Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-13 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DRAFTMinutes November 8, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Eric Herron Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements: Chair Norton will provide the annual Planning Commission report to the City Council on December 6, 2022. On November 15, 2022 the Council will discuss the updated ordinance regarding Housing in E-1 and C-1 Zones that the Commission recommended for approval at its September 27, 2022 Special Meeting.At a prior meeting the Council discussed manufacturedhome parks, which has also been discussedby the Housing Production Strategy(HPS)ad hoc group. Members of the community, including many who live in manufactured homes, have requested that a new zone be definedin order to protect manufactured home parks from being redevelopedin a different manner. The Council was generally in favor of including thecreation of a manufactured home zone as part of the HPS. The Commission willhear this item at a later date. The November 22, 2022 Commission meeting will be a Special Meeting.The Commissionwill look at the Expedited Land Division code changesfor Middle Housingthat was brought to the Commission at its June 14, 2022 meeting. III.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.October 11, 2022 Regular Meeting 2.October 25, 2022 Study Session Commissioners Verner/Knauer m/s to approve theConsent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North Ashland Planning Commission November 8, 2022 Page 1 of 3 Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner KenCairn is part of the design team and abstained from the meeting. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Derek Severson began by noting severalchanges staff made to the Findings. The changes were made to pages: 19,22,31,and Conditions #8e and #10c, andclarified theareas ofrequired street frontage improvements(see attachment #1). Mr. Severson informed the Commission that Commissioner Thompson had raised the question of affordability requirements with staff, and that staff would allow the applicant to determine at final plan whether they would be partnering with an affordable housing provider or would be dedicating the land to an affordable housing provider. Mr. Goldman added thatthe applicants,in the event that theyare not willing to developitthemselves,could dedicate the land to affordable housing provider without concern for the development timeframe.The applicantswould be required to provide additional affordable unitsif this route is taken. Commissioner Thompsonasked where the partnership guidelines were in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)as referenced by the Findings.Mr. Goldman responded that a partner would be considered a member of the applicant’s team, and would therefore be beholden to the same developmentstandards. Commissioner Thompson questioned whether the inclusion of such an avenue for development should be included in the Findings. Mr. Severson respondedthat the applicant would likely partner with an affordable housing provider to handle the administrative aspects of screening tenants for the affordable units,resulting in its inclusionas a potential development route under Option 1.Commissioner Thompson asked how the applicant could offload the affordable housing units to an affordable housing provider without the land being dedicated. Mr. Goldman agreed that the AMC is not clear on this topic, but that affordable housing providers haveworked with private property ownersin the past to receive land dedicated to affordable housing, with the promise that they will build it concurrent with the for-market developmentand would satisfy theOption 1a criteria.He added that this option is a widely preferred development method because an affordable housing provider would be more adept at requesting grant funds for the affordable units. The land dedication process was createdin the event that a developer could not find an affordable housing partner, so that the remainder of the project could begin unhindered. Commissioner Herron inquired if it was common practice to use nearby businessesas reference points for the project,and Commissioner Knauer suggested that the parcels be designatedinsteadof the currentoccupyingbusinessof a property. Commissioner Thompson suggested some grammatical changes to pages 47-48of the Findings, and recommended removing various inclusions of the phrase “is proposed”and replacing it with “shall be”to denote the current status of the Findings. Commissioners Herron/Vernerm/s to approve theFindings with corrections.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motionpassed. 6-0. Commissioner Dawkins departed from the agenda to state his aversion topermitting the separation ofthe affordablehousing units from the market rate units, and that the quality and equity of these types of projects should be discussed by the Commission.He suggested that the Commission explore ways in which to receiveclear answers from applicants regarding affordable housing unit development and whether theapplicantwould engage in land dedication or develop the units themselves. Commissioner Thompson responded thatthis would require a code change, andthe applicant had statedthatit was more financially feasible to develop the affordable housing units in separate buildings, particularly when partnered with an affordable housingorganization.Commissioner Dawkins replied that many affordable housing organizations are non-profit whoreceive funding through taxes, and thattaxpayers would beindirectlyfunding the affordable