill

161IO

mCJ

011

m

mrn

z0

T1

CC

II0

II11

Cl coCC

G5

rng

mZ

rne

n

tipl Z

0

piR

lol

iJiI

rns

s

9g

11101

z

I 800 i

f0

61

oe

n

1il

mU

leC

Z

f mii

X

mm

mO

nc

i Z c

N

a LJ

me

LJjA

Mix

ed

Use

Dev

elop

men

tF

or

00

4

Dol

oltvI

slONS

Sisk

iyou

LLC

Ma

rkM

cKe

chn

ieA

lA

Pnjo

dN

oP

roie

ctLoca

tion

4406

Sa

nJu

an

Drive

No

A1

16

0H

elm

an

be

twe

en

Van

Ash

lan

dO

rego

n9

75

20

Ness

and

Centr

al

ed

ford

Ore

gon

97

50

439

1E

140

LO

T2403

419

44

9886

TI

l

I I I I

2885

1

N63

4432

W11

750

2885

Alley

4tI

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 jI

f Ln

IN z

I I i I I IC

IC C C

II W

Lot

6

Ii r caI

0I L

ol

0 o C0

DT m

ni

D J

w

i

r

1InN

bt1

lllo

a

1A

Mix

ed

Use

Dev

elop

men

tF

or

Mark

McK

ech

nie

AlA

Sisk

iyou

LLC

4406

San

Juan

Drive

IR

EV

lSlf

Pro

iect

Lo

catio

n

Me

dfo

rdO

rego

n97504

pIo

dY

16

0H

elm

an

be

twe

en

Van

Ness

an

dC

en

tra

lA

shla

nd

Ore

gon

97

52

0

541

94

49

88

61I

nNbt

A2

391E

14D

LO

T2403

I b 3 lh s J ro b b ro

f tt l

OJ

00

ib C

oLIr

I

van

Nse

etr

est

2389

2885

I I I

0 0 z

432

5028

85

18

r U

e

o o o q

JJAl

ley

rn

Dnow

int11

10LJ

aA

Mix

ed

Use

Dev

elop

men

tF

or

Mark

McK

ech

nie

AlA

op

Sisk

iyou

LLC

4406

San

Juan

Drive

0R

Ev1

SI0

NP

roie

ctL

oca

tion

Me

dfo

rdO

rego

n97504

PtoI

odl

16

0H

elm

an

be

twe

en

Van

Ness

and

Ce

ntr

al

llnNb

ogA

3A

shla

nd

Ore

gon

97

52

0

541

94

49

88

6391E

14

0L

OT

2403

05

44GAN

6 PS

51LAV

QQ

U

Co

EQ

r

I3

2LAV

51Hl4FOL

Jn

0

J00

en f

f

PLANT KEY5YM BOTANICAL NAMEPS ACER PACIFIC Ml5ETGlR GIlJERaJ5 RUeRAZEL ZELKOVA 5 GREEN VA5E

COIIONNAIEPAC Ml5ET MAPLERED OAK

ZELKOVA

51ZE GlJAN

2 CAL 12 CAL 32 CAL I

LANDSCAPE NOTES

BR6 BERBERI5 R05Y 6IOrl

CAN IBERI5 5EMPERVlREN5CV CEANOTK15 VICTORIAE5C E5CALLONIA PINK PRINCE55LAV LAVANDlA llIDCOTE R05Y

6IortBARBERRYCANDYTUT

ElIU ElI055OME5CALLONIALAVENDER

LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS tEREBv RErrERED TO AS CJ4TRACTQR

26AL 4

I 6AL 665 6AL 10

26AL III 6AL 52

PlANTS SHALL BE GURANT ED rDR 60 DAys rRoJWNERS ACCEPTANCE EXCEPTIN 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 IOITlCUITlRAl

