Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIowa_1163_PA-2014-00734 iY. f CITY F ASHLAND July 9, 2014 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has approved the request for the following: Planning Action: #2014-00734 Subject Property: 1163 Iowa Street Applicant: Ayala Properties, LLC Description: A request for Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot multi-family developments for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six- inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39.1E 10 CB; TAX LOT: 5500. The Planning Commission's decision becomes final and is effective on the 13th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid fora period of 1 year and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. i The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Ashland City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to the effective date of the decision and with the required fee ($325), in accordance with Chapter 18.108.110(A) of the Ashland Municipal Code. The appeal shall be limited to the criteria listed in Chapter 18.108.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which is also attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Amy Gunter in the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc: Owner, Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 I \ Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 l www.ashland.or.us ' C i SECTION 18.108.110 Appeal to Council. A. Appeals of Type 11 decisions shall be initiated by a notice of appeal filed with the City Administrator. The standard Appeal Fee shall be required as part of the notice. All the appeal requirements of Section 18.108.110, including the appeal fee, must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the city as jurisdictionally defective and will not be heard or considered. 1. The appeal shall be filed prior to the effective date of the decision of the Commission. 2. The notice shall include the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement as to how the appellant qualifies as a party, the date of the decision being appealed, and a clear and distinct identification of the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on identified applicable criteria or procedural irregularity. 3. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place to consider the appeal by the Council shall be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the meeting. 4. A. Except upon the election to re-open the record as set forth in subparagraph 4.13, below, the review of a decision of the Planning Commission by the City Council shall be confined to the record of the proceeding before the Planning Commission. The record shall consist of the application and all materials submitted with it; documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open; recorded testimony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Planning Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. B. The Council may reopen the record and consider new evidence on a limited basis, if such a request to reopen the record is made to the City Administrator together with the filing of the notice of appeal and the City Administrator determines prior to the City Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated: a. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the requesting party, that prejudiced the requesting party's substantial rights and that reopening the record before the Council is the only means of correcting the error; or b. That a factual error occurred before the Planning Commission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision; or c. That new evidence material to the decision on appeal exists which was unavailable, through no fault of the requesting party, when the record of the proceeding was open, and during the period when the requesting party could have requested reconsideration. A requesting party may only qualify for this exception if he or she demonstrates that the new evidence is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. This exception shall be strictly construed by the Council in order to ensure that only relevant evidence and testimony is submitted to the hearing body. Re-opening the record for purposes of this section means the submission of additional written testimony and evidence, not oral testimony or presentation of evidence before the City Council. C. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be limited to ten (10) minutes for the applicant, ten (10) for the appellant, if different, and three (3) minutes for any other Party who participated below. A party shall not be permitted oral argument if written arguments have not been timely submitted. Written arguments shall be submitted no less than ten (10) days prior to the Council consideration of the appeal. Written and oral arguments on the appeal shall be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the Notice of Appeal; similarly, oral argument shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us I D. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the City Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its review to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Planning Commission, or to determining if errors in law were committed by the Commission. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues clearly and distinctly set forth in the notice of appeal. No issue may be raised on appeal to the Council that was not raised before the Planning Commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. E. The Council may affirm, reverse, modify or remand the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all parties participating in the appeal. Upon recommendation of the Administrator, the Council may elect to summarily remand the matter to the Planning Commission. If the City Council elects to remand a decision to the Planning Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Planning Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to Section 18.108.070.B.5. F. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Parties" shall be defined as the following: 1. The applicant. 2. Persons who participated in the public hearing, either orally or in writing. Failure to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes the right of appeal to the Council. 3. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541A88-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 \ www.ashland.or.us [ ~ BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 2014 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2014-00734, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE ) STANDARDS OPTION AND SITE REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A FOUR ) FINDINGS, UNIT, FIVE LOT ATTACHED WALL SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. ) CONCLUSIONS THE REQUEST INCLUDES A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE THREE ) AND ORDERS TREES ) APPLICANT: ALAYA PROPERTIES, LLC ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #5500 of Map 39 lE IOCB is located at 1163 Iowa Street and is zoned R-3, High-Density Multi-Family Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline and Final Plan Approval under the Performance Standards Option, and Site Review approval to. construct a four-unit, five-lot attached wall, single family residential development including tree removal for six trees on-site for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030 a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a Cio) facility to operate beyond capacity. C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land fi om being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are dome in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.88.030 a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. i PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 1 t b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10916) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of thatprovided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan. approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. In addition, the criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. Lastly, the criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The StaffAdvisor shall issue a tree removal permitfor° a hazard tree if the c applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safeo) hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 2 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subjectpropero). The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 10, 2014 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. This hearing was closed. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "Y' Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "0" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 3 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to develop a five-lot, four-unit, attached wall single family residential development meets all applicable criteria described in the Performance Standards Options chapter 18.88. 2.3 The Commission finds that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the project including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Iowa Street is classified as an avenue (Major Collector) and will continue to operate at acceptable levels with build-out of the proposed project. Access to the new units at the rear of the site will be provided off a flag driveway along the east property line. The existing residence will have a parking space in the existing driveway on the west side of the property and fronts on Iowa Street. The garages for three units will be accessed from the driveway. An eight-inch sanitary sewer line exists in the Iowa Street right-of-way to serve the new residences. A new water services will be installed from the main line in Iowa Street to serve the site. Electric service will be installed underground to serve the existing adjacent properties and proposed residences, a transformer is proposed adjacent to the existing driveway. 2.4 The Commission finds that development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding area contains single- family residences, multi-family housing and professional office buildings. I 2.5 The Commission finds the proposed density of four-units complies with the base density standards established under the Performance Standards Options for the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zone. The property's R-3 zoning designation and lot area of .29 acre permit a base density of 5.9 units and a minimum density of 80 percent of 5.9 units (.29 acres x 20 dwelling units per acre = 5.9 X .80 = 4.72 dwelling units). 2.6 The Commission finds that the open space, common area and lot coverage as required in the Ashland Municipal Code are met and will meet the standards for open space and lot coverage compliance. 2.7 The Commission finds that the proposed four-unit, five-lot development complies with the Site Design and Use Standards. The units comply with the required setbacks of the zone, the new units are orientated towards the driveway, and the existing residence will remain as is. The new units have a variety of window and door designs, variations to height, massing and scale which complies with the Site Design and Use Standards. The Commission finds that adequate city facilities exist or can be provided to meet the requirements of the development. 2.8 The Commission finds that on-site parking meets ordinance requirements through the provision of garages and surface parking spaces. 2.9 The Commission finds that the three trees proposed for removal in conjunction with the project comply with the criteria for removal of non-hazard and hazardous trees. The trees proposed for PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 4 removal include a 36-inch DBH Box Elder located adjacent to the driveway along the east property line and two apple trees, 12 and 16-inches DBH which are at the rear of the property. The apple trees proposed for removal are within the developable area for the new units. The Box Elder was reviewed by a licensed arborist who found the tree to be in hazardous condition. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record, the request for an Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Option and Site Review criteria for a four-unit, five-lot single-family attached wall development for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. The Tree Removal Permit request to remove three trees on the site is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2014-00734. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2014-00734 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That all easements for sewer, water, electric and streets shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. 3) That a utility plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. 4) The water meters within the sidewalk shall be installed behind the Iowa Street sidewalk and if required by the City of Ashland Water Department a public utility easement shall be provided. 5) That the storm drainage plan including the design of off-site storm drain system improvements shall be submitted with the building permit application. The permanent maintenance of on-site storm water detention systems must be addressed through the obligations of the Homeowners' Association and approved by the Public Works Department and Building Division. 6) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan with the building permit application including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to issuance of the building permit application. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. The electric line servicing the site shall be installed underground. 7) That all required utility improvements as outlined in AMC 18.80.060.13 shall be installed or an agreement for installation shall be executed between the property owner and the City of Ashland PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 5 8) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Landscape Plan and Tree Protection and Removal Plan. 9) That one tree shall be planted in the common space, open space or private yard areas in accordance with 18.61.084 as mitigation for the removal of the tree on site. The landscaping plan provided at the time of the building permit shall include and identify the mitigation trees. 10) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the tree on site and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 11) That an irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. 12) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowners Association is provided at the time of building permit application. CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common areas and open space improvements, driveway and parking maintenance, and street trees. The CC&R's shall include language requiring the garages be available for parking. 13) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 14) That exterior building colors shall not be very bright primary or neon-type paint colors in accordance with the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards. Exterior building colors shall be specified on the building permit submittals. 15) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. 16) That Solar Setback calculations demonstrating compliance with Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided with the building permits. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations. 17) That solar setback calculations demonstrating that the solar performance standards allowing a shadow of no more than four-feet above the finished floor of the proposed residence on Lot #2 shall be provided with the building permit submittals. PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 6 18) Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. 19) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 20) That the flag-driveway shall meet fire apparatus access road requirements, and shall be paved prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A No Parking Fire Lane sign shall be installed along the driveway. 21) That all bicycle parking facilities including the proposed hanging bike racks shall be installed in the garages for each unit prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Planning Commission App oval Date i i i i PA #2014-00734 July 8, 2014 Page 7 Q; AFFIDAVIT OF BAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On July 9, 2014 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2014-00734, 1163 Iowa Street. Signature of Employee Document2 7/9/2014 fs£' PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5500 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5000 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9100 AYALA LAZ LAZ AYALA URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 132 W MAIN ST 202 604 FAIR OAKS COURT 485 W NEVADA MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5000 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5000 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 8800 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONS POLARIS LAND SURVEY MADERA DESIGN, INC P.O. BOX 1724 P.O. BOX 459 2994 WELLS FARGO ROAD MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 PA-2014-00734 PA-2014-00734 LINDEMANN DESIGN, LLC ALAN HARPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, LLC 550 W NEVADA STREET 130 "A" STREET 724 MAIN STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601 PA-2014-00734 KATHLEEN TAYLOR 1163 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 1163 IOWA 7/9/14 NOD 10 i 4i 3> r~ l 7 y F .G a- I / 4 51- ✓ i r r M t 777 ~ _ _ _ T I 'I Z rr r f t 3 i ~ I JQIi ; ' r G; 4, I 1 ~~1 N't ~ e Valley, which run from March through November. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller commented that this would bring more people to the downtown earlier in the season, Commissioner Dawkins agreed and stated a consistent season would help the market with their advertising and felt this was a reasonable request. He added the market typically starts slow at the beginning of the season and he does not believe this will be a big impact. Commissioner Brown disagreed and stated this would be a huge impact to the current businesses. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Miller, Peddicord, Mindlin and Kaplan, YES. Commissioner Brown, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Commissioner Miller motioned to allow the street closure to begin at 6:30 am. Motion died due to lack of a second. Commissioner Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to allow vendors to sell the same variety of goods sold at their other markets in the Rogue Valley, with the exception of hot prepared foods and crafted goods. This would allow the sale of goods grown, produced, or prepared by RVGCM members who are farmers, ranchers, and food processors. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Mindlin stated her intent is to strike a balance and stated she would be open to an amendment that would include more agricultural products, Commissioner Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to amend previous motion to state "This would allow the sale of goods grown, produced, prepared or crafted from locally grown agricultural products by RVGCM members who are farmers, ranchers, food processors and crafters. The prohibition on hot prepared foods will not be modified." Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Commissioners Peddicord, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, and Kaplan, YES. Commissioner Brown, NO. Motion passed 5.1. Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action 2014.00737 with the modifications to the conditional use permit with the parameters just adopted and to not include the change of the opening time from 7:00 am to 6:30 am. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, Peddicord, and Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously. B. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00734 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1163 Iowa Street APPLICANT. Ayala Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot multi-family developments for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391E 10 CB; TAX LOT. 5500. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Kaplan, Dawkins and Brown performed site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Peddicord/Dawkins m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 pm. Voice Vote: all AYES. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter provided a summary of the application. She explained this is a single family townhome development with each home on its own individual tax lot, but they will have attached wall construction. Ms. Gunter provided an overview of the project site, existing residence, and surrounding area. She noted there are three trees proposed for removal and clarified the existing single family residence will be incorporated into the development of Lot 1. She stated the new units will face east and each will have an attached vehicle garage and a rear yard patio area; and the applicants have proposed a pedestrian walkway to connect the development to the public sidewalk system on Iowa Street. Ms. Gunter stated the application meets the criteria and staff is recommending approval. Ms. Gunter highlighted a proposed condition that requires the garages to be for vehicular parking and not for storage. Ashland Planning Commission June 10, 2014 Page 6 of 8 Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Stated this in an infill project in the R-3 zone and noted their desire to maintain a consistent pattern and be sensitive to the existing homes. He stated they will utilize the existing driveway in order to mitigate disturbance to the trees, and clarified that Lot 1 is likely to remain as it is today for some time. He acknowledged this is a contemporary design and stated the intent was to have varying roof heights to break up the mass and give each townhome some individuality. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Brown stated the solar angle depicted on the applicant's rear elevation diagram is to not to scale. Ms, Gunter indicated staff would draft a condition that addresses this concern. Public Testimony Kathleen Taylor/1163 Iowa/Stated she currently rents the home at 1163 Iowa and had several questions about the proposed development including: When will construction begin? Will there be any more meetings on this project? Can the neighbors obtain copies of the plans? Will she receive notice before construction begins? Is there any compensation for relocation? Ms. Taylor stated she was looking for a stable, long term residence when she entered into a lease four months ago and would not have rented this house had she known about these plans. Applicant's Rebuttal Mark Knox/Acknowledged Ms. Taylor's concerns and offered to speak with her after the meeting. He clarified there is no start date yet and they will continue to speak with the homeowners on the corner lot to develop a plan for this area and hopefully create an even better project. He stated the building plans are public record and are available to Ms. Taylor, and clarified she will receive notice prior to construction. Mr. Knox stated the intent is to keep this property intact as it is now for the foreseeable year and noted that this is a great location for this development as it is close to schools and will be affordable. Commissioner Kaplan closed the record and the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. Questions of Staff Ms. Gunter suggested a conditional of approval that states "Solar setback calculations demonstrating that the solar performance standard allowing a shadow of no more than four feet above the finished floor of the proposed residence on Lot 2 shall be provided with the building permit submittals," Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Peddicord mis to approve Planning Action 2014-00734 with the additional condition proposed by staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, Mindlin, Peddicord, Brown, and Kaplan, YES. Motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Planning Commission's recommendation to Council on the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Ordinance. Mr. Molnar stated the public hearing on the medical marijuana facilities ordinance is scheduled for next Tuesday and what is before the Commission tonight is a summary of their recommendation that will be included in the Council's packet materials. He noted the City Attorney has researched other communities with similar ordinances and has recommended the City explicitly prohibit dispensaries as a home occupation, and asked whether the Commission would support this inclusion in the ordinance. Comment was made that the last paragraph of the Planning Commission Report does not read correctly and recommendation was made for each sentence in the paragraph to be listed as an individual bullet point instead, General support was voiced for this edit. Commissioners Mindlin/Miller mis to approve the Planning Commission's Report with the modification of the last paragraph to list each sentence as a separate bullet item, and to recommend the Council modify the Ashland Planning Commission June 10, 2014 Page 7 of 8 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. 1~G0 Name (please print) Address (no P.O. Box) t I& -I o u - Pr Phone 7 -016 Email uud V~ 4'~ d o t14tr 1 O(0 ~ ( a Tonight's Meeting Date LAU- / a o Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. Tlie Ashla»d Platrnirzg Cozzmzission gezzez•ally irwites the public to speak on agenda items and during public foruin on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for publ is hearings and strictly folio-", the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actiwn which are unreasonably lozid or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 10, 2014 I I PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00734 APPLICANT: Alaya Properties LLC. LOCATION: 1163 Iowa Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 2, 2014 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: September 30, 2014 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.28 High Density Multi-Family Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.88 Performance Standards Options' REQUEST: A request for Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot single family attached housing development for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application There are no planning actions of record for this site. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The project site is located on the north side of Iowa Street, mid-block between Lincoln and N. Mountain Avenue. The parcel is 13,058 square feet in size. A 1,124 square foot single-family residence constructed in 1949 is located on the property, approximately 30- feet from the front property line. A 488 square foot detached garage is located to the rear of the residence which will be removed. The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties and neighborhood are located in the R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential district. The surrounding area contains a mixture of single-family residences and multi-family apartment complexes and Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 1 of 12 51 t ~ townhomes. The site is moderately sloped with a downhill slope to the north of approximately four percent. The application includes a tree inventory which identifies five trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) on site. Three of the trees are proposed for removal. An 18-inch dbh Pine tree is on the adjacent property to the east, it is proposed to be preserved as part of this proposal. 1. Outline Plan and Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards j Options Subdivision The applicant is requesting Outline and Final Plan approval to subdivide the property for the development of four residential units on individual lots and one common parcel. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.88.030 allows the consolidation of plan approvals when the development is for less than ten units. The existing residence is proposed on Lot #1 and three new units are proposed in a town home format at the rear of the property. A single-vehicle garage proposed to be attached to two of the new units and a two-vehicle garage is proposed attached to Lot #4. The proposal is to access the development by way of the existing driveway on the east side of the existing residence. Lot #1 and the existing residence will retain the Iowa Street frontage; the town homes are located behind the existing residence and will face east towards the driveway. Each townhome is proposed to have a rear yard patio area behind the unit along the west property line. Lot #4 will also have a yard area abutting the north property line. A common open space is proposed at the north end of the driveway. A pedestrian walkway is proposed along the driveway leading to the townhome lots and linking to a existing public sidewalk on Iowa Street. (t) Public Facilities Existing and proposed public facilities have been identified on the site plan and discussed in a narrative. All public utilities exist within the Iowa Street right of way and will be extended to the proposed units under the proposed driveway. Existing and proposed upgrades include: ® The proposed units will be served by the six-inch water line in Iowa Street. New water service lines will be extended to serve the new units. Three new water meters are proposed to be located in the sidewalk adjacent to Iowa Street. A discussion regarding the location of the water meters is below under the Outline and Final Plan heading. ® An eight-inch sanitary sewer line in is the Iowa Street right-of-way. Private sewer lines will be installed and connected to the existing line in Iowa Street. ® A stormwater detention basin is proposed at the end of the driveway at the north end of the property, the overflow will be pumped up to the Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 2 of 12 52 existing storm drain line in Iowa Street. ® Electric service is available from Iowa Street a new transformer to serve the new development is proposed to be installed to the east of the driveway. ® The frontage of the property on Iowa Street was improved by the City of Ashland in the late 1990s with a six-foot curbside sidewalk. 2. Site Review Approval The application includes a request for Site Review approval of the proposed four unit single-family, attached wail townhouse development. Three of the units are attached two-story town homes, and one unit is the existing residence on site. Lot #1 faces Iowa Street. Lots #2, 3, and 4 face the interior of the site. Lot #1 is a two bedroom residence. Lots #24 are proposed as three-bedroom units. The units range in size from 1,111 to 1,277 square feet of living space. The new units will have attached garages. The architectural style of the proposed units is contemporary. The new units are proposed to be two-story and oriented toward the driveway. Lots #2 and 3 are proposed to have a single vehicle garage and a surface parking space adjacent. Lot #4 is proposed to have a two vehicle garage. Each unit has a 20 square foot, partially covered front stoop. The proposed exterior building materials on include horizontal siding, wood and steel trellises, vinyl windows with wood trim, wood garage doors and standing seam metal roofing. The two story building is proposed to have modern roof-lines with various pitches, and orientation to vary the heights, massing and scale of the second story. As proposed, the new units comply with the solar setback requirements. The applicant has requested a solar setback performance standard for the existing residence. The proposal is to shade not more than four-feet up the adjacent wall of Lot #2. Lot #1 will retain the 30-foot by 50-foot front yard and a 10-foot by 62-foot rear yard. Lots #2 and 3 are proposed to have rear yards of approximately 10-foot by 24-foot, including a private patio area. Lot #4 is proposed to have a 10-foot by 32-foot rear yard and a 10-foot by approximately 52-foot side yard. A landscape plan is included in the application that addresses the common areas and private yard areas. An irrigation plan addressing the proposed landscaping plan will need to be submitted for review and approval with the building permit submission; a condition to this effect has been added. 3. Tree Removal Permit The application includes a Tree Protection and Removal Plan as required in Chapter 18.61 that delineates trees on the property and in the adjacent rights-of- way six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 3 of 12 53 A total of three trees are proposed for removal in conjunction of the project. The trees proposed for removal include a 36-inch DBH Box Elder (Picea pungens) located adjacent to the driveway along the east property line and two apple trees, 12 and 16-inches DBH which are at the rear of the property. II. Project Impact The project requires a subdivision approval since it involves the creation of four residential lots. Site Review approval is required for the application because it is a attached single-family townhome development. Finally, a Tree Removal Permit is required to remove trees which are six inches diameter at breast height and greater. The application is required to be reviewed under the "Type II" process with a public hearing because it includes a request for Outline and Final approval of a performance standards subdivision. A. Outline and Final Plan for Performance Standards Options Subdivision In Staff's review of the proposal, the application appears to meet the approval criteria for Outline and Final Plan approval. The Performance Standards Options (AMC 18.88), allows a flexible lot layout and design approach. To this end, the base density of the project is based on the total site area. While perimeter and front yard setbacks must conform to the requirements of the zoning district, the lot sizes and interior site setbacks can vary in size. The site has a base density of six units. In addition, the proposal satisfies the requirement from AMC 18.28 that the site be developed at a minimum density requirement of 80 percent of the base density. The adjacent parcels are developed with single-family homes. The proposed subdivision will not prevent adjacent land from being developed in accordance with the R-3 zoning district, Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The site plan delineates the proposed building envelopes, setbacks, open spaces and driveway locations. The application complies with the standard and special yard setbacks requirements of AMC 18.88. The solar setbacks are addressed in the application. The new units demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The applicant has requested a solar setback performance standard for the existing residence. The proposal is to shade not more than four-feet up the adjacent wall of Lot #2. The highest point of the proposed building is 26.5 feet with an average building height of 18.5 feet which is below the maximum of 35 feet for the R-3 zoning district. The applicant's proposed development complies with the Performance Standards Subdivision criteria for setback requirements, that the setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. The front yard setback is adjacent to Iowa Street, the rear yard setback is opposite that (the north property line) and the side yards are the east and west property lines. The applicant has proposed to meet or exceed the setbacks around the perimeter of the development. Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department-Staff Report/ adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 4 of 12 54 i The Outline and Final Plan approval criteria require significant natural features to be included in the open space, common areas and unbuildable areas. The subject property lacks significant natural features. The only natural features of the site are the large stature trees in the front yard of Lot #1 and the two larger stature trees along the driveway, one is on the subject property the other in on the adjacent property to the east. The trees are proposed for preservation. The application includes a tree removal permit request to remove three trees. Two apple trees at the rear of the site are within the proposed area of development and a 36-inch DBH Box Elder tree near driveway along the east property line. The Box Elder was evaluated by an arborist who recommended immediate removal as it is in hazardous condition. The Tree Commission has not reviewed the application at the time of writing. Eight off-street parking spaces are required for the development, and eight are provided, seven on-site and one as an on-street parking credit. Common bicycle parking facilities are not required for residential units that include a garage. Lot #1 will not have a garage but a bike parking structure is proposed in front of the unit near the existing surface parking space on the west side of the residence. The applicant's findings state that bike hangers will be installed in each garage. Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking, requires driveways accessing seven or more parking spaces to include adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that drivers may pull out of the driveway in a forward manner. Though seven parking spaces are not shown the driveway is greater than 50-feet in length and is subject to the flag-driveway standards including turn around to allow vehicles to exist the property in a forward manner. The plans demonstrate that the maneuvering area is met with the driveway and a small hammer- head space. Existing public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project, and have been identified on the preliminary utility plan and grading plan. Water, sanitary sewer and electric services are available from Iowa Street and have the capacity to serve the proposed development. The applicant has provided civil engineering plans for the site and the new water meters are proposed to be installed in the sidewalk. The water meters shall be placed outside of the sidewalk and placed directly behind the sidewalk. A Public Utility Easement shall be dedicated on the survey plat if required. Paved access is provided via Iowa and the new driveway. Iowa Street is classified as an Avenue (major collector). The curb-to-curb width of Iowa Street complies with the Ashland Street Standards. However, the sidewalk corridor along the street frontage does not the current Ashland Street Standards in that there is curbside sidewalk along the frontage of the property where a five to seven foot parkrow is required. The sidewalk pattern exists and the applicant is not requesting any modification. Additionally, the Street Standards allow for only one driveway curb cut per parcel and the spacing standards require 100-feet between driveways. The site has two driveways which will continue to provide an off-street parking space and the access to the rear of the property consistent with the current development pattern. 6. Site Review In Staff's review of the proposal, the application meets the approval criteria for Site Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 5 of 12 55 Review approval. The application is subject to the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards portion of the Site Design and Use standards. The approval criteria for Site Review of a multi-family development overlap significantly with the approval criteria for Outline and Final Plan approval as discussed above. Lot# I is facing Iowa Street is existing and no modifications to the orientation to the street is proposed. The new units will be oriented towards the new driveway. The site improvements include a private sidewalk connecting existing sidewalk on Iowa Street. The building architecture is a contemporary townhouse style. Each unit will have a modern roof form of various heights and orientations to distinguish between the three units. The exterior building materials include hardi-board siding in both vertical and horizontal orientation and composition standing seam, metal roofing. Each unit is proposed to be a different color as well. The solar setbacks are addressed in the application. The new units demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The applicant has requested a solar setback performance standard for the existing residence. The proposal is to shade not more than four-feet up the adjacent wall of Lot #2. The request is supported by the findings, in particular the setback of the existing residence at 30-feet from the front property line and the amount of slope of the property, justify the request. The applicant states that the reason for this request is to keep the structure where it has historically been placed keeping consistency with the existing neighborhood development pattern. The maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-3 zoning district is 75 percent. According to the applicants proposal, the proposed development covers 63.3 percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces including building, driveways, walkways and patios. The development as a whole complies with the lot coverage when averaged over the entire property area with 63.3 percent of coverage. Please see Figure I on the following page. The area of new development including the new townhomes, patio area, parking and the portions of the driveway from the flag- portion to the pergola structure is approximately 68.3 percent. This also complies with the maximum lot coverage in the zone of 75 percent. excluding the flag portion of the driveway The applicant's findings address the development as a whole and finds the proposal complies with 63.3 percent of the 13,058 square foot parcel covered by impervious surfaces. The Site Review and Multi-Family Residential standards require an area equal to at least eight percent of the total site area to be devoted to functional outdoor recreation space. Each parcel has a private yard patio area behind the units along the western property line. The applicant is also providing a patio and pergola at the end of the driveway on the common area lot near the north property line. The total area provided by the common open space and private yard areas exceeds eight percent of the total lot area. The application includes a landscape plan that addresses the private yard areas and the common areas. New street trees are not proposed due to the three large trees in the front yard of Lot #I. Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 6 of 12 I' 56 r : ✓ _ r I - ~ f 11 MOO t 3Nid kil t ~l Q7 ( r D TO - - ' yin ~ 1 _ t --FL- M ~4 to I ~ r I fi ( f} , ~ c1"'I~ I C4 ~ T - A~ F, " _ a = oa , G ' " iI j ~i ' I. I w; m; , 10- l- r - 1 33 , i t( , R `I41 . 4,t Sv + ( i - h ~ ~ f N c~ ~ =I -14 k G2.CY + Figure 1 Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 7 of 12 57 C. Tree Removal Permit Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Tree Preservation and Protection, requires a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three trees. Two apple trees at the rear of the site are within the proposed area of development and a 36-inch DBH Box Elder tree near driveway along the east property line. The Box Elder was evaluated by an arborist who recommended immediate removal as it is in hazardous condition. The Tree Commission has not reviewed the application at the time of writing. The application appeals to meet the approval criteria for the removal of non-hazard trees, the apples and removal of a hazardous tree, the Box Elder. The removal of the apple trees will not have an impact on soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or windbreaks and the removal does not have a significant impact on the species diversity within 200 feet of the property. The trees identified for removal are rated in poor and fair condition and are necessary to meet the density proposed and building placement as envisioned in the Site Design and Use Standards. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in 18.88.030.A as follows: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands,' flood plain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan, e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project, f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in 18.88.040 Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report ( adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 8 of 12 58 18.88.030.13.5 Criteria for Final Approval a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title, c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan, f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (ORD 2836, 1999) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development, B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter, D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, The criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal are described in 18.61.080 as follows: An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit, A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal, 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report/ adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 9 of 12 59 public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations In Staff's opinion, the proposal is consistent with the approval criteria for Outline Plan and Final Plan of a Performance Standards Options subdivision and Site Review for a multi-family development. In addition, the request to remove three trees six inches (dbh) and greater appears to meet the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit. Staff has identified minor issues related to the approval criteria and design standards applicable to the project but they all appear to be resolvable at building permit approval. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions attached. 1) That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / adg Applicant; Ayala Properties LLC Page 10 of 12 60 I modified here. 2) That all easements for sewer, water, electric and streets shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. 3) That a utility plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean- outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. 4) The water meters within the sidewalk shall be installed behind the Iowa Street sidewalk and if required by the City of Ashland Water Department a public utility easement shall be provided. i 5) That the storm drainage plan including the design of off-site storm drain system improvements shall be submitted with the building permit application. The permanent maintenance of on-site storm water detention systems must be addressed through the obligations of the Homeowners' Association and approved by the Public Works Department and Building Division. 6) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan with the building permit application including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to issuance of the building permit application. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. The electric line servicing the site shall be installed underground. 9) That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Landscape Plan and Tree Protection and Removal Plan. 10) That one tree shall be planted in the common space, open space or private yard areas in accordance with 18.61.084 as mitigation for the removal of the tree on site. The landscaping plan provided at the time of the building permit shall include and identify the mitigation trees. 11) That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.13 shall be applied for E and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the tree on site and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance i Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 11 of 12 61 with 18.61.200.B. 12) That an irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. 13) That a draft copy of the CC&R's for the Homeowners Association is provided at the time of building permit application. CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common areas and open space improvements, driveway and parking maintenance, and street trees. The CC&R's shall include language requiring the garages be available for parking. 18) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans j submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 19) That exterior building colors shall not be very bright primary or neon-type paint colors in accordance with the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards. Exterior building colors shall be specified on the building permit submittals. 20) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. 21) That Solar Setback calculations demonstrating compliance with Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided with the building permits. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations. 22) Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. 24) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 25) That the flag-driveway shall meet fire apparatus access road requirements, and shall be paved prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A No Parking Fire Lane sign shall be installed along the driveway. 26) That all bicycle parking facilities including the proposed hanging bike racks shall be installed in the garages for each unit prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 12 of 12 62 - - , _ I ~ II .L 1 t.~[ I I~' I 6r ()1 F w~ - 1 I{ -1, I I i L11 1{ I dl f v f I~ I (31 , CD s (D I CD iA zip v l~ 1 1 1 k 1 r ! F _ jF r L~) , It z ~ r~ - _ - a F-Ij r - F 44 w; ---7r7p -I Z' w a Q f U- L C ~JW c_ F,- I., T*;~- t.Wrd2 +C/~. ( I 1 r r '~1• M=ii _.I`,-~ t„ 31S 'v e ~ _ 71 ~j N ~ (p { I _ f Ste- CO - CD yy ~a t ~_[~'y k r r { _a CO 3 ~S}yf Cal oil • ry J a z n' R 3 _ ~ . G ` z. -kY I _ { co / ,~l ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENT SHEET June 5, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00734 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1163 Iowa Street APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot multi-family developments for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 IE 10 CB; TAX LOT: 5500. Recommendation: The Tree Commission recommends approving the application as submitted along with specific recommendations below: 1) That mitigation be provided according to the requirements of AMC 18.61.084. Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5350 CITY OF 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 W us a c 0- cy) ED ti m s • ° m X Fy 0 m~ ~m~' 30~ .mv o° Hi O N. Cd r h€rs gym' u C Q1 w 3 =H 4 f. n N> oum L m~>°' o v m aU a r c w a H N ® v~ y vK K' m m _ ro_ m v LN 3 s O C * m e m 7E) -0 c : a 2 ° E ~ L C t sl °'m c°ao mm N° c Q, c0 Oa- o c- a O Q) bA ,nm o o m c S m Q v LQ y~ w' E Q) C U W ,ice m . o ro `o u1 U m U m v I'M z ~M U W ° N o o "o ° v o 0 0 a L O T1 n IL) ~mwg arc m ~m m Q1 ® O O U r ~s a ° Qr N 5: $a u z€~ ` u o n o o m m .5 o m H cl) C O C K U a Q) Q1 ® N ~ s 0IW- oc~o m°a -Z o.E G MKS h WZ ro°o~ s`O c° mo ~U Nmm° ~II.~ ',LMN NY o 4- 10 4 y C ^ e', m O ® L a ~ ~r F~ OU E2 o n o' > NO 'aU N a OL a m m CL a) N cd bA i ?,:•.'N gU T°co rov'~ Em ~y o a =3 a, tM .10 (D cr. Z mo 7mmE ''oNCEm -4- 7E :E 1 N~~N11 g ~ g w am ro 2 IL) iS c. d a, k _ N s ° ° W5 m °U o .,0Or !p 3 QQ Nm~ m`aoc. ro 4! m Q) v.+ .C 4t m w 0.1) a L m m Lo (DW r~< y roYWcnc n pm .aa n a C N b N: 0N 3Eoc'mm`om ~o~°E 00 LL Lw O O qua gym?: ~ °osoma" U -9Ta~ y C? O •y 'y w v0 e` 77 ?c { a owU l ° E m a crn ° y v O r C a r-•1 4. -I Fs ? 4V Y Y {(W N 3 L c O (9 N t0; O Em ~macv w tq U .o o m a m° r _ Cz L 0m~a0 °j°.,-0m° O0 F- Q)4=0 ' Yeti 4 v LcaQaa- mvm ° o p N J a.i y ®tq ' amr 3.E ~a a m.aa ~s mw v YO 9 N _ av o°pc~~ m no6) (a0 a D Q) c0 h .2 Z m°m:°m>Cm oammuNm v m nooQ m o c j Z m U F- ILJ ® ~ ~ xFj y c N o o o o o. o d 9 c m. O O Q1 Q W ~>mmoc~m m wyoF N N O. vC. W t Y ~c A cro o°~a a-« Yma):. Q ro P, m x, 3 m 0:~ amo v cm p Q y O O C o aft. l oc. s~~ v c a2ro ooomw°-.Q a L Q: p Ems, 03 °aucam a c O p 1~ O Z= o roNN.ro;m_~° Ncc°o ro 3 ° 10 29.'Q) w+w+~ o ~u~ e N mem:°NmLro ccEOZ o N1 ~ O' L- 07 ~ ~ V m (L) Z. w > EEC o " Mh OI~'~ ov `m cm.mco O Q) ` j..~ (A s' m _E=V0 N N N t~ n Q L O Q O 0 0.QID; c° m,, .o > v° s ° Q N.o y O P 4 n U' F U'€r t C7c oN L._.a Ua cN O VO. v., 0111 U~ k~~ar'ru ZY mmmw a>ic°0ro 3rovm,mu m Nw ro yQW U cC WSW. i~Y ~ ~r• ~POorv N aL° .rte L? 11* c ' Id _T O O O' O mgr QE ao ~m0r os"p.~L E O 4 L L Q) Z O r arm; W a cam m m mwoa. v ~aQ~~-M V Nrr 5 =o aomm.m~2m -°co=Q _ N a-iz co }-I- OV tC O~ a ~Z ymaWOmm~s~N ° E LL L ~C Z 0 a c E ' rn m- m C Z Q V! L M+ ELI CL fl m~ ° o o coQ mrccc3c m U o m c u~ ®WQ 7 C O O Z~L~ nN mm4 E:. 0°i° CL C-) O.~w O,~ H Z swomN',v°~ c.Vmmm'r:~ E Du Uo J""tc"p Cf/) Q s ro~ M°~~Em °m~Yos~mv E 0) Z 00 Q Q aF- t0 y0 ,a(U0 aoc0.m"p`mE EL.a .F= co c~ CD 0- (Loo V, -t3 ~ D. t N c U m m y' U o m Q O',E a) `o Q o Y o M O 4-) ® m m(7 m mcNm mcm` m o N ZU IL a 10 G LLLIy Z >Z a7o.w°mw.mmwoL Z ~ W V ~ @a W ~ ri ~ J t ta ~Z °C: -21mwQ.- m 6NO N Q Z. m m (n (r o 0 W a)0>7~Dmo.N 7 5555 J W U U U 0 (n U Q t wa c so$y t°a 8 .0 ~0 m v d(A®®~ o•Ei•cU O _ ° ~f a LO ron T~rom?~mmmm00 > Q N Q 0 c4 m Z .'C o m o 0 0 `,y L s m-'d m y r m g o,° maw'. a~ a 7 rn m E © O U) 2 = L 8: Q R , QQ° ` mlp >c_ '7 E U N' C W° N a > Q A Itl: (1) o a C ~ a) rO . O L U v° N N a) N O c M m z L N O w- 0 f) c E r. 0 c 3 c E .n a) > 0 o 0- cf) a E a) 0) a) a E °6 E° a) E =3 M m a) w 3 E Q E ZD Hi mo ° 'a m a) a7o 4-j C n a° m w o m 0 w ow ro 0 _0 CD °cc E aci ro ooroom ca ° roa ~o aci o'~m ai °m 0~ m 0 -0 5 m ro 30 , a E 0 m Ca •0 m E a `'y ao o m T N N N O O .U O ro C m L 0- a) 0 (1) D L Ca o N w U L m C 0 C m U m_ C > L L - Q i = O m eo m Q m ca E E U a N N O N Q Nv 6 C C oaa N•- c cE °.c o ° o c c~ ro a) ° O M E mY- v N ro c_c3 coo = -0 o ma' O U) L y°c c c cam CO ~mE .D U w a .U+ m a>i U N O 'a06 m U •m° w U W Ec °-a U) (D E mo c °c a) E `o 0) 0) no c i=n c o >>,N ~ H oN ~cma)>- _ cn a >E c ro °p c - cN°oc N(D a)o ° N.: 0 O C 'N (6 N C Q O' N` ro o U IQ O. E C > ~ J2 a m C o ro 0 a o m C ° T° E a U N O m » C Q~ ''>-O C~ C C O ~~La U) Ld ..LN N N 18 .2 C 0 V co ma) o 0cy3c c ma, m o Nm~G6 caEc°E mC o w F L L E ro O 7 E N- C C O N N N c CIO ro C C .O ca U m Ufa oax-00CD >O=Npaaj c mar m ~m°m co °O--mc°E~ N>~NN U a a C) -0 Zn M D- a) CL > o o Ca n ~ c a) c ° 0 (a ~ LC o 0- fn ~ CL cnn L 6~ > Q a w N N m No ° N •2~ o S aa) `o c S co W a) ° t o m 0 ° N N a en~ C D. ..C+ O N ° a) D. a N O 6 0 L N - - m . a) D "LJ U ro> U E 00 o m 00 16 c C'o 0~ o o N ~p > ->o a a Ei ~ boa C-) CU 0 ~ N E N mo m o Imo rro~c'oE~" aoo Q -~roM :E °n~or- •a~cEm N E m>m0 5' m 4--` mU c °a: a) ma•- N 0 a) a.E ro =.0EN5am ~~°a ° ~°oro o omen o m a) aa)15 a E NNE E OU -ENma)C O v-CCm C CNa) Co o L L y_ 0 m~3 U N N c o ro o m ~U Z m o a) co a a) o rods U N ro ro a-0 N a) _ v_- .N C N -0 N row C - F- ro Y N j O > r-. a) L C) Em> a) romOmLma) aEcno aai a ai~~o~ a Y ~2F a L co roo Noc~o a C p o > .o o U O. ` Y a) _ cc E o ,y7_ C O m a) ro N _ = fn N ro_ N O a) ro ` N a a) ° C F' a) O. O .0 cn N N m a) -sa t~moOCom~c cc °N~EN :5- a) EX a) mcm°m a):?ccy aa) ,N N t 'E a) C Q •C 7) E M L N C a a) a C -6 = - L 0 .o a.C C •l m C a) N .L. w -0 0 V5 o O O- N U- d m ° a) 6 7 G L N C a) z. J N w E m c a) S2 m - c E o ro > C) Uo-0aoL U oN c ca u°iN N 3N m_o°aaa) 0 cm o `m 0ID ao Z°~o CD = . 