The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-08-11 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 11, 2020 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. July 14, 2020 Regular Meeting 2. July 28, 2020 Special Meeting IV.PUBLIC FORUM V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00020, 705 Helman Street (Helman Elementary School) VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA-T1-2020-00109) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development/Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: Consideration of an appeal of the administrative approval PA-T1-2020-00109 of a two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton. The tentative partition plat creates two parcels that are 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac in size, with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; VII. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - Draft July 14, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Kerry KenCairn Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stef Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced there would be a Special Meeting July 28, 2020 for the continuation of PA-T3-2019-00001, the annexation at 1511 Hwy 99. The Commission would also hear a possible amendment to the Open Space Ordinance. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. June 9, 2020 Regular Meeting 2. June 23, 2020 Special Meeting Commissioner KenCairn/Pearce m/s approved the minutes of the meeting on June 9, 2020.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s approved the minutes of the meeting on June 23, 2020.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM - None VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00017, 210 Alicia Street. The Commission had no ex parte contact regarding the matter. Commission Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2020-00017, 210 Alicia Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Street. B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2020-00019, Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office). The Commission had no ex parte contact regarding the matter. Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Commission Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2020-00019, Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office). Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00020 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 705 Helman Street (Helman Elementary School) OWNER/APPLICANT: HMK Company/Ashland School District #5 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new 23,755 square foot, single-story school building for the Helman Elementary School property at 705 Helman Street. The requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming development pattern where both the existing and proposed new parking and circulation are located between the buildings and the street, and for the on-site relocation of previously approved signage. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing classroom buildings (t 12 significant trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 04 BD; TAX LOTS: 600, 2700, 2800 & 2900. Commissioner KenCairn recused herself from the hearing due to a conflict of interest. She was working on the project and part of the application. Chair Norton read the rules of the public hearing during an electronic meeting. Ex Parte Commissioner Dawkins declared no ex parte and one site visit. Commissioner Pearce and Chair Norton had no ex parte but were familiar with the site. Commissioner Thompson declared no ex parte or site visit. Commissioner Harper had no ex parte contact but was very familiar with the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Classroom Addition Proposal New Entry Plaza (Northeast) Vicinity Maps New Main Entry Plaza Video Tour by the Applicants Photos Demolition Plan North Courtyard looking Southeast Civil Site Plan North Elevation from North Courtyard Tree Removal & Protection Plan South Courtyard Looking West Landscape Plan Southwest Corner Looking East Aerial Perspective from Southeast Outdoor Classroom Space/Elevation Aerial Perspective from Northeast Amphitheater Driveway proximity to Crosswalk & Corner New Basketball Court Existing Corner Parking & Orientation Dragon Tile Mural Relocation Existing Orientation to Corner Staff Recommendation Aerial Perspective from Northeast Staff recommended the following: 1. Extension of new main entry plaza treatment to include seven parking places. 2. Providing 100% of required bicycle parking (nine more spaces). 3. Removal of the middle driveway on Helman Street frontage. 4. Monitored/Gated Pedestrian Access during pick-up/drop-off for the easement to the south. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked about the new parking lot and accessing the school. Mr. Severson responded there were no details on access from the new parking lot. He went on to explain where the fence would be placed. Commissioner Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Thompson asked how the circulation would go if the exit point in the plans was eliminated. Mr. Severson explained the circulation consisted of two points coming in and two potential outlet points 130-feet apart. Commissioner Harper further explained the drop offs that occur at that location. Currently there was one entry and often cars were backed up. The space was wide enough for two drop off spaces. Commissioner Pearce asked if the permit was required to move an already approved sign. Mr. Severson explained it was considered a governmental signage. The conditional use permit (CUP) covered moving the sign. Commissioner Pearce was concerned how the CUP process was being used. It was referred to as a non-conforming development pattern and that was not in the code. Mr. Severson responded that was how the applicant framed it as a modification of that non- conforming pattern. The other option was treating it as an exception to the site development standards. It did not conform with standards and the applicant was not correcting or expanding it. They approached the building as an exception. The parking and circulation were treated as a CUP. The Commission discussed the security fencing and potential impact to after school hours use. Commissioner Harper spoke to the importance for the community to have access to the green space. Mr. Severson explained the green space had been used as a park in exchange for Parks and Recreation Department maintenance. It was in the Parks Open Space Plan as a park. The applicants were in negotiations with the Parks Department to change that due to dog waste issues. The applicant did discuss possibly having a walking track around the field for the neighborhood. Mr. Molnar added the Parks and Open Space element of the Comprehensive Plan identified the need for community parks within a quarter mile of every neighborhood. Schools were used to meet that requirement. (see attached) Written Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Pearce thought the CUP requirement was appropriate for the parking. They would have to rely on the exception for the building. He agreed with the curb cut on Helman Street removing the pedestrian connection. It would be hard to mandate how the green space would be used. He suggested a condition that the applicant negotiated with the Parks and Recreation Department. The Commission discussed options for leaving the green space open outside of school hours and how to make it a condition of approval. Commissioner Thompson asked why staff recommended not adding the 17 spaces. Mr. Severson explained the applicant met the parking requirements of 100% on site. Staff suggested the Commission treat the seven on street parking spaces as overflow instead. They did not support eliminating them. Chair Norton asked if the easement was originally a requirement. Mr. Molnar confirmed the walkway from the residential subdivision was a requirement of the earlier project as well as the public easement and the concrete walkway to the school property. Chair Norton suggested unlocking the gate during off school hours and possibly providing a dog waste bag station. He supported the applicant working with the Parks and Recreation Department to resolve the issue. Commissioner Pearce/Thompson m/s to approve PA-T2-2020-00020 with the recommendations of staff but allowing the second curb cut on Helman Street and revising staffs analysis in terms of the conditional use permit so the criteria apples to the parking lots and the exception criteria that allows them to put the buildings and improvements where they had planned. Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Harper/Dawkins m/s amended the motion to add a condition to open the green space and playground to the public during non-school and non-school event times through the normal access points. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper thought the Commission had the authority with the conditional use permit and the pedestrian easement provisions. It was important for the community and it provisions. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know what was occurring at other elementary schools. Commissioner Dawkins responded they were all open. Commissioner Pearce was reluctant to require them to keep it open but supported encouraging them to keep it open. Commissioner Dawkins explained how the Parks and Recreation Department took over the maintenance of school green spaces. Commissioner Pearce was more inclined going with a Roll Call Vote on the Amended suggestion that they negotiate this with the Parks and Recreation Department. Motion: Commissioner Dawkins, Harper, Norton, and Thompson, YES; Commissioner Pearce; NO. Motion passed 4-1. Roll Call Vote on the Main Motion. Commissioner Harper, Thompson, Pearce, Norton and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:18 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 14, 2020 Page 4 of 4 (TobereviewedbyseparatelybyBuildingOfficial) R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 1160 sw Simpson Ave. - Suite 100 t 541.382.5535 | f 541.389.8033 Bend, Oregon 97702 R O F T N O O N I T C U R T S N O C Consultant ASHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helman Elementary School Addition & Renovations 705 HELMAN ST. ASHLAND, OR 97520 No.DescriptionDate COPYRIGHT ©BBT ARCHITECTS Project Number1907 Date06.05.2020 LAND USE 2020 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft July 28, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Maria Harris, Planning Manager Haywood Norton Derek Severson, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Stef Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Commission would hear the appeal of a Type I administrative approval on 345 Clinton Street, PA-T1-2020-00109 in August. Staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission decision for PA-T2-2020-00017 at 210 Alicia Street Friday, July 24, 2020. It would go before the City Council at their meeting August 18, 2020. The City Council heard from staff on the Affordable Housing Standards update at their Study Session July 20, 2020. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T3-2019-00001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Hwy 99 N OWNER/AGENTS/APPLICANT: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC/ Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The annexation is to include adjacent railroad property and state highway right-of-way. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2- Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings; Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review development approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-5, Proposed City R-2; Chair Norton read the rules of the electronic public hearing. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson presentation (see attached) Classroom Addition Proposal Pedestrian Access & Circulation (AMC 18.4.3.090) Vicinity Maps Parking Lot Landscaping & Screen Standards Video Tour by the Applicants (AMC 18/4.4.030) / Street Dedication Demolition Plan Requirements (AMC 18.4.6.030.C1) Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Civil Site Plan City of Ashland Street Design Standards (AMC Table 18.4.6.040.F) Aerial Photo (2018) Easement Language Frontage Improvements (North) Frontage Improvements (South) Transit Improvements Contiguity & the Railroad Property Affordability, Base Density and Undevelopable Lands Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 222.170 Tonight Transportation and Circulation Access Driveway Treatment Site Design Review Vehicle Area Design (18.4.3.080.B.4 & .080.C) Driveways and Turn-around Design (18.4.3.080.D) Questions of Staff Commissioner Pearce asked what the proposal was for rezoning the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad properties. Mr. Severson thought it would go in the R-2 zone. Borders between districts extended to the center of the right of way. Presentation Robert Kendrick/Ashland/ Explained it had been a year-long process. Had he known; he would had submitted the proposal differently. The affordability component had been a challenge. The requirements could break the project. He was open to making a lot line adjustment to make the units fit. He had wanted to avoid doing two sets of plans, so he submitted developers plans that had caused some confusion. The project worked. He acknowledged the public response having a project on Highway 99. He used the Road Diet as an example noting that since it was put in place accidents and injuries had decreased dramatically. Ashland built approximately 15 apartments each year when it could handle over 50 yearly. The type of housing in this project would keep people in town. Public Testimony Don Greene/Ashland/ Noted his credentials as a planning commissioner in Ashland and Jackson County for 30 years. He referenced a section of the parking ordinance and questioned having a driveway access for a 200-unit development instead of requiring it to be a street. The code also required 5-foot landscape areas when it abutted private property. He did not think there was enough space to meet the requirements. The driveway needed a sidewalk and should have a bike path. The driveway would not accommodate bikes with 1,800 vehicle trips a day. Rebuttal by Applicant Amy Gunter/Medford/ Explained the exception to the design standard for 5-foot landscaping abutting private property would be explored during site review. They were showing the driveway conceptually and it was not up for approval currently. She clarified all trips to the site were not impacting this one narrow driveway, there would be other access points. Additionally, apartments did not have a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Thompson asked about the conclusion of the traffic impact analysis done by Sandow Engineering that projected all site driveways would operate safely and efficiently. She only received the executive summary. Mr. Kendrick explained they submitted two reports. Mr. Severson clarified the packet and traffic impact analysis (TIA) was posted online. Ms. Gunter explained vehicle trip numbers, their distribution throughout the day, the turning lane by the trestle and driveway were adequate to accommodate right and left turns in and out of the property. The driveways met the standards. Mr. Molnar added ODOT concurred it met the requirement as well. Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Thompson wanted to ensure the conceptual ideas with the driveways would meet the access requirements. She asked what the conceptual plan was for pedestrian and bicycle access using the driveway within the easement. Mr. Kendrick explained there would not be a lot of cars parked on the easement and access area. A bicyclist would most likely use the main entry point. It would also depend on the time of day. Maximum peak loads projected 50 or 60 cars in the morning and afternoon. They could make the driveways shared use instead of incorporating bike paths on the easement road. Mr. Kendrick wanted a dedicated bike lane at the other entrance. They had paths already designed into the project and would add almost a mile for the rest of the sidewalk. It was a multi-modal project. They would provide electric cars onsite for residents to use. Ms. Gunter added the bike lane along the highway was already installed and would remain. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know how a bicyclist would access the site riding north. Mr. Kendrick explained they would use good judgment and cross at the safest point. Ms. Gunter added painted arrows and restriping was suggested. It would be no different than all the other intersections without a bike path. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know if the same would apply to a pedestrian trying to cross the highway. Mr. Kendrick responded there was excellent connectivity to the bus line on Valley View. It was a fifteen-minute walk. Ms. Gunter noted the conclusions drawn in the TIA. The traffic engineer found all mobility standards met the current conditions and future developments. All intersections, whether they were marked or unmarked, were considered crosswalks. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Pearce commented on the findings. Page 8, section 2.2. stated the proposal met the appliable criteria and it did not. He suggested saying it did not meet the boulevard street standards and the applicant would apply for an exception. The applicant did not meet the affordable housing base density either. The applicant had subtracted unbuildable areas from the calculation. Staff was recommending changing that in the code. Presently, it was not in the code so the proposal did not meet the standards. City Council could add it as Type III. In the section regarding contiguity staff did not recommend including the ODOT property. ODOT decided to include it and the findings did not reflect that. He suggested making the findings about public facilities. That the Public Works Department reviewed the availability of water and sewer and with these conditions it would be ok. Electric On page 11 under , strike the last sentence. Lastly, the Transportation section was confusing and should be rewritten to adhere with the ordinance. Electric Commissioner Thompson suggested adding on page 11 under , that it was ok the applicant did not have a site design plan. She also wanted to exclude wording that referenced what their attorneys had said. Commissioner Harper did not agree that the City Council could choose to do whatever it wanted with the standards. He also spoke to the importance of the easement. Without the easement, the project did not meet the standard. Commissioner Dawkins agreed. The Commission discussed the testimony Mr. Greene provided. They considered it a driveway instead of a street. Commissioner Pearce/Dawkins m/s to move PA-T3-2019-00001 on to City Council with revised Findings. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Pearce recommended a traffic speed study on Highway 99 at some point. Commissioner Thompson suggested adjusting the affordable housing units in the findings to 56 units or 37 if it was at 60%. She did not think the Commission should offer the contingency of excluding unbuildable lands in the findings. She reiterated her concerns regarding safety. She also wanted language like safety issue comments Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2020 Page 3 of 5 included in the findings. She thought the speed limit in that area should be addressed. Commissioner Dawkins agreed. Commissioner Pearce thought it could be treated in the findings. Commissioner Harper agreed. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Harper, Thompson, Norton and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed. V. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2020-00008 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A public hearing on ordinance amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to update and clarify the open space requirements and design standards for multifamily and single- family housing developments, and to correct terminology related to open space and other minor wording edits. The proposed amendments include two ordinances: 1) An ordinance amending Chapters 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones, 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay, 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design, 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, and 18.6 Definitions of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to amend the open space requirements and design standards, and 2) an ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, 18.2.3 Special Use Standards, 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones, 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, 18.3.4 Normal Neighborhood District, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District, 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay, 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, 18.3.11 Water Resources Protection Zones (Overlays), 18.3.14 Transit Triangle Overlay, 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design, 18.4.2 Parking, Access, and Circulation, 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, 18.4.5. Tree Preservation and Protection, 18.4.6. Public Facilities, 18.5.2 Site Design Review, 18.5.3 Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments, and 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance for consistency in terminology related to open space and other minor wording edits. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation (see attached). Issues Shared Outdoor Space Surfacing standard in proposed Renderings o 18.4.4.070.Ca Examples of multifamily developments Private open space standards, walkways o common open space and storage space, ground floor dwelling Minimum Area Required in Lawn, Courts, units size Etc. Table in 18.4.4.070.A o Staff Recommendation Cross reference open space fence o Water Conservation & Climate Change requirements Ground Floor Private Open Space New Standards 18.4.070.D Current Surfacing Standard 18.4.2.030 Other Changes in Version 3 Residential Development Proposed Surfacing Standard Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson discussed counting walkways and storage areas with Ms. Harris. Counting them addressed walkways that went through private open space like a porch, patio, or deck area. Commissioner Pearce confirmed that moving Surfacing from Section 4 to Section 5 of the common open space standards made it applicable only to R-2 and R-3 zones. Commissioner Thompson addressed the reference in the new table regarding maximum area allowed in private open space. She wanted to know why it was allowed only up to a certain amount. Ms. Harris explained if it was 10 units or Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2020 Page 4 of 5 more, the other half had to be in common open space. Commissioner Pearce commented they would provide additional open space and receive only half a credit. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Pearce was not sure he supported the 48 to 60 sq. ft. dimensions for private open space. He thought people should do the door swing calculations. Mr. Molnar thought the issue would be if the 48 sq. ft. was intended to be exclusive of those other areas. A usable area had a minimum dimension of 6 feet and should be at least 48 sq. ft. By default, it was 6 x 8. The walkways and storage areas would have to be left out to create an exclusive 48 sq. ft. space. Ms. Harris clarified the concern was the administrative task of calculating for the applicants. Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to modify the proposed ordinance to incorporate Version 3 excluding Section D1 and D2. DISCUSSION: Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, Norton, Dawkins, Pearce, None. and Harper. YES. Motion passed. Ms. Harris noted the Surfacing standard was in Version 2. Commissioner Thompson/Pearce m/s to modify the proposed ordinance to reflect the change in the Surfacing standard as reflected in Version 2 of the proposal as well as stating lawn and durable lawn alternatives and striking the list. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper suggested stating lawn and durable lawn alternatives and Roll Call on the amended motion: striking the list. Commissioner Thompson accepted the modification. Commissioner Dawkins, Harper, Thompson, Pearce and Norton, YES. Motion passed. VI. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 9:04 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 28, 2020 Page 5 of 5 o Issues Surfacing standard in proposed 18.4.4.070.C.4 • Private open space standards • Walkways and storage space o Ground-floor dwelling units size o Table 18.4.4.070.A • Cross reference open space fence requirements • 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing New Standards Utility Vaults • Minimum Dimension • Yards Abutting a Street • Slope • Private Open Space Minimum Dimensions and Location • Credit for Proximity to a Park (R-2 and R-2) • Surfacing Standard • 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Current Surfacing Standard 18.4.2.030 Residential Development H.Open Space. Residential developments that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall conform to all of the following standards. 2.Surfacing.Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement. 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Proposed Surfacing Standard a.Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common open space must be covered in suitable surfaces for human use, such as lawn areas and recreational fields or courts. Up to 50 percent of the common open space may be covered by shrubs, mulch, and other grounds covers that do not provide suitable surfaces for human use if the area is usable for the intended residents, such as community gardens or a natural area with benches and walking paths. 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Shared Outdoor Space. Many or the same ingredients necessary to provide successful private outdoor spaces are needed for successful shared spaces. The main difference is access to the area by more than one person or unit. Shared open spaces should provide for both active and passive activities. Passive activities include areas for quiet conversation, resting, walking, and enjoyment of nature and scenery for young and old alike. Active uses include sports such as croquet, volleyball, and Frisbee. 880 Park St. 880 Park St. 880 Park St. Minimum Area Required in Lawn, Courts, Etc. R-2 ZoneR-3 ZoneR-1-5 Zone Total Area .75 Ac.50 Ac2.3 Ac Required for 10 units Minimum Total 2,614 sq. ft.1,742 sq. ft.5,009 sq. f. Open Space Minimum 1,307 sq. ft.871 sq. ft.5,009 sq. ft. Common Open Space Minimum Area 653 sq. ft.436 sq. ft.2,505 sq. ft. Suitable for Human Use 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Recommendation 5.R-2 and R-3 Zones.In addition to the standards in subsection 18.4.4.070.C, above, common open space in the R-2 and R-3 zones shall meet the following requirements. a.Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common open space must be covered in suitable surfaces for human use, such as lawn areas, recreational fields, or courts. Up to 50 percent of the common open space may be covered by shrubs, mulch, and other grounds covers that do not provide suitable surfaces for human use if the area is usable for the intended residents, such as community gardens or a natural area with benches and walking paths. b.Play Areas.Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for common open space. c.Credit for Proximity to a Park. A credit of up to 50 percent for common open space may be granted when the development is located within one-eighth of a mile walking distance of an existing public park. Distance from the development to the park shall be measured from the lot line via a sidewalk, multi-use path or pedestrian way located in a public right-of-way or public pedestrian easement. 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Water Conservation & Climate Change a.Surfacing. A minimum of 50 percent of the common open space must be covered in suitable surfaces for human use, such as lawn durable lawn alternatives, areas, recreational fields, and courts. Up to 50 percent of the common open space may be covered by shrubs, mulch, and other grounds covers that do not provide suitable surfaces for human use if the area is usable for the intended residents, such as community gardens or a natural area with benches and walking paths. For the purpose of this standard, durable lawn alternatives is defined as ground cover that provides a surface that can withstand active uses and that conserves more water than a traditional lawn. Examples of durable lawn alternatives are eco lawn, meadow lawn, meadow sedge and mondo grass “lily turf.” 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Ground Floor Private Open Space 18.4.070.D Private Open Space Walkways and storage • Size of private open space for ground floor • units 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing Other Changes Table 18.4.4.070.A • Fence references • 18.4.4.070.C Common Open Space • 18.4.4.070.C.4 Improvements • 18.4.4.070.C.4.d Landscaping • 7/28/2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2020-00020 Street BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 11, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2020-00020, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS TO ) ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 23,755 SQUARE FOOT, SINGLE-STORY ) CLASSROOM BUILDING FOR THE HELMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY) AT 705 HELMAN STREET. THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS TO ) ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT ) FINDINGS, WHERE BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING AND CIRCULATION ARE ) CONCLUSIONS & LOCATED BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE STREET, AND FOR THE RE- ) ORDERS LOOCATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNS. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES ) THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING CLASSROOM BUILDINGS THE A AND B ) QUADS - AND REQUESTS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE A TOTAL OF ) 12 SIGNIFICANT TREES. ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: HMK COMPANY/ASHLAND SCHOOLD DIST. #5 ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots of Map 39 1E 04BD comprise the Helman Elementary School campus located at 705 Helman Street and are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). 2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals to allow the construction of a new 23,755 square foot, single-story school building for the Helman Elementary School property at 705 Helman Street. The requested Conditional Use Permit is to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming development where both the existing and proposed new parking and circulation are located between the buildings and the street, and for the on-site relocation of a previously approved signage. The proposal includes a Tree Removal Permit to remove 12 significant trees. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.5.2.050 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows: Underlying Zone: A. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Overlay Zones: B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Site Development and Design Standards: C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. City Facilities: D. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 1 Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. E. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 4) The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 2 AMC 18.5.7.040.B 5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows: 1.Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. AMC 15.04.216 6) The Demolition and Relocation Standards are described in detail in as follows: A. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of the application: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply: a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review committee may require the applicant to: (i) Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 3 rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the property on which the building lies, both before and after demolition or removal, or (ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same 90 day period. b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure. 2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also: a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site. 3. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. 4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the City a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 4 B. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the application: 1. The applicant: a. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the application. Any structure erected less than 45 years from the date of the application, which replaced a structure demolished or relocated under section 15.04.216, shall be considered a structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216. b. Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. 2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until a building permit has been issued for the structure or structures to be replaced or rebuilt, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. C. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris diversion plan that complies with the requirements adopted the Demolition Review Committee. The applicant shall submit such a plan with the application for demolition. For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.08. (Ord. 2925, amended, 04/18/2006; Ord. 2891, amended, 11/19/2002; Ord. 2858, amended, 06/20/2000; Ord. 2852, added, 01/21/2000) PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 5 7) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can consider in a timely manner. The Oregon Legislature subsequently passed House Bill #4212 which authorizes local governments to hold all meetings of their governing bodies, including taking public testimony, using telephone or video conferencing technology or through other electronic or virtual means provided that they supply a means by which the public can listen to or observe the meeting. This bill requires that recordings of the meetings be made available to the public if technology allows, and includes provisions in writing via e-mail or other electronic means. 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on July 14, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16, this meeting was broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and was live-streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at rvtv.sou.edu. The application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the hearing, with in-person review by appointment, and printed copies available at a reasonable cost. Those wishing to provide testimony were invited to submit written comments via e-mail by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020, and the applicant was able to provide written rebuttal to this testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. Comments and rebuttal received were made available on-line and e-mailed to Planning Commissioners before the hearing and included in the meeting minutes. As provided in the -16, testimony was also taken electronically during the tele-conferenced meeting from those members of the public who had pre-arranged to provide oral testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 2020. After the closing of the hearing and the record, the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the index of exhibits, data, and testimony below will be used: Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 6 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. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, written public testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval, Conditional Use Permit, and Tree Removal Permit meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for Conditional Use Permit described in AMC 18.5.4.050; and for a Tree Removal Permit described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring that, The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, The Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying R- 1-5 zoning will be satisfied. The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with The Planning Commission finds that the property is within the Performance Standards Option (PSO) overlay zone, which requires that all developments other than partitions or individual buildings be processed under Chapter 18.3.9., however the proposal here is limited to the development of school buildings on existing lots and does not require subdivision of the property. The Planning Commission further finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands Overlay, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. New landscaping proposed will need to comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. Conditions to this effect have been included below. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 7 The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by The Planning Commission finds that as proposed, the new classroom building being considered is being placed more than 100 feet from the sidewalk, and existing parking and circulation between the campus buildings and the street is being expanded through requests for Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards and a Conditional Use Permit discussed later in this section and in section 2.4. Parking areas are being shifted away from the street, on-site stormwater detention and new landscaping are being added, and controlled access standards better addressed with the removal of a driveway which currently exits into the crosswalk at the corner of Helman and Randy Streets. The Planning Commission notes that automobile parking and circulation are discussed in detail in Section 2.4 below. With regard to bicycle parking, the Planning Commission notes that 70 covered bicycle parking spaces are required, based on the applicable ratios in AMC 18.4.3.070 of one covered space for every five students and an enrollment capacity of 350 students. The application explains that only 12 covered bicycle parking spaces are in place, and that the applicant proposes to add a 20 stall bicycle parking structure on the north side of campus accessible from Randy Street and an additional 29 space structure west of the new parking lot along Helman Street to yield a total of 61 covered bicycle spaces, or roughly 87 percent of the 70 spaces required. The Planning Commission further notes that with the approval of the gym and library additions in Planning Action #2007-01756, 66 bicycle parking spaces were required for the 330 student enrollment. At the time, there were 68 spaces already in place on campus in uncovered non-standard racks, and 12 new covered city-standard bicycle parking spaces were added adjacent to the new gym so that a total of 80 bicycle parking spaces available on campus. The Planning Commission finds here that since previously required bicycle parking has been removed since the last approval and no Variance has been requested, the full required 70 covered bicycle parking spaces are required. The Planning Commission notes that the current proposal includes the construction of a new security fence around the perimeter of the campus to control access. Presently, there is a paved pedestrian access easement from the cul-de-sac on Parkside Drive, near 535 Parkside Drive, to the south of campus which was required to be provided with the adjacent subdivision to the south to enable students to safely and efficiently access campus. The Commission here finds that given that the Pedestrian Access and Circulation Standards in AMC 18.4.3.090.B.3.b call for providing pedestrian connections to off-site adjacent uses to the site to the extent practicable and that there is already an improved easement in place to provide just such a connection, restricting this access during pick-up and drop-off times would run counter to the Pedestrian Access and Circulation Standards. The Commission therefore finds that at a minimum, the proposal needs to be modified to provide a gated neighborhood access point that can be un- locked during pick-up and drop-off periods to enable a safe and direct route to school for students living in the subdivision to the south rather than requiring a more indirect and circuitous route to campus. A condition to this effect is included below as Condition #7k. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 8 The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property The Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. The Commission notes that existing services are in place and currently serve the campus and its buildings. The applicant asserts that adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed new classroom building, and further indicates that the proposal substantially upgrades the storm drainage facilities, which are currently inadequate. The applicant emphasizes that the civil engineering plans (Sheets C2.1 Erosion Control Plan, C3.0 Overall Civil Site Plan, and C.4 Overall Grading and Drainage Plan) provide necessary details to demonstrate proposed site development and construction can comply with city standards. The applicant further details: ğƷĻƩʹ There is an existing six-inch water main in Helman Street, and a six-inch main in Randy Street. There are fire hydrants on Randy Street including a hydrant and fire sprinkler vault west of the gymnasium building. There are hydrants on Helman Street. A fire connection vault is proposed to be located adjacent to Helman Street. The water line sizes are substantial and water pressure is 90 p.s.i. at the Helman Street hydrant, which is adequate to address the water needs for the new structure. {ĻǞĻƩʹ There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in Randy Street, and there are 18-inch and 12-inch sanitary sewer lines in Helman Street. The applicant notes that in discussion with the Wastewater Department Supervisor, no capacity issues with the public sanitary sewer lines have been identified. 9ƌĻĭƷƩźĭğƌʹ There are major overhead electrical facilities along Helman Street, and private facilities including junction boxes and vaults are in place. The application explains that the new structure has been designed and engineered to be solar-ready, and areas for future solar panel installation have been reserved in the roof plan. The applicant indicates that they are unaware of any electrical capacity issues. ƩĬğƓ {ƷƚƩƒ 5ƩğźƓğŭĻʹ There is an 18-inch storm sewer main in Helman Street. The development proposal includes substantial storm water quality improvements including the creation of two large landscaped bio-swales. The final Civil engineering will be designed to the standards of the DEQ MS4 General Permit, Phase 2, and the storm water system also be specific storm water quality design standards. ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓʹ The applicant notes that there are existing curbside sidewalks in place along all frontages, and indicates that no changes to the existing curbside sidewalk configuration are proposed. According to the Transportation System Plan, Laurel Street is classified as a Residential Neighborhood Collector. Laurel was recently subject to a Local Improvement District to install sidewalks in the Helman School neighborhood, and no changes to the Laurel Street frontage are proposed. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 9 Randy Street is a classified as a Neighborhood Residential Street, and currently has paving, curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place along the property frontage, but no parkrows. The proposal would remove 3 of the five existing driveway curb cuts on Randy, including one that is immediately adjacent to the intersection and crosswalk, and reinstall a new driveway cut in a location which complies with controlled access standards and serves a new one-way circulation. The applicant emphasizes that these proposed changes to the driveways improve pedestrian safety by increasing driveway spacing away from the most heavily used intersection, while the proposed changes to the parking areas increase the length of the driveway and vehicular maneuvering area on site in order to better accommodate parent drop-off and pick-up on site, without pushing traffic onto the adjacent public streets, and the new one-way vehicular traffic circulation is to increase student and pedestrian safety. Helman Street is considered an Avenue. Helman Street along the frontage of the school is not improved to current avenue standards there is paving, curb, gutter and curbside sidewalks in place, but no parkrows. The application proposes to plant street trees behind the sidewalk and retain two existing driveway curb cuts and add one additional new driveway cut which complies with controlled access standards. No other changes to the Helman Street frontage are proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission notes that the application materials assert that facilities are in place to serve the existing campus buildings, and adequate key City facilities can be provided to serve the new classroom building, and that based on consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric) the proposed addition will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The Commission further finds that the project is intended to improve accessibility, safety, security and site circulation, but with the demolitions and addition proposed, neither the student enrollment or staffing are to be increased. The application includes civil drawings to address the changes in site grading, drainage, utilities and access associated with the proposal, and conditions have been included below to require that final civil drawings detailing the final utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for review and approval prior of the Building, Planning, Fire, Public Works and Electric Departments prior to building permit issuance. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The application materials recognize that the existing and proposed site development including the placement of parking and vehicular access between the buildings and the street, placement of the new building roughly 180 feet from the property line and not oriented to the corner of Helman and Randy Street, and the lack of pedestrian entrances open to the general public from the sidewalk necessitate exception to the design standards. The applicant suggests that the use of the site as an elementary school can be found to be a unique which poses a demonstrable difficulty in meeting these standards in that schools in 2020 cannot be open to the PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 10 general public like the typical commercial building considered in the standards. For student and staff safety and security, access to the campus must be restricted, and the funding source for the current project is through a local bond measure which sought to improve accessibility, structural safety, energy efficiency he existing site layout establishes building and parking placement which pose challenges to increasing compliance with the applicable standards without full redevelopment of the campus. The applicant concludes that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to accommodate the re-development of the parking area and allow for the construction of a new classroom building. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves the demolition of the two existing quad buildings nearest the corner of Helman and Randy Street, and the placement of a proposed new classroom addition more central to the campus rather than removing parking to put them nearer the corner. The Planning Commission concurs with the applicant that the unique nature of the elementary school use poses challenges in meeting standards seeking a streetscape orientation without parking between buildings and the street and placement of buildings close to the sidewalk in that while a school is a public building subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Non-Residential Development, it is at the same time a use which requires campus access controls to insure the safety and security of students and staff, and which seeks to avoid bringing cars into the mix of uses interior to the campus. The Planning Commission notes that while the new classroom building is being placed in a location more central to the campus, rather than orienting to the corner as the standards would seek, the applicant is creating a new main entry plaza which orients the campus better to the corner and the neighborhood and places campus administrative functions in a location where they can oversee a single, controlled campus access point. The new classroom building responds to the campus character and broader neighborhood context through a scale and placement which also attempts to preserve views of Mt. Ashland and Grizzly Peak for the campus and its neighbors. The Commission finds that the proposed site plan creates a more cohesive campus with a strong central interior courtyard space centered on the library, provides a layout where access can be better controlled to maintain campus security, improves the campus orientation to the corner, improves pedestrian safety by addressing existing non-conforming driveway locations near the Helman and Randy intersection, and provides for new on-site detention of storm water in proximity to the parking as called for in current standards. The Commission further finds that the proposed improvements are in keeping with the general intent of the standards. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional Use Permit approval with regard to the expansion of a non-conforming development. The Commission notes that the first criterion for Conditional That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 11 neighborhood parks, used as recreation space by nearby neighbors outside school hours, directly related to neighborhood character, and having the advantage of being available during summer months and non- school hours to provide recreational facilities for all age groups. The Commission further notes that the Comp off-road pedestrian and/or bikeways which minimize travel distances within and between residential areas and schools, shopping and workplaces where street connections are infeasible. For example, these short multi-use paths are useful to provide connectivity for cul-de-sac streets and dead end streets, as is the case with the easement to the south connecting the campus to Parkview Drive, and the Comprehensive Plan includes a policy to require such pedestrian and bicycle easements to provide neighborhood connectors, and thus reduce vehicle trips, with development. The Planning Commission finds that the use of the property as a public school is an allowed use in the zone and the setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and parking conform to the R-1-5 zoning district standards, and further finds here that the Conditional Use Permit request here is limited to considering the expansion of the existing non-conforming development which places parking and associated vehicular circulation between the buildings and the street. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.Section 2.3 above, the application includes civil drawings detailing site grading, drainage, utilities and access associated with the proposal, and conditions have been included to require that final engineered civil drawings detailing the utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for review prior to building permit issuance, and the Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of City facilities can and will be provided. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) Generation of noise, light, and glare; f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. that the target use in the R-1 zones is residential use developed to the densities detailed in AMC 18.2.5, which for the R-1-5 zoning here is 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The roughly 9.5 acres campus, the Commission finds that for purposes of comparison the school property could accommodate roughly 42.75 dwelling units. In considering the adverse material impacts of the increase in parking and circulation between the buildings and the street, the Commission finds that the adverse impacts may include the aesthetic impacts of pavement and parked cars at a scale out of character in a residential zone; the environmental impacts, PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 12 including increased stormwater run-off, an increase in the urban heat island effect, exhaust fumes, noise and headlight glare; and the pedestrian impacts of paving and parked and circulating vehicles posing obstacles to pedestrians seeking to navigate from the sidewalk corridor to building entrances and of impediments to the neighborhood connectivity such as the pedestrian easement to the subdivision to the south, which are typically sought with development through development standards and supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission finds that in the approval of the gym and library additions in 2008-2009 (PA- 2007-01756), 60 automobile parking spaces were required to serve the 240 seat capacity of the gym at the then-applicable parking ratio of one space per four seats. The parking in place was found to satisfy the parking requirements with 53 parking spaces to be provided off-street and the remaining seven spaces required addressed through on-street parking credits as the school property has a total of approximately 1,998 lineal feet of frontage on the three adjacent streets. The Commission further finds that current parking ratios require one parking space per 75 square feet of public assembly area, and the 4,725 square feet of assembly space here require 63 spaces. The applicant notes that there are now only 49 spaces in place on site, and proposes to add a new 17 space parking lot between the building and the street to fully accommodate the parking required on-site, with no reliance on on-street parking credits. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed increase in parking between the building and the street seeks to bring the site into compliance with current parking ratios and to reconfigure circulation and parking in such a way that pick-up and drop-off impacts can be better absorbed on the campus itself and in so doing limit the effects of traffic on the surrounding streets. The Commission finds that there are benefits to betteraccommodating more of the vehicular queuing on site and in reconfiguring parking to address ratios, minimize on-street impacts and provide new areas for stormwater detention, but further finds that to fully balance the negative impacts to the neighborhood and streetscape of placing more parking between the buildings and the street, the new main entry plaza treatment should be extended with light- colored/permeable pavers, scored concrete or a similar treatment to include the driveway and seven spaces between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space which strengthens the plaza and the campus orientation to the corner; reduces the aesthetic, environmental and pedestrian impacts between the buildings and corner; and still retains the potential to accommodate parking when needed. In addition, the Commission finds that the role the school playgrounds and greenspaces serve both in providing essential neighborhood recreational space outside of school hours as recognized in the hensive Plan and in providing neighborhood connectivity is crucial in offsetting the adverse aesthetic, environmental and pedestrian impacts of the school on the surrounding residential neighborhood and has accordingly included Condition #11 requiring, That, outside of regular school hours and school events, the perimeter gates shall remain unlocked so as to not to unreasonably The Commission finds that with the modified parking treatment near the plaza, the changes to parking and circulation including improved driveway spacing near the Helman and Randy can be found to be beneficial to pedestrian safety while lessening impacts to the streetscape from pick-up and drop-off traffic and strengtheni corner. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 13 A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. Here, the Planning Commission finds that as detailed in AMC Table 18.2.2.030.D, public schools are a permitted use in all R-1 zones. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Conditional Use Permit approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional sign permit program under AMC 18.4.7.120 Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use Permit to place a sign that does not conform to this chapter when it is determined that, in addition to Helman Schooloriginally approved in Planning Action 2009-00322, and were subsequently Planning Action PA-2012-00899 which allowed a dragon wall graphic on the then-new gym and two existing student-designed/student-installed tile murals in addition to wall, ground and directional signage. A number of other murals and a tile-mosaic bench are also in place on campus, but are exempt from permitting because they are not visible from the adjacent public rights-of-way. As proposed, the dragon tile mural on the north side of the administration building, facing Randy Street, will be moved with demolition and replaced on a wall to be installed to screen mechanical equipment. With the move, the mural will be visible from Helman Street. In originally administratively approving the murals in 2009, staff found that the student-designed/student- participatory educational experience but also in fostering a sense of connectedness between the students, the built environment of the school and their larger community. With the demolition of the two quad buildings, the applicant has proposed to relocate the dragon tile mural, and the Commission finds that this relocation remains in keeping with the original sign permit approval. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for a Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. The Commission notes that 12 significant trees are proposed for removal, and that the applicant explains that the removals are to permit the proposal to be consistent with applicable ordinance requirements and standards, including applicable Site Development and Design Standards. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The applicant indicates that the requested tree removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and further PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 14 explains that the areas where trees are to be removed will be redeveloped with structures, hardscaping, or will re-landscaped. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. indicates that there are several trees within 200-feet of the subject property, and further suggests that the relative proximity to the heavily vegetated Ashland Creek corridor across Helman Streetprovides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities in the vicinity. The applicant concludes that the proposed development will ultimately replace the canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species diversity associated with the requested removals. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.The Commission finds that there is no residential component associated with the current application. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.Commission finds that mitigation trees sufficient to meet this requirement are proposed throughout the property. 12 significant trees proposed for removal and the Landscape Plants plans (Sheets L3.00-L3.01) call for over 50 replacement trees including Kentucky Coffee trees, Zelkovas, flowering Cherries, Maple, Birch, and Lindens and include planting of new required street trees and 26 proposed shade trees for the parking areas to reduce the microclimatic impacts of the pavement. The Commission further notes that the Ashland Tree Commission was unable to convene its regular monthly meeting for July of 2020 due to the City Administrato the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which suspended advisory commission meetings. As such there is no Tree Commission recommendation. As provided in AMC 2.25.040, the failure of the Tree Commission to make a recommendation on any individual planning action shall not invalidate that action. The Commission finds that the remaining trees which are to be preserved are proposed to be protected with six-foot tall chain link fencing as recommended by the arborist and re Preservation & Protection Ordinance (AMC 18.4.5). Conditions have been included to require tree protection fencing installation and verification before site work. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection and for Tree Removal Permits to remove a total of 12 significant trees. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 15 2.5 Commission notes that the demolition and relocation of existing buildings is regulated through AMC Chapter 15 Buildings and Construction potential for appeal to the Demolition Review Committee. The Commission finds that the applicant has indicated that the two quad buildings are to be demolished following completion of the new classroom building, and a condition has been included below to make clear that the applicant will need to obtain requisite permits for demolition through the Building Official prior to commencement of demolition work. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review, Conditional Use and Tree Removal permit approvals to construct a new 23,755 square-foot, single-story classroom building and associated changes to the campus site planning, relocate approved signage and remove 12 significant trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The school property is an existing non-conforming development in that the existing placement of parking s Basic Site Review standards which seek to place parking behind buildings or to one side and have the building placed at and oriented to the streetscape. As proposed here, this non-conformity would be retained and expanded through a Conditional Use Permit. The Commission finds that both the existing building lay-out on site and the school use pose difficulties in complying with the standards and as proposed the applicant is creating a new entry plaza near the corner of Helman and Randy Streets which creates an overall campus orientation to the corner and the neighborhood and places point for the sake of campus safety and in direct response to a community public process by the School District which ultimately identified the need for a single-story structure placed more interior to the campus to preserve views of Mt. Ashland and Grizzly Peak for the campus and for the neighborhood, and in so doing a more cohesive campus with a central interior courtyard will be created and the library will become a clear center for the campus. In addition, with the changes proposed the controlled access issues with the northern parking lotdriveway exiting into the crosswalk are to be remedied, new on-site storm water detention facilities installed to better respond to standards, and site circulation issues addressed to handle a greater proportion of the daily pick-up and drop-off traffic and parking on-site rather than in the surround neighborhood streetscape. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2020-00020. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2020-00020 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 16 conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3.That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of signage. Signage shall be consistent with that described herein and shall be placed in a manner consistent with the vision clearance standards of AMC 18.2.4.040. 4.That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing; fire apparatus access including aerial ladder access, turn-around, firefighter access pathways and work area; fire hydrant spacing, distance and clearance; fire flow; fire sprinkler system if applicable; fire extinguishers; limitations on gates or fences; providing required fuel breaks; and meeting the general fuel modification area standards. 5.That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding streets, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 6.That the applicant shall obtain applicable demolition permits through the Building Division if deemed necessary by the Building Official prior to the commencement of any building demolition on site. 7.That building permit submittals shall include: a.The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility, irrigation and drainage easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements. b.The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. c.Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d.Revised landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) required size and species-specific planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 2) final lot coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 50 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 50 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided; 3) the mitigation requirements of AMC 18.5.7 by detailing the mitigation for the 12 significant trees to be removed on a one-for-one basis through replanting planting on-site, replanting off-site, or replanting; and 4) sight-obscuring screening of PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 17 the parking lot with a landscape buffer in keeping with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.080.E.6.a.iv and 18.4.4.030.F.2. e.A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. f.Final storm water drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The storm water plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows not exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the storm torm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. g.A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. The utility plan shall also address Water Department requirements relative to cross connections and premises isolation. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant h.A final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions i.That the applicants shall provide final engineered plans for any work in the street rights- of-way including any changes to sidewalks, driveway aprons or pedestrian crossings for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 18 j.Identification of required bicycle parking, which includes 70 covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.I, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. k.A revised site plan that extends the new entry plaza treatment (i.e. light-colored, permeable pavers, scored concrete or similar) to include the driveway and seven parking spaces between the new plaza and the corner to provide an extension of the plaza space, strengthen the plaza while retaining the potential to accommodate overflow parking as needed; and provides a gated access point from the Parkside Drive pedestrian easement to allow its use during pick-up and drop-off times. 8.That prior to any site work including staging, storage of materials, demolition or tree removal, the applicant shall mark the trees to be removed and install protection fencing for the trees to be retained, and obtain a Tree Verification Inspection so that the Staff Advisor can verify that the trees identified on site for removal are consistent with the approved plan, and that those trees to be protected have tree protection fencing in place in a manner consistent with the approved plans. 9.That prior to the issuance of a building permit all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for any new utilities, and applicable system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid. 10.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final project approval: a.That the required automobile and bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. b.All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, on site circulations routes, parking lots and driveways; landscaping; and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. c.That the screening for the trash and recycling containers shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Development Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.4.4.040. d.That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. e.All required utility service and equipment installations and street frontage improvements, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. f.Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan, or alternative mitigation demonstrated. PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 19 11.That, outside of regular school hours and school events, the perimeter gates shall remain unlocked so as to not to unreasonably limit or restrict access school playgrounds and greenspaces. August 11, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2020-00020 August 11, 2020 Page 20 APPLICANTS REBUTTAL _________________________________ PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (Appealing PA-T1-2020-00109) 345 Clinton Street JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR 345 Clinton St. Partition Ashland, OR T39S, R1E, 4DB, TL 401 (portion) Prepared for Kathleen Kahle DRAFT Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street 345 Clinton Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Prepared by Prepared by Jodi Reed & Juniper Tagliabue of Schott & Associates, Inc. Date: March 2020 Project #: 2736 APPLICANTS SUBMITTAL& PRESENTATION _________________________________ PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (Appealing PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street APPELLANTS SUBMITTAL _________________________________ PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (Appealing PA-T1-2020-00109 345 Clinton Street TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA-T1-2020-00109) 345 Clinton Street ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT August11, 2020 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 appealing PA-T1-2020-00109 OWNER/APPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle APPELLANT: Eric Elerath LOCATION: 345 Clinton St. 391E04DB Tax Lot 401 ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-5- COMP.PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5Standards for Residential Zones 18.5.1General Review Procedures 18.5.3Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments 18.6.1Definitions APPLICATION DATE: April 30, 2020 DEEMED COMPLETE ON: May 15, 2020 STAFF DECISION: June 30, 2020 APPEALED: July 13, 2020 120-DAY DEADLINE: September 12, 2020 REQUEST: An appeal of the administrativeapproval of Planning Action #PA-T1-2020- 00109,a two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lotfor the property located at 345 Clinton St.The tentative partition plat createstwo parcels that are8.94 ac. and 3.35 ac in size,with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. I.Relevant Facts The subject property has been modified by boundary line adjustments three times in the -00474, 2015-00439, and 2018-00167). There was also a planning action for a density transfer (PA# 2017-02132) to allocate density from land in the flood plain, but the application was withdrawn prior to a decision being rendered. The most recent boundary line adjustment modified the property into its current configuration which conveyed land in the flood plain to the City andadjusted the property lines at the rear of the properties along Sylvia. thth The current applicationwas submitted on April 30and was deemed complete May 15. thth The Notice of Decision was mailed on June 30with a deadline to appeal of July 13. On Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 1 of 12 th July 13 a Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA) was received from Mr. Elerath. Site Description The subject property is an irregularly shaped 12.29-acre parcel located between Oak Street and North Mountain Avenue and bounded by Clinton Street to the south, Ann Street to the east, and the Bear Creek floodplain to the north. To the west is the rear of residential properties that front Sylvia St. The property is occupied by a 4,650 square foot single-family home, a detached garage, and barn. The residence is accessed via a private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property is zoned R-1-5, a single-family residential zoning with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-1-5 and are developed exclusively with single-family homes. The subject property, as well as the surrounding properties, are located in the Performance Standards Options overlay. The P- overlay requires land divisions of three of more lots to meet the requirements of Chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay. The newly created vacant lot, which is 3.35 ac in size, would allow for the development of one single-family home, absent additional subdivision. The subject property has several physical constraints including steep slopes along the eastern portion of the property with slopes exceeding 35-percent and minor areas along the northern side of the Clinton Street frontage with slopes between 25-35-percent. The property also has FEMA / Ashland Flood zones and Mook Creek traverses the property from southwest to northeast. Mook Creek is identified as an intermittent/ephemeral stream by the Ashland Water Resource Protection Zone maps. Additionally, the Ashland Wetland Inventory indicates the presence of a wetland on the proposed vacant parcel. Future development will have to address the water resource protection zones and wetland protection. Current Proposal The preliminary plat included with the application indicates that proposed parcel-1 would retain the existing residence and would be 8.9 acres with 2.6 acres in the flood zone and proposed parcel-2 will be vacant and measure 3.35 acres with approximately 0.5 acres in the flood zone. II. Project Impact As mentioned above the current application was approved administratively on June 30, 2020 with a 12-day appeal period which ended on July 13, 2020. The approval of this two-lot partition, absent any further subdivision, would allow the development of a single-family home on