The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-08-10 Planning PACKET ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 10, 2021 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. July 13, 2021 Regular Meeting IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2021-00028, 364 Walker Avenue (Walker Elementary School) V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00029 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a), an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1- TAX LOT: 200 & 201. VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (), David Young owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000 () owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots 1100,1200 & 1300 DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The 1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential of Commissioners. Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, . 1100, 1200 & 1300 B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2021-00003 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 192 North Mountain Avenue OWNER: The Hodgins Family Trust (Robert & Beverly Hodgins, ); The Mary G. trustees Walter Living Trust (Mary G. Walter, ); Steve White trustee APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for annexation of 7.9 acres and Outline Plan approval for a 52-unit residential subdivision for the property located at 192 North Mountain Avenue. With annexation, 7.9 acres of the ten-acre property would be brought into the city with R-1-5 Single Family Residential zoning, and the entire ten-acres would be subdivided to create 52 residential lots and eight common areas. The application also includes requests for an Exception to Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip with street trees on the proposed bridge over Beach Creek; a Limited Activities & Uses Permit to install a bridge over Beach Creek in order to provide street connectivity to trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: Existing City R-1-5 & County RR-5, Proposed City R-1- ***THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2021*** VIII.ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft July 13, 2021 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Roger Pearce Derek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Lisa Verner Absent Members: Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairn Paula Hyatt II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Planning Commission will resume live meetings after August 17, 2021. The Study Session for July 27, 2021 might be canceled. There were two public hearings scheduled for the meeting on August 10, 2021. One regarding a possible correction to the Urban Growth Boundary map for properties located at 375 and 475 East Nevada Street. The other was an annexation request for 192 North Mountain Avenue. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. June 22, 2021 Special Meeting Commissioner Dawkins/Verner m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00028 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 364 Walker Avenue (Walker Elementary School) APPLICANT/OWNER: HMK Company for the Ashland School District DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will conduct an initial public hearing to review details of the proposal and take public comments on a request for Site Design Review approval for a 22,450 square foot, single-story addition to Walker Elementary School at 364 Walker Avenue. As part of the proposal, the parking lot and drop-off lane would be relocated and expanded, with access to be taken via Hunter Court (the driveway serving Hunter Park) and a new courtyard would be created. The application also inclu Master Sign Permit Program (PA#2012-00899) to allow new signage for Walker Elementary School in conjunction with the proposed addition, and Tree Removal Permits to remove 20 trees. An existing 9,700 square foot classroom will be demolished in conjunction with the proposal. No final decision will be made at this Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2021 Page 1 of 4 initial public hearing; the item will come back to the Planning Commission for a decision at the April 13, 2021 meeting. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; MAP: 39 1E 10; TAX LOT #: 3600. Chair Norton read aloud the rules for electronic public hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Dawkins, Pearce, and Thompson had no ex parte contact or site visit. Commissioner Verner had no ex parte contact and one site visit. Chair Norton had no ex parte contact but drove past the site often. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Aerial of Site & Surrounding Staff Recommendation: Bike & Ped Circulation Request Planting Plan (L3.0) Proposal aerial photo South Elevation (Addition, facing Status Update Homes Ave.) Map - detailing requirements East Elevation (Addition, facing Current Drop-Off/Pick-Up Loop from Hunter Court) Homes to Walker West Elevation (Facing fields) Existing Parking Lot (from Homes North Elevation (Facing fields) Ave.) Photo of School 1952 Existing Parking Lot adjacent to Homes Avenue Photo Senior Center (corner of Homes & Proposed rendering Hunter Ct.) Sandow Engineering Report On-Street ADA Spaces adjacent to Sandow Engineering Senior Center Recommendations Hunter Court (narrow section) Conditional Use Permit/Sign Hunter Court (looking north to Central Program Ashland Bike Path) Conditional Use Permit/Sign Central Ashland Bike Path Program Site Demolition Plan (C1.2) Overall Civil Site Plan/Rendering Overall Civil Site Plan (C3.0) Overall Site Utility Plan (C5.0) Tree Protection & Removal Plan (L1.1) Tree Commission Recommendation Bicycle & Pedestrian Path Route Staff recommended approval with conditions. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson thought the design modifications addressed a lot of the issues. She asked whether the use of granite on the bike path made it dangerous for biking. Mr. Severson explained the decomposed granite would be compacted and leveled. Decomposed granite would also avoid impacts to the trees and fields. The Parks and Recreation Department did not want to preclude the ability to pave the path in the future. The Public Works Department wanted the path to meet ADA requirements for trails. Commissioner Pearce questioned the need for Condition 14. It was asking the school district to do something not on their property. He suggested making them recommendations instead. Mr. Severson explained the Commission could decide to remove the condition. The Ashland School District would still Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2021 Page 2 of 4 work with the Parks and Recreation Department regarding Hunter Court and with the Street Department to implement them. Commissioner Verner did not want to remove enforceability. Commissioner Pearce responded it would, but it could not be enforced anyway. Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/Medford, Or/Matthew Guthrie/BP Architects/Mike Freeman/HMK/ Ms. Gunter addressed the decomposed granite trails. There were trails guidance adopted by the Oregon Department of Transportation for off network multiuse paths. It was similar to what the Parks and Recreation Department used for their gravel paths. They used compacted decomposed granite versus a rock surface. It was heavily compacted so wheels would not get stuck. She provided a presentation: Aerial photo Existing Conditions Site Plan Site Access Routes Proposed Addition Area Plans South Elevation Homes Avenue Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Dawkins clarified page 7 of 37 and explained the school was constructed in 1951, not the late 1950s. Matthew Gutherie/ Addressed Commissioner previous question regarding the number of classrooms. The overall school population was not increasing with this project. They were moving all the classrooms that were in the basement and not accessible to the main floor. The basement would be used for the mechanical system. The project would move the Special Education classrooms to a central location. Kindergarten would have additional amenities. Administration would relocate and face the parking lot. The computer lab space would increase as well. Public Testimony - None - None Mr. Molnar asked for clarification on Commissioner Pearce regarding Condition 14. He interpreted it as endorsing the recommendations of the traffic engineer to ensure safe circulation to and through the site. It was necessary for the project to function appropriately. Generally, it would be a condition of approval on the site plan at the time of the building permit and in place prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy to meet the standard of adequate transportation based on the recommendations from the traffic engineer. Commissioner Pearce commented if the applicant was fine with the condition, he was too. They had worked it out with the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. The applicants did not challenge the condition. No changes were made to Condition 14. Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve PA-T2-2021-00028 witamendment to Condition 9(d) to include the addition of 3-4 large stature conifers. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Dawkins, Verner, Norton, Pearce, and Thompson, YES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2021 Page 3 of 4 VI.LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2021-00011 APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding an ordinance adopting the 2021 Housing Capacity Analysis as a technical supporting document of the Housing Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report Senior Planner Brandon Goldman summarized previous meetings regarding the Housing Capacity Analysis and provided a presentation (see attached): Components of this Project 47% of new households will be lower income Housing Capacity Analysis Questions Forecast of New Housing, 2021 to 2041 Land Sufficiency Results BLI Results Updated to 2020 Community Open House and Types of Housing owner & renter Questionnaire occupied Responses Survey Responses type Mix of Housing, Ashland questions Housing Tenure, Ashland Responses - What Housing type do you Household Composition and Size, 2018 think Ashland needs? Median Sales Price, August Oct 2020 Ashland Housing Strategies Rental Housing Costs, 2018 Housing Capacity Analysis Public Local Factors Affecting Needed Housing Hearings Financially Attainable Housing Questions of Staff The Commission appreciated the work staff, and the consultant had done on the ordinance. Commissioner Thompson shared her concern on building smaller units that seemed more suited for retirees and not families. She was interested in strategies for larger units that were affordable. Chair Norton was encouraged that 400 people attended the virtual meeting and they received 300 surveys. Public Testimony - None Deliberation and Decision Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the recommendation to adopt the ordinance included in the packet. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Dawkins, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Motion passed. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission July 13, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Walker Elementary School Addition & Renovations Planning Commission Hearing July 13, 2021 Walker Elementary School Aerial of Site & Surrounding Walker Elementary School Request SiteDesignReview approvalfora22,450squarefoot,single-storyaddition. • (Theparkinglotanddrop-offlanewouldberelocatedandexpanded,withnewaccess tobetakenviaHunterCourt,andanewcourtyardwouldbecreated.) ConditionalUsePermit tomodifytheSchoolDistrict’sMasterSignPermitProgram • (PA#2012-00899)toallownewsignageforWalkerElementarySchoolfortheaddition. TreeRemovalPermits toremove14significanttrees. • Existing9,700squarefootclassroomwillbedemolishedinconjunctionwiththeproposal. • (ThiswillrequirereviewbytheBuildingOfficial.) Walker Elementary School Proposal X X Walker Elementary School Status Update Since the initial public hearing on March 9, the Ashland School District has met with Parks staff and the Ashland Parks & th Recreation Commission (AP&RC) multiple times, and received approval to use Hunter Court for access as part of the revised circulation plan for Walker Elementary School at the June 9, 2021 AP&RC meeting. AP&RC agreement was predicated on the following: 1)ThattheSchoolDistrictprovideatleastafive-footwidebicycleandpedestrianpathsurfacedindecomposedgraniteto allowstudentstoaccesstheschooldirectlyfromtheCentralAshlandBikepathwithouttheneedtointeractwithtraffic onHunterCourt.AP&RCnotedthatspecifyingagraniticsurfacewasaminimumexpectation,andwasnotintendedto preventthepathfrombeingpaved. 2)ThataturnlanebeaddedontheSchoolDistrictsideofHunterCourttobetteraccommodateparenttraffic.TheSchool Districtistore-pavethiswidenedsectionofHunterCourtfromcurb-to-curb.TheParksCommissionrecognizedthat thewideningwouldentailtheremovalofsometreesinthissectionifexistingon-streetADA-accessibleparkingistobe maintainedfortheSeniorCenter,andtheCommissionindicatedthatitwouldsupportthisTreeRemovalPermit request. 3)ThatthenewWalkerElementarySchoolparkinglot’sparkingspacesbeavailabletoHunterParkpatronsoutsideof regularschoolhoursandschoolevents,includingduringthesummerandoverotherschoolbreaks. 4)SchooltrafficwouldbeabletouseHunterCourtforingressandegresstothereconfiguredparkinglot. 5)ApreviousrequestbytheAshlandSchoolDistricttouseprivatestormdrainagefacilitiesontheHunterParkproperty waswithdrawnastheDistrictwasabletodevelopaplantootherwiseaddressitsstormdrainage. 6)Thisagreementwouldberevisitedin50yearswhichcoincideswiththeminimumanticipatedlifecycleofthenew schoolbuilding. Walker Elementary School Walker Elementary School Current Drop-Off/Pick-Up Loop from Homes to Walker Walker Elementary School Existing Parking Lot (from Homes Ave.) Walker Elementary School Existing Parking Lot adjacent to Homes Avenue Walker Elementary School Senior Center (corner of Homes & Hunter Ct.) Walker Elementary School On-Street ADA Spaces adjacent to Senior Center Walker Elementary School Hunter Court (narrow section) First 130-feet is approximately 25 feet curb-to-curb, widening to 37 feet wide for the remainder. Walker Elementary School Hunter Court (looking north to Central Ashland Bikepath) Walker Elementary School Central Ashland Bikepath Walker Elementary School Site Demolition Plan (C1.2) Walker Elementary School Overall Civil Site Plan (C3.0) AutomobileParking Existing:46spaces Required:66spaces Proposed:66spaces BicyleParking Existing:22spaces Required:70spaces Proposed:70space ExistingQueuing: 11carsonsite beforequeueintoHomesAve. Additional10queueonHomes Ave.beforeblockingintersection. ProposedQueuing: 15on-site, additional11queueonHunter CourtbeforeimpactingHomes Ave.atall. Walker Elementary School Overall Site Utility Plan (C5.0) Walker Elementary School Tree Protection & Removal Plan (L1.1) Walker Elementary School Tree Commission Recommendation TheTreeCommissionrecommendedapprovaloftherequest,withthefurtherrecommendation thattheapplicant’sPlantingPlanbemodifiedtoincludethreetofourlarge-stature-at-maturity native(or“native-like”)coniferstomitigatetheconifersbeingremoved.TheTree CommissionersspecificallyrecommendedIncenseCedar(calocedrusdecurrens)orGiant Sequoia(sequoiadendrongiganteum)asmitigationtrees,notingthatwiththenewfire regulations,asiteofthissizeisoneofthefewthatwillallowremovedconiferstobemitigated. withconifers. Trees #20-25 to be removed Walker Elementary School Bicycle & Pedestrian Path Route Path proposed is five-foot with granite surface. Trees are six-feet behind curb. Landscape Architect has indicated can excavate roughly four-inches to install path and that trees should be able to accommodate this disturbance. Walker Elementary School Staff Recommendation: Bike & Ped Circulation Walker Elementary School Planting Plan (L3.0) Walker Elementary School South Elevation (Addition, facing Homes Ave.) Walker Elementary School East Elevation (Addition, facing Hunter Court) Walker Elementary School West Elevation (Facing Walker Ave.) Walker Elementary School North Elevation (Facing fields) Walker Elementary School Walker Elementary School Walker Elementary School Walker Elementary School Sandow Engineering Report Walker Elementary School Sandow Engineering Recommendations Walker Elementary School Sandow Engineering Recommendations #4 #5 #2 #3 #1 Walker Elementary School Conditional Use Permit/Sign Program Walker Elementary School Conditional Use Permit/Sign Program Public Purposes: Education Gathering Places Appropriate signage gives clear visual markers for each audience. Walker Elementary School Walker Elementary School Addition & Renovations Planning Commission Hearing July 13, 2021 Walker Elementary School Speakers Applicant Team (15 minutes combined) Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Matthew Guthrie, BBT Architects Mike Freeman, HMK Company Todd Powell, Powell Engineering Consulting Steve Mitzel, Ashland School District Parks Department Michael Black, Director (available for questions) Ashland Housing Capacity Analysis Planning Commission ǲPublic Hearing: July 13, 2021 Housing Capacity Analysis Questions AshlandǶs Buildable Lands Inventory BLI Results Updated to 2020 Types of Housing ǲowner & renter occupied Mix of Housing, Ashland Source: U.S. Census, 2000, SF3 H30; U.S. Census, ACS 2010 and 2014-2018, B25024 Housing Tenure, Ashland Source: U.S. Census 2000 and 2010, SF3 H032; U.S. Census, ACS 2014-2018, B25003. Household Composition and Size, 2018 Source: U.S. Census, Decennial Census ACS 2014-2018 Median Sales Price, August ǲOct 2020 Source: Southern Oregon Multiple Listing Service. Rental Housing Costs, 2018 Source: CPM Real Estate Services, December 2020. Source: U.S. Census, ACS 2014-2018 Local Factors Affecting Needed Housing What types of Housing are Needed? Financially Attainable Housing 47% of new households will be lower income Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, 2015-2019. Forecast of New Housing, 2021 to 2041 Land Sufficiency Results Community Open House and Questionnaire Community Open House and Questionnaire Community Open House and Survey Ashland Housing Strategies Ashland Housing Strategies Housing Capacity Analysis Public Hearings o o Housing Capacity Analysis Public Hearings FINDINGS _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00028 364 Walker Avenue DRAFT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION August 10, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2021-00028, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 22,450 SQUARE FOOT, ) SINGLE-STORY ADDITION TO WALKER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT 364 ) WALKER AVENUE. AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL, THE PARKING LOT AND ) DRAFT DROP-OFF LANE WOULD BE RELOCATED AND EXPANDED, WITH NEW ) FINDINGS, ACCESS TO BE TAKEN VIA HUNTER COURT, THE DRIVEWAY FOR HUNTER ) CONCLUSIONS & PARK, AND A NEW COURTYARD WOULD BE CREATED. THE APPLICATION ) ORDERS ALSO INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY ) THE ASHLAND ) (PA #2012-00899) TO ALLOW NEW SIGNAGE FOR WALKER ELEMENTARY ) SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION, AND TREE ) REMOVAL PERMITS TO REMOVE 14 TREES. AN EXISTING 9,700 SQUARE FOOT) CLASSROOM WILL BE DEMOLISHED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSAL. ) ) APPLICANT: HMK COMPANY ) OWNERS: ASHLAND SCHOOLD DIST. #5 ) CITY OF ASHLAND/ ) ASHLAND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #3600of Map 39 1E 10 is the Walker Elementary School campus located at 364 Walker Avenue and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). Tax lot #3500 of Map 39 1E 10 is Hunter Park, a public park which is also zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). 2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval for a 22,450 square foot, single-story addition to Walker Elementary School at 364 Walker Avenue. As part of the proposal, the parking lot and drop-off lane would be relocated and expanded, with new access to be taken via Hunter Court, the driveway serving Hunter Park, and a new courtyard would be created. The application also includes requests for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the School Master Sign Permit Program (PA#2012-00899) to allow new signage for Walker Elementary School in conjunction with the proposed addition, and Tree Removal Permits to remove 14 significant trees. An existing 9,700 square foot classroom will be demolished in conjunction with the proposal. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 1 AMC 18.5.2.050 3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows: A. Underlying Zone: 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. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 4) The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are detailed in as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 2 g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. AMC 18.5.7.040.B 5) The approval criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows: 1.Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 3 AMC 15.04.216 6) The Demolition and Relocation Standards are described in detail in as follows: A. For demolition or relocation of structures erected more than 45 years prior to the date of the application: 1. The applicant must demonstrate that either subparagraphs a or b apply: a. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review committee may require the applicant to: (i) Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the property on which the building lies, both before and after demolition or removal, or (ii) Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same 90 day period. b. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure. 2. In addition to subparagraphs a or b above, the applicant must also: a. Submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for replacement or rebuilt structure for the structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished or relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. b. Demonstrate, if the application is for a demolition, the structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site. 3. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 4 a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the building permit has been issued for the replacement or rebuilt structure, unless the site is restricted to open spaces uses as provided in section 15.04.216.A.2. 4. The Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to post with the City a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the City administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan. B. For demolition or relocation of structures erected less than 45 years from the date of the application: 1. The applicant: a. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected less than 45 years from the date of the application. Any structure erected less than 45 years from the date of the application, which replaced a structure demolished or relocated under section 15.04.216, shall be considered a structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216. b. Must submit a redevelopment plan for the site that provides for a replacement or rebuilt structure being demolished or relocated. The replacement or rebuilt structure must be a minimum of 1,000 square feet, unless the structure being demolished ore relocated is less than 1,000 square feet. If the structure is less than 1,000 square feet, the replacement structure must be a minimum of 500 square feet. The redevelopment plan must indicate in sufficient detail the nature, appearance and location of all replacement or rebuilt structures. No replacement structure is required, however, if: (i) the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would, or (ii) the structure being demolished or relocated is a nonhabitable accessory structure. 2. If a permit is issued and the redevelopment plan: a. Requires a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until the site review permit has been issued, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. b. Does not require a site review permit, no demolition or relocation may occur until a building permit has been issued for the structure or structures to be PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 5 replaced or rebuilt, unless the site is restricted to open space uses as provided in section 15.04.216.B. C. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, in accordance with a demolition debris diversion plan that complies with the requirements adopted the Demolition Review Committee. The applicant shall submit such a plan with the application for demolition. For any relocation approved under this section, the applicant must also comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.08. (Ord. 2925, amended, 04/18/2006; Ord. 2891, amended, 11/19/2002; Ord. 2858, amended, 06/20/2000; Ord. 2852, added, 01/21/2000) 7) On April 15, 2020 Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-16 Keep Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic or virtual means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body does not have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that requirements that oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies instead provide a means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the public body can consider in a timely manner. The Oregon Legislature subsequently passed House Bill #4212 which authorizes local governments to hold all meetings of their governing bodies, including taking public testimony, using telephone or video conferencing technology or through other electronic or virtual means provided that they supply a means by which the public can listen to or observe the meeting. This bill requires that recordings of the meetings be made available to the public if technology allows, and includes provisions in writing via e-mail or other electronic means. 