Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 12, 2021. IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION 4PA-T2-2021-00029, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 5 -LOT, 4 -UNIT' PERFORMANCE STANDARDS) OPTIONS SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTIES AT 822 OAK STREET. THE APPLI- ) CATION ALSO INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR: A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PRIVATE) DRIVEWAY TO SERVE FOUR UMTS WHERE DEDICATION OF A PUBLIC STREET) IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY A NON- ) FINDINGS, CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY SEPARA- ) CONCLUSIONS & TION IS NOT PROVIDED FOR AN AVENUE; AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STAN- ) ORDERS DARDS TO NOT INSTALL CITY STANDARD STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVE- } NIENTS ALONG OAK STREET; AND A STREET TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO } REMOVE THREE OAK TREES. ) APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC ) Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC ) RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #200 and #201 of Map 39 IE 04 CA are vacant parcels at 822 Oak Street, on the east side of Oak Street between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive, and are zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential). 2) The applicant is requesting Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the two properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units where dedication of a public street is typically required under AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non -conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue as required in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a; an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.39.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. 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. PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 1 C. 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. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land fi°om being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. 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. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 4) The criteria for Final Plan: approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten 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 percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. C. The common open spaces vary no more than ten 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 percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance 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. h. Nothing in this section 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 common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 2 S) The criteria for a Variance are described in AMC 18.5.5.050.A as follows: J . The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship far purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 6) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection18.5.4.050.A.� below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. C. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 3 e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. a. WR and RR. Residential use complyin 3, with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.E Standards for Residential Zones. b. R-1. Residential use complyin with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter .18.2. Standards far Residential Zones. C. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complyin with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.E Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter I8..Z. v Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C -1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter FJ -8—.2J Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2. Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM -Cl. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3... Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 4 i. CM -OE and CM MU The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3. Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM -NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3... Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 1. HC NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. 7) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.b as follows: 1. Exception to the Street Desi Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.04 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the followingfactors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i. e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. C. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.1.6.010.A S) The criteria for a Street Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 13.16.030 as follows: The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or removed ,from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit has been issued PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 5 by the City Manager or the City Manager's designee. Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall he no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List. (Ord. 3192 § 100, amended, 11/17/2020) 9) Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 2.62 "Emergency Powers" specifically delegates the authority to declare a state of emergency to the City Manager, subject to subsequent ratification by the City Council. On March 17, 2020, the City Council ratified the City Administrator's March 15, 2024 Declaration of Emergency resulting from the Coronavirus contagion, and the Council has subsequently approved extension of this Declaration of Emergency through at least October 19, 2021. Among other things, this Declaration of Emergency provides for public meetings to be conducted by electronic means for the various City commissions and boards, including the Planning Commission. 10) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on August 10, 2021 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Prior to the closing of the hearing, the applicant requested that the hearing be continued pursuant to ORS 197.763(6) to present additional evidence or argument. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to Tuesday, September 14, 2021 and 7:00 p.m., at which time the Planning Commission reconvened the meeting electronically at which time additional testimony was received and exhibits presented. Following the closing of the public 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 "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 6 SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3, for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5, for a Variance described in .AMC 18.5.5.050, for an Exception to Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.b; and for a Street Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 13.16.030. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements or has requested Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.39.050 — 18.3.9.080, and the provisions of the chapter as well as other applicable provisions including AMC 18.4.3 Parking, Access, & Circulation; AMC 18.4.6 Public Facilities; and AMC 18.4.8 Solar Access. The application materials further emphasize that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. The Planning Commission finds that the subject property here is outside of the PSO overlay, and as provided in AMC 18.3.9.030.1), if a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under the "Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay" chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1) The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; 2) That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; 3) The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM; or 4) The property is developed as a cottage housing development consistent with the standards in section 18.2.3.090. The subject property is less than two acres in area, is zoned R-1 and is not proposed for a cottage housing development. The Planning Commission finds that the use of the Performance Standards Option will protect the environment and neighborhood from the degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, and will preserve two large stature Cedar Trees which are to be preserved and protected on the common area lot. The Commission finds that a Performance Standards subdivision will be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impacts. The Planning Commission finds that the development of the individual, detached single family dwelling units requires two off street parking spaces each, and building permit submittals would need to demonstrate that required off-street parking would be provided with development of the individual lots. in addition, the Performance Standards Options Chapter's Parking Standards in AMC 18.3.9.060 require that at least one on - street parking space shall be provided per dwelling unit for all developments in an R-1 zone in addition to PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 7 off-street parking required. These on -street parking spaces are to be provided immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association -owned land and be directly accessible from public right- of-way ight- ofway streets, and each space is to be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. The Planning Commission finds that the four parking spaces proposed on the south side of the driveway are each within 200 feet of the unit they serve, are accessible from Oak Street and can be found to satisfy this requirement. The Planning Commission further finds that a driveway serving a single lot and greater than 50 feet in length, or a driveway providing access to flag lots is considered a flag drive and subject to the development requirements in AMC 18.5.3.060 including that each lot have three parking spaces situated so as to avoid the need for backing out; that the flag drive address width, fire access, work area and turn -around requirements; and that there are provisions for screening, drainage, and maintenance. Given that the drive here serves four lots and they are not flag lots, the Commission finds that strict adherence to the flag drive parking standards is not necessary. A third visitor's parking spaces is not necessary for each lot given that an on -street parking space is provided for each lot on the common area, however the Commission does find that the off-street parking spaces must be configured to eliminate the need for backing out, and that fire access, drainage and maintenance requirements shall be demonstrated to be satisfied at building permit. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.4.8.040 requires that land divisions creating new lots be designed to permit the location of a 21 -foot high structure with a setback that does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north -south dimension. Where lots have a north -facing negative slope of less than 15 percent, this calculation is based on Standard A, meaning the shadow cast cannot exceed that of a six-foot fence on the north property line. Lots having a north facing negative slope equal to or greater than 15 percent, this calculation is based on Standard B, meaning the shadow cast cannot exceed that of a 16 -foot fence on the north property line. Where an applicant chooses not 4,o design a lot with an adequate north -south dimension, they can instead identify a "solar envelope" to define the allowed height requirements to protect the applicable solar access standard. The application here has identified north building envelope limits for Lots 2-4 showing where a 12 -foot shadow producing point could be placed to comply with Standard A, but asserts that because Lot 1 is not changing from its current configuration (i.e. while included in the subdivision, it will retain the same dimensions as it now has as apre-existing lot of record) it is not subject to the Solar Access Performance Standard requirement and is simply subject to Solar Access Standard B. The Planning Commission disagrees and finds that, because Lot 1 is part of the requested subdivision, and as such could have its north -south dimension adjusted to comply if the applicant chose to do so, it is subject to the Solar Access Performance Standard requirement and needs to either comply with the lot design requirement or identify a solar envelope complying with Standard A. A condition to this effect has been included below. The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is 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. " PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 8 The Public Works Department has noted that the following city facilities are available to serve the subject property from the adjacent Oak Street right-of-way: a six-inch water main, an eight -inch sanitary sewer main, and a 24 -inch storm sewer main. The application materials assert that the proposal provides for adequate key City facilities, further explaining that water lines will be extended in the same general area as the existing water meter boxes, which are directly behind the curb; that the site grading plan anticipates individual sanitary sewer ejector pumps to the sanitary sewer main in Oak Street; and storinwater is proposed to be captured and detained onsite in an engineered swale which will overflow into the city system. The electric distribution plan provides a new vault on the north side of the driveway within the new common area lot_ The applicant notes that necessary easements will be provided for all utilities, and that in discussions with Public Works and the individual utility departments no capacity issues or concerns have been identified. In terms of adequate transportation, Oak Street is classified as an Avenue in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) and is improved with paving, curb and gutter in place along the subject property's frontage. Continuous sidewalks were completed along the west side of Oak Street with a Local Improvement District (LID) some years ago, but there are no sidewalks in place along the east side for the subject property or the majority of the corridor between Sleepy Hollow Drive and East Nevada Street. The application includes a request for a Variance not to install frontage improvements along Oak Street which is discussed in section 2.5 below. The Planning Commission finds that adequate key City facilities are available within the adjacent rights -of --way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants according to the approved pians, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is 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. " The application materials explain that there are two large stature Incense Cedar trees on the property that will be preserved and protected on the common area lot. Three large Oak street trees along the Oak Street right-of-way were also initially planned for preservation, however after consulting with a certified arborist it was determined that these three trees are nearing the end of their life cycle and have damage to the degree that their removal is necessary. In their place, the applicant proposes to plant six Oak trees of at least two-inch caliper along the street and down the driveway as mitigation trees. The Planning Commission finds that, in addition to protecting the two large Cedars on the common area lot, the areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek floodplain corridor with slopes in excess of 35 percent are considered unbuildable under AMC 18.3.10.090.A. L, and the application identifies building envelopes which protect these areas from development. The Commission further finds that slopes greater than 25 percent can be subject to damage from erosion or slope failure and merit protection, and a condition has been included below to require that any development of the property disturbing slopes greater than 25 percent first provide a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 9 expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. " The application materials provided explain that the adjacent properties are zoned residential, that the properties to the north and south have limited development potential due to the lot configurations and location of existing structures. The applicant goes on to explain that there is a larger parcel on the north side of the proposed Lot #4 that may have development potential, but the steep topography along the subject property's east property line prevents street connectivity. The east edge of the subject property slopes steeply towards the east, with slopes in excess of 35 percent in some areas, and there are substantial areas of the adjacent property where the slopes exceed 35 percent, which means they have no buildable area. The applicant concludes that the proposal itself will not prevent adjacent properties from developing as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Recognizing that existing development patterns and physical constraints may limit development of the adjacent properties to a degree, the Planning Coinmission finds that the proposed subdivision and its associated access and utility installation will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, The fifth approval criterion is that, "There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, rf 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 application materials explain that the project will include a Homeowners' Association (HOA) and that Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R's) and By -Laws will be provided for review by the Staff Advisor along with a Stormwater Quality Management Plan along with the final civil drawings for review prior to signature of the subdivision survey plat. The application further suggests that the four units will be platted together rather than in phases. Conditions have been included below to require that the CC&R's include provisions for the long-term operation and maintenance of open space and common areas including the trees preserved and protected with the subdivision, the driveway, utilities and drainage system. With the inclusion of these conditions, the Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The sixth criterion is that, "The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter." The base density for R-1-5 development under the Performance Standards Option Chapter is 41/2 dwelling units per acre. The parent parcel here is 37,500 square feet or 0.86 acres, and the base density is 3.87 dwelling units (0.86 acres x 4.5 dwelling units/acre = 3.87 dwelling units). The proposed density is four dwelling units, which equates to roughly 3.3 percent over the base density. The applicant proposes to utilize the allowed 15 percent density bonus for Conservation Housing by constructing 100 percent of the units to Earth Advantage® standards as provided in Resolution #2006-06. The Planning Commission finds that with the construction of 100 percent of units to Earth Advantage® standards, the proposed density meets the base and density bonus standards of the Performance Standards Option Chapter. A condition has been included below to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate that the homes have been designed to comply with the applicable Earth Advantage® standard PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 10 and that evidence of Earth Advantageg certification be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each home. The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Street Standards. " No public street installation is proposed in conjunction with the current request. The application includes a request for a Variance not to dedicate and install a public street to serve four units. The Variance is discussed below in section 2.5. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip and sidewalk along the Oak Street frontage. The Exception is discussed below in section 2.7. The final approval criterion is that, "The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. " In AMC 18.3.9.050.A.3, the Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least five percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. While the properties here have a base density of only 3.87 units, the applicant nonetheless has proposed to provide 2,800 square feet of open space on the proposed common area lot. The application materials emphasize that this area will represent a significant amenity to the project's residents who will use and enjoy the common open space on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the proposed open space supports the preservation of the two large Cedar trees and will include landscaping and a bench to improve the functionality of the space. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to insure substantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. The Planning Commission finds that where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings, common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for the approval of a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units. AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1 requires that, "All streets serving./bur units or p -eater, and which are in an R-1, RR and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this section." The current proposal seeks to create lots to develop four units, but is requesting not to dedicate and install a public street. The first approval criterion for a Variance is that, "The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance." Here the application materials assert that the requested Variance is necessary due to special or unique physical circumstances including the slope of the subject property along the east property line which prevents the extension of any public street system, and the development pattern on adjacent properties to the north and south also prevent the extension of an interconnected street system. In addition, the application explains that due to PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 11 the narrow frontage the property along Oak Street - dedication of public street right-of-way would require a 25 -foot wide cross-section for a Shared Street or a 47 -foot wide cross-section for a Residential Neighborhood Street - the creation of a new street intersection would have substantial impacts on the large Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the south and north. The applicant suggests that the code provision to provide a public street when serving more than three units is overly restrictive and, in some instances, burdens the community with small, dead-end public streets serving only a single residential subdivision. The applicant emphasizes that the slope of the subject properties and those immediately to the east are simply too steep to extend a gridded neighborhood street system, and that the development pattern of the properties to the north and south of the subject property are developed in a manner that prevents extension of a public street. The applicant asserts that a private driveway will allow for a narrower disturbance that is more compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood, and would also place all of the burden for future maintenance on the users of the private driveway rather than on the city. The second approval criterion is that, "The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site." The applicant explains that the requested variance to allow a private driveway to serve four lots instead of three is the minimum necessary, and emphasizes that the private driveway would nonetheless be dedicated as fire apparatus access and would reduce the impacts that the development of the site would otherwise have with the installation of a public street and the resultant wide curb radii, reduction in on -street parking along Oak Street, and changes to neighboring properties setbacks. with a public street and the resulting curb radii and restricted parking along Oak Street, impacts to required yard setbacks for neighboring properties. The third approval criterion is that, "The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City." The application materials suggest that the benefits of the proposal include removal of any public responsibility for a small, dead end street that provides no vehicular access to future properties within the vicinity due to topography and existing development patterns. The Homeowners' Association to be created for the subdivision will own the private driveway and the utilities, and have responsibility for maintenance and repairs. In addition, the application materials indicate that the driveway would have a narrower apron than a street intersection and would thus have a lesser impact on the Oak Street streetscape than a public street. The final approval criterion for a Variance is that, "The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant." The application materials explain that the need for the Variance is based on the narrow lot width along Oak Street, the steep slopes which prevent connectivity to the east, and the development pattern on the properties to the north and south, all of which pose difficulties for street installation. The application materials emphasize that all of these circumstances predate the applicant's acquisition of the property. The planning Commission finds that the requested Variance is merited. The easternmost edge of the property has slopes in excess of 35 percent, and in rough staff calculations, the grade of an east -west street PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 12 extension would be in the 29.30 percent range. 