Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-14 Planning PACKET Planning CommissionAgenda Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. MARCH 14, 2023 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA I.CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.ANNOUNCEMENTS III.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. February 14, 2023, Regular Meeting 2. February 28, 2023 Study Session IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-publictestimony@ashland.or.us by March 14, 2023 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/96755264167 V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2023-00038, 2308 Ashland Street VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00039 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 440 Granite St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Jordan Willing/Rogue Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for planning approval to construct a new single family home on a non-conforming lot. The planning action requires both a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) Reduction and a Variance to exceed seven-percent lot coverage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: WR; ZONING: Woodland Residential; MAP: 39-1E-16-BB; TAX LOT: 1300. VII.OPEN DISCUSSION VIII.ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 1 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. February 14, 2023 DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Lisa Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Interim Community Development Director Haywood Norton Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Eric Herron Doug Knauer Kerry KenCairn Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Interim Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The City Council approved the first reading of PA-L-2022-00014, regarding the Middle Housing Land Divisions (MHLD) ordinance that the Commission had approved at its November 22, 2022 meeting. The Council will have a second reading of the ordinance at its February 21, 2023 meeting. The Council will review the Food Truck code amendments that were recommended for approval by the Commission. The Council approved an appeal of PA-T2-2022-00037, 165 Water Street, which had been denied without prejudice by the Commission at its April 12, 2022 meeting. The Council approved the appeal with conditions relating to setbacks, and the condition that three of the buildings have a wall-plate height of no greater than 10ft to accommodate maximum ceiling height. The Council will review a proposal for a mural on the side of the Elks Lodge building by the artist John Pugh, which was recommended for approval by the Public Arts Commission and the Historic Commission. The Butler-Perozzi Fountain in Lithia Park needs to undergo restoration, a process which was approved by the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission. PA-T3-2022-00004, the annexation 1511 Highway 99 North, was appealed to the Land Page 1 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by Rogue Advocates. The final meeting of the Housing Production Strategy (HPS) ad hoc group resulted in a recommendation to forward the draft HPS to the Commission, the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee, and the Council. Beth Goodman of ECONorthwest and staff will present the draft HPS to the Commission at its February 28, 2023 meeting. Commissioner Knauer asked if the points of contention for the 1511 Highway 99 North appeal had been made public yet. Mr. Goldman responded that they are not, and that the applicants had been given 21 days to file as an intervener for the appeal and had not done so. Therefore, the applicant will not participate in the appeal unless they operate in concert with the City attorney. Mr. Goldman added that the City does not typically provide comment on planning actions to LUBA, and that that burden lies with the applicant. III.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of December 13, 2022 Minutes Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the consent agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00038 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2308 Ashland Street APPLICANT & OWNER: MCA Architecture / Les Schwab DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to modernize and expand the existing Les Schwab tire facility. The proposal includes remodeling the existing overhang/work area and replacing it with a vestibule addition and new façade enhancing the Ashland St. Frontage. Additionally, the breezeway between the two main buildings is proposed to be enclosed creating two new Bay doors and warehouse space to the rear. In addition, there is proposed site work to install ADA / Pedestrian access to the intersection of Tolman and Ashland. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; MAP: 39-1E-14-BA; TAX LOT: 1100 Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioner Herron conducted a site visit. Commissioner Dawkins stated that he was part of the planning process when the development was first approved in 1972 and that he is familiar with the site. Page 2 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes Staff Presentation Senior Planner Aaron Anderson provided the Commission with a brief presentation on the applicant’s proposal to expand and modernize the Les Schwab tire facility, as well as an historical background on the property. He informed the Commission that the proposal included a shadow plan for the potential development of a three-story building in the future. Mr. Anderson detailed how staff had focused on the following three main issues when reviewing the proposal, the first being the location, and quantity of parking. He stated that staff dad determined that the applicants had made the case for an exception to parking standards be granted due to the nature of the business and the proposed screening element. Second, staff review the Floor to Area Ratio (FAR), and Mr. Anderson stated that both methods for measuring the FAR show the project would meet the current standard or would come closer into compliance with that same standard. Finally, staff looked at required improvements and pedestrian connectivity, and determined that those improvements would not be possible due to future cross-section of Tolman, which will require an additional right-of-way (ROW) on the opposite side of the street (see attachment #1). However, staff will require that the applicant dedicate 7.5ft of the western portion of the property to enable that development in the future. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked if parking requirements were taken into consideration when staff reviewed the shadow plan, and the potential parking needs of a 30,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Anderson responded that, with the changes to state law that went into effect on January 1, 2023, that a retail building could be developed that would not have any required-parking impact. Commissioner Thompson asked how many parking spaces are currently on the site. Mr. Anderson responded that there are 36, and there would be a total of 41 spaces after the expansion. Commissioner Thompson noted that there did not appear to be a substantial analysis justifying an exception to parking requirements. Mr. Anderson responded that the business required additional parking spaces due to the rotation of vehicles on the site as they are serviced and then parked aside to await pickup. Commissioner Thompson inquired if staff’s analysis of an exception to exceed parking standards was based on the increase in work bays and stations proposed by the application, and Mr. Anderson responded that it was. Commission Thompson requested that staff elaborate on the requested exception for a total site- obscuring fence, as required by Ashland Municipal Code 18.2.3.050, which deals specifically with automotive and truck repair sites. Mr. Anderson responded that the installation of a 2ft high hedge is an improvement over the unobscured lot, and would also be better than a 6ft fence along Ashland Street. Mr. Goldman stated that having a clear entryway from the street would increase pedestrian connectivity, while a 6ft fence would undermine that. He added that the City had not required site- obscuring fences for the Oil Stop, or for Ashland Automotive. Mr. Goldman further stated that there is a grade change along Ashland Street, which would be augmented by the proposed 2ft hedge. Mr. Goldman pointed out that the applicant would be moving the bays further back from the public ROW, which will bring the site into greater conformity with the above-referenced code. Page 3 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes Commissioner Thompson inquired if staff would need to look at proportional improvements if the application did not meet current standards. Mr. Anderson responded that, when considering the improvement to the façade and its relationship to the streetscape, staff believed the application met the proportionality standard. He added that applying the complete proportionality standard to the existing site would be disproportionate to the current site. Commissioner Thompson asked how staff addressed the expansion of a building that was non- conforming, and addressed the requirement that staff review the proportionality of improvements with the expansion. Mr. Anderson responded that the building footprint would not be increasing, and that he found that the application had met the proportional need of upgrading non-conformities. He added that if this application had omitted certain improvements, such as the pedestrian connectivity or ADA ramp, that additional improvements would be required, but that the application had met that standard. Commissioner Thompson pointed out that subsection G of AMC 18.4.2.040 would supersede subsections A-D with regards to building orientation. Mr. Anderson responded that her point would be reflected in the Findings. Commission Herron commented that there is a 60ft gap in the hedge and inquired about its purpose. Mr. Anderson responded that the gap will likely correspond with the proposed façade to the showroom, and that the applicant would likely expand upon that during their presentation. Chair Norton joined the meeting via Zoom at approximately 7:30 p.m. He stated that he had no ex parte contact and had not conducted a site visit. Applicant Presentation Frank Rudloff detailed the applicant’s main goal is to modernize the existing facility due to shifting operating procedures, as well as how the business merchandizes. These changes would also allow their employees to work indoors, which would also help with employee retention. Fire suppression systems have improved since the building was first developed, so the criteria for fire safety is reflected in the application (see attachment #2). Mr. Rudloff pointed out that the project site is just outside of the auto-centric area adjacent to the interstate. He stated that there is an intention in the code to make Ashland Street a pedestrian- oriented zone, but that the obscuring fence requirements would undermine that objective. He added that this type of business does not require pedestrian traffic, but that a plaza area will be installed for customers who wish to wait outside while their vehicle is being serviced. Mr. Rudloff detailed the layout of the site, including the service bays, customer lounge, and support areas. He clarified that the number of service bays would not change, they are just being relocated indoors. Mr. Rudloff stated that the two bays that are being enclosed at the breezeway will be moved Page 4 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes forward to create some variation in the building when viewed from the street. Mr. Rudloff stated that there will be trees planted along the street frontage, along with the hedge, to obscure vehicles parked on the site, but that the applicants want the building to be visible from the street. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner KenCairn remarked that a 2ft high hedge and 2ft rise would not be sufficient coverage from street. She suggested that the hedge be slightly higher than proposed, but be intermittent. Mr. Rudloff replied that there is room for negotiation. Commissioner Thompson commented that a perforated metal screen had been mentioned in the packet. Mr. Rudloff responded that the application presented the screen as a hedge but that it could be either. Commissioner KenCairn commented that a hedge would be preferable. Commissioner Thompson requested that Mr. Rudloff address the increase in parking. Mr. Rudloff replied that the applicants are proposing the removal of the canopy, which would increase the parking capacity while also allowing vehicular traffic through the site. Mr. Rudloff stated that there are currently 36 parking spaces on the site, and that the applicants were proposing an increase to 41 spaces. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Rudloff to identify the new parking spaces being proposed. Mr. Rudloff detailed how some spaces would be removed to accommodate site improvements, but that three spaces would be installed in front of the building, along with several more in front of the showroom. Commissioner Thompson lamented the lack of a statistical analysis of the site’s parking requirements to justify the exception to parking code standards. Mr. Rudloff stated that the need for increased parking spaces comes down to the nature of the business, but agreed that an analysis could have been included in the application. Commissioner Herron requested that the applicant identify handicap parking spaces on the lot, and also proposed that the Commission impose the installation of a continuous hedge. Mr. Rudloff stated that the intent was for spaces 1-2, and possibly space three, to be handicap accessible spaces. Chair Norton stated that if the applicants are required to install two handicap spaces, which would each require two parking spaces to accommodate, then the applicants would only be increasing their parking by one space, and the applicants would be near the point where they would not need an exception. Mr. Goldman responded that he would review the Building department code requirements, but that the applicants would be required to provide the requisite ADA parking spaces regardless. He commented that the Commission could require that spaces 1-3 be designated as handicap spaces as a condition of approval, provided the spaces qualify under the Building code. Mr. Goldman added that the ADA accessible parking would only require additional parking space if they were perpendicular to the building rather than parallel. Commissioner KenCairn remarked that only spaces one and three would qualify as ADA accessible parking spaces. Vice Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing and Public Record at 8:04 p.m. Page 5 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Knauer inquired if the minimum parking requirement changes that went into effect on January 1, 2023 also affected commercial buildings. He added that this type of business is not explicitly defined by the code, and requested clarification on the calculations used to determine a business’ parking requirements under the new guidelines. Mr. Goldman responded that the parking requirement changes affected both residential and commercial buildings, and that it is based on the square footage of use. He added that the new guidelines impose a maximum number of parking spaces based on a business’ square footage of use, which the proposal would exceed. Mr. Anderson stated that the calculated parking demand for the site is 38 spaces, but that the applicant’s calculations for its business model places that number at 43, of which they are only asking for 41. Commissioner Knauer pointed out that the Albertson’s and Shop ‘N Kart grocery stores have extensive parking lots, and asked why the extra spaces on the subject site would not be acceptable. Commissioner Thompson stated that it is incumbent upon the applicant to successfully argue that their business