SlPPly 16 14 12 GARDEN GREEN rERTIJlZtR PRICR TO TilliNG

MR MAHONIA REPEN5 CREEPIN6 MAHONIA I 6ALNMR NANDINA MOfER5 RED MOYER5 NANDlNA 5 6AL

PIE PIERI5 JAPONICA ANDROHDA 2 6AL

POL PRlN5OTTOLUYKEN LUYKEN LAlftL 5 6ALR05 R05EMARIIlJ5 PR05TRA11JS CREEPIN6 R05EMARY I 6AL

RTS R05EMARIIlJ5 11JSCAN ElIu 11JSCAN R05EMARY 5 6AL

5P1 5PIRAEA A rlATERER 5PIRAEA 2 6AL

I2Q PLANT I 6AL KINNIcKINIc K3 ON CENTERItIERE INDICATED BY HATOl

ITE SEE IfXT SlEET FOR LOGATlOIlS aIfiOly T1lYItfIANTII5

e22

II

1015

2 5EE NEXT SlEET

13FOR LOCATION

HlRCH ALL PlANTERS VITH 3 LAYER or HllTttI DARK HlRTl BARK

1I sa

A

lfEII

Vrr

I

I nij r Evij V

li

0 f

A rL

GiA

JC lb i

loo1

L

a a l

l

I L4x

3GANiJNMR

I I 1 I Iu v n n n4 NMR

3 POlbP1 2GAN J

41o

Van Ness Street

I

I1 N

l

1

I

I

o

i

Wii

i

1

Dllld

tf1I

0 zJJJlllllliJlI i

17

c1f

i

iAt

l1

lP

s eet

CJtJ IJ

Y

I I1 0

F

II

5EE SlEET U02

FOR FWA IlETA1l

IfIANTII5

c

BACK FlLL PLANTS PEA IETAIL AND ADD AGRlrCRM rUTlLIZERTABLETS PER MANUFACTUERS R CDMENDATlIX

STAKE TREES AS REQUIRED REMOVE STAKING rl LDJING SECOND S A JI AFTR PLANTlfrKJ

APPLY SENTRY lCL2G PRt t RGENT t RBICIDE TD ALL PLANTERS UNDER IIJLCH LAYER

AlL TCPSOIL IS TO BE HILTON rCREST LOAH

ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TO MEn R EXCEED CURRENT DANSTANDARDS

CONTRACTOR IS TVERlrY SITE CJtD1TJONS AND MEASUREMENTS PRIlR TO BIDDING PROJECT

NOTIFY 1M or ANY DISCREPANCIES

OZELIIGAN

CONTRACTOR TO VERlrY QUANTITIES OF PANTlNCo MATRIAlS PRUR TO BIDDINQ PROJECTNDTlFY 1M or ANY DISCREPANCIES

GRADE AU PLANTERS 10 DRAIN AlAY rRCJ4 BuiLDINGS AT A ax MINIMUM SLIFEIN lRE ALL lANDSCAPE AREAS DRAIN TO SUITABLE lDCAlIlJIIS