1n addressing street grade, AMC 18.4.6.040.C5 provides that street grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent, and explicitly precludes variances to this requirement for public streets. The topography here is simply too steep for an east -west street extension, and the Commission finds that if the intent of the Performance Standards is to preserve and protect significant natural features, requiring a street extension which would disturb these slopes in order to direct vehicles to the Bear Creek floodplain corridor, which is now under Parks Department ownership, would be counterintuitive. Similarly, the Commission finds that the placement of existing buildings on properties immediately to the north and south combine with the topography at the rear (east) of the property to prevent easy north -south street connectivity. The Street Dedication Map (Figure 10-1) of the Transportation System Plan does not identify any planned streets on the subject properties or in the immediate vicinity. The Planning Commission finds that the street dedication requirement does not account for those situations where topography precludes installation of a street meeting the street grade requirements, and serving four lots rather than three via a private drive seems the minimum variance possible to address the difficulty while seeking more efficient land use, with the benefit that there would not be public responsibility for the maintenance of what would effectively be an overbuilt driveway without any associated public benefit from connectivity, and the Bear Creek floodplain corridor and the slopes that overlook it would be preserved and protected. In considering whether to require that the applicant provide a public pedestrian access easement through the property to offset the lost vehicular connectivity, the Planning Commission finds that, as noted above, the Parks Department has acquired property downslope along the Bear Creek floodplain corridor which includes public pedestrian trails. There is one property between the subject properties here and the Parks property below, but the slopes of that property — like the rear of the subject properties here — have severe constraints and are unlikely to support further development, and the Commission finds that these slopes are too great to require a pedestrian connection be provided. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that while the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing non -conforming development where the existing driveway separation does not meet the standard for a collector street type detailed in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3 and the proposal would move the driveways approximately six feet closer together, because the subject property is zoned R-1-5 it is not subject to the 75 -foot driveway separation in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.b and C.3.c, but is instead required only to provide the minimum 24 -foot separation detailed'in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that a Conditional Use Permit is not required of the application as currently proposed. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for the approval of an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not install frontage improvements along Oak Street. Oak Street is classified as an avenue or major collector street in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and city standard frontage improvements detailed in AMC Table 18.4.6.040.F include a seven- to eight - foot irrigated park -row planting strip and a six-foot sidewalk. The first criterion for approval of an Exception to the Street Design Standards is that, "There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 13 aspect of the site or proposed use of the site." The application materials explain that the code allows for the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, mature trees, and limited right-of-way. Both of these conditions are present on the frontage. The property has a 50 -foot wide frontage on Oak Street. Along the frontage of the property and the adjacent properties to the north and south, there is approximately eight -and -a -half feet of right-of-way, which is not adequate to install city -standard frontage improvements. In addition, then narrow width of the property frontage following the installation of the driveway will leave only approximately 28 -feet of frontage for sidewalk installation. There are not sidewalk connections immediately to the north or south, and the applicant suggests that the request to not install frontage improvements would avoid a sidewalk and parkrow system that goes nowhere. The application materials further assert that there are large stature Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the north and south, and city standard sidewalk installation would impact these trees as well as the utilities in place within the existing right-of-way. The application emphasizes that the only way to preserve the neighbors' trees is to use the narrowest driveway allowed and not install a public street or frontage improvements with sweeping curb lines. The second approval criterion is that, "The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the followingfactors where applicable." The application materials explain that the proposed frontage improvements will include regrading of the berth behind the curb line, installation of a driveway apron and the planting of two large stature Oak street trees to replace the street trees proposed for removal, and suggests that these frontage improvements are similar to the existing improvements on the east side of Oak Street, where sidewalks are not currently present. The third approval criterion is that, "The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty." The application materials explain that the proposed exception is to not provide either sidewalk or parkrow improvements in the 28 -feet north of the proposed driveway curb cut. The application further notes that there is inadequate right -of --way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements, and that not installing a sidewalk alleviates difficulties in the extensions of said sidewalk in a logical and functional manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on existing development, will not redevelop in a manner that would require dedication of right-of-way or removal of trees. The application further suggests that in the event that frontage improvements are required, a five-foot wide curbside sidewalk with two street trees planted behind the sidewalk could be installed. The final approval criterion is that, "The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A." The standards are intended to provide multiple transportation options, focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive flan. The Street Design Standards outline the art and science of developing healthy, livable streets, and are intended to illustrate current standards for planning and designing the streets of Ashland. The standards are to be used in the development of new streets, and reconstruction of existing streets or portions thereof (i.e. improving a paved local street by adding sidewalks). The standards area also intended as a resource for use by home builders, developers, and community members in the pursuit of quality development practices. The application materials explain that there are very limited sidewalks with parkrow on the east side of Oak Street, noting that this was due to a many -years -long, very involved Local Improvement District (LID) process to improve Oak PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 14 Street. The application concludes that the exception seeks to not install sidewalks and parkrow along the frontage of the property due to the limited length of the sidewalk north of the driveway (28 -feet), the lack of available right-of-way to install improvements, and that not installing sidewalk and parkrow will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience. The Planning Commission notes that with regard to the inadequate width of the available right-of-way to accommodate city standard frontage improvements, AMC 18.4.6.050.B "Street Dedication Required" explicitly provides that, "The approval authority may require the dedication of land for the construction of a city street, greenway, or portion thereof, provided that the impact of the development on the city transportation system is roughly proportional to the dedication. It is assumed that all development requiring planning actions will increase traffic generated in the area unless it can be proven otherwise to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Land will be dedicated by a property owner for the construction of a street or greenway when: 1) A development requiring a planning action, partition, or subdivision takes place on the owner's property, 2) The development will result in increases in the traffic generated (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, auto) in the area, by some measure; 3) The property contains a future street or greenway dedicated on the official map adopted pursuant to AMC 18.4.6.050.D; 4) Where required neighborhood street connections are not shown on the Street Dedication Map, the development shall provide for the reasonable continuation and connection of the transportation system to serve the development and adjacent vacant or re -developable lands, conforming to section AMC 18.4.6.040.E `Connectivity Standards'; and 5) The City may require additional right-of-way far streets that do not meet the street standards of this chapter, or as necessary far realignments of intersections or street sections, which do not have to be shown on the official map. " The Planning Commission finds that, based on the street dedication requirements above, the application can and should be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to accommodate the future installation of city -standard frontage improvements along Oak Street both in terms of being proportional to the impacts of added pedestrian trips within the system and because the applicant is also requesting a Variance not to provide the required public street serving the proposed new lots/units. A condition has been included below to require the dedication of the additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate standard frontage improvements, which equates to an additional approximately five -and -a -half feet along the subject properties' full Oak Street frontage. The Planning Commission further finds that developments are typically required to install incremental improvements to city standard along their frontage so that as infill occurs, the system is gradually brought up to city standards. On the Oak Street corridor in the immediate vicinity, between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive, there are currently two sections of parkrow and sidewalk at 780 Oak Street and at 952-982 Oak Street where incremental sidewalk installations were required that illustrate this approach. However, in this instance, the Planning Commission finds that the requested Exception is merited. In addition to there being large stature Oaks on the properties immediately to the north and south, there are also fences, utility pedestals and grade changes behind the curb which mean that a pedestrian using an incremental section of sidewalk installed here on the subject property's frontage would be forced back into the street immediately at either end, and would face potential trip hazards if they were inattentive. To avoid this situation, the Commission fmds that it would be preferable to have the applicant sign -in favor of a future LU) for the improvement of the east side of Oak Street as required in AMC 18.4.6.030.B which PA -`1'2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 15 would enable a more comprehensive planning process for the corridor to address the various constraints in place, dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to support eventual sidewalk and parkrow installation along the frontage (approximately five -and -a -half feet), and to have the applicant re -grade the frontage to curb level and install a five-foot wide compacted granite path behind the curb to support on - street parking in the interim. 2.8 Planning Commission finds that the removal of street trees is not regulated through the land use ordinance in AMC Chapter 18. As these removals are cutting trees from city property, the City Manager or designee is instead charged with regulating street tree removal or pruning through AMC Chapter 13.16. AMC 13.16.030 provides that, "No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit has been issued by the City Manager or the City Manager's designee. Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8). feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List. " Street Tree Removal Permits are ministerial, and there are no land use criteria detailed in the code however the criteria established by the City Manager for Street Tree Removal permits, as detailed on the Street Tree Removal Permit application are: a) Emergency Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non -emergency process. b) Hazard Tree Removal. The tree presents a clear public safety hazard (ie., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. c) Dead Tree. The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. The application requests the removal of three native Black Oak trees (Quercus Kelloggii) located behind the curb line. These three Oaks are described as stressed and unhealthy, and the project arborist indicates that the three trees show signs of decline, noting that there is an animal burrow being created at the base of the southernmost tree which is actively undermining the base of the tree and that all three trees have numerous dead branches in the crown which are over two -inches in diameter. The trees are elevated above the street on a small berm, and in their current state would not respond well to even slight alterations to their environment. The arborist indicates that the trees show obvious signs of past branch shedding, and concludes that the likelihood of preserving the trees or improving their health is very poor. Planning staff observations on site supported the arborist's assessment, confirmed that the base of southernmost tree has been significantly undermined, and that there was significant dead wood in the canopies. The arborist PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 16 indicated that the best long-term strategy for the health of Ashland's urban forest would be to remove all three trees, and once the development was complete to plant healthy replacement trees in the form of two - to three-inch caliper Quercus Kelloggii or other large -canopied, regionally -acclimated tree species (i.e. Swamp White Oak, Valley Oak, Willow Oak, Shumard Oak or Red Oak) located slightly further from the street. The arborist suggests that the soil in the area where the replacement trees will be planted should be protected from compaction during development, and that mulch, fertilizer and drip irrigation should be provided and maintained on a schedule for at least three years post planting. The application identifies six replacement Oaks to be planted along the driveway to recover lost canopy coverage, shade the non - permeable surfaces and aid in the absorption of stormwater run-off. The replacement trees are noted as being at least two-inch caliper with proper soil conditions and irrigation. The Tree Commission reviewed the application at its August 5, 2021 meeting and recommended that the application be approved subject to all conditions of the applicant, and that the project arborist monitor the protected trees for their health for the duration of construction. The Tree Commission further recommended that at least three replacement Oaks be planted prior to completion of the project The Planning Commission finds that, based on the arborist's assessment, these three Oaks represent a potential future public safety hazard which cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning in that their current condition and state of decline will only further deteriorate with time and development of the property. The Planning Commission also notes that the two healthy Incense Cedar (Calocedrus Decurrens) along the north property line will likely survive the impacts of development if properly protected during construction. The applicant proposes to provide required tree protection fencing along with five -inches of mulch installed starting three feet from the trunk and extending out to the end of the dripline. The trees are to be watered orice a week during construction with approximately 100 gallons of water applied within 10 feet of the dripline during the months of April through October, and if work is to be done within the tree protection zones, a certified arborist will be consulted to identify best practices to preserve and protect the trees. To insure that the excavation of the proposed bio-swale does not adversely impact the root zones of these two trees, a condition has been included below to require that a revised Tree Protection Plan prepared by an arborist/tree care professional be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval by the Staff Advisor which identifies a tree protection zone based on the species and age of the trees. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals for a four -unit, five -lot Performance Standards Options subdivision, Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units, Exception to Street Standards not to install frontage improvements and Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The Commission further concludes that the requested Conditional Use Permit with regard to driveway separation is not required for an R-1 zoned property. PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 17 The Commission finds the subdivision proposal itself to be relatively straightforward, with the key issues being the Variance and Exception requests. The Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units here seems appropriate given that the site slopes and adjacent development pattern preclude an interconnected, gridded street system in the vicinity. The Exception to not provide frontage improvements is also merited given the trees, grade changes, fencing and utility pedestals located on the properties to the north and south, however the Commission finds it important that the applicant dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to provide for the eventual frontage improvements and sign -in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) agreeing to participate proportionally in a comprehensively planned improvement project for the corridor. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #T2-2021-00029. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #T2-2021-00029 is denied_ The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2. That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. 3. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for driveway approaches, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4. That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their August 5, 2021 regular meeting that the project arborist monitor the protected trees for their health for the duration of construction, and that three replacement Oaks be planted prior to completion of the project, shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. 5. That the recommendations of the project arborist including the type of mitigation trees, tree protection fencing placement, mulching within tree protection zones and watering schedule shall be conditions of approval. 6. That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging or issuance of a building or excavation permit. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction activity, including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree protection zones. 7. That parking on the four proposed developable lots shall be situated on the properties so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. 8. That prior to submittal of the final subdivision plat for signature: a. Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 18 Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean -out's; storm drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b. That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. C. A site plan illustrating a revised solar envelope which includes Lot 1 being subject to a "Standard A" solar access requirement. d. Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-5 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. e. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. f. A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post -development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre -development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. g. A final grading and erosion control plan. n. That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access pathways, and fire apparatus turn -around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 19 standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. o. That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. p. That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the final plat submittal. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use -improvements including driveway, open space, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and shall 'include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and drainage system. q. That a revised Tree Protection Plan prepared by an arborist/tree care professional shall be .provided for review and approval by the Staff Advisor which identifies a tree protection zone based on the species and age of the trees to ensure that the bio-swale excavation will not adversely impact the two large Incense Cedars to be preserved and protected in the open space. r. The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved Tree Preservation and Protection Plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. S. A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shah be consistent with the provisions of the "Fences and Wails" requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060, and that fencing around common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four feet in height. Fencing limitations shall be noted in the subdivision CC&R's. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. t. That the applicant shall sign in favor of a local improvement district (LID) for the future improvement of Oak Street, including sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated street trees, curb, gutters and storm drainage. This agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final subdivision survey plat. U. That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 20 9. Prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat: a. That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b. The final survey plat shall include the dedication of additional right-of-way (approximately five -and -a -half feet) necessary to accommodate the future installation of city standard park row planting strips and sidewalks along the full Oak Street frontage to accommodate the street system proposed by the applicant. C. That the subdivision name and all street names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. d. All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. e. Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveway, and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat. f. Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. g. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. h. That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. 10. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for any unit: a. The applicant shall provide evidence that the Earth Advantage® certifications necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing density bonus are being pursued, and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy the applicant shall provide evidence of having received the required Earth Advantage® certification. b. The areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek floodplain corridor with slopes in excess of 35 percent are unbuildable under AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1 and shall not be included in building envelopes, as proposed by the applicant. Prior to disturbance of any slopes greater than 25 percent within the building envelopes, the applicant shall first provide a geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. UAi a� Plannink Commission Approval October 12 2021. Date PA -T2-2021-00029 October 12, 2021 Page 21 CITY OF -11e�,, iv S�W LA N D October 13, 2021 Notice of Final Decision The Ashland Planning Commission has upheld the administrative decision of approval fbr the following request. Planning Action: PA -T2-2021-00029 Subject Property: 822 Oak Street Applicant: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC Description: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/farm-unit. Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for a. Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6,.040.0.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Perinit to modify a non- conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a), an Exception to Street Standards to riot install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a. Street 'free Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Single Family Residential; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1B 04CA; TAX LOT: 200 & 201. The Planning Commission's decision on appeal becon-ics final and is effective ori the 10th day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed, (AMC 1. &5, 1) The approval is valid for a period of l8 months and all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be iriet prior to project completion. 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 Winbuni Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy tee schedule. This decision may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in accordance with Oregon State Law, Please contact LUBA for specific appeal information, ±AQ�„hunl or 503-373-1265. They are located at 550 Capitol Street N.E., Suite 235, Salem, GregOD 97301-255,2. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Derek Severson in the Community Development Departrnent at (541.) 488-5305, Suzanne Zapf Parties of record COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fm 541-552-2050 pwa'Qk�� Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,, kv SECTION 18.5.1.060.1 I. Appeal of Type It Decision. The City Council may call Lip a Type 11 decision pursuant to section 18.5.1 .0601 AType 11 decision may also be appealed to the Council as follows. L Wh p May ApL)eqt,. Appeals may only be filed by parties to the planning action. "Patties" shall be defined as the following. a. The applicant. b. 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. c. Persons who were entitled to receive notice of the action but did not receive notice due to error. 2. A) gal Fil.in Procedure. a, Notice qfAI)peal, Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.060-1.1, above, may appeal a `Fype 11 decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection, b. Thnefir Filing. '"Fhe notice of appeal shall be filed with the City Administrator within ten days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c. Content qfNotice qf'Apj)ea1. The notice shall include the appellant's naille, 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. d. The appeal requirements ofthis section must befully rnet or the appeal will bcconsidered toy the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. 3. Mailed Notice. The City shall rnait the notice of appeal together with a notice of the date, time, and place to consider the appeal by the City Conned. to the parties, as provided in subsection 18.5,1 M0-11,1, at. least 20 days prior to tile meeting. 4. Sc9peo-fAU—eal. a. Except upon the election to reopen the record as set forth in subsection 18.5.1,06014.b, 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 Corninission. 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 Commission, was open; recorded testirriony; (including DVDs when available), the executed decision of the Commission, including the findings and conclusions. In addition, for purposes of Council review, the notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the pat -ties to tile appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. b. Reopening the,Recoi-d. The City 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 Council appeal hearing that the requesting party has demonstrated one or more of the following. i. That the Planning Commission committed a procedural error, through no fault of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Cregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 IL/3 ww.asliland.orms 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. ii. That a factual error occurred before the Cornrnission through no fault of the requesting party which is relevant to an approval criterion and material to the decision. iii. 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 derrionstrates 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. iv. 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 Council. 5. App c qJ Hearing.. oqedurc- The decision of the City Council is the final decision of the City on an Pro appeal of a Type 11 decision, unless the decision is remanded to the Planning Cornin ission. a. OrcilArgument. Oral argument on the appeal shall be permitted before the Council. Oral argument shall be lituited to ten minutes for the applicant, ten for the appellant, if different, and three 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 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 argUrnent shall be confined to the substance of the written argument. b. Scope qf'Appeal Defiberalions. Upon review, and except when limited reopening of the record is allowed, the Council shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall lirnit 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 commission with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission and the parties to respond. c, Council Decision. 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 Council elects to remand a decision to the Commission, either summarily or otherwise, the Commission decision shall be the final decision of the City, unless the Council calls the matter up pursuant to subsection 1&5.1,0600. 6. Record of the Public Heqdn. For purposes of City Council review, the notice of appeal and the written argUrrients Submitted by the parties to the appeal, and the oral arguments, if any, shall become part of the record of the appeal proceeding. The public hearing record shall include the following information. a. The notice of appeal and the written arguments submitted by the pat -ties to the appeal. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 %v%vNv.ashlantI,or.us b. Copies of all notices given as required by this chapter, and correspondence regarding the application that the City mailed or received. c. All materials considered by the hearings body 111CILiding the application and all materials submitted with it. d. Documentary evidence, exhibits and materials submitted during the hearing or at other times when the record before the Planning Commission was open. e. Recorded testimony (including DVDs when available), f. All materials submitted by the Staff Advisor to the hearings body regarding the application; g. The minutes of the hearing. g. The final written decision of the Commission including findings and conclusions. Effective Date and Appek1s, to State Lan -d Use Board of -Appeals. City Council decisions on Type 11 applications are final the date the City mails the notice of decision. Appeals of Council decisions on Type 11 applications 111LIst be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 - 197,860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tek 541-488-5305, 51 Wlnburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 owl Ashland, Orego�n 07520 TTY: 800-735-2900 M"a, STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1.. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. on October 13, 2021 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 #PA -T2 -2021- W N.. y x./ A y,\A- iqgnatu re of Employee GAUseOsrdthda AFNHMeskiop�AFFICAVITOF MAILING.docx 1&1312021 PA -T2-2021-00029 PA -T2-2021-00029 PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04CA200 SUZANNE ZAPF KAS & ASSOCIATES OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC 602 SUTTON PL 304 N HOLLY ST 602 SUTTON PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 97501 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 1011312021 822 Oak NOD PA -T2-2021-00029 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1314-B CENTER DR, PMB 457 MEDFORD, OR 97501 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA -T2-2021-00029 A request for Outline and Final Pian approval for a five- ) REQUEST FOR AN lottfour-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the ) EXTENSION OF THE TIME properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also j LIMIT ORS 227.178(1) includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway ) to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of ) a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit ) to modify a non -conforming development where the required ) driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC ) 18.4.3.080.C.3.a), an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak ) Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three ) Oak trees. ) OWNER/APPLICANT: Overlook Drive LLC 1 Rogue Planning & Development Services Applicants request a 60 day extension to the time limit set forth in ORS 227.178(1) Applicant 8.23.2021 Date Planning Department, 51 Winb,.., Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY OF 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland,or,us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA -T2-2021-00029 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lo'Yfour-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 184,6.040.0.1), where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non -conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC 18,43.080.C.3,a), an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Single Family Residential-, ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04CA; TAX LOT: 200 & 201, NOTE: The AsNand Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, August 5:,,2021 at 6:00 PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. G komni-dev\planning\Planning ActionsTM by ST5eet\O%Oak1Oak_,922\PA-'f2-2G121-0()029VNoticijig�Oa,_922 PA-T2'-2021-00029_NOC docx Tree Commission Meetings Nofice is hereby given that the Tree . .sionwill hold emelectronic public hearing the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown onPage `. Anyone wishing tosubmit written comments can dosobysending ane-mail toPC'pub1ic-testimmmmy@amNand.nr-uswith the subject line "Advisory Commission Hearing Testimony" by . If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can subm�t the rebuttal via e-mail to PC -public - testi mony@as h land, or. us with the subject line "Advisory Commission Hearing Tesfinnony" by 10,00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 3. 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be ava�lable for Tree Comm�ssioners to review before the hearing and will beincluded inthe meeting minutes. If you wish hmvirtually attend orlisten tothe Tree Commission meeting, send anemail boPC-pubhc- order to virtuallyattend or listen to the commission meefin~' lease rovlde the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "Advisory Commission Participant Request", 2)include your name, 3)specify the date and commission meeting you wish tovirtually attend orlisten to, 4)specify if you will hparticipating bycomputer ortelephone, and5)thema0eyouvvi[lueeifparticipafimgbvcompubarorthete|ephone numberyouvviQumoMparti6patingbyL*|ephono.Pheaoenote`partioipanhuthetsigmuptovirtualLyattnndor|iatontoaoommisnion meeting will not bnallowed hospeak during the meeting. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541488-GO02(TTY phone number l-a0U-735'2S80}. Notification %lhours prior mthe meeting wiUenable the City tumake reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibiftv to the meetinq. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City, b. 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. 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. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. 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, The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. q. The development complies with the Street Standards. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.0403.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with 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 meets all of the following criteria. a, The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten 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 percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten 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 percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance 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. h. Nothing in this section 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. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.5.4.050 A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property, 3, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a, Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Gacomm-devlplannin5lPlanning Actions\PAs by StreeA010ak10ak_9221PA-T2-2021-000291Noticing\Oak. $22 PA -T2-2021-00029 NOC doex e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. . f. The development of adjacent properties , ,nvisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows, a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2,5 Standards for Residential Zones, b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18,2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e, C -1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 1822 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses fisted in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an in of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM -C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i. CM -OE and CM -MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM -NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. L HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.33 Health Care Services, 18.3,5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.6.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i, For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6,040.A, TREE REMOVAL_ PERMIT 18.5.7.040.6 Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets ail of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. C. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject G.lcmmni-devlplanning\Pianning ActionslPAs by Street5O\Oak\Oai:_822\PA-T2-2021-000291Nots6ngl0ak_822_ PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC,docx property. The City shall grant an excepti( A) this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal ' ,vo been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as , .mitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone, In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7,050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit, PERMISSION TO PLANT OR REMOVE STREET TREES 13.16.030 The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit has been issued by the City Manager or the City Manager's designee. Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value, If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List. (Ord. 3192 § 100, amended, 11117/2020) G.lcomm-dev\planning\PlanningActionslPAs by Strect\M0akk0ak._8221PA-T2-2021-000291NaftinglGak_g22_ PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC.docx AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF OREGON County of Jackson The undersigned being first duly sworn states that: 1. I am employed by the City of Ashland, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520, in the Community Development Department. 2. On 7130121 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 #PA -T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak. Signature of Employee G:icomm-devVlawbgTlanning Ac8onsTAs by SVeetolQaklOak_8221PA-T2-2021-000291No@cinglOak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC_Afhdavit of Mall[ng.docz 712812021 PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04CA2806 BEAUDOIN D 835 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA400 CASTEEL L KENIILLIS F 820 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2904 ERION NANCY L ET AL 2305 ASHLAND ST #C UNIT 240 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2800 LOWENBERG SARAH DILOWENBERG H 815 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2901 PASCHEN GERHARD ET AL 865 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2805 BETOUSHANA EMILIAVRIL V 825 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CAI 11 CHRISTIAN WILLIAM CICATHY A 778 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD2500 FIELDS JOHN ROBERT TRUSTEE ET 845 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04BD1301 MALMBERG NORMA R & PAMELA M R TICOR TITLE COMPANY 895 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 'PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04BD1302 QUACCIA ROBERT J TRUSTEE ET A '885 OAK ST .ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA600 BUCK RISA E TRUSTEE ET AL 798 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04AC4700 DAVIS PAMELA DAYRL TRUSTEE ET 900 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04CA701 LAMORE THOMAS JILINDA E 784 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA200 OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC 602 SUTTON PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2802 SCHAFFER R EIANITA L HIRSCH 4327 WAYNESBORO DR HOUSTON, TX 77035 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD2200 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04AC4800 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD2300 SCHEER JOHNISHEPARDSON LAURA SHAW CATHERINE M ET AL SLYTER HOWARD M TRUSTEE ET AL 6780 HC 3 :886 OAK ST 3621 E CURTIS DR RINCON, PR 677 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SACRAMENTO, CA 95818 -.. PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD21 00 PA -T2-20 21-000 29 391 E04 CA702 PA -T2-2021-00029 STOUT PROPERTIES LLC STRINGER MICHAEL/KATHRYN SUZANNE 7_APF PO BOX 794 780 OAK ST 602 SUTTON PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 PA -T2-2021-00029 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT KAS & ASSOCIATES 1314-B CENTER DR, PMS 457 .304 N HOLLY ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T2-2021-00029 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 822 Oak NOC 7130121 24 y l IV"KJ�al/,( A11ERY1i PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04CA2806 BEAUDOIN D 835 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA400 CASTEEL L KENIILLIS F 820 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2904 ERION NANCY L ET AL 2305 ASHLAND ST #C UNIT 240 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2800 LOWENBERG SARAH DILOWENBERG H 815 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2901 PASCHEN GERHARD ET AL 865 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2805 BETOUSHANA EMILIAVRIL V 825 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CAI 11 CHRISTIAN WILLIAM CICATHY A 778 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD2500 FIELDS JOHN ROBERT TRUSTEE ET 845 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04BD1301 MALMBERG NORMA R & PAMELA M R TICOR TITLE COMPANY 895 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 'PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04BD1302 QUACCIA ROBERT J TRUSTEE ET A '885 OAK ST .ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA600 BUCK RISA E TRUSTEE ET AL 798 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04AC4700 DAVIS PAMELA DAYRL TRUSTEE ET 900 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391E04CA701 LAMORE THOMAS JILINDA E 784 OAK ST ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA200 OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC 602 SUTTON PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04CA2802 SCHAFFER R EIANITA L HIRSCH 4327 WAYNESBORO DR HOUSTON, TX 77035 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD2200 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04AC4800 PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD2300 SCHEER JOHNISHEPARDSON LAURA SHAW CATHERINE M ET AL SLYTER HOWARD M TRUSTEE ET AL 6780 HC 3 :886 OAK ST 3621 E CURTIS DR RINCON, PR 677 ASHLAND, OR 97520 SACRAMENTO, CA 95818 -.. PA -T2-2021-00029 391 E04BD21 00 PA -T2-20 21-000 29 391 E04 CA702 PA -T2-2021-00029 STOUT PROPERTIES LLC STRINGER MICHAEL/KATHRYN SUZANNE 7_APF PO BOX 794 780 OAK ST 602 SUTTON PL ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 ASHLAND, OR 97520 PA -T2-2021-00029 PA -T2-2021-00029 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT KAS & ASSOCIATES 1314-B CENTER DR, PMS 457 .304 N HOLLY ST MEDFORD, OR 97501 MEDFORD, OR 97501 PA -T2-2021-00029 POLARIS LAND SURVEYING PO BOX 459 ASHLAND, OR 97520 822 Oak NOC 7130121 24 ATTN: LEGAL PUBLICATIONS ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE On August 10, 2021 the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards Subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non -conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue; an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street; and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. The electronic public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on August 10, 2021. The meeting will be televised on local channel 9 or channels 180 and 181 for Charter Communications customers or will also be available live stream by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting RVTV Prime. Written testimony will be accepted via email to PC -public -testimony(& ashland.or.us with the subject line "08110 Planning Commission Meeting Testimony" by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 9, 2021. Written testimony received by the deadline will be available to the Planning Commission before the meeting and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic meeting for public forum and the public hearing. if you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony6i,ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 10, 2021. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email "08110 Speaker Request", 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item you want to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. By the order of Bill Molnar, Community Development Director In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800- 735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). Publish: Friday July 30 E-mailed: 7126121 Purchase Order: #1.20128 Applicant's Statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Apjalieant and returned to the City qfAyhlcrud I Re Date application Expires: PA -T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak St. August 7, 2021 (to be completed bv staff) Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, 1, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elects one of the three options below by initialing: ( �iV--L) 1. Submit All of the Missing Information (Initial if electeq) I am submitting all of the information requested ill the Incompleteness Determination letter. Z:7 Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30 -day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review, (Note: The 120 -day period jbr the 01)) of Ashland's final determination of omj)liance ivith applicable criteria does not coinivence until the additional revieiv jbr con7pleteness peilod is completed) Cheek if desired I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the information stibluitted for compliance with the Community Development Code criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in fact, later determined by the staff to be: incomplete. .1 understand that by checking, the above statement the application will be evaluated based Upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing from the application, the application will flail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied, Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5,41-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 va ashland orms ashlandonus __.M_ dereLseversonL- 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: (h?, itial if elected) Decline to, Provide Other Information I ain submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other inion -nation requested in the, Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Plaiming Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued orrecornniended. 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information (Initial U'elected) I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the, Community Development Department inay conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommetided. Signed an AclLnoiwvled�ged (Applicant or Applicant's Agent) — eta' Z's --I—, Date Return to: City of Ashland, Planning Division Attn: Derek Severson, Senior Planner c/o City Hall, 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Commun Ity Devel[opment Dept, Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 PE U4461 1 Ashland, Oregon, 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www,ashland orms derek.severson@ashland,ous OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC Grizzly Peak View Subdivision ROGUE PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC June 24, 2021 Grizzly Peak View Subdivision A Performance Standards Subdivision Sublect Property: Address: Map & Tax Lot: Property Owner: Applicant: Planning Consultant: Engineer: Surveyor: Tree Protection and Planting Plan 822 Oak Street 39 1E 04 CA; Tax Lot 200 & 201 Overlook Drive LLC 602 Sutton Place Ashland, OR 97520 Suzanne Zapf 602 Sutton Place Ashland, OR 97520 Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 KAS and Associates 304 N Holly Street Medford, OR 97501 Polaris Land Surveying PO Box 459 Ashland, OR 97520 Plant Oregon Michael Oxendine Page 1 of 37 Subject Property Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 05AD; Tax Lot 201 and 200 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Zoning: R-1-5 Adjacent Zones: R-1-5 and R -1-5-P Lot Area: TL#200: 30,000 square feet TL#201: 7,500 square feet Overlay Zones: Wildfire Overlay Request: The request is for Outline and Final Plan Approval of five lot, Performance Standards Subdivision also known as "Grizzly Peak View". The proposed subdivision includes one existing parcel of record (39S 1E 05AD; 201) and the partition of the vacant parcel to the north at 39S 1E 05AD; 200. There are four residential lots and an open space lot proposed. A new private driveway "Zoe Lane" is proposed to access the four lots. Access from a private driveway to four lots requires a variance. An exception to street standards to not install street improvements on Oak Street is requested. A separate Street Tree removal permit is has been requested. Site Background and Description: The subject tract is on the east side of Oak Street, 321.63 feet north of the intersection of Oak and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Tax Lot #200 has 50 -feet of frontage on Oak Street, extends 150 -feet to the east, 100 -feet north, 150 -feet west, 150 -feet south, and 300 -feet west back to Oak Street. The lot area is 30,000 square feet. This lot is vacant of structures. Tax Lot #201 is a 5U -toot oy i5u-roor 101, i, -,)vv aqua€e feet. This lot is to the south of Tax lot #200. This lot is accessed via a driveway through TL#200. There was a 588 square foot, single -story, residence that was constructed in the 1940s on the property. The dilapidated building was approved for demolition and removed from the property in 2020. Page 2 of 37 J7 __ �... •• ane "- `.