Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-11 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 MARCH 11, 2008 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:OO PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes: 1. February 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes 2. February 26, 2008 Study Session Minutes V.PUBLIC FORUM VITYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION #: PA-2008-00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 201 Mountain Av S APPLICANT: Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture AIA / School District #5 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 19,375 square foot auxiliary gym and music suite addition on the Ashland High School campus located at 201 South Mountain Avenue. The application proposes demolition of the existing 10,800 square foot auxiliary gym building and of the 5,600 square foot music suite; renovation of the 22,024 square foot main gym building; and a reconfiguration of the parking area located to the east of the existing gym building. The application also requires a Variance to the required sideyard setback along South Mountain Avenue; the applicants propose to construct a ramp, stairs and landings to the property line where a minimum ten-foot sideyard MAP & TAX LOTS: ZONING: setback is required. 39 1E 09DA & 09AD Tax Lots #:100 and 6200;R-2; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family Residential 1. Adoption of Findings B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 500 Strawberry Lane APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura DESCRIPTION: Request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING:ASSESSOR’S MAP Rural Residential; RR-.5-P; #:TAX LOT: 39 1E 08 AC; 201 1. Adoption of Findings 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). 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. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. OTHER IX. 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). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair John Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, Council Liaison, absent due to quasi- Michael Dawkins judicial items Mike Morris Olena Black John Fields Pam Marsh Melanie Mindlin Staff Present: Tom Dimitre, arrived at 7:10 p.m. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Derek Severson, Associate Planner Absent Members: Dave Dotterrer, excused Sue Yates, Executive Secretary – There were no announcements. 2.ANNOUNCEMENTS 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add to the agenda the following: 1.Announce amendments to the Planning Commission Rules 2.Powers and Duties – Report from Stromberg and discussion 3.Approval of Findings from today’s Hearings Board. Dimitre/Marsh m/s to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. 4.CONSENT AGENDA Marsh/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting and the January 22, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session. Voice Vote: Approved. 5.AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RULES Molnar announced the Planning Commission is amending the Planning Commission Rules. The amendments have been distributed to the Commissioners this evening in order to have 14 days prior to consideration for adoption. The amendments are scheduled for adoption at the Planning Commission Study Session on Tuesday, February 26, 2008. The amendments are available to the public at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building at 51 Winburn Way. 6.ADOPTION OF HEARINGS BOARD FINDINGS Fields/Mindlin m/s to approve the Findings for PA2007-02104, 1725 and 1729 Siskiyou Boulevard, Behnam Mehmanpazir. Voice Vote: Fields, Mindlin and Stromberg (Hearings Board members) approved. 7.PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. CONTINUATION OF: PLANNING ACTION: 2007-01941 ADDRESS: 1070 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD APPLICANT: OgdenRoemerWilkerson Architecture AIA DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct an approximately 52,163 square foot elementary school on the Bellview School site located at 1070 Tolman Creek Road. Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit Morris had another site visit and talked to Superintendent of Schools, Juli DeChiro about some design features that are not under the Planning Commission’s purview. Black got a phone call from Huelz stating the wording she should have used at the last meeting was “zero net energy” regarding the buildings. Mindlin received a call suggesting an underground walkway under Tolman Creek Road for pedestrians. Stromberg and Dawkins had a site visit but no ex parte contacts. Dimitre, Marsh and Fields had no site visit and no ex parte contact. There were no challenges of bias or conflict of interest. STAFF REPORT Severson showed a 1967 photo of the site and the filling of the athletic field. A recap of the issues included: The Staff recommendation for limiting the automobile circulation to one-way. Bike circulation and bike parking. Coordinating the pedestrian and bicycle circulation to the existing crosswalks. Since the last meeting, the applicants have withdrawn their request for a Variance to bicycle parking. They have submitted a revised overall site circulation plan that shows more bike parking better distributed throughout the site. Severson has presented a new set of Findings that removes that Variance. Another change is Condition 6-I that refers to an access easement from the Grange. The Grange and School District are still in negotiations to determine how access will work. Condition 6-I will read that the applicants will provided limited legal access whether through an easement or through some kind of property purchase or other arrangement. The site plan also shows a “right-out” option plan for the south driveway to allow a right turn only movement. Jim Olson, City Engineer, felt taking one turning movement out of that area should be sufficient. th Severson continued that since the last meeting, the Historic Commission reviewed the application at their February 6 meeting. They recommended the central mass be downplayed to enhance its connection and transition to the historic building through embellishment, architectural detail and color. They are not looking for structural modification of the building, but they wanted to see some embellishments that would downplay the central mass. The Historic Commission recommendations are included in the record. Since the last meeting, Staff was recommending that the recent sidewalk installed by ODOT be extended through the bus loop. The applicants indicated that two additional trees will need to be removed. PUBLIC HEARING DAVID WILKERSON, OgdenRoemerWilkerson, 2950 E.. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504 and JIM CONWAY, DLR Group, 421 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1212, Portland, OR. WILKERSON explained the two-way drives. They wanted to make a clear separation between the different types of traffic. They got feedback from Jim Olson and the Bike Commission. They now have a clear separation between vehicular, bike and bus traffic as shown on the site plan. They are planning to eliminate the curb on the inside of the bus loop to avoid going down 15 inches into the tree root zone. The driveway sheds water to the outer edge. They are discussing the idea of narrowing the bus loop to 20 feet and still meeting the Fire Department requirements and allow buses to pass each other. The end result would keep them six feet further away from the root zone. Wilkerson explained the building design and materials. To meet the Historic Commission’s concerns, they are developing a two to three part color scheme. By using color, they can minimize the appearance of the new building. They want the connecting piece to fade into the background. By using different materials, they will have more flexibility. Wilkerson explained that one tree will be removed because it is in the bus loop and the other is tight on the curb, therefore both will need to be removed. They will mitigate by planting more trees. GREG COVEY, Covey Pardee Landscape Architects, 295 E. Main Street, Suite 8, explained the two additional trees to be removed are trees #12A to allow entry to the drive to be constructed and tree #58 that will be removed to allow for extension of the sidewalk to the corner. Dimitre is concerned about the vehicle turning movements and wondered how many vehicles now use the drive and how many they anticipate using it after construction. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 JULI DICHIRO, Superintendent of Schools, 885 Siskiyou Boulevard , said they do not anticipate an increase in students and by putting the buses on Siskiyou should reduce the net traffic impact. Marsh asked if the automobile turnaround is wide enough for two lanes of cars. Wilkerson affirmed. JIM TEECE, 864 Neil Creek Road, is the parent of a fifth grader at Bellview. He has served on planning committee for the Bellview project. Prior to that he served as co-chair for the bond project and has served on at least two other committees. He shares his support of the process and the plan. Black recalled when the bond issue came along, there was a lot of discussion about energy efficiency and she got the idea there would be some zero net energy. She wondered why the building doesn’t seem to have solar and other energy efficiencies. Teece said energy efficiency was one of the primary concerns they carried forward and has always been a priority. Black asked about CPAC – what is it? He said a citizen group will help oversee all projects going on under the bond. RENEE GARDENER, 808 Summit Avenue, Medford, OR, has been teaching for 19 years at Bellview Elementary. As one of the longer employed staff members at Bellview, she felt a need to make sure Bellview retained some of its “Bellview-ness” as they built the new school. They had three days of input from the entire staff. The staff unanimously agreed that a view of the space and mountains was really important to them. CHRISTINE MCCOLLUM, Principal of Bellview, 539 Clay Street, explained how their citizens committee came to be and some of the criteria for building. The process was open to public and families. They built a committee of 11 with a balanced group of people. Every aspect of the design was approached with teaching as the number one criteria. The other priorities were sustainability, green practices, balancing longevity with using more earth friendly resources, healthier choices with regard to paint, carpet, etc., were also factors. They chose a lot of materials based on those criteria. They added solar water heating and some other options that were added later. INGRID HANSEN, 115 Reiten Drive, said she has taught at Bellview for 13 years. She has been very impressed with all the avenues of input that all of the staff has been given from day one until the present. With regard to the east facing windows, in her experience she would much prefer the east facing windows that give light and air to the classrooms to a room with few to no windows. . HOWARD BARASH, President of the Bellview Grange, 1050 Tolman Creek Road (resides at 845 Valley View Road and SUSIE AUFDERHEIDE, 321 N. Mountain Avenue, Apt. A. BARASH said the Grange is here to support local economy, agriculture, environmental sustainability, and community. He read the letter from the Grange that he entered into the record dated February 11, 2008. They determined that a perpetual easement through their property is not in the best interest of the Grange and the community they serve. AUFDERHEIDE said they received two proposals today from the School District. Barash said they will continue to work toward a solution to the driveway easement that will be in the best interest of all parties. Severson said the existing drive and the proposed relocated drive are located on the Grange property. He said Condition 6-I has been included in the Findings that states before a building permit is issued, Staff would have to have evidence they have a right to legal access. MAT MARR, 31 Union Street, is Chair of the Ashland School Board, Representative from the School Board to the Bellview Site Design Committee, and School Board Representative to the Executive Oversight Committee. The proposal is a culmination of a significant community process that began many years ago with the Bond Committee. From the very beginning, the Bond Committee made a top priority to make their projects as efficient and sustainable as possible. Specifically, when they were giving recommendations of how much to spend at each sight, the Bond Committee agreed to add ten percent to the overall budget at Bellview Elementary to make it as efficient a building as possible. Not just for altruistic reasons but also for educational purposes. In addition to the many efficiencies built into the Bellview design, the School Board added $1 million to their sustainability budgets throughout the district. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Rebuttal – DiChiro said they began negotiations with the Grange some time ago. They have a legal opinion that they have both an implied easement and a prescriptive easement that they could go to, but their interest is to find a mutual agreeable solution with the current Grange board. They are more than willing to look for a garden plot that would meet the Grange’s needs. They have not submitted any offers to the Grange. Today they gave them the appraisals of the property for both the section of land they would need for the driveway and for the whole portion of the land. They have so many common interests with the Grange that they feel they can come to a resolution. To clarify a budget item DiChiro said not only did they put an extra ten percent into this budget, but the Board also set aside $1 million in interest earnings from their bond investments also for sustainable solutions. Stromberg closed the public hearing and closed the record. Questions of Staff – Severson said there is a Condition addressing the requirements for legal access. Marsh asked if the access substantially changes, would that change require approval at the Staff level or would that need to come back to the Commission. Molnar said if a change to the circulation occurs it could require an amendment. It would come back to the Commission unless the Commission provides for some flexibility in the Condition, allowing Staff to make changes. It would still require public notice, but it could be done at the Staff level. Severson noted that the Tree Commission reviewed the uphill side of the driveway where the curb has been eliminated. They and Engineering were supportive. The Tree Commission said they would like the applicants to look at other innovative treatments as included in the Tree Commission recommendations that have been included in the record. With regard to the Historic Commission comments, the applicants have indicated they are willing to work on modifying the central mass with some color embellishments and texture. There is a Condition that states that all recommendations of the Historic Commission from their two meetings will ultimately go back to the Historic Commission Review Board to make sure the changes the applicants have made will meet the intent of the original condition. COMMISSIONERS’ DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION Marsh said she is comfortable placing any modifications to the driveway circulation in the hands of Staff. If the applicants do need to make some minor changes in circulation, those changes would normally be under Staff’s advisement anyway. If there are any significant changes, she trusts Staff will forward them to the Commission. Fields agreed. Severson explained with regard to the Historic Commission’s recommendations, they would like to be sure that the original window design or proportion is maintained. He said the February recommendations supersede the January comments from the Historic Commission. Molnar said if the applicants make any changes beyond what has been discussed in the record, that is where the Staff Advisor makes the final call. They are asking that the applicants look at subtle non-structural changes. Morris/Fields m/s to approve PA2007-01941 including all the Conditions provided by Staff. Black is disappointed that there is nothing in the Findings that gives any indication of what the applicants have done with regard to providing for future solar panels. Stromberg reminded Black that Condition 1 states that all proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. Black did not see anything in the packet with regard to this. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. Adoption of Findings – The Findings need a slight modification relative to removal of the two additional trees. Black/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for PA2007-01941 with the language change to 6D 3) “Identification of the ‘seven’ trees…” PUBLIC FORUM – Stromberg called Fred Caruso to speak. No one came forward. PLANNING ACTION: PA2008-00053 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 201 S. Mountain Avenue OWNER/APPLICANT: OgdenRoemerWilkersonaarchitecture AIA/School District #5 DESCRIPTION: Request for site review approval to construct an approximately 19,375 square foot auxiliary gym and music suite addition on the Ashland High School Campus located at 201 S. MOUNTAIN AVENUE. The application proposes demolition of the existing 10,800 square foot auxiliary gym building and of the 5,600 square foot music suite; renovation of the 22,024 square foot ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 4 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 main gym building; and a reconfiguration of the parking area located to the east of the existing gym building. The application also requires a variance to the required sideyard setback along S. Mountain Avenue; the applicants propose to construct a ramp, stairs and landings to the property line where a minimum ten-foot sideyard setback is required. Severson said after reviewing this application, Staff did not feel it was complete enough to recommend approval, and felt the most expeditious way to process this application is to have an evidentiary hearing tonight, allow the public to speak and allow time for the Commissioners to ask questions of the applicants and then continue the hearing to the March 11, 2008 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Ex Parte Contact/Bias/Conflict of Interest/Site Visit Marsh passes by the high school frequently. Her daughter was a member of the design committee last spring, so she heard about it over dinner. Her daughter has since gone away to college. Stromberg had no ex parte contacts but has had site visits. Dawkins has had a few site visits but no ex parte contacts. He graduated from Ashland High School. Morris also graduated from AHS; he’s worked on the stadium and has attended a lot of sporting events. He had no ex parte contacts. Black’s daughter was a student at AHS and Black was on campus daily. Her daughter was an active participant in activities from 2002 to 2007 within the buildings that are under consideration. Black was also in these buildings at least once a month for choir activities. She had firsthand experience with the ADA facility or lack thereof in the current buildings. She also noticed a significant amount of mold in the music rooms. She said at two of the performance she attended, the school staff suggested that they would have a scenic design area for the theater. Mindlin has driven by the site frequently. She had no ex parte contacts. Fields had no ex parte contacts and is familiar with the building. Dimitre had no site visit and no ex parte contacts. There were no challenges for bias or conflict of interest. STAFF REPORT Severson outlined the elements of the application that need to be better addressed by the applicant. 1.No Variance has been requested and no written findings in support of the Variance have been provided. The application requires a sideyard Variance along S. Mountain Avenue and this was not addressed in the application. 2.The plans provided were limited to the portion of the campus that they were proposing to disturb. A site plan including buildings, landscaping, parking and circulation has not been provided. 3.Lot coverage is addressed only in terms of the gross building area footprint for all buildings. Nothing was addressed concerning all other impervious surfaces. 4.The findings do not identify the existing number of auto and bike parking spaces provided on site and do not include the stadium, the most significant public assembly space on campus. Staff is recommending the application be continued after the hearing tonight until the March 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Severson explained the setback requirements require the yard from the ground up to be unobstructed. Adjacent to a public street, a ten foot sideyard has to be provided from the property line to the first obstruction. Things that don’t count as structures are anything under 18 inches high or a fence. PUBLIC HEARING DAVID WILKERSON, OgdenRoemerWilkerson, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504 and JIM CONWAY, DLR Group, 421 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1212, Portland, OR WILKERSON explained the two components of the project: the renovation of the existing main gym and the replacement of the auxiliary gym with a new auxiliary gym. The standards don’t specifically address the Variance required for the sideyard setback along Mountain Avenue. In terms of overall site development, they are decreasing the amount of impervious area on the site and increasing the amount of landscaping. They will create a new public entrance on Mountain Avenue. Due to the height of the floor, it requires a ramp (or stairs) into a new lobby. The lobby will serve as an entrance to games in the gym. The lobby can be entered by stairs or ramp. One elevation addresses the Site Review standard that buildings have their primary orientation to the street. The proximity of the existing building to the street is the driving need for a Variance. The raised plaza and the elements above it are the elements that will require a Variance. The applicants believe the difference between the existing floor elevation and the existing sidewalk grade is not self-imposed. There is nothing about this that will have a negative impact on adjacent developments. The flat roof over the boiler will be covered over to create new spaces for the music department. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 5 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 CONWAY said the critical thing they were challenged with on Mountain Avenue was to retain the entrance on Mountain and provide accessibility to the front with the height elevation of seven feet from the street to the floor. In order to get accessibility to the front door, they took advantage of the slope of Mountain Avenue and joined the sidewalk creating the plinth along the front. Wilkerson said they have a revised site plan showing street trees clustered in the front (nine street trees). The Tree commission requested the elm tree be removed. One of the things not currently included in the project is a black box theater. Conway said they are looking at other spaces on campus that could serve that function. KEN OGDEN, ORW Architecture, 2950 E. Barnett Road, Medford, OR 97504, said there is a black box theater but it is going to be converted to the scene shop. Dawkins asked about the main entrance on Mountain Avenue. Since a lot of parking happens to be on the west side of the building, will the alley between the theater and the gym be fixed up? Wilkerson said they will be moving some of the existing landscaping that isn’t appropriate. Black wondered if it was going to be a problem to use the existing foundation for the walls of the main theater or will that wall be rebuilt? If they run into water/mold issues on the foundation, what will it take to revise or renovate it? Ogden said the method of removing water will be with foundation drains. Black had concerns about access and a sense of entrance to the music rooms. Wilkerson said the entrance to the music rooms will be through the lobby. KATE KENNEDY, Poplar Place, 495 Poplar Place, said she has taught for 18 years. She has been involved in the charrette process, the bond committee, and CPAC committee. In this process there has been a lot of give and take and sharing ideas. The school staff felt that they came together and found solutions. Kennedy noted that the heating and air conditioning of the high school has been a huge problem in the past. Part of the project is to solve this issue. JEFF SCHLECT, 489 Friendship Street , talked about the process. This has been an extremely inclusive process. Schlect believes the students will still use the north gym entrance. But for community spectators, they can still park on Morse, use Titus Alley, and the Iowa Street parking lot. The current entrance will remain open as well as the Mountain entrance. He said the foyer doors on Mountain might be closed during the day. TONY SHELTON, 121 Meade Street, stated his two kids attend AHS. He was happy to have been included in the process. It started with the charrette in the fall of 2006. It was an orderly, cooperative process and he believes everyone was pretty comfortable with it. DAHNA BLACK, 2976 Grizzly Drive, said she is an AHS student. She has been part of CPAC and the design team. The architects were open and flexible from the beginning. Through the cooperation of the committee, it was really interesting to see everything come together after almost falling apart several times. As a student, she was really excited to be part of the collaborative effort. The final product will be beneficial for years to come. Staff Response – Severson said they are in a residential zone trying to apply criteria that are either residential or commercial to a public building. Black asked for more legible drawings in their next packet. GREG COVEY, Covey Pardee Landscape Architecture, 295 E. Main Street, #8, said they are taking the main entrance to the gym and splitting it into a ramped entry from the south edge (five percent ramp). The width goes from about seven-and-a-half feet to12 feet, far exceeding the code requirement. The reason is to soften the front plinth with some planting material below and at the same time allow pedestrians in the gym entrance to come in through either side. There is a second entry to the choir room. There is an additional accessible entry to main floor of the gym. The next time, they would like present a diagram and look at primary and secondary entrances as well as accessible entrances. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Dawkins/Fields m/s to continue the public hearing to March 11, 2008 at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street. Roll Call: The motion carried unanimously. Black/Dimitre m/s to extend the meeting to10:15 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION POWERS AND DUTIES th Stromberg stated that after most of the Planning Commissioners had left the Council Study Session on February 4, he was startled to learn that Martha Bennett, City Administrator was taking the re-write of the Powers and Duties (2.12 of the Ashland th . That document is in front of the Commissioners tonight. Municipal Code) to the next Council meeting on February 19 Stromberg intervened and asked if the Planning Commission could have a chance to digest the re-write and make a recommendation to the Council. Stromberg and Dotterrer felt the Council re-write had not lost the essence of what the Planning Commission was asking for initially. They felt the concern of the Council regarding the somewhat provocative language submitted originally to them by the Planning Commission was legitimate. Stromberg and Dotterrer reviewed the document with Bennett today via conference call. The three of them are all on the same page with the exception of Section 4.B.5. The Council will review the ordinance th changes on March 4. Marsh said if the items concerning sustainability in Section 4.B.5. are detailed in the Comprehensive Plan, then we don’t need them in the Powers and Duties. The Powers and Duties should be about what we do, not what values we hold. Mindlin said we originally had a list of various types of activities. When sustainability was part of the whole list, it made sense. We got rid of the rest of the list and now sustainability stands out like a sore thumb. There was some question about the state planning goals (ORS 227.090). Stromberg said the Planning Commission is authorized to work on any of the issues that are in the Comprehensive Plan. There are chapters in the Comp Plan that pertain to sustainability, environmental quality, housing and economy. Black believes we are revising our current Comprehensive Plan methodology. Therefore, Stromberg asked if Molnar would call John Renz from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)to see if this ordinance has to go to the state for acknowledgement. Stromberg noted a change was made to 2.12.010 that would read as follows: “There is created a City Planning Commission of nine (9) members, to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, to serve without compensation, not more than two (2) of who may reside outside the City limits and within the area six (6) miles adjacent thereto.” This would match the original state language. Marsh/Fields m/s to approve the document with the changes as suggested by Stromberg and Dotterrer. And eliminate the language to Section 4.B.5. Black amended the motion to get confirmation from John Renz that we won’t have to have an acknowledgement to make this change. Marsh and Fields accepted the amendment. Mindlin and Dimitre preferred the unchanged wording under Section 4.B.5. because the language was more explicit. Stromberg reiterated that the Commission will still have the power to act on that list under the newer language. Black/Dimitre ms to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Approved. Dawkins said he too feels strongly about sustainability. However, he is comfortable eliminating the language knowing implicitly that we can still do those items that are listed. He is ready to simplify this and get it off our plate. Roll Call: The motion carried with Fields, Black, Mindlin, Stromberg, Dawkins, Marsh, and Morris voting “yes” and Dimitre voting “no.” 10.ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted by, Susan Yates, Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 12, 2008 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair John Stromberg at 7:05 p.m. at the Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: John Stromberg, Chair Cate Hartzell, present Michael Dawkins Pam Marsh Staff Present: Mike Morris Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Dave Dotterrer Richard Appicello, City Attorney Absent Members: Sue Yates, Executive Secretary John Fields Tom Dimitre 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Stromberg asked to add to the agenda a discussion item concerning the upcoming retreat in May. Dotterrer/Dawkins m/s to approve the amended agenda. Voice Vote: Approved. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS Stromberg noted that Olena Black’s resignation was received, effective immediately. Marsh said she is representing the Planning Commission on the SDC (Systems Development Charge) Committee that has now begun meeting. Her agenda will be to look for ways in which the SDC structure could be used to further land use goals. Marsh talked about the activities that are underway in response to the recent tragic death that occurred on Siskiyou Boulevard. There is going to be a joint meeting of the Bike and Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commissions. She believes that anything engineered for pedestrian safety is critical to land use decisions. If our idea is to build a city in which pedestrians and bicyclists bear a good brunt of the traffic, we have to make sure it is a safe experience. She hopes the Planning Commission can stay informed. Hartzell said the joint meeting Marsh referred to will be held Thursday night at the Council Chambers. She offered to forward the memo prepared by Public Works staff to the Planning Commission outlining some of their suggestions. Marsh offered to attend the meeting and report back to the Commission. 4. PUBLIC FORUM – No one came forth to speak. 5. PUBLIC ARTS MASTER PLAN PRESENTATION Ann Seltzer, Staff Liaison, introduced Commissioners Melissa Markell and David Wilkerson. Melissa Markell, Chair, Public Arts Commission, reviewed the steps they have gone through to put together the Public Arts Master Plan. Through a series of meetings and surveys, they established ten goals. David Wilkerson, Public Arts Commission member said the Master Plan is the culmination of a lot of hard work and a response to what they heard through the public process. Each goal targets the particular issues of funding, location and types of public art. The goals that will require the most collaboration with the Planning Commission are: Require a component of public art in all developments over 10,000 square feet or 100 feet in length in the Detailed Site Review Zone. They would like to make this mandatory. Collaborate and encourage the City departments, especially Public Works and the Parks Department to incorporate functional pieces such as benches, sidewalks, other public works streetscape type items. Seek changes to the sign code ordinance to allow for murals. They want to allow for more public art that could go onto private property. Wilkerson indicated there are policies, procedures and parameters they will use in reviewing projects. A community panel will be established based on each individual project to select the art. Appicello interjected that the Planning Commission works with the sign code as a land development regulation. Under State law the Planning Commission can exempt city projects from land development regulations. What will probably come forward to the Planning Commission is something that says, “If public art is formally accepted into the Ashland public art inventory through a given process, it will be exempt from the sign code ordinance.” Seltzer reminded the Commission that there is a section in the 1988 Downtown Plan on public art, identifying locations for public art. Marsh expressed her hope that they can continue to partner with the Public Arts Commission because without a doubt, public art makes a difference. She hoped the Arts Commission would consider using the full public as the jury for potential art pieces, when appropriate. Wilkerson invited any Planning Commissioner to attend their meetings Seltzer credited Carissa Moddison, an SOU student who worked with the Public Arts Commission for an entire year as her capstone project. She was invaluable resource. 6. HOUSING INCENTIVES AND REGULATORY BARRIERS Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager, explained that this item is before the Commission tonight because the Council, after reviewing the Lithia Lot housing development, questioned what incentives there are to promote the development of multi-family housing in Ashland. The Council suggested there be a joint meeting with Planning Commissioners, Housing Commissioners and City Councilors. In order for that meeting to have maximum benefit, it seemed to make sense to have each individual Commission/Council member look at the list of incentives and barriers in order to become educated prior to the joint meeting. Goldman provided a PowerPoint presentation. He said regulatory barriers are regulatory requirements that may have the impact of significantly increasing the cost of development and as a result, impeding the development of affordable housing or a needed housing type without providing a commensurate health or safety benefit. Some barriers include: 1. Insufficient land availability. 2. Density limitations. 3. Discretionary approval process subject to “NIMBY” arguments. 4. Insufficient land availability. 5 Limitations on mixed use, high density, residential development in commercial or industrial property. 6. Excessive off-street parking requirements. 7. Landscaping standards and open space. 8. Prescriptive lot sizes. 9. Land use ordinance complexity and regional inconsistencies. Goldman said housing incentives are any variety of incentives used to encourage new development and needed housing types. Additional housing incentives include: 1.If higher residential density permitted for needed housing types. 2.Increase in land supply availability for needed housing types. 3.Tax exemptions for affordable housing. 4.Tax exemptions for multi-family housing 5.Fee waivers. 6.Provide city owned land or airspace for needed housing types. 7.Direct financial assistance. a.Grants (local, state federal) b.Loans (low interest) Goldman said this is a list to begin the conversation as to what incentives could be flushed out further in the joint Council/Planning/Housing meeting. The meeting has not yet been scheduled. Dotterrer wondered if Goldman had considered bringing together a group of developers, including out-of-town developers who do business in the valley, and asking them about their thoughts and concerns. For example, what would it take for them to come to Ashland to build a multi-family house? Morris agreed developers should be part of the discussion. Mindlin commented that our tendency is to confuse the public and private when talking about affordable housing. We assume private land can be developed just as the way we like regardless of the desires of the owners. In terms of the list of incentives, she would like to get it down to our local level. Some items don’t pertain to us. The biggest thing for Mindlin as we deal with affordable housing is where is the real financial analysis that will tell us whether a particular policy that we pursue is going to pay off in terms of what developers or non-profits can or cannot do. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 2 STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Stromberg asked if Dotterrer would bring to the next meeting a proposal for a committee of the Planning Commission to invite developers together in preparation for the upcoming joint meeting. Dotterrer agreed and thought getting private and non-profit financial analyses would be helpful. This item will go on our agenda when Dotterrer is ready. Marsh thought we should be clear about our definition of multi-family. Are we looking only at those limited pockets of rental and affordable or is the concern much broader in terms of multi-family development with smaller units and smaller yards? She is interested in the broader look too. Goldman said initially it was looking at an affordable housing development but asking the broader question, “Why aren’t we having apartments built as rentals?” Perhaps there could be some clarity as to the needed housing types at the joint meeting. Harris said the direction Staff received from the City Council was to prepare this general list, and the next step is to take it to the session. It seems a little early to start doing a lot of research and analysis on all of the items on the list until the joint session occurs. At that point, we should receive direction from Council on what areas to focus on. Hartzell thought it would be helpful if Staff would give some suggestions for the type of criteria that we’ll listen and talk about at the joint meeting. It is challenging to figure out how we talk about it without more information. If we could add the additional information to the presentation when it comes before the joint meeting, that would help inform the discussion. 