SPREAD

13LAV rPVNT so THAT TOP rIROOTSAU IS J ABOVEFINISHED GRADE

NOTE

illDER6ROIW TlD

LINE IN THI5 AREA

l PLASnc OtAlNTREETIE LENGtHAS REQUIRED

HARDWOOD STAKES1 3 STAKES 2 x 2 r I

icin y ITO SACKflUNO R

STAKE ASO FlRST BRANCHESECESSARY FOR FIR

FORMI MULCH

SAUCER IX NA DYE SOIl

a TOPSOIL AClO ACiRIFCRI FERDUZER TASSPER NANlJFACTURERWAtER I TAMP ro

REWOJt AIR POOt 15

l

1NMROIpIE

ONCRETE WAlKCURB

B Ru TtP

EXTEND J BOTH OIRECUONS

FRQU CENTERUNE or TRUNK

NOTE

OISTAIONG AS RECMREO

5E5C TREE PLANTING WI ROOT CONTROL BARRIER

SCALE NOT TO SCAlE

o

POL

ifOOll SAlJCR ITH 0

rCllIHJXJS RIM

IoJ

lIEllalIlfSlL ifETIE

a NADsoo IItjjI Sl I MAlBOOII FERIQlZER 818181fABS PER IIANLfACIURER I a I El

SHRUB PLANTING DETAILno sed

1E5C4 BR6

l lGR

31oRNMR

I

OaROoJcV

L

J5LAV

SCALE 1 10LANDSGAfEnP An n n

7

HELMAN STREET MIXED USE MICHAEL J MINDERcg

SISKIYOU LLG O NER 6 LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL

131 TERRAGE www land5caredeSi1nbum 1m com

ASHLAND OREGON 541 7760409

l3i

cl3i

jU

IIi

lilrn

Ji1

j

j

oIII

eraOosC cn

CDJ

Onoocs

l1li0W

IlNilMI2

MIaIUIIII

1fIIQlIIIIIIIt

w

1fIIIRllY1II1IIff r

11 1QIttOrUIIIRClIClR GIC

r MUMlIllIIIlIfatoM

1M1 1UVliLWIfII

FLaJJ CAPACITY t CsR1

FLaJJ ACUTMENT CsR11

5

STONEViEAR FOUNTAINMODEL SADFA3018 5 T CCIIfECTklNS

ElY OTIolEI5J

SECTION A ANO 5CALE

@ rK M

o LEVELE DETAIL

STONE WEAR FOUNTAININSTALLATION GUIDE

NO 5CALE

Ian Nsee cireSi

Ib3OJ

J

bb

tII 1IIIClIPfINJeAYIILCIICiIDM SA1I1n1J

CMiIlIIW PIAwH1IGI5ILM

IllIMlI RlQ1WICIB1lIlIIIlIaCK 11IIlII NfIIDCQlCllIlfJ4tlIt11NDIIf

WlICIMOMlMuealWlNlIUVA ifillifato M

1M11A111t11L1al

IIIIrilIIACGaI Ie

AINOTES

BOl T eetIfS TO GOItRETE liTH 3ltlX 2 12 LA6 BOITS ilIaD5RlIBIMWIlIA T1LIItlIIIrAIIIGlIL IllIIlIMClIt

