HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-13 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyyone wishing too speak at any Planning Commission meetinng is encourageed to do so. If you wish to sppeak,
please risee and, after youu have been reecognized by thhe Chair, give yyour name and complete address for the reccord.
You will then be allowed to speak. Pleaase note that thhe public testimmony may be limited by the CChair and normaally is
not allowed after the Pubblic Hearing is cclosed.
AASHLAND PLLANNING COOMMISSION
REGUULAR MEETING
AUGGUST 13, 20113
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Ciivic Center Coouncil Chambbers, 1175 E. Main Street
II.. ANNOOUNCEMENTTS
Seeptember Training Opportuunity
Plaanning Commmission Vacanncy
IIII. CONSSENT AGENDDA
A. Appproval of Minutes
1.July 9, 20133 Regular Meeeting
2.July 23, 2013 Study Sesssion
IVV. PUBLIC FORUM
V. UNFINNISHED BUSINESS
A. Appproval of Findings for PPA-2013-008006, Vacant Paarcels at Norrth Mountainn & Fair Oakss
VI. DISCUUSSION ITEMMS
A. Unnified Land UUse Ordinancce – Discusssion of Publicc Meeting Coomments
B. Scchedule tour of SOU Dormms and Dininng Hall
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Inn compliance wwith the Americaans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
coontact the Commmunity Develoopment office aat 541-488-53055 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-22900). Notificattion 48 hours pprior to the
mmeeting will enaable the City to make reasonaable arrangemeents to ensure aaccessibility to the meeting (228 CFR 35.1022-35.104
ADDA Title 1).
OREGON CITY PLANNING
DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
Klamath Falls Planning Dept.
226 South 5th Street
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
S 26, 2013
EPTEMBER
T, 1 - 5
HURSDAY
PM
O S
XFORDUITES
12226 N J D
ORTHANTZENRIVE
P, O
ORTLANDREGON
Sponsored by
Oregon City Planning Directors Association
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
July 9, 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
Carol Davis Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Michael Dawkins April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Debbie Miller
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced several upcoming City Council agenda items, including: Short Term
Vacation Rentals, the Housing Needs Analysis, and an ordinance creating a combined Housing and Human Services
Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. June 11 2013 Regular Meeting.
2. June 25, 2013 Study Session
Commissioners Brown/Peddicord m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
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 1E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 9, 2013
Page 1 of 6
Commissioner Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Davis, Kaplan, Brown, Peddicord, Dawkins and Miller declared site visits; No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the current proposal before the Commission and provided background information
on the previous approval as well as the Central Overlay of the North Mountain Zone (NM-C). Mr. Severson explained the NM-C
zone has a density of 20-units per acre and is intended to be the “downtown plaza” of this area. He added when the original
Meadowbrook Park plan was approved, the NM-C portion of the development had a potential allowable density of 46.2 units,
with 13 proposed and 24 possible. Mr. Severson explained the current application involves a request for site review approval to
construct a three-story mixed building; approval to remove seven Elm trees so that the alley can be used for vehicular
circulation; and a modification of the 2003 approval to allow a total of 40 dwelling units between the four subject properties. He
added the commercial spaces will be located on the ground floor of the mixed use building and parking will be provided on the
ground level (within the building footprint) and accessed from the alley, and also pointed out the applicants request to use the
ground floor commercial spaces as residential units until the area builds out sufficiently to support commercial use. Lastly, Mr.
Severson noted the Tree Commission’s approval to remove the seven Elm trees as requested by the applicant.
Mr. Severson explained one of the key issues raised in the staff report is the issue of parking as it relates to the number of
residential units. He explained within this district there is no requirement to provide off-street parking for commercial spaces,
and there is a one-space per unit requirement for each residential unit. He noted this is significantly reduced from what you
would see in other residential areas in town and clarified the intent is to have this area develop out similar to the downtown, with
a continuous storefront character and parking available either on-street or in public lots. Mr. Severson clarified the applicant has
proposed 12 residential units in the mixed use building and has identified 8 parking spaces on the ground floor and will utilize 4
of the 23 available parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court.
Mr. Severson read aloud language regarding parking availability from the approval findings for Planning Action #2002-00151
and stated staff has re-evaluated the possible on-street parking availability for the area. He explained there are 78 spaces
(including the spaces on the private street) and an additional 29-31 private underground spaces in Julian Square. He clarified
while the private spaces are not counted, they do reduce the parking demand created by tenants and visitors of Julian Square.
Mr. Severson informed the commission that staff believes there is adequate on-street parking to accommodate the commercial
demand of the proposed mixed-use building, and the commission could determine that Plum Ridge Court, as a private street,
could be used to accommodate the residential demand. He noted the applicant’s have submitted a revised site plan this evening
and asked the applicant to address this when they come forward.
Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and noted the proposed revision to Condition #7 which clarifies the parking spaces on
Plum Ridge Court can be used to address the residential parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, but cannot be individual parking spaces assigned or otherwise treated as a private parking
lot.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked whether converting the commercial space to residential required a conditional use permit. Mr. Severson
responded that both uses are allowed and the applicants need only obtain an occupancy permit. He added the applicants have
stated a deed restriction will be placed on these units to make it clear the intent is for them to become commercial spaces. Staff
added the residential units in the area will likely need to be fully developed before a commercial use could be viable.
Staff was asked to clarify where the proposed alleyway would connect. Mr. Severson stated the alleyway as proposed would
enter the existing parking lot and connect to the roadway from there.
Applicant’s Presentation
Laz Ayala/Applicant, Ayala Properties LLC/Stated he lives in the neighborhood where this project is proposed and is very
mindful of the City’s policies to create neighborhoods like the one proposed. He stated this project is still fluid and offers many
opportunities for livability, affordability, and density, all of which align with the City’s stated goals. Mr. Ayala stated he has met
Ashland Planning Commission
July 9, 2013
Page 2 of 6
with neighborhood residents and done his best to address their concerns, and stated he is available for any questions the
commission may have.
Mark Knox/Land Use Planner, Urban Development Services LLC/Stated he has been involved with this project for the last
18 years since its conception. He stated this proposal addresses livability and sustainability without sprawl, and displayed
several photos of the subject property and proposed building. Mr. Knox stated he has reviewed the parking calculations and
explained they came up with a total of 127 spaces by counting parking spaces both on- and off-street likely available at build-out
of the neighborhood center. He also clarified the revised site plan distributed tonight includes two additional spaces that were
created by reducing the storage area for a total of 10 spaces on the site. He added this is exactly what the previous application
was approved for. Mr. Knox outlined two potential scenarios for the commission and explained how the parking demand would
be met. Scenario #1 was a mixture of office and retail with one restaurant (coffee shop), and Scenario #2 was two restaurants
with one of them located in the octagon building. In both instances, he stated there is sufficient parking to meet the demand.
Questions of the Applicant
The applicant was asked to comment on the development as a whole, since their presentation focused on parking. Mr. Knox
explained the vision is for a main street format with gaps in between the buildings to allow light and air in. He stated the
construction of the second and third buildings will be market driven, however they would like to move forward with building two
right away. Mr. Knox stated the proposed building will have a total of 12 residential units on the second and third floors and they
have provided a mixture of sizes as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Needs Analysis. He clarified there
will be 10 parking spaces on site for the residential units, and the remaining two spaces will be located on Plum Ridge Court.
Mr. Knox added the ground floor commercial units will be used as residential, but built with certain commercial elements so that
when the market is ready there will not be a significant amount of effort needed to change them into the intended commercial
uses.
The applicant was asked to clarify where the new trees will be planted. Mr. Knox answered the trees will be planted along the
public parking lot, and noted the existing Elms were damaged during previous construction activity. Suggestion was made for
the applicant to consider placing trees along the back of the building by the alleyway.
When asked about the proposed residential use on the first floor, Mr. Knox stated the corner unit will be commercial right away
and the adjoining space will be turned into 2-4 residential units. He added there is more than a sufficient amount of on-street
parking to accommodate these uses. Mr. Ayala commented that this has been a moving target but feels strongly that there will
be a commercial demand for this building right away and they will have two commercial businesses located on the first floor.
Public Testimony
Ted Mularz/859 Mountain Avenue/Stated he is a retired architect and has been a resident of Ashland for 23 years. Mr. Mularz
explained he lives across the street from the subject property and expressed concern with the plan as submitted. He stated he
is joined by several of his neighbors and the following three speakers will address their concerns on parking congestion,
commercial units, traffic congestion, transportation, and building configuration.
Gideon Wizansky/829 Pavilion Place/Commented on parking and stated the applicant’s proposal does not meet the City’s
requirement for every residence to have a dedicated off-street parking space. Mr. Wizansky added if the commercial spaces are
turned into residential units, even if temporary, those units should be required to have dedicated off-street parking.
