HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-09 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
JULY 9, 2013
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1. June 11, 2013 Regular Meeting
2. June 25, 2013 Study Session
IV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-2013-00806
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Vacant Parcels at North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed use
building consisting of four commercial spaces and eight parking spaces on the ground
floor and 12 residential units on the second and third floors on the vacant parcel at the
corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. Also included is a request for a
Modification of the Outline/Final Plan approval for the Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision
(PA#2003-00158) in order to adjust the number of residential units allocated to the subject
properties based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district. As originally
approved in 2003, the four subject properties were proposed to have ten residential units;
the applicant here proposes to modify that approval to allow a total of 40 dwelling units
between the four subject properties. The applicants also propose to remove seven (7)
Siberian Elm trees within the adjacent alley through a Street Tree Removal Permit in order
to open the alley to use for vehicular circulation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39
1 E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF
S L A AW&I
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).
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 11, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Kaplan Dawn Lamb
Debbie Miller
Tracy Peddicord
Melanie Mlndlln (Recused self from Agenda
Item V. A.)
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
New Planning Commissioner appointed by Council; Carol Davis past chair of the Public Arts Commission.
Unified Land Use Code- Open House scheduled for Thursday, June 20th from 4:00-6:00 PM at the Community Center, 59
Winburn Way. An informal session for staff to update public on progress of update and an opportunity for the public to ask
questions.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. May 14, 2013 Regular Meeting.
3. May 28, 2013 Study Session.
Commissioners Kaplan/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda with changes. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM: None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Planning Action #2013-00593
Applicant: City of Ashland
Description: Amendments to Ashland's Municipal Code related to existing Traveler's Accommodations (i.e. B&Bs), as
well as the establishment of non-owner occupied short-term home rentals within Multiple Family Residential Districts
(R-2; R-3).
Commissioner Mindlin recused herself from discussion.
Dawkins clarified that the first agenda item would be short-term home rentals. There will be two parts of this planning action
discussed tonight; traveler's accommodations and establishment and operation of non-owner occupied short-term home rentals
within multi-family zoning districts is the first item.
Staff Report:
Molnar explained that revisions came about due to compliance activity regarding transient housing. Increasing numbers of
short-term transient accommodations did not acquire proper zoning approvals or business licenses and were not paying
transient occupancy taxes or commercial utility rates. Comments from the Planning and Housing Commission were forwarded
as suggestions to the City Council. A public hearing was held and staff was directed to prepare an ordinance that provided an
allowance for vacation short-term home rentals in multifamily zones. Interest was not placed on limiting numbers or geographic
area other than within a multifamily zone and within 200 feet of an arterial or collector street. In multifamily zones there is a list
of conditional uses and this amendment would add another conditional use alongside the Bed and Breakfasts (B&Bs) by adding
short-term home rentals.
The definition of a short-term would be "the short-term occupancy of a dwelling unit in a residential zone by the general public
for a fee for a period of less than 30 consecutive days. The short-term rental shall not include the rent of individual rooms within
a residential dwelling unit."
This limits renters to a dwelling unit, not just rooms in a house where several reservations could be obliged. That is an existing
portion of the traveler's accommodations CUP. Molnar described the difference between traveler's accommodations and the
short-term accommodations. The main difference between short-term and traveler's accommodations is that a short-term
home rental does not require the owner to live on the property.
Staff identified three areas of general requirements; management, licensing, and inspections, taxes, and advertising. The entire
dwelling unit is required to be rented. It is not allowed to have more than one dwelling unit on a parcel that may be used as a
short-term home rental. Use of more than one dwelling on a property requires obtaining a different conditional use permit for
traveler's accommodations and owner must live on the property. Maximum number of guests is based on a formula structured
after other communities. The standard is two guests per bedroom, plus two, but never to exceed 10 guests. The Planning
Commission could chose to discuss this number. Under the management section an owner/applicant can only own one short -
term home rental. Other communities have been having problems with investors or LLCs buying up several houses to make
short-term rentals. Our intent is to decrease that attraction for investment purposes but to allow for different accommodations to
be provided to visitors and an additional allowance for an individual property owner. Owners are required to identify a local
contact person with further requirements on availability of that local contact person, provisions for noticing neighbors within 200
feet exists and as well as conditions of planning approval. Posting of house policies in regards to respecting neighbors in terms
of noise and quiet hours. Lastly under licensing, inspections, taxes, and advertising it specifies requirements for an inspection
by the fire department, a business license, transient occupancy tax registration, and to help ensure accommodations do have an
approved CUP the license number should be included in advertisements. Advertising operation of these facilities without the
proper due diligence is a violation of the code.
Both travelers accommodations and short-term rentals must exist in a multifamily zone, be within 200 feet of an arterial or
collector, and posses the same requirements for advertising. The advertising for traveler's accommodations is an addition to
keep uniformity between the two types.
Margueritte Hickman, AFD Division Chief/Fire Marshal, advocated an inspection for the short-term rentals and for traveler's
accommodations regardless of occupancy load. Discussion continues on how routinely that would occur, maybe every other
year. Fire Marshal Hickman commented that the fire department's interest in inspecting the units is that the occupants will be in
unfamiliar surroundings. This increases risk. Want to make sure adequate smoke alarms, proper addressing, and other items
are in place. The fire and building code does not look at single-family dwellings with fewer than 10 occupants as an inspectable
occupancy. This is an oversight when the use of the dwelling is used for short-term rentals. It is our intent to make the situation
safer for the occupant and owner.
Molnar clarified that this is a legislative change and the Planning Commission's role is advisory to the Council. Items is
tentatively scheduled for public hearing and first reading on July 16th. Tonight will be recommendations on amendments for
forwarding to the City Council. City Attorney Lohman proposed housekeeping changes and his main recommendation was to
refer to guests as "occupants permitted to stay overnight".
Dawkins will address public discussion on short-term rentals first. People wishing to speak regarding the R-1 zoning will be
heard, but the R-1 zoning is not part of what we will be forwarding to Council as part of the ordinance amendments tonight.
We are taking input to revisit the R-1 zoning with council. This is a separate topic to be addressed similarly to the ordinance
amendments being addressed tonight.
Public Discussion:
Laura Westerman, 250 Timberlake Dr, long time resident. Inherited family home located on Manzanita Street from parents
and operated the property as a long-term rental. The home is a corner lot on a third of an acre. The house is located across
from multi-family homes. The long-term renting did not cover costs and became difficult to maintain because renters did not
take care of the residence very well. We changed it to short-term rental about a year ago and were not aware of being in
violation. We have parking in the driveway for seven vehicles. The house is a three bedroom, two bath, with an additional
sunroom. The house sleeps eight people. Time and money has been invested in the upkeep of the home. Personally enjoys
staying in short-term rentals when traveling. Short-term works better for longer stays and in a group of multiple people. It is
more comfortable and we are still contributing to the economy. It is a different type of rental and attracts different type of
people. These businesses add dollars to the city coffer and City and residents need to look at these operations. It makes it
possible for me to keep my family home. One day we intend to move into the home when we are older. This is a way for us to
keep the home and share it with others.
Corrine Lombardi, 1685 Old Hwy 99S. Owns two licensed vacation rental properties and receives state inspections every 2
years that cover the items addressed by the Fire Department. I don't see the value in a second inspection. One discussion that
I would like to comment on is the insufficient properties for long-term rentals for people who want to live here full-time, and the
short-term rental which is another definition of something that we already have. I have an E-1 zoned property and have CUP for
hotel/motel that meets the requirements. We have zoning and accommodations to provide the goals to offer a different
experience for guests. If the goal is to provide long-term housing for residents than taking more housing out of it is not
appropriate. The non-compliance issue has been huge in this town. Until we can keep current on current compliance why add
more regulation for additional items that would be very difficult to manage. I think there are twice as many illegal vacation
rentals as legal rentals. How are you going to make sure that they are in compliance with all those conditions? One complaints
guy is not going to accomplish this. The more regulations you impose then the less likely you are able to enforce them.
Recommend that we use the current laws and make them work. Rather see results before the Planning Commission takes
another step.
Abi Maghamfar, Ashland Lodging Association, 451 N. Main Street. The Lodging Association consists of 48 licensed hotels,
motels, B&Bs, and vacation rentals, cottages and all kinds of travelers accommodations. The association formed at the
beginning of this year to deal with the illegal vacation rentals. There are presently 77 licensed establishments in the City of
Ashland. Of the 77, 29 are cottages and homes. That is 38%. The notion that there are not sufficient homes for rent for short-
term is purely nonsense. You can talk to operators and if they were at maximum occupancy all the time then there basis for
creating more for those potential guests who like to stay in those types of facilities. In respect to proposed changes, the
association met with staff and gave input and recommendations. But the bottom line comes to some of the vague and
ambiguous definitions. Some of the conditions are purely unenforceable. By putting this on paper you cannot require someone
to notify the neighbors once every year, or post the house rules where they are supposed to, who is going to go look for that?
Overall the Association supports the notion if there is going to be a new category of vacation rental, that additional rules are
required. If the commission's approach is to recommend to the Council to adopt such a resolution, then we support the rules
and we want to make sure that they are enforceable.
Colin Swales, 143 8th Street. I share concerns about the reduction of long-term, full-time rentals but see this ordinance as a
step forward. I find some things anomalous. First, the condition that the structure be at least 20 years old. The ordinance was
introduced in the 1980s and now we are in 2013 which puts the date at 1993 for compliance. The original understanding was to
provide some incentive to maintain the older houses, especially in the Historic District. Well, 1993 is no longer very historic.
The 20-year timeline needs a bit of attention. Recalls a recommendation that the vacation rentals should be within walking
distance of downtown to help maintain the historic district. The requirement for being 200 feet from arterial or collector creates
strange donuts. Like to see the zone for these things to be more lapcentric or taking into account the historic districts and
support the rentals within walking distance of downtown. Appears to be car oriented at the moment and the last thing we want
to encourage is people driving to the downtown. Bicycle amenities created by the Transportation System Plan should be
utilized to help fill in the donuts. Increase the 200 feet to maybe 300 feet. Looking at some outlying properties, they are way out
from city center and makes the 200 foot requirement appear to be out of date from the modern thinking of the Transportation
Plan.
Russ Manzone, 249 Hillcrest, 9-year resident. Purchased a rental property and built an ADU on his primary property.
Intending to retire into ADU and rent out main property in the future. Second rental was not able to be flipped as intended and
they have retained it as a rental to offset cost. We live on the rental property and have been able to rent it out for long term but
also as short term. We have many people who chose to stay where we are and we have recurring tenants. We have
reciprocity with some of the B&B owners referring travelers. Nothing deviant was intended, we are trying to be in compliance.
Jeff Jones, 79 Pine Street, own property that has ADU used as a long-term rental since 1999. We attempted to do a vacation
rental to supplement income. This produces more revenue than a long-term rental. The modifications are useful to all visitors'
accommodations. He would like the commission to consider provisions to allow travelers accommodations in R1 zones as well.
Several reasons exist to support these rentals; it is a good thing for economy of the individual, puts money city coffers in taxes
and they are safe units for people to stay in. They offer a different experience than hotel or B&B. Four past occupants have
made Ashland their home. Consider modifying the R1 inclusion.
Carl Litsinger, 1810 Mt Vernon St., Waynesburg, VA. Reiterated and supported Jeff Jones' sentiments regarding R1
designations. We have exclusively traveled for the last 5 years and stayed all over the country. They have stayed in Ashland
on three separate occasions for in excess of a month each visit. We like to have accommodations close to downtown and
easily accessible. Visitors improve the economic situation. We come to Ashland because it's unique; the theatre, the trails and
other amenities. They use the VRBO (Vacation Rentals By Owners) to find accommodations. We prefer a place to stay with a
kitchen and house space because we typically stay longer than a week. We feel a neighborhood experience is a huge plus.
Having this type of accommodation is a good way to experience Ashland and supports expansion to the R1 zones. We have
now purchased a house in Ashland.
Kim Blackwolf, 354 Liberty Street. In support of ordinance changes. She assists a friend that uses her house as a rental
since she has been relocated to work in California. Short-term renters take better care of rentals than long-term renters and
seem to be nicer to the neighborhoods. Most short-term rentals have never been or are intended to be long-term rentals. Not
stealing from long-term rental pool. There are not enough short-term rentals and this is a way to help support the economy and
support our residents. People are looking for variety. The vacation rental is a new positive. This needs to be supported and
made possible for all kinds of people to do if it fits in their neighborhood. She is still not comfortable with the 200-foot arterial
distance requirement. Hard to make a living in Ashland and we need to support our residents. Input from people running short-
term rentals is that they would love to be licensed and be paying taxes. It makes them part of the community.
Lois Van Aken, 140 Central Avenue. She has owned a vacation cottage for 6 years and a runs a long-term rental on same
property and never had any problems in the last 30 years of operation. The long-term rental is not as lucrative as short-term.
We have short-term rentals in R-2 and R-3 with owner occupied on the site and this is not a new concept. We have CUPs that
we follow. She is concerned with properties that are not owner occupied causing difficulties with management and
enforcement. The City has enough to do. The R1 is not in discussion. Tonight the commission needs to look at what we have
already and get the enforcement down before moving to the next steps. I think there is a lot of hearsay in the lack of
accommodations in Ashland. There are no statistics or studies showing occupancy rates for vacationers. The perception is that
there is a lack of housing. Her occupancy rates have gone down last 3 years as the rate of illegal rentals has gone up. It is
hurting the legally operating short-term rentals.
Ellen Campbell, 120 Gresham, owner of the oldest B&B in Ashland. The first owners were influential in creating the municipal
codes relating to B&Bs and travelers accommodations. They wanted it to be owner occupied to restrict corporations from
running the accommodations from afar. The environment has changed. The banking laws have changed and the real estate
prices have increased. The larger B&Bs only exist, smaller B&Bs cannot make it financially viable. There has been a 56%
decrease in B&Bs in Ashland over the last 15 years. After 2008 the banks no longer gave residential loans and B&Ba are
forced to apply for commercial rates. Because we are treated as a commercial property we should have the right to not have to
live in the B&B. We should be required to live within the city and be responsible. There are some B&Bs that exist in the E and
C zones with the same customers with same level of service to guests. But I cannot fully use the property I have as a
commercial property. I have to live in mine. It is not required of storeowners to carve out valuable real estate to live in their
stores. This is what is happening with the codes the way they are written.
Peter Hawes, 431 Courtney Street, resident since 1973 and volunteers actively in the community. He speaks to the R-1
vacation home rentals. He wanted to make a short-term rental with his home but could not comply with the VRBO codes
because residence is in R-1. He attended Council in March and did research and talked to many people in a similar situation.
There are people who have owned their homes for extended times working and living in Ashland now are at a point to travel.
Two issues with traveling: cost and home security if leave home vacant for 2-3 months. If in fact the commission was to
consider R-1 travel accommodations, the arterial question would not work because most of people do not live with 200 feet of
an arterial and being distanced from an arterial plays into a very good neighborhood experience. Knowing the neighborhood is
a totally different experience than something close to the highway.
Commission Discussion:
Miller asked if a study or something exists that gives the rate of occupancy? Dawkins commented that the issues dealing with
financial decisions were not part of the scope of defined issues the commission is to be looking at. The issue with foreclosure
and people trying to support their homes is not part of the code. Therefore occupancy is not part of our discussion either. That
is not something we are recommending to council.
Brown felt the definition of short-term rentals is lacking. Clarifying the definition and the rules will move us to more detailed
aspects. There are flaws and work that needs to be accomplished in respects to parking, occupant numbers, and other issues,
but in general it begins the definition process. If left as is, there would be no definition in the current code to be enforced. He is
in favor of where we are now. Molnar agreed that the definition is going round and round and goal is to make clear that it is a
different type of use for a home that can be rented out for less than 30 days and not renting out singular areas. Parking is
awkward because we are trying to retain the character of neighborhoods and concern is creating too much parking on property
for visual balance. Some existing single-family homes with larger families possess several more cars than space on the
property allows. If keeping it consistent with SFH use then you have to have 2 parking spaces. And with allowances for on-
street parking credits then overflow would be using on-street parking.
Kaplan sticking just to reviewing the ordinance as proposed from a technical standpoint. On page 5 of 11, no. 8;
"Owner/applicant should keep local contact on file with name, telephone number, e-mail address..." could that be defined as a
management company as well? Could a management company work or a neighbor, or owner? Molnar felt the intent is that
there needs to be someone and they need to be identified. Kaplan asked for that to be robust enough to be more than just "a
person". Regarding the initial and annual notice of all neighboring properties within 200 feet he feels this is difficult for an
applicant to accomplish. Can the City provide that service? Kaplan supports posting of a sign annually. Molnar said the City
could provide a mailing list in the approval packet. It is easily accomplished with County database system. We mirrored this
from other communities. Brown supports noticing as is. It is reasonable to have written notices to neighbors annually and with
technology, this is easily accomplished. As a neighbor I would expect to get a written notice. Molnar assured them that
properties will get noticed during application process regardless. The original code required that for the first 3 years they had to
go through a renewal where notices were sent out to neighboring properties within 200 feet and there was an associated fee. It
seemed that if a property was not operating within the code, it would be the neighbors who would complain. It sounds like
support of having the notice the first time is more reasonable. Peddicord voiced that it seems onerous for annual noticing and it
becomes impractical for a short-term; an initial notice is sufficient. Miller supports noticing for 3 years of a new accommodation
and she suggested that if the property management changes a notification should go to neighbors and occupants as well.
Kaplan likes the trigger in information that a neighbor would need in order to report an issue. Dawkins agrees with noticing.
Kaplan called out Page 6, paragraph 10 C; "vehicles should be parked in designated areas." This allows for on street parking
as well even though it does not say that? Could that be expanded with street parking if allowable? Brown thought that was
covered by item 6 under short-term rentals; "a minimum of 2 parking spaces must be made available." Molnar clarified that it is
required to have 2 spots on the property, but if on street is available then they can use that, but 2 spots are required on site.
Peddicord supports the 2 spaces on the property because to increase it would create small parking lots and that is not going to
be welcome in most residential neighborhoods. Brown said that if 10 tenants are allowed, assume 5 couples, that is 5 cars or
more potentially. We would be allowing for up to 10 cars by having the occupancy called out as 10. This seems a little to lose
to just say, "what neighborhood allows". Need to be able to control better. This is the biggest problem he has with allowing 10
occupants. No discussion on maximum number occurred. Dawkins agrees on the parking, but sees parking as a reality and
hopefully tenants will see parking as a pain and try to make other accommodations.