'O ~'-C. m>, a) C ° °a 3 *L°, 0 m ° ( 6 c m m (M C-) n O a N C, C.>EW C00a d~a LDNa) L~3a NF:• L N'N m L a)n ° N°N° aai o a 3U ao a o me N N 3 m N- o aai m-o E c w? m = cOS m L fla m o ro 3 ~w 0 L o (1) o N o o~'L -FD ov m N N m oLr.~ O N° 0 3 0 0 0 ro of m Ezt- o roo a) o co ~E m o E~ 0 a 3 ~0 ~a~ n c 0~ E' ° m 0~a c) o (a 4°~. 0 o c c c o cY a) N o' aso 0 o~ rooroa "m row c oonoc °0 ma o a CM o na U a) N 5 E a'ca m° a) c m m~ 3 E a) c m a) N o `ma E -a -c5 a) (DM w ma' ONa)C E(D `Nmc C O N m•)a) > tQUN Nm +.Q1CN > C o•3 a.6~ Nc CEo O ca E m °)ooE E a m~,m > ❑ a W o-; -0 a) a) o m 00- o N ^ c O ro o °_>,~oo>'N aEm~~ L (l-0 CL- c.0 a) Lo >m = E O o- 3 E w a rom0. 0 aa) QE EyE6 E_ L° ro ro a) C - a) 3 0 3 0 0 O N 0 0 N O C m 0 N > a) 0 v- ~ N m O' L N C N E V N N p ` m a N 1> O in C C7) •E C L C°J N N .L. ° O m O U > > O fl_ N m a QE~LLa E000a)roca) m.°a E m ac c ~G ° iC N Ca)» m (D :i_ E oro0 E a ° i a, c. Na)= ya) Q C ro a) m N :D m L L V o •C N a) E a) L E m m m t6 C m o w (D N a) W cAsac No~ 3m o=a)mro'° N N ocroc~L°°N`mSroa ao (D •°-)a o mEC) oE (Da) °w m- D 42 N o -O C° C N C C' ° 0 y m C C m ro m V N a N N O O a) N fl (a ai N O ro .21 cc ro OL C N ~.'m 3° U) mom' N*`- m m r..~ N o 7 °-a N C c U ~a C (6 T3 tn " (0 m m m > C > 2 a a C C aro) G C L co 0 0 'o ro~ to N E . L Q m N o m> ro m x a) a) N ro m C a) C v- O E- U c a) ro=° m a) U U a) ,p C _ O a) O m m m C a) -6 a 0„ m a) W 0 '0 ro O a a) = O C m = a) = o (D 1 0 = a Q m o a G 4_ C m C a .N3m c~•~N ~a>)Ea) m c (D ~E c°commm C E cn >c~~ E mDaoc croo 0 L °Ea CD 0 -N c a) ro ~ in m a m m 0Ea)07 0 tea)°roo0aa)E c•~E a,a mE~ro - >m _ N t oo,m Wa)oom N a❑ ° = 0- 0_ 4= w m N a) '6 O N a) C°~ V C Q. O U. U N o N 0. v-- N 'Nm O O > ma)N o Nroa) c p • N =m o ` a) ~ 0 > Eoro m m CL a) C) N.~o`o a in 0 O m C O m a) N O C C .O 4= .6 L •6 .0 o .L E f0 L T ,ti Q) C E r= C )n C O a) .C ro o L L U .O N m p a) .D N a) C N a z m O m a) o c ::D m C N L2.O U U) > E .Q C N N a) U) _ C° U ro ro > C U) a) a). X 3 N yL.' ~ N 0 d. o " ro .C U D. a) 6 -Fu > ° > N a'06 (b a U -Cl) I°6 > a) O` `0 > fl. U a n=-+ a >i C a) +L-' w > a O:. +L-' O w V a) 0 X Cl) .D 3 Cl) ' N N V ° Q. a) t ° C L L •C a) .6 U C O-'p 00 ❑ m N C's O. `t O m a) m C a O> +N+ = N 0 C .6 E a) -6 a) E j o •6 a O. o F- E E O N L N ro C co o L yL,,, a) - N a a) m C 'N m a) O ` a 3 Q C N C m N N Et a O ro a) •o 0 0 O -j'm o N a)._mn mama) co ~ro•>ca), aa)coo== °m 0° Q roN`oa)o 3=c Q a N n m o c a c me c a a) O❑ 3 > m w 0 a) N Q O o_ C ❑ a~ a)~ U 'a m ro m ° c 0- N mE N o c c N m E c ro ro o c c. =U O E m Mo ro~ Z N o m co ° = a) U Et 0 r n E u N Q m 0° mc- m o ~N c c E m ia a) m N (6 UL C m N o- 3 m 3 a)- a) ro L O N O =c._a) 03 n.m a)m a m~a) m~ a c Qa roa ma)0 0>0y }?L mE>roa=-0 Lmp~L > a) E U d c° J O. L E C m o L n Q, c_ m N N G N a) M N> a N N O U c O m a) N N E_ N U= N -NL' ~ a) C Q - N on ar Q N.°_ c- ac ro U c 3 N 6 m E m m a 6'm a E ~ a E ( n a). a a) E J~) n N O ma o N N a) > c- c c CD ~r a) 0 -in Cam ° c m U) 0 Cf) fq N m o O 'N U m N 3 (6 w` N N - w a M O w O m cc p O 0 a) U N .C N 6- a OU Q o- a a y... o Y N V N a) O N Q N O C 4' m, N E N 0 m a. E a) m -0 > L U m° .6 Q a) a N N :o - Q. L a) a) N a) m a) U T p Z O. a a O 10 C U V L d n CL ,y Q m a) Q m a) N C O a) N. C a) C Q) a) 'OQ _ N m ma O W O N N a) rN~. a ..O E c N N ro o ,C 6 o N°° L C )~O 0mCU ° 0 o coo 0 m ` o~O m -rn « p c o U a) E - o mw a) 2o ° E ~o m ° Q) L m cab a)M F ~F a? ° as o ° a E 3 a> n 0 N N a'm E c m m ~~IImc m et ro Q E N _ a a. o m E ro. ro > ~ N mm m a (D a E N Z m Qro 0 c c > m 0 > as o a°' c > aE = x ro a9 Eo c'm Co Ua m m U m 6 ro > m> m 0• a) ,p E . z U O a) 7 X N m n O .N+ O a) N y6 CO > C. m C U Q U m N 6' m U 6'a a) c •6 (D m 0. O 4) Q U - N C A O .L] .n a Q w Q a) m o N m. U c y N O O a) C U U ❑ N a oro~~ to. a)o ro~ ENE'3roaU' 2•- n._ ro~-o Qv 0c m - u)°'cc"-mya)N.oma)"mnm Cl) co ~ NE m= > J m a) a) - U a) 0> z O. N M O U c_ d= a) a 0 ca rL Q C L a m L, O y N ~L m m m= a) C L 'C L m L L L L = t N U G m a) ro (D CO L L C N X a) a) L O U N Noa~mi_°Zaa Woc ~ a) ~Um) . aM _oc°)pol-=F of F F F NI-❑ U C)M mmF m~l-m EW a)~Nm~Nal W o (D m.c m - Z CO c ro ro_ ro m m m a) co p Cl) ro_ ro ~°o•- O---LL N.-+ O mtL OL LLLLLN O N U O O O. ❑ CV Q Q F- F' Cq J c0 0.. F- F- Cl F- C F' d F- F-. ❑ J O. CD L_ k= m U 'CI Q) W 0. r N N (M ~ 0 00 • wr: m F-oR a) Qo m~ La Wm m- ,.-~r ❑Cc U Zo~cw-o0 fC~c= !A r F Q o] U 022 F- cd ri 3 •o a) w o) 9: u. 3 c E F- Q N Q m AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. 1 am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On May 23, 2014 1 caused to be mailed, by regular mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, a copy of the attached planning action notice to each person listed on the attached mailing list at such addresses as set forth on this list under each person's name for Planning Action #2014-00734, 1163 Iowa St. Signature of Employee I i i DoeumeW 5/2312014 i i A113AV-09°008°1, r wdn•dOd pjogaj al j819AW }uawa6jep @09LS ®Aa3AV 11jege6 al zasll- w®'Aaane' op up ojn43e4 el g zeildaIj op sues ~ salad a Saei'ek sapanbl PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5700 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9400 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9200 AHLE THOMAS R ARMSTRONG PATRICIA J H ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT #5 1151 IOWA ST 695 WALNUT ST 885 SISKIYOU BLVD ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5500 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 8700 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 2900 AYALA LAZ BENSON DUMONT & HODGE LLC BREAKELL DINAH L 132 W MAIN ST 202 1144 IOWA 180 LINCOLN ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 7002 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 3900 PA-2014-00734 391E1 OCB 8301 BURKE JAMES L/LUCILLE E DELUCA RONALD L TRUSTEE GILMORE GORDON WET AL 2388 GREENMEADOWS WAY 725 ROYAL AVE 264 PALM AVE ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 2601 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 7003 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9300 GREENEWOOD HOMES LLC JAFFE ROBERT M TRUSTEE ET AL KAHN DANIEL A TRUSTEE ET AL P O BOX 516 285 SKYCREST DR 357 ALTA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9500 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 8300 PA-2014-00734 391E10CB 7001 KASH LLC KATZEN BARRY M TRUSTEE ET AL KTTK LLC 64 N 3RD ST 29 SCENIC DR 10 MAPACHE CT ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PORTOLA, CA 94028 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9800 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9700 PA-2014-00734 391E1 OCB 5600 LANDES JONATHAN LANDES JONATHAN LAURSEN INGRID M 796 LIBERTY ST 796 LIBERTY ST 1157 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EI0CB 5300 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 8303 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 2700 MADDOX WILLIAM E/ALTHEA ANN MYRICK JUDITH A TRUSTEE ET AL PETTENGELL RAYMOND P O BOX 933 2442 DELLWOOD AVE 1201 IOWA ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97504 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5400 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 2802 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5200 RIC14EY WILLIAM ET AL ROTH JAMES A TRUSTEE ROTHMAN JILL R TRUSTEE ET AL 1177 IOWA ST 3231 TOLMAN CREEK RD 183 LINCOLN ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5000 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 9100 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 8800 LAZ AYALA URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TAHVILI ZAHRA 604 FAIR OAKS COURT 485 W NEVADA 595 ASHLAND ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA-2014-00734 391EIOCB 5000 PA-2014-00734 391E10CB 5000 PA-2014-00734 391E09DA 8800 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CONS POLARIS LAND SURVEY MADERA DESIGN, INC P.O. BOX 1724 P.O. BOX 459 2994 WELLS FARGO ROAD MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97520 r wba6p3 do-dod asodxa jaded peal r ®09LS 91eldwgL ®AjaAd as0 Ewa091,I111001 aull 6uole pua0 - I SI89Lq cml'aad AS83 Alpuala-4033 AMAV-09-009-L ,wdn-dod pJOgaJ al JalanaJ lu8w96Je4:) ©0965 ®AM3AV tlJege6 al zesimn LUOYAJOAeMMM i sp uge aJngaeq el a zalldae ap. sues salad a selp% sa anbiq LINDEMANN DESIGN, LLC ALAN HARPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY, LLC 550 W NEVADA STREET 130 "A" STREET 724 MAIN STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 KLAMATH FALLS, OR 97601 i r m86P3 do-dod asodxa Jaded Paad I 90965 aleldwa., ®IGaAv asn ws09bEbp n i o} oun 6uo'e puce slam A,am Asea RiPUSIAA033 wl I I I + ka I I_.I _ I { L} 1 ! 1 i J I f , , ~ 1 it I 4 r I ~ I I 4~j ' = 1 ~ 1 1 { Lu (1, c-j Ig! I I ~_~'il a r4 ' t 1, l 1-7 r - - JI I- I s °4 ~ j 4=. , ,may - L?7 e°, P^ 8 0 :rf Ir - ' , t PROJECT DESCRIPTION AN FINDINGS OF FACT R SITE VIEW PERMIT, TREE OVAL PERMIT AND FOUR-LOT OUTLINE FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1163 IOWA STREET p r 5{ {f r ljk SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 485 W. NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OREGON MAY 2ND, 2014 Pagel of 23 ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRII~ f ION: 1163 Iowa Street, Ashlai-d, OR 97520 391EIOCB Tax Lot #5500 PROJECT INFORMATION: APPLICANTS: LAND USE PLANNING: Laz Ayala Urban Development Services, LLC 604 Fair Oaks Court 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-944-9561 Tel: 541-482-3334 CIVIL ENGINEERING: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Construction Engineering Consultants Madera Design, Inc P.O. Box 1724 2994 Wells Fargo Road Medford, Oregon 97501 Central Point, OR 97502 Tel: 541-779-5268 Tel: 541-664-7055 SURVEYOR: CERTIFIED ARBORIST: Polaris Land Survey Madera Design, Inc P.O. Box 459 2994 Wells Fargo Road Ashland, Oregon 97520 Central Point, OR 97502 Tel: 541-482-5009 Tel: 541-664-7055 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: DESIGNER: Structural Integrity, LLC Lindemann Design, LLC 724 Main Street 550 W. Nevada Street Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-884-1081 Tel: 503-866-4742 ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Alan Harper, Attorney at Law 130 "A" Street Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-659-9401 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3' High Density Multi-Family Residential LOT & HOUSE DATA: Tax Lot 5500: .29 acres House: 1,124 sq. ft. Garage: 488 sq. ft. BASE DENSITY (R-3 Zone): Base Density: 20 units per acre (20 units X.29 acres) = 5.8 units Minimum Density (80% less fractional overage) = 4.64(4) Proposed Density (includes existing house): = 4 units Page 2 of 23 t E APPLICABLE ORDINANUES: R-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential, Chapter 18.28 Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 18.61 Solar Access, Chapter 18.70 Site Design & Use Standards, Chapter 18.72 Performance Standards Option, Chapter 18.88 Off-Street Parking, Chapter 18.92 PLANNING ACTION: The applicants wish to obtain approval of a Performance Standards Option Subdivision (Outline Plan & Final Plan) for a four-lot subdivision. The application includes a request for a Site Review Permit for review and approval of the project's building design and site planning details as well as a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Apple Trees at the rear of the property and one Box Elder along the east property line. J k i q r 1 1 1 pp ~qg5 ~g~gy~4 ~ ~j ~ r } F L ~iJ t c 4,. t { j 83 ~~it6~ H tt ~ , ti~ €s ~ av un a. _ ~ a t1 _ 1163 Iowa Street (before recent remodel) ~ I I F T 1163 Iowa Street (after recent remodel) t Page 3 of 23 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERT Y : The site is located at 1163 Iowa Stre k et, between North Mountain Avenue and Lincoln Street. The property is rectangular in shape with an existing house located at the front of the parcel, approximately 30' from the back of an existing sidewalk along Iowa Street. The neighborhood is a mixture of single-family residents, townhomes and apartments. The property and its surrounding are zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family. The property is .299 acres in size with a base density of 5.98 units. The site slopes approximately 4.5% to the north and has three trees greater than 6" dbh along the front property line and the neighboring property to the east has two trees greater than 6" dbh within three feet of the property (east of primary driveway). The property has been in its current condition since the late 1940's when its parent subdivision formed the parcel. The site's existing house is three-bedrooms with 1,124 square feet in area, constructed in 1949 according to the Jackson County Assessor's Department. A detached garage, roughly 488 square feet, sits behind and to the side of the existing house with its concrete driveway extending directly out to Iowa Street. PROJECT PROPOSAL & DETAILS: The proposal is for a four-unit Performance Standards Option Subdivision, Site Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit. The proposal includes retaining the existing house and adding three new townhomes, each on their own independent lots, at the rear of the property. The townhome units will be accessed via a flag driveway extending from Iowa Street where the existing garage sits. The house was recently remodeled and included sewer and water line repairs along Iowa Street. Outline & Final Plan: The proposal includes a simultaneous approval for an Outline and Final Plan Subdivision in accordance with AMC 18.88.030 A.1, to subdivide the parcel into four (4) lots consisting of the existing detached residence on Lot #1 and three additional lots to the rear - Lots #2, #3 and #4. Base Density: The Jackson County Assessor's Department maps show the property as having 189' of depth and .30 acres in size. However, after a survey was completed, the actual depth of the property appears to be 159' and its overall acreage .299 acres. Based on these measurements, the lot's base density, based on AMC 18.88.040, is 5.8 dwelling units with a minimum 80% density provision, based on 18.28.040 A, of 4.64 units or *four (4). * NOTE: The base density calculations are critical to the preservation of the existing house which the applicant and consulting team believe is important as it retains an existing resource, reduces potential impact to the site's trees and preserves the streetscape. The applicant further contends any additional density on the subject parcel would require the home's demolition in order to accommodate additional density. Purpose & Intent: The applicant contends the preservation of the house addresses the Purpose and Intent of Chapter 18.88 as the home could be demolished in accordance with AMC Chapter 15.02, in order to increase the site's permitted density and/or enlarge the proposed units for more flexible design options. However, when evaluating the various policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the importance of minimizing unnecessary waste, preserving a functional resource and retaining the existing Iowa Street streetscape, the applicant and team contend the application as proposed, without Variances or Exceptions, is the most benefitting to the community and addresses the Purpose and Intent of the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Conceptual Master Plan: The applicant has evaluated the neighborhood's context which includes a mixture of housing types ranging from single-family residential to multi-family apartments, townhomes and condominiums. Further, the area includes a number of business professional offices, commercial conditional uses, the Ashland High School and the school's student parking lot all of which are within close proximity to the subject site. In the applicant's opinion, the area remains in transition from once a quiet single family neighborhood to now a multi-family / business professional area consistent with its High Density Multi-Family zoning designation. Page 4 of 23 That said, the applicants have attempted to work with the adjoining property owners to the east, 1177 Iowa Street (Tax Lot #5400), to consider a shared driveway and utility corridor off Lincoln Street that will "one day" accommodate that property's eventual redevelopment (Tax Lot #5400 is also zoned R-3 with a base density of 5.2 dwelling units). The shared driveway would extend from Lincoln Street along the north property line and serve both properties. The eventual development pattern of Tax Lot #5400 would obviously be consistent with the City's Site Design and Use Standards which require parking to "generally" be screened in the back or side and the orientation of the buildings facing the street (Lincoln Street). Note: The master plan referenced herein is "conceptual" in nature and has not been formally drafted. However, because the development timing of Tax Lot #5400 is unknown and the applicant is unsure as to when development may begin, the applicant has at least attempted to establish the foundation and groundwork to create a more logical and prudent development pattern between the two lots. To this end, the applicants hope the Planning Commission and staff realize the applicant's efforts as well as the challenges master planning has when the applicant has no control of the adjoining properties. Townhouse Architecture: According to the design team (Structural Engineer, Designer and Planner) the townhomes are designed in a Contemporary Northwest style and include warm materials and colors with unique components for flair. The units include clear story windows to not only allow light to cascade down through the units, but also provide privacy between neighboring units. The units are relatively narrow making floor planning challenging, but vaulted living spaces provide volume and drama. Existing House Improvements: Since the proposal's pre-application meeting, the applicant has remodeled the existing residence, including interior and exterior improvements. The interior improvements included updating bathroom and kitchen fixtures as well as various repairs. The exterior changes included enhancing the home's front stoop to help improve the home's appearance along the street. A new pedestrian connection is