8) The Ashland Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic initial evidentiary hearing on March 9, 2021. The applicant then provided a 90-day extension to the 120-day timeclock to allow adequate time for their negotiations with the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission to secure permission for the use Hunter Court. , the Planning Commission, following property public notice, then held an electronic public hearing on July 13, 2021. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16, both of these meetings were broadcast live on local television channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and were also live-streamed over the internet on RVTV Prime at rvtv.sou.edu. The application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and the staff report were made available on-line seven days prior to the public hearing, with in-person review available by appointment, and printed copies available at a reasonable cost. Those wishing to provide testimony were invited to submit written comments via e-mail by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 12, 2021, and the applicant was able to provide written rebuttal to this testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 6 July 13, 2021. Comments and rebuttal received were made available on-line and e-mailed to Planning Commissioners before the hearing and included in the meeting minutes. As provided in the Executive Order #20-16, testimony was also taken electronically during the tele-conferenced meeting from those members of the public who had pre-arranged to provide oral testimony by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 13, 2021. After the closing of the hearing and the record, the Planning Commission deliberated and approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the index of exhibits, data, and testimony below will be used: Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, written public testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review approval, Conditional Use Permit, and Tree Removal Permit meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050; for Conditional Use Permit described in AMC 18.5.4.050; and for a Tree Removal Permit described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring that, The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, The Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying R- 1-5 zoning will be satisfied. The Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 7 The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with The Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located within the Wildfire Lands Overlay, and as such a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 will need to be provided for the review and approval of the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. New landscaping proposed will need to comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. Conditions to this effect have been included below and are attached to this approval. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that this criterion is satisfied. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by The Planning Commission notes that the applicable standards here are the Building Placement, Orientation and Design (AMC 18.4.2); Parking, Access and Circulation (AMC 18.4.3); Landscaping, Lighting and Screening (AMC 18.4.4); Tree Preservation and Protection (AMC 18.4.5); and Solar Access (AMC 18.4.8). Public Facilities (AMC 18.4.6) are addressed separately under the next approval criterion, and Sign Permit Program Conditional Use Permit in section 2.4 below. With regard to the Building Placement, Orientation and Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2, the Planning Commission finds that the Walker Elementary School campus has an established orientation to Walker Avenue, the higher order of the two streets it fronts upon, and the proposed addition has been placed and designed to function with the proposed changes to site circulation while not detracting from the established sense of entry or orientation to Walker Avenue. The application notes that a local historic preservation specialist has been consulted. The historic preservation specialist has indicated that Walker Elementary will likely prove to be a historically significant building and has worked with the applicant team through the design phase in seeking to minimize impacts to the historical significance while still meeting the needs of the district. To that end, the proposed design is compatible with the existing The Planning Commission finds that the existing Walker Elementary School buildings do not occupy the s street frontage and includes parking and circulation between the buildings and the street. AMC 18.4.2.040.B.6 provides that for sites that do not conform to the Non-Residential Development Standards, an equal percentage of the site must be made to comply with the standards as the percentage of building expansion. In this instance, the Commission finds that with the demolition of a 9,700 square foot classroom building and construction of a new 22,450 square foot classroom building, approximately 12,750 square feet are being added which equates to an approximately 52 percent addition to the existing 24,650 square foot school. The Commission finds that the removal of the parent pick-up and drop-off loop between the building and the intersection of Walker Homes Avenues, the relocation of parking and circulation to the rear of the building, and the placement of the addition nearer to, and extending eastward along, Homes Avenue proportionally addresses these non-conformities. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 8 With regard to the Parking, Access and Circulation standards in AMC 18.4.3, the Planning Commission notes that the off-street automobile parking requirement for an elementary school is the greater of 1.5 spaces per classroom or one space per 75 square feet of public assembly area. The application materials explain that the public assembly area on campus is the 4,938 square foot gymnasium which requires 66 (4,938 square feet/75 square feet per space = 65.84 spaces) off-street parking spaces . The Planning Commission finds that the 66 automobile parking spaces proposed satisfy the off-street parking requirements for Walker Elementary School. The Commission further notes that the bicycle parking requirement for elementary schools is that one sheltered bicycle parking space be provided for every five students. The application explains that the student capacity for Walker Elementary is up to 350 students, which means that 70 sheltered bicycle (350 students/1 space per 5 students = 70 spaces) parking spaces are required . The application notes that there are presently only 22 covered bicycle parking spaces on campus, located on the north side of the gym building, and proposes to add two banks with of 24 bicycle parking spaces \[22 existing spaces + (2 x 24 proposed spaces) = 70 total spaces\]. The Planning Commission finds that with the addition of two banks of 24 sheltered bicycle parking spaces, the bicycle parking requirements for the school satisfy the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.070. Conditions have been included below to ensure that the racks installed are consistent with the bicycle parking design (AMC 18.4.3.070.I) and bicycle parking rack (AMC 18.4.3.070.J) standards. The Planning Commission further finds that the Pedestrian Access & Circulation Standards in AMC that does not deviate unnecessarily from a straight line or a route that does not involve a significant amount of out-of-The circulation adjacent to the northernmost driveway on Hunter Court directs pedestrians out of direction, and must be adjusted so that the walkway crossing the driveway has a direct connection to the proposed path to the north. In addition, the path to the north needs to have a ramp to accommodate cyclists coming from Hunter Court, as illustrated below: PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 9 The Commission further finds that Public Works/Engineering Division staff has noted that at the crosswalk crossing Hunter Court the applicant will need to install fully-accessible ADA ramps on both the west and east sides of Hunter Court so that someone crossing can cross completely to ensure that accessibility is provided to all users to meet federal and state accessibility standards. Condition to this effect have been included below. The parking lot will include requisite landscaping buffers, the planting of new parking lot shade trees, and a bio-swale for the on-site detention and treatment of stormwater on-site. Parking lot shade trees are to include a mix of Zelkovas, Maples and Kentucky Yellowwood trees, all of which have been selected for their large canopies, for not causing root damage, and for not dropping materials on vehicles or pedestrians. With regard to the Landscaping, Lighting and Screening standards in AMC 18.4.4, the Planning Commission finds that the application includes a proposed landscape plan created by a local landscape architect and uses a variety of deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Due to the wildfire hazards overlay, no evergreen trees are proposed. The plants selected are appropriate for the local climate and exposure, and water-tolerant species are proposed within the stormwater detention facilities. The planting PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 10 plan allows for natural surveillance of the public space. New street trees are proposed along Homes Avenue behind the sidewalk. There is a large stature Raywood Ash tree on the Hunter Court frontage that is preserved with the proposed street improvements. Additional street trees are proposed behind the sidewalk and in the landscape park row planting strip between the parking area and Hunter Court. The proposed landscaping plant materials are low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.I. With regard to the Tree Preservation and Protection standards in AMC 18.4.5, the Planning Commission finds that the application materials include a Tree Protection and Removal Plan which identifies the trees on and adjacent to the property, and identifies those which are to be removed and protection for those that are to be preserved. The application explains that 14 significant trees are proposed for removal and require Tree Removal Permits, and that the removals are proposed because the trees are within the areas of construction of the addition, the relocated parking area, or the improvements adjacent to Hunter Court and would be unable to survive the impacts from construction. The Planning Commission finds that the tree protection measures proposed are consistent with the standards, and conditions have been included below to require that 14 mitigation trees be identified in the final landscape plan provided with the building permit submittals, and that tree protection be installed and site-verified by the staff advisory prior to site work, staging or storage of materials. The Tree Commission reviewed the application at its regular meeting on July 8, 2021 and recommended approval of the request, Planting Plan be modified to include three to four large- stature-at-- The Tree Commissioners specifically recommended Incense Cedar (calocedrus decurrens) or Giant Sequoia (sequoiadendron giganteum) as mitigation trees, noting that with the new fire regulations, a site of this size is one of the few that will allow removed conifers to be mitigated. This recommendation has been incorporated into the condition of approval. With regard to the Solar Access standards in AMC 18.4.8, the Planning Commission finds that the R-1-5 over the north property line to no greater shadow than would be cast by a six-foot fence on the With the subject property having a north slope of approximately -0.032, a -foot parapet height \[(20 feet 6 feet)/(0.445 - 0.032) = 33.89 feet required solar setback\]. Here, the single-story addition is being placed at the south end of the property, and is roughly 570 feet from the north property line. As such, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed addition easily complies with the Standard A solar setback. The Planning Commission concludes that the third approval criterion has been satisfied. The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate tranThe Planning Commission finds that adequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 11 The Commission notes that existing public facilities are in place and currently serve the Walker Elementary School campus and its buildings. The applicant asserts that adequate city facilities exist to service the proposed new classroom building, and further indicates that the proposal substantially upgrades the storm drainage facilities, which are currently inadequate. The applicant emphasizes that the civil engineering plans (Sheets C2.1 Erosion Control Plan, C3.0 Overall Civil Site Plan, C.4 Overall Grading Plan, C.5 Overall Site Utility Plan) provide necessary details to demonstrate proposed site development and construction can comply with city standards. The applicant further details: Water: There is a four-inch main in Walker Avenue, and a six-inch main in Homes Avenue. Fire hydrants are in place on Walker Avenue, Homes Avenue and Hunter Court. A new fire vault will be installed to the west of the relocated driveway from Homes Avenue. The water line sizes are substantial and provide adequate water pressure for the additional classroom area and the fire suppression system. Sewer: There is an eight- and ten-inch sewer lines in place in Walker Avenue; a ten-inch sewer main within the Homes Avenue right-of-way; and a six-inch sanitary sewer line in Hunter Court. A new sanitary sewer later is proposed to extend from the new addition to Walker Avenue. After discussions with Public Works, there are no known sewer capacity issues. Electrical: There are overhead electrical facilities in place along Walker Avenue, and private electrical facilities (i.e. junction boxes, vaults) in place. The project team is unaware of any capacity issues. A new transformer is proposed on the east side of Walker Avenue, north of the bus loop, to serve the additional classroom space and upgrade the existing services. The applicants also note that new LED lighting automatic shut-off timers will be used throughout to gain conserve power with the project. Urban Storm Drainage: There are existing eight-inch storm sewer mains in place in the Walker Avenue right-of-way and in Hunter Court. The application proposes substantial stormwater quality improvements with a large, landscaped bio-swale to be constructed on the north side of the new Quality (DEQ) permitting standards. Paved Access & Adequate Transportation: Walker Avenue is considered an Avenue in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and is currently improved with paving, curbs, gutters, and curbside -foot curb-to-curb width in a 60-foot right- of-way. Other than the removal of the current parent drop-off and pick-up looped driveway near the corner, no modifications are proposed to the Walker Avenue frontage. Homes Avenue is also considered a neighborhood street in the TSP. City street design standards would typically call for a right-of-way width of from 47- to 57-feet, depending on the on-street parking configuration, however the existing Homes Avenue right-of-way is only 16-feet with an additional 24-long the north (i.e. school) side which contains paving, curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks. The existing curb-to-curb improvement is 26 feet in width. With the current Site Design Review request, a condition of approval has been included to require that this public right-of-way. With the proposal, an existing parent drop-off and pick-up looped driveway near the Homes and Walker Avenues intersection will be relocated to the east toward Hunter Court. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 12 The existing parking lot for staff, parents and visitors is accessed via a curb cut from Homes Avenue. This parking area lacks required landscape buffers, and there are no landscape islands, no designated pedestrian access, and no parking lot shade trees. the parent drop-off loop which enters from Homes Avenue and exits to Walker Avenue. The existing driveways on Homes Avenue are further from the intersection than required under the controlled access standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3, but the two driveways are relatively close together, at roughly 40 feet apart, given the traffic volumes during drop-off and pick-up times. For Homes Avenue, a combination of factors including the narrow right-of-way and narrow improved street width, vehicular turning movements, heavier pedestrian activity in addition to pick-up and drop-off traffic lead to congestion at the intersection of Walker and Homes not only from Walker Elementary, but also from Ashland Middle School, which is located a short distance to the north along Walker Avenue and sees parent drop-off and pick-up traffic at roughly the same times. Hunter Court is identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a future neighborhood street, however it is not dedicated as public right-of-way and is instead located on the private tax lot for Hunter Park and serves as a private driveway for park patrons. Existing improvements include paving, curbs and gutters with a five-foot curbside sidewalk on the east (park) side. From Homes Avenue north, the first 130-feet of Hunter Court has an approximate curb-to-curb width of 25-feet, after which it widens to approximately 37 feet. The narrower width section was installed to accommodate the Senior Center, whiIn allowing the school to utilize Hunter Court, the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission (AP&RC) sought to have the new school driveway align with the driveway across Hunter Court serving the pool, to increase the paved width to avoid constriction points in the narrower segment near the intersection with Homes Avenue, and to ensure that student bicycle and pedestrian circulation from the Central Ashland Bikepath (CAB) onto the campus was provided for without elementary school-age students having to directly interact with cars on Hunter Court. The application materials explain that with the current site layout at Walker Elementary is that there is inadequate parking in place for the school (i.e. 46 spaces are in place, while 66 spaces are required under current standards) and inadequate space for safe student drop-off and pick-up separate from both the surrounding street traffic and from parking lot circulation. The proposed modifications to the site layout and access bring the property closer to compliance with design standards by shifting the parking spaces and student drop-off area to the rear of the building, away from Walker Avenue and PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 13 Homes Avenue, increasing separation between intersections, providing the required number of parking spaces, planting parking lot shade trees and providing landscape bio-swale for the treatment of stormwater on the site. A five-foot granite path is proposed to be installed on the west (school) side of Hunter Court to connect the Central Ashland Bikepath(CAB) to campus north of the new driveway as required by the AP&RC. New pedestrian crossings will be provided at the driveway, and south of the new driveway Hunter Court is to be widened to provide two travel lanes as well as landscaped parkrow and sidewalk. Existing trees along Hunter Court are proposed to be removed to accommodate these improvements, including a large multi-trunked Ash (Tree #16). In the discussions between the applicant and the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission (AP&RC) it was noted that these tree removals were necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements while retaining two on- street accessible parking spaces which serve the Ashland Senior Center in Hunter Park. The application also proposes to provide a new ADA-accessible pedestrian ramp and crossing of Hunter Court. The application includes a technical memo from Sandow Engineering which evaluates the access and vehicle routing for the proposal. This memo indicates that entering vehicle routes will not change substantially enough to have a different effect on the street system, outside of the specific changes to Homes Avenue, than the existing access. Similarly, Sandow finds that exiting trips will likely have no change in their routing, and will likely travel out to Walker Avenue rather than crossing turning traffic to head toward Normal Avenue when Walker Avenue provides a quicker, safer and easier route to either Ashland Street or Siskiyou Boulevard. The Technical Memo indicates that the relocation of the access point will reduce conflict points and improve overall safety (for automobiles, pedestrians and bicycles) along Walker Avenue, and explains that the current drop-off loop allows 11 vehicles to queue on-site before they spill into Homes Avenue, where an additional ten cars can queue before they impact the intersection of Walker and Homes, where they have the potential to frequently block the intersection. The memo notes that with the proposed changes to the circulation plan, the available queuing area on campus increases to 15 vehicles, with room for another 11 to queue on Hunter Court before Homes Avenue is impacted. White pavement markings be provided to delineate pick-up and drop-off circulation. That the five parking spaces north of the new parking lot be designated spaces (staff or authorized parking only) to keep them from being used during pick-up and drop-off times. No on-street parking on the north side of Homes Avenue from Hunter court to 25 feet west of the site driveway during drop-off and pick-up times. No parking on the west side of Hunter Court from Homes Avenue to the new driveway during drop-off and pick-up times. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 14 That the turn lane proposed on Hunter Court be a minimum of 75 feet in length. safely within typical peak school traffic conditions and will provide adequate and safe access and circulation for recommendations conditions of this approval. The Planning Commission finds that facilities are in place to serve the existing campus buildings, that adequate key city facilities can and will be provided to serve the new classroom building, and that based on applicant and staff consultations with representatives of the various City departments (i.e. water, sewer, streets and electric) the proposed addition will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. The Commission further finds that the project is intended to improve accessibility, safety, security and site circulation, but with the demolition and addition proposed, student enrollment capacity, staffing and anticipated vehicle trip generation are not increasing. The application includes civil drawings to address the changes in site grading, drainage, utilities and access associated with the proposal, and includes a determination by the project traffic engineer that with the proposed changes to circulation, Homes Avenue and Hunter Court will operate safely during peak school traffic. Conditions have been included below to require that final civil drawings detailing the final utility and infrastructure improvements be provided for review and approval prior of the Building, Planning, Fire, Public Works and Electric Departments prior to building permit issuance. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.No exceptions have been request, and the Commission concludes that this criterion is not applicable here. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Conditional sign permit program under AMC 18.4.7.120 Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use Permit to place a sign that does not conform to this chapter when it is determined that, in addition to Wa Planning Action PA-2012-00899. Approved signage for Walker Elementary included two wall signs, noting that one wall sign was existing in 2012 to identify the school along the front of the building facing Walker Avenue. A second wall sign is not clearly identified, although the proposal discussed eventually completing a wall graphic as student art to encourage school pride, improve student art skills, enhance the by the Public Arts Commission. Wall sign size/area was also not clearly discussed for Walker, although other campus signage allowed for one foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage for (which is similar to the commercial wall PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 15 sign area limits). The building frontage along Homes here is significantly more than 60 linear feet, and the new sign proposed is 52.5 square feet. Other approved signage included an existing ground sign with reader board at the corner of Walker and Homes to identify the school and announce special events, activities, holidays and PTA events. Additionally, the sign program allowed for two directional signs per driveway entrance/exit to guide students, parents and visitors who are driving but not necessarily aware of traffic patterns, and miscellaneous signs such as temporary banners to evoke school pride and student participation in various school events. These temporary miscellaneous signs are to be posted for one week, removed the day after the event, and are limited to four events per year. The first criterioThat the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The application materials explain that the proposal seeks to modify the existing Ashland School District Sign Program for Walker Elementary School by adding a wall sign along on the Homes Avenue façade of the new -inch tall letters approximately 35 feet long which equates to a sign area of approximately 52.5 feet. This is within the 60 square foot wall signage area limitation that would apply to a commercial building, and similar to other wall sign limits discussed in the sign permit program. The wall where the sign would be placed is more than 35 feet from Homes Avenue. 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 Commission finds that the proposed signage will have no effect on the provision of public facilities. 