The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-02-11 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 11, 2020 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. January 14, 2020 Regular Meeting V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2019-00010, 145 North Main Street. B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00012, 945 Tolman Creek Road. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00016 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Kestrel Area 3 OWNER/APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review approval for the Kestrel Park Cottages, a 16-lot/15-unit subdivision of Area 3, one of the areas reserved for future development in the recently approved Kestrel Park Subdivision. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION/ZONING: North Mountain Single Family (NM-R-1.7.5) and North Mountain Multi- Family (NM-MF); ZONING: NM-R-1-7.5; and NM- 900, 39 1E 04AD 8600, and 39 1E 04DB 2000. VIII. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2019-00007 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Ashland Downtown Design Standards Overlay and C-1-D Zone OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for Planning Commission review and recommendation relating to an ordinance amending the site design and use standards for large scale projects to address plaza space requirements within the C-1-D zone and Downtown Design Standards overlay. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown, Commercial; ZONING: C-1 and C-1-D, Downtown Design Standards Overlay. IX.ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - Draft January 14, 2020 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Alan Harper Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Planning Manager Maria Harris announced the annual planning commission training by the American Planning Association would be April 29, 2020. Senior Planner Derek Severson announced the annexation of PA-T3-2019-00001, 1511 Highway 99 was continued to Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. The proposed site visit to the 476 North Laurel Street cottage housing development in lieu of a Study Session January 28, 2020, was postponed. III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins noted the Revitalize Downtown Ashland Committee had met recently. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.December 10, 2019 Regular Meeting Commissioner Brown/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of December 10, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Would email the Commission a list of the best EV charging sites. He spoke on the amps required for charging an electric vehicle. He went on to speak about rooftop solar panel systems. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street. The Commission had no ex parte contacts on the matter. One edit moved the last sentence regarding easements in Section 3. DECISION 8(i) to Section 10 i). Commissioner Harper/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2019-00015, 459 Russell Street as amended. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2020 Page 1 of 6 VII. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 appealing PA-T1-2019-00080 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 145 North Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: BC Partners IV, LLC/Donn Comte APPELLANT: Donn Comte DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will consider an appeal by the applicant of the Staff request for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within a Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Skidmore Ashland Tire Shop more recently - a historic contributing resource within the district. No changes are proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2 391E09BB; TAX LOT: 3503. Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing for both hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Thompson, Norton, Brown, Harper and Pearce declared no ex parte contact and no site visits. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte contact but knew the site well. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson submitted two exhibits into the record (see attached). He provided a presentation (see attached): Vicinity Map Historic Commission Recommendations Gas station in 1936 Historic Commission background and credentials 1979 CUP Site Landscaping Plan Staff Decision Historic District Inventory Listing Appeal Issues #1, 2 and 3 Photos of the site American Plywood Association (APA) Original Request Historic Commission Recommendations The Appeal issues included: 1.The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. Staff referred to the Rehabilitation Standard regarding siding in AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d. The applicant 120-day clock for further review by the Historic Commission. The building was re-sided in 1980. Staff concluded the T1-11 was not the original siding used in 1936. The applicant should utilize 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding or stucco as an alternative with a modification that staff provide another compatible horizontal siding treatment. 2.The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial. ased on AMC 18.4.2.050.C and AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2. The property was in the Skidmore Academy Historic District and noted in the National Register of Historic Places. It was residentially zoned with a conditional use permit for commercial use. Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 6 3.Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding. The Historic Commission recommended the gable ends of the original part of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding. The T1-11 siding was not the original siding. It was used in the 1979-1980 remodel. Historic District Development standards prohibited vertical siding unless it was the original siding used. Staff recommended the appeal be denied and the original staff approval be upheld with conditions. Questions of Staff - None Appel Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Submitted an exhibit into the record (see attached). She provided a presentation (see attached): Photos of 145 North Main Street Photos of the subject property Zoning Information Phone call from Hank Singmaster confirming original siding was metal. Historic Evidence of Original Vertical Metal Siding Building Areas Needing Repair Historic Evidence of Original T1-11 Siding Site Plan Submittals Recommendations of this Historic Commission Permits Issued by City for repairs per Engineering Signed by Department of Community Development Report Director Confirmation that repairs have been completed per Recommendations of Historic Commission Applicant Wishes to Conform to Guidelines by Using a Compatible Vertical Siding Historic Commission Approved Renovation at 96 N. Compatible New Siding illustration Approved Vertical Siding. Statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal Applicant Statement Historic District Development Standards Example of Period Garage Doors Rehabilitation Standards Existing Buildings and Additions Ashland Historic Preservation Plan Ms. Gunter thought the conditions of approval requested imitation materials by requiring horizontal siding or suggesting stucco. She addressed the following Historic Commission recommendations in the Findings from December 19, 2019: a.The applicant shall restore or duplicate the entablature (horizontal architectural details under the eave line of the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire North Main Street façade of the building and along the original office structure (i.e. brick entry feature) on the Bush Street façade. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.b. & c. See Photos 1 and 2 above). The applicant agreed to the entablature details at the original office brick entry feature. They disagreed with the North Main Street façade having an enclosed soffit. It was added in 1980 to support the gutter system. They also disagreed to the siding recommendations. b.Smooth 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding, or another compatible horizontal siding to be reviewed by the Review Board and approved by the Staff Advisor, shall be used in place of the exiting T1-11 siding on all sides of the building. The gable ends of the building include tongue and groove siding which the Historic Commission determined to be indicative of the original external building materials. In lieu of horizontal siding, stucco would also be an acceptable alternative, as it was a common exterior building material for commercial buildings and gas stations during the period of significance. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 6 18.4.2.050.C.2.d.) The applicant disagreed with the recommendations for siding and wanted to use T1-11 or Board and Batten in a vertical orientation. c.That the exterior building colors shall be similar to the existing exterior colors including white and gray, along with the brick on the original office structure, as proposed by the applicant (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.e.) The applicant agreed to use black, white, grey and red brick colors used on the original office structure. d.The windows on the original office structure (i.e., the brick entry feature) shall be true divided lights (i.e. with the glass divided into small panes) on the North Main Street and Bush Street facades to match the original windows. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g. See Bush Street side of the building in Photo 2, above). The applicant agreed to match the windows on the original office. e.The applicant shall submit architectural drawings as specified in AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d (e.g. section drawings and drawings of architectural details) with the building permit submittals. The Historic Commission strongly recommended that the Historic Review Board be allowed to review and comment on these architectural drawings prior to submittal of a building permit application. The applicant disagreed. The application was not a proposed development and they had already submitted architectural drawings. f.Historically compatible garage doors shall be utilized, and a sample profile shall be provided with the building permit application. The applicant disagreed. It was not applicable. The Historic Commission was applying residential standards to a commercial property. A permit should not be required to replace damaged garage doors on a commercial building. Questions of the Appellant Commissioner Thompson addressed statements from the applicant that indicated the vertical metal siding was original on the exterior. Ms. Gunter explained the October 16, 2019 Findings spoke to metal siding. The back of the building was metal. The majority was covered with corrugated metal in a vertical seam pattern. The Historic Commission was not aware the back of the building was metal siding and had not seen the photos. Commissioner Dawkins asked why using vertical or horizontal siding was an issue. Ms. Gunter responded it was a precedence issue. The Historic Commission required something that just a block away in the Historic District, was approved. It was principal and there were financial implications. Ms. Gunter clarified Mr. Singmaster inherited the subject property from his father who was the original owner. Public Testimony - None Rebuttal by Appellant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Brown thought the metal siding appeared to be vertical although it was difficult to confirm in the photos. Commissioner Thompson agreed and added the Historic Commission had not been informed the back part of the building was metal. Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 6 The Commission discussed using T1-11 vertical plywood and the gable. Ms. Harris clarified the gable end of the corner element was the original structure. Commission comment noted the applicant had the burden to show the original siding was vertical and they could not. A statement from the 1979 project had approved using vertical siding and possibly indicated vertical siding was not on the original building. Commissioner Harper/Norton m/s to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Historic Commission. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Harper thought the burden was on the applicant to show that the original siding from 1936 was vertical. Commissioner Brown agreed. Commissioner Thompson explained the original building from 1936 was the front office and what was behind it. The bay was added in 1979. She thought there was some evidence in the back area of metal siding that was vertical. It might meet the standard. Chair Pearce and Commissioner Norton agreed. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the garage doors. Mr. Severson clarified the standards did not speak directly to details on garage doors and were not included in the recommendation. Ms. Harris added there was not a specific design standard just that they had to be compatible. Chair Pearce noted ction to submitting drawings and thought submitting drawings was a reasonable request. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Thompson, Dawkins, Pearce, Norton and Brown, NO; Commissioner Harper, YES. Motion failed 5-1. Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to grant the appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080 only in so far as the Condition that requires installation of horizontal siding with what the applicant proposed. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Thompson confirmed the motion would allow the applicant to do vertical siding. Ms. Harris clarified the applicant was replacing T1-11 and corrugated metal siding with board and batten siding with 2-inch battens and 12-inch on center. Chair Pearce confirmed they were denying all other aspects of the appeal. Commissioner Thompson confirmed the applicant would still have to submit drawings and follow Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Thompson, Norton, Dawkins and Pearce, YES; Commissioner Harper, NO. Motion passed 5-1. VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00012 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 945 Tolman Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Sean Darrell / Rogue Planning & Development DESCRIPTION: The application is request for a three-unit/four-lot Outline and Final Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review permit to allow the construction of a three-unit Cottage Housing Development for the property at 945 Tolman Creek Road. The existing structure is proposed to be divided into two units, and a third 400 square foot cottage unit is to be constructed at the rear of the property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Thompson, Pearce, Harper and Brown had no ex parte contact. Commissioner Norton and Dawkins declared no ex parte contact and one site visit. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson submitted an exhibit into the record (see attached). He provided a presentation (see attached): Cottage Housing Proposal Easement/Tree Vicinity Map Existing Residence Proposed Site Plan Units 1 & 2 Landscape/Wildfire Plan New Unit #3 Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Tolman Creek Road Frontage Tree Commission Recommendation Staff recommended approval with the conditions in the draft Findings. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson confirmed Unit #2 would have a kitchen. The units would be sold individually as part of the subdivision. The lot size complied with the code. There would also be fire separation between units when they divided the existing dwelling. Applicant Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development Services/Provided a presentation (see attached): Aerial Map Site plan of Unit #3 Cottage Site Plan Landscaping/Wildfire Plan Photos of Unit #1 and #2 Utilities/Infrastructure/Stormwater/Water Utilities The proposal retained the natural features of the site. Fifty percent of the units would abut open spaces with substantial private open space. Sean Darrow, the property owner, explained how they exceeded green construction standards. The property was pesticide and chemical free. Ms. Gunter added they would prune trees prior to the certificate of occupancy to avoid having to shave the backside of the pine tree in the backyard. Questions of the Applicant - None Public Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the PA-T2-2019-00012. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins thought it was a straight forward project. Parking had been a preliminary concern but this section of Tolman Creek Road did not have parking issues. Chair Pearce explained the LID offset his concerns regarding the street standards. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Thompson, Norton, Harper, Dawkins and Pearce, YES. Motion passed. IX. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned 8:35 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2020 Page 6 of 6 members should meet the professional qualifications under State Historic Preservation Office requirements. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker. Diagonal o andverticalsidingshallbeavoidedonnewadditionsoronhistoricbuildingsexceptin thoseinstanceswhereitwasusedastheoriginalsiding. o the o The Engineered Wood Association RehabilitationStandardsforExistingBuildingsandAdditions Thesestandardsapplyprimarilytoresidentialhistoricdistricts, residentialbuildingsintheDowntownHistoricDistrict,andNationalRegister-listedhistoric buildingsnotlocatedwithintheHistoricDistrictOverlay.Thepurposeofthefollowingstandards istopreventincompatibletreatmentofbuildingsintheHistoricDistrictOverlayandtoensure thatnewadditionsandmaterialsmaintainthehistoricandarchitecturalcharacterofthedistrict. Primarilyresidentialincharacter Architecturalcompatibilitywiththeimpactarea districts- residentialwithina residentialhistoricdistrictseekingarchitecturalcompatibilitytherein whichischargedbycodewithadvising theStaffAdvisorandPlanningCommissionwithregardtotheapplicationofthe HistoricDistrictdevelopmentstandards vertical exceptthe The City’s Community Development Department and the Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the originalsiding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. The City’s Community Development Department and the Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the originalsiding on the structure is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. Historic Commission improperly applied residentialstandards to a building which is commercial. The evidence for the building being sided in vertical T1-11 and vertical metal sidingis extensive. Conjecture based on gable detail does not denote the what the actual historical sidingof the garage bay portion of the structure was made of nor is there record of anything except vertical T 1-11 and vertical metal. d. Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additionsor on except in those instances where it was used as the historic buildings original siding. Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions (AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2) b. Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be documented. Phone call between Applicant Donn Comte and Hank Singmaster 10:00 a.m., January 14, 2020. –Hank Singmaster (Second generation original owner of subject property since the 1930’s) AMC 18.4.2.050.2.c. Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic shall match the original finish buildings.Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with but not replicate, the finish of the historic building. The City’s Planning Department and the Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the originalsiding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. For the property owner to be compliant with the code, owner has suggested replacing siding with a siding compatible to the original vertical oriented sidings. AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d. is applicable for new developmentson a property. This is not a development on a proposed propertylocated in the Historic District. Applicant is only looking to repair exterior deficiencies. However, applicant has already gone above and beyond and applicant did already submit architectural drawings to staff and historic. This is already incorporated into the language of Condition #4. TOLMAN CREEK COTTAGES A THREE UNIT SUBDIVISION COTTAGE SITE PLAN UNIT #1 UNIT #2 TREE PROTECTION / TREE REMOVAL PLAN PRESERVATION LANDSCAPING/ WILDFIRE PLAN UTILITIES / INFRASTRUCTURE / STORMWATER UNIT #3 WATER MAINS AND HYDRANT PRESSURES CONCLUSION BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-APPEAL-2019-00010, AN ) APPEAL OF THE FOR SITE ) DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED EXTERIOR CHANGES INCLUD- ) ING NEW DOORS, WINDOWS AND SIDING TO A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY ) WITHIN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 145 N. ) MAIN ST. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE SKIDMORE ACAD- ) ) FINDINGS BUILDING, A CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCE WITHIN THE DISTRICT. ) CONCLUSIONS & NO CHANGES WERE PROPOSED TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT, LAY-OUT, ) ORDERS ORIENTATION OR USE. STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION ) ADMINISTRATIVELY SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS AND SUBSE- ) QUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISION, THE APPLICANT ) DONN COMTE TIMELY FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST. ) ) OWNER: BC Partners IV, LLC ) APPLICANT: Donn Comte ) APPELLANT: Donn Comte ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lot #3503 of Map 39 1E 09BB is located at 145 North Main Street and is zoned R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential). The property is also located within an Historic District Overlay zone in Ashland Tire Shop the district survey document. The property is considered to be a contributing resource within the historic district. 2)The original application was arequest for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within an Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property is located in the Ashland Tire Shop more - a contributing resource within the historic district. No changes were proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. Planning staff initially approved the application administratively subject to a number of conditions, and subsequent to the mailing of a Notice of Decision, applicant Donn Comte timely filed an appeal request. 3)The criteria for a Site Design Review approval are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: Underlying Zone: A. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 1 Overlay Zones: B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Site Development and Design Standards: C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. City Facilities: D. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. E. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 14, 2020 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following the closing of the record and of the public hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal only in so far as to modify Condition #4b to allow the use of board and batten siding. The Commission upheld the remainder of the administrative decision and all other conditions of the administrative approval, 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 attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 2 SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 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 for Site Design Review approval meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval detailed in section 18.5.2.050. The elevation drawings provided detail the proposed exterior changes, including new doors, new windows and new siding, for the Ashland Tire Shop building, a contributing historic resource within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. No changes were proposed to the site development, layout, orientation or use. 2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the original application involved arequest for Site Design Review approval for proposed exterior changes including new doors, windows and siding to a contributing property within an Historic District for the property located at 145 North Main Street. The subject property Ashland Tire Shop - a contributing historic resource within the district. The applicant had initially obtained a building permit to replace damaged plywood sheeting and framing studs in order to ensure at least minimal structural integrity for residential uses for the residentially-zoned property, but when it was determined by the Building Division that the scope of work involved went beyond that for which permits had been obtained (i.e. to include changes to the use and occupancy classification; removal of plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems; and changes to siding, doors and windows of a contributing historic resource subject to a previous Conditional Use permit and Site Review approvals), a stop work order was issued for all work other than necessary bracing and support, and the applicant was advised that land use approval would first need to be obtained because the work included exterior changes to a contributing non-residential building in an Historic District. Subsequent to the stop work order, the applicant submitted this land use application to consider the proposed exterior modifications. The Planning Commission notes that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.2.020.A.4., Site Design Review applies for Commercial, Industrial, Non-ucture which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit. in AMC 18.5.6.030.A.6 & A.7, a change to a building elevation that the Staff Advisor determines is not in substantial conformance with the original approval, or a change to a change to a condition of approval is considered a modification subject to review under the approval criteria for the original project or plan approval. The Commission further notes that the current application was approved by staff on December 18, 2019 with a 12-day appeal period which extended through the end of business on December 30, 2019. On December 30, 2019 prior to the end of the appeal period, Donn Comte timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Mr. Comte is the applicant, and a member and registered agent for BC Partners IV, LLC which owns the subject property and thus had standing to appeal. The notice of appeal identified the following grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1) The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 3 combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding; 2) The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial; and 3) Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding. AMC 18.5.1.050.G. explains that appeal hearings on Type I decisions made by the Staff Advisor are treated as de novo hearing procedure except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 2.4 The Planning Commission concludes that the application meets all applicable criteria for a Site Design Review approval. The Planning Commission finds that because the building size, footprint, associated site improvements and use are not proposed to be altered with the current request, which is limited to the specified exterior changes, the considerations for Site Design Review are limited to reviewing these proposed exterior changes in terms of the Historic District Development standards in AMC 18.4.2.050. The Commission would first note that AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.b provides that: If a development requires a Type I, II, or III review procedure (e.g., Site Design Review or Conditional Use Permit) and involves new construction, or restoration and rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family use, the authority exists in the law for the Staff Advisor and the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these (historic district development) standards. In this case the Historic Commission advises both the applicant and the Staff Advisor or other City decision maker. The Planning Commission further notes that the full Historic Commission reviewed the application at their regular monthly meeting on November 6, 2019 and recommended approval of the application subject to a number of conditions with regard to the exterior treatment of the building to comply with the applicable Historic District Development Standards. the application, the applicant provided additional materials which asserted that the only evidence of original siding on the building was corrugated metal and T1-11, and indicating their desire to utilize T1- 11 siding or a vertical board and batten treatment. The applicant further indicated that the entire building was re-sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of a 1979 Planning Commission meeting discussing the service bay addition. In reaching the original administrative decision, ment that T1- the original construction as T1- the 1979-1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original siding. The Historic Commission, which is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 4 with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, has indicated that the gable ends of the original portion of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding which the Commissioners believe is the best indication of original external materials. On that basis, the original staff decision incorporated the recommendations of the Historic Commission as conditions of approval. The Planning Commission finds that because that decision is being appealed with regard to the application of residential standards and to the requirements to use a horizontal siding treatment, and that the approval shall be limited to the appeal issues raised. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the appeal request submitted raises the following issues as the basis for the appeal: 1)The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding. 2)The Historic Commission also improperly applied residential standards to a building which is commercial. 3) Lastly, the gable detail does not denote what is the actual historical siding for the building being vertical T1-11 and the vertical metal siding. The Planning Commission finds, with regard to the first issue raised that, The Historic Commission did not effectively review the plans nor the evidence submitted which illustrated that the original siding is a combination of vertical metal siding and vertical T1-11 siding,he Rehabilitation Standard addressing siding is found Diagonal and vertical siding shall be avoided on new additions or on historic buildings except in those instances where it was used as the original siding. original siding on the building is corrugated metal and T1-11, and indicating their desire to utilize T1-11 siding or a vertical board and batten treatment. The applicant further indicated that the entire building was re-sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting discussing the service bay -day clock to allow another month for additional Historic Commission Review. In reaching the original administrative -11 would not have been -11 did not gain popularity le it was likely used in the 1979-1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the currently applicable Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original siding. The Historic Commission, which is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, determined that the gable ends of the original portion of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding and believed this was the best indication of original external materials. On that basis, the original staff decision incorporated the original recommendations of the Historic Commission as a condition of approval that the applicant utilize 1x8 tongue and groove PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 5 siding or, as an alternate, stucco - with the modification that staff also believed another compatible horizontal siding treatment would be appropriate. During the appeal hearing, the applicant explained that there was some original vertical metal siding still viewed from inside the building. In addition, the applicant noted that they had contacted Hank Singmaster, appeal hearing that the original siding of the building was metal, and that T1-11 was added with the later addition to the property. On this basis, the Planning Commission finds that there was originally vertical metal siding in place on the building and that vertical siding in the form of the proposed board and batten treatment with two-inch battens installed at 12-inches on center is in keeping with the historic district design standards. The Planning Commission upholds this first ground for appeal only in so far as to modify Condition #4b to allow the use of a vertical board and batten treatment. The Planning Commission finds, with regard to the second issue raised that, The Historic Commission the Historic Existing These standards apply primarily to residential historic districts, residential buildings in the Downtown Historic District, and National Register-listed historic buildings not located within the Historic District Overlay. The purpose of the following standards is to prevent incompatible treatment of buildings in the Historic District Overlay and to ensure that new additions and materials maintain the historic and architectural character of the district.the Planning Commission finds that the subject property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District which is noted in the National Register of Historic Places documentation as beingPrimarily residential in characterCommission further finds that the subject property is residentially zoned, and the existing non-conforming use is a commercial automotive use operating under a Conditional Use Permit within a Architectural compatibility with the impact areakey approval criterion. The Planning Commission concludes that the standards applied, while applicable primarily to residential historic districts, are not exclusively residential and were appropriately used here given the location within a residential historic district and the context in seeking architectural compatibility therein. The Planning Commission denies this second ground for appeal. With regard to the third appeal issue that, siding for the building being vertical T1-the Planning Commission finds that the Historic Commission is charged by code with advising the Staff Advisor and Planning Commission with regard to the application of the Historic District development standards, and that the Historic Commission indicated that based on available photos of the building prior to the removal of existing exterior materials and features, that the treatment of the gable ends of the original portion of the building include 1 x 8 tongue and groove siding gave the best indication of original external materials. In accepting this determination, staff noted that the applicant had further indicated that the entire building was re-sided with an expansion in 1980, which is consistent with the minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting discussing the exterior treatment with the service bay addition at the time. In -11 would not have been an original siding - PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 6 while it seems to have been used in the 1979-1980 re-siding mentioned, it has now been removed and the currently applicable Historic District Development standards are explicit that vertical siding is not to be used except where it was the original historic siding. During the appeal hearing, the applicant explained that there was some original vertical metal siding in from inside the building. In addition, the applicant noted that they had contacted Hank Singmaster, whose the building was metal, and that T1-11 was added with the later addition to the property. On this basis, the Planning Commission finds that there was originally vertical metal siding in place on the building and that vertical siding in the form of the board and batten treatment with two-inch battens installed at 12- inches on center as proposed by the applicant was in keeping with the historic district design standards. The Planning Commission upholds this third ground for appeal only in so far as to modify Condition #4b to allow the use of a vertical board and batten treatment. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for Site Design Review approval is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. With regard to the appeal issues, the Planning Commission upholds the appeal with regard to the first and third grounds dealing with vertical siding only in so far as to modify Condition #4b to allow the use of a vertical board and batten treatment with two-inch battens to be installed at 12-inches on center. The Planning Commission denies the second ground for appeal and finds that the design standards applied in the original Historic Commission review and subsequent administrative decision were appropriate given that the Skidmore Academy Historic District is largely residential in nature and that the existing automotive use operates as a non-conforming use subject to a Conditional Use Permit within that residential district and that compatibility with the surrounding largely residential district is a key element in considering that Conditional Use. The Planning Commission upholds the appeal only in so far as to allow the proposed board and batten vertical siding in Condition #4b, and re-affirms the remainder of the Site Design Review approval to allow exterior modifications to the Ashland Tire Shop building at 145 North Main Street. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) That 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 the Site Review approval would need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) That prior to submittal of a building permit application, the applicant shall obtain a special inspection from the Building Division in order to determine the extent of work completed to date and identify any specific building code issues which will need to be addressed in the building permit application. 4) The following conditions are required for conformance with the applicable Historic District Development standards, and shall be incorporated into the building permit application as follows, subject to final review and approval by the Staff Advisor: PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 7 a. The applicant shall restore or duplicate the entablature (horizontal architectural details under the eave line of the roof), including the enclosed soffit, along the entire North Main Street façade of the building and along the original office structure (i.e. brick entry feature) on the Bush Street Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.b. & c. See Photos 1 and 2 above façade. (). b. That a board and batten treatment with two-inch battens installed at 12-inches on center shall be used on all sides of the building in replacing previous vertical metal and T1-11 siding. (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.d.) c. That the exterior building colors shall be similar to the existing exterior colors including white and gray, along with the brick on the original office structure, as proposed by the applicant (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.e.) d. The windows on the original office structure (i.e., the brick entry feature) shall be true divided lights (i.e. with the glass divided into small panes) on the North Main Street and Bush Street facades (Rehabilitation Standard AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2.g. See Bush to match the original windows. Street side of the building in Photo 2, above). AMC 18.5.2.040.4.d e. The applicant shall submit architectural drawings as specified in (e.g. section drawings and drawings of architectural details) with the building permit submittals. f. Building permits shall be reviewed for compliance with the above recommendations by the Historic Commission Review Board, with final review and approval by the Staff Advisor, prior to issuance of a building permit. February 11, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-APPEAL-2019-00010 (Appeal of PA-T1-2019-00080) February 11, 2020 Page 8 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2020 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2019-00012, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVALS AND SITE DESIGN ) REVIEW FOR A 3-UNIT/4-LOT COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ) FINDINGS, PROPERTY AT 945 TOLMAN CREEK ROAD. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS ) CONCLUSIONS PROPOSED TO BE DIVIDED INTO 2-UNITS, AND A THIRD 400-SQUARE FOOT ) & COTTAGE UNIT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. ) ORDERS ) OWNER/APPLICANT: SEAN DARRELL/ ) ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, LLC ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #800 of Map 39 1E 14CA is located at 945 Tolman Creek Road and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). 2) The application is request for a three-unit/four-lot Outline and Final Plan subdivision approval and Site Design Review permit to allow the construction of a three-unit Cottage Housing Development for the property at 945 Tolman Creek Road. The existing structure is proposed to be divided into two units, and a third 400 square foot cottage unit is to be constructed at the rear of the property. 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. 