ftAYI1aBIlfA2WLIHIIDMYCMICINcrrYw

@

L102

INSTALL 314 POIER GOIQJIT FOR FONTAIHfLM lIS 1MLI6HTIH6

INSTALL 314 SGH 40fIC TER LIIf FROM IRRl6ATION SYSTEM MAIN FOR FaMAlN FLOAT FILL VALve

INSTALL 314 GOIQJIT TOPIANTER LcXATION FOR DRIP 1leIN6 INSTALL DRIP 1IRIUSH

BOTTOM OFFLANTER

PLAZA PLAN ALL a TRUl 1tlRK IS TO fIE DOlt Ell A LIGfNSED ELECTRJCAL CONTRACTOR

2

c HELMAN STREET MIXED USESISKIYOU LLC O NER131 TERRACEASHLAND OREGON

iI11

MICHAEL J MINDER Ig

IIt i

i m

cr LANDSCAPE DESIGNPROFESSIONAL

m Iwww landscaoedesianbumi11 com tI5

0541 776 0409

CD P15CH 80 NIPPLE ClOSE

@VVE BOX WITH COVER24 1NCH SIZE

10 TAG

0WATER PROOf CONNEcnoN01 2

@3Q 1NCH LtIOR LENGTH 01D

7 TOP 01 IIJLCH

8 P15CH 40 COUPItG

tP15CHllOtoPPLElENGTH AS REDU1RED

@ pvc SOt 40 ELL

@P15CH 80 NIPPLE 2 1NCHlENGTH HIllllEN NIlP15CH 40 ELL

2P15CH 40 TEE OR ELL

13 BRICK 01 4

14 JO INCH UINIIIUW DEPTH OfJ 4 1NCH WASHED GRAVEL

@P11IoINJl

@CllNTROI 20HE KIT BROIIOOEL XCl 07

@P1 5CH 80 UNION fORSOMCING ASSEMBlY

@P15CH 40 UAlE AlWTER

@

A hilJoliorl PVC main lne

t 12 wotIhed9CMl

NOTE1 sTALL 1WKf1CM PRtvtNTER AS REOURtD 8r lOCAI CClOES AND INTH

OEPARIuEN1 VERIFY lOCN REOUREYENTS PRlCR TO I6TAUATOt

DOUBLE CHECK VALVE

w PRES RED VLVNO SCALE

XERIGATION CONTROL ZONE KIT

fiNISH GRAOE TOP or MULCH

QUICK COUPLING VALVERAIN BIRO MODEL JlOt RC

VALVE aox WITH COVER6 INCH SIZE

PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE

lENGTH AS REQUIRED

J INCH MINIMUM DEPTH OfJ INCH WASHED GRAVEL

PVC CH 40 STREET ELL

8RICl I Of 2

PVC CH eo NIPPLELENGTH AS REQUIRED

PVC SCH 40 STREET ELL

PVC SCH 40 TEE OR ELL

PVC lIAlNLlNE PIPE

PVC SCH 40 ELL

2 2 REOWOOO STAKE wiSTAINLESS STEEL GEAAClAIotPS OR EOUIVALENT

NOTE SUPPORT StSTEN

1 fURNISH fiTTINGS AND PIPING NOMIIlAU Y SIZED 10ENTICAl TONOMINAL OUICK CQUPLlNG VALVE INLET SlZL

iiiQUICK COUPLING VALVE

SINGLE OuTlET EMmERRAIN BIRDXER1 BuG EMITTERS X8 10

1 u l JR6 1l

WC RW hfJAAEJ MUlCH LA ER

INSERT fiTTING RAIN BIRD1 4 INCH SELr PIERCINGSAAe CONNECTOR Slll02S

PE PIPE RAIN BIRDXtRI TU9E XT 050 200

BURY TUBE snow SOILLEVEL

NOTEL USE RAlN BIRD Bue GUN UOOEL EMA BG TO INSERT BARB CONNECTOR

DIRECTLY INTO XERI TuBE

EMITTER INTO 1 4 TUBING

181181181 DRIP EMITTER SCHEDULE

ALL DRIP EMITTERS ARE TO BE PRESSURE COMPENSATINGRAINBIRD XB SERIES DR EQUALtij

