The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-07-09 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 July 9, 2019 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. June 11, 2019 Regular Meeting 2. June 25, 2019 Special Meeting V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00009, 158-165.5 N Laurel Street VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00008 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Map 39 1E 11C Tax Lot #2504 on Engle St/Map 39 1E 11C Tax Lot #2505 on Villard St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County/HAJC Development/Dan Horton, Architect DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a for 60-unit multi-family development on two tax lots (#2504 & #2505) along Villard proposal consists of four two-story eight-plex apartment buildings and seven two- story townhouse four-plexes. Units will consist of ten one-bedroom flats, 12 two- bedroom flats, ten three-bedroom flats, and 28 two-bedroom townhomes. The application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree, an approximately 24-inch diameter Deodar Cedar (cedrus deodara) which the project arborist describes as posing a hazard. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; LOT: 2504 & 2505. PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A LIMITED RE-OPENING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING to allow testimony from property owners in the McCall Drive Condominiums who did not receive the original Notice of Public Hearing and have not participated in the land use hearing process to date, and five minutes of rebuttal by the applicant. 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). 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. VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00010 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 185-197 Lithia Way OWNER/APPLICANT: Randy Jones/First Place Partners, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a new mixed-use building on Lots #2 and #3 of the First Place subdivision at 185-197 Lithia Way, on the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. The proposal includes consolidation of the two lots and construction of a 32,191 square foot, three-story mixed-use building consisting of basement parking, ground floor commercial, and 34 residential units distributed between the ground, second and third floors to serve as Oregon Shakespeare Festival artist housing. The application includes requests to modify the common area landscaping and parking configuration to better accommodate the Design Standards to allow for balconies on the front of the building and windows that are more horizontal than vertical. ( A nearly identical proposal - but with only 15 residential units - was approved in 2015 but has subsequently expired. Phase One, a three-story 18,577 square foot mixed-use building (Plaza West) consisting of basement parking, commercial and residential space on the first floor and residential space on the second and third floors was completed on the adjacent property at 175 Lithia Way in 2015 and currently houses Pony Espresso and the Washington ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; Federal bank. 10102 & 10103 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 June 11, 2019 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Alan Harper Derek Severson, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Michael Dawkins Stefani Seffinger, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Commission would have a Special Meeting June 25, 2019 for a public hearing on the Trails Master Plan. There were two public hearings scheduled for their meeting, July 9, 2019. During the Retreat June 10, 2019, the Commission discussed using Study Sessions for additional site visits. Chair Pearce noted the City Council passed the amendment to the Housing Element at their meeting June 18, 2019. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of Minutes 1.May 14, 2019 Regular Meeting 2.May 28, Study Session Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of May 14, 2019 as corrected. DISCUSSION: Chair Pearce made a correction under CALL TO ORDER changing Chair Pearce to Vice Chair Melanie Mindlin. He was not at the meeting. Chair Pearce abstained from the vote. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioners Brown/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of May 28, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Mark Brouillard/Ashland/Read from a document (see attachment) submitted into the record opposing the current building plans for 160 Helman Street. Steven Crowthers/Ashland/Read from a document (see attachment) submitted into the record regarding road connectivity for the proposed Cowan Ranch development. Sheri Cellini/Ashland/Spoke against the Cowan Ranch development citing traffic issues and pedestrian safety. She wanted crosswalks, sidewalks and the school zone requirement of 20 miles per hour extended. Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 1 of 7 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00009 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 158, 160, 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Laurel Cottages, LLC/Kim Locklin & Vadim Agakhanov DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 924 square foot duplex at the rear of the property, the conversion of 372 square feet of a 704 square foot garage into an apartment, and the creation of a duplex from the existing single-family residence for the property located at 158, 160, 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel Street. There are currently four units on the property including one studio; the proposal would add four units including one new unit in the existing house fronting on Laurel, a 372 square foot apartment in the garage, and two units in the duplex. The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area (MPFA) in a historic district by 24.8 percent. (The MPFA for the property is 4,888 square feet. The existing floor area on the property is approximately 5,175 square feet, and as proposed the site would have 6,099 square feet of floor area.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R- 04CC; TAX LOT: 3400. Chair Pearce read the public hearing rules. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Brown, Mindlin and Harper declared no ex parte contact. Commissioner Thompson and Norton had no ex parte and one site visit. Chair Pearce declared no ex parte and that he drove past the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attachment) that described the proposal. The applicants would pave the lawn area to accommodate a driveway from the alley. Staff recommended a Condition that would ensure the transition from the alley into the garage met City code. Staff supported the action with several Conditions. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson addressed the transition from the alley to the garage. The Condition would remove a four-inch raise of bricks between the alley and driveway to create a standard flat transition. Commission comment thought the Condition should be very clear. Condition 13(e) would require the applicants to repair any damage to the alley from construction in front of the subject properties. Changing the traffic flow in the alley was under the purview of the Transportation Commission. There were two existing parking spaces currently at 166 ½ that backed out to Laurel Street with another space that would back out into the alley. Kim Locklin/Laurel Cottages/Amy Gunter /Rogue Planning and Development Services/Ms. Locklin represented Vadim Agakhanov who was unable to attend the meeting. They addressed the Commission regarding the project and described the proposal. Ms. Gunter noted po recommendations in Condition #6. One was using HardiePlank® instead of cottage lap siding. There might be asbestos under the vinyl siding and abatement would be expensive. The owner thought the cost was unreasonable considering the previous state of the property, the proposed renovation and other improvements they would make. full glass swinging doors instead There were issues with the patio doors involving leaking and sagging. The sliding doors would not be visible to the public and would not inhibit unit space. Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 2 of 7 The final concern was adding windows to the bedrooms on the north and south side elevations. It would impact privacy. There were parking spaces for other units by the bedrooms as well as noise, odor and glare. The south windows would create additional heat as well. The proposal would grade and maintain the alley for vehicular access to the garage. The applicants would also install a French drain if needed. Questions of the Applicant Ms. Gunter clarified they would install a garage door for the one car garage and it would face the alley. The applicant proposed a gate on the walkway next to the carport to access the recycling enclosure. The tenants would roll the recycling and garage carts out to the street on pick-up days. Recology could provide commercial pick-up but the hours were not conducive to residential living due to early collection times. The preferred method was tenants rolling the carts to either Laurel Street or the alley for pick-up service. She confirmed the enclosure would include recycling and trash. Ms. Locklin further explained trash can placement. There was enough space adjacent to the carport to have numerous cans. Ms. Gunter explained there were four recommendations from the Historic Commission the property owner thought would cause financial and design ramifications. Ms. Locklin asked the Commission to change three of the Conditions. They were the conditions to use HardiePlank® siding, the full glass swinging doors instead of sliding doors and the window recommendations on the south and north walls. The cost of installing HardiePlank® siding would impact unit interior space. Ms. Gunter clarified the conditions of approval were tied to Historic Design Standards. These buildings were non-contributing historic buildings. The rationale for windows on the south wall was it would add cohesiveness. The wall was highly visible. The applicants were changing the room into a bedroom. The windows would increase heat during the summer. Ms. Locklin clarified the sliding doors were in smaller units and would help preserve space. Both doors faced the back of the property. For the window on the south wall, Mr. Agakhanov wanted larger oversized windows in the front with a solid wall on the south for privacy and the bed wall. Mr. Molnar provided procedural guidance. The CUP promoted compatible building volume and scale in the Historic District. In addition to the CUP criteria, it referred to the application of Historic Design Standards. In the Historic d the specific standards for each request. Mr. Molnar understood the facing side. The applicant made the argument that the sliding doors were difficult to view. He reviewed the code requirement for HardiePlank® siding that replacement would match the exterior finish. However, this was a non-contributing historic structure currently with plastic or vinyl siding. Commissioner Thompson commented on CUP 3(c) regarding the architectural impact in the area. The tradeoff with the MPFA access was improvements to the neighborhood since the frontage would be upgraded. Public Testimony David Campbell/Ashland/Explained his back property abutted the proposed property line. They would have the duplex, trash enclosure and parking behind them. He supported the Historic District Code as written. He opposed the project because of the variance to increase the MPFA that the existing buildings already exceeded. It would have a negative impact on the quality of life. He wanted the parking closer to the alley. Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Regina Ayers/Ashland/Owned property almost across from some of the existing buildings. She sent an email (see packet materials) to City Staff and the Commission Chair regarding three concerns. One was damage to the alley and who was responsible for repairs and maintenance. The second was parking and removing green space to accommodate the parking lot. The third was providing public space for the tenants. She had suggested one-way traffic flow down the alley and noted there were two intersections on the alley for Bush and Central. There would be additional traffic generated from the project. Haylene Campbell/Ashland/Noise was already a concern. The bicycle parking, vehicle parking and trash was close to her backyard. Her backyard was lower than the subject property and she was concerned about rain runoff from the asphalt. Parking on Laurel Street could be tedious. She supported development but had concerns it would infringe on her quality of life. Her salon was on the corner of the property. Eventually she and her husband would live there and it was too close to the subject property. Mark Brouillard/Ashland/Was told by the Street Department to come to the Planning Commission about the alley. He wanted the alley regraded correctly. It used to be decomposed granite but the City had changed to grounded asphalt that created potholes. The City had built up 17-inches of grade over the years. He wanted the alley brought back to its original grade. He opposed changing the traffic flow in the alley to a one-way lane. He went on to confirm that Recology did pick up trash and recyclables in the alley. Rebuttal by Applicant Ms. Gunter clarified it was a CUP and not a Variance and the CUP criteria included quality of life. The project had two less units that decreased impact to quality of life. They were required to provide 1,600 sq. ft. for open space. The applicants exceeded that requirement with 2,584 sq. ft. that included decks, patios, garden and lawn areas. Regarding the concern of storm water and flow onto adjacent properties, all new construction connected to the stormwater facilities. All parking areas were required to have impervious surfaces to address those standards with onsite detention or catch basins or something similar. There was adequate space for eight trash cans in the trash/recycling enclosure area. There was enough space for 16 cans in the covered bike area with a one-foot wide walkway. In the area behind 160, there was the potential to house 4 to five cans. She addressed the CUP, exterior finishes and meeting the Historic District Standards. The applicant thought there were substantial improvements to the property that exceeded the standards through the installation of new utilities, windows, doors, and new siding and should not require higher expense materials. For parking lot glare onto the neighboring properties there was an existing 6-foot fence along the north property line. The applicant was adhering to the standard 8-foot separation. The area was slated for a garden bed and Ms. Gunter thought they could plant an additional vegetation screen as well. Commission comment thought the applicant could do landscaping on the edges and possibly add a small fence by the parking spaces. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Severson explained the applicant was at 75% coverage. Commissioner Mindlin questioned if there was a standard to redesign the parking lot to reduce impervious surface. Mr. Molnar thought it was challenging and the existing structures limited the configuration of the parking area. Chair Pearce closed Public Hearing and the record. Commissioners Harper/Brown m/s to approvePA-T2-2019-00009 consistent with the staff recommendations removing the HardiePlank®nd removing the third bullet sliders with swinging Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 4 of 7 the staff Condition asking for additional vehicular light screening along parking spaces 4, 5 and 6. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Mindlin appreciated parsing the Historic Commission recommendations. She wanted to know if they could verify there was adequate screening. Commissioner Norton wanted to add a Condition that the trash and recycle plan be submitted to staff for approval. Commissioner Harper suggested compliance with adequate Severson confirmed the transition to the garage from the alley was included in the recommended Conditions of staff. Commissioner Brown did not want to add the amendment regarding adequate trash screening to the motion. It could become a point of contention. Additionally, things could change, and it already met City requirements. Commissioner Norton commented he could not look at the plan and see it was in compliance. Commissioner Brown understood and still disagreed. Commissioner Mindlin commented they had enough space for trash. They were small units and would not produce a lot of garbage. Mr. Molnar noted the City relied on Ashland Sanitary. The issue with this project was they were right up against maximum lot coverage. If they were incorrect and needed to create more space, they would need a modification. They were probably covered by the current site plan. They had contacted Ashland Sanitary and identified spaces that would accommodate the need. Commissioner Harper noted the amendment could not be added because the second had disagreed. Commissioner Norton withdrew his amendment. Chair Pearce supported eliminating the requirement for smooth HardeiPlank® board and the Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Mindlin, Harper, Brown, Thompson, swinging glass doors. Norton, and Pearce, YES. Motion passed. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00008 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Map 39 1E 11C Tax Lot #2504 on Engle St/Map 39 1E 11C Tax Lot #2505 on Villard St. OWNER/APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County/HAJC Development/Dan Horton, Architect DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a for 60-unit multi-family development on two tax lots (#2504 & #2505) along Villard and consists of four two-story eight-plex apartment buildings and seven two-story townhouse four-plexes. Units will consist of ten one-bedroom flats, 12 two-bedroom flats, ten three- bedroom flats, and 28 two-bedroom townhomes. The application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree, an approximately 24-inch diameter Deodar Cedar (cedrus deodara) which the project arborist describes as posing a hazard. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R- Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Brown, Harper, and Thompson declared no ex parte. Commissioners Mindlin and Norton had no ex parte and one site visit. Chair Pearce declared no ex parte and had driven past the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attachment) that described Phase II of the Snowberry Brook development. He spoke to road connectivity in the area with a focus on McCall Drive. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommended limiting McCall Drive to bicycles, pedestrians and emergency vehicles. Removable bollards would provide access to emergency vehicles as needed. The connection was identified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the right-of-way was already dedicated. The City would pay for the connection. Staff recommended requiring alley-level improvements for McCall Drive. The applicants would work with the Public Works Department and the Transportation Commission on whether restricting motor vehicles was appropriate. Mr. Severson described the Tree Protection Plan. A wetland delineation determined there were no jurisdictional wetlands in the study area. Staff recommended approval of the application. Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Questions of Staff The Commission asked questions regarding the McCall Drive extension. Mr. Severson explained the bollards would be where the terminus was now. Currently, there were two trees preventing traffic from moving forward. Cars driving to that area would experience the same situation they were encountering now. The area was signed as no parking but parking was happening. The Transportation Commission would review the area and determine placement of the bollards and appropriate signage. Limiting the extension to pedestrians, bicycles and emergency vehicles might help with neighborhood objections but the sense was the neighbors did not want any form of connectivity. The connection was identified in the TSP as a need. It would require Transportation Commission and City Council action to abandon the extension. It would need to be paved to accommodate emergency vehicle access. The City Street Standards, a multi-use pathway standard was paved but narrower. It allowed two-way traffic for bicycles and pedestrians. Currently, no one was enforcing parking. There were concerns on the setbacks for McCall Drive being 5 feet from two units. Mr. Severson clarified McCall Drive was planned as part of the development and that included the setbacks. It was planned and platted to go through. The Performance Standards did allow an internal setback less than the standard. Alley Standards at times allowed buildings to be 4-feet from an alley. It was an alley but functioning as a driveway with a 20- foot width that would be blocked to through traffic with bollards. Ryan Hanks, Director of Real Estate Development/Housing Authority of Jackson County/Don Horton, Architect/Phase I and Phase II/Spoke to the demand for affordable housing in Ashland and shared study results published on the City of Ashland website. Currently, the wait list for the existing Snowberry Brook was over four years long. He described the 60-unit development. The application complied with all the habitable, clear and objective provisions of the zoning requirements. They participated in multiple conversations with Bob Alessandrelli, the president of the McCall Condominium Association. Their primary concern was through access on McCall Drive. The applicants supported the recommendation to bollard off the road. They were also trying to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Building height was 27-feet instead of 35-feet. They were allowed up to 65% building coverage and stayed substantially below that at 54%. Landscape coverage was higher at 38%. The density maximum was 68 units and the applicants were proposing sixty. Parking was reduced to 107 spaces. The project met the housing requirements. Questions of the Applicant - None Commissioners Harper/Thompson m/s to extend the Public Hearing 30 minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Public Testimony Russ Dale/Ashland/Explained he had l ived in Ashland since 1975. He had built over 200 homes in the subject property area. When he designed his project, he had fought not to have any connectivity and lost. It was a bad idea. He thought the use of bollards to dissuade pedestrian traffic was insane. It had been a nightmare since Phase I was built due to increased pedestrian traffic on McCall Drive. There was also an increase in trash on McCall Drive that had cost them a lot of money to clean up. He described his definition of bollards and emphasized they did not want those people walking through any part of McCall Drive. The project would heavily impact 60-70 people. He went on to speak to his determination to keep the proposal from going through his project. Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Kathleen Stiple/Ashland/Was one of the owners of the adjacent project on the southern boundary. She reviewed the Planning Action file earlier and that allayed a few of her concerns. She was still concerned with the onsite parking lot noise and lighting. Another concern was the basketball court that could be loud. Her last concern was setbacks from her property line. It looked like Building E was the closest to the southern property line. She was not sure why there was so much setback from Villard Street. Rebuttal by Applicant Mr. Horton explained the setback for Building E from the southern property line was just over 29-feet. The applicants were proposing a solid wood fence behind the parking area to prevent headlights from shining onto property. The basketball court was located on the south corner. It was a nice large open space with good solar access. They made an attempt to keep it away from south property line by 20-feet with extensive landscape as a buffer between the properties. Mr. Dale requested to leave the record open. The record would be kept open for three one-week periods. The first week would allow any party to submit relevant evidence or argument until 4:30 p.m. on June 18, 2019. The second week, any party could submit material strictly in response to the material submitted during the first period ending 4:30 p.m. on June 25, 2019. The third week would allow only the applicant to submit a final argument but no additional evidence by 4:30 p.m. July 2, 2019. The Planning Commission would make a decision at their meeting July 9, 2019. Deliberations & Decision The Commission discussed alternatives to McCall Drive. There were no other alternatives to consider. The City did not have an additional right-of-way in the area and the path was in the TSP. During the TSP discussions, the path was considered problematic. It was not in the purview of the Commission and would require action by the City Council. The Commission had no other issues with the proposal. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 11, 2019 Page 7 of 7 7/3/2019 Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street158-166 North Laurel Street –Vicinity Map Planning Commission Hearing June 11, 2019 Laurel Cottages Laurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street -Proposal 158-166 North Laurel Street -Existing SiteDesignReviewapprovaltoallowtheconstructionofa924squarefootduplexattherear oftheproperty,theconversionof372squarefeetofa704squarefootgarageintoan apartment,andthecreationofaduplexfromtheexistingsingle-familyresidenceforthe propertylocatedat158,160,166and166½NorthLaurelStreet. Therearecurrentlyfourunitsonthepropertyincludingonestudio. Theproposaladdsfourunitsincluding:onenewunitintheexistinghousefrontingon Laurel,a372squarefootapartmentinthegarage,andtwounitsintheduplex. ConditionalUsePermittoexceedthemaximumpermittedfloorarea(MPFA)inahistoric districtby24.8percent.TheMPFAforthepropertyis4,888squarefeet.Theexistingfloor areaonthepropertyisapproximately5,175squarefeet,andasproposedthesitewouldhave 6,099squarefeetoffloorareawiththeadditionofthe924squarefootduplex. Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street -Proposed158-166 North Laurel Street –166 N. Laurel St. 1,534 Sq. Ft. 3-BR House –Convert to Duplex (1-BR Apt. & 2 BR Apt.) 1 7/3/2019 Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street –166½ N. Laurel St.158-166 North Laurel Street –160 N. Laurel St. Existing Studio Apt. Above 2 Car Garage –Convert to Duplex (Studio + 372 Sq. Ft. 1BR) 160 North Laurel Street 704 Sq. Ft. Apt. 1 Car Garage/Storage Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street –Driveway & Interior158-166 North Laurel Street –158 N Laurel St. 158 North Laurel Street 1,060 Sq. Ft. 3-BR Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street –Proposed Duplex158-166 North Laurel Street –Manager’s Office Proposed New Duplex Two 462 Sq. Ft. Apt’s. Exempt from MPFA Calc’s 2 7/3/2019 Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street –Landscape Plan158-166 North Laurel Street –Utility Plan Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street -Density158-166 North Laurel Street -Parking R-3 Thesubjectpropertyiszoned,whichallowsabasedensityof20dwellingunits Theapplicanthasprovidedcalculationsshowingthatatotalof11off-streetparking peracre. spacesarerequiredfortheproposal.Twospacesaretobeprovidedintheexisting Thepropertyis20,000squarefeetinareaor0.459acres,andassuchhasabase garage,oneintheexistingdrivewayoffofNorthLaurel,oneinacoveredcarportat160 \[0.459acresx20d.u./acre=9.18d.u.\] densityof9dwellingunits. NorthLaurel,andsevenspacesaretobeprovidedinanewproposedsurfaceparking Theproposalwouldaddfournewunitstothefourexistingunits. lotaccessedfromthealley.Noon-streetparkingcreditsarerequested.Bicycleparking Oneoftheexistingunitsandthreeofthefournewunitsarelessthan500squarefeet willbeprovidedinthegaragesandinanewcoveredbicycleparkingstructure. ingrosshabitablefloorareaandareconsideredtobe¾-unitsfordensitypurposes, \[(4x1 sotheproposeddensityis7unitswhichislessthantheallowedbasedensity d.u.)+(4x0.75d.u.)=7.0d.u.\] . Becausethepropertyiswithinahistoricdistrict,itisnotsubjecttoaminimumdensity requirement. Laurel Cottages Laurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street –Streets 158-166 North Laurel Street NorthLaurelStreet isaresidentialneighborhoodcollectorstreet,andcitystandards Neighboring Property Owner Regina Ayars’ Concerns envisionfive-footsidewalks,seven-footparkrowplantingstrips,asix-inchcurb,seven- 1.Hugepotholesongravelalleymademyheavytrucksduringconstruction. footparkingbaysoneachside,andnine-toten-foottravellanesoneachside.Thecity- Whoisresponsibleforfixingtheseholes-thecityortheconstructioncompany?Therearealwayspotholesonthisalley whetherthereisconstructionornot.ThecityhasreluctantlyfixedthealleyseveraltimesbutonlyafterIhaverepeatedlycalled standardcross-sectionincludesa22-to34-footcurb-to-curbpavedwidthwithina49-to them.TheprojectapprovedlastyearandnotyetcompletedthatIreferredtoabovehascreatedhugepotholesattheHelman dependentontheon-streetparkingconfiguration 61-footright-of-way,. endofthealley.Beforethisprojectisapprovedforoccupancy,Iamhopingthatthepotholeswillbefixed.Myconcernisthat withthisnewprojectwearegoingtohavethesameproblemattheLaurelendofthealley.Iwantthecityorthecontractorto agreetofixthedamagedonetothegravelalley. Theexistingcurb-to-curbpavedwidthalongthefrontageis33feet,andtheright-of-way SeeCondition#13e.128Centralprojectalsoincludesanalleyimprovementplantobecompletedfollowing widthalongthecorridoris60-feet. construction. 2.Parking Therearecurbs,gutters,paving,six-footparkrowplantingstripsandfive-footsidewalks Asyoucanimagineparkingonasinglelanegravelalleycanbeachallenge.Idonotknowhowmanyparkingspaceswere Asaconditionof inplacealongthepropertyfrontage,buttherearenostreettrees. approvedforthe2018projectbutIamassumingthatthosecarswillhaveoffstreetparking.Thereisamultiunitcomplex acrossthealleyandtheyappeartohavesufficientoffstreetparking.MyquestionwillbehowmuchoffstreetparkingwillPA- approval,citystandardstreettreeswillneedtobeplantedintheparkrowplanting T2-2019-00009have? stripalongNorthLaurelStreet. 11spacesrequired;11spacesprovided.Nocreditsorreductionsrequested. 3.TrafficFlow Rightnowtrafficmovesbothdirectionsandpeoplejustpullovertoleteachotherpass.Afterboththeseprojectsarecomplete therewillbeoveradozennewunits(notsureaboutthisnumberbutatleast10).Shouldthisalleybemadeoneway? Changing established traffic flow would typically be a request considered by the Transportation Commission, but generally staff would have concerns that one-way circulation would reduce driver attentiveness and increase speeds. 3 7/3/2019 Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street -Alley158-166 North Laurel Street -MPFA MPFA Withinthehistoricdistrict,eachpropertyhasaMaximumPermittedFloorArea() basedonthelotsizeandnumberofunitsproposed.Applicantsmayrequesttoexceed CUP theMPFAbyupto25percentwithaConditionalUsePermit().Theapplication hereincludesarequestforaCUPtoexceedtheMPFAby24.8percent.Theexisting developmentalreadyexceedstheMaximumPermittedFloorArea,andtheadditional proposedoveragehereislimitedtotheadditionofa924squarefootduplexwhichisto (TheMPFAforthepropertyis4,888squarefeet.The providetwosmallrentalunits. existingfloorareaonthepropertyisapproximately5,175squarefeet,andasproposed thesitewouldhave6,099squarefeetoffloorarea.) RecommendedCondition#13e:Thatmaintenanceofthealley,includingrepairofany damagecausedduringconstruction,shallbecarriedoutbytheapplicantconcurrentlywith completionofconstruction.ThealleyshallbegradedtothestandardsrequiredbytheAshland PublicWorksDepartmentforthefullpropertyfrontage,andanypotholesorotherdamage causedinthefullalleycorridorduringconstructionrepaired,priortotheissuanceofa certificateofoccupancy,andshallbemaintainedtoprovideatleasta12-footwidedriving surfaceabletowithstand44,000lbs.withthefullalleywidthmaintainedtoaverticalclearance of13-feet,6-inches. Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel St. –Historic Recommendations158-166 North Laurel St. –Tree Recommendations The Historic Commission recommends approving the application as proposed approving The Tree Commission recommends the application subject to the following: with the following recommendations: 1.Alltreeprotectionmaterialsshallbeinstalledpriortothecommencementof construction. AMC Sidingshouldbesmoothhardyplankwithfive-inchorlessexposure( 2.Alltreeprotectionmaterialsshallremaininplaceuntilconstructioniscomplete. 18.4.2.050.C.2.c ). Windowtrimshouldbeforcornerboards4½-to5½-inches,casing4-to4½-inches, AMC18.4.2.050.C.2.g head5½-incheswithsillandapron(). AMC18.4.2.050.B.11 Replacesliderswithswingingfullglassdoors(). Windowtrimshouldbeoff-white,puttycoloredorcolored,andwindowsshouldhave AMC18.4.2.050.C.2&18.4.2.030.E nosimulateddividedlights(). or Single,double-hungwindowspairofdouble-hungwindowsshouldbeadded AMC symmetricallyforeachbedroomonsouthandnorthsideelevations( 18.4.2.050.B.7 ). Laurel CottagesLaurel Cottages 158-166 North Laurel Street –Additional Conditions158-166 North Laurel Street Planning Commission Hearing Staffwouldrecommendadditionalconditionstoensurethatanybarrierstoaccessing thegarageparkingspacefromthealleyinto160NorthLaurelStreetberemovedpriorto June 11, 2019 occupancy,andthatavisionclearanceareabepreservedandmaintainedatthe AMC18.24.040.A alley/drivewayintersectionwithNorthLaurelStreetpursuantto. 4 Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II June 11, 2019 Planning Commission HearingThe Proposal • Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 60-unit multi-family development on two tax lots (#2504 & #2505) along Villard and Engle Streets as Phase II of the existing ‘Snowberry Brook’ development. Four two-story 8-plex apartment buildings Seven two-story townhouse 4-plexes. Units will consist of ten 1-bedroom flats, 12 2-bedroom flats, ten 3-bedroom flats, and 28 2-bedroom townhomes. • The application includes a request for Tree Removal Permits to remove three trees: One 24-inch diameter Deodar Cedar (cedrus deodara) which the project arborist describes as posing a hazard. Two 13-to 14-inch scrub almonds in poor condition located in the path of the required sidewalk improvements. • The application also includes proposals for density bonuses because all units are to be built to Earth Advantage® Gold standards and all units are to be deed-restricted as affordable housing. Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II Vicinity MapSite Plan Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook ContextPhase I Snowberry BrookSnowberry Brook, Ph. I Phase IPlanning Commission Site Visit before Occupancy… Snowberry Brook, Ph. ISnowberry Brook, Ph. II StreetscapeTypical Elevations Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II DensityParking ThebasedensityintheR-2zoningdistrictallowsfor13½dwellingunitsperacre.The \[3.35acresx13.5 subjectproperties’3.35acresallowabasedensityof45.2units du/acre=45.225du \],andtheapplicantisproposingdensitybonusesforproviding 35percent15percent affordablehousing()andforconservationhousing()allowinga 45.225dux1.50=67.8375 50percentincreaseinthebasedensityor67.8units\[\].60 unitsareproposed,andconditionshavebeenincludedtorequirethatallunitsbedeed restrictedasaffordableandcertifiedasEarthAdvantage®Goldtoqualifyforthe requesteddensitybonuses. 105 Off-Street Parking Spaces required for the 60 units proposed. The applicant proposes 86 surface parking spaces and would meet the remaining 19 space requirement using on-street parking credits. 