Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-10 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2014 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. May 13, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. May 27, 2014 Special Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00737 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Oak Street right-of-way, between Lithia and Main OWNERS: Rogue Valley Growers and Crafters Market DESCRIPTION: A request to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit approval (PA #2011-153) for the Rogue Valley Growers and Crafters Market’s closure of one block of Oak Street in the downtown, between Lithia Way and East Main Street, for the weekly Saturday Market. The specific modifications requested are: 1) To allow vendors to sell the same goods as are sold at their other markets in the Rogue Valley, with the exception of hot prepared foods. This would allow the sale of goods grown, produced, prepared or crafted by RVG&CM members who are farmers, ranchers, food processors and crafters. The vendors are currently limited to fresh fruit, vegetables, flowers, bedding plants, meat, eggs, cheese, bread, pasta, dog bones, and jam, and are not to sell prepared food; 2) To allow the market’s season and hours to mirror their other markets in the Rogue Valley, which run from March through November, and to begin the street closure at 6:30 a.m. The market is currently limited to a May through November season, and the Saturday closure is from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 3) Alter the market booth configuration to create a sidewalk access point between vendor booths at the entrance to the alleyway on the west side of Oak Street in order to better accommodate pedestrian and wheelchair traffic to adjacent businesses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR’S MAP: N/A – Right-of-Way; TAX LOT: N/A – Right-of-Way. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). 1 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. B. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00734 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1163 Iowa Street APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot multi-family developments for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 10 CB; TAX LOT: 5500. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Review of Planning Commission’s recommendation to Council on the Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Ordinance. VIII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1). 2 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 13, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris (Left meeting at 7:10 pm) ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Normal Neighborhood Plan public hearing has been continued to the May 20 City Council Meeting. The Planning Commission’s report on short term home rentals will th also be presented to the Council on May 20. Commissioner Brown commented on the recent Building Appeals Board hearing and Commissioner Dawkins provided a short update on the Downtown Beautification Committee meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. April 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. April 22, 2014 Study Session. Commissioners Brown/Peddicord m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. \[Commissioner Miller abstained from approval of the April 8, 2014 minutes\] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 1 of 4 3 includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP/TAX LOTS: 39 1E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, and Kaplan declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the applicant’s proposal to construct a new 3,414 sq.ft. home within the Water Resource Protection Zone and Ashland Floodplain Corridor does not clearly meet the approval criteria, which is why this hearing has been scheduled. She reviewed the application, which also includes the removal of 13 trees and the construction of a 615 sq.ft. accessory residential unit, and stated the property is located on a flaglot and the majority of the site is within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Ms. Gunter reviewed the site plan and provided a description of the subject property, and called attention to the code provision that states to the greatest extent feasible structures should be placed outside the Floodplain Corridor. She explained the applicant’s findings indicate the existing 720 sq.ft. residence will remain on the site and will be added onto with the new construction, however current building standards require the finished floor elevations to be two feet above flood elevations and staff questions whether the existing structure will be able to remain. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant’s position is that the existing non-conforming structure is their reason for the choice of placement, but this would place the structure completely within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and also encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). Mr. Molnar clarified there are two different areas of land use code that apply to this proposal, floodplain development and water resource protection. The floodplain protection language was adopted in 1989 and is primarily for protection of public, life and safety, and the protection of city infrastructure; and the water resource ordinance is primarily for the protection of the riparian area, including vegetation and topography. Ms. Gunter elaborated on why staff does not believe the existing house can be part of the new structure. She stated there would be a substantial amount of work to bring the structure up to current construction standards. She noted the applicants have proposed to change the roof line, and the existing slab on grade foundation is not permitted and will have to be raised to meet the requirement for the finished floor elevation to be two feet above the base flood elevation. Staff was asked if they have any objections to the proposed accessory residential unit and Ms. Gunter stated No. She added the structure is outside the Floodplain Corridor, is the correct size, and provides the required parking. Applicant’s Presentation Carlos Delgado/Stated this proposal is for a single family replacement structure on a flaglot and provided a revised site plan that shifts the location of the structure 15 feet to the east. Steve Asher/Stated the property owner searched many properties before purchasing this one, and noted the owner’s desire for a single family residence where she can age in place and walk to downtown. He stated they talked with staff before purchasing this property and asked if they could remove the structures and at no time were they informed this would affect their ability to build. He added it was not until they held the pre-application conference that they heard staff’s concerns about the placement of the new house. Mr. Delgado stated the revised proposal places the residence outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain line and outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and he read aloud their revised findings statements (Exhibit #2014-04). Mr. Delgado was asked to clarify the differences between the site plan in the packet materials and the new plan presented tonight. Mr. Delgado stated the residence has been shifted 15 feet so it is now outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and the only issue that remains is that the structure is still within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Mindlin commented that by moving the structure it supports staffs claim that the applicants are not Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2 of 4 4 really incorporating the old structure. Mr. Delgado stated building officials allow you to keep a single wall standing and stated this is a viable and legal means to do a renovation. Commissioner Brown stated this is a stretch, especially since the floor will need to be raised. The Commission posed additional questions, including why didn’t the applicant change their plans after the pre-application conference, and how do they meet to the maximum extent feasible criteria. Public Input Gina Heckley/135 Morninglight/Read aloud the letters of support provided in advance from herself and Carolyn Allman. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the process and whether the applicants were given misleading information. Mr. Molnar stated any action on this property would require a land use decision with public notice and he has a hard time believing staff would have provided a definitive recommendation at the counter. He added the requirements were clearly addressed in the pre-application report the applicant received. Staff was asked about the applicants claim that it is legal to replace the building, when none of it will be staying. Mr. Molnar stated the building code language states the building official can determine what types of upgrades will be needed, however this body has full discretion to make a determination on whether this is an addition or whether it is a reconstruction. Applicant’s Rebuttal Carlos Delgado/Stated that adding onto the structure and bringing it up to current standards is a safer situation for property owners downstream. He commented on the intent of the ordinance and stated because the site is flat, making changes to the building location to move it further from the floodplain corridor would not change the risk. Mr. Delgado stated the property owner has the right to utilize the area where the previous structures were located and they believe this is a very reasonable proposal. Martha Howard/Noted her investment in the community and stated she found this property after years of searching. Ms. Howard stated they received some assurances from staff that they could build on the existing footprint and noted they are well outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain. She stated it is unreasonable to ask someone with a one-acre lot to build next to the dirt easement and stated they were hoping to have some front yard space. Mr. Molnar suggested the Commission consider continuing this hearing, which would allow both the Commission and staff adequate time to review the applicant’s new proposal. Mr. Delgado was asked if they would be willing to grant a 60-day time extension of the 120-day clock and he agreed. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:30 pm. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Kaplan voiced support for continuing the hearing so that staff can provide an updated staff report on the applicant’s new proposal. Commissioner Brown agreed and stated he would like a revised staff report that addresses the questions that have been raised this evening. Commissioner Peddicord questioned if there are other site constraints that impacted the chosen location of the residence and stated this information would be helpful. Commissioner Mindlin announced this action will be continued to the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION #: 2014-00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 \[Definitions\], Chapter 18.32 \[C-1 Retail Commercial District\], Chapter 18.40 \[E-1 Employment District\], and Chapter 18.52 \[M-1 Industrial District\] regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3 of 4 5 Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris stated in March the State Legislature granted local jurisdictions the authority to establish local restrictions for medical marijuana dispensaries and the City Council directed staff to fast track an ordinance that establishes regulations for the City of Ashland. She noted the City Council passed a temporary moratorium in April that prohibited dispensaries in the C-1-D and E-1 zones, however lots in the E-1 zone that front boulevards were not subject to the moratorium. Ms. Harris stated the ordinance before the Commission is based on several study sessions held by the Planning Commission and would allow dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones and must meet the following standards: Property locations must be on a street classified as a boulevard. Hours of operations are between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Dispensaries must be enclosed in a permanent building with no outside storage of materials. Modifications to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards, and security bars are prohibited on the windows and doors. Drive-up uses are not allowed. Dispensaries must provide for the secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. Dispensaries must conform to the state requirements and must be registered with the state. Ms. Harris clarified under the proposed ordinance dispensaries would not be permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. She also commented on outdoor use and clarified the Ashland Police Department confirmed that this would be considered public use and is illegal. Ms. Harris stated the Commission’s recommendation will be forward to the City Council hearing on June 10, where they will make the final decision. Public Input William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and stated the proposed ordinance offers a solid balance between those who need access to this medicine and residential concerns, and encouraged them to recommend approval. Linda Stickle/492 Rogue Place/Thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and stated her neighborhood feels the proposed ordinance is just what is needed. Ms. Stickle stated it is a practical approach and keeps dispensaries on the main roads and away from neighborhoods, and strongly encouraged the Commission to vote Yes. Carol Kim/422 Rogue Place/Agreed with the previous speakers and stated this is a great proposal. Ms. Kim stated this will put dispensaries in the best locations with easy access for patients and away from neighborhoods. She noted the petition included in the record of those that support this ordinance and encouraged the Commission to vote Yes. Nola Katopothis/473 Williamson Way/Stated she is not against medical marijuana but there are certain locations that are more appropriate for dispensaries and voiced her support for keeping them away from neighborhoods and children. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Thompson/Miller m/s to recommend the City Council’s adoption of the ordinance as drafted. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 4 of 4 6 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES May 27, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Mike Morris, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a Special Meeting of the City Council on Thursday, May 29, 2014. The Council will be taking public input and discussing the Normal Neighborhood Plan. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Kaplan stated the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee will meet next on Wednesday, June 4. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP/TAX LOTS: 39 1E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 1 of 4 7 Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained this application was continued from the May 13, 2014 in order for the Commission and staff to have sufficient time to review the applicant’s revised site plan. Ms. Gunter stated the new proposal shifts the residence to the east by 15 ft. and removes it from the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ); however, the home remains within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and the proposed patio is still located in the WRPZ. Ms. Gunter explained the primary issue remains the placement of the structure, and cited the two approval criteria which are: 1)18.62.070.E – To the maximum extend feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Floodplain Corridor Area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. 2)18.62.070.F - Existing lots with buildable land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Floodplain Corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Commissioner Brown noted the map that was provided does not show the 2 ft. flood elevation line or the 20 ft. channel marker. Mr. Molnar clarified the application complies with both these criteria. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the history of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor, which was adopted in 1989, and explained the objective is to keep structures out of this area to the greatest extent feasible due to the pattern of deviating creeks during flooding events. He added the burden is placed on the applicants to show why their proposed location is better than another. Staff also commented on the building requirements for substantial improvements to structures within in the floodplain corridor and explained any new construction would have to be built to current standards, but the applicants must also address the land use criteria which regulates the placement of structures. Mr. Molnar clarified the applicants have asserted that by removing the older home and outbuildings, placing the new home further away from the creek, and building it to current standards, this is a better situation than what currently exists. Applicant’s Presentation Laurie Sager/Stated this is a unique site and there were many elements they considered in determining the placement of the house, including: 1) the 64” Black Poplar tree located in the southeast corner of the lot, which has an 80 ft. tree protection radius, 2) the 15 ft. setback required by code, 3) the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) to the east, and 4) the required fire truck turnaround and residence parking in the northeast portion of the lot. Additionally, there were site design considerations to allow views of the creek, take advantage of the western shading, privacy for the applicant and her neighbors, have collective open spaces, and utilize the existing infrastructure and footprint of the three buildings that were there. Ms. Sager stated they have done a great job of evaluating the site. She noted the property is very level and noted their willingness to compromise by moving the home an additional 15 ft. back to take it out of the WRPZ. She stated when looking at the current proposal and taking into account the entire site, they have done a good job at siting the structure and believe this project should be approved. Carlos Delgado/Stated he understands that there is no guarantee for the placement they are proposing, but the code does allow the Planning Commission to be reasonable in interpreting the language and they believe this proposal is better than what exists now. He stated they have taken the advice of staff and moved the home further east, and stated the intent of the ordinance is to increase the level of safety and this proposal does that. Steve Asher/Also commented on the placement of the home and noted their desire for floodwater to flow around the structure should a flood occur. He stated moving the home further back could create a dam effect and does not believe this would make for a safer proposal. He stated they believe they meet the intent of the ordinance and have moved the structure as far away as they can while still preserving the natural features. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 2 of 4 8 Questions of the Applicant Mr. Delgado commented on the flood protection measures that would be included in the build and stated there would be flow-through vents on the foundation and they would minimize the number of post coming up. Questions of Staff Staff was asked whether the information presented by the applicant tonight accurately represents the circumstances on the property in terms of required parking, fire truck turnaround, and tree protection. Ms. Gunter stated this is the first staff has seen this material; she stated the tree protection zone is similar to what she has seen for other Poplar trees, however she cannot speak to the other two items. Applicant’s Rebuttal Steve Asher/Stated they have demonstrated that the replacement residence will be placed as far away from the creek and Ashland Floodplain Corridor as possible and requested the Commission take into account the overall safety of the building site, the legal allowances for building within this zone, the fact that this is not an empty lot with no structural history, their willingness to remove all hazardous previous structures, and their commitment to state of the art flood protection construction. He added this is the most appropriate placement of the home given the physical and environmental constraints of the site. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Mindlin recommended the Commission address the decision points outlined in the staff report. Placement of Structure Commissioner Kaplan stated the new site plan and overview presented by the applicants has made a difference in how he sees the site and does not believe they could have located the home outside the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Brown commented that a two-story home could have been placed further outside the floodplain, but in its current figuration he agrees with Commissioner Kaplan. Commissioner Mindlin expressed her discomfort in not seeing this material until tonight and asked staff to comment on its legitimacy. Mr. Molnar stated the applicant’s design team is very reputable and staff has no reason to doubt that this is not an accurate measurement. He stated public safety should trump all other issues and noted the applicants took an overall approach and took into account many factors. Commissioner Dawkins agreed that they made a legitimate point about avoiding the creation of a choke point. Commissioner Peddicord stated at the last hearing she was looking for a more substantial reason for the house placement and feels the applicants have provided this. She added it is a large house, but they do not have the ability to dictate the size or whether it is single-story or two-story. Placement of Patio Ms. Gunter clarified the code language states “Outdoor patio areas consisting of porous sold surfaces up to 150 sq.ft. … may be constructed in the upland half of the riparian buffer and furthest away from the stream” and stated this will be included in the conditions of approval. The Commission discussed whether approving this proposal would set precedence. Commissioner Mindlin noted the applicants do not have the ability to move the house to a higher elevation, and so have located the house so that water can go around it. Mr. Molnar stated if this proposal is approved staff will create findings that explain what is unique about this site and why the Commission approved the placement so that others can’t point to this in the future as a justification for their placement. He added the findings will include the specific considerations addressed by the applicant and the Commission. Ms. Gunter read aloud the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval: 1) Condition 2a will be eliminated, 2) Condition 2e will be modified to include a requirement for the patio to comply with 18.63.060.B.4 and be constructed of porous surface, 3) Condition 2f will clarify that the accessory residential unit will be slab on grade construction to minimize disturbance to the Poplar tree, and 4) Condition 3a will be modified to include the 80 ft. tree protection zone for the Poplar tree. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 3 of 4 9 Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action 2014-00307 with the modified conditions proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated because the site is so flat, moving the structure would not make it any safer; however he struggled with allowing construction in the floodplain. He stated for him, the applicant’s presentation sufficiently addressed the placement issue and feels they answered staffs concerns well enough to approve. Commissioner Miller voiced her concern with setting precedence and stated the desire for a large single story home is a self imposed problem, and questioned whether the applicant could have placed a two-story home further out of the floodplain. Commissioner Kaplan stated this is a unique set of circumstances and does not believe it will set precedence. Commissioner Brown stated the site constraints does limit where the home can be placed, and noted it is not within their purview to set a limit on the home’s square footage. Commissioner Miller stated it is an interesting idea to place a limit on the size of a home located in the floodplain and stated this may be a future change they will want to consider. She requested the findings for this action include the testimony about the passage of water, that the applicant could not locate on a higher elevation, and their desire to not trap debris against the bank. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Kaplan, Brown, Dawkins, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS A.Election of Officers. Commissioner Dawkins suggested they set a policy that commissioners cannot ask questions of persons providing testimony. He stated this allows certain people to get more time to express their personal views and does not think it is fair. Commissioner Miller stated it is important to be able to request clarification and does not want this ability taken away. Commissioner Mindlin stated it is not appropriate to say they will not ask questions under any circumstances but stated the commissioners should use good judgment in the types of questions they pose. Commissioners Brown/Peddicord nominated Richard Kaplan to serve as chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners Peddicord/Brown nominated Melanie Mindlin to serve as vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners Kaplan/Peddicord nominated Michael Dawkins to serve as second vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 4 of 4 10 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2014-00737 Oak Street Right-of-Way 11 12 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-00737 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Oak Street right-of-way, between Lithia and Main OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Valley Growers and Crafters Market DESCRIPTION: A request to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit approval (PA #2011-153) for the Rogue Valley Growers and Crafters Market’s closure of one block of Oak Street in the downtown, between Lithia Way and East Main Street, for the weekly Saturday Market. The specific modifications requested are: 1) To allow vendors to sell the same goods as are sold at their other markets in the Rogue Valley, with the exception of hot prepared foods. This would allow the sale of goods grown, produced, prepared or crafted by RVG&CM members who are farmers, ranchers, food processors and crafters. The vendors are currently limited to fresh fruit, vegetables, flowers, bedding plants, meat, eggs, cheese, bread, pasta, dog bones, and jam, and are not to sell prepared food; 2) To allow the market’s season and hours to mirror their other markets in the Rogue Valley, which run from March through November, and to begin the street closure at 6:30 a.m. The market is currently limited to a May through November season, and the Saturday closure is from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 3) Alter the market booth configuration to create a sidewalk access point between vendor booths at the entrance to the alleyway on the west side of Oak Street in order to better accommodate pedestrian and wheelchair traffic to adjacent businesses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR’S MAP: N/A – Right- of-Way; TAX LOT: N/A – Right-of-Way NOTE:Wednesday,June 4, 2014 at 6:00 PM The Ashland Historic Commission will also review this Planning Action on in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2014\\PA-2014-00737.doc 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.104.050 Approval Criteria A conditional use permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed use conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with the following approval criteria. A. 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. B. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. C. 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. 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: 1. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. 2. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. 3. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. 4. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. 5. Generation of noise, light, and glare. 6. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 7. Other factors found to be relevant by the Hearing Authority for review of the proposed use. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2014\\PA-2014-00737.doc 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2014-00734 1163 Iowa Street 47 48 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00734 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1163 Iowa Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review, Outline and Final Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot multi-family developments for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six- inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi- Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR’S MAP #: 39 1E 10 CB; TAX LOT: 5500. NOTE:Thursday, June The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on 5, 2014at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building (Lithia Room) located at 51 Winburn Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:June 10, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2014\\PA-2014-00734.doc 49 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.88.030.A.4 Criteria for Approval The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (ORD 2836, 1999) FINAL PLAN APPROVAL 18.88.030.B.5 Criteria for Final Approval Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (ORD 2836, 1999) TREE REMOVAL 18.61.080 Criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal - Staff Permit An applicant for a Tree Removal Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Design and Use Standards and Physical and Environmental Constraints. The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (ORD 2951, 2008; ORD 2883, 2002) G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2014\\PA-2014-00734.doc 50 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 10, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00734 APPLICANT: Alaya Properties LLC. LOCATION: 1163 Iowa Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: June 2, 2014 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: September 30, 2014 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.28 High Density Multi-Family Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.88 Performance Standards Options REQUEST: A request for Site Review and Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter 18.88 for a four unit, five lot single family attached housing development for the property located at 1163 Iowa Street. A Tree Removal Permit is requested to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height on the site. The existing single family residence on the site will be incorporated into the development as Lot #1. I. Relevant Facts A.Background - History of Application There are no planning actions of record for this site. B.Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The project site is located on the north side of Iowa Street, mid-block between Lincoln and N. Mountain Avenue. The parcel is 13,058 square feet in size. A 1,124 square foot single-family residence constructed in 1949 is located on the property approximately 30- feet from the front property line. A 488 square foot detached garage is located to the rear of the residence which will be removed. The subject parcel as well as the surrounding properties and neighborhood are located in the R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential district. The surrounding area contains a mixture of single-family residences and multi-family apartment complexes and Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 1 of 12 51 townhomes. The site is moderately sloped with a downhill slope to the north of approximately four percent. The application includes a tree inventory which identifies five trees greater than six inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) on site. Three of the trees are proposed for removal. An 18-inch dbh Pine tree is on the adjacent property to the east, it is proposed to be preserved as part of this proposal. 1. Outline Plan and Final Plan Approval for Performance Standards Options Subdivision The applicant is requesting Outline and Final Plan approval to subdivide the property for the development of four residential units on individual lots and one common parcel. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.88.030 allows the consolidation of plan approvals when the development is for less than ten units. The existing residence is proposed on Lot #1 and three new units are proposed in a town home format at the rear of the property. A single-vehicle garage proposed to be attached to two of the new units and a two-vehicle garage is proposed attached to Lot #4. The proposal is to access the development by way of the existing driveway on the east side of the existing residence. Lot #1 and the existing residence will retain the Iowa Street frontage; the town homes are located behind the existing residence and will face east towards the driveway. Each townhome is proposed to have a rear yard patio area behind the unit along the west property line. Lot #4 will also have a yard area abutting the north property line. A common open space is proposed at the north end of the driveway. A pedestrian walkway is proposed along the driveway leading to the townhome lots and linking to a existing public sidewalk on Iowa Street. a) Public Facilities Existing and proposed public facilities have been identified on the site plan and discussed in a narrative. All public utilities exist within the Iowa Street right of way and will be extended to the proposed units under the proposed driveway. Existing and proposed upgrades include: The proposed units will be served by the six-inch water line in Iowa Street. New water service lines will be extended to serve the new units. Three new water meters are proposed to be located in the sidewalk adjacent to Iowa Street. A discussion regarding the location of the water meters is below under the Outline and Final Plan heading. An eight-inch sanitary sewer line in is the Iowa Street right-of-way. Private sewer lines will be installed and connected to the existing line in Iowa Street. A stormwater detention basin is proposed at the end of the driveway at the north end of the property, the overflow will be pumped up to the Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 2 of 12 52 existing storm drain line in Iowa Street. Electric service is available from Iowa Street a new transformer to serve the new development is proposed to be installed to the east of the driveway. The frontage of the property on Iowa Street was improved by the City of Ashland in the late 1990s with a six-foot curbside sidewalk. 2. Site Review Approval The application includes a request for Site Review approval of the proposed four unit single-family, attached wall townhouse development. Three of the units are attached two-story town homes, and one unit is the existing residence on site. Lot #1 faces Iowa Street. Lots #2, 3, and 4 face the interior of the site. Lot #1 is a two bedroom residence. Lots #2-4 are proposed as three-bedroom units. The units range in size from 1,111 to 1,277 square feet of living space. The new units will have attached garages. The architectural style of the proposed units is contemporary. The new units are proposed to be two-story and oriented toward the driveway. Lots #2 and 3 are proposed to have a single vehicle garage and a surface parking space adjacent. Lot #4 is proposed to have a two vehicle garage. Each unit has a 20 square foot, partially covered front stoop. The proposed exterior building materials on include horizontal siding, wood and steel trellises, vinyl windows with wood trim, wood garage doors and standing seam metal roofing. The two story building is proposed to have modern roof-lines with various pitches, and orientation to vary the heights, massing and scale of the second story. As proposed, the new units comply with the solar setback requirements. The applicant has requested a solar setback performance standard for the existing residence. The proposal is to shade not more than four-feet up the adjacent wall of Lot #2. Lot #1 will retain the 30-foot by 50-foot front yard and a 10-foot by 62-foot rear yard. Lots #2 and 3 are proposed to have rear yards of approximately 10-foot by 24-foot, including a private patio area.Lot #4 is proposed to have a 10-foot by 32-foot rear yard and a 10-foot by approximately 52-foot side yard. A landscape plan is included in the application that addresses the common areas and private yard areas. An irrigation plan addressing the proposed landscaping plan will need to be submitted for review and approval with the building permit submission; a condition to this effect has been added. 3.Tree Removal Permit The application includes a Tree Protection and Removal Plan as required in Chapter 18.61 that delineates trees on the property and in the adjacent rights-of- way six inches diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 3 of 12 53 A total of three trees are proposed for removal in conjunction of the project. The trees proposed for removal include a 36-inch DBH Box Elder (Picea pungens) located adjacent to the driveway along the east property line and two apple trees, 12 and 16-inches DBH which are at the rear of the property. II. Project Impact The project requires a subdivision approval since it involves the creation of four residential lots. Site Review approval is required for the application because it is a attached single-family townhome development. Finally, a Tree Removal Permit is required to remove trees which are six inches diameter at breast height and greater. The application is required to be reviewed under the “Type II” process with a public hearing because it includes a request for Outline and Final approval of a performance standards subdivision. A.Outline and Final Plan for Performance Standards Options Subdivision In Staff’s review of the proposal, the application appears to meet the approval criteria for Outline and Final Plan approval. The Performance Standards Options (AMC 18.88), allows a flexible lot layout and design approach. To this end, the base density of the project is based on the total site area. While perimeter and front yard setbacks must conform to the requirements of the zoning district, the lot sizes and interior site setbacks can vary in size. The site has a base density of six units. In addition, the proposal satisfies the requirement from AMC 18.28 that the site be developed at a minimum density requirement of 80 percent of the base density. The adjacent parcels are developed with single-family homes. The proposed subdivision will not prevent adjacent land from being developed in accordance with the R-3 zoning district, Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The site plan delineates the proposed building envelopes, setbacks, open spaces and driveway locations. The application complies with the standard and special yard setbacks requirements of AMC 18.88. The solar setbacks are addressed in the application. The new units demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The applicant has requested a solar setback performance standard for the existing residence. The proposal is to shade not more than four-feet up the adjacent wall of Lot #2. The highest point of the proposed building is 26.5 feet with an average building height of 18.5 feet which is below the maximum of 35 feet for the R-3 zoning district. The applicant’s proposed development complies with the Performance Standards Subdivision criteria for setback requirements, that the setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. The front yard setback is adjacent to Iowa Street, the rear yard setback is opposite that (the north property line) and the side yards are the east and west property lines. The applicant has proposed to meet or exceed the setbacks around the perimeter of the development. Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 4 of 12 54 The Outline and Final Plan approval criteria require significant natural features to be included in the open space, common areas and unbuildable areas. The subject property lacks significant natural features. The only natural features of the site are the large stature trees in the front yard of Lot #1 and the two larger stature trees along the driveway, one is on the subject property the other in on the adjacent property to the east. The trees are proposed for preservation. The application includes a tree removal permit request to remove three trees. Two apple trees at the rear of the site are within the proposed area of development and a 36-inch DBH Box Elder tree near driveway along the east property line. The Box Elder was evaluated by an arborist who recommended immediate removal as it is in hazardous condition. The Tree Commission has not reviewed the application at the time of writing. Eight off-street parking spaces are required for the development, and eight are provided, seven on-site and one as an on-street parking credit. Common bicycle parking facilities are not required for residential units that include a garage. Lot #1 will not have a garage but a bike parking structure is proposed in front of the unit near the existing surface parking space on the west side of the residence. The applicant’s findings state that bike hangers will be installed in each garage. Chapter 18.92, Off-Street Parking, requires driveways accessing seven or more parking spaces to include adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that drivers may pull out of the driveway in a forward manner. Though seven parking spaces are not shown the driveway is greater than 50-feet in length and is subject to the flag-driveway standards including turn around to allow vehicles to exist the property in a forward manner. The plans demonstrate that the maneuvering area is met with the driveway and a small hammer- head space. Existing public facilities and utilities are in place to service the project, and have been identified on the preliminary utility plan and grading plan. Water, sanitary sewer and electric services are available from Iowa Street and have the capacity to serve the proposed development. The applicant has provided civil engineering plans for the site and the new water meters are proposed to be installed in the sidewalk. The water meters shall be placed outside of the sidewalk and placed directly behind the sidewalk. A Public Utility Easement shall be dedicated on the survey plat if required. Paved access is provided via Iowa and the new driveway. Iowa Street is classified as an Avenue (major collector). The curb-to-curb width of Iowa Street complies with the Ashland Street Standards. However, the sidewalk corridor along the street frontage does not the current Ashland Street Standards in that there is curbside sidewalk along the frontage of the property where a five to seven foot parkrow is required. The sidewalk pattern exists and the applicant is not requesting any modification. Additionally, the Street Standards allow for only one driveway curb cut per parcel and the spacing standards require 100-feet between driveways. The site has two driveways which will continue to provide an off-street parking space and the access to the rear of the property consistent with the current development pattern. B.Site Review In Staff’s review of the proposal, the application meets the approval criteria for Site Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 5 of 12 55 Review approval. The application is subject to the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards portion of the Site Design and Use standards. The approval criteria for Site Review of a multi-family development overlap significantly with the approval criteria for Outline and Final Plan approval as discussed above. Lot# 1 is facing Iowa Street is existing and no modifications to the orientation to the