Terry Bateman/829 Pavilion Place/Commented on traffic congestion and transportation and recommended the construction of
the planned bridge to connect Nevada Street over Bear Creek be pursued as quickly as possible. Mr. Bateman recommended
public transportation be provided and stated the Nevada Street bridge would facilitate such transportation by providing a loop
from North Mountain Avenue to Oak Street and downtown. Lastly, he cited the dangerous pedestrian crosswalk at the
intersection of North Mountain and Fair Oaks and stated because of its location at the top of the hill, the visibility of this
crosswalk is severely limited. Mr. Bateman recommended a stop sign be placed at this location to remedy the safety issue.
Donna Swanson/863 Plum Ridge Drive/Recommended the architecture be more contemporary in design to better fit in with
the existing neighborhood buildings. Ms. Swanson stated the proposed design is an unsuccessful attempt to replicate the
Ashland Planning Commission
July 9, 2013
Page 3 of 6
downtown Plaza and very much resembles Main Street Disneyland in character. She stated to maintain the neighborhood
context as originally intended any proposed buildings should be complimentary to the already established neighborhood design.
William Machado/985 Camelot Drive/Strongly recommended the commission look at the parking figures carefully. He
questioned what would happen if the tenants of the 40 units each had two vehicles, and also questioned where the temporary
residential unit tenants will park.
Rick Harris/190 Oak Street/Stated he is a real estate broker and spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Harris agreed with using
the commercial spaces for residential use until the area has built out sufficiently and stated the existing vacant commercial
spaces verify that commercial spaces that can only be used as commercial will remain empty. He also stated the proposed
mixed-use will diversify the area and create a broader range of community.
Teresa McCants/150 East Main Street/Stated she is happy to see the plan for mixed use is being followed and voiced support
for utilizing the ground floor commercial space as single level residential units. She noted the commercial market is taking
longer to come back and it would be sad to see a requirement that the commercial spaces only be used as commercial and not
allow for the need that is wanted right now.
Fred Cox/213 Eastbrook Way/Noted he is a builder and has nine lots in this area. He stated he would like to see a success for
this neighborhood and voiced support for mixed use developments. Mr. Cox commented on the lack of wheelchair
accessible/single level homes in Ashland. He stated they need to support the commercial buildings that are there now and they
can do this by having more residential. Mr. Cox commented on traffic and stated parking could be less with these types of units.
He added the commission has the opportunity to provide what was, and is, the intent of the vision for this neighborhood.
Paul Siegel/610 Fair Oaks Court/Stated he lives in Julian Square and feels this project is too confusing. He stated there are
too many different options and believes a project of this scale and scope should be reviewed much more carefully. Mr. Siegel
stated parking is already difficult around Julian Square and does not believe the applicant has met the ordinance requirement of
one parking space per unit. He commented there is no guarantee that the first floor units will turn into commercial and the
applicant could keep these as residential for as long as they want. He added he would feel more comfortable if parking was
provided for these units.
Brian Rexon/904 Kestrel Parkway/Stated this whole community is developing very nicely as the result of the applicant, and
stated through Mr. Ayala’s leadership this area has turned into a thriving community. Mr. Rexon stated he also has concerns
about traffic flow and parking, but believes this development is going to be in the neighborhood’s best interest. He noted they
have been waiting for many years for this development to occur and heartily endorsed the applicant.
Rick Lindemann/550 West Nevada Street/Stated he is considering purchasing property in Meadowbrook and voiced support
for the proposed plaza space and coffee shop, and also noted the importance of walkability. Mr. Lindemann stated he is not
concerned about parking and believes the applicant has met all of the requirements.
Roger Mueller/903 Plum Ridge Drive/Expressed confusion with the applicant’s parking figures and urged the commission to
look at these carefully to ensure they are accurate. Mr. Mueller recommended the application undergo further study and noted
his concerns regarding the proposed pedestrian crossing and the parking situation.
Bob DiChiro/920 North Mountain/Stated the proposed development will take away his view, change the light that hits his
property, and will place a parking lot across the street. Mr. DiChiro asked several questions, including: what is the building
setback; when will they break ground; and how long will it take to build? He stated the commercial uses should cater to the
people who live in the area and expressed concern with cars drifting over from the parking lot and parking in front of his
property.
Applicant’s Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Clarified they are not proposing any exceptions or variances, but are requesting a modification to the previous
developer’s proposal which was inadequate in terms of the intended density for this area. Mr. Knox agreed that the numbers
can be confusing and commented that they truly believe there will be 30 residential units, plus an additional six units if you count
Ashland Planning Commission
July 9, 2013
Page 4 of 6
the ground floor units in the commercial space. He stated they have 24 spaces and propose to get the remaining 12 spaces
from the private Plum Ridge Court. He stressed they are not asking for a parking variance and stated there is plenty of parking.
Mr. Knox emphasized they meet all the criteria for this proposal. He clarified the City is already working on grants to have the
bridge connection made, and stressed that all of the traffic requirements have been met. In terms of the comment made that this
proposal will create a dangerous pedestrian crossing, Mr. Knox stated there is 150-200 ft. of vision clearance and the posted
speed would have to be 50 mph before this would warrant a stop sign.
Mr. Knox clarified for the commission that they are requesting approval of the revised site plan that was submitted this evening.
Questions of Staff
Comment was made suggesting the pedestrian crossing concern be forwarded to the Transportation Commission for review.
Commissioner Dawkins asked staff to elaborate on the parking requirements. Community Development Director Bill Molnar
explained the North Mountain plan is unique in that in order to provide a particular form at the front of the property and around
the common area, the majority of the parking demand needs to be met by on-street parking spaces. He commented on the
parking spaces along Plum Ridge Court and emphasized that staff has no reservations about using these spaces as described.
He stated it is clear from the 2002 findings document that the intention was for this parking to be flexible in order to address the
variety and concentration of uses in this neighborhood. He added this is not a private parking lot and the proposed revision to
Condition #7 makes this clear. Mr. Molnar clarified parking spaces located within a building’s footprint is their dedicated (private)
parking, but everything else is shared parking. Staff added even with the commercial spaces being used as residential, the
proposal meets the requirement for one parking space per unit because they can utilize the spaces on Plum Ridge Court.
Commissioner Dawkins closed the record and the public hearing at 9:10 pm.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to send this application to the Transportation Commission for their suggestion on
the Fair Oaks/North Mountain intersection. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Miller commented that she visits this area
frequently and stated it is hard to see traffic coming from any direction. She noted the vehicle trips per day will increase by 300-
400 and stated many residents in this area are over 55. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
Commissioners Kaplan/Peddicord m/s to approve Planning Action #2013-00806, with the revision to Condition #7 as
proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Kaplan stated it is hard to know if the residential will convert to commercial.
He stated it is important to treat it as residential for now and recommended the proposed temporary residential units be included
in the one-for-one parking requirement. Kaplan added he has no concerns with the proposed tree removals. Commissioner
Peddicord stated as a former Tree Commissioner she always wants to advocate for tree preservation, but in this case it is not
feasible to attempt to save these trees. Commissioner Brown agreed with Kaplan and stated the temporary residential units
need to meet the one-for-one parking requirement. He stated removing the trees is the right thing to do, but suggested the
replacement trees be placed along the alleyway. Commissioner Miller recommended the alleyway be retained for bicycle and
pedestrian use only (no vehicles). Regarding parking, she commented that allocating parking and dedicated parking are
different and would like to see dedicated parking spaces for each of the residential units. Commissioner Brown commented on
the alleyway and suggested different treatments to keep this from turning into a thoroughfare, including only paving it up to
where you enter the building’s parking, and a left-turn only exit. Commissioner Davis expressed her support for using the ground
floor as residential until a commercial use is viable. Commissioner Dawkins asked if there were additional comments regarding
the alleyway. Commissioner Kaplan agreed that the alley should include trees or some other treatment to provide a barrier to
the existing house. Suggestion was made for the Transportation Commission look at whether the alleyway should be brought all
the way through and where the safest place is to exit onto the through road.
Commissioners Kaplan/Davis m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 pm. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION (Continued): Mr. Molnar clarified the Transportation Commission is not obligated to the quasi-judicial timeframe,
however the Public Works Department could likely provide input in a suitable timeframe. Mr. Molnar stated the commission
Ashland Planning Commission
July 9, 2013
Page 5 of 6
could make a motion that expresses their desire to close the alleyway, and ask that this be evaluated by the Public Works
Department.