90 covered bicycle parking spaces would also be provided on-site. Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II Site PlanConceptual Grading & Drainage Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II Utility PlanLandscape Plan Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. I Open & Recreational Space/AmenitiesOpen & Recreational Space/Amenities Snowberry Brook, Ph. ISnowberry Brook, Ph. I Open & Recreational Space/AmenitiesOpen & Recreational Space/Amenities Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II McCall DriveConnectivity X TIA TrafficImpactAnalysis()byS.O.TransportationEngineering,LLCconcludesthatthe TIA 60-unitscanbeapprovedwithoutadverseimpactstothetransportationsystem. recommendslimitingMcCallDrivetobicycles,pedestriansandemergencyvehicles,and NOTE:Connectionisinthe restrictingregularvehicletraffic,toavoidcut-throughtraffic.\[ TSP,right-of-wayisalreadydedicated,andwiththesaletoHAJC,thecityistopayfor theMcCallDriveconnection. \] Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II Connectivity –Clay to TolmanConnectivity –McCall & Birchwood X Snowberry Brook, Ph. II McCall Drive Snowberry Brook, Ph. II Staffrecommendrequiringalley-level ofimprovementsforMcCallto Tree Protection Plan supportataminimumbicycles, pedestriansandemergencyvehicles. ApplicantswouldworkwithPublic Works/Engineering&Transportation Commissiontodetermineifrestricting motorvehicletrafficisappropriate. X X X Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II Trees: Cedar & AlmondsTrees: 20-inch Oak to be protected… Snowberry Brook, Ph. IISnowberry Brook, Ph. II Trees: Tree Commission Recommendation‘Possible Wetland’ approving The Tree Commission recommended the application subject to the following: 1.Theapplicantshallmitigatethethreetreestoberemovedwithlargestature deciduoustreeswhichshallmeasuresnolessthan1.5-inchesincaliper. 2.Themitigationtreesshallbeplantedwithinoneyearofthetreebeingremoved. Wetlanddelineationdeterminedthattherewerenojurisdictionalwetlandsorother watersofthestatewithinthestudyarea.OregonDepartmentofStateLands(DSL)has concurred. Snowberry Brook, Ph. II June 11, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES - Draft June 25, 2019 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maris Harris, Planning Manager Alan Harper Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Haywood Norton Stefani Seffinger, absent Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson ANNOUNCEMENTS - None PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke about permit forms, climate change and that the City code was no longer good. He equated climate change to a nuclear war in slow motion. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00009 OWNER/APPLICANT: City of Ashland REQUEST: The adoption of the proposed Trails Master Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VIII, Parks, Open Space, and Aesthetics. Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this was a public hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Trails Master Plan (TMP) to the Comprehensive Plan. It would be adopted as a supporting document to Chapter VIII. She provided history on the TMP and described the 2018 update. There were three suggested amendments. One addressed the areas where the trails went outside City of Ashland jurisdiction and how to work with the county in those situations. Another amendment would remove the following language on page 4 and 9, In addition, the 2018 TMP will provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. On page 12, staff recommended removing, Trail development should conform to City riparian ordinances and regulations such as erosion control and setbacks. Staff recommended approval to the City Council. Questions of Staff Parks and Recreation Director Michael Black addressed the concern about the Ashland Canal Trail and possibly adding language to make those trails public. There was language in the TMP that staff would look Ashland Planning Commission June 25, 2019 Page 1 of 2 into any opportunities to obtain easements along the trail to make them public. There were some sections where property owners had closed the trail to the public. Ms. Harris added it would take the land use process to get trail connections. These types of easements were difficult to obtain when it was not a transportation connection. Also, there was not a land use standard requirement. It was more staff identifying an opportunity for a trails easement during the Pre-Application process. In those circumstances, staff would alert the Parks and Recreation Department who would follow up with the applicant. Mr. Black added the Parks and Recreation Department monitored planning actions as well. Mr. Molnar explained it was more successful through the planning process to negotiate trails. Potential developers tended to be interested and open to the idea. Ms. Harris addressed why staff wanted to remove the language In addition, the 2018 TMP will provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. It was referred to in the Comprehensive Plan but was not part of the land use standard or approval criteria. In the evaluation of land use decisions, it could be interpreted as a land use standard or approval criteria. It was referenced only in the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use board of Appeals (LUBA) allowed it but it had to be stated in the code. It also had to have strong language that had clear and objective standards for housing projects. Otherwise it could get challenged from a legal standpoint. Mr. Molnar added as part of a quasi-judicial system there had to be specific approval standards in the Land Use Ordinance. Mr. Black thought it was appropriate the way it was currently proposed. It was a guidance tool. All the chapters were general except the chapter on the Bear Creek Greenway. Public Testimony - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Harper/Brown m/s to recommend forwarding PA-T2-2019-00009 to the City Council consistent with the staff report. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission June 25, 2019 Page 2 of 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 9, 2019 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2019-00009, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 924 ) SQUARE FOOT DUPLEX AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THE CONVERSION ) OF 372 SQUARE FEET OF A 704 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE INTO AN APARTMENT ) AND THE CREATION OF A DUPLEX FROM THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY ) RESIDENCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 158, 160, 166 AND 166½ NORTH ) LAUREL STREET. THERE ARE CURRENTLY FOUR UNITS ON THE PROPERTY ) INCLUDING ONE STUDIO; THE PROPOSAL WOULD ADD FOUR UNITS INCLUD-) FINDINGS, ING ONE NEW UNIT IN THE EXISTING HOUSE FRONTING ON LAUREL, A 372 ) CONCLUSIONS & SQUARE FOOT APARTMENT IN THE GARAGE, AND TWO UNITS IN THE DU- ) ORDERS PLEX. THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL ) USE PERMIT TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA (MPFA) IN ) A HISTORIC DISTRICT BY 24.8 PERCENT. THE MPFA FOR THE PROPERTY IS ) 4,888 SQUARE FEET. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA ON THE PROPERTY IS AP- ) PROXIMATLEY 5,175 SQUARE FEET, AND AS PROPOSED THE SITE WOULD ) HAVE 6,099 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA. ) ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: Laurel Cottages, LLC/Kim Locklin & Vadim Agakhanov ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lot #3400 of Map 39 1E 04CC is located on the east side of North Laurel Street, between Central and Van Ness Avenues, and is addressed from 158 to 166½ North Laurel Street. The property is zoned R-3 (High-Density Multi-Family Residential). 2)The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval to allow the construction of a 924 square foot duplex at the rear of the property, the conversion of 372 square feet of a 704 square foot garage into an apartment, and the creation of a duplex from the existing single-family residence for the property located at 158, 160, 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel Street. There are currently four units on the property including one studio; the proposal would add four units including one new unit in the existing house fronting on Laurel, a 372 square foot apartment in the garage, and two units in the duplex. The application MPFA also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area () in a historic district by 24.8 percent. The MPFA for the property is 4,888 square feet. The existing floor area on the property is approximately 5,175 square feet, and as proposed the site would have 6,099 square feet of floor area. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 1 3) AMC 18.5.2.050 The criteria for Site Design Review approval are detailed in as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 4) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 2 facilities. c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area. d. Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants. e. Generation of noise, light, and glare. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. R-2 and R-3. c. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 11, 2019 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the 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. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 3 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Site Design Review and Conditional Use permit approvals meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review described in AMC 18.5.2.050, and for a Conditional Use Permit as described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Site Design Review approval. The first approval criterion addresses the requirements of the underlying zone, requiring that, The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, The subject property is zoned R-3, which is a High-Density Multi-Family Residential zoning, exceeds the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the zone, and the proposal falls within the allowed density. The -3 zoning allows a base density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The property is 20,000 \[20 du/acre x square feet in area or 0.459 acres, and as such has a base density of 9.18 dwelling units 0.459 acres = 9.18 du\]. The proposal adds four new units to the four units already in place on the property. The Commission finds that, for the purposes of density calculations, one of the existing units and three of the four new units are less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area and are considered to be ¾- \[(4 x 1 full unit) + (4 x 0.75 units) = 7.0 units\] units, so the proposed density is 7.0 units , which is less than the allowed base density. The Commission further finds that because the property is within a historic district, it is not subject to a minimum density requirement. With regard to setbacks, the existing structures on the property with the exception of the single family residence at 166 North Laurel Street have non-conforming setbacks along the alley. 160 North Laurel Street is less than 12-inches from the alley due to the existing deck at the entry of the residence, and 158 North Laurel Street has a four-foot setback with eaves that encroach into the alley and a five-foot rear yard setback where ten feet per story is required. The Planning Commission finds that none of these non- building will comply with the current setback requirements and with building separation requirements, and the project as a whole will comply with lot coverage requirements. The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with The property is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District, and as such is subject to the Historic District Development Standards. Within the Skidmore Academy Historic District survey document, the home at 166 North Laurel Street is designated the A.E. & Vivian Tonner House and is noted as having been built in aromuch altered single-story dwellingAltered Historic Non-Contributing. of uncertain but possibly pre-1949 construction \[and\] may well have been in place by the end of the period of significance but none currently reflect any -contributing, elements on the Tonner House site. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 4 The Planning Commission finds that the front residence at 166 North Laurel Street is proposed to be altered from its current substantially alteredstate to be more consistent with the historic district design ide to provide a garden wall; the addition of new siding that is historically-consistent; and installing new windows and doors that have shapes, areas and designs more consistent with the design standards and which will better establish an orientation and sense of entry to North Laurel Street. The new duplex units are also to be to be of the same design aesthetic as the proposed duplexes. The historic district design standards speak to building heights, scales, massing, setbacks, roofs, rhythms of openings, sense of base or platform, building form, entrances, the use of imitative styles and garage placement. The Planning Commission finds that the structures are similar to average heights in the vicinity, and are shorter than the nearby historic contributing resources, and the scale of the proposed duplex is within the range of other dwellings in the neighborhood. The Commission finds that through the incorporation of a stepped gable roof with a hipped gable end, the ridgeline of the duplex is broken up to reduce its mass, and the multiple gable ends and covered porch vary the mass and scale from the existing structures while maintaining a roof pitch that is similar to the vicinity. The window pattern is consistent with the rhythm of the district, and single-hung, vinyl windows are proposed. The windows on the front residence are to be more consistent with the historic district design standards to improve the front elevation of the residence, and the doors and siding are to be upgraded. An exposed concrete stem wall foundation is proposed to provide a sense of base and ground the proposed duplex. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by The Commission finds that the proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards. The new floor plan and window, door and siding changes will of the property is internal to the site. New parking is proposed to be internal to the property, and with the exception of the existing garage access from Laurel, vehicular access is to be from the alley. Street trees, landscaping and refuse/recycling areas are to be provided in a manner consistent with standards. 1,600 \[20,000 sq ft x 0.08 = 1,600 sq ft\], and square feet of open/recreation space is required for the project m ore than 1,600 square feet is devoted to open space for recreational use by the tenants through a mix of common patio areas, semi-private outdoor yard areas, lawns and gardens. The Planning Commission finds that, with regard to the parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3, the applicant has provided calculations showing that a total of 11 off-street parking spaces are required for the proposal and 11 spaces are to be provided. Two spaces are to be provided in the existing garages, one in the existing driveway off of North Laurel, one in a covered carport at 160 North Laurel, and seven spaces are to be provided in a new proposed surface parking lot accessed from the alley. No on-street parking credits are requested. Bicycle parking is to be provided in the garages and in a new covered bicycle parking structure. 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 PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 5 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 The Planning Commission finds that adequate city facilities are available at the site, including: A four-inch water main is located in North Laurel Street, with two new water meters between the Laurel Street driveway and the alley. A ten-inch sanitary sewer main is located in North Laurel Street, and there is a six-inch sanitary sewer main in the alley. A 12-inch storm sewer main is available in North Laurel Street. Electrical service is available both from the alley and from North Laurel Street. The Planning Commission finds that most of the utility services have been upgraded in conjunction with recent remodels of 158 North Laurel Street in anticipation of this application, and that electrical upgrades to date have been reviewed and approved by the City of Ashland Electric Departments. The Commission further finds that the Electric Department has noted that conversion of existing units will likely require service upgrades and the installation of two-pack meter bases on each unit, with final placement to be approved by the Electric Department as part of the final electric service plan. A condition to this effect has been included below. Trip Generation Threshold : 50 newly generated vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the adjacent street peak hour. Mitigation Threshold : Installation of any traffic control device and/or construction of any geometric improvements that will affect the progression or operation of traffic traveling on, entering, or exiting a highway. Heavy Vehicle Trip Generation Threshold : 20 newly generated heavy vehicle trips (inbound and outbound) during the day. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 6 Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.The current request does not include any Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. 