I GAL GROUNDCOVER ONE 12 GPH EMITTER

I GAL SHRUB

2 3 GAL SHRUB

ONE 1 GPH EMITTER

oII1

0o

tJt000 en1 1

tJ 0

oc13

r

TIoIO 1 GPH EMITTER

5 GAL SHRUB THREE 1 GPH EMITTER

TIJO 2 GPH EMITTERSTREES

ltt

IRRIGATION PLAN

i 1t

Oim

HELMAN STREET MIXED USESISKIYOU LLG O NER131 TERRAGEASHLAND OREGON

LSiPlI

LSiPlI

iiIJ

S l l

ltf

L103

d1

b 1 J

t 01 jr J 1 I r

9 2 tjt

i Bt

m

O

9I

8

if1L

l

0

0

hir

j1

PT

I1

tLL

1

Jf

Ll

11

JII

1 p I j

I

10 c LA

I cr

@ @ 9i

m 80

9 8

Ifft

qCmt

JcL

cl1

711

lIv

iIi

tT

mCJ J

l r cJ 11

J

I Ii

T

Il

I tt

Ic fF

jI

I

ii

It

T I1

o 1 CO ao D

o

kOSw c

or Q

5

I I

0l

mrJJ

il

T a

@ 11 qR

o

9 8

0

8 011

I@ R

o

9 8

IF Ill IH

r 1 1v

I1

Vf

1

if Ji

I J 0 I r c I

I

Ifif

F1 7

J

1 I

rj

10 1

h1

iIi

1fj

1iI

PIL

QlI

Q L1

h l1J

I pi

I

Ill LP

il0

L

L1i

J

e Gp

fC1

Z1

Jl

1lr

VI

i

41 7 1

l IE IP

rJ

rA

Mix

ed

Use

Dev

elop

men

tFor

Ma

rkM

cK

ech

nie

AlA

Jl

l5

Sis

kiyo

uLL

C4406

San

Ju

an

Drive

AR

CH

IT

EC

TR

Pro

ject

Location

Medfo

rdO

rego

n9

75

01

No

160

Helm

an

be

twe

en

Va

nN

ess

and

Centr

al

54

11

94

2021A

sh

lan

dO

rego

n97520

541

944

98

86

111

EM

lnst

SlJ

lte

14

Mocltorc

iO

RQrS0

4N

e

A4

39

1E

140

LO

T2403

I 1 i5 l f

li

r

iI l f lIII

tt

l L

Itt 1 toS

3 J r i4 J

sl

C

I D

1

1 it 0

jI

Iiv

1v

rL

rli

Jd r

Rz1

10 r

I lrOH

iI

001

l 11 11

I t

j

20

tI liD

i

220

1i

7

II

jJrrI

51lI

Ji1

1 IC

I

fieI I I

iI

to1

61 LI

II

I1

I

1 il 1

IS2

II

riP 10 Co

I

I

r STIJr I ISIZF CctJZE

1

1

STDiJJICSTEfLCHIMiJE FLu

BpcK I ED

L sTJ JeoF

oillt1 SlDjLEFf2aJ r0j2eCct I1EeDAL EWTrueJ

I10CC oJ S1OELlqtT

I

L cEilllt L BJ1J2IIz

S1ttlc ItJoJS1KI6LTILE iJ s 1Ii ltDT EUGK

tE lb 1 L

MIII Ld

II11

IIc ME1b LCCfifJCj oJERf4GK

Trt 11lC floZ

Sl 2ltJC SEtl1 1EToLiZ6r y

gp10 p

SECONO FI ilI

III

11 1Ii IiIII

I

f2Llt 1ED c4LU

MqL lZ0T LDi J

PES CEIh L iZ r

UtJlT 2

I II

t 1MEj2CI6J EftTi2

lr t1tN EfJTe I1 ResI ufitT 4

rl I FLD

I I

c PP q T C ClJEQPETbliJlhlc yALL

Tu rltJl rjv

I

SRfSrc rJ

ot1CD

QCO roSJOW

CD1

D00o

JJmJn

D l1J1@l1ll lDJ

0

4

TIll a i A Mixed Use Development For

Mark McKechnie AlAb Siskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan DriveREVISIONS