units for this project. Commissioner Herron noted that low-income housing do not pay income taxes, and wondered how that would work in a mixed-unit building. Commissioner Dawkins commented that the administrative aspect should be figured out by the developer. Mr. Goldman notedthat the annexation standards hadrecently been changed to remove the requirement for developers to mix affordable units throughout a project. This was done after the Cityreceivedtestimony from affordable housing providers citingthe difficulty in financing mixed housing units. Commissioner Knauer remarked that he was more interested in the completion of the project itself, and asked about the importance of unit distribution. Commissioner Dawkins stated that placing all affordable units in separate buildings could result in stigmatization and discrimination against the tenants, to which Commissioner Knauer agreed. Commissioner Verner concurred Ashland Planning Commission November 8, 2022 Page 2 of 3 that affordable housing units shouldbe evenly distributed throughout future developments, and suggested that this be discussed during the next series of AMC amendments. Chair Norton inquiredif an applicantcould proposea project containing primarily two-bedroom market rate units, andonly one- bedroom affordable housing units but in an increased number from the minimum required. Mr. Goldman responded thata variance to the codecould be requested by the applicant,but that they would need toprovidea benefit that is greater than or equal to what would be givenotherwise. Chair Norton suggested that a developer could then provide a higher number of one- bedroomunitsfor residents. Commissioner Verner emphasized the need for lower-income families to have multi-bedroom units as well, and Chair Norton agreed. Mr. Goldman commented that a project developed by KDA Homes was able to provide eight affordable units up from six by dedicating the landand removing the parity required. Chair Norton commented that he had consideredthe possibility of adding an Open Discussion item to the Commission’s agenda in the future to facilitatesimilarlyimpromptudiscussionsas the onebrought up by Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Goldman noted the inclusion of the Community Development survey in the Commission’s packet, and stated that he would share the results when they became available. Chair Norton inquired about the state of the Tree Commission. Mr. Goldman responded that it will be changing tothe Tree and Urban Forest Advisory Committee, and would operate as a management advisory committee.He stated thatthe Councilwas providedwitha list of the current members of the Tree Commission to be appointed to this new committee, and that staff would continue to meet with them monthly to review development plans. VI. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:40p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Ashland Planning Commission November 8, 2022 Page 3of 3 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DRAFTMinutes November 22, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBrandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director Haywood NortonDerek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn ThompsonMichael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Eric Herron Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements: The November 15, 2022 City Council meeting was cancelled. The discussion regardingPA-T3-2022,00004,the annexation of 1511 Highway 99 N,was rescheduled for December 6, 2022. The Planning Commission annual update to Council,and the first reading of PA-L-2021-00013regarding housing in E-1 and C-1 zones,have both been rescheduled for January 3, 2023. An appeal of the Commission’s decision to deny PA-T2-2022-00159, 165 Water Streetwill be heard by the Council on January 17, 2023. The applicant submitted the appeal on May 20, 2022, butsubsequentlyrequested a postponement. The Council is required to render a decision by February 10, 2023. Commissioner Thompson asked who would be representing the Commission during the appeal process. Senior Planner Derek Severson responded that it will be incumbent on the appellant to successfully contest the Commission’s decision todeny the project, and that staff will be present to provide clarification and defend the decision. Chair Norton inquired if the minutes of the relevant meetings would be sent to the Council, to which Mr. Severson said that they would. III.PUBLIC FORUM –None IV. LEGISLATIVE HEARING: A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-L-2022-00014 APPLICANT:City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES:AMC 18.5.1General Review Procedures AMC 18.5.3Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments AMC 18.5.9Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Ordinance Amendments REQUEST:The proposal would amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the requirements of Oregon Senate Bill 458 by adding section 18.5.1.075 “Middle Housing Land Divisions” and section 18.5.3.140 “Middle Housing Land Divisions.” Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 1of 4 Staff Presentation Mr. Goldman notedthat staff felt that it was important to import the state’s language into the City’s ordinance to provide clarity for citizensreviewing the code. Mr. Severson stated that there had been no significant changes to the ordinance since it was first presented at the June 14, 2022 Commission meeting. He gave a brief presentation on Senate Bill 458, which include changes to Middle Housing Lot Divisions (MHLD) and Expedited Land Division codes, and also provided a timeline for the changes to be implemented. Under SB458 Expedited Land Divisions would not be considered land use actions, and any appeals of staff decisions would be decided by a hearings officer or refereeinstead of being brought to the Commission. The noticing area for Expedited Land Divisions will also be reduced to 100ft from 200ft, and the City would be required to make a final determination within 63 days of submittal. House Bill 2001 will also institute code changesto theduplex and Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) approval criteria. Mr. Severson outlined how duplexes would constitute two units on one lot,as attached or detached structures, and that two on-site parking spaces would be required. ARUs would need to meet size guidelines, but that no on-site parking would be required.Both duplexes and ARUs would be permitted with approval of a building permit. Mr. Seversondescribedpreviously noted issues with the draft ordinance,the first beingwhether the MHLD procedure would apply to duplexes permitted prior to HB 2001. The state has indicated that any middle housing lot division proposal would need to demonstrate compliance with both applicable state building code and local middle housing code in order to be eligible underSB 458, and that it isunlikelybut not impossiblethat a pre-HB 2001 housing type would meet those criteria. The second issue was whether MHLD procedure should apply to ARUs in addition to duplexes. Mr. Severson noted that SB 458 itself does not directly address its applicability to ARUs, but that the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has explicitly stated that the MHLD procedure would not apply to ARUs. Mr. Severson concluded bybrieflydetailing two staff-recommended additions to the ordinance (see attachment #1). Questions of Staff Commissioner Verner inquired if the City had a hearings officer or referee, andMr. Severson responded that one would need to be hired specifically for this role. Chair Norton asked if they would be a fulltime staffer of the City, and Mr. Severson responded that they would be contracted.He added that the appellant would be required to pay $300 of the officer’s contract fee, with the possibility of levying an additional $500. Any further funding would be paid by the City. Mr. Severson stated that he is in contact with other communities in the Rogue Valley to see who they are hiring forthis position and to review copiesof their contracts. Commissioner Thompson asked how the division of a lot would be determined and if it would be at the discretion of the property owner. Mr. Severson responded that it would be up to the property owner, likely with a surveyor’s assistance.They would have great latitude to divide the property as there would no longer be setback, street-frontage, or lot size zone requirements. It would be based on what worked best for the building configuration on the property, but would largely be limited to one dwelling per lot. Commissioner Dawkins inquired if the new state guidelines would conflict with the current code.Mr. Severson responded that the Commission would be required to approve a MHLD proposal if it came before them, but that if it was a land use action under the flag drive partition regulations then the review process would not change. Mr. Goldman clarified that MHLD proposals are not land use decisions, andwould not go before the Commission except underrare circumstances. Commissioner Thompson asked whetherthe first of staff’s recommended additions to the guidelines would supplant cottage housing codes. Mr. Severson commented that cottage housing is exempt from these rules.Mr. Goldman added that it would be more expedient for an applicant to go through theperformance standards review process to create a cottage housing development,rather than dividing up a property in an incrementalfashion. Commissioner Thompson inquired if her property in an R-2 zone with two dwelling units would be able to be subdivided and sold separately under the new guidelines. Mr. Goldman responded that she could, but that the secondary unit would need to meet building and setback requirements in relation to the parent lot.He noted that both buildings would still be considered a duplex, and that the owners would not be permitted to develop Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 2of 4 an ARU in either property. Commissioner Thompson asked if bothpropertieswould be fully transferable. Mr. Seversonresponded that neither property would have full developmentrights, but that they couldbothbe soldand resold. Commissioner Herron asked whether ARUs need separate utilitiesfrom the parent property, and Mr. Severson responded that they would only require separate electricalservice. Commissioner Herron commented that the parent property would then be required to provide all other utilities in order to be legally divided, and asked if that was explicitly stated in the Ashland Municipal Code. Mr. Seversonresponded that it is part of the building code requirements, and that separate utilities are required bystate law. Chair Norton noted thatdivided duplexes could nowdevelop their own Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)under the new guidelines.Mr. Severson stated that the duplex would still be subject to the originaldivisionapproval, which would include building design and placement of a landscape plan. Commissioner Thompson noted that the state bill contains a clause regarding plannedcommunities, and that the propertieswithin such a division would be subject to the governing documents of the planned community, and would beallocated assessments and voting