Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-14 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. November 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 1.Approval of Minutes a.October 10, 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 November 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/96078825015 V.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2023-00043 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 192 North Mountain Avenue OWNER / APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of the previously approved Outline Plan (PA-T3-2021-00003), and revised Final plan for the third phase of the Beach Creek Subdivision. The proposal revises the subdivision plan to include a private alley and to add one additional lot. The project is currently under construction with Phases I and II recorded and houses under construction. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 10; TAX LOT #’s: 800 VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING A. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDIANCE TO REMOVE AUTOMOBILE PARKING MANDATES AND AMEND PARKING STANDARDS SET FORTH IN ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.3.14, 18.3.2, 18.3.4, 18.3.5, 18.3.9, 18.4.2, 18.4.3, 18.4.4, 18.4.6, 18.5.2, 18.5.3, 18.5.4, 18.5.5, AND 18.5.6. 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). Total Page Number: 1 Planning CommissionAgenda VII.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2023-00018, 321 Clay Street. VIII.OPEN DISCUSSION IX.ADJOURNMENT Next Scheduled Meeting Date: November 28, 2023 Study Session 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). Total Page Number: 2 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. October 10, 2023 REGULAR MEETING DRAFT 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. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Lisa Verner Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Doug Knauer Derek Severson, Planning Manager Eric Herron Jennifer Chenoweth, Associate Planner Russell Phillips Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Susan MacCracken Jain Kerry KenCairn Gregory Perkinson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcements: The application for PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North was withdrawn by the applicant after it was remanded to the City by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Staff anticipates that the applicant will submit a similar application in light of new state laws. PA-T3-2022- 00004 is now concluded. The City Council will review a draft ordinance to eliminate City parking mandates at its October 17, 2023 Regular Meeting. These changes are part of the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) state guidelines, and will be reviewed by the Commission in November before going back to the Council for final review and adoption on December 5 and December 19, 2023. The Bear Creek Restoration Summit will be held on November 2, 2023 at the Talent Community Center. It will focus on the rehabilitation of the Bear Creek corridor as a path for pedestrians and cyclists, while also making it a fire adaptive space. Commissioner KenCairn asked if the Brea Creek summit would be a multi-community meeting. Mr. Goldman responded that it would, and that representatives of Ashland, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, and Jackson County had been invited to attend. Page 1 of 6 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 Planning CommissionMinutes Chair Verner requested that staff send the sign up forms for the summit to the Commission. III.CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of Minutes a.September 12, Regular Meeting Commissioners Perkinson/KenCairn m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.TYPE 1 PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2023-00018 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 321 Clay Street OWNER / APPLICANT: Table Rock Tree for Jenny Osborne APPELLANT: Albert Pepe DESCRIPTION: This is an appeal for the removal of the weeping willow tree located at space #19. The original request, PA-TREE-2023-00210, was for approval to remove four (4) trees near residences at the Wingspread Mobile Home Park; located near spaces 19, F, 92, and 94. The trees are as follows: weeping willow, 47 inch diameter at breast height (DBH) at space 19; cottonwood, 12 inch DBH at space F; two silver maples 11 inch DBH and 9 inch DBH located between spaces 92 and 94. The application has been prepared by a certified arborist and states that trees are in a state of decline; causing damage to property; severely leaning, and have evidence of decay, respectively. As the trees continue to decline, they present a hazard to nearby properties. In summary, PA-APPEAL-2023-00018 is an appeal of PA-TREE-2023-00210 which was approved for removal of all four trees. The Notice of Land Use Appeal was submitted for only the removal of the weeping willow tree at space #19. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; MAP: 39 1E 11C; TAX LOT: 3000 Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Chair Verner conducted a site visit, while Commissioner Knauer reviewed the site via Google. No other Commissioners reported site visits. Page 2 of 6 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 Planning CommissionMinutes Staff Presentation Mr. Severson informed the Commission that the original application requested the removal of four trees, though the appeal seeks only to halt the removal of the weeping willow. An arborist contracted by the applicant submitted a report stating that all four trees could prove hazardous to nearby properties. Mr. Severson described the current and potential damage that the trees pose to nearby homes, and stated that the weeping willow has dead limbs weighing from 100-400 pounds that could cause significant damage if not removed. He noted that some branch failures had already resulted in damaged property and caused damage to the tree itself. Mr. Severson noted that continued pruning would likely increase the chance of the tree decaying. Mr. Severson showed the weeping willow’s current rate of decay using aerial photographs, and pointed out that some of the decaying limbs were hanging over adjacent property lines (see attachment #1). Mr. Severson displayed public comments that staff received showing support for the tree’s removal, citing its potential danger to nearby property. One public comment stated that the seeds from the tree made it impossible for the resident to maintain a garden and resulted in up to 35 sprouts in her yard per year. Albert Pepe, who is a tenant at 321 Clay Street