The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-10-08 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 October 8, 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. September 10, 2019 Regular Meeting 2. September 24, 2019 Study Session V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00011, 657 Oak Street B. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2019-00013, Otis Street (39 1E Map 05AD Tax Lot #200) VII.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2019-00001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North OWNER: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC (agents) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. ( The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to .) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: annexation Existing County RR-5, Proposed City R- & 1702. VIII.ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - Draft September 10, 2019 I. 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 Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Alan Harper Fotini Kaufman, Associate Planner Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council denied the Appeal for Snowberry Brook Phase 2019. One was a potential site review on Russell Street and the other a possible annexation. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman would host a webinar on middle housing Friday, September 13, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the Community Development Building. III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins noted work on the Downtown Plan would start September 26, 2019. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.July 9, 2019 Regular Meeting 2.July 23, 2019 Special Meeting 3.August 27, 2019 Study Session Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of July 9, 2019. Commissioner Thompson abstained. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of August 27, 2019 and July 23, 2019. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke on the Climate Energy and Action Plan and EV ready wiring for new buildings. VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 657 Oak Street (Tree Removal 677 Oak Street) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development OWNER: Salty Rogue Real Estate LLC Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 1 of 7 DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for a 4-unit Cottage Housing development and a Performance Standards Subdivision Outline and Final Plan approval for a 5-lot subdivision located at 657 Oak St. The application includes a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to utilize a portion of the floodplain as open space and construct a patio in the floodplain. The application includes an Exception to Site Development and Design standards to locate the open space at the rear of the development. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees - a 40-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Black Walnut tree in poor Condition on the shared property line between 657 and 677 Oak, and three additional trees on the subject property - a 22-inch Deodar cedar, a 14-inch Ash and a 16-inch Box Elder. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential ZONING: R-1-5; A MAP & TAX LOTS: 39 1E 04CA 1900 & 2000. Chair Pearce read the rules of the Public Hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Harper, Brown and Pearce declared no ex parte contact. Commissioner Dawkins, Mindlin, Thompson, and Haywood had no ex parte contact and one site visit. Staff Report Associate Planner Fotini Kaufman described the project and provided a presentation (see attached) that included: Proposal. Parking & Driveway. Vicinity Map. Tree Removals. Cottage Housing Ordinance. Ashland Modified Floodplain. Examples of cottage housing in Oregon and Open Space Exception & P&E Permit. Ashland. Views of the floodplain natural transition. Outline Plan 5-lots P.S.O. Subdivisions. Landscape Plan. Floor plans. Utilities Map. Floor Area Ratio & Density. Staff Recommendation Elevations. The proposal met the standards. Staff recommended approval with the Conditions detailed in the meeting packet. Questions of Staff The legal description was different from the notice because it included two tax lots. Tax Lot #1900 was the location of the development. Tax Lot #2000 was the location of a proposed tree removal. Adjustments would be made to the final version of the findings to state what the Commission found instead of what the applicants proposed. Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development/Kerry KenCairn/KenCairn Landscape Architecture/Ms. Gunter introduced the project team. She further explained that 667 Oak Street was included in the application due to a tree that straddled both properties that would be removed. They submitted an Open Space exhibit into the record depicting 3-D aerial renderings of the proposed units (see attached). A presentation (see attached) included the following: Layout Plan. Tree Protection, Tree Removal and Plan Preservation. Conceptual Elevations. Open Space Plan / Open Space Landscape Plan. Utilities, Infrastructure & Stormwater. Conceptual Utility Plan. Stormwater Management Plan. Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 7 A stormwater dispersal system would have the roof and parking lot drains go through collection systems above and below ground into the floodplain to a dispersal trench. The patio had drain rocks underneath that would serve as a retention area and allow stormwater to percolate through. The applicants were working with the Parks and Recreation Department on an easement. Stormwater dispersal would flow towards the neighboring property and not the park. An easement would allow the stormwater to cross property lines. The proposal met the purpose and intent of the cottage housing ordinance and performance standards. The applicants chose not to increase density. Parking was accommodated on the property and there was no need for on street parking. Questions of the Applicant What type of material would go under the patio for drainage? Large granulite drain rock. o What were the rules for building in a floodplain? It required a Physical and Environmental Constraints review. The applicants would remove earth from the o site to incorporate the drain rock. Standards in the state building code chapter 15.10 addressed construction in floodplains. The Building Board adopted FEMA floodplain elevations. Ashland had a modified floodplain that was more restrictive. Describe the stormwater treatment technique. It was a low impact development technique approved by Rogue Valley Sanitary. The process merged two o techniques and was not new. It also did not require an Exception or variance. If the applicants could not obtain the easement for stormwater drainage, they would pump it out to the city systems. How many units would abut the common open space? Two units. o Was the private open space part of the purchase lot or part of the common area? It was post monument survey and the footprints of the buildings were the tax lots that were purchased. The o private open space was part of the total lot. The Home Owners Association and Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions would be responsible for maintenance. Where was the 200 sq. ft. of private space located? Everything outside of the building foot print was considered common although an owner could plant their own o plants around their home. The terraces would be landscaped. Where was the main common space located? The main common space would be a patio several feet below the units. o Were the landscaped terraces accessible? No, they were not accessible. o Could they add a fence around the units for private space? No, fencing would create a shade canyon. There was no walking path or way to access the area. o How did the proposal meet the Exception to Open Space? The narrowness of the lot showed demonstrable difficulty. The proposal showed it