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 to subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area; d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e. Generation of noise, light, and glare; f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of The application materials explain that the target use for the property within the R-1-5 zone would be residential development with a minimum density of approximately 44 residential parcels, and asserts that the proposed signage for the school will not have any greater adverse material effects on the livability of the impact area than would residential development of the full density allowed. The application emphasizes that the installation of additional signage to identify the building from Homes Avenue and delineate the entrance will not adversely affect the neighborhood as it will not be illuminated, and will not negatively impact the expansive façade of the frontage. The application recognizes that while schools are not similar in bulk, scale, or coverage to structures in the surrounding residential area, they serve the surrounding neighborhood and are in similar scale to nearby public buildings including PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 16 the Ashland Middle School and buildings on the nearby Southern Oregon University campus. The application concludes that the proposed signage is intended to identify the specific school for the neighborhood population served by the school. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted according to this ordinance school is an outright permitted use within the R-1-5 zoning district here, and further finds that the sign code allows Governmental agencies may apply for a Conditional Use Permit to place a sign that does not conform to this chapter when it is determined that, in addition to meeting the criteria for a In approvi was a unique public entity serving a large and diverse audience including students, parents, visitors and the general public and providing both educational services and public gathering places, and that appropriate signage improved transportation to and through the school property for this audience by providing clear visual markers. The Commission finds that the proposed additional signage for the new classroom here is in keeping with that original sign program approval and will continue to support the The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above, the proposal complies with the requirements for Conditional Use Permit approval purpose. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies the applicable standards for Tree Removal Permits to remove 14 significant trees. The first approval criterion for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a tree that is not a hazard The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. The Commission notes that 14 significant trees are proposed for removal, and that the application materials explain that the removals are to permit the proposal to be consistent with applicable ordinance requirements and standards, including applicable Site Development and Design Standards. The Planning Commission finds that the removals are proposed to accommodate the addition of a new classroom building and to accommodate the widening of Hunter Court as part of a new site circulation plan intended to better accommodate school traffic on the school property and on Hunter Court to limit impacts to the surrounding public street. The Commission further finds that the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission has expressed support for the removals necessary for the widening of Hunter Court in order to maintain existing on-street accessible parking on Hunter Court necessary to serve the adjacent Senior Center. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The applicant indicates that the requested tree removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, the flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and further explains that the areas where trees are to be removed will be redeveloped with structures, hardscaping, or PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 17 will re-landscaped. The application materials also emphasize that there are more than 100 trees on the campus and adjacent to Hunter Court on the adjacent Hunter Park property. 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.tion materials indicate that there are more than 100 trees on the subject property and along the Hunter Court corridor, and further suggest that the proximity to Hunter Park, which is heavily vegetated, provides substantial species diversity, canopy coverage, and tree densities within 200 feet of the subject property. The application materials conclude that the proposal replaces canopy, tree densities, sizes, and species diversity with required mitigation trees. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.The Commission finds that there is no residential component associated with the current application. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.Commission finds that mitigation trees sufficient to meet this requirement are proposed throughout the property. There are 14 significant trees proposed for removal, and the landscape plan includes more than 30 replacement trees including Kentucky yellow trees, zelkova, maple, and lindens, and includes the planting of new required street trees and 26 proposed shade trees for the parking areas to reduce the microclimatic impacts of the pavement. The Tree Commission reviewed the application at its regular meeting on July 8, 2021 and recommended approval of the request, with the further recommendation that the applica to include three to four large-stature-at-- being removed. The Tree Commissioners specifically recommended Incense Cedar (calocedrus decurrens) or Giant Sequoia(sequoiadendron giganteum) as mitigation trees, noting that with the new fire regulations, a site of this size is one of the few that will allow removed conifers to be mitigated. This recommendation has been made a condition of approval. The Planning Commission finds that the remaining trees which are to be preserved are proposed to be protected with six-foot tall chain link fencing as recommended by the arborist and required in the ditions have been included to require tree protection fencing installation and verification before site work. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection and for Tree Removal Permits to remove 14 significant trees. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 18 2.6 With regard to the proposed demolition of the 9,700 square foot classroom, the Planning Commission notes that the demolition and relocation of existing buildings is regulated through AMC Chapter 15 Buildings and Constructionapproval of permits by the Building Official and the potential for appeal to the Demolition Review Committee. The Commission finds that the applicant has indicated that the 9,700 square foot classroom building is be demolished as part of the larger, bond- funded project which includes the construction of a new 22,450 square foot classroom building, the creation of a central courtyard, and reconfiguration of the on-site parking and circulation plan. A condition has been included below to make clear that the applicant will need to obtain requisite permits for demolition through the Building Official prior to commencement of demolition work. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review, Conditional Use and Tree Removal permit approvals to construct a new 22,450 square-foot, single-story addition and associated changes to the campus site planning, modify approved signage and remove 14 significant trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. For the Commission, the proposed addition has been thoughtfully designed and placed with the help of a local historic preservation consultant to ensure that the building will not detract from or compete with the original portion of the building oriented to Walker Avenue. The proposed placement creates a better relationship to Homes Avenue, helps to frame a more central courtyard area, and supports a reorganization the parking and circulation plan which, with the use of Hunter Court, will help to lessen the impacts of parent drop-off and pick-up traffic to the surrounding public streets by better accommodating queuing off- street. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2021-00028. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2021-00028 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein, including but not limited to the applicant adding an additional lane and repaving Hunter Court from curb-to-curb, and providing a pedestrian and bicycle path for students from the Central Ashland Bikepath, as illustrated in the draft agreement with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission provided in the record. 2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3.That a sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of signage. Signage shall be consistent with that described herein and shall be placed in a manner consistent with the vision clearance standards of AMC 18.2.4.040. PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 19 4.That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing; fire apparatus access including aerial ladder access, turn-around, firefighter access pathways and work area; fire hydrant spacing, distance and clearance; fire flow; fire sprinkler system if applicable; fire extinguishers; limitations on gates or fences; providing required fuel breaks; and meeting the general fuel modification area standards. 5.That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the surrounding streets, and the location and screening of all mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 6.That the applicant shall obtain applicable demolition permits through the Building Division if deemed necessary by the Building Official prior to the commencement of any building demolition on site. 7.That the applicant shall dedicate the existing 24-foot wide street reservation area on the north side of Holmes Avenue as public right-of-way prior to final occupancy approval for the project. In addition, the applicant shall provide a consent to dedicate or street reservation of the widened portion of Hunter Court which would be dedicated as public street should the remainder of Hunter Court ever become a public street. 8.That the recommendations of the Public Works/Engineering Division shall be conditions of approval here, including but not limited to the requirements that new accessible ramps meeting federal and state standards shall be installed on both sides of the crosswalk where Hunter Court meets Homes Avenue (near the Senior Center); that permits be obtained prior to work in the public rights-of-way; and that necessary stormwater permits be obtained. 9.That building permit submittals shall include: a.The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility, irrigation and drainage easements, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements. b.The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. c.Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d.Revised landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) required size and species-specific planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications; 2) final lot coverage and required landscaped area calculations, including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas, and landscaped areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 20 more than 50 percent, and the calculations shall demonstrate that the requisite 50 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are provided; 3) the mitigation requirements of AMC 18.5.7 by detailing the mitigation for the 14 significant trees to be removed on a one-for-one basis through replanting planting on-site, replanting off-site, or lanting; 4) sight-obscuring screening of the parking lot with a landscape buffer in keeping with the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.080.E.6.a.iv and 18.4.4.030.F.2.; 5) the staff recommendations that the driveway crossing connect directly (in a straight line) to the five-foot path leading to the Central Ashland Bikepath and that a ramp for bicycles to access this path from Hunter Court be provided where the path turns into the campus; and 6) the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their July 8, 2021 regular meeting that the Planting Plan be revised to include three to four large-stature-at maturity native or native-like conifers such as Incense Cedar or Giant Sequoia to mitigate the conifers (Trees #20-25) being removed. e.A Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. f.Final storm water drainage, grading and erosion control plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. The storm water plan shall address Public Works/Engineering standards requiring that post-development peak flows not exceed pre-development levels. Any necessary drainage improvements to address the water shall be provided at the applicantstorm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfall events must be collected on site and channeled to the city storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. g.A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. The utility plan shall also address Water Department requirements relative to cross connections and premises isolation. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections shall be located outside of pedestrian corridors and in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 21 h.A final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located outside the pedestrian corridor in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Any necessary service extensions i.That the applicants shall provide final engineered plans for any work in the street rights- of-way including any changes to sidewalks, driveway aprons or pedestrian crossings for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments. j.Identification of required bicycle parking, which includes a total of 70 covered bicycle parking spaces. Inverted u-racks shall be used for the new outdoor bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the standards in 18.4.3.070.I, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. k.A signed copy of the agreement with the Ashland Parks & Recreation Commission for the use of Hunter Court shall be provided with the building permit submittal and prior to any site work on the new parking lot or driveways. 10.That prior to any site work including staging, storage of materials, demolition or tree removal, the applicant shall mark the trees to be removed and install protection fencing for the trees to be retained, and obtain a Tree Verification Inspection so that the Staff Advisor can verify that the trees identified on site for removal are consistent with the approved plan, and that those trees to be protected have tree protection fencing in place in a manner consistent with the approved plans. 11.That prior to the issuance of a building permit all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for any new utilities, and applicable system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid. 12.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final project approval: a.That the required automobile and bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. b.All hardscaping including the sidewalk corridor, on site circulations routes, parking lots and driveways; Hunter Court improvements; landscaping; and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plans, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. c.That the screening for the trash and recycling containers shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Development Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 22 receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.4.4.040. d.That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. e.All required utility service and equipment installations and street frontage improvements, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. f.14 replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan, or alternative mitigation demonstrated. 13.As proposed by the applicant, perimeter gates shall remain unlocked during non-school hours so as to not limit or restrict access school playgrounds and greenspaces. 14.That the recommendations of the Sandow Engineering Tech Memo dated April 27, 2021 shall be conditions of this approval, including that: a.White pavement markings be provided to delineate pick-up and drop-off circulation. b.That the five parking spaces north of the new parking lot be designated spaces (staff or authorized parking only) to keep them from being used during pick-up and drop-off times. c.No on-street parking on the north side of Homes Avenue from Hunter court to 25 feet west of the site driveway during drop-off and pick-up times. d.No parking on the west side of Hunter Court from Homes Avenue to the new driveway during drop-off and pick-up times. e.That the turn lane proposed on Hunter Court be a minimum of 75 feet in length. August 10, 2021 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2021-00028 August 1, 2021 Page 23 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00029 822 Oak Street Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00029 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 822 Oak Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Suzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units (AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1) where dedication of a public street is typically required; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a), an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: R-1-5; ZONING: Single Family Residential; 39 1E 04CA; TAX LOT: 200 & 201. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 6:00 PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 7:00 PM Criteria: (Outline Plan, Final Plan, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Exception to Street Standards, Street Tree Removal) G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\O\\Oak\\Oak_822\\PA-T2-2021-00029\\Noticing\\Oak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC.docx Tree Commission Meetings Notice is hereby given that the Tree Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown on Page 1. Anyone wishing to submit written comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 2, 2021. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public- testimony@ashland.or.us August 3, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Tree Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. If you wish to virtually attend or listen to the Tree Commission meeting, send an email to PC-public- testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 2, 2021 . In order to virtually attend or listen to the commission 2) include your name, 3) specify the date and commission meeting you wish to virtually attend or listen to, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. Please note, participants that sign up to virtually attend or listen to a commission meeting will not be allowed to speak during the meeting. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need sp 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 10 PC Hearing Testimony Monday, August 9, 2021. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 10 Hearing Testimony. 00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 10, 2021 Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oraltestimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 10, 2021. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email August 10 Speaker Request , 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you willbe participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Derek Severson at 541-552-2040 / Derek.Severson@ashland.or.us. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\O\\Oak\\Oak_822\\PA-T2-2021-00029\\Noticing\\Oak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC.docx OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. 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. 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. d. The development of the land 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. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 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 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 18.5.4.050 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. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\O\\Oak\\Oak_822\\PA-T2-2021-00029\\Noticing\\Oak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC.docx 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. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f.E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i.CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l.HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 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. a. 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. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of 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. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 18.5.7.040.B 1.Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\O\\Oak\\Oak_822\\PA-T2-2021-00029\\Noticing\\Oak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC.docx subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. PERMISSION TO PLANT OR REMOVE (STREET TREES) 13.16.030 The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City uired to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List. (Ord. 3192 § 100, amended, 11/17/2020) G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\PAs by Street\\O\\Oak\\Oak_822\\PA-T2-2021-00029\\Noticing\\Oak_822_PA-T2-2021-00029_NOC.docx “Grizzly Peak View” Subdivision ArequestforOutline&FinalPlansubdivisionapprovalunderthe PA-T2-2021-00029– PerformanceStandardsOptionChaptertodevelopa5-lot,4-unitsubdivisionforthepropertiesat 822OakStreet.Theapplicationalsorequests:aVariancetoallowaprivatedrivewaytoservefour unitswhereapublicstreetdedicationwouldtypicallyberequired;aConditionalUsePermitto modifyanon-conformingdevelopmentwheretherequireddrivewayseparationisnotprovided foranavenue;anExceptiontoStreetStandardstonotinstallcitystandardfrontageimprovements alongOakStreet;anaStreetTreeRemovalPermittoremovethreeOaktrees. Proposal Details Site Description 822 Oak Street consists of two vacant properties along the east side of Oak Street between Sleepy Hollow Drive and East Nevada Street. The two properties have a combined area of 0.86 acres, and are zoned R-1-5, a single family residential zoning with a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size. SubdivisionRequest Theapplicationproposestosubdividethetwopropertiesat822OakStreettocreatefour buildablelots.TheR-1-5zonedpropertyhasabasedensityof3.87units,andthefourthlotis proposedthrougha“conservationhousing”densitybonusbecausealloftheunitswillbebuiltto EarthAdvantage®standards.Afifth‘commonarea’lotwouldbecreatedtocontaintheshared drivewaywithfourparkingspacesandacommonopenspacewhichwouldincludestormwater detentionandalandscapedareaforresidents’recreationalusethatwouldincludetwolarge Cedartreesthataretobepreservedandprotectedwiththesubdivision. Landscaping, Trees & Natural Features TheapplicationproposestoremovethreeOaktreesalongOakStreetwhicharedescribedas beinginastateofdecline,withthesouthernmostbeingunderminedbyananimalburrowatits basewhichhasleadtodecayandtheothersexhibitingdeadwoodintheircanopiesandevidence ofsheddinglargelimbs.Thesetreesaretobereplacedwithsixregionally-acclimatedtreesthat willbeofsimilarstatureatmaturity.TwolargeCedarsalongthenorthpropertylinearetobe protectedduringconstructionandpreservedonaproposedcommonarealot.Inaddition,staff arerecommendingthatthebuildingenvelopesbemodifiedtoprovidegreaterprotectionofthe steeplyslopedareasattherearofthepropertieswhichoverlooktheBearCreekfloodplain. 1 “Grizzly Peak View” Subdivision ArequestforOutline&FinalPlansubdivisionapprovalunderthe PA-T2-2021-00029– PerformanceStandardsOptionChaptertodevelopa5-lot,4-unitsubdivisionforthepropertiesat 822OakStreet.Theapplicationalsorequests:aVariancetoallowaprivatedrivewaytoservefour unitswhereapublicstreetdedicationwouldtypicallyberequired;aConditionalUsePermitto modifyanon-conformingdevelopmentwheretherequireddrivewayseparationisnotprovided foranavenue;anExceptiontoStreetStandardstonotinstallcitystandardfrontageimprovements alongOakStreet;anaStreetTreeRemovalPermittoremovethreeOaktrees. Key Issues Variance TheapplicationrequestsaVariancetoallowaprivatedrivewaytoservefourunitswherecity codes(AMC18.4.6.040.C.1)requirethatapublicstreetbededicatedandinstalled.Inthis instance,theslopesattherearofthepropertyexceed35percent,andaneast-weststreetcould notbeinstalledthroughthisareatomeetthecity’sstreetgraderequirements.Thecombination ofslopesandtheexistingdevelopmentpatternonadjacentpropertiesalsopreventanorth-south streetconnection.Theapplicantrequeststonotinstallapublicstreetthatcouldnotconnectto thebroaderstreetsystem,andthehomeowners’associationratherthanthecitywouldbe responsibleformaintainingaprivatedriveway. ConditionalUsePermit TheapplicationrequestsaConditionalUsePermitbecausetheproposeddrivewayiscloserthan generallyallowedtothenextdrivewayonamajorcollectorlikeOakStreet.Howeverthe drivewayseparationstandardsdiscussedbytheapplicantdonotapplyinsinglefamilyresidential zones,andassuchtherequestedConditionalUsePermitisnotneeded.Thedrivewaycomplies withthestandardsforasinglefamilyzoneasproposed,whicharedetailedinAMC18.4.3.080.C. ExceptiontoStreetStandards TheapplicationrequestsanExceptiontotheStreetDesignStandardstonotinstallaparkrow plantingstripandsidewalkalongtheproperties’OakStreetfrontage.Thecombinationoftrees, fences,utilitypedestals,gradechangesandlowrockwallsbehindthecurbonadjacentproperties tothenorthandsouthmakepedestriantravelchallenging.Staffhaveinsteadrecommendedthat theapplicantdedicateright-of-wayforfutureparkrowandsidewalkandsign-infavorof participatinginanyfutureLocalImprovementDistrict,andregradethefrontofthepropertyto curblevelandinstallafive-footgravelpathalongthefrontagetosupporton-streetparkinguntil broaderfrontageimprovementsareinstalled. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the application be approved with the conditions detailed in the attached draft findings. 2 DƩźǩǩƌǤ tĻğƉ źĻǞ {ǒĬķźǝźƭźƚƓ БЋЋ hğƉ {ƷƩĻĻƷ /ƚƓĭĻƦƷǒğƌ .ǒźƌķźƓŭ 9ƌĻǝğƷźƚƓƭ źĭźƓźƷǤ ağƦ DRAFT FINDINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION September 14, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2021-00029, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 5-LOT, 4-UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ) OPTIONS SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTIES AT 822 OAK STREET. THE APPLI- ) CATION ALSO INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR: A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PRIVATE) DRAFT DRIVEWAY TO SERVE FOUR UNITS WHERE DEDICATION OF A PUBLIC STREET) FINDINGS, IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY A NON- ) CONCLUSIONS & CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY SEPARA- ) ORDERS TION IS NOT PROVIDED FOR AN AVENUE; AN EXCEPTION TO STREET STAN- ) DARDS TO NOT INSTALL CITY STANDARD STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVE- ) MENTS ALONG OAK STREET; AND A STREET TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO ) REMOVE THREE OAK TREES. ) ) PPLICANT/OWNER: ASuzanne Zapf for Overlook Drive, LLC ) Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lots #200 and #201 of Map 39 1E 04 CA are vacant parcels at 822 Oak Street, on the east side of Oak Street between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive, and are zoned R-1-5 (Single Family Residential). 2)The applicant is requesting Outline and Final Plan approval for a five-lot/four-unit Performance Standards subdivision for the two properties located at 822 Oak Street. The application also includes requests for: a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units where dedication of a public street AMC 18.4.6.040.C.1 is typically required under ; a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming MC development where the required driveway separation is not provided for an avenue as required in A 18.4.3.080.C.3.a; an Exception to Street Standards to not install city standard street frontage improvements along Oak Street, and a Street Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. 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. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 1 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. d. The development of the land 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. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 4) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 2 AMC 18.5.5.050.A 5) The criteria for a Variance are described in as follows: 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 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. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 6) The criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval are described in as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 3 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. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. R-1. b. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. R-2 and R-3. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 4 i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. AMC 18.4.6.020.b 7) The criteria for an Exception to the Street Standards are described in as follows: 1. 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. a. 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. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of 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. AMC 13.16.030 8) The criteria for a Street Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows: The City encourages the planting of appropriate trees. No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit has been issued PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 5 t may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List. (Ord. 3192 § 100, amended, 11/17/2020) 9) Emergency Powers to declare a state of emergency to the City Manager, subject to subsequent ratification by the City Council. Emergency resulting from the Coronavirus contagion, and the Council has subsequently approved extension of this Declaration of Emergency through at least August 17, 2021. Among other things, this Declaration of Emergency provides for public meetings to be conducted by electronic means for the various City commissions and boards, including the Planning Commission. 10) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on August 10, 2021 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing \[approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to of the hearing, the Planning Commission the appropriate development of the site/continued the application/denied the application\]. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3, for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5, for a PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 6 Variance described in AMC 18.5.5.050, for an Exception to Street Standards as described in AMC 18.4.6.020.b; and for a Street Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 13.16.030. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements or has requested Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 18.3.9.080, and the provisions of the chapter as well as other applicable provisions including AMC 18.4.3 Parking, Access, & Circulation; AMC 18.4.6 Public Facilities; and AMC 18.4.8 Solar Access. The application materials further emphasize that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. Performance Standards The subject property here is outside of the PSO overlay. As provided in AMC 18.3.9.030.D, if a parcel is not in only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1) The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; 2) That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; 3) The property is zoned R-2, R-3 or CM; or 4) The property is developed as a cottage housing development consistent with the standards in section 18.2.3.090. The subject property is less than two acres in area, is zoned R-1 and is not proposed for a cottage housing development. The applicant proposes to utilize the Performance Standards Option as necessary to protect the environment and neighborhood from the degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, asserting that the request is eligible to use the Performance Standards Option due to the preservation of two large stature Cedar Trees which are to be preserved and protected on the common area lot, and because the subdivision would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact. two large Cedars on the common area lot, the steeply-sloped areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek floodplain corridor must also be better protected as a significant natural feature of the site. To that end, staff have recommended a condition below that revised building envelopes be identified for each lot which will protect the slopes greater than 25 percent from not only building placement but also from any construction disturbance prior to the signature of a final survey plat. For development of fewer than ten lots Outline Plan subdivision approval may be requested concurrently with Final Plan approval. The current application proposes a total of five lots and four residential units, and is requesting concurrent Outline and Final Plan approvals. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 7 Parking Requirements hŅŅ {ƷƩĻĻƷ tğƩƉźƓŭ Development of the individual, detached single family dwelling units requires two spaces each, and building permit submittals would need to demonstrate that required off-street parking would be provided with development of the individual lots. hƓΏ{ƷƩĻĻƷ tğƩƉźƓŭ źƓ ƷŷĻ tĻƩŅƚƩƒğƓĭĻ {ƷğƓķğƩķƭ The Performance Standards Options Parking Standards in AMC 18.3.9.060 require that at least one on- street parking space shall be provided per dwelling unit for all developments in an R-1 zone in addition to off- street parking required. These on-street parking spaces are to be provided immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets, and each space is to be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. four spaces proposed on the south side of the driveway are each within 200 feet of the unit they serve, are accessible from Oak Street and can be found to satisfy this requirement. Cƌğŭ 5ƩźǝĻ tğƩƉźƓŭ A driveway serving a single lot and greater than 50 feet in length, or a driveway providing access to flag lots is considered a flag drive and subject to the development requirements in AMC 18.5.3.060 including that each lot have three parking spaces situated so as to avoid the need for backing out; that the flag drive address width, fire access, work area and turn-around requirements; and that there are provisions for screening, drainage, and maintenance. Given that the drive here serves four lots and they are not flag lots, staff do not believe that the Commission must strictly adhere to the flag drive standards. Ing spaces are not necessary for each lot given that an on-street parking space is provided for each lot on the common area, however staff do believe that the Commission should consider requiring that parking be configured to eliminate the need for backing out, and that fire access, drainage and maintenance requirements be attached to the approval. Solar Access Performance Standard AMC 18.4.8.040 requires that land divisions creating new lots be designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure -south dimension. Where lots have a north-facing negative slope of less than 15 percent, this calculation is based on Standard A, meaning the shadow cast cannot exceed that of a six-foot fence on the north property line. Lots having a north facing negative slope equal to or greater than 15 percent, this calculation is based on Standard B, meaning the shadow cast cannot exceed that of a 16-foot fence on the north property line. Where an applicant chooses not to design a lot with an adequate north- allowed height requirements to protect the applicable solar access standard. The applicant here has identified north building envelope limits for Lots 2-4 showing where a 12-foot shadow producing point could be placed to comply with Standard A, but asserts that because Lot 1 is not changing from its current configuration (i.e. while included in the subdivision, it will retain the same dimensions as it now has as a pre-existing lot of record) it is not subject to the Solar Access Performance Standard requirement and is simply subject to Solar Access lots included in the subdivision plat) it is subject to the Solar Access Performance Standard requirement and needs to either comply with the lot design requirement or identify a solar envelope complying with Standard A. A condition to this effect has been recommended below. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 8 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 fac The Public Works Department has noted that the following city facilities are available to serve the subject property from the adjacent Oak Street right-of-way: a six-inch water main, an eight-inch sanitary sewer main, and a 24-inch storm sewer main. The application materials assert that the proposal provides for adequate key City facilities, further explaining that water lines will be extended in the same general area as the existing water meter boxes, which are directly behind the curb; that the site grading plan anticipates individual sanitary sewer ejector pumps to the sanitary sewer main in Oak Street; and stormwater is proposed to be captured and detained onsite in an engineered swale which will overflow into the city system. The electric distribution plan provides a new vault on the north side of the driveway within the new common area lot. The applicant notes that necessary easements will be provided for all utilities, and that in discussions with Public Works and the individual utility departments no capacity issues or concerns have been identified. System Plan (TSP) and is improved with paving, curb and g frontage. Continuous sidewalks were completed along the west side of Oak Street with a Local Improvement District (LID) some years ago, but there are no sidewalks in place along the east side for the subject property or the majority of the corridor between Sleepy Hollow Drive and East Nevada Street. The application includes a request for a Variance not to install frontage improvements along Oak Street which is discussed in section 2.5 below. The Planning Commission finds that adequate key City facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants according to the approved plans, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 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, Natural Features The application materials explain that there are two large stature Cedar trees on the property that will be preserved and protected on the common area lot. Three large Oak street trees along the Oak Street right-of- way were also initially planned for preservation, however after consulting with a certified arborist it was determined that these three trees are nearing the end of their life cycle and/or have damage to the degree that their removal is necessary. In their place, the applicant proposes to plant six Oak trees of at least two- inch caliper along the street and down the driveway as mitigation trees. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 9 -sloped areas at the east edge of the property overlooking the Bear Creek floodplain corridor are significant natural features which merit protection. To that end, staff have recommended a condition below that revised building envelopes be identified for each lot which will protect the slopes greater than 25 percent from not only building placement but also from any construction disturbance prior to the signature of a final survey plat. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, The application materials provided explain that the adjacent properties are zoned residential, that the properties to the north and south have limited development potential due to the lot configurations and location of existing structures. The applicant goes on to explain that there is a larger parcel on the north side of the proposed Lot #4 that may have development potential, but the steep topography along the street connectivity. The east edge of the subject property slopes steeply towards the east, with slopes in excess of 35 percent in some areas, and there are substantial areas of the adjacent property where the slopes exceed 35 percent, which means they have no buildable area. The applicant concludes that the proposal itself will not prevent adjacent properties from developing as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Recognizing that existing development patterns and physical constraints may limit development of the adjacent properties to a degree, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed subdivision and its associated access and utility installation will not prevent the adjacent lands from being developed as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, The fifth approval criterion is that, quate 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 The application iation (HOA) and that Covenants, -Laws will be provided for review by the Staff Advisor along with a Stormwater Quality Management Plan along with the final civil drawings for review prior to signature of the subdivision survey plat. The application further suggests that the four units will be platted together rather than in phases. lude provisions for the long-term operation and maintenance of open space and common areas including the trees preserved and protected with the subdivision, the driveway, utilities and drainage system. With the inclusion of these conditions, the Planning Commission finds that there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of the open space and common areas, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterThe base density for R-1-5 development under the Performance Standards Option Chapter is 4½ dwelling units per acre. The parent parcel here is 37,500 square feet or 0.86 acres, and the 0.86 acres x 4.5 dwelling units/acre = 3.87 dwelling units base density is 3.87 dwelling units (). The proposed density is four dwelling units, which equates to roughly 3.3 percent over the base density. The applicant proposes to utilize the allowed 15 percent density bonus for Conservation Housing by PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 10 constructing 100 percent of the units to Earth Advantage® standards as provided in Resolution #2006-06. The Planning Commission finds that with the construction of 100 percent of units to Earth Advantage® standards, the proposed density meets the base and density bonus standards of the Performance Standards Option Chapter. A condition has been included below to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate that the homes have been designed to comply with the applicable Earth Advantage® standard and that evidence of Earth Advantage® certification be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each home. The seventh Outline Plan approval criterion is that, No public street installation is proposed in conjunction with the current request. The application includes a request for a Variance not to dedicate and install a public street to serve four units. The Variance is discussed below in section 2.5. The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to not install a parkrow planting strip and sidewalk along the Oak Street frontage. The Exception is discussed below in section 2.7. TThe proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of AshlandIn AMC 18.3.9.050.A.3, the Performance Standards Option Chapter requires that at least five percent of the total lot area be provided in common open space for developments with a base density of ten units or greater. While the properties here have a base density of only 3.87 units, the applicant nonetheless has proposed to provide 2,800 square feet of open space on the proposed common area lot. The application materials emphasize that this area will represent a significant amenity to the projectresidents who will use and enjoy the common open space on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the proposed open space supports the preservation of the two large Cedar trees and will include landscaping and a bench to improve the functionality of the space. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the approval criteria for Final Plan are intended to insure substantial conformance between Outline Plan approval and Final Plan approval when the two are requested as separate procedural steps. The Planning Commission finds that where the two are allowed to be filed concurrently, as is the case here, there is no procedural separation between the two and the concurrent Final Plan proposal is identical to the Outline Plan in terms of number of dwelling units, yard depths, distances between buildings, common open spaces, building sizes, building elevations and exterior materials, standards resulting in density bonuses, and street standards. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for the approval of a Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units. All streets serving four units or greater, and which are in an R-1, RR and WR zone, must be dedicated to the public and shall be developed to the Street Standards of this section. The current proposal seeks to create lots to develop four units, but is requesting no to dedicate and install a public street. 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 PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 11 may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance.Here the application materials assert that the requested Variance is necessary due to special or unique physical circumstances including the slope of the subject property along the east property line which prevents the extension of any public street system, and the development pattern on adjacent properties to the north and south also prevent the extension of an interconnected street system. In addition, the application explains that due to the narrow frontage the property along Oak Street - dedication of public street right-of-way would require a 25-foot wide cross-section for a Shared Street or a 47-foot wide cross-section for a Residential Neighborhood Street - the creation of a new street intersection would have substantial impacts on the large Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the south and north. The applicant suggests that the code provision to provide a public street when serving more than three units is overly restrictive and, in some instances, burdens the community with small, dead-end public streets serving only a single residential subdivision. The applicant emphasizes that the slope of the subject properties and those immediately to the east are simple too steep to extend a gridded neighborhood street system, and that the development pattern of the properties to the north and south of the subject property are developed in a manner that prevents extension of a public street. The applicant asserts that a private driveway will allow for a narrower disturbance that is more compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood, and would also place all of the burden for future maintenance on the users of the private driveway rather than on the city. The second approval criterioThe variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. The applicant explains that the requested variance to allow a private driveway to serve four lots instead of three is the minimum necessary, and emphasizes that the private driveway would nonetheless be dedicated as fire apparatus access and would reduce the impacts that the development of the site would otherwise have with the installation of a public street and the resultant wide curb radii, reduction in on-street parking along Oak Street, and changes to neighboring properties setbacks. with a public street and the resulting curb radii and restricted parking along Oak Street, impacts to required yard setbacks for neighboring properties. T the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The application materials suggest that the benefits of the proposal include removal of any public responsibility for a small, dead end street that provides no vehicular access to future properties within the vicinity due to topography and existing development patterns. The created for the subdivision will own the private driveway and the utilities, and have responsibility for maintenance and repairs. In addition, the application materials indicate that the driveway would have a narrower apron than a street intersection and would thus have a lesser impact on the Oak Street streetscape than a public street. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 12 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. The application materials explain that the need for the Variance is based on the narrow lot width along Oak Street, the steep slopes which prevent connectivity to the east, and the development pattern on the properties to the north and south, all of which pose difficulties for street installation. The application materials emphasize that all of . Staff Analysis - Connectivity The easternmost edge of the property has slopes in excess of 35 percent, and in rough calculations by staff, the grade of an east-west street extension would be in the 29-30 percent range. In addressing street grade, AMC 18.4.6.040.C5 provides that street grades shall not exceed a maximum grade of 15 percent, and explicitly precludes variances to this requirement for public streets. The topography here is simply too steep for an east- nce Standards is to preserve and protect significant natural features, requiring a street extension which would disturb these slopes in order to direct vehicles to the Bear Creek floodplain corridor, which is now under Parks Department ownership, seems counterintuitive. Similarly, the placement of existing buildings on properties immediately to the north and south combine with the topography at the rear (east) of the property to prevent easy north-south street connectivity. The Street Dedication Map (Figure 10-1) of the Transportation System Plan does not identify any planned streets on the subject properties or in the immediate vicinity. topography precludes installation of a street meeting the street grade requirements, and serving four lots rather than three via a private drive seems the minimum variance possible to address the difficulty while seeking more efficient land use, with the benefit that there would not be public responsibility for the maintenance of what would effectively be an overbuilt driveway without any associated public benefit from connectivity, and the Bear Creek floodplain corridor and the slopes that overlook it would be preserved and protected. For staff, the remaining question relative to connectivity is whether to require that the applicant provide a public pedestrian access easement through the property to offset the lost vehicular connectivity. As noted above, the Parks Department has acquired property downslope along the Bear Creek floodplain corridor which includes public pedestrian trails. There is one property between the subject properties here and the Parks property below, but the slopes of that property like the rear of the subject properties here have severe constraints and are great to require a pedestrian connection be provided. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that while the application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing non-conforming development where the existing driveway separation does not meet the standard for a collector street type detailed in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3 and the proposal would move the driveways approximately six feet closer together, because the subject property is zoned R-1-5 it is not subject to the 75-foot driveway separation in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.b and C.3.c, but is instead PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 13 required only to provide the minimum 24-foot separation detailed in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3.a. As such, the Planning Commission concludes that a Conditional Use Permit is not required of the application as currently proposed. Staff Analysis Driveway Separation The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify a non-conforming development where the existing driveway separation does not meet the standards for an Avenue street type detailed in AMC 18.4.3.080.C.3, and the proposal is noted as increasing the non-conformity. As explained in the application materials, the closest driveway to the north is approximately 39 feet from the existing driveway on the subject property, while the driveway to the south is approximately 60 feet from the existing driveway. The application materials explain that Oak Street is considered to be an Avenue or Major Collector street type in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and these existing driveway separations do not meet the 75-foot driveway separation required by code for this street type. The application further explains that the proposed driveway will increase this non-conformity by decreasing the separation from 60 feet to 54 feet for the driveway to the south. .3.080.C.3 generally seek a separation of 75 feet between driveways on a collector street, as detailed in section Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall be limited is zoned R-1-5 and is therefore not subject to the limitations listed in C.3.b or C.3.c, but rather to AMC In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach.Within the R-1-5 zoning district, the minimum lot width is 50 feet, and being subject to a driveway separation substantially greater than the lot width would pose complications for single family development in a single family zoning district. An R-1-5 property along a collector street must only provide a 24-foot separation between driveways while the applicant here is providing substantially more and serving four properties with a single driveway - and as such, a Conditional Use Permit is not required. The first criterion That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program.The application materials explain that the use of the property would be a single-family residential subdivision which is an allowed use in the R-1-5 zone, and that the Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a non-conforming driveway separation on Oak Street (less than 75-feet from driveway to the north) to be expanded to allow the driveway serving the subject property to provide adequate driveway apron width to access the improved private driveway. The existing driveway separation is approximately 60-feet. The proposal reduced the separation by six feet to 54-feet of separation. Thus, increasing the non-conformity by ten percent. 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.Adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 14 electricity, urban storm drainage and paved access to and through the development is discussed in section 2.3 above. The application materials assert that the driveway apron expansion by six feet and the commensurate reduction in the separation between the driveways does not have an adverse impact on the transportation facilities as on-street parking will be maintained. The third approval criterion is, That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) Generation of noise, light, and glare; f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use.The application materials provided explain that the scale, bulk and coverage of the proposed development is not associated with the request to reduce the separation between the driveways, and that this driveway separation does not have an effect on the livability of the zone. The application materials further assert that the generation of traffic and effects on the surrounding streets is improved through the development of a paved driveway accessed from a standard driveway apron, and that the driveway apron width and shifting towards the north is necessary regardless of the type of development of the property. The application materials go on to note that the reduced separation between the driveways does not have an impact on air quality, generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants, nor upon noise, light and glare. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance.In this instance, the proposed use is a single family residential subdivision which is a permitted use within the single family residential zones. 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: R-1. . b) Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones.In this instance, the subject property is zoned R-1-5 Single Family Residential, and the maximum allowed density is one dwelling unit per 5,000 square foot lot. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for the approval of an Exception to the Street Design Standards to not install frontage improvements along Oak Street. Oak Street is classified as an avenue or major collector street in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), and city standard frontage improvements detailed in AMC Table 18.4.6.040.F include a seven- to eight- foot irrigated park-row planting strip and a six-foot sidewalk. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 15 aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. the granting of exceptions when physical conditions exist that preclude development of a public street, or components of the street. Such conditions may include, mature trees, and limited right-of-way. Both of these conditions are present on the frontage. The property has a 50-foot wide frontage on Oak Street. Along the frontage of the property and the adjacent properties to the north and south, there is approximately eight-and-a-half feet of right-of-way, which is not adequate to install city-standard frontage improvements. In addition, then narrow width of the property frontage following the installation of the driveway will leave only approximately 28-feet of frontage for sidewalk installation. There are not sidewalk connections immediately to the north or south, and the applicant suggests that the request to not install frontage improvements would avoid a sidewalk and parkrow system that goes nowhere. The application materials further assert that there are large stature Oak trees on the adjacent properties to the north and south, and city standard sidewalk installation would impact these trees as well as the utilities in place within the existing right-of-way. The application emphasizes that the only way to preserve the neighbors trees is to use the narrowest driveway allowed and not install a public street or frontage improvements with sweeping curb lines. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. The application materials explain that the proposed frontage improvements will include regrading of the berm behind the curb line, installation of a driveway apron and the planting of two large stature Oak street trees to replace the street trees proposed for removal, and suggests that these frontage improvements are similar to the existing improvements on the east side of Oak Street, where sidewalks are not currently present. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The application materials explain that the proposed exception is to not provide either sidewalk or parkrow improvements in the 28-feet north of the proposed driveway curb cut. The application further notes that there is inadequate right-of-way to achieve park row and sidewalk improvements, and that not installing a sidewalk alleviates difficulties in the extensions of said sidewalk in a logical and functional manner on properties that are not associated with the proposed development and based on existing development, will not redevelop in a manner that would require dedication of right-of-way or removal of trees. The application further suggests that in the event that frontage improvements are required, a five-foot wide curbside sidewalk with two street trees planted behind the sidewalk could be installed. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A.transportation options, focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Street Design Standards outline the art and science of developing healthy, livable streets, and are intended to illustrate current standards for planning and designing the streets of Ashland. The standards are to be used in the development of new streets, and reconstruction of existing streets or portions thereof (i.e. improving a paved local street by adding sidewalks). The standards area also intended as a resource for use by home builders, developers, and community members in the pursuit of quality development practices. The application materials explain that there are very limited sidewalks with parkrow on the east side of Oak Street, noting that this was due to a many-years-long, very involved Local Improvement District (LID) process to improve Oak PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 16 Street. The application concludes that the exception seeks to not install sidewalks and parkrow along the frontage of the property due to the limited length of the sidewalk north of the driveway (28-feet), the lack of available right-of-way to install improvements, and that not installing sidewalk and parkrow will not negatively impact the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian experience. Staff Analysis: Exception to the Street Design Standards Staff would first note that with regard to the inadequate width of the available right-of-way to accommodate city standard frontage improvements, AMC 18.4.6.050 explicitly provides that: .͵ {ƷƩĻĻƷ 5ĻķźĭğƷźƚƓ wĻƨǒźƩĻķ͵ The approval authority may require the dedication of land for the construction of a city street, greenway, or portion thereof, provided that the impact of the development on the city transportation system is roughly proportional to the dedication. It is assumed that all development requiring planning actions will increase traffic generated in the area unless it can be proven otherwise to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. Land will be dedicated by a property owner for the construction of a street or greenway when: 1.A development requiring a planning action, partition, or subdivision takes place on the owner's property; 2.The development will result in increases in the traffic generated (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle, auto) in the area, by some measure; 3.The property contains a future street or greenway dedicated on the official map adopted pursuant to 18.4.6.050.D; 4.Where required neighborhood street connections are not shown on the Street Dedication Map, the development shall provide for the reasonable continuation and connection of the transportation system to serve the development and adjacent vacant or redevelopable lands, conforming to section 18.4.6.040.E Connectivity Standards; and 5.The City may require additional right-of-way for streets that do not meet the street standards of this chapter, or as necessary for realignments of intersections or street sections, which do not have to be shown on the official map. assessment, based on these street dedication requirements above, the application can and should be required to dedicate additional right-of-way to accommodate the future installation of city-standard frontage improvements along Oak Street both in terms of being proportional to the impacts of added pedestrian trips within the system and because the applicant is also requesting a Variance not to provide the required public street serving the proposed new lots/units. A condition has been included below to require the dedication of the additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate standard frontage improvements, which equate to an additional approximately five-and-a-half feet Typically, developments are required to install incremental improvements to city standard along their frontage so that as infill occurs, the system is gradually brought up to city standards. On the Oak Street corridor in the immediate vicinity, between East Nevada Street and Sleepy Hollow Drive, there are currently two sections of parkrow and sidewalk that were required with incremental development that illustrate this approach (see 780 Oak Street and 952-982 Oak Street). PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 17 However, in this instance staff do believe that the requested Exception is merited. In addition to there being large stature Oaks on the properties immediately to the north and south, there are also fences, utility pedestals and grade changes behind the curb which mean that a pedestrian using a section of sidewalk installed here on to avoid this situation it would be preferable to have the applicant sign-in favor of a future LID for the improvement of the east side of Oak Street as required in AMC 18.4.6.030.B which would enable a more comprehensive planning process for the corridor to address the various constraints in place, dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to support eventual sidewalk and parkrow installation along the frontage (approximately five-and-a-half feet) and to have the applicant re- grade the frontage to curb level and install a five-foot wide compacted granite path behind the curb to support on-street parking in the interim. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds that the removal of street trees is not regulated through the land use ordinance in AMC Chapter 18. As these removals are cutting trees from city property, the City Manager or designee is instead charged with regulating street tree removal or pruning through AMC No trees shall be planted in or removed from any public planting strip or other public property in the City until a permit has been issued by the City Manager or being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. If the tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimum described in this chapter. The replacement tree(s) shall be of a size specified in the permit and shall be no smaller than eight (8) feet in height or one (1) inch in caliper twelve (12) inches above root crown and shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the Recommended Street Tree List.Street Tree Removal Permits are ministerial, and there are no land use criteria detailed in the code however the criteria established by the City Manager for Street Tree Removal permits, as detailed on the Street Tree Removal Permit application are: a)9ƒĻƩŭĻƓĭǤ ƩĻĻ wĻƒƚǝğƌ͵ The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non-emergency process. b)IğǩğƩķ ƩĻĻ wĻƒƚǝğƌ͵ 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. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. c)5Ļğķ ƩĻĻ͵ The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. Staff Analysis Street Tree Removal Permit Request The application proposes to remove three native Black Oak trees (Quercus Kelloggii) located behind the curb line. These three Oaks are described as stressed and unhealthy, and the project arborist indicates that the PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 18 three trees show signs of decline, noting that there is an animal burrow being created at the base of the southernmost tree which is actively undermining the base of the tree and that all three trees have numerous dead branches in the crown which are over two-inches in diameter. The trees are elevated above the street on a small berm, and in their current state would not respond well to even slight alterations to their environment. The arborist indicates that the trees show obvious signs of past branch shedding, and concludes that the likelihood of preserving the trees or improving their health is very poor. Staff observations on site confirm that the base of southernmost tree has been significantly undermined, and that there is dead wood in the canopies, as illustrated in the photos below. Staff Photo of Undermined Base of Southernmost Oak (July 30, 2021). PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 19 Staff Photo of Large, Dead, Broken Limbs in Canopy (July 30, 2021) The arborist suggests that the best long- remove all three trees, and once the development is complete to plant healthy replacement trees in the form of two- to three-inch caliper Quercus Kelloggii or other large-canopied, regionally-acclimated tree species (i.e. Swamp White Oak, Valley Oak, Willow Oak, Shumard Oak or Red Oak) located slightly further from the street. The arborist suggests that the soil in the area where the replacement trees will be planted should be protected from compaction during development, and that mulch, fertilizer and drip irrigation should be provided and maintained on a schedule for at least three years post planting. The application indicates that six replacement Oaks will be planted along the driveway to recover lost canopy coverage, shade the non-permeable surfaces and aid in the absorption of stormwater run-off, and that the replacement trees would be at least two-inch caliper with proper soil conditions and irrigation. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 20 three Oaks represent a potential future public safety hazard which cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning in that their current condition and state of decline will only further deteriorate with time and development of the property. The application also notes that the two healthy Incense Cedar (Calocedrus Decurrens) along the north property line will likely survive the impacts of development if properly protected during construction. The applicant proposes to provide required tree protection fencing along with five-inches of mulch installed starting three feet from the trunk and extending out to the end of the dripline. Trees are to be watered once a week during construction with approximately 100 gallons of water applied within 10 feet of the dripline during the months of April through October, and if work is to be done within the tree protection zones, a certified arborist will be consulted to identify best practices to preserve and protect the trees. As these draft findings are being prepared, the Ashland Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the application but will do so at its regular meeting on August 5, 2021. A condition has been included to make the recommendations of the project arborist and the Tree Commission conditions of any approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. Written recommendations from the Tree Commission will be provided to the Planning Commissioners prior to the hearing, and specific recommendations can be incorporated into the findings prior to adoption. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline and Final Plan subdivision approvals for a four-unit, five-lot Performance Standards Options subdivision, Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units, Exception to Street Standards not to install frontage improvements and Tree Removal Permit to remove three Oak trees is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The Commission further concludes that the requested Conditional Use Permit with regard to driveway separation is not required for an R-1 zoned property. The Commission finds the subdivision proposal itself to be relatively straightforward, with the key issues being the Variance and Exception requests. The Variance to allow a private driveway to serve four units here seems appropriate given that the site slopes and adjacent development pattern preclude an interconnected, gridded street system in the vicinity. The Exception to not provide frontage improvements is also merited given the trees, grade changes, fencing and utility pedestals located on the properties to the north and south, however the Commission finds it important that the applicant dedicate the additional right-of-way necessary to provide for the eventual frontage improvements and sign-in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) agreeing to participate proportionally in a comprehensively planned improvement project for the corridor. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #T2-2021-00029. Further, if any one or more of the conditions PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 21 below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #T2-2021-00029 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 modified herein. 2.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. 3.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for driveway approaches, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4.That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their August 5, 2021 regular meeting (specific recommendations to be added prior to findings adoption) shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. 5.That the recommendations of the project arborist including the type of mitigation trees, tree protection fencing placement, mulching within tree protection zones and watering schedule shall be conditions of approval. 6.That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging or issuance of a building or excavation permit. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction activity, including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree protection zones. 7.That parking on the four proposed developable lots shall be situated on the properties so that vehicles can turn and exit to the street in a forward manner. 8.That prior to submittal of the final subdivision plat for signature: a.Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean- drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b.That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 22 cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. c.A site plan illustrating revised building envelopes which will protect slopes greater than 25 percent from building placement and construction disturbance, and a revised solar envelope d.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-5 zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. e.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. f.A final storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. g.A final grading and erosion control plan. n.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. o.That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. p.That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the final plat submittal for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including driveway, open space, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and drainage system. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 23 q.The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved Tree Preservation and Protection Plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. r.A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four feet in height. Fencing d height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. s.That the applicant shall sign in favor of a local improvement district (LID) for the future improvement of Oak Street, including sidewalks, parkrow with irrigated street trees, curb, gutters and storm drainage. This agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the final subdivision survey plat. t.That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 9.Prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat: a.That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b.The final survey plat shall include the dedication of additional right-of-way (approximately five-and-a-half feet) necessary to accommodate the future installation of city standard park row planting strips and sidewalks along the full Oak Street frontage to accommodate the street system proposed by the applicant. c.That the subdivision name and all street names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. d.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. e.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveway, and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat. f.Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 24 g.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. h.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. 10.That prior to the issuance of a building permit for any unit: a.The applicant shall provide evidence that the Earth Advantage® certifications necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing density bonus are being pursued, and prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy the applicant shall provide evidence of having received the required Earth Advantage® certification. September 14, 2021 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2021-00029 September 14, 2021 Page 25 Grizzly Peak View Subdivision ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Grizzly Peak View Subdivision A Performance Standards Subdivision Subject Property: Property Owner: Applicant: Planning Consultant: Engineer: Surveyor: Tree Protection and Planting Plan: Subject Property Map & Tax Lot: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zoning: Adjacent Zones: Lot Area: Overlay Zones: Request: Site Background and Description: Proposal: Access and Circulation Trees: Open space: Times New Roman Findings of Fact PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OVERLAY 18.3.9.030 A.Purpose. The purpose of the PSO overlay is to distinguish between those areas that have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, sloping topography, or the existence of vegetation or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. B.Applicability. This chapter applies to properties located in the Performance Standards Option Overlay (PSO) as depicted on the Zoning Map. All developments in the PSO overlay, other than partitions and development of individual dwelling units, shall be processed under this chapter. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts is three. C.Permitted Uses. In a PSO overlay, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Planning Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the City Council. D.Development Outside PSO-Overlay. If a parcel is not in a PSO overlay, then development under this chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist. 2. That development under this chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact. A.Outline Plan. A proposed outline plan shall accompany applications for subdivision approval under this chapter. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the outline plan may be filed concurrently with the final plan, as that term is defined in subsection 18.3.9.040.B.4. For developments of ten or more lots, prior outline plan approval is mandatory. 1. Review Procedure. The Type II procedure in section 18.5.1.060 shall be used for the approval of the outline plan. 2. Application Submission Requirements. 3. Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. 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. 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 common open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land 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 common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the City of Ashland. 4. Approval of the Outline Plan. a. After the City approves an outline plan and adopts any zone change necessary for the development, the developer may then file a final plan in phases or in its entirety. b. If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the common open space shall be provided in the first phase and all common open space shall be provided when two-thirds of the units are finished. B.Final Plan. 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this ordinance. c. The common open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the street standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space; provided, that if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the common open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 6. Any substantial amendment to an approved final plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.040 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. LAND DIVISIONS AND PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENTS 18.5.3.020 Applicability and General Requirements A. Applicability. The requirements for partitions and subdivisions apply, as follows. 1. Subdivisions are the creation of four or more lots from one parent lot, parcel, or tract, within one calendar year. B.Land Survey. Before any action is taken pursuant to this ordinance that would cause adjustments or realignment of property lines, required yard areas, or setbacks, the exact lot lines shall be validated by location of official survey pins or by a survey performed by a licensed surveyor. C.Subdivision and Partition Approval Through Two-Step Process. Applications for subdivision or partition approval shall be processed by means of a preliminary plat evaluation and a final plat evaluation. 1. The preliminary plat must be approved before the final plat can be submitted for review. 2. The final plat must demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. D.Compliance With Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) chapter 92. All subdivision and partitions shall conform to state regulations in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) chapter 92, Subdivisions and Partitions. E. Future Re-Division Plan. When subdividing or partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater than two times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district), the lots shall be of such size, shape, and orientation as to facilitate future re-division and extension ofstreets and utilities. The approval authority may require a development plan indicating how furtherdivision of oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur inthe future. If the Planning Commission determines that an area or tract of land has been or is in theprocess of being divided into four or more lots, the Commission can require full compliance with all subdivision regulations. 18.5.3.050 Preliminary Partition Plat Criteria A. The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B. The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C. The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D. The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F. Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. AMC 18.4.3.080. Vehicle Area Design A.Parking Location a.In no case shall driveways be closer than 24 feet as measured from the bottom of the existing or proposed apron wings of the driveway approach. b. Partitions and subdivisions of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. c.Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, CM, or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following. i.Distance between driveways. on boulevard streets: 100 feet on collector streets: 75 feet on neighborhood streets:24 feet for 2 units or fewer per lot,50 feet for three or more units per lot ii.Distance from intersections. on boulevard streets:100 feet on collector streets: 50 feet on neighborhood streets: 35 feet d. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 4. Shared Use of Driveways and Curb Cuts. a. Plans submitted for developments subject to a planning action shall indicate how driveway intersections with streets have been minimized through the use of shared driveways and all necessary access easements. Where necessary from traffic safety and access management purposes, the City may require joint access and/or shared driveways in the following situations. i. For shared parking areas. ii. For adjacent developments, where access onto an arterial is limited. iii.For multi-family developments, and developments on multiple lots. b. Developments subject to a planning action shall remove all curb cuts and driveway approaches not shown to be necessary for existing improvements or the proposed development. Curb cuts and approaches shall be replaced with standard curb, gutter, sidewalk, and planter/furnishings strip as appropriate. c.If the site is served by a shared access or alley, access for motor vehicles must be from the shared access or alley and not from the street frontage. 5. Alley Access. Where a property has alley access, vehicle access shall be taken from the alley and driveway approaches and curb cuts onto adjacent streets are not permitted. 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. I. Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. K. A partition plat containing one or more flag lots shall additionally meet the criteria in section 18.5.3.060. 18.2.2.030 Allowed Uses A. Uses Allowed in Base Zones. Allowed uses include those that are permitted, permitted subject to special use standards, and allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 18.2.5.090 Standards for Single-Family Dwellings A. The following standards apply to new single-family dwellings constructed in the R-1, R-1-3.5, R-2, and R-3 zones; the standards do not apply to dwellings in the WR or RR zones. B. Single-family dwellings subject to this section shall utilize at least two of the following design features to provide visual relief along the front of the residence: 1. Dormers 2. Gables 3. Recessed entries 4. Covered porch entries 5. Cupolas 6. Pillars or posts 7. Bay window (min. 12" projection) 8. Eaves (min. 6" projection) 9. Off-sets in building face or roof (min. 16") EXCEPTIONTO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1. 1.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. a. 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. 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18.5.4.050 - Approval Criteria A.Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 1.That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects onsurrounding 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 applicationsfor conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. VARIANCE CRITERIA 18.5.5.050 - Approval Criteria A.The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’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. STREET TREE REMOVAL Street Tree Removal Approval Criteria a) Emergency Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to personsor property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could beobtained through the non-emergency process. b) Hazard Tree Removal. 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 alleviatedby treatment, relocation, or pruning. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely tofall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree mayalso include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causingdamage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. Attachments: STREET TREE REMOVAL PERMIT Planning Division 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 541-488-5305 Fax 541-488-6006 A tree that is located in any public street right-of-way or other public property may not be removed until a Street Tree Removal Permit has been submitted according to the Application Submission Requirements, below, and reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland. An application for street tree removal must demonstrate that the tree is an emergency, hazard, or dead tree as outlined below in the Application Submission Requirements. Application Submission Requirements. An application for a street tree removal permit shall include all of the following information. 1.Application Form and Fee. The application must include the information requested on the Street Tree Removal Permit form provided by the City of Ashland and the permit application fee. Only those property owners of a lot adjoining the street tree location or homeowners’ associations responsible for street trees in their development or subdivision may apply to remove an adjoining street tree. If a tree is located in front of more than one property, each property owner or homeowners’ association official must sign the Street Tree Removal Permit form. 2.Site Plan. A site plan of the property drawn to scale containing the following information. The scale of the site plan must be at least one inch equals 50 feet or larger. a.North arrow and scale. b.Property boundaries including dimensions of all lot lines and driveway locations. c.Location and width of all public streets, planting strips, and sidewalks adjoining the site. d.Size, species, and location of the tree(s) proposed to be removed. 3.Written Statement. A written statement explaining how the proposed street tree removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria. The Community Development director may require additional information to demonstrate that the proposed removal satisfies one of the following approval criteria including: 1) a written statement to be prepared by an arborist licensed by the State of Oregon Landscape Contractors Board of Construction Contractors Board and certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or American Society of Consulting Arborists; and 2) an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to be completed by an arborist. Street Tree Removal Approval Criteria a)Emergency Tree Removal. The tree presents an immediate danger of collapse and represents a clear and present hazard to persons or property. Immediate danger of collapse is defined as a tree that may already be leaning, with the surrounding soil heaving, and/or there is a significant likelihood that the tree will topple or otherwise fail and cause damage before a tree removal permit could be obtained through the non-emergency process. b)Hazard Tree Removal. 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. A hazard tree is a tree that is physically damaged to the degree that it is clear the tree is likely to fall and injure persons or property. A hazard tree may also include a tree that is located within a public right-of-way and is causing damage to existing public or private facilities or services and such facilities or services cannot be relocated. c)Dead Tree. The tree is dead. A dead tree is lifeless. Such evidence of lifelessness may include unseasonable lack of foliage, brittle dry branches, or lack of any growth during the growing season. Replacement and Stump Removal. Applicants for approved Street Tree Removal Permits are required to remove any stumps and replace the tree. Stump removal and replacements for approved street tree removals shall meet the following requirements. 1.Any street tree removed shall be removed at ground level or lower. If a tree is removed below ground level, the surface must be restored to finish grade and any regrowth which occurs shall be promptly removed. 2.All street trees shall be an appropriate species selected from and planted according to the City of Ashland Recommended Street Tree List. 3.The minimum size for a replacement tree is eight feet in height or one inch in caliper measured at 12 inches above the root crown. 4.Applicants for a Street Tree Removal Permit may be required to replace the tree or trees being removed with a tree or trees of comparable value. 5.If a street tree is determined to be dead or dying, then the replacement need be no larger than the minimize size described above. Type of Tree(s) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Approximate Diameter at breast height _______________ Height ________________________ Canopy _____________________________ Location of Tree ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Reason for Request _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Are there underground utility lines and/or overhead power lines present? ___________________________________________________________ If yes, please list which lines are present _____________________________________________________________________________________ Is there sidewalk damage? _______________ If yes, has a Public Works permit been issued? ____________ OVER C:\\Users\\lucasa\\Desktop\\Street Tree Removal Permit_Revised 2016.doc DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 39 1E Assessor’s Map No. ________________________________________________ Tax Lot(s) ______________________________________ Zoning _____________________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER Name ________________________________________ Phone ______________________ E-Mail _________________________________ Address _________________________________________________ City __________________ Zip _______________________________ Name ________________________________________ Phone ______________________ E-Mail _________________________________ Address _________________________________________________ City __________________ Zip _______________________________ PROFESSIONAL PERFORMING THE TREE REMOVAL (e.g., tree service) Name ________________________________________ Phone ______________________ E-Mail _________________________________ Address _________________________________________________ City __________________ Zip _______________________________ ARBORIST, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application are in all respects, true and correct. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence to support this request; 2)that the information contained in this application are adequate; and further 3)that all trees, structures, or improvements are properly located on the ground. __________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Property Owner’s Signature (Date required) STAFF DECISION: Permit is hereby (circle one): Approved Approved with Conditions Denied Conditions of Approval ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Is the tree 18” d.b.h or greater? NOYESHas the City has been notified:NOYES ___________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Community Development Director/Planning Manager Signature Date C:\\Users\\lucasa\\Desktop\\Street Tree Removal Permit_Revised 2016.doc Amy Gunter Grizzly Peak view Subdivision 1314-B Center Dr., PMB 457 822 Oak Street Medford, OR 97501 541-951-4020 04CA: 200 & 201 February 5, 2021 Zoe Lane: Zoe Lane is the requested as the name for a new, public street. Zoe Applegate (b1878 - d1902) is the daughter of William Henry Applegate and Nancy Elizabeth Grubb Applegate. William was the first son of Jesse Applegate and Cynthia Parker born in Oregon. Jesse Applegate was part of the world famous Applegate party led by relatvies, Charles, Jesse and Lindsay Applegate. Zoe's grandfather was one of the first Oregon explorers of the "Southern Route" also referred to as the Applegate trail which was established in 1846. Oregonpioneers.com/1846 Zoe's mother was Nancy Elizabeth Grubb Applegate, she was the daughter of Ashland Pioneers Samuel Grubb and Elizabeth Bell Grubb. Zoe Applegate was only 24 years old, living a short and uneventful life but her grandparents are very noteable pioneer families. Zoe Applegate is interned in Section: 4, Block: 8, Lot:1, Grave:3 at Mountain View Cemetery in Ashland Oregon Each proposed name will be considered on its individual merits Surfacing Roads & A.Street may only be named: 1.If listed on the adopted Heritage Street Name List. The proposed name "Zoe Lane" is not on the Heritage Street Name List. Excavation Soils & 2.After a prominent person who: a.Achieved prominence as a result of his or her significant, positive contribution to the history of the world, United States, the State of Oregon, Southern Oregon, or the City of Ashland. The proposed street name is "Zoe Lane" for Zoe Applegate, first daughter of William Henry Harrison Applegate b. and Nancy Elizabeth Grubb Applegate, pioneer families that settled in the Oregon Is a real person, and yes Territory. Sanitary Sewer & Pollution Control c.Has been deceased for at least five years. deceased for more than five years. 3.For a geographical place name of prominence. 4.For flora, fauna, or geologic materials. 5.After a commemorative event which: a.Achieved distinction as a result of significant and positive contribution to the world, United States, the State Storm Drainage & Erosion Control of Oregon, Southern Oregon, or the City of Ashland. b.Actually occurred. 6.For a description of the area in which the street is located or a prominent landmark nearby. b.No street name shall be approved if it is similar to or pronounced the same as the name of any other street within the City. Water Supply & Fire Protection c.Names for new streets shall be approved by the public works director after consultation with the fire, police and community development departments.(Ord. 2819 §1, 1998) The following procedure shall be used in considering changes in street names: A.A person who desires a street name change shall submit a written request together with the application fee to the Electrical Power & Lighting engineering division of the public works department. The request shall state the reasons for the proposed name change and shall include a scale diagram of the street. B.Any proposed name change must meet the requirements of AMC13.24.010. C.The public works department shall consider the request and may schedule a public hearing before the City council. If a hearing is scheduled: 1.Notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to the owners of property fronting the street and the fire, police Landscaping & Irrigation and community development departments. 2.The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the change of the street name. 3.No recommendation for a name change shall be made unless the council finds that a public need for the change exists, confusion will be eliminated, or it is desirable for the convenience of the general public. The council shall have complete legislative discretion to change the name of any street in the City. D.Street name changes shall be made by resolution.(Ord. 2819 §§2, 3, 1998) Other M:\\_PW-Eng\\Addresses\\Streetname_assignment_revised.doc(7.19.2017)3of 4 A street name change application fee shall be established by resolution of the council. Planning (As of July1, 2017, the street name application fee is $111.00 per street.) Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter, the council may rename a street in order to correct errors, to eliminate confusion or to further the public interest. Actions initiated under this section shall be exempt from the procedure set forth in section13.24.020.(Ord. 2793, 1997) Engineering Surveying Building Others TreeProtectionMeasures 1. Six-foot tall, chain-link fencing with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, will be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone. 2. The fencing will be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 3. Approved signs will be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 4. No construction activity will occur within the tree protection zone, including, dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 5. The tree protection zone will remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids, and construction debris or run-off. 6. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning, or other activity will occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. 6' chainlink 7. All required tree protection measures will be instituted prior to any development activities, 35% + Tree to remove tree protection including, clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work, and will be removed only after fence completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. TreeProtectionMeasures 1. Six-foot tall, chain-link fencing with steel posts placed no farther than ten feet apart, will be installed at the edge of the tree protection zone. 2. The fencing will be flush with the initial undisturbed grade. 3. Approved signs will be attached to the chain link fencing stating that inside the fencing is a tree protection zone, not to be disturbed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Staff Advisor for the project. 4. No construction activity will occur within the tree protection zone, including, dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste items, equipment, or parked vehicles. 5. The tree protection zone will remain free of chemically injurious materials and liquids, and construction debris or run-off. 6. No excavation, trenching, grading, root pruning, or other activity will occur within the tree protection zone unless approved by the Staff Advisor. 6' chainlink 7. All required tree protection measures will be instituted prior to any development activities, 35% + Tree to remove tree protection including, clearing, grading, excavation, or demolition work, and will be removed only after fence completion of all construction activity, including landscaping and irrigation installation. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-T2-2021-00031 375 & 475 East Nevada Street Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 375 & 475 East Nevada Street APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC for OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (owners, 375 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lot 1000), David Young (owner, 475 E. Nevada St.-Tax Lots1100,1200 & 1300) DESCRIPTION: A request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of Urban Growth Boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original maps scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clearthat the portions of the four properties in question are within the City of Urban Growth Boundary as Residential Reserve (1.37 acres of Tax Lot 1000) and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300). PLEASE NOTE: The also requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential Reserve & North Mountain; ZONING: RR-.5 & NM-MF; MAP: 39 1E 04A; TAX LOT #: 1000, 1100, 1200 & 1300. ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, August 10th, 2021 at 7:00 PM OVER Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpackets seven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 10PC Hearing Testimony August 9, 2021. If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the August 10 PC Hearing Testimony August 10, 2021. Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, August 9, 2021. In order to providetestimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email August 10 Speaker Request 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the C-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson, the staff planner assigned to this application, at 541-488-5305 or e-mail: derek.severson@ashland.or.us Minor Map Amendments or Corrections (Type II). \[AMC 18.5.9.020.A.