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. PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 1 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 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. AMC 18.5.2.050 5) 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 PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 2 exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.2.3.090 6) The development standards for Cottage Housing Developments are detailed in as follows: C. Development Standards. Cottage housing developments shall meet all of the following requirements. 1.Cottage Housing Density. The permitted number of units and minimum lot areas shall be as follows: Table 18.2.3.090.C.1 Cottage Housing Development Density Minimum Maximum Minimum lot Maximum number of number of size Maximum Floor cottages per cottages per (accommodates Zones Cottage Area cottage cottage minimum Density Ratio housing housing number of (FAR) development development cottages) 1 cottage R-1-5, dwelling unit NN-1-5 per 2,500 3 12 7,500 sq.ft. 0.35 NM-R-1-5 square feet of lot area 1 cottage dwelling unit R-1-7.5 per 3,750 3 12 11,250 sq.ft. 0.35 NM-R-1-7.5 square feet of lot area 2. Building and Site Design. a. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The combined gross floor area of all cottages and garages shall not exceed a 0.35 floor area ratio (FAR). Structures such as parking carports, green houses, and common accessory structures are exempt from the maximum floor area calculation. b. Maximum Floor Area. The maximum gross habitable floor area for 75 percent or more of the cottages, within developments of four units or greater, shall be 800 square feet or less per unit. At least two of the cottages within three unit cottage housing developments shall have a gross habitable floor area of 800 square feet or PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 3 less. The gross habitable floor area for any individual cottage unit shall not exceed 1000 square feet. c. Height. Building height of all structures shall not exceed 18 feet. The ridge of a pitched roof may extend up to 25 feet above grade. d. Lot Coverage. Lot coverage shall meet the requirements of the underlying zone outlined in Table 18.2.5.030.A. e. Building Separation. A cottage development may include two-unit attached, as well as detached, cottages. With the exception of attached units, a minimum separation of six feet measured from the nearest point of the exterior walls is required between cottage housing units. Accessory buildings (e.g., carport, garage, shed, multipurpose room) shall comply with building code requirements for separation from non-residential structures. f. Fences. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18.4.4.060, fence height is limited to four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space except as allowed for deer fencing in subsection 18.4.4.060.B.6. Fences in the front and side yards abutting a public street, and on the perimeter of the development shall meet the fence standards of section 18.4.4.060. 3.Access, Circulation, and Off-Street Parking Requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option and 18.4 Site Development and Site Design Standards, cottage housing developments are subject to the following requirements: a.Public Street Dedications. Except for those street connections identified on the Street Dedication Map, the Commission may reduce or waive the requirement to dedicate and construct a public street as required in 18.4.6.040 upon finding that the cottage housing development meets connectivity and block length standards by providing public access for pedestrians and bicyclists with an alley, shared street, or multi-use path connecting the public street to adjoining properties. b.Driveways and parking areas. Driveway and parking areas shall meet the vehicle area design standards of section 18.4.3. i. Parking shall meet the minimum parking ratios per 18.4.3.040. ii. Parking shall be consolidated to minimize the number of parking areas, and shall be located on the cottage housing development property. iii. Off-street parking can be located within an accessory structure such as a multi-auto carport or garage, but such multi-auto structures shall not be attached to individual cottages. Single-car garages and carports may be attached to individual cottages. Uncovered parking is also permitted PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 4 provided that off street parking is screened in accordance with the applicable landscape and screening standards of chapter 18.4.4. 4. Open Space. Open space shall meet all of the following standards. a. A minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area is required as open space. b. Open space(s) shall have no dimension that is less than 20 feet unless otherwise granted an exception by the hearing authority. Connections between separated open spaces, not meeting this dimensional requirement, shall not contribute toward meeting the minimum open space area. c. Shall consist of a central space, or series of interconnected spaces. d. Physically constrained areas such as wetlands or steep slopes cannot be counted towards the open space requirement. e. At least 50 percent of the cottage units shall abut an open space. f. The open space shall be distinguished from the private outdoor areas with a walkway, fencing, landscaping, berm, or similar method to provide a visual boundary around the perimeter of the common area. g. Parking areas and driveways do not qualify as open space. Figure 18.2.3.090 Cottage Housing Conceptual Site Plans 5. Private Outdoor Area. Each residential unit in a cottage housing development shall have a private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas shall be separate from the open space to create a sense of separate ownership. a. Each cottage unit shall be provided with a minimum of 200 square feet of usable PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 5 private outdoor area. Private outdoor areas may include gardening areas, patios, or porches. b. No dimension of the private outdoor area shall be less than 8 feet. 6. Common Buildings, Existing Nonconforming Structures and Accessory Residential Units. a. Common Buildings. Up to 25 percent of the required common open space, but no greater than 1,500 square feet, may be utilized as a community building for the sole use of the cottage housing residents. Common buildings shall not be attached to cottages. b. Carports and garage structures. Consolidated carports or garage structures, provided per 18.2.3.090.C.3.b, are not subject to the area limitations for common buildings. c. Nonconforming Dwelling Units. An existing single-family residential structure built prior to the effective date of this ordinance (date), which may be nonconforming with respect to the standards of this chapter, shall be permitted to remain. Existing nonconforming dwelling units shall be included in the maximum permitted cottage density. 1,000 square feet of the habitable floor area of such nonconforming dwellings shall be included in the maximum floor area permitted per 18.2.3.090C.2.a. Existing garages, other existing non-habitable floor area, and the not be included in the maximum floor area ratio. d. Accessory Residential Units. New accessory residential units (ARUs) are not permitted in cottage housing developments, except that an existing ARU that is accessory to an existing nonconforming single-family structure may be counted as a cottage unit if the property is developed subject to the provisions of this chapter. 7. Storm Water and Low-Impact Development. a. Developments shall include open space and landscaped features as a component filtration and on-site infiltration of storm water. b. Low impact development techniques for storm water management shall be used wherever possible. Such techniques may include the use of porous solid surfaces in parking areas and walkways, directing roof drains and parking lot runoff to landscape beds, green or living roofs, and rain barrels. c. Cottages shall be located to maximize the infiltration of storm water run-off. In this zone, cottages shall be grouped and parking areas shall be located to preserve as much contiguous, permanently undeveloped open space and native vegetation as PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 6 reasonably possible when considering all standards in this chapter. 8. Restrictions. a. The size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area in subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. A deed restriction shall be placed on the property notifying future property owners of the size restriction. 7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 14, 2020 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the public hearing, the Planning Commission 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 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 for Outline Plan approval, Final Plan approval, Site Design Review approval, and a Cottage Housing Development 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 Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050; and for a Cottage Housing Development described AMC 18.2.3.090. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 7 The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, ordinance requirements of the CityThe Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. 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 The Commission notes that staff have indicated the following based on discussions with city utility departments: Water, Sewer, Electricity and Urban Storm Drainage Water The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by a 12- inch water main in Tolman Creek Road. The water meter for the existing residence is at the curb along Tolman Creek Road, and two new water meters are illustrated as being placed at the driveway from Chapman Lane to serve the proposed new cottage units. The Public Works Department has indicated that the existing lines have the ability to provide capacity for the proposed development. Sanitary Sewer - The Public Works Department has indicated that property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main within the adjacent Tolman Creek Road right-of-way which connects to a line in the existing public utility easement that runs along the north property line, and that all of the individual units are able to be served from this main. Electricity c service plan, and that the applicant will be fully upgrading services to the site with a new three-pack meter base at the southwest corner of the property to be served underground via a new trench out to the transformer on Chapman Lane. Urban Storm Drainage - The Public Works Department has indicated that property is currently served by an 18-inch storm sewer main in the adjacent Tolman Creek Road right-of-way which connects to a line in the existing public utility easement that runs along the north property line, and that all of the individual units are able to be served from this main. The applicant has proposed to install a 24-foot by eight-foot rainwater garden to detain roof drainage on site, with overflow into the storm drain system, as a low-impact approach to on-site detention and treatment. Conditions have been included below requiring that final utility, grading and drainage plans and associated civil engineering drawings be provided for review and approval prior to site work or the issuance of building or excavation permits. Police & Fire Protection The applicant indicates that the property is now served by the Ashland Police Department (APD), and the proposal will not have an impact on the ability of APD to serve the property or the broader city. Existing fire hydrants are in place at the corner of the Tolman Creek Road and Chapman Lane, and at the corner of Tolman Creek Road and Spring Hill Drive. The application notes that none of the units is more than 150-feet from where a fire truck would park, and as such a fire truck turn-around will PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 8 not be necessary, and that the structures are less than 24-feet in height and no fire truck work area will be necessary. A condition has been included below to require that the applicants address the requirements of the Fire Department including but not limited to approved addressing, fire apparatus access, fire hydrant distance and fire flow, as part of the permit drawing submittals. Paved Access and Adequate Transportation Compliance with street standards is addressed under the appropriate criterion later in this section. With regard to paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation, the subject property directly fronts on Tolman Creek Road, a two-lane avenue/major collector street which was fully improved through a Local Improvement District in 2003. In addition, the property has an access easement through the property to the south, enabling a driveway connection to Chapman Lane, a lesser order street. Three small cottages do not generate enough vehicle trips to trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis and can be readily accommodated in the adjacent street system. The site plan provided identifies existing facilities available in the adjacent rights-of-way along with proposed connections, meter placements, on-site stormwater detention placement, and the necessary utility extensions. The Planning Commission finds that based on the conceptual plans and details from the various service providers, 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 in conjunction with the permit approval and plat review, and that infrastructure be installed by the applicants, 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, The Planning Commission finds that that the existing natural features on the property are limited to two large stature trees, and that they are identified in the plans and have been included in open spaces and unbuildable areas. A 20-inch Ponderosa Pine is within the proposed common open space, and a 41-inch Sequoia is not in an area of construction impacts. Both are to be protected in keeping with applicable standards. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, prevent adjacent land fThe Planning Commission finds that the development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed with the uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The fifth approval criterion is that, 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 projeThe Planning Commission finds provided to address maintenance of open spaces and common areas as part of the final survey plat review, and that the existing easement already in place to serve the commonly-owned parking addresses maintenance of PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 9 the driveway from Chapman Lane. Conditions requiring that final survey plat submittal for final review and approval of the Staff Advisor have been included below. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the fifth approval criterion. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterTable 18.2.3.090.C.1 Cottage Housing Development Density addresses the permissible number of cottages for a cottage housing development in the R-1-5 zoning district providing that one cottage per 2,500 square feet of lot area is allowed, with a maximum number of 12 cottages. The Planning Commission finds that the 7,500 square foot property here will accommodate three cottages (7,500/2,500 = 3) and three are proposed which complies with the allowed Cottage Housing Development Density. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the sixth approval criterion. The development complies with the Street Standards.fronts on Tolman Creek Road, which is a two-lane avenue or major collector in this vicinity. City standards envision six- to ten-foot sidewalks, five- to eight-foot parkrow planting strips, a six-inch curb, eight- to nine-foot parking bays, six-foot bike lanes, and ten- to ten- and-a-half-foot travel lanes on each side. The city-standard cross-section includes a 32- to 33-foot curb-to-curb paved width within a 59- to 86-foot right-of-way, dependent on the on-street parking configuration. The existing curb-to-curb paved width along the frontage is approximately 32 feet, and the right-of-way width along the corridor is 60 feet. There are curbside sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking in bays, bike lanes and two travel lanes in place along the frontage. The application notes that sidewalks were installed curbside with an Exception under the 2003 Tolman Creek Road Local Improvement District (LID), as provided in the Street Design Standards in AMC 18.4.6.040.A.2: All streets \[shall of meandering sidewalks, sidewalks on only one side of the street, or curbside sidewalk segments instead of setback walks. Exceptions should be allowed when physical conditions exist that preclude right-of-way when improving streets through a local improvement district (LID). With the existing frontage improvements in place completed under the 2003 Tolman Creek LID, the applicant is not proposing any frontage improvements along Tolman Creek Road. Vehicular access to the site is to be from an access easement through the property to the south via a shared driveway out to Chapman Lane. The Commission finds that the existing street improvements were completed through an LID and that the proposal complies with city street standards. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options chapter. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the Final Plan approval request has been made concurrently with the Outline Plan approval request, and as such there will be no variation between Outline Plan and Final Plan approvals. PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 10 2.5 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring that, The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standardsThe Planning Commission finds that the building and yard setbacks and other applicable standards have been evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of part 18.2, and all regulations of the underlying R-1-5 zoning will be satisfied. The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies The Planning Commission finds that the property is within the Performance Standards Option (PSO) overlay zone, which requires that all developments other than partitions or individual dwelling units be processed under Chapter 18.3.9., and that the proposal involves a three-unit cottage housing development and four-lot subdivision for which the applicant has requested Outline and Final Plan approval under the PSO Overlay Chapter 18.3.9. 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 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards including provisions for access management, building orientation, parking configuration, etc. and that the various plans have been prepared based on these standards and the recently adopted Cottage Housing ordinance. With regard to the parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3, cottage housing units less than 800 square feet require one off-street parking space be provided per unit. The applicant proposes to provide two off-street parking spaces for the three proposed cottage units proposed here, with the third required space to be provided via an on-street credit for the frontage along Tolman Creek Road. Bicycle parking is to be provided with covered U-racks in a structure adjacent to the common area which will need to meet the requirements of AMC 18.4.3.070.C.1. The Planning Commission finds that all required parking has been provided through two off-street and one on-street spaces. The Planning Commission concludes that the third 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 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, and that these items are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan discussion in section 2.3 above. The Commission concludes that this criterion has been satisfied. PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 11 The final The Planning Commission finds that the proposal does not include any Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards, and as such this criterion does not apply. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable standards specific to Cottage Housing Development. The Planning Commission finds that the project involves the duplexing of an existing single family residence and the construction of a small third unit at the rear of the property, and will help to provide needed housing types while having minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission finds that no design standard Exceptions or Variances are proposed. The proposal complies with the allowed development density, floor area ratio, height and lot coverage standards, with three cottages proposed for a 7,500 square foot parcel and a combined floor area ratio of 0.23. All of the proposed cottages are less than 800 square feet in gross habitable floor area, with a combined average floor area of approximately 509 square feet. The existing residence is a single-story building, and the proposed new cottage is to have a peak height of 17-feet above grade, where the cottage housing standards allow roof peaks up to 25 feet from grade. Lot coverage is noted at 39.9 percent where up to 50 percent coverage is allowed. The Commission further finds that the building separation between the existing structure and the new cottage is greater than the six-foot minimum. demonstrate compliance with the limitations of the fence code and will not exceed four feet on interior areas adjacent to open space. The Commission finds that the proposed cottage housing development is within an established neighborhood with Tolman Creek Road along the property frontage fully improved and a broader gridded street system largely in place and meeting block length standards in the vicinity. The Commission finds that the driveway and parking area proposed meet the vehicle area design standards in AMC 18.4.3. Access to the site and parking will be from an existing shared driveway easement connecting across the property to the south to Chapman Lane. Two required parking off- street parking spaces are to be provided, and will be configured to allow cars to turn and exit to Chapman Lane in a forward manner and the third parking spaces is to be addressed through an on- is in place. The Planning Commission finds that 21.57 percent of the site is proposed in open space, where a minimum of 20 percent is required. The proposed open space is provided in two connected areas with PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 12 no dimension is less than 20 feet one a 540 square foot space at the front of the property and the other a larger central space 1,075 square feet in area. All three of the proposed cottages directly abut the open space, and the open space is distinguished from private outdoor areas with a four-foot fencing to provide a visual boundary. Private open space areas, separate from the common open space, include garden areas, porches and patios to provide the requisite private outdoor areas. The Commission finds that the development proposes an on-site water infiltration area in the form of a rain garden -up area and pathways are to be constructed on permeable materials to allow for retention, treatment and percolation on-site with overflow into an approved city facility. The cottages include a duplex created from the existing residence and a small stand-alone new cottage unit. The site layout includes consolidated parking to preserve open space, protect trees and reduce impervious surfaces. Based on the foregoing, The Planning Commission concludes that, as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal is consistent with the Specific Cottage Housing Development Standards. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that that the existing natural features on the property are two large stature trees, and that they are identified in the plans and have been included in open spaces and unbuildable areas. The 20-inch Ponderosa Pine is within proposed common open space, and the 41-inch Sequoia is not in an area of construction impacts and falls within an existing easement. Both are proposed to be protected in keeping with applicable standards using six-foot chain link fencing. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions included below to require tree protection verification prior to any site work, the proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection. 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 and Site Design Review approvals for a three-unit/four- lot Cottage Housing development is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 13 The project involves the duplexing of an existing single family residence and the construction of a small third unit at the rear of the property, and will help to provide needed housing types while preserving the having minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2019-00012. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2019-00012 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 are subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies, and the unit accessed via the driveway from Chapman Lane will need a Chapman Lane address. 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 new driveway approaches, utility installation or any necessary encroachments. 4.That a Tree Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to any site work including excavation, staging or storage of materials, or excavation permit issuance. The Tree Verification Permit is to inspect the installation of tree protection fencing for the two trees to be protected. Standard tree protection consists of chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.B. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. 5.That the pedestrian circulation routes through the property shall be at least four feet in width. 6.That prior to building or excavation permit issuance or any site work: a.Final electric service, utility, grading and erosion control drawings including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, and driveway improvements shall be provided for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric and Public Works/Engineering Departments. The final utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, and storm drainage pipes and catch basins. That 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. Any new transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of 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 submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. 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 PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 14 reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. 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 submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. b.Final site lighting details. c.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. d.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual access and circulation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. e.A final storm drainage plan shall detail the location and any necessary engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, and 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. f.Any final grading and erosion control plan. g.A final size- and species-specific landscaping plan including irrigation details and details of the landscape materials to be planted shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor. New landscaping shall comply with the General Fuel Modification Area requirements and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List adopted by Resolution #2018-028. h.That the applicable requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire flow; fire apparatus access, approach, turn-around, and firefighter access pathway; approved addressing; fire sprinkler and extinguishers as applicable; limits on fencing and gates which would impair access; and wildfire hazard area requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the permit drawings, and shall include a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements of AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2. 