constitutes a unique or unusual aspect of the proposed use. Commissioners Knauer and KenCairn stated that the business does constitute a unique use of the site. Commissioner KenCairn agreed with Commissioner Herron that the hedge should run continuously around the site. Commissioner Knauer concurred. Commissioner Dawkins expressed disappointment with the lack of a landscape plan in the application, and that the ponderosa pine trees currently on the site should be removed. He conceded that it was too late to require a landscape plan as part of the application, but suggested that the applicant be required to make the current landscape more amenable to the power lines along the street. Commissioner KenCairn agreed. Commissioner Thompson asked if the trees shown in the applicant’s presentation were part of the proposed landscape, and Mr. Rudloff responded that the presentation depicted existing trees. Vice Chair Verner reopened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Rudloff responded that the presentation depicted existing trees. Commissioner KenCairn remarked that applicants should be required to specifically identify what is being proposed, citing the confusion over whether a hedge or fence was being proposed. Chair Norton pointed out that an entirely new development would have been required to submit a landscape plan, but that the proposed hedge is not part of a landscaping plan, and is instead there to fulfill the fence requirement. Therefore, the applicants are not required to submit a landscape plan. Commissioner KenCairn reiterated that applicants should be clear on what they are proposing. Vice Chair Verner closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Herron asked staff why a hedge was not proposed along the Tolman Creek Road side. Mr. Anderson responded that the applicant had not proposed one. He stated that staff spoke with Page 6 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes the applicant at their pre-application conference about the proportionality of non-conformities, and that the applicant returned with this proposal. Vice Chair Verner pointed out that staff had requested a dedication of the ROW along Tolman Creek Road, and that it did not make sense to require landscaping along there if it was going to be removed in the future. Commissioner KenCairn agreed. Commissioner Thompson asked if the hedge is part of the proportionality analysis, or whether it is a separate requirement. Commissioner KenCairn stated that pedestrians should not be looking directly at parked cars on the site. Commissioner Thompson responded that the proportionality comes down to the non-conformity of the site, and that any proposed improvements might need proportional upgrades to the landscaping. Commissioner Herron commented that the new parking spaces proposed along Ashland Street necessitate the inclusion of a sight-obscuring barrier. Commissioner KenCairn agreed, but stated that she does not want a 6ft tall fence along the street. Chair Norton stated that the precedent for not requiring sight-obscuring fences at the Oil Spot or Ashland Automotive is not justification to not require one here. Regarding parking the parking exception, he cited the applicant’s designation of their business as vehicle-centric, but that the code is unclear on what constitutes a vehicle-centric business. He suggested that the code should be clarified in the future. Commissioner Thompson reiterated that an exception is not required under subsection G of AMC 18.4.2.040 for the sites circulation between the building and the street. Vice Chair Verner stated that the hedge should be a minimum of 3ft tall. Commissioner KenCairn agreed, stating that the hedge should be a type of evergreen, to be approved by staff, and be a minimum of 3ft tall. Commissioner Herron reminded the Commission that there were additional conditions suggested by staff. Commissioner KenCairn/Dawkins m/s to approve the application with conditions of approval recommended by staff, and removal of the two ponderosa pine trees to be replaced with street- trees from the Ashland Street-Tree list, and a continuous 3ft tall, sight-obscuring, and evergreen hedge along the whole frontage of Ashland Street. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submittedby, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Page 7 of 7 Shadow Plan.A schematic or conceptual design for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e., Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development. ˡ˥˕ˣˤ˙˟˞ˣˏ Planning CommissionMinutes Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. February 28, 2023 DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Lisa Verner called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. via Zoom. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Interim Community Development Director Haywood Norton Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Eric Herron Doug Knauer Kerry KenCairn Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Interim Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The City Council approved the first reading of the Food Truck ordinance that was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. It will go to the Council for a second reading and final approval on March 7, 2023. The City is hosting an economic roundtable with a number of large employers on March 6, 2023. The Oregon Employment Department will also be in attendance to provide background on regional economic issues. It will be televised as a study session by the Council. III.PUBLIC FORUM – None IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ashland Housing Production Strategy Update, presentation by ECONorthwest Mr. Goldman introduced Beth Goodman of ECONorthwest, and related how she had presented before the Commission at its April 12, 2022 meeting on the Housing Production Strategy (HPS), and the Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA). ECONorthwest assisted the City in identifying potential strategies that could be implemented to enable the City to acquire an appropriate mix of housing Page 1 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes within the community. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the City received a grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to undertake the HPS with ECONorthwest. The City also established an HPS Advisory Group, of which Commissioners KenCairn and Verner are members. Over the course of five meetings between April, 2022 and January, 2023 the HPS Advisory Group developed a report based on the information gathered, and on January 25, 2023 they recommended approval of the HPS. On February 23, 2023, the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee (HHSAC) reviewed ECONorthwest’s findings, and they unanimously recommended approval of the HPS. Mr. Goldman reminded the Commission that this meeting is a study session, and that they will not be voting on this item until their meeting on April 11, 2023. Ms. Goodman began by detailing the scope the meeting’s discussion, including funding sources, partners and adoption, and any questions or suggestions the Commission might have. She explained that the HPS was built on the HCA, and is an eight-year action plan that identifies near and long term goals to support the development of needed housing, particularly low- and middle- income housing. Ms. Goodman informed the Commission that the HHSAC prioritized a number of potential strategies to achieve this goal before recommending that the City adopt the HPS. The Council provided input to ECONorthwest regarding potential strategies back in August, 2022, which the HPS now includes. Ms. Goodman detailed feedback that her group received from local developers, who were able to prioritize potential strategies and also provide suggestions to the HPS (see attachment). Ms. Goodman outlined the City’s obligations following the adoption of the HPS, including a commitment to the implementation of strategies identified in the final HPS, and regular updates to the DLCD regarding their effectiveness. She added that the City can adopt strategies not outlined in the HPS, and would not be required to provide updates to the DLCD regarding those strategies. Ms. Goodman discussed the Commission’s role during the HPS process, specifically working with City staff to change Ashland’s code enabling the development of needed housing. She then detailed ECONorthwest’s strategic approach to achieving that goal, and listed a number of primary and secondary focus initiatives that could be implemented by the City: A. Evaluate participating in or establishing a land bank B. Evaluate opportunities to participate in a land trust C. Host educational events with the Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee D. Develop an equitable housing plan E. Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zones F. Evaluate increasing allowances for residential dwellings in commercial and employment zones G. Maintain quality and support development of a new manufactured home park H. Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings I. Implement the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to support multifamily or affordable housing Page 2 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes J. Preserve and improve existing low-cost, unregulated, rental housing K. Work with partners to support development of additional permanent supportive housing L. Evaluate opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions during housing development M. Establish a Construction Excise Tax N. Evaluate using Urban Renewal O. Identify additional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Vice Chair Verner inquired how action E would work with the Climate-Friendly Area (CFA) guidelines handed down by the state. Ms. Goodman responded that there should be no issue integrating both rulesets into the City’s housing code, as a SFD would not be suitable for an area designated as a CFA. Mr. Goldman added that CFAs would be geographically specific, and that there some R-3 Zones would remain outside of CFA areas, which would be affected by action E. Commissioner Knauer requested elaboration on the rehabilitation of manufactured homes in the City referenced in action G. Mr. Goldman related an instance where the City engaged in a weatherization program using a Community Development Block Grant in order to lower utility costs for tenants of manufactured homes. Ms. Goodman added that there is more state and federal funding for rehabilitation and weatherization of affordable housing. Vice Chair Verner remarked that action C would be a low-impact project and was surprised at its inclusion on the list of initiatives. Ms. Goodman responded that the HHSAC felt that this action was necessary, but that it would not result in affordable housing inherently. She added that the education of residents on the importance of affordable housing can be impactful. Mr. Goldman commented that the HHSAC felt it was important to include, but ranked it lowest on their list of priorities. Vice Chair Verner asked if the City would get HPS credit for meetings that have already occurred. Mr. Goldman responded that meeting credits would be geared more towards public outreach events rather than commission meetings. He listed several educational events that the City had held in the past, such as the annual Rent-Burden Forum, stating that similar events would be reported to the DLCD in the City’s progress reports. Ms. Goodman stated that the City could also engage more with the underserved part of the community as part of the HPS. She added that the City would ideally be able to get credit for meetings and outreach events that are already planned, but that it should also focus on increasing those opportunities. Commissioner Knauer inquired how action L would apply to affordable housing, and remarked that incorporating efficient energy systems to affordable units could increase housing costs for those who are already income-burdened. Mr. Goldman responded that Councilor Bob Kaplan had suggested that the HPS look at opportunities to promote incentives for existing and new housing. The HHSAC agreed, but it was rated low on their priority list. Councilor Kaplan had requested that the timeline for these incentives be accelerated, because the dividends for energy efficient housing is not limited to the HPS. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the timeline for any of the Page 3 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes initiatives can be accelerated or prioritized at the City’s discretion. Ms. Goodman noted that the term “Housing Production Strategy” is a misnomer, as it is also about preserving existing housing and making it more affordable. Costs of heating and electricity are factored into the HPS, which is why incorporating energy efficient systems was included as a strategy to lower housing costs. Commissioner Verner asked why the City had been given a strict timeline to implement various actions. Ms. Goodman responded that the administrative rules for the HPS require that each action be given a deadline year in order for the DLCD to review the City’s implementation of its selected strategies. Ninety days after a missed deadline the City will be required to submit a report to the DLCD informing why the timeline was not able to be met, such as the City determining that the initiative was unviable, or simply delayed. Ms. Goodman remarked that the HHSAC had suggested that the timeline be more compressed, but that one of the reasons the timeline is spread out is due to the City’s limited staff capacity. Mr. Goldman added that the Council and Commission would also have a difficult time accommodating a more expedited timeline. Chair Norton stated that the shortage of land within the City contributed to rising land prices. He suggested that the City may need to be more willing to bend environmental guidelines and restrictions within the city limits to increase housing. Chair Norton called attention to street improvement requirements and the resultant rise in HOA fees as one way in which the City codes increase housing prices. He stated that the City should be willing to discuss these codes when reviewing how to reduce the cost of development in the City. He also suggested that the City should host educational events for first-time homebuyers. Commissioner KenCairn responded that the removal of environmental guidelines would lead to further environmental degradation and impact everyone. She commented that until the privileged are willing to have less, nothing will change. Chair Norton agreed, but reiterated that some rules would have to give in order to meet the City’s housing goals. Vice Chair Verner agreed that the people who will be most impacted by the HPS are those with fewer privileges than the Commission members. Commissioner Dawkins commented that the dilemma facing the Commission lies in how to achieve the balance referenced by Chair Norton. He pointed out that the Wingspread Mobile Home Park and similar developments could have been achieved greater housing density, and suggested that manufactured homes and parks be reviewed by the Commission at a future meeting. Commissioner Dawkins related how the 1960s saw an exodus of working class families from the City when the Croman Mill closed, and led to an increasing number of homes being bought by buyers from California. Vice Chair Verner agreed that this topic could be reviewed by the Commission at a future Study Session. Mr. Goldman noted that action G was listed as the highest priority item by the HHSAC and the HPS Advisory Group, and that it would begin with the adoption of the HPS. He mentioned that many members of the community have called for an increase in manufactured housing parks, despite them not resulting in dense housing. Councilor Hyatt informed the Commission that herself and Councilor Gina DuQuenne have advocated for the development of more manufactured home parks. She detailed how there are Page 4 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes manufactured home parks in both