\] The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will e 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT June 8, 2021 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2021-00031 APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNERS: Peter & Laura Schultz (375 E. Nevada St.) David Young (475 E. Nevada St) SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E Map 04A, Tax Lot 1000) 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E Map 04A, Tax Lot 1100-1200-1300) ORDINANCE REFERENCES: See https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse AMC 18.1 Introduction and General Provisions AMC 18.1.2 Title, Purpose & General Administration AMC 18.2 Zoning Regulations AMC 18.2.1.030 Determination of Zoning Boundaries AMC 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria AMC 18.5.1 General Review Procedures AMC 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, and Land Use Ordinance Amendments AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections AMC 18.6 Definitions Ashland Comprehensive Plan (see http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/Comprehensive_Plan- updated_6.2019.pdf) UGBA 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement () between City of Ashland & Jackson County (See https://jacksoncountyor.org/ds/DesktopModules/Bring2 mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_D ownload&EntryId=34685&language=en- US&PortalId=16&TabId=1460) 120-DAY TIMELINE: Not Applicable (see ORS 227.188) Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 1 of 13 REQUEST: The application is a request for a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Correction to clarify the City of urban growth boundary for four properties located at 375 & 475 East Nevada Street. The application asserts that there are differences in the location between the official paper maps and the current GIS maps in use by both the County and the City, and that the original scales were such that the line width could significantly alter the boundary location. The application asks to make clear that the portions of the four properties in (1.37 question are within the City of urban growth boundary as Residential Reserve acres of Tax Lot 1000)(2.08 acres of Tax Lots 1100, and North Mountain Neighborhood Plan 1200 & 1300) as illustrated on the attached Staff Exhibit S-1. -judicial procedure may be used for minor map amendments or corrections. However, in this instance the 1982 Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. As such, the application is being treated as a procedure because it requires a Council decision. If the City Council approves the current request, the applicant would then need to make a similar application to Jackson County for consideration by the Board of Commissioners before either body adopted an ordinance correcting the boundary line. I. Discussion The application requests approval of a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment in the form of a map correction to clarify the urban growth boundary. The application materials assert that the record of the exact location of the urban growth boundary line has been inconsistent, and recording a plat to further urbanize the subject properties within the city limits would leave Jackson County RR-5 zoned remnant properties outside the Urban Grown Boundary with less than the minimum required lot area under their county zoning. Goal 14 of Oregons statewide land use-planning goals deals with Urbanization. In the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), OAR 660-004-0040 discusses the Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas. The subject properties here are within the counties Rural Residential zone (RR-5). With regard to rural lands planned for residential uses such as the properties here, Goal 14 prohibits the urban use of these rural lands, and to that end prevents the creation of new lots or parcels smaller than the minimum size (which is generally no smaller than two acres in Goal 14, and specifically five acres here under the Countys RR-5 zoning) without an exception to Goal 14. Recording a plat to partition or divide the portions of the properties within the city limits would create new discrete parcels out of the remnant pieces of the properties that lie outside the city limits and urban growth boundary, triggering the exception. This would be a costly action with the County and in a pre-application with County staff, they have indicated to the applicant that approval of such an exception appears extremely unlikely. There are portions of four tax lots included in the request for clarification of the urban growth (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, boundary. These properties are located at 475 East Nevada Street 1200 & 1300)(39 1E 04A Tax Lot 1000). and at 375 East Nevada Street In 2017, the Planning Commission approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning; a Zone Change from Jackson County Rural Residential, ½-acre minimum (RR-5) to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 20-lot/23-unit Performance Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 2 of 13 at 475 East Nevada Street. The application materials explain applicant met with Jackson County staff regarding the split-zoning of the property and the need, with subdivision of the property, to create discrete lots for the remnant properties outside the urban growth boundary. The application suggests that at this point, it became apparent that there were 8 and the maps the County used in implementing their development regulations. The application concludes that the request is that the portions of tax lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 totaling 2.08 acres at 475 East Nevada Street, and the approximately 1.37 acre area of tax lot 1000 at 375 East Nevada Street which are depicted on the current city maps as being outside the urban growth boundary instead be included within the City of Ashlandurban growth boundary as it was drawn in the official 1989 map, explaining that while the present Geographical Information System (GIS) maps show the properties divided by the City of Ashland urban growth boundary roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines with the urban growth boundary following the city limits boundary, the 1989 map is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps. The application materials emphasize that the issue at hand must be addressed before further action can be taken to complete the approval and development of the Katherine Mae Subdivision. II. Analysis The expansion of the urban growth boundary other than through the correction of a mapping error would trigger a minor amendment to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. When the Regional Plan was completed in 2012, the City of Ashland was the only participating city in the region that chose not to identify urban reserve areas for the future expansion of its urban growth boundary. Ashland instead committed to accommodating a doubling of the regional population over the next 50-60 years through more efficient land use within the existing city limits and urban growth boundary. Should the city now seek to expand its urban growth boundary by not more than 50 acres, it would require a minor amendment to the Regional Plan be processed by Jackson County with the City of Ashland as the applicant. In discussing the application with Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff, they have confirmed that if the application is truly a clarification of the UGB boundary based on the interpretation of historic documents, it does not constitute a UGB amendment and can be treated as a correction The request here is to determine whether the current maps reflect the originally intended placement of the urban growth boundary, or if the urban growth boundary was incorrectly placed in the transition from the original paper maps to the currently adopted electronic maps and thus merits correction. Minor Map Amendments or Corrections As detailed in AMC 18.5.9.020.A, minor map amendments or correction may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 3 of 13 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Determination of Zoning Boundaries AMC 18.2.1.030 also speaks to the of Zoning and provides that: Unless otherwise specified, zoning boundaries are lot lines, the centerlines of streets, and railroad right-of-way, or such lines extended. Where due to the scale, lack of scale, lack of detail or illegibility of the Zoning Map, or due to any other reason, there is uncertainty, contradiction or conflict as to the intended location of a zoning boundary, the Staff Advisor or, upon referral, the Planning Commission or City Council, shall determine the boundary as follows: A.wźŭŷƷƭΏƚŅΏǞğǤ͵ Boundaries that approximately follow the centerlines of a street, highway, alley, bridge, railroad, or other right-of-way shall be construed to follow such centerlines. Whenever any public right-of-way is lawfully vacated, the lands formerly within the vacated right-of-way shall automatically be subject to the same zoning designation that is applicable to lands abutting the vacated areas. In cases where the right-of-way formerly served as a zoning boundary, the vacated lands within the former right-of-way shall be allocated proportionately to the abutting zones. B.tğƩĭĻƌͲ ƌƚƷͲ ƷƩğĭƷ͵ Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the minimum width or depth of a divided area is 20 feet or less, the entire lot shall be placed in the zone that accounts for the greater area of the lot by the adjustment of the zoning boundary. Where a zoning boundary splits a lot into two zones and the minimum width and depth of both divided areas is greater than 20 feet, the lot shall have split zoning with lot area designated proportionately to each zone. C.WǒƩźƭķźĭƷźƚƓ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following a City or County boundary, or the Urban Growth Boundary, shall be construed as following said boundary. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 4 of 13 D.bğƷǒƩğƌ ŅĻğƷǒƩĻƭ͵ Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerlines of a river or stream, a topographic contour, or similar feature not corresponding to any feature listed in section 18.2.1.030, above, shall be construed as following such feature. Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) In addition to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC), there is an County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement which was adopted in 1982. The UGBA sets forth the mutually adopted urbanization program between the City and Jackson (and) establishes an Urban Growth Boundary, an Area of Future Urbanization, Areas of Mutual Planning Concern, joint policies governing the urbanization of lands, and revision and administrative procedures. The UGBA requires review and approval of applications to correct errors in the Comprehensive Plan Map by both the Ashland City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners as follows: /ƚƩƩĻĭƷźƚƓ ƚŅ 9ƩƩƚƩƭ͵ If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein. In discussions with Jackson County staff, they have confirmed that if the city determines an error has been made and the map requires correction, they would forward the issue to the Board of Commissioners for a decision, as detailed in the 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. For staff, the most applicable criterion in considering a minor map correction is AMC 18.5.9.020.A.2, that A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. clear that the transition from the original paper maps to a computer-based Geographic Information System (GIS) enabled mapping by the city and county to become much more precise and represented a substantial change, and the key question is whether the more precise mapping resulted in the incorrect identification of the intended urban growth boundary. The original paper maps often did not show tax lot boundaries or clearly illustrate how the city limits or urban growth boundary lines related to one another or to individual properties. As the applicant notes, in some of the adopted paper maps, the UGB line was drawn with a width which equates to more than 200 feet on the ground, while the current request deals with tax lots that are in some instances only 250 feet in depth. While staff believes that boundary lines including the UGB should follow property lines wherever possible, as provided in AMC 18.2.1.030, in reviewing the maps provided by the applicant and other maps in city records, staff are unable to identify any clear error in the placement of the urban growth boundary lines. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 5 of 13 The Tarp The original working map used in developing the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps is often referred to as as it was created from a large canvas tarp. This is not an officially adopted map, but has been used as a reference tool for staff when boundary questions arise. Staff estimates that The Tarp dates to the early- to mid- as it was in use as a reference tool when the current Community Development Director was hired in the late A photo of The Tarp as it illustrates the subject properties is shown below - with a red rectangle added by staff to identify the subject properties: Figure 1 While The Tarp does not illustrate a clear distinction between the city limits and urban growth boundary here, it does clearly show the subject tax lots and does not identify Comprehensive Plan map designations for the portions north of the city limits line shown, suggesting that even from this early date, boundary lines were located so that they left the portions of the subject properties in question here outside the boundaries. Based on the scale, the boundary line is shown at just over 150 feet from the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 6 of 13 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Map The city and county adopted an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement in 1982 which included an Urban Growth Boundary Map as A. A portion of that map depicting the subject properties is copied below, with a red rectangle added by staff in the general area of the subject properties: Figure 2 1982 UGBA Map This UGBA exhibit map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, but the city limits and urban growth boundary lines appear to scale to less than 200 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. (The current GIS map has this boundary at between 153 feet and 167 feet north of the right-of-way. If adjusted as the applicant requests, the boundary would be between 250 and 329 feet north of the Nevada Street right-of-way.) Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 7 of 13 1982 Comprehensive Plan Map from Urbanization Element (Adopted by Ord. 2227) A new Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan map were adopted in 1982 as Ordinance #2227. The Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan included a map illustrating the urban growth boundary; the portion of this map depicting the subject properties is copied below, with the general location of the properties, the urban growth boundary and city limits identified in red: Figure 3 1982 Urbanization Element Map This 1982 Comprehensive Plan map does not identify individual tax lots and is generally lacking in clear detail. The scale on the map is difficult to read and imprecise, and identifying the exact intended location of the urban growth boundary is complicated by the fact that the width of the boundary line itself scales to slightly more than 200 feet and obscures the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way and the city limits line beneath it. The associated Urbanization element of the Comprehensive Plan does include a narrative description of the urban growth boundary based on lettered points called out on the map noting, The urban growth boundary returns to the city limits at point Q. The only other departure of the urban growth boundary (line from the city limits line) is from point R to point S, where it includes the sewage treatment plant and a portion of the Bear Creek Greenway. The subject properties are between point S and the starting point A, suggesting that in this vicinity the city limits line and urban growth boundary line were one and the same in 1982. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 8 of 13 1982 Adopted Zoning Map Staff have obtained a digital copy of the original zoning map sent to the state for acknowledgement in 1982. The portion relevant to the subject properties is illustrated below, with the general location of the properties in a red rectangle: Figure 4 Officially-Adopted Zoning Map (1982) The city limits and urban growth boundary line are one and the same here. Individual tax lots are not identified, however the boundary line scales as approximately 120 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 9 of 13 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement Map The application materials provided include a map described as being part of a 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. The relevant portion of this map, with the notes in the red box, is included below. Figure 5 UGBA Map (1989). hŅŅźĭźğƌͪ Staff cannot locate an adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, and as such cannot confirm that this is an official map. There was an Urban Growth Boundary Agreement update process initiated in 2001, but it never came to fruition, and both the city and the county are still currently working under the adopted 1982 Urban Growth Boundary Agreement discussed above, and are unaware of an adopted 1989 update. While the map provided includes individual tax lots, the tax lot lines are unclear with regard to the subject properties here, and the map provided does not include a scale. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 10 of 13 2008 Officially Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map In 2008, the city adopted new zoning and associated overlay maps in digital format with Ordinance #2951. These are the current official maps. A portion of the official Comprehensive Plan map depicting the subject properties is shown below, with a red rectangle added by staff around the subject properties. Figure 6 Current Officially-Adopted Comprehensive Plan Map (2008) In the current officially-adopted maps, the city limits and urban growth boundary lines are one and the same in this vicinity, similar to the way they were depicted on and described in the narrative description in the 1982 Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This currently adopted official GIS map has the boundary lines at between 153 feet and 167 feet north of the north boundary of the Nevada Street right-of-way, which splits the subject properties between city and county, leaving remnant portions outside the city and urban growth boundary under the county jurisdiction. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 11 of 13 III. Procedural AMC 18.5.9.020.A Minor Map Amendments or Corrections The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Ashland/Jackson Urban Growth Boundary Agreement (UGBA) Section 11.D of the 1982 UGBA between Ashland & Jackson County addresses of as follows: Correction of Errors. If the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners become aware of an error in either the map or the text of the mutually adopted urbanization program, both bodies may cause an immediate amendment to occur to correct the error, after mutual agreement is reached. Such a correction shall be in the form of a public hearing and an ordinance, conducted separately or jointly by both bodies, which may take effect on an emergency basis. Public hearings before the Planning Commissions shall not be required where an amendment is intended specifically to correct an error. Generally, an error is a cartographic mistake or text misprint, omission or duplication. Such errors are not derived from new data or suggested errors made in interpretations of the attitudes of the public, the governing bodies or data; the latter error types are considered under the amendment provisions cited herein. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 12 of 13 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations Staff believes that the boundary lines would have been much better placed to follow property lines, and staff is equally frustrated that the size of resulting remnant properties in the county prevents further urbanization of these properties, however in reviewing the application materials and associated maps, staff have been unable to identify any clear error in the urban growth boundary current placement that suggests it was placed differently than was originally intended and needs to be corrected. While each of the various maps pose some challenges in terms of clarity, scale and the identification of individual tax lot lines relative to the boundary line locations, all of them are generally consistent in depicting a straight urban growth boundary line in the same location as the city limits line as was described in the Comprehensive Plan narrative in 1982 when the boundary was established - rather than having the boundary follow property lines. As such, staff are unable to say that a correction is merited here. Planning Action PA-T2-2021-00031 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report (dds) Applicant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Page 13 of 13 Received 3.15.2021 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 375 East Nevada Street 475 East Nevada Street ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Received 3.15.2021 Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Subject Property Property Address: 475 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lots: 39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300 Property Owner: Young Family Trust 348 South Modoc Street Medford, OR 97504 Property Address: 375 EAST NEVADA STREET Map & Tax Lot: 39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000 Property Owner: Peter and Laura Schultz 375 E Nevada Street Ashland, OR 97520 Surveyor:Hoffbuhr & Associates 880 Golf View Drive; Suite 201 Medford, OR 97540 Planning Consultant: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC Amy Gunter 1314-B Center Dr., PMB#457 Medford, OR 97501 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Reserve Zoning: SPLIT: City of Ashland RR-.5 Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) Adjacent Zones: NM-R-1.5; NM-MF; Rural Residential (RR-.5); Jackson County RR-5; and Jackson County Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 1 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Request: The application requests approval for a City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Jackson County Rural Residential to Ashland Residential Reserve/North Mountain Neighborhood Plan. It can be found that the record of the exact location of the Urban Growth Boundary line has been inconsistentand leavesJackson County RR-5 zoned remnant parcels of landthat necessitate Goal 14 exceptions due to the limited lot area of the legal parcels of record of the areas north of and outside of the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. There are portions of four parcels of record included in the request for clarification of theUrban Growth Boundary. The properties are 475 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lots: 1100, 1200; 1300) and 375 East Nevada Street (39 1E 04A Tax Lot: 1000). In 2017, the Katherine Mae Subdivision obtained Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Overlay Zoning, a Zone Change from Jackson County Rural Residential, ½ Acre minimum (RR-.5-P), to North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) Zoning Overlay; Outline Plan and Site Design Review approval for a Performance Standards Subdivision to allow for the future development of a phased subdivision in 2017. At the time of the subdivision request, it was believed that the property was divided by the city of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that is shown on the 2008 adopted maps from the city of Ashland as roughly half-way between the north and south property lines. Following discussions and meetings with Jackson County regarding the “split zoning” of the property and the need to create separate and discrete parcels of recordnorth of the UGB that areseparate from the property on the south side of the UGB. Following inquiries at the County, it became apparent that there is question to the adopted maps on file with the city of Ashland and dated July 2008 and the maps that Jackson County uses in the implementation of their development regulations. In the research of this issue, the ability to readily manipulate the boundary lines presently when mapped by the Geographic Information Services (GIS) mapping software versus the lines drawn on the adopted Comprehensive Plan Mapsbecame more apparent. The property owner and the project team find that there is an important issue at hand that must be addressed before further action can be taken concerning the Final Planning of the adjacent Katherine Mae Subdivision. According to the present Geographical Information Systems (GIS) drawn maps, theproperties are divided by the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) roughly mid-way between the north and south property lines. The UGB is shown following the city limits boundary. The official map is dated 1989 Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 2 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property per the GIS maps. The request is for the 2.08-acre portions of 1100, 1200 & portions of 1300, and an approximately 1.37- acrearea of 375 East Nevada Street that is on the north side of the GIS drawn line to be included into the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary as drawn upon the 1989 official maps. Property Descriptions: The properties proposed for proposal consists of four properties, tax lots #1000, 1100, 1200, and 1300. The properties are on the north side of East Nevada Street west of the intersection of East Nevada Street, and an unimproved, remnant portion of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way. The subject properties are Comprehensive Plan designated as Single-Family Residential Reserve. Tax lots 1100, 1200, and 1300 have been rezoned to North Mountain Multi-Family Residential. Tax lot 1000 is a city of Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5 zoning. The properties are all within the Performance Standards Overlay. North of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the City limits boundaries, the properties are Jackson County Rural Residential, Five Acre Minimum (RR-5). Tax lot #1200 is occupied by a 1,785-square foot single-story, single-family residence that was constructed in 1954. There is a detached garage on the county side of the property. Another outbuilding exists behind the residence. Tax lots #1100 and 1300 are vacant. The properties to the east and west are also split by UGB and split zoned by Ashland RR-.5 and Jackson County RR-5. The property to the east is too small and constrained to be considered. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 3 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 The property to the west at 375 East Nevada (39S 1E is included in the proposalat the recommendation of the City of Ashland. This property is occupied by a single-family residence and associated outbuildings. The property to the north at 1059 North Mountain Avenue (39S 1E 04A; 201) is zoned Jackson County RR-5. This lot is occupied by a vacant mobile home. This lot is zoned Rural Residential, five-acre minimum, and is more than five acres in area. The property at 1260 Oak Street (39S 1E 04A; 300) is to the north of 375 East Nevada Street. This property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use and is 21.97 acres. Across the North Mountain Avenue overpass to the southeast, the properties are zoned Healthcare (HC). These properties are part of the Skylark Assisted Living Facility and Mountain Meadows Retirement community. The properties to the south, across East Nevada Street, are within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Overlay. There are North Mountain Single Family (NM-R-1-5); North Mountain Commercial (NM-C); and North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) zones within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan Overlay. The four parcels included in the request are bound by East Nevada Street along the south property lines. According to the street classification in the Transportation System Plan (TSP), East Nevada Street is an Avenue or Major Collector. East Nevada would be considered a two-lane avenue. Avenues have a right- of-way width of between 59 – 86 feet. There is generally, 60-feet of ROW along the frontage of the properties. In the area of steep, rocky slopes between the subject property and the driving surface of East Nevada Street, there is more than 120-feet of ROW. East Nevada Street is not improved to Avenue Standards. Due to the topographical constraints within the ROW, East Nevada Street is narrow, constrained by the development to the south, and by the rock outcropping on the north side. East Nevada has a varying width of improvements. Along the frontage of the properties, East Nevada Street is improved with pavement, curb, and gutter. There is a 22-foot paved travel lane, curb, and gutter. On the south side of East Nevada Street, there are various street improvements within the varying width ROW. Across from 475 East Nevada, there is curb and gutter, no sidewalk. This property is “under-developed”, and street improvements will be required with future site development. West of the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada Street, the street improvements include 22- feet of driving surface, with curb, gutter, varying width park row, and sidewalk. These improvements continue down the hill to the intersection of Camelot and Kestrel Parkway. None of East Nevada Street has dedicated bicycle lanes. The right-of-way that forms the east boundary of the property is North Mountain Avenue because it falls within a remnant of the North Mountain Avenue right-of-way, but the actual surface street North Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 4 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Mountain is above the property and transitions from surface street to bridge over the Interstate. The “street” is not improved more than the narrow gravel driveway that serves the five-acre parcel to the north of the subject properties. This new street is approved to be named Franklin Street. Details of the Request: The request is to acknowledge the adopted 1989 Urban Growth Boundary Map and that the north side of the pen stroke (the north property lines of the properties at 375 E Nevada Street and 475 E Nevada Street) is the location of the UGB. Discussions regarding the property boundaries of the Katherine Mae subdivision began in earnest with Jackson County and the City of Ashland in early 2016. At the time of the Subdivision application to the City, Jackson County had indicated that the Urban Growth Boundary Line was a defacto property line due to jurisdictional overlap. The County found they could not approve a partition of the “non-conforming” parcels that are north of the presently mapped GIS database for a few reasons. 1) All of the subject parcels that are divided by the GIS version of the UGB are zonedJackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) lots. Torevise thelegal description of the properties north of the UGB, a partition application in Jackson County is required. The resulting lot areas of the separate parcels to the north of the UGB are substantially less than the minimum lot size in the RR-5 zone. 2) Rural Residential lands that are outside of the UGB and are less than the minimum lot area of two acres, requires a Goal 14 Exception. The property is unique from what appears to be assumed with Goal 14 review, that future division of existing parcels to create lots that are less than the minimum lot area cannot be approved. This property consists of three, discreet parcels that exist with the UGB creating the boundary division. Allowing the land to be urbanizeable to the standards of the City of Ashland prevents the application of Goal 14 to the rural residential land. Oregon Administrative Rules: 660-004-0040 Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas (1) The purpose of this rule is to specify how Goal 14 “Urbanization” applies to rural lands in acknowledged exception areas planned for residential uses. (2) For purposes of this rule, the definitions in ORS 197.015, the Statewide Planning Goals, and OAR 660-004-0005 shall apply. Also, the following definitions shall apply: (f) “Rural residential areas” means lands that are not within an urban growth boundary, that are planned and zoned primarily for residential uses, and for which Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 5 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 an exception to Goal 3 “Agricultural Lands”, Goal 4 “Forest Lands”, or both has been taken. 5) The rural residential areas described in subsection (2)(f) of this rule are “rural lands”. Division and development of such lands are subject to Goal 14, which prohibits urban use of rural lands. (6) (a) A rural residential zone in effect on October 4, 2000, shall be deemed to comply with Goal 14 if that zone requires any new lot or parcel to have an area of at least two acres, except as required by section (8) of this rule. (b) A rural residential zone does not comply with Goal 14 if that zone allows the creation of any new lots or parcels smaller than two acres. For such a zone, a local government must either amend the zone's minimum lot and parcel size provisions to require a minimum of at least two acres or take an exception to Goal 14. Until a local government amends its land-use regulations to comply with this subsection, any new lot or parcel created in such a zone must have an area of at least two acres. (7) After October 4, 2000, a local government's requirements for the minimum lot or parcel sizes in rural residential areas shall not be amended to allow a smaller minimum for any individual lot or parcel without taking an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division 14, and applicable requirements of this division. (8)(a) The creation of any new lot or parcel smaller than two acres in a rural residential area shall be considered an urban use. Such a lot or parcel may be created only if an exception to Goal 14 is taken. This subsection shall not be construed to imply that the creation of new lots or parcels two acres or larger always complies with Goal 14. The question of whether the creation of such lots or parcels complies with Goal 14 depends upon compliance with all provisions of this rule. To facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the parcels in question eliminates the dividing line that created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB. The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 6 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 directly adjacent to the city limits and the areahas had various mapping that leads one to believe the boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question. On the following pages, findings of fact addressing the criteria from the Ashland Municipal Code are provided. For clarity, the criteria are infont and the applicant’s responses are in Times New Roman Calibri font. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 7 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Findings of Fact Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change: 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. Applicant’s Finding: According to the 1982-024 Jackson County and Ashland Urban Growth Boundary Agreement, Minor Boundary Line Agreements, are minor adjustments to the UGB that are defined as focusing on individual properties and not having a significant impact beyond the immediate area of the change. In 2004, the Jackson County Land Development Ordinance adopted a process for correcting minor mapping errors. The Jackson County criteria regarding minor amendments are similar to the Ashland Municipal Code requirements and an application for amendment is necessary at the county level following the decision at the City of Ashland. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant’s Finding: The change implements the public need for the additional land area adjacent to the existing developable land area that allows for diverse housing stock. The requested change is consistent with the State of Oregon Legislative goals and is in line with a recent effort by the Department of Land Conservation and Development pilot program for minor UGB amendments though a state-assisted process, Ashland was not part of the project area but qualified if it had sought the program. The proposal implements Statewide PlanningGoal 14: Urbanization, to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.If undersized, substantially smaller than minimum five-acre portions of RR- 5 zoned land remaining, it is an inefficient use of level, buildable, connected land that is best suited for urbanization instead of remnant rural residential lands. The addition of connected, owned in common properties to the Urban Growth Boundary furthers Comprehensive Plan Goal 6.10. Which seeks to ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross-section ofAshland’s population, consistent with Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 8 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 preserving the character and appearance of the city. The development standards of the North Mountain Overlay (anticipated with future rezoning and development of these portions of the properties) ensure the character and appearance of the city are maintained. The North Mountain Overlay allows for single-family attached and detached, clustered, and multi-family style development patterns. This is consistent with the character and appearance of the city. The proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 6.11 as it relates to growth form, City policy should encourage the development of vacant available lots within the urban area while providing sufficient new land to avoid an undue increase in land prices. This shall be accomplished with specific annexation policies.Allowing portions of existing parcels that are in the same immediate vicinity, served by the same public streets, adjacent to the same freeway, restricted to the same solar orientation standards, lot coverage, stormwater drainage, parking, open space requirements, heights, orientation, scale, etc. as the properties to the east as part of the Mountain Meadows development including Skylark Place, and the other developments within the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south, and southwest is an inefficient use of land that allows for additional housing area to meet Ashland’s housing needs. The proposal furthers the Energy, Air, and Water Conservation goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Chapter 11. The proposal adds land that is physically connected to the city limits. The land has access to city electricity, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, and water. The site has excellent solar orientation and solar electric generating systems would be possible. 1059 N Mountain Avenue (39 1E 04; 200) though outside of the city limits and UGB has city water service. The city shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. The Council's goals include leveraging the city resources to provide additional lands for housing development. Allowing for a small area of land to be included within the UGB to allow for future urbanization demonstrates the city's efforts to increase the developable area to increase housing stock. The proposal furthers the goals outlined in Chapter 12, Urbanization which seeks to maintain a compact urban form and include an adequate supply of vacant land to not hinder natural market forces and ensure orderly and sequential development of the land in the city limits. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. Applicant’s Finding: The state regulations imposing Goal 14 exceptions when a parcel area of Rural Residential land is smaller than the minimum lot area was adopted in 2000. The city limits were adopted pre-1900. The urban growth boundary was adopted in the early 1980s, the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1997. The subject properties were Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 9 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessedonly by a gravel-surfaced, North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were made to bring paved streets, sewer, and water to this area. The current property owners understand the great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the adjacent property zones and development patterns allowing for furthering the Comprehensive Plan concerning urbanization. The various Comprehensive Plan Maps lead one to speculate that there is a discrepancy between the paper maps adopted in the 1970s and 1980s and the 2000s changes to the state laws regarding Goal 14 exceptions for RR-5 zoned land that is smaller than minimum lot areas, is a substantial change that necessitates the requested modified Urban Growth Boundary to create remnant parcels that cannot be developed or are area deficient and requires an exception to state regulations of rural residential lands. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. Applicant’s Finding: N/A 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant’s Finding: The area of the 475 E Nevada Street parcels is 2.08 acres. Of this, approximately 11,300 square feet (.259 acres) of tax lot 1200 has slopes of 35 percent or greater. The remaining 1.82 acres has a base density of 21.85 dwelling units. When these properties are annexed, five (21.85 X .25 = 5.46) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is annexed and developed. The area of 375 E Nevada Street that is north of the city limits line is 2.34 acres. Of these 2.34 acres, 5,200 square feet is the floodway of Bear Creek and 25,860 square feet is FEMA's 100-year, special flood hazard area. The area of the property outside of the floodplain and floodway is 1.63 acres and the base density is 19.66. When this property is annexed, four (1.63 X .25 = 4.91) affordable housing units would be provided when the portion of the property in question is annexed and developed. Adequate numbers of affordable housing units that comply with the standards of subsection ALUO 18.5.8.050.G. will be provided when the subject properties are annexed into the city. Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 10 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards outlined in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. Applicant’s Finding: N/A 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliancewith affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. Applicant’s Finding: The total number of affordable housing units varies depending upon the future uses and the level of AMI restriction. The future development of the subject properties will demonstrate compliance at the time with the required number of affordable housing units as required per ALUO 18.5.9.202.A. The property owner and the applicant find that to facilitate orderly development as envisioned in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to retain consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan adopted maps and plans, recognizing the adopted UGB “line” extends to the north property boundary of the parcels in question eliminates the dividing linethat created Goal 14 exception land outside of the UGB. The benefits of acknowledging the north property line as the UGB provides many benefits to the City of Ashland. The additional 3.45 acres has the potential base density of 41 dwelling units. The property is directly adjacent to the city limits and the area has had various mapping that leads one to believe the boundary is not officially mapped and clarification is sought. This request does not include site design review of any of the future residences on the properties as they would be developed at a later date, following the annexation of the area in question. Respectfully submitted, Amy Gunter Attachments: Snip of Ashland Acres SubdivisionPlat Map (1923) Draft UGB map (1” = 4000’ dated 2/22/1979) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 11 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Draft UGB map (1” = 2000’ dated 2/22/1979) Adopted UGB map (dated 11/2/1982) UGB Map from 1989 UGB Agreement (dated 7/1989) Official Map of City of Ashland (dated 2004) Jackson County Development Services map of the property (dated 12/14/2018 and 1/23/2019) Jackson County Pre-application Conference Summary Letter from Attorney Brett Hall (dated June 7, 2020) Findings of Fact March 5, 2021 Request for Modification of Comprehensive Plan Map Page 12 of 12 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Bqqspyjnbufmpdbujpopg tvckfduqspqfsuz)2:8:* Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 MpdbujpopgTvckfduQspqfsuz/ Pvutjeffehf)opsuitjef*pg mjoftipxojtmpdbujpopgopsui qspqfsuzmjof/)2:9:* Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Received 3.15.2021 Development Services Charles Bennett Planner III 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Room 100 Medford, OR 97501-2902 Phone: (541)774-6115 Fax: (541)774-6791 bennetch@jacksoncounty.org Pre-Application Conference Summary Report File: 439-18-00012-PRE(PA-NON) \[This is nota Land Use Decision and is for Informational Purposes Only.\] 1) GENERAL INFORMATION: LegalDescription : Township 39, Range 1E, Section 04A, Tax Lot1100&1200 & 1300 Location: The property is located at 475 East NevadaStreet. Property Owner: Young Family Trust Meeting Time: A meeting was held on Friday,December 21, 2018, at 2:00 PM. Agent: Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning & Development Services LLC Staff: Charles Bennett & Craig Anderson Proposal: The property owner wants clarification on location of the Urban Growth Boundary. Acreage: 2.08 acres Zoning: The property ispartially within the City of Ashland and partially in the County zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5). 2) DISCUSSION: Staff and the applicants discussed the location of the Urban Growth Boundary based on review of current mapping (GIS) and historic maps. GIS maps are not official maps. The official map is dated 1989 and is of such a scale that the pen stroke is larger than the specific location of the UGB on the subject property. Most of the historic maps indicate that the UGB is a straight line that corresponds with Ashland City limits. The UGB also appears to be consistently approximately 1320’ from the Section line to the northin this area. A previous version of the GIS mapping had the UGB following the subject taxlotsjust north of the Ashland City limits which appears to be the least consistent with official historic maps. GIS mapping currently indicates the UGB to be a straight line along the city limits. Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 1 Received 3.15.2021 3) REQUIRED APPLICATIONS: The Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement and the 2004 Land Development Ordinance (LDO) provide for the process to correct minor mapping errors. The applicants first need to obtain Ashland City Council acknowledgement of the error and then file for a Type IV Zone Map Amendment ($7,078)addressing the map error procedureand criteria whichthen would go to the Board of Commissioners for final review(skipping the Planning Commission per procedure). The applicants couldalsoapply for a Type II or Type III partition along the UGB line(Section 10.2.3). The applicants may also apply for a Type IV application for a Goal 14 Exception to expand the UGB to includethe entire subject tax lots, but approval appears extremely unlikely. 4)CONCLUSION / DISCLAIMER: Notice: There was no public notification of this PRE-APPLICATION proposal (This is not an application. It is a pre-application.) Information: This report is for informational purposes onlyand represents the Planning Departments best understanding of the applicant’s request at this time. No guarantees have been given in this pre- application as to whether or not the application will be approved or denied. The burden of proof rests solely with the applicant to provide the necessary information to approve such a request based upon the applicable standards and criteria of the County Land Development Ordinance. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call at 774-6115. Sincerely, Charles Bennett Planner III Date: 1/25/19 Attachments: Copies of Maps, UGBA, Section 5.1.4 of LDO Jackson County File #439-18-00012-PREPage 2 Received 3.15.2021 June 7, 2020 Planning Division, City of Ashland 20 East Main Street 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Dear City of Ashland: I represent the Young Family Trust. The Young Family Trust owns Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A; the street address is 475 East Nevada Street. There is currently an approved Planning Action 2017-02129 in place for development of this property into a 20 lot, 23-unit subdivision, with associated proposed Comprehensive Plan designation changes. The planned development is consistent with the goals of the City of Ashland and Oregon land use law, and will benefit the City of Ashland. It will provide additional housing for the City’s residents, and will include low income housing. The purpose of this letter is to request a formal interpretation pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line along these three tax lots. There is currently a question as to the location of the UGB along the north side of these three tax lots. The City has previously taken the position that the UGB follows the City limits boundary, which is approximately 100 feet south of the northern most property line of each lot. This position appears to be based on a visual interpretation of a thick marker line on the latest Comprehensive Plan map, and a GIS map adopted by City Council. It is our understanding that this position is also inconsistent with previous maps and agreements as jointly adopted and agreed to by Jackson County and the City, such as the Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement dated May 20, 1982. See Attachment 1, Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. See also, Attachment 2, Excerpt from 1982 Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map Pg. 9), adopted November 2, 1982, ORD 2227. It is also inconsistent with the Jackson County Planning Office’s interpretation in December 2018. See Attachment 3, Pre-application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision at p. 2. See also Attachment 4, 1982 map received from Jackson County. And finally, maps based on GIS mapping and not physical surveys, such as the one adopted by the City of Ashland, are necessarily imprecise by virtue of the imprecise method in which they are created, as opposed to maps from actual surveys which can and did serve as the legal basis of the 1982 agreement between Jackson County and Ashland.For these reasons the exact location of the UGB with respect to these properties is unclear. In addition, the City’s position would result in that land being subject to County jurisdiction, and we understand a Goal 14 Exception is not feasible. (ORS-660-004-040 Application of Goal 14 to Rural Residential Areas). If, on the other hand, that land is within the UGB then the property could be annexed, brought into the development and provide additional housing for the City of Ashland and its citizens. 1 Received 3.15.2021 Accordingly, pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code § 18.1.5.020 et seq., we request a formal interpretation of the exact location of the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary \[Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12; Urbanization: Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227\] along Tax Lots 1100, 1200 & 1300 in Township 39 Range 1E, Section 04A, and to determine whether the adopted line from the aforementioned map has a width of along the adopted city limits boundary, which would be the south edge of mapped line, or along the north property line boundary of the subject property, which would be the north edge of mapped line. Again, we believe the map from with the 1982 boundary agreement with the County is the accurate map and is not based on GIS interpretation which is generally not a precise form of map. Please contact me if you have any questions. In the meantime, we look forward to the City’s formal interpretation. Best regards, Brent H. Hall Attachments: Attachment 1: Ashland/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary Agreement. Attachment 2: 1982 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 12: Urbanization (Comprehensive Plan Map p. 9). Adopted November 2, 1982. ORD 2227 Attachment 3: Pre-Application Conference Request, Katherine Mae Subdivision Attachment 4: 1982 Map received from Jackson County cc: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Amy Gunter, Rogue Planning and Development Services Client 2 Received 3.15.2021