proposed leading from the front door to the sidewalk along Iowa Street. The intent is to help enhance the "sense of entry" and improve streetscape appearance. Unit Description: Lot #l: 1,124 square feet, two-bedroom (existing house); Lot #2: 1,111 square feet, three-bedroom Lot #3: 1,111 square feet, three-bedroom Lot #4: 1,277 square feet, three-bedroom Solar Access: In accordance with AMC 18.70.050, the proposal addresses the City's Solar Access Performance Standards by maintaining the shadow line of the attached three units to be no greater than what a six foot fence would shadow along the project's north property line. Further, the applicant has provided a Solar Envelope for the existing house to ensure its shadow does not cast any higher than 4' onto the south wall of the adjacent structure (Lot #2). The solar envelope is being proposed to ensure the purpose of the solar access codes is incorporated and in particular, the house is retained. Specifically, the house's location on the property is forcing a variety of design factors that eventually limit the ability of the design team. However, with the envelope, it is allowing the design team to reasonably accommodate the planned housing and, in particular, a floor plan that is universally accommodating for both small and medium sized families. Overall, the applicant contends the preservation of the house and the incorporation of the solar envelope is a mutual benefit. Infrastructure: As noted previously and as illustrated on the attached Civil Engineering plan (Sheet 1), the site's infrastructure and utilities will extend to and from Iowa Street via the direction of the project's driveway. The existing house will retain its infrastructure connecting directly to Iowa Street (overhead` power will be undergrounded during Phase II). The site's existing trees will be avoided per the recommendations of the project Arborist, and where necessary, hand trenching for the utilities in critical root zones will occur. , Page 5 of 23 Demolition: The demolition of the little garage will require approval from the Demolition Review Committee considering its size exceeds 500 sq. ft. The structure retains limited value to the site's overall development plan and its location impractical to consider keeping. It is the applicant's intention to retain the structure as long as possible in order to retain its utility value, but understands that prior to construction of the second phase, it will be required to be removed and a Demolition Permit obtained. Txisting Garage (to be removed under separate " permit) i t' E 1 existing House (to remain) p fg 3 }y' Tree Removal & Tree Preservation: Of the site's five trees in excess of 6" in diameter at breast height (dbh), three are proposed to be removed. The trees to be removed are a 12" and 16" dbh Apple trees within the rear of the property and a 36" Box Elder along the east property line. The Apple trees are older trees and located within or in close proximity to the construction zones. The Box Elder is considered hazardous and based on the Arborist's recommendation should be removed immediately. The trees to be saved are two Sweetgum Trees in excess of 20" dbh and a 23" dbh Ash tree each within the existing front yard. There is also an 18" Pine tree along the eastern property line of Tax Lot #5400 which is to be preserved in accordance with AMC 18.61.200 B. According to the project's Arborist, the trees along the eastern property line have been severely pruned and are not the greatest of specimens with one being hazardous. However, the applicants intend to replace and replant in the area of the Box Elder with more appropriate trees that provide benefits of screening and shade. The Pine tree, because it sits on the neighbor's side of the property line and although multiple efforts were made to try and connect with the neighbors to prune and/or possibly replace this particular tree at the applicant's expense, responses were not returned. As such, attempts have and will be made to minimize its disturbance. Page 6 of 23 t t Landscaping Maintenance: The project is intended to be a Class I Homeowners Association with common landscaping to be maintained by the project's three attached townhome owners. The front house is intended to function independently (where possible) with its landscaping and yard maintenance being maintained by the property owner. The three townhome units will have their own private spaces within the rear yards to personally manage, but all other landscaping, including the landscaping along the east side of the driveway all landscaping along the frontage of the units will be maintained in-common and funds collected monthly to fund the irrigation and maintenance costs. All associated Homeowner Association documents will be provide at the time of the final plat. 1 Easements: The common property tract is intended to be owned and maintained in common by the three townhome owners. The common area tract includes landscaping, driveway, sidewalk and private utilities. The common area will include a blanket easement allowing for emergency service access, private utilities and private pedestrian access. The common property tract will also provide for pedestrian access and utility service j' needs for the existing house. Fencing: The applicant intends to install new fencing along the perimeter of the property as well as privacy fencing between the units. The east side of the driveway will also be screened, 20' from the back of the front property line, with a row of plantings to help screen the driveway from the adjoining property (Tax Lot 5400). Driveways: The subject property has two existing driveways the proposal intends to retain for both functional t and aesthetic reasons. The driveway along the west property line is roughly eight feet wide and can only accommodate single parking space. The driveway is has minimal impact to the streetscape, but retains a significant value for the tenants of the existing house. If the driveway was to be removed, replacing its parking space would likely have to occur along the east side of the house and expand the driveway leading to an unnecessarily oversized driveway width. The existing 11' driveway on the east side of the property is also proposed to remain, but widened to 15' and replaced with new materials capable of supporting 44,000 lbs. of weight to accommodate Fire Department vehicles. The driveway's details show a 15' driveway, setback 5' from the east property line, comprised of 10' of asphalt and 5' of concrete for an in-laid sidewalk. Lot Coverage / Recreation: The property is .29 acres or 13,058 square feet in area. The property has a floor to area ratio of 41.9% and a lot coverage of 63% (75% is maximum). A total of 18% of the site is dedicated to recreational space, which includes areas of the front yard of 1163 Iowa Street and the rear yards of the townhome units (8% is minimum). The small pergola sitting area, at the end of the private driveway, is also counted as recreational area. Landscaping: The project's landscaping has been designed by a local Landscape Designer who is also a licensed Arborist. The landscaping plan recognizes the site's three large trees at the front of the existing house and has required the project team to minimize disturbance, including landscape alterations. The areas at the perimeter of the property and around the townhomes have been designed with landscaping appropriate for the space, which include shade, screening and aesthetic plantings. Phasing: The subdivision is intended to be phased into two. The first phase would be to separate the existing house and remove the small garage. The second phase would be to install the necessary infrastructure, underground existing overhead power, construct the three attached units and finalize the site's various improvements, including tree protection and planting. There are two primary reasons for the phasing which relate to logical financing and infrastructure planning, but it also allows additional time for the adjoining property owners to the east to reconsider either a partial infrastructure improvement' or a simultaneous Page 7 of 23 i development consistent with the conceptual master plan as previously desarined. However, if there continues to be no desire, the development will occur as planned herein with the development served off of Iowa Street. Parking (AMC 18.92.030 A.l(c) and d)): Required.-1 parking space per unit less than 500 sq. ft. 1.5 parking spaces per unit greater than 500 sq. ft. 1.75 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit I I Provided: Lot #l: 2 bedrooms = 2 spaces (existing house) -1 existing driveway / 1 on-street credit Lot #2: 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces -1 garage / 1 open driveway Lot #3: 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces -1 garage / 1 open driveway Lot #4: 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces - 2 garage Total Parking Required: 7.75 parking spaces Total Parking Provided: 8 parking spaces (7 on-site / 1 on-street credit) Units #2 and #3 will have two parking spaces with one space within a garage and one second space open while Unit #4 will have a two space garage. The existing house will retain its single space along the western property line and another space is to be provided along the street as a "street-credit" as there are roughly two-plus parking spaces along the property's frontage. The street credit makes logical sense in order to minimize unnecessary site disturbance and reduces lot coverage. Use of the existing driveway along the western property line also makes sense as to replace it elsewhere on-site would either diminish the site's lot coverage, be placed in an area that impacts the streetscape, impacts existing mature trees or potentially reduces common landscape area. Bicycle parking for the attached units are to be provided within each unit's garage area as a wall or ceiling mounted space. Covered bike parking for the existing unit will be between the existing driveway along the west property boundary, between the driveway and the house, under the existing covered awning. Page 8 of 23 FINDINGS OF FACT: The required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project not only clarifies the applicant's request, but also meets the Outline & Final Plan submittal requirements and criteria as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Section 18.88.030 A.5 and B.S. as well as the Site Review Permit and Tree Removal requirements and criteria noted Sections 18.72.070 and 18.61.080. NOTE: For clarity, the following document has been formatted in "outline "form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, due to repetitiveness in the required findings of fact, there may be a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. AMC 18.88.030 A - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OUTLINE PLAN: i 1. Application for subdivision approval under this Chapter shall be accompanied by a proposed Outline Plan. For developments of less than 10 lots, the Outline Plan may be filed concurrently with the final Plan, as that term is defined in 18.88.030 B.4. For developments of 10 lots or more prior Outline Plan approval is mandatory. A simultaneous application for an Outline and Final Plan is being filed as the total number of lots within the subdivision application is four. 2. A Type Hprocedure, as defined in this Ordinance, shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. Applicants will follow all procedures as set fourth by the Ashland Municipal Code. 3. Contents. The contents for an outline plan shall be as follows: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5) feet. See attached Preliminary Map. The preliminary plan shows a one (1) foot contour in order to fully address grade relationship issues. b. The proposed land uses and approximate locations of the existing buildings to be retained, the proposed structures on the site, the proposed and existing property lines and easements on the site, and existing buildings, structures, and trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter measured at breast height on the properties adjacent to the site, and all buildings within one hundred sixty (160) feet of the site boundaries. See attached site plan exhibits for proposed land uses and building to be retained, property lines, trees, etc. A map showing buildings and neighborhood context within 160' of the site's boundaries is shown below. The entire neighborhood is zoned multi-family with the site and adjacent properties zoned R-3, Residential High Density. The context of the neighborhood is a mixture of single family homes on relatively larger lots with a mixture of multi-family apartments, condominiums and townhomes. c. The locations of all proposed thoroughfares, walkways, and parking facilities. d. Public uses, including schools, parks, playgrounds, open spaces and trails. e. Public or private utilities. g. The location of natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preferable trees. h. The location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding. For items c - h see attached site plan exhibits. Page 9 of 23 tll 170 g 7i t15~' (D) 1 F 7 1 7 I I 3.;' ; l;ti= t„_ ton ,I (F) (C) (F) (A) 1,1~1,Y 4J~t, 1211 "f jtW I I `~ti 1. I l', I~ `U) Neighborhood Context Map I)_ I r l (A) - i (B) Page 10 of 23 i i 1 (D) P _ E i (E) U Page 11 of 23 i. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the outline plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection where required. The existing detached single-family dwelling is to remain. Its building envelope is identified on the site plan, but generally the only expansion area would be to the front of the house towards Iowa Street. The applicants have no intention to expand the house, but if expansion is desired by future property owners, the only logical location would be as identified. The existing single family dwelling's solar access will be restricted to the height illustrated on the elevations, which is to not exceed the height of the southern wall of the adjacent townhouse wall to the north (Unit #2) no greater than four feet. j. Elevation of typical proposed structures. The elevation should be to scale and should include the approximate dimensions of the proposed structures and all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. is Elevations are attached and to scale. The elevations include the dimensions of the proposed structures and all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. k. A written statement which will contain an explanation of i. The character of the proposed development and the manner in which it has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Concept. r ii. The proposed manner of financing. iii. The present ownership of all the land included within the development. iv. The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and private thoroughfares. v. The proposed time schedule of the development. vi The findings of the applicant showing that the development meets the criteria set forth in this Ordinance and the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Options ordinance by retaining the existing house and designing the zone's required density of four units with minimal house and streetscape alteration. The new units are proposed to be compact urban units, suited for the site's central location near the areas services which include walking distance to an elementary, middle and high school. Further, the site is close to Southern Oregon University, shopping, parks and job opportunities. The units' designs are intended to be affordable and functional for small families who are most apt to use these services, but also attractive with small private amenities when compared to stereotypical multi-family housing (see Photo D above). Conventional bank loans and personal investment capital will be used to finance the improvements. There are no common areas or buildings that will require maintenance, other than the driveway area. Each property owner will be responsible for their private yards and within their delineated boundaries. The driveway and adjacent landscaping will be retained in common and maintained by the project's Home Owner Association which is intended to be a Class 1 Community. Final CC&R's addressing the maintenance of the continued maintenance of the private and common areas will be provided at time of the Final Plat. The proposed development will occur in two phases, somewhat dependant on market conditions. The first phase would be to separate the existing house and remove the small garage. The first phase is expected to occur by the end of 2014. The second phase would be to install the necessary infrastructure, construct the three attached units and finalize the site's various improvements. There are two primary reasons for the phasing which relate to Page 12 of 23 t logical financing and infrastructure planning, but it also allows additional time for the adjoining property owners to the east to reconsider either a partial infrastructure improvement or a simultaneous development consistent with the master plan as previously described. However, if there continues to be no desire, the development will occur as planned herein with the development served off of Iowa Street. The second phase is to occur in late 2015. AMC 18.88.030 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN: B. Final Plan. 1. Procedure for approval. Type I procedure, as defined in this Title, shall be used for approval of final plans, unless an outline plan has been filed, in which case Type II procedure shall be used, and the criteria for approval of an outline plan shall also be applied. The applicants are aware of the procedures as described above. The applicants are attempting to process the Outline and Final Plan application simultaneously in order to limit market swings and overhead costs. c 2. The final plan may be filed in phases as approved on the outline plan. k As noted above, the application is for a simultaneous Outline and Final Plan approval. The subdivision will E, have two phases to reflect market conditions. I. 3. If the finalplan or the firstphase of the outlineplan is not approved within eighteen (18) months from the date of the approval of the outline plan, then the approval of the plait is terminated and void and of no effect whatsoever. Extensions may be granted as a Type I procedure. As stated previously, the applicants intend to finalize the first phase of the subdivision by the end of 2014, but not later than eighteen (18) months from the date of final approval. The applicant understands an extension is permissible as a Type I procedure if unknown circumstances occur and deemed necessary. 