Commissioners Brown/Kaplan m/s to amend the motion to recommend the alleyway not go completely through and
instead stop at entrance/exit to the assigned parking spaces, and for this to be evaluated by the appropriate City staff.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
DISCUSSION (Continued): Staff clarified the commission’s desire for the temporary residential units to meet the one-for-one
parking requirement will be included in the findings. Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Commissioners Brown, Davis,
Miller, Kaplan, Peddicord and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 9, 2013
Page 6 of 6
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
July 23, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Carol Davis Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Michael Dawkins April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Mike Morris
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Dawkins commented on the City Council proceedings for short term vacation rentals. He remarked on how he
felt the Planning Commission and staff put forward a good ordinance, but stated the Council decided to bring this item back for
further discussion. Council Liaison Mike Morris shared his perspective of the proceedings and stated the ordinance and
proposed changes will be discussed again at the Council’s August 19, 2013 Study Session.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Housing Needs Analysis and an ordinance creating a combined
Housing and Human Services Commission will go before the City Council on August 20, 2013.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Definitions.
Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Definitions section of the Unified Land Use Ordinance. She
explained the materials before the commission is a first draft but stated staff wanted to give them a first look. She explained the
formatting will be corrected in the next draft, and the graphics will also be inserted. She added there are some definitions in the
model code that are worded better than our existing ones, and those many be inserted as well in upcoming drafts.
Ms. Harris noted language that was deleted or changed is clearly marked in the packet materials, and highlighted a few of the
recommended edits, including: 1) Removing the definition for “Family”, 2) Combining the definitions for “Hotel” and “Motel”, and
3) Editing the definition of “Temporary Use” to read: “a short-term, seasonal, reoccurring, or intermittent use. Such use shall be
approved by the Conditional Use Permit only, with such conditions as the City approval body deems reasonable.”
Ms. Harris commented on the Focus Group meeting that was held on June 10, 2013; and noted an Open House was held on
June 20, 2013. She stated the Focus Group had a few comments, but for the most part were in agreement with what has been
put forward. She explained some of the suggestions made at the Open House included decreased setbacks on alleyways and
looking at smaller lot sizes, but pursuing these ideas might need to be a next step since they will likely need more involved
discussion than the current timeline allows. The Commission expressed their desire to hear the ideas that were put forward and
Ms. Harris agreed to bring this back to the group.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 23, 2013
Page 1 of 2
Commission Comments and Questions:
Comment was made questioning the use of “calendar year” on pg. 5-32 instead of “within twelve months.” Ms. Harris
stated this is the way it was worded in the model code, but agreed to look into this.
Recommendation was made for the code to include definitions for “long-term” and “short-term”.
Comment was made questioning the two definitions for “Tree Removal” and Ms. Harris acknowledged that staff is still
looking into how to resolve this. She noted most of the other double definitions were easy to sort out, but this one is
more difficult.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Bi-Annual Attendance Report (January – June 2013)
Informational item only. No discussion was held.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
July 23, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Memo
DATE:
August 13, 2013
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Derek Severson, Associate Planner
RE:
North Mountain Square Findings
At the Planning Commission’s July meeting, the Planning Action for “North Mountain Square” was
approved. The Commission’s motion to approve included acceptance of a modification to Condition #7
which had been recommended by staff during the presentation, however the Commission’s motion did
not detail other modifications to the conditions despite there having been modifications to the proposed
number of units and parking spaces during the hearing, and the Commission’s having determined that
interim residential use of ground floor commercial spaces would need to demonstrate that required
residential parking was provided for each unit. In preparing the findings, staff has made some
modifications to what was contained in the staff report and its conditions to reflect the Commission’s
deliberations, and wanted to draw these items to your attention as you consider the adoption of findings.
Initial Findings Narrative
The initial findings narrative has been updated to reflect the revised proposals of the
applicant made during the hearing that ten upper floor residential units are proposed
rather than 12, and that ten parking spaces are to be provided on Tax Lot #700 rather than
eight.
Condition #6
ThatSiteReviewapprovalshallbeobtainedpriortothedevelopmentoftheremaining tax lots(#800,
#1500or#5900).EachSiteReviewapplicationshallincludereviseddetailsoftheallocateddensity,
requiredresidentialparkingincludingparkingforinterim/temporaryresidentialuseofgroundfloor
commercialspaces,andlotcoverageoftheNMCportionoftheoriginaldevelopment,andatnotime
shall thecombinedresidentialdensityofthesubjectproperties,includinganyinterimresidentialuseof
groundfloorspaces,exceedthebasedensity.
The remaining tax lots were specifically identified for clarity’s sake, and a requirement was
added that future Site Review applications include details of the required residential parking
including spaces for interim/temporary use of groundlfoor commercial spaces to reflect the
Planning Commission’s decision.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-552-2040
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.usderek.severson@ashland.or.us
Condition #7
Thatthenumberofresidentialunitsallowed,includinginterim/temporaryresidentialunitsin
thegroundfloorcommercialspaces,shallnotexceedthenumberofoffstreetparkingspaces
provided.PlumRidgeCourt(TaxLot#1400)isaprivatestreetundertheğƦƦƌźĭğƓƷƭownership
is alsoanintegralpartofthebroaderstreetnetworkassociatedwithMeadowbrookPark
but
EstatesIIsubdivisionapprovalandNorthMountainNeighborhoodPlan.ThePlanning
Commissionsupportsconsiderationofthe 23PlumRidgeCourt parkingspaces withinthis
privatestreet(TaxLot#1400)toaddresstheresidentialparkingdemandtoaccommodatethe
NMCdensityenvisionedintheNorthMountainNeighborhoodPlan,however the useofthese
parkingspacesmaynotberestricted,assigned or otherwise treatedasaprivateparkinglot,as
privateparkinglotsarethisis notapermittedusewithinthezone.
Added that off-street parking must be considered for interim/temporary residential
use as well, and reworded the remainder for clarity. As worded here, there would be
substantial flexibility on the applicant’s part in using the Plum Ridge Court parking
to address parking demand for any proposed uses.
If it was the Commission’s intention that Plum Ridge Court be used only in meeting
the off-street parking requirements for interim/temporary residential use of
groundlfoor commercial spaces, with parking for the upper floor residential units to
be provided on the individual lots as is the case for Tax Lot #700 in the current
application, this was not explicit in the Condition #7 modifications presented by staff
during the hearing, and alternate language detailed below would need to be selected..
Alternative Condition #7
Thatthenumberofresidentialunitsallowed,includinginterim/temporaryresidential
unitsinthegroundfloorcommercialspaces,shallnotexceedthenumberofoffstreet
parkingspacesprovided.PlumRidgeCourt(TaxLot#1400)isaprivatestreetunderthe
ğƦƦƌźĭğƓƷƭownershipbutisalsoanintegralpartofthebroaderstreetnetworkassociated
withMeadowbrookParkEstatesIIsubdivisionapprovalandNorthMountain
NeighborhoodPlan.ThePlanningCommissionsupportsconsiderationofthe23Plum
RidgeCourtparkingspacestoaddresstheparkingdemandbyinterimgroundfloor
residentialusesandfuturegroundfloorNeighborhoodCentral(NMC)commercialuses,
howevertheuseoftheseparkingspacesmaynotberestricted,assignedorotherwise
treatedasaprivateparkinglot,asprivateparkinglotsarenotapermittedusewithinthe
zone.
Condition #8
Thatpriortoconversionfromgroundfloorresidentialusetocommercialuse,theapplicantsshallobtain
anypermitsnecessarytoapprovetheproposedchangeinoccupancy,andthegroundfloorcommercial
elementsincludingstorefrontwindowsanddoorsshallbeinstalledinamannerconsistentwiththe
conceptualelevationsprovidedhere,inspectedandapprovedbytheStaffAdvisor.Thecombined
residentialdensityofthesubjectproperties,includinganyinterimresidentialuseofgroundfloorspaces,
shallnotwouldnotbeableto exceedthebasedensityofthe projectparentproperty.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-552-2040
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.usderek.severson@ashland.or.us
Added condition language (shall vs. would not) and made clear that the base density being
considered is for the parent property from the original subdivision approval.
Condition #9b
Thattheapplicantsshallprovidearevisedlandscapeandirrigationplanwhichaddressesthe
recommendationsoftheTreeCommissionfromtheirJuly3,2013meetingwhereconsistentwiththe
applicablestandardsandwithfinalapprovalbytheStaffAdvisor.Theseitemsshallinclude:1)
identificationofsize,speciesandplacementofsevenmitigationtreestobeplanted intherightofway
surroundingtheexistingparkinglotattheintersectionofNorthMountainAvenueandEastNevada
Streetinthegeneralvicinitywithoutobstructingpotentialextensionofthealleywayinthefuture to
mitigatetheremovalofthesevenSiberianElms andassociatedfencingorotherscreeningtobufferthe
neighbortothenorthfromthevisualimpactsoftheproposedbuilding;2)reviseddetailsforthelarge
openspaceareaattheentrancetotheprojectbetweenFairOaksAvenueandFairOaksCourttoinclude
fourofthesixelementsidentifiedunderSiteDesignandUseStandards#IIC3b)ΓPublicSpaces;3)irrigation
detailssatisfyingtherequirementsoftheSiteDesignandUseStandardsWaterConservingLandscaping
GuidelinesandPolicies.