rights on the same basis as existing units. Commissioner Verner requested clarification on when this situation would apply. Mr. Goldman respondedthata duplex in an existing planned community thatwent through a middle housing land divisionwould have voting rights under the existing CC&Rs.The other scenario would beifa single-family home,outside of an existing planned community,added a second unit to their property and then went through the MHLD process. These two properties could thendeveloptheir ownCC&Rs for maintenance ofany common areas.Chair Norton expressed concern that the conditions for the division could become confusedafter the properties are sold and resold, which could result in conflicts arising between twofutureproperty owners. Commissioner Thompson pointed outthat the City would not get involved insucha civil matter. Commissioner Knauer inquired if the City actively observedmandates coming from the state, and whether the City had an advocate at thestate level. Councilor Hyatt detailed how the League of Oregon Cities (LOC)will annually send outa list of priority issues to a variety of committees, whicharethenplaced intorelevantcategories. One of those categories are land actions, and the City votes on which it deems to be thetop sixhighest priority items.The LOC then leverages lobbyists at the league on behalf of those cities. However, those lower priority items arenot overlooked, as environments and circumstances change rapidly. Land use, affordability, and infrastructure are currently a high priority for the LOC and are being advocated for on behalf of Oregon cities. A lobbyist within the LOC can also be approached if there is an issue that would be counter to the interests of a city. Commissioner Thompson commented that there was a consortium of Oregon cities that is currently suing the DLCDoverthe removal of parking mandates within the state’s new Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities guidelines. Chair Norton inquired if the City was approached about joining the lawsuit. Councilor Hyatt respondedthatMedford and Grants Pass had joined the lawsuit, butto herknowledgethe City had not entertained the notion of joining. CommissionersThompson/Dawkins m/s to recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance with staff’s additional recommendations. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 6-0. V. OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Goldman stated thattheopen discussionitemhad been added in order to address topics not on the agendathat Commissioners would like to discuss, as well provide an opportunity for Commissioners to putforth topics for discussion at future Study Sessions. He noted that no new items could be added to the current agenda during an Open Discussion, norcoulda decisionbemade on such an item. Chair Norton inquired if the Midtown Lofts project at 188 Garfield was progressing. Mr. Goldman responded that a site visit had recently been conducted to look for tree protection fencing in advance of the permit being issued, and the developers would soon begin work on the common areas. The Commission discussed a variety of projects that have yet to begin development.Mr. Severson announced thattheColumbia Carefacilityand Plaza North on First Streetbothrecently obtained theiroccupancy permits. Chair Norton informed the Commission that Governor-Elect Tina Kotek hadexpressed the beliefthat the Urban Growth Boundary Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 3of 4 (UGB)washaving a detrimental effect on affordable housingin the state, and hadshown interest inmodifying State Bill 100 to address thisissue.Commissioner Dawkinscommentedthat one of the incoming City Councilors appeared opento expandingthe UGB. Councilor Hyatt expressed her gratitude to the Commissionersfor theirdedication and willingness to delve into difficult issues, and that she always appreciatedrecommendations that come from them.She also expressed her appreciation to staff. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:52p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Ashland Planning Commission November 22, 2022 Page 4of 4 -¨££«¤ (®´²¨­¦ , ­£ $¨µ¨²¨®­² ,¤¦¨²« ³¨µ¤ 4¨¬¤«¨­¤ (" ͷ͵͵Ͷ 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤­³² -¨££«¤ (®´²¨­¦ , ­£ $¨µ¨²¨®­² -¨££«¤ (®´²¨­¦ , ­£ $¨µ¨²¨®­² ("ͷ͵͵Ͷ #®£¤ #§ ­¦¤²Ȃ -¨££«¤ (®´²¨­¦ , ­£ $¨µ¨²¨®­² .¤·³ 3³¤¯² PlanningAction PA-L-2022-00015 FoodTrucksAshlandPlanningDivision – StaffReport Applicant: CityofAshlandPage1 of 3 PlanningActionPA-L-2022-00015FoodTrucksAshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage2of3 PlanningActionPA-L-2022-00015FoodTrucksAshlandPlanningDivision–StaffReport Applicant:CityofAshlandPage3of3 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2022-00015 Appealing PA-T1-2022-00185 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 897 Hillview Drive APPLICANT & OWNER:Suncrest Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: An appeal of the administrative approval of planning action #PA-T1-2022-00185, An approval for a two-lot partition of a 0.36-acre lot. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two resultant parcels will be 0.18 and 0.17 acres in size. The application includes detailed findings explaining how the proposal meets the relevant criteria.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 15 AC;TAX LOT:900 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:Tuesday,December13, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center/City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. 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. D.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). 