7.A final survey plat shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for review and signature: a.The final survey plat shall include a deed restriction notifying future property owners that the size of a cottage dwelling may not be increased beyond the maximum floor area in subsection 18.2.3.090.C.2.a. This size limitation shall also be addressed in the b.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, mutual access, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 15 c.That draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to final plat signature. The C responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including parking areas, landscaping and storm water facilities. The cottage housing fencing limitations, floor area learly addressed in the d.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 plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. e.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility installations and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans prior to submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. f.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. g.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots, inspected and approved. February 11, 2020 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2019-00012 February 11, 2020 Page 16 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT February 11, 2020 PLANNING ACTION: PA-L-2019-00007 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation, and Design AMC18.6.1 Definitions REQUEST: An Ordinance amendment to the Site Design and Use Standards plaza space requirements (Chapter 18.4.2.040.D(2)) within the C-1-D (downtown) zone and Downtown Design Standards overlay, and to provide a new definition for Detail Site Review Plaza Spaces (Chapter 18.6.1). The proposal includes removing the requirement that large scale buildings (10,000 square feet or greater) within the downtown area provide an outdoor plaza space that is a I. Relevant Facts A. Background On October 15, 2019, the Ashland City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to evaluate the existing plaza space requirements in consideration of how amending the standard could potentially encourage new multi-story development within downtown Ashland while preserving continuity of the historic pattern of development. The Planning Commission discussed the existing requirements for plaza space in the Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay and specific application within the downtown area on August thth 27 and December 10, 2019 at Study Sessions. The Historic Commission discussed the proposed amendments to the plaza space requirements at their regular meeting on January 8, 2020. Public Notice Notification regarding the proposed plaza space ordinance public hearings was published in the Ashland Tidings on January 17, 2020. A direct mailing was sent to the owners of 149 properties within the downtown area that would potentially be affected by the proposed amendment. The newspaper notice and direct mailing included the Planning Commission and City Council hearing dates (February 11, 2020 and March 17, 2020 respectively), an outline of the proposed amendment including a list of common questions and answers, and a link to a dedicated webpage (www.ashland.or.us/plazaspaces) where citizens can find additional background information about the proposed amendment. These two public hearings provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the proposed amendments, and for decision makers to consider those comments as they deliberate on the final amendments to Planning Action PA-L-2019-00007 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 6 the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). Notice was provided to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on 12/27/2019, at least 35 days before the first evidentiary hearing, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) OAR 660- 018-0020. Providing opportunities for public involvement as described above is consistent with citizen involvement goals and policies for land use actions in Comprehensive Plan Goal 1 \[Citizen Involvement\] and Chapter 18.5.1 of the ALUO. As of the date of this report, three written comments have been received by the Community Development Department and they are included as attachments to this report. Type III Legislative Land Use Process Amendments to the ALUO are made through a Type III legislative land use review process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider proposed amendments and will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold a subsequent public hearing to consider the proposed amendments. After closing the public hearing, the final action on the proposed amendments, the Community Development Director will provide written notice of the decisions to any parties entitled to notice. A City Council decision can be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if a person with standing files a Notice of Intent to Appeal within 21 days of the date the decision is reduced to writing and bears the necessary signatures of the decision makers. B. Ordinance Amendments 4§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ¬¤£¬¤³²Ǿ ² ³§¤¸ ¶®´«£ ¯¯¤ ± ¨ ³§¤ !²§« £ , £ 5²¤ /±£¨ ¢¤ Ȩ!,5/ȩǾ ±¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¨ ¥´«« ² ³³ ¢§¬¤³ ³® ³§¨² ±¤¯®±³ȁ Summary of Proposed Amendments Within the Detail Site Review overlay plaza spaces currently must be incorporated into projects when building square footage is greater than 10,000 square feet. This required four out of six listed design elements as outlined in 18.4.2.040.D.2(b). This standard currently applies to large scale commercial developments within specific areas (Detail Site Review overlay) throughout the City including the downtown. The draft ordinance amendment presented for consideration would result in no longer requiring the inclusion of plaza space for new buildings, with floor areas of 10,000 or greater, in the downtown for properties that are zoned C-1-D, or are within the Downtown Design Standards boundary. Planning Action PA-L-2019-00007 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 6 The proposed code amendment would remove the plaza space requirement in the downtown area, but it would still apply in other commercially zoned areas outside the downtown within the Detail Site Review Overlay (A Street, Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, North Main Street and sections of Hersey Street). To clarify that such plaza . Although private plaza spaces are seemingly accessible to members of the public these sites are subject to private landowner restrictions, which may cause confusion regarding allowable use and access by the general public. The draft ordinance further proposes a change to the Ashland Land Use Ordinances Chapter 18.6.1 \[Definitions\] to newly provide the following definition for such plaza spaces to provide clarity on this subject: Detail Site Review Plaza Space: An open area under private ownership intended to meet the requirements of Large Scale Project standards within the Detail Site Review Overlay. Staff has received some general questions from the public as to whether the proposed changes to the plaza space requirement would allow for taller buildings in the downtown, increase the maximum size of buildings allowed, impact the central Plaza, or newly require following bullet points address these concerns: The proposed amendment does not change height limits in the downtown area. Those height limits will stay as is, which are: 40-feet maximum height limit; 55-feet maximum height limit when approved through a conditional use permit procedure. Planning Action PA-L-2019-00007 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 6 The proposed amendment does not change the maximum building size within the C-1 and C-1-D zones which is 45,000sq.ft. Public open spaces such as the central Plaza, the open space in front of the Black Swan Theatre, Calle Guanajuato, the public pedestrian corridor adjacent to the McGee- Fortmiller Building (142 East Main Street) extending from East Main Street to the Public Parking Structure, would be unaffected by the proposed amendment. Other public rights-of-way or parks properties within the downtown would also be unaffected by the proposed amendment. 4§¤ ¤·¨²³¨¦ £®¶³®¶ £¤²¨¦ ²³ £ ±£² Ȩ ȩ ¢´±±¤³«¸ ±¤°´¨±¤ ³§ ³ 18.4.2.060C.2 ¡´¨«£¨¦² ²§ «« ¬ ¨³ ¨ ¹¤±® ²¤³¡ ¢ª ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²¨£¤¶ «ª ®± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨¤Ǿ «³§®´¦§ ¦±®´£ «¤µ¤« ¤³±¨¤² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ±¤¢¤²²¤£ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ±¨¦§³ȃ®¥ȃ¶ ¸ £ § µ¤ £¤³ ¨«¨¦ £ ¬ ³¤±¨ «² ³§ ³ ¢±¤ ³¤ ²¤²¤ ®¥ ¤³±¸ȁ 4§¤²¤ £¤²¨¦ ²³ £ ±£² ¶®´«£ ¡¤ ´¢§ ¦¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¢§ ¦¤² ±¤¦ ±£¨¦ ¯« ¹ ²¯ ¢¤ ¶¨³§¨ ³§¤ £®¶³®¶ ±¤ ȁ Change in Circumstances or Conditions AMC 18.5.9.020.B permits legislative amendments to meet changes in circumstances and conditions. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council makes the final decision. Statewide and Local Goals Comprehensive Plan Economy Element (Chapter VII) Goal 7.03.3 Policy 2.c: The City shall design the Land Use Ordinance to provide for specific development guidelines which will ensure that: 2) New development or redevelopment in the Historic District will be compatible with the character of the district. Comprehensive Plan Historic Sites and Structures Element (Chapter I) Goal: To preserve historically significant structures and sites in Ashland Policy I-7: The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. In review of the existing requirements for plaza space, as part of the design standards for new large scale development and alterations to existing large scale buildings within the downtown, it was found that application of these standards within the downtown could have the effect of disrupting the historic pattern of development and breaking the continuity of buildings having The development of the plaza standards was initially considered to apply city wide in all Detail Ste Review overlay areas without special consideration of the downtown historic interest area. Most existing historic buildings in the downtown have frontage directly at the sidewalk edge. Opportunities for infill and redevelopment within this area should develop consistent with this established historic pattern to protect the historic character of the area and promote interaction between the activity in the building and the people on the street. Proposed amendments to the plaza space standards have been presented in the attached draft ordinance to more effectively Planning Action PA-L-2019-00007 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 6 direct future development, and redevelopment, within the downtown to be compatible with the historic character of the district. II. Procedural 18.5.9.020 Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: B. Type III. It may be necessary from time to time to make legislative amendments in order to conform with the Comprehensive Plan or to meet other changes in circumstances or conditions. The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or large-scale implementation of public policy requiring City Council approval and enactment of an ordinance; this includes adoption of regulations, zone changes for large areas, zone changes requiring comprehensive plan amendment, comprehensive plan map or text amendment, annexations (see chapter 18.5.8 for annexation information), and urban growth boundary amendments. The following planning actions shall be subject to the Type III procedure. 1. Zone changes or amendments to the Zoning Map or other official maps, except where minor amendments or corrections may be processed through the Type II procedure pursuant to subsection 18.5.9.020.A, above. 2. Comprehensive Plan changes, including text and map changes or changes to other official maps. 3. Land Use Ordinance amendments. 4. Urban Growth Boundary amendments. III. Conclusions and Recommendations Removing the existing requirement that plaza spaces be located on individual privately-owned properties associated with large scale developments, within the C-1-D and Downtown Design Standards, overlay will further the objective of protecting the historic character of the area while promoting appropriate mixed use developments within the . The historic characteristics of the downtown area are not present in other commercial areas of the City where the plaza standard applies. As a commercial area listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with considerable pedestrian activity due to its concentration of commercial uses, most historic buildings in the downtown are built up to the sidewalk edge. Opportunities for infill and redevelopment within the context of this historic area should develop consistent with the established historic pattern of development to protect the character of the area. A - lines promotes interaction between the commercial activity in the buildings and the people on the street. Incorporating a plaza space, to meet the existing requirement, often results in the need for add to development costs and result in a less efficient building design. Plaza spaces developed within the downtown area on individual private properties, as part of meeting site design standard requirements, do not necessarily function to provide the general public with opportunities for relief and respite from the urban fabric. Public open spaces used to Planning Action PA-L-2019-00007 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 6 create a prominent civic component within the downtown area are best placed in identified central locations and highly visible focal points and should be open to the public at large. The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and implementation methods. Given this, the proposed amendments better achieve the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan than the existing language. Historic Commission The Historic Commission reviewed the draft ordinance on January 8, 2020 and recommend approval of the ordinance. Planning Commission The Planning Commission will review the proposed ordinance on February 11, 2020, and their formal recommendation to the Council regarding the ordinance will be presented to the City Council at the public hearing scheduled for March 17, 2020. A representative from the Planning Commission is invited to provide the Commissions recommendations to the during the public hearing before the City Council. Potential Motions: I move to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.4.