Removed the requirement that mitigation trees be planted around the adjacent parking lot,
and instead required that they be planted in the general vicinity of the trees to be removed,
and placed in such a manner, and with additional fencing/screening proposed by the
applicant, to reduce the buildings’ visual impacts to the neighbors to the north without
obstructing the potential for future extension of the alley.
Condition #9d
Thattheapplicantshallproviderevisedcivildrawingsdetailing:1)arevisedfinalutilityplanfortheparcels
toincludethelocationofconnectionstoallpublicfacilitiesincludingthelocationsofwaterlinesand
metersizes,sanitarysewerlines,stormdrainlines,electricservicestoservetheproposedbuildings
includingtheaddedresidentialunits;2)reviseddetailsofthefrontageimprovementsandalleyextension
(ifdeemednecessarybythePlanningandPublicWorksDepartmentsandTransportationCommission);3)
astormdrainageplanwhichdemonstratesthatpostdevelopmentpeakflowarelessthanorequaltothe
predevelopmentpeakflowforthesiteasawhole,andwhich includes necessarystormwaterquality
mitigation.
Added language to make clear that the alley extension would only be allowed if such a
determination was made by the Planning and Public Works Departments in consultation
with the Planning Commission to reflect the Planning Commission’s decision.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-552-2040
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.usderek.severson@ashland.or.us
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 13, 2013
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2013-00806, A REQUEST )
FOR SITE REVIEW TO CONSTRUCUT A THREE-STORY MIXED USE )
BUILDING CONSISTING OF FOUR COMMERCIAL SPACES AND TEN )
PARKING SPACES ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND TEN 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 )
AND FINAL PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE MEADOWBROOK PARK II SUB- )
DIVISION (PA #2003-00158) IN ORDER TO ADJUST THE NUMBER OF RES- )
IDENTIAL UNITS ALLOCATED TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BASED ON )
FINDINGS,
THE PERMITTED DENSITIES WITHIN THE NM-C DISTRICT. AS APPROVED )
CONCLUSIONS
IN 2003, THE FOUR SUBJECT PROPERTIES WERE PROPOSED TO HAVE A )
AND ORDERS
COMBINED TOTAL OF TEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND THE APPLICANT )
HERE PROPOSES TO MODIFY THAT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A TOTAL OF )
40 DWELLING UNITS BETWEEN THE FOUR SUBJECT PROPERTIES. )
THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES 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. )
)
APPLICANT
: Ayala Properties, L.L.C. )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )
RECITALS:
1)Tax lots 700, 800, 1400, 1500 and 5900 of Map 39 1E 04AD are located at the intersection of
North Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues and are zoned NM-C (North Mountain, Neighborhood
Central Overlay).
2)The proposal involves a request for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed-use
building, consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and
ten residential units on the second and third floors, on the vacant parcel at the corner of North
Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues. The proposal also includes a requested Modification of the
Outline and Final Plan approvals 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 North Mountain zone’s Neighborhood Central (NM-C) overlay.
As originally approved in 2003, the Outline Plan approval included a combined total of ten
residential units on the four subject properties. The applicant here requests to modify that
approval to allow a total of 40 dwelling units to be constructed between the four subject
properties, and to allow interim residential use of the proposed groundfloor commercial spaces as
residential units. The applicant also proposes to remove seven Siberian Elm trees within the
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page1
adjacent, unused alley right-of-way through a Street Tree Removal Permit in order to open the
alley to use for vehicular circulation. The site plan and building elevations are on file at the
Department of Community Development.
The criteria for Site Review approval are described in AMC 18.72.070 as follows:
3)
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed
development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council
for implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through
the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and
will be provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-
of-way shall comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards
Options.
The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in the Performance Standards
4)
Options Chapter 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.
Permission to plant or remove Street Trees is addressed in AMC 13.16.030 as follows:
5)
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.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page2
If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum
described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and 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.
The general regulations for the North Mountain (NM) zoning districts are detailed in
6)
AMC 18.30.020 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.
Major and Minor Amendments.
1.
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.
Major Amendment Type II Procedure.
2.A major amendment to the
neighborhood plan shall be processed as a Type II planning action
concurrently with specific development proposals. In addition to
complying with the standards of this section, findings must demonstrate
that:
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page3
a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established
by the neighborhood plan;
b. The proposed modification furthers the design and access concepts
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.
Minor Amendment Type I Procedure.
3. A minor amendment to the
neighborhood plan may be approved as a Type I planning action
concurrently with specific development proposals. The request for a minor
amendment shall include findings that demonstrate that the change will
not adversely affect the purpose, objectives, or functioning of the
neighborhood plan.
Utilities shall be installed underground to the greatest extent feasible.
4.
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.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page4
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.
I. Adjustment of Lot Lines.
As part of the approval process for specific 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
7)
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, all 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.
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.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page5
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.
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a Public Hearing on July 9,
2013, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning
Commission approved the requested Site Review, Modification of Outline/Final Plan subdivision
approval, and Tree Removal subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of
the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and
testimony will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Site Review permit, Modification
of the Outline and Final Plan approvals for the Meadowbrook Subdivision, and a Street Tree
Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm tres for the properties at the corner of North
Mountain and Fair Oaks Avenues meets all applicable criteria for Site Review approval
described in Chapter 18.72.070, all applicable criteria for a Outline Plan approval described in
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page6
Chapter 18.88.030.A.4, and all applicable criteria for Street Tree Removal described in Chapter
13.16.030.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that 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, found in Section VII of the City's Site Design and Use Standards, which 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. The Planning Commission finds that in
this instance, the proposed building will actually be broken into several different individual
buildings which will comply with the 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 Planning Commission finds that 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 develop with the building as envisioned in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) to create a sense of entry to the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission further finds that 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. 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 original subdivision hearings. The ground floor tenant spaces will orient toward public
spaces and incorporate commercial design elements while initially retaining some design
elements to enable interim residential use that will easily convert to commercial as the neighborhood
builds out.
The Commission finds that the application complies with the City's Site Design and Use
Standards for commercial development, including building orientation, streetscape, access
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page7
standards 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.
The Commission finds that the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards provide guidance in
areas of architectural design and character, building setbacks, height and mixed-uses. The
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with these standards. The building designs
reflect the importance of the central public spaces, and ground floors take on a more traditional
storefront appearance while residential use is accommodated within the upper floors.
The Planning Commission finds that the utility infrastructure installed with the original subdivision
was sized to accommodate the lesser number of units proposed at the time. The utilities and
infrastructure available include:
Water:
The Planning Commission finds that 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 in conjunction with the proposal.
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. The
Commission finds that, 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 in conjunction
with the current proposed development.
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. The Planning Commission finds that 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 peak flow, and which addresses storm water quality mitigation as
part of the design.
Electric:
As with water and sewer, the Commission finds that the electric
infrastructure initially installed was sized to accommodate only ten total
residential units, and the applicant will need to address the additional electric capacity
and conduit to provide connections to serve all of the proposed units currently
proposed with the development.
Streets & Transportation
: The Commission finds that 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’
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page8
frontages were not installed and will need to be completed in conjunction with
the proposed development here. The Commission further finds that 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 previously shown on the lower end
will be replaced with a small hardscape plaza area encircled by a low seating
wall.
The Planning Commission finds that based on the infrastructure already in place and the
modifications to the original approval proposed here, adequate services can be provided
however the applicant will be required to submit revised utility, electric service, storm drainage and
frontage improvement plans to address the needed modifications prior to submittal of the
building permit for Tax Lot #700.Cconditions to this effect have been included below.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that concerns were raised by speakers during the public
hearing with regard to the need for an extension of Nevada Street to Oak Street with a bridge
across Bear Creek to provide secondary access to the development and surrounding
neighborhood for emergency vehicles, and with regard to the potential need to install a stop sign
on North Mountain Avenue near its intersection with Fair Oaks Avenue given the slopes and
sight distances entering the crosswalk at this intersection.