7. MEASURE 49 TRANSFEROF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Richard Appicello, City Attorney, explained the transfer of development rights. It is just a tool to preserve something you want to preserve and transferring that development density and intensity to areas where it is more appropriate to develop. This has come up because Measure 49 expressly provides in Section 11 that there may be an agreement between a county and city to transfer development rights from rural areas to other areas. He referred to ORS 271.715, Sections 5-11. Everything under Sections 5-11 is permitted to be transferred. Example: A farmer living in the county has one house and under a Measure 49 claim that allows up to ten units. The farmer wants to sell nine pieces, but he’d be looking at nine houses. Or, the farmer could sell the nine pieces and they would be located someplace in the city or UGB wherever the city would deem them appropriate, and the farmer can still live on his farm and look at the farm instead of nine units. There is a restriction put on the farmer’s property in order to preserve what is there. In the county there has to be an area that’s designated where the density can be transferred from and in the city there has to be a receptor zone Marsh applauded Appicello for doing this. This is a real opportunity for the City to take on some of the responsibility of keeping some our rural lands uncluttered. 8. I-5 VISITOR’S INFORMATION CENTER UPDATE Harris said this item went to City Council last week. ODOT is proposing a new visitor’s center located off the northbound lanes of I-5 (near radio towers and Crowson Road). ODOT has already acquired the property and now they are trying to get it approved. The public hearing before the County Commissioners will be held at 9:00 a.m. Thursday, February 28th.at the Jackson County Courthouse. The proposal is to build a whole new visitor’s center/rest stop. It will be a little more involved than the standard rest stop because it has a visitor’s center that will serve as the gateway to Oregon. There will be a State Police substation incorporated in one of the buildings. The stop will not be for truck traffic. Trucks will have to go to the Port of Entry between the two Ashland exits. They hope to have the project built by the summer of 2009. 9. RETREAT IN MAY Stromberg asked the Commissioners to look at their calendars to find an available Saturday in May for the Planning Commission retreat. What would be a good way of using their time together? Assuming the Council approves their Powers and Duties, that document would create a framework for discussion. They can look at the categories and within those they could look at what they can do in the coming year. E-mail Sue with your available Saturdays. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION – March 25 th th This item will be on the March 11 agenda. Several Commissioners will be gone for this meeting. There will be two Croman Mill Redevelopment workshops the prior week. 11. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sue Yates Executive Secretary ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION 3 STUDY SESSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Findings ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT March 11, 2008 PLANNING ACTION: 2008-00182 APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura LOCATION: 500 Strawberry Lane 39 1E 08 AC Tax Lot #201 ZONE DESIGNATION: RR-.5-P COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: March 3, 2008 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: July 1, 2008 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.16 R-R Rural Residential District 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.62 Physical & Environmental Constraints 18.88 Performance Standards Options REQUEST : Planning Action #2008-00182 is a request for Outline Plan Approval to allow a six- lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six- inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. I.Relevant Facts A.Background - History of Application There are no other planning actions of record for this site since its creation by land partition in 2004. B.Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site The subject property is located at 500 Strawberry Lane, on the southwest corner of the intersection of Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road. The project site comprises a single irregularly shaped tax lot which covers an area of approximately 4.62 acres, and which has Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 1 of 17 approximately 170 feet of frontage along Strawberry Lane and 935 feet of frontage on Hitt Road. The subject parcel and surrounding properties to the north, east and west are located in the R-R-.5-P Rural Residential zoning district, which is intended to stabilize and protect the rural residential characteristics of areas which because of their topography, level of services, or other natural or development factors are better suited to larger lots. The area to the south is zoned W-R Woodland Residential, a zone applied to ensure that the forest, environmental erosion control, and scenic values of the area are protected. The entire subject property is also located within the Wildfire Lands overlay. The subject property has an average slope of approximately 18 percent down to the north, toward Strawberry Lane, but includes a range of slopes from zero to 40 percent. The steeper portions of the site are along the roadside at the north and east of the site and at the south end, with heavily wooded areas on the southern portion of the property having slopes in excess of 35 percent. The northern two-thirds of the site has slopes which are generally less than 25 percent. An existing house, constructed by the applicants in 2002, sits near the center of the property, and is accessed via a driveway from Strawberry Lane. The primary natural features of the site are the existing trees, which include a mix of scrub oak, pine, manzanita and madrone, and the sloped areas on the southern third of the site, which include lands considered to have “severe constraints” to development under the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter AMC 18.62 because they have slopes in excess of 35 percent. The application includes a report on the suitability of the site for development from a geo-technical expert and a tree inventory prepared by a certified arborist which identifies 72 trees on the site which are of size six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger. The application also indicates that there are numerous other smaller trees on the site. Outline Plan Proposal The applicants are requesting Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter AMC 18.88. Of the proposed six lots, one would contain the existing residence, four would accommodate future homes, and one at the most steeply-sloped south end of the site would be reserved as common open space. The application materials indicate that the subdivision was planned to limit cuts and fills, minimize hillside erosion, and limit the mass of the homes constructed on the site. Lot 1 is proposed at ½-acre and is to be located at the northeast corner of the site. It is to take access via a private driveway from Strawberry Lane. Lot 2, also proposed at ½-acre, is to be located south of Lot 1, and is proposed to take access from a private driveway off of Hitt Road. Lot 3, comprising approximately 0.68 acres is to be located at the northwestern portion of the subject property and will take access from the existing driveway off of Strawberry Lane. Lot 4 is proposed at 1.42 acres, and is to contain the existing residence; the existing driveway connection to Strawberry Lane is to be terminated, and a new driveway off of Hitt Road is proposed. Lot 5 will be located to the south of Lot 4, and is proposed at one-acre with access from a new driveway off of Hitt Road. The existing gate at the south end of Hitt Road is to be relocated approximately 40 feet to the south to Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 2 of 17 accommodate this new driveway. Lot 6 is proposed at 0.54 acres and is to be preserved as common open space for the benefit of subdivision residents and to protect the more steeply sloped areas of the subject property from the impacts of development. The application not only identifies building envelopes for each of the proposed lots on lands with slopes of less than 35 percent, as required by ordinance, but also provides some conceptual indications of the proposed future building footprints within the proposed envelopes. The materials provided explain that the applicants have made efforts to accommodate the wishes of the neighbor at 490 Strawberry Lane by placing the envelope on Lot 1 in a way that preserves the existing view, and propose to limit the height of future buildings within the proposed subdivision so as to preserve their views while limiting their visual impact on the hillside. Existing and proposed public facilities are illustrated in the provided “Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan” (Applicants’ C.1) and “Conceptual Utility Plan” (Applicants’ C.2). These plans identify existing water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electrical services within the Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road rights-of-way, as well as existing and proposed fire hydrants, and identify proposed service extensions/connections to the proposed individual lots, including private stormwater detention facilities proposed within the driveways of each individual lot. Exception to Street Standards Proposal The existing street improvements on Hitt Road include pavement, curbs, and gutters, and curbside sidewalks only on the west side of the road. There is an existing gate and fire apparatus turn-around at the end of the improvements, and access is limited primarily to city vehicles going to the city water tank located on the parcel south of the subject property. The two properties immediately south of the subject property are within the city limits in the WR Woodland Residential zoning district. One of these properties is city-owned and contains the city water tank, and the other is privately owned. Future development of either property would be largely constrained by slope issues, as both are made up almost entirely of hillside lands with severe constraints due to the presence of slopes in excess of 35 percent. Given the limited growth potential for the properties to the south, the limited number of vehicles going beyond the gate, and the fact that the applicants have already provided an easement for a public trail connection over the southern portion of the subject property, the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards in order to not extend street improvements or sidewalks beyond the proposed driveway for Lot 5, instead simply relocating the existing gate approximately 40 feet to the south. Tree Removal Proposal The application materials provided include a tree inventory, tree removal plan and tree protection plan which indicate that there are 72 trees on the site greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and that there are numerous other trees on the site smaller than six-inches. The application describes the site’s existing trees as predominately densely- intermixed scrub oaks, manzanitas and madrones. Other tree species identified include black walnut, silver maple, apple, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 3 of 17 13 trees over six-inches d.b.h. are identified for removal due to their locations within building envelopes. The application materials note that the applicants do not intend to immediately remove these trees, that future removals will depend on final home design decisions made by individual lot owners, and that it is highly likely that a number of the trees identified for removal here due to their location within the envelopes will be retained. All trees located outside of the building envelopes are identified for preservation. The application also requests that no requirements for on-site mitigation be imposed due to both the nature of the property and the number of trees already in place, and indicates that the applicants recognize that this may necessitate a requirement for off-site mitigation plantings or payment in lieu of mitigation plantings. Physical Constraints Review Proposal The subject property is located on Hillside Lands and contains slopes in excess of 25 percent. Applications for the development of Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions are subject to Physical Constraints Review permits, and are required to provide a geotechnical study indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. The applicants have provided the required plans and written findings for a Physical Constraints Review permit, along with the necessary geotechnical study indicating that the proposed development is feasible given site conditions observed by a geotechnical expert. II.Project Impact The project requires a subdivision approval since it involves the creation of residential lots. In accordance with Chapter 18.108, applications for Outline Plan approval are required to be reviewed under the “Type II” process with a public hearing. A.Outline Plan for Performance Standards Options Subdivision In Staff’s review of the proposal, the application appears to meet the approval criteria for Outline Plan approval. Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options, allows a flexible lot layout and design approach in an effort to preserve natural features as well as encourage creative and energy efficient site and building design. To this end, the base density of the project is for the total project site area. While perimeter and front yard setbacks must conform to the requirements of the underlying zoning district, the Chapter provides for flexibility with regard to lot sizes, widths, depths and interior site setbacks. That the development meets all applicable The first Outline Plan approval criterion requires that “ ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.” In reviewing the application, Staff identified some concerns over the proposed treatment of solar access in the proposal. Solar Access In its most basic form, the city’s Solar Access Ordinance is intended to insure that an adjacent building to the south shades an adjoining property to the north no more than the amount of shadowing which would be cast by a six-foot solid fence installed along the mutual property line. All new residential lots with a downward trending slope of less than 15 percent are required to comply with this provision, and new lots having a downward trending slope of 15 percent or greater are eligible for a greater shadow allowance (i.e. no more shadow than would be cast by a 16-foot fence on the mutual property line), due to the fact Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 4 of 17 that shadow length increases as the percent in downward slope increases. These differences are determined through appropriate lot classifications, with Standard “A” being the six-foot fence rule and Standard “B” offering the additional relief of a 16-foot fence due to the increase in downward slope. Lots created through subdivision or partition must demonstrate that a 21-foot high structure can be placed on the lot with a setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north- south lot dimension based on the appropriate Solar Access Standard. If applicants choose not to design a lot so that it meets this requirement, a written description of a “Solar Envelope” must be provided defining the height requirements which will protect the applicable Solar Access Standard. While the applicants indicate that the individual lots proposed will accommodate a 21-foot tall structure so that the required solar setback will not exceed one-half of the north-south dimension of the lot, as required in Section 18.70.050 of the Solar Access Ordinance, they also suggest that they have at their option designed lots with building envelopes situated toward the northern portion of the lots to work with the elevation height limits proposed to protect the views of future residents. As such, they have proposed to provide solar envelopes which extend beyond the northern property lines but not onto the heated space of the individual lots to the north. The Solar Access Performance Standard provision of the Solar Access Ordinance, as If the applicant chooses not to design a lot so that it meets the explained in 18.70.050.B, states, “ standards set forth in (A) above, a Solar Envelope shall be used to define the height requirements which will protect the applicable Solar Access Standard. The Solar Envelope, and written description of its effects, shall be filed with the land partition or subdivision plat for the lot(s).” This provision requires that the Solar Envelope provided be designed to protect the applicable Solar Access Standard; this is further reinforced in the Performance Standards Options requirement that solar access setbacks be provided. Based on the written Solar Envelope description provided with the application, it appears that the applicants propose to comply with required solar access setbacks for Lots 1, 3 and 4 and that only Lots 2 and 5 may cast shadows greater than allowed under the applicable solar access standards, however the envelope descriptions are not entirely clear and provide narrative description of shadows in relation to living space on the adjacent lots rather than calculations and details of the height limitations on the lots themselves. Staff believe the Land Use Ordinance is clear that Solar Envelopes must be designed to protect applicable Solar Access Standards, and that it is not the applicants’ option to do otherwise unless a Solar Access Variance is obtained. Conditions have been suggested below to clarify that newly created lots will be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless evidence of a negative north slope exceeding fifteen percent is provided or a Variance obtained concurrently with the Final Plan approval, and to require that compliance with Solar Access standards be provided with the building permits. City Facilities “That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, The second criterion is paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 5 of 17 protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.” Existing and proposed public facilities are illustrated in the provided “Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan” (Applicants’ C.1) and “Conceptual Utility Plan” (Applicants’ C.2). These plans identify existing water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electrical facilities within the Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road rights-of-way, as well as existing and proposed fire hydrants, and identify proposed service extensions/connections to the proposed individual lots, including private stormwater detention facilities proposed within the driveways of each individual lot. The application notes that all new private service connections have been designed to extend at right angles within the proposed driveways to minimize overall site disturbance. In terms of fire protection, the applicants have provided a proposed fire prevention and control plan and a list of proposed deed restrictions which would require, among other things, that each home contain a residential fire sprinkler system, and that property owners maintain property in accordance with the approved Fire Prevention and Control Plan. Overall, Staff believes that the application demonstrates that public services are in place or can be extended to service the project. Natural Features That the existing and natural features of the land; such as The third approval criterion states “ wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.” The application includes a tree inventory which identifies 72 trees on the site greater than six-inches d.b.h., and 59 of these trees are proposed to be preserved. Only those trees located within proposed building envelopes are identified for removal, and the building envelopes and driveways have been located to minimize cuts and fills. The application also notes that the removal of all 13 trees is unlikely and will depend on final designs of the four proposed new homes. In addition to the site’s trees, the applicants have identified the steeper heavily-wooded slopes at the southern end of the subject property as an existing natural feature of the land, and propose to preserve the most steeply sloped, tree-covered area at the south end of the site as a commonly owned, unbuildable open space. Development of Adjacent Land The fourth criterion to be considered in evaluating an Outline Plan application is “That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.” The bulk of the adjacent lands have been developed in recent years, primarily through phases of the adjacent Strawberry Meadows subdivision which is located to the north, east and west of the subject property. In Staff’s opinion, the primary adjacent area that would be considered for further development would be to the south of the subject property, where there are two undeveloped lots within the city limits. One of these lots is a 5.02 acre parcel owned by the city and containing a city water tank, and the other is a 27.25 acre privately-owned parcel. Both of these parcels are zoned WR Woodland Residential, with a base density of 0.30 dwelling units per acre, however both are made up largely of severe constraints lands with slopes in excess of 35 percent which would limit their future development potential considerably. In any case, the applicants’ present proposal would not prevent their future development. Provisions Open Space The fifth approval criterion is, “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 Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 6 of 17 phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.” The application proposes to retain the more steeply sloped southern portions of the site as an unbuildable, commonly-owned open space identified on the plan submittals as Lot 6. The submittal materials also indicate that the subdivision’s CC&R’s will provide a management structure to provide for the necessary maintenance of this open space. A condition of approval has been added to require that a copy of the proposed CC&R’s be provided for review with the Final Plan submittal to ensure that the common area is maintained in perpetuity. Density The sixth criterion is “That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter .” The RR-.5-P Rural Residential Zoning District has a base density of 1.2 dwelling units per acres, giving the 4.62 acre subject property a base density of 5.544 dwelling units. The application proposes the creation of five developable lots, including one proposed to contain the existing home, meeting the base density standards. No density bonus has been requested by the applicants. Street Standards “The development complies with the Street Standards The final approval criterion is that.” The proposed subdivision will take access from existing, improved public streets and no new streets are proposed. However, the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards, discussed below, rather than extending the Hitt Road street and sidewalk improvements beyond the driveway for Lot 5 with the application. B.Exception to Street Standards Existing street improvements on Hitt Road include pavement, curbs, and gutters, and curbside sidewalks only on the west side of the road. There is an existing gate and fire apparatus turn-around at the end of the improvements, and access is limited primarily to city vehicles going to the water tank located south of the subject property. Of the two parcels located within the city limits to the south, one is city-owned and contains the city water tank, and the other is privately owned. Future development of either property would be constrained by slope issues, as both are made up largely of hillside lands with severe constraints due to the presence of slopes in excess of 35 percent. Given the limited growth potential for the properties to the south, the limited number of vehicles going beyond the gate, and the fact that the applicants have already provided an easement for a public trail connection over the southern portion of the subject property, the applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards in order not to extend street improvements or sidewalks beyond the proposed driveway for Lot 5, and would instead simply relocate the existing gate approximately 40 feet to the south to accommodate the new driveway. The first approval criterion for an Exception to Street Standards is that there is demonstrable difficulty meeting the standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. The applicants assert that the unique and unusual aspects of the property are in its location very near the city limits and urban growth boundary in a woodland area with extremely steep slopes that limit future growth and a limited amount of vehicle traffic which is restricted by an existing gate. The proposed use of the site is also somewhat unique if only in that the applicants propose to preserve the southern-most lot as unbuildable as they deem the steeply sloped areas here to be a significant natural feature worthy of protection, and the Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 7 of 17 extension of street improvements completely through the proposed development to the south property line would result in considerable additional disturbance to the very lands which the applicants are seeking to protect here. The second approval criterion is that the Exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity. The application materials note that the applicants have previously provided an easement for public pedestrian access and constructed trail improvements on the southern