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. 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. H.Unpaved Streets. 1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded tomeet the final street elevation. d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and theundergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. ADDITIONAL PRELIMINARY FLAG LOT PARTITION PLAT CRITERIA 18.5.3.060 The approval authority shall approve a preliminary plat application for a flag lot partition only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The criteria of section 18.5.3.050are met. B.For the purpose of meeting the minimum lot area requirement, the lot area, exclusive of the flag drive area, must meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning district. C. Flag drives shall be in the same ownership as the flag lots served. Where two or more lots are served by the same flag drive, the flag drive shall be owned by one of the lots and an easement for access shall be granted to the other lot or lots. D.Except as provided in subsection 18.5.3.060.H, below, the flag drive serving a single flag lot shall have a minimum width of 15 feet and contain a 12 foot wide paved driving surface. For drives serving two flag lots, the flag drive shall be 20 feet wide, with a 15 foot wide driving surface to the back of the first lot, and a 12 foot wide driving surface to the rear lot. Drives shared by adjacent properties shall have a width of 20 feet, with a 15 foot paved driving surface. Width shall be increased on turns where necessary to ensure fire apparatus remain on a paved surface during travel. E.Curb cuts have been minimized, where possible, through the use of common driveways.No more than two flag lots are served by the flag drive. F.Flag drive grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent. Variances may be granted for flag drives for grades in excess of 15 percent but no greater than 18 percent for not more than 200 feet. Such variances shall be required to meet all of the criteria for approvalin chapter 18.5.5 Variances. G.Flag drives shall be constructed to prevent surface drainage from flowing over sidewalks or other public ways. H. Flag lots adjacent to an alley shall meet all of the requirements of this section, exceptthat: 1.Vehicle access shall be from the alley only where required as a condition of approval. 2.No screening and paving requirements shall be required for the flagpole. 3.A four foot pedestrian path shall be installed within the flagpole and improved and maintained with either a concrete, asphalt, brick, or paver block surface connecting the street to the buildable area of the flag lot. 4.The flag pole width shall be no less than eight feet wide and the entrance of the pole at the street shall be identified by the address of the flag lot clearly visible from the street on a four-inch by four-inch post that is 3½ feet high. The post shall be painted white with black numbers three inches high running vertically down the front of the post. For flagpoles serving two or more dwellings, the addresses of such dwellings shall be on a two foot by three foot white sign clearly visible from the street with three-inch black numbers. I.Flag drives and fire work areas shall be deemed Fire Apparatus Access Roads under the Oregon Fire Code and subject to all requirements thereof. J.When required by the Oregon Fire Code, flag drives greater than 150 feet in length shall provide a turnaround (see Figure 18.4.6.040 .G.5). The Staff Advisor, in coordination with the Fire Code Official, may extend the distance of the turnaround requirement up to a maximum of 250 feet in length as allowed by Oregon Fire Code access exemptions. K.Each flag lot has at least three parking spaces situated to eliminate the necessity for vehicles backing out. L. There shall be no parking within ten feet of the centerline of the drive on either side of the flag drive entrance. M.Flag drives serving structures greater than 24 feet in height, as defined in part 18.6, shall provide a fire work area of 20 feet by 40 feet clear of vertical obstructions and within 50 feet of the structure. The fire work area requirement shall be waived if the structure served by the drive has an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. N.Both sides of the flag drive have been screened with a site-obscuring fence, wall or fire resistant broadleaf evergreen site- obscuring hedge to a height of from four to six feet, except in the front yard setback area where, starting five feet from the property line, the height shall be from 30 to 42 inches in the remaining setback area. Such fence or landscaping shall be placed to ensure fire apparatus access is not obstructed by the encroachment of mature landscaping. O.The applicant has executed and filed with the Community Development Department an agreement between applicant and the City for paving and screening of the flag drive. Such an agreement shall specify the period within which the applicant, or agent for applicant, or contractor shall complete the paving to standards as specified by the Public Works Director and screening as required by this section, and providing that if applicant should fail to complete such work within such period, the City may complete the same and recover the full cost and expense thereof from the applicant. An agreement shall also provide for the maintenance of the paving and screening pursuant to this section, and assurance ongoing maintenance. P.Flag lotsshall be required to provide a useable yard area that has a minimal dimension of 20 feet wide by 20 feet deep. As