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. This motion is based on findings and conclusions in the staff report, and findings in support of the application made during deliberations on this matter. I move to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 18.4.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance with the following changes _________________________. This motion is based on findings and conclusions in the staff report, and findings in support of the application made during deliberations on this matter. Attachments: Draft Ordinance amending Plaza Space Standards Public Comment Thalden letter dated March 12, 2019 o Falkenstein letter dated October 13, 2019 o Stitham letter dated December 02, 2019 o Fields letter dated December 6, 2019 o Meeting Minutes Draft Historic Commission Minutes 01/08/2020 o Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 12/10/2019 o Planning Action PA-L-2019-00007 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 6 ORDINANCE NO. \[2020-xxxx\] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS PLAZA SPACE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE C-1-D ZONE AND DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS OVERLAY. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are boldlined throughbold underline and additions are in . WHEREAS , Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes policy I-7 which states that,The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. WHEREAS, the downtown area is a historically significant commercial area with considerable pedestrian activity due to its concentration of commercial uses. Most existing historic buildings have frontage directly at the sidewalk edge. Opportunities for infill and redevelopment within this area should develop consistent with this established historic pattern to protect the historic character of the area and promote interaction between the activity in the building and the people on the street. WHEREAS, requirements for plaza space, as part of the design standards for new large scale development and alterations to existing large scale buildings within the downtown, can have the effect of disrupting the historic pattern of development and breaking the continuity of buildings and to the side lot lines. WHEREAS, public plaza spaces used to create a prominent civic component within the downtown area are best placed in identified central locations and highly visible focal points, to provide opportunities for relief and respite from the urban fabric. Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, plaza spaces developed within the downtown area on individual private properties, as part of meeting site design standard requirements, do not function to provide the general public with opportunities for relief and respite from the urban fabric. WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Historic Commission considered the proposed amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinances and Site Design and Use Standards at a regular meeting on January 8, 2020, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS , the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinances and Site Design and Use Standards at a duly advertised public hearing on February 11, 2020, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on March 17, 2020; and WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter. WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects within the Site Design and Use Standards \[Building Placement, Orientation, and Design\] section of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: 18.4.2.040.D. Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. In the Detail Site Review overlay, developments that are greater than 10,000 square feet in gross floor area or contain more than 100 feet of building frontage shall, in addition to complying with the standards for Basic (18.4.2.040.B) and Detail (18.4.2.040.C) Site Review, above, conform to the following standards. See conceptual elevation of large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.1 and conceptual site plan of large scale development in Figure 18.4.2.040.D.2. 1. Orientation and Scale. Page 2 of 5 a. Developments shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building masses or direction, sheltering roofs, a distinct pattern of divisions on surfaces, windows, trees, and small scale lighting. b. Outside of the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings in the Detail Site Review overlay shall conform to the following standards. i. Buildings sharing a common wall or having walls touching at or above grade shall be considered as one building. ii. Buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet as measured outside of the exterior walls and including all interior courtyards. For the purpose of this section an interior courtyard means a space bounded on three or more sides by walls but not a roof. iii. Buildings shall not exceed a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including all interior floor space, roof top parking, and outdoor retail and storage areas, with the following exception. Automobile parking areas located within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. iv. Buildings shall not exceed a combined contiguous building length of 300 feet. c. Inside the Downtown Design Standards overlay, new buildings or expansions of existing buildings shall not exceed a building footprint area of 45,000 square feet or a gross floor area of 45,000 square feet, including roof top parking, with the following exception. Automobile parking areas locate within the building footprint and in the basement shall not count toward the total gross floor area. For the purpose of this section, basement means any floor level below the first story in a building. First story shall have the same meaning as provided in the building code. Public Plaza sStandards 2. Space . Detail Site Review or public a. One square foot of plaza space shall be required for every ten square feet of gross floor area, except for the fourth gross floor area. b. Within the, C-1-D zone or Downtown Design Standards Overlay, no plaza space shall be required. bcor public s ..A plaza space shall incorporate at least four of the following elements. i. Sitting Space at least one sitting space for each 500 square feet shall be included in the plaza. Seating shall be a minimum of 16 inches in height and 30 inches in width. Ledge benches shall have a minimum depth of 30 inches. ii. A mixture of areas that provide both sunlight and shade. iii. Protection from wind by screens and buildings. iv. Trees provided in proportion to the space at a minimum of one tree per 500 square feet, at least two inches in diameter at breast height. Page 3 of 5 v. Water features or public art. vi. Outdoor eating areas or food vendors. 3. Transit Amenities. Transit amenities, bus shelters, pullouts, and designated bike lanes shall be required in accordance with the Ashland Transportation Plan and guidelines established by the Rogue Valley Transportation District. SECTION 3. The Definitions Chapter of Ashland Land Use Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Definitions 18.6.1.P Plaza. An open public space. Detail Site Review Plaza Space: An open area under private ownership intended to meet the requirements of Large Scale Project standards within the Detail Site Review Overlay. SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 5Codification. . Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 4-5) need not be codified. the City Recorder In preparing this ordinance for publication and distribution, shall not alter the sense, meaning, effect, or substance of the ordinance, but within such limitations, may: (a) Renumber sections and parts of sections of the ordinance; (b) Rearrange sections; (c) Change reference numbers to agree with renumbered chapters, sections or other parts; (d) Delete references to repealed sections; (e) Substitute the proper subsection, section, or chapter numbers; (f) Change capitalization and spelling for the purpose of uniformity; (g) Add headings for purposes of grouping like sections together for ease of reference; and (h) Correct manifest clerical, grammatical, or typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code on the _____ day of ________________, 2020, §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2020. _______________________________ Page 4 of 5 Melissa Huhtala, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2020. ____________________________________ John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: _________________________ David Lohman, City Attorney Page 5 of 5 From: Susan Stitham \[mailto:omm1961@gmail.com\] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 2:12 PM To: Bill Molnar <bill.molnar@ashland.or.us> Cc: paulabrown@ashland.or.us Subject: Proposed Change in Downtown Zoning Good afternoon,after reading the column by Jim Falkenstein in today's ASHLAND TIDINGS, I have a number of questions that I was unable to answer by visiting your website. What exactly would be permitted within the designated downtown area that is now prohibited in terms of new construction? Would there be any limits to the heights of buildings? Could existing public space be eliminated by renovation of an older building? I am confident that the members of the Ashland Planning Council are well aware that the charm of Ashland didn't stop being a serious factor in 1993 and that it doesn't come from tall buildings crammed cheek to jowl in uniform lines along the street. And that "charm" is what brings tourists and their money to Ashland businesses, not to mention folks who chose to live here. As a citizen and taxpayer, I would have to hear something a lot more substantial than one commissioner's alleged, very naive, statement:"I feel comfortable that the developers will provide \[public spaces\] at the right spot" in order to support removing the existing requirements which appear to have served Ashland well. I am familiar with the (often undue) influence that developers have on planning commissions in other locations where I have lived; I would not like to think that this is the case here in Ashland. I would appreciate any specific information you could send me in response to my questions at the beginning of this email. Thank you for your attention, Susan Stitham 622 Helman St. John Fields Plaza Space Requirements Letter 12/06/2019 From: John Fields <goldenfields22@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 10:02 AM To: Brandon Goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Subject: Re: Ashland Planning Commission meeting - private plaza spaces topic Hi Brandon You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Plaza space is either beneficial to the developer’s intended use or the city should figure out how create public space. The Mahar building, First place, is a good example of a fenced in private plaza that serves no positive purpose. If it’s public it can serve the general population and really get some use. As private space it is only useable for the one building. I never see it being used. If there is no a dining area or open invitation to enjoy the plaza area it’s gratuitous. I don’t find all the security railing and no trespassing signs around this private space as a Positive contribution to the streetscape or beneficial to the building or downtown. That area probably cost $100,000 in the lost street frontage and improvements. The patrons prefer sitting on the sidewalk. I think public mini park/plaza space is great within dense, urban core but mandating design standards takes a lot of freedom away from the designers that could actually make the intended design better. Buildings “learn” over time. They will either be modified to better accommodate real needs or if so poorly designed they will be redeveloped. That’s how cities grow and great cities are created. It’s a layered cake. I find our mandatory standards are filled with unintended consequences. Guidelines and education are quite beneficial. Social engineering is a a mixed bag and has a very high governmental cost. Even with all our over-site, bad buildings happen. How much worse would they be if we had fewer specific requirements. I guess that’s the risk. I see a major obstacles in how our downtown and city can thrive. Ashland’s marginal and seasonal economy cannot support the quality of buildings required by the growing building code demands, and planning standards. I think plazas need to be public or a space that the building developer sees as intrinsic to the value of their design. Otherwise we are just encouraging superfluous amenities that just drive up cost. I had foot surgery Wednesday and will be out of commission for the next six weeks so I won’t be available to come to the PC study session. My opinion is that we should encourage great building designs and look for opportunities for public space but back off of the mandatory requirements for private space. Our downtown is small enough that we should identify where we want it and look for opportunities for public space and work towards acquiring it. Thanks, John Fields Golden-Fields Construction and Design Ltd. 541-944-2262 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes January 8, 2020 Community Development/Engineering Services Building –51 Winburn Way –Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER: Shostromcalled the meeting to order at 6:00pmin the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present:Council Liaison: SkibbyRich Rosenthal-ABSENT WhitfordStaff Present: Von ChamierMaria Harris; Planning Dept. HovenkampRegan Trapp; Secretary Swink Emery Babin Giordano Shostrom Commissioners Absent:ALL PRESENT APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Whitford motioned to approve minutesfor November 6, 2019.Emery seconded. Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. Giordano abstained. PUBLIC FORUM: Huelz Gutcheon, 2253 Hwy 99, addressed the Commission about placing information regarding conservation on the table outside the Siskiyou Room(ie; solar panels and electricvehicles). COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Council Liaison Rosenthal was absent so no report was given.Trapp sent Commission “City Council Outcomes” via email. DISCUSSION ITEMS:. Update on draft ordinance amendments on downtown plaza requirements Presentation given by Brandon Goldman(shown as exhibit A) o Shostrom opened the public hearing for comments. Jim Falkenstein, 540 Lakota Way,addressed the Commission regarding the draft ordinance. Mr. Falkenstein agrees with the concept but has concernsthat it inhibits development. He went on to say that the Commission needs to address design standards for the draft ordinance before the meeting in February. He would like to see more coordination and discussions with the different Commissions. Shostrom closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments. Giordano motioned to approve the update on draft ordinance amendments. Swink seconded. Voice vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2019-00087 SUBJECT PROPERTY:123 Church Street OWNER/APPLICANT:Judith Barnes/John Green DESCRIPTION:This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the expansion of a structure that is non-conforming with regard to side yard setbacks as provided in AMC 18.1.4.030.B. The applicant proposes an approximate 525 square foot addition to the rear of the house. The existing house sits approximately 33” from the southern property line where there is a standard of six-feet.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single-Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5;ASSESSOR’S MAP #:391E08AA; TAX LOT:3700 Shostromrecusedhimself from the hearing due to ex-parte contact. Harris gave the staff report for PA-T1-2019-00087. Skibby opened the public hearing for PA-T1-2019-00087. The applicant for PA-T1-2019-00087 was not present. Skibbyclosed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for their comments. After a short discussionregarding eaves, fire code issues, setback from property lines, and the reason for the variance being ADA accessibility, the Commission rendered their decision. Emery motioned toapprovePA-T1-2019-00087with recommendations(see below).Hovenkamp seconded. Voice vote. ALL AYES.Motion passed RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 123 Church: The Historic Commission recommends approving the application, specifically including the two hand drawn elevations received 12/20/2019, as proposed with the following recommendations. The Historic Commission does not recommend approval of elevations A2 and A3 dated 12/18/2019 and received 12/20/2019 because of inconsistencies with the depiction of the existing structure and with the applicable standards for Historic District Development. Historic District Design Standards(AMC 18.4.2.050.B) 7. Rhythm of Openings. RECOMMENDEDAVOID Pattern or rhythm of wall to door/window A pattern or rhythm of window/door openings on the primary façade or other openings that is inconsistent with visually prominent elevation is maintained. adjacent historic buildings. Maintain compatiblewidth-to-height ratio of bays in the façade. It is unclear from the application whether the second-story windows on the north elevation will be altered,removed or replaced. The Historic Commission recommends size, style, casing, proportion and spacing of any changes to the second story windows match the existing structure, as well as the pattern of window/door openings on the proposed addition match theexisting structure. Rehabilitation Standards for Existing Buildings and Additions(AMC 18.4.2.050.C.2) b. Original architectural features shall be restored as much as possible, when those features can be documented. The fascia and frieze and trim and corner boards should match the type and size on the existing building. c. Replacement finishes on exterior walls of historic buildings shall match the original finish. Exterior finishes on new additions to historic buildings shall be compatible with but not replicate, the finish of the historic building. The Historic Commission recommends the addition match the siding on the existing building. g. Replacement windows in historic buildings shall match the original windows. Windows in new additions shall be compatible in proportion, shape and size, but not replicate original windows in the historic building. The Historic Commission recommends the window style (i.e., single-hung, double-hung) and size match the windows on the existing building. Vinyl windows may be used but the Historic Commission recommends using a color other than bright white. The Historic Commission recommends the window and door casings should match the type and size on the existing building. Other The Historic Commission recommends checking with a design professional or City of Ashland Building Division regarding fire safety requirements since the addition is proposed at 36” from the property line (e.g., treatment for eaves closer than 36” from property line, wall treatment, window/door requirements). NEW ITEMS: Review board schedule. Project assignments for planning actions. Historic Preservation Week, May 17–232020 thrd Awards Ceremony–Pioneer Hall, May 19, 2020 –Ceremony to start at 12:30pm. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Shostrom gave an updateon the map project. Babin brought up growing concerns about the City Hall project. OLD BUSINESS: Harris discussed the appeal filed for145 N. Mainand the process involved. Review Board Schedule January 9thTerry, Ellen, Tom January 16thTerry, Ellen, Piper January 23rdTerry, Sam, Bill January 30thTerry, Beverly, Dale February 6thTerry, Keith (will fill as needed) Project Assignments for Planning Actions PA-2017-00235114 Granite/ 9 Nutley –Work has started Shostrom PA-2017-00200165 Water –Extension to PA submitted ALL PA-2017-01294128 Central–Work has started Emery & Swink PA-2017-02351/ 00026549 E. Main –WorkhasstartedSwink & Emery PA-T1-2018-00033160 Helman –No building permitShostrom PA-T1-2018-00038111 Bush –No building permitWhitford PA-T1-2019-00050346 Scenic Drive–Plans in reviewEmery PA-T1-2019-00052533 Rock–Permit issuedBabin PA-T2-2019-00009158, 160, 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel StreetShostrom PA-T1-2019-00064176 HarrisonSwink PA-T1-2019-0006759 Sixth Street Skibby PA-T1-2019-00051154 Oak StreetWhitford PA-T1-2019-00080145 N. MainWhitford PA-T1-2019-00087123 Church StreetHovenkamp ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled February 5, 2020 at 6:00pm There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at8:26pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp PlanningCommission 2/11/2020 o o o o 24 57 Historic MultiStory Publicȟ0±¨µ ³¤GroundFloorAreaDesign Development Development UseImplications Pattern 68 911 1012 1315 1416 1719 1820 21 22 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 10, 2019 I. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Melanie Mindlin Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar the City Council was rescheduled to December 17, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.November 12, 2019 Regular Meeting Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of November 12, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke on electric vehicles and solar panels. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00015 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 459 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC/Laz Ayala DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 13,816 square foot, two- story mixed-use building on the property located at 459 Russell Street (Lot 2 of the Falcon Heights subdivision). The proposed building will include a 4,837 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and a total of 13 residential studio units (497 s.f.) on the ground and second floors. The application includes a Property Line Adjustment between Lots 1 and 2, and an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards in order to utilize existing parking installed with the subdivision which does not comply with more recent parking lot treatment standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.B.5. \[The current application would supersede the previously approved PA-T2-2018-00001 which granted approval to consolidate Lots 1 and 2 of the subdivision to develop a single 22,469 square foot building. The current proposal also illustrates conceptual development of Lot 1 with floor plans, elevations and Ashland Planning Commission December 10, 2019 Page 1 of 3 landscape details, but these are conceptual and not being reviewed or approved here.\] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1, Detail Site Review Overlay; Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commission Harper and Chair Pearce declared no ex parte. Commissioner Norton, Brown and Thompson had no ex parte and one site visit. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte but had run past the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached): Proposal. Proposed Landscape Plan. Vicinity Map. Elevation Drawings. Falcon Heights Subdivision. Proposed Floor Plans. 2006 Aerial photo. Standard A Solar Shadow Study. Lot illustrations and photos. Parking Calculation. Elevation Drawings. Key Points for Staff. Site Plan. Clear Creek Drive plaza space illustration. Proposed Utility & Drainage Plan. Staff recommended approved with the Conditions in the draft findings. Questions of Staff - None Mark Knox/Ashland/Spoke to the proposal and provided background on why they went back to their original plan of phased building. They had no issues with the Conditions. The proposal would build thirteen units under 500 square feet (sq. ft.). Laz Ayala/Ashland/Spoke to housing trends getting smaller. The proposal would build housing the city lacked. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Knox confirmed there were two separate lots with most of the density on one. They would have a deed restriction specifying density as well as commercial and plaza space. Commissioner Harper suggested making the condition for the deed restriction clear. Mr. Ayala clarified the intent was having two one-story buildings. The second building would have 30% residential and 70% commercial on the ground level. Building would occur in phases. Public Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Harper/Norton m/s to approve PA-T2-2019-00015, as presented by staff with the Conditions. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Pearce, Norton, Brown, Dawkins, Harper and Thompson, YES. Motion passed. Ashland Planning Commission December 10, 2019 Page 2 of 3 VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Requirements for plaza space in the Downtown Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay and C-1-D zone Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation (see attached): Detail Site Review Overlay Plaza Space Requirements Downtown. Existing Plaza Space Standards. Detail Site Review Overlay Applicability. Downtown Applicability. Downtown Applicability C-1-D Zone. Discussion Items; Public-Private Use, Ground Floor Area, Historic Development Pattern, Multi Story Development, Design Implications. Option 1: 18.4.2.040.D.b would eliminate the requirement for any private plaza space in the downtown area for new or redeveloped buildings. Option 2: 18.4.2.040.D.b would require one square foot of plaza space in the downtown area to apply to the area of the ground floor only, for a building 10,000 square feet or greater. Timeline for Public Hearings (2020). Mr. Molnar provided legislative history on the large-scale development standards. Commissioner Thompson voiced concern it would increase density and parking challenges. She suggested having a downtown parking analysis done or establishing an LID to resolve potential parking issues. Staff would include the suggestion in the recommendation to City Council. Parking was not required on the north side of Lithia Way. On the south side of Lithia Way in the C-1- D zone it was not required Commissioner Brown explained why Option 1 was more viable. Current plaza areas in the downtown were under used or over used depending on the time of the day or year. He supported having the building facades flush with the street. Overhangs would change the vertical sense of the city. Public Testimony Barry Thalden/Ashland/Submitted a document into the record (see attached). He explained why he supported eliminating the plaza space requirement. Mark Knox/Ashland/Agreed with Mr. Thalden Option 1. Laz Ayala/Ashland/Supported changing the plaza requirements. He addressed parking concerns. Transportation needs would rely more on shared transportation in the future eliminating the need for more parking. The Commission discussed their support of Option 1. Commissioner Harper/Brown m/s to recommend to City Council Option 1 as outlined by staff including Commission comments. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Norton suggested a future study session that would look at improvements to existing parking, then address future parking needs. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission December 10, 2019 Page 3 of 3 o o o o AshlandPlanningCommission 12/10/2019 2 4 56 Historic Publicȟ0±¨µ ³¤GroundFloorAreaMultiStoryDesign Development UseDevelopmentImplications Pattern 78 910 11