Commercial and Residential Zones within the City limits, and that the Commission would likely need to develop plans for both types at a future meeting in order to be successful. Mr. Goldman agreed, adding that there would be financial and land use avenues that would need to be considered to reach a solution. Commissioner Knauer asked if ECONorthwest had a measurable goal that the Commission could achieve through the methods presented, and expressed concern that not having a statistically grounded goal could make success difficult to attain. Ms. Goodman responded that the various initiatives presented will dictate the strategy that the City chooses to make. She added that her organization cannot set targeted goals for the City and that the Council will need to set those targets. Commissioner Knauer asked how the City can ensure that progress does not become stagnated. Ms. Goodman stated that the focus of the initiatives and their progress will be determined by the Council. Vice Chair Verner pointed out that the Commission is unlikely to see low-income developments come before it because high-income projects are preferred by developers. The Commission discussed how the City could direct focus and developers to the creation of low-income projects. Mr. Goldman commented that the City is limited in the exclusionary zoning that it can make to promote low-income housing. He detailed how many states have imposed rules that require developers to dedicate a proportion of housing units in a development be targeted to specific income groups, but that developers, but that some developers circumvent those rules. He added that a moratorium on the development of certain housing types could be legally problematic. Mr. Goldman outlined how the City could impose a Construction Excise Tax (CET), the funds of which could be directed towards supporting of increased opportunities for affordable ownership or rental housing for people making less than 120% area median income (AMI). Commissioner Knauer suggested that the City set realistic, achievable goals in a concerted effort to alleviate the City’s housing needs. He expressed the opinion that this would allow the HPS to progress without stagnating. Ms. Goodman agreed that the focus of the HPS is for the City to promote the development of housing directed at people making less than 120% area median income, but that a cessation on high-income developments would likely be illegal. Commissioner Knauer reiterated his concern that a lack of concrete objectives to meet could result in the City not achieving its HPS goals. Chair Norton remarked that the New Normal Neighborhood project had not progressed since it was approved in 2015, and stated that the City should examine which codes are discouraging developers from building needed housing. He stated that street improvement and wetland standards may need to be eased in order to allow developers to build housing in the City. Commissioner KenCairn agreed that some codes should be reexamined, and suggested that some standards be divided into environmental regulations, which should be maintained, and quality of life standards, which could be more malleable. She stated that codes requiring costly improvements such as park-rows can Page 5 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes discourage developers from building in the City, and that standardized rules are not suitable for some projects. Vice Chair Verner requested that staff come before the Commission at a future Study Session about easing code requirements. Mr. Goldman responded that staff could, though it will likely require multiple Study Sessions to ascertain the feasibility of easing code requirements and reviewing whether it would positively impact development in the City. Commissioner Knauer agreed, stating that the code could be directed to encourage the development of what the City requires. Councilor Hyatt emphasized the importance of maintaining the City’s existing mobile home parks, and that the number of homes within those parks, coupled with the pursuit of zoning changes associated with those parks, would provide a metric for how many of those homes were preserved. This metric could allow the City to immediately act on the HPS when it is approved. Councilor Hyatt pointed out that this could work in concert with the energy efficiency initiative, because many people are forced into tenuous housing situations due to four main reasons; 1) death in the family; 2) unforeseen medical expenses; 3) loss of employment; 4) and being overburdened by utilities. She suggested that a nexus could be found between Commissioner Knauer’s feedback and an examination of manufactured home park zoning. Ms. Goodman remarked that the HPS report does include some metrics, and that the City could easily supplement them. Commissioner Knauer noted that the HPS does not include a metric for creating new manufactured homes and how to achieve that goal. Mr. Goldman responded that the City would establish goals and objectives for any prospective ordinance change, and in reviewing the number of units in a manufactured home park the City would identify opportunities for increasing the density of expanding the park as an objective of the ordinance. Vice Chair Verner requested that staff develop a Study Session to review mobile home parks. Mr. Goldman stated that any directive from the Council to develop an ordinance will begin with Study Sessions, and also include feedback from mobile home park owners and their residents. He remarked that the broader question of the HPS and its impact on the community over a 20-30 year period could be addressed at a future Study Session. Chair Norton asked if the HPS would come back to the Commission in the form of a Study Session, to which Mr. Goldman responded that the Commission will next review the HPS in the form of a Public Hearing on April 11, 2023. Chair Norton noted that many of the mobile homes parks along Highway 99 North that were destroyed by the Almeda fire have not returned, and stated that the City should review why that is. Mr. Goldman informed the Commission that the City Manager is intent on establishing a management advisory committee to reexamine existing City codes, and that staff would likely be reaching out to members of the Commission to participate in that capacity. The group would be tasked with reviewing and making recommendations of adjustments to City codes. Commissioner KenCairn expressed a desire to join the committee. Page 6 of 7 Planning CommissionMinutes Ms. Goodman thanked the Commission for its feedback. Vice Chair Verner stated that the Council will have until June 30, 2023 to adopt the HPS. V.OPEN DISCUSSION Chair Norton advised that any advisory committee should garner input from members of the public who are affected by the code, particularly Commissioners Herron and KenCairn who engage with it in a professional capacity. Commissioner Herron related his experience speaking with housing developers and their desire for the City to create avenues for the use of prefabricated homes, which could lower building timelines and construction costs without compromising quality of life. Commissioner Herron noted that prefabricated homes are made with similar materials as a standard dwelling, and asked if staff had any updates regarding their use in the City. Mr. Goldman stated that the City does not distinguish between a prefabricated home and a stick-built home, and that they can be approved by land use on any lot that can accommodate a single-family dwelling. Any impediments to the use of manufactured or prefabricated homes would originate from the state Building Codes Division, and any changes to those guidelines would then need to be adopted by the City. Commissioner Herron asked who would inspect the pre-installed electrical work in manufactured homes. Mr. Goldman responded that it was his understanding that there is an inspector in the factory itself. Commissioner Herron stated that he had not observed a noticeable impact on the recent state guidelines regarding parking, but that it did allow for more flexible use of commercial spaces than before. He remarked that large parking areas may not provide the same benefit for a business as when the parking guidelines were first instituted, and that the new guidelines could benefit the City. Chair Norton agreed that rules written 30 years prior may not be as applicable today. VI.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Submittedby, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Page 7 of 7 Ashland: Housing Production Strategy Planning Commission February 28, 2023 th Tonight’s Discussion… Discussion Funding sources, partners, and adoption Do you have any questions about the information in the document? Are there any suggested changes to the HPS report? An 8-year action plan that identifies near and long-term strategies that the City can take to support the development of needed housing, especially low-and middle-income housing. We are Housing here Evaluate Production Understand Develop strategies strategies to Strategy with achieve fair and AshalndHousing to meet housing actions that the Needsneedequitable housing City will outcomes implement Project Schedule and Primary Tasks We are here Input from the HHSAC (February 23, 2023) Unanimously recommended that the City Council adopts the Housing Production Strategy as a whole. Advisory Committee Prioritization Survey (Oct 2022) 012345678 Maintain quality and support preservation of existing manufactured home parks and 1 6 support development of new manufactured home parks Work with partners to support development of additional permanent supportive housing 2 5 Preserve and improve existing low-cost, unregulated, rental housing 12 4 Participate in a land trust 12 3 Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zone 12 3 Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings through changes to the Land Use 3 3 Ordinance Participate in or establish a land bank 13 2 Develop an equitable housing plan 5 2 Implement the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to support multifamily or 13 2 affordable housing Establish a Construction Excise Tax 22 2 Identify additional funds to support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund 4 2 Evaluate using Urban Renewal 15 Evaluate opportunities to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas 33 emissions during housing development Host educational events with the HHSC or other organizations 42 Low PriorityMedium PriorityHigh Priority , 2022 Council was supportive of:Council asked why there wasn't Land banking inclusion of: Land trust -they were very Pre-approved ADU and Missing interested in long-term Middle Plan Sets affordability Universal design as a strategy for Preservation ofmanufactured inclusion home parks Evaluating using Urban Renewal Council discussed, and some Potentially using a CET suggested removing, inclusionary zoning Interview Summary –Developers (Aug 2022) Key FindingsPriorities/Suggestions Stakeholder agreed more affordable and workforce Urban Renewal has been effective in facilitating housing are important priorities for the City, and development in neighboring jurisdictions and could are interested in building more affordable housing be a useful tool in Ashland. if it could be done feasibly. Land banking could allow developers to construct Lack of available land and cost of land are the more workforce housing. biggest challenges to housing development Review the code for unintended barriers to density. Certain code requirements create de facto density limitations. Evaluate opportunities to streamline development review. Stakeholders supported increasing density and vertical development in Ashland. Though some doubted that increasing development capacity in MF zones would have an impact due to lack of demand for higher density development types in Ashland. Strategies to Accommodate Housing Need in Ashland Requirements of Strategies in the HPS For strategies identified in the final HPS, the City of Ashland will: Commit to implementation Be required to update DLCD on implementation progress, and be required to comment on its effectiveness in the future Strategies not identified in the HPS may still be implemented by the City, but the City will not be held to specific action by the State. Initiatives Approach Encourage development of low-and moderate- income affordable rental housing. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for unregulated rental households earning between 60% and 120% of MFI ($43,900 to $87,700). Increase opportunities for affordable homeownership. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for homeownership for households earning less 120% of MFI (less than $87,700). Encourage development of income-restricted affordable housing units. There are limited options available in Ashland that are affordable to households with income of less than 60% of MFI ($43,900). This initiative supports development of housing affordable in this income group. Preserve existing of low-and moderate- income affordable housing. This initiative seeks to increase the housing options for households earning less than 120% of MFI (less than $87,700). Initiatives Approach Action E.Disallow SFD in High Density R-3 Zone (excepting areas in the historic district) Purpose: Increases efficient use of land in the R-3 by focusing on opportunities for higher density development by removing single-family detached housing as an allowed use for new development PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs development code with City staff through a public process. Action Timeline Action F.Evaluate increasing allowances for residential dwellings in commercial and employment zones Purpose: Lowering or eliminating barriers to residential development in commercial or mixed-use zones can help encourage the development of more dense multifamily housing in these zones. May increase allowances for residential dwellings in commercial and employment zones. PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs development code with City staff through a public process. Action Timeline Action G.Maintain quality and support preservation of existing manufactured home parks and support development of new manufactured home parks Purpose: Preserve and support development of new manufacturing housing parks because they play a significant role in providing naturally occurring affordable housing. The City could adopt a zone that allows manufactured home parks as a permitted use and prohibits other types of single-family detached or multifamily housing. PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs development code with City staff through a public process. Action Timeline Action H.Increase development capacity of MFR dwellings through changes to the Land Use Ordinance development of new manufactured home parks Purpose: Removing barriers to development of multifamily housing in the land use ordinance, such as: Increasing the maximum allowed densities in R-2, R-3, and parts of the Normal Neighborhood and Croman Mill District designations. Increasing allowed height in the R-2 and R-3 multi-family residential zones, outside of designated Increasing lot coverage allowances slightly in the R-2 and R-3 zones to support the other code amendments Evaluating the code to identify and remove unintentional barriers to density, such as the certain elements of the solar ordinance, parking or driveway requirements. PC Role and Process: Work through the process to change AshlandÔs development code with City staff through a public process. Action Timeline City and Partner Roles Implementation Schedule Recommendations Develop pre-approved plan sets for Middle Housing Typologies and Accessory Dwelling Units. Consider staff capacity for implementation of the HPS. Questions for the Planning Committee Do you have any questions about the information in the document? Are there any suggested changes to the HPS report? Next Steps City Council Study SessionÏMarch 7 Planning Commission Hearing ÏApril 11 City Council Adoption Hearing ÏMay 2 _________________________________ BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION March14, 2023 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION PA-T2-2023-00038A) REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO MODERNIZE ) AND EXPAND THE EXISTING LES SCHWAB TIRE FACILITY. THE ) PROPOSAL INCLUDES REMODELING THE EXISTING ) OVERHANG/WORK AREA AND REPLACING IT WITH A VESTIBULE ) ADDITION AND NEW FAÇADE ENHANCING THE ASHLAND ST. ) FINDINGS, FRONTAGE. ADDITIONALLY, THE BREEZEWAY BETWEEN THE ) CONCLUSIONS, TWO MAIN BUILDINGS IS PROPOSED TO ENCLOSE EXISTING ) AND ORDERS. SPACE CREATING TWO NEW SERVICE BAYS AND ADDITIONAL ) WAREHOUSE SPACE TO THE REAR.) ) OWNER LES SCHWAB) APPLICANT: MCA ARCHITECTURE) ______________________________________________________________) RECITALS: 1)Tax lots#200, 300, 400, and 1100of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-14-BAhas anaddress of2308 Ashland Street. Together these four parcels are 2.35 acres and make up the Les Schwab Tire Center. 