Project Location

Medford Oregon 97501HI 160 Helman between Van Ness and Central

ASAshland Oregon 97520

541 944 988639 1E 140 LOT 2403

1 Jr Jq 11E Tb I f2cf

STJc o

eo F 1 i r C

l lf

t

IIilKJ 11

lLJ

I

J

tL

4l

SlrWc1Ji DTeeLvNI C

r ri I 51JuoI j

Eo 1 E HI Jcr i t UWr 1

jHElIj i lITIt tI j II

i i1

r cf

tI Qm

I III 1

8t 1 11

ii i liI 1 Ii I l

I

11r lIni IH ri liII If L i 1 iliI I I i il

t t I trJ i 1 ilj I I i1

j il

0 1t iFtlJ iJ

J II oJ Ir Cli

I 6 I1 CJiv I I

1 II I I j

r

EL S I I I1 f FC JJ

SI CEv6lJ tj IJ 0a j d IIflc L EL I

I

a 11 0

c JcpelcPLp p

cec4 oW TJclJi2STEEL oJEF Huct2f I dJ

j

f

i

1 1

efdi Jr F oc i

ttCfZrzoIJT6L 6DI 1 b Jl2it

o IEnce Uft@illl 0 JF

Ft1 lI2ELu S r Rl E K J1 1

StI 111itj

r cK

Joer1EELU

I

i

1i

F1 T

J t

Ii

coe2Jc bTto 11 ElbLi f vtJlJc

1

ri

Wi

o

r

I

ir rf j t

1i

t iI

j IL i I fltlFL K

If

n tI

i

Ll iLI

a

C1

Ev AUtL 0

r l6lb i

0

f

F1 b

L i tC tl r o

J reP SL 3 0

Pp2 blt Ji IlJ 1

1 rcs

ctloJrJ FDG2

RECEIVED

o JEllcewmlUiiC01illl 0 IP ocr 4

City of Ashland

Community Developmd

DnwIng 1110 A Mixed Use Development For

Mark McKechnie AlASiskiyou LLC 4406 San Juan DriveREVISIONS

Project Location

Medford Oregon 97501Inojod No 160 Helman between Van Ness and Central

DnwIng No

A6Ashland Oregon 97520

541 944 988639 1 E 140 LOT 2403

I 13 o 13 n 13 o o

lI 111

if z I i 11

1

11 II iiI f 111

Z I

il1

II1

Iii

lJliJfj

IIIJ

l

glliJt

IIIi

I

Ii

00

GL fW i H

xa

I Ii ill

c0

aa

gH

Il

H OJ

o is

G m z o

1gOIun

OOIt

aO

Gm

P

I1fii

ii

oo

O1

riJ

r

3soox

aa

0

ii

lH

r

lliM

gtt

il

HU

hh

if

fll

Hi

shrll

o2

Igi

iggl

dg

CI

pi

oi

3ag

o

iai

igi

ii

83

all

i1g

11

1

iii

Il

ii

iig

gg

ggalCli

o

iiif

Iii

o

ia1f

G

iifi

ilr

5

ctlot

I1Ji

iCl

tH

lfo

gl

gg

31

2a03

OJs

f

iii

li

inF

iga

igliif

5ls

Jloeo9

aQ

gI

ii

iU0

0

tg

liN

iZ

fg

ge

af5lcr

ifi

na

lgtili

a1

0Ii

gill

iilI

li5

gil

gg

5C

1Q

3g

lti

fii

i1g

igl

Lo

ae

gS

gli

iifi

ig

si

g0

ill0

g1

gR

iO

0

lt

li

flf

8a

IJg

gil

ii1

5ii

io

ia

Iil

la

aC

lig

Wi

al

Kiiii

fa

00

C1

g

ig

iiig

iliJ

gIl

i3a

J2

ai

GP

lg

gC

Ig

li

ISi

fliJ

tilf

iJ

gi

il

Ngn

iil

lt

irl

lit

a

fg

fJ

ga

Sog

gi

gil

033

emlI HIO

l

Iii

1B

jill

gi

oil

ii

Iig

gi

i0

2oa

3o

ggg

g0

ii

aIS

199

g1

oo

2Q

ill

aa

el

iloa

3s

ga

ia

ji

igo

iii

gih

so

0

fi

o

fo

03

330

aa

IDo

dcJ

ih

i3

ig

iioS

l1

90

og

ao

sJ

go

ifl

Si

lfQ

Q

H02g

iii

iH

Hil

ii

0

ii

gi

fo

ia

ili

go

0

iHii

20

ai

8f

ga

3I

23

3o

0

1S

3i

il

K3

ii0

iH

gi

iIi

jil

j3

aiti

0

ifI

iifl Ii

f

Ce

L2

N1I

m Z m Z f o u

gg

ff

H2222

tj2

33

33

0

ifit

GJo

omo

uuu

0

fti3

iifi

XX

gg

gf

f8

z

sr

o0

0i m

iqCI

Ji

q

0 00

0 0 l o Z N o ili

I I I v

GlGl

Ioo

oglJ

m

8i

itgg

oa

gJ

Kg

la

Lr

00

Jg

3I

3t

2g

gu

ifti

aIt

g3

lo

Iii

ii

20 lfglf

G

a a I

lt0 rf

lt a

r2

z lIJ

0t3

It3

11

00

Ulll

Ill

UIll

00

piii

Hl

aa

on

z o z

IIt

1Z S

C1

00

no

qli

5O

@0

Jr

pz

U1

cr

iI

i0

75 zJ

gs

8t

1C

TE

Ytt

it 0 r r l J

j o c F

j

g r

I

QO

O

j

III

Go

3r

n3

c3

cm

ag

1r

mo8

ag

03

0C

D

Qr

z ftJt z

t f j o J

III

2q

0

II

00

J F C4

Jl9

D3

c

r

3Q

Gm

tft5

0

r

9m

tI

0N

11l

miii

0

fo

a i

to

c 1i

jjJ d

V 1 f f

tJ J F o v I r f

l

cf

Z0

CoI

J oJV rr 1

S0

J

I

3

C f f

lI

26

CJ

0

19 gI

1lp

r

n m o m m o

o LI

ml

07

Jl

tliiJ

cJyL

I

htr

F7b L

Y

ITI

en 6

s I

1 Y l L

tc L

tfl ill It v

cv

y

CY

IA

II

20

r9

Lll

420

JnI

10

tI11

tllrub

II

II

JIi

I1

IIHf

I

Im

1 llllm

IL

iIq

f

IK

L Ii

il

ITe

Ij

l

1i

I

1II

1I

IIPRDJ c

A1

j

TI

g bjl

nI

illi

TIh

RtlP

il

w

f1

rII

1111

LtT

1N

our

i

1I

cU

HT

1

1fRli

tttu

ftI

r1fFi1iIIU

dII

iJIblt

iO

l

1

IIL

l71

1I

or

rI

11IIImI

1Iii

t

rJ

illI

IiB

II

1I