used in this chapter, the term "useable yard area" means a private yard area which is unobstructed by a structure or automobile from the ground upward. waived by applicant +90 days Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck SmithDecember13, 2022 - Page 1 of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck SmithDecember13, 2022 - Page 2 of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 3 of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 4 of 12 flag drive area except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 5 of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 6 of 12 in a manner similar to the above The Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland Floodplain ; Corridor Maps, as applicable supplemental information submitted to staff following the neighborhood meeting included self-imposed conditions that would require both homes to have foundation drains systems that will be tied to the stormdrain system along Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 7 of 12 the northern property line or directly tied to weep holes in the curb along Hillview Drive. Either way, stormwater will be conveyed off site through an existing city facility and will therefore not create any new stormwater management issues. Infill development in the City of Ashland is encouraged by both the Ashland Zoning Code as well as the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The appellant contends that the proposed partition, which is a standards-based review without much subjectivity will permanently destroy the character of the neighborhood and that the number of houses could double if all lots took advantage of partitioning their lots. It’s important to note that not all lots can be divided because of the location of existing dwellings, size or dimension of existing lots or parcels or the location of public infrastructure. Additionally, most houses in the neighborhood have a substantial value, unlike the dwelling on the subject property. Removal of the existing house in this situation not only removes a home that is in disrepair and unattractive, but it allows the parcel to be redeveloped in a manner that supports the goals and policies of Ashland’s Comprehensive Plan. Redevelopment provides additionally housing opportunities and allows for the construction of single family detached dwellings that are compatible with the character of the neighborhood and constructed to building codes that address the stormwater concerns raised by the appellant. As detailed herein and noted by staff in the Findings and Orders, the application applicable criteria and standards complies with all of the Ashland Zoning Code either outright or with the imposition of conditions of approval. The criteria noted by the appellant has been addressed herein and either meets the standard or is not applicable. The appellant also raises issues that are not directly tied to relevant criteria. These issues are not addressed because the city land development code does not address issues such as increased crime or neighborhood opinion. Policy makers have determined the allowed uses in each zone, allowable densities and in some areas architectural design requirements. The proposed partition will allow for the subject property to be redeveloped at the city’s desired density while still constructing single-family detached dwellings. Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 8 of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 9 of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 10of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 11of 12 Planning Action Appeal2022-00017 / PA-T1-2022-00185 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Suncrest Homes / Appellant:Chuck Smith December13, 2022 - Page 12of 12 , in a manner similar to the above The Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland Floodplain Corridor Maps, as applicable; want The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules, regulations and standards governing the approval of subdivisions, partitions and property line adjustments as follows. A. Carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. B. Encourage efficient use of land resources and public services, and to provide transportation options. C. Protect the natural environment and encourage sustainable building practices. D. Promote the public health, safety and general welfare through orderly and efficient urbanization. E. Coordinate land division requirements with other code provisions such as the Performance Standards Option. Preliminary Plat Information. In addition to the general information described in subsection A, above, and any information required pursuant to chapter 18.3.9, Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay, the preliminary plat application shall consist of drawings and supplementary written material (i.e., on forms and/or in a written narrative) adequate to provide the following information, in quantities determined by Staff Advisor: 2. Existing Conditions. Except where the Staff Advisor deems certain information is not relevant, applications for preliminary plat approval shall contain all of the following information on existing conditions of the site: e. The Base Flood Elevation, Floodplain Corridor Elevation, and Floodplain Boundary, per the Ashland Floodplain Corridor Maps, as applicable; The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. 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. A. Storm Drainage Plan Approval. Development permits for storm drainage and surface water management plans must be approved by the City Engineer and Building Official. B. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage. Culverts and other drainage facilities shall be sized to accommodate existing and projected future runoff from upstream drainage area, considering the City’s adopted facility master plans and applicable standards. Such facilities shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. C. Effect on Downstream Drainage. Where it is anticipated by the City Engineer that the additional runoff resulting from the development would overload an existing drainage facility, the City shall withhold approval of the development until provisions have been made for improvement of the potential condition or until provisions have been made for storage of additional runoff caused by the development in accordance with City standards. D. Over-Sizing. The authority may require as a condition of approval that the storm drainage system serving new development shall be sized to accommodate future development within the area as projected by the applicable facility master plan; and the City may authorize other cost recovery or cost-sharing methods as provided under state law. E. Existing Watercourse. Where a watercourse, drainage way, channel, or stream traverses a proposed development site, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially with the boundary or centerline of such watercourse, as applicable, and such further width as will be adequate for conveyance and maintenance to protect the public health and safety. 1. This project is out of character for the neighborhood a. Permanently destroys the character of the area that has attracted families to purchase and keep homes in this neighborhood. 2. A single, larger structure would be in character and suit the neighborhood better. 3. Sets precedence for all lots being subdivided a. The number of houses could double in the neighborhood 4. Traffic could double serving new houses 5. Hillview is main arterial evacuation route for the upper streets. 6.Leads to higher density residential zoning (supposedly 4 houses could be built on this lot) a. Historically single family neighborhood 7. Encourages: a. Tearing down houses to build more house i. Creates higher density neighborhoods b. Property speculators c. Absentee ownership d. Rental unit development (in single family neighborhoods) e. Leads to deteriorating property f. Higher crime from higher density neighborhoods. g. Impacts urban wildlife and pollinators h. Intensifies increased water runoff to neighboring properties. 8. Discourages long time area residents from remaining in this neighborhood. a. Reduces quality of life, This quality of life attracted us to this neighborhood 9. Discourages members in the neighborhood to remain in this city 10. Setback from the street. a. Existing setback of 897 Hillview Drive is around 66 feet b. New setback for Parcel 1 (closest to Hillview) would be 27 feet c. No other house on that side of the street has that close of a setback d. This is completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. 11. Hillview homes have larger yards. 12. Alley behind 897 Hillview is swampy at various times of the year a. Rain water run off... b. Runoff from homes on Harmony Lane above the alley flow north-east down the alley. c. The alley stops at the corner of 897 and 895 Hillview on the alley and has nowhere to go. d. Historically, during the winter, rain water runoff has run through 897, 895, 893, and 873 Hillview Drive from the alley unabated. i. To abate rain runoff some Hillview residents below the alley have had to install 1. French drains 2. 897 Hillview tree roots and runners are clogging neighbors French drain lines, reducing water runoff collection capability. 3. Sump pumps 4. Had to raising foundation height 5. Had to regrade property to redirect runoff e. To abate and collect water runoff. i. 897 Hillview rain gutters need to be tied to city storm drain ii. 897 required to install French drain along north property boundary to collect water iii. French drain tied to storm drain. f. City of Ashland should be required: i.Construct a collection point at the end of the alley to remover water runoff through their storm drain easement through the alley. ii. Make provisions on alley storm drain line to collect Harmony Lane rain gutter lines. 13. The builder does not live in this neighborhood, nor does he plan to. a. The neighborhood has to live with the consequences his decisions to modify this lot. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Notice of Appeal Time for Filing Content of Notice of Appeal COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 Public Input flag drive area except, where a lot is part of an approved flag partition Decision Interim Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2022-00185 SUBJECT PROPERTY:897 Hillview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for land use approval for a two-lot partition of a 0.36-acre lot. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two resultant parcels will be 0.18 and 0.17 acres in size. The application includes detailed findings explaining how the proposal meets the relevant criteria.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 15 AC;TAX LOT:900 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:September 26, 2022 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:October 10, 2022 OVER PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. 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. D.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). 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. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H.Unpaved Streets. 