The Commission finds that the issue of the Nevada Street Bridge was considered during the
original subdivision and conditions were included in the approval requiring that all lots in the
development sign in favor of a future local improvement district for the bridge installation. The
Nevada Street Bridge was also recently identified as a priority project in the recent update to the
Transportation System Plan, and the Public Works Department is now in the process of
preliminary design work while seeking grants to assist with the project cost. The Planning
Commission finds that with the required agreement of all properties to participate in any future
local improvement district, and the prioritization of the project within the recent update of the
Transporation System Plan, that the extension of Nevada Street and construction of the bridge
will ultimately be provided to serve the neighborhood and address the concerns raised.
With regard to the need for a stop sign at the intersection of North Mountain and Fair Oaks
Avenues, the Planning Commission finds that the Transportation Commission is charged with
consideration of traffic items of this nature, including whether stop sign installation is warranted,
and as such would be the appropriate body to consider the matter. The Planning Commission
accordingly finds that the matter should be referred to the Transportation Commission to
determine whether stop sign installation is warranted.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the modifications of the Outline and Final Plan
subdivision approvals proposed involve an increase in the number of residential units to be built
on the subject properties based on the permitted densities within the NM-C district. The applicant
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page9
proposes to modify the original approval to allow up to a total of 40.4 dwelling units between the
four lots, with ten of these to be constructed as part of the current request. In addition, the
applicant proposes to remove seven Siberian Elm trees within the adjacent, unimproved alley right-
of-way through a Street Tree Removal Permit in order to remove the potential hazard they pose
and open the alley to use for vehicular circulation. These trees were previously preserved and
protected in the prior proposals.
The Commission finds that as originally approved in the Outline Plan, the subject properties were to
have included 13 residential units above ground floor commercial spaces, and if all of the ground
floor commercial spaces had been converted to residential use as well a total of 24 residential
units would have been possible. (In the subsequent Site Review approval, the number of
residential units proposed was reduced to ten.) During the public hearing for the Outline Plan
approval, planning staff presented an exhibit explaining the density of the proposal and which clearly
noted that the 2.31 acre portion of the original parent parcels that fell within the NM-C overlay, and
which comprises the subject properties of the current request and the associated right-of-way which was
dedicated with recording of the final plat, could accommodate as many as 46.2 residential units based on
the 20 dwelling units per acre base density. This exhibit is shown here:
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 density for the Neighborhood Central Overlay shall be 20
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page10
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."
The Planning Commission finds that, as is the case in other zones, density is allocated at the
project level when lots are created and dedications made, and streets or open space which are to be
dedicated are considered in calculating project density. The applicant here proposes to revisit the
density of the NM-C portion of the previous project at the project level, and to do so has determined
a pro-rata share of the rights-of-way and common areas that were previously dedicated and has
equitably distributed the density within the NM-C portion of the original project to the subject
properties. The current applicant owns all but one of these subject properties, and the owner
of the remaining property containing the octagon building at 567 Fair Oaks has signed off on
theapplication to allow it to move forward. The proposal would allocate 40.4 dwelling units
between the four subject properties, with ten dwelling units to be included in the currently
proposed buildings and the remaining 30.4 units of density to float between the four commercial
properties as long as the parking and other North Mountain development standards are met through
individual Site Review processes whish would include notice to neighbors and verification through
the land use process that each proposal is in keeping with the approval and the standards.
The Commission further finds that the applicant has provided a table detailing the propoosed
density allocations which notes that 11.9 units would be allocated to Tax Lot #700, although the
proposed number of residential units for Tax Lot #700 was reduced during the hearing as the
applicant presented a revised site plan exhibit reducing the proposed number of residential
units to ten and noting that ten parking spaces would be provided on the lot to address
required parking. 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 densities for the remaining lots to be
rounded up or down from the current allocation as long as they remain consistent with the overall
density. The Commission here notes that fractional units of density do not apply toward the
base density, and 0.4 of a unit could obviously not be constructed. The density proposed would
equate to 40 units, but the flexibility requested by the applicants would allow fractional portions of the
density to be transferred between the subject properties as long as the ultimate density did not exceed
40.
The Planning Commission finds that the 40 units proposed is consistent with the densities allowed
within the NM-C district and falls within the potential 46.2 unit base density discussed during the
Outline Plan approval hearing in 2002. The Commission further finds that 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 while the building sizes and massing remain
essentially the same as was previously approved. Over the long-term, this density seems likely to
support the vibrant neighborhood center envisioned in the NMNP.
2.6 The Planning Commission also finds that the application proposes that the proposed
ground floor commercial spaces have the option of being used as residences until the neighborhood
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page11
builds out to the point that it will support neighborhood scale commercial uses. The corner
space in the building on Tax Lot #700 is proposed to be a small neighborhood coffee shop, with
the remaining spaces to serve for residential use in the interim. The application notes that the
ground floor commercial spaces at nearby Julian Square and the North Mountain Retirement
Center have sat largely vacant since their construction, and the applicant has indicated that his goal 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." The application emphasizes that this sort of interim residential use was anticipated
in the NMNP which states 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
applicant has requested 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 applicant has indicated they will provide deed restrictions
making clear that these units are intended for commercial use over the long-term.
The Planning Commission finds that interim residential use was anticipated in the NMNP. The
NMNP envisioned interim use of downstairs commercial tenant spaces as residential units in the
short-term, recognizing that there needed to be a certain level of built residential density to support
the neighborhood scale commercial uses before these spaces would become viable. However the
Commission further finds that while these spaces are in use as residential units the required one
off-street parking space per residential unit must be provided and that at no time could the total
number of residential units in place on the subject properties, including interim residential use of
ground floor spaces, exceed the base density for the subject properties. Conditions to this effect
are detailed below and have been attached to this approval.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that 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 is that sufficient parking would be provided in the
public realm through on-street parking or 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.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page12
The original applicants’ findings for the Outline Plan subdivision application discussed parking in
detail, noting that there would be roughly 51 one spaces available in the public realm to off-set the
roughly 47 space parking demand envisioned based on likely commercial build-out:
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 Ridgeway Avenue (now
Camelot Drive), all within 200 feet of their associated uses. Therefore, adequate on-
street parking will be available even if a greater percentage of restaurant usage
occurs. (See pages 12-13 of the 'Meadowbrook Park Development Consolidated
Findings' submitted by the original applicants for the Outline Plan application #2002-
00151).
The Planning Commission finds that the current proposal, which was revised during the hearing
with the submittal of the applicant’s submittal of a revised Site Plan as Exhibit 2013-01, includes a
total of ten residential units between the upper floors of the proposed group of buildings, and thus
requires that ten parking spaces be provided. The applicant has proposed to provide ten spaces in
the buildings' footprints to be accessed from the alley to meet this requirement.
The Commission finds that the applicant has also proposed to utilize the parking spaces 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, to address residential parking demand for the remaining properties
and accommodate the density envisioned in the NMNP. The applicants propose to
allocate these 23 spaces proportionally between the properties to address parking demand as
each property develops.
The Commission finds that 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. Plum
Ridge Court is owned privately in common by the owners of the subject properties, and its 23
spaces were originally envisioned to ensure that as the neighborhood fully built out there would be
adequate parking available to accommodate a range of commercial uses. In considering the parking
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page13
issue, the Planning Commission relied upon the following exhibit prepared by Planning staff:
As shown in this exhibit, there are 55 on-street parking spaces available on the public streets within the
NM-C overlay. In addition, the private street Plum Ridge Court has 23 parking spaces available, for a
total of 78 on-street parking spaces. Between 29 and 31 additional parking spaces are available in the
basement garage at Julian Square. These Julian Square spaces are private and are noted here only in
recognition that their presence likely serves a significant portion of the demand associated with Julian
Square and thus likely reduces some measure of the on-street parking demand within the district.
When the likely commercial development of four subject properties is considered alongside the office
and retail uses already approved for Julian Square, a total of approximately 12,630 square feet of
commercial space could likely be developed within the district. Assuming that this square footage was
distributed as 2,700 square feet of restaurant, 6,000 square feet of office and 3,930 square feet of retail,
the calculated parking demand would be 51 spaces. The Planning Commission therefore finds that
even without consideration of the private Plum Ridge Court or the private Julian Square garage, the 55
spaces of on-street parking within the public street systems in the NM-C overlay are sufficient to
address the parking demand calculated for likely build out in the district, and the Plum Ridge Court
private on-street parking spaces can therefore be used to address the parking demand associated with
the proposed residential density including the interim residential use of the groundfloor commercial
spaces, supporting the density envisioned in the NMNP for the NM-C overlay without compromising
the livability or commercial viability of the district.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page14
The Planning Commission is strongly supportive of the building design, increased density, and the
variety of unit types and sizes proposed, and after careful analysis of the existing and likely
commercial uses and the available on-street parking on the public streets, the Commission
finds that adequate parking will remain in the public realm to support eventual commercial
build-out if the applicant is allowed to use the parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court, a
private street under the applicant’s ownership, to address the parking required for the
proposed residential units and to support residential development at the densities envisioned
in the NMNP. However, the Commission further finds that within the NM-C overlay, the
creation of private parking lots is neither a permitted nor a conditional use and as such these
parking spaces could not be restricted or assigned, as this would amount to the creation of a
de facto private parking lot. While used to address private residential parking demand, the
use of the Plum Ridge Court parking spaces would need to remain unrestricted and
available for general use.