was better than what o would be achieved by following the guidelines of the ordinance. Approximately one third of the property was protected floodplain and could not be developed with residential dwelling units. The proposal met innovative Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 3 of 7 design criteria because it provided small single family detached dwellings and preserved the floodplain. It also created a large buffer between the public park and the development. What was the fence height between the park and the property? It would be 4-feet tall. Deer fencing was allowed. Fence requirements by a floodplain had different standards. o Public Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant The applicants responded to a letter submitted earlier from Matt Brinkley (see attached). The letter referred to public open space when it was common open space. The intent of the ordinance and layout complied with the performance standards that required preservation of natural features. It also complied with the Cottage Housing Ordinance that gave the ability to amend the location of open spaces. Property owners would have to walk a couple hundred feet to use the patio area. The space between the units was not 20-feet wide. It was 10-feet from the porch to the wall or 18-feet from structure to structure. The trash enclosure would have a 5-foot screening fence. Lighting would consist of sconces on the structures and possibly landscape solar lights. There were no overhead parking lights or bollard lights. Chair Pearce closed the public hearing and the record. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Severson explained the Ashland floodplain map was the reason the applicants sought a Physical and Environmental Constraints component. The development was within the Ashland modified floodplain and the applicant would have to minimize impacts stated in chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay. The patio was a low structure with porous paving. The applicants were limiting the size and height to minimize floodplain impacts. Commission and staff discussed structures that might wash away in a flood and cause harm downstream. Both 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay and chapter 15.10 of the local building code regulation addressed disturbances in the floodplain and way and required low rise certificates. In this proposal, the patio was 160 feet from the creek. The Building Division would review the proposal in terms of the requirements in chapter 15.10. Staff was not comfortable stating the second cottage abutted the open space due to the location of a low retaining wall and the walkway. The Cottage Housing ordinance spoke about walkways being used to differentiate the open space area from the units. This walkway divided the unit and did not appear to abut the common open space. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve PA-T2-2019-00011 657 Oak Street with all the Conditions and the Findings stating two units abutted open space. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Mindlin thought the proposal met all the criteria. She amended the motion that the Findings state there were two units abutting the open space. The area adjacent to the south was 20-feet wide or more if the walkway was considered. She thought it fell within the criteria and preferred not to give an Exception. Commissioner Dawkins accepted the amendment. Commissioner Brown disagreed with the open space being centrally located and that 50% of the units did not abut open space. Commissioner Harper agreed and would not support the motion. It did not meet the criteria or the intent of what the code meant. Chair Pearce explained the applicant was requesting an Exception to the criteria. Commissioner Harper did not think a narrow lot was a physical constraint or the basis for an Exception. Commissioner Brown added having a lot with a floodplain in the back did not make it an Exception either. Chair Pearce explained the standards stated a demonstrable difficulty due to a unique or unusual aspect of the existing structure or proposed use of a site. Commissioner Brown responded the existing structure was not a problem. He added people would have to walk down the pathway to access the common open space. Commissioner Thompson addressed the area the path went through to reach the patio. The walkway itself was not considered open space and the other space was not private. The second unit abutted the Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 4 of 7 walkway and part of the slope. Commissioner Norton had security concerns regarding the walkway that led to the patio as well as the terraces. He agreed with Commissioner Brown and would not support the motion. Commissioner Thompson confirmed the open space was all of the terrain in addition to the patio. Chair Pearce wanted to know if the landscape area adjacent to the south was common open space. Commissioner Harper thought it attempted to connect chunks of open space. Commissioner Dawkins addressed the elevation lines. Technically the two units abutted common open space. Commissioner Brown restated his concerns regarding the proposal. Mr. Severson explained the setback for cottage housing in 18.2.3.090(2)(e) Building Separation was a minimum of six feet from the nearest point of the exterior walls. Chair Pearce clarified the issue was if the open space met the dimensional requirements. Commissioner Mindlin commented the applicants had provided a cognizant argument in support of their Exception. It met the criteria for the Exception. Commissioner Norton was concerned with the path that led to the patio and thought safety should be a criterion. The 3- Dimensional rendering had confirmed his concerns regarding the path. The project did not fit the lot and did not meet the Exception. Commissioner Dawkins called for the question. The Commission decided to continue deliberation. Chair Pearce was not sure if the 20-foot dimensions were met. Mr. Molnar explained these were foot print lots so everything south of the building wall was open space and at 20-feet. Chair Pearce thought the open space went all the way to the edge of the unit in the back. There were several walls but he thought the two units did abut the open space. The pathway went from one open space to another. He agreed with Commissioner Mindlin that it met the Exception. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Mindlin, Pearce, Thompson and Dawkins, YES; Commissioner Norton, Brown and Harper, NO. Motion passed 4-3. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2019-00013 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Otis Street (39 1E Map 05AD Tax Lot #200) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNER: Taylored Elements/CMK Development LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to develop a 27-lot subdivision for the vacant 5.92-acre parcel (Tax Lot #200) at the current western terminuses of Otis and Randy Streets, west of Elizabeth Avenue. The proposed subdivision would include 23 single family residential lots, two common open space parcels and two larger lots intended for future Cottage Housing developments totaling 19 cottages. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5- Chair Pearce summarized the rules of the Public Hearing. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Harper declared no ex parte contact. Commissioner Brown, Dawkins and Norton had no ex parte contact and one site visit. Commissioner Mindlin, Thompson and Pearce declared no ex parte contact and had driven by the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation (see attached) that included: The Proposal. Conceptual Grading & Drainage. Vicinity Map. Example Elevation. Site Plan. Open Space. Site Tree Preservation. Irrigation Plan. Plan Site Survey Plan. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Thresholds. Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Landscaped Site Plan. TIA Conclusions. Utility Plan. Staff recommended approval with the Conditions in the draft findings. Questions of Staff Concerns regarding the multi-use path that dead ended. Having multi-use paths dead end was typical in build-outs for incremental connectivity. This would be another o incremental extension. Would another transportation impact analysis be needed for the cottage housing developments? No. The TIA presented in the packet included the cottage housing. o Staff described the location of the four open space areas. The potential for a wetland to exist on the property. There were no wetlands indicated on the local or national inventory. The applicants had submitted a Wetland o Determination Request (see attached) to the Oregon Department of State Lands. Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning & Development/Kerry KenCairn/KenCairn Landscape Architecture/Ms. Gunter introduced the owner, Kyle Taylor from Taylored Elements and the project team. Mr. Taylor had held a neighborhood meeting in August in response to concerns from neighbors that had gone well. Ms. Gunter described the subject property. Highlights included that Lot 20 would come back to add an accessory dwelling unit. Lot 19 had a solar envelope. Lots along the north side of the development would most likely be single story units due to solar requirements and an agreement with the present neighbors. The agreement would also increase the side yard setback from 6-feet to 10-feet to the Vansant Street. A presentation (see attached) included the following: Street Design and Layout. Tree Protection Preservation. The applicant distributed the street tree proposal for Randy Street (see attached). Example of Street Tree Planting Plan. Open Space Plan. Utilities/Infrastructure/Stormwater. Traffic. Conceptual Utility Plan. Conceptual Grading. Potential Wetland. Questions of the Applicant When was the last time the site was used for agriculture? The land was still in use and currently had an agricultural exemption because it was a hay field. There were o TID rights on the property. Open Space 1 was not a residential lot. The lot would serve as a buffer from the house on Randy Street and provide a storm water detention feature. o Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Where was the culvert located? It was located in one of the common areas. If it was determined there was a wetland, the applicants would o modify the plan and the culvert would allow room to comply with the requirements and provide setbacks. They would amend the final plan to include water protection. Commissioner Harper wanted to add a Condition that the path be built out in the open space during Phase I. Ms. Gunter objected and explained it would have to happen during Phase II. The objection was having to install a water meter just to meter the open space. She confirmed there was no connection from Randy Street, just Otis Street. Public Testimony - None Rebuttal by Applicant - None Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to extend the Public Hearing to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Severson explained the small portion of land on Billings Ranch Road was a building lot. The Commission discussed a letter submitted by Dave Kanner (see attached). One curve from Randy Street to Vansant Street. He suggested the City either bump out the curb, place a sign or add a warning light. Currently, there was a Condition in regards to the stop sign where the applicant would work with the Public Works Department to determine whether stop signs were necessary at the intersection of Randy Street and Otis Street. Mr. Severson thought staff could rework the Condition to include traffic calming or safety measures needed at the connection to Vansant Street prior to the final plan. Commissioner Dawkins recommended having a 3-way stop at Randy Street and Otis Street. Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-T2-2019-00013 and recommend a 3-way stop at Randy Street and Otis Street. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins thought it was a straight forward proposal. Commissioner Harper supported the project. He was concerned with the build-out of the common path on Otis Street. Mr. Severson explained 50% of the value of recreational amenities had to be built in Phase I before 50% of the units. All amenities would be built before two thirds of the units were finished. The applicant could clarify that at final plan. Commissioner Harper wanted to know how the path would connect during Phase I. Chair Pearce confirmed two thirds of the build-out was 16 units. The path would be built during Phase I as well. The road would not. Chair Peace was concerned with the wetland. If there was a possible wetland, a wetland study should have been included instead of a Wetland Determination Request. However, he was comfortable with it being a Condition. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Mindlin, Pearce, Norton, Brown, Thompson, Dawkins and Harper, YES. Motion passed. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 10, 2019 Page 7 of 7 ВΉЌЉΉЋЉЊВ Њ ВΉЌЉΉЋЉЊВ Ћ ВΉЌЉΉЋЉЊВ Ќ West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Outline Plan ApprovalProposal Planning Commission Hearing OutlinePlansubdivisionapprovalunderthe September 10, 2019 PerformanceStandardsOptionsChapterto developa27-lotsubdivisionforthevacant5.92- acreparcel(TaxLot#200)atthecurrentwestern terminusesofOtisandRandyStreets,westof ElizabethAvenue.Theproposedsubdivision wouldinclude23singlefamilyresidentiallots, twocommonopenspaceparcelsandtwolarger lotsintendedforfutureCottageHousing developmentstotalingupto19futurecottages. West Village Subdivision West Village Subdivision Vicinity Map Aerial View (Google®) 1 West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision View from Randy StreetView from Otis Street West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision View from Otis StreetView from Vansant Street in Billings Ranch subdivision 2 West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Billings Ranch Alley & Multi-Use PathBillings Ranch Alley & Multi-Use Path West Village Subdivision West Village Subdivision View from Vansant to Randy StreetSite Plan (Cover) 3 West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Site Tree Preservation Plan (L1.0)Site Survey (L1.1) Tree Commission Recommendation Approve, with the stipulation that the applicant shall add emphasis to native species and shrubs. West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Landscaped Site Plan (L2.0)Landscaped Site Plan (L2.0) ARU 4 West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Utility PlanConceptual Grading & Drainage West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Example Elevations (i.e. Typical Homes)Example Elevations (i.e. Typical Homes) 5 West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision South Open Space (L2.1)North Open Space (L2.2) West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Landscape Plan, North (L4.0)Irrigation Plan, North (L3.0) 6 West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Landscape Plan, South (L4.1)Irrigation Plan, South (L3.1) West Village SubdivisionWest Village Subdivision Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) ThresholdsTIA Conclusions Proposed land use actions, new developments, and/or redevelopment accessing a State highway/boulevard, directly or indirectly (via collector or local streets), will need to provide traffic impact studies to the respective local reviewing jurisdiction(s) and ODOT, if the proposed land use meets one or more of the following traffic impact study thresholds. A traffic impact study will not be required of a development that does not exceed the stated thresholds. 1.TripGenerationThreshold: 50newlygeneratedvehicletrips(inboundand outbound)duringtheadjacentstreetpeakhour\[30newtripsduringtheA.M.peak hourand40newtripsduringtheP.M.peakhour.