and the appellant of this planning action, also submitted public comments opposing the tree’s removal, stating that he was appreciative of the shade and view it provided. He proposed that he would maintain the tree at his own expense, including hiring an arborist to prune the tree when necessary. Based on the comments received from nearby residents, the recommendation of the applicant’s arborist, and the approval of the Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC), staff approved the application to remove all four trees. Mr. Severson stated that there is nothing in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) that would allow staff to deny the submitted application. Therefore, based on the public comments received, and the recommendation of the arborist, staff advised that the appeal be denied and the original approval be upheld. Questions of Staff Commissioner Knauer inquired if the applicant of the original application is the property owner. Mr. Severson responded in the affirmative, adding the applicant’s arborist would be speaking on the owner’s behalf. Applicant Presentation Arborist Tate Dunn spoke on behalf of the property owner, and provided the arborist report in the original applicant. Mr. Dunn noted that he had not spoken with the property owner personally, and that he communicated solely with Jenny Osborne of CPM Real Estate Services, who manages the property. Page 3 of 6 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 Planning CommissionMinutes Mr. Dunn informed the Commission that he had been contracted to assess the trees three months prior to this meeting. During his visual review he noted severe cuts in the tree that had resulted in dead limbs and decay. Mr. Dunn explained that pruning the would not mitigate these hazards, and would only result in a reduced canopy and a reduction in the tree’s ability to photosynthesize. Mr. Dunn concluded that he could not say definitely when the tree would uproot or experience a major branch failure, but that it would likely occur. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner KenCairn requested that Mr. Dunn elaborate on the disease afflicting the tree in question. Mr. Dunn responded that the tree is suffering from epicormic growth, which is a growth that occurs when the tree suffers a significant wound. The tree experiences accelerated growth to heal the wound and regrow the canopy as quickly as possible, but the resulting branches are weaker and prone to failures when they become overgrown. Appellant Presentation Appellant Albert Pepe began by clarifying that he lives at unit #21 on 321 Clay Street, and that some of the dead branches hang over his home and shed, as well as unit #19. Mr. Pepe stated that the resident of #19 appeared willing to allow him to prune the tree, something he had done during the Almeda Fire to remove some epicormic growth. Mr. Pepe reiterated that the property is an owner- occupied mobile home park, and that he attempted unsuccessfully to contact the property owner directly to request that the tree be preserved. Mr. Pepe refuted the arborist for the applicant’s claim that the diameter of the tree measured 47 inches, stating that his own measurements showed it to be significantly larger. Mr. Pepe stated that the tree is located in a riparian zone and has not been properly maintained by the owner. He presented a video taken of the site that emphasized his commitment maintaining the tree himself, as well as his personal connection to it (see here). Mr. Pepe stated that his father showed a great appreciation for nature. He requested that the City support him in his efforts to save the tree. Questions of the Appellant Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked if Mr. Pepe is a trained arborist for the basis of his opinion that pruning would be a viable alternative to removal. Mr. Pepe responded that he is not a trained arborist, though he did hire an arborist who stated that the tree could be maintained through pruning. He added that he had assured the owner that they wouldn’t be held liable for any damages caused by the tree to his property. Chair Verner inquired if the appellant had been able to communicate with any of the property owners. Mr. Pepe responded that he spoke briefly with one, but that this person was not interested in Page 4 of 6 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 Planning CommissionMinutes communicating. He stated that the primary property owner lives in southern California, but has twice denied Mr. Pepe’s request to speak through CPM Real Estate Services. Chair Verner asked if the Mr. Pepe had submitted any formal proposal to enter into a maintenance agreement with the property owner, to which Mr. Pepe responded that all of his proposals had been verbal. Chair Verner recommended that Mr. Pepe submit a formal written request. Commissioner KenCairn stated that weeping willows commonly have life expectancies of 75-100 years in her experience, and that one such specimen on her property had to be removed after pruning was unable to remove the decay afflicting the tree’s core. Mr. Pepe acknowledged that the property owner’s main concern is the liability issues the tree poses, and that he did not expect this appeal to succeed. The Commission expressed admiration for the appellant’s dedication to preserving the tree. Applicant’s Rebuttal Mr. Dunn echoed the Commission’s admiration for Mr. Pepe, stating that he respected his resolve and testimony. Mr. Dunn stressed that this admiration does not change his professional opinion that the tree will likely have further issues and cause more damage in the future. He added that Mr. Pepe’s method for calculating the tree’s diameter was incorrect. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner MacCracken Jain pointed out that insurance companies are becoming increasingly reluctant to grant insurance policies to tenants with trees above their homes. The Commission voiced general appreciation for the appellant’s case, but stated that they do not have the jurisdictional authority to deny the application. Commissioners Perkinson/Herron m/s to deny the appeal, to accept staff’s and the arborist’s recommendation, and all conditions within the staff report. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VI.OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Goldman announced that the Interim Parks and Recreation Director would be presenting an update of their master plan at the Commission’s October 14, 2023 Study Session. Commissioner MacCracken Jain asked which organization within the City has jurisdiction over the replacement of removed trees. Mr. Goldman responded that the AMC requires a one-to-one Page 5 of 6 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 Planning CommissionMinutes replacement of any trees removed, and the applicant is proposing a two-to-one replacement program. He noted that the applicant will be submitting an irrigation and tree plan in the future, as well as proposing trees more suitable for an urban environment. Commissioner Knauer inquired if the Commission’s approval of the tree removal permit, including staff’s conditions, constitute a binding agreement. Mr. Goldman responded that all proposals by the applicant are conditions of approval, and so the applicant is legally committed to replace the trees at the two-to-one rate proposed. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 6 of 6 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 PA-APPEAL-2023-00018 Ashland Planning Commission October 10, 2023 Appeal of PA-T1-2023-00210 PA-APPEAL-2023-00018 Appeal of PA-T1-2023-00210 Wingspread Tree Removal Appeal ˑ˾ ˱̀̀˵˱˼ ˿˶ ̃̄˱˶˶Ͻ̃ ˱̀̀̂˿̆˱˼ ˿˶ a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees near residences at the Wingspread Mobile Home Park located at 321 Clay Street. The trees are as follows: a 47-inch diameter weeping willow at space 19; a 12-inch diameter cottonwood at space F; and two silver maples (11-inch & 9-inch) located between spaces 92 and 94. The application has been prepared by a certified arborist who states that the trees are in a state of decline; causing damage to property; severely leaning, and having evidence of decay, respectively. As the trees continue to decline, they pose hazards to nearby properties. The appeal is specific to the removal of the weeping willow, and asserts that: 1.There is another option to complete removal by pruning upper dead branches and removing some of the weight to make it not a hazard tree. 2.Once upper pruning is complete it is not clear that the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. 3.Once upper pruning is complete, the appellant has offered to continue to maintain the tree at his cost every 2Ϻ3 years. 2 Total Page Number: 9 2 Silver Maples @ #92-94 Willow @ #19 Cottonwood @ #F APPLICANT Original Application Removal of Two Silver Maples (9-inch & 11-inch) Behind Spaces #92 & #94 Per certified Arborist: Several concerns with both trees relating to their safety and functionality in the future. Species is brittle and does a poor job preventing the spread of decay from wounds in the main stem, and have a mature height and crown spread of 80- to 100-feet. Smaller maple has included main stem unions that are beginning to cause cracking and separation at the base of the tree which will only get worse over time and is impossible to correct at this stage. Larger maple has a severely phototropic lean that is concerning and is also too developed to properly correct. Also has a large wound at the base that has developed a significant amount of decay further compromising the strength of the tree. It is my professional recommendation that both trees be removed. 4 Total Page Number: 10 5 APPLICANT Original Application Removal of 12-inch Cottonwood in backyard of Space ϿFЀ Per certified Arborist: Tree is sending out roots that are sprouting and growing into separate trees nearby. The tree is likely a sprout from another nearby tree; this is very common with Cottonwood trees. Aggressive surface roots are beginning to grow into underground plumbing and breaking water lines. Tree will ultimately outgrow the space and needs to be removed at some point. It will only become larger and more costly to remove when this happens. These trees are fast growing with a relatively short life span. As they begin to decline, they will shed large branches that can no longer be supported and will become very hazardous for the people and structures nearby. It is my professional recommendation that this tree be removed sooner, rather than later, to prevent potential damage in the future. 6 Total Page Number: 11 7 APPLICANT Original Application Removal of 47-inch Weeping Willow behind Space #19. Per certified Arborist: End of lifespan. Declining health & vigor. Dieback in upper canopy due to declining root system. Most of the main lead branches have died with little live tissue back to main stem. Dead leads are from 6- to 12-inches and weigh 100 to 400 pounds, and many are likely to fall in the next several years. Some large failures have caused minor property damage. Branch failures have torn main stem causing large wounds; decay not properly compartmentalized. Prior pruning with severe heading cuts caused a large amount of epicormic growth directly over a nearby dwelling. These issues and the rapid decline in upper canopy makes this tree very hazardous to the people living nearby. Unfortunately, pruning and removing hazardous branches would leave very little canopy with a high probability of more epicormic sprouts that would become very hazardous over time. The only practical approach to eliminating this hazard is to completely remove this tree. It is arboristϽs professional recommendation that the tree be removed. 8 Total Page Number: 12 Total Page Number: 13 Total Page Number: 14 Total Page Number: 15 15 16 Total Page Number: 16 Public Comments Received/1 Comment Period st Comments Received Dubonnet Consider pruning & maintaining trees for their value to people, wildlife and the creek. Pepe (Appellant) ˗̂˱̄˵˶̅˼ ˶˿̂ ˧˹˼˼˿̇Ͻ̃ ̀̂˵̃˵˾˳˵ʼ ̃˸˱˴˵ ʶ ˸˱bitat. Would like to see Willow pruned & maintained. Will prune at his own expense once upper branches are pruned. Trees are sacred and old trees deserve to be held in such a place. Sarhanis Cottonwood will be a monster is 5-10 years. 35 sprouts in her yard prevent gardening, grow up to 8-feet in a year. Shades garden. Would like to ensure roots/stump are removed to prevent sucker growth. 17 PA-T1-2023-00210 ˒˱̃˵˴ ˿˾ ̄˸˵ ˑ̂˲˿̂˹̃̄Ͻ̃ ˢ˵̀˿̂̄ Staff approved the four requested tree removals ʶ ˽˱˹˼˵˴ ˱ ϼ˞˿̄˹˳˵ ˿˶ ˔˵˳˹̃˹˿˾Ѐ ̄˿ ˱˼˼ ̀˱̂̄˹˵̃ʾ An Appeal was Timely Filed By Wingspread Resident Albert Pepe Complete Comment PeriodDecisionAppealed Application July 18-August 1, 2023August 11, 2023August 23, 2023 July 11, 2023 18 Total Page Number: 17 APPELLANT ˑ̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˣ̄˱˾˴˹˾˷ Resident of Wingspread Provided written comments during comment period opposing removal of the Weeping Willow. Appeared at Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) to oppose removal of the Weeping Willow. Timely filed appeal of the removal of the Weeping Willow. 19 APPELLANT Points of Appeal re: Weeping Willow Pruning of the hazardous upper dead branches is an alternative to removal. It is unclear that tree is likely to fall and injure persons or damage property once pruned. Tree needs major pruning not removal. Appellant would maintain at his expense following initial pruning. 