the new parcel. Partition The approval criteria for a preliminary partition plat are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.3.050. The first approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 2 of 12 The application includes a discussion regarding the future development plan to demonstrate that the proposed partition will not impede future development of the parcels. The future development plan indicates that the proposed new parcel would be able to be subdivide to approximately fifteen lots for the development of single-family homes with access provided by an extension of Briscoe and Phelps Streets as well as the alley between Clinton and Briscoe Place. The development plan is not a subdivision proposal and is not approved with this two-lot partition approval. Rather the development plan is simply to demonstrate that the further development of the new parcel is feasible while not limiting possible future development. The second approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is Based on the proposed property configuration on the preliminary partition plat the larger proposed parcel will continue to have access from Clinton St. stratifying this criterion. All other adjoining properties are either developed or constrained by the flood plain. The third approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and nay previous land use approvals for the subject area. There are no adopted neighborhood or district plan that applies to the subject property, nor are there any conditions of approval from previous land use approvals that are relevant. The fourth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is has not been partitioned for 12 months.The land has not been partitioned for more than 12 months with the last property line adjustment having taken place in 2018. The fifth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is the roposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). The proposal is a request for a land partition to create two lots for the property located at 345 Clinton Street. The lots as proposed comply with the base standards for the zone, minimum area requirements and lot coverage. Based on the preliminary plat, both proposed parcels substantially exceed the 5,000 square feet minimum lot size and minimum width standards as well as lot width to depth ratio. The sixth approval criterion for preliminary partiAccesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. The existing driveway serving parcel-1 will remain, and there is no proposed access to parcel- 2 at this time as the parcel will remain vacant. Any new access to the proposed parcel-1 will be required to meet minimum separation requirements. The seventh approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 3 of 12 proposed public improvements and dedications.The application materials explain that all city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way, including sanitary sewer and water and franchise utilities. There are no proposed public utilities proposed to be installed to serve the new vacant parcel. The application explains that the size of these utilities will be predicated by the future development. Clinton, Ann and Briscoe streets are designated as local streets in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan and are designed to have a capacity of up to 1500 daily trips. The most recent trip count data (captured between 2005 and 2008) indicate that each of these roads operate far below their design capacity: Carol 388 Average Daily Trips (ADT), Phelps 207 ADT, Clinton 143 ADT and Ann 157 ADT. According to City records in the past twenty years there have been two accidents at the point where Clinton St turns into Carol, one accident at the intersection of Clinton and Ann, and another at Phelps and Clinton, for a total of four accidents. The Land Use Ordinance does not require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), and Public Works had no concerns regarding traffic impacts of the proposed partition. The eighth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval addresses minimum improvements to the roadway: When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. The curb-to-curb width along Clinton and Ann Streets is twenty-seven feet which exceeds the required amount for local access streets and allows for parking on both sides. Clinton and Ann Street lack park row and sidewalks adjacent to the new parcel. The application requests to sign in favor of a LID for future development of Clinton Street, Ann Street. A condition has been added below requiring that the applicant sign in favor of a LID prior to approval of the final plat. The ninth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. This criterion does not apply as there is no alley adjacent to the subject property. The tenth approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. At the time of future development or land division the applicant will be required to address the Water Resource Protection standards and delineation of the possible wetland as identified in the Wetland Inventory and obtain the required state and federal permits should they be required. The final approval criterion for preliminary partition plat approval is that A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. This criterion does not apply as there is no proposed flag lot. Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 4 of 12 Public Input Notice of the Type-I planning action was mailed to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage of the property. The notice included a staff contact name and number. Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Application, written comments about the request were received from eleven concerned citizens. In accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050, the Type-I procedure for planning applications allows a 14-day period for the submission of written comments, starting from the date of mailing. For the subject application, the comment period began thth on May 15 and ended on May 29. Issues that were raised in relation to the planning application included concerns about open space preservation, habitat for wildlife, views, and concerns about future development of the property including noise, dust, and traffic. These issues are addressed by the application materials, as well as by this report. The applicant has dedicated land in the flood plain to the City in the past that will be kept as Parks land and open space. While there are portions of both proposed parcels that are in the flood plain no additional land is proposed to be conveyed to the City at this time. Concerns regarding loss of views are not protected by the Land Use Ordinance. th Eric Elerath submitted a written comment on May 29 raising additional concerns about the relevant approval criteria included in the mailed notice, and physical access to the application materials, and included a request for additional time to inspect and review the application materials. The mailed notice included the relevant approval criteria from AMC 18.5.3.050 for a Preliminary Partition Plat. The issue regarding an incomplete application was identified in the written comment as the application materials posted online did not include the receipt for payment for the planning application. AMC 18.5.1.050 requires the application form and fee for a planning application to be considered complete. Both ORS 227.178 and AMC 18.5.1.090 requires the city to determine if a planning application is complete within 30 days of the applicant submitting the information and to notify the applicant if any required submittal information is missing. The Staff Advisor is responsible for determining whether the submittal information is complete for a Type-I planning application and accordingly made the determination on May 15, 2020 that the application was complete, including that the preliminary partition th plat fee had been paid on April 30. The receipt for the payment is documented in the application file. The notice stated that the application materials were available at the Community Development & Engineering Services building at 51 Winburn Way during the period of public comment and included a staff contact with a telephone and email address. The Community Development Department offices were closed to the public during the 14-day comment period in response to the to the COVID-19 pandemic and the declared state of emergency. Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 5 of 12 closed City offices to the public and they continue to be closed to the public until such time that the state announces Phase Three of reopening. The planning app Staff Decision AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the subdivision of land to carry out the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application for land partition application staff consider the application materials against * the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. Staff determined that the application, with the attached conditions, complied with applicable ordinances and met all standards and criteria for approval and as such Planning Action #T1-2020-00109 was approved. III. Appeal Request As mentioned above, the proposed partition was approved administratively on June 30, 2020 with a 12-day appeal period which extended through July 13, 2020. On July 13, 2020, Mr. Eric Elerath timely filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA). Mr. Elerath resides in the noticing area for the application and had previously submitted written comments to be considered during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. The notice of appeal identified document was formatted in such a manner that it began by addressing the Appeal criteria and his submittals compliance with the criteria. Under the specific heading of AMC 18.5.1.050.G(2)(c)(iii) Mr. Elerath lists six specific items. It should be noted that none of these issues address the relevant approval criteria and are all focused on alleged failures to adequately notice the application and provide access to the application materials. The six specific items listed were: A.Incomplete Application. B.Defective Notice. C.Failure to provide access to personally inspect the Application File, evidence, and documents. D.Failure to provide digital access to Application file, material evidence and documents. E. . F.Defective submittal analysis. in these issues is the apparent fact that two land use decisions were actually made. One decision was made At AMC 18.5.3.050 * At AMC 18.5.1.050.G.2 Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 6 of 12 are two sections numbered one and two (A&E above). These two sections develop Mr. tor failed to grant an extension of time to allow access to review the application. None of the other specific points listed (B, C, D, F above) have their arguments further developed. it states that he may bring other issues at the hearing. In addition to his procedural objections other issues including vegetation, wildlife, and wetlands may also be addressed at the hearing. Appeal of Type-I procedures, as provided in AMC 18.5.1.050.G, state that appeal hearings on Type- which allows the consideration of additional materials not limited to those in the record. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. IV. Staff Response The NITA document develops substantive arguments for two items that were listed as specific issues being raised in the appeal (A and E). Despite the lack of developed arguments Staff will respond to each of the six items set out at the beginning of the document. In Addition to these responses staff will also respond to the allegation that the decision that the application was complete constitutes a separate land use approval. Incomplete application Mr. Elerath asserts that the application materials were incomplete as the digital materials online did not include a receipt for the application fee. Mr. Elerath also states that the application itself was missing from the online materials. The Staff Advisor shall determine within 30 days of receiving an application for Type-I, II, or III review whether the application is complete, and shall advise the applicant accordingly in writing. application to be complete, and while the application form and receipt of payment were not included in the materials posted on-line, staff verified that an application was provided and payment had been made, the application and receipt were included in the physical record and the appellant was offered the opportunity to review the record in the office. The application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A are not approval criteria applicable to approving or denying a preliminary partition plat. Defective notice Mr. Elerath asserts, and the record reflects, that the notice that was posted stated that the documents would be available at the Community Development Building which was closed to the public during the public comment period. As stated above during the review period Mr. Elerath was in contact with staff and was directed to the City web site where the application materials were available. While the posted notice stated that the application materials were available for review Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 7 of 12 in the Community - -19 pandemic, city offices were closed to the public. Mailed and posted notices included the name and phone number of a city contact person as required in AMC 18.5.1.050.B.3.h. The planning application materials were made available M, and people who called or emailed and were interested in reviewing the file were directed to Staff spoke with Mr. Elerath multiple times to ensure that he had access to the electronic materials. In addition, after the Notice of Decision was sent but prior to the end of the appeal period the city made accommodations to allow Mr. Elerath access to the building to review the physical materials. Despite being contacted multiple times in a good faith attempt by staff to allow the appellant to inspect the file, he did not respond to staff or take those opportunities that were available to him to review the application materials in person. Failure to provide access to personally inspect the application file, evidence, and documents As noted above, staff contacted Mr. Elerath multiple times to ensure that he had access to the electronic materials. In addition, after the Notice of Decision was sent but prior to the end of the appeal period the city made accommodations to allow Mr. Elerath access to the building to review the physical materials. Despite being contacted multiple times he did not respond to staff or take those opportunities that were available to him to review the application materials in person. Failure to provide digital access to application file, material evidence and documents As stated above, all application materials were published on the City web site. r such The Staff Advisor shall prepare a decision within pplication is complete, unless the pursuant to this chapter, including resolution of all appeals, within 120 days from the date the Staff Advisor deems the application complete for purposes of processing, unless the applicant requests an extension in writing.The is no requirement in the code to provide additional time for review, and additionally, constrained by the time limits set by both city ordinance and state law to render a final decision. Defective submittal analysis Because this specific point of appeal was left undeveloped in the NITA staff is left to surmise that this is an argument that ties into the complete application determination (see below). Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 8 of 12 Determination of a complete Application as a land use decision As mentioned above Mr. Elerath also asserts that there were two land use decisions made while approving the application stating that the determination of the application being complete was also, in and of itself, a land use decision. Determination that an application meets the Type-I application requirements of AMC 18.5.1.050.A is a procedural component of all Type-I land use decisions, and AMC 18.5.1.090.A requires the Staff Advisor make such a determination for each application within 30 days of submittal. Completeness review in and of itself is not treated as a separate land use decision requiring substantial discretion, and as such is not included as a Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedures V. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The approval criteria for a Land Partition are provided in AMC 18.5.3.050 which state that the approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 9 of 12 City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff initially determined that the application with the attached conditions complied with applicable ordinances and met all standards and criteria for approval of a preliminary plat approval and as such Planning Action #T1-2020-00109 was approved. After staff approved the application a Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed to all persons entitled to notice. Subsequent to the NOD property owner Eric Elerath filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal (NITA). Mr. Elerath resides in the noticing area for the application and had previously submitted written comments to be considered during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. The notice of appeal identified several issues to appeal and other arguments. These included, 1)Incomplete Application, 2) Defective Notice, 3) Failure to provide access to personally inspect the application materials etc., 4) Failure to provide digital access to application materials etc.Mr. additional time to review the application materials, 6) Defective submittal analysis, and 7) that multiple land use decisions were made. We will address these each in turn: First, with regard to the complaint that the application was incomplete because the on- line record did not include a payment receipt; the record shows that, notwithstanding the omission of the receipt for payment from the online materials, payment was made and a receipt include in the physical record. In addition, payment of fees or an item missing from the application would not affect whether the application met the criteria for Preliminary Partition Approval. Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 10 of 12 Secondly, regarding the alleged defective notice; while the posted notice incorrectly stated that application materials were available for review in the Community Executive Order #20-16 and local State of Emergency Declaration, the mailed and posted notice included required contact information for a staff person, the application materials were made available on-line and communicated to the appellant, and follow-up correspondence with the appellant constitutes a good faith attempt to remedy the situation. Third, with regard to Mr. Eleraths statement that there was a failure to have access to personally inspect the application material; after the NOD Mr. Elerath was invited to come to the Community Development building to examine these documents but despite several attempts to contact Mr. Elerath he did not avail himself of that opportunity. Fourth, regarding the failure of the city to provide digital access to application materials; Mr. Elerath was provided, via email, links to the application materials via the city web site and included copies of these emails with staff in his NITA. From the forgoing it is clear that Mr. Elerath did, in fact, have digital access to the application materials. Fifth, with regard to grant review the application materials in light of the COVID-19 state of emergency; there is no such requirement in the ALOU to do so. Furthermore AMC 18.5.1.050.C.1 requires that AMC 18.5.1.090.B and ORS 227.178 requires that a final decision is required within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. Staff was unable to provide additional time due to the state and local time constraints. Sixth, with regard to defective submittal analysis; this argument was left undeveloped in the NITA, but Staff understands it to be related to the determination of application completeness. Finally, regarding the allegation that the application completeness determination constitutes a separate land use decision that was not properly noticed; the completeness determination is a procedural requirement for all land use decisions, and is not treated as a separate land use decision requiring substantial discretion or notice to neighbors within the LUO. The applicants have submitted materials to the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standards for the proposed partition and by their the conditions recommended below, satisfies the applicable approval criteria. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the original approval. Should the Commission choose to uphold the original approval as recommended, staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval: Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 11 of 12 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)That a final survey plat shall be submitted, reviewed and approved within 18 months of the final decision date of the preliminary partition plat approval by the City of Ashland. 3)That the property owner shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future street improvements, including but not limited to paving, curb gutter, storm drainage, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities for Clinton and Ann Streets prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 4)That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of the Ashland Planning Division: a)All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. Planning Action Appeal 2020-00011 / PA-T1-2020-00109 Ashland Planning Department Staff Report/ aa.ds Applicant: Rogue for Mace / Appellant: Elerath August 11, 2020 - Page 12 of 12 From:Dana Smith To:Eric Elerath Subject:RE: PA-T1-2020-00109 Date:Wednesday, July 08, 2020 3:08:00 PM Yes, you will have plenty of time to review the file before the deadline. Let's make it this Friday. I recommend morning, mid-morning or early afternoon. Let me know a specific time that will work for you and I will schedule the room you will review the file in. Thank you. Dana Smith, Executive Assistant City of Ashland, Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 3:05 PM To: Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashland.or.us> Cc: Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> Subject: Re: PA-T1-2020-00109 \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hi Dana The appeal deadline is July 13. The sooner, the better, thank you. Eric Elerath On Jul 8, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashland.or.us> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Looking at my schedule, what does Friday look like for you? > > Dana Smith, Executive Assistant > City of Ashland, Community Development Department > 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 > Phone: 541-552-2072, TTY: 800-735-2900 > > This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2072. Thank you. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 2:38 PM > To: Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashland.or.us> > Cc: Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> > Subject: Re: PA-T1-2020-00109 > > \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] > > Hi Dana > > I left a voice message with you just now, and am following up by email. I’d like to arrange a time to view the file for 345 Clinton. > > Thank you for your help. > > Eric Elerath > > > On Jul 6, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> Bill Molnar asked me to get back to you. Please see my responses below each of your questions. >> >> I've copied in Dana Smith in our Department. She can help you arrange a time to come in and view the file. Per the Governor's latest order, a mask is required to come into the office to view the file. >> >> Please feel free to contact me if you need more information or have further questions. >> >> Best Regards, >> Maria Harris, AICP >> Planning Manager >> City of Ashland, Community Development Department >> 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 >> 541.552.2045 Tel >> 800.735.2900 TTY >> 541.552.2050 Fax >> >> This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2045. Thank you. >> >> -----Original Message----- \] >> From: Eric Elerath \[mailto:eelerath@verizon.net >> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:35 AM >> To: Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us> >> Cc: planning <planning@ashland.or.us>; Aaron Anderson <aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us>; Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> >> Subject: PA-T1-2020-00109 >> >> \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] >> >> Mr. Molnar >> >> I received by mail your reply to my objection regarding the above Planning action. >> >> In your reply, you wrote that the application, all associated documents and evidence are available for review at the Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. >> >> 1) How can I access these documents and review them in person as described above? >> >> Please contact Dana Smith to arrange a time to review the planning application file. I've copied her in this email or by phone you can contact her at (541) 552-2072. >> >> 2) Where can I find procedures to pursue an appeal of this decision? It appears that Planning will be making a Final decision on July 14, 2020, the day after the appeal deadline date of July 13, 2020 at 4:30 pm. Will that be at a meeting of the Planning Commission? >> >> July 14, 2020 is the date the Type I administrative decision becomes final unless the decision is appealed by 4:30 p.m. on July 13, 2020. The Planning Commission will not review the decision unless the Type I administrative decision is appealed. >> >> I've attached the section of the Ashland Municipal Code that covers a Type I administrative decision appeal - see 18.5.1.050.G. I've also attached the appeal form. The fee for an appeal for a public hearing is $150.00 >> >> 3) As of this date, the application still does not appear to be available on the City’s web site. Could you please provide a link to the application? >> . Type in >> The application is available on the City's web site here https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/ 345 Clinton in the "Near Me" box and the application and the notices are attached to the information as .pdf documents. >> >> Thank you >> >> Eric Elerath >> <AMC 18.5.1.050.pdf><Appeal Form_TypeI_2015_Fillable PDF.pdf> > From:Dana Smith To:Eric Elerath Subject:RE: PA-T1-2020-00109 Date:Thursday, July 09, 2020 1:37:00 PM Hi Eric, Are you still interested in viewing the planning action file for 345 Clinton? I have not heard back so thought I would reach out. Dana Smith Legal Department 20 East Main Street Tel: 541-488-5350, TTY: 800-735-2900 Fax: 541-552-2107 dana.smith@ashland.or.us This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2107. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Elerath <eelerath@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 2:38 PM To: Dana Smith <dana.smith@ashland.or.us> Cc: Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> Subject: Re: PA-T1-2020-00109 \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hi Dana I left a voice message with you just now, and am following up by email. I’d like to arrange a time to view the file for 345 Clinton. Thank you for your help. Eric Elerath On Jul 6, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Bill Molnar asked me to get back to you. Please see my responses below each of your questions. > > I've copied in Dana Smith in our Department. She can help you arrange a time to come in and view the file. Per the Governor's latest order, a mask is required to come into the office to view the file. > > Please feel free to contact me if you need more information or have further questions. > > Best Regards, > Maria Harris, AICP > Planning Manager > City of Ashland, Community Development Department > 20 E. Main St., Ashland, OR 97520 > 541.552.2045 Tel > 800.735.2900 TTY > 541.552.2050 Fax > > This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2045. Thank you. > > -----Original Message----- \] > From: Eric Elerath \[mailto:eelerath@verizon.net > Sent: Friday, July 03, 2020 11:35 AM > To: Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us> > Cc: planning <planning@ashland.or.us>; Aaron Anderson <aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us>; Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> > Subject: PA-T1-2020-00109 > > \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] > > Mr. Molnar > > I received by mail your reply to my objection regarding the above Planning action. > > In your reply, you wrote that the application, all associated documents and evidence are available for review at the Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. > > 1) How can I access these documents and review them in person as described above? > > Please contact Dana Smith to arrange a time to review the planning application file. I've copied her in this email or by phone you can contact her at (541) 552-2072. > > 2) Where can I find procedures to pursue an appeal of this decision? It appears that Planning will be making a Final decision on July 14, 2020, the day after the appeal deadline date of July 13, 2020 at 4:30 pm. Will that be at a meeting of the Planning Commission? > > July 14, 2020 is the date the Type I administrative decision becomes final unless the decision is appealed by 4:30 p.m. on July 13, 2020. The Planning Commission will not review the decision unless the Type I administrative decision is appealed. > > I've attached the section of the Ashland Municipal Code that covers a Type I administrative decision appeal - see 18.5.1.050.G. I've also attached the appeal form. The fee for an appeal for a public hearing is $150.00 > > 3) As of this date, the application still does not appear to be available on the City’s web site. Could you please provide a link to the application? > . Type in > The application is available on the City's web site here https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/ 345 Clinton in the "Near Me" box and the application and the notices are attached to the information as .pdf documents. > > Thank you > > Eric Elerath > <AMC 18.5.1.050.pdf><Appeal Form_TypeI_2015_Fillable PDF.pdf> RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION #PA-T1-2020-00109 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 345 Clinton Street APPLICANT: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: A request land use approval for a two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-. DATE ITEM PAGE # 07/31/2020 Ashland Daily Tidings Notice of Public Hearing 1 07/29/2020 Notice of Appeal to the Planning Commission 2 07/13/2020 Appellants Submittals 5 06/30/2020 Notice of Type I Administrative Decision 21 06/30/2020 Type I Administrative Findings, Conclusions & Orders 23 06/01/2020 Public Comment 28 05/29/2020 Public Comment 45 05/26/2020 Public Comment 72 05/24/2020 Public Comment 74 05/21/2020 Public Comment 77 05/20/2020 Public Comment 79 05/19/2020 Public Comment 80 05/15/2020 Planning Commission Notice of Completeness 81 04/30/2020 Applicants Submittals 83 1 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2020-00011 (appealing PA-T1-2020-00109) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning and Development/Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: August 11, 2020 On , the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing to consider an appeal of the administrative approval PA-T1-2020-00109 of a two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot for the property located at 345 Clinton. The tentative partition plat creates two parcels that are 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac in size, with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING: MAP: TAX LOT: Single Family Residential; R-1-5; 39 1E 04 DB;401 ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 7:00 PM 2 G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\C\\Clinton\\Clinton_345\\PA-T1-2020-00109\\APPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-00011\\Notices\\Clinton_345_PA-APPEAL-2020-00011_Planning Commission.docx Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearingon the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.eduand selecting RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning actionare attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be acceptedby email.Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line atwww.ashland.or.us/PCpacketsseven days prior to the hearing.Copies of application materialswill be provided at reasonable cost, if requested.Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.uswith the August 11PC Hearing Testimony August 10, 2020. If the applicant wishes to provide a written rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us August 11PC Hearing TestimonyAugust11, 2020. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oraltestimonywillbetakenduringtheelectronicpublichearing.Ifyouwishtoprovideoraltestimonyduringtheelectronic meeting,sendanemailtoPC-public-testimony@ashland.or.usby10:00a.m.onMonday,August10,2020.Inorderto providetestimonyatthepublichearing,pleaseprovidethefollowinginformation:1)makethesubjectlineoftheemail August11SpeakerRequest ,2)includeyourname,3)theagendaitemonwhichyouwishtospeakon,4)specifyifyou willbeparticipatingbycomputerortelephone,and5)thenameyouwilluseifparticipatingbycomputerorthetelephone numberyouwilluseifparticipatingbytelephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please -488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.- 35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Andersonat #541-552-2052or aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us. 3 G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\C\\Clinton\\Clinton_345\\PA-T1-2020-00109\\APPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-00011\\Notices\\Clinton_345_PA-APPEAL-2020-00011_Planning Commission.docx PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. 4 G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\C\\Clinton\\Clinton_345\\PA-T1-2020-00109\\APPEAL PA-APPEAL-2020-00011\\Notices\\Clinton_345_PA-APPEAL-2020-00011_Planning Commission.docx 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 June 30, 2020 Notice of Final Decision OnJune 30, 2020, the Community Development Director approved the request forthe following: Planning Action: PA-T1-2020-00109 Subject Property: 345 Clinton Owner/Applicant: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue Planning & Development Description: A request land use approval for a two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. The Purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single- family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1- 401. th 12day after the Notice of Final Decision is mailed. Approval is valid for a period of 18 monthsand all conditions of approval identified on the attached Findings are required to be met prior to project completion. The application, all associated documents and evidence submitted, and the applicable criteria are available for review at the Ashland Community Development Department, located at 51 Winburn Way. Copies of file documents can be requested and are charged based on the City of Ashland copy fee schedule. Prior to the final decision date, anyone who was mailed this Notice of Final Decision may request a reconsideration of the action as set forth in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) 18.5.1.050(F) and/or file an appeal to the Ashland Planning Commission as provided in ALUO 18.5.1.050(G). The ALUO sections covering reconsideration and appeal procedures are attached. The appeal may not be made directly to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact Aaron Andersonin the Community Development Department at (541) 488-5305. cc:Parties of record and property owners within 200 ft COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 21 SECTION 18.5.1.050 Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision with Notice) E. Effective Date of Decision. Unless the conditions of approval specify otherwise or the decision is appealed pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.G, a Type I decision becomes effective 12 days after the City mails the notice of decision. F. Reconsideration. The Staff Advisor may reconsider a Type I decision as set forth below. . 1Any party entitled to notice of the planning action, or any City department may request reconsideration of the action after the decision has been made by providing evidence to the Staff Advisor that a factual error occurred through no fault of the party asking for reconsideration, which in the opinion of the Staff Advisor, might affect the decision. Reconsideration requests are limited to factual errors and not the failure of an issue to be raised by letter or evidence during the opportunity to provide public input on the application sufficient to afford the Staff Advisor an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to making a decision. 2. Reconsideration requests shall be received within five days of mailingthe notice of decision. The Staff Advisor shall decide within three days whether to reconsider the matter. 