2)The Les Schwab Tire Center has been in existence since 1973 with major additions in 1980 and again in 2005. 3)All proposed development is on Tax lot #1100 which islocatedin the C-1zoning districtand is 1.0acre in size. 4)The application proposestomodernize and expand the existing Les Schwab tire facility. The proposal includes remodeling the existing overhang/work area and replacing it with a vestibule addition and new façade enhancing the Ashland St. Frontage. Additionally, the breezeway between the two main buildings is proposed to be enclosed,creating two new service bays and additional warehouse space. 5)Because the proposal involves new commercial structure as well as modifications to the parking and circulation on the property Site Design Review is required. 6)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 14, 2022. Testimony was received, and exhibits were presented.No members of the public gave testimony either in favor or against. 7)The criteria of approval for a Site Design Revieware described inAshland Municipal Code PA-T2-2023-00038 February14,2023 Page 1 (AMC)18.5.5.050as follows: A.Underlying Zone: The proposal complies withall 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. B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: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, pavedaccess to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and DesignStandards 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. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use regulates the development pattern envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and to encourage efficient use of land resources PA-T2-2023-00038 February14,2023 Page 2 among other goals. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application the Planning Commission considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.2The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera decision based on the applicationitself,the Staff Reportdated 2/7/23, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. 2.3The Planning Commission finds that the applicationwasdeemed complete on January 19,2023, and further finds that the notice for the public hearing was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within200-feet of the subject property on February 3, 2023, which was 11 days before the hearing. 2.4The Planning Commission findsthatthe subject property is located within the C-1zoning districtand thatSite Design Review isgoverned by AMC 18.5.2. 2.5The approval criteria for Site Design Revieware in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.2.050.The Planning Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to make findings that each of the criteria have been met, as was explained in detail in the applicant’s submittal,as well as the2/7/23 Staff Report,and by theirreference areincorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.5.1The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is 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, architecture, and other applicable standards.” The Planning Commission notes that the subject property is located in the C- 1 base zone,Detail Site Reviewoverlay,and Pedestrian Places overlay zones. Commercial services, including automotive service centersare permitted outright in the C-1 zone. Along arterial streets,includingAshland Street, there is a required arterial setback of “not less than 20 feet, or the width required to install sidewalk and park row improvements, consistent with the street standards in chapter 18.4.6, whichever is less.” In this instance, the building is existingand the addition is incorporated intothe main volumeof the building.The C-1 zone allows building heights of up to 40 feet. As proposed, the height of the building is effectively unchanged, with a small increase at the entry element. The highest part of the building is 19feet.The Planning Commission finds that the base standards for the zone are met. Building orientation will be discussed under the paragraph 2.5.2 below. 2.5.2The second approval criterion is that“The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” ThePlanning commission notes that theproperty is located within the Detail Site Review overlay zone, Wildfire overlay, and the Pedestrian Places overlay zone. The Detail Site Review overlay triggers specific standards that apply as part of the Site Development and Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.040.C. Compliance with these standards is addressed under the next approval criterion2.5.3.The wildfire overlay covers the entire city and while the new construction is required to meet the requirements of the fuel modification area the Planning PA-T2-2023-00038 February14,2023 Page 3 Commission finds that the paved nature of the subject propertyaddresses the requirements for fuel management and wildfire protections..The Pedestrian Places overlayhas two development standards that apply, stating that solar setbacks only apply if there is residential land to the north, and that outdoor pavedspaces may be applied to meeting the required land scape area. The Planning Commission finds that there is no residential property to the north.The outdoor paved areasareaddressedunder 2.5.3 below. 2.5.3The third approval criterion is that“The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.”The application materials explain that building entrances isoriented to Ashland Street.The application explains that the building has multiple jogs and offsets, a new entry element with a newpedestrianaccess providing ADA access to the intersection.As mentioned in the previous approval criterion this new paved area contributes tothe required landscape area.The Planning Commission further notes that the standards related to building orientation and scale allow the standards at AMC 18.4.2.040.B.1a-d are allowed to be waived when not accessed bypedestrians and finds that the service bays are not to be accessed by pedestrians. The Planning Commission notes that two of the existing street trees, on Ashland Street,in the northwest of the property are inappropriate, are in poor condition,and need to be removed. The Planning Commission adds as a condition of approval that these trees shall be replaced with appropriate trees selected from the Ashland Street Tree guide.The Planning commission notes that when considering redevelopment of existing non-conforming developments that site improvements shall be in proportion to the proposed development. The Planning Commission finds that when considering the project in its entirety that the new storefront and pedestrian access, and minimal landscaping improvements, and conditions of approval belowmeets this standard. The Planning Commission notes that within the Detail Site Review Zone, properties are required to have a minimum 0.50 floor area ratio (F.A.R.). This means that the building’s floor area must be equal to at least one half of the lot area to meet the standard. The Planning Commission notes that as proposed, the additional enclosed building area increases F.A.Rbringing the property further into conformance.Additionally, the Planning Commission notes that for properties greater than one-half acre, the Site Design and Development Standards provide that the Floor Area Ratio standard may be addressed with a “shadow plan” illustrating how the development could be intensified over time to meet the minimum F.A.R.The Planning Commission notes that the definition of the Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) as provided at AMC 18.6.1. is “A schematic or conceptual design for future land development when a lot could be developed at a higher intensity. A shadow plan demonstrates that the proposed development will not impede the future use of the lot to be fully developed to the required building intensity standards (i.e., Floor Area Ratio), and that the proposed development has been planned to prevent piecemeal and uncoordinated development.”The Planning commission finds that the shadow plan satisfies this requirement. The Planning Commission notes that there are two primary exceptionsrequestedto the Site Design Standards; 1)Location of the parking between the roadway and the building PA-T2-2023-00038 February14,2023 Page 4 and 2) the number of parking spaces. These exceptionswill address these exceptions in the fifth approval criteriain 2.5.5. 2.5.4The fourth criterion for approval is 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 and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” The Planning Commission finds that the property is fully developed and served with all franchise utilities and that the enclosure of the existing space will have no greater impact on water, sewer, electrical, or storm drain than is presently existing. The Planning Commission notes that the future improvements to Tolman Creek Road require additional Right-of-Way.The Planning Commission notes that improvement would require ROW dedication on the opposite side of the street those full improvements are not possible at this time.The Planning commission findsthat the Right-of-Way dedication ofseven-and one-halffeet on the western property frontage meets the applicants obligation and will not require any improvements other than what the applicant has proposed. 2.5.5The final approval criterionrelates to thefor exceptionsto specific standards requested, in this case building setback and number of parking spaces. The applicable criteria are as follows “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 approvalof 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.” The Planning Commission finds that the location of theexistingbuilding creates a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the required setbacks, and further finds that the removal of theexternalauto work area,to be relocated into the new service bays,reduces the impact on the street scape. The Planning Commission notes that the non-conforming nature of the building location dates back to the initial construction in 1972. The Planning Commission notes that the application proposes a total of 41 spaces (presently there are 36). The Planning Commission determinedthat the code requires35 parking spaces andallows for up to 110% of the parking space allowance to be provided, which would be 38.The Planning Commission finds that the exception request is for three additional parking spaces and notes that there is no increase in paved areas. The Planning Commission findsthat the vehicle centric nature of the businessmake it reasonable that some amount of surplus parking is required for vehicle stagingand the drop off and pick up of vehicles being serviced. The Planning Commission notes that AMC 18.2.3.050 provides special use standards for Auto and Truck repair facilities:“All cars and trucks associated with an automobile or truck repair facility shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total PA-T2-2023-00038 February14,2023 Page 5 sight-obscuring fence.” The Planning Commission notes that in the present application the applicant has proposed a two-foot screeningelement. The Planning Commission further notes that the project is several feet abovethe adjacent sidewalk. The Planning Commission finds that a hedge three feet in height continuous along the entire Ashland St. Frontage would satisfy this requirement.Acondition of approval to that affect has been included below. 2.5After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report as well as two additional conditions of approval: a.That the twoexistingponderosa pine street trees located on Ashland St. be removed and replaced with an appropriate street tree selected from the Ashland Street Tree guide. b.That a continuous evergreen sight obscuring hedge,three feet in height, be installed and maintainedthe length of the Ashland St. frontage to screen parking areasbetween the ROW and the building. 2.6The Planning Commission finds that with the conditionsof approval included in the decision,the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1Based on the record of the Public Hearingson this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that therequest forSite Design Review is supported by evidence contained within the whole recordwith the conditions of approvalbelow: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approvalunless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)The westerly seven-and-one-half-feet of the property shall be dedicated as public street right-of-way in such a manner and document as deemed appropriate by the Public Works Engineering Division and Staff Advisor. 3)That the property owner shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the future street improvements, including but not limited to park-row and sidewalks, for the Tolman Creek Road intersection. 4)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 conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5)That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7). 6)That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing (OFC 505); commercial fire apparatus access including angle of PA-T2-2023-00038 February14,2023 Page 6 approach and any necessary fire apparatus or shared access easements (OFC 503.2.8); limitations on the installation of gates or fences; fire flow (OFC Appendix B, Table B105.1); fire hydrant clearance; fire department connection (FDC); a Knox key box; and fire sprinklers where required for mixed-use buildings or due to access constraints. 7)That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from surrounding rights-of-way, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 8)That prior to the installation of stairs, parking, or utility infrastructure within the public alley right-of-way, an encroachment permit from the Ashland Public Works Department shall be obtained. A final revised site plan illustrating the placement of these proposed improvements shall be provide for the review and approval of the Public Works/Engineering Department and Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit. 9)That the twoexisting ponderosa pine street trees located on Ashland St. be removed and replaced with an appropriate street tree selected from the Ashland Street Tree guide. 10)That a continuous evergreen sight obscuring hedge, three feet in height, be installed and maintained the length of the Ashland St. frontage to screen parking areasbetween the ROW and the building. 11)That building permit submittals shall include: a)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 approved in the application b)Final revised Site, Landscape and Irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. 12)That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a)That all hardscaping and landscaping improvements including plaza spaces, landscaping, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. b)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2023-00038 February 14,2023 Page 7 _________________________________ NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T2-2023-00039 SUBJECT PROPERTY:440 Granite St. OWNER/APPLICANT:Jordan Willing/Rogue Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for planning approval to construct a new single family home on a non-conforming lot. The planning action requires both a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) Reduction and a Variance to exceed seven-percent lot coverage. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:WR;ZONING: Woodland Residential;MAP: 39-1E-16-BB;TAX LOT: 1300. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. 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. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right ofappeal 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. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicantand those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 / Aaron.Anderson@ashland.or.us In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE REDUCTIONS 18.3.11.070 A Water Resource Protection Zone may be reduced by up to 25 percent through a Type I procedure in 18.5.1.050, and by greater than 25 percent and up to 50 percent through a Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060 if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A.The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone through the use of up to a 50 percent reduction of any dimensional standards (e.g., required front, side and rear yard setbacks; required distance between buildings) to permit development as far outside or upland of the Water Resource Protection Zone as possible. Such adjustment to any applicable dimensional standards shall be reviewed as part of the requested reduction, and shall not be subject to a separate Variance application under chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Reductions to dimensional standards may not be used to reduce required Solar Access setbacks without evidence of agreement by the effected property owner(s) to the north through a concurrent Solar Access Variance application as described in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access. B.The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance to the Water Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following design options to minimize or reduce impacts of development. 1.Multi-story construction shall be considered. 2.Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that requiredas a minimum for the use. 3.Pavement shall be minimized, and all pavement used shall be installed and maintained in a porous solid surface paving material. 4.Engineering solutions shall be used to minimize additional grading and/or fill. C.The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. The structures, functions, and values of the Water Resource will be restored through the implementation of a restoration and enhancement strategy set forth in a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements described in section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 D.Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the WaterResource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances ofthe subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 DRAFT ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission -March14, 2023 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00039 OWNER: JordonWilling APPLICANT: Rouge Development Services LOCATION: 404 GraniteStreet ZONE DESIGNATION: WR(Woodland Residential) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Woodland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.5Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.11Water Resource Protection Zone 18.5.5Variances SUBMITTAL DATE: January 24, 2023 DEEMED COMPLETE DATE: January 27, 2023 HEARING DATE: March 14, 2023 120-DAY DEADLINE: May 24, 2023 REQUEST: A request for Water Resource Protection Zone(WRPZ)reduction and a \[Type-2\] Variance to lot-coverage to allow for the construction of a new single-familyhome. I.Relevant Facts Subject Property The subject property is a non- conforming lot with regard to minimum lot size (0.87 acres where twoacres is the minimum) and is located in the Woodland Residential(WR)zoning district.The subject property is the only private property on the east side of Granite Street as it is entirely surrounded by Lithia Park. Granite Streethas a forty-foot Right-of- Waywhich is only improved with curbs which run closeto the western property line of the property.Ashland Creek runs along the eastern property line. The property is in the Special Flood Hazard Area (zone A) buthas received a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) removing much of the property from the regulated flood zone. AshlandCreek also has a regulated Water Resource Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa 16 Owner:Jordon WillingPage of DRAFT Protection Zone (WRPZ) that extends 50’ from the top of the bank.The property was previouslydeveloped with a two-story single-family residence(shown at right)which the county assessor records indicate was constructed in 1915. A demolition permit was applied for in 2009 to remove the home andwas finally removed in 2011. Additionally, the property also hastwo historic accessory buildingsa small ‘Mill House’ and studio building along with extensive decomposed granitewalkways. The WR zone has a very limited allowance for lot coverage of only seven-percent. In the present case the existing accessory buildings, walkways, and other hardscape on site already calculated at 33% lot coverage. Lot Coverage A note on Lot Coverage; The Land Use Ordinance defines lot coverage as follows: Coverage, Lot or Site.The total area of a lotcovered by buildings, parking areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the soil.Landscaping, including living plants, vegetative ground cover, and mulch, which allows natural soil characteristics and water infiltration and retention is not considered lot or site coverage. \[emphasis added\] In practice when administering lot coverage,the ‘natural water infiltrationtest,’ has been applied in a strictmanner. This includes gravel parking areas, compacted DG and essentially anything that is not landscaping.The logic has been twofold: 1) over time with compaction and the addition of fine material the permeability of gravel surfaces will become subject to sheet flow and pooling, and 2) very oftengravel padshave a way of becoming paved. While it is true that depending on the porosity and void ratio some gravel mixtures will maintain an appropriate level of infiltration,in Staff’s assessment without a geo-grid or other engineered product it is correct to consider gravel areas asimpervious and therefore aslot coverage. Background The earliest existing zoningmap is dated 1984 and shows the subject property zoned as woodland residential.Woodland residential has a minimum lot size of two acres.The property appears to have been created by deed in 1953 which was a legal way to convey property at the time. The property has been in its present size/shapefrom the adoption of zoning regulations making the lot legally non-conformingwith regard to its size. In 2009, the then owner of the property,in preparation for the development of a new single- family home, applied for a demolition permit. On March 19, 2009,demolition permit approved forthe removal of a3,502 sq ft. residence (PL-2009-00333).Then in July of 2009aLetter of Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa 26 Owner:Jordon WillingPage of DRAFT Map Amendment(LOMA)(#09-10-0622A)was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The effect of the LOMA was to establish a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the subject property and remove most of the upland portion of the property from the regulated SFHA. In November of 2009 both the demolition permit (Demo-2009-01474)andbuilding permit for the new single-family home(SFR BD-2009-01375) were issued.At the time the proposed residence was replacing the one to be demolished so lot-coverage was not addressed.While the permits were issued in 2009 the actual removal of the home did nothappen until 2011, and construction of the proposed residence never began.Finally, it should be noted that during the forgoing the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) had notyet been adopted as that did not occur until Decemberof2009. Proposal The request is to construct a new single family home. The proposed lot coverage exceeds the allowed 7% so a variance is required. The design of the home also encroaches slightly into the upland portion of the Water Resource Protection Zone so concurrent with the variance a reduction to the WRPZ is being requested as allowed per AMC18.3.11.070. II.Discussion Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for Nonconforming Development The Land Use Ordinance at AMC 18.4.4.040 allows for a Nonconforming Development to be enlarged or altered subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicant, out of an abundance of caution, has also provided findings in their application which address the approval * criteria for a CUP to alter ‘a nonconforming development.’ It is reasonable that in referencing † definition for ‘development’ in the Land Use Ordinance one could argue that at present the “development” at the subject property is nonconforming due to the existing ‘graveled areas’ exceeding lot coverage allowances. That said, it is Staff’s assessment that the proper remedy to the lot coverage is a variance rather than a CUP. This determination is for the following reasons: 1)The previous development (the home) was removed in 2011 and the current proposal would maintain existing coverage without proposing removal of existing pathways or other ‘graveled areas to reduce the excess coverage as could be conditioned through a CUP process., and 2)In order to be considered nonconforming development, a development need have been developed in a legal manner consistent with code requirements in place at the time of development, and subsequently become out of compliance due a change in the code. As the installation of decomposed granite pathways did not require permitting, neither the * Nonconforming Development.An element of a development, such as lot area, setback, height, lot coverage, landscaping, sidewalk, or parking area, or lack thereof, that was created in conformancewith development regulations but subsequently, due to a change in the zone or applicable code standards, is no longer in conformance with the current applicable development regulations. † Development.All improvements on a site, including alterations to land and new or remodeled structures, parking and loading areas, landscaping, paved or graveled areas, and areas devoted to exterior display, storage, or activities. Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa 36 Owner:Jordon WillingPage of DRAFT City nor the applicant has a clear record that the lot non-conformity in relation to lot coverage proceeds the establishment of the 7% Lot coverage requirement for the WR zone, or were in place prior to the 1984 zoning map showing this property as being WR zoned. Therefore, as discussed at the pre-application the only planning actions required for the present proposal is for a WRPZ reduction and a variance to lot coverage. As such Staff will not address the CUP/non-conforming development components of the applicants’ findings further as the approval of a variance as also requested by the applicant resolves the issue of expansion of lot coverage and encroachment into the WRPZ proposed. Variance -Lot Coverage As mentioned above the present lot coverage far exceeds the amount allowed for in the zone, and the applicant notes that when the project is complete the lot coverage will actually be slightly less than it is currently. Staff believes that the WR zone designation on a legally non-conforming undersized lot presents a unique physical circumstance that the code did not anticipate. Staff notes that a great deal of the present lot coverage is a hard gravel area is where the previous building footprint existed. Staff further notes that the 0.87-acre property only has an allowed lot coverage of only 2653 sq. ft. of which 984 sq. feet are already impervious building footprints. Staff further notes that when considering the 2 buildings, seating area, and utility vault that would only leave 1669 sq. feet of remaining lot coverage if all the walkways were removed or decommissioned. Staff notes that based on numerous geological studies done in the area that the primary soil locally is decomposed granite. Given this natural soil type it is reasonable to presume the infiltration of water along these improved pathways is similar to that of naturally occurring exposed decomposed granite. In Staff’s assessment the variance to lot coverage proposed is the minimum necessary and the proposed development of the home and retention of the existing pathways will have minimal adverse impact upon adjacent properties. Staff would note that the present state of the property pre-dates the applicant’s proposal and ownership of the property. Staff finds therefore that the need for the variance was not self-imposed. Staff concludes that findings can be prepared showing how all the required criteria of approval for a Variance have been satisfied. Water Resource Protection Zone As noted at the outset during the 2009 demolition and building permit approval the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) had yet to be adopted. The WRPZ adopted stream bank protection zones with different buffers depending on the nature of the waterway. In the present application that requires a 50feet buffer upland from the top of the bank. For the subject property nearly 60% of the lot is encumbered with the WRPZ. Shown at right is a graphic from the application showing the property and the area that is affected with the WRPZ; the areas highlighted in yellow indicate where proposeddevelopment is located. Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa 46 Owner:Jordon WillingPage of DRAFT The standard for approval is that through the use of a “reduction of any dimension standards” the intrusion has been limited. In the present case the applicant has proposed a standard front yard setback of fifteen-feet, but the right-of-way is presently only forty-feet where forty-seven is the standard. If ROW dedication were required, or installation of sidewalks were to occur the front yard setback would be considerably less. As staff understands the application the dimensional standard that is being reduced is effectively the ROW width to prevent the house from being too close to the curb line. Additional staff feels it is important with the current application to consider the nature of the past development of the area of encroachment, which is largely packed DG from the completion of the previous demolition and lack and riparian on natural resources that require protection. Staff believes that when viewed in its totality the encroachments are minimal, and the nature of the area lacks riparian qualities to be protected based on the previous development. Public Notice th Notice of the March 14public hearing 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 on March 1, 2023, thirteen days prior to the hearing.The notice included a staff contact name and phone number and email.At the time of this writing no public comment was received either in favor or against. III.Burden of Proof The criteria for aWater Resource Protection Zone Reductionapproval are detailed in AMC 18.3.11.070as follows: 18.3.11.070Water Resource Protection Zone Reductions -A Water Resource Protection Zone may be reduced by up to 25 percent through a Type I procedure in 18.5.1.050, and by greater than 25 percent and up to 50 percent through a Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060 if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A.The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone through the use of up to a 50 percent reduction of any dimensional standards (e.g., required front, side and rear yard setbacks; required distance between buildings) to permit development as far outside or upland of the Water Resource Protection Zone as possible. * * * B.The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance to the Water Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following design options to minimize or reduce impacts of development. 