20 Total Page Number: 18 Public Comments Received/Post Appeal Comments Received Woodman (Space #95) Silver Maples are so large they pose a hazard to nearby homes. Branch drop in high winds creates a mess. Two units previously damaged by falling trees, and mobile homes are not designed to handle falling trees. Lynde (Space #19) The Willow tree is behind her home and appears to be dying from the top down. Believes it is a hazard - ˙̄ ˸˱˾˷̃ ˿̆˵̂ ˸˵̂ ˸˿˽˵ ˱˾˴ ̃˸˵ ˴˿˵̃˾Ͻ̄ ̇˱˾̄ it to fall. It has also gotten very messy, dropping branches on her porch and yard. Emphasized that she believes the tree is a hazard and she supports ̄˸˵ ˱̂˲˿̂˹̃̄Ͻ̃ ̂˵˳˿˽˽˵˾˴ation to remove the tree. 21 PA-APPEAL-2023-00018 Appeal of PA-T1-2023-00210 Staff Recommendation Arborist indicates large limbs are likely to fall in the next several years. Decay in stem from large wounds has not compartmentalized, and prior pruning has caused epicormic growth over nearby dwelling. These issues and rapid decline in upper canopy makes tree very hazardous to those living nearby. Pruning would leave very little canopy with a high probability of more epicormic growth that become very hazard over time. The only practical approach is to completely remove the willow. 22 Total Page Number: 19 PA-APPEAL-2023-00018 Appeal of PA-T1-2023-00210 Staff Recommendation Tree Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) was sensitive to ˱̀̀˵˼˼˱˾̄Ͻ̃ ˳˿˾˳˵̂˾̃ʼ ˲̅̄ ̅˼̄˹˽˱̄˵˼̉ ̃̅̀̀˿̂̄˵˴ ̄˸˵ ̀̂˿˶˵̃̃˹˿˾˱˼ ˱̂˲˿̂˹̃̄Ͻ̃ ̂˵˳˿˽˽˵˾˴˱̄˹˿˾̃ʾ Based on the arborist recommendations, supported by the Tree Management Advisory Committee, staff believe the proposal satisfies the criteria for a hazard tree removal. Staff do not believe the criteria provide a basis to require that the tree be retained subject to a third-party agreement to maintain. Staff recommends that the appeal be denied and the original approval upheld. 23 ANY QUESTIONS? 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 Total Page Number: 38 Total Page Number: 39 Total Page Number: 40 Total Page Number: 41 Total Page Number: 42 Total Page Number: 43 Total Page Number: 44 Total Page Number: 45 Total Page Number: 46 Total Page Number: 47 Total Page Number: 48 Total Page Number: 49 Total Page Number: 50 Total Page Number: 51 Total Page Number: 52 Total Page Number: 53 Total Page Number: 54 Total Page Number: 55 Total Page Number: 56 Total Page Number: 57 Total Page Number: 58 From:Brandon Goldman To:Doug McGeary Cc:Carmel Zahran;Michael Sullivan;Lisa Verner;Derek Severson;Paula Hyatt Subject:Jerrard Public Comment PA-T2-2023-0043 Date:Friday, November 03, 2023 3:14:40 PM Attachments:image001.png 2023-10-25_Public Comment_Jarrard - Goldman.pdf image002.png City Attorney McGeary, I am writing to address a matter of significant concern related to the public comments submitted by Mr. Jerrard on a proposed amendment to the Beach Creek Subdivision recently submitted by KDA Homes. Both the City Planning Department and individual Planning Commissioners have received correspondence from Mr. Jerrard urging the Commission not to approve the aforementioned amendment which was publicly noticed and will be presented to the Planning Commission in the coming month. These public comment letters submitted by Mr. Jerrard were received within the stipulated timeframe and will be included in the upcoming Planning Commission packets relating to the planning action. I am not reaching out to discuss Mr. Jerrard’s position on the planning application proposed but to address a specific allegation made in his letters. Mr. Jerrard asserts that the developer, KDA Homes, requested a payment of $70,000 be made by Habitat for Humanity, to me directly in connection with their affordable housing partnership. I want to clarify unequivocally that this claim is entirely false. There appears to be a critical error in his letters, as it has come to my attention that the same accusation was made against various recipients including Staff, Planning Commissioners, and the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, with the insertion of their individual names into the text concerning the alleged payment. A snippet of the letter is below with the relevant sentence highlighted. For the record, it is my understanding that KDA Homes had indeed requested that Habitat for Humanity contribute $70,000 per lot to KDA Homes to assist with the development infrastructure costs for the affordable housing units. However, upon review, the board of Habitat for Humanity elected not to meet this request, and subsequently, KDA Homes donated two lots to Habitat for Humanity without any requirement for payment. The erroneous assertion by Mr. Jerrard that City Staff , Planning Commission members, or the Council Liaison were to be paid direct payments in relation to this subdivision is not only baseless but also damaging. There is no truth to this allegation, and I am concerned that such misinformation now part of the public record ,even if made in error, could be misconstrued as fact. To address this potential, a copy of this response clarification letter will also be included in the planning record. Total Page Number: 59 Given that the receipt of these letters could raise questions during the upcoming deliberations on the planning application, I felt it necessary to inform you of this issue promptly. It is important that both the integrity of our processes and the reputations of the individuals and entities involved are not wrongfully tarnished by such allegations. Attached please find a copy of Mr. Jerrard’s letter which was addressed to me directly and received by mail today. Should you require any further clarification on this matter or if any questions arise, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Brandon Goldman, AICP Director of Community Development Pronouns: he, him, his City of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-552-2076 | TTY 800.735.2900 Brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us Online ashland.or.us; social media (Facebook @CityOfAshlandOregon | Twitter @CityofAshland) This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2076. cc. Carmel Zahan Lisa Verner Michael Sullivan Derek Severson Paula Hyatt Total Page Number: 60 From:Doug McGeary To:Brandon Goldman Cc:Carmel Zahran;Michael Sullivan;Lisa Verner;Derek Severson;Paula Hyatt Subject:RE: Jerrard Public Comment PA-T2-2023-0043 Date:Monday, November 06, 2023 12:50:06 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png Dear Brandon, I appreciate our phone conversation last Friday regarding