4. Contents. The final plan shall contain a scale map or maps and a written document showing the following for the development. a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (S) feet. b. Location of all thoroughfares and walks, their widths and nature of their improvements, and whether they are to be public or private. c. Road cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the locations of final cuts and fills, and road grades. d. The location, layout, and servicing of all off-street parking areas. e. The property boundary lines. f. The individual lot lines of each parcel that are to be created for separate ownership. g. The location of easements for water line, fire hydrants, sewer and storm sewer lines, and the location of the electric, gas, and telephone lines, telephone cable and lighting plans. h. Landscaping and tree planting plans with the location of the existing trees and shrubs which are to be retained, and the method by which they are to be preserved i. Common open areas and spaces, and the particular uses intended for them j. Areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated, reserved or used for parks, scenic ways, playgrounds, schools or public buildings. k. A plan showing the following for each existing or proposed building or structure foie all sites except single- family, detached housing which meets the parent zone setbacks: i. Its location on the lot and within the Planned Unit Development. - ii. Its intended use. Page 13 of 23 iii, The number of dwelling units in each residential building. iv. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the final plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection constraints where required. For the items noted above (4a - 4k), please refer to the attached site plan submittals or project narrative addressing the various plan submittal requirements. 1. Elevation drawings of all typical proposed structures except single-family, detached residences which meet parent zone setback requirements. The drawings shall be accurate and to scale, including all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Elevation drawings of the proposed structures are attached. The existing single family house will remain "as is" for the foreseeable future. However, future property owners may desire to make changes in which case building permits, including site plans and elevation submittals, will need to be applied for. All existing and proposed structures meet the parent zoning setbacks of 10' porch, 15' house and 20' garage along front property boundary facing Iowa Street (existing setback is 27'), 6' side yards (proposed setback is 10' per story along west property boundary and 26' along east property boundary), 10' per story in the rear, plus applicable solar access standards to the north property boundary. m. Manner of financing. Conventional bank loans and personal investment capital will be used to finance the Subdivision's improvements. n. Development time schedule. As noted, the proposed development will occur in two phases, somewhat dependant on market conditions. The first phase would be to separate the existing house and remove the small garage. The first phase is expected to occur by the end of 2014. The second phase would be to install the necessary infrastructure, construct the three attached units and finalize the site's various improvements. There are two primary reasons for the phasing which relate to logical financing and infrastructure planning, but it also allows additional time for the adjoining property owners to the east to reconsider either a partial infrastructure improvement or a simultaneous development consistent with the master plan as previously described. However, if there continues to be no desire, the development will occur as planned herein with the development served off of Iowa Street. The second phase is to occur in late 2015. o. If individual lots are to be sold in the Planned Unit Development, a finalplat, similar to that required in a subdivision section of the Land Use Development Ordinance. The proposal is a hybrid subdivision which will include the existing house on its individual lot and the three attached townhomes on their own individual lot, but sharing the driveway and its common landscaping improvements. p. Final plans for location of water, sewer, drainage, electric and cable T. V facilities and plans for street improvements and grading or earth-moving improvements. Please see the attached Civil Improvement Plans. Prior to any construction, final building permits and civil plan details showing specific connection information will be provided. Page 14 of 23 q. The location of all trees over six (6) inches diameter at breast height, which are to be removed by the developer. Such trees are to be tagged with flagging at the time of Final Plan approval. See attached site plans. All trees to be removed have been tagged with colored string bands. At the time of construction of Phase II, all trees to be saved will be protected with chain-link fencing as described on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan. No trees will be removed and no site disturbance will occur until a Tree Verification Permit is approved. Required Tree Protection Measure (18.61.200) will occur prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 18.88.030 A.4. - Outline Plan Criteria: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The development proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland unless specifically noted herein where the applicants have attempted to specifically address the appropriate mitigation measures based on the intent of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision, context of the surrounding neighborhood and likely future development considerations. i b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. All public utilities are available to service the subject proposal and are located within the adjacent Iowa Street right-of-way. Multiple meetings have been held with the Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Fire, Sewer and Electrical Departments in order to verify and coordinate service abilities and connection points. All of the departments stated there is capacity to service the proposal. Storm water, sewer, water service and all other utilities will extend to and from Iowa Street. Vehicular access for fire-trucks will be available from the existing driveway, which will be upgraded to support 44,000 lbs of weight. No turn-around is required as the driveway will not exceed 150' in length and adequate access will be available to accommodate maneuvering room on either side of the truck. Note: As previously stated, the intent of the applicant and design team is to create a development that simply isn't an individual development, but instead a development that relates to adjoining properties, addresses various zoning and design regulations and looks to the future to better accommodate the residents. That said, the applicant has attempted to coordinate with the property owner to the east (Tax Lot #5400) to obtain access and utility connections that would be sized to not only accommodate that property's development, but would also help improve development patterns consistent with adopted standards and policy. However, because the development timing of Tax Lot #5400 is unknown and the applicant is unsure as to when development may begin, the applicant has at least attempted to establish the foundation and groundwork to create a more logical and prudent development pattern between the two lots. To this end, the applicants hope the Planning Commission and staff realize the applicant's efforts as well as the challenges master planning has when the applicant has no control of the adjoining properties. Regardless, in order to move forward, but still consider the possible master plan outcome, the application is considering phasing to accommodate the possibility. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain c6rridorl s~ p0hils, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. Page 15 of 23 i The site has no significant natural features other than the three large trees within the front yard of the existing house and the two trees along the neighboring property line to the east (Tax Lot #5400). All of the large trees are intended to remain with minimal disturbance as the existing driveway will be replaced (to support fire truck weight and clearance) and project utilities will run parallel with driveway to Iowa Street. The project's Arborist and Civil Engineer have worked together to shift all of the utilities away from the trees and where there is root conflicts, hand trenching will occur. Overall, all of the site's significant trees are located in unbuildable areas and the applicant's proposal is to minimize any disturbance so that they can remain and continue to function and provide the benefits as they do today (shade, screening, recreationally and microclimaticly). d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed as shown on the Comprehensive Plan as the property will be fully built out once construction is completed. All adjoining properties have access onto their respective rights-of-way and should be able to address Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan policies without including the subject property. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. The proposed subdivision will be completed in two phases with 1/ of the application completed in Phase I and 3/ in Phase II. The intent of Phase I is to retain the appearance of the property "as is" until the market, construction timing and various other factors are ready. This could include the possible partnering of the development with Tax Lot 5400 to the east which the applicant is aware would require a modification along with the neighboring property's development application. If Phase II moves forward, all of the site's open space and common area improvements (driveway, landscaping, irrigation, tree protection, etc.) will be completed prior to any of the attached units' Certificate of Occupancy Permit. Other than private yard areas, all common space improvements and any landscaping or irrigation elements facing the subject driveway will be maintained by the project's limited Home Owners Association as permitted by State law. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The application meets the base density standards for the R-3 Multi-Family Residential zoning requirements without density bonuses or exceptions. Based on the provisions of AMC 18.88.040, the base density for the property is 20 units per acre. At .299 acres, the lot's base density is 5.8 dwelling units. The applicants are proposing to retain the existing house and construct three additional units for a total of four which is equivalent of 80% of the base density. In reality, the presence of the existing house and parking codes limits the ability to add any additional units, but regardless, the "minimum base density" requirements of 18.28.040 A, are being complied with. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. No additional streets are proposed with the application and all existing street improvements along Iowa Street are to remain as is. Page 16 of 23 18.88.040 - Performance Standards for Residential Developments: 18.88.070 Setbacks: A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. The attached site plan shows building envelopes with front setbacks that meet or exceed the standard front yard provisions of the R-3 zone which is 10' for porches, 15' for house and 20' for garages. The existing house sits back from the front property line by approximately 27' and the applicant proposes to retain the house "as is" for the foreseeable future. However, because future property owners may desire to make changes to the front, the envelope identifies the setback parameters. If this is the case, building permits, including site plans and elevation submittals, will need to be applied for at that time. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. i The setbacks within the R-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential zone are as described above for the front yard and 6' side and 10' per story in the rear yards. The attached site plans show building envelopes where along the perimeter of the development all setbacks meet or exceed for R-3 zoning standards. Specifically, the side yard abutting the property to the west is planned as a "rear" yard for the proposed units which increases the 6' side yard requirement to 10'. Further, the second floor of the attached units sets back an additional 10' with the intent to break-up the mass and respect the adjoining property (which would hopefully be reciprocated when redeveloped). The rear setback complies with 10' per story setback as well as Solar Access with the plans t showing a 10' first floor setback and 29' second floor setback. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. The property owners are aware of the 35' maximum height restrictions noted in the R-3 High Density Multi- Family Residential zoning district as well as all applicable Solar Access provisions of AMC 18.70, and have designed the homes to comply with height requirements. Specifically, the existing home is roughly 12' in height and the attached townhomes 24' in height (at highest peak). However, because the buildings cascade due to both roof form and site grades, the average roof height is likely near 18' or half of the zone's allowance. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings. The distance between the existing house and the proposed townhome to the north does comply with this standard. The setback is 13'-6" and is best illustrated on Sheet 10. All setback dimensions can be verified at the time of the building permit in accordance with the submitted plans. E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section 18.70. In accordance with AMC 18.70.050, the proposal addresses the City's Solar Access Performance Standards by maintaining the shadow line of the attached three units to be no greater than what a six foot fence would shadow along the project's north property line. Further, the applicant has provided a Solar Envelope for the existing house to ensure its shadow does not cast any higher than 4' onto the south wall of the adjacent structure (Lot #2). The solar envelope is being proposed to ensure the purpose of the solar access codes is incorporated and in particular, the house is retained. Specifically, the house's location on the property is forcing a variety of design factors that eventually limit the ability of the design team. However, with the envelope, it is allowing the design team to reasonably accommodate the planned housing and, in particular, a floor plat ,,,tthat is universally Page 17 of 23 accommodating for both small aria medium sized families. Overall, the applicant contends the preservation of the house and the incorporation of the solar envelope is a mutual benefit. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. Not applicable 18.88.030 B.S. - Final Plan Criteria: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: NOTE: Considering the proposal is for a four-lot subdivision, Outline and Final Plan applications under 10 lots are permitted to be submitted concurrently (AMC 18.88.030 A.1.). As such, the application complies with the criteria listed below (specific to a, b, c, d and E, a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The project's site layout, building elevations and exterior materials are reflective of the Purpose and Intent statements noted within the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88.010). Further, the densities are less than allowable, but considering the site's existing house, tree location, boundary limitations and neighboring property context, the applicant and design team believe the application meets all of the above criterion. Page 18 of 23 -tS.72.070 - Site Review Permit Criteria: A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. It has been the intention of the applicants to meet all City Ordinances without requesting any Variances or Exceptions. To the applicant's knowledge, all applicable City ordinances have been met and will be met. At the time of the building permit submittal, the application will be substantially consistent with the proposed application and will meet all conditions of approval imposed by the approving authority. i B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. i All of the requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter, Section 18.72, have been met without Variances or I Exceptions. The Site Review Chapter was designed to ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City of Ashland. The proposed application was designed and redesigned in order to best meet this purpose and produce a quality living environment to not only future residents, but also existing neighbors. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for 4 implementation of this Chapter. The development complies with the City of Ashland's Site Design Standards, adopted August 4th, 1992. A thorough response as to the project's compliance with the Site Design Standards, Section II-B, Approval Standards and Policies for Multi-Family Residential Developments; Section II-D, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards; and Section II-E, Street Tree Standards, has been provided below. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. All utilities to service the project are within the Iowa Street right-of-way. None of the utilities are at capacity to service the development. A pre-application was completed on July 2°d, 2013, with City Departments reviewing the application and assessing availability of services. The project was received favorably and at no time was there any indication the proposal lacked adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access, electricity, urban storm drainage or adequate transportation. Additional follow-up meetings with individual departments were also completed. In addition, all site utilities have been preliminary designed by either the City of Ashland's Electric Department staff or Construction Engineering Consultants (CEC) each verifying utility system needs, locations, relationships, upgrades, and demands. Please see the attached conceptual Utility Plans identifying location and type of utility line. SITE DESIGN APPROVAL STANDARDS: (Multi-family Residential Development Standards) II-B-1) Orientation II-B-la) Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street. Page 19 of 23 The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-la. The existing house is to remain which currently has its primary orientation facing the street. Recent remodeling of the house, including an exterior facelift, has occurred to help the home's streetscape appearance. II-B-lb) Buildings shall be set back from the street according to ordinance requirements, which is usually 20 feet. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section 11-B-1b as the existing home sites 27' from the front property line. II-B-lc) Building shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not be located between buildings and the street. i The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-lc. Parking is either in the rear off the shared driveway, along the street frontage or within the existing grandfathered driveway along the west property line. Access to the units will be from an in-laid distinguishing sidewalk extending along the public sidewalk along Iowa Street serving the site's rear units. II-B-2) Streetscape II-B-2a) One street tree for every 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street tree list, shall be placed on that portion of the development paralleling the street. Where the size of the project dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-2a. as there are three existing mature trees along the Iowa Street sidewalk that addresses this standard. II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-2b. The applicant's landscape plan has been designed by a local landscape professional. Due to existing front yard conditions between the house and Iowa Street, the applicant has chosen to retain the landscaping "as is" which is consistent with the neighboring properties. The yard does include lawn area, but considering the large tree specimens and their canopy, little water use is necessary. II-B-3) Landscaping 1. II-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year of installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-13-3a. The landscape plan has been designed to meet a 50% "spreading" coverage after the first year and 90% "spreading" coverage prior to the development's 5th year. All landscaping will be maintained weekly or monthly by the property owners (private areas) or Home Owners Association (common area). The landscaping plan was designed by a local Landscape professional knowledgeable of the various plant and tree specifications for this area. Page 20 of 23 II-B-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the local climate. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3b. The landscaping plan incorporates a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species for the Southern Oregon climate. The landscaping plan was designed by a local Landscape professional knowledgeable of the various plant and tree specifications for this area. II-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible. Other than the two Apple Trees at the rear of the property (12" and 18" dbh.) and the hazardous Box Elder (36" dbh), all of the site's trees, including neighboring trees along the shared property lines, are to be retained with minimal disturbance. II-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 feet in width. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3d as there are no new streets being added. The existing house is 27' from the Iowa Street right-of-way. II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses. The proposed parking complies with this standard, although this standard was most likely intended for parking lots. Nevertheless, the existing unit has mature large canopied trees that shade the site's front yard and parking area. Each of the rear units have their parking within a garage and open parking area in front of the unit, separated by a landscape area. A couple of Cherry trees have been chosen to help shade the driveway. c II-B-3f) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping successes. Refer to Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards for more detail. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3f. An Irrigation Plan has been included with the Landscape Plan, also completed by the Landscape Designer. All irrigation will be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit. II-B-4) Open Space II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-4a. A total of 18% of the site has been dedicated to recreational space for the tenants (not including perimeter landscaping areas). The recreational space includes the front yard (portion) of the existing house, the pergola area, the rear patios and Unit #4's front porch. Multiple large public recreational spaces are within a five minute walk from the subject property and the recreational spaces provided herein are intended for both private and neighborly interactive spaces best suited for urban living conditions. Page 21 of 23 II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other grouna covers which do not provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this requirement. The calculations presented have excluded all areas not suitable such as side property areas, walkways, etc. II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-4c. The application is only proposing three new units and preserving the existing unit. A total of 18% of the site has been dedicated to recreational space for the tenants (not including perimeter landscaping areas). The recreational space includes the front yard (portion) of the existing house, the pergola area, the rear patios and Unit #4's front porch. Multiple large public recreational spaces are within a five minute walk from the subject property and the recreational spaces provided herein are intended for both private and neighborly interactive spaces best suited for urban living conditions. II-B-5) Natural Climate Control II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-5a. The landscape plan has incorporated as many deciduous trees as reasonably could be planted. II-B-6) Building Materials II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are unacceptable. No bright or neon-type paint colors will be used on the buildings. The proposed material and colors will be consistent with building materials and colors often found on residential buildings and will only be earth-tone in general. 18.61.080 - Tree Removal Permit Criteria B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and Two of the three trees to be removed are older Apple trees located at the rear of the subject loi'°" within the footprint of the building, pergola and driveway. The third tree is a 36" Box Elder along the eastern property line Page 22 of 23 t deemed hazardous. The trees will'oe replaced with trees which are to be located in the general area and chosen to help with screening and shading of the site's buildings, driveways and neighboring properties. The site's trees have been evaluated by a local tree arborist Tom Madara, Madara Design, who concluded the trees are elderly with a limited life span. The Box Elder tree along the east property line is a hazard and is proposed to be removed. 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and The removal of the two Apple trees and Box Elder will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks to the site or their adjacent neighbor to the north or east. The proposed replacement trees identified on the project's Landscape Plan identifies appropriately placed trees that will be an asset for the project's tenants and neighbors. 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The removal of the two Apple trees and Box Elder will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the property. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The landscape plan shows three new trees to replace the three removed trees. The new trees will be appropriately placed and planted by professional landscapers to ensure long term survivability. 18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted as part of the application in order to protect the three large trees along the front of the property as well as the Pine tree on the adjacent property to the east. The plan identifies the Tree Protection Measures required in 18.61.200 B. All tree protection measures will be installed prior to any construction and a Tree Verification Permit obtained in accordance with Chapter 18.61.042. No development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work will occur without the protection measures in place. Protection measures will only be removed after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. G Page 23 of 23 dc' r 'esal n Inc Landscape Architecture, Design & Consultation 541-664-7055 2994 Wells Fargo Rd Central Point, Or 97502 madaradesign@yahoo.com ARBORIST: THOMAS MADARA Client: Laz Ayala April 24, 2014 Property Site: 1163 Iowa Street $ Ashland, Oregon 97520 I This report is in reference to a site visit to assess the condition of a number of trees on the property at the address listed above and several trees on the property line with the adjoining property immediately to the East, at 1177 Iowa St- This report references a survey provided by Polaris Land Survey to define the location of trees being assessed. This report also refers to a number of photos that support the j observations. There are three trees near the existing sidewalk just south of the one story house. The two that are most Westerly are unimpacted by any planned development. The Eastern most Sweet Gum (25") is a healthy specimen that will have some (10%) of its root zone affected by the proposed development. That impact will be limited in that most of the portions being impacted are already under an existing driveway. Some roots may need to be pruned to accommodate the new driveway base material. (Sweetgum 1 & 2 Photo) There are three trees that do to proposed construction, will need to be removed. They are noted as a 5" Apple, a 12" Apple and a 16" Apple. In particular the 16" Apple is mostly dead with only one main branch still alive. The other two are very old and of limited value. (Apple 1 Photo) is There are two trees noted as 36" Deciduous and 18" Pine bordering the Eastern property line. The Pine is a Scotch Pine that at some point in its life was clearly broken off at about 12' from the ground. It has grown many years since then and developed 3 co-dominant leaders. All of which branch out of the main trunk on E one side. Although removing the center of the 3 leaders would lighten the canopy, this tree will never have a natural form and has no significant historical value. (Pine 1,2 & 3 Photo) The 36" Deciduous tree is a Box Elder. My opinion is that this is a hazard tree and should be removed immediately for safety reasons. It has numerous dead and broken branches suspended within the canopy that are weighing down other weak branches. All of these are subject to falling at anytime. They have the potential of causing physical harm to people or property. This tree is near death. There are no strong individual branches. There are many portions of the canopy showing no new growth and in most locations where there is new season foliage it is from suckers near the trunk. The main trunk itself has massive sections of rot as do many of the branches. It is overgrown with ivy. This tree should be removed. (Elder 1,2,3,4,5, & 6 Photo) International Society of Arboriculture, License Number PN-6204A Oregon State Landscape Architect Board, License Number 528 Oregon Landscape Contractors License, License Number 11416 ! r Y I i i I 3 - I r E 11 1 t , , f 4. EE{ P t 1 h I I ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM (PROJECT GOALS) SITE NOTES Innovative infill for density that adds value to • Garages with an additional parking space for 1. PROPOSED UNIT DENSITY; 4 UNITS 5, UNITS SQUARE FOOTAGE; the neighborhood and City, each unit. PU.D. TOTAL FLOOR SPACE. 5,471 SF 2. BEDROOM COUNTS; 2-BEDROOM UNITTYPE A (EXISTING HOUSE) 6, P,U,D. FLOOR AREA RATIO; 41,9 % OF LOT AREA • Each townhometo provide 3 bedrooms and - Provide a sense of individuality and maintain THREE NEW 3-BEDROOM TOWNHOMES 1,124 SF LIVING SPACE 2 or 21/2 bathrooms, privacy between indoor and outdoor living ONE (EXISTING) 2-BEDROOM HOUSE Open-concept living that maximizes 7. LOT AREA: 13,058 SF spaces. TOTAL FOR P,U.D.11 BEDROOMS 3-BEDROOM UNITTYPE B (LOTS 2&3) 1,111 SF LIVING SPACE EACH 8. LOT COVERAGE; functionality and aging-in-place potential, • Unit separation and roof definition that allow 3, REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, 8 1,1 for individual building maintenance. 232 SF GARAGE SPACE EACH ALLOWED: 9,794 SF IMPERVIOUS (75%)ACTUAL Maintain modest unit size to keep homes 4. ON SITE PARKING SPACES, 7 1,343 SF TOTAL FLOOR SPACE EACH COVERAGE: 8,261 SF IMPERVIOUS (63.3%) affordable and provide maximum outdoors - Geared toward the turn-key lifestyle of 4 FULL SIZE SPACES (GARAGES) space, townhome living close to downtown. 1 FULL SIZE OPEN SPACE (EXISTING) 3-BEDROOM UNIT TYPE C (LOT 4) 9, RECREA I DRREA: SF (8%) ' a Master Bedroom to be situated on the main 2 COMPACT SPACES 1,277 SF LIVING SPACE (29% OPEN COMPACT SPACES) 384 SF GARAGE SPACE ACTUAL REC. SPACE: 2,400 SF (18%) living level, 1 STREET CREDIT 1,661 SF TOTAL FLOOR SPACE S fl ( I PRO71C11.0(All-DA] APPLICANT: MEADOWBHOOKTOWNHOMESLLC PROJECT G0~~5 AND ll 63IOWA STREET 05-01-2014 4 WNHOMES H.D. SCHEMRTIC DESIGN I- IOWA STREET TO SHEIT NL0,MODII NA 1N SITE NOTES ASHLAND, OREGON sHEEtsite11xI7 I SCALE: NA n PAPER SIZE: 11 X 17 1 SGALE: I ID 10 FT. J~l h 159,24f PRO OSED 64'-3 9/8" LOT WIDTH -PROPOSED 27-6LOT WIDTH ~PROPOSED 24'-O" LOT WIDT PROPOSED 43'-51/2' LOT WIDTH I J 13' 6° ! I i C I. I 10~" 31-0, PATIO PATIO PATIO X r1 BICYCLE I I /X ! Q b I I STORAGE /N STN 1~IN~ I RACKUNDER ~cl E ! ROOF® I 2ND STORY / DWVEWAY i OUTLINE U I I / ROOF SLOP I / ~~~I \ N N ' O 0 R/5 g F ( LOT 2 ~ 0UTUN°~ LOT , OT 4 I i3 BED / 2 BATH 3 BED / 2 BATH: 3 BE}2 / 21/2 BATH I 1,111 SF:LIVING ' 232 SF GAR, 1,111 SF LIVING ~ 232 S~ GAP- 1,277 SF , IVING 1 384 CAP-. LOT 01 I ryI I 0 OOFSLQPE 0 I ROOF SLOPES > N 1 EXISTING 1 SINGLE-STORY ! ( i 1 A HOUSE TO REMAIN r---= r--= 1 1 I Il I F~, ~Q ~ I BICYCLE STOR e _ ! wo RACK Cep GAR. (TYP.) PORC OR 2~-nGAR ~ I , 1 ! 4%5 4X5 GARAGE ! 1-GAR 1-GAR G MP ACT . ~e I G MP GT. F"u GARAGE GARAGE PKG ~a ! G - - - - - - - _ _ - - I PAC F SLOPE ROOF s PORCH as ,moo 1 / Fl FY LpPe> <100 ! i PAG . 9 9 i «E~ V e PROPOSED P.1. ✓ 1 w~ - / 10.9112'(5¢-FOR:AWR 05T.) 1 a~+ 12-0" - / 4 10 , / GOLA0 ! la I I 1 4~ ~rCRAVING ro i m f0 DI~IVlEWAY ! 1 I I 0 o ! I i I BACKUP 0 I I Q N 7 I SPACE Q PF_ 5T N G i I I I I ~ 'k 159,24 0) tOT AREA: 13,058 SF COVERAGE: 8,261 SF (63.3% IMPERVIOUS) 1 YARD AREA 4,707 SF 02 REGREATIONAL SPAGE: 2,400 SF (185o) 2 m m PROILCI FOCAIFDAT APPLICANT: MEADOWBROOKTOWNNOMESLK 5 (1 i 1: T SITE WNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163 IOWA STREET CREATED 05-01-2014 rh' STREET VERSION 1.0, MODIFIED 05-01-2014 IOWA S 1 ITR IE ASHLAND, OREGON SNEETSIZE U17 1 SCAEEIIN•=10FT. 2 ' r 1 r t E( - - " j !J L'A i r _11 e_ I Y. I - _ rSI1 LLT 11R01ICIIOCALDA] APPLI(ANT,MEADOWDROOKTOWN HOMES LL( SOUTHEAST CONCEPT VIEW P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN (REATEDD5D12Di4 IOWA STREET TOWNHOIVIES ~~63~OWASTREET VERSION 1.0, MODIFIED 05-01-2014 - ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIPE;11X17I S(AL@NA 3 n- I u , 2M~ INS y~ n. r_ - i ~ {II T r` o- fi l _ n~ E i , C n e.-.~ 1 tl. S. e- 3 it ~I I i - • j z_ 41, 3 PROK(L LO(AlI D A[ APPLICANT: MEADOWBROOKTOWNHOMESLLC IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163 IOWA STREET CREATED05-01-2014 NORTHWEST CONCEPTVIEW VERSION 1,0, MODIFIED 05.01-2014 ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIZE:11X17 I SCALE:NA l Y y a. - . r~ r~ . , I E E 1 ~E - - I f 77 I 1 a , ~I f T E z A_ - - - - ' E 7177- T,_ 1 PROIR I LOCATED Al APPEI(ANT, MEADOWBR00KTOWNHOMES EEf S I. E ! IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163 IOWA STREET CREATED 05-01-2014 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS - FRONT VERSION 1.0, MODIFIED 05-01-2014 ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIZE;11X17 I SCAEENA t i i i ~I ~ r I I 1 I I i _x. F Me. c , I i pl ~t~ I 'I 1 J f 1 i I p} I i t I f I a 41 PROIE(I LOCAI11)At APPLICANT. MEADOWBROOK TOWN HOMES LLC S N E E. T IOWA STREETTOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163 IOWA STREET UER~oN,o°MO~IE4IEDOSD,-20,4 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS - REAR ASHLAND, OREGON SNEETSIZE:TlxlZ I SCALE:NA 6 i i ' I w f NORTH ELEVATION - - SOUTH ELEVATION PE0IECILOW11)Al APPEI(ANT:MEADOWBROOKTOWNHOMESEEC S 11 1 1. J IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163 iowaslREET VERSION 05 -01CONCEPT ELEVATIONS - SIDES 7 ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIZE:11XI7 SCAIENA / , ,a 41 f ,a li L-7-_ I T~n I _ tf~l--' - r. i ,'II ill 11 ~ ..c, ~ ~ y - LIM - =-11 t} Lid II (I~ I', ~ 7 " t T -;4 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 I I t i BUILDING MATERIALS & COLORS 1. HardiePanel Vertical Siding w/ Batten Board, 12-inch o/c spacing, paint Sherwin Williams SW 6089 "Grounded" 2. HardiePlank Lap Siding; 5-inch profile, smooth finish, paint Sherwin Williams SW 6243 "Distance" i 3. HardiePlank Lap Siding: 9-inch profile, smooth finish, paint Sherwin Williams SW 6186 "Dried Thyme" 4. HardiePlank Lap Siding: 5-inch profile, smooth finish, paint Sherwin Williams SW 0033 "Rembrandt Ruby" dL 5, All exterior trim (including fascia, barge and gutters): paint Sherwin Williams SW 7019 "Gauntlet Gray" 6. Front Entry Doors; TBD 7. Garage Doors;TBD ~ ( 8. Posts: HardiePanel Vertical Siding w/ corner wraps, paint Sherwin Williams SW 6089 "Grounded" II 9. Roofing. Standing Seam Metal, Med-Dark Gray ~ Alternate Roofing, Composition Asphalt,Med-DarkGray t2l 4i PROI[UIOCRTEDRi APPLICANT; MEADOWBROOKTOWNHOMESLLC H [ T IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 11631owASrREEr VERSION°0,MODIFIED05.01.2014 EXTERIOR MATERIALS & COLORS ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIZE;11R11 SALE:NA S 4S~~G H'GHEST e aaouc'n~ co ur -p/~-xra¢H.:Ha W • ❑ L _ .05/9 I nI -f3a 5/9 LyT FLR 0.G_ Y~ 126 ~ 151 RR ClG I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 93 13 tDT]FN_ftR ❑ ❑ " NANRA.GWIDE n _ 3G~_____ ❑ u7~~ \ qlL dF..N lUi. 9 o--------------------- LOT 2 LOT 3 PVLF 4 LOT 4 FRONT (EAST) ELEVATI®N p ~p L5 2p 25 30 35 AO 45 50 55 GO 65 70 75 BO 85 FT PROII(I IO(ATL0Al APPLICANT: MEADOWBROOKTOWNHOMESLLC EI 1 L T IOWA STREET 1163IOWA STREET VERSION 1.0,o, MOMOOIPIEDOS-o1-zola ANNOTATED FRONT ELEVATION TOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN D,4 ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIlE11Xi1 I SCALE: 1I8IN,=1ET ~~RDC-E 1145510 Am] 13 5TR➢6p OD l YT E4~. &11V0 EXISTING WC.