1.Multi-story construction shall be considered. 2.Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that required as a minimum for the use. 3.Pavement shall be minimized, and all pavement used shall be installed and maintained in a porous solid surface paving material. 4.Engineering solutions shall be used to minimize additional grading and/or fill. C.The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. The Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa 56 Owner:Jordon WillingPage of DRAFT structures, functions, and values of the Water Resource will berestored through the implementation of a restoration and enhancement strategy set forth in a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements described in section Mitigation Requirements. 18.3.11.110 D.Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a , except a management management plan as described insubsection 18.3.11.110.C plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessorystructures. The criteria fora Varianceapproval are detailed in AMC 18.5.5.050 as follows: 18.5.5.050Approval Criteria A.The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets allof the following criteria. 1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3.The proposal’sbenefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicantor property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. B.In granting a variance, the approval authority may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole. The applicants have submitted a complete set of Findings addressing these approval criteria to the Planning Department to demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval standards for the proposed development and by their reference are incorporated herein as if set out in full. IV.Conclusions and Recommendations In staff’s assessment, the application with the conditions of approval listed below, would comply with all applicable City Ordinances. Therefore, Staff recommends that the planning Commission approve the application with the suggested conditions of approval below. 1)That all proposals of the applicant including proposed conservation, erosion control and pollution control measures shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2)The plans submittedfor the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. 3)The applicant shall obtain necessary inspection approvals for all conservation, pollution control and erosion control measures. Planning Action #2023-T2-00039Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/aa 66 Owner:Jordon WillingPage of ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 FILE # ________________________________ 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 DpoejujpobmVtfQfsnjugpsOpo.DpogpsnjohTjuvbujpot-XbufsSftpvsdfQspufdujpo\[pofSfevdujpo-WbsjbodfupMpuDpwfsbhf DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________ Pursuing LEED® Certification?YES NO o DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 551HsbojufTusffu Street Address 2411 27CC 39 1E Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________ XppemboeSftpvsdf XS Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________ APPLICANT bnzhvoufs/qmboojohAhnbjm/dpn 652.:62.51313 SphvfQmboojoh'EfwfmpqnfouTfswjdft Name Phone E-Mail Nfegpse 2425.CDfoufsEs/-QNC$568 :8612 City __________________ Zip Address __ ____________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER KpseboN/XjmmjohkpseboAuijolcmvfnbscmf/dpn 916.748.9464 Name Phone E-Mail Btimboe:8631 732NpsupoTusffu Address _ ____________________________________________________ City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER 652.611.5887 jogpAufssbjobsdi/dpn MboetdbqfBsdijufduUfssbjoMboetdbqfBsdijufduvsf Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ 421PblTu/Voju$4Btimboe:8631 Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4)that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. _____________________________________ __________________________________ 2/27/3134 Applicant’s SignatureDate As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. __________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Property Owner’s Signature (Date required) \[To be completed by City Staff\] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________ OVER G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Forms & Handouts\\Zoning Permit Application.doc ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. 5 PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. 5 FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or 5 findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document. TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS – Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site 5 plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) 5 LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. ( Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which ). meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. Willing Family Residence 440 Granite Street Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction of less than 25 percent Conditional Use Permit for Non-Conforming Situations Variance to Lot Coverage ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Subject Property Address: 440 Granite Street Map & Tax Lot:39 1E 16BB; 1300 Parcel Area: .87 acres – 37,902 square feet in area Comprehensive Plan Designation: WoodlandResidential(WR) Zoning: Woodland Residential (WR) Adjacent Zones: Single Family Residential (R-1-10) Rural Residential (RR-.5) Woodland Residential (WR) Overlay Zones: Water Resource Protection Zone for Ashland Creek Wildfire Lands overlay Property Owner: Jordan M. Willing 621 Morton Street Ashland, OR 97520 Landscape Architecture: Terrain Landscape Architecture 310 Oak Street, Unit #3 Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Consultation: Rogue Planning & Development Services 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 Medford, OR 97501 Request: A request to allow for the construction of a singleresidence on the non-conforming Woodland Residential parcel located at 440 Granite Street. A conditional use permit is required to alter the existing non-conforming development. A Water Resource Protection Zone, Limited Activities Permit is requested for encroachment into the Water Resource Protection Zone. The requested development seeks a variance to reduce the existing coverage which exceeds the maximum allowed seven percent lot coverage. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 1 of 20 Property Description: The subject property is 39 1E 16BB, Tax Lot 1300 located at 440 Granite Street. The property is on the east side of Granite Street. The property is adjacent to Ashland Creek on the southern and eastern property boundaries. Parcels owned by the city of Ashland and part of Lithia Park border the property on thesouth,east and north sides. The subject property of land is described in Instrument No. 90-16576 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. The property consists of a portion of the Missouri E. Allen tract recorded on August 9, 1923, in Vol. 145, Pg. 465. The subject property appears on the first platted maps of Ashland and was the J. Dennis Tract. 440 GRANITE ST The parcel is a legal, non-conforming, lot of record. The parcel is 37,902 square feet in area (.87 acre). The minimum lot area in the Woodland Residential (WR) zone is 87,120 square feet in area (two (2) acres). The parcels area is 56.5 percent smaller than the minimum required lot area. According to the Jackson County Assessors’ records of the property, and the previously approved demolition permit (BD-2009-01474), the property was occupied by a 3,734 square foot, two story residence with attached, 400 square foot garage. The 4,134 square foot residence was constructed in 1915 with additions in the 1950s and 1960s. The structure had a 2,366 square foot footprint, including a 400 square foot garage, 716 square feet of porch and deck area, and 400 square foot concrete patio. An 850 square foot driveway and walkway to the front entry were also present. This 4,732 square foot area was scraped from the site beginning in early 2011 and concluding later that year. There are accessory structures on the property that remained following the removal of the single-family residence. These include a 221 square foot studio structure on the north side of the property, and a 458 square foot historical mill house which was reconstructed a little over four years ago after being damaged by a fallen tree. There is a 109 square foot area of concrete bench and seating area and a 196 square foot below-grade utility vault. In addition to the 984 square foot area of the structures on the property, there are existing extensive decomposed granite walkways and gravel parking area. These areas of decomposed granite walkway, driveway/parking area, and gravel pad area accounts for 11,649 square feet of lot coverage. The existing site coverage as calculated by the current standards accounts for more than 12,633 square feet, 33.3percent of the lot area. The existing site coverage is non-conforming development because maximum coverage in the WR zone is seven percent (2,653.3 square feet). Note: The demolition permit documents do not account for all of the surfaces that are now considered coverage, specifically, the previous driveway, the previous deck areas, the existing gravel surface ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 2 of 20 walkways, sand set patios, etc., were not included in the calculations, thus a lower coverage calculation provided on the forms. Again in 2017 with the preapplication conference for site redevelopment, the same or similar numbers of coverage were provided by the property owners agents. The current property owner purchased the property late 2019 with the intention of redeveloping the site to similar intensity of single-family home development as what was on site, what is existing on site as coverage and what is existing in the vicinity. A large, manicured landscape yard area is present between the structure area landscaped a variety of large boulders rock outcroppings, rock walls, a pond, and a man-made diversion ditch for irrigation which bisects the property and connects to Lithia Park. This diversion ditch irrigates mature landscape trees and vegetation to the north of the property within the park. The property is bordered on the east and south property lines by Ashland Creek. Ashland Creek is a local stream that has FEMA floodplain and a 50-foot from top of bank riparian buffer zone, also known as the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). The WRPZ extends substantiallyinto the property and encompasses the existing structures, decks, footbridges, the landscape retaining walls,the outdoor seating area, the extensive landscaped planterareas and the lawn area.The WRPZarea of the property is 23,052 square feet. The WRPZ area covers 60 percent of the property area. The property had a FEMA Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) approved in the early 2000s which largely removed the property from the FEMA 100-year floodplain. No development is proposed within the floodplain area. There are numerous trees on the property. There are conifer trees such as Redwood, Pine and Fir trees on the north side of the property and near Granite Street. There are birch trees along the ditch, another conifer stand, and numerous alder and maple trees on the south and east sides of the property nearer the creek. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 3 of 20 Proposal: The proposal is to construct a replacement residence on the partially vacant, legal, non-conforming property with a new residence and outdoor area that hassimilar lot coverage, and areas of disturbance in the Water Resource Protection Zone. The residence and be a great addition in the residential neighborhood, replacing the use of the property as a primary residence for a local, business owning family. The proposed construction alters the existing, non-conforming development on the non-conforming lot which requires a Conditional Use Permit and approval of building permits. The existing coverage is 12,633 square feet. The proposed 11,112 square feet of coverage is an overall reduction. The proposed coverage exceeds the allowed 2,653.3 square feet of coverage, requiring a variance to lot coverage. The proposed redevelopment of the site encroaches into the 23,052 square foot of WRPZ portion of the property. Between the existing encroachments, and proposed encroachments, there is 15.32 percent of the WRPZ affected by the proposed site development. The areas of ‘new’ encroachment include areas of existing encroachments from removed decks, graded areas, lawn areas, pathways and seating areas. The two existing structures on the site, the millhouse and the studio are both within the WRPZ. With the proposal, the manicured lawn and maintenance intense landscape areas are to be reduced in area and replaced with more native vegetation. An arbor structure is proposed for a swing which is a new feature. The goal of the proposal is to encroach only into the areas of previous encroachments and to overall reduce the area that requires intensive maintenance such as lawns and manicured flower beds from the WRPZ. For example, the large green lawn areas nearer the creek is proposed to be reduced in area and the proposed pool and patio area adjacent to the residence encroachment is within the previous deck and landscape area near the residence. This property has a well-defined landscaped yard area that extended from the rear of the previous house and the large decks with gravel paths connecting yard area to the mill house, the irrigation ditch and pond to the creek, outdoor seating area and the studio structure. Along the creek there is a rock wall that defined the boundary between the landscaped edge of the ‘back yard’ and the banks of Ashland Creek. The yard area has large diameter cedars, pines and redwoods. Along the north side of the property, north of the studio and continuing east along the creek, wrapping around the southern portion of the property and around the mill house structure, is a clearly defined riparian area adjacent to the creek. The vegetation in this area includes large diameter maples and alders. The ground covers include viburnum, blackberry, snowberry, and sword ferns. There is a stand of conifer trees near Granite Street and north of the building area that are outside of the WRPZ. An 18-inch DBH Douglas Fir tree and a 9-inch DBH Redwood tree are proposed for removal to accommodate the driveway. The removal of these trees exempt because the property is not vacant ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 4 of 20 of structures and the trees are outside of the regulated areas. The remaining trees are to be protected and a tree protection plan has been provided. Additionally, that plan incorporates an erosion control plan to address any erosion concerns towards the creek. When the property was created and originally developed more than 100 years ago, a residence was built and a large landscaped areas and a backyard leading right to the creek was constructed. There were additions, modifications and intensification of use of the beautiful, secluded, creekside property. The areas of encroachment occur within the footprint of the historical, site developments. The proposed site development results in less coverage than existing. The existing and proposedencroachments in the Water Resource Protection Zone are similar to the improvements within Lithia Park, the Calle Guanajuato,and Bluebird Park. The proposed residential development and the limited, new encroachment area provides for improvement and enhancement to the Water Resource Protection Zone area with new plant materials that are appropriate for the area. There is no loss in riparian area plant material