Mr. Jarrard's letter. It served as a reminder that our office had advised staff not to engage with Mr. Jarrard's repeated and confrontational comments. However, this time, his accusations have crossed a line and become part of the public record in the land use matter, necessitating a response. In his letter, Mr. Jarrard alleges that you received money from the land use applicant through one of the involved parties. While Mr. Jarrard's statement could be seen as an accusation of wrongdoing against you and others, such a significant claim should, in theory, be evident to everyone and easily refuted due to the lack of evidence or explanation. Additionally, you noted that essentially identical letters, with only the names changed, have been sent to other official parties involved in this matter. We both observed that there is an absence of spacing between your name and the dollar sign in the alleged monetary figure. This suggests a likely systemic error in inserting names in the word processing process. Such errors make the preposterousness of his claims even more evident. Considering Mr. Jarrard's history and the identical letters sent to others, it's clear that these accusations lack credibility. Rather than seeking a retraction from Mr. Jarrard, which I doubt he would provide, your response letter effectively addresses the issue and documents our stance. If you believe it would be beneficial, I'm willing to include this response in the official record for a more comprehensive review. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Douglas M McGeary Acting City Attorney City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 552-2091 This electronic transmission contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL information and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), please note that any dissemination, use, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. From: Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Total Page Number: 61 Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 3:15 PM To: Doug McGeary <doug.mcgeary@ashland.or.us> Cc: Carmel Zahran <carmel.zahran@ashland.or.us>; Michael Sullivan <michael.sullivan@ashland.or.us>; Lisa Verner <lisaverner815@icloud.com>; Derek Severson <derek.severson@ashland.or.us>; Paula Hyatt <Paula.Hyatt@council.ashland.or.us> Subject: Jerrard Public Comment PA-T2-2023-0043 City Attorney McGeary, I am writing to address a matter of significant concern related to the public comments submitted by Mr. Jerrard on a proposed amendment to the Beach Creek Subdivision recently submitted by KDA Homes. Both the City Planning Department and individual Planning Commissioners have received correspondence from Mr. Jerrard urging the Commission not to approve the aforementioned amendment which was publicly noticed and will be presented to the Planning Commission in the coming month. These public comment letters submitted by Mr. Jerrard were received within the stipulated timeframe and will be included in the upcoming Planning Commission packets relating to the planning action. I am not reaching out to discuss Mr. Jerrard’s position on the planning application proposed but to address a specific allegation made in his letters. Mr. Jerrard asserts that the developer, KDA Homes, requested a payment of $70,000 be made by Habitat for Humanity, to me directly in connection with their affordable housing partnership. I want to clarify unequivocally that this claim is entirely false. There appears to be a critical error in his letters, as it has come to my attention that the same accusation was made against various recipients including Staff, Planning Commissioners, and the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, with the insertion of their individual names into the text concerning the alleged payment. A snippet of the letter is below with the relevant sentence highlighted. For the record, it is my understanding that KDA Homes had indeed requested that Habitat for Humanity contribute $70,000 per lot to KDA Homes to assist with the development infrastructure costs for the affordable housing units. However, upon review, the board of Habitat for Humanity elected not to meet this request, and subsequently, KDA Homes donated two lots to Habitat for Humanity without any requirement for payment. The erroneous assertion by Mr. Jerrard that City Staff , Planning Commission members, or the Council Liaison were to be paid direct payments in relation to this subdivision is not only baseless but also damaging. There is no truth to this allegation, and I am concerned that such misinformation now part of the public record ,even if made in error, could be misconstrued as fact. To address this potential, a copy of this response clarification letter will also be included in the planning record. Total Page Number: 62 Given that the receipt of these letters could raise questions during the upcoming deliberations on the planning application, I felt it necessary to inform you of this issue promptly. It is important that both the integrity of our processes and the reputations of the individuals and entities involved are not wrongfully tarnished by such allegations. Attached please find a copy of Mr. Jerrard’s letter which was addressed to me directly and received by mail today. Should you require any further clarification on this matter or if any questions arise, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Brandon Goldman, AICP Director of Community Development Pronouns: he, him, his City of Ashland Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-552-2076 | TTY 800.735.2900 Brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us Online ashland.or.us; social media (Facebook @CityOfAshlandOregon | Twitter @CityofAshland) This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2076. cc. Carmel Zahan Lisa Verner Michael Sullivan Derek Severson Paula Hyatt Total Page Number: 63 From:Kay Sandberg To:planning Cc:Aaron Anderson Subject:questions for 11/14/23 meeting Date:Monday, November 06, 2023 3:18:21 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Hello, I have a few questions for the 11/14 meeting regarding the Beach Creek development that I ask to be included in the meeting that evening... 1. What are the specific plans for affordable housing--all/only cottages? locations? all to be completed by Habitat for Humanity and if so, when (please update)? 2.What is the timeframe for phase 3; is this the parcel of field nearest the tracks? 3. Who may we contact at KDA Homes with further questionsor concerns who will be responsive to our inquiries and answer in a timely manner? 4. When will the Orchid Street entrance no longer be used for trucks and other construction vehicles (approximate date)? 