2.4 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Conditional Use Permit approval. MPFA Within historic districts, each property has a Maximum Permitted Floor Area () based on the lot size and number of units proposed. Applicants may request to exceed the MPFA by up to 25 CUP percent with a Conditional Use Permit () as allowed in AMC 18.2.5.070.C., which requires that in addition to the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit, the Historic District Design Standards must also be considered. The application here includes a request for a CUP to exceed the MPFA by 24.8 \[20,000 sq. ft. Lot Area x 0.47 Adj. percent. The MPFA for the subject property is 4,888 square feet Factor = 9,400 sq. ft. Adjusted Lot Area x 0.52 Graduated FAR = 4,888 sq. ft. MPFA x 1.25 Maximum CUP allowance = 6,110 sq. ft.\] . The Planning Commission finds that the existing floor area PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 7 on the property now is approximately 5,175 square feet, and that as proposed the site would have 6,099 square feet of floor area. The Commission further finds that while the additional floor area requested is for the 924 square foot duplex proposed at the rear of the property, the request to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area looks at the proposal in sum. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. The Planning Commission finds that the use of the site is residential, and is consistent with the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies and does not violate city, state or federal laws. The Commission finds that the proposal provides for more efficient use of land in the high-density, multi-family residential R-3 zoning district. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Review discussion in 2.3 above. The third approval criterion is that, on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone: a) Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage; b) Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities; c) Architectural compatibility with the impact area; d) Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental pollutants; e) Generation of noise, light, and glare; f) The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan; and g) Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority The Commission finds that the addition of 924 square feet will not have a greater adverse material impact than would the target use of the zone. The existing structures are at the perimeter of the property, adjacent to the alley, and provide ample area on site for the proposed improvements while also minimizing their impacts to the surrounding streetscape and neighboring properties. The proposed structures are similar in height to buildings in the neighborhood, are limited to single-story construction, and meet required setbacks, building separation and lot coverage while providing for a reduced bulk, scale and coverage. The units proposed are small, have adequate parking provided, and the proposal attempts to develop the property according to the envisioned density of the high-density multi-family zoning while also addressing the Maximum Permitted Floor Area. The units are in a walkable neighborhood, with sidewalks throughout, near a bus route and within walking distance of the downtown, groceries and other retail, restaurants and entertainment, all of which should serve to lessen necessary vehicle trips. The units have traditional styling to reflect the character of historic resources in the vicinity and elements of the styles found in the vicinity, and numerous aspects of the previous exterior details on the property are to be upgraded to provide for greater historic compatibility. The additional square footage will not impact the generation of noise, light, glare or air quality, nor will it impact the development of surrounding properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 8 The fourth approval criterion is that, one that is not permitted In this instance, the residential uses proposed are outright permitted uses in the zone and are within the allowed base density for the property. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses (for R-2 and R-3 zones are): Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards foThe Commission finds that, as noted earlier in this document, the base density for the subject property is 9.18 units, while the density as proposed equates to 7.0 units. When considered on this basis, the Commission finds that 7.0 units will have less adverse material impact than would 9.18 units, as there will be fewer average daily trips generated, a lesser parking demand, fewer units creating impacts, etc., and the key consideration in terms of granting a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Flood Area is in looking at compliance with the Historic District Design Standards. The subject property is located within the Skidmore Academy Historic District. The home at 166 North Laurel Street is designated the A.E. & Vivian Tonner House and is noted as having been built in around much altered single-story dwellingAltered Historic Non- Contributing.of uncertain but possibly pre-1949 construction \[and\] may well have been in place by the end of the period of significance non-contributing, elements on the Tonner House site. The front residence is proposed to be altered from its current, alteredstate to be more consistent from the north side to provide a garden wall; the installation of new siding that is historically-consistent; and the installation of new windows and doors that have shapes, areas, designs and placement more consistent with the design standards. The new duplex units are also to be of a historically compatible design proposed duplexes. The historic district design standards speak to building heights, scales, massing, setbacks, roofs, rhythms of openings, sense of base or platform, building form, entrances, the use of imitative styles and garage placement. Compliance with these standards is discussed in detail in the verlay Zonesdiscussion in 2.3 above. AMC 18.4.2.050.A.2.b provides that if a development requires land use approval such as Site Design Review or a Conditional Use Permit and involves new construction, restoration, rehabilitation, or any use greater than a single-family unit, the authority exists in law for the Planning Commission to require modifications in the design to match these standards, and the Historic Commission is specifically identified by code as advising both the applicant and the City decision maker. In this instance, t PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 9 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) In considering these recommendations, the Commission noted concern expressed by the applicant that the requirement to use smooth Hardieplank® instead of the cottage lap siding proposed on a non-historic structure currently sided in vinyl could substantially increase costs on a project intended to provide needed smaller residential units and necessitate a reduction in floor area since the project involves significant renovations including potentially costly asbestos abatement, and that replacing sliders with swinging doors on units where the doors were not visible from adjacent rights-of-way could impact the usability of already very limited interior floor space with minimal benefit because the doors would not be visible to anyone but the tenants. replacement of sliders with full swinging glass doors where they are not visible from the right-of-way are not necessary for compliance with the standards. A condition has been included below making the project. 2.5 There are two trees on the property: a 24-inch Oak in the front yard of 166 North Laurel, and an 18-inch Maple in the courtyard/patio area between 166 and 166 ½ North Laurel. Both trees are proposed to be preserved and protected, and trees on adjacent properties are noted as being protected by the existing fencing. The application includes a Tree Protection Plan illustrating measures proposed to protect the two existing trees pursuant to AMC 18.4.5 and a Landscape Plan detailing proposed new plantings. After reviewing the proposal, the Tree Commission recommended that it be approved provided that: 1) All tree protection materials shall be installed prior to the commencement of construction; and 2) All tree protection materials shall remain in place until construction is complete. A condition requiring that a Tree Verification Permit inspection be obtained to verify that required tree protection fencing is in place according to the approved plans prior to any site work and remains for the duration of construction. With this condition, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Preservation and Protection from AMC 18.4.5. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review for an eight-unit multi-family development and Conditional Use Permit to exceed the maximum permitted floor area in a historic district by 24.8 percent is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 10 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal, with the conditions included below, complies with all applicable criteria and standards. The existing development already exceeds the Maximum Permitted Floor Area, and the proposed overage is equal to the proposed addition of a 924 square foot duplex which will provide two needed small rental units. These units have been designed and placed on site to minimize their impact to the surrounding district. In conjunction with the new project, existing buildings are also being modified to provide additional small rental units while placing the new parking to serve the more efficient redevelopment of the site interior to the property, with access from the alley, and fully accommodating required parking on site with no on-street parking credits. The existing historic home along Laurel, which has had substantial modifications impacting its historic character over the years, is to be converted to a duplex and its façade improved by removing ill-suited alterations, replacing the siding, and installing doors and windows which will better relate to the streetscape and surrounding historic district. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2019-00009. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #PA-T2-2019-00009 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 new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. The existing consistent with approved city addressing conventions. 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 or any necessary encroachments. 4. facilities installed or be used as a rental unit. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final project approvals, a deed restriction shall be recorded to limit the use of this building. 5. 6.That the following recommendations of the Historic Commission from its June 5, 2019 meeting, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval by the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval for the project: a. b. c. PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 11 d. 7.That include: a.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. b.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the building permit submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. c.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height 6/ 16)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from natural grade. d.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the zoning district (75 percent coverage is allowed in the R-3 district). Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. e.Verification that the project as a whole complies with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area requirements of AMC 18.24.040.I. and additional square footage approved herein, including floorplans and ceiling height verification for all living space and potential living space. f.Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. g.Final utility, grading, drainage and erosion control plans. i.The final storm drainage plan shall detail the location and final 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. ii.The final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions with the Final Plan application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 12 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. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. iii.The 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 with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to permit issuance or installation of equipment. 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. Individual electric services/meters shall be installed underground to serve all units. iv.The erosion control plan shall address trackout prevention pursuant to AMC 9.080.060. 8.A final Tree Protection Plan addressing the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.B and any recommendations of the Tree Commission from its June 6, 2019 regular meeting, where consistent with applicable standards and criteria and with final approval by the Staff Advisor. The plan shall identify the location and placement of fencing around the drip lines of trees identified for preservation. The amount of fill and grading within the drip lines shall be minimized. Cuts within the drip line shall be noted on the tree protection plan, and shall be executed by handsaw and kept to a minimum. No construction shall occur within the tree protection zone including dumping; storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles; and no fill shall be placed around the trunk/root crown. 9.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. The final plan shall include a sight-obscuring screen along the property line north of parking spaces 4, 5 and 6 to comply with the requirements of AMC 18.4.4.030.F.2 and provide five- foot width landscaped strip with a sight-obscuring hedge screen at least 36-inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area. 10.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access; firefighter access pathways and any gates, fences or other obstructions; fire hydrant distance, fire sprinkler and extinguishers as applicable; and wildfire hazard area requirements shall be satisfactorily addressed in the building permit submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the building permit drawings, and a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements of AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2. shall be provided with the building permit submittals. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property. 11.That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with those described in the application. Sample exterior building colors shall be PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 13 provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with 18.4.2.030.E of the Multi-Family Site Design and Use Standards. 12.That prior to the issuance of building permits: a.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 permit issuance. The Tree Verification Permit is to verify the presence of tree protection fencing for 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. b.That the requirements of the Building Division shall be satisfactorily addressed including but not limited to public way, fire and occupancy separations, and openings relative to property lines. c.That the applicant shall pay for plan review, building permits and all associated fees and charges including system development charges (water, sewer, stormwater, parks and transportation) for all new residential units. 13.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection approvals: a.That the parkrow planting strip along the North Laurel Street frontage shall be planted with irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Trees guide at a spacing of one per 30 feet prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection approvals for the project. b.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all proposed units, inspected and approved. A final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. Duplex units will require two-pack meter bases with placement to be approved by the Electric Department, and existing units being converted will require service upgrades. c.Utility installations and common area improvements including landscaping, hardscaping, irrigation, bicycle parking, and trash and recycling facilities shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. d.That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. e.That maintenance of the alley, including repair of any damage caused during construction, shall be carried out by the applicant concurrently with completion of construction. The alley shall be graded to the standards required by the Ashland Public Works Department for the full property frontage, and any potholes or other damage caused in the full alley corridor during construction repaired, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 14 and shall be maintained to provide at least a 12-foot wide driving surface able to withstand 44,000 lbs. with the full alley width maintained to a vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches. f.That bicycle parking facilities to accommodate the ten required bicycle parking spaces shall be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final project approval. For bicycle parking spaces not located within garages, inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking. All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I and J prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.I. g.T 14.That a July 9, 2019 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2019-00009 July 9, 2019 Page 15 Items Submitted While Record Remained Open to New Evidence from all Parties (Prior to 4:30 p.m. on June 18, 2019) Items Submitted While Record Remained Open to Responses to New Evidence from all Parties (Prior to 4:30 p.m. on June 25, 2019) Applicants Rebuttal (Prior to 4:30 p.m. on July 2, 2019)