Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-13 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. June 13, 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. May 9, 2023, Regular Meeting 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 June 13, 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/99735505922 V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2023-00040, 1111 Granite St. B.Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2023-00042, Clear Creek Dr. Parcel 7 - 391E09AB TL 6700 & 391E09AA TL 6200 VI.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00041 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot 404 Clinton St. OWNER: Magnolia Heights LLC DESCRIPTION: A request Performance Subdivision Outline Plan approval for a 12-lot, 11-unit residential subdivision. The application also includes requests for an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit for four significant trees. Additionally, the applicant has applied for a minor amendment to the adopted Physical Page 1 of 2 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 CommissionAgenda and Environmental Constraints map to effectively remove a drainage way form the map that is not extant on the property. And finally, the applicant has addressed the applicability standards of the Water Resource Protection Zone WRPZ by providing a wetland determination demonstrating that there are no regulated wetland resources on the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 04 DB; TAX LOT: 404 (PLEASE NOTE: The record and public . hearing are closed on this matterThe Planning Commission's consideration of this item will be limited to their deliberation and decision. No further submittals (evidence or argument)will be accepted into the record.) VII.OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Officers VIII.OPEN DISCUSSION IX.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: June 27, 2023 Page 2 of 2 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). ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ 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. May 9, 2023 y SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDER: Chair Verner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. She called for moment of silence for Commissioner Michael Dawkins, who passed away on May 2, 2023. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager Doug Knauer Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner Eric Herron Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: There is currently no plan to hold the May 23, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session. Staff has been in contact with Sandra Slattery, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, about providing a presentation to the Commission at the June 27, 2023 Study Session regarding the economic diversification study that the Chamber recently ˳˿˽̀˼˵̄˵˴ʾ ˣ̄˱˶˶ ˶˵˼̄ ̄˸˵ ̃̄̅˴̉Ͻ̃ ˶˹˾˴˹˾˷̃ ̇˿̅˼˴ ˲˵ ̂˵˼˵̆˱˾̄ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾Ͻ̃ ̇˿̂˻ʾ The City is currently reviewing applications to fill the three vacant Commission positions. An Election of Officers will be conducted at the June 13, 2023 Commission meeting to formally select a Chair and Vice Chair. III.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 11, 2023, Regular Meeting 2. April 25, 2023 Special Meeting Commissioners KenCairn/Knauer m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. Page 1 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 3 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ IV.PUBLIC FORUM Ϻ ˞˿˾˵ V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00042 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Clear Creek Dr. Parcel 7 - 391E09AB TL 6700 & 391E09AA TL 6200 OWNER: Jacobs on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request to modify a condition of approval and change a deed restriction that was required in a 1999 planning approval (PA 99-048), amended in 2016 (PA-2016-00684), and recorded on the vacant 20-acre site owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The deed restriction required that the 20-acre site meets Oregon ˔˵̀˱̂̄˽˵˾̄ ˿˶ ˕˾̆˹̂˿˾˽˵˾̄˱˼ ˡ̅˱˼˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ʸ˔˕ˡʹ ˳˼˵˱˾̅̀ ̃̄˱˾˴˱̂˴̃ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱˲˼˵ ̄˿ ˱ Ͽ̃˹˾˷˼˵ ̂˵̃˹˴˵˾̄˹˱˼ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉Ѐ ˲˵˶˿̂˵ ˶̅̂̄˸˵̂ ˼˱˾˴ ˴˹visions or development occurs. The proposed revision to the deed restriction clarifies th˵ ̃˹̄˵ ˲˵ ˳˼˵˱˾˵˴ ̄˿ ˱˾ Ͽ̅̂˲˱˾ ̂˵̃˹˴˵˾̄˹˱˼ ̃̄˱˾˴˱̂˴Ѐ ̄˿ ˵˾˱˲˼˵ ˶̅̄̅̂˵ ˴˵̆˵˼˿̀˽˵˾̄ ˳˿˾̃˹̃̄˵˾̄ ̇˹̄˸ ̄˸˵ ˕ʽˁ ̊˿˾˹˾˷ ˿˶ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉ including commercial, employment, and ground floor residential within mixed-use and apartment buildings. The modified condition would stipulate the deed restriction would be removed from the property upon the City receiving written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ˑˣˣ˕ˣˣ˟ˢϽˣ ˝ˑˠ ʳˊ 391E09AB & 391E09AA; TAX LOT: 6700 & 6200 Chair Verner read the procedure for a Type II Public Hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Knauer informed the Commission that he had inadvertently discussed this item with Mr. Goldman within earshot of a representative of the Union Pacific Railroad before the start of the meeting. No other ex parte contact was reported. Applicant Presentation Mr. Goldman began by informing the Commission that this is an application from the City. The reason is because the City Council had heard a request from the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) on March 21, 2023, and subsequently directed staff to bring an application before the Commission to consider modifying the 2016 condition of approval. Mr. Goldman introduced both Greg Aitken, a member of staff who has experience in environmental cleanup, and Michael Niemet, who was representing UPRR. Don Hanson and Margaret Oscilia were Page 2 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 4 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ also in attendance via Zoom, and are consulting on behalf of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. Goldman provided historical background on the site, and detailed how a 1999 application to partition the property resulted in a condition of approval that established a deed restriction on the UPRR which would require the site to be cleaned to Residential standards before further land divisions or development could occur. This condition was amended in 2016 when the UPRR requested a modification in order to allow the entirety of the property to be cleaned to a single-residential ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉ʾ ˤ˸˵̂˵ ̇˵̂˵ ̃̅˲̃˵́̅˵˾̄ ˳˸˱˾˷˵̃ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ˔˕ˡϽ̃ ˳˼˵˱˾̅̀ ̃̄˱˾˴˱̂˴̃ ˹˾ ˂ˀˁˇʼ ̇˸˹˳˸ redesignated properties that could accommodate ground-floor residential units. The applicant is requesting a modification to the condition of approval and the corresponding deed restriction to stipulate that the property be cleaned to urban-residential standards, which is the type of development that could occur on the property with E-1 zoning. Mr. Goldman stated that UPRR has indicated that it will proceed with cleanup of the site after receiving approval of a modification to the deed restriction. Mr. Niemet provided a brief presentation where he outlined the scope of the project and the proposed covenant modification. He pointed out that residential standards have changed since the condition of approval was imposed, and requested that the Commission adopt the changes (see attachment #1). Mr. Niemet stated that the applicants are merely requesting a change to make it consistent with current land use. Mr. Goldman added that the cleanup plan and Record of Decision is part of a public process to keep City residents informed and allow them to provide feedback. The DEQ will be the jurisdictional authority over the cleanup, but the process will invite public comments. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Knauer inquired if the DEQ would set the targeted cleanup level of the property, or if the City would set the goal. Mr. Niemet responded that DEQ cleanup standards have recently changed, so this modification would create consistency between their standards and those of the City. Commissioner Knauer requested clarificati˿˾ ˿̆˵̂ ̄˸˵ ˱̀̀˼˹˳˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˵̈̀˵˳̄˱̄˹˿˾ ˿˶ ̄˸˹̃ application, and expressed concern that there could be confusion over the amount of contamination that they wish to remove from the site. Mr. Niemet responded that the main contaminant on the site is lead, and the same level of lead removal is present in both DEQ and City cleanup standards. The Commission discussed the appropriateness of including language in the condition to allow clean-up to an "urban residential and/or occupational standard", and whether allowing clean-up to the occupational standard would preclude future residential development. Page 3 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 5 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Commissioners Knauer/Herron m/s to approve a modification to the deed restriction with the following conditions: 1.All conditions of Planning Action 99-048 shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2.That the deed restriction required in condition 9 of PA 99-048, and amended per PA-2016-00684, shall be revised to read as follows: 3.That evidence shall be submitted demonstrating that the deed restriction has been revised in accordance with Condition 2 above and recorded prior to issuance of City excavation permit or any site work. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00041 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax Lot 404 Clinton St. OWNER: Magnolia Heights LLC DESCRIPTION: A request Performance Subdivision Outline Plan approval for a 12- lot, 11-unit residential subdivision. The application also includes requests for an Exception to Street Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit for four significant trees. Additionally, the applicant has applied for a minor amendment to the adopted Physical and Environmental Constraints map to effectively remove a drainage way form the map that is not extant on the property. And finally, the applicant has addressed the applicability standards of the Water Resource Protection Zone WRPZ by providing a wetland determination demonstrating that there are no regulated wetland resources on the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 04 DB; TAX LOT: 404 Chair Verner stated the Commission and applicants had received public testimony concerning this item prior to the meeting. (see attachment #2). Page 4 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 6 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ Ex parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Chair Verner conducted a site visit. Staff Presentation Senior Planner Aaron Anderson began by informing the Commission that a continuance of the meeting had been requested by a noticed resident, Eric Elerath. He provided a brief presentation where he outlined the subject property, and identified the site as an ephemeral stream in the floodzone. He stated that the application included requests for a Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) delineation, an exception to Street Standards, and the removal of 4 significant trees. Mr. Anderson concluded that staff recommended approval of the application with the conditions included in the staff report (see attachment #3). ˑ̀̀˼˹˳˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˠ̂˵̃˵˾̄˱̄˹˿˾ Applicant Amy Gunter detailed the site and described the surrounding neighborhood, City parklands and restricted wetland areas, and stated that the property is within a R-1-5 zone. She noted that the application proposes dividing the property into twelve-lot residential subdivisions with a common area parcel, and that the requested exception to Street Standards is for a portion of the sidewalk to be curbside. She added that the layout of the subdivision was naturally derived from the adjoining streets, and that the homes shown in the proposal do not necessarily depict the final product. The streets will also be extended to existing City street standards, except where the curbside sidewalk is proposed. Ms. Gunter identified an access easement north of the property which will be improved as a multi-use pathway for pedestrian access. Ms. Gunter concluded that the application complies with existing standards, excluding the requested exception to Street Standards, and that this project ̇˿̅˼˴ ˸˵˼̀ ˱˼˼˵̆˹˱̄˵ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ˾˵˵˴ ˶˿̂ ˱˴˴˹̄˹˿˾˱˼ ˸˿̅̃˹˾˷ ʸ̃˵˵ ˱̄̄˱˳˸˽˵˾̄ ʳ˄ʹʾ Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Knauer inquired about the placement of the open space designated in the application. Ms. Gunter responded that this is due to it being located at the lowest point of the property, and will include a required consolidated storm drain. Chair Verner noted that the application showed potential duplexes on the lot, which would result in twenty-two dwelling units on the eleven lots. Ms. Gunter responded that two residential units are now permitted on a lot provided they show adequate accessibility and development standards, and that the property will likely include duplexes. Chair Verner asked if all twenty-two dwelling units would be accessed from the alley. Ms. Gunter responded that they would, and that applicants are no longer required to include parking, but that adequate parking would be provided. Public Comments Eric Elerath/Mr. Elerath requested a continuance of the meeting to allow for additional research to Page 5 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 7 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ be submitted into the record. He stated that the conditions of approval of PA-T1-2019-00109, which allowed the subdivision, did not appear to have been carried over to this project. He said that he objected to the proposal, stating that the review of the project conducted by the Community Development Department appeared to violate article 6, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the balance of powers doctrine. Mr. Elerath stated that the application also appeared to violate Oregon State laws that regulate the licensing of land use professionals. Mr. Elerath noted apparent inconsistencies between a ˂ˀ˂ˀ ̂˵̆˹˵̇ ˿˶ ̄˸˵ ̃˹̄˵ ̄˸˱̄ ˼˿˳˱̄˵˴ ˱ Ͽ̃˼˹˷˸̄ ̃˼˿̀˵Ѐ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˿̀˵̂̄̉ʼ ̇˸˹˳˸ ˹̃ ̃˸˿̇˾ ˱̃ ˱ Ͽ̃̄˵˵̀ ̃˼˿̀˵Ѐ ˹˾ ̄˸˵ ˳̅̂̂˵˾̄ ̀̂˿̀˿̃˱˼ʾ ˘˵ ˼˱˽˵˾̄˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) does not require applicants to abide by prior approval conditions, and that the prior planning action referred to the development of Single-Family Residences (SFRs), not duplexes. He concluded that these changes are not consistent with the prior approval conditions. Bob Weibel/Mr. Weibel read from a memorandum provided his wife and himself (see attachment #5). Gordan Longhurst/Mr. Longhurst stated that he did not receive a notice of the application, despite living three houses away from the subject property. Mr. Longhurst commented that this development would