5. Will the public be permitted to ask questions and make comments at the meeting? Thank you. kind regards, Kay Sandberg Total Page Number: 64 Total Page Number: 65 Total Page Number: 66 Total Page Number: 67 “BEACH CREEK SUBDIVISION” FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED BEACH CREEK SUBDIVISION TO REVISE THE SUBDIVISION PLAN TO INCLUDE A PRIVATE ALLEY AND TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL LOT. SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND FOR KDA HOMES 604 FAIR OAKS COURT ASHLAND, OR 97520 Subject Property TH OCTOBER 10, 2023 Total Page Number: 68 I. PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT NAME: “ Beach Creek Subdivision” LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 10 Tax Lot 800 (Phase III - remainder area) APPLICANT:DESIGNER:ENGINEERS: KDA Homes, LLCLindemann Design Construction Engineering Consultants 604 Fair Oaks Court 550 W. Nevada StreetP.O. Box 1724 Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520Medford, Oregon 97501 Tel: 541.821.3752 Tel: 503.866.4742Tel: 541.779.5268 SURVEYOR:BIOLOGIST:LANDSCAPE DESIGN / ARBORIST: Polaris Land Surveying, LLC Schott & Associates Madara Design, Inc. 151 Clear Creek Dr #101, 21018 NE Hwy 99E 2994 Wells Fargo Road Ashland, OR 9752Aurora, OR 97002 Central Point, OR 97502 Tel: 541-482-5009 Tel: 503.678.6007 Tel: 541.944.4287 PROJECT ZONING: R-1-5. PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single Family Residential. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants will be requesting a Minor Modification to revise the approved subdivision plan to include a private alley and to add one additional parcelwithin the Phase III area of the development. PROJECT HISTORY& SITE DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission and eventually the City Council approved the property’s annexation in to the City in November of 2021, (PA-T3-2021-0003). The Final Plan and Site Review was approved in March of 2022 (PA-T1-2021-00173). The project is currently under construction with Phases I and II recorded and houses under construction. The historic farm house has been completely restored and is now occupied. The property lays within the center of theCity of Ashland with North Mountain Avenue to the west, the Central Oregon Pacific Railroad (to the south), the Ashland Village Subdivision (c1997) to the north and various subdivisions to the east (Ashland Willows (c1998), Sunnyview(c1993), Bear Grass Village (c2007) and Ashland Parkview (c 1995). Beach Creek traverses through the property, day lighting atits southern end adjacent to the railroad tracks and extending northerly to and through the adjacent subdivision to the north. A number of large trees exist, but primarily within the vicinity of the house and a few along Beach Creek. An extensive amount of invasive Blackberry plants within the riparian corridor have been removed and new native plants and trees planted since construction.The property is relatively unobstructed with a gradual south to northslope of roughly 3%. *Note: The large mound of dirt recently piled along the railroad tracks is to be removed. Total Page Number: 69 II. PROPOSAL: The proposal is for a modification of the original subdivision plan to include an alley and add one additional lot. Alley Addition: The applicants have re-evaluated the original neighborhood plan, house designs and pedestrian amenities and have concluded the lots along the railroad tracks lacked livability due to their adjacency to the railroad tracks as well as the subdivisionitself, most of which has been designed with alleys or the central promenade to focus on pedestrianmobilityand human scale architecture. The applicants now contend livability along the railroad tracks would be improved if the units’ “living orientation” faced the street and not the railroad tracks - thus the idea of an alley. See inserts below. Currently Approved Subdivision Layout Proposed Subdivision Layout Total Page Number: 70 The proposed rear alley is intended to be a private alley and allows for vehicles to enter and exit from the alleyhelping to buffer the homes from the railroad right-of-way. The existence of the alley also allows each homes front yards to not only be more attractive with landscaping and entry features, but also the ability for the tenants to activate the streetscape. Added Lot:With the addition of the alley, the applicants have the ability to add a single family detached lot as alley loaded lots are often narrower than standard lots, thus providing the opportunity to gain a single lot and retain the applicant’s original intent to create a positive streetscapewhenever possible. That said, Lots #32 and #55 were excluded from having alley access due to the encumbrance of a vehicle’s turnaround needs on small lots and/or encumbrance of the adjacent creek. ** NOTE: It should be understood the lot number sequencing has changed since the subdivision’s original approval due to State of Oregon Surveying requirements when subdivision phasing occurs.In short, the State of Oregon now requires the subdivision’s lot numbersequencingto “skip” a lot number between each phase. In this case, the proposal is for 53 lots total to be subdivided in three phases therefore the lot numbering extends to 55, but only 53 lots are proposed. III.PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition,the required findings of fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to Performance Standards Options Subdivision requirements in Chapter 18.3.9 and Minor Modifications in Chapter 18.5.6.040. For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in “outline” form with the City’s BOLD approval criteria noted in font and the applicant’s response in regular font. 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria C.Minor Modification Approval Criteria.A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1.Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development’s parking lotshall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. The Beach Creek Subdivision was originally approved under AMC 18.3.9.040 A.3.,Outline Plan Approval Criteria, which has been included belowfollowed by the applicant’s Findings of Fact as to how the proposed minor modification request continues to comply with the same Outline Plan Criteria as originally approved under. Total Page Number: 71 2.A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. The subject minor modification request does not seek a new or alter an existing Conditional Use Permit or seek a Variance, Administrative Variance, or Exception request. 