Miller called out page 6, item 11, how is a permit revoked if the property owner is out of the area and the rental is not being kept
up? Molnar said that currently under enforcement there is a condition for revoking CUPs. Attempts are made to contact the
owner and than a public hearing is held to evaluate what conditions have been violated. The CUP can be revoked for a time
and then they are allowed to reapply after that time. Issues typically come about because of a complaint. Dawkins commented
that it fits into the 3-year annual noticing.
Dawkins addressed the 200-foot arterial requirement. Kaplan understands rationale but it seems arbitrary and would like to see
the requirement market driven. If a home is 210 feet from arterial, than why should we push them into being illegal, like to see
them encouraged to do it legally as opposed to black market rentals. No matter how this is done someone is going to be
disadvantaged. He would like to help people if they are in an acceptable proper area with a marketable residence. Just
because a property is within the 200 feet doesn't make it a desirable house to stay in. Substitute with other language or leave it
out, he would feel better about the direction. Brown wants to leave it at 200 feet because of the expectations of buyers on who
the neighbor is. Does not support the idea of putting anything you want anywhere in the city. There is always the ability to
come in and apply for a variance. He supports having something clearly definable for potential buyers to know the expectations
of the area. This is why we have ordinances and clear definitions. Molnar spoke to variance process and that it is based on
target use for a zone and if still allows for multi-family zone than still have use of the property for long-term rental. The 200-foot
zone gives discreet overlays within the communities for where you can apply, supporting what Brown said. This does work as
an overlay district but try to balance impact on housing stock and how much of R-2 and R-3 is used for rentals. The collector
and arterials go to commercial areas and it helps to keep traffic impacts in check. The preponderance of these uses need to be
controlled so that they are not increasing traffic on the local street networks which are not designed for the increased usage.
Attempt to keep the traffic closer in proximity to a major street where it is designed for heavier traffic. Miller felt there is a
balance of people who want an experience of living in a neighborhood and our concern of keeping traffic close to town. Some
of the areas are too far for walking and there is a balance to find for the guest to feel like they are in a neighborhood and be
close to downtown. Peddicord asked if exceptions could be made in the Historic or Railroad districts which are close to
downtown but maybe out of the 200-foot radius. There still needs to be considerations for properties expanding out from the
downtown core. Molnar recalled that the original intent of the 200 feet was to keep travelers close to a facility to accommodate
greater traffic. Molnar said that requesting the creation of an overlay for downtown could be forwarded to council, but they have
said they did not want to limit rentals geographically.
Dawkins said there was another issue to discuss. It has been said that an owner cannot own more than one unit. The intent
was to allow people to afford to stay in their homes without having corporations and LLCs buying up properties for rentals. All
commissioners supported this requirement.
Discussion ensued regarding the definition of walking distances and the use of the Historic District as a boundary. This was
said to support walking distance and they support of utilizing older homes. Dawkins provided comment that a lot of historic is R-
1 and that is another conversation. Molnar clarified that if the motion said within walking distance it would only include the R-2
and R-3 homes.
Notices are currently for initial application and then once a year before April 1St. The initial notice is sent by city and
subsequently come from the operator. The change would be for the first three years and any change in contact. Take out the
continuous notification.
Brown asked for clarification on Page 5, item 11 regarding duration of renting a rental. Can it be a consecutive rental for 30
days, then another 30 days and so on, or does it mean you can have so many rentals per year. Molnar clarified that the code
now reads you can rent it continually as long as it is not to the same person. This is intended to be for use under 30 days and it
requires a CUP to have that flexibility of use. It is a transient accommodation at that point and subject to transient occupancy
taxes. The definition clearly calls out less than 30 days to be classified as a short-term rental.
Commissioners Kaplan/Miller motioned to recommend to City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter
18.08, 18.24.030 and 18.28.030 of Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to travelers accommodations and short-term
home rentals in multi-family residential districts with changes as follows:
Under Management, Item 9: owner shall provide written notice to all neighboring property owners within a 200 foot
distance from the parcel on which the short-term vacation home rental is located for the first 3 years after approval of
the Conditional Use Permit and whenever the local contact changes;
The 200- foot requirement be modified to include 200 feet or within the boundaries of the Historic District.
Roll call vote: Brown, opposed, Kaplan, Peddicord, Miller, Dawkins, ayes. Motion passed 1:4 in favor
Vacation Home Rentals Recommendations (R-1 Zoning Designation):
Molnar addressed the vacation home rental background. Discussions have ensued regarding properties in the single-family
zones requesting the ability to operate vacation rentals. Current enforcement numbers show that 70 prosperities are out of
compliance and 70% are in the R-1 zones. This shows an interest in operating establishments in this zone. The council directed
staff to provide an ordinance that addressed R-2 and R-3. Some discussion did take place at the council level. For discussion
purposes we looked at what type of change could be made to the R-1 zone to ease this type of use in. It was suggested using
CUPs and add a new conditional use for a seasonal short-term rental or room rental that would be limited to operating for a
period not to exceed 90 days in a calendar year. Two reasons seem prevalent as to why this is desirable, residents retire and
want to leave for a few months out of the year and want house occupied, or there was an unexpected reduction in the number of
residents and need extra income. The limit of 90 calendar days could be limited to the summer season. It would be the primary
residence of the property owner avoiding the absentee notion. Requiring owner to reside on property still offers continuity to the
neighborhood. A suggested provision of not more than one dwelling or room allowed. On a lot with a home and ADU the owner
would chose one to use as rental. A limit on the occupancy should be less than R-2 or R-3 and we suggested 8 tenants
maximum. These are some ideas for discussion. If you feel this is a valid issue for council to discuss this is an opportunity to
weigh in. If you want to leave single-family zone districts as is, then we offer no recommendation to council. The Finance
Department receives quarterly reports from rentals indicating how many days of operation with occupancy; a similar requirement
would be put in place.
Commission Discussion:
Miller asked if the process would be the same as for R-2 and R-3 except for the limitation of 90 days. Molnar clarified that yes,
all other requirements would be the same. What about commercial taxation on utilities? Molnar will need to talk to the Utility
Department. It is not the primary use, the residence is. There could be division of sorts. Staff started at 90 days and there was
no strict reason, it could be changed.
Peddicord questioned the 70 properties that are out of compliance. Molnar said those are properties that information has been
gathered on and of that 70, 50 have already received notification. Peddicord asked that if we expand into R-1 with these
restrictions, is that onerous in terms of enforcement. Is there an existing backlog or it is caught up? Molnar was unsure
whether compliance would be more onerous but some would voluntarily come in for compliance. Staff has not evaluated the
complete impacts but one nice part is that the owner is residing on the property and is invested in the neighborhood. Council
approved a new position for a code compliance officer. People do not always grasp how the compliance process works. These
are new land use issues. They are resource intensive but in most land use we receive voluntary compliance. When we start
the compliance there is a due process.
Miller feels renting the house offers less impact than the construction of accessory units. It affects your backyard usage and
traffic.
Kaplan is in favor of some limited aspect of vacation home rentals in R-1. It allows people who it works for to operate legally
and brings revenue to the city, offers inspections. This encourages people to try. It is too restrictive to say because you are in
R-1 you cannot do it.
Dawkins initial feelings come from the intent of what we are looking at of balancing long-term rental market and consideration of
impact on established B&Bs. Not like to see Ashland turn into Sunriver. But understand the people who want to take off for a
few months and rent out their house. It is admirable and he understands the security issue. I would like to explore this a bit
more. We touched on historic districts and if we start expanding way out where we are having vacation rentals where people
have to drive in and exacerbate parking issues then that is something we need to examine. With the R-2 and R-3 we have
brought in the historic districts I feel comfortable brining in R-1 rentals within the Historic District. Molnar said the commission
could do a motion to have Council explore single family zones and add additional comments like limited durations and
geographic areas this would give some parameters. It may come back from Council with further recommendations.
Brown added to his comments that there is a need to explore but cannot do this without information. A seasonal mode will be
hard to identify. The exploration between do nothing or everything is still wavering. The council should explore with necessary
constraints by the fire department, city staff, and limited usage of a time frame or a seasonal frame.
Miller feels there are still grey areas to explore especially because of the primary resident living on site. Does this imply that if
someone is staying in the house that is not related, there needs to be special licensing?
Peddicord likes the time constraints and geographic constraints, because the idea of no time constraints starts pushing into a
long-term rental which could push the prices of long-term rentals in the downtown area higher and move the long-term rental
inventory further out in the community. She supports both constraints. Dawkins felt that was a good observation and has
heard similar concerns. Dawkins supports the time constraints with a limited number of days. Summer time seems to be when
others want to be out of town.
Brown exploration should look into the potential of R-1 properties becoming more valuable if they become income-producing
properties. You start to drive up the cost of real estate. That is the switch off between long-term and short-term rentals.
Kaplan said by imposing time, geographically and other limits it becomes less enticing. If we are not directed by Council to
explore a desire to research this, than there will be no considerations for the R-1 zones.
Commissioner Brown/Kaplan m/s at approve a motion to inform the Council that we feel this is an issue that should be
explored and areas for the R-1 seasonal short-term home rentals within the R-1 single-family resident districts be
considered with: time constraints, geographic constraints, and economical constraints. Voice vote: Ayes, all in favor.
Motion passed 5:0.
Commissioner Mindlin rejoined the meeting in progress.
B. Planning Action #2013-00545
Applicant: City of Ashland
Description: Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of an ordinance amending the City of
Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to provide new standards for the keeping of micro-livestock and
bees.
Staff Report
Goldman presented modified changes to the ordinance:
• Chickens, Ducks and other Domestic Fowl - ordinance allows for 1 adult and 1 juvenile per 1000 sq feet of lot area, 2 adult
turkeys and 2 juveniles per 1000 sq feet of lot area, specifically prohibiting roosters, geese, and peacocks within the
residential zones.
• Rabbits - allowed when setback 75 feet from nearest street within a residential zone with maximum number of 6 adults and
nursing offspring and kept within a hutch or fence enclosure.
• Pygmy goats - 2 adults and nursing offspring allowed on less than 1 acre, more allowed if more than an acre. Pygmy
goats were specifically identified as no larger than 95 Ibs and males to be neutered.
• Bees - 3 hives on less than an acre, 5 hives on lots greater than an acre. Ordinance addresses flyaway barriers of 6 feet in
height be supplied when hives are within 25 feet of property line in order to change trajectory of the bees when leaving the
property. Onsite water is provided within 15 feet of hive.
There are also maintenance requirements addressed in the ordinance.
Issues brought up during the last study session included:
• Setting a maximum number of micro-livestock allowed per lot. The current ordinance limits total animals at 20 animals; 10
animals on a 5000 sq foot lot with an additional 2 animals for each 1000 sq feet of lot area. An editorial change for clarity
will be made prior to Council to make sure that the plus 2 additional animals for each 1000 could be additive to the first
5000.
• Keeping of animals in multi-family complexes: It is currently limited to single family residences on a single property.
Consideration to expanding that to multi-family adds the amendment to the ordinance. Language states that it is allowed in
multi-family zones as long as the property owner or property manager provides notification to the complex residents
including a 24-hour emergency contact. Essentially that means that there is someone onsite as primarily responsible for
animal care. This notification must also go to the City. They shall be located 20 feet from any dwelling at the complex or
on adjoining property. Currently the ordinance for single family allows the enclosures to be closer to the primary residence
as long as it is 20 feet away from adjoining properties. Area must be maintained regardless of change of building tenancy
or ownership. Construction of accessory buildings or structures for purposes of housing the micro-livestock be subject to
site review design standards.
• Animal enclosure is unchanged. Only change was to include rabbit hutches no to exceed 40 sq feet in area or 40 sq feet
per animal whichever is greater. And outdoor areas for runs now include rabbits as well as chickens.
• Surplus items produced on-premises can be sold, but no resale of other products from other properties.
Review process: Present to City Council on August 6th and scheduled for August 20th public hearing and 2nd reading.
Public Discussion:
Colin Swales, 143 8th Street. Huge supporter of bee keeping. This is a huge cottage industry in the UK which he himself
participated. Bees are kept in a busy close city center with no issues at all. The ordinance as written is very good. Learned
when over in UK that the EU put out ban on neonicotinoid pesticides that are harmful to bees. Has Ashland considered
imposing any similar ordinance? The US has different operations for beekeeping, most in huge commercial migratory
beekeepers but this cottage industry is hugely popular in the UK and great for food production.
Sarah Red-Laird, 285 Wightman Street. Wanted to be sure everyone saw the petition. She received 300 signatures on the
petition in support of beekeeping which brings attention to the support of the beekeeping ordinance.
Kim Blackwolf, 354 Liberty Street. Commend the work Goldman put forth to accomplish this ordinance. This is one of the
most forward thinking ordinances anywhere. It creates structure and limits while keeping the opportunity for the community to
create food. Multifamily induction is a great opportunity.
Swales rejoined the discussion to question whether bees need water to make honey. Could this be a confusion with wasps?
Isn't it quite the opposite? Goldman explained that the bees do need a water source and the idea is to keep bees from going to
adjoining properties. Swales asked about observation hives within the house. There is nothing that would prohibit it. Goldman
says this still falls under the 3 hives allowed.
Commission Discussion:
Mindlin had minor question on enclosure, what about rest of micro-livestock. Goldman clarified the language is inclusive of all
the micro-livestock.
Commissioners Dawkins/Peddicord m/s to forward on to City Council approval of Planning Action 2013-00545. No
further discussion. Roll call vote: Peddicord, Miller, Brown, Kaplan, Dawkins, Mindlin, all AYES Motion passed 6:0.
D. Other Business:
Nomination and Motions for Chair and Vice Chair for the 2013-2014 Planning Commission.
Miller motioned for Mindlin as Chair; seconded by Peddicord.
No other nominations. Voice vote called. All ayes. Motion passed 5:0.
Kaplan motioned for Dawkins as Vice Chair; seconded by Brown.
No other nominations. Voice vote called. All ayes. Motion passed 5:0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:39 PM.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
June 25, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Tracy Peddicord Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Richard Kaplan Dawn Lamb
Debbie Miller (recused self from discussion)
Carol Davis
Absent Members: Melanie Mindlin Council Liaison: Mike Morris
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commission welcomes Carol Davis to the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC FORUM
None.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. NORMAL AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING UPDATE
Dawkins described the objective of the planning process for the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. The hope is to have
developers follow a plan that has been discussed by the community and for staff to form a functional neighborhood. This is a
tried and true process that has happened for decades within Ashland. Dawkins has asked Molnar to describe and give
examples of other areas with similar density to help establish an idea of what is being discussed.
Molnar commented that the area near Clay Street has developed over the last 25 years. Three or four developments were
ultimately annexed over the last 24 years. The densities ranged from 9 to 13 units per acre. As we plodded through the
projects there was sentiment on what the broader plan for the area would be. We have adjusted the plan to reflect the want and
need for the area's objective. Looking at Normal with the property owners will help us set expectations for the natural areas, the
types of houses and to provide diverse options for movement. This is a great opportunity to look at the area comprehensively
rather than reacting to an annexation. But nothing will happen until a developer wants to make an application.
Goldman spoke to the last meeting on April 9th. Staff worked with Transportation Growth Management Program, the state
agency funding consultant in order to amend the prior scope of work to incorporate another iteration of the plan. Joseph
Readdy, ERB Works is here tonight and has been working on the plan since the inception. We will go over the incorporated
revisions. Areas that need to be further evaluated in the revised concept plan include the redistribution of housing within the
plan area, identification of transitional standards, housing in the plan area, and how it relates to existing development on the
perimeter. Additionally, staff will look at the potential use of open space to provide pedestrian connectivity and development
standards that address the retention of storm water and preserve the areas hydrology. Density will be discussed to clarify
zones in terms of single dwelling or multi-dwelling housing types. We want input from both public and commission to further
refine the plan. The next revision will be the conclusion of work with the consultant.
Joseph Readdy addressed the commission. The first steps identified in the plan were to look at area in terms of ingress and
egress and to identify border areas that are affected by the 94 acres. Readdy identified border vacuums which are areas that
separate neighborhoods from neighborhoods, districts from districts, access restrictions to destinations. Because of physical
constraints of the Middle School, rail line, playfields, and cemetery access is inhibited. This only allows 3 ways in and out of the
site. This access has been a key characteristic in forming a plan. One other aspect was wetlands. The wetland inventory
indicated the middle wetland was of lower value but we wanted to keep the hydrology and natural qualities offered by this
middle wetland. Those areas have been carefully considered and respected.
Despite access issues we wanted to create a street network integrating all the parcels to the largest extent possible while
preserving some of the characteristics that people really enjoy. The future Normal Avenue runs straight across the site, but the
new street plan introduces an inflection to the east and it bends. The current Normal will not be the primary way through the
site. We designed a network to local access and not for getting traffic through. We prioritized destination over long distances.
The number of street crossings has been minimized. There are only two possible street crossings; Cemetery Creek at the north
and one at the south. But connectivity exists for pedestrians and bikes. The streets identified are collectors from north to south,
neighborhood streets, and woonerf, "a shared space" where pedestrians, bicyclists and cars all occupy the same surface areas
of road. Also proposed rear lanes and alleys throughout the plan allows access to backyards. These are pedestrian and bike
friendly. Pedestrian and bicycle paths are connected in the network. In terms of transportation, we have been successful with
making it work with what has been offered.
Zoning had two major designations identified in the comprehensive plan. We came up with 3 levels of intensity in development
which are appropriate for this site based off of access connection, what is there now, and what might possibly be there. We
believe that this is a reflection of what we heard from the public during the charettes and study sessions. It incorporates
messages received in the interim. The plan was redrawn as of last week to incorporate comments.
Goldman discussed housing designations and density. Each plan area designated is permissible. The most familiar, the single-
family with a garage, is permissible in the NA-01 and NA-02. Single-family dwelling with an accessory residential unit is also
permitted in the NA-01 and NA-02. ADUs are accessed off the back and half the size of the primary dwelling. This is a gentle
way of adding density in neighborhoods without changing the character. Double dwelling or duplexes have the same mass and
scale as one single-family unit and are allowable in the NA-01 and NA-02. Cluster dwelling and pocket neighborhoods are
compact dwelling units around the perimeter of property surrounded by open green area. The distinction between this and what
you see in the multi-family housing developments is that the cluster residents units could be zero lot line. Each unit is owned or
rented by an individual. The complexes have consolidated parking in one area of the site. The footprint is typically around 1000
sq ft. Attached dwellings that share a common wall like townhomes offer another form of density. Parking is provided on each
lot or townhome off a rear alley, permissible in the NA-02 and NA-03 zones. Opportunities could be expanded to other zones if
the commission agreed. It could help to consolidate the open space. Multiple-dwellings in residential units like row houses or
apartments. Six combined units in one building with consolidated parking and shared surface parking area. Parking needs to be
in rear or side of building per building standards. Goldman showed images of each type of developments discussed to provide
examples of density. The high-density zone [NA-03] had been conceived at a density of 20 units per acre, hoever it has since
been reduced to 15 dwelling units per acre and still achieve the overall targen number of units per acre for the plan area.