street is proposed. The new units will be oriented towards the new driveway. The site improvements include a private sidewalk connecting existing sidewalk on Iowa Street. The building architecture is a contemporary townhouse style. Each unit will have a modern roof form of various heights and orientations to distinguish between the three units. The exterior building materials include hardi-board siding in both vertical and horizontal orientation and composition standing seam, metal roofing. Each unit is proposed to be a different color as well. The solar setbacks are addressed in the application. The new units demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. The applicant has requested a solar setback performance standard for the existing residence. The proposal is to shade not more than four-feet up the adjacent wall of Lot #2. The request is supported by the findings, in particular the setback of the existing residence at 30-feet from the front property line and the amount of slope of the property, justify the request. The applicant states that the reason for this request is to keep the structure where it has historically been placed keeping consistency with the existing neighborhood development pattern. The maximum lot coverage permitted in the R-3 zoning district is 75 percent. According to the applicants proposal, the proposed development covers 63.3 percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces including building, driveways, walkways and patios. The development as a whole complies with the lot coverage when averaged over the entire property area with 63.3 percent of coverage. Please see Figure 1 on the following page. The area of new development including the new townhomes, patio area, parking and the portions of the driveway from the flag- portion to the pergola structure is approximately 68.3 percent. This also complies with the maximum lot coverage in the zone of 75 percent. excluding the flag portion of the driveway The applicant’s findings address the development as a whole and finds the proposal complies with 63.3 percent of the 13,058 square foot parcel covered by impervious surfaces. The Site Review and Multi-Family Residential standards require an area equal to at least eight percent of the total site area to be devoted to functional outdoor recreation space. Each parcel has a private yard patio area behind the units along the western property line. The applicant is also providing a patio and pergola at the end of the driveway on the common area lot near the north property line. The total area provided by the common open space and private yard areas exceeds eight percent of the total lot area. The application includes a landscape plan that addresses the private yard areas and the common areas. New street trees are not proposed due to the three large trees in the front yard of Lot #1. Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 6 of 12 56 Gjhvsf!2 Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 7 of 12 57 C.Tree Removal Permit Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), Tree Preservation and Protection, requires a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three trees. Two apple trees at the rear of the site are within the proposed area of development and a 36-inch DBH Box Elder tree near driveway along the east property line. The Box Elder was evaluated by an arborist who recommended immediate removal as it is in hazardous condition. The Tree Commission has not reviewed the application at the time of writing. The application appears to meet the approval criteria for the removal of non-hazard trees, the apples and removal of a hazardous tree, the Box Elder. The removal of the apple trees will not have an impact on soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees or windbreaks and the removal does not have a significant impact on the species diversity within 200 feet of the property. The trees identified for removal are rated in poor and fair condition and are necessary to meet the density proposed and building placement as envisioned in the Site Design and Use Standards. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in 18.88.030.A as follows: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in 18.88.040 Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 8 of 12 58 18.88.030.B.5 Criteria for Final Approval a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. (ORD 2836, 1999) The criteria for Site Review approval are described in 18.72.070 as follows: The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. The criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal are described in 18.61.080 as follows: An applicant for a Tree Removal-Staff Permit shall demonstrate that the following criteria are satisfied. The Staff Advisor may require an arborist's report to substantiate the criteria for a permit. A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 9 of 12 59 public rights of way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated or the damage alleviated. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment or pruning. 2. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. B. Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and 2. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. 4. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations In Staff’s opinion, the proposal is consistent with the approval criteria for Outline Plan and Final Plan of a Performance Standards Options subdivision and Site Review for a multi-family development. In addition, the request to remove three trees six inches (dbh) and greater appears to meet the approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit. Staff has identified minor issues related to the approval criteria and design standards applicable to the project but they all appear to be resolvable at building permit approval. Staff recommends approval of the application with the following conditions attached. 1)That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 10 of 12 60 modified here. 2)That all easements for sewer, water, electric and streets shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. 3)That a utility plan for the project shall be submitted with the building permit application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean- outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. 4)The water meters within the sidewalk shall be installed behind the Iowa Street sidewalk and if required by the City of Ashland Water Department a public utility easement shall be provided. 5)That the storm drainage plan including the design of off-site storm drain system improvements shall be submitted with the building permit application. The permanent maintenance of on-site storm water detention systems must be addressed through the obligations of the Homeowners’ Association and approved by the Public Works Department and Building Division. ! 6)That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan with the building permit application including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to issuance of the building permit application. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. The electric line servicing the site shall be installed underground. 9)That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be incorporated into the Landscape Plan and Tree Protection and Removal Plan. 10)That one tree shall be planted in the common space, open space or private yard areas in accordance with 18.61.084 as mitigation for the removal of the tree on site. The landscaping plan provided at the time of the building permit shall include and identify the mitigation trees. 11)That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the tree on site and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the trees to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 11 of 12 61 with 18.61.200.B. 12)That an irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval with the building permit submittals. 13)That a draft copy of the CC&R’s for the Homeowners Association is provided at the time of building permit application. CC&R’s shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common areas and open space improvements, driveway and parking maintenance, and street trees. The CC&R’s shall include language requiring the garages be available for parking. 18) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. !!! ! 19)That exterior building colors shall not be very bright primary or neon-type paint ! colors in accordance with the Multi-Family Residential Development Standards. Exterior building colors shall be specified on the building permit submittals. ! 20) The setback requirements of 18.88.070 shall be met and identified on the building permit submittals including but not limited to the required width between buildings as described in 18.88.070.D. 21)That Solar Setback calculations demonstrating compliance with Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided with the building permits. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit and include the required setback with the formula calculations. 22)Lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with the building permits. 24) That exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding properties. 25)That the flag-driveway shall meet fire apparatus access road requirements, and shall be paved prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. A No Parking Fire Lane sign shall be installed along the driveway. 26)That all bicycle parking facilities including the proposed hanging bike racks shall be installed in the garages for each unit prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. ! ! Planning Action 2014-00734 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report / adg Applicant: Ayala Properties LLC Page 12 of 12 62 63 64 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A SITE REVIEW PERMIT, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND FOUR-LOT OUTLINE & FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1163 IOWA STREET SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 485 W. NEVADA STREET ASHLAND, OREGON ND MAY 2, 2014 Page 1 of 23 65 ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1163 Iowa Street, Ashland, OR 97520 391E10CB Tax Lot #5500 PROJECT INFORMATION: APPLICANTS: LAND USE PLANNING: Laz Ayala Urban Development Services, LLC 604 Fair Oaks Court 485 W. Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-944-9561 Tel: 541-482-3334 CIVIL ENGINEERING: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Construction Engineering ConsultantsMadera Design, Inc P.O. Box 17242994 Wells Fargo Road Medford, Oregon 97501 Central Point, OR 97502 Tel: 541-779-5268 Tel: 541-664-7055 SURVEYOR: CERTIFIED ARBORIST: Polaris Land Survey Madera Design, Inc P.O. Box 459 2994 Wells Fargo Road Ashland, Oregon 97520 Central Point, OR 97502 Tel: 541-482-5009 Tel: 541-664-7055 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: DESIGNER: Structural Integrity, LLC Lindemann Design, LLC 724Main Street 550 W. Nevada Street Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601 Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-884-1081 Tel: 503-866-4742 ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Alan Harper, Attorney at Law 130AStreet Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-659-9401 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R--Family Residential LOT & HOUSE DATA: Tax Lot 5500: .29acres House: 1,124sq. ft. Garage: 488sq. ft. BASE DENSITY (R-3 Zone): Base Density: 20units per acre (20units X .29acres) = 5.8units Minimum Density (80% less fractional overage) = 4.64 (4) Proposed Density (includes existing house): = 4units Page 2 of 23 66 APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: R-3High Density Multi-Family Residential, Chapter 18.28 Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 18.61 Solar Access, Chapter 18.70 Site Design & Use Standards, Chapter 18.72 Performance Standards Option, Chapter 18.88 Off-Street Parking, Chapter 18.92 PLANNING ACTION: The applicants wish to obtain approval of a Performance Standards Option Subdivision (Outline Plan & Final Plan) for a four-lot subdivision. The application includes a request for a Site Review Permit for review and approval of building design and site planning details as well as a Tree Removal Permit to remove two Apple Trees at the rear of the property and one Box Elder along the east property line. 1163 Iowa Street (before recent remodel) 1163 Iowa Street (after recent remodel) Page 3 of 23 67 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: The site is located at 1163 Iowa Street, between North Mountain Avenue and Lincoln Street. The property is rectangular in shape with an existing house located at the front of the parcel, The neighborhood is a mixture of single-family residents, townhomes and apartments. The property and its surrounding are zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family. The property is .299 acres in size with a base density of 5.98 units. The site slopes the front property line and the primary driveway). sion formed the parcel. The existing house is three-bedrooms with 1,124 square feet in area, constructed in 1949 according the side of the existing house with its concrete driveway extending directly out to Iowa Street. PROJECT PROPOSAL & DETAILS: The proposal is for afour-unit Performance Standards Option Subdivision, Site Review Permit and Tree Removal Permit. The proposal includes retaining the existing house and adding three new townhomes, each on their own independent lots, at the rear of the property. The townhome units will be accessed via aflag driveway extending from Iowa Street where the existing garage sits. The house was recently remodeled and includedsewer and water line repairs along Iowa Street. Outline & Final Plan: The proposal includes a simultaneous approval for an Outline and Final Plan Subdivision in accordance with AMC 18.88.030 A.1, to subdivide the parcel into four (4) lots consisting of the existing detached residence on Lot #1 and three additional lots to the rear Lots #2, #3 and #4. Base Density: .30 acres in size. However, after a survey was completed, and its overall acreage .299 acres. 