3.The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. Not applicable as the application’s original approval was by the Ashland Planning Commission. AMC 18.3.9.040 A.3. Outline Plan Approval Criteria (Subdivision) a.The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. Unless otherwise noted herein, the applicants contend the proposed alley addition and added lot meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City of Ashland. That said, the Purpose Statement of the Performance Standards Option Subdivision (AMC 18.3.9.010) “is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood”. As such, through the use of flexible design, the applicantscontend the minor modification not only is consistent with the subdivision’s design and innovations as outlined previously where Earth Advantage homes are to be constructed with an architectural style that provides for a variety of housing types consistent with the volume and mass of housing in the adjoining subdivisions. b.Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. All of the site’s needed utilities extend to the subject property from the various public utility easements and street rights-of way surrounding site. Based on discussions with the various service providers, there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed lot. c.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. Thesite’s natural featureshave been identified and included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas of the development.The subject area as it relates to the minor modification, the area along Total Page Number: 72 the railroad right-of-way, is void of any significant natural features. However, it should be noted the large mound of dirt that was recently placed in this area, paralleling the railroad right-of-way, will be removed within weeks of writing these findings. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The minor modification will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.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 proposed alley will be private and be considered “common area” and maintained by the Beach Creek Home Owners Association. The subdivision’s Home Owner’s Association (HOA) include Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) outlining the HOA’s budget and maintenance responsibilities for such common areas. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. The subject parent property is 10 acres in size and zoned R-1-5 with a base density of 4.5 units per acre or 45 total units. The applicants were approved for a total of 52 units witha 16% Density Bonus under Chapter 18.3.9.050 Performance Standards for Residential Developments with the inclusion of eight affordable housing units (at a 2:1 ratio or 8 bonus units) as well as conservation housing certifications with all the new housing which allows for an additional four bonus units for a total of 12 additional units above the base 45 units (57). With this application, the total number of units, not including accessory residential units, would be 53 units, or 4 less than permissible. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. The proposal complies with the City’s Street Standards. Total Page Number: 73 Total Page Number: 74 Number: 77 Page Total Number: 78 Page Total Number: 79 Page Total Number: 80 Page Total Total Page Number: 81 Total Page Number: 82 Total Page Number: 83 Total Page Number: 84 Total Page Number: 85 Total Page Number: 86 Total Page Number: 87 Total Page Number: 88 Total Page Number: 89 Total Page Number: 90 Total Page Number: 91 Total Page Number: 92 Total Page Number: 93 Total Page Number: 94 Total Page Number: 95 Total Page Number: 96 Total Page Number: 97 Total Page Number: 98 Total Page Number: 99 Total Page Number: 100 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 Total Page Number: 111 Total Page Number: 112 Total Page Number: 113 Total Page Number: 114 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: 121 Total Page Number: 122 Total Page Number: 123 Total Page Number: 124 Total Page Number: 125 Total Page Number: 126 Total Page Number: 127 Total Page Number: 128 Total Page Number: 129 Total Page Number: 130 Total Page Number: 131 Total Page Number: 132 Total Page Number: 133 Total Page Number: 134 Total Page Number: 135 Total Page Number: 136 Total Page Number: 137 Total Page Number: 138 Total Page Number: 139 Total Page Number: 140 Total Page Number: 141 Total Page Number: 142 Total Page Number: 143 Total Page Number: 144 Total Page Number: 145 Total Page Number: 146 Total Page Number: 147 Total Page Number: 148 Total Page Number: 149 Total Page Number: 150 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2023 Attached aredraft findings for Planning Commission’s discussion and consideration. These have been prepared to reflect the prior staff approval and incorporate the approval criteria from the staff report that is also in your packet. The Planning Commission can modify and alter these in any manner consistent with their deliberations and decision. Total Page Number: 151 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION 2023 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-APPEAL-2023-00018,) AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLANNING ) ACTION #PA-TREE-2023-00210, FOR A HAZARD TREE REMOVAL.) STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION. SUBSEQUENT TO ) THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISIONAN APPEAL REQUESTWAS ) FINDINGS, TIMELY FILED.) CONCLUSIONS, ) AND ORDERS. OWNER/APPLICANT: JENNY OSBURNE) APPELLANT: ALBERT PEPE) _______________________________________________________________) ) ) RECITALS: 1)Tax lot #3000 of Assessor’s Map 39-1E-11-Cis located at 321 Clay Streetis in the R-2 zoning district and is 20.37 acres in size. 2)The application proposed removal of four trees in various locations at the Wingspread Mobile Home Park. The weeping willow tree at space #19 is the one tree being appealed under this proposal. 3)On July 18, 2023, the applicationwas deemed complete, and in accordance with AMC 18.5.1.050.B.4 a Notice of Complete(NOC) application was posted at the subject property in clear view from the public right-of-way and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the parcel. 4)The Staff Advisor approved the application on August 11, 2023, subject to conditions of approval and a Notice of Decision(NOD)was mailedon the same datewith a deadline to appeal of August 23, 2023. 5)On August 23, 2023, a Notice of Land Use Appeal was timely filed by Albert Pepe who resides at 321 Clay Street #21. Mr. Pepe has standing to appeal as he was both entitled to written notice, and by having submitted written comments on the application during the initial comment period. 