~L`R Hi 03 HOUSE ❑ . 13 _ FnY FLR 2FN FIA 15-6 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 REAR (WEST) ELEVATION F k 1 1 O 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 00 65 70 75 80 85 FT 1. 111111111 1 1111 Al [11 Al APPLICANT: MEADOWBHOONTOWN HOMES LLC S If I. E 1 05-01-2014 IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.II.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163 IOWA STREET VERSIONSION1 1.09, MODIFIED D5-01-2014 ANNOTATED REAR ELEVATION ASHLAND, OREGON SHEETSIZE:11XI7 SCALE:1/91N,=1FT, F01 0 F01 n RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATION - LOT 4 LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATION - LOT 2 O 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Fi PhOIL(_I1001LDAl APPLICANT. MEADOWBHOOKTOWN HOMES LLC S N 1, IOWA STREETTQWNHOMES PU.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163IOWA STREET VER ON °MODFED05_01_2014 NORTH & SOUTH ELEVATIONS 1.0 ASHLAND OREGON SHEETSIZE;11M17 I SCALE,USIN.=IFT, LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 .5068 ._7~:.-,. 6008 ~ 60ca , ~i .5068 - - :o~ rti.D, :1✓30 Fxo - 5oaoxo DINING q 100'x 1235" o A Q M.BEE)RDOM M.BEl-)ROOM M.BEE)ROOM 14715"x1071/4" 125"x124.75" LL 14115"x106" GREAT ROOM GREAT ROOM 41 125" x 176' 1251/4° x 176' - r~"""'~ 'i1L1 nnlL C~~~~~~~~WLJJU~ ~ In M.BATH W.I"G, E7ml-Fn-i 21 CHE &35'x51.2b" 35"x70 6 1 KITCHEN KITCHEN o 0 x Zm Z - - x ~ Qro LIVING 4-1 zo2o gib. 3008 3068 2020 1365'.123" GARAGE Q 200' x 20'0" - - - GA2AGE GARAGE 200'x 12o' 200'x 120° 3068 aoao s.N. Li6- -0 PROIL(1LOW11)Al APPLICANT, MEADOWBROOKTOWNHOMESLLC S N E IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.I.I.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163IOWA STREET VE~ION°0,°MODFIEDOS_01-2014 FIRST FLOOR PLANS ASHLAND,OREGON SHEETSIZE,11K17 I SCALE: 1/81N,=1FT. 12 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 3J'c0S.H. BEDROOM 3 ! 12'5'x 124 314" n I ' m zoo xo ..=03~ xo ~ 503 xo 2c~o xo ` , lift WjL11111111ill mil X30 F-D BATH BATH BATH so" x 50' x 910' 5'0' x BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 2 ]261/7 x 1121/4" 126 V2 x 1121/2` 4 H 7/~~1 . i o ' s_ litifil trill IN i BEDROOM 2 120'x 124 3/4` xx zoza FXD. 2a e a0ae FxO. 20ae Ia' g BEDROOM 3 j BEDROOM 3 173 V2' x if21/4" 12'3 V2" x ti21/7 III( J X V llol ~21014 csrrr. ' 30605.H~ -h~30a05.H, i I i i i J 1 I 1 1 PRO)k IOCATEDAT APPLICANT. MEADOWBROOKTOWNNOMESLL( s 11 E l IOWA STREET TOWNHOMES P.U.D. SCHEMATIC DESIGN 1163iowasTREET VERION°0,°MODFIED05.0,_2014 SECOND FLOOR PLANS 13 ASHLAND, OREGON SNEETSIIE;11X17 I SCALE;1181N,=1FT, i Q Z Z ° fb ~ w Z U= U? j um w Z w Q p vWi U ~~h p U ZO cri Q E w w w w WO O O Z 0 0 0 o~~ 0 o o~ ~o Z vQi ~ z z z z z In Ln (n C/) V) 1S N70ON17 z'W o co N 0 0 0 0 0 Z ~z Wmo z 0® ZZ X x x x- a a.2 o 2 ~Q ~Q ! ZO ® L-Q J n w w w w a n. o- (L m U n. Z C Wo I h om °o Q a T- I > z k W w LU - 0 O ZZ W(f) w (f) LQ O Q Co U V) LL LIJ Q WM W~ WW Il Q~~W w C) C) w o ~lZ, 3NI7M0 71 I I- 0 W WQ'Q log ~~0.-== o~ ot~? Q o W v o Z o 0 0 N~k Z °L M zhmz Q~ ~o ~ 11N ~ III k ~ ~ ~WOQ Z ~Q W ~~f I o ~'Q \1- w ~ 0 a aW oQ ~vm m~ a o II W~ 4 U ~ V) O~W m QDU~ ~ C)-U C/)Q'CWO(f)UQ)~W~ Q) 0 OQ~O O~ W'~>mWSOJ < J ° O v S ~Q W I 0. rI ZW WOO orQ Cr Wv ~QWoWW III 1S 7b'd Z Jcr- u o 0 3N17 /U NddOdd SNIT SIX 2 ~n m o 1 W o m O y I m Z) O L~ 00 0350do&d Q'~~ o o Q Q Q Q ( VM3/~IbO 16/l l - W _ W o - _7 41 LQ rZ _Q oL'i y16F11 r II ~ct~W ~o (J)O 0 0 I- l-ZZZI ~ W Qm a w w C) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I II Q w cj~ a UU U I II o o Q Q ww r IZ: 0 I `z ~ L W II W ~ i CL- III II z o Io L,j W O a xo zi- Q) O ~O O I Q II II C) P-- P4 rn II II v z" 6 a a _ZZ °m ~a W aw j - z OO ZN i~ o x I r z i Il I w i l I. av C) c- ~x I ° a , I II a ~ N~~ I - - O 1 2 3 4 5 5 W 0// 578 0 TREE PROTECTION PLAN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES GRADING IRRIGATION DETAILS ha OR OREGON ara E 1. Tree protection plans set forth in this section shall beinsthutedprior 1. General prepadbnof site to lnduda., 1.Landscape contractor to include removaIofdebris 11f2"orlarger andtheremovalof 1. Ana~Q"ndlclnlgationsystem tobeprovided forall plant materials areas E R to any development activities and shall be removed only after A Eradication ofweeds through the certified application ofhetdddes,allowing te accordance wAhInduslry standards. System is Intended to perform at completion of allconsWctionadrviry.Thisplanreferencesthelam - adequate tireforkal canpadedrackandgmvelinallplantingareas inorder toachieve plantingareas where 8 gpm and 40 psi. Confirm on-site before proceeding depending on the Street Tree Assessment Report. e. Removal, from she, ofall eaihtingsurface rock In plantingbed& the subgradeconsists l2"ofviable soiL(seeGeneral Notes for additional conditions). available Yalu source.. 2 All shnb beds to be finish raked to a smooth condition plorto mulching. Viable soil may include existing soil when It is consists of soil thatwll promote the healthy 2 All materials are to be nexard In original mMitlan 2. Chain link lending,am'nimumof8'Iallwfihsteelposts paced no 3. Medium dark mtchto be placed In all shrub beds to adepth of 4". growth of plant materials and that is devoid of deleterious content. 3. Install andapproved double check]valve percity andstate requirements. farther than ten feet apart, shall be lnstaled at the edge ofth a bee 4. Plan is dagrernlic and messuremerdsshould be confirmed onske. Any charges are the 2. Placement of any soil to be done in coordination vAth sulable weather condition so as to 4. Place manual drain valves asneeded at law ponds In malrore protection zone or driplin, whichever is greater, and at the boundary of responsibility, of the contractor to co-ordinate withthe owners representative. 5. Malndineshould belocated Inarea with [awl conflict nlth surrounding tties. Mainline location w . e any open tracts, adorn areas, or conservation easements that 5. INCLUDE i600AYSOFhWMENWCE from the da ofa e a ceMound prevent damage to soil structure. u pan for eaaeofN etation Y Pe P y Id Including 3. Landscape contractor responsible to provide afinish grade within 3" of surrounding 6. A4 ddip zones to use PVC laterals to locatea point of connection in each o abut the parcel being developed. limited to: 3. The fencing shall be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. AMaintainplantingareaInahealhy,v~dhcewnddiontlroughaminimunot hardscepes.Aflgradedmaletleilobeadequatelyfnnwlhouttld ngovedyconpaded. iMrrdual planting bed. 4. Approved signs, provided by the City of Ashland, shall be attached to Hveeldyvistte. 4. Landscaper to place sulficenlcompacted dean topsoil to achieve finish grade in 7. Shrub areas to be Irrigated by drip lmgatim B. Replace any material shrnwrg signs of stress. shnbareas. Additional sal may be necessary depending on available existing soil. A A9 sudece drip tubing to be 10poly tubing. TuHrgerdstohave C. Ihechainlinkferxingnotingatreeprotecdonzoneandthattheareais C.Monllor krigatdnforcorredtirr&g 5. Finish grade in shrub areas to be a smooth even grade mounded T'highinthemiddle removable aps.Tubing tobudedaminimum, of3-Fandheld down every 20 not to be distlurbedwithout prior approyalfrom the Cites staff advisor D,Provide owner Wth m7plgelist of Instructions for continued care, at the end of the of beds and ending 3" below surrounding areas. All finish grading to promote positive 5Wth '-stekes. ~~ry/ ,6 for the project. maintenance ceclod drainage way as to eliminate puddling or B. Rain Bird XB.lOEmilers to be placed at the edge of root zones of plants V/ away from structures andbbe done in sudsa at the fdoWrg mt. 5, No construction activity shall acwrwNin the tree pro ledi0n zone collection of water. 10 c O1 designated on pans as chain linkfe Ing, including but not limited to 1.29 plaras2-1GPHemitlersplacMmapposilesidesofrodbafi 'G 8. Landscape contractor responsible for addressing any drainage problems encountered 3-5g. plants 3-1GPHemitters placed onopposite sides ofrodta8 0 ~ E sting any soil. -approved during grecourse ofcanstnrdiar,with owners representative. Larger material 5.1GPHeminersspaced equally around perimeter of 8 cherrvdumpiocalls,andlorenys,and/ or any any disturbance t t el he exi use of rout beg dv C. NI Drip zones toInclude a 200 mash filer and 30sl pressure regulator ~a u0j o B. Al trenchingto be a minimum ofl2'deep. Baclditi is lobe demand free of Km N any material larger than l 11Z'In diameter. Beclditi shall beadequetefy K 0 oompaded and guaranteed against further setting. fR P0e N m 9. AY lateral pipe shall be PVCSO10 and 1"rdnimum \U LL - uy a 10. Battery operated tWnder Node control valve located in standard rectangular o.=•~ti D valve bore. D LL ,o Existing Landscape ® M 11. Steering lobe firwidedunderati hardscapes tryWere l contractor farlnLgallon CIO m to Remain As Is x purposes v d4 FATIO G iPATIO XW * )A 121rtigatim system to be guaranteed oganst defective material or wwhnanehip em orv~ or prH) )k JP for one year from the date of final acceptance. Damage or loss due to vandalism Urrl E ppp ,,,------ttt G freedrg orads of need by others, is exempt fromContradoes replacement responsibility. IVEWAY V log°w.W,r ~a a G 13. Provide aamerwith an accurate as-built locating allvalves, wire splices, main line uuf I` L%' and any sleevig. 14. Provide awnerwith prel'ardnery watering schedule forthe established landscape. 15. Pror4de omarv cwrpdetesel ofwrigen insWCtlom for Ww ofspdNder system Indudirg song start up, dock operation, andwinten6atian WT"Pe 16. Walk ownerthro ghthe entire system describing the operating Imtn lion s. LOT 2 LOTS LOT 4 0 nAccess for Back ® -Feboo e50XL3l4- Double Check Valve W LOTS -Patio and Maintainence W < 711 fn m o F- -17 rn Gravel Path (0 D. PATH Fencing Between Properties = QQ~ asm JRan~ C 3: a s' scape h r Qk oe G C O o e I Is b 04 O r- m # Z. 25 LIM Existing Landscape W ru 0 to Remain As Is W w R N0 Chain link fence 6' h. for tree protProtecsee Tree Protection Plan) EXISTING D R I V E WAY REPLACED IN SAME L O 4 i Pergola and 7~RAC-KUPS Flagstone Paving _ _ aura ryas or.~rrmr Eleddc Vault b i Chain link fence 6' h, for o a tree protectbn(seeTree FE arr, n B Protection Plan) I t o toTa la(,%F1Caaa+ce:exlsrl63ax10(ei)1YA AREk4.va78rxccrrEA7XX EPAM2,,mU(18%) D PLANTING J PLANT LIST ' 1. Plant material to be provided in accordance with species, sizes and quantities indicated Quantity ComrpnName BolanlcalName Size below: Substitutions based on list provided may be made asapplicable. Remaining =-a be agr Y gade \ Trees substitudons to be made with the approval of landscape architect. e~aenuxm «~e to 2. No panting to proceed until lrtlgationsystem isfully functioning In the area to be planted. ie a voraxe~e:o< man 2 Cherry, Royal Burgundy Pmnussermlala'RoyalBurgundy' 25g of eralbralatua w.wer 3. Ali 1/3 oganic mctbech, Zdug3 2 native times the soil, volume mticeuh¢ae of their suproot plimepime ball size. sae and . l6•iBack6.fl16 feNNfertizer as consist follows. 1 Mape,Japanese Green Acer palmatum 25g I N gal organic gal 1oz skmbPl+num Debi oehau 3.5ga1 2oz Shrubs aozar larger 4oz b 17 Abelia, Kaleidoscope Abelieagrandifforo'Kaleidoscope 2g 4. Plant upright and face to give best appearance or relationship to plants, structures and 18 Arborvitae, Emerald Thujaoccidentalis'Smaragd 58' predominant velwing angle. Trees are to be planted so as to be straight up and dowri 14 Holly, Japanese Hallett Ericapuryurescens'Dadeyensis' 2g vdihoutthe assistance of staking. Staking is solely for support against outside forces. Treetles3tn 7 Laurel, Otto Luyken Primus laurocerasus'OlfoLuyken' 59 IOWA STREET 5. Loosen and remove twine binding and burlap from around top of each root bal. from ground 17 a a Oregon Grope Mahaniaa9 ufalium 2g TOWNHOUMESPUD Scarify root balls of pants exhibititng a mot bound condlon, being careful not to damage z I the root balls integriy.Stake andguytrees immediately after this work. al a 23 Spireea,Goldimund Spiroeabomalda'Goldmound 2g aver > Chl* "I , shpbmaile 8Q-8 Viburnum, David Vibumumdavidii 5g lazAYALA 6. Place and compact baddill soil mixture carefully to avoid injury to roots, and fill all voids. d exrouaaixscounr i i.. 7. Vrbenhole is213fi8edwith €oil, completely soak andallow water losoak away etlessthwm firms or more, as necessary to completely water individual plants. m «~.eee GroundGoverlGrasses Landscape ASHLAND,OR97520 8, Guarantee plant materials and related workmanship of installation, beginning after written era~srararm« A Ia.aaor: i--13 Blue Fescue fesluceglauce 1g se"""e pace work, foroneyear. os A LANDSCAPE PLAN Z A Replace plalantmaterial nolsurvvingorlnpoor cendidondudng~aronleepedod. '~`treeiva°~ Q--16 Bunchberry Comuscenedensis 4"pots Plan B. Perform all repacementwodcin accordance with original specifications at no b iduoosrr.PImtI ogdll -3 Daylily,Stella dOro HemerocaIlls 'Stella dOro' 1g Ii additional 3 Grass, Hameln Dwarf PennlsetumalopewroidesHametn' 1g costtaOwner• G®------, Yakushima Miscanlhus sinensis `Yakushima o 5 10 at 3o do 1g C. Damage or loss of plant maledelsduetovandalism,freezingoracts ofneglect by 4 AIX others, isexercptfromConiradol'srepacementresponsibility. 15 Grasasss, dakushi Massachusetts Miscan ap shner a'Mushima'usells' ig 0 -28 Thyme, Red Thymisserphyllum'Coccineus' 4" pots Scale V 10' anrrn NOTE: IF THIS SHEET IS LESS THAN 24"x36" IT HAS BEEN REDUCED AND IS NOTTO SCALE. 3 4 5 6 L-1 01 30' 30' PRELIMINARY MAP TL 5300 Ayala Townhomes PU TL 5000 TL 2802 LYING SITUATE WITHIN SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10 TOWNSHIP 39 SOUTH, RANGE I EAST, W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON FOR 62.00` Laz Ayala x 1944 I - - 1163 Iowa Street - - ® - - I x I Ashland, Oregon 97520 29~SQ.FT. SCALE. 1® 30. x x I u LEGEND ~~gh5~ a ( ITS PROPERTYLINE x "M PROPOSED LOT LINE 62.00' [ti I ® I rTl - BOUNDARYLINE ^4 CENTERLINE / pl a ~ 19k6 p wWO ~ul EASEMENTLINE rn N LOT 3 N Q m 0 -X-X-X- FENCELINE x 7WI4118 5Q. fT w WATER LINE 62.00' I N I G GASLINE rnx 1947 I TL 5400 I -~D STORMDRAINLINE LOT 2 p r 1--- SANITARY SEWER LINE i~ 1705 SQ.FT n .N I 7L 2700 -OHP OVERHEAD POWER LINE N CONpR N R 5700 R 5600 !4 : I / I ~..-°1365'^\ CONTOUR LINE PAIlO. < 11J~ r, 19'.. 62.O PP POWER POLE ° 0 WM WATER METER DECK \ I I O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 1163 IOWA STREET. 4 ONE STORY HOUSE I © GAS METER x ON CONCRETE FOUNDATION %EM K~+FH FIRE HYDRANT (TO REMAIN) 7 DEM ELECTRIC METER 14 ® CI CURB INLET LOT1 REGISTERED 7S ° U z ' PROFESSIONAL p 0 - 30' 30' LAND SURVE 1 - - - - 0 \ r 0 1_~ ~ uI WM J\Y IDEWAL. P 19H FH o o I l--ry i I CURB ! I l OREGON SSAIH 05 - G ~ G \3f G SSMH G- G G G- JULY 14, 199A 1 RIM ELEVATION 1954,44 9g?\ RIM ELEVATION =1951.19' M 1 1J SHAWN KAMPMANN - INV.B"PVC(E-W=S)=1949.1' \1953 19 =194984 _ _ 2eea i 8" S ER \ 1N :8'FVC E-W-S =1945.6' I RIM F1 FV4 a Irw. 8"PVC(W-N)=1944.9' RENEWAL DATE: 6/30/2015 10 W A SDMH S T R E E T INK 6 "PVC (S) =1945.1' SD SD SD SD SD RIM ELEV 1951.2 ' SD SD Sp SD SD ~j- SI JIJO 8" STORM CURB INK 8" PVC=1949.0 r, SURVEYED BY: RIM ELEVATION =1954.00' 0 , BHP INV. B PVC(E-S)=1951.7 oHP DNP aNP OHP A POLARIS LAND SURVEYING LLC a - P.O. BOX 459 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 TL 8303 (541) 452®5009 TL 8700 TL 7002 R 7001 TL 8300 I I DATE: APRIL 30, 2014 PROJECT NO. 834-13 Assessor's Map No. 39 1E 10 C8, Tax Lot 5500 - R-3 Zoning District POLARIS LAND SURVEYING i ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 - C I T, o r FILE #_P,` 1..0I O~ 0.SHLAND 541-488-5305~~Fax 541-488-6006 / DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Q1247-- L®i DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 6 taw A ~5% . Assessor's Map No.391 E / D GB Tax Lot(s) ~Sa Zoning /2 13 Comp Plan Designation /w/7i' r 15, i ly APPLICANT Name 1,4F- AY4(,, " Phone E-Mail X/JOxD,4,,vD. l Address l6 D¢ 61 frJL 0AIe-5. AV~J1rVic_ City Ak1 tih zip 73-,Z 0 PROPERTY OWNER Name Soh,-fA_ Ag.0V~_'_ Phone ~ E-Mail Address City Zip SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER 77 ~ Title Name Phone E-Mail I Address City Zip Title Name Phone E-Mail Address City Zip 1 hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. 1 understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further 4) that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in qot- y the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, l am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. ~ L 2 o 4- Applicant's Signature - Date As owner of the property involved in is request, l hav , read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. -s Property Owner's Signature~~required) Date [To be completed by City Staff] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ Planning Action Type OVER 0 C:\DOCLW-Manksa\LOCALS-1\Temp\Zoning Permit Application Form.doc Job Address: 1163 IOWA ST Contractor: ASHLAND OR 97520 Address: C A Owner's Name: AYALA PROPERTIES LLC O Phone: P Customer 07306 N State Lic No: P MEADOWBROOK TOWNHOMES LLC T City Lic No: L Applicant: 2138 DUNCAN DR R Address: MEDFORD OR 97504 A C C Sub-Contractor: A Phone: (541) 944-1921 T Address: N Applied: 05/02/2014 p T Issued: R Expires: 10/29/2014 Phone: State Lic No: Maplot: 391 E10CB5500 City Lic No: DESCRIPTION: Outline of final plan/site review/tree removal VALUATION Occupancy Type Construction Units Rate Amt Actual Amt Constuction Description Total for Valuation: IE- MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURAL PERMIT FEE DETAIL Fee Description Amount Fee Description Amount Final Plan with Outline type2 3,202.00 Residential Site Review 1,262.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main St. Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY OF Inspection Request Line: 541-552-2080