I

Wl

IILh

I

l

II i

L9

n

iIf

6oE

jf

TV

0t2

3

JJI7

IIv

fc

rf

T

0P

rE

Jr

1

tL

nt

F

L f

Ft

IIT

Jtt

di

L

i

1j i it

I 1E 7

rn0 n

lf

a0 m

Ill

sa

m

30

1 a

7J

fr oJ 7J 2 L a W

C

lU

l1l G

1

@ q

Bfa @

f ITr IIIII

WI lil

1I

I7

Ii

@ @ 9 J rn Bfa @

I Iii

J7

l1j i

i

III i

1

0

gD

DJ

m

gN

0 mi

0

lm

tC

0

@ q

l 9 S

r

rri

Jr

g lf4

H i1

IJ J J U

UT

Ixu

eEl

ic

jJ

t

rc

i rl

JfJ

IIJ

I1Ifj

J0

ii

ILJI

II

IJJ

I

1j

I

Ird

c

fIi

I10

ii

iI

j 3JjII

I

lbG J1 3Ji

r1

IIItJI

II

IIi

tlTiIP

IUIIIJI ji

D11

LLJI

1

llLIe

J

J

If

r

rI

11f

JI

LJ

Ie

I

t

r

t

A G

j J f I Il

c

I IlJ

11

EJLJ

UlliC

Ol

iI

III

c

1t

4J

Ilgl21

2Jj

re

Jr

Ill

fj

8 @ rQ hi

rn Bfa

9 S

l cI

JJ1J

Ic

Q1F

FI41

Ji

14tr

1

1lfljJ

jii

LIIJJiJu

JJI

1i

r IlTI

fTI

jltUj

I

tI

IJJ

lf

Ie

RI

lJJ

Jw

jI0

I1

IJffi3

11i

5i

1

I I i

I t

Cb

Dro

win

gTifl

rA

Mix

ed

Use

Dev

elop

men

tF

or

McK

ech

nie

Ass

oci

ate

sS

iski

you

LLC

4406

Sa

nJuan

Drive

Do

teR

EV

SIO

NS

Pro

ject

Lo

ca

tio

n

Medfo

rdO

rego

n97501

ProJe

cIM

o160

Helm

an

be

twe

en

Van

Ness

an

dC

en

tra

lA

shla

nd

Ore

gon

97520

54

19

44

9886

Draw

fng

No

A3

39

1E

14

DLO

T24

03

ir

j Ii if II r 1 1 n

J

q

d j

fII L t

i rI

i II II I f 11 I t q it I I II l f

j

I t V

I I

9 3 39 5 e

OJ

CDCl 2

CD

III

ga

3 1 a

c QIJ m o m m o

I r J

CITY OF

ASHLANDHISTORIC 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 residentialcondominiums for the property located at 160 Helman St COMPREHENSIVE PLANDESIGNATION Employment District W Residential Overlay ZONING E 1ASSESSOR 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 designrecommendations

Building 2

o Corner entry feature needs more emphasis strengthen vertical emphasisThe strong horizontal bands of the building on both street elevations needto be broken up

o Make the Helman Van Ness corner entrance more prominent addingcanopy 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 includingthe 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 HistoricCommission for approval prior to submitting for the Building Permit

Community Development20 E Main StreetAshland Oregon 97520www ashland orus

Tel 541 488 5305Fax 541 488 6006

TTY 800 735 2900

j j

ASHLAND TREE COMMISSIONPLANNING 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 aSite Review approval to construct a

mixed use development comprised general office space and six residential condominiumsfor the property located at 160 Helman St COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION

Employment District WResidential Overlay ZONING E l ASSESSOR S MAP 39IE 04 CC TAX LOT 2100APPLICANT Siskiyou LLC James Batzer

Recommendation

1 Tree Commission recommends that a certified arborist be on site for the pruningof 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 62006

Follow up

2

Harris PhotoslSiie Visits Pa 1 j

From

To

Date

Subject

Derek SeversonMaria Harris

10 5 2006 1 35 23 PM

Photos Site Visits

BANK OF AMERICABONSAI TERIYAKI

The difference here between the finished floor levels and the sidewalk on Ashland Street is 5 feetAt theupper Bonsai Teriyaki end there is a stairway and I measured from the ground level to the sidewalk atexactly 60 on the lower Bank ofAmerica end there is a stairway at the corner which comes down 42 toaplaza and the plaza sits 16 above the floor level

PLAZA INN SUITESOn the Helman side there is a 5 foot sidewalk and a 5 foot parkrow The distance from the sidewalk edgeto the building varies from 16 near the intersection to 12 where the building has a bump out in it to 13 atthe end nearest the courtyard

On the Central side the sidewalk is also 5 feet but the parkrow is 85 feet and the landscape strip widthfrom 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

october 10 2006 planning commission packet for pa 2006-00612 section 3.pdfdevelopment and...

Documents