\]; 2.MitigationThreshold:Installation ofanytrafficcontroldeviceand/orconstruction ofanygeometricimprovementsthatwillaffecttheprogressionoroperationoftraffic travelingon,entering,orexitingthehighway; 3.HeavyVehicleTripGenerationThreshold: 20newlygeneratedheavyvehicletrips (inboundandoutbound)duringtheday; All traffic impact studies will need to be prepared by a registered professional engineer in accordance with ODOT's development review guidelines. 7 ВΉЌЉΉЋЉЊВ Њ ВΉЌЉΉЋЉЊВ Ћ ВΉЌЉΉЋЉЊВ Ќ ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES September 24, 2019 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Alan Harper Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Stefani Seffinger, absent II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Council would start meeting at 6:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. Meeting end time would go until 9:30 p.m. unless there was a motion to continue. The Commission agreed to discuss it further at a future meeting. III. PUBLIC FORUM - None IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update on Recent State Housing Legislation Planning Manager Maria Harris spoke to the following legislative changes: Middle Housing - cities with populations between 10,000 and 25,000 Duplexes will be allowed in single family housing zones. o The state will develop a model code by the end of 2020. o o On street parking for accessory residential units (ARU) No longer required. o House Bill (HB) 2003 Eight-year timelines for housing needs analyses. o State developed methodology for the Housing Production Strategy will go into effect 2023. o Senate Bill (SB) 8 (recently passed and not included in the packet) Addressed challenges to affordable housing projects. o Applied to appellants. o Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) shall award attorney fees and expenses on publicly supported housing o projects to prevailing applicants or local government. Ashland Planning Commission September 24, 2019 Page 1 of 2 The Housing and Human Services Commission will host a forum based on the legislation regarding no cause evictions. It will be held at the Ashland Hills Inn on October 22, 2019. Staff was looking into the definitions of duplex and ARUs under 1,000 sq. ft. with a common wall. Staff would also review density limits. B. Population forecast for Ashland and Jackson County Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained how population projections and housing characteristics effected the Buildable Lands Inventory that would come before the Commission in October. A presentation (see attached) included: Population Projections and Housing. JC & Ashland Avg. Annual Growth Rates Assumptions. Ashland Population Pyramid 1950. Jackson County (JC) Annual Births. Ashland Population Pyramid Male/Female. JC Annual Deaths. Households. JC Avg. Annual Natural Increase/Decrease. Ashland Households. JC & Oregon In migration rates by age groups. Persons Per Household. JC - Components of Population Change by 5- year intervals (2015-2045). Ashland Household Sizes. JC Larger Sub-Areas Avg. Annual Net In/Out Household Size Ashland Average Single Family Migration. Home Size 2001-2016. Ashland Population and Housing Characteristics. National - Recent Decline in Home Size. Ashland Population Change-Historic & Projected Next Steps. by 10-year intervals. The Commission and staff discussed: Average household size in 2015. Death rates increasing until 2040. The Net In-Migration. Economic growth impacts on population type. Increase of diversity in Jackson County. Buildable Lands Inventory looked at base density. The number of ARUs that were built since 1991 slightly more than 200 with 19 built during 2018 and 13 in 2017. Staff would research how the new Housing Needs legislation allowing affordable housing on public land will affect the Buildable Lands Inventory. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 24, 2019 Page 2 of 2 PopulationProjections JacksonCounty &Ashland andHousing Population Forecast PopulationGrowthProjections • PortlandStateUniversity • JacksonCountyCoordinatedPopulation • 20182068 DemographicChanges • PlanningCommission StudySession HouseholdCharacteristics • 9262019 HousingUnitSizes • 2 Assumptions JacksonCountyȟ!´ «Births JacksonCountyCoordinatedPopulationForecast(PSU) •AsaresultofagingBabyBoomers,deaths increaseandpeakintheЋЉЍЉ͸ƭͲwithtotal deathstaperingthrough2050. •Totalfertilityratesdeclinethroughoutthe forecastperiod. •Populationgrowthisexpectedtoslowover timeasnaturaldecreasemagnifiesandnet inmigrationtapers. 34 Њ JacksonCountyȟ!´ «DeathsJacksonCountyȟ!µ¤± ¦¤AnnualNaturalIncrease/Decrease 56 JacksonCountyComponentsofPopulationChangeby5yearIntervals JacksonCountyandOregonȟ)migrationratesbyagegroups (20152045) 78 Ћ Jackson#®´³¸Ȍ²LargerSubAreasȟ!µ¤± ¦¤AnnualNetIn/OutMigration AshlandPopulation andHousing Characteristics 910 AshlandPopulationChangeȟ(¨²³®±¨¢andProjectedby10yearintervals JacksonCounty&Ashlandȟ!µ¤± ¦¤AnnualGrowthRates(AAGR) Jackson CountyAshland ЋЊВͲЋАЉЋЊͲЎЉЊ 2018(pop.) ЋАЋͲЋЋЏЋЌͲЏЋЎ 2043(pop.) ЌЋЉͲБЎЋЋЍͲЊАА 2068(pop.) ЊЉЊͲЎБЋЋͲЏАЏ Totalchange(pop.) Љ͵ВЉіЉ͵ЎЉі AAGR20102018 Љ͵ВЉіЉ͵ЍЉі AAGR20182043 Љ͵ЌЉіЉ͵ЊЉі AAGR20432068 1112 Ќ Ashlandȟ0®¯´« ³¨®PyramidAshlandȟ0®¯´« ³¨®Pyramid 1314 AshlandAgeCohorts2010vs.2017 !²§« £Ȍ²Households PersonsPerHousehold • HousingUnitSizes • 1516 Ѝ AshlandHouseholdSizes PersonsPerHousehold 4 3.5 3 2.5 2.53 2 2.00 1.5 1 0.5 0 194019501960197019801990200020102020 USPPHAshlandPPH 2018AmericanCommunitySurvey 17 18 (Census) HouseholdSize AshlandAverageSingleFamilyHomeSize 20012016 1920 AARP2019PublicationHousingforachangingAmerica Ў NextSteps NationalRecentDeclineinHomeSize BuildableLand InventoryUpdate (2019) AvailableLandSupply DevelopmentTrends Source: HousingNeeds National Association of Analysis(2020) Home Builders ŷƷƷƦʹΉΉĻǤĻƚƓŷƚǒƭźƓŭ͵ƚƩŭΉЋ ЉЊВΉЉЎΉƓĻǞƭźƓŭƌĻŅğƒźƌǤ HousingTypeDemand ŷƚƒĻƭźǩĻŅźƩƭƷƨǒğƩƷĻƩ ЋЉЊВķğƷğΉ YearSupply 21 Џ BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 8, 2019 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2019-00011, A REQUEST FOR ) SITE DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 4-UNIT COTTAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND ) A PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION OUTLINE AND FINAL PLAN ) FOR A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 657 OAK ST. THE APPLICATION ) INCLUDES A PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT ) TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF THE FLOODPLAIN AS OPEN SPACE AND TO ) FINDINGS, CONSTRUCT A PATIO IN THE FLOODPLAIN. THE APPLICATION INCLUDES ) CONCLUSIONS AN EXCEPTION TO SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS TO ) & LOCATE THE OPEN SPACE AT THE REAR OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE ) ORDERS APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT ) TO REMOVE FOUR TREES OVER SIX INCHES DIAMETER IN BREAST HEIGHT ) (D.B.H.). ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: SALTY ROGUE REAL ESTATE LLC/ ) ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #1900 of Map 39 1E 04CA is located at 657 Oak Street and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-5). 2) The applicant is requesting Outline Plan and Final Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter and Site Design Review approval for a four-unit, five-lot Cottage Housing Development located at 657 Oak Street. The application includes requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to utilize a portion of the floodplain as open space and construct a patio in the floodplain; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to locate the open space at the rear of the cottage development; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees over six inches d.b.h. 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. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 1 e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 4) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The 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 PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 2 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 18.2.3.090 6) The approval criteria for Cottage Housing are detailed in as follows: A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to encourage innovative site planning and variety in housing while ensuring compatibility with established neighborhoods, and to provide opportunities for ownership of small detached single family dwellings for a population diverse in age, income, and household size. Where cottage housing developments are allowed, they are subject to Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2, and shall meet all of the following requirements. B. Exceptions and Variances. Requests to depart from the requirements of this chapter are subject to the approval criteria under section 18.5.2.050.E Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. 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 R-1-7.5 dwelling unit 3 12 11,250 sq.ft. 0.35 NM-R-1-7.5 per 3,750 PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 3 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 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 PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 4 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 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. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 5 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 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 PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 6 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 no 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 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 approval criteria for an Exception to Site Development and Design Standards are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050.E as follows: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. a. There is 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. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 7 b. 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; or c. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. 8) The approval criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit are detailed in AMC 18.3.10.050 as follows: a. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. b. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. c. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. 9) The approval criteria for an Exception to Site Development and Design Standards are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050.E as follows: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1, 2, or 3, below, are found to exist. a. There is 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. b. 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; or c. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. AMC 18.5.7.040.B 10) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in as follows: 1.Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 8 a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 11) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 10, 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: PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 9 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 and Final Plan approval, Site Design Review approval for a four-unit, five-lot Cottage Housing Development located at 657 Oak Street meets all applicable criteria. The application includes requests for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to utilize a portion of the floodplain as open space and construct a patio in the floodplain; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to locate the open space at the rear of the cottage development; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove four trees over six inches d.b.h. 2.3 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline and Final Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements and that this criterion is satisfied by the proposal. 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 The Commission finds that adequate capacity for all city facilities is available and will be provided to the subject property, noting that consultations have occurred August 5, 2019 submittal) prepared by KenCairn Landscape Architecture, which identifies existing facilities available in the adjacent rights-of-way along with proposed connections, and meter placements. Some upgrades may be required, and a final utility plan and associated civil engineering drawings will be provided prior to construction. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 10 Water, Sewer, Electricity and Urban Storm Drainage Water The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by a six-inch water main in Oak Street. Water meters are illustrated being placed directly behind the sidewalk with lines extending under parking area and walkways to serve the proposed cottages. The water lines and meter size will be typical single-family home infrastructure, and the site has adequate water pressure. Sanitary Sewer - The Public Works Department has indicated that property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Oak Street. The conceptual utility plan proposes to connect to the sewer main in Oak Street and extend a sewer line under the parking lot into the center of the property to provide connections for the cottages. Each cottage will have a two-inch private sanitary sewer service line, which will combine under the parking area into a four-inch line and extend to Oak Street. Electricity The application proposes to connect to existing power on Oak Street, with a new secondary power transformer and meter bank to be installed at the west corner of the parking lot. All existing overhead lines are to be converted to underground, with overhead connections abandoned. Urban Storm Drainage - The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by a 15-inch storm sewer main in Oak Street. The original plan (June 13, 2019 submittal) illustrated a storm water dispersal channel with storm water drain pipes and area drains to direct water towards the catch basin near the proposed patio and disperse water downstream in the floodplain. Easements are being sought from neighboring property owners, but should those not be realized, the -inch storm drain line (as detailed in the August 5, 2019 submittal). The proposed system has been conceptually designed to be consistent with the regional Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Standards Manual. Conditions have been included to require final utility plans be approved by the associated departments and require installation of utilities prior to signature on the final plat. Police & Fire Protection The Commission notes that existing fire hydrants are in place to the south and north on Oak Street. A condition has been included below to require that the applicants address the requirements of the Fire Department including but not limited to provisions for approved addressing, fire apparatus access, fire hydrant distance and fire flow as part of the building permit submittal. 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, Oak Street is paved with curb gutter, sidewalk and a partial park row along the frontage. No changes to the street frontage are proposed. The driveway leading to the parking area meets the minimum driveway width of 15-feet, and is adequate for the five required parking spaces. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 11 in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common The Commission finds that the proposal preserves the natural features of the site. The Ashland Modified Floodplain lies at the rear of the property and is proposed to be preserved and utilized as the common open space for the development. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the The Commission finds that the development will not prevent adjacent land from being developed with the uses envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent properties to the south and west are already developed with single-family residences as envisioned in 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 The Commission finds that the proposal is for the development of pad lots with the areas around each building and the shared open space included in common areas. The common areas will have access easements, utility and maintenance agreements and easements. The common area landscaping, parking and driveway maintenance will be addressed in the will be drafted by a land use attorney for review and approval by the City in conjunction with the adequate assurances relative to open space maintenance. The infrastructure is proposed as a first phase, and the construction of the units and open space improvements, landscaping and irrigation installation will be completed as a second phaseprovided for review and approval before signature on the final plat have been included below. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterDensity 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 (16,973/2,500 = Commission finds that the 16,973 square foot property can accommodate six cottages 6.7892) and four are proposed here. The development complies with the Street Standards. The Commission finds that the subject property has frontage on Oak Street, and no changes to the street frontage are proposed or required. Oak Street is classified as an avenue. City street standards require six-foot sidewalks, seven-foot parkrow planting strips, a six-inch curb, eight- to nine-foot parking bays or lanes on each side, six-foot bike lanes and ten-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. The Commission further finds that the existing curb-to-curb paved width along the frontage is 39 feet, and the right-of-way width along the corridor is 60-feet. There are curbs, gutters, paving and curbside sidewalks and a partial park row and sidewalk in place along the pro PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 12 The Commission further finds that the proposed development is located on a fully improved public street, and while the driveway separation distance is not met with the existing driveway curb cuts, the proposal does not alter the driveway location nor attempt to place driveways closer together. The proposal is for a five-lot, four-unit, cottage housing development in accordance with the standards found in AMC 18.2.3.090, and utilizes the Performance Standards chapter, which allows for a consolidated Outline and Final Plan review. The Final Plan approval criterion AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 a-d do not come into play here as Outline and Final Plan are requested concurrently. The fifth Final Plan approval criterion is that, The Commission finds the conceptual elevations provide for small, modern, residences that comply with the height, separation, size limitations and orientation as required in the Cottage Housing Special Use Standard and Site Design Review chapter. Neutral, earth-toned colors and natural materials are proposed to reflect the natural setting. This Commission finds that the proposal complies with the intent of the ordinance to ensure compatibility and blending with established neighborhoods. The sixth criterion is that, in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the No bonus points are requested in this application. The seventh criterion is that, nt complies with the Street Standards. notes that Cottage Housing developments may reduce or eliminate public street dedication when pedestrian connectivity through the site to adjacent properties and adequate vehicular access is provided. The street standards also do not require interconnected streets when physical features such as topographical constraints can alter the required connection to adjacent properties (AMC 18.4.6.040.E.1). tandards, and the Performance Standards criteria all encourage the use of natural features of the landscape to protect the environment from degradation. The proposed private drive maintains consistency with the neighborhood, provides for more efficient land use and minimizes impact to the floodplain. The Planning Commission concludes that, as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Outline Plan and Final Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options chapter. 2.4 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, PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 13 building height, building orientation, The Commission finds all building and yard setback 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 are or will be complied with. The second approval criterion deals with overlay zones, and requires that,The proposal complies with The Commission notes that the property is located 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. In this case, the proposal involves a four-unit cottage housing development and five-lot subdivision, and the applicant has requested Outline Plan approval under the PSO-Overlay chapter. The property has an area of Ashland Modified Floodplain on the site. The proposed development includes constructing a patio, which is considered Floodplain development and addressed in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit discussion later in section 2.6 below. The proposed planting plan demonstrates compliance with the Wildfire Overlay standards. The third criterion addresses the SThe 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 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. Here, the Commission would note the following: Parking The Commission finds that with regard to the parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3, the three new cottage housing units less than 800 square feet require one off-street parking space per unit. The existing residence is larger than 800 square-feet and requires 1.5 parking spaces. Five off-street parking spaces for the four proposed units are provided here. In addition, there is one on- Oak Street frontage. No on-street parking credits are requested. Bicycle parking is to be provided under The fourth approval criterion addresses city facilities, specifically requiring that, The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transAdequate capacity of city facilities, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan discussion in section 2.3 above. The The current request includes one Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards which is discussed in section 2.5 below. The Planning Commission concludes that, as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Site Design Review approval. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 14 2.5 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable standards specific to Cottage Housing Development. The Commission finds that the project has been planned ing residence, open space along the park, and open space in the Ashland floodplain. The project is innovative in many ways and provides a variety of housing that retains compatibility with the existing neighborhood pattern. Cottage Housing Developments provides opportunities for ownership of small, detached and semi-attached single family dwellings for a population diverse in age, income and household size. The Commission finds that other than a single Exception to Site Design and Development Standards requested, no design standard Exceptions or Variances are required. The proposal complies with the allowed development density, floor area ratio, height and lot coverage standards, with four cottages proposed for a 1/3-acre parcel and a combined floor area ratio of 0.19. All of the proposed new cottages are less than 800 square feet in gross habitable floor area, with a combined average floor area of 823 square feet. The three new cottages are each 780 square-feet, while the existing residence is 954 square- feet. All of the units are proposed at no more than 14 feet in height from finished grade to roof peak, where the cottage