� -^% ,�1' i t 't _ _ in, 1)Dti011! DR. Tax Lot #201 is a 5U -toot oy i5u-roor 101, i, -,)vv aqua€e feet. This lot is to the south of Tax lot #200. This lot is accessed via a driveway through TL#200. There was a 588 square foot, single -story, residence that was constructed in the 1940s on the property. The dilapidated building was approved for demolition and removed from the property in 2020. Page 2 of 37 There is an existing gravel driveway that leads to the area where the residence was previously located. The driveway is accessed from Oak Street from a 16 -foot wide curb cut on the south side of the property. The driveway curb nut begins approximately one foot south of the southwest corner of the subject Oak Street is classified as an Avenue in the Transportation System Plan. Oak Street is improved to —4�- feet ofcurb-to-curb pavement. There is oMve-fopt landscape park row and a five foot sidewalk om the west side of Oak Street. There are no sidewalks along the frontage of the property. Oak Street was substantially improved in the mid -2000s through a Local Improvement District (LID) with curb, gutter, sidewalk, intermittent park row and speed bumps, The Local Improvement District (LID) that engineered the street improvements based on the safety of pedestrians, speeds of and volumes of traffic and the, pedestrian crossings were limited, The LID process also sought to save the Oak trees for which Oak Street is known for, There are no sidewalks on the entire east side of this block of Oak Street excepting a small section at70OOak Street and south ofJessica Lane tmOak Street. There isa6-inrhwater main inOak Street, There isofire hydrant directly south ofthe property omOak Street. According to the most current pressure tests there is adequate pressure in the water main to supportthedevelopment ofafive-lot subdivision. A 6,-inchsanitary sewer main isavailable inOak Street. There is a 24-|o storm sewer main in Oak Street, Electric infrastructure is present on Oak Street. Page sofa7 Between the west property line within the right-of-way of Oak Street, there is a dual stemmed, 10 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Oak, a 24 -inch DBH Oak, a split trunk 10 and 12 -inch DBH Oaks. These trees are in fair to poor condition. There are two, 18 -inch DBH cedar trees, and a smaller stature Oak tree on the north property line of Tax Lot #200, these are good condition. There is an 8 -inch DBH Oak on the south side of the property that is on the adjacent property to the south. This tree is in good health. Along the east property line there are slopes leading downhill towards the adjacent property to the east., There are no other significant natural features on the property. The property and the adjacent properties are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). The subject properties and those to the south are also outside of the Performance Standards Overlay District. The properties to the north and east. Properties in the vicinity are developed with single family homes and associated out buildings. Proposal: The request is for Outline and Final Plan of a Performance Standards Subdivision approval of a five -lot subdivision with private driveway to access the proposed four lots, The proposed subdivision includes the existing 7,500 square foot single family residential lot at 39S 1E 05AD; 201, and the creation of three new single-family lots and a common area lot from 39S IE 05AD; 200. The proposal is to construct a private drive that extends from Oak Street, 150 -feet to the east where it terminates into a fire apparatus access hammerhead turn around area, The private drive and the common area lot provide vehicular, pedestrian, utility access to the four buildable lots. Proposed Lot #1 is the existing legal lot of record that previously was occupied by a depilated residence that was removed with a 2020, demolition permit. The lot is and remains 50' X 150' with an area of 7,500 square feet. This lot is subject to solar setback standard B and the proposed subdivision does not modify the existing lot width which determines the solar setback standards. Proposed Lots #2-4 are also 50' X 150' and are 7,5100 square feet in area, Each lot meets or exceeds the minimum lot dimensions and lot areas. The new 50' wide lots, specifically, Lot # 2, 3 & 4 are required to demonstrate the new lot can comply with solar setbacks. A solar envelope for prescriptive solar producing height has been provided on the building envelope plan. The proposed layout provides a 15 -foot setback from each lots west property line. The south property lines are six feet, ten feet per story in the rear, along the east property line where not greater as reflected on the building envelope site plan. Page 4 of 37 As shown on the preliminary survey plat and building envelope plan, the lot dimensions, future coverage areas, access provided, ability to provide adequate parking to meet the standards for new single-family residential Performance Standards Overlay development. There is an open space lot on the north side of the private driveway. Within the open space there are two large stature Cedar trees. These are proposed to be retained. Additionally, there is a bioswale feature that is required for storm water detention, retention, and treatment. This area will be installed under the guidance of the project arborist and civil engineer to limit disturbance to the root zones. With the changes to the hydrology of the property, the Cedar trees will likely favor the maintenance of ground water available. The open space area will have common area improvements and maintenance requirements that will be specified in the Homeowners Associate rules and CC&R's. Public utilities are able to be extended from Oak Street up the new public street and terminate into public utility easements that provide service from the public facilities to the individual sites. A new fire hydrant is proposed to be installed to provide fire suppression to the properties and surrounding homes. Water meters from the new water line are shown on the utility plan. Access and Circulation; A subdivision with four residential lots requires the dedication of a public street. When a Performance Standards Subdivision, private drives are allowed but only when they serve three or fewer lots. The layout would allow for flag -pole connections out to Oak Street if determined necessary. The proposal seeks flexibility through the Performance Standards to provide a private drive within a lot to provide access. The request seeks a variance to allowing four lots to be accessed via the private driveway instead of dedication a public street or the creation of four flag lots. The proposal is to create a safe, human -scale, driveway that is design similar to the shared street. Due to the changes to intersection spacing standards, changes to setback standards for the adjacent properties, it can be found a private driveway that serves a limited number of units, anticipates low numbers of vehicle trips, lacks connectivity due to adjacent development patterns, preserves trees, and minimizes impacts to the adjacent properties is the most appropriate access type. Private drives are meant for developments with less than 100 motor vehicle trips per day. The four lots would generate less than 40 trips per the ITE which finds each single-family residential units each generate less than 10 vehicle trips per day. Presently, a 16 -foot -wide driveway curb cut serves the propertyThere is not an concrete apron. The proposal is to widen the driveway curb cut to the north to a fully lowered 22 -foot -wide approach to install a standard width apron. The proposed driveway has a 22 -foot -wide paved surface. There is a 15 - foot clear travel lane with 7 -feet of parallel parking spaces on the south side of the driving surface to provide for guest parking. There is an eight -foot landscape buffer along the south property line. Page 5 of 37 The standards for a private drive call for a 20 -foot dedicated width and a 15 -foot paved width and the private drive be deemed a fire lane. The proposed drive has a 22 -foot paved width and a 1.5 -foot clear access width. An eight -foot buffer is provided along the south property line. This could be reduced to the minimum required five -feet and the paved surface increased by three -feet to widen the travel lanes. When a public street, one on -street parking space per lot would be required. When a flag lot development, three parking spaces are required upon each flag lot. This proposal provides for additional guest parking area parallel to the private driveway. This achieves the intent of the code of providing additional parking for guests and users of the street or driveway. Driveways greater than 50 -feet in length are also considered flag driveways and subject to the standards there of. The flag driveway standards would require 15 -feet of paved width and 20 -foot clear width. The proposed driveway complies with the improvement widths, weight requirements and are fire apparatus accesses. Where not required along a flag driveway, the proposal provides the parking adjacent to the driveway but there is ample area north of the driveway for the fire apparatus access to have clearance and access around their rig. Additionally, flag driveways require screening adjacent to the driveway. The outer property lines are screened with 6 -foot cedar panel fencing, the driveway itself is not screened as the open space provides ample buffer. The proposal does not provide a 32 -48 -inch evergreen hedge or fencing as the driveway is within a 50 -foot -wide open space area. The proposed driveway terminates into an approved fire truck apparatus access hammerhead turnaround. This type of layout is proposed due to the lack of future street connectivity on the adjacent properties. The steep slope along the east property line of the subject property and those to the north limit the future connectivity of public streets. Additionally, the location of structures including residences to the south prevent future connectivity to any other north to south street. Another option for access to the property would have been the creation of four flag lots that eventually shared the driveway apron due to access restrictions on Oak Street. The development of a new public street intersection (Shared Street alternative) with an Avenue created variances and non -conforming development patterns on the adjacent properties. The residence at 820 Oak Street to the south does not appear to be ten or more feet from the north property line. Residences require a 10 -foot side yard setback from a public street. Also, the 1.00 -foot separation between intersections and driveways presently is not met, a street intersection with large curb radii has a substantially different visual and traffic impact than a driveway apron. The existing adjacent driveways are —39 -feet to the south and 60 -feet to the north, the separations of the driveways on Oak Street is non -conforming. The proposed driveway improvements will slightly reduce the driveway separation between the north driveway and the proposed driveways. A conditional use permit to enlarge a non- conforming separation is requested. The separation between the driveway to the south remains non- conforming. Page 6 of 37 The proposed private drive layout is responsive to the sites physical features and makes every attempt to preserve character of the Oak Street frontage of both the subject property, and not create non- conforming or future variance situations for the adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed layout provides adequate area to preserve the Cedar trees on the north property line. Trees: The proposal incorporates as many of the sites trees and limits impacts on adjacent property trees. Along the west property line, within the Oak Street right of way, there is a dual stemmed, both 10 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Oak, a 24 -inch DBH Oak, a split trunk 10 and 12 -inch DBH Oaks. These trees were assessed by Michael Oxendine, ISA Certified Arborist and Mr. Oxendine determined the trees are in poor health and with the growth, bermed above the curbline and the evidence of broken and dying branches in the canopy, boring into the trunk by critters and the existing utility intrusions it is best to remove the trees. Additionally, In order for the adequate width of driveway apron width to access the property for fire apparatus access, and the changes to the utilities within the right-of-way will cause negative impacts to the trees that will further their already poor condition. The current condition and the impacts from the proposal necessitates the removal of the Oaks within the right-of-way. A separate street tree removal permit has been provided for those trees. The Cedar trees, and the two smaI I diameter Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the south of TL#200 and north of TL#200 will be protected. A tree protection plan has been provided with the proposal. Open space: The proposed subdivision requires five percent (1,875 square feet) of the total lot area as common open space. The open space is to the north of the private driveway. Within the open space, the two large stature cedar trees are proposed. The common open space also provides the area of for a permanently set aside area for the use of the residents. There is not a throughfare or parking area within the area of the open space. dedication but the layout of the property and the public street leave areas that are available for the common amenities and provides area for the stormwater facilities that is required for the development. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant's responses are in Calibri font. Page 7 of 37 Findings of Fact PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OVERLAY 18.39.030 A. Purpose. The purpose of the PSO overlay is to distinguish between those areas that have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, sloping topography, or the existence of vegetation or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. Finding: The property is undeveloped in nature, has sloping topography and the existence of vegetation. The development of the tract is more suitable as a Performance Standards Subdivision. B. Applicability. This chapter applies to properties located in the Performance Standards Option Overlay (PSO) as depicted on the Zoning Map. All developments in the PSO overlay, other than partitions and development of individual dwelling units, shall be processed under this chapter. The Minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts is three. Findin The property is not within the PSO on the zoning. The property is eligible due to the preservation of natural features (large stature Cedar trees) and the proposed subdivision would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact as a typical subdivision. C. Permitted Uses. In a PSO overlay, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Planning Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the City Council. Finding: The request is to allow for the construction of single-family residences, a permitted use in the zone. D. Development Outside PSO-Overlay. If a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under this chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist. 2. That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact. Find__n_g_ The property is outside of the PSO-Overlay. The proposal is to allow for a subdivision that is equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact as a standard subdivision but allows for flexibility in street development pattern due to the lot configuration of the parent tract. There Page 8 of 37 are large stature cedar trees preserved as part of the subdivision proposal. The 35%+ steep slopes at the rear of the parent tract are also preserved. A. Outline Plan. A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten or more lots, prior outline plan approval is mandatory. 1. Review Procedure. The Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060 shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. 2. Application Submission Requirements. Findin The attached subdivision plans including topographical survey, building envelope, conceptual grading, erosion control, drainage and utility plan address the submittal requirements of the Outline Plan. 3. Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a. The development mects all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Finding: The proposed development is exercising the Performance Standards Option. The development demonstrates compliance with the standards from 18.3.9.050-18.3.9.080, and the provisions this chapter. The other applicable sections of this ordinance including: 18.4.3 Parking, Access, & Circulation; 18.4.6 Public Facilities; 18.4.8 Solar Access The PSO development is subject to chapter 18.3.9 and is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards as specifically provided by this chapter. The proposed development seeks relief from the access and setback standards as part of 18.2 but generally complies with the standards from the R-1-5 zone. b. 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. Finding: The proposed layout provides adequate key City facilities. The proposal is to extend water lines in the same general area as the existing water meter boxes. The meter boxes are directly behind the curb line. The site grading plan anticipates individual sanitary sewer ejector pumps Page 9 of 37 to the sanitary sewer main in Oak Street. There have no indications that the sewer mains are not adequate for the additional flows from the new residences. The stormwater is proposed to be captured and detained onsite in an engineered Swale. The swale will overflow to the city system. There have not been any indications that there were issues with the existing service. The electric distribution plan provides a vault on the north side of the driveway with in the open space area. All of the utilities will have easements from the Common Area A lot and from the adjacent lots through which utilities cross. c. 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 common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. Finding: There are two large stature Cedar trees that are proposed to be preserved within the open space. The three oak trees along Oak Street were proposed to be preserved. Upon consultation of an arborist, it has been determined that the existing trees are nearing the end of their life cycle and or have damage to the degree of necessitating removal. In their place, two large statue Oak trees are proposed as mitigation trees. These trees will also function as street trees. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding The adjacent properties are zoned residential. The properties to the north and south of the property have limited development potential due to the location of the existing structures and lot configurations. There is a larger parcel on the north side of the proposed Lot ##4 that may have development potential but the steep topography along the subject property's east property line prevents extension of any contemplated public street connection to the east and the north. The property slopes steeply towards the east and is more than 35 percent in a few areas of the subject property and substantial areas of the adjacent property exceed 35 percent thus no buildable area. The driveway separation to the south remains less than required which is a pre-existing condition. The driveway separation from the existing driveway and the driveway to the north is also non -conforming and a Conditional Use Permit to expand the non -conforming driveway Page 10 of 37 separation is requested. This does not prevent the adjacent properties from developing as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common 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. Finding: A Homeowner's Association (HOA) with Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, By -Laws and a Stormwater Quality Management Plan will be provided with the Engineering plan sets submitted following the Outline and Final Plan approval of the Planned Unit Development. The phases of development include the utility installation and driveway construction phase of the development, installation of the common area improvements (landscaping and street trees), platting of the subdivision lots. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. Finding: T The density of the R-1-5 P -Overlay lot is 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The parent parcel area is 37,500 square feet (.86 acres) .86 X 4.5 = 3.87 is the base density. The proposed density is four units. Each unit is proposed to comply with Earth Advantage Standards which allows for a 15 percent density bonus. The proposal complies with the minimum density and bonus density standards with the development of the Earth Advantage Compliant units. g. The development complies with the street standards. Finding: An exception to street standards is sought to not install a public sidewalk and landscape parkrow along the Oak Street frontage. At a minimum a five-foot curbside sidewalk could be proposed. See exception findings for reasons not to install a 28 -foot long section of sidewalk that has no connections. No new public streets are proposed. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. Find in„ . Page 11 of 37 The minimum area of open space required is 1,875 square feet. There is 2,800 square feet of open space area provided (this area includes reductions for electric vault area). The proposed common open space is a significant amenity to project residents, and residents will use and enjoy the common open space on a day-to-day basis. The open space preserves the Cedar trees and will include landscaping and a bench to improve the functionality of the space. 4. Approval of the Outline Plan. a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety. Findin The plan is filed in its entirety. b, if an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the units are finished. Finding: The proposal is not to phase development but to install infrastructure including storm drainage and install open space revegetation and landscaping prior to issuance of the building permit of the third of the four units. B. Final Plan. 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with 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 meets all of the following criteria: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten 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 percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten 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 percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance 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. h. Nothing in this section 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 Page 12 of 37 transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. Finding: With the concurrent proposal, there are no intended modifications between outline and final plan exception conditions of approval. Exact elevations have not been conceived due to the solar envelopes and the need for understanding of design, but the layout, lot areas, location, access, utilities, number of lots, etc, will comply with the Outline Plan approval. 5. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type 1 procedure in section 18.5.1.040 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. Fines It is understood substantial amendment would require additional review. LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows. 1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within one calendar year. Findin : The request is for approval of a subdivision, there is an existing lot, and a four lot partition of the larger parcel, the proposed subdivision creates more than four lots from one parent tract of land. B. Land Survey. Before any action is taken pursuant to this ordinance that would cause adjustments or realignment of property lines, required yard areas, or setbacks, the exact lot lines shall be validated by location of official survey pins or by a survey performed by a licensed surveyor. Findin An official survey of the property has been performed by an Oregon licensed surveyor. C. Subdivision and Partition Approval Through Two -Step Process. Applications for subdivision or partition approval shall be processed by means of a preliminary plat evaluation and a final plat evaluation. 1. The preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat can be submitted for review. 2. The final plat must demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Finding: The proposal is for a Outline and Final Subdivison plat review. Page 13 of 37 D. Compliance With Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) chapter 92. All subdivision and partitions shall conform to state regulations in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. Finding The subdivision will conform to state regulations in ORS chapter 92. E. Future Re -Division Plan. When subdividing or partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater than two times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district), the lots shall be of such size, shape, and orientation as to facilitate future re -division and extension of streets and utilities. The approval authority may require a development plan indicating how further division of oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur in the future. If the Planning Commission determines that an area or tract of land has been or is in the process of being divided into four or more lots, the Commission can require frill compliance with all subdivision regulations. Findin The proposal is for a five -lot subdivision. There are four, residential lots and a common lot. There are no areas beyond the lots that are able to be developed to a greater intensity. The topography of the east side of the subject property, the adjacent property to the east does not allow additional development. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding The proposed subdivision utilizes the entire property and there are no remnant portions of the tract. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Finding: The proposal does not prevent any adjacent parcels from developing to their densities as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties are developed in a manner that prevents additional residential subdivision development due to access constraints and topographical constraints. This proposal does not impact the existing developments nor does it put constraints on the adjoining properties. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. Page 14 of 37 Finding: There are no neighborhood or district plans. There are no previous land use approvals that imposed conditions of approval on the subject property. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Findin The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). Fines: The proposed subdivision layout complies with the standards of the underlying R-1-5 zone. Each lot is proposed to exceed the minimum lot area far the zone. The lots are proposed to be generally, 50 -feet wide and 150 -feet deep. Each lot can comply with minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks. Conceptual building envelopes are shown that demonstrate the buildable area and the setbacks. The fire truck hammerhead functions similar to a cul-de-sac. The building envelopes provide the setbacks for each lot that generally follow the prescription for setbacks, except on Lots #1 for solar setback standard B and the `front' property line of each lot is the west property line of the lot and not Oak Street. The buildable areas of the property do not disturb areas of more than 35 percent slopes. The lots are all subject to the maximum lot coverage standard of 50 percent, plus up to 200 square feet or permeable solid surface. The existing driveway separations on Oak Street are non -conforming and do not meet the spacing standards of 1.8.4.3.080.0.3 which requires 100 -feet of separation between driveways. The driveway separation between the property to the south and the subject property is not changing and at —36 -feet complies with 18.4.3.080.C.3a. which states in no case shall driveways be closer than 24 -feet. The non- conformity is not changing. The driveway curb cut (there is not an apron) is 16 -feet wide and does not meet the standard for new driveway separations. To widen the driveway to provide adequate fire apparatus access, the apron needs to 22 -feet wide. This reduces the separation between the subject driveway and the driveway to the north. To increase the width of the curb cut and apron, a conditional use permit to expand a non -conforming situation is sought. Solar Access (18.4.8.040): Page 15 of 37 The existing lot at 822 Oak Street (TL#201), proposed Lot #1 is an existing, legal lot of record. This lot has a slope of 1.3 percent downhill to the north along the west property line, 150 -feet north of the mid -point of the lot. The west property line has a slope of 14.6 percent. The average slope of the lot is 7.9 percent. The slope of the lot when based on the buildable area and excluding the area of more than 35 percent that is picked up along the solar setback shadow line, extending 150 -feet to the north the average slope of the property is more accurately portrayed as a three -percent slope. This lot is 50 -feet wide, and its north / south width is not modified with the proposal to make it restrictive than its current Solar Setback Standard B dimensions. Proposed Lots #2, 3 and 4 Solar Access: For the purposes of solar setbacks, the property owner/applicant is seeking some flexibility in how the compliance with the solar setbacks is calculated. This is due to the steep slopes along the east side of the property, primarily within the 150 -feet to the north for the purposes of solar setbacks. This steep slope of 15 —18 percent to the north, yet the area of the building envelopes is relatively flat. This 'steep lot' scenario along the east property line designates an artificially steep slope for the purposes of calculating the solar setbacks. For example, existing lot, TL#200 has a slope of 1.34 percent along the west property line, and a 15 percent slope along the east property line. The average slope of the property for the purposes of solar setbacks is 8.1 percent. if the steep area of the lot long the east property line that are generally unbuildable due to the slope being more than 35 percent were excluded, the average slope of the lot to the north is more accurately portrayed using the slope of the buildable area of each lot. In the case of the parent parcel, TL#200, the average slope of the buildable area is approximately two (2) percent. The solar envelopes are shown demonstrating envelopes for an eight (8) percent slope due to the necessary requirements per the code for submittal. The proposed Lots #2, 3 and 4, are 50 -feet wide. Each lot has a solar envelope depicted on the building envelope plan sheet. if flexibility were allowed without risking project denial, ideally the slope would be considered less severe for the buildable areas. This is because the steepness of the lots for the purposes of solar is exaggerated with the steep portion of the property and properties to the north, in the unbuildable areas of the steep slope which curves around the property. If a lesser slope of two percent was allowed the north setback could be reduced to 9.4 feet vs. the 10.78 required. The large stature Cedar trees on the north property fine will be preserved. They have been evaluated by an arborist that will supervise on site construction as per the tree protection and preservation plan. There are three Oak trees in the Oak Street right of way that are proposed for removal. Two of the three trees are considered significant. The project arborist recommended removal after many attempts by the project team to create either a Shared Street, a dual flag lot driveway or the proposed private drive and made multiple attempts with utility location connections to save the trees. Page 16 of 37 The proposal seeks an Exception to the Street Standards to not install parkrow and sidewalk on Oak Street. The existing sidewalk development pattern on Oak Street was created through a Local Improvement District that provided entire sidewalk segments generally on the west side of Oak Street. There mid -block crossings for pedestrians placed at the engineer specified locations that provide pedestrian connectivity from East Nevada to the north and downtown Ashland to the south. The proposal seeks to not install a 28 -foot in length sidewalk and parkrow. if imposed as a condition of approval, a five to six -foot curbside sidewalk could be installed. Difficulties arise for logical extension of any sidewalk due to adjacent development patterns. Findings addressing the requested exception are provided on following pages. F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. Finding: The access to the individual lots will be from the private drive. This requires a variance to the number of lots access via a private driveway. The proposed private drive is designed in a manner to accommodate expected traffic on the site. AMC 18.4.3.080. Vehicle Area Design A. Parking Location Finding: Per 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design, each lot will have two parking spaces within a garage accessed from the private drive either directly or from a driveway extension. The residential parking is not within any required yard area. a. In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. Finding: The existing driveways are separated by more than 24 -feet. The driveway serving the residence to the south is approximately 36 -feet from the existing driveway apron. The driveway apron serving the subject property is 16 -feet wide and is proposed to be widened to 22 -feet. The driveway to the north is more than 24 -feet from the widened driveway apron but less than 100 - feet. b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be Page 17 of 37 required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. Finding: The subject property is zoned R-1-5 and is not subject to the controlled access standards per this section. c. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following. i. Distance between driveways. on boulevard streets: 100 feet on collector streets: 75 feet on neighborhood streets: 24 feet for 2 units or fewer per lot, 50 feet for three or more units per lot ii. Distance from intersections. on boulevard streets: 100 feet on collector streets: 50 feet on neighborhood streets: 35 feet Findin The property is zoned R-1-5 and not subject to the standards. d. Access Requirements for Multi -family Developments. All multi -family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Finding: Not applicable. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. page 18 of 37 i. For shared parking areas. ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited. iii. For multi -family developments, and developments on multiple lots. Findin : The proposed access uses an existing driveway apron and widens it slightly to provide adequate access to the private drive. This single, narrow driveway minimizes access points and reduces impacts from the access point. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. Findin The proposal is to develop a standard driveway approach where presently one does not exist. There are no additional, unnecessary approaches. c. If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. Findin The proposal is to create a shared, private drive to reduce access. S. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. Findin : There is no alley access. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. Findin All of the proposed infrastructure and the driveway has been designed by an Oregon Licensed Civil Engineer. The utility plan conforms to the requirements of AMC 18.4. Page 19 of 37 Right of way dedication and development for the public street to the design standards is required when there are four lots. The proposal included originally a Shared Street but that was not a preferred street type as it only services four lots with no future connectivity. Additionally, street dedication would alter adjacent property setbacks and introduce a new public street intersection when the small development is better served by a private drive. The adjacent development patterns do not allow for further extensions of public infrastructure to service additional development areas as there are none. All of the proposed transportation facilities include street like features the pavement, on -street like parking, curb, gutter are within a private access easement. The shared street standards are to be considered when there are less than 1,500 vehicle trips and physical constraints prevent the development of a neighborhood street. The prototypical standards for the shared street include a 25 -foot -wide right-of-way, 18 -foot total width pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle driving surface, no on -street parking, no curb or gutter and no sidewalks are required. The proposed driveway is a modified version of a shared street. With a 22 -foot -wide paved width, including 15 -feet of travel lane for driving surface, parallel parking to the south of the driveway and shared pedestrian/bicycle access within the driveway. There is an additional three -feet that the drive could be widened to increase the clear paved width to 18 -feet. The proposed layout is similar to other private driveways found in Ashland including Calypso Court, Birchwood Lane, or Somerset Lane. The proposed driveway is intended to be the least disruptive to the present Oak Street neighborhood layout and to be more similar to a wide private driveway. The driveway is designed with the street standards in mind and provides preservation of existing natural features. The private drive dead ends into an approved fire truck apparatus access hammerhead turnaround. This type of layout is proposed due to the lack of north/south connectivity for future public streets on the adjacent properties. The narrow width, private drive is proposed to respond to the low volumes of traffic to and from the property considering there are only four residential lots. The private driveway and the proposed improvements encourage a mix of pedestrian, bicycle and adequate width to allow low speed vehicle traffic. The private driveway is less than 200 -feet in length and meets the city standards for the distance length and the turnaround dimension. The design provides adequate access from Oak Street to the hammerhead for emergency service vehicles. This will be signed no -parking. In the event of an emergency, the emergency vehicle can use the shoulder as a work area. The width of the private drive allows for ingress/egress if the emergency vehicle does not block the driving surface. Page 20 of 37 A private drive that terminates into a fire apparatus access hammerhead is proposed because the constraints of the subject properties and the adjacent properties prevent the development of a gridded street system. There are steep slopes along the east property line on the subject properties. The adjacent property to the north has a large barn structure and beyond that there is a pool and residential homes in the path of any future north street connection. Similarly, the property to the south is also developed along the shared property line with a large berm and the single-family residence beyond. Steep slopes down to the Bear Creek Valley are present on the east side of the lots to the north, east and south preventing connection for vehicles. These adjacent developments and physical constraints connectivity. Ownership of these properties prevent pedestrian or bicycle connections through the subject property down to the Riverwalk Park and Bear Creek valley further east. The grade of the private drive is minimal and substantially less than the maximum street grades per the standards. The stormwater bioswale that is adequately sized to meet the requirements of 18.4.5.080, and demonstrates compliance with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual Standards. H. Unpaved Streets. Findin Not applicable. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding, There is not an alley adjacent to the property, nor does the subdivision layout provide for alley connectivity. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Finding: There are no State or Federal permits necessary for the development of the property. Page 21 of 37 K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Findin Not applicable 18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Findin A Subdivision to create a five -lot, single family residential subdivision is a permitted use in the zone. The proposed subdivision seeks to create three new single family residential lots in addition to the existing parcel of record, create a common space lot, and dedicate a new public street, "Zoe Lane". Single family residences are a permitted use in the zone. 18.2.5.090 Standards for Single -Family Dwellings A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones. B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries 5. Cupolas 6. Pillars or posts 7. Bay window (min. 12" projection) 8. Eaves (min. 6" projection) 9. Off -sets in building face or roof (min. 16") Finding: The submitted concepts of residences and designs that are of a similar aesthetic demonstrate that two or more of the design features listed above will be provided on the proposed single-family residential units. Page 22 of 37 EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1. Finding: The proposal does not include improvements to Oak Street thus an exception to Street Standards is required. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: The code allows for the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, mature trees, and limited right-of-way. Both of these conditions are present on the frontage. The property has a 50 -foot -wide frontage to Oak Street. Along the frontage of the property and the adjacent properties to the north and south, there is approximately 8.5 -feet of right of way. This right of way width is not adequate to install required improvements. The narrow width of the property frontage following the installation of the driveway leaves 28 -feet of frontage for a small sidewalk. There are no sidewalk connections off-site of the subject property to the north or south. The unique situation includes the development and prevention of a sidewalk and parkrow system that goes nowhere. Oak Street is an avenue and requires a right-of-way of 59 — 86 -feet. The standards seek 32-33 feet of curb -to -curb pavement, five — eight feet of landscape park row, and six — ten -feet of sidewalk on both sides. There is inadequate right-of-way on the east side of Oak Street to provide the city standard improvements but the right-of-way width is adequate for an avenue and to extend a parkrow and sidewalk beyond the property would require dedication of right-of-way by adjacent property owners and a substantial alteration to the trees and utilities within the right- of-way. There are large stature Oak trees on the subject property and on the adjacent properties to the north and south. The only way to preserve the neighbors trees is to use the narrowest driveway allowed and not a public street with sweeping curblines. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. Finding: Page 23 of 37 The proposed frontage improvements will include regrading of the berming behind the curbline, installation of a driveway apron and the planting of two large stature Oak street trees to replace the street trees removed. The frontage improvements are similar to the existing Oak Street improvements on the east side where no sidewalks present. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding: The proposed exception is to not provide any sidewalk or parkrow improvements in the 28 -feet north of the proposed driveway curb cut. There is inadequate right-of-way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements. Not installing sidewalk alleviates the difficulty in extensions of said sidewalks in a logical and functional manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on existing development, will not redevelop in a manner that would require dedication of right-of-way or removal of trees. In the event there is frontage improvements required, a five-foot wide curbside sidewalk with two street trees planted behind the sidewalk could be installed. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Finding: The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There are very limited sidewalks with parkrow on the east side of Oak Street. This is due to a many year, very involved LIQ process to improve Oak Street. The exception seeks to not install sidewalks and parkrow along the frontage of the property. This is due to the limited length of the sidewalk north of the driveway (28 -feet), the lack of right-of-way to install improvements and that not installing sidewalk and parkrow will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18.5.4.050 - Approval Criteria A. Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in. conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. Page 24 of 37 Finding: The use of the property as a single-family residential subdivision which is an allowed use in the zone. The Conditional Use Permit is sought to allow the non -conforming driveway separation on Oak Street Mess than 75 -feet from driveway to the north) to be expanded to allow the driveway serving the subject property to provide adequate driveway apron width to access the improved private driveway. The existing driveway separation is approximately 60 -feet. The proposal reduced the separation by six feet to 54 -feet of separation. Thus increasing the non -conformity. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Finding. Adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage and paved access to a through the development has been proposed. The driveway apron expansion and the reduction in the separation between the driveways does not have an impact on the transportation facilities as the on -street parking is maintained. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.1,.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Finding: The bulk, coverage, scale of the development is not associated with the request to reduce the separation between the driveways. The driveway separation does not have an affect on the livability of the zone. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. Finding: The generation of traffic and effects on the surrounding streets is improved through the development of a paved driveway accessed from a standard driveway apron. The driveway apron width and shifting towards the north is necessary regardless of the type of development of the property. Page 25 of 37 c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Finding: Not applicable d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Finding: The reduced separation between the driveways does not have an impact on air quality, generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. Finding: The reduced separation between the driveways will not have an impact on noise, light and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed separation between the driveway to the north and the subject property driveway g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. VARIANCE CRITERIA 18.5.5.050 - Approval Criteria A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type 11 procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. Page 26 of 37 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot detennination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. Finding: The variance is necessary due to special and unique physical circumstances. These include the slope of the subject property along the east property line that slope prevents extension of any public street system. The adjacent development to the north and south of the developable area of the subject property prevent extension of a public street system. Due to the narrow lot frontage along Oak Street, dedication of a public right-of-way with the smallest public right-of- way at 25 -feet of a Shared Street to 47 -feet for a residential street and the impacts from the creation of a street intersection for a new public street would have substantial impacts on the large Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the south and north. The code provision that when more than three -lots accessed via a private driveway is overly restrictive and burdens the community with small, dead end public streets that serves only a single residential subdivision. The slope of the property and the properties further east are too steep for extension of a public street system. The properties to the north and south of the developable area of the subject property are developed in a manner that prevents extension of a public street system. A private drive and/or flag lot provides for a narrower, often more neighborhood compatible driveway type of development instead of a public street where even the smallest street the Shared Street has a wide curb radii that allows for fire apparatus access but also changes the character of the Avenue, Oak Street by adding a new intersection. Intersections restrict the availability of pubic, on -street parking presently available on Oak Street and would have a greater negative impact than the proposed driveway. A private drive is proposed to allow the property owner to assume all burdens for construction, maintenance and future maintenance falls upon the users of the private drive easement. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. Finding: The requested variance to allow for four lots instead of three to be accessed from a Private Drive that is a dedicated fire apparatus access instead of dedication of a public right-of-way is the minimum necessary to address special or unique circumstances relating to this site and the impacts that the development of this site with a pubic street and the resulting curb radii and Page 27 of 37 restricted parking along Oak Street, impacts to side yard setbacks which a public street cause are reduced with the request for a private drive. 3. The proposal's benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Findin The proposals benefits include removal of any public responsibility for a small, dead end street that provides no vehicular access to future properties within the vicinity due to topography and existing development patterns and a public street cannot be extended beyond the property boundaries. The property owner and future property owners and their HOA will own the private driveway and the utilities within the driveway. The owner bears all responsibility and does not impact the public's ownership and responsibilities. The proposed driveway apron has less of an impact on the Oak Street streetscape than the dedicated public street would be due to curb radii and how intersections are built vs. how a driveway apron is constructed. The purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the Single Family zone is to seek responsible, environmentally conscious design that complies with the city standards and expectations. This proposal conforms and achieves both stated plan goals and most of the criteria for development from the Ashland municipal code. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. Findin The need for the variance is to allow for private ownership of a driveway that serves only four lots as part of a single subdivision and to not dedicate a public street or to only allow three single family lots. The narrow lot width along Oak Street, the steep slopes that prevent connectivity to the east, and the adjacent developments to the north and south of the subject property that prevent public street development were not created by the applicant or the property owner. These circumstances and the lack of public use of the access due to the lack of connectivity, create the need for the variance. There are no previous property line adjustments or land division approvals for the property. STREET TREE REMOVAL Page 29 of 37 The proposal seeks tree removal of the three Oaks along the frontage of the property in the right-of-way at the recommendation of an ISA Certified Arborist. Street Tree Removal Approval Criteria a) Emergency Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non -emergency process. Findin Not applicable b) Hazard Tree Removal. The tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. Finding There are six trees on the subject tract. The proposal seeks approval to remove the street trees directly adjacent to Oak Street. There is a dual stemmed, 10 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Oak, a 24 -inch DBH Oak, a split trunk 10 and 12 -inch DBH Oaks. The Oak trees are requested for removal at the recommendation of the project arborist. The arborist reviewed the trees and found they are in a serious state of decline. Additionally, due to location of the trees within the path of the existing and proposed utility connects, a substantial amount of root zone will be impacted by the excavation to install a driveway apron that complies with the city street standards. Within the existing root zone there are five water meter boxes and service lines. These need to be lifted and repaired or replaced depending on the conditions. One of the three trees, the dual stemmed, 10 -inch DBH Oak is a hazard tree. The tree has an active burrowing situation at the base of the tree, destabilizing it and causing the potential for failure. The damage caused by the burrowing and the condition of the tree will not alleviate the danger of the trees current condition. The proposed development has been planned with the utmost concern and consideration of the trees on the site. The lot layout, dimensions, access, utility installation, etc. were all dependent upon the natural features on the property including the trees. Unfortunately, the trees are considered unhealthy by the project arborist and showing signs of decline. The arborist notes even minor impacts from Page 29 of 37 infrastructure or grading will have a negative impact on the trees. The removal is necessary to permit the application to provide adequate utility access necessary to develop the property to the permitted density and with adequate vehicular access. The removal of three Oaks will not have significant negative impacts on the tree densities. The adjacent neighborhood has a significant number, density, tree canopy and species diversity that the removal of two trees will not negatively impact tree species. There are more than ten large stature Oak trees on the properties in the immediate vicinity. Mitigation street trees are proposed to be of the Oak species to replace the lost Oak trees. Attachments: 1) Tree photographs 2) Conceptual building elevations 3) Existing site conditions 4) Plan Submittals Master Grading Plan Master Utility Plan Electrical Plan Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 5) Tree Protection and Planting Plan Page 3D of 37 Rage 32 of 37 Page 33 of 37 Page 34 of 37 Page 35 of 37 Page 37 of 37 I M . . ......... ICI C) tD", o -A co JZ (IJ) I M . . ......... tD", . ... .. . ...... Mjl, . . ......... tD", . ... .. . ...... Mjl, PF .1 Planning Division 51 Win6urn Way, Ashland OR 97520 c t Y y -ASHLAN D541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 STREET TREE REMOVAL. PERMIT A tree that is located in any public street right-of-way or other public property may not be removed until a Street Tree Removal Permit has been submitted according to the Application Submission Requirements, below, and reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland. An application for street tree removal must demonstrate that the tree is an emergency, hazard, or dead tree as outlined below in the Application Submission Requirements. Application Submission Requirements. An application for a street tree removal permit shall include all of the following information. 1. Application Form and Fee. The application must include the information requested on the Street Tree Removal Permit form provided by the City of Ashland and the permit application fee. Only those property owners of a lot adjoining the street tree rotation or homeowners' associations responsible for street trees in their development or subdivision may apply to remove an adjoining street tree. If a tree is located in front of more than one property, each property owner or homeowners' association official must sign the Street Tree Removal Permit form. 2. Site Plan. A site plan of the property drawn to scale containing the following information. The scale of the site plan must be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger. a. North arrow and scale. b. Property boundaries including dimensions of all lot lines and driveway locations. c. Location and width of all public streets, planting strips, and sidewalks adjoining the site- d. Size, species, and location of the tree(s) proposed to be removed. 3. Written Statement. A written statement explaining how the proposed street tree removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria. The Community Development director may require additional information to demonstrate that the proposed removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria including: 1) a written statement to be prepared by an arborist licensed by the State of Oregon Landscape Contractors Board of Construction Contractors Board and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists; and 2) an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to be completed by an arborist. Street Tree Removal Approval Criteria a) Emerge y Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding sail heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non -emergency process. b) Hazard Tree Removal. The tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or properly. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. c) Dead Tree. The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. Replacement and Stump Removal, Applicants for approved Street Tree Removal Permits are required to remove any stumps and replace the tree. Stump removal and replacements for approved street tree removals shall meet the following requirements. 1. Any street tree removed shall be removed at ground level or lower. If a tree is removed below ground level, the surface must be restored to finish grade and any regrowth which occurs shall he promptly removed. 2. All street trees shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the City of Ashland Recommended Street Tree List. 3. The minimum size for a replacement tree is eight feet in height or one inch in caliper measured at 12 inches above the root crown. 4. Applicants for a Street Tree Removal Permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. 5. If a street tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimize size described above. Type of Tree(s) O a k Approximate Diameter at breast height Height Behind the curbjine of Oak street north of Sleepy Hollow on the east side of the street Location of Tree 30 - 45 FEET Canopy -30 - 40 FEET Reason for Request The three trees are stressed and unhealthy. The arborist found that the condition of the trees would be substantially negatively impacted and their poor conditions would not support the changes. Are there underground utility lines andlor overhead power lines present? If yes, please list which lines are present Is there sidewalk damage? No water ureters (5) Yes If yes, has a Public Works permit been issued? No OVER 1Y [;;liJserslltsnz�llhskbpLSSfLVI'rR `Ranmnl Pem,il_Rcl'Ieed 20EG dac DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ...... 822 Oak Street Assessor's Map No. 391E 05DA Tax Lot(s) 200 Zoning R-1-5 _ Comp Plan Designation Single Family Residential PROPERTY OWNER Name Overlook Drive LLC Phone Address 602 Sutton Place C;ty Ashland Name Suzanne Zapf Phone Address _ City PROFESSIONAL PERFORMING THE TREE REMOVAL e.. tree service Name Beaver Tree Service or JU Tree Service Phone Address - City ARBORIST LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Arborist Name Michael Oxedine Address Title Name Address E -Mail suzannezapf@gmail.com Zip 97520 E -Mail Zip E -Mail Zip _. 541-324-7678 arboristoxendine@gmail.com Phone E -Mail City Phone .- E -Mail City Zip Zip As owner of the property involved in this request, f have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application are in all respects, true and correct. i further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that; produced sufficient factual evidence to support this request; 4 that the infomtation contained in this application are adequate; and further 3) that alt frees, structures, crimprovements are properly Located on the ground. 6/24/2021 Property Owner's Signature (required) Date STAFF DECISION. C.Wscrsllu�assincak�opLSSne[ Tr Ro-1 P,smzl,,Re is l26l6.doc Quercus kelloggii street trees Located at 822 Oak Street Ashland, OR To the Ashland Tree Commission and Planning, There are three Quercus kelloggii (native black oaks) along the street frontage of 822 Oak Street in Ashland. All three of the trees are showing signs of decline. There is a burrow being created at the base of the southernmost tree and the excavation by wildlife is actively undermining the base of the tree. All three trees have numerous large dead branches in the crown (over 2 inch diameter) and the trees show obvious signs of past branch shedding. The likelihood of preserving these trees and improving their health is very poor. They are all elevated along the street on a small berm adjacent to the public utility connections and driveway entrance. These trees in their current state would respond very poorly to even slight environmental changes. It is my opinion that the best long term strategy for the health and longevity of Ashland's urban forest is to remove all three of these Quercus kelloggii. Preserve the soil where future trees will be planted from compaction during the development process. Once the development is concluded, replant with healthy 2 - 3 inch caliper Quercus kelloggii trees (or other large canopy regionally acclimated tree species) located slightly further away from the street. Provide mulch, fertilizer, and drip irrigation at the time of planting. Maintain the irrigation and a yearly mulch/fertilizer regimen for at least three years post planting. The urban forest is a dynamic living system and is constantly manipulated by humans. Sometimes our best long term strategy is to intentionally plant trees in locations where they can be allowed to grow for generations. I believe that this specific situation would benefit from intentional planting and care of new healthy trees better situated along the street in a location that provides better soil volume and future protection from the street and public utilities. Thank you for the work you do to preserve the urban forest. Cheers, Mike Oxendine ISA Arborist PN -7681 541-324-7876 arboristoxendine@gmail.com This report is for 822 Oak Street Ashland, Oregon Prepared by Michael Oxendine ISA Certified arborist PN -7681A Trees proposed for removal prior to construction: There are three native Quercus kelloggii (Black Oak) trees along the street at 822 Oak Street. All three trees show stress and deterieration likely due to the urban environment they are growing it. There is numerous large diameter dead wood in the crown and poor tip elongation present in last years growth. These trees are in a slow state of decline. The proposed plan for grading and utilities would surely finish off these struggling trees. We propose removing these three oak trees and mitigating for the loss of that existing canopy by planting six (2 + inch caliper) oaks within the project boundary. With an irrigation system and proper soil conditions for planting new trees it is possible to recover the lost canopy coverage within 5 years. Several of these newly proposed trees could be positioned along the entry drive and parking area to shade the non -permeable surfaces and also absorb some of the runoff storm water. Proposed oak species for replanting: Quercus bicolor - Swamp White Oak Quercus lobata - Valley Oak Quercus phellos - Willow Oak Quercus shumardii - Shumard Oak Quercus rubra - Red Oak Trees to protect during construction: There are two healthy Calocedrus decurrens (incense Cedar) along the North side of the property boundry. Both of these trees will likely survive the impacts of construction if protected with tree protection fencing of the critical root zone (CRZ). The tree protection for the two cedar trees should include 5 inches of mulch installed starting from 3 feet away from the trunk out to the end of the dripline. A temporary chainlink fence should be installed at the dripline with signs every 50 feet that say "Tree Protection Zone - Stay Out". Each tree should be watered once a week with approximately 100 gallons of water within 10 feet of the dripline during the growing season (April - October). If work needs to be done within the tree protection zone, a certified arborist should be consulted on best practices to preserve the tree. y, 1312[1°, 39WG Zits 41 yw c x w SH(44NTld r,o, NOISIA10ons 1181HX3 SAOV913S h. wrif,L,G d . 101-17 AA180 IWO v ✓r —y Min 4 .1 01 ge pI il 4 Z 10 z.r 0 (Tn. � LLJ ti`s y Q z'I 0 < i- �J z uj C, < m < it 4' 'majo NIS 5 bn �� v aE a t m a tl LS.&6 kwaEY3Zd0 "q Iv'a'RW9V ldetlnNllIiNil' l{M4#W�IY"UIdYS 9 e M'va ' . J VAI7l1IJeAs1I9IHX3771% 10 -}3A1HkNS >IO H/ cn LU j ,, c) 71 ` V � Uj CD Lon Ul 4 S �, dr tlu l b� rxna V ca i �.. c 4 � 7 ray{ i2. —711 F Gxi tJ j ,I ` uInk w G C) cr+ S r a � c' r a a oy OZSZ6 N09920`ONVIHSV d H f r� 133N16 NVO ZZ8 gr O ew 95 r7 nu cJ a I M au seyf]o sery N oa toe 1 toeszt.loesl'� L% N a Q. ,aan4F off 6 �r vs cap .a o ,a=rsno o�mo �w �y [+ p !'9 q�VId J Y c, : _JNIN. tlld 1 y lvvnl�nats {1 g =F0 J 1® —p ICY �dq 1��� pyw e � To %IOOIMAAO o Dap". O cl,N ZQ 00 tl � w > Q W i O � J l 8 O f p p K a -- �� - 60'D' 4 ;j O0 -(J z Li �- 7-7 i c CD Lu f_r m c m E Qo 0 OC E- p ! n C) C� z� " ' �fi/., .gym U ... 4 Z Q W U7 1 W J1.=SCJ z �U) 9 <z Q '2 LL N -iL�5G— F- w Iw Ir)LJ c� o %� ' O w rr z .. � in � �n f• �I o - — <.I < I o co _ o J J N `f .z V) ,' f m l N ;-1 r .3 p 7I I I N Y (1.... 1 N w p Q I a o win , \ m i 0 o v CL I � � `L'i o x� 0 () I lll ro r r �r c c� n i'j n. S I -d 7 w - Q i�I-err. 00 1 a � ri I lll ro r r �r 7 w - Q i�I-err. 00 X6 1- w z it R_ wz os' .s 0, ow _1 Q :5mz Ll-JmQ >C�� w w> w � n- OZSL6 N099O'UNVIHSV laaalg NV0228 ¢ L N NVId NOISIAicans Ainan 831SVW 0 101-V 3AING co .n,..n.i > MID AOOIH3AO , 0 00 j Lu> "ou 0 00 ogi, C\2CD < Z LU P- E —4 U-) tW YC 00 LU] LL — < I W. Lu ZW1 M (z) 0 > ou7 12" NJ w 0 m < SSV I L!Jj z . . . ......... ........ ....... . z < W, 0') z �j c c) < l� Cl 0 > H O ry 0 0 L) f M 0 OC) 0III c�uQ 1 D 1�11­1 u z Ld U< Ld 7 C, > IIII W C,-) CE 0 > ISI 0 C—) § U) U) U) U) CC) -= L,J Lj w< Lw L-1 w z ti -1 L --- — — ------ --------- . .... �4 LE z 0 m 0 (PI y 0 z CD u -C Ld 0 < fy,0 o , � < V) V) �—jO X C' LC 0) C-) L, , L_ :f�� LLJ :�� Ui LJ C) C,_ cy L , , , 0 z <<C) 0 c- < U = — 7�cn (2 0 �3: -, 3: LJ < 0 Y, (D E w (D z Q .n OUL6 NODRHO'ONVIHSV I ... 1S -0 41 —1smnAr,Ze4 NOISIAloonS NV'ld IVOIH10313 viltlaNLOOa15 101-6' 3AING 11, 'JAI E MOOINA 3O 6,a%, �j 0 T 00 of to E- - C) E C E - 4.f ri E WIN Q Z LLI %— Z (jj U Q Z _jU <ZW ~OU 00 - LL OU4L = O U J Z Q LuZ Q W Ovp Z U)D7 U U) cr v) or) mz a y OZSZ6 N003N0'ONVIHSV 133815 MVO ZZ@ V'? ' �V ',i, %r O �wsey'en.wn + w seryJsey . iWa>IFmHs�w s[6 aJ'ssea sf st 6 z �f91AW w w ONIN®tlld Ivanl�nals IVISInIflS J 3AING OD ®/ I1� wi Bpi 1fV3U1IIC]3S IS ®®i -01--V L1 O Q l � Nj CY LiJ Q In Z Z W C) I— J -- .,O(7 / v o ioo,,' Q Z LLI %— Z (jj U Q Z _jU <ZW ~OU 00 - LL OU4L = O U J Z Q LuZ Q W Ovp Z U)D7 U U) cr v) or) mz a y I Lu0 z —_CL L1 O Q U I-- CY LiJ Z Z W C) I— J -- b o �I z 0 U O O of n i m 0cn LU cel 06 Z� Oz< G Q�xw Z�OW� W U Z �. LU ry U i x a III J 1) L V ivnll n � c:y �r (� I i Q Z LLI %— Z (jj U Q Z _jU <ZW ~OU 00 - LL OU4L = O U J Z Q LuZ Q W Ovp Z U)D7 U U) cr v) or) mz a y —_CL F- -- b �I z LU of 0cn LU 06 G CLu V a III J 1) L V ivnll n � c:y �r March 9, 2021 Suzanne Zapf 620 Sutton Place Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Incompleteness Determination for PA -T2-2021-000291822 Oak Street Dear Ms, Zapf, After reviewing the February 8, 2021 application submittal requesting Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals for the properties at 822 Oak Street, Planning staff has determined that the application is incomplete. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with state law (ORS 227.178), and cannot be further processed until the missing information listed below is turned in. Approval Criteria for Outline & Final Plan Subdivision • The written findings provided respond to the approval criteria in AMC 18.5.3.050 for Preliminary Plat Approval for a standard subdivision. For a Performance Standards Options Subdivision, the criteria for Outline Plan (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) and Final Plan (AMC 18.3.9.040.8.5) approval need to be addressed. The plan requirements in AMC 18.3.9.040.A2, A4 and B4 would also need to be addressed. • A four -unit Performance Standards Options subdivision on a 37,500 square foot R-1-5 lot has a base density of 3.87 units. To construct four units, a density bonus would be required and the application would need to make dear what density bonus option in AMC 18.3.9.050.6 is to be pursued (conservation housing, open space, affordability). Building Envelopes_ The Outline Plan submittal needs to include "building envelopes far all proposed lots, which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection where required (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.2J)." The narrative mentions proposed envelopes, but they are not illustrated in the plans provided. Exception to Street Standards Shared Street Cross -Section: How does the modified shared street provide equal or superior facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, and accommodate required fire apparatus access? The on -street parking placement and substandard six-foot width appears likely to constrain the vehicle travel lane to below 12 feet. Has the Public Works Department been consulted to determine if crushed granite can be installed in a way that meets ADA -accessibility requirements for a public sidewalk? Will the street -cross section be adequate for fire apparatus access given the placement of on -street parking? Is there a rolled curb on the south side? Has the Fire Marshal been consulted? Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 p. 20 E, Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ®1® www.ashland.or.us derek severson o),ashland or.us On -Street Parking Bay Dimensions: The on -street parking bays shown are only six -feet wide, where city street standards normally call for parking spaces from seven- to nine -feet wide, depending on the street classification. Is there information demonstrating that parking bays of this width will be functional and not result in portions of cars extending into the travel lane or impeding fire apparatus accessway? (A 2021 Honda Accord is wider than six feet, not counting its mirrors.) Oak Street Sidewalks: If standard frontage improvements are not to be installed along the property's Oak Street frontage (i.e. sidewalks and parkrow planting strip), written findings for this Exception to Street Standards would also need to be provided. Controlled Access Driveway curb cuts and street intersections are required to comply with the controlled access standards in AMC 18.4.3.0.080.C. For an Avenue or Collector Street like Oak Street, this means that a 75 -foot separation is required between driveways, and a 50 -foot separation is required between driveways and streets. It is unclear from the application materials if this standard is met as proposed. If not and the existing curb cut is being widened, a Variance would need to be requested (i.e. a Variance fee paid and Variance findings provided). Solar Access Solar Envelopes discussed in the narrative have not been included in the plans provided, and would be needed to assess solar access compliance, however staff would note that the solar access provisions of the code do not provide for the flexibility sought in calculating slope for the purposes of solar access. Tree Protection The drawings you've provided illustrate tree locations and diameters, but do not identify which trees are to be removed on the plans or show how the trees to be preserved will be protected during construction. Typically, the application would include an arborist's assessment speaking to the health of the trees and their ability to tolerate constructions and including any recommendations beyond standard protection. Full details addressing the plan requirements for AMC 18.4.5.030 and AMC 18.5.7.030 will be needed before the application can be deemed complete. To continue review of the application, you must either: 1. Submit all of the missing information listed above; 2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division written notice that the remaining information will not be provided; or 3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no additional information will be provided. Community Development Dept, Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us derek.saverson(@.ashland or.us Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the original application submittal date of February 8, 2021 will result in your application being deemed void. The application Twill bedeeiii,edipoidifthe adtfitioiialiiijbriiiati,'oiti.vriot sithniittedbj,,Aiigti,s,t7,2021. Planning staff will expedite review of the requested materials once they are received. I have enclosed a form, entitled the "Ap j plicant's Slatement o * Coinj)leteness. " Please review the enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be subrnitting. Your application cannot be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and received by the City of Ashland Planning Division. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (541) 552-2040 or via e-mail to Regards, Derek Severson, &nior.Planner Enel: Applicant's Statement of Completeness Cc: File, Rogue Planning Community Development Dept, Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax. 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www ashland,orms deirek severson a as�Li an.jqr.tLs D __L_ _ March 9, 2021 Suzanne Zapf 620 Sutton Place Ashland, OR 97520 RT: Incompleteness Determination for PA -T2-2021-000291822 Oak Street Dear Ms. Zapf, After reviewing the February 8, 2021 application submittal requesting Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals for the properties at 822 Oak Street, Planning staff has determined that the application is incomplete. Incomplete applications are subject to delay in accordance with state law (ORS 227.178), and cannot be further processed until the missing information listed below is turned in. Approval Criteria for Outline & Final Plan Subdivision • The written findings provided respond to the approval criteria in AMC 18.5.3.050 for Preliminary Plat Approval for a standard subdivision. For a Performance Standards Options Subdivision, the criteria for Outline Plan (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) and Final Plan (AMC 18.3.9.040.8.5) approval need to be addressed. The plan requirements in AMC 18.3.9.040.A2, A4 and B4 would also need to be addressed. A four -unit Performance Standards Options subdivision on a 37,500 square foot R-1-5 lot has a base density of 3.87 units. To construct four units, a density bonus would be required and the application would need to make clear what density bonus option in AMC 18.3.9.050.8 is to be pursued (conservation housing, open space, affordability). Building Envelopes_ The Outline Plan submittal needs to include "building envelopes for all proposed lots, which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection where required (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.2J)." The narrative mentions proposed envelopes, but they are not illustrated in the plans provided. Exception to StreetStandards Shared Street Cross -Section: How does the modified shared street provide equal or superior facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians, and accommodate required fire apparatus access? The on -street parking placement and substandard six-foot width appears likely to constrain the vehicle travel lane to below 12 feet. Has the Public Works Department been consulted to determine if crushed granite can be installed in a way that meets ADA -accessibility requirements for a public sidewalk? Will the street -cross section be adequate for fire apparatus access given the placement of on -street parking? Is there a rolled curb on the south side? Has the Fire Marshal been consulted? Community Development Dept, TeL 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 PI® Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 IF www.ashiand,or.es derek.severson ashland.or.as On -Street Parking Bay Dimensions: The on -street parking bays shown are only six -feet wide, where city street standards normally call for parking spaces from seven- to nine -feet wide, depending on the street classification. is there information demonstrating that parking bays of this width will be functional and not result in portions of cars extending into the travel lane or impeding fire apparatus accessway? (A 202.E Honda Accord is wider than sixfeet, not counting its mirrors.) • Oak Street Sidewalks: if standard frontage improvements are not to be installed along the property's Oak Street frontage (i.e. sidewalks and parkrow planting strip), written findings for this Exception to Street Standards would also need to be provided. Controlled Access Driveway curb cuts and street intersections are required to comply with the controlled access standards in AMC 18.4.3.0.080.0. For an Avenue or Collector Street like Oak Street, this means that a 75 -foot separation is required between driveways, and a 50 -foot separation is required between driveways and streets. It is unclear from the application materials if this standard is met as proposed. if not and the existing curb cut is being widened, a Variance would need to be requested (i.e. a Variance fee paid and Variance findings provided). Solar Access Solar Envelopes discussed in the narrative have not been included in the plans provided, and would be needed to assess solar access compliance, however staff would note that the solar access provisions of the code do not provide for the flexibility sought in calculating slope for the purposes of solar access. Tree Protection The drawings you've provided illustrate tree locations and diameters, but do not identify which trees are to be removed on the plans or show how the trees to be preserved will be protected during construction. Typically, the application would include an arborist's assessment speaking to the health of the trees and their ability to tolerate constructions and including any recommendations beyond standard protection. Full details addressing the plan requirements for AMC 18.4.5.030 and AMC 18.5.7.030 will be needed before the application can be deemed complete. To continue review of the application, you must either: 1. Submit all of the missing information listed above; 2. Submit some of the requested information and give the City of Ashland Planning Division written notice that the remaining information will not be provided; or 3. Submit written notice to the City of Ashland Planning Division indicating that no additional information will be provided. Community Development Dept, Tel: 541-552-2040 "A 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Sr www.ashland.or.us derek.severson ashland.or.us Please note that failure to complete one of the three options within 180 days of the original application submittal date of February 8, 2021 will result in your application being deemed void, The application will he deemed void if the additional information is not suhmitted ley August 7, 2021. Planning; staff will expedite review of the requested materials once they are received. I have enclosed a form, entitled the "111?plicants Statement qfComI)Iefeness." Please review the enclosed form and return it to me with any additional material you will be submitting. Your application cannot be further processed until the Applicant's Statement of Completeness form is completed and received by the City of Ashland Planning Division. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (541) 552-2040 or via e-mail to der-els.sevei-si)n(i,'Lks�LiL(u,,, hii.or. L _ _ Regards, Derek Severson, Senior,Planner Encl: Applicant's Statement of Completeness Cc: File, Rogue Planning Community Development Dept, Td, 541-552-20,40 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 M&NA www ashIand,Qr LIS derqk.Leverson ¢ ish and.orms Applicant's Statement of Completeness (To be completed by the Applicant and returned to the City of Ashland Re: Date Application Expires: PA -T2-2021-00029, 822 Oak St, August 7, 2021 ,Pursuant to an Incompleteness Determination, 1, the undersigned applicant or agent for the applicant, elects one of the three options below by initialing: ( 1. Submit All of the Missing Information (Inifitil ij'elected) I arri submitting all of the information requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter, Unless checked below, I am requesting that the City of Ashland Planning Division review this additional information within 30 days of submission to determine whether the application is complete. I understand that this 30 -day review for completeness period for the new information preserves my opportunity to submit additional materials, should it be determined that the application is still incomplete after the second review. (Note: The 120-dcy periodfior the City, of Ashland's final deterininalion qf conq)hance with applicable criteria does not cotnmenve until the additional reWe-w jbr con7pleteness period is completed) Check rf desired El I waive further review of the information submitted for completeness and direct review of the information submitted for compliance with the Cominunity Development Code criteria, regardless of whether the application is, in 1`act, later detern-fined by the staff to be incomplete. I understand that by checking the above statement the application will be evaluated based upon the material submitted and no notice of any missing information will be given. If material information is missing from the application, the application will fail to meet the burden of showing that all criteria are met, and the application will be denied. Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 FA 20 E. Main Street Fav 541-552-2050 PIM11 Ashland, Ciregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 -UvLa S —hl a I i A L) � —Us dcrek.§.tvPrLGL Pa9h8�Er.Ljs — 2. Submit Some of the Requested Information: (Initial �f elected) Decline to Provide Other Information I am submitting some of the information requested and declining to submit other infon'tialion requested in the Incompleteness Determination letter. I understand that by declining to submit all information the City of Ashland believes necessary, the Ashland Planning Division may conclude that the applicable criteria are not met and a Denial will be issued or recommended. 3. Decline to Provide any of the Requested Information (Initial �felected) I decline to provide any of the information requested. I understand that the Community Development Department may conclude that the applicable criteria are not rnet and a Denial will be issued or recommended. Signed and Acknowledged (Applicant car Applicant's Agent) Date Return to: City of Ashland, Planning Division Attn: Derek Severson, Senior Planner c/o City Hall, 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Community Development Dept. Tel: 541-552-2040 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 OWWALI Ashand, Oregon 97620 TTY: 800-735-2900 a A& zw--was L11a—nq,.2Lii-,s dereA severson(cDashland,or,us W �� Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97524 CITY o a ASHLAND541-488-5305Fax 541-488-6406 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 822 Oak Street ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION PA -T2-2021-00029 FILE # Pursuing LEEDO Certification? ❑ YES ❑ NO Assessor`s Map No. 331E 04CA Tax Lot(s) 290 & 201 Zoning R-1-5 APPLICANT Name Suzanne Zapf Comp Pian Designation Single Family Residential_ Phone 215-990-7759 E -Mail suzannezapf@ otmail_com Address A(19-qutton Placa __—City Ashland Zip 97520 PROPERTY OWNER Name Overlook Drive LLC Phone 215-990-7759 E -Mail suzannezapf@hotmail.com Address 602 Sotto Place City Ashland Zip 97520 SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title Planning Consultant Name Rogue Planning & Development Seri%4i� C 541-951-4020 E -Mail amygunter.planning@gmail.cc Address 1314-B Center Drive PMB #457 Title Civil Engineer Name KAS and Associates Phone city Medford Zip OR E -Mail Scott@kasinc.com Address 304 N Holly Street City Medford Zip 97501 Polaris Land Surveying, PO BOX 459 Ashland, OR 97520 I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact; are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect the owner assumes full responsibility. t 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 furnishedjustifies 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 property located on the ground, Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense, if I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant's Signature Date As owner of the property involved in this request 1 have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. J Z/ ? / Property Ower's Signa Cr equ ed) Date (robe ample by MyStafq Date Received 2.8.2021 Zoning Permit Type Type 2 Filing Fee $ J. i J G i Cir -Irl lJ� OVER 0 aAcomm•devlolanningTorms&HwdwtsVZ dngFcreahApp€icdomdoc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS W1 APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. t� FINDINGS OF FACT — Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre -Application Comment document. 2 SETS OF SCALED PLANS no larger than 11"x17", Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. (Optional —1 additional large set of plans, 2'x3', to use in meetings) l� FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) ❑ LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) — Applicant's wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: • Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and • The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: • Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. • Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. • All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. • The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. (Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Wain St). • A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. • If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. Wcomm-devlplanning\Forms & HandoutslZoning Permit Application.doc OVERLOOK DRIVE LLC Grizzly Peak View Subdivision ja ROGUE PLANNING S OEVELDPMENT SERVICES. LLC February 8, 2021 Grizzly Peak View Subdivision Subiect Property: Address: 822 Oak Street Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04 CA; Tax Lot 200 & 201 Property Owner: Overlook Drive LLC 602 Sutton Place Ashland, OR 97520 Applicant: Suzanne Zapf 502 Sutton Place Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr. PMB #457 Medford, OR 97501 Engineer: KAS and Associates 304 N Holly Street Medford, OR 97501 Surveyor: Polaris Land Surveying PO Box 459 Ashland, OR 97520 Tree Protection and Planting Plan: Plant Oregon Michael Oxendine Page 1 of 25 Subject Property Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 05AD; Tax Lot 201 and 200 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation- Single Family Residential Zoning- R-1-5 Adjacent Zones: R-1-5 and R -1-5--P Lot Area, TL#200: 30,000 square feet TL#201: 7,500 square feet Overlay Zones: Performance Standards Wildfire Overlay Request. The request is for Outline and Final Plan Approval of a new subdivision, "Grizzly Peak View". The proposed subdivision includes one existing parcel of record (39S 1E 05AD; 201) and the partition of the vacant parcel to the north at 39S 1E 05AD; 200. There are four residential lots and an open space lot proposed in the subcIMsion. A new puiblic street "Zoe Lane" is proposed to access the four lots. Page 2 of 25 Site Background and Description: The subject properties are on the east side of Oak Street, 321.63 feet north of the intersection of Oak and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Tax Lot #200 has 50 -feet of frontage on Oak Street, extends 150 -feet to the east, 100 -feet north, 150 -feet west, 150 -feet south, and 300 -feet west back to Oak Street. The lot area is 30,000 square feet. This lot is vacant of structures. #200, and sharing the same east property line. This lot is accessed via a driveway through TL#200. There was a 588 square foot, single -story, residence that was constructed in the 1940s on the property. The dilapidated building was approved for demolition and removed from the property in 2020. There is an existing gravel driveway that leads to the area where the residence was previously located. The driveway is accessed from Oak Street from a narrow curb cut on the south side of the property. The driveway curb cut begins approximately one foot south of the southwest corner of the subject property. Oak Street is classified as an avenue in the Transportation System Plan. Oak Street was improved in the mid -2000s through a Local Improvement District (LID) with curb, gutter, sidewalk, intermittent park row and speed bumps. There are no sidewalks on the entire east side of this block of Oak Street. There is a 6 -inch water main in Oak Street. There is a fire hydrant directly south of the property on Oak Street. According to the most current pressure tests there is adequate pressure in the water main to support the development of a five -lot subdivision. A 6 -inch sanitary sewer main is available in Oak Street. There is a 24 -in storm sewer main in Oak Street. Electric infrastructure is present on Oak Street. Along the west property line, adjacent to Oak Street, there is a two stemmed, both 10 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Oak, a 24 -inch DBH Oak, a split trunk 10 and 12 -inch DBH Oaks. These trees are in good condition. There are two, 18 -inch DBH cedar trees and a smaller stature Oak tree on the north property line of Tax Lot #200, these are also in good condition. Along the north property line of Tax Lot #200 there are two 18 -inch DBH Cedar trees and an 8 -inch Oak tree. There is an 8 -inch DBH Oak on the south side of the property. Along the east property line there are slopes leading downhill towards the adjacent property to the east. There are no other significant natural features on the property. Page 3 of 25 ;� . _. g;' E�YI SLEEPY �a�s3a.. F:�., ai- ,rnFnaswuuu DR. .Earis+ros=.� �:•� ,int.. '�,s .�. V% wuao>fl�,. ,nw>r<,.�, #200, and sharing the same east property line. This lot is accessed via a driveway through TL#200. There was a 588 square foot, single -story, residence that was constructed in the 1940s on the property. The dilapidated building was approved for demolition and removed from the property in 2020. There is an existing gravel driveway that leads to the area where the residence was previously located. The driveway is accessed from Oak Street from a narrow curb cut on the south side of the property. The driveway curb cut begins approximately one foot south of the southwest corner of the subject property. Oak Street is classified as an avenue in the Transportation System Plan. Oak Street was improved in the mid -2000s through a Local Improvement District (LID) with curb, gutter, sidewalk, intermittent park row and speed bumps. There are no sidewalks on the entire east side of this block of Oak Street. There is a 6 -inch water main in Oak Street. There is a fire hydrant directly south of the property on Oak Street. According to the most current pressure tests there is adequate pressure in the water main to support the development of a five -lot subdivision. A 6 -inch sanitary sewer main is available in Oak Street. There is a 24 -in storm sewer main in Oak Street. Electric infrastructure is present on Oak Street. Along the west property line, adjacent to Oak Street, there is a two stemmed, both 10 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Oak, a 24 -inch DBH Oak, a split trunk 10 and 12 -inch DBH Oaks. These trees are in good condition. There are two, 18 -inch DBH cedar trees and a smaller stature Oak tree on the north property line of Tax Lot #200, these are also in good condition. Along the north property line of Tax Lot #200 there are two 18 -inch DBH Cedar trees and an 8 -inch Oak tree. There is an 8 -inch DBH Oak on the south side of the property. Along the east property line there are slopes leading downhill towards the adjacent property to the east. There are no other significant natural features on the property. Page 3 of 25 The property and the adjacent properties are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). The subject properties and these to the south are also outside of the Performance Standards Overlay District. The properties to the north and east.. Properties in the vicinity are developed with single family homes and associated out buildings. The request is for Outline and Final Plan Subdivision approval of a five -lot subdivision with new public street. The proposed subdivision includes the existing 7,500 square foot single family residential lot, the creation of three new single-family lots and a common area parcel. The proposal is to construct a new public street, "Zoe Lane", that extends from Oak Street 150 -feet to the east where it terminates into a hammerhead turn around. Proposed parcel #1 is the northern most lot. It has a flag pole connection to the street, and is proposed to be accessed via a driveway easement. from proposed Parcel #2. Proposed Parcel #1 is approximately 8,000 square feet in area. Proposed Parcel #2 has more than 25 -feet of frontage upon the new public street and the parcel is proposed to be approximately 6,650 square feet in area. Proposed Lot #3 is 5,730 square feet in area and has more than 25 -feet of frontage on the cul-de-sac. On the south side of Zoe Lane, is Tax lot #201, existing 822 Oak Street lot which has more than 25- foot connection to the public street right-of-way and complies with frontage requirements of a cul-de-sac. The lot area of this Parcel is 7,0!00 SF. As shown on the preliminary survey plat and building envelope plan, the lot dimensions, future coverage areas, access and adequate parking to meet the standards for new single-family residential development. There is an open space parcel on the north side of "Zoe Lane". Within the open space parcel, two large stature Cedar trees are proposed to be retained. Additionally, there is a bioswale feature that is required for storm water detention, retention and treatment. The open space area will have common area improvements and maintenance requirements that will be specified in the Homeowners Associate rules and CC&R's. Public utilities are able to be extended from Oak Street up the new public street and terminate into public utility easements that provide service from the public facilities to the individual sites. A new fire hydrant is proposed to be installed to provide fire suppression to the properties and surrounding homes. ''mater meters from the new water line are shown on the utility plan. Page 4 of 25 Access and Circulation: A subdivision with four residential units requires a public street. The proposal is to create a safe, human - scale, shared street. The shared street is a "new" street type for public streets that have limited access, low numbers of vehicle trips, tree preservation, and other physical constraints. The proposed shared street is a modified version of the shared street standards. I FrotoWnicai section: Shared st7eet The prototypical standards for the shared street include a 25 -foot -wide right-of-way, 18 -foot total width pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle driving surface, no on -street parking, no curb or gutter and no sidewalks are required. n 18.4.6.040.4.8. Shared Street The proposed modified street includes a 25 -foot -wide right-of-way, a 12 -foot -wide driving surface, a five and one -half -font wide crush rock shoulder on the south side of the new street. The north side of the street includes four, parking spaces that are on -street and a six-inch raised curbing along the north side of the street. The new street dead ends into an approved fire truck apparatus access hammerhead turnaround. This type of layout is proposed due to the lack of north/south connectivity for future public streets on the adjacent properties. The proposed shared street layout is responsive to the sites physical features and makes every attempt to preserve the Oak trees along the street frontage of both the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. Additionally, the proposed layout provides adequate area to preserve the Cedar trees on the north property line. Trees: The proposal incorporates as many of the sites trees and is proposed in a manner that limits impacts on adjacent property trees. Along the west property line, adjacent to Oak Street, there is a two stemmed, both 10 -inch diameter at breast height (DBH) Oak, a 24 -inch DBH Oak, a split trunk 10 and 12 -inch DBH Oaks. In order the achieve necessary turning radii at the street for fire apparatus access, the curbing necessitates the removal of the double stemmed Oak. The curb is very close to the 28 -inch Oak tree but there are substantial impacts from the new street and utility installation, a substantial portion of the roots are needing to be remove, both of these trees are in the path of the throat of the street and the curbing. The layout of the street is shifted to the south as far as possible while still complying with fire apparatus turning radii, and the narrowest type of public street is proposed, but the trees are in the direct route of the required public street. Open space: The subdivision does not require common open space dedication but the layout of the property and the public street leave areas that are available for the common amenities and provides area for the Page 5 of 25 stormwaterfacilities that is required forth e development. The open space will be permanently set aside for the use of the residents and will be landscaped, does not include throughfares, or parking areas. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided on the following pages. For clarity, the criteria are in Times New Roman font and the applicant's responses are in Calibri font. Page 6 of 25 Findings of Fact LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJ-USTMENTS 18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows. 1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within one calendar year. Finding:. The request is for approval of a subdivision, there is an existing lot, and a four lot partition of the larger parcel, the proposed subdivision creates more than four lots from one parent tract of land. B. Land Survey. Before any action is taken pursuant to this ordinance that would cause adjustments or realignment of property lines, required yard areas, or setbacks, the exact lot lines shall be validated by location of official survey pins or by a survey performed by a licensed surveyor. Finding: An official survey of the property has been performed by an Oregon licensed surveyor. C. Subdivision and Partition Approval Through. Two -Step Process. Applications for subdivision or partition approval shall be processed by means of a preliminary plat evaluation and a final plat evaluation. 1. The preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat can be submitted for review. 2. The final plat must demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Finding: The proposal is for a preliminary subdivision plat review. D. Compliance With Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) chapter 92. All subdivision and partitions shall conform to state regulations in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. Finding: The subdivision will conform to state regulations in ORS chapter 92. E. Future Re -Division Plan. When subdividing or partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater than two times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district), the lots shall be of such size, shape, and orientation as to facilitate future re -division and extension of streets and utilities. The approval authority may require a development plan indicating how further division of oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur in the future. if the Planning Commission determines that an area or tract of land has been or is in the process of being divided into four or more lots, the Commission can require full compliance with all subdivision regulations. Page 7 of 25 Finding: The proposal is for a five -lot subdivision. There are four, residential lots and a common property. There are no areas beyond the lots that are able to be developed to a greater intensity. The topography of the east side of the subject property, the adjacent property to the east does not allow additional development. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: The proposed subdivision utilizes the entire property and there are no remnant portions of the tract. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Finding: The proposal does not prevent any adjacent parcels from developing to their densities as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties are developed in a manner that prevents additional residential subdivision development due to access constraints and topographical constraints. This proposal does not impact the existing developments nor does it put constraints on the adjoining properties. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City -adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. Finding: There are no neighborhood or district plans. There are no previous land use approvals that imposed conditions of approval on the subject property. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). Page 8 of 25 Finding: The proposed subdivision layout complies with the standards of the underlying R-1-5 zone. Each lot is proposed to exceed the minimum lot area for the zone. The lots are proposed to be generally, 50 -feet wide and 150 -feet deep. Each lot can comply with minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks. Conceptual building envelopes are shown that demonstrate the buildable area and the setbacks. The fire truck hammerhead functions similar to a cul-de-sac. The building envelopes provide the setbacks for each lot that generally follow the prescription for setbacks, except on Lots #1 and Lot #4, the street frontage is technically to the side lot leading to a prescriptive envelope. The buildable areas of the property do not disturb areas of more than 35 percent slopes. The lots are all subject to the maximum lot coverage standard of 50 percent, plus up to 200 square feet or permeable solid surface. Proposed Lot 1 is a flag lot with a 10 -foot connection to the street, this alternative physical connection instead of what is permitted in AMC 18.1.4. Lots 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to have 25 -feet of frontage upon the cul-de-sac, consistent with the Minimum frontage standards. The proposal complies with all applicable development standards found in 18.4. The existing driveway separations on Oak Street are non -conforming in the area. This proposal requires the dedication of a public street. The proposed location of the public street is in the same location as the existing driveway. The new intersection is wider than the driveway, the point of intersection and where vehicles are presently entering and exiting Oak Street will not altered as there is limited frontage to install the new public street. Solar Access (18.4.8.040): For the purposes of solar setbacks, the property owner/applicant is seeking some flexibility in how the slopes to the north are calculated. This is due to the steep slope along the east side of the property, yet the area of the building envelopes is relatively flat. The steep slopes along the east property lines, 150 - feet north of the midpoint of the proposed lots, designates an artificially steep slope for the purposes of calculating the solar setbacks. For example, existing lot, TL4200 has a slope of 1.34 percent along the west property line, and a 15 percent slope along the east property line. The average slope of the property for the purposes of solar setbacks is 8.1 percent. If the steep area of the lot long the east property line that are generally unbuildable due to the slope being more than 35 percent were excluded, the average slope of the lot to the north is more accurately portrayed using the slope of the buildable area of each lot. In the case of the parent parcel, TL#200, the average slope of the buildable area is three percent. Solar envelopes are shown demonstrating the setback of an 8 percent slope. Page 9 of 25 TL#201, or proposed Lot 4 is an existing, legal lot of record. This lot has a slope of 1.3 percent downhill to the north along the west property line, 150 -feet north of the mid -point of the lot. The west property line has a slope of 14.6 percent. The average slope of the lot is 7.9 percent. The slope of the lot when based on the buildable area, and excluding the area of more than 35 percent and the 10 -foot rear yard setback the average slope of the property is more accurately portrayed as three -percent slope. Since the existing lot is lot is 50 -feet wide and its width is not modified with the proposal to make it more or less restrictive than its current solar setback standard B dimensions. The proposed lots #1, 2 and 3, are proposed to be 50 -feet wide. Each lot has a solar envelope depicted on the building envelope plan sheet. Additionally, all residential units will demonstrate that the new structures will not cast a shadow that is taller than a six-foot fence on the north property line on December 2111 at noon. F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. Finding: The accesses to the lots will be from the new public street. Two parking spaces will be provided for on each lot within a two -vehicle garage, carport or other parking area. In addition, there are four parallel parking spaces adjacent to the public street. All the parking spaces for the residences will be designed in a manner that prevents backing out on to Oak Street. The hammerhead presents a cul de sac type of layout. A shared driveway is proposed for lots 1 and 2, lot 3 and lot 4 will have separate driveways. There is not a curb around the hammerhead proposed and there is no sidewalk proposed around the perimeter of the hammerhead. The driveways to access the lots will extend from the cul de sac. There is not a curb around the cul de sac nor are there pedestrian and bicycle conflicts anticipated which is the typical reason for the driveway separations. The proposed street layout is designed in a manner that accommodates all of the expected traffic on the site. The crushed rock shoulder along the south side acts as a pedestrian walkway from Oak Street, to the residential lots. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future Page 10 of 25 development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. Finding: All of the proposed infrastructure has been designed by an Oregon Licensed Civil Engineer. The utility plan conforms to the requirements of AMC 18.4. Right of way dedication and development to the design standards is required to be dedicated when there are four units. All of the proposed transportation facilities including the pavement, on -street parking, curb, gutter and the crushed rock shoulder/pedestrian walkway are within the proposed 25 -foot -wide public right-of-way. The shared street standards are to be considered when there are less than 1500 vehicle trips and physical constraints prevent the development of a neighborhood street. The prototypical standards for the shared street include a 25 -foot -wide right-of-way, 18 -foot total width pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle driving surface, no on -street parking, no curb or gutter and no sidewalks are required. The proposed street is a modified version of a shared street. The proposed street, "Zoe Lane" has a 25 - foot -wide right-of-way, a 12 -foot -wide driving surface, and a five and one -half -foot wide crush rock shoulder on the south side of the new street. The north side of the street includes four, parking spaces that are on -street and a six-inch raised curbing along the north side of the street. The new street dead ends into an approved fire truck apparatus access hammerhead turnaround. This type of layout is proposed due to the lack of north/south connectivity for future public streets on the adjacent properties. The proposed street is similar to other streets found in the Oak Street neighborhood, specifically Jessica Lane (Jessica Lane Subdivision Plat attached). Exception findings addressing why the modified shared street is the preferred alternative than the prototypical shared street are included. Zoe Lane provides adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access. The streetscape is intended to be the least disruptive to the present Oak Street neighborhood layout and to be more similar to a wide private driveway. The street is design for humans and provides preservation of existing natural features. The proposed modified street includes a 25 -foot -wide right-of-way, a 12 -foot -wide driving surface, a five and one -half -foot wide crush rock shoulder on the south side of the new street. The north side of the street includes four, parking spaces that are on -street and a six-inch raised curbing along the north side of the street. The new street dead ends into an approved fire truck apparatus access hammerhead turnaround. This type of layout is proposed due to the lack of north/south connectivity for future public streets on the adjacent properties. The narrow width, shared street is proposed to respond to the low volumes of traffic to and from the property considering there are only five residential parcels accessed Page 11 of 25 from the dead-end street. The type of street and the proposed improvements to the street that differ from the standards encourage a mix of pedestrian, bicycle and adequate width to allow low speed vehicle on the small, intentionally narrow street. Zoe Lane is proposed to terminate into a hammerhead cul de sac. The dead-end street is less than 400 - feet in length and meets the city standards for the distance length and the turnaround dimension. The street design provides adequate access from Oak Street to the hammerhead for emergency service vehicles. The paved surface of the street is 15 -feet, there is a 5.5 -foot -wide crushed rock shoulder. This will be signed no -parking. In the event of an emergency, the emergency vehicle can use the shoulder as a work area. The width of the street still allows for ingress/egress if the emergency vehicle does not block the street. The narrow width reduces pavement area which reduces the city's maintenance costs, reduces stormwater runoff and reduces environmental impacts. A new street that terminates into a cul de sac is proposed because the constraints of the subject properties and the adjacent properties prevent the development of a gridded street system. There are steep slopes along the east property line on the subject properties. The adjacent property to the north has a large barn structure and beyond that there is a pool and residential homes in the path of any future north street connection. Similarly, the property to the south is also developed along the shared property line with a large berm and the single-family residence beyond. Steep slopes down to the Bear Creek Valley are present on the east side of the lots to the north, east and south preventing connection for vehicles. These adjacent developments and physical constraints connectivity. Ownership of these properties prevent pedestrian or bicycle connections through the subject property down to the Riverwalk Park and Bear Creek valley further east. The grade of the street is minimal and substantially less than the maximum street grades per the standards. A stormwater bioswale that is adequately sized to meet the requirements of 18.4.6.080, and demonstrates compliance with the Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual Standards. H. Unpaved Streets. Finding: Not applicable. 1. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding: Page 12 of 25 There is not an alley adjacent to the property, nor does the subdivision layout provide for alley connectivity. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. Finding: There are no State or Federal permits necessary for the development of the property. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5 3.060. Finding: Not applicable 18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Finding: A Subdivision to create a five -lot, single family residential subdivision is a permitted use in the zone. The proposed subdivision seeks to create three new single family residential lots in addition to the existing parcel of record, create a common space parcel, and dedicate a new public street, "Zoe Lane". Single family residences are a permitted use in the zone. 18.2.5.090 Standards for Single -Family Dwellings A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones. B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries 5. Cupolas 6. Pillars or posts 7. Bay window (min. 12" projection) Page 13 of 25 8. Eaves (min. 6" projection) 9. Off -sets in building face or roof (min. 16") Finding: The attached drawings of residences and designs that are of a similar aesthetic demonstrate that two or more of the design features listed above will be provided on the proposed single-family residential units. Exception to Street Standards 18.4.6.020.B.1. Finding: The proposed Shared Street, Zoe Lane differs from the standards thus an exception is required. 1. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.044 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. Finding: The property has a 50 -foot -wide connection to Oak Street. There are two residential street types in the street standards for low volume streets. One has a minimum right-of-way width of 47 -feet and the next narrowest right-of-way is the shared street. There are large stature Oak trees on the subject property and on the adjacent property to the south. The only way to preserve the these trees is to use the narrowest right-of-way offered by the Shared Street. The code has minimum standards. The proposed Shared Street exceeds the standards which necessitates the exception request. The code allows for the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, mature trees, and limited right-of-way. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. Finding. The proposed shared street is similar to the prototypical shared street, but provides more improvements than the `typical' shared street. The proposed four lots will have limited vehicle trips, the design preserves the majority of the of trees, and the design standards from the street standards do not call for standard street Page 14 of 25 improvements for the shared street. The proposal provides a wider shoulder area for pedestrian refuge. Additionally the width of the improvements is slightly wider than the driving lane width of the shared street and will allow for more vehicle maneuverability. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Finding: The proposed Share Street has all of the features and more detailed in the prototypical street section. The proposed street provides for a separate pedestrian walkway outside of the vehicle travel lane and provide on -street parking within the public right-of-way. The requested improvements are wider than the standards call for and include a raised curb along the north side which are both not standard. These additions are the minimum necessary to meet the standards. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Finding:. The Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards section speaks to connectivity and design focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoe Lane, is the proposed new street is a semi -rural street similar to the other side streets on the east side of Oak Street. The proposed layout will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience. TREE REMOVAL 18.5.7.030. B. Tree Removal Permit. Finding: There are six trees on the site. The most significant trees are adjacent to the Oak Street right-of-way. The proposal seeks approval to remove dual stemmed, 10 -inch DBH Oak Tree and a 24 -inch Oak to the north of the proposed new street. These trees are requested for removal due to location of the trees within the path of the proposed public street, and the amount of root zone that will be substantially impacted by the cut to install the curb, gutter, utilities and other improvements to allow for the construction of the new street. 2. Tree that is Not a Hazard. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Page 15 of 25 Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Finding: The proposed development has been planned with the utmost concern and consideration of the trees on the site. The lot layout, dimensions, access, utility installation, etc. were all dependent upon the natural features on the property including the trees. The proposed right-of-way is for a shared street which is the narrowest public street right-of-way. The proposed street has the narrowest improvements to preserve the Oaks on the south property, off-site, the trees north of the new intersection and allows the most undisturbed area adjacent to the Cedar trees on the north side of the street. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Finding. The removal of the trees will not have any impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters or protection of adjacent trees. None of the trees proposed for removal are part of a windbreak. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The 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. Finding: The removal of two Oaks will not have significant negative impacts on the tree densities. The adjacent neighborhood has a significant number, density, tree canopy and species diversity that the removal of two trees will not negatively impact tree species. Mitigation trees are proposed to be of the Oak species to replace the lost Oak trees. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. Finding: The residential density has not been affected by the trees. Page 16 of 25 e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval Pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Finding: The removed trees will be mitigated for with the new street trees. .18.5.7.050 Mitigation Required One or more of the following shall satisfy the mitigation requirement. A. Replanting On -Site. The applicant shall plant either a minimum 1 '/2 -inch caliper healthy and well - branched deciduous tree or a five to six-foot tall evergreen tree for each tree removed. Finding: There will be three, new street trees planted along the north side of Zoe Lane. These trees will mitigate for the removed trees. Additionally, trees will likely be included in landscape plans for the residences. Attachments; 1) Tree photographs 2) Conceptual building elevations 3) Existing site conditions 4) Plan Submittals Master Grading Plan Master Utility Plan Electrical Plan Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 5) Tree Protection and Planting Plan Page 17 of 25 Wage 19 of 7.5 Page 20 of 25 Page 21 of 25 Page 22 of 2S Pager 23 of 25 Page 2.4 of 25 i/y�"IM'„ �a Page 25 of 25 Owu NQD3d0'uNvlNSv � A33d13 Nao aa8 +w W �l mp x � xsert Mt90 W 'a �7 Hl J ' d Z yI Y, o (v Lx�NINNtl'3d `o�u NOISIAEE�7V OII(► S NV Id JNIOVUO a31SVW ' w lvdNl.�Ni+is l a - , � �o�-� �nlao � o M00183AO o �3y E Ei K 7 � w x Ul d '. U 4 Lat •]l nQ i Z Z S S L k 0 fII Q 0 0 0 en rn C� I d � V x7 V ¢ C, < \ b Q C 1' zoo iW U6'7 n O L X n I d a , q w ' kl U O O �. o ` _ o w y ..... _._ — _...... - _ - 0 � .. _-...... y IT i� ANSI, DO D <<` wmccr-� zoos UlL UJ X © Q w Z � M wsn 3e ci snx a mn au su ms w9n nv sv notes swm m c - a 62516 Nb�J3Nb'bNtllHStl � � � o � 199N1S NYC Z02 9? I x w x�ex 3 55 c o � oae Ir r I,re � o¢ o W /l' t iisec I .. s S 1L[�yans Nb'�Id w ']NINNtlId a NQIr7IJ1[iJOila7 Ali�llfl �i1S�/W 'wz�`S (j�5 ltlL.. nn K O� t 101-17 3AimQ MOOl H3AO 9 a Oac0 3 � ONZ Y ° co �¢ "( p a I LLIOne of vcy- I . I a � FOa W Ul Q S U (n 2 } O = w 2 1 —Q ZJ o L Q] U LJ U) O _ Q � LJO F ¢ �n L, r a 77 ,--_;000s — J EI o I l �j �w o } � P J 14 t Z � LcJ O " L� a� li OUB Q O- J >1 til F U nI U I � ��u Wv1 Ld z f U O v �Of z ! w Ld z ¢ ly 4; lI7LO zF ff mer � w w LSI LLLJ 1 F y l ! ! m �T$ S i � �•, i v fZ CU (n W W Y qZ:Ri cn F-- cf3 � waw �>m r- : z U �Z Q 77W V3 af W U O F - -< V1 (n �O ZL"I 20.7 �?tX�Elf Ul~ O4 LLLI F tll L' Q F }-- U Liz Vl Uy r m F 0 z O zZ ¢ � Z F z0 o a� � LI z L N �d91.6 13N1ani S %tlOLB tl0`E)Zze Y $ a 3 Cm d, O quo 1 Y� Y 3 5 iwi6 I M U ON)NNfd NOISIAIQ8f1S NVId IVOIN10313 ter; a �yanx�ntiis' � Q• � a 101173A]ua s o�w ��sfa� x inia MOOINgAO o �i ma es uJ EE 3 li i C - 3 4 1`% f/Ap¢ z LU F,a = cn0 I Q ZW ~OU nar F` C-) DcQ -' ZU I p E-4 O Q LL {I � O .i;gl F- I f•L i t; w O.m o zF -- O CO <Li o I oQi 1 Q l v7 j N t,L F2W o CO < < D y -E .2- ¢ i Z \ o 0 Ln .2 i z d Y tE o I >n U L7 W U7 U EE�iW Lo L' W i. Z �Q�Qvr J; a c n Q W � 7 O H Eqt a � Z N O r 0 oa L:J � }Q r q M+ STI O, ._- L J' O t � r Q W � 7 O H Eqt a � Z N O r 0 oa L:J � }Q r q M+ STI O, ._- L J' O ozsLs No��Mo •�ptyts+sv '� �}'�` 1nMs XVoM '� •r V O . u:c�'oulacy'uw� • :y '.aalaey�aca - p 05 O p � ioaa'a4 E�esE,ud wxx Esunl-xa U oa � � e [ zxs�e•s'i�x,�.,xudxn .+�s kaxswx .� e j a.do•...a .,o �op:a�. n N'dId ION1NO3 o pNOISINQans �Zaa ONINNV'id ,tlN E,1313ii151N3WIQ3S'8 NOISON3 10-11, � 3AINQ I p�z i4OO�tif3AO 060 o la a a � e IaE � CD c az c'r .:00'00 - f w .abs Lu aoTci E r CQ' O¢ i g r3 j E- w o a h � I c � � z ! a J a. t liI! J X J mo U I oz z. �Q � W . 3 t oa i W F i U) u 06 �Z F,pz o ,U z W � 0 a W 4 a U i m U EFi r, a -7 v �11� STREET NAME REQUEST Applicant Name: Amy Gunter Address: 1314-B Center Dr., PMS 457 Medford, OR 97501 Phone: 541-951-4020 Date: February 5, 2021 Reauested Street Names Project Narne:Grizzly Peak view Subdivisi Proiect Locatiom 822 Oak Street e o Zoe Lane: Zoe Lane is the requested as the name for a new, public street. Zoe Applegate (b1878 - d1992) is the daughter of William Henry Applegate and Nancy Elizabeth Grubb Applegate. William was the first son of Jesse Applegate and Cynthia Parker born in Oregon. Jesse Applegate was part of the world famous Applegate party led by relatvies, Charles, Jesse and Lindsay Applegate. Zoe's grandfather was one of the first Oregon explorers of the "Southern Route" also referred to as the Applegate trail which was establishe in 1846. Oregonpioneers.com11846 Zoe's mother was Clancy Elizabeth Grubb Applegate„ she was the daughter of Ashland Pioneers Samuel Grubb and Elizabeth Sell Grubb. Zoe Applegate was only 24 years old, living a short and uneventful life but her grandparents are very noteable pioneer families. Zoe Applegate is interned in Section: 4, Uock: 8, Lot:1, Grave:3 at Mountain View Cemetery in Ashland! Oregon City Staff will assign the official street name and distribute the information. This review includes review for acceptance with applicable portions of the following standards: YES NO Is proposed name on the already approved Heritage Street Names List? ❑ C Is proposed name on the Existing Jackson County Street Names List? Does proposed name contain any of the following discouraged words? Word Existing Street Names that contain that word: Ashland (Ashland Street, Ashland Lane, Ashland Creek, Ashland Loop, Ashland Mine, etc.) Berry (Berry Lane, Blackberry, Strawberry, Thimbleberry) (Eagle (Eagle Creek, Eagle Mill) Creek (Boulder Creek, Clay Creek, Clear Creek, Creekstone, Eagle Creek, Spring Creek, Wright's Creek) Fair (Fair Oaks, Fairview, Fairway) Glen (Glendale, Glendower, Glenn, Glenview„ Glenwood) Meadows (Greenmeadows„ Meadow Chive„ Meadowlark, Mountain Meadows Dr, Oak. Meadows) Mountain (S. Mountain, N. Mountain, Mountain Meadows Dr. , Mountain Meadows Circle, Mountain View) Oak (Black Oak, Fair Oaks, Great Oaks, Oak St. Oak Hill, Oak Knoll„ Oaklawn, Oak Meadows, Oakway,) Park (bark, Parker, Parkside) Spring (Spring creek, Spring Hill, Spring Way) Sun (Sunnyview, Sunrise, Sunset, Sunshine) Terrace (Pinecrest Terrace, Terrra, Terrace, Timberline Terrace) Valley (Valley View North, South, East and West) View (Bellview, Grandview, Hillview, Montview, Mountain View) Village (Quiet Villager Village Green, Village Park, Village Square) The words above should not be part of any new street names because they tend to create confusion for emergency service providers due to the number of existing streets that already contain these words. Also, words that sound very close to the above listed words should be avoided (e.g.: "Ashley" or "Aspen" are hard to distinguish from "Ashland" in a frantic 911 call). Each proposed name will be considered on its individual merits, but this list is intended to offer preliminary guidance for those responsible for naming new streets Chapter 13.24 STREET NAMES 13.24.010 Criteria for Naming or Renaming a Street A. Street may only be named: 1. If listed on the adopted Heritae StreetName I.Jst. The proposed nameLane" is not on the Heritage Street Name List, 1 After a prominent person who: a. Achieved prominence as a result of his or her significant, positive contribution to the history of the world, United States, the State of Oregon, Southern Oregon, or the City of Ashland. The proposed street name is "Zoe Lane" far Zoe Applegate, first daughter of William Henry Harrison Applegate b, Is a real person, and and Nancy Elizabeth Grubb Applegate, pioneer families that settled in the Oregon yes Territory. c. Has been deceased for at least five years. deceased for more than five years. 3. For a geographical place name of prominence. 4. For flora, fauna, or geologic materials. 5. After a commemorative event which: a. Achieved distinction as a result of significant and positive contribution to the world, United States, the State of Oregon, Southern Oregon, or the City of Ashland. b. Actually Occurred. 6. For a description of the area in which the street is located or a prominent landmark nearby. b. No street name shall be approved if it is similar to or pronounced the same as the name of any other street within the City, c. Names for new streets shall be approved by the public works director after consultation with the fire, police and community development departments. (Ord. 2819 §1, 1998) 13.24.020 Procedure for Change of Street Name The following procedure shall be used in considering changes in street names: A..A person who desires a street name change shall submit a written request together with the application fee to, the engineering division of the public works department. The request shall state the reasons for the proposed name change and shall include a scale diagram of the street, B. Any proposed name change must meet the reqUircinents of AMC 11.24.010. C. The public works department shall consider the request and may schedule a public hearing before the City council. If a hearing is scheduled: 1. Notice of the public: hearing shall be mailed to the owners of property fronting the street and the fire, police and community development departments. 2. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the change of the street name. 3, No recommendation for a name change shall be made unless the Council finds that a public need for the change exists, confusion will be eliminated, or it is desirable for the convenience of the general public. The council shall have complete legislative discretion to change the name of any street in the City, D,. Street name changes shall be made by resolution. (Ord. 28 19 §§2, 3, 1998) M:\—I)W-EiigNAddi,esses\Sti,eetti,,uiie assignment revised.doc (7.19.2017) 3 of'4 13.24.030 Application Fee A street name change application fee shall be established by resolution of the council. (As Of JLIIYI, 2017, the street name application fee is $111.00 per street.) 13.24.040 Council Initiated Action to Rename Street Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, the council may rename a street in order to correct errors, to eliminate confusion or to further the public interest. Actions initiated Under this section shall be exempt from the procedure set forth in section 1.3.24,020. (Or& 2793, 1997) 1214MMOUT-39 Fire Chief z7-MMM3xM= Date Date Date Pub11orks Director, DaLv. [z y N 0d5L6 N0�J3k0'0NV'IHSa �+ ,� � 133L1$KtlO ZZB ow�yW � z � JS j we5tl I I e � %M EH woiH {,,�'y Md !'lu /.� IGS n (ry N V Id tt i o w ry NOISIAmens , ti W vani�nals l .. �t3AlCJNKIVUJ 831SVW!OII'R'a s a zc € s s L-1� ass aoSs ¢z jLUO "o ;,– i cq wn ' , U j �–�— . vi O O --y Ln U O � O O €�.; Q �. a_,� a O O W LZ lN SJ WEl- J' i a Cki o T �P-zc)z In L, te�i O u L� Q Z .•: n fj o o au Z O (° CD U-3 � 7 Q J I O U Lo O I fn O S Flo I#j f 1x1 Q4 v O rr; rs I I f 'T7 N J 2 C > m C IY F-- {Y C7 C3 U1 C9 ZG O} I–zV €.1 X X q4 W Z 7 Q