18.88.040, is 5.8 dwelling units with a minimum 80% density provision, based on 18.28.040 A, of 4.64 units or *four (4). * NOTE: The base density calculations are critical to the preservation of the existing house which the applicant and consulting team believe is important as it retains an existing resource, reduces pot trees and preserves the streetscape. The applicant further contends any additional density on the subject parcel Purpose & Intent: The applicant contends the preservation of the house addresses the Purpose and Intent of Chapter 18.88 as the home could be demolished in accordance with AMC Chapter 15.02, in order to increase ble design options. However, when waste, preserving a functional resource and retaining the existing Iowa Street streetscape, the applicant and team contend the application as proposed, without Variances or Exceptions, is the most benefitting to the community and addresses the Purpose and Intent of the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Conceptual Master Plan:s context which includes a mixture of housing types ranging from single-family residential to multi-family apartments, townhomes and condominiums. Further, the area includes a number of business professional offices, commercial conditional uses, the Ashlan the subject site. neighborhood to now a multi-family / business professional area consistent with its High Density Multi-Family zoning designation. Page 4 of 23 68 That said, the applicants have attempted to work with the adjoining property owners to the east, 1177 Iowa Street (Tax Lot #5400), to consider a shared driveway and utility corridor off Lincoln Street (Tax Lot #5400 is also zoned R-3 with a base density of 5.2 dwelling units). The shared driveway would extend from Lincoln Street along the north property line and serve both properties. The eventual development pattern of Tax Lot #5400 would obviously be consistent with and the orientation of the buildings facing the street (Lincoln Street). Note: The master plan referenced herein is conceptual in nature and has not been formally drafted. However, because the development timing of Tax Lot #5400 is unknown and the applicant is unsure as to when development may begin, the applicant has at least attempted to establish the foundation and groundwork to create a more logical and prudent development patternbetween the two lots. To this end, the applicants hope the when the applicant has no control of the adjoining properties. Townhouse Architecture: According to the design team (Structural Engineer, Designer and Planner)the townhomes are designed inaContemporary Northwest style and include warm materials and colors with unique components for flair. The units include clear story windows to not only allow light to cascade down through the units, but also provide privacy between neighboring units. The units are relatively narrow making floor planning challenging, but vaulted living spaces provide volume and drama. Existing House Improvements:-application meeting, the applicant has remodeled the existing residence, including interior and exterior improvements. The interior improvements included updating bathroom and kit A new pedestrian connection is proposed leading from the front door to the sidewalk along Iowa Street. The intent is to help enhance the sense of entry and improve streetscape appearance. Unit Description: Lot #1: 1,124square feet, two-bedroom (existing house); Lot #2: 1,111 square feet, three-bedroom Lot #3: 1,111 square feet, three-bedroom Lot #4: 1,277 square feet, three-bedroom Solar Access: In accordance with AMC 18. Performance Standards by maintaining the shadow line of the attached three units to be no greater than what a six foot fence would shadow along the north property line. Further, the applicant has provided a Solar Envelope for the existing house to ensure its shadow does not cast any higher onto the south wall of the adjacent structure (Lot #2). The solar envelope is being proposed to ensure the purpose of the solar access codes is incorporated and in particular, the house is retained. Spe a variety of design factors that eventually limit the ability of the design team. However, with the envelope, it is allowing the design team to reasonably accommodate the planned housing and, in particular, a floor plan that is universally accommodating for both small and medium sized families. Overall, the applicant contends the preservation of the house and the incorporation of the solar envelope is a mutual benefit. Infrastructure: As noted previously and as illustrated on the attached Civil Engineering plan (Sheet 1) infrastructure and utilities will extend to and from Iowa Street . The existing house will retain its infrastructure connecting directly to Iowa Street (overhead power will be undergrounded during Phase II) project Arborist, and where necessary, hand trenching for the utilities in critical root zones will occur. Page 5 of 23 69 Demolition: The demolition of the little garage will require approval from the Demolition Review Committee intention to retain the structure as long as possible in order to retain its utility value, but understands that prior to construction of the second phase, it will be required to be removed and a Demolition Permit obtained. Existing Garage (tobe removed under separate permit) Existing House(to remain) Tree Removal & Tree Preservation: three trees within the rear of the property and a 36 Box Elder along the east property line. The Apple trees are older trees and located within or in close proximity to the construction zones. The Box Elder is considered hazardous and based on the Arborists recommendation should be removed immediately. The trees to be saved are two Sweetgum Trees in bh Ash tree each within the existing front yard. There is also antree along the eastern property line of Tax Lot #5400 which is to be preserved in accordance with AMC 18.61.200 B. According to the project Arborist, the trees along the eastern property line have been severely pruned and are not the greatest of specimens with one being hazardous. However, the applicants intend to replace and replant in the area of the Box Elder with more appropriate trees that provide benefits of screening and shade. The Pine tree, because it sits on the neighbors sideof the property line and althoughmultiple efforts were made to try and connect with the neighbors to prune and/or possibly replace this particular tree at the applicants expense,responses were not returned. As such, attempts have and will be made to minimize itsdisturbance. Page 6 of 23 70 Landscaping Maintenance: The project is intended to be a Class I Homeowners Association with common landscaping to be maintained by the projects three attached townhome owners. The front house is intended to function independently (where possible) with its landscaping and yard maintenance being maintained by the property owner. The three townhome units will have their own private spaces within the rear yards to personally manage, but all other landscaping, including the landscaping along the east side of the driveway all landscaping along the frontage of the units will be maintained in-common and funds collected monthly to fund the irrigation and maintenance costs. All associated Homeowner Association documents will be provide at the time of the final plat. Easements: The common property tract is intended to be owned and maintained in common by the three townhome owners. The common area tract includes landscaping, driveway, sidewalk and private utilities. The common area will include a blanket easement allowing for emergency service access, private utilities and private pedestrian access. The common property tract will also provide for pedestrian access and utility service needs for the existing house. Fencing: The applicant intends to install new fencing along the perimeter of the property as well as privacy property line, with a row of plantings to help screen the driveway from the adjoining property (Tax Lot 5400). Driveways: The subject property has two existing driveways the proposal intends to retain for both functional and aesthetic reasons. The driveway along the west property line is roughly eight feet wide and can only accommodate single parking space. The driveway is has minimal impact to the streetscape, but retains a significant value for the tenants of the existing house. If the driveway was to be removed, replacing its parking space would likely have to occur along the east side of the house and expand the driveway leading to an unnecessarily oversized driveway width. replaced with new materials capable of supporting 44,000 lbs. of weight to accommodate Fire Department -laid sidewalk. Lot Coverage / Recreation: The property is .29 acres or 13,058 square feet in area. The property has a floor to area ratio of 41.9% and a lot coverage of 63% (75% is maximum). A total of 18% of the site is dedicated to recreational space, which includes areas of the front yard of 1163 Iowa Street and the rear yards of the townhome units (8% is minimum). The small pergola sitting area, at the end of the private driveway, is also counted as recreational area. Landscaping:The projects landscaping has been designed by a local Landscape Designer who is also alicensed Arborist. The landscaping plan recognizes the sitesthree large trees at the front of the existing house and has required the project team to minimize disturbance, including landscape alterations. The areas at the perimeter of the property and around the townhomes have been designed with landscaping appropriate for the space, which include shade, screening and aesthetic plantings. Phasing: The subdivision is intended to be phased into two. The first phase would be to separate the existing house and remove the small garage. The second phase would be to install the necessary infrastructure, underground existing overhead power, construct the three improvements, including tree protection and planting. There are two primary reasons for the phasing which relate to logical financing and infrastructure planning, but it also allows additional time for the adjoining property owners to the east to reconsider either a partial infrastructure improvement or a simultaneous Page 7 of 23 71 development consistent with the conceptual master plan as previously described. However, if there continues to be no desire, the development will occur as planned herein with the development served off of Iowa Street. Parking (AMC 18.92.030 A.1(c) and (d)): Required: 1 parking space per unit less than 500 sq. ft. 1.5 parking spaces per unit greater than 500 sq. ft. 1.75 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit 2 parking spaces per 3 bedroom unit Provided: Lot #1: 2 bedrooms = 2 spaces (existing house) 1existing driveway / 1 on-street credit Lot #2: 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces 1 garage / 1 open driveway Lot #3: 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces 1 garage / 1 open driveway Lot #4: 3 bedrooms = 2 spaces 2 garage Total Parking Required: 7.75 parking spaces Total Parking Provided: 8 parking spaces (7 on-site / 1 on-street credit) Units #2 and #3 will have two parking spaces with one space within a garage and one second space open while Unit #4 will have a two space garage. The existing house will retain its single space along the western property line and another space is to be provided - as there are roughly two-plus . The street credit makes logical sense in order to minimize unnecessary site disturbance and reduces lot coverage. Use of the existing driveway along the western property line also makes sense as to replace it elsewhere on-site would either diminish the in an area that impacts the streetscape, impacts existing mature trees or potentially reduces common landscape area. Bicycle parking for the attached units are to be provided within garage area as a wall or ceiling mounted space. Covered bike parking for the existing unit will be between the existing driveway along the west property boundary, between the driveway and the house, under the existing covered awning. Page 8 of 23 72 FINDINGS OF FACT: The required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project request, but also meets the Outline & Final Plan submittal requirements and criteria as outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), Section 18.88.030 A.5 and B.5. as well as the Site Review Permit and Tree Removal requirements and criteria noted Sections 18.72.070 and 18.61.080. NOTE: For clarity, the following document BOLD response in regular font. Also, due to repetitiveness in the required findings of fact, there may be a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. AMC 18.88.030 A- SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OUTLINE PLAN: 1. Application for subdivision approval under this Chapter shall be accompanied by a proposed Outline Plan. For developments of less than 10 lots, the Outline Plan may be filed concurrently with the final Plan, as that term is defined in 18.88.030 B.4. For developments of 10 lots or more prior Outline Plan approval is mandatory. A simultaneous application for an Outline and Final Plan is being filed as the total number of lots within the subdivision application is four. 2. A Type II procedure, as defined in this Ordinance, shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. Applicants will follow all procedures as set fourth by the Ashland Municipal Code. 3. Contents. The contents for an outline plan shall be as follows: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5) feet. See attached Preliminary Map. The preliminary plan shows a one (1) foot contour in order to fully address grade relationship issues. b. The proposed land uses and approximate locations of the existing buildings to be retained, the proposed structures on the site, the proposed and existing property lines and easements on the site, and existing buildings, structures, and trees greater than six (6) inches in diameter measured at breast height on the properties adjacent to the site, and all buildings within one hundred sixty (160) feet of the site boundaries. See attached site plan exhibits for proposed land uses and building to be retained, property lines, trees, etc. A map showing buildings and neighborhood context is shown below. The entire neighborhood is zoned multi-family with the site and adjacent properties zoned R-3, Residential High Density. The context of the neighborhood is a mixture of single family homes on relatively larger lots with a mixture of multi-family apartments, condominiums and townhomes. c. The locations of all proposed thoroughfares, walkways, and parking facilities. d. Public uses, including schools, parks, playgrounds, open spaces and trails. e. Public or private utilities. g. The location of natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshes, wooded areas, and isolated preferable trees. h. The location and direction of all watercourses and areas subject to flooding. For items c h see attached site plan exhibits. Page 9 of 23 73 (D) Subject Property (E)(C) (F) (A) (B) Neighborhood Context Map (A) (B) Page 10 of 23 74 (C) (D) (E)(F) Page 11 of 23 75 i. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the outline plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection where required. The existing detached single-family dwelling is to remain. Its building envelope is identified on the site plan, but generally the only expansion area would be to the front of the house towards Iowa Street. The applicants have no intention to expand the house, but if expansion is desired by future property owners, the only logical illustrated on the elevations, which is to not exceed the height of the southern wall of the adjacent townhouse wall to the north (Unit #2) no greater than four feet. j. Elevation of typical proposed structures. The elevation should be to scale and should include the approximate dimensions of the proposed structures and all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Elevations are attached and to scale. The elevations include the dimensions of the proposed structures and all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. k. A written statement which will contain an explanation of: i. The character of the proposed development and the manner in which it has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Concept. ii. The proposed manner of financing. iii. The present ownership of all the land included within the development. iv. The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and private thoroughfares. v. The proposed time schedule of the development. vi. The findings of the applicant showing that the development meets the criteria set forth in this Ordinance and the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Options ordinance by of four units with minimal central location near the areas services which include walking distance to an elementary, middle and high school. Further, the site is close to Southern Oregon University, shopping, parks and job opportunities. The es who are most apt to use these services, but also attractive with small private amenities when compared to stereotypical multi-family housing (see Photo D above). Conventional bank loans and personal investment capital will be used to finance the improvements. There are no common areas or buildings that will require maintenance, other than the driveway area. Each property owner will be responsible for their private yards and within their delineated boundaries. The driveway and adjacent landscaping will maintenance of the private and common areas will be provided at time of the Final Plat. The proposed development will occur in two phases, somewhat dependant on market conditions. The first phase would be to separate the existing house and remove the small garage. The first phase is expected to occur by the end of 2014. The second phase would be to install the necessary infrastructure, construct the three attached units Page 12 of 23 76 logical financing and infrastructure planning, but it also allows additional time for the adjoining property owners to the east to reconsider either a partial infrastructure improvement or a simultaneous development consistent with the master plan as previously described. However, if there continues to be no desire, the development will occur as planned herein with the development served off of Iowa Street. The second phase is to occur in late 2015. AMC 18.88.030 - SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAN: B. Final Plan. 1. Procedure for approval. Type I procedure, as defined in this Title, shall be used for approval of final plans, unless an outline plan has been filed, in which case Type II procedure shall be used, and the criteria for approval of an outline plan shall also be applied. The applicants are aware of the procedures as described above. The applicants are attempting to process the Outline and Final Plan application simultaneously in order to limit market swings and overhead costs. 2. The final plan may be filed in phases as approved on the outline plan. As noted above, the application is for a simultaneous Outline and Final Plan approval. The subdivision will have two phases to reflect market conditions. 3. If the final plan or the first phase of the outline plan is not approved within eighteen (18) months from the date of the approval of the outline plan, then the approval of the plan is terminated and void and of no effect whatsoever. Extensions may be granted as a Type I procedure. As stated previously, the applicants intend to finalize the first phase of the subdivision by the end of 2014, but not later than eighteen (18) months from the date of final approval. The applicant understands an extension is permissible as a Type I procedure if unknown circumstances occur and deemed necessary. 4. Contents. The final plan shall contain a scale map or maps and a written document showing the following for the development: a. A topographic map showing contour intervals of five (5) feet. b. Location of all thoroughfares and walks, their widths and nature of their improvements, and whether they are to be public or private. c. Road cross sections and profiles, clearly indicating the locations of final cuts and fills, and road grades. d. The location, layout, and servicing of all off-street parking areas. e. The property boundary lines. f. The individual lot lines of each parcel that are to be created for separate ownership. g. The location of easements for water line, fire hydrants, sewer and storm sewer lines, and the location of the electric, gas, and telephone lines, telephone cable and lighting plans. h. Landscaping and tree planting plans with the location of the existing trees and shrubs which are to be retained, and the method by which they are to be preserved. i. Common open areas and spaces, and the particular uses intended for them. j. Areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated, reserved or used for parks, scenic ways, playgrounds, schools or public buildings. k. A plan showing the following for each existing or proposed building or structure for all sites except single- family, detached housing which meets the parent zone setbacks: i. Its location on the lot and within the Planned Unit Development. ii. Its intended use. Page 13 of 23 77 iii. The number of dwelling units in each residential building. iv. On lots which are to contain detached single-family dwellings, building envelopes shall be included on the final plan which show the area and maximum height of improvements, including solar access and view protection constraints where required. For the items noted above (4a 4k), please refer to the attached site plan submittals or project narrative addressing the various plan submittal requirements. l. Elevation drawings of all typical proposed structures except single-family, detached residences which meet parent zone setback requirements. The drawings shall be accurate and to scale, including all attached exterior hardware for heating and cooling. Elevation drawings of the proposed structures for the foreseeable future. However, future property owners may desire to make changes in which case building permits, including site plans and elevation submittals, will need to be applied for. All existing and proposed structures meet the parent zoning setback boundary facing Iowa Street (existing west property boundary and 26he rear, plus applicable solar access standards to the north property boundary. m. Manner of financing. Conventional bank loans and personal improvements. n. Development time schedule. As noted, the proposed development will occur in two phases, somewhat dependant on market conditions. The first phase would be to separate the existing house and remove the small garage. The first phase is expected to occur by the end of 2014. The second phase would be to install the necessary infrastructure, construct the three which relate to logical financing and infrastructure planning, but it also allows additional time for the adjoining property owners to the east to reconsider either a partial infrastructure improvement or a simultaneous development consistent with the master plan as previously described. However, if there continues to be no desire, the development will occur as planned herein with the development served off of Iowa Street. The second phase is to occur in late 2015. o. If individual lots are to be sold in the Planned Unit Development, a final plat, similar to that required in a subdivision section of the Land Use Development Ordinance. The proposal is a hybrid subdivision which will include the existing house on its individual lot and the three attached townhomes on their own individual lot, but sharing the driveway and its common landscaping improvements. p. Final plans for location of water, sewer, drainage, electric and cable T.V. facilities and plans for street improvements and grading or earth-moving improvements. Please see the attached Civil Improvement Plans. Prior to any construction, final building permits and civil plan details showing specific connection information will be provided. Page 14 of 23 78 q. The location of all trees over six (6) inches diameter at breast height, which are to be removed by the developer. Such trees are to be tagged with flagging at the time of Final Plan approval. See attached site plans. All trees to be removed have been tagged with colored string bands. At the time of construction of Phase II, all trees to be saved will be protected with chain-link fencing as described on the Tree Protection and Removal Plan. No trees will be removed and no site disturbance will occur until a Tree Verification Permit is approved. Required Tree Protection Measure (18.61.200) will occur prior to any development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work, and shall be removed only after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. 18.88.030A.4. - Outline Plan Criteria: a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. The development proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland unless specifically noted herein where the applicants have attempted to specificallyaddress the appropriate mitigation measures based on the intent of the Performance Standards Options Subdivision, context of the surrounding neighborhood and likely future development considerations. b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. All public utilities are available to service the subject proposal and are located within the adjacent Iowa Street right-of-way. Multiple meetings have been held with the Ashland Public Works, Engineering, Fire, Sewer and Electrical Departments in order to verify and coordinate service abilities and connection points. All of the departments stated there is capacity to service the proposal. Storm water, sewer, water service and all other utilities will extend to and from Iowa Street. Vehicular access for fire-trucks will be available from the existing driveway, which will be upgraded to support 44,000 lbs of weight. No turn- available to accommodate maneuvering room on either side of the truck. Note: As previously stated, the intent instead a development that relates to adjoining properties, addresses various zoning and design regulations and looks to the future to better accommodate the residents. That said, the applicant has attempted to coordinate with the property owner to the east (Tax Lot #5400) to obtain access and utility connections that would be sized to not on consistent with adopted standards and policy. However, because the development timing of Tax Lot #5400 is unknown and the applicant is unsure as to when development may begin, the applicant has at least attempted to establish the foundation and groundwork to create a more logical and prudent development pattern between the two lots. To this end, the applicants hope the Planning Commission and staff realize the app challenges master planning has when the applicant has no control of the adjoining properties. Regardless, in order to move forward, but still consider the possible master plan outcome, the application is considering phasing to accommodate the possibility. c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain 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. Page 15 of 23 79 The site has no significant natural features other than the three large trees within the front yard of the existing house and the two trees along the neighboring property line to the east (Tax Lot #5400). All of the large trees are intended to remain with minimal disturbance as the existing driveway will be replaced (to support fire truck weight and clearance) and project utilities will run parallel with driveway to Iowa Street. The proje and Civil Engineer have worked together to shift all of the utilities away from the trees and where there is root and the applso that they can remain and continue to function and provide the benefits as they do today (shade, screening, recreationally and microclimaticly). d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed as shown on the Comprehensive Plan as the property will be fully built out once construction is completed. All adjoining properties have access onto their respective rights-of-way and should be able to address Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan policies without including the subject property. e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. The proposed subdivision will be completed in two phases with ¼ of the application completed in Phase I and ¾ in Phase II. The construction timing and various other factors are ready. This could include the possible partnering of the development with Tax Lot 5400 to the east which the applicant is aware would require a modification along and common area improvements (driveway, landscaping, irrigation, tree protection, etc.) will be completed Other than private yard areas, all common space improvements and any landscaping or irrigation elements faclimited Home Owners Association as permitted by State law. f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The application meets the base density standards for the R-3 Multi-Family Residential zoning requirements without density bonuses or exceptions. Based on the provisions of AMC 18.88.040, the base density for the property is 20 units per acre. At .299 acres, is 5.8 dwelling units. The applicants are proposing to retain the existing house and construct three additional units for a total of four which is equivalent of 80% of the base density. In reality, the presence of the existing house and parking codes limits the ability to 18.28.040 A, are being complied with. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. No additional streets are proposed with the application and all existing street improvements along Iowa Street are to remain as is. Page 16 of 23 80 18.88.040- Performance Standards for Residential Developments : 18.88.070 Setbacks: A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. The attached site plan shows building envelopes with front setbacks that meet or exceed the standard front yard provisions of the R-3. The existing house sits back from the front property line by approximatel the foreseeable future. However, because future property owners may desire to make changes to the front, the envelope identifies the setback parameters. If this is the case, building permits, including site plans and elevation submittals, will need to be applied for at that time. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. The setbacks within the R-3 High Density Multi-Family Residential zone are as described above for the front yard and 6per story in the rear yards. The attached site plans show building envelopes where along the perimeter of the development all setbacks meet or exceed for R-3 zoning standards. Specifically, the second floor the intent to break-up the mass and respect the adjoining property (which would hopefully be reciprocated when re 9second floor setback. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. The property owners -3 High Density Multi- Family Residential zoning district as well as all applicable Solar Access provisions of AMC 18.70, and have designed the and the attached townhomes 24 in height (at highest peak). However, because the buildings cascade due to both roof form and site grades, the average roof height is likely near 18or half of the zones allowance. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings. The distance between the existing house and the proposed townhome to the north does comply with this standard. The setback is 13-6 and is best illustrated on Sheet 10. All setback dimensions can be verified at the time of the building permit in accordance with the submitted plans. E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall be provided as required in Section 18.70. Standards by maintaining the shadow line of the attached three units to be no greater than what a six foot fence would shadow house to ensure it #2). The solar envelope is being proposed to ensure the purpose of the solar access codes is incorporated and in particular, the house is retained. Specifically, t factors that eventually limit the ability of the design team. However, with the envelope, it is allowing the design team to reasonably accommodate the planned housing and, in particular, a floor plan that is universally Page 17 of 23 81 accommodating for both small and medium sized families. Overall, the applicant contends the preservation of the house and the incorporation of the solar envelope is a mutual benefit. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. Not applicable 18.88.030B.5. - Final Plan Criteria: Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: NOTE:Considering the proposal is for a four-lot subdivision, Outline and Final Plan applications under 10 lots are permitted to be submitted concurrently (AMC 18.88.030 A.1.). As such, the application complies with the criteria listed below (specific to a, b, c, d and f.). a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Title. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. exterior materials are reflective of the Purpose and Intent statements noted within the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.88.010). Further, the densities neighboring property context, the applicant and design team believe the application meets all of the above criterion. Page 18 of 23 82 18.72.070- Site Review Permit Criteria: A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development. It has been the intention of the applicants to meet all City Ordinances without requesting any Variances or time of the building permit submittal, the application will be substantially consistent with the proposed application and will meet all conditions of approval imposed by the approving authority. B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met. All of the requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter, Section 18.72, have been met without Variances or Exceptions. The Site Review Chapter was designed to ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the City of Ashland. The proposed application was designed and redesigned in order to best meet this purpose and produce a quality living environment to not only future residents, but also existing neighbors. C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter. th The development complies with the City of , 1992. A , Section II-B, Approval Standards and Policies for Multi-Family Residential Developments; Section II-D, Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards; and Section II-E, Street Tree Standards, has been provided below. D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. All utilities to service the project are within the Iowa Street right-of-way. None of the utilities are at capacity to nd service the development. A pre-application was completed on July 2, 2013, with City Departments reviewing the application and assessing availability of services. The project was received favorably and at no time was there any indication the proposal lacked adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access, electricity, urban storm drainage or adequate transportation. Additional follow-up meetings with individual departments were also completed. In addition, all site utilities have been preliminary designed by either the City system needs, locations, relationships, upgrades, and demands. Please see the attached conceptual Utility Plans identifying location and type of utility line. SITE DESIGN APPROVAL STANDARDS: (Multi-family Residential Development Standards) II-B-1) Orientation II-B-1a) Residential buildings shall have their primary orientation toward the street when they are within 20 to 30 feet of the street. Page 19 of 23 83 The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-1a. The existing house is to remain which currently has its primary orientation facing the street. Recent remodeling of the II-B-1b) Buildings shall be set back from the street according to ordinance requirements, which is usually 20 feet. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-1b as the existing home II-B-1c) Building shall be accessed from the street and the sidewalk. Parking areas shall not be located between buildings and the street. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-1c. Parking is either in the rear off the shared driveway, along the street frontage or within the existing grandfathered driveway along the west property line. Access to the units will be from an in-laid distinguishing sidewalk extending along the public sidewalk along Iowa Street rear units. II-B-2) Streetscape II-B-2a) One street tree for every 30 feet of frontage, chosen from the street tree list, shall be placed on that portion of the development paralleling the street. Where the size of the project dictates an interior circulation street pattern, a similar streetscape with street trees is required. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-2a. as there are three existing mature trees along the Iowa Street sidewalk that addresses this standard. II-B-2b) Front yard landscaping shall be similar to those found in residential neighborhoods, with appropriate changes to decrease water use. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B- landscape plan has been designed by a local landscape professional. Due to existing front yard conditions between the house and Iowa Street, the applicant has chosen to retain the landscaping considering the large tree specimens and their canopy, little water use is necessary. II-B-3) Landscaping II-B-3a) Landscaping shall be designed so that 50% coverage occurs within one year of installation and 90% landscaping coverage occurs within 5 years. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3a. The landscape plan th year. All landscaping will be maintained weekly or monthly by the property owners (private areas) or Home Owners Association (common area). The landscaping plan was designed by a local Landscape professional knowledgeable of the various plant and tree specifications for this area. Page 20 of 23 84 II-B-3b) Landscaping design shall include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species well adapted to the local climate. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3b. The landscaping plan incorporates a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and flowering plant species for the Southern Oregon climate. The landscaping plan was designed by a local Landscape professional knowledgeable of the various plant and tree specifications for this area. II-B-3c) As many existing healthy trees on the site shall be saved as is reasonably feasible. and the hazardous Box Elder (36 dbh)trees along the shared property lines, are to be retained with minimal disturbance. II-B-3d) Buildings adjacent to streets shall be buffered by landscaped areas of at least 10 feet in width. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3d as there are no new streets being added. wa Street right-of-way. II-B-3e) Parking areas shall be shaded by large canopied deciduous trees and shall be adequately screened and buffered from adjacent uses. The proposed parking complies with this standard, although this standard was most likely intended for parking lots. Nevertheless, the existing unit has mature large canopied trees that garage and open parking area in front of the unit, separated by a landscape area. A couple of Cherry trees have been chosen to help shade the driveway. II-B-3f) Irrigation systems shall be installed to assure landscaping successes. Refer to Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening Standards for more detail. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-3f. An Irrigation Plan has been included with the Landscape Plan, also completed by the Landscape Designer. All irrigation will be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit. II-B-4) Open Space II-B-4a) An area equal to at least 8% of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreation for use by the tenants of the development. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-4a. A total of 18% of the site has been dedicated to recreational space for the tenants (not including perimeter landscaping areas). The recreational space includes the front yard (portion) of the existing house, the pergola area, the rear patios and Unit #4sfront porch. Multiple large public recreational spaces are within a five minute walk from the subject property and the recreational spaces provided herein are intended for both private and neighborly interactive spaces best suited for urban living conditions. Page 21 of 23 85 II-B-4b) Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch and other ground covers which do not provide a suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this requirement. The calculations presented have excluded all areas not suitable such as side property areas, walkways, etc. II-B-4c) Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space criteria. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-4c. The application is only proposing three new units and preserving the existing unit. A total of 18% of the site has been dedicated to recreational space for the tenants (not including perimeter landscaping areas). The recreational space includes the front yard (portion) of the existing house, the pergola area, the rear patios and Unit #4sfront porch. Multiple large public recreational spaces are within a five minute walk from the subject property and the recreational spaces provided herein are intended for both private and neighborly interactive spaces best suited for urban living conditions. II-B-5) Natural Climate Control II-B-5a) Utilize deciduous trees with early leaf drop and low bare branch densities on the south sides of buildings which are occupied and have glazing for summer shade and winter warmth. The proposed application meets the Site Design Standards, Section II-B-5a. The landscape plan has incorporated as many deciduous trees as reasonably could be planted. II-B-6) Building Materials II-B-6a) Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors which attract attention to the building or use are unacceptable. No bright or neon-type paint colors will be used on the buildings. The proposed material and colors will be consistent with building materials and colors often found on residential buildings and will only be earth-tone in general. 18.61.080- Tree Removal Permit Criteria B.Tree that is Not a Hazard: The City shall issue a tree removal permit for a tree that is not a hazard if the applicant demonstrates all of the following: 1.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards. (e.g. other applicable Site Design and Use Standards). The Staff Advisor may require the building footprint of the development to be staked to allow for accurate verification of the permit application; and Two of the three trees to be removed are older Apple trees located at the rear of the subject lot, within the footprint of the building, pergola and driveway. The third tree is a 36 Box Elder along the eastern property line Page 22 of 23 86 deemed hazardous. The trees will be replaced with trees which are to be located in the general area and chosen to help with screening and shading of the sitesbuildings, driveways and neighboring properties have been evaluated by alocal tree arborist Tom Madara, Madara Design, who concluded the trees are elderly with a limited life span. The Box Elder tree along the east property line is a hazard and is proposed to be removed. 2.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and The removal of the two Apple trees and Box Elder will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks to the site or their adjacent neighbor to the north or east. identifies a 3.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures or alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with other provisions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. The removal of the two Apple trees and Box Elder will not have a significant negative impact on tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the property. 4.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The landscape plan showsthree new trees to replace the three removed trees. The new trees will be appropriately placed and planted by professional landscapers to ensure long term survivability. 