housing standards allow roof peaks up to 25 feet from grade. Lot coverage is noted at 48.2- percent, and the floodplain patio is proposed to be pervious. Building separations are noted as all greater than the six-foot minimum for cottages, and the trash and recycling enclosures are separated from the cottages with the closest point being four-feet, in compliance with building codes. Some fencing is currently identified around the private yard areas and common areas, but all fencing requires a fence permit, will comply with the limitations of the fence code and will not exceed four feet encing limitations. A condition requiring a fence permit for new fencing is included below. The Commission finds that the proposed cottage housing development is within an established neighborhood with a fully improved street, and that no changes to the driveway location or the right-of- way are proposed. The driveway and parking area proposed are to meet the vehicle area design standards in AMC 18.4.3; three will be standard size spaces and two will be compact spaces and all are to have the minimum required back-up dimension of 22 feet. A condition is included that all spaces include wheel stops, striping, and will be appropriately surfaced. The Commission finds that the off-street parking requirements of AMC 18.4.3.040 are met, providing five spaces for the four cottages in a single, consolidated parking area. The proposal addresses required parking entirely on-site, and no on-street parking credits are requested. Twenty-one percent of the site or 3,642 square-feet, is proposed in open space. A minimum of 20 percent of the site is required in open space and the percentage excludes areas over 25-percent slope. The majority PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 15 of the proposed open space is at the rear of the property with no dimension less than 20 feet. A portion of the open space is proposed in the front yard as well. The Commission finds two cottages abut the rear open space, fulfilling the requirements of AMC 18.2.3.090.C.4.e that 50 percent of the units abut the open space. The majority of open space lies to the rear of the development in the Ashland Modified Floodplain and is not central to the development; therefore, an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards is requested for AMC 18.2.3.090.C.4.c, which requires a central open space. The first approval criteria for an Exception requires that, 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 the 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 rear third of the property is in the floodplain, where development is prohibited. The floodplain limits the buildable area and creates a natural open space. The subject property is a long, narrow parcel, over three times larger in depth than in width, and is nearly twice the required lot depth. There is a walkway that interconnects the units to the oversized, common open space in the floodplain. There are low retaining walls to preserve the functionality of the open space. The open space ultimately preserves and makes use of the natural feature of the site, the Ashland Modified Floodplain. The proposal limits the cottages to four, although six are permitted by code. The cottage development makes use of the buildable area to minimize disturbance to the floodplain, while also making the floodplain as functional as possible. The cottages have been grouped, and parking consolidated, to preserve as much contiguous open space as reasonably possible. The walkways provide easy access to the open space from all the subdivisions. The front cottage has its own front yard open space as well. The second and third Exception criteria do not apply here. The open space is distinguished from private outdoor areas with a walkway, landscaping and retaining walls to provide a visual boundary and dimension. Private open space areas, separate from the common open space, include large porches and patios to provide the requisite private outdoor areas. The development proposes landscape garden bed filtration systems, rain barrels and permeable walkway surfaces where possible for low impact development compliance. As designed by the Civil Engineer, the drainage is proposed to be filtered per the RVSS standards and flow towards the floodplain area at the rear of the property, which is the preferred method by the applicant rather than altering to flow towards the street should easements from adjacent property owners be procured. Following removal of the Himalayan Blackberries, the native vegetation on the hillside and in most of the floodplain area is proposed to be retained. Conditions have been included to require the storm water on-site collection system be shown on PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 16 the building permit submittal. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal is consistent the Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards approval criteria. 2.6 The Planning Commission concludes that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for a Physical Constraints Review Permit. The proposal includes a 733 square-foot, porous surface patio and some poured concrete low retaining walls in the Ashland Modified Floodplain, approximately 180-feet from Ashland Creek. Patios are classified as structures and structures require a Physical Constraints Review Permit per AMC 18.3.10. Although a portion of the retaining wall does cross into slopes over 35-percent, it does not meet the alteration of land threshold in AMC 18.3.10.020.A.1 to be subject to the Development Standards for Severe Constrain Lands (18.3.10.110). The location of the Ashland Modified Floodplain shown in the submittal differs slightly from where the Ashland Modified Floodplain is located, but the proposed cottages are still outside the floodplain and the disturbance in the floodplain is limited to the disturbance described above. The first approval criterion that, chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have The small patio will not import any fill into the floodplain corridor. There is less than 1,000 square-feet of disturbance and there is 47 cubic yards of disturbance proposed to create the subgrade area for stormwater retention and drainage. The applicant also asserts that the impacts are minimal and will not have an adverse impact on the property or nearby properties. The second criterion that, There is no historical evidence of flooding on the site in the form of sand or silt, or striations of water courses. None of the vegetation on the site is indicative that flooding has ever occurred on the property. According to the neighbors, no floodwaters have come near the properties in the past. The patio will not create any hazards as it is at grade and will have porosity in the event of an epic flood that would raise the creek levels to the property. The third criterion that, on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordin The proposed area of disturbance is minimal. There is substantial distance from the flood source and wide open spaces within Ashland Creek Park that can slow and dissipate floodwater. The patio is proposed to PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 17 be porous to minimize impact as much as possible in the event of floodwater. The patio will allow residents to make use of the open space and the floodplain while also minimizing disturbance to the natural feature and native vegetation. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that there are seven trees over six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) on the property: a 14-inch Ash, a 16-inch Box Elder, a 22-inch Deodar Cedar, a 30-inch Oak, a 16-inch Cedar, a 40-inch Black Walnut and an eight-inch Ash. Four trees are proposed for removal as part of the application the 40-inch Black Walnut shared between 657 and 677 Oak, the Deodar Cedar, the 14-inch Ash and the Box Elder. Trees The lot is zoned Single-Family, R-1-5, and because it is an oversized lot that is eligible to be partitioned, Tree Removal Permits are required for any trees over six-inches d.b.h. An assessment of the trees was performed by a certified arborist and four trees are proposed for removal. The first criterion for Tree Removal permits for a Tree that is Not The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in p The trees proposed for removal are identified as either in poor condition or in the proposed parking area. The 40-inch Black Walnut is in poor condition with broken limbs, numerous nails and the remnants of an old tree house. The Deodar Cedar is located in front of the existing residence, has no room for future growth and is considered a fire danger. The 14-inch Ash has weak form, and the arborist determined removal and replacement is the most appropriate treatment for the tree. The Box Elder is located in the proposed parking area. The second approval criterion is that, erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, The Commission finds that the removals will not have significant negative impacts on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The third criterion is that, densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no The Commission finds that the removal of the trees will have no significant negative impacts on tree densities, sizes, canopies or species diversity. None of the trees are rare, specimen or heritage trees. The fourth criterion for approval of a Tree Removal Permit is that, that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply The Commission finds that the four trees identified for PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 18 removal are due to declining health, limited value or central location relative to site development. The Commission finds the density is not impacted by the removal of the trees. The final criterion is that, granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the pThe Commission finds that four mitigation trees are required, and that a total of 11 new trees are proposed. All proposed trees, plants and shrubs are to be planted and irrigated. The Commission finds that the proposal more than adequately mitigates the requested tree removals. The Tree Commission has reviewed the application at their meeting on September 5, 2019 and recommended the application be approved as submitted. In considering the proposal, the Commission notes that tree protection details are provided on the Removal Plan (Sheet L2.0). These details indicate that trees on the property and neighboring properties will be protected by temporary tree protective fencing. A condition is included that a Tree Verification Permit be obtained to verify the identification of trees to be removed and the installation of any requisite tree protection for trees on the subject property and adjacent properties prior to any site work. The Planning Commission concludes that as detailed above and with the conditions discussed, the proposal complies with the requirements for Tree Protection and for Tree Removal Permits to remove four trees. 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 four-unit, five- lot Cottage Housing development, Exception to the Site Design and Development Standards, Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, and Tree Removal Permit is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #PA-T2-2019-00011. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2019-00011 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. 3.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new driveway approaches or any necessary encroachments. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 19 4.That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 5.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 identification of the trees to be removed and the presence of fencing to protect trees on adjacent properties. 6.That the 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 in the building permit submittals. That the Fire Marshall shall review and approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and all 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. 7.Irrig- guide shall be planted at a spacing of one per 30-50 feet within this existing partial parkrow 8.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 substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 9.That building permit submittals shall include: a.Identification of all easements, including public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus easements. b.Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and circulation areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 50-percent as required in AMC 18.2.5. c.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. d.That 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 and easements for stormwater shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 20 e.The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. f.The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met in accordance with 18.4.3.070.I 10.That prior to certificate of occupancy: a.That common area and open space improvements (i.e. landscaping, wetland ponds and landscaping, irrigation, etc.) shall be installed or bonded for in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter prior to the submittal of final survey plat or first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is first. b.The 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 rtificate of occupancy. c.That the installation of parking shall be installed or bonded for in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter prior to the submittal of final survey plat or first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is first. The parking shall include wheel stops, striping and be appropriately surfaced in accordance with 18.4.3.080. d.That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. 11.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. 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. c.That final CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. i.The CC&- improvements including carports and parking areas, landscaping, storm water facilities and street trees and their planting strips. ii.The cottage housing fencing limitations, floor area limitations and the prohibition iii.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 PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 21 shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. iv.The draft CC&Rs shall include stipulations on height limitations for front, side and rear yard, and shall note that fences adjacent to common open space areas shall not exceed four feet. d.That the Water Conservation Division shall review and approve the final size- and species- specific landscaping plan including irrigation details and details of the landscape materials prior to installation. e.Final electric service, utility and civil engineering plans shall be approved by the applicable city department(s) and all subdivision civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. i.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. ii.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. iii.Subdivision improvements including but not limited to common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans prior to submittal of the final survey plat for review and signature. October 8, 2019___________ Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2019-00011 October 8, 2019 Page 22 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 8, 2019 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #PA-T2-2019-00013, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 27-LOT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ) OPTIONS SUBDIVISION ON THE VACANT 5.92-ACRE PARCEL (TAX LOT #200) ) AT THE CURRENT WESTERN TERMINUSES OF OTIS AND RANDY STREETS, ) FINDINGS, WEST OF ELIZABETH AVENUE. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD IN- ) CONCLUSIONS CLUDE 23