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that while Street Tree Removal Permits do not typically
fall within the purview of the Commission, in this instance the seven Siberian Elms proposed for
removal were originally located on the subdivision’s parent parcel and were identified to be
preserved under the Outline Plan approval based on the criterion, “That the existing and natural
features of the land; such as… large trees… have been identified in the plan of the development
and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable
areas”,and as such, their removal must be considered as part of the proposed Modification of
the Outline Plan approval.
The seven Siberian Elm trees are located within the adjacent alley right-of-way to the north
of the proposed building. This alley was dedicated as public right-of-way in conjunction
with the recording of the subdivision plat. The Siberian Elms were addressed in the original
Final Plan approval’s conditions (#35) which required that extra care be taken during
construction along the northern property line to minimize impacts to their root zones.
The application materials provided include a report from certified arborist Mike Bartlett which
indicates that the seven Siberian Elms average approximately 24-inches in diameter at breast
height (d.b.h.) and are approximately 45 feet in height. The arborist’s report identifies several
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. The report 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
can cause limb failure. The arborist’s report 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 the adjacent homes, and goes on to
suggests that this cut may be the basis for the trees' decline. The arborist’s report concludes that
given their present state, the trees cannot accommodate further construction disturbance, and that
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page15
retaining the trees with the development proposed would create more of a hazard than they already
present. The arborist notes 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’ condition, the
applicant has proposed to remove them and to extend the alley to connect from Plum Ridge
Court through to the public parking lot at the corner of North Mountain Avenue and East Nevada
Street, in order to provide for enhanced vehicular circulation in conjunction with the proposed
development.
In reviewing the requested tree removals, the Tree Commission recommended removing the seven
trees within the alley as requested, with a one-for-one mitigation requirement for those trees being
removed. The Tree Commission emphasized that the replacement trees should be of a similar size
and stature at maturity to those being removed.
After having visited the site and viewed photos provided by the applicants and by staff, the Planning
Commission finds that some larger limbs have broken and that there is visible crown die-back in
the trees’ canopies, both of which support the arborist's observations. The Planning
Commission further finds that Siberian Elms (ulmus pumila) are listed as a prohibited street
tree in the Recommended Street Tree List, and that this list notes that the Siberian Elm "has
weak wood, is a prolific seed producer which causes a litter problem, and is much more susceptible
to annual elm leaf beetle damage." The Commission accordingly finds that removal of the seven
Siberian Elm trees is merited based on the evidence provided as to their current condition, and
that the Street Tree Removal Permit requirements call for replacement trees of comparable size at
maturity to be selected and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List on a one-for-one
basis.
The Planning Commission further finds that the trees in their present location provide an effective
buffer which, were they to be preserved, would help to mitigate the visual impacts of the proposed
new buildings to the properties to the north at 682 and 688 East Nevada Street. The applicant
offered during the Planning Commission hearing to construct a fence to provide some measure of
visual screening and privacy for the adjacent back yard to mitigate the loss of the trees. The
Planning Commission finds that the required mitigation trees should be planted in the immediate
vicinity near the back of the buildings to replace the lost screening of the Elms, but in a location
which would not impair use of the alley if it is ultimately extended, or another screening treatment
such as the fencing offered by the applicant provided to mitigate visual impacts to the neighboring
property to the north.
With the trees removed, the applicant has proposed to extend the alley to connect to an existing
parking lot located within the public right-of-way at North Mountain Avenue and East Nevada Street.
In considering this request, the Planning Commission finds that while the subject properties are
required to take access from the alley and it should be extended to access the ground floor parking
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page16
proposed, the alley should only be extended to the extent necessary to serve the garage entry of
the proposed building, and not all the way through to the adjacent parking lot, unless after
evaluation by Planning and Public Works staff in consultation with the Transportation
Commission it is determined that the alley’s full extension is necessary for connectivity benefits
on a broader neighborhood scale.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the application for Site Review approval to construct a three-story mixed-use building, and
Modifications of the Outline and Final Plan approvals for the Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision to
adjust the number of residential units allocated to the subject properties based on the permitted densities
within the North Mountain zone’s Neighborhood Central (NM-C) overlay and to remove seven Siberian
Elm trees that were previously to be preserved has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria
and is supported by evidence in the record.
The proposed design for the Neighborhood Central District area is in conformance with the previously
approved subdivision design, and the design of the buildings is consistent with 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 meets these standards. The
building design acknowledges the importance of the neighboring public spaces, and the ground floor spaces
reflect a more traditional storefront appearance, while residential uses are accommodated within the upper
floors. The increase in proposed density is consistent with the base density of the underlying overlay and
provides for a greater variety of unit sizes and types while retaining the general building massing of the
previous Site Review approval. In the Commission’s view, the added units, increased variety and the
creation of a civic streetscape character will benefit the neighborhood center and likely attract commercial
tenants.
For the Commission, a key consideration is in making sure that with the additional density proposed,
adequate parking can be provided to support the proposed additional units without compromising either
the long-term viability of commercial uses in the neighborhood center. After careful analysis revisiting the
parking and land use assumptions of the original development and the uses and parking now in place, the
Commission finds that the on-street parking in place on the public streets will support a range of
commercial options to a degree that allows for the use of the parking spaces on the private street Plum
Ridge Court to address the off-street parking requirements for proposed residential units, including
temporary residential units in the downstairs commercial spaces, and accommodate the NM-C density
envisioned in the NMNP. However, the Commission further finds that use of these parking spaces
may not be restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a private parking lot, as this is not a
permitted use within the zone, and would need to remain open and available to unrestricted use.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page17
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the
following conditions, we approve Planning Action # 2013-00806. Further, if any one or more of the
conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2013-00806
is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached 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 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
tax lots (#800, #1500 or #5900). Each Site Review application shall include revised details
of the allocated density, required residential parking including parking for interim residential
use of groundfloor commercial spaces, and lot coverage of the NM-C portion of the original
development, and at no time shall 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, including interim/temporary residential
units in the ground floor commercial spaces, shall not exceed the number of off-
street parking spaces provided. Plum Ridge Court (Tax Lot #1400) is a private
street under the applicant’s ownership but is also an integral part of the broader
street network associated with Meadowbrook Park Estates II subdivision approval
and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission supports
consideration of the 23 Plum Ridge Court parking spaces to address the residential
parking demand to accommodate the NM-C density envisioned in the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan, however the use of these parking spaces may not be
restricted, assigned or otherwise treated as a private parking lot, as private parking
lots are not a permitted use within the zone.
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,
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page18
including any interim residential use of ground floor spaces, shall not exceed the base
density of the parent property.
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 to mitigate the removal of the
seven Siberian Elms and associated fencing or other screening to buffer the neighbor
to the north from the visual impacts of the proposed building; 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 Standards #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 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 if deemed necessary by the Planning and Public Works Departments and
Transportation Commission; 3) a storm drainage plan which demonstrates that post-
development peak flow are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow
for the site as a whole, and which includes 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. 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.
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page19
f)That the 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 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 u-
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:
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 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.
____________________________ ___________
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA201300806
FairOaksatNorthMountain(NorthMountainSquare)
Page20
Memo
DATE: August113, 2013
TO:AshlandPlanning Coommission
FROM:Maria Haarris, Planninng Manager
RE:
Unified LLand Use Orrdinance Prooject
PublicMMeeting Feeddback
UMMARY
SS
t the July 2, 2013 meetig, the Planning Commision requeste a summary f the commnts from the public
AA33nnssddooee
eetings for iscussion prposes.
mmdduu
BBACKGROUUND
focus grou meeting of esign and dvelopment pofessionalsas held on Jne 10, and n open hous was
AAppddeerrwwuuaaee
eld on June 0. Both meeings covere the code oranization, aendment hihlights, and he evaluatios of the
hh22ttddggmmggttnn
lanning application procedures and gren developent measure. A total of tree hundred postcards anouncing
ppeemmsshhnn
the meetings nd the projet web site (ww.ashland.or.us/unifiedode) were ailed to desin and develpment
aaccwwccmmggoo
rofessionals, contractors, City advisor commissios, and past panning appliants. The Oen House ws also
ppyynnllccppaa
aannounced in the hard copyy and online vversion of theeAshland Daily Tidings.
matrix sumarizing the proposed coe amendmets is attache. The amendent matrix s well as the draft
AAmmddnnddmmaa
UUnified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO), tthe ordinancee outline, project information sheet and staff contact info were
vailable at te public metings and prir to the public meetings nhe project web site. Te project we site also
aahheeoooothhbb
includes the ublic meetins schedule, ncluding all lanning Comission metings, and liks to the meting
ppggiiPPmmeennee
aterials.
mm
UMMARYOF PUBLI MEETIN FEEDBAC
SSCCGGK
he followin summary o comments ad suggestios is taken frm the notes rom the Jun 10 Focus Goup
TTggffnnnnooffeerr
MMeeting.
summary of the commets and suggestions that stff heard at te June 20 Oen House meting is also included.