3. If the Staff Advisor is satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall withdraw the decision for purposes ofreconsideration. The Staff Advisor shall decide within ten days to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. The City shall send notice of the reconsideration decision to affirm, modify, or reverse to any party entitled to notice of the planning action. 4. If the Staff Advisor is not satisfied that an error occurred crucial to the decision, the Staff Advisor shall deny the reconsideration request. Notice of denial shall be sent to those parties that requested reconsideration. G. Appeal of Type I Decision. A Type I decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the following: 1. Who May Appeal. The following persons have standing to appeal a Type I decision. a.The applicant or owner of the subject property. b.Any person who is entitled to written notice of the Type I decision pursuant to subsection 18.5.1.050.B. c.Any other person who participated in the proceeding by submitting written comments on the application to the City by the specified deadline. 2. Appeal Filing Procedure. a.Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in subsection 18.5.1.050.G.1, above, may appeal a Type I decision by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee according to the procedures of this subsection. The fee required in this section shall not apply to appeals made by neighborhood or community organizations recognized by the City and whose boundaries include the site. If an appellant prevails at the hearing or upon subsequent appeal, the fee for the initial hearing shall be refunded. b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Staff Advisor within 12 days of the date the notice of decision is mailed. c.Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by the required filing fee and shall contain. i.An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision. ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal. iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. iv.A statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the public comment period. d. The appeal requirements of this section must be fully met or the appeal will be considered by the City as a jurisdictional defect and will not be heard or considered. . 3. Scope of AppealAppeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor shall be de novo hearings before the Planning Commission. The appeal shall not be limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the reviewleading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 4. Appeal Hearing Procedure. Hearings on appeals of Type I decisions follow the Type II public hearing procedures, pursuant to section 18.5.1.060, subsections A E, except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City on an appeal of a Type I decision. A decisionon an appeal is final the date the City mails the adopted and signed decision. Appeals of Commission decisions must be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals, pursuant to ORS 197.805 -197.860. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us 22 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS & ORDERS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 345 Clinton Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning and Development OWNER: Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle DESCRIPTION: A request for land use approval of a two-lot partition of a 12.29- acre lot. The purpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion of single-family residential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted with the application indicates that the two proposed parcels will be 8.94 ac. and 3.35 ac in size with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: MAP: TAX LOT: R-1-5; 39 1E 04 DB;401 SUBMITTAL DATE: April 30, 2020 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: May 15, 2020 STAFF APPROVALDATE: June 30, 2020 APPEAL DEADLINE (4:30 P.M.) July 13, 2020 FINAL DECISION DATE: July 14, 2020 APPROVAL EXPIRATIONDATE: January 14, 2022 DECISION Proposal The application is a request for land use approval to partition a 12.29-acre lot into two lots, the proposed parcels would be 8.94 and 3.35 acres in size. The larger of the two parcels will contain the existing home site, and the smaller parcel would be vacant. The application materials include a tentative partition plat prepared by LJ Friar & Associates showing the proposed vacant parcel to be situated in the southeast corner of the lot with frontage on both Ann Street and Clinton Street.The application materials indicate that the purpose of the partition is to facilitate ‘the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property.’ There is no additional development proposed at this time. Planning Background The subject property has been modified by boundary line adjustments three times in the last decade (see PA#’s 2010-00474, 2015-00439, and 2018-00167). There was also a planning action for a density transfer (PA# 2017-02132) to allocate density from land in the flood plain, but the application was withdrawn prior to a decision being rendered. The most recent boundary line adjustment modified the property into its current configuration and is shown as parcel-1 of partition plat P-05-2018 (CS 22509 Jackson County Survey) which conveyed land in the flood plain to the City and also adjusted the property lines at the rear of the properties along Sylvia. PA-T1-2020-00109 345ClintonStreet/AA 23 Page 1 Property The subject property is an irregularly shaped 12.29-acre parcel located between Oak Street and North Mountain Avenue and bounded by Clinton Street to the south, Ann Street to the east, and the Bear Creek floodplain to the north. To the west is the rear of residential properties that front Sylvia St. The property is occupied by a 4,650 square foot single-family home, a detached garage, and barn. The residence is accessed via a private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property is zoned R-1-5, a single-family residential zoning with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-1-5 and are developed exclusivelywith single-family homes. The newly created lot, absent additional subdivision, would allow for the development of one single-family home. The property has several physical constraints including steep slopes along the eastern portion of the property with slopes exceeding 35-percentand minor areas along the northern side of the Clinton Street frontage with slopes between 25-35-percent. The property also has both FEMA / Ashland Flood zones. Mook Creek also traverses the property from southwest to northeast, which is identified as an intermittent/ephemeral stream by theAshland Water Resource Protection Zone maps. Additionally, the Ashland Wetland Inventory indicates the presence of a wetland on the proposed vacant parcel. Future development will have to address the water resource protection zones and wetland protection. Partition As mentioned at the outset the proposal is a request for a land partition to create twolots for the property located at 345Clinton Street.The lots as proposed comply with the base standards for the zone, minimum area requirements and lot coverage.The preliminary plat included with the application indicates that proposed Parcel one would retain the existing residenceand would be 8.9 acres with 2.6acers in the flood zone and proposed Parcel two will be vacant and measure 3.35 acres with approximately 0.5 acres in the flood zone. Based on the preliminary plat, both proposed parcels substantially exceed the 5,000square feet minimum lot size and minimum width standards as well as lot width to depth ratio. The application explains that allcity facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way, including sanitary sewer and water and franchise utilities. There are no proposed public utilities proposed to be installed to serve the new vacant parcel. The application explains that the size of these utilities will be predicated by the future development. Clinton, Ann and Briscoe streets are designated as local streets in the City of Ashland Transportation System Plan and are designed to have a capacity ofup to 1500 daily trips. The most recenttrip count data (captured between 2005 and 2008) indicate that each of these roads operatefar below their design capacity: Carol 388 Average DailyTrips (ADT), Phelps 207 ADT, Clinton 143 ADT and Ann 157ADT.According to City records in the past twenty years there have been two accidents at the point where Clinton St turns into Carol, one accident at the intersection of Clintonand Ann, and another at Phelps and Clinton, for a total of four accidents. The curb-to-curb widthis twenty-seven feet which exceeds the required amount for local access streets andallows for parking on both sides. Clinton and Ann Street lackpark rowand sidewalksadjacent to the new parcel.The application PA-T1-2020-00109 345ClintonStreet/AA 24 Page 2 requests to sign in favor of a LID for future development of Clinton Street, Ann Street.A condition has been added below requiring that the applicant sign in favor of a LID prior to approval of the final plat. The application includes a discussion regarding the future development plan to demonstrate that the proposed partition will not impedefuture development of the parcels. The future development plan indicates that the proposed new parcel would be able to be subdivide to approximatelyfifteenlots for the development of single-family homes with access provided by an extension of Briscoe and Phelps Streets as well as thealleybetween Clinton and BriscoePlace.Thedevelopment plan is not a subdivision proposal and is not approved with this two-lot partition approval.Rather the development plan is simply to demonstrate that the further development of the new parcelis feasible. Public Input Notice of the planning action was mailed to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property as well as a physical notice posted along the frontage of the property. The notice included a staff contact name and number. Subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Application, written comments about the request were received from eleven concerned citizens.In accordance with Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.1.050, the Type I procedure for planning applications allows a 14-day period forthe submission of written comments, starting from the date of th mailing. For the subject application, the comment period began on May 15 and ended on May th 29. Issues that were raised in relation to the planning application included concerns about open space preservation, habitat for wildlife, views, and concerns about future development of the property including noise, dust, and traffic.These issues are addressed by the application materials, as well as by this report. The applicant has dedicated land in the flood plain to the City in the past and will be kept asParks land and open space. While there are portions of both proposed parcels that are in the flood plain no additional land is proposed to be conveyed to the City at this time. Concerns regarding loss of views are not protected by the Land Use Ordinance. th Eric Elerath submitted a written comment on May 29raising additional concerns about the relevant approval criteria included in the mailed notice, and physical access to the application materials, and included a request for additional time to inspect and review the application materials. The mailed notice included the relevant approval criteria from AMC 18.5.3.050 for a Preliminary PartitionPlat. The issue regarding an incomplete application was identifiedin the written comment as the application materials posted online did not include the receipt for payment for the planning application. AMC 18.5.1.050 requires the application form and fee for a planning application to be considered complete. ORS 227.178 requires a city to determine if a planning application is complete within 30 days of the applicant submitting the information and to notify the applicant if any required submittal information is missing. The Staff Advisor is responsible for determining whether the submittalinformationis complete for a Type I planning application and accordingly made the determination on May 15, 2020 that the application was complete, th including that the preliminary partition plat fee had been paid on April 30.The receipt for the PA-T1-2020-00109 345ClintonStreet/AA 25 Page 3 payment is documented in the City’s permitting software and a hard copy of the receipt is included in the planning application file. The notice statedthat the application materials were available at the Winburn Way building during the period of public comment the building and included a staff contact with a telephone and email address. The Community Development Department offices were closed to the public during the 14-day comment period in response to the tothe COVID-19 pandemic and the declared state of emergency. The City’s emergencydeclaration on March 17, 2020 closed City offices to the public and continue to be closed to the public until such time that the state announces Phase three of reopening.The planning application materialswere posted on “What’s Happening in my City” on the City web site.People that called or emailedand were interested in reviewing the file were directed to the City’s web site. *** The approval criteria for aLand Partitionare detailed in AMC 18.5.3.050 as follows: A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lotsconform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design , and allow for transitions to existingand potential standards and other requirements in part 18.4 future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H.Unpaved Streets. Minimum Street Improvement. 1.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, suchaccess shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. Unpaved Streets. 2.The Public WorksDirector may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its prior to the standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial PA-T1-2020-00109 345ClintonStreet/AA 26 Page 4 variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d.Should the partition be on an unpavedstreet and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the ownerof the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeingto participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J . Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section . 18.5.3.060 *** Decision The applicants have submitted materials to the Planning Department todemonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standardsfor the proposed partition and by their reference are incorporated as if set out in full. In staff’s assessment, the application with the attached conditions complies with all applicable City Ordinances.Therefore, Planning Action #PA-T1-2020-00109 is approved with the following conditions. Further, if any one or more of the following conditions are found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA-T1-2020-00109 isdenied.The following conditions are attached to the approval. 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)That a final survey plat shall be submitted, reviewed and approved within 18 months of the final decision date of the preliminary partition plat approval by the City of Ashland. 3)That the applicant sign in favor of an LID for future development of Clintonand Ann Streets. 4)That prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for the review, approval and signature of the Ashland Planning Division: a)All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, and access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. 06.30.2020 __________________________________ ______________ Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Date Department of Community Development PA-T1-2020-00109 345ClintonStreet/AA 27 Page 5 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Received 5.29.2020 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 From:Diana Standing To:planning Subject:Division of Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle"s of 345 Clinton Street property Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 10:30:15 AM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] To: Planning Commission Twenty years ago when we bought our home on Clinton Street we were told by the realtor that the acreage across the Street was flood plain and no one could build on it. Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle told us within a year of us moving in, that they had asked the city to allow them to build a few houses bordering Clinton Street at our end of their property. They were told it is a flood plain. How did that that acreage with its ponds and wildlife suddenly not become a floodplain? What constitutes a flood plain? Three years after we moved to Clinton Street, the building of homes began in Riverwalk. And even though Paul and Kathleen's property was considered a flood zone, we knew it would be a matter of time before that acreage would also have homes. People in this neighborhood dealt with 4 months of increased traffic due to the improvements on Hersey Street. It was very disruptive to our lives. And now the thought of building a subdivision at this time of the virus, makes many of us uneasy. An increase in the number of homes in this area is of concern. Here are some of the reasons: 1. Increased traffic would jeopardize the safety of many neighborhood children who ride their bikes, scooters and skateboards. 2. Increased traffic would create considerably more noise. 3. There is a blind intersection at the corner of Ann & Clinton Streets. If this is used as an entrance to the buildable parcel/parcels this could increase accidents. 