portion of the subject property in conjunction with the applicants work on the Ashland Woodlands and Trail Association. This trail provides pedestrian connectivity from Hitt Road west to Birdsong Lane, a recently constructed street in the adjacent Strawberry Meadows subdivision. The applicants contend that this provides superior transportation facilities as the existing gate limits traffic primarily to walkers and mountain bikers, and the trail provides for connectivity more suited to the natural environment, without the additional associated disturbance of a sidewalk. The third criterion is that the Exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The application notes that the subdivision design proceeded on the intent to build to the base density, rather than seeking density bonuses for an additional lot, and placed the southern- most driveway and building envelope close to the existing gate in order to utilize the existing street improvements and minimize further disturbance of the more steeply sloped southern portion of the subject property. The final criterion is that the Exception is consistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter which is to allow for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. In exchange for this flexibility, the chapter calls for energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation, and use of the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage. The chapter also seeks to provide for a quality of life equal or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes, to be aesthetically pleasing, to provide for more efficient land use, and to reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood. As part of the application, the steeply sloped and heavily wooded southern portion of the subject property was identified by the applicants as worthy of protection from development and they propose to protect it as commonly owned, unbuildable open space in keeping with the requirements of the Chapter. In addition, the applicants have proposed a number of measures to reduce impacts to the neighborhood and to the natural environment, including height restrictions, deed restrictions similar to those imposed on the adjacent properties requiring fire sprinklers and a fire prevention and control plan, and increased setbacks and adjusted building envelopes. The application materials note that widening the street further beyond the gate to address the Street Standards would necessitate increasing retaining wall heights and performing additional grading which could result in additional tree removal and detrimental impacts on the very sloped areas which the applicants are trying to protect with the protection of the open space (Lot 6). Staff believes that the proposal has sufficiently addressed the approval criteria for an Exception to Street Standards, however Staff has recommended a condition to require that the applicants sign in favor of and agree to participate in the future improvement of Hitt Road to city street standards should it eventually prove necessary. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 8 of 17 C. Tree Removal Permit The application describes the site’s existing trees as predominately densely-intermixed scrub oaks, manzanitas and madrones. Other tree species identified include black walnut, silver maple, apple, and curl-leaf mountain mahogany. The trees over six-inches d.b.h. which are proposed for removal include: 11 oaks ranging in size from six- to 18-inches d.b.h., one eight-inch d.b.h. apple, and one six-inch d.b.h. curl-leaf mountain mahogany. With the exception of five trees to be removed within the envelope of Lot 5, which will be subject to a separate hillside development permit prior to tree removal or construction, none of the tree removals are proposed to disturb areas with slopes greater than 25 percent. The application materials also note that the applicants do not intend to immediately remove these trees, that future removals will depend on final home design decisions made by individual lot owners, and that it is highly likely that a number of the 13 trees identified for removal here due to their location within the envelopes will ultimately be retained. The application notes that all trees located outside of the building envelopes are identified for preservation. While the application identifies those trees greater than six-inches d.b.h. proposed for removal as required by ordinance, and they are considered as part of the request in terms of the summative effect of their removals on the preservation of the site’s natural features and the associated hillside disturbance, only Tree #31, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak to be removed from the building envelope of Lot 3, is considered to be a significant tree and subject to a Tree Removal Permit according to the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (AMC Chapter 18.61). The removal of a non-hazard tree requires a demonstration that: 1) the proposed removal is in order to order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards; 2) that the tree removal will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks; and 3) that the 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. In addition, the criteria require that applicants, as a condition of approval, must be required to mitigate proposed tree removals pursuant to AMC 18.61.084. The tree removals proposed are located only within identified building envelopes which have been designed to comply with the requirements of the underlying zoning district, the Hillside Ordinance, and the Performance Standards Options chapter, and the removal of Tree #31 is due to its location within an envelope which has been placed to relate to an existing drive in order to minimize the need for additional site disturbance. With the exception of the trees to be removed on Lot 5, the other removals are not in steeply sloped areas and the application has provided erosion control and drainage plans. 11 of the 13 trees to be removed are oaks, and the majority of the 59 trees over six-inches in diameter to be preserved on site are also oaks so the proposed removals appear to have little impact on canopy or species diversity. The application requests that no requirements for on-site mitigation be imposed due to the nature of the property, the number of trees already in place, and the location within the Wildfire overlay. The application recognizes that this may necessitate a requirement for off- site mitigation planting or payment in lieu of mitigation planting. As such, a condition has Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 9 of 17 been recommended below to require that the applicants mitigate the removal of Tree #31 pursuant to the requirements of AMC 18.61.084 through an off-site mitigation planting or payment in lieu of planting. The Tree Commission has not reviewed either proposal at the time of this writing. Tree Commission comments will be provided at the public hearing and a condition has been recommended below to require that their recommendations, where consistent with standards, be incorporated into the final plan submittal. D. Physical Constraints Review Permit The subject property is located on Hillside Lands and contains slopes in excess of 25 percent. Applications for the development of Hillside Lands involving subdivisions or partitions are subject to Physical Constraints Review permits, and are required to provide a geotechnical study indicating that the site is stable for the proposed use and development. Physical Constraints Review Permits are subject to the following criteria: 1) through the application of the hillside development standards, potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered and adverse impacts minimized; 2) that the applicants have considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented mitigation measures; and 3) that the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. The applicants have provided the required plans, written findings, and a geotechnical study which concludes that the proposed subdivision and associated site grading are considered to be feasible with respect to the stability of the subsurface and slope conditions observed on site. This report includes recommendations for necessary site preparation, retaining, and erosion control, and proposes an inspection schedule to insure that these recommendations are properly implemented during site work. The application also notes that only the proposed Lot 5 includes slopes in excess of 25 percent within the proposed building envelope, and recognizes that as such this lot would be subject to a separate individual application for a Physical Constraints Review permit at the time of development. A condition to this effect has been recommended below. 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. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 10 of 17 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 a Physical Constraints Review Permit are described in 18.62.040.I as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. The criteria for Issuance of Tree Removal are described in 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely 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. (e.g. other applicable Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 11 of 17 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. The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: Exception to Street Standards. An exception to the Street Standards is not subject to the Variance requirements of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the Street Standards in 18.88.050 if all of the following circumstances are found to exist: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. IV.Conclusions and Recommendations In Staff’s opinion, the application is a relatively straightforward one that is proposed in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Performance Standards Options chapter. Staff believes that the application is consistent with the approval criteria for a six-lot, five-unit Performance Standards subdivision; Exception to Street Standards; Physical Constraints Review permit; and removal of 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) including one significant tree, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak. We would accordingly recommend approval of the application with the following conditions attached: 1)That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)All conditions of the geotechnical report prepared by Amrhein Associates, Inc. and Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 12 of 17 dated October 12, 2007, including but not limited to the inspection schedule, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 3)That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless 1) materials are provided with the Final Plan submittal demonstrating that an individual lot has a negative north slope in excess of 15 percent which would render it subject to Solar Access Standard B; or 2) a Solar Access Variance is applied for and approved for the individual lots concurrently with Final Plan approval. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. 4)That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.62.089.B.7. 5)That prior to Final Plan approval: a)Engineering for the utility plan including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage and electric facilities shall be submitted. 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, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. b)An Electric Distribution Plan shall be coordinated with the Ashland Electric Department, and shall be included in the utility plan with the Final Plan submittal. c)A drainage plan including necessary final engineering for the private lot stormwater detention systems and any off-site storm drain system improvements shall be provided. d)The engineering for sidewalk improvements to complete sidewalk installation along the subject property’s full Strawberry Lane frontage shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. e)The recommendations from the March 6, 2008 meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission, where consistent with applicable standards, shall be incorporated into the Final Plan submittal’s Landscaping, Irrigation, and Tree Protection and Removal Plans. f)A draft copy of the CC&R’s and the applicants’ proposed Deed Restrictions shall be provided. The CC&R’s shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all commonly-owned open space including but not limited to the implementation and maintenance of the approved fire prevention and control plan, and perpetual maintenance Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 13 of 17 of required long term erosion control measures. The CC&R’s shall note that any deviation from the approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. The CC&R’s and Deed Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. g)The overall lot coverage for the subdivision as a whole shall be limited to no more than 20 percent. At the time of final plan submittal, the applicants shall provide a breakdown, by square footage, of the allowed lot coverage allocated to each lot and demonstrating that the overall subdivision’s lot coverage does not exceed the 20 percent allowed in the RR-.5 zoning district. h)That written verification from the project geotechnical expert shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal indicating that the revised six-lot subdivision configuration and associated improvements are consistent with the original report. i)That a landscape and irrigation plan addressing the re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes required in the geotechnical report shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. 