increase neighborhood traffic, and that additional traffic signs would need to be installed. He stated that his understanding of R-1-5 zones is that a minimum of 5,000sqft is required for each dwelling on a lot, and that none of the proposed lots would have the space to accommodate two dwellings. He requested clarification regarding this discrepancy. Mr. Longhurst suggested that a further review of the wetlands be conducted, as the initial review was done during a drought period and therefore not indicative of its natural state. Linda Hilligoss/˝̃ʾ ˘˹˼˼˹˷˿̃̃ ˵˳˸˿˵˴ ˝̂ʾ ˜˿˾˷˸̅̂̃̄Ͻ̃ ˳˿˾˳˵̂ns regarding the environmental impact of the development, stating that there are inconsistencies between a past wetland review and one done more recently. She expressed concern that the wetland area is not listed as a WRPZ. Ms. Hilligoss suggested that the applicant reduce the number of lots from eleven to ten to provide a open space in lot one that could provide additional water protection. Ms. Hilligoss expressed concern that a traffic report was not included in the application, and requested that more traffic signs be installed around the neighborhood. Mr. Goldman pointed out that any property that can accommodate one dwelling unit can now contain two, per House Bill 2001. He mentioned that the City has long allowed this, and that it cannot prohibit two units where one would be allowed. ˑ̀̀˼˹˳˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˢ˵˲̅̄̄˱˼ Ms. Gunter stated that there are no required licenses for land use developers. She stated that her Page 6 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 8 ˠ˼˱˾˾˹˾˷ ˓˿˽˽˹̃̃˹˿˾˝˹˾̅̄˵̃ licensed team proposed this development plan, and that they would be stamped in accordance with licensing laws. Ms. Gunter suggested that any concerns regarding signage around the neighborhood should be directed to the Transportation Advisory Committee. She stated that her ̄˵˱˽Ͻ̃ ˼˹˳˵˾̃˵˴ ̀̂˿˶˵̃̃˹˿˾˱˼ʼ ˚˿˴˹ ˖˿̂˷˹˿˾˵ʼ ˳˱˾ ̃̀˵˱˻ ˽˿̂˵ ̄˿ ̄˸˵ ̇˵̄˼˱˾˴̃ʼ ˲̅̄ ̄˸˱̄ ˾˿ ̀̂˵̆˹˿̅̃ wetland studies had been conducted on this property. She explained that the determination of a wetland is based on the combined presence of specific plants, soil, and water types, and that the wetland delineation has not yet been completed at the state level. Ms. Gunter stated that her client, Gil Livni, received a copy of the memo read by Mr. Weibel. Chair Verner reminded the Commission that a continuance request had been submitted by Mr. Elerath. Commissioner KenCairn remarked that keeping the record open for only seven days would not provide sufficient time for additional research to be done or for comments to be submitted. The Commission discussed an appropriate timeframe for the record to remain open. Commissioner Herron suggested that the record be kept open for an additional seven days to allow for further comments to be received, and then a further seven days be provided for any participant of the meeting to respond to comments received during the extension period. The Commission agreed, with Chair Verner recommending a two-week period for additional comments. Commissioners Herron/Knauer m/s to close the Public Hearing and keep the Public Record open for fourteen additional days, followed by seven days for participating parties to respond, followed by seven days for a final argument from the applicant. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Herron expressed appreciation for the opinions shared during the meeting, and requested that all further comments be limited to the criteria over which the Commission has purview. Commissioner KenCairn concurred, stating that the Commission will not have purview over the issues raised regarding lights and street signs. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Goldman stated that this item would be returning the Commission at the June 13, 2023 Regular Meeting, and reminded the Commission that any ex parte contact should be avoided since the ̂˵˳˿̂˴ ˸˱̃ ˲˵˵˾ ˼˵˶̄ ˿̀˵˾ʾ ˝̂ʾ ˗˿˼˴˽˱˾ ˵̈̀˼˱˹˾˵˴ ̄˸˱̄ ̄˸˵ ˓˹̄̉Ͻ̃ ̀̂˿˳˵̃̃ ˶˿̂ ˾˿̄˹˳˹˾˷ ˾˵˹˷˸˲˿̂̃ about planning actions includes mailing notices to all addresses within 200ft of the subject property, as well as placing signs around the property. He commented that state guidelines for notices only require those within 100ft to be noticed. Mr. Goldman requested that any evidence of noticing procedures not being met should be submitted and entered into the record. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION Ϻ ˞˿˾˵ VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 7 of 7 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). Total Page Number: 9 Total Page Number: 10 Total Page Number: 11 Total Page Number: 12 Total Page Number: 13 Total Page Number: 14 Total Page Number: 15 Total Page Number: 16 Total Page Number: 17 Total Page Number: 18 Total Page Number: 19 Total Page Number: 20 Total Page Number: 21 Total Page Number: 22 Total Page Number: 23 Total Page Number: 24 Total Page Number: 25 Total Page Number: 26 Total Page Number: 27 Total Page Number: 28 Total Page Number: 29 Total Page Number: 30 Total Page Number: 31 Total Page Number: 32 Total Page Number: 33 Total Page Number: 34 Total Page Number: 35 Total Page Number: 36 Total Page Number: 37 QUESTIONS? Total Page Number: 38 Total Page Number: 39 Total Page Number: 40 REQUEST FOR OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 12 LOT SUBDIVISION Clinton Street Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42 Total Page Number: 43 The proposal complies with the criteria for a Performance Standards Subdivision. All proposed lot area and dimensions exceed the minimum lot size in the R-1-5-P zone. Adequate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle CONCLUSION access is proposed through the improvements to the streets, the extension of streets, sidewalks, a pedestrian/bicycle pathway access to the public parkland north of the subject site. Ample open space with connection to the public park. Total Page Number: 44 Total Page Number: 45 Total Page Number: 46 Total Page Number: 47 Total Page Number: 48 Total Page Number: 49 Underlying Zone: A.The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Overlay Zones: B.The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Site Development and Design Standards: C.The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. City Facilities: D.The proposal complies with the applicable standards insection 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. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: E.The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1.There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negativelyimpact 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 difficultyin 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. Total Page Number: 50 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. 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 anyCity, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. Whenevaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c.Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e.Generation of noise, light, and glare. f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. WR and RR. a.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. Total Page Number: 51 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’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. An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception issubject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands ifthe proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1.There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2.The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3.The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Total Page Number: 52 4.The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. All Limited Activities and Uses described in section 18.3.11.060 shall be subject to a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050. An application for a Limited Activities and Uses Permit shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. All activities shall be located as far away from streams and wetlands as practicable, designed to minimize intrusion into the Water Resources Protection Zone and disturb as little of the surface area of the Water Resource Protection Zone as practicable. 2.The proposed activity shall be designed, located and constructed to minimize excavation, grading, area of impervious surfaces, loss of native vegetation, erosion, and other adverse impacts on Water Resources. 3.On stream beds or banks within the bank full stage, in wetlands, and on slopes of 25 percent or greater in a Water Resource Protection Zone, excavation, grading, installation of impervious surfaces, and removal of native vegetation shall be avoided except where no practicable alternative exists, or where necessary to construct public facilities or to ensure slope stability. 4.Water, storm drain, and sewer systems shall be designed, located and constructed to avoid exposure to floodwaters, and to avoid accidental discharges to streams and wetlands. 5.Stream channel repair and enhancement, riparian habitat restoration and enhancement, and wetland restoration and enhancement will be restored through the implementation of a mitigation plan prepared in accordance with the standards and requirements in section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements. 6.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. Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b.The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. Total Page Number: 53 i.For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, qualityof experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii.For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d.The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. Hazard Tree. 1.A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b.The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Tree That is Not a Hazard. 