Goldman discussed project goals provided at the project initiation including an objective to increase the efficiency of land use by
a concentration of housing centrally located within the existing UGB. Forming a development pattern of multi-modal
transportation systems that enhances bicycle and pedestrian access both through and to the area. Opportunities for transit will
be responsive to future need. The need has to exist to make a probable route. It came up during a planning commission
meeting that there wasn't a neighbor serving commercial center within a'/4-mile radius of the plan area. One project objective
envisions home occupations, and neighborhood serving businesses such as a coffee shop or neighborhood market.
Dawkins asked to discuss the pocket neighborhood. Readdy illustrated an example showing a 0.6-acre lot with 10 units.
Goldman commented that the density in Bud's Dairy is 9 units per acre, additionally Creek Drive south of Meadowbrook is the
same, this would be considerably more dense, but in the examples the yard space is private and not visible as whole. It
increases neighborhood amenities like creeks for neighborhoods to see and share.
Dawkins wanted to explain that commercial is not always something that you drive too, consider mixed use of a coffee house or
residential business. Molnar wanted to comment on the neighborhood services overlay similar to Mountain Meadows which has
a small area. The scale limits the size of these uses will prohibit the buildings from being much larger than a larger home, it is
not a multi-story building.
Public Discussion:
Howard Miller, 160 Normal Avenue. He spoke in regards to Planning commissioner Debbie Miller who recused herself from
the proceedings to prevent a conflict of interest. Possesses strong feelings that the project is at an impasse because the
qualities of decisions should be based on facts and how many facts do we have, not much. All kinds of other opinions and
items are "to be determined". There is still a need for a set of options and that is ongoing. The thing we do have is very dense
housing and I waited for someone to say that this is 1000 new people in area. The housing areas where we see iterations of
people and they are represented by colored blocks of areas on the map that look like puzzle pieces that hop around the map.
Transportation goes in lots of direction without bearing on terrain and owners of the property they cross. Interconnectivity
multimodal aspects keep coming up, but the closest store is 'h mile to a 1 mile away. Everyone is going to have 1-2 cars. The
wetlands the streams and drainage keep changing. These are geographic facts not political issues. The thing that impressed
me is this may be happen in 10 to 20 years from now. How many detailed business plans go out 20 years, how do you make
housing plans for families for 2033?
Barry Vitcov, 430 Briscoe Place, but owns home at 316 Meadow Drive. Not speaking to specific infrastructure issues being
addressed by others. He is trying to understand the plan. This is an opportunity to look at the integrated use of the site and I
appreciate that. A lot appears to be missing. Not looking at surroundings of the site and if looking at as an integrated plan than
need to look beyond the 94 acres and how it connects beyond itself. How do you create a plan that integrates in a larger
community not just a small one? Questions whether what is being presented is well integrated. There are some areas that are
beyond development. They are the way they are. Only a percentage is developable. There is not a flow here to create a unified
plan. Cluster developments are closed and exclusive centered around a green space for a group. Need spaces that will pull a
community together and create a flow that the community will take advantage of. There is a lot of thought and changes that
have gone into this plan but there needs to be greater thinking in the transition outside the areas and how we pull them into
community.
Stewart Reid, 2045 E. Main Street. Fish biologist by trade. Look outside the boundaries to look at the water. Inside the plan
he is happy to seethe riparian corridors being maintained throughout the development. The bridges are beneficial for fish and
other animals. Streams should be there for kids to play, and we are a tree community that plants trees but we are also a stream
community with great diversity. The terrace used to be a spring fed wet area that drained into Bear Creek and would prefer to
maintain that character in the City. Concern with infiltration and wells on the other side of development. Water infiltrating into
ground water from a reef is not something you want to drink, but it does get rid of a lot and does recharge the water. Clay Creek
is listed ESA salmonic habitat at the lower end of Clay Creek so everything that goes in affects the habitats and populations in
Bear Creek. Sewer impacts are a concern. Springs on other size recharge in this area on the south side. Need to think and
preserve the waterways because they are a treasure. Neighborhood density is not reflective of a small town but a bunch of
apartments.
Byce Anderson, 2092 Creek Drive. Live across the street from where the highest development for this plan will exist. Goal
one of the Oregon land use is citizen involvement, and until recently none of us that are affected were involved because we
didn't' know about it. This was because it was titled Normal Avenue and that is not what is reflected. Most of the people who
live on Normal Avenue are totally unaffected by this project. If it had been called the Gateway District plan and if we were told
that it affects people from Tolman Creek to Wightman, and from East Main up to Ashland Street and beyond, there may have
been more participation in the charettes that seems to have made such a difference in this plan. Concern that much of the
workability there is in this plan depends on entire thing being developed out and done together, and this will most certainly not
happen. The section of high density is designated between Clay Creek and E Main and the wetlands and developers are
chomping at the bit to get to. Whereas the other areas, not so much. Especially the broad area down the middle there is no
prospective at all that exists where the streets are cut through or any of that is going to be developed. When the high density
goes in we will be stuck with it and what was your problem is then going to be our problem. The idea that there should be a
park'/4 mile away from wherever you live in Ashland is not being upheld. Snowberry never got its park and now this area has
no provision for an open space that is not either part of the wetland or potentially in a cluster development that will not include
the public. Water quality issues have been spoken too, but utilities are another issue. City crews are called out to pump out the
sewers regularly because they are too small for the existing services.
Dale Swire, 233 Clay Street. He will live across from the high density when you can get 28 property owners to go along with it
and get all those county people into the City. Only addressing one concern because of time. Traffic problems would be
exacerbated. Living off lower Clay Street the surrounding neighborhoods face the task of turning left onto East Main by the
Mormon Church face relentless oncoming traffic coming to and from Ashland Middle School, Walker Elementary, Willow Winds
school, Scienceworks, National Guard Armory with the Tuesday market, City offices and other generators. East Main Street is
also used to reach 1-5 and Oak Knoll and Emigrant Lake. It has more bikers than Main Street and a lot of walkers that use the
narrow bikepaths. The high-density zones of the draft plan are big concerns because they are along East Main and Clay
Streets and the newly proposed Normal Avenue extension onto East Main will add hundreds of autos and daily trips onto this
artery and further endanger our neighborhood citizens. He has seen no traffic modifications in this plan; no turn lanes, no traffic
stops, and no lane widening for East Main. Understand property acquisition problems from county lots that are on both sides
and that are part of problem. Like to hear more about how that will be handled and the cost to the City will be. The future traffic
analysis needs to be done before any final plan can be honestly acted on. We count on volunteers of planning commission to
keep Ashland a livable community.
Lisa Sennhauser, 300 Normal Avenue. She is not willing to change her property from a single dwelling. Her issue is the
placement of the road that is currently connecting with the Clay Street area. This road affects her property adversely. It would
add headlights directly into her home. Property is surrounded by riparian area with two streams on either side of home.
Bringing a road through would take out trees and natural space. The health of the creek and drinking water could be affected.
The street would be within the entire buffer zone. That would affect the buffer zone negatively. Prefer road continue straight
ahead from the intersection and instead of coming in and going directly past her home go to the field that is adjacent to her
home.
Carrul Breon, 322 Meadow Drive. Lives next to the wetland boarder. Experiences great amounts of flooding on her lot. The
80-foot ravine behind her house floods and fills with debris carried from streams above. In past storm events, water rushes
down from the hills carrying debris and filling the fields behind the windmill property. It quickly dissipates over the entire field
creating a wetland. What happens if there are houses on that land and if it is not been sufficiently addressed?
Ray Eddington, representing Gracepoint Church, 1760 East Main Street. Want to address concerns from the community
behind us. We hear the concerns of the wetlands. The board consensus and membership have the neighbors in mind about
this development. The church has three items to discuss. One is the wetland protection. It is still in planning where the
delineation would come out. Thanks the architect on making changes based on their letter. They oppose a road going through
the wetlands. They are in support of low-density housing with a calming effect. Church has future plans for a care home of
some low impact type behind their building. There is concern that we will be asked to develop high-density housing on our
property and it is not what we want. At this point we can't visualize a lane going across the back of the property. Not even a
bike or pedestrian trail. We want to leave the area open for development.
Nancy Boyer, 425 Normal Avenue. She has a lot of concerns, but water is a big issue for her. We may not agree on climate
change; however, our weather patterns are changing. Read climate issues from other areas. Mt Ashland has good and bad
years with snowfall. Snow runoff fills Reeder Reservoir which is our water supply, how many more units can we add to Reeder
Reservoir? Even now the reservoir is strained. Water shortages in the past are supplemented by treating TID water. The
wastewater treatment plant has issues with cooling of the effluent. Will old storm, sewer and water lines be able to handle the
increase of usage? Where is the tap-ins? Plan shows the wetlands in the middle wetland are not circled like the others. It is an
important wetland, the irrigation has been turned off for 2 years, and it is still green. New street design has Normal Avenue over
wetlands, neighborhood streets over streams and woonerf over wetlands. Woonerf are typically designed with less pavement
along riparian areas. How do we assure this development won't disturb the natural flow of the water in the wetlands or below
the ground? I read 25% of development to be surface carving. The discussion of bikes, paths, trails, and buses but there are
still going to be cars requiring all this carving. When the digging begins will the dirt be hauled away or will houses be built on it
disturbing the water flow. There is a significant grade between Ashland Street and Main Street to keep in mind.
Michael Shore, 140 Clay Street. The discussion of this development reminds him of classes he took when he was young on
how this country was formed in the past, specifically who was being left out of the planning process than. We are leaving out
the birds, bees, and fish to make room for houses. No one on the panel is asking questions. See the commission relying on
some really wonderful expert services from the consultants, but the nuance questions about where we are going to put the
people, what the people are going to do, what is going to happen to the water is not coming from commissioners but us, why?
Listening to people designing houses and not questioning decisions unless we bring it up is not acceptable. There are so many
people without houses and animals that we haven't taken care of. We are biased homeowners, if you are planning the city you
need to look at the city and everyone's needs. Traffic is a really important issue and it has been mentioned that there are no
turnouts. Cars are passe we have to think about big picture in this country and bring it up to discussion. Not just how we
develop a little piece of property or the homeowner's view or someone's ability to make money by building units. Wages are
going way down so all these rentals will be empty. Who can afford to live in these places? Where are the jobs for these
people? Any type of plan needs to go beyond how many people can we fit in on the site.
Carol Black, 355 Normal Avenue. Concern with traffic patterns in the proposed site. Twenty years ago Normal had 3 houses.
It is a little bigger down the tracks now. The houses are expensive homes and I want to talk about how this is a small
community of several homes on the whole Avenue below the tracks and as an owner of one of the those homes, I would like the
planning commission to be sensitive to the concerns of those homeowners on this portion. We believe this will likely decrease
our property values if the plan goes forward in its current form. I would like to stress that not one of the owners who live below
the tracks are interested in our existing street being used as entrance point to a new community. I think there are ways to easily
get around that. We would like to ensure that our portion of the street be kept separate and untouched. This is a long-term
plan, but I also know that no one on our portion of Normal is interested in annexing at this point or in the next couple of decades.
These are long-term residents who are staying in their homes. I don't see any of them who will be moving out of the
neighborhood or someone else buying the homes who is going to want the same quality of life that Normal affords in its current
state. When you look at the plan and see that Normal becomes a neighborhood street. Why does it have to be a neighborhood
street and why do we need parking and turnouts when all the existing parcels have plenty of parking on their 1-2 acres of land.
Everyone had plenty of parking. If no one annexes does that mean that the street goes untouched or will it be developed
anyway. When homes are built across the street I would like to ensure that the properties would mirror the single-family homes
on the other.
Commission Discussion:
Carol Davis spoke to a piece of property owned by the school district within this area and used as bus turn-around. It was
created as a safety factor to reduce traffic impact. In a long range planning scope, does it make sense to call this parcel a high-
density zone? Goldman said that it has an existing land use designation assigned to it as all the land does. In terms of looking
at land area that is not otherwise developed by existing buildings, if there was an alternative road put in as opposed to the single
lane there may be an opportunity for a bus loading area and free up the land for future development purposes. It would need to
be initiated by the school board and as a long-term institution it may not happen. The current underlying designation of thatland
area is single-family residential and it is not likely that a house would be put in the middle of the area. It really does lean to
redevelopment in the distant future.
Brown commented that people tend to look at these as short-term plans; schools close but as pointed out by Goldman the
pieces of the land need to have a land use designation. People want to be advocates for their positions as if they will be here in
10, 20, 30, or 40 years, but maybe not. Cities last hundreds of years and part of land use plan is to say what the land
could/should be used for at a future date. If people are not here in 30 years than we need to look at that future usage, that is
what land use planning is accomplishing. This is long range planning because cities last for a long time.
Kaplan wanted to ask based on public input were there any items that have not been addressed. Goldman thought the housing
density issue could be further examined. We talked about creating a buffer or transition to existing neighborhoods to the
remaining property and could look into consideration of making high-density areas into medium density areas and provide for
more flexibility in housing types. That is one analysis we would like to do before coming back as an alternative plan. Under the
1982 comprehensive plan, the gross unit potential is 560 units. That is what annexations could propose at. However, with
development that has occurred, we anticipate actual net unit potential of 431 units. The plans that have been presented are
other arrangements to reach a similar target of around 450 units. If there was an opportunity to look at greater flexibility within
that medium density zone expand it further and hit the target of 430 than we would consider it. We need to look for consistency
so that we do not provide less units then what was provided in the existing comprehensive plan because that would make it
incumbent upon the city to look for alternative locations to increase density or expand the UGB. Brown stated that is what the
current situation is if left alone with no plan and not do anything. What are the allowed units if nothing is planned? Goldman
said with the two different zones, single family and suburban residential, what is allowed for SF is an average of 6 units per
acres after calculating in bonus densities, and 9 units per acre on suburban residential. That calculates 54 acres of developable
property instead of 93 acres because you would subtract out existing buildings and existing riparian areas.
Peddicord questioned the riparian zones and the wetlands. How recent are those designations? Does the riparian area reflect
the standard flood plain definition and how it was determined. Molnar said that delineations were done as part of a state
required local wetland inventory in 2003-04 with varying degrees of precision. It requires permission forms be sent to property
owners to reach the wetlands. Some owners did not respond or refused. Data was than collected by other means. Even before
an application is submitted for a development, often a more precise delineation will be done. Delineations are only good for so
long because water and hydrology does change with time. Wetlands shrank and expanded over time in developments. The
riparian buffer requirement for Cemetery Creek is the general standard of 40 feet from centerline. Flood plains, intermittent and
ephemeral streams are also regulated. Kaplan was there a buffer for the middle wetland? Goldman said it was not shown
because the proposed road on either side encroaches into that 50 feet buffer. The wetland buffer of 50 feet from outside edge of
the wetland was intended to create an added protection zone. In the case of a narrow wetland a 15 to 20 feet buffer exists or
even as narrow as 2 feet wide. We do envision roads within the buffer and it is allowed per the Riparian and Wetland Zone
Ordinance when necessary for the location of public streets. It would be incumbent upon a future development to delineate that
wetland and if it is larger than we anticipate it may affect the location of the streets.
Brown wanted to know if any wetlands are usable for open space. Readdy answered that they will be scenic value to many of
the street corridors. One could be usable for recreation during dry months. Goldman also added that it is a goal to have a park
within'/4 mile of all residents. This area is adjacent to Hunter Park, the school fields when not in session, and YMCA park all fall
within a quarter mile of this area.
Dawkins recalled that Don Greene made comments during the first charette that the sewer could be a problem and has that
been addressed as far as infrastructure. Molnar felt that we haven't gotten to that level of detail. Mr. Greene was talking about
the cost of extending it from the west to the east. Larger master planning issues are taken very seriously. The update of the
TSP and the Sewer/water master plan are done every 20 years. We plan for worst-case scenarios and look for capacity to
handle these developments. We ensure that there is adequate capacity within the infrastructure systems to accommodate
development. Analysis of that level does not happen until the development happens. It is impossible to tell when some of these
bigger pieces will develop. Detail studies of infrastructure will be completed later.
Brown spoke where the streets will go in and out and how they will be developed. Traffic happens incrementally and part of the
street that does not go in is dedicated as public right of way. This inhibits streets being piecemealed through the development.
So the where it will go and the how it will go is thought out, but the actual development of that is in incremental pieces. This has
to be done this way so that developers do not trap neighborhoods without access. It may just be right of way defined and not
happen until a much later date. This is not true for sewers, you must plan ahead.
Goldman followed up on the statement regarding traffic concerns; those are valid and need to be addressed before a final plan
is presented for consideration. There is a current future traffic analysis of the current level of service of existing streets within
the area. Under the alternative consideration presented here in terms of if the plan built out at the proposed densities with this
traffic network, what improvements would be needed on intersections in the vicinity as well as E. Main, Clay, Walker, Tolman
and whether it changes what the TSP analysis was for broader improvements. We will have that information back to help inform
the plan develop the next iteration. Staff would like to have that information in hand to help guide development.
Dawkins recapped comments brought forward tonight. In terms of density, if we did nothing and did not create a plan, the
number of homes that could go into this area following the existing rules is between 430-560 units depending on redevelopment.
This is part of the process that people tend to miss. This is a runaway train that you really cannot do a whole lot about because
it exists. What do we do to try and create a reasonable neighborhood that we can all live with? Dawkins spoke regarding an
article in the Mail Tribune regarding this development.
Kaplan voiced that the property has various uses now, mostly open space. What is the driver to develop this property as
opposed to doing nothing? Goldman explained that for many years the City watched large lots needing further master planning
to identify their development. This area is the largest residential land area remaining within the City UGB that had long been
considered for a master planning effort. The City has an aspiration to develop a long-range plan for the Normal Area
recognizing as market forces change and development within the City limits consumes the remaining buildable land, this area
would become higher and higher value in terms of annexation. Master planning provides the ability to establish a plan in
advance of the market forces. Receiving grant funding from the State of Oregon TGM program, and the expertise it provides,
gave us opportunity to work on it at this time. The difference between the project and a specific development plan is key
because the project of master planning puts framework in place but nothing will happen until individual property owners chose to
annex. The objective is to put a plan in place instead of being driven in a piecemeal fashion by others. Kaplan reiterated again
that this is a concept plan and it looks so real but this is not a done deal. It can clearly be refined and even more refined when a
developer is in hand. The comments are important because people would be impacted. Developers and residents along with
the City will work out the details. The Planning Commission is just providing a technical plan to go to the City Council who
approves the plan. Kaplan feels that comments have been taken into account and reflected. Molnar agreed this is a relatively
detailed concept because of existing standards in our code and that is why some parts look detailed. The plan aims to
address current standards with the understanding that the plan does allow for minor and major amendments. If someone
develops in advance of someone else they will have to meet the plan as best as possible. But if plans are contingent on
another property owner who is not ready to annex, the plan will have to adapt. They will be able to adapt, but the plan outlines
the goals.