6)That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a)A preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be held prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts, landscape professional, arborist, and contractor. The applicants or applicants’ representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. b)That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division 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 tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. c)That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. fabric sediment fencing, straw bales, crushed rock pads, straw erosion control matting or plastic sheeting) shall be installed and maintained according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, or issuance of an excavation permit. These measures shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. d)The applicants shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial guarantee in an amount equal to 120 percent of the value Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 14 of 17 of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. 7)That prior to the signature of the final survey plat: a)All easements for sewer, water, drainage, electric, streets or public pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b)Street trees, located one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the Strawberry Lane street frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. c)Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities; driveways, driveway approaches and associated erosion control measures; any necessary street or sidewalk improvements on Hitt Road between the end of the existing improvements and the driveway for Lot 5; and sidewalks and street trees on Strawberry Lane shall be installed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat. d)That the installation of driveway approaches shall be completed according to city standards under permit from the Public Works/Engineering Department and any necessary inspections approved. e)The existing sidewalk on Hitt Road shall be extended to the northerly edge of the Lot 5 driveway’s approach. f)Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1-5. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat.In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. g)That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1-5. h)That Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report dated October 12, 2007 provided with the application. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. i)The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 15 of 17 installation. j)The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of street improvements for Hitt Road, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains. k)That the applicants shall complete the relocation of the gate at the end of the improvements on Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The relocation of the gate will be coordinated with the City of Ashland Water Department. 8)That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a)Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the lot coverage allocated to each lot. Building footprints, walkways, driveways including the flag drive for Lot 3, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b)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. c)Building permit submittals shall clearly demonstrate compliance with the applicants’ proposed “Elevation Height Limits” by providing cross-sections or elevation drawings with building heights and elevations above sea level clearly labeled. d)That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Hillside Development shall be applied for and approved in accordance with 18.62.040 for the development of Lot 5 prior to submission or issuance of a building permit. 9)That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a)That the requirements of the Fire Department, including that approved addressing shall be installed prior to combustible construction; that a fire prevention and control plan shall be implemented and maintained; and that fire apparatus access, fire sprinklers as proposed by the applicants, and a fire hydrant shall be installed, shall be addressed. b)All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. c)For Lot #3, the applicants shall provide mitigation for the removal of Tree #31 through on-site replanting, off site replanting, or payment in lieu of planting as provided for in AMC 18.61.084. d)Driveways greater than 50 feet in length, which are considered by definition to be flag drives and thus subject to the flag drive standards, shall be constructed according to flag drive requirements that a 12-foot paved width and 15-foot clear width be maintained, and that parking spaces be configured so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 16 of 17 Planning Action 2008-00182 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report.dds Applicant: McLellan, Robert & Laura Page 17 of 17 Findings BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March 11, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2008-00182, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL UNDER THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ) OPTIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.88) FOR A SIX-LOT, FIVE-UNIT SUBDIVISION ) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 STRAWBERRY LANE. ) ALSO INCLUDED ARE REQUESTS FOR A PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS ) REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HILLSIDE LANDS; A ) FINDINGS, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE 13 TREES SIX-INCHES IN) CONCLUSIONS DIAMETER OR LARGER, INCLUDING ONE SIGNFICIANT TREE, AN 18-INCH ) AND ORDERS OAK; AND AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE ) APPLICANTS TO END STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DRIVEWAY OF ) THE PROPOSED LOT FIVE RATHER THAN EXTENDING THEM TO THE ) SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.) ) APPLICANT: McLellan, Robert & Laura -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot 201 of Map 39 1E 08 AC is located at 500 Strawberry Lane and is zoned RR-.5-P Rural Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline Plan Approval to allow a six-lot, five-unit subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter for the property located at 500 Strawberry Lane. The application also requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for Development of Hillside Lands, a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or larger, and an Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project. Site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community Development. 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval under the Performance Standards Options are described in Chapter 18.88 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 PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 1 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. 4) The criteria for a Physical Constraints Review permit are described in Chapter 18.62.040.I as follows: 1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. 2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. 3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land Use Ordinance. 5) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in Chapter 18.61.080 as follows: A. Hazard Tree: The Staff Advisor shall issue a tree removal permit for a hazard tree if the applicant demonstrates that a tree is a hazard and warrants removal. 1. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear that it is likely 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. PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 2 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. 6) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 18.88.050.F as follows: A. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. B. The variance will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity; C. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and D. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on March 11, 2008 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission approved the PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 3 application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to develop a six-lot, five-unit subdivision meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval and an Exception to Street Standards described in Chapter 18.88; that the proposed Physical Constraints Review permit meets all applicable criteria in Chapter 18.62; and that the proposed removal of 13 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height or greater, including one significant 18-inch oak, meets all applicable criteria for a Tree Removal permit in Chapter 18.61. 2.3The Planning Commission finds that adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the project including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. Water, sanitary sewer, storm water, and electric services are available from the Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road rights- of-way and will connect through the individual lot driveways. Storm drain facilities will include private detention systems on the individual lots. Paved access is available from both Strawberry Lane and Hitt Road. The Planning Commission finds that development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels to the north, east and west are similarly zoned and have recently been subdivided for development as part of the Strawberry Meadows subdivision. The undeveloped properties to the south are zoned WR PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 4 Woodland Residential, and their further development is already severely constrained by the presence of slopes over 35 percent. The Planning Commission finds the density meets the base density standards established under the Performance Standards Options for the Rural Residential (RR-.5-P) zone. The site has a base density of five units (4.62 acres x 1.2 dwelling units per acre = 5.544 units), including the existing single family home already in place on the proposed Lot 4. The Planning Commission finds that the significant natural features of the property are the existing trees and the steeply-sloped, heavily-wooded slopes on the southern end of the site. 59 of the 72 trees on the site over six-inches in diameter at breast height are to be preserved, and the applicants also propose to protect the most steeply sloped southern portion of the site in commonly owned open space. The Planning Commission finds that the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland with the attached conditions of approval. The Site Plan provided delineates the proposed building envelopes, setbacks, and driveway locations. The setbacks on the perimeter of the subdivision and for the front yards are required to meet the standard setback requirements of the Rural Residential zoning district, and the proposal meets or exceeds this requirement. The Solar Access Ordinance in AMC Chapter 18.70 requires that newly created lots with north slopes less than 15 percent be configured so that the future homes will meet Solar Setback A, and that those lots with downward trending north slopes in excess of 15 percent meet Solar Setback B. Solar Setback A is the most stringent standard which requires that new structures can not shade the property to the north more than a six-foot fence would at the north property line, and Setback B allows additional shading comparable to that which would be cast by a 16-foot fence. While the lots proposed appear to be sized to accommodate these solar access requirements, the applicants have proposed to place the building envelopes and homes toward the northern portion of the lots and propose Solar Envelopes which do not appear to entirely protect the applicable Solar Access standards with Lots 2 and 5. The Planning Commission finds that the applicable Solar Access standards must be protected, and further finds that if the applicants wish to exceed the applicable Solar Access standards, Solar Access Variances will be required to be applied for concurrently with the Final Plan application. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that potential impacts and hazards have been considered and that adverse impacts will be minimized through the proposed subdivision’s design and the associated mitigation measures recommended by the project geotechnical expert. The applicants have provided a geotechnical study which concludes that the proposed subdivision and associated site grading are considered to be feasible with respect to the stability of the subsurface and slope conditions observed on site. This report includes recommendations for necessary site preparation, retaining, and erosion control, and proposes an inspection schedule to insure that these recommendations are properly implemented during site work. The more steeply sloped PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 5 areas at the southern end of the site will be preserved as commonly owned open space, and protected from future development, and development of the proposed Lot 5, which includes slopes in excess of 25 percent within its building envelope, will be subject to a separate Physical Constraints Review. The Commission finds that the applicants have taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impacts of the development on the environment. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds the request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 13 trees six-inches or larger in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), including one significant 18-inch d.b.h. oak tree meets the applicable approval criteria in 18.61.080. These trees are located within the proposed building envelopes, and all other trees on site are to be preserved. The Commission finds that the removals have been requested in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Ashland Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards in attempting to minimize site disturbance associated with the subdivision, will not have significant negative impacts, and that the removal of the significant oak will be mitigated whether on- or off-site. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Exception to Street Standards to allow the applicants to end street improvements at the driveway of Lot 5 rather than extending them to the southern boundary of the project meets the applicable criteria in Chapter 18.88. The installation of the full public street improvements including sidewalks would require that significant site disturbance along more than 300 feet of the Hitt Road right-of-way in a steeply-sloped and heavily- wooded area which the applicants have proposed to protect as one of the site’s principal natural features. The future development of properties to the south is constrained by steep slopes, and the Exception requested aids in the preservation and protection of the sloped areas on the project site. An existing gate is in place on Hitt Road to control public access to a city-owned water tank on the property immediately south of the project site, and will be slightly relocated to accommodate the driveway for the proposed Lot 5. The application proposes to ensure adequate fire protection through the installation of fire sprinklers in all homes and the implementation of a fire prevention and control plan, and the applicants will install a new fire hydrant on Hitt Road. The applicants have previously provided easement access and trail improvements across the southern portion of the subject property to provide a pedestrian link between Hitt Road and the nearby Birdsong Lane, and have agreed to sign in favor of any future improvements to Hitt Road. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline Plan approval to develop a six-lot, five-unit subdivision; an Exception to Street Standards; a Physical Constraints Review permit; and removal of 13 trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) including one significant tree, an 18-inch d.b.h. oak, is supported by evidence contained within the record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2008-00182. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 6 are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2008-00182 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1)That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)All conditions of the geotechnical report prepared by Amrhein Associates, Inc. and dated October 12, 2007, including but not limited to the inspection schedule, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 3)That all proposed lots shall be subject to Solar Access Standard A unless 1) materials are provided with the Final Plan submittal demonstrating that an individual lot has a negative north slope in excess of 15 percent which would render it subject to Solar Access Standard B; or 2) a Solar Access Variance is applied for and approved for the individual lots concurrently with Final Plan approval. Solar setback calculations shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards, and shall include identification of the required solar setbacks with supporting formula calculations and elevation or cross-section drawings clearly labeling the height of the solar producing point(s) from the identified natural grade. 4)That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.62.089.B.7. 5)That prior to Final Plan approval: a)Engineering for the utility plan including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage and electric facilities shall be submitted. 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, and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the utility plan. b)An Electric Distribution Plan shall be coordinated with the Ashland Electric Department, and shall be included in the utility plan with the Final Plan submittal. c)A drainage plan including necessary final engineering for the private lot stormwater detention systems and any off-site storm drain system improvements shall be provided. d)The engineering for sidewalk improvements to complete sidewalk installation along the subject property’s full Strawberry Lane frontage shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. e)The recommendations from the March 6, 2008 meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission, where consistent with applicable standards, shall be incorporated into the Final Plan submittal’s Landscaping, Irrigation, and Tree Protection and Removal Plans. PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 7 f)A draft copy of the CC&R’s and the applicants’ proposed Deed Restrictions shall be provided. The CC&R’s shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all commonly-owned open space including but not limited to the implementation and maintenance of the approved fire prevention and control plan, and perpetual maintenance of required long term erosion control measures. The CC&R’s shall note that any deviation from the approved Tree Removal and Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. The CC&R’s and Deed Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. g)The overall lot coverage for the subdivision as a whole shall be limited to no more than 20 percent. At the time of final plan submittal, the applicants shall provide a breakdown, by square footage, of the allowed lot coverage allocated to each lot and demonstrating that the overall subdivision’s lot coverage does not exceed the 20 percent allowed in the RR-.5 zoning district. h)That written verification from the project geotechnical expert shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal indicating that the revised six-lot subdivision configuration and associated improvements are consistent with the original report. i)That a landscape and irrigation plan addressing the re-vegetation of cut and fill slopes required in the geotechnical report shall be provided with the Final Plan submittal. 6)That prior to the issuance of an excavation permit: a)A preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be held prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts, landscape professional, arborist, and contractor. The applicants or applicants’ representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. b)That a Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division 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 tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. c)That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. fabric sediment fencing, straw bales, crushed rock pads, straw erosion control matting or plastic sheeting) shall be installed and maintained according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, or issuance of an excavation permit. These measures shall be inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to site work, storage of materials, or the issuance of an excavation permit. PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 8 d)The applicants shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial guarantee in an amount equal to 120 percent of the value of the erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. 7)That prior to the signature of the final survey plat: a)All easements for sewer, water, drainage, electric, streets or public pedestrian access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the City of Ashland. b)Street trees, located one per 30 feet of street frontage, shall be installed along the Strawberry Lane street frontage as part of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. Street trees shall be chosen from the Recommended Street Tree List and shall be installed in accordance with the specifications noted in the Recommended Street Tree List. The street trees shall be irrigated. c)Subdivision infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to utilities; driveways, driveway approaches and associated erosion control measures; any necessary street or sidewalk improvements on Hitt Road between the end of the existing improvements and the driveway for Lot 5; and sidewalks and street trees on Strawberry Lane shall be installed according to approved plans prior to the signature of the final survey plat. d)That the installation of driveway approaches shall be completed according to city standards under permit from the Public Works/Engineering Department and any necessary inspections approved. e)The existing sidewalk on Hitt Road shall be extended to the northerly edge of the Lot 5 driveway’s approach. f)Electric services shall be installed underground to serve Lots 1-5. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. g)That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed for Lots 1-5. h)That Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report dated October 12, 2007 provided with the application. Prior to signature of the final survey plat, Amrhein Associates, Inc. shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. i)The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 9 j)The applicants shall sign an agreement to participate in the future cost of street improvements for Hitt Road, including but not limited to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, and storm drains. k)That the applicants shall complete the relocation of the gate at the end of the improvements on Hitt Road to the southern extent of the street improvements. The relocation of the gate will be coordinated with the City of Ashland Water Department. 8)That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a)Individual lot coverage calculations including all impervious surfaces shall be submitted with each building permit to demonstrate compliance with the lot coverage allocated to each lot. Building footprints, walkways, driveways including the flag drive for Lot 3, parking areas, and any impervious surfaces shall be counted for the purpose of lot coverage calculations. b)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. c)Building permit submittals shall clearly demonstrate compliance with the applicants’ proposed “Elevation Height Limits” by providing cross-sections or elevation drawings with building heights and elevations above sea level clearly labeled. d)That a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit for Hillside Development shall be applied for and approved in accordance with 18.62.040 for the development of Lot 5 prior to submission or issuance of a building permit. 9)That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a)That the requirements of the Fire Department, including that approved addressing shall be installed prior to combustible construction; that a fire prevention and control plan shall be implemented and maintained; and that fire apparatus access, fire sprinklers as proposed by the applicants, and a fire hydrant shall be installed, shall be addressed. b)All exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not illuminate adjacent proprieties. c)For Lot #3, the applicants shall provide mitigation for the removal of Tree #31 through on-site replanting, off site replanting, or payment in lieu of planting as provided for in AMC 18.61.084. d)Driveways greater than 50 feet in length, which are considered by definition to be flag drives and thus subject to the flag drive standards, shall be constructed according to flag drive requirements that a 12-foot paved width and 15-foot clear width be maintained, and that parking spaces be configured so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 10 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2008-00182 March 11, 2008 Page 11