2.A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City Total Page Number: 54 may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. Total Page Number: 55 The Comprehensive Water Plan also studied the efficiency of the City’s water distribution system. It was found that this system is in need of upgrading and improvement. At present, 28 percent of the water released from the water treatment plant is lost throughout the distribution system. A normal system in good condition can expect 10 percent system losses. Overall, the City’s water system is in need of improvement to adequately supply the residents in the years to come. Improvements will be costly and large capital expenditures should be planned for as part of the City’s overall Capital Improvement Program.” To provide sufficient water supply for Ashland residents#17) The City should further study the construction of a new impoundment on Ashland Creek at the Winburn site to augment the City’s storage capacity in thewatershed. #18) The City should prioritize and implement needed water system improvements, as identified by the City Water Plan, as part of the City’s overall Capital Improvement Plan. See applicant’s Appendix A, Sheet 000C002, Overall Site Layout Plan Total Page Number: 56 See Appendix G, Sheet 001L601 for a list and quantity of proposed species Appendix GLandscape Plan Total Page Number: 57 Appendix FManagement Plan Appendix A, Sheets 001C101-001C103 Appendix A, Sheets 002C101-002C503 Appendix A, Sheets 001C202-001C207 and Sheets 002C519-002C523 Total Page Number: 58 Appendix A, Sheet 004E101 for the overall electrical site plan and Sheets 000E001- 000E704, 100E101-100E604, 300E101-300E611, 400E101, 500E101, and 600E101-600E603 Total Page Number: 59 Appendix G. See applicant’s Appendix A, Sheet 001C503 Total Page Number: 60 fences and walls exceeding the height requirements of this section shall meet yard requirements Total Page Number: 61 Appendix G. Appendix A, Sheets 001C202-001C207 for the Stormwater Plan, 004E100-004E104 for the Electrical Plan, and Sheets 002C101-002C503 for the Piping Plan Total Page Number: 62 Total Page Number: 63 Appendix I Total Page Number: 64 See applicant’s Figure 1 of Appendix I ‘Physical Constraints Review Plan’ for details of work proposed within floodplain corridor lands See applicant’s Appendix A, Sheet 001C300 see applicant’s Appendix C for the Geotechnical Report and Appendix D for the Addendum see applicant’s Appendix A, ‘Erosion and Sediment Control Plan’ on Sheets 000C004-000C010 see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheet 001C503 (see applicant’s Appendix G for the Landscape Plan see applicant’s Appendix G, Sheet 001L601 see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 001C202- 001C207 for the Stormwater Plan, 004E100-004E104 for the Electrical Plan, and Sheets 002C101- 002C503 for the Piping Plan, Appendix C for the Geotechnical Report, and Appendix D for the Geotechnical Addendum Total Page Number: 65 see applicant’s Appendix F for the Management Plan, and S Specification Section 32 92 00‘Seeding, Sodding, and Landscaping’ for maintenance details (see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 001C202-001C207 for the Stormwater Plan, Sheets 002C519-002C523 for Stormwater Details, and Appendix H for the Stormwater Report). see applicant’s Appendix G for the Landscape Plan see applicant’s Appendix G, Sheet 001L501 for the tree protection details, and Appendix G, Sheets 001C111A-B for the trees identified to be removed see applicant’s Appendix G, Sheets 001C111 and 001L501 for tree protection details see applicant’s Appendix G ‘Landscape Plan’forlocations and species of proposed trees Total Page Number: 66 see applicant’s Appendix F for the Management Plan see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 000A001-000A012, Sheets 100A101-100A301, Sheets 300A103-300A401, and Sheets 600A101-600A301 for Architectural Details see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 001C108- 001C010 for the Grading Plan see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 000C004-000C010 for the erosion and sediment control plan Total Page Number: 67 see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 001C108-001C010 for the Grading Plan and Figure 4 of Appendix I ‘Physical Constrains Review Plan’ for the Slope Analysis See applicant’s Appendix A, Sheet 001C503 see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 001C008-001C010 for the Grading Plan and Sheets 000C004-000C010 for the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan see applicant’s Appendix G for the Landscape Plan see applicant’s Appendix Total Page Number: 68 G for the Landscape Plan see applicant’s Appendix C for the Geotechnical Engineering Report and Appendix D for the Geotechnical Engineering Report Addendum See applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 000C101- Total Page Number: 69 000C106 and Sheets 001C300-001C303 for the culvert work see applicant’s Appendix L for the Fire Prevention and Control Plan See applicant’s Specification Section 21 05 00 ‘Fire Protection Systems’ Total Page Number: 70 see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheets 000C101- 000C106 and Sheets 001C300-001C303 for the work within the WRPZ, and see applicant’s