6)The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on October 10, 2023. Public testimony was received,and exhibits were presented. 7)After the close of the public hearing the Planning Commission deliberated anddetermined that staff had not erred in approving the hazard tree removal. A motion was made to deny the appeal and approve the application subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Total Page Number: 152 The criteria of approval for tree removalare described in Ashland Municipal Code 8) (AMC) 18.5.7.040 which state that the approval authority shall be granted if the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through imposition of conditions. The approval criteria for hazard treeare detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040as follows: The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a 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.a. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree B. pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. The approval criteria for trees that are not ahazardare detailed in AMC 18.5.7.040as follows: The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent A. with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil B. stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, C. 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. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below D. the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted E. approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 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" Total Page Number: 153 Hearing Minutes, Notices, and MiscellaneousExhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to rendera decision based on the application, Staff Report, public hearing testimony, and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for tree removalmeets all applicable criteria described in section 18.5.7.040 for hazard tree removal approval. The Planning Commission notesthe tree has been determined to be a hazard tree with potential to fall and cause harm to persons or property. 2.3The Planning Commission finds that the applicationwasdeemed complete on July 18, 2023, and notice was both posted at the frontage of the subject property and mailed to all property owners within 200-feet of the subject property. The Planning Commission further finds that the application was approved by the Staff Advisor on August 11, 2023, and a Notice of Decision (NOD) was mailed on the same date. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that on August 23, 2023, Albert Pepetimely filed a Notice of Land Use Appeal. Mr. Pepe resides on the adjacent parcel andsubmitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. The Planning Commission finds that the appellant has standing to appeal. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the R-2 zoning district and that tree removals are governed by AMC 18.5.7. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that AMC Title 18 Land Use Ordinance regulatestree removals because of the importance of trees to the character and beauty of Ashland and for the safety, public health, and welfare of the community. When considering the decision to approve or deny an application for tree removal, the Staff Advisor considers the application materials against the relevant approval criteria in the AMC. 2.8The approval criteria for tree removal are in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.7.040. 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 August 11, 2023, staff report and by its reference is incorporated herein as if set out in full. 2.9 The Planning Commission notes the notice of appeal included the standard Land Use Appeal form which has spaces for up to three specific grounds for appeal and a citation for the relevant applicable criteria that it relates to. The form included from the appellant the following: 1.There is another option to complete removal by pruning upper dead branches and removing some of the weight to make it not a hazard tree. 2.Once upper pruning is complete it \[is\] not clear that the tree islikely to fall and injure persons or property. 3.Once upper pruning is complete, Mr. Pepe offered to continue to maintain the tree at Total Page Number: 154 his cost every 2–3 years. The Planning Commission heard the applicants request to retain and maintain the tree at their own costs. However, the Commission finds that the authority to keep the tree is ultimately a decision of the landowner. Further, the City only has authority to approve or deny the tree removal application based on the criteria of AMC 18.5.7.040.B. Staff and the applicant understand that the specific appeal issue raised is pursuant to AMC 18.5.7.040.B – Tree Removal Permit for hazard tree (specifically the weeping willow tree in space #19). 2.10The Planning Commission finds that with the original conditions below and the addition of condition number three, which is to provide a tree planting site plan with an irrigation and maintenance plan for the eight mitigation trees prior to plant installation for staff approval, that the proposal satisfies the applicable approval criteria and that none of the appeal issues provide a basis to reverse the initial approval decision of the Staff Advisor. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearings on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for the partition approval to divide the property is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. 3.2 The Planning Commission denies the appeal andreaffirms the Staff Advisor’s original approval of the partition. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then the Planning Action is denied. The following are the conditions, and they are attached to the approval: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That two trees are planted for every one tree removed. The new proposed trees shall be planted within one year of tree removal and shall be of appropriate species and locations considering tree maturity and location to residences. Newly planted trees shall be maintained and regularly irrigated, especially during the driest months for at least the first three to five growing seasons. 3)That a tree planting site plan and irrigation plan be submitted and approved to the Planning Department prior to installation of the mitigation trees. The site plan should show the location, species, size at time of planting and size expected at maturity of the proposed trees with a plan for irrigation and maintenance ofthe eight mitigation trees. Planning Commission Approval Date Total Page Number: 155