Peddicord asked Readdy with so few points of entry, how does this affect adjacent properties? Was this developed in isolation
to adjacent areas? Readdy responded that they tried to create not just an internal system but one inclusive to every street it
touches upon. With E. Main Street in particular, tried to make the points of contact at the best possible places and look for
logical areas. We saw disadvantages to making Normal a straight street: site distances, grade access, and impacts to avoid.
We wanted to avoid making a channel through the development. The goal was to make the path clear, but not easy so that it
would used by people coming to that neighborhood as their destination. Brown recollected that in one of the first meetings 90%
of people were adamant that they did not want Normal to become a thoroughfare between the two main streets. That became a
large portion of design besides the wetlands and other necessary items. But neighbors that live close to it, around it or near it
said that if Normal is straight it will be a thoroughfare. Molnar recalled the TSP has little transportation planning for this area.
One focus for E Main and Clay Street is to create a graded system with a goal of distributing traffic throughout the whole
system. This plan would supersede the TSP plan upon adoption.
Dawkins was pleased at the rearrangement of the densities. He would still like a more homogenous plan. The pocket
neighborhood plan concept could benefit this area. Some people are looking at smaller yards and cottage neighborhoods.
Could this be a type of density that will change the demographic? Does this meet changes in housing needs and be a model for
that. Do we do street standards different for less asphalt? We ask so many questions that you don't even know. These
meetings are your chance to give us comments and give us your opinions.
Next steps: August for the next plan reiteration with traffic analysis, beginning of public process for adoption, draft ordinance to
council. All this will take through December for adoption. Draft formal documents are time intensive and Council will see this
before it is in ordinance form. Molnar reiterated that fine-tuning will continue through the public process during the Council
adoption phase. Unresolved public issues will be addressed to show that we have done our due diligence to resolve them.
They need to see validity of the comments as a concept and not a detail.
Dawkins questioned looking at mixed use with commercial implications. The opportunity in the North Mountain neighborhood
has not been utilized. Is there something that could be created like a stipulation to provide a mixed-use space for a convenient
store, coffee shop, or deli to work into the neighborhood? Molnar not sure when the market would come for that neighborhood
service. Ground floors around the neighborhood service areas could easily adapt to small business spaces but also be
reflected in the plan as residential use. Kaplan asked if anyone knew details on the Clearview Development in Talent? It is
being touted as a mixed-use single-family, townhouse, live/work units, retail, restaurant, and office. Molnar will look into this.
Brown felt that the commercial mixed-use developments needed to be further discussed.
C. Other Business:
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:54 PM.
r Planning Department, 51 Win. Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 CITY F
;
541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY:1-800-735-2900
-ASH LAf
PLANNING ACTION: 2013-00606
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Vacant Parcels at North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
OWNER/APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed use building consisting of
four commercial spaces and eight parking spaces on the ground floor and 12 residential units on the second and
third floors on the vacant parcel at the corner of North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. Also included is a
request for a Modification of the Outline/Final Plan approval for the Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision
(PA#2003-00158) in order to adjust the number of residential units allocated to the subject properties based on the
permitted densities within the NM-C district. As originally approved in 2003, the four subject properties were
proposed to have ten residential units; the applicant here proposes to modify that approval to allow a total of 40
dwelling units between the four subject properties. The applicants also propose to remove seven (7) Siberian Elm
trees within the adjacent alley through a Street Tree Removal Permit in order to open the alley to use for vehicular
circulation. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central Overlay;
ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900
NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also review this Planning Action on Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Community Development and Engineering Services building (Siskiyou Room) located at 51 Winburn Way.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: I.. 2013 r` 7 Civic Center
/ _
-2013-00806
BJECT PROPERTIES
~A%T FAIROAKS N. MOUNTAIN AV F NEVg0A
r
f9 z
~R - KS Av
PA-2013-00806
f I SUBJECT PROPERTIES
AT FAIR OAKS & N. MOUNTAIN AV
FAIR OAKS CT
JULIAN CT.
t
i
12
IC
N'
0 12.5 25 5o Feel t'. ye. ty tanea a.o jor roj ronce onty of scnteQata
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland,
Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application,
either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of
appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right
of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient
specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be
provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51
Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right
to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests
before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office
at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1).
If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.72.070 Criteria for Approval
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage,
and adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL
18.88.030.A.4 Criteria for Approval
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban
storm drainage, police and fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have
been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and
unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments
are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter,
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
(ORD 2836, 1999)
NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION 18.30.100.C Supplemental Approval Criteria
In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of the land use ordinance, applications within the NM land use district shall also
address the following criteria:
1. That a statement has been provided indicating how the proposed application conforms with the general design requirements of the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation.
2. That the proposed application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design
Standards.
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
GA Comm-de0planning\Planning Actions\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2013\PA-2013-00806.doc
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF PORT
July 9, 2013
PLANNING ACTION: 2013-00806
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C
LOCATION: Vacant Parcels at North Mountain
and Fair Oaks Avenues (Map 39 lE 04 AD,
Tax Lot #'s: 700, 800, 1400, 1500, 5900 &
6000)
ZONE DESIGNATION: NM - C, North Mountain
Neighborhood Central Overlay
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Neighborhood
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 13.16 Street Trees
18.30 NM North Mountain Neighborhood
18.72 Site Design Review
18.88 Performance Standards Options
18.92 Parking, Access and Circulation
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: July 1, 2013
REQUEST: A request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed use building
consisting of four commercial spaces and eight parking spaces on the ground floor and 12 residential
units on the second and third floors on the vacant parcel at the corner of North Mountain and Fair
Oaks Avenues, in the "Village Center" area of the Meadowbrook Park Estates Subdivision. Also
included is a request for a Modification of the Outline/Final Plan subdivision approval (PA#2003-
00158) in order to adjust the number of residential units allocated to the subject properties based on
the permitted densities within the NM-C district. As originally approved in 2003, the subject
properties were proposed to have ten residential units between four buildable lots; the applicant here
proposes to modify that approval to allow a total of 40.4 dwelling units between the four lots. The
applicants also propose to remove seven (7) previously preserved Siberian Elm trees within the
adjacent alley through a Street Tree Removal Permit in order to open the alley to use for vehicular
circulation.
1. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application
This application involves four buildable lots located within the Neighborhood
Central Overlay (NM-C) of the North Mountain Neighborhood zoning district. The
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds j
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.I.C. Page 1 of 19
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area has been located within the Ashland City
Limits since the early 1900's.
In May of 1997, the City Council adopted the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan as
Ordinance #2800, which included a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
amendment and a new chapter in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) -
Chapter 18.30, North Mountain Neighborhood. Chapter 18.30 lays the framework
and provides applicable design standards for development proposals within the NM
zoning districts.
In May 2003, the Planning Commission granted Outline Plan approval as PA #2002-
00151 for an 81-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options Chapter
for the 16 acres located along the west side of North Mountain Avenue, east of the
Bear Creek channel and south of the unimproved section of Nevada, including the
subject parcels under consideration here. This application also included Major
Amendments to the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including
realignment/reconfiguration of certain streets and modifications to required yard
areas.
In January of 2004, the Planning Commission granted Final Plan approval as PA
#2003-00158 for an 81-lot subdivision under the Performance Standards Options,
located within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area west of the North
Mountain Avenue, east of Bear Creels channel and south of the unimproved section
of Nevada, including the subject parcels under consideration here. That approval
included 79 residential units within the residential zones, and an additional 13
residential units and 11 commercial spaces in the NM-C portion of the project. This
Final Plan approval was granted two administrative one-year extensions as provided
in AMC 18.108.030.A.5., one with PA #2005-00099 and the other with PA #2006-
00264.
In July of 2005, the Planning Commission granted Site review approval as PA
#2005-00696 for four mixed-use buildings comprised of 10 commercial and 10
residential condominium units on the subject properties in the "Village Center" area
of the Meadowbrook Park Subdivision.
Lots were created and streets dedicated with recordation of the plat for this project.
The bulk of the public infrastructure for the Meadowbrook Park Estates Phase II
project, including curbs, gutters, paving, some sidewalks, street trees, and utility
infrastructure was constructed shortly thereafter, and some houses were constructed
before the developers sold the remaining parcels as the economy declined. The
central common space and public improvements along the subject properties'
frontages remain to be completed as these lots develop. The applicant has recently
begun work to complete the central open space area as detailed on the approved civil
plans, although the previously included fountain is to be replaced with a hardscape
plaza area enclosed with a low seating wall.
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 2 of 19
i
i
There are no other planning actions of record for this property.
2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal
Site Description
The subject property as well as the area surrounding the site is located in the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan area, and is included in the North Mountain
Neighborhood (NM) zoning district. The NM zoning district is divided into seven
secondary zoning districts or "overlays". The subject properties involved here are
zoned NM-C (Neighborhood Central Overlay). The Neighborhood Central Overlay
represents the commercial and civic center of the plan area.
The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and implementing NM zoning district
regulations identify required transportation facilities, common areas and individual
sub-zones. In addition, all development proposals within the NM Plan area are
required to adhere to the North Mountain Neighborhood Design standards, as well as
other applicable ordinance provisions such as Local Street Standards, General
Regulations and Site Design and Use Standards.
The areas proposed for construction are currently vacant and free of any existing
structures. A row of existing Siberian Elm trees is located immediately to the north of
the proposed buildings. No other significant natural features are situated in the
immediate area.
Previous Approval
The 2005 Site Review approval involved four lots situated within the 81-lot
"Meadowbrook Park Development at North Mountain." These lots were within the
Neighborhood Central (NM-C) Overlay. The Neighborhood Central Overlay is
ultimately intended to provide space for a mix of neighborhood scale commercial
uses, while permitting residential uses as well. The four previously-proposed
commercial buildings oriented toward the open space at the entrance of the
development, known as the Village Center. Multi-stony buildings were proposed for
three of the four lots, with the fourth to contain an approximately 2,000 square foot
octagon building which was initially to serve as the sales office for the development.
The octagon building was completed in 2007, and the three remaining lots are still
undeveloped.
In total, the 2005 Site Review approval involved the creation of 11 ground floor
tenant spaces, with 10 upper floor residential units between the buildings proposed
on the four lots, although at the base density of the NM-C overlay the parent parcel
could have accommodated 46.2 unites. Within this overlay, off-street parking is not
required for commercial spaces, and one off-street parking space is required for each
residential unit. The 2005 approval included single-car garages for each residence at
the rear of each mixed-use building.
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 3 of 19
III
Public Utilities and Facilities
In the previous Subdivision and subsequent Site Review approvals, the development
was to be served by upgraded services provided by the developers including City of
Ashland water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and electric service; paved access from
East Nevada Street, Camelot Drive and proposed alleys; and public sidewalks and
plantings strip which were to be installed along East Nevada Street frontage of the
project.
While paving, curbs, gutters, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and some of the public
sidewalks and street trees were installed as part of the public infrastructure
requirements for Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision development, frontage
improvements including sidewalks and street trees along the subject properties'
frontages remain to be completed as the individual properties develop. In addition,
the central green open space was not finished with the initial infrastructure, and the
applicant has recently begun work to complete its installation consistent with the
adopted civil drawings.
Current Proposal
The current application requests Site Review approval to construct a grouping of
three-story mixed use buildings at the corner of North Mountain Avenue and Fair
Oaks Avenue consisting of four commercial spaces and eight parking spaces on the
ground floor and 12 residential units on the second and third floors. (The underlying
zoning regulations and subsequent conditions of approval include a 3,500 square foot
per building size limitation to ensure that building design; treatment and massing will
maintain a neighborhood scale and read as traditional storefronts. The proposed
grouping of buildings here is to comply with this standard and will be a group of
structurally separate buildings similar to those common in the downtown.)
A Modification of the Outline/Final Plan subdivision approval (PA#2003-00158) is
also requested to adjust the number of residential units allocated to the subject
properties based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district. As previously
approved with PA #2005-00696, the subject properties were proposed to have ten
residential units between the four buildable lots although the parent parcel's base
density would have accommodated 46.2 units; the applicant here proposes to modify
that approval to allow a total of 40.4 dwelling units between the four lots, with 12 of
these to be constructed with the current proposal. The applicant also proposes to
remove seven previously-preserved Siberian Elm trees within the adjacent alley
through a Street Tree Removal Permit in order to open the alley to use for vehicular
circulation.
II. Project Impact
Procedurally speaking, the amendment or modification of a Type II planning action (such as
the Outline Plan approval for a subdivision) where the modification involves changes other
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 4 of 19
than tree removal or building envelope adjustment requires a Type II planning action, and the
current proposal is accordingly being brought to the Planning Commission for a public
hearing and decision.
Site Review
In addition to the Basic Site Review Standards, planning applications involving Performance
Standards Options developments or Site Review approval are required to demonstrate
compliance with the applicable North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. The North
Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards, Section VII of the City's Site Design and Use
Standards, provide guidance in areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks,
height, and the encouragement of mixed-use development.
In seeking to maintain a neighborhood scale, the NM-C regulations include a square footage
limitation on individual buildings of 3,500 square feet of total floor area. In this instance, the
proposed building will actually be broken into several different individual buildings which
will comply with this square footage limitation. As with the downtown plaza or the nearby
Julian Square development, while the buildings are attached they will be structurally separate
and provide distinct divisions in building mass, a mix of residential and commercial design
treatments, changes in roof forms, and a variety of building elements and exterior materials
to reflect the underlying intent of the NM-C overlay to create a strong, neighborhood scale
mixed-use center for the neighborhood with a traditional storefront streetscape.
The proposed group of buildings provides a strong storefront presence that relates well to the
street, with parking to be provided off of the alley to the rear. Sidewalk and street trees are to
be installed along the frontage with development of the site, and an entry plaza with a
mixture of landscape and hardscape treatments to accommodate and encourage public use
will be created with the building as envisioned in the NMNP to create a sense of entry to the
neighborhood.
In staff's view, the building and site design reflect the importance of the central public spaces
and the ground floor elevations present a traditional storefront appearance while
accommodating interim residential use, and the building masses have been effectively broken
up to maintain a neighborhood appropriate scale while establishing a strong commercial
streetscape.
In Staff's opinion, the application for Site Review approval remains largely consistent with
the design concepts and the proposed residential density, while increased from the previous
Site Review approval, is consistent with the underlying density of the NM-C district, as was
discussed during the subdivision hearings. Ground floor tenant spaces will orient toward
public spaces and incorporate commercial design elements while retaining some initial
design elements to allow interim residential use that will easily convert to commercial as the
neighborhood builds out.
I
In Staff's opinion, the application complies with the City's Site Design and Use Standards
for commercial development, including building orientation, streetscape, access standards
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 5 of 19
and the location of off-street parking areas. The NM-C overlay is similar to the Commercial
C-1 zoning district in that it does not include minimum lot area, lot coverage or setback
requirements. Parking will be within the buildings' footprints and accessed by the public
alley system as required in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
Additionally, the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards provide guidance in areas
of architectural design and character, building setbacks, height and mixed-uses. The
application appears consistent with these standards. The building design reflects the
importance of the central public spaces. Ground floors take on a more traditional storefront
appearance, while residential use is accommodated within the upper floors.
Utilities
Utility infrastructure installed with the original subdivision was sized to accommodate the
lesser number of units proposed at the time. Utilities and infrastructure available include:
• Water - All of the subject properties are currently served by an eight-inch
water main in the Fair Oaks Drive right-of-way, however because the water
services were initially intended to serve ten residential units where as many as
40 are now proposed additional connections and services will need to be
provided by the applicant.
• Sanitary Sewer - Tax Lots #700 and #800 are currently served by an eight-
inch sanitary sewer main in the alley to their north. Tax Lot #5900 is
currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in the Fair Oaks Drive
right-of-way. As with water, because the sewer lines provided were initially
intended to serve ten residential units where as many as 40 are now proposed
additional connections and services will need to be provided by the applicant.
• Storm Water - Tax Lots #700 & #800 are currently served by a six-inch
storm sewer main in the alley to their north. Tax Lot #5900 is currently
served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in Julian Court. With development, the
applicant will need to provide an engineered storm drainage plan
demonstrating that post-development peak flows will be less than or equal to
the pre-development peal- flow, and which addresses storm water quality
mitigation as part of the design.
• Electric - As with water and sewer, the electric infrastructure initially
installed was sized to accommodate only ten total residential units. The
applicant will need to address the additional electric capacity and conduit to
provide connections to serve all of the proposed units with development.
• Streets & Transportation - Curbs, gutters, paving, street lights and some
sidewalks and street trees were installed with the subdivision infrastructure,
however sidewalks and street trees for the subject properties were not
installed and will need to be completed in conjunction with the proposed
development here. The applicant has begun installing sidewalks and grading
around the central open space to complete this common greenspace plaza area
in a manner consistent with the original approval, although the water feature
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, LL.C, Page 6 of 19
previously shown on the lower end will be replaced with a small hardscape
plaza area encircled by a low seating wall.
Based on the infrastructure already in place and the modifications to the original approval
proposed here, a number of recommended conditions have been included below to require
that the applicants provide a revised utility and storm drainage plans, and revised plans of the
frontage improvements prior to the submittal of the building permit for Tax Lot #700 . In
addition, a condition has been included to require that a revised electrical service plan with
load calculations be provided for review and approval prior to permit submittal.
Mod cation
The proposed Modification of the Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals would
increase the number of residential units to be built on the subject properties based on the j
permitted densities within the NM-C district. The applicant here proposes to modify that
approval to allow up to a total of 40.4 dwelling units between the four lots, with 12 of these
to be constructed with the current proposal. In addition, the applicants propose to remove
seven Siberian Elm trees within the adjacent alley through a Street Tree Removal Permit in
order to open the alley to use for vehicular circulation. These trees were previously
preserved and protected in the prior proposals.