1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded tomeet the final street elevation. d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from thestreet. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. ˟̀˵˾ ˘˿̅̃˵ The owners of 897 Hillview would like to invite you over for a open house to learn more about the upcoming lot split. We will be onsite on Wednesday September 21st from 5:30pm-6:30pm to review our plans for the lot and answer any questions/ concerns about this lot split. 675FgjjtgcuBp September 21, 2022 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM Ƃ6ėŸáóÛ¶èÀèÀÆèĒÛèāúĒÉÛÛ«¶«ĆÉÛ²èâ Njc_qchmglsqrm jc_plkmpc, If you are unable to make it and have any questions, please contact Charlie Hamilton 32/+722+1754 qslapcqr>kglb,lcr Regan M. Trapp other than an alley Karl Johnson, E.I.T., Associate Engineer This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 488-5587. Thank you If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you’ll never get it done. – Bruce Lee Aaron said there will be a 10' wide driveway from Hillview Drive providing vehicular access to Parcel #2. Access to Parcel #2 is also allowed through the alley. From the Fire Department's perspective, because the access to Parcel #2 does not strictly meet the Fire Code standards (20' wide fire apparatus access road within 150' of all exterior portions of the home), a residential fire sprinkler system is conditioned for the new home. This greatly reduces the chance of an out-of- control home fire occurring on Parcel #2. For any emergency response to Parcel #2, the Fire Department would park on Hillview Drive and not drive fire apparatus through the alley. Thank you both Thank you, Emily Matlock Senior Fire Department Analyst Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 emily.matlock@ashland.or.us Office: 541-482-2770 Direct: 541-552-2216 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 Fax: 541-488-5318 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216. Hi Greg, Short response time, but can you please see below 3 questions a citizen has in regards to the partition that we have already provided comment on. Commenting period ends tomorrow I believe. I just spoke with Aaron in planning to get some details about it and I have attached the plat. In the comments you provided you had mentioned the residence being sprinklered. Robert (citizen below) is concerned about fire access and how plot 2 would be defended and the access that the plat is providing. Can you provide any additional comment or requirement for fire department access issues if any? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron, Please let me know if I misspoke above. I had tried to type out what we were discussing as we talked but think maybe I missed the mark on the exact question. Thank you both! Thank you, Emily Matlock Senior Fire Department Analyst Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 emily.matlock@ashland.or.us Office: 541-482-2770 Direct: 541-552-2216 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 Fax: 541-488-5318 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216. We can discuss it although I donÔt think IÔm probably the right person to know anything ha but I will do my best. I am here today until 430 today and in at 8am tomorrow but need to leave around 3 for department errands Thank you, Emily Matlock Senior Fire Department Analyst Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 emily.matlock@ashland.or.us Office: 541-482-2770 Direct: 541-552-2216 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 Fax: 541-488-5318 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216. Regan M. Trapp Hi Regan, I received a phone call from Robert Sellman (541-708-6032) 899 Hillview. He received a fire prevention plan notification and has a few questions: Once approved, is this a driveway or walkway? He said in the paperwork that it calls it out a driveway in some areas and then a walkway in others, heÔd like clarification on what it is and the Once approved, is the ally the primary access off Ross way? He mentioned itÔs 230Ô of dirt road access Thank you, Emily Matlock Senior Fire Department Analyst Ashland Fire & Rescue 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 emily.matlock@ashland.or.us Office: 541-482-2770 Direct: 541-552-2216 TTY: 1-800-735-2900 Fax: 541-488-5318 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please notify me at 541-552-2216. Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2022-00185 SUBJECT PROPERTY:897 Hillview Drive OWNER/APPLICANT: Suncrest Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for land use approval for a two-lot partition of a 0.36-acre lot. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two resultant parcels will be 0.18 and 0.17 acres in size. The application includes detailed findings explaining how the proposal meets the relevant criteria.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 15 AC;TAX LOT:900 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:June 3, 2022 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:June 17, 2022 OVER PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. 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. D.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). 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. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H.Unpaved Streets. 1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded tomeet the final street elevation. d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from thestreet. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development.