AAnnaahhppee
TThe June 20 OOpen House wwas an informmal drop-in setting where pparticipants coould have onee-on-one discuussions
ith staff mebers.
wwmm
June 10 ocus Grou
FFpp
GGeneral:
Incluude a matrix tthat cross refeerences existiing codes withh adopted ULLUO. In the fuuture,
aministration could be dificult becaus many past lanning apprvals and douments reference the
ddffeeppoocc
crren code.
uut
GGeneral:
Provvide links in thhe digital formmat for cross--references.
Page2 of 4
Increase Building Height in C-1 Zone:
Conflicts with plaza requirements, especially for buildings
on smaller lots in the downtown. Increase in building height will also increase plaza space
requirements. In turn, more required plaza space may result in T-shaped designs where quantity is
more important than quality of plaza space. For building to go up, something has to give at street
level.
Revise C-1 and E-1 Setbacks to Adjacent Residential:
Some feedback from group to consider
using six feet to match residential zone setbacks and to better accommodate balconies.
Revise Affordable Housing Density Bonus:
Group agreed that current bonus is not an incentive to
build affordable units.
Exempt Percentage of Pervious Pavement from Lot Coverage:
Consider not allowing to use for
driveways as pervious pavement doesn’t perform well in these areas, do not allow in commercial
zones, and use Systems Development Charge (SDC) credit on building permits as an incentive to use
pervious paving.
Garage Width/Step Back Design Standard:
Concern expressed about adding a design requirement.
The garage step back is already happening because of required setbacks, and will be a challenge on
narrow lots.
Parking Ratio Adjustments
: Concern expressed over the degree of detail needed in parking demand
analysis.
Minimum Tree and Shrub Sizes:
Concern voiced over survival rate of larger shrubs, and cost of
larger shrubs.
Require Soil Amendment:
Concern expressed over upfront costs to smaller developments..
Site Review Application Submittals:
Concern that additional requirements will necessitate civil
engineer involvement which will drive up costs. Especially concerned about providing lighting detail
at conceptual stage.
Neighborhood Contact:
Group split between those who said they were already holding
neighborhood meetings and believes it is good practice, and those who expressed concern about
added time and expense. Questioned if the neighborhood meetings will make applications more
appealable.
Cottage Housing:
Orientation to streets needs to be clear. Cluster parking could be a contentious
item in established neighborhoods.
Solar Orientation and Design Standards:
“Where site and location permit” is essential. 30% of
roof having solar access may be a design constraint.
Support for the following amendments:
Rebuilding non-conforming garages and sheds with a building permit
o
Accessory Residential Units (ARU) as special permitted use requiring Site Review approval
o
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Page3 of 4
Increase in building height in the C-1 zone from 40 to 55 feet if building is at least 100 feet from
o
a residential zone
Exempt C-1 zone from solar setback unless building is abutting residential zone
o
Revising effective date of Type II decision from 13 to 10 days
o
Revising distance between building requirement in multi-family zones
o
Revising planning approval expiration from one year to 18 or 24 months
o
Revise planning approval extension from 18 months to 24 months
o
June 20 Open House
Rear Yards in Residential Zones:
Allow rear yard on alleys to be less than standard ten feet per
story, this development pattern is in place in the historic districts.
Front Yards in Residential Zones:
Allow front yard in residential zones to be 12 feet (current code
requires 15 feet for front yard in most residential zones).
Minimum Lot Sizes:
Allow smaller residential lots, around 3,000 square feet, for affordability, like
lots/houses across from Ashland Food Co-op.
Flag Lots:
Opinion that front lot line of flag lot is line that parallels street has significantly impacted
ability to divide lots.
Proposed Increase in Building Height in the C-1 zone:
Why not include E-1 zone?
Building Separation for Large Scale Development:
Clarify how this standard applies to adjacent
lots under different ownership because current standard doesn’t clearly address.
Buildings not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the
height of the tallest building. If buildings are more than 240 feet in length, the separation
shall be 60 feet. (II-C-3.a.3, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects, Site Design and
Use Standards)
Reducing Environmental Impacts of Surface Parking (18.92.080.B.5.a):
Suggest allowing
applicants to mix and match strategies from menu for larger sites
Parking areas shall be designed to minimize the adverse environmental and microclimatic impacts of
surface parking through design and material selection. Parking areas of more than seven parking
spaces shall meet the following standards.
a. Use at least one of the following strategies for the surface parking area, or put 50% of parking
underground.
i Use light colored paving materials with a high solar reflectance (Solar Reflective Index (SRI)
of at least 29) to reduce heat absorption for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface.
ii. Provide porous solid surfacing or an open grid pavement system that is at least 50% pervious
for a minimum of 50% of the parking area surface.
iii. Provide at least 50% shade from tree canopy over the parking area surface within five years
of project occupancy.
iv. Provide at least 50% shade from solar energy generating carports, canopies or trellis
structures over the parking area surface.
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Page4 of 4
Manufactured Homes:
Strongly support changes to standards for manufactured homes on individual
lots and in parks
ULUO Organization:
Strongly support combining development standards into one document
because currently is cumbersome to use multiple documents
ATTACHMENTS
Amendment Matrix
DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
10
to the the Planning Commission directed staff to create a
inhibit proposals. Also,
between buildings can ĬǒźƌķźƓŭƭ źƭ ğ ƦƚƷĻƓƼğƌ
barrier to this type of
with the surrounding
required special yard
ĻǣźƭƼƓŭ ƭƦĻĭźğƌ ǤğƩķ
ordinance, and the
area, but having to
request a Variance
required between
Comment
ĭƚdžğŭĻ ŷƚǒƭźƓŭ
pment.
develo
on individual lot basis, or mowing and thinning of wetland itself if it is part of an approved wetland ƒźƼŭğƼƚƓ ƦƌğƓͲ ƚƩ źŅ źƷ źƭ
ĭğƌĭǒƌğƼƓŭ ƌƚƷ ĭƚǝĻƩğŭĻ
Proposed Amendment
ŅƚƩ ƷŷĻ ĻƓƼƩĻ ƭźƷĻ ğ ƷŷĻ
Add provision allowing Add provision allowing
ll
ƓğƼǝĻ ǝĻŭĻƷğƼƚƓ Ǟź
of subdivision
demonstrated that
tƩƚǝźķĻƭ ƚƦƼƚƓ ƚŅ
ǝĻŭĻƷğƼƚƓ źƓ ƷŷĻ
not be removed.
temporary tree
ğƦƦƌźĭğƼƚƓ͵
ƼƒĻ
LAND USES & ZONING REGULATIONS
ƷŷźƓƓźƓŭ ƚŅ ǝĻŭĻƷğƼƚƓ ǞźƷŷ ƦƩĻǝĻƓƼƚƓ ƦƩƚǝźķĻķ źƷ źƭ ƷŷĻ Fences can be located in the upper half of stream buffer,
minimum necessary to
allowed for fire hazard
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ {ƷğƓķğƩķ
Perimeter mowing or
the wetland buffer is
alleviate the threat.
Issue is not clearly
addressed in code.
85)
-
3.1.050.B.3 and 18
Code Reference
-
55)
3
3.10.050.C.1 (p
-
3
3.8.070.F (p
18.63.060.C.1
9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ
Unified:Unified:Unified:
-N/A--
181818
Code Amendment Category Lot coverage in Performance mowing and thinning for fire
ğƷĻƩ wĻƭƚǒƩĭĻ tƩƚƷĻĭƼƚƓ
ĻƷƌğƓķ ƦƩƚƷĻĭƼƚƓ ǩƚƓĻ
Temporary tree
{ƷğƓķğƩķƭ hƦƼƚƓƭ
ŷğǩğƩķ ƦƩĻǝĻƓƼƚƓ
subdivisions
-
zones
11
Comment
ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ źƓ ĭƚƓƆǒƓĭƼƚƓ
Proposed Amendment project to be located in
with a development
stream and wetland
ƦƩƚƷĻĭƼƚƓ ŅĻƓĭźƓŭ
buffers.