Density
I
i
i
As originally approved in the Outline Plan, the subject properties were to have included 13
residential units above ground floor commercial spaces. In the subsequent Site Review
approval, the number of residential units was reduced to ten. During the public hearing for
the Outline Plan approval, planning staff presented an exhibit which explained the density of t
the proposal and which noted that the 2.31 acre portion of the original parent parcels that fell
within the NM-C zone could accommodate as many as 46.2 residential units based on the 20
dwelling units per acre base density. AMC 18.30.030.A which addresses permitted density
within the NM-C district notes, "The density shall be computed by dividing the total number
of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base densityfor
the Neighborhood Central Overlay shall be 20 units per acre, however, units of less than 500
square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density
calculations."
As is the case in other zones, density is typically allocated at the project level when lots are
created and dedications made, and streets or open space which are to be dedicated are j
considered in calculating project density. The applicant here proposes to revisit the density
of the NM-C portion of the previous project, and to do so has sought to determine a pro-rata
share of the rights-of-way and common areas previously dedicated which could be equitably
distributed between those properties within the NM-C portion of the original project.
i
I
The current applicant owns all but one of the subject properties, and the owner of the
remaining property containing the octagon building at 567 Fair Oaks has signed off on the
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L,L,C, Page 7 of 19
application to allow it to move forward. The proposal would allocate 40.4 dwelling units
between the four subject properties, with 12 dwellings to be included in the currently
proposed buildings with the remaining 28.4 units of density to " `float' between the four
commercial properties as long as the parking and other North Mountain development
standards are being met. Each remainingparcel's developmentplans would continue to go
through a Site Review process and neighborhood notice to verify the standards are in
keeping with the approval..." The applicants have provided a table allocating this density,
and note that 11.9 units would be allocated to Tax Lot #700, 9.7 units each would be
allocated to Tax Lots #800 and #1500, and 9.1 units allocated to Tax Lot #5900, with the
flexibility to allow "proposals for Tax Lot #700 that has a base density of 11.9 to be rounded
up to 12, but Tax Lot #800 to be rounded down to nine as long as they remain consistent with
the overall density. (Fractional units of density do not apply toward the base density, and
0.4 of a unit could obviously not be constructed. This density would equate to 40 units, but
the flexibility requested by the applicants would allow fi°actional portions of the density to be
transferred between the subjectproperties as long as the ultimate density did not exceed 40.)
As part of the proposal, the applicants make clear that it is their intention that three of the
four proposed ground floor commercial spaces be used temporarily as residences until the
neighborhood builds out to the point that it will support neighborhood scale commercial
uses. The fourth of these spaces, the corner space in the building on Tax Lot #700, is
proposed to be a small neighborhood coffee shop. In their application submittal, they note
that the vast majority of ground floor commercial spaces at nearby Julian Square and the
North Mountain Retirement Center have sat vacant since their construction. The applicants
emphasize that it is their goal to provide a "mixture of housing units, sizes, locations and
views with the ability to accommodate a variety of occupant demands and to remain as
flexible as possible in the current fragile real estate market." The application emphasizes j
that this sort of interim residential use was anticipated in the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan with notes that, "The completion of the neighborhood central area will likely take
several years. The residential areas of the plan and neighboring sites will likely need to be
fully developed in order for the commercial uses to be viable. Until that time, new buildings
shall be constructed to accommodate residential uses, but designed in a way that will allow
a simple transition to commercial use (Site Design and Use Standards, VII-B)." To this end,
the applicants request that the ground floor spaces, which are to be constructed for eventual
commercial use but will be used initially as residential, not be considered in either the overall
density or parking calculations as they are ultimately intended for commercial use which
have no associated parking requirement within the NM-C district and could utilize on-street
parking until those commercial uses are established. The applicants have indicated they will
provide a deed restriction to make clear that these properties are intended for commercial use
over the long-term. In staff view, this is consistent with the vision of the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan; provided that at no time would the number of residential units in place
on the subject properties, including the ground floor spaces, exceed those allowed under the
base density. A condition to this effect has been proposed below.
i
i
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 8 of 19
STAFF CONCERN/RECOMMENDATION: DENSITY
In staff's view, the density proposed is consistent with that allowed within the NM-C district
and within the range of possibility discussed during the Outline Plan approval hearing in
2002. For staff, the proposed design seems well-executed and in keeping with the applicable
design standards, and the added density is being used to provide a range of units types and
sizes with one- and two-bedroom units ranging from approximately 600 square feet to
approximately 1,300 square feet while the building sizes and massing remain essentially the
same as was previously approved. Over the long-term, this density seems likely to support a
vibrant neighborhood center as envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and
for staff the key issue is in making sure that the increased number of residential units will not
create a parking problem when the neighborhood center fully builds out.
Parking
Within the Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C), uses other than residential are not
required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, and residential uses are required to
provide only one off-street space per unit. As with the downtown where there is no
requirement to provide off-street parking for commercial uses, the underlying assumption for
the NM-C district was that sufficient parking was to be provided in the public realm through
on-street parking or public (or quasi public) parking lots to accommodate the commercial
parking demand for employees and customers, as well as additional tenant and guest parking
for residents. Parking areas are required to meet the dimensional and design requirements of
the parking ordinances and the Site Design and Use Standards, but standard off-street parking
requirements, and the related use of on-street parking credits to meet these requirements, do
not apply in the NM-C overlay as they do elsewhere in the city and in the other NM overlay
zones.
The underlying parking assumptions were that roughly 51 one spaces would be available in
the public realm to off-set the roughly 47 space parking demand envisioned based on likely
commercial build-out. This was addressed in the original findings for the Outline Plan
subdivision approval, which noted:
Even though no off-street parking is required, the proposal was tested to ensure
adequate available parking for the businesses. Since the particular tenants in the
commercial spaces are unknown at this time, some assumptions had to be made. A
likely scenario would be that the 11,000 square feet of proposed commercial space
is consumed by a couple of 1,000 square foot restaurants with the remainder being
leases to retail, service and office businesses. This generates a need for 27 parking
spaces for the restaurant uses and 20 spaces for the other uses. In the
Neighborhood Central (NM-C) Overlay, there are 19 (on-street) parking spaces
provided along Fair Oaks Avenue, 23 along Plum Ridge Court (a private street with
head in parking at its edge), 5 (on-street) along Plum Ridge Drive, and 4 (on-street)
along RidgewayAvenue (now Camelot Drive), all within 200feetof theirassociated
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 9 of 19
uses. Therefore, adequate on-street parking will be available even if a greater
percentage of restaurant usage occurs. (Seepages 12-13 of the 'Meadowbrook Park
11 Development Consolidated Findings' submitted by the applicants for the Outline
Plan application #2002-00151).
The approval was based The NMNP envisioned interim use of downstairs commercial tenant
spaces as residential units in the short-term. These spaces were planned for commercial use
in the long-term, but the NMNP recognized that the project needed to reach a certain level of
built residential density to support the neighborhood scale commercial uses before these
spaces would become viable (i.e. there needed to be a neighborhood in place to support
neighborhood commercial uses). In staff's view, it would be appropriate for available on-
street spaces to be used to offset these downstairs residential units' parking requirements
over the short-term as these parking spaces were intended to offset parking demand for the
downstairs tenant spaces. However, under the requirements currently in place, residential
units on the upper floors would each need to provide one off-street parking space.
The current proposal includes a total of 12 residential units between the upper floors of the
proposed group of buildings, and thus requires that 12 parking spaces be provided. The
applicants have proposed to provide these 12 spaces with eight spaces in the buildings'
footprints to be accessed from the alley, and the remaining four spaces to be located on Plum
Ridge Court, which is a private street owned in common between the subject properties'
owners and which has 20 head-in and three parallel parking spaces in place in what amounts
to a quasi-public parking lot. The applicants propose to allocate these 23 spaces
proportionally between the four properties to address parking demand as each property
develops, beginning with four spaces to be allocated to accommodate the residential units
proposed in the current site review request.
This poses a concern for staff because, as noted above, parking was to have been provided in
the public realm through the on-street spaces and other parking areas to accommodate the
commercial parking demand for the NM-C overlay, since no off-street parking was required
to accommodate this demand. While Plum Ridge Court is owned privately in common by
the owners of the subject properties, the 23 spaces it contains were originally envisioned to
ensure that as the neighborhood fully built out there would be adequate parking available to
accommodate the commercial uses. These 23 spaces amount to very nearly half of the likely
commercial demand envisioned for the area at build-out. Allocating these spaces now to
accommodate residential use could result in a parking shortage over the long term,
compromising both residential livability and commercial viability if the neighborhood were
ever to fully develop the intensity of commercial uses envisioned in 2002.
STAFF CONCERN/RECOMMENDATION: PARKING
While staff are strongly supportive of the building design, increased density, and the variety
of unit types and sizes proposed, absent a clear demonstration by the applicants that adequate
parking will remain in the public realm to support eventual commercial build-out, we cannot
support the reallocation of parking originally intended to serve commercial uses in order to
allow an increase in the number of residential units. A condition has accordingly been
included below to require that the number of units allowed not exceed the number of parking
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 10 of 19
spaces available off-street (i.e. off of both the public and the private streets).
Tree Removal
The applicant has proposed to remove seven Siberian Elm trees located within the adjacent
alley right-of-way to the north. Because these trees are located within dedicated public right-
of-way, they are subject to the Street Tree Removal Permit process, which is typically an
administrative review not subj ect to a land use action. However, in this instance the Siberian
Elms were previously identified to be preserved in the subdivision's Outline Plan approval,
which provides for the preservation of significant natural features in exchange for the added
flexibility of the Performance Standards Options Chapter. The Siberian Elms were addressed
in original conditions requiring that extra care be taken during construction along the
northern property line to minimize impacts to their root zones, and the proposed removal
here falls under the Planning Commission's review of proposed modifications to that original
approval.
The application materials provided include a report from certified arborist Mike Bartlett
which indicates that the seven Elms average approximately 24-inches in diameter at breast
height (d.b.h.) and are approximately 45 feet in height. The arborist cites many areas of
concern with the trees proximity to existing homes and the proposed development, noting
that Elms are a brittle species in general and that these trees have recently begun to shed
significant limbs as documented in photos provided with the report. He goes on to explain
that the trees have a significant percentage of dead wood within their canopies and are
experiencing severe crown die-back, and that this creates an excessive amount of end-weight
which causes limb failure. The arborist notes that there is a cut-bank of approximately 12-
inches within the critical root zone of the trees, approximately ten feet from their trunks,
which appears to be associated with the construction of adjacent homes. He suggests that
this cut may be the basis for the trees' decline, and that given their present state he does not
believe they can accommodate further construction disturbance and would create more of a
hazard than they already present. He concludes that while a number of common tree
preservation measures were considered in examining the trees and preparing the report, he
believes these seven Elms are beyond any form of sensible preservation and pose an
immediate threat. He recommends their immediate removal and replacement. Given the
arborist's assessment of the trees and their condition, the applicant has proposed that to
remove them and to extend the alley, which would then connect from Plum Ridge Court
through to the public parking lot at the corner of North Mountain Avenue and East Nevada
Street, to provide for enhanced vehicular circulation in conjunction with the proposed
development.
In visiting the site, staff has observed that some larger limbs have broken and that there is
crown die back which supports the arborist's report. Siberian Elms (Ulmus pumila) are
listed as a prohibited street tree in the Recommended Street Tree List, which also notes that
the Siberian Elm "has weals wood, is a prolific seed producer which causes a litter problem,
and is much more susceptible to annual elm leaf beetle damage (than the superior Chinese
Elm which is a recommended street tree)."
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 11 of 19
STAFF CONCERN/RECOMMENDATION: TREES
Should the Planning Commission choose to accept the arborist's recommendations and
approve the request, the Street Tree Removal Permit requirements typically call for
replacement on a one-for-one basis with trees of comparable value, or in the case of dead or
dying trees with specimens at least eight feet in height or one-inch in caliper measurement
12-inches above root crown, selected and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree
List. With the trees removed, the alley would be extended to connect to an existing parking
lot located within the public right-of-way at North Mountain Avenue and East Nevada Street,
and a recommended condition has been included below to require seven mitigation street tree
plantings in the now empty park row adjacent to this parking lot.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
The criteria for Outline Plan approval from the Performance Standards Options Chapter are
detailed in AMC 18.88.030.A.4 as follows:
a. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of
Ashland.
b. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved
access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and
fire protection and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause
a City facility to operate beyond capacity.
C. That the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain
corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan
of the development and significant features have been included in the open space,
common areas, and unbuildable areas.
d. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being
developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common
areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the
early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire
project.
f. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established
under this Chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter are detailed in AMC
18.72.070 as follows:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City
Council for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. All
improvements in the street right-of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in
Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options.
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 12 of 19
i
The general regulations for the North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed in AMC
10.30.020 as follows:
A. Conformance with North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
Land uses, streets, alleys and pedestrian/bicycle access ways shall be located in
accordance with those shown on the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by
Ordinance No. 2800.
1. Major and Minor Amendments.
a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) A change in land use.
(2) A change in the street layout plan that requires a street to be
eliminated or to be located in such a manner as to not be consistent
with the neighborhood plan.
(3) A change in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
(4) A change in planned residential density.
(5) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor
amendment definitions.
b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following:
(1) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing, or signage.
(2) A change in the street layout that requires a. local street, alley,
easement, pedestrian/bicycle accessway or utility to be shifted more
than 50 feet in any direction, as long as the change maintains the
connectivity established by the neighborhood plan.
2. Major Amendment Type 11 Procedure.
A major amendment to the neighborhood plan shall be processed as a Type
11 planning action concurrently with specific development proposals. In
addition to complying with the standards of this section, findings must
demonstrate that:
i
i
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the
neighborhood plan;
b. The proposed modification furthers the design and access concepts r
advocated by the neighborhood plan, including but not limited to
pedestrian access, bicycle access, and de-emphasis on garages as a
residential design feature;
c. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose,
objectives, or functioning of the neighborhood plan.
d. The proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints
evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as
trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to
adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries.
3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure.
A minor amendment to the neighborhood plan maybe approved as a Type I
planning action concurrently with specific development proposals. The
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 13 of 19
request for a minor amendment shall include findings that demonstrate that
the change will not adversely affect the purpose, objectives, orfunctioning of
the neighborhood plan.
4. Utilities shall be installed underground to the greatest extent feasible.
Where possible, alleys shall be utilized for utility location, including
transformers, pumping stations, etc...
B. Lots With Alley Access. If the site is served by an alley, access and egress for
motor vehicles shall be to and from the alley. In such cases, curb openings along the
street frontage are prohibited.
C. Street, Alley and Pedestrian/bicycle Accessway Standards. The standards for
street, alley, and pedestrian/bicycle accessway improvements shall be as
designated in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
D. Minimum Density. Proposals resulting in the creation of additional parcels or
greater than three units on a single parcel shall provide for residential densities
between 75 to 110 percent of the base density for a given overlay, unless reductions
in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features,
topography, access limitations or similar physical constraints. (Proposals involving
the development of neighborhood commercial businesses and services shall be
exempt from the above requirements).
E. Density Transfer. Density transfer within a project from one overlay to another may
be approved if it can be shown that the proposed density transfer furthers the design
and access concepts advocated by the neighborhood plan, and provides for a
variety of residential unit sizes, types and architectural styles.
F. Drive-Up Uses. Drive-Up uses are not permitted within the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan area.
G. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the creation of three or
more lots shall be processed under the Performance Standards Option chapter
18.88.
H. Fencing. No fencing exceeding three feet in height shall be allowed in the front lot
area between the structure and the street. No fencing shall be allowed in areas
designated as Floodplain Corridor.
1. Adjustment of Lot Lines. As part of the approval process forspecific development
proposals, adjustments to proposed lot lines may be approved consistent with the
density standards of the neighborhood plan zoning district.
The requirements for the Neighborhood Central (NM-C) Overlay are detailed in AMC 18.30.030
as follows:
A. Permitted Density. The density shall be computed by dividing the total number of
dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public.
Fractional portions of the answer shall not apply towards the total density. Base
density for the Neighborhood Central Overlay shall be 20 units per acre, however,
units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units
for the purposes of density calculations.
B. Off-Street Parking. In all areas within the Neighborhood Central Overlay, a// uses
are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential
uses where one space shall be provided per residential unit. All parking areas shall
comply with the Off-Street Parking chapter and the Site Review chapter.
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 14 of 19
C. Area, Yard Requirements: There shall be no minimum lot area, lot coverage, front
yard, side yard or rear yard requirement, except as required under the Off-Street
Parking Chapter or where required by the Site Review Chapter.
D. Solar Access: The solar setback shall not apply in the Neighborhood Central
Overlay.
E. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the NM-C overlay subject to
conditions limiting the hours and impact of operation;
1. Residential Uses, subject to the above density requirements.
2. Home Occupations.
3. Parks and Open Spaces.
4. Agriculture.
5. Neighborhood Oriented Retail Sales and Personal Services, with each building
limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
6. Professional Offices, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor
area.
7. Restaurants.
8. Manufacturing or assembly of items sold in a permitted use, provided such
manufacturing or assembly occupies 600 square feet or less, and is contiguous
to the permitted retail outlet.
9. Basic Utility Providers, such as telephone or electric providers, with each building
limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
10. Community Services, with each building to 3,500 square feet of total floor area.
11. Churches or Similar Religious Institutions, when the same such use is not
located on a contiguous property, nor more than two such uses in a given
Overlay.
12. Neighborhood Clinics, with each building limited to 3,500 square feet of total floor
area.
F. Conditional Uses.
1. Temporary Uses.
2. Public Parking Lots.
G. Lot Coverage: Maximum lot coverage shall be seventy-five (75) percent.
Street Tree removals are typically not subject to land use applications and may be approved
administratively. Trees may however be considered in terms of their being significant natural
features under the Performance Standards Options subdivision requirements. Street Tree
removal permit requirements are detailed in AMC 13.16.030 as follows:
The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or
removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit
has been issued by the City Administrator or a duly authorized representative.
Applicants for a removal permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being
removed with a tree or trees of comparable value.
If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger j
than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size
specified in the permit and no smaller than eight feet in height or one inch in caliper 12
inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted
according to the Recommended Street Tree List.
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report,dds
Applicant, Ayala Properties, L,L.C. Page 15 of 19
I
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, Staff believes the proposed design for the Neighborhood Central District area is in
conformance with the previously approved subdivision design. The design of the buildings
appears consistent the City's Site Design and Use Standards for commercial development,
including building orientation, streetscape, access standards and the location of off-street
parking areas. The proposal is also subject to North Mountain Neighborhood Design
Standards, which provide guidance in areas of architectural design and character, building
setbacks, height and mixed-uses. The application appears to meet these standards. The
building design acknowledges the importance of the neighboring public spaces and ground
floor spaces reflect a more traditional storefront appearance, while residential uses are
accommodated within the upper floors. In staff's view, the proposed increase in density is
consistent with the base density of the underlying overlay and provides for a variety of unit
sizes and types while retaining the general building massing of the previous Site Review
approval. For staff, the added units and the increased variety will benefit the neighborhood
center.