or trees. The proposal is similar is size, scale, mass and coverage as the other conforming and non-conforming properties in the vicinity of the site. The approval of this request allows for the redevelopment of a non- conforming property with a beautiful, architecturally pleasing and neighbrohood compatible home. On the following pages are findings addressing Non-conforming Situations, Conditional Use Permit, Variance to Lot Coverage, and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction criteria for the requested development of the replacement single family residence. Thank you for your consideration. Amy Gunter Rogue Planning & Development Services ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 5 of 20 Findings Addressing the Criteria from Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) AMC 18.1.4. - Non-Conforming Situations Chapter 18.1.4 contains standards and procedures for the continuation of uses, structures, developments and lots that are lawfully established but do not comply with current ordinance standards (“nonconforming situations”). The chapter is intended to protect public health, safety, and general welfare, while allowing reasonable use of private property. Nonconforming situations are not necessarily considered a negative influence on a neighborhood; rather the benefits of continuing a nonconformity should be weighed against impacts to the neighborhood. The chapter contains four sections as follows: A. Nonconforming uses (e.g., commercial use in a residential zone) are subject to section 18.1.4.020; Finding: Not applicable. The allowed use is residential. B. Nonconforming structures (e.g., structure does not meet setback standards) are subject to section 18.1.4.030; Finding: Not applicable. C. Nonconforming developments (e.g., site does not meet landscaping standards) are subject to section 18.1.4.040; Finding: The existing site development includes structures, the utility vault, the other lot coverages created by the graveled areas that remained on the property following the removal of the residence and associated residential development components, the existing structures, the utility vault lid and the decomposed granite walkways, the rock lined irrigation channel, the benches, sand set patios, and other site improvements that are considered lot coverage under the definition of the Ashland Municipal Code 18.6.1.030 for “Lot Coverage” exist onsite exceed the maximum lot coverage in the WR Zone. According to 18.6.1.030. Coverage, Lot or Site is the total area of a lot covered by buildings, parking areas, driveways, and other solid surfaces that will not allow natural water infiltration to the soil. Landscaping, including living plants, vegetative ground cover, and mulch, which allows natural soil characteristics and water infiltration,and retention is not considered lot or site coverage. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 6 of 20 18.1.4.040 Nonconforming Developments A. Exempt Alterations. Repair and maintenance of a nonconforming development (e.g., paved area, parking area, landscaping) are allowed subject to approval of required building permits if the development is not enlarged or altered in a way that brings the nonconforming site less in conformity with this ordinance. See also, section 18.3.11.050 related to nonconforming uses in Water Resource Protection zones. Finding: The existing lot coverage of 33.3 percent is nonconforming development of the WR zoned property which allows for only seven percent coverage. The proposed new construction of a residence and the other associated improvements such as driveway, pathways, decks, patios, etc., do not meet the exempt alterations criteria. See B below. B.Planning Approval Required. A nonconforming development may be enlarged or altered subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4 and approval of required building permits, except that a planning action is not required for exempt alterations described in subsection 18.1.4.040.A, above, and for non-residential development subject to subsection 18.4.2.040.B.6. Finding: The proposal includes findings addressing the Conditional Use Permit criteria under chapter 18.5.4 to alter the non-conforming site development (lot coverage), ultimately reducing the non- conforming coverage areas. C. Roadway Access. The owner of a nonconforming driveway approach or access to a public street or highway, upon receiving land use or development approval, may be required as a condition of approval to bring the nonconforming access into conformance with the standards of the approval authority. Finding: Not applicable. D. Destruction. A legal nonconforming development that is damaged by means beyond the owner’s control, such as fire, flood, earthquake, or similar catastrophe, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its replacement cost, may be restored or reconstructed within the original three- dimensional building envelope (i.e., relative to coverage, height, setbacks, and other dimensions of the developed area) provided the nonconformity shall not increase. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 7 of 20 Finding: Not applicable. D. Nonconforming lots (e.g., lot smaller than minimum area standard) are subject to section 18.1.4.050. Finding: The property is a legal, non-conforming lot. The parcel area (37,902 square feet) is less than 50 percent of the required minimum lot area (87,120 square feet) in the WR Zone. The previous site development and the existing lot coverage predate the present WR zoning and the WR zoning restrictions. 18.1.4.050 Nonconforming Lots If a lot or the aggregate of contiguous lots or land parcels held in single ownership, and recorded in the office of the County Clerk at the time of passage of the ordinance codified herein, a legal lot or lot of record, as provided by chapter 18.1.3, with an area or dimensions that do not meet the standards of the zoning district in which the property is located, may be occupied by a use permitted in the zone subject to other requirements of the ordinance. Finding: The property is a legal, non-conforming property. The parcel area (37,902 square feet) is less than 50 percent of the required minimum lot area (87,120 square feet) in the WR Zone. The parcel and its previous development predate the present zoning and the zoning restrictions. The parcel of land is described in Instrument No. 90-16576 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon. The property consists of a portion of the Missouri E. Allen tract recorded on August 9, 1923, in Vol. 145, Pg. 465. The subject property appears on the first platted maps of Ashland approved by the Board of Commissioners in December 1883, as the J. Dennis Tract. A monument survey was conducted in 2009 that confirmed the properties boundaries and the accuracy of the deed. The assessor’s documents dated between 1983 – 2012 note the propertywas occupied by a residential dwelling and associated site improvements. The assessor’s documents also note the zoning of the property as Rural Residential (RR)-.5, then RR-.5-P. There is not a reference in the assessor’s documents to WRzoning until after 2012. After substantial research to determine why the discrepancy between the county records and the city records it was found that on September 28, 1981, the area of the subject property was rezoned to a new zoning designation Woodland Residential. According to City Council meeting minutes, the new Woodland Residential District was to control slope development and was to be applied sparingly to properties with very steep slopes. “Woodland Residential is a new zone to ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 8 of 20 be applied to forested areas to ensure that these areas are protected from incompatible development on slopes and forests with erosion control and scenic values as the prime purpose of the zone.” The council reviewed the slope criteria with the council regarding the minimum lot sizes (two acres) is based on the slope percentages. (Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting, Ashland City Council, September 28, 1982, pg. 4., are attached). The subject property is not only substantially smaller (56.5 percent smaller) than the minimum lot area in the WR zone, but the property is also not steep, and does not have erosion issues based on the extensive area of pre-established yard area, landscaping, pathways, gravel, structures, etc. Most of the site improvements existed in 1982 when the zone was changed from RR-.5 to WR. The zone changes from RR-.5 to WR substantially decreased the allowed lot coverage of the site below the development that was present at the time of the 1982 rezoning. Additionally, based on how lot coverage is calculated the site remains non-conforming even without the primary use of the site (single family residential) present. The proposal seeks to reduce the existing coverage areas of the non-conforming lot,but the resulting coverage is still more than allowed in the WR zone thus a variance is requested. 18.5.4.050 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria A. Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use 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. Finding: The proposal includes findings addressing the Conditional Use Permit criteria under chapter 18.5.4 to alter the non-conforming site development lot coverage (AMC 18.1.4.040), ultimately reducing the non- conforming coverage areas. The non-conforming situation is exacerbated by the non-conforming lot area in the highly restricted WR zone (AMC 18.1.4.050). 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. Finding: The use of the property as residential use is in conformance with purpose and intent of the residential zones. The proposal seeks a Conditional Use Permit to address the non-conforming situations on the property both non-conforming lot area and coverage for the WR zone. The use conforms to the standards of the zoning district and in conformance with the relevant Comprehensive plan policies for residential zones. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 9 of 20 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. Finding: There isadequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage and paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation exist to the site for the existing uses and from the previous residence. 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. Finding: The proposed residential use of the property and the proposed residential structure are the target use in the zone. The impact area includes 11 parcels. Four of those are Lithia Park properties that are immediately adjacent to the north, east and south, and vacant. There are seven residential parcels. Of those there are three that are zoned R-1-10 (Single family residential, 10,000 SF minimum lot area and maximum coverage of 40 percent). These are development with residential homes and associated improvements. There are four WR zoned properties. Two of these are vacant of structures. These parcels are generally very steep with slopes of over 35 percent. These properties are smaller than the minimum lot area in the zone but include the steep slopes envisioned on WR zoned lots. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. Finding: The scale and bulk is similar to the properties in the vicinity that are developed with residential uses. The two tables on the following pages demonstrate that the request is similar in both scale, bulk and coverage as the properties that are immediately adjacent to the subject property. Not included in the tables are the adjacent R-1-7.5 zoned property but it should be noted that the R-1-7.5 zoned property allows for a 45 percent coverage. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 10 of 20 Scale and Bulk: Address Zoning Lot Area Area of Ratio Notes: Structure(s) 433 Granite R-1-10 25,264.82,200 8.7 percent 435 Granite R-1-10 11,761.22,111 17.9 percent 440 Granite WR 37,9026,250 16.4 percent Proposed 445 Granite R-1-10 18,295.22,743 14.9 percent 514 Granite WR 25,264.82,662 10.5 percent Re-Zoned in ‘82 510 Granite WR 22,215.63,456 15.5 percent Re-Zoned in ‘82 Built in ‘19 Coverage:Coverage estimated due to driveway area and pathway areas unknown ~ Address ZoningLot Area Lot Coverage Ratio Allowed: 433 Granite R-1-10 25,264.8 ~ 4,475 ~17.4 10,105.9 435 Granite R-1-10 11,761.2 ~ 2,611 ~ 22.1 4,704.5 440 Granite WR 37,902 11,112 ~ 29.3 2,653 445 Granite R-1-10 18,295.2 ~ 3,344 ~ 18.2 7,318.08 514 Granite WR 25,264.8 ~3,609 ~14.3 1,768.5 510 Granite WR 22,215.6 ~2,983 ~13.4 1,555 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 11 of 20 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. Finding: The generation of traffic and the effects of the traffic from the residence on the surrounding street will be the same as a typical residential use. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. Finding: The proposed residence is a two-story structure with a basement. The residence reflects American Arts and Crafts style architecture. The structure proposes to use wood beams and natural wood siding with a flag stone base and wall treatment. The materials used in the construction will be compliant with the Wildfire Hazards Ordinance standards. The garage is below grade and not facing the public street with back up and turn around on the site to allow forward exiting of the property. The proposed residence is architecturally compatible with the residences in the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. Finding: The air quality will not be negatively impacted by the development of the property with a residential use. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. Finding: The proposed residential structure will generate similar noise, light and glare as a typical residential use. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The adjacent properties are zoned residential. The development of this residential property with a residential use does not affect the development of the adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 12 of 20 g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. Finding: Unknown what other factors are relevant. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. Finding: The use of the property as a residential use is permitted. 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. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Finding: The target use of the zone is residential. The conditional use permit allows for the development of a residential development which is the target use in the zone. The density of the property is one residential unit. The conditional use permit seeks to acknowledge the non-conforming lot area and the non- conforming site development and allow development with similar coverage. The existing coverage exceeds coverage amounts allowed by code and the proposal seeks a variance to reduce the total lot coverage while exceeding the maximum coverage allowed in the zone. Lot Coverage Variance: AMC 18.5.030. 1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. Finding: The subject property is substantially smaller in area than the required minimum lot area in the zone. The undersized lot area is a unique physical circumstance of the subject property that necessitates the variance request. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 13 of 20 There is substantially more coverage area afforded to a property when it is two acres vs. the subject property which is .87 of an acre or 56 percent of the minimum lot area. A two-acre parcel that has seven percent coverage is allowed 6,098 square feet of impervious surface. Allowed lot coverage of the .87-acre (37,902 square feet) parcel when it was zoned RR-.5 would have been 7,541 + (200 porous surface) square feet in area. There are accessory structures on the property that remained following the removal of the single- family residenceand its 4,732 square feet of impervious surfaces. These include a 221 square foot studio structure on the north side of the property, and a 458 square foot historical mill house which was reconstructed a little over four years ago after being damaged by a fallen tree. There is a 109 square foot area of concrete bench and seating area and a 196 square foot below-grade utility vault. The total areas of the site development excluding the walkways and paths included 5,716 square feet of coverage thus compliant with the previous zoning and prior ownership. Presently on the property with the way lot coverage is calculated by the city in 2023 there is substantially more coverage on the site. This is because in addition to the 984 square foot area of the structures on the property, there are existing extensive decomposed granite walkways and gravel parking area. These areas of decomposed granite walkway, driveway/parking area, and gravel pad area accounts for 11,649 square feet of lot coverage. The existing site coverage as calculated by the current standards accounts for more than 12,633 square feet, 33.3 percent of the lot area. The existing site coverage is non-conforming development because maximum coverage in the WR zone is seven percent (2,653.3 square feet). The property is a legal, non-conforming property. The parcel area (37,902 square feet) is less than 50 percent of the required minimum lot area (87,120 square feet) in the WR Zone. The parcel and its previous and existing development predate the present zoning and the zoning restrictions. The subject property is not only substantially smaller (56.5 percent smaller) than the minimum lot area in the WR zone, but the property is also not steep, and does not have erosion issues based on the extensive area of pre-established yard area, landscaping, pathways, gravel, structures, etc. Most of the site improvements existed in 1982 when the zone was changed from RR-.5 to WR. The zone changes from RR-.5 to WR substantially decreased the allowed lot coverage of the site below the development that was present at the time of the 1982 rezoning. Additionally, based on how lot coverage is calculated the site remains non-conforming even without the primary use of the site (single family residential) present. The zone and the limited lot coverage was applied after the previous structure occupied the site and the reasons for the zone, to protect steep, forested slopes are not present upon the subject ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 14 of 20 parcel and the WR zone appears to have been inappropriately applied to this lot because of the directive that the zone be applied sparingly to land with very steep slopes. 2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. Finding: The variance requests seek to allow for coverage area of 11,112 square feet. This is the minimum necessary to retain the existing structures, pathways and walkways, and to allow for the construction a new residence, the necessary parking and vehicle maneuvering areas, a permeable patio area, and natural pool area. The existing site coverage as calculated by the current standards accounts for more than 12,633 square feet, 33.3. The proposed site development accounts for 29.3 percent coverage, an overall reduction of the site coverage by four percent. 3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 15 of 20 Finding: The proposals benefit of development of a single family residentially zoned property as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan with a single-family residential home for a young, growing family does not cause any negative impacts on adjacent uses or properties. The proposals benefits are that the overall coverage of the property is reduced by four percent. The property will have a home on it again nearly 110 years after the first residence was constructed on the property. 4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as a result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. Finding: The variance request is due to the lot area being more than 50 percent smaller than the minimum lot area in the zone. The request is to reduce the existing site coverage by four percent and to develop the property with a single-family residence as envisioned in the comprehensive plan. The proposal seeks for lot coverage of the site that is similar to the coverage of the site by the previous site improvements and is less than the existing coverage on the property. The non- conforming lot area was not created by the property owners. The non-conforming lot area was created when the zone was changed from RR-.5 (which the lot complied with both in area and coverage) to WR in 1982 which immediately created a substantially non-conforming parcel. The existing coverages on the site were in existence prior to the property owners purchase of the lot in late 2019. 18.3.11.070Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction: A Water Resource Protection Zone may be reduced by up to 25 percent through a Type I procedure in 18.5.1.050and by greater than 25 percent and up to 50 percent through a Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060 if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. Finding: The proposed redevelopment of the site encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone by less than 25 percent. The property area is 37,902 square feet in area and the water resource protection zone encompasses 60 percent of the total lot area. The proposal seeks to provide a covered backyard patio area, a swimming pool and an outdoor swing structure within the WRPZ. The proposed area of encroachment is within the ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 16 of 20 existing areas of encroachment and are not impacting the riparian soils or vegetation. The ‘new’ encroachment areas are 1,129 square feet, five percent of the total 23,052 square foot WRPZ. The context of the properties landscaping, trees, historical yard areas, patio areas, structure locations and overall site improvements are important to consider when discussing the impacts to the water resource protection zone. The existing use and improvements areseparated from the creek banks the water resource by a rock wall. There is 8,262 square feet of the WRPZ in the natural areas along the retaining wall areas. Remaining area of 14,790 square feet of the WRPZ is the area of the property that includes the existing area previous disturbance associated with the residential use of the property that formerly included a wood deck, walkways, stairs, stacked rock walls, a pond, and the man-made irrigation ditch. There is an extensive lawn area and landscape planter beds. These site improvements can be maintained as exempt activities, but this proposal seeks to change the property and the type of encroachments that are within the WRPZ. The proposal seeks to provide a covered backyard patio area, a swimming pool and an outdoor swing structure within the WRPZ. The proposed area of encroachment is within the existing areas of encroachment and are not impacting the riparian soils or vegetation. The ‘new’ encroachment areas are 1,129 square feet, five percent of the total 23,052 square foot WRPZ. The manicured lawn area is reduced by 10 percent to off-set the impacts of the new encroachment. It can be found that the minor area of encroachment is minimal when considering the percentage of the property covered by the water resource protection zone and the amount of the WRPZ that is already developed as yard area and structures. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 17 of 20 A. The proposed use or activity is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone through the use of up to a 50 percent reduction of any dimensional standards (e.g., required front, side and rear yard setbacks; required distance between buildings) to permit development as far outside or upland of the Water Resource Protection Zone as possible. Such adjustment to any applicable dimensional standards shall be reviewed as part of the requested reduction and shall not be subject to a separate Variance application under chapter 18.5.5 Variances. Reductions to dimensional standards may not be used to reduce required Solar Access setbacks without evidence of agreement by the effected property owner(s) to the north through a concurrent Solar AccessVariance application as described in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access. Finding: The proposed use of the Water Resource Protection Zone encroachments is to allow for the construction of rear yard amenities for the new residence that is proposed at 440 Granite Street. The new areas of encroachment include a proposed outdoor patio, a portion of the pool, the covered walkway and a family swing. These are in the upland areas of the WRPZ. The use of the rear yard area of the property as a beneficial use to the home is designed to avoid intrusion into the Water Resource Protection Zone. The patio and pool area are proposed in the location shown because it is an area that was previously deck, steps and walkway areas and has already been encroached upon with deck and patio area and would previously have been permitted encroachments. The front yard setback of the residence is at the minimum required front yard setback. The residence will be 15-feet from the curb. The setback is not decreased to shift the structure away from the WRPZ because there is not additional right-of-way buffering the residence from the on-street parking of upper Granite Street. The buildable area is constrained by the narrowness of the lot between the street and the creek. Additionally, the setbacks are proposed at the minimum and utilize the existing driveway apron location and grade to provide for a below grade garage. The setback adjacent to Granite Street is not proposed to be reduced because of the amount of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the street, there is a lot of public interaction across the frontage of the property and a reduced setback reduces privacy for the property owners and a reduced setback imposes a structure upon the street and reduces the natural areas and feeling of still being in Lithia Park. One of the primary reasons for the location of the structure and the associated encroachments is due to the presence of large boulders, the historic irrigation ditch location and the presence of large stature trees to the north, east and south of the existing buildable area prevents the structure from shifting. B. The alteration of the Water Resource Protection Zone is the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the proposed activity and/or use. The proposed development shall minimize disturbance to the Water Resource Protection Zone by utilizing the following design options to minimize or reduce impacts of development. ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 18 of 20 1. Multi-story construction shall be considered. 2. Parking spaces shall be minimized to no more than that required as a minimum for the use. 3. Pavement shall be minimized, and all pavement used shall be installed and maintained in a porous solid surface paving material. 4. Engineering solutions shall be used to minimize additional grading and/or fill. Finding: The proposed residential structure is outside of the WRPZ. The structure is two story with a basement to reduce the footprint. The parking area, driveway and front yard areas are outside of the WRPZ. The proposed encroachments include porous patio areas, a small area of covered walkway, a pool area, a pergola structure for a swing, and a reduced, reconfiguration of the existing manicured lawn area. The areas of the proposed encroachments is within the area of the existing site improvements and encroachments into the WRPZ. The area of encroachment of the patio area is proposed to be a porous solid surface pavement material and not a solid concrete. The proposed pool area is only partially encroaching into the Water Resource ProtectionZone. The pool location is largely dictated by the existenceof large boulders that are present between the front property line and the existing studio structure and the existing patio area. These boulders push the functional areas of the property for use to the south portions of the site. The encroachments are the minimum necessary to allow for the site development. Less than five percent of the total WRPZ area is proposed to be encroached upon. This is a minimal encroachment when considering the WRPZ area encompasses 23,052 square feet of the property. C. The application demonstrates that equal or better protection for identified resources will be ensured through restoration, enhancement, and mitigation measures. The structures, functions, and values of the Water Resource will be restored through the implementation of a restoration and enhancement strategy set forth in a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements described in section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements. Finding: Though the plan requests encroachments into the WRPZ, the reduced area of manicured lawn, and any new vegetation per posed would be from the approved water resource protection zone plant list, providesequal protection for the vegetation within the WRPZ. In this case, the majority of the WRPZ is within the improved yard area of the property. The area of proposed disturbance has always beenpart of a formal landscaped area. The proposal changesthe improvements from a wood deck structure and planter area to a porous patio and a portion of a swimming pool area. The area of encroachment does not have a negative impact on the structure of the water resource because there is a substantial physical distance from the patio area and the portion of the pool where encroachment occurs. The water resource is physically separated from the yard area by a retaining wall. This retaining wall provides a clear distinction division between the vegetation and soil types associated ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 19 of 20 with a streambank and a riparian preservation area. The retaining wall is a historic feature of the property that was recently maintained. The vegetation on the stream side of the wall consists of maples and alders, trees typical to a riparian area. There is also limited ground cover under the tree canopy and the soil is a sandy, gravel, rocky mix, more typical of a riparian are soil types. On the west side of the wall within the historically developed yard area the trees are redwood, fir, oak and pine. These trees are typical in upland areas and provide shading functions and habitat areas, adding value to the water resource protection zone and the riparian area, but there is not a riparian type of landscaping and includes planter areas, existing pathways, and a manicured lawn area. The proposal does not remove any trees within the water resource protection zone, retains the trees and reduces the lawn area. The proposed patio and partial pool area is within areas that have previously been manipulated as part of the developed area of the property. The proposed development area replaces previous wood decking, existing pathways, rockery, stairs, and landscape planter areas with a porous surface patio area and only a portion of the of the pool encroaches. The primary area for the reduction to the water resource protection zone is at the upper extent of the protected area. D. Long term conservation, management, and maintenance of the Water Resource Protection Zone shall be ensured through preparation and recordation of a management plan as described in subsection 18.3.11.110.C, except a management plan is not required for residentially zoned lots occupied only by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. Finding: Not applicable. The property is occupied by a single-family dwelling and accessory structures. Attachments: Application Exhibits (Pages 1 – 24) Tree Protection and Erosion Control Plan Map of Ashland Deed 1923-901856 1981 Minutes Rezoning area to WR Jackson County Appraisal Records(1984-2012 - Sampling to show historical context of improvements) 2009 Demolition Permit (partial forms excluding the construction evaluations) ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Page 20 of 20