LAND USES & ZONING REGULATIONS
the wetland buffer.
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ {ƷğƓķğƩķ
and in
-
84 and 3
Code Reference
-
3
p
3.1.050.C.2 (p
18.63.060.B 318.63.060.C.2
9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ
85)
Code Amendment Category
ƦƩƚƷĻĭƼƚƓ ŅĻƓĭźƓŭ
14
more water conserving species, or species that
ƦƌğƓƼƓŭƭ ǞźƷŷ
Addresses periodic
discussed
especially in older
to amend
developments, to
Pedestrian Places
Comment
,
are fire resistant.
during review of
landscape plans
ordinancesordinances
Revision
request
replace
pedestrians have to walk requirement because is driveway at same grade and energy efficiency as
Language retained, but
Proposed Amendment
rove
Clarifies that approval
areas where parking structures are
amendments to
treatment or a row of a Ministerial or Type I
across more than 100
ng
decreased water use
from
approved landscape
Provides process to
for fire safety,
ķĻĭƚƩğƼǝĻ ĬƚƌƌğƩķƭ͵
covered by building
treatments such as
ğƌƷĻƩƓğƼǝĻ ƭǒƩŅğĭĻ
vehicle maneuveri
having 50 or more
and
mountable curbs,
exempt form this
authority may app
rking spaces
areas through
ķźƭƼƓŭǒźƭŷĻķ
including
ğĭƼƚƓ͵
allow
code.
plans
.
feet
if
pa
aisles, turnaround areas and
ǝĻƩƼĭğƌ ĭƌĻğƩğƓĭĻ
ğƦƦƩƚǝĻ ǞğƌƉǞğǤ ğĬǒLjƓŭ
driveway at same grade if
Approval authority can
protected from vehicle
Standard
DESIGN STANDARDS
maneuvering areas.
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ
Requires
ramps.
more.
code.
48)
Code Reference
57)
-
54)
4.3.080.D.4 (p 4
-
4.4.020.D (p 4
-
4
18.4.3.090 (p
18.92.080.D.4
18.92.080.B.418.92.090.B.1
9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ
Unified:Unified:Unified:
--N/A
1818
Code Amendment Category
around
to approved
Pedestrian access and
-
Driveway and turn
landscape plans
Amendments
ĭźƩĭǒƌğƼƚƓ
design
16
Language is from state
Langue is from state
Comment
model code.model code.
Requires landscape plan similar plants that allow impenetrable hedges in ŅğĭźƌźƼĻƭ ğƩĻ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ Ʒƚ
Proposed Amendment
amended so plants can naturalize and grow on
public
surveillance of
ges and
cut/fill, swales, storm
access is discouraged.
control measures for areas where physical
Clarifies that loading
to provide for crime
ğķƆğĭĻƓƷ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƼğƌ
defensible space by replace dead plants
ǞğƷĻƩ ķĻƷĻƓƼƚƓ ƚƩ
Requires soil to be
be screened from
Adds 180 days to
areas, and using
-
ƦƩĻǝĻƓƼƚƓ ğƓķ
semi
similar grading.
using low hed
public and
.
their own
natural
uses.
space in site property screened. Commercial and are required to be screened
ķźƭĭǒƭƭĻƭ ĭƩźƒĻ ƦƩĻǝĻƓƼƚƓ
industrial service corridors
analysis and planning, but
ŅƩƚƒ ğķƆğĭĻƓƷ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƼğƌ
specific standards do not
The Site Design and Use
{ƷğƓķğƩķƭ źƓƷƩƚķǒĭƼƚƓ
Standard
line is required to be
DESIGN STANDARDS Landscaping is to be
maintained in good
tğƩƉźƓŭ ğĬǒLjƓŭ ğ
defensible
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ
code.
exist.
uses.
and
Landscaping and Screening Standards, Site Design and
Ͳ {ĻĭƼƚƓ
60)60)
61)
Code Reference
64)
II.D Parking Lot and
--
-
4.4.030.C.6 (p 44.4.030.C.7 (p 4
4.4.030.E.6 (p 4
-
4.4.030.I (p 4
6
-
Use Standards
D
-
and II
9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ
Unified:Unified:Unified:
:
Unified
2
-
N/A-N/A-N/A--
D
18181818
-
II
ƌƚğķźƓŭ ŅğĭźƌźƼĻƭ ğķƆğĭĻƓƷ Ʒƚ
Code Amendment Category
ƦƩĻǝĻƓƼƚƓ ğƓķ ķĻŅĻƓƭźĬƌĻ
dead
Landscape requirements
-
crime
Screening and buffering
lant maintenance
-
Landscape plans
ƩĻƭźķĻƓƼğƌ ǩƚƓĻƭ
soil amendment
plants
space
P
24
Main St./Maple St.), and from the 2006 Land Use
ğƓķ wĻĭƚƒƒĻƓķğƼƚƓƭ
ƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩźƓŭ ƦƩƚƦĻƩƼĻƭ
Amendment made per
input on Policy Issues
Planning Commission
Mountain Meadows
access easement on
ƦƩƚĬƌĻƒğƼĭ ĬǤ /źƷǤ
determined legally
Ordinance Review.
Recording of solar
Comment
(north end of N.
Mountain Ave.).
A
requirements, except for źƓƭƷğƌƌğƼƚƓ źƭ ķĻƌĻƷĻķ ğƭ
Proposed Amendment
ƓĻźŭŷĬƚƩźƓŭ ƦƩƚƦĻƩƼĻƭ͵
requirement to record
permit, but delete the
ƦƩƚƦĻƩƼĻƭ ğĬǒLjƓŭ ğ
Specifics on antenna
1 zone
it is covered by the
access
from solar setback
Provision added
ƩĻƭźķĻƓƼğƌ ǩƚƓĻ͵
the solar access
Building Code.
ƩĻƭƷƩźĭƼƚƓ ƚƓ
-
Retain solar
ĻǣĻƒƦƼƓŭ /
tƩƚƦĻƩƼĻƭ źƓ ƷŷĻ ķƚǞƓƷƚǞƓ Solar access permit for solar ǝĻŭĻƷğƼƚƓ źƭ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ Ʒƚ ĬĻ .
meet
antennas
protected from shading by
Mill district (CM zone) are to be adequately grounded
D zone) and Croman
recorded on neighboring
exempt from the solar
Standard
setback requirements.
energy system to be
DESIGN STANDARDS
antennas to
ƭƦĻĭźŋĭğƼƚƓƭ ğƓķ
ƦƩƚƦĻƩƼĻƭ ĬǤ /źƷǤ͵
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ
r
manufacture
Requires
-
1
-
(C
-
4
26
Code Reference
40)
63)
-
-
p 4
-
4.12.030 (p 4
2.6.030 (p 2
(p
4.8.070
18.32.050.C
18.53.05018.70.07018.72.170
9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ9ǣźƭƼƓŭʹ
Unified:Unified:Unified:
-
N/A-)-
18
183018
Code Amendment Category
ĭƼƚƓ ŅƩƚƒ ƭŷğķźƓŭ ĬǤ
źƭĭ ğƓƷĻƓƓğ źƓƭƷğƌƌğƼƚƓ
Solar access permit for
1) zone
ĻǣĻƒƦƼƚƓ ŅƩƚƒ ƭƚƌğƩ
-
Commercial (C
quirements
ǝĻŭĻƷğƼƚƓ
setback
prote
re
D
35
ng this
voluntary or guideline.
Planning Commission
Comment
suggested maki
źƓƦǒƷ ƦƩźƚƩ Ʒƚ ƭǒĬƒźLjƓŭ
development and hold a
Proposed Amendment
ƒĻĻƼƓŭ Ʒƚ ƦƩĻǝźĻǞ ƷŷĻ
neighbors of proposed
proposal and provide
Add requirement for ğ ǤƦĻ LL ğƦƦƌźĭğƼƚƓ͵
applicant to contact
ƚƩ ğķķźƼƚƓƭ ƚŅ ƒƚƩĻ
10,000 sq.
PROCEDURES EVALUATION
Issue is not addressed in
ƚŅ ĻǣźƭƼƓŭ
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ {ƷğƓķğƩķ
buildings square
larger than
.
20%
footage
than
ũ͵
code.
Code Reference
ƼƓŭʹ
Exis
N/A
Code Amendment Category
Neighborhood Contact
38
Comment
Proposed Amendment
ƌƚĭğƼƚƓ ƦĻƩƒźƷ͵
where site and
GREEN DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
9ǣźƭƼƓŭ {ƷğƓķğƩķ
Code Reference
Code Amendment Category