The key consideration will be in making sure that adequate parking can be provided to
support the proposed additional units without compromising the long-term viability of
commercial uses in the neighborhood center either by reducing the number of units proposed
to match the available off-street parking or by revisiting the parking and use assumptions of
the original development to ensure that the combined on- and off-street parking will support
the mix of uses proposed.
As currently proposed, staff does not believe the application demonstrates adequate off-street
parking is available to support the 12 residential units proposed, as four of the spaces
identified as off-street parking are on Plum Ridge Court, a private street which was
nonetheless identified in the subdivision approval as providing on-street parking to serve the
anticipated commercial build-out of the neighborhood center. As such, staff accordingly
believes that the number of units needs to be reduced to match the eight on-street parking
spaces shown.
Staff recommends approval of the application. Should the Commission concur, we would
recommend that the following conditions be added to the approval:
1) That all proposals and stipulations contained within the application shall be
conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2) That all applicable conditions of the Outline and Final Plan approvals shall remain in
effect unless otherwise modified herein.
3) That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance
with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the
building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department -Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 16 of 19
application, an application to modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted
and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
4) That the applicants shall obtain a Street Tree Removal Permit prior to removal of the
seven Siberian Elms.
5) That the applicants shall obtain necessary Public Works permits prior to any
construction within the public rights-of-way.
6) That Site Review approval shall be obtained prior to the development of the
remaining lots. Each Site Review application shall include revised details of the
allocated density and lot coverage of the NM-C portion of the original development,
and at no time could the combined residential density of the subject properties,
including any interim residential use of ground floor spaces, exceed the base density.
7) That the number of residential units allowed shall not exceed the number of parking
spaces available off-street. On-street parking within the development, including both
the public and private streets, shall not be utilized to provide required residential
parking.
8) That prior to conversion from ground floor residential use to commercial use, the
applicants shall obtain any permits necessary to approve the proposed change in
occupancy, and the ground floor commercial elements including storefront windows
and doors shall be installed in a manner consistent with the conceptual elevations
provided here, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The combined
residential density of the subject properties, including any interim residential use of
ground floor spaces, would not be able to exceed the base density of the project.
9) That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a) The building permit submittals shall include identification of all easements,
including any public or private utility easements, mutual access easements,
public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements.
b) That the applicants shall provide a revised landscape and irrigation plan
which addresses the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their
July 3, 2013 meeting where consistent with the applicable standards and with
final approval by the Staff Advisor. These items shall include: 1)
identification of size, species and placement of seven mitigation trees to be
planted in the right-of-way surrounding the existing parking lot at the
intersection of North Mountain Avenue and East Nevada Street to mitigate
the removal of the seven Siberian Elms; 2) revised details for the large open
space area at the entrance to the project between Fair Oaks Avenue and Fair
Oaks Court to include four of the six elements identified under Site Design
and Use Standard II-C-3b) - Public Spaces; 3) irrigation details satisfying the
requirements of the Site Design and Use Standards Water Conserving
Landscaping Guidelines and Policies.
C) The requirements of the Building Department, including that the plans
provide details addressing, but not limited to, accessible units, fire sprinklers,
fire separation, ADA parking, and methods of compliance with the 3,500
square foot floor area limitation for each building, shall be satisfactorily
addressed.
d) That the applicant shall provide revised civil drawings detailing: 1) a revised
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 17 of 19
i
final utility plan for the parcels to include the location of connections to all
public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines, electric services to serve the proposed
buildings including the added residential units; 2) revised details of the
frontage improvements and alley extension; 3) a storm drainage plan which
demonstrates that post-development peak flow are less than or equal to the
pre-development peal-, flow for the site as a whole, and which necessary
storm water quality mitigation.
e) That the applicant shall submit an electric distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment to serve the
proposed development for the review and approval of the Electric, Building
and Planning Departments. This plan shall clearly identify any additional
services, conduit, etc. necessary to serve the additional units proposed here. j
All services shall be undergrounded and shall be provided from the alley
where possible, and additional transformers and cabinets (if necessary) shall
be located in those areas least visible to the public, while considering the
access needs of the Electric Department.
f) That requirements of Ashland Fire & Rescue shall be adequately addressed,
including that adequate fire apparatus access and firefighter access pathways,
approved addressing, fire flow, fire hydrant clearance, fire department
connection (FDC), fire extinguishers, and key box(es) shall be provided, and
that any gates, fences or other obstructions to fire access shall be clearly
shown on the plans for review and approval by Ashland Fire and Rescue.
g) That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be detailed in the
building permit submittals, and shall be compatible with the surrounding area
and consistent with the sample exterior building colors reviewed as part of
this application.
h) That a plan identifying construction staging areas shall be provided for
review and approval by the Building, Planning and Fire Departments.
i) That bicycle parking shall be shown in the building permit submittals.
Inverted ii-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking
shall be installed in accordance with the rack design, spacing and coverage
standards in AMC 18.92.060.1 and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy. If bicycle parking is provided in garages or within the building,
final interior dimensions of shall be detailed in the building permit submittals
insure adequate space.
10) That prior to the approval of the final building inspection or issuance of a certificate
of occupancy:
i
a) The applicants shall provide a copy of the proposed deed restriction making
clear that the ground floor commercial spaces are intended for commercial
use, but may be used for residential use, for the review and approval of the
Staff Advisor. These deed restrictions shall be recorded, and copies of the
recorded copies provided, prior to the issuance of a final certificate of
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant; Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 18 of 19
occupancy.
b) That all required landscaping, irrigation and hardscape surface improvements
including the proposed central open space area, shall be installed according to
the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
C) That all required frontage improvements including sidewalks, street trees
along the full frontage of Tax Lot #700, and mitigation trees in the adjacent
right-of-way shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected
and approved by the Staff Advisor. Street trees and mitigation street trees
shall be selected from the Recommended Street Tree List and planted
according to applicable standards.
d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Lighting specifications and
shrouding details shall be included in the building permits submittals and
their installation site-verified prior to occupancy.
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
~I
i
I
I
i
Planning Action 2005-00806 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report.dds
Applicant: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. Page 19 of 19
Planning Department
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
June 28, 2013
Dear Planning Department:
Re: Planning Action 2013-00806
"North Mountain Square"
The proposed development provides Ashland with an opportunity to form a true
community in the North Mountain area, with adequate opportunities for families, retired
people, singles, and others to meet with neighbors, enjoy the views, and live within a
comfortable distance of downtown and the University.
However, recent attempts to promote community in this area through development design
have not fully fulfilled expectations. Kestrel Park, for example, a huge swath of grass at
the foot of Fair Oaks Avenue, meets the written guidelines for neighborhood development,
but it is seldom used, and has not served as a place where people meet their neighbors. It
may yet become integrated into the community, but currently it stands outside the
community with only one forlorn picnic table and one garbage can tucked in a corner. It
seems to function as an afterthought, put there to satisfy the letter of the design
requirements, not to enhance the experience of community.
i
If North Mountain Square is to become a true community, several issues need to be
addressed:
1. What kind of commercial activities are going to be permitted or
encouraged on the property? A restaurant spreading the odors of frying food
into the neighborhood or a commercial spot with neon lights would be intrusive and
unappealing. On the other hand, some kinds of welcome commercial operations,
such as a fitness club or professional offices, would require parking space that is
currently not provided for by the applicant, or apparently by the North Mountain
Plan. A coffee shop is the only business currently envisioned. What else would be
welcome or permitted?
2. It appears that the interior residential units will have no exposure to
the outside. Preliminary plans show eight single bedroom units stacked at the
rear of the building, each approximately 600 sq. ft. (p.7, para. l). Is this correct? If
so, we are really talking about high-density apartment living, not community living
with a sense of the surrounding environment.
Roger Arlene Mueller
903 Plum Ridge Drive, Ashland, Oregon / 541.708.5174 / mueller.roger@gmail.com
3. The Plaza and the Green Area are separated by a busy street. The Plaza
and the Green Area across Fair Oaks Avenue are presented as a way to give a
feeling of community, with the Green Area being available for "recreation." The
busy street will make crossing dangerous and may discourage people, especially
children and the elderly from using it. Is a stoplight planned?
4. We don't think 6 residential units, with six of the units having no
dedicated parking, will help build a sense of community. It appears that
as many as three commercial units on the first floor will be available for immediate,
"temporary" residential occupancy (p.6, para.2). Is this correct? If so, who decides
when when these are converted to commercial units? Adding these three
"temporary" residential units, plus the three "temporary" units anticipated for Tax
Lot 5900 boosts the total number of initial residential units to 46.
5. The Landscaping section references an eleven-space "public parking lot
available to the neighborhood." Is the plan referring to the bays along the
streets or is there a parking lot not shown on the plans?
6. The Building Size section references "seven buildings." (page 10, last
paragraph) It's unclear how that count was arrived at.
7. Does the developer plan to convert the octagon building into a
commercial/residential building accommodating 9-10 units in the
future? Table 1 allocates 9.7 units to Tax Lot 1500.
6. At the public meeting, visuals will help answer some of the questions posed above.
In addition, we ask that you consider using slides illustrating the
following:
A. Drawings showing the exterior of townhomes on Tax Lots 602°606.
These will give us a feeling for the adjacent buildings.
B. Illustration D°4, referenced on page 10, para. 3 but not included in the
document.
C. Photos of Ashland's "many storefront buildings which should be looked
at for reference but not duplication." (page 3, para. 5)
D. Right of ay areas (R/W) in the proposed development. It appears the
developer is asking to build 17.2 units based upon the .86 acre right of way. (top
of page 5). Is the developer actually getting credit for public streets when
computing density?
I
Thank you for your work on this project. It will have a lasting impact on the quality of life
in the North Mountain area.
Sincerely,
(l xt-
Roger Arlene Mueller
i
i
Date: 7/1/2013
To: Dill Molnar
Cc: Derek Severson
From: Justin and Shannon Rinefort
RE: Response to Planning Action 2013®00806
We are opposed to the proposed removal of the 7 Siberian Ehn trees which stand on the public
easement between our property at 688 Nevada and the vacant parcel at the comer of North
Mountain and Fair Oakes Ave.
We purchased the land and designed/built the home at 688 Nevada with the understanding that
these trees would remain as part of the subdivision. We placed a large picture window on that
side of the house to capture the filtered light and the feeling of green space despite the narrow lot
size. Now with the new proposal for quadrupling the number of residential units and increasing
the height of the neighboring building to 3 stories, the buffer that is formed by the trees is even
more crucial. These trees provide both a visual and a noise barrier between the properties. The
original plan for a footpath on this easement would preserve the trees and allow access from the
public parking area at N. Mountain and Nevada to the buildings behind.
We are aware that these trees need some TLC and although they are not on our property, we
have obtained a permit to prune them. This will be done over the coming weekend (July 6th and
7th).
Thank you for your consideration. It is bad enough that there is now a monstrosity of a building
being proposed, but the removal of the trees would negatively impact the living conditions for
the property next door to unacceptable levels.
Justin and Shannon Rinefort
I
i
I
I
i
i
MEADOWBROOK PARK II SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
MOUNTAIN MEADOWS RESIDENTS COMMENTS. 7/2/2013
INTRODUCTION
It appears that even though the current application is quadrupling the number of dwelling units
from the 2003 approval, the application is implementing the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan.
Are all of the elements in place to support the full implementation of the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan? The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan is clearly an example of New
Urbanism or Neotraditional neighborhood planning, something that Ashland has done very well
and has made our city unique. This type of planning envisions walkable neighborhoods with a
range of housing types and sizes and supported by public transit. The NMNP even goes so far
as to eliminate parking spaces for loading commercial vehicles.
It's been sixteen years since the plan was adopted and many housing units and some
commercial units have been constructed based on the plan. However, several things are still
missing. The Nevada Street bridge over Bear Creek was scheduled to be completed by 2009
and is yet to be built. There is no public transit serving the area. In fact, the Transit District's
paratransit program is prohibited from serving the area because of the distance from a regular
bus line. A recent article in the Daily Tidings identified this area as being in a "food desert"
(defined as having the closest market greater than a specified distance away). Mountain
Meadows has had to institute a twice-weekly van service to take transit dependent residents on
shopping trips.
Is the proposed commercial area feasible and can it be made viable? With no public
transportation and no parking requirements, was it assumed that the shopkeepers and their
employees would be living above the store? As shown on the plans, the commercial spaces are
relatively small. How does this fit with current commercial practices? Would it even be possible
for a grocer to fit in to any of the spaces? Will there ever be enough of a population to support
a market? Will the temporary use of commercial spaces as residences become permanent and
thereby increase the density over the planned limits? Will it increase the density over the
planned limits while it is used as residential units?
I
Before increasing densities and allowing more commercial construction, the community needs
to revisit the plan to see if it is still viable in all of its parts. Replicating the area around the
Downtown Plaza in the North Mountain Neighborhood sounded great in 1996, but is this a viable
concept in 2013? If it is, what will make it come true?
NEVADA STREET BRIDGE. Suggestion to the Ashland Planning Commission when planning
applications are made for projects in the North Mountain Neighborhood:
i
We believe that the City's transportation system needs to continue planning for the Nevada
Street bridge, and that the appropriate time for the City to obtain written documentation that
future property owners will have to pay their fair share for this amenity is when Planning Actions
are processed.
Applicants should be required to sign in favor of either or both:
A) Formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to pay for the future bridge over Bear
Creek to connect both sides of Nevada Street
B) Contributing System Development Charges (SDC's) to help pay for the future bridge over
Bear Creek to connect both sides of Nevada Street.
All current and future developments in the North Mountain Neighborhood have NOT had to pay
for creation of North Mountain Avenue from the bridge over Bear Creek all the way up to the
crossing over Interstate 5. That included the median strip, paving, sidewalks, streetlights, etc.
That cost was enormous, and was paid for 100% by the people who own homes and
condominiums in Mountain Meadows on the 22 acres on the east side of N. Mountain Ave, and
by the people who own homes and condominiums in the Mountain Meadows section on the
west side of N. Mountain Ave (7 acres), and by Skylark Assisted Living and Memory Care.
When it's finally time to connect the two sides of Nevada Street, please remember this fact. No
one should look to property owners in the 29 acres (see above) to be assessed for cost of that
bridge, since our earlier expenditures for creation of N. Mountain Avenue provided essentially a
"free ride" for all developers on the west side of N. Mountain Avenue who came after Mountain
Meadows. They have been able to claim connectivity with the rest of Ashland using an arterial
street that we provided to them, and to the City of Ashland, for free.
The City is well aware that the North Mountain Neighborhood is growing, and the need for public
transportation here is also growing. We suspect that the Rogue Valley Transportation District
(RVTD) might be more inclined to consider adding a route along North Mountain Avenue from
Hersey Street to Interstate 5 if a "loop" over the Nevada Street bridge existed to connect with
Oak Street, Quiet Village, the dog park, and other adjacent areas.
CONDOMINIUMS/FUTURE COMMERCIAL SPACES. The four units on the first floor of the
Building are designated as condominiums (temporary residential units) to be converted in the
future if needed to commercial spaces. The history of commercial units in this area is very poor.
Mountain Meadows with 225 residential units allocated some spaces for commercial use.
These spaces were never occupied. Similarly commercial units at Julian Square have never
been occupied. It is apparent that the four suggested temporary residential units may remain so
for a long time and may never be converted to commercial units. The purpose of density control
is to avoid congestion and improve quality of life in Ashland. These condominiums will have
residents and should therefore be treated as such including having on-site parking spaces
assigned to them such as for other residential units.
Similarly these four units when used as residences should be counted in the total of 40 units
allocated to the four properties. The total number of all units, residential plus "temporary
residential", in the four properties should not exceed forty at any time to stay within the density
allocation for that area.
PARKING. There are twelve residential and four "temporary" residential units in the building
with only eight parking spaces on the first floor. It is questionable whether remote parking
assigned to eight condominium units is a viable solution. The parking area is available to the
general public with no immediate control of who parks where. The remote parking spaces will
have to be contractually tied forever to the condominium building so they cannot be sold. The
outdoor location will have searing heat in summer and freezing conditions in winter and will
present difficulties and hazards in carrying packages in inclement weather. The remote parking
provisions may induce residents to park in the narrow Fair Oaks and Plum Ridge streets
impeding traffic and access for emergency vehicles.
If one considers the numbers for the four parcels, there are a total of 32 residential and 9
"temporary" residential for a total of 41 residential units. The total number of parking spaces in
the three residential buildings is 20. This leaves a total of 21 vehicles without parking spaces in
the buildings. The proposal implies that these parking spaces will be assigned in the remote
parking area next to the octagonal building. This is exactly the number of spaces available in
I
that area, leaving no off-street parking for visitors to the octagonal building or for anyone else.
Visitors will have park in the narrow Fair Oaks and Plum Ridge streets.
It is much more appropriate to provide all off-street parking adjacent to, on the first floor, or in
the underground of the building.
GENERAL CONGESTION. At the present time N Mountain Avenue provides the most direct
route from this location to downtown. As the Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision is developed,
congestion at the dangerous N Mountain Avenue and Fair Oaks intersection will increase to
high levels. To avoid this problem, a bridge should be built to connect the two sections of
Nevada Street. This will provide an alternate route to the Ashland Commercial core from the
North Mountain Neighborhood and help alleviate much of the heavy congestion noted above.
Additionally, the North Mountain Neighborhood population will increase significantly warranting
consideration of the extension of public transportation (RVTD bus service) to serve the area.
The Nevada Street Bridge would have a direct connection to Oak Street that would make an
RVTD route adjustment viable and provide the service currently needed to transport residents
and employees. The Nevada Street Bridge should be a prime consideration in any future
development of the North Mountain Neighborhood that will increase density and population
N. MOUNTAIN/FAIR OAKS AVENUES BLIND INTERSECTION. Drivers crossing N. Mountain
Avenue from Fair Oaks Avenue face a blind intersection and an extremely high degree of risk.