AppendixG for the Landscape Plan see applicant’s Appendix J for the Water Resources Protection Zone Plan see applicant’s Appendix A, Sheet 001C101 for details on utilities crossing the creek seeapplicant’s Appendix E for the Mitigation Plan see applicant’s Appendix F for the Management Plan The Comprehensive Water Plan also studied the efficiency of the City’s water distribution system. It was found that this system is in need of upgrading and improvement. At present, 28 percent of the water released from the water treatment plant is lost throughout the distribution system. A normal system in good condition can expect 10 percent system losses. Overall, the City’s water system is in need of improvement to adequately supply the residents in the years to come. Improvements will be costly and large capital expenditures should be planned for as part of the City’s overall Capital Improvement Program.” Total Page Number: 71 To provide sufficient water supply for Ashland residents#17) The City should further study the construction of a new impoundment on Ashland Creek at the Winburn site to augment the City’s storage capacity in the watershed.” #18) The City should prioritize and implement needed water system improvements, as identified by the City Water Plan, as part of the City’s overall Capital Improvement Plan.” see applicant’s Appendix G for the Landscape Plan showing tree removal, protection, and proposed plantings Total Page Number: 72 Total Page Number: 73 Total Page Number: 74 Total Page Number: 75 Total Page Number: 76 Total Page Number: 77 Total Page Number: 78 Total Page Number: 79 C.Major Modification Approval Criteria. A Major Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1.Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that thescope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. 2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C.The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D.The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E.Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F.Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G.The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H.Unpaved Streets. 1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. Total Page Number: 80 a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d.Should thepartition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from thealley and prohibited from the street. J.Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K.A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria insection 18.5.3.060 . Total Page Number: 81 Total Page Number: 82 Original Approval (1999) Total Page Number: 83 the future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. The application notes that the deed restriction will be placed on the remaining approximately 25 acres due to subsurface contamination resulting from pastrailroad operations. The E-1 zoning and residential overlay (R-Overlay) allow for a variety of commercial and residential uses. The City’s Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development, and existing City ordinances and neighborhood planning efforts provide a variety of incentives in the hope of achieving this goal. Consequently, it is important that the contaminants on the remaining 20+ acres be removed or reduced to levels which would allow for commercial, as well as residential uses. Staff has attached a condition requiring that the final cleanup achieve this goal and verification be provided fromthe Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). A deed restriction be placed on the remaining 25 acres(approximately) precluding further “development” or land divisions until the property has been cleaned to residential standards. Written compliance with these standards shall be provided to the City from the Department of Environmental Quality.” Condition Modification (2016) Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter, development of or any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written documentation fromthe Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the Total Page Number: 84 City. Current Request (2023) I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to replace the condition of approval in PA2016-00684 with the modified condition of approval presented in the March 21, 2023, Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad and DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards. Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or landdivision until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property. These land uses correspond with the Department of Environmental Quality Urban Residential and/or Occupational exposure scenarios. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City. Total Page Number: 85 The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for e) Commercial or employment zones where business and residential uses are Total Page Number: 86 mixed. This is especially appropriate as buffers between residential and employment or commercial areas and in the Downtown. .Promote a mixed land use pattern, where appropriate, and pedestrian environment design that supports walking and bicycling trips. Provide appropriate land supplies for needed business growth/expansion with quality infrastructure to all commercial and employment lands. Determine feasibility and cost/benefit for public purchase of key industrial lands to make “shovel ready” for re-sale for business development. “... whether direct public financial involvement may be the more appropriate tool to address those barriers and make lands more financially attractive and operationally functional for private development (i.e., the railroad property). “Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets the cleanup standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoningfor the property, consistent with the DEQ Urban Residential exposure standard. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanupstandards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City” Total Page Number: 87 Total Page Number: 88 “Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets the cleanup standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoningfor the property, consistent with the DEQ Urban Residential exposure standard. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanupstandards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City” Total Page Number: 89 “As a condition of approval of this plat, the City of Ashland has required the following statement: Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until the property has been cleaned to residential standards. Written compliance with these standards shall be provided to the city form the Department of Environmental Quality.” Parcel 7 is restricted form further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter, development of or any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written document from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City.” “Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets the Total Page Number: 90 cleanup standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property, consistent with the DEQ Urban Residential exposure standard. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City. “Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter, development of or any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor will provide written document from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City.” “Parcel 7 is restricted from further development or land division until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets the cleanup standards consistent with the current and likely future land use zoning for the property, consistent with the DEQ Urban Residential exposure standard. Thereafter, development of any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets cleanup standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. This covenant will be removed from the property, and/or any subdivided parcel(s), upon the grantor providing the City written documentation from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City. Total Page Number: 91 Total Page Number: 92 Total Page Number: 93 Total Page Number: 94 Total Page Number: 95 Total Page Number: 96 MEMO: PA-T2-2023-00041 To: Planning Commission Re: Additional Comments during open record At the Conclusion of the May 9 public hearing the record was left open in th ̂˵̃̀˿˾̃˵ ̄˿ ˝̂ʾ ˕˼˵̂˱̄˸Ͻ̃ ̂˵́̅˵̃̄ʾ The record was to stay open for two weeks until end of day May 23. rd During that time four public comments were received and are attached to this memo. For the next week, until May 30 Parties could respond to any new th material submitted. During that week no additional comments were received. Revised findings have also been included in the packet. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 97 Total Page Number: 98 Total Page Number: 99 Total Page Number: 100 Aaron Anderson CFM, Sr. Planner Total Page Number: 101 Total Page Number: 102 Total Page Number: 103 Total Page Number: 104 Total Page Number: 105 Total Page Number: 106 Total Page Number: 107 Total Page Number: 108 Total Page Number: 109 Total Page Number: 110 “The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity.” Total Page Number: 111 The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas.” “The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.” Total Page Number: 112 “There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.” ” “The development complies with the Street Standards.” Total Page Number: 113 “The proposed development meets the common open space standards” Total Page Number: 114 There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and the exception is consistent with the purpose, intent, and background of the street design standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A; and the exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity… Total Page Number: 115 Total Page Number: 116 Total Page Number: 117 Total Page Number: 118 Total Page Number: 119 Total Page Number: 120 Total Page Number: 122 Total Page Number: 123 Total Page Number: 124