4. The acreage is a riparian zone. There are ponds, the water table is high. The area is home to trees, plants and food to many animals including ducks, geese, song birds, quail, coyote, fox, pheasants, to name a few. We need a balance between the natural world and homes. When Riverwalk was proposed, neighbors worked with the developers. It turned out to a nice addition to our neighborhood. We hope this history of all of us working together can continue if and when this parcel/parcels is divided and a planner is deciding its future, which affects our future. Thank you for your time. Diana Standing Bob Weibel 72 Received 5.26.2020 From:Lindsey Findley To:planning Subject:PA-T1–2020-00109 Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:21:05 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Please hear my express concern after learning about the proposed building site for Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle. I bought my home in the 1980s. After finally retiring from nursing at RVMC, I’ve moved back into my home with my husband. I now learn the property across the street is to become ‘Single Family Residential’ Zoning R-1-5: Assessor’s Map # 391E04DB; Tax Lot 401. I’m issuing a major complaint to Aaron Anderson. HOPING TO BE HEARD Sent from my iPhone Received 5.26.2020 73 From:Ann Barton To:planning Cc:Becca McLennan Subject:Planning action PA-T1-2020-00109 Date:Sunday, May 24, 2020 2:42:49 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Dear Ashland Planning Department, I’d like to state my opinion about this piece of property. I live above Clinton on Patterson st. I look at this lovely piece of property from my windows (including my bedroom) and my deck. It is filled with wild life and beauty. It is next to a riparian zone which is important to our environment and the health of Bear creek. I know that this partition of property is the first stage in developing and turning this field into yet another development. I think the timing is totally wrong. We are heading into the unknown with at least a recession and probably a depression ahead of us. Not to mention a potentially heavy smoke year as we are in a drought. Our local economy has been hit hard as well, with no tourist industry for the unforeseeable future, we don’t know how this will effect the popularity of this town. We do know the smoky summers has been a problem for our local economy. Also as my partner and I are in the vulnerable group for Covid we are staying home 90% of the time with an uncertain future for when it will be safe for us to go out again as Ashland doesn’t have testing and very few people are wearing masks. Since I am home now so much it would be very upsetting to have to listen to development for what? years? Last week when the city was working on Clinton it was very loud and disturbing, it jangled my nerves. This noise will be the same if they develop this property, but it will be all day long! I’m very nervous about it. So much so I’m thinking of selling my house. Ideally I don’t think this piece of property should ever be developed. We are Losing wildlife habitat rapidly. The WWF says wildlife habitat loss is the main threat to 85% of all species. That includes us because we depend on those species. https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/wildlife/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/ Why destroy a land and wild life when we don’t even know if those houses will get sold. We live in a time of the great unknown. It isn’t a time to act as if it’s normal. It isn’t now and won’t ever be the way it was. Please I ask you to hold off and be smart about our uncertain future, the health of our wildlife and those of us that will be most directly affected. 74 Received 5.2.2020 I know that many in my neighborhood are in the same situation as we are and have the same views. I’d like to be updated on the status of this property. Thank You Sincerely, Ann Barton 75 Received 5.2.2020 From:Rebecca McLennan To:planning Subject:Proposed subdivision on Clinton Date:Sunday, May 24, 2020 5:58:13 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] To whom it may concern: It seems like very bad planning to consider a major subdivision at this time. These are incredibly uncertain times and Ashland is affected on multiple levels: The virus and probable smoke in the valley this summer will likely lead to a recession in here; the country as we know is quickly headed in that direction. The impact on downtown businesses has yet to be assessed. Most likely many will close their doors. The Shakespeare Festival as we all know will be dark for at least this year, likely longer. And then there’s yet another open space going away just to put some money in someone’s pocket. Doesn’t seem right. As well, many people in this neighborhood are elderly and already stressed dealing with the virus and social isolation. And, to add the noise and dust from building seems cruel and an invasion of lifestyles. I would like to be kept informed about this situation. Sincerely, Rebecca McLennan 537 Phelps St Ashland. OR 541-292-9888 Sent from my iPhone 76 Received 5.2.2020 77 78 79 80 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION : PA-T1-2020-00109 SUBJECT PROPERTY : 345 Clinton OWNER/APPLICANT : Paul Mace & Kathleen Kahle / Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION : A request land use approval for a two-lot partition of a 12.29-acre lot. ThePurpose of the partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-familyresidential zoned property. The tentative partition plat submitted withthe application indicate that the two resultant parcels will be 8.943 ac. and 3.35 ac with the smaller parcel situated in the southeast of the parent parcel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONZONING : Single Family Residential; : R-1-5; #: TAX LOT 391E04DB; : 401 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION : May 15, 2020 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS : May 29, 2020 The Ashland Planning Division Staff has received a complete application for the property noted above. Any affected property owner or resident has a right to submit written comments to the City of Ashland Planning Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 prior to 4:30 p.m. on the deadline date shown above. Ashland Planning Division Staff determine if a Land Use application is complete within 30 days of submittal. Upon determination of completeness, a notice is sent to surrounding properties within 200 feet of the property submitting application which allows for a 14 day comment period. After the comment period and not more than 45 days from the application being deemed complete, the Planning Division Staff shall make a final decision on the application. A notice of decision is mailed to the same properties within 5 days of decision. An appeal to the Division within 12 days from the date of the mailing of final decision. (AMC 18.5.1.050.G) The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Department to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Division, Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-488-5305. 81 G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\C\\Clinton\\Clinton_345\\PA-T1-2020-00109\\Clinton_345_PA-T1-2020-00109_NOC.docx PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H. Unpaved Streets. 1. Minimum Street Improvement. When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2. Unpaved Streets. The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a. The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b. The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c. The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d. Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. 82 G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\C\\Clinton\\Clinton_345\\PA-T1-2020-00109\\Clinton_345_PA-T1-2020-00109_NOC.docx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eceived 4.30.2020 QB.U2.3131.1121: 5/41/3131Uzqf22348/11 84 Received 4.30.2020 85 Received 4.30.2020 Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Minor Land Partition 345 Clinton Street Received 4.30.2020 86 Minor Land Partition Property Address: 345 Clinton Street Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04DB: Tax Lots: 401 Zoning: R-1-5 Adjacent Zones: R-1-5 Overlay Zones: Performance Standards Overlay Water Resource Protection Zones FEMA Floodplain Ashland Modified Flood zone Lot Area: 12.29 acres Property Owner: Paul Mace and Kathleen Kahle 345 Clinton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultant: Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services 33 N Central Avenue, Suite 213 Medford, OR 97501 Surveyor: LJ Friar and Associates 2714 N Pacific Hwy Medford, OR 97501 Request: A request for a minor land partition of an approximately 3.35-acreportion of a 12.29-acre parcel. The minor land partition is to allow for the divestment of a large, developable portion for a single-family residential zoned property. 87 Received 4.30.2020 Property Description: The 12.29-acre property is on the north side of Clinton Street. The property is occupied by a single-family residential home, a detached garage, and a pole barn. The residence is accessed via a paved, private driveway that extends from Clinton Street to the residence. The subject property and the adjacent properties are R-1-5-P and are generally developed with single- family residences and their outbuildings. Clinton Street, a neighborhood street is along the south property line. Ann Street and the stub of Briscoe Place, also neighborhood streets, are along the east property line. Ann Street, along the frontage of the property, and Briscoe Place were partially improved with the development as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. There are steep slopes on the west side of the property uphill to the properties further west that are developed with single-family residential homes and their accessory buildings. These properties are accessed from Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. Both are neighborhood streets, which are accessed from Oak Street further west. A portion of the subject property wraps around the Sylvia Street properties and connects to the intersection of Sylvia Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive. The north property line abuts City of Ashland properties that are an extension of Riverwalk Park. Bear Creek is to the north, within the city parcels. The properties to the east within Riverwalk and to the south, across Clinton Street are developed with primarily single-family residences. 88 Received 4.30.2020 There are physical constraints on the northern portions of the property. These include steep slopes, the FEMA 100-year floodplain, FEMA 500-year floodplain, and Ashland Modified Flood zone for Bear Creek. Mook “Clear” Creek also traverses the property from north to south. According to the City of Ashland Water Resource Protection Zone maps, Mook Creek is an intermittent/ephemeral stream. There are historical irrigation rights on the property. Over the years ponds for irrigation water storage have been created. Some of the pond areas have developed into wetlands. In addition to the ponds, according to the Local Wetlands Inventory (LWI), there is a potential wetland located to the east of the ponds on the property. Schott & Associates, Wetlands Biologist have been on-site and completed a delineation report. This report will be filed by the future developer(s). The property has varying degrees of slope with a slight road slope along Clinton Street and the driveway. There are minor variations across the larger property area with an average slope approximately four percent downhill from the southwest to the northeast. The west side of the property behind the Sylvia Street lots is steeply sloped up to the adjacent properties to the west. The property is subject to solar setback standard A. There are smaller stature trees either on or directly adjacent to the subject property. Retention of the highest number of trees in the landscape areas is an important aspect of the project and as many trees as possible will be able to be retained and still provide a buildable area for a new residential. Clinton Street is paved with partial street improvements along both sides of the street that include curb, gutter, sidewalk and park row. Ann Street to the east and Briscoe Place are improved with curb, gutter, park row and sidewalk on the east side, the street side abutting the property has curb and gutter, no park row and sidewalk. The private drive is paved. Proposal: The request is to divide the property into two parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is 8.36 acres. This parcel would retain the residence, garage and pole barn at 345 Clinton Street. The vehicular access will be retained from Clinton Street utilizing the private driveway. The east side of the existing private driveway is the approximate east property line of Parcel 1. Proposed Parcel 1 has a lot width of more than 100-feet, along Clinton Street, exceeding minimum lot width in the zone. The lot depth exceeds minimum lot depth in the zone. The parcel substantially exceeds the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet required in the zone. 89 Received 4.30.2020 Proposed Parcel 2 is a vacant, developable, approximately 3.35-acreparcel northwest of the intersection of Clinton Street and Ann Street. The parcel is proposed to have 358.32 feet of frontage along Clinton Street and extends 240 feet along Anne Street. Briscoe Place T’s into the east side of Proposed Parcel 2. This parcel is intended to be sold and developed by others as a future single-family residential development, on outright permitted use in the zone. The area for future development has the potential base density of approximately 15, single-family dwelling units. The Ashland Municipal Code The future development of either parcel will demonstrate compliance with the city standards. Along the north portion of proposed Parcel 2, .545 acres are within the Bear Creekfloodplain. The floodplains and wetlands will be further evaluated and planned for as required by state and local ordinances and future impacts mitigated through the site development of the residential homes. There is adequate area for the development of residential lots and the preservation of the significant natural features. Findings addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code can be found on the following pages. The applicant’s findings are in Calibri font and the criteria are in font. Times New Roman Attachments: Proposed Tentative Plat FINDINGS OF FACT 90 Received 4.30.2020 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. Finding: Future urban uses are not impeded with the proposed two parcel partition. The property is zoned R-1-5 and is within the Performance Standards Overlay. Development of the property as single-family residences is a permitted use in the zone. The proposal provides for a 3.35-acre parcel of developable land at the intersection of two, city streets (Parcel 2). A third street, Briscoe Place, stubs into the property approximately 210-feet north of the Ann Street and Clinton Street intersection. These streets will provide primary access to future residential uses. Proposed Parcel 1 has several physical constraints. Parcel 1 is also developed with the property owner’s residence. There is a developable area in the southeast corner that has a frontage of 292.87 feet along Clinton Street that will remain as part of Parcel 1. This partition does not impede the future development of the property where not prevented or restricted due to the property’s physical constraints. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. Finding: The adjacent properties are mostly developed as single-family residence type developments or the land is within the floodplain, wetland, steep slopes, or treed and limited development area is present. The proposal will not impede access to adjoining lands. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. Finding: There are no City adopted neighborhood or district plans that affect the property. To the applicant’s knowledge, there are not previous approvals for the subject properties that would impact the proposal. The properties to the east were developed as part of the Riverwalk Subdivision. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. Finding: 91 Received 4.30.2020 The tract of land has not been partitioned for the past 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access, and orientation). Finding: The proposal complies with the requirements of the underlying zone. Both parcels will have substantially more than 7,500 square feet of area and greatly exceed the minimum lot dimensions. Parcel 1 is an 8.36-acre parcel that has FEMA floodplain, Ashland Adopted Floodplain, wetland area, and existing residential development. The floodplain is mapped on the tentative survey plat. Parcel 2 is proposed to be +/- 3.35 -acre acres in area. The future urbanization plan for the proposed Parcel 2 will conform to the standards of the Performance Standards Subdivision, water resource and physical and environmental constraint and natural area preservation. The future development will demonstrate compliance with parking, access, solar access, and orientation of the residences towards the future public streets. The property is within the Physical and Environmental Constraint Overlay from AMC 18.3.9. There are wetland areas and Floodplains. These have been mapped. A preliminary wetlands delineation report has been completed but not filed with the state. The wetland has identified a wetland along the north property line of proposed Parcel 2. The floodplain boundaries are mapped. 18.4.6: Public Facilities: As allowed in AMC 18.4.6.030, the request is to sign a waiver of consent to participate in the costs of a Local Improvement District for both Clinton, Ann, and Briscoe Place. These streets are not fully improved, but the future proposal to develop the property would install improvements. When Clinton Street and Ann were developed, the property owners paid for one half of the cost of the improvements. At that time, there were utilities stubbed at the end of Briscoe Place. A public utility easement extends from the end of Briscoe Place to the north towards Bear Creek. No new public utilities are proposed to be installed to service proposed Parcel 2 as the future development utility sizing will be dependent upon the number of units, locations, etc. 18.4.8: Solar Setback Standards: Future development will demonstrate compliance with Solar Setback Standard A. F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. 92 Received 4.30.2020 Finding: The driveway for Parcel 1 is proposed to remain. No new access for proposed Parcel 2. G. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4 and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. Finding: No new streets are proposed at this time. Future streets for the development of Parcel 2 will demonstrate compliance with the standards from 18.4.6. H. Unpaved Streets. Finding: All streets are paved. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. Finding: At present, there are no alleys. The future development of Parcel 2 will likely include alleys for access to the future individual lot development. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained before development. Finding: No state or federal permits are required to partition. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. Finding: No flag lots area proposed as part of the partition. 93 Received 4.30.2020 94