The crossing vehicle is unable to see accelerating uphill bound traffic until it is merely feet away
and must rapidly accelerate to safely clear the intersection merely in anticipation of an oncoming
vehicle. If the crossing vehicle happens to be unaware of the possibility of the sudden
appearance of an approaching vehicle on N. Mountain, the risk is even greater. The northbound j
N. Mountain vehicle also faces this blind intersection unaware a vehicle or pedestrian could be
in its path just over the crest of the hill. The pedestrian faces the same challenge but at
increased disadvantage. Many residents choose to go out of their way to avoid the intersection
at Fair Oaks preferring to cross N. Mountain Ave. at Mountain Meadows Drive. With an
increase in population density and road use, the opportunity for accidents at this already-
dangerous blind intersection will be increased for both motorists and pedestrians. In order to
insure safety at this blind intersection, it is imperative that a signal, such as a stoplight or stop
sign, be installed as soon as possible.
i
BUILDING DESIGN. The Subdivision Amendment and Site Review Permit Application makes
reference to The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan adopted by the Ashland Planning
Commission and City Council in May of 1996. As noted in the Application: "Specifically, the
vision for this space was to be similar to the Downtown Ashland Plaza where the open space
was to be "enclosed and defined" by the surrounding buildings and include benches, news
racks
The above enclosure and definition of space may be appropriate for this development; however,
we feel that the building design, which mimics Plaza architecture, is totally out of character with
the now existing North Mountain Neighborhood. New buildings should be of contemporary
design to blend with the surrounding neighborhood architecture and not be foreign to it.
MIXED USE BUILDINGS.
After the collapse of the real estate market, lending rules have been tightened significantly. In
order to get a mortgage for condos for mixed use under current lending rules, no more than 25%
of the property's total floor area in a project or unit can be used for non-residential / commercial
purposes.
The City of Ashland has a preference for mixed-use buildings. Here's a real life situation to
ponder. Let's use downtown Ashland as an example, since that's what the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan wants to emulate.
Assume the existence of a four unit mixed-use condo building downtown: two commercial units
on the ground floor and two residential units above. Assume you want to purchase one of the
two residential units so you can live downtown, walk everywhere, etc. You make an offer to
purchase your new downtown residential condo unit, contingent on obtaining appropriate
financing. You (and your realtor) call the local mortgage department of several banks and also
contact some mortgage brokers. You can make a down payment, in cash, of 30% of the
purchase price, have a credit score of 800, have no other debts, have three times the required
documented annual income, and the condo appraises for the sales price.
If the City of Ashland can provide contact information for at least two mortgage lenders whose
underwriting department would offer conventional 30-year fixed interest rate loans at the usual
interest percentage to the purchaser described above, to buy the condo described above, then
the mixed use type building currently favored by Planning makes sense. If not, the reality of
current lending practices must be taken into account. Developers should not be encouraged or
required to build mixed commercial/residential units that cannot be financed in today's
marketplace.
NOTE: This document is submitted to the Ashland City Planning Commission by the following
persons residing at Mountain Meadows in the Ashland North Mountain area. These residents
are acting on their own behalf. This document has not been reviewed, nor approved, by the
Mountain Meadows official community.
® Terry Bateman, 829 Pavilion Place, Ashland, OR 97520
® Lee Bowman, 554 Mountain Meadows Drive, Ashland, OR 97520
® Ted Mularz, 859 N Mountain Avenue, Ashland, OR 97520
® Donna Swanson, 863 Plum Ridge Drive, Ashland, OR 97520
® Gideon Wizansky, 827 Pavilion Place, Ashland, OR 97520
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
I
Frolln: City Of /^sHaand, Oregon [nA1'lO:Jl'rISt'.I1,5A(:allEsrt@grTia11. om]
Sent, Friday; July 05, 2013 12:08 PN/1
1'0: COUIICllr"aaSh1and.0r'.LIS
Subjed: CIty Coun(.,II {Wract Forni SLaNnRod
Full Wne: Stephen Jensen
Phone: 541-f.61,0416
Email: Jensen ste- 'c'..grnaj.~_ .9iji
SuWect: DeMopra ent on Fair Dales and Mcnintain
Message: Dear (city Council, I Ike and yawn properly on kiast Nevada Steet just down from this
nemi proposed develeaINnent on the corner of hair CM and C'Aountaain, I aim) have tenants
that We here as enrell. i am very c ancetwed VVIth the direction this deMopment has taken.
There are several aaspoct. of this deve opment that have changed since the original situ
approval, Two of these changes have race na7st concerned. It was originally approved to have
an IS unR buHdhg. Now the plan is to prat, in a 40 Chit c:carnmarciaal/resklential 3 story
1001plek Ina ccsncerraed what tiviil happen to traffic and parking. This plan just a'dcaesn't seen)
to nmke any sense. We don't like it. The other change that cowerm race h the removal o4 the
V mature line treas. These trees are rm CRy prradaerty aired some as the only buffer WAween Las
and this raga dve buillOng We want the trees to stay. The developer says they are a Safety
issue. That is not gat Call true, They Pat need deaned up a liiale. This nws,lve larrHWng will Rely
have an undesirable effect on our neighborhood. Myself and nay neWhhcars would like to see
the jd ans; for this deve opment rca and deare? TWA you, Stephen Jensen
"NOR TH MO U W AIN UA 99
if~ t' }
t
~ -t
j
SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT
SITE VI PERMIT APPLICATION
SUBMITTED TO
CITY OF ASHLAND
I
I
FOR
AYALA PROPERTIES, LLC.
132 W. MAIN STREET, SUITE 201
MEDFORD, OR 97501
BY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC.
485 W. NEVADA STREET
ASHLAND, OR 97520
_ I
i
JUNE 7TH, 2013
Page 1 of 15
I. PROJECT INFORMATION:
PROJECT NAME: "North Mountain Square"
APPLICANTS & OWNERS: ARCHITECT
Ayala Properties, LLC DRH Architects
132 W. Main Street, Suite 201 169 W. Main Street
Medford, Oregon 97501 Eagle Point, OR 97524
LAND USE PLANNING: ENGINEER:
Urban Development Services, LLC Construction Engineering Consultants
485 W. Nevada Street P.O. Box 1724
Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501
ADDRESS & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Corner of North Mountain Avenue & Fair Oaks
Avenue; Map & Tax Lots: 391E 04AD 700, 800, 1400, 1500 & 5900 (see insert below).
PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a Subdivision Amendment and Site
Review Permit to construct a three-story mixed-use building on the corner of North Mountain
Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue. The Subdivision Amendment is intended to address the
permitted densities within the subdivision's commercial center as envisioned in the adopted
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (May 1996) and the Site Review Permit is for a new three-
story mixed-use building north of the central green in the neighborhood's civic center.
O
1
Proposed
Building
slut
S ite
flax Lot 700
C
1
i 4
5 1
i
1 r 'A t f oM fti : r
i
~ II I3'
44W
Page 2 of 15
PROJECT GOAL: The applicant and project team desire to create a neighborhood commons
surrounding the central green area as originally envisioned in the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan, adopted by the Ashland Planning Commission and City Council in May of 1996.
Specifically, the vision for this space was to be similar to the Downtown Ashland Plaza where
the central open space was to be "enclosed and defined" by the surrounding buildings and
include benches, news racks, public art and other urban street elements (refer to Site Design and
Use Standards, Section VII, Section's B, Neighborhood Central and Section D, Open Space and
Neighborhood Focal Points),
PROJECT ZONING: As illustrated in the above inserted Zoning Map, the property is zoned
North Mountain (NM) with a Neighborhood Central Overlay (NM-C). The subject property is
regulated by Chapter 18.30.30 of the Ashland Municipal Code as well as Section VII of the Site
Design & Use Standards, the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.
North Mountain Zoning Ma
Subject
Properties
(mixed-use)
F t,r, E, i~ tt Julian
Square
(not a part)
i
Mountain
I j= Meadows
Retirement
rf i Community
i
Legend
NU . €~41 M z Fit
Bear Creek
- Floodplain
WA-R 15
- r'l-R 17.5 C.'25 ~.~5lAiles
i
PROJECT HISTORY: Beginning in 1995, the City of Ashland held a number of neighborhood
meetings, including a multi-day design charrette, between property owners and neighbors- of the
North Mountain area which included City staff and Professional Land Use Consultants,
Page 3 of 15
i
including multiple Architects, Landscape Architects and a Civil Engineer. The effort eventually
culminated in a master plan called the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which was adopted in
1996 (Ord #2800) and included amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map,
Land Use Code and Site Design and Use Standards to guide the eventual development. The
expected build-out period at that time was estimated at 20 to 25 years with all participants
understanding the plan was to be a guide for future development and would need to be tweaked
as individual owners began developing their properties in relation to the site's physical
constraints, street patters and housing market conditions.
In 2004, a large portion of the North Mountain Neighborhood, approximately 13.7 acres, was
approved for an 81-lot subdivision by a development company called Camelot Homes (PA-2003-
158) who developed a majority of the subdivision's road and a few homes, but later sold the
property due to the poor economy. The remaining areas of the North Mountain Neighborhood
are either pending eventual development or were developed since 2005 by other property
owners, including the Julian Square Mixed-Use Development, Great Oaks Subdivision, Plumb
Ridge Subdivision and the Mountain Meadows Retirement Center directly across the street from
the subject property.
In 2005, soon after the subdivision approval, Camelot Homes submitted individual Site Review
Permit applications for various phases of the subdivision which included a Commercial Site
Review Permit (PA-2005-696) for the approval of four mixed-use buildings commercial and
residential condominium buildings. At the present time, only one of the commercial building has
been erected, the octagon-shaped building on Tax Lot 1500. The remaining three lots, which are
the subject of this application, remain vacant.
PROJECT DETAILS:
I. Modification: The proposal includes a modification of PA-2003-158 where the previous
development company, Camelot Family Homes, allocated a total of 10 dwelling units for the j
four commercial lots, where the base density as envisioned in the North Mountain Master Plan
and adopted zoning codes were between 30 and 44 dwelling units. As proposed, the applicants
are proposing a total of 40 dwelling units, allocated proportionately to each of the four j
commercial lots (See Table 1- Density).
I
II. Site Review Permit: The proposal also includes a request to construct a three-story mixed-use
building on the corner of Fair Oaks and North Mountain Avenue (Tax Lot 700). As illustrated on
the project's Site Plan, the proposal includes four commercial spaces on the ground level and six
residential units on the second and third floors with each unit varying in size, but will
predominately be one or two bedroom units. The subject building also includes enclosed garage
parking and independent storage spaces. Finally, the Site Review Permit will include the site's
plaza space and sidewalk improvements which are intended to reflect with the neighborhood's
central open space area directly across the street.
Densi : Within the NM-C zone, the base density is 20 units per acre, including lands dedicated
to the public (AMC 18.30.030 A). Conservatively, the NM-C zone, as outlined in the above
North Mountain Zoning Map, comprises 2.02 acres including those lands dedicated to the public
Page 4 of 15
for the area's public streets, common open space and common parking spaces for a total base
density of 40.4 units. The applicant proposes to proportionately allocate the base density among
the four commercial lots based on each lots size as well as an equal share of the density for the
lands dedicated to the public as noted in table below (Table 1 - Density). Note: The Julian
Square property to the south was never part of the original subdivision nor was the parking area
directly in front along its Fair Oaks frontage which was dedicated and improved by this
property's original owner - Camelot Family Homes.
Table 1 below illustrates the size of each of the tax lots as well as the common areas involved
within the subject boundary of the NM-C zone. The first four Tax Lots listed (Tax Lots 700, 800,
1500 and 5900) comprise the four commercial mixed-use properties where as Tax Lots 1400 and
6000 are private properties owned in common. The dedicated right-of-way (R/W) is also
included and is roughly .86 of an acre. In total, the area is 2.02 acres with a base density of 40.4
dwelling units. The base density has been allocated per the four commercial lot's size as well as
an equal share of the density attributed to the common areas.
Table 1 - Density
Tax Acreage Density Allocated 1/4 Share of Dedicated c& Common Ownership
Lots
700 .27 5.4 5.4 + 6.5 (11.9)
800 .16 3.2 3.2 + 6.5 (9.7)
1500 .16 3.2 3.2 + 6.5 (9.7)
5900 .13 2.6 2.6 + 6.5 (9.1)
1400* .26 5.2 -
6000 .18 3.6 _ 10 26 units / 4 = 6.5 j
R/W .86 17.2 _
Total 2.02 acres 40.4 40.4
* Tax Lot 1400 is owned in common by owners of Tax Lots 700, 800, 1500 and 5900 j
i
The applicant proposes some flexibility by allowing the allotted density amounts to "float"
between the four commercial properties as long as the parking and other North Mountain
development standards are being met. Each remaining parcel's development plans would
continue to go through a Site Review process and neighborhood notice to verify the standards are
in-keeping with the approval, but in general, the flexibility allows proposals such as for Tax Lot
700 that has a base density of 11.9 to be rounded up to 12, but Tax Lot 800 to be rounded down
to 9 and consistent with the overall density.
Minimum Densit!: The North Mountain Neighborhood's General Regulations, Section 18.30.020
D. requires a "minimum" residential density threshold between 75 to 110 percent of the base
density. Since the base density is 40.4 units, the permissible unit range is between 30.3 to 44.4
dwelling units. The applicants are proposing to utilize only the base density of 40.4 dwelling
units and proportionately allocate as noted. It should also be noted the purpose of Section
18.30.020 D. was included in the North Mountain Neighborhood code to: 1) Maintain the
neighborhood's urban core which would support its commercial entities; 2) Maintain the
opportunity for more affordable housing and a range of income levels as a noted goal in the
City's 2002 and draft 2013 Housing Needs Analysis; 3) Continue to best utilize the City's
Page 5 of 15
limited buildable land supplies; and 4) To maintain the desired mixture of housing types as
envisioned in the NM Master Plan.
"Temporary" Residential Ground Floor Units: During this application's neighborhood meeting
on April 23, 2013, the neighbors expressed concern with the proposal's original plan which
included four ground floor commercial spaces as the vast majority of the ground floor
commercial spaces at Julian Square and the North Mountain Retirement Center have sat vacant
since their construction. In fact, it has been rumored the property owners of the Julian Square
commercial units have contemplated seeking some relief from the Planning Commission as the
commercial market is not yet viable enough to support all of the spaces and because of the
continuous vacancy, it has reflected negatively on the neighborhood.
That said, the goal of the applicant is to provide a mixture of housing units, sizes, locations and
views with the ability to accommodate a variety of occupant demands and to remain as flexible
as possible in the current fragile real estate market. In this vein, three of the four ground floor
commercial spaces are intended to be constructed as a commercial occupancy, but occupied as
"temporary" residential space until enough demand is generated in the North Mountain
neighborhood to justify conversion to commercial use. With this future conversion in mind, the
ground floor units will be designed as commercial space, but with a residential decor. The
transitioning of residential to commercial space was expected with the original North Mountain
planning efforts as stated within the Site Design & Use Standards, Section VII-B which states:
"The completion of the neighborhood central area will likely take several years. The
residential areas of the plan and neighboring sites will likely need to be fully developed in
order for the commercial uses to be viable. Until that time, new buildings shall be
constructed to accommodate residential uses, but designed in a way that will allow a simple
transition to commercial use. "
Because the ground floor spaces will be constructed as commercial space, but used as
"temporary" residences, the applicant is requesting the ground floor residential units not be
considered in the overall density or parking calculations as they will one day be converted to
commercial use as noted. Commercial uses have no density restrictions (18.30.030 A) or parking
restrictions (18.30.030 B). Because of the forethought as noted in the Site Design & Use
Standards, Section II-B, the applicant will incorporate a deed restriction on the units that
generally state the ground floor units are intended to be for commercial use when the commercial
market is deemed desirable. That said, the combination of the deed restriction and the initial
commercial construction provision as noted above, this should allow future owners to more
easily and inexpensively convert to commercial use when market conditions warrant.
i
Finally, the remaining ground floor unit, end unit in southeast corner of building of Tax Lot 700,
will be constructed as a commercial space with the intention of being a small neighborhood
coffee shop which was well received during the neighborhood meeting and follow-up
discussions. In the applicant's opinion, the central location within the overall neighborhood,
visible corner location, views to the south and west and the amenities to be provided in the plaza
space should create a viable commercial space for the neighborhood as envisioned in the original
North Mountain Neighborhood plan.
L)
Page 6 of 15
Unit Size: The proposed 12 units will be one and two bedroom units ranging from approximately
600 sq. ft. to 1,300 sq. ft. It's expected that as the Building Plans are being fully designed and
market conditions better understood, there may be some modifications to the unit sizes or
bedroom count, but most likely not the number of units. At this preliminary juncture, the plans
show a total of four single bedroom units each on the second and third floors and four townhome
units extending between the second and third floors.
Parking: Within the NM-C zone, one parking space is required for each residential unit and no
parking is required for the commercial units (18.30.030 B). The proposal includes a total of 12
residential units between the two upper floors for a parking demand of 12 parking spaces. Of the
12 parking spaces, eight parking spaces are located within the ground floor and four are located
along the privately owned common parking lot labeled Plum Ridge Court (see illustration below)
of which the applicant owns 3/ of the lot's 23 private parking spaces (17.25 parking spaces). Of
the surplus 17 parking spaces owned by the applicant, four will be allocated to the residents of
Tax Lot 700 and the remaining 13 private parking spaces will "eventually" be allocated to the
applicant's remaining two commercial parcels (Tax Lots 800 and 5900) based on their eventual
demand as explained above. In the interim, the 13 surplus parking spaces within Plum Ridge
Court will remain open for public use.
Plum Ridge Court - Private Parkin Illustration
i
Private Parking Area
23 spaces total
17 spaces owned by applicant
~ III
ti4. •
rr _ _ _ 4bM1_ ~ I .III i
4+ 444,1'
• t~
Page 7 of 15
Again, all residential parking, accept for the temporary ground floor residential units, will be on
private property as required by the NM-C overlay. Eight spaces will be within the proposed
building and four along Plum Ridge Court. The remaining 13 surplus parking spaces within
Plum Ridge Court will eventually be allocated to the two remaining commercial mixed-use
parcels within the Village Square area. All on-street parking spaces along Fair Oaks or North
Mountain Avenues will remain available to the general public.
Finally, it should be understood that during the April 23rd, 2013 neighborhood meeting, some of
the existing residents of the neighborhood expressed concerns with the areas narrow street and
limited parking area. Although the applicant does not necessarily believe either is a public
problem, three residential units were eliminated from the original plan of 17 units.
Lot Coverage: The proposed building layout, including conceptual zero-lot line footprints
identified on the remaining vacant parcels (Tax Lots 800 and 5900), is consistent with the
original subdivision plan approved by the Planning Commission in 2004 (PA-2003-158) and
again in 2005 with the Commercial Site Review Permit (PA-2005-696) which at the time,
required the NM-C portion of the subdivision to have a maximum of 85% lot coverage. Although
the NM-C zoning code was later modified increasing the maximum lot coverage from 85% to
75%, the application remains in compliance with the original intent as the overall lot coverage,
including the private parking lot and common open space, within the NM-C area is only 65%
leaving 10% or approximately 5,000 square feet of available impervious surface area between
the four subject mixed-use properties which could be utilized for added pedestrian plaza space or
added hardscape areas within the common open space (See Table 2 below).