18.61.200 TREE PROTECTION Tree Protection as required by this section is applicable to any planning action or building permit. A Tree Protection Plan has been submitted as part of the application in order to protect the three large trees along the front of the property as well as the Pine tree on the adjacent property to the east. The plan identifies the Tree Protection Measures required in 18.61.200 B. All tree protection measures will be installed prior to any construction and a Tree Verification Permit obtained in accordance with Chapter 18.61.042. No development activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation or demolition work will occur without the protection measures in place. Protection measures will only be removed after completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. Page 23 of 23 87 88 3'-3" // // 2:55 10'-0"42'-10" 9'-0"4'-0" 6'-5" 1/2" 1/2"9'-0 PROPOSED 32'-6" 20'-0" 16'-0" SLOPEROOF 2:57 24'-0" 22'-0" 1/2"6'-0 PROPOSED SLOPEROOF 8'-0" SLOPE SLOPE SLOPEROOF 24'-0" 4'-0" PROPOSED 8'-0" 47#!EFDJEVPVT 16'-0" 4'-0"5'-0" 46'-0" PORCHEXISTING 2:59/3 S Y C C W 2:59/9 V EXISTING PARKING D R PROPOSED Y R I A SPACE W H S V 29#!QJOF D R . P P 2:62/1 1231 // 2:62/5 // 2:61/9 4'-0"5'-0" 15'-0" !EFDJEVPVT ..L P @ FENCE6'-0" . S.H4030. FXD3020. FXD3020 DW 6068 2468 4668 3'0" x5'0" LAUNDRY 2868 2868 3'0" x5'3" LAUNDRY 4968 2468 2868 2868 2468 4968 3'0" x5'3" LAUNDRY . FXD3020. FXD3020 XO3010 . FXD2020 XO5020 XO2010 XO5020 2468 . S.H3060 26682668 26682668 . S.H3060 . FXD2020. FXD2020 103 104 105 106 NEW BUSINESS _________________________________ Recommendation Review: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Ordinance 107 108 Planning Commission Report DATE: June 10, 2014 TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Ashland Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Recommendation Ordinance Amendments for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries PA#2014-00539 Summary The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries (Planning Action 2014-00539). The Commission held a public hearing and deliberations on the proposed amendments on May 13, 2014. Prior to the public hearing, the Commission held study sessions on March 25, April 8, and April 22. Recommendation The Commission supports allowing medical marijuana dispensaries (“dispensaries”) in the community and believes individuals purchasing medical marijuana need legal and safe retail establishments. The Commission’s primary concern is the lack of experience with and information about the impacts associated with this relatively new permitted use. While the Commission believes dispensaries should be allowed in Ashland, the Commission recommends initially using a careful approach so local experience can be established regarding the operation and impacts of dispensaries. The Planning Commission recommends allowing dispensaries in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones, and prohibiting dispensaries in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. The Commission recommends making dispensaries a “special permitted use” that must meet an objective set of standards. The Commission recommends extending the prohibition to the Downtown Design Standards Zone which includes properties located on both sides of Lithia Way, as well as the remainder of the downtown. In contrast, the C-1-D zone does not include properties abutting the north side of Lithia Way. The Commission discussed concerns about the amount of potential vehicular traffic visiting a dispensary, and particularly the impact on parking in the downtown. The special permitted use process is intended to provide clear land use requirements and a predictable planning approval process for business owners and neighbors. The special permitted use standards are intended to limit impacts to neighboring residential zones. As a special 109 - 2- permitted use, a proposed dispensary would need to be in an eligible zone and meet the following standards. Property location on a street classified as a boulevard. Hours of operation between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Enclosed in a permanent building, and no outside storage of materials. Modifications to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards, and security bars are prohibited on windows and doors. Cannot include a drive-up use. Provide for secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. Conforms to state requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries and is registered with the State. The Commission believes dispensaries are most appropriately located on the busiest boulevard streets where other high volume retail uses are located to address potential security and traffic impacts. The Commission believes that locating dispensaries on streets with high volumes and continuous traffic provides additional security and natural surveillance. In addition, the Commission discussed the potential vehicle trips generated by dispensaries and the desire to direct the traffic to the higher order boulevard streets. The projected number of vehicle trips generated by dispensaries is not available because dispensaries are a relatively new use. The special use standards regarding location, hours of operation, drive-up use prohibition, and disposal also address potential security and traffic issues raised by the public and the Commission. The requirement that dispensaries are located in permanent buildings is to ensure that dispensaries are not located in temporary or portable structures. The requirement that the building meet the Site Design and Use Standards is to ensure that structures housing dispensaries look like other retail uses in Ashland. Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us 110 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.40.030, AND 18.52.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS A SPECIAL PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL (C- 1), EMPLOYMENT (E-1), AND INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICTS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. boldlined throughbold underline Deletions are and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3460 in 2013 (ORS 475.314) which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities; and WHEREAS , under Oregon law, local governments may regulate the operation and location of certain types of businesses within their jurisdiction limits except when such action has been specifically preempted by state statute; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined it is necessary to establish rules and regulations permitting medical marijuana dispensaries as a new land use within the City and minimizing the potential impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code on May 13, 2014, , and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on June 17, 2014 and, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 1 WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the public health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, that the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.08 \[Definitions\] is hereby amended to include the following new definition: SECTION 18.08.486 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Any facility registered by the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 475.300 to 475.346 that dispenses marijuana pursuant to ORS 475.314. SECTION 3. Section 18.32.025\[C-1 Retail Commercial District Special : Permitted Uses\] is hereby amended to read as follows SECTION 18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A.Commercial laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishments. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B.Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. If parking areas are located within 200' of a residential district, they shall be shielded from residences by a fence or solid vegetative screen a minimum of 4' in height. C.Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities. These uses may only be located in the Freeway Overlay District as shown on the official zoning map. D.Residential uses. 1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 2 purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District. 4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District. 5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. E.Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses are defined as any establishment which by design, physical facilities, service or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods other than automobile fuel, or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicles. The components of a drive-up use include kiosks, canopies or other structures; windows; stalls; queuing lanes and associated driveways. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only, and only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The four existing non-conforming financial institution drive-up use in operation in the Historic Interest Area as of August 7, 2012 may redevelop or relocate within the C-1 and C-1-D zoned portions of Ashland Historic Interest Area subject to the following requirements: a. Relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use within the C-1 or C-1-D zoned portions of the Historic Interest Area shall be subject to a Type II Site Review procedure as a Special Permitted Use. b. Relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses may only be placed on a secondary building elevation, and only accessed from an alley or or rear elevation which does not face a street, other than an alley. c. Driveways serving relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses shall not enter from or exit to a higher order street frontage or through a primary elevation of the building, and driveways or queuing lanes shall be not placed between a building and the right-of-way other than an alley. d. No demolition of or exterior change to a building considered to be a historic resource shall be permitted to accommodate the relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use. e. Regardless of the number of drive-up windows/lanes in use in the current location, with a relocation or remodel the number of windows/lanes shall be reduced to one (1). 3. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: a. The average waiting time in line for each vehicle shall not exceed five minutes. Failure to maintain this average waiting time may be grounds for revocation of the approval. b. All facilities providing drive-up service shall provide at least two designated parking spaces immediately beyond the service window or An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 3 provide other satisfactory methods to allow customers requiring excessive waiting time to receive service while parked. c. A means of egress for vehicular customers who wish to leave the waiting line shall be provided. d. The grade of the stacking area to the drive-up shall either be flat or downhill to eliminate excessive fuel consumption and exhaust during the wait in line. e. The drive-up shall be designed to provide as much natural ventilation as possible to eliminate the buildup of exhaust gases. f. Sufficient stacking area shall be provided to ensure that public rights-of- way are not obstructed. g. The sound level of communications systems shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line and shall otherwise comply with the Ashland Municipal Code regarding sound levels. h. The number of drive-up uses shall not exceed the 12 in existence on July 1, 1984. Drive-up uses may be transferred to another location in accord with all requirements of this section. The number of drive-up window stalls shall not exceed 1 per location, even if the transferred use had greater than one stall. i. - the transfer of any drive-up use when such transfer is not associated with a Site Review or Conditional Use permit application in order to formally document transfer of the use. j. Drive-up uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer shall be deemed to have expired after unused for six (6) months. Discontinuation of a drive-up use is considered to have occurred when the drive-up use is documented as having ceased on site through a ministerial, Site Review or Conditional Use permit review, or upon on-site verification by the Staff Advisor. k. All components of a drive-up use shall be removed within sixty (60) days of discontinuation of the use through abandonment, transfer, relocation or redevelopment. F. Kennel and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. G. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary must be located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, except that such use is not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards zone. 2. Operating hours must be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary must not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary exterior refuse containers. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 4 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under under ORS 475.300 ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 4. Section 18.40.030 030 \[E-1 Employment District Special Permitted Uses\] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to 7am where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not l D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use E. Residential uses. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zoning map, and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of fof a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 5 H. Cold Storage Plants, residential district. I. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall of a residential district. J. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary must be located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. 2. Operating hours must be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary must not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products must not be placed within the dispensary exterior refuse containers. 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the ical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 5. Section 18.52.020 \[M-1 Industrial District Permitted Uses\] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.52.020 Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale or storage use. B. Railroad yards and freight stations, trucking and motor freight stations and facilities. C. Public and public utility service buildings, structures and uses. Permitted, special permitted andCc D. onditional uses in the Employment District 18.40.020, listed in Section 18.40.030 and 18.40.040 of this Chapter, except Medical marijuana dispensaries must meet the special use residential uses. requirements of 18.40.030.J. E. Building materials sales yards. F. Permitted uses in the Employment District listed in Section 18.40/020 of this Chapter. SECTION 6.Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 6 SECTION 8.Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross- references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _____day of ______________, 2014, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2014. _______________________________ Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014. ___________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney G:\\legal\\COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS - Drafts\\2014 Council Items\\June 17, 2014\\2014-05-13_Medical Marijuana Dispensaries_DRAFT ORDINANCE (2) .docx An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 7 evA niat nuo M . N