I
I
Table 2 - Lot Coverage
Tax Lot & Area Projected / Approved Imp. Surface Percentage of Lot
700 .27 acres 9,970 sq. ft. 84%
800 .16 acres 5,250 sq. ft. 75% j
1400 .26 acres 10,325 sq. ft. (private parking lot) 91%
1500 .16 acres 2,300 sq. ft. 67%
5900 .13 acres 4,200 sq. ft. 74%
6000 .18 acres 500 sq. ft. 6%
Total Area: 1.16 acres Total Impervious Surface: 32,815 sq. ft. Total Lot Coverage: 65%
Architecture: The proposed building design is intended to reflect the mass, scale and commercial
feel as envisioned in the North Mountain Master Plan. The intent of the Master Plan was to
create volumes of buildings lining the perimeter of a central commons area, similar to that of the
Ashland Downtown Plaza, as reflected through-out Section VII of the adopted North Mountain j
Neighborhood Site Design and Use Standards. In particular, Section VII-B states:
"The architectural character of the commercial buildings should reflect their importance as
a focus of the North Mountain Neighborhood. Rather than taking on a residential
appearance, these buildings should emulate a traditional storefront appearance. Ashland has
many storefront buildings which should be looked at for reference but not duplication. These
buildings have a simple and flexible form, yet have a strong architectural identity. "
Page 8 of 15
Further, Section VII-D, when discussing the North Mountain Neighborhood's commercial
commons area, it states:
"A plaza or commons area, similar to that of the plaza in the downtown shall be
incorporated within the Neighborhood Commercial Overlay Zone. The area shall be
designed to provide adequate shading for comfortable midday summer use and sunny areas
for winter use. Hardscape areas shall be centrally located, but minimized wherever possible.
Benches, news racks, kiosks, and other street furniture shall be located within the area. The
area shall define the central space of the commercial core.... "
Overall, the applicant and project Architect believe the plan as submitted accomplishes the above
intentions as outlined in the North Mountain Neighborhood Master Plan and desires to continue
with this pattern with the future development of Tax Lots 800 and 5900.
:
i
5l _ _ F
E6 I
GEV
T r
i
I
Contextual Orientation with Central Commons Area
II II RGHT-OF WAY
j/
rHrl r rA
4 -n TY
1-1 I
n ~ ~ rt II 4#JMAt~
QAK5 WC I AL
EeNWt$'
;
OMICN AREA
LU .
\ y : -=Y I
Page 9 of 15
Plaza Area: Similar to the building's architecture, the plaza is also designed with the intent to
complement not only the intended commercial uses along its frontage, but also complement the
central common area where a symbiotic relationship occurs. As shown in the above inserted
illustration, the proposed plaza space relates to the commercial space with hard surface area for
typical commercial level gatherings, but then leads to the common "green" area across the street
for recreational opportunities. The proposed plaza also includes a small water fountain (see
attached concept plan), multiple seating areas (tables, benches and seat walls), street trees, plaza
trees and "surface" art identified as a human sun dial which is intended to be professionally
etched and formed into the hard surface with distinguishing materials and colors for interactive
and passive use.
The proposed water fountain has associated elements that have been strategically thought
through and is consistent with the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards which states:
"Neighborhood Focal Point: The intersection of Greenway Drive (now Fair Oaks Avenue)
and North Mountain Avenue should serve as a neighborhood focal point. Special right-of-
way design considerations shall be incorporated into the development of these streets.
Illustration D-4 (not included due to poor quality) shows a typical neighborhood
identification monument, attractive concrete patterns, landscaping, gateways, etc. "
The fountain includes water and accent lighting to give the plaza space "movement" and soft
"sound" for tranquility. The fountain also includes a short seat wall and modest signage (not
advertising) wrapping along the base to identify the area's commercial core as "North Mountain
Square".
Landscaping_The project's landscaping plan is attached and identifies strategically placed trees
and shrubs for softening of the plaza space and as accent to the storefronts. The building's
perimeter is also landscaped which is intended to reflect on the neighborhoods semi-residential
context which is not a true urban environment such as the Downtown. That said, it should also be
understood the subject site abuts a large sliver of public land between the proposed building and
North Mountain Avenue which is currently being landscaped and sidewalks added. This area will
compliment the project's plaza area by creating an attractive buffer between North Mountain
Avenue and the patrons. Note: The area within the City's right-of-way also includes an 11 space
public parking lot available to the neighborhood as well as commercial patrons.
i
Bike Parking: A total of 18 bike storage/racks are proposed with the development. Six exterior
bike racks are located at the southeast corner of the building (within clear visibility of the
commercial space's glass windows) and 12 additional interior bike storage spaces have been
included in the storage area for each residential unit. All of the exterior bike rack spaces will be
designed in accordance with Chapter 18.92.060 J of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Building Size: The proposal is technically comprised of seven buildings of which none exceed
3,500 of total area. This is very similar to Julian Square to the south, with the buildings ranging
in size from 874 square feet to 3,366 square feet. Each building will be fully designed in
accordance with the adopted building codes for separation, fire safety and ingress and egress.
JUN
Page 10 of 15
The intent of this particular provision is to ensure no one commercial space (user) is out of
context with the North Mountain neighborhood.
Utilities: The site's utilities were installed during the subdivision's initial infrastructure. Water
service and meters are located at the front of the buildings, where as all other services are located
along the rear alley and currently "stubbed-in" at the rear of the property. Final building plans
will include final details as to electric meters, but regardless such meters will be located on the
building's back wall.
Tree Removal: The applicants are proposing to remove seven (7) Siberian Elm trees located
within the City's adjacent public right-of-way (Alley) and open the alley for vehicular ingress
and egress. A report from a Certified Arborist is attached addressing the condition of the trees
and concludes the subject trees pose an immediate threat to the public and adjacent structures
and should be removed and replaced. Considering the trees are within the City's right-of-way
and pose a risk, the applicants will be seeking permission from the City Manager in accordance
with Chapter 13.16 for removal of trees within the public rights-of-way.
Alley: The opening of the alley is desirable, but not necessary and was only a consideration
based on neighborhood comments raised during the April 23rd, 2013 neighborhood meeting
where neighbors thought it would be suggestible to maintain the neighborhoods connected
street/alley pattern so that no one street is burdened by a majority of the vehicle trips. In the
applicant's opinion, this is a very good idea considering the concept of the original plan was
designed based on a traditional gridded street system which includes alleys, but because there
was little information about the trees other than their location during the initial period of the
North Mountain Master Planning process, the trees were essentially left. However, now that j
more detail and specific information has been provided, it is the applicant's desire
(recommendation) to remove the trees and open the alley as most likely would have been
designed as inter-connected streets and alleys are valuable to traditional neighborhood
developments and are highly regarded through-out the City's Transportation System Plan and
Handbook for Planning and Designing Streets.
i
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff,
Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the
required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the
requirements and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to the
Performance Subdivision requirements in Chapter 18.88 and Site Review Chapter 18.72.
For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline" form with the
City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also,
there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are
complete.
Page 11of15
Chapter 18.88 Performance Standards ®ntion Subdivisions
The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following
criteria have been met:
A. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of
Ashland.
The proposed development meets all applicable City ordinances and design standards of the City
of Ashland. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions or Variances with the proposal.
B. That adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to
and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection
and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to
operate beyond capacity.
All key facilities are available to service the proposed project. All utilities to service the building
were installed at the time of the subdivision and no major modifications are expected. The
applicants have met with all of the utility departments to verify if there were any capacity issues.
The results of the meeting were that adequate City facilities are available to the subject site.
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. j
i
The property is essentially bare with no natural features other than seven Siberian Elm trees that
are off-site, but directly north of the property and within the City's adjacent alley right-of-way.
The subject trees are slated for removal due to their poor health and location. I
D. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed
for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
I
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.
At the time of building permits, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) will be
drafted by an Attorney for review and approval by the City. The documents will address the
project's common areas in order to provide adequate provisions of maintenance.
F. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under
this Chapter.
Page 12 of 15
As stated above, the proposed density is required to meet the base density of the North Mountain
Neighborhood's General Regulations, Section 18.30.020 D., where the "minimum" residential
density shall be between 75 to 110 percent of the base density. Since the base density is 40.4
units, the permissible unit range is between 30.3 to 44.4 dwelling units. The applicants are
proposing to utilize only the base density of 40.4 dwelling units and proportionately allocate
between the four commercial mixed-use properties as noted.
G. The development complies with the Street Standards.
No streets are proposed with the development and all existing streets are currently improved. The
applicants will complete the approved sidewalk and street trees along the frontage of Tax Lot
700 in accordance with the adopted civil plans.
5. Criteria for Final Plan Approval. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of
substantial conformance with the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit
reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is
done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase,
nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial
conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one
planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the
outline plan with the final plan shows that:
A. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on
the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted
in the outline plan.
The primary purpose of the request to modify the subdivision was to procedurally address the
project's base density of 40.4 dwelling units based on the NM-C zone's acreage, including the
land dedicated to the public. This also includes the provision "requiring" the base density to be
between 75% to 110% of the base density. In other words, the proposal corrects the previous
application's residential density of 10 units where 30.3 to 44.4 dwelling units were the minimum
required. In this case, the applicants are proposing only the base density and allocating the
density among the four commercial mixed-use properties.
B. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten (10%)
percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be
reduced below the minimum established within this Title.
The proposed foot print is consistent with those shown on the original subdivision plans, but are
clarified within this narrative and as illustrated with the attached plan submittals and thus are
procedurally in compliance with the criteria.
C. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline
plan.
Page 13 of 15
The project's open spaces are consistent with those shown on the original subdivision plans, but
are within this narrative and as illustrated with the attached plan submittals and thus are
procedurally in compliance with the criteria.
D. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more
than ten (10%) percent.
The proposed building size is consistent with those shown on the original subdivision plans, but
are clarified within this narrative and as illustrated with the attached plan submittals and thus are
procedurally in compliance with the criteria..
E. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and
intent of this Title and the approved outline plan.
As noted, the project's building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the
purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan which identified traditional
materials and architectural elements all which are proposed with this application.
F. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the
outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure
that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
Not applicable as no density points have been requested with the application.
G. The development complies with the Street Standards.
No streets are proposed with the development and all existing streets are currently improved. The
applicants will complete the approved sidewalk and street trees along the frontage of Tax Lot
700 in accordance with the adopted civil plans.
Chanter 18.72 Site Review Permit
Section 18.72.070 Site Review Approval Criteria:
I
A. All applicable City Ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
i
To the applicant's knowledge all City regulations are or will be complied with. The applicants
are not requesting any exceptions or variances.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
As noted below, all requirements listed in the Site Review Chapter (18.72) have or will be
complied with. Specifically, the landscaping will be irrigated and maintained, and light and glare
Page 14 of 15
concerns will be addressed with down lighting and screening where necessary.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
The applicants contend all of the standards noted within the Site Design Standards are or will be
complied with.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
All key facilities are available to service the proposed project. All utilities to service the building
were installed at the time of the subdivision and no major modifications are expected. The
applicants have met with all of the utility departments to verify if there were any capacity issues.
The results of the meeting were that adequate City facilities are available to the subject site.
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
Page 15 of 15
Mike Bartlett
Certified Arborist - International Society of Arboriculture
2288 Old Stage Rd. - Central Point, Or. 97502
541-779-6067 NN o _ o, 'J
Jan. 7, 2013
Meadowbrook Townhomes, L.L.C.
Attn. Dave DeCarlow
2131 Duncan
Medford, Or. 97504
Definition of Assignment:
On Jan. 3, 2013 I met with Dave DeCarlow, who represents Meadowbrook Townhomes, L.L.C.
He had a high level of concern regarding a row of (7) Siberian Elms `Ulmus pumila' residing on
a future construction site. He was seeking a Certified Arborist's professional opinion.
I
Purpose & Use of This Report:
i
The purpose of this report is to document the current condition of the (7) Elms of concern. This
report will also address how the future construction plans will impact the trees. Through this
process any potential hazards they may possess and pose on the surrounding areas will also be
evaluated. The report will conclude with recommendations based on the findings of the tree
inspections.
I
Subject 'T'ree Observations:
Upon arrival I began a tree inspection of the row of (7) Siberian Elms located on the east side of
Fair Oaks Ave., on the southeast corner of lots #70 and #71 (photo 1). The average DBH of the
trees was 24 inches. The average height was 45 feet. Targets involved are homes to the east and
the future development to the west.
These Elms have many areas of concern. Siberian Elms are a very brittle species. This has been
proven to be true. Recently, there have been some significant limbs that have been shed from the
trees (photo 2). Where limbs have sheared off the main stems, internal decay has begun to
spread longitudally and vertically (photo 3). The trees also have a significant percentage of dead
wood. Many limbs have an excessive amount of end-weight, which causes most of the limb
failure in this specie. A number of the trees are showing severe crown die-back (photo 4). On
the east side of the trees, approximately 10 feet away from the trunks, there is a 12 inch cut-bank
(photo 5). This is not natural and appears to be a result of the recent construction of the homes
Meadowbrook Townhomes, L.L.C.
Attn. Dave DeCarlow
2131 Duncan
Medford, Or. 97504
Subject Tree Observations Cont'd:
I
i
to the east of the Elms. This cut-bank is within the critical root zone and may be a contributor to
the decline of the trees. There are plans to build a road to the west side of the trees and more
home in close proximity. This will lead to further damage to the roots. These Elms are in
serious state of decline. Any further damage/ interference to the root zone will create more of a
hazard than what already exists.
Conclusion:
There are many forms of tree preservation. Cabling, bracing, selective thinning, dead wood
removal, end-weight reduction, root collar excavation and root therapy are some of the more
common practices.
i
Considering removal of a tree is not a task taken lightly. Many factors are analyzed during this
process. Targets involved, location, size of part, amount of traffic, species, environmental
factors, general health and potential to fail are some aspects which are evaluated.
Because of the many factors stated in this report, the (7) Ulmus pumila inspected are beyond any
form of sensible preservation and pose an immediate threat to the public and structures involved.
They should be removed and replaced.
Professionally, j
i
Mike Bartlett
Certified Arborist PN 0984 / P.N.W. & Western Chapter LS.A.
i
International Society Arboriculture
P y ' ~t
l d
I r T,n.~d
r,
t
i
t t ' i
_ t
(Photo 1): Row of (7) Ulmus pumila `Siberian Elm'
i
i
I
i
I
~ r
3
i
(Photo 2): Recent significant limb failure
i
i
1
L~
RI -
f
(Photo 3): Internal decay & targets involved
k
e
n,
(Photo 4a): Crown Die-back & severe root damage from concrete construction
i
j
i
I
i
i
i
i
I
y
t
4 ~ I
iY
a ~ E I
(Photo 4b & Photo 5): Crown die-back & 12" cut-bank within critical root zone
APPLICANTS EXHIBITS
i
E
i
i
i
II
i
_
=
t _ _
,
_ -
r
'~r ~ ~ -
{
ti ~
is
-F[ u _
I
Q
Q
e
i
n~
-
-
c
i
f,
i,
i
i
s
i
I
i 91I
i
i
i
_li- -
i
I
.
J ,
i
ifs it _
I
I h
i II
i
,
I
I
i
STAFF EXHBITS
Staff Exhibit - Density Calculations from PA #2002-151 Outline Plan Approval
North Mountain District Zoning Map
Vicinity Map
2012 Aerial Photo
Meadowbrook Park II Development Lay-Out Plan
Parking as Addressed in the Outline Plan Approval
Elevations of Previous Building
Photos of Architectural Model Reflecting Previous Site Review Approval
Staff Exhibit
Density Calculations
NM-MF 5.71 acres x 12 du/acre = 68.5 units(allowable units)
NM-R15 1.44 acres x 5 du/acre = 7.2 units (allowable units)
NM-R17.5 4.24 acres x 3.6 du/acre = 15.3 units (allowable units)
TOTAL ALLOWABLE UNITS = 91-units (68 min. to 101 max.)
TOTAL PROPOSED UNITS/EXCLUDING = 79-units (87% allowable density)
NM-C (Commercial)
NM-C 2.31 acres x 20 du/acre = 46.2 units (allowable) 13 proposed (24 possible)
18.30.020 D. Minimum Density. Proposals resulting in the creation of additional parcels or greater than three units on
a single parcel shall provide for residential densities between 75 to 110 percent of the base density for a given overlay,
unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography,
access limitations or similar physical constraints. (Proposals involving the development of neighborhood commercial
businesses and services shall be exempt from the above requirements).
I
I
:
'
I
I - I
ti
~
f
~
s,-
r
~,n,,.A...r.,.
- - -
i
i ~ i. -
~i
_ e~ _
~~i
..w
i. m a
r. _
z .
c
~ _
/
-r. J
~ ~ A
r 1. ~
1 _ m__ _ - - _ ,
.s ms
_
LL. ~ _
~ J gar ~ S m~: - i _
+p~
v I
e
A~
r _
J ~
i~._
N
~ -
I i..
u:
- _ _
-
~ -
-r..~~ -
"
y
c•~=
N
c, iii
~ ,r i
77-
, i
,
ed r~
n
K r
a ,
6
m
m
i
I
riYi7t-
a r
i v.
y„
f
k
-
r ~
i
y t
i R
i
4
-
I
.._~.w - - - ,
i I
i _
~ ~ ~
~ _
I „
y
,,.._r- _ _ _ _
- - ~ -
_ -
< n.
-
o
_
- _
- _ -
-
1--
~ I--.
i
f ,
w off
MEMO oil
"
i
r
-
. o
® o
1 _ Vii:.{'-1::~ r%ta..^;::c~r' ~ ~~•-i~ Q
llil!~0X: tUZ z
¢ U)
N J
7n0¢o a ¢ °O z P8 ~ O r
o t O 2
Ot_/' J~
w 10 wOZ ¢ OZ
.m y z a N ti IL
wo d ~ N N
T,
v-.a!
,g. yf
00 v w a ~ o
+ .5? Q 0O
,-w.`, e".' ® Vial < 0
_ ma ' ❑ ~ ~ Ili ill a - ~ ~ _ _ -
e ,.,A- l.~y~, ~'4 43:3 ;-.,Y, ST z Q ~ ~ Z I=A LLJ
A-E
LLJ
L \ ill
gyiyk.: t.i . ~''+`f? ~ '_\=a2 •crt;` i ~r"yS7. `:a:' ~:~1 Z{ ~4 sC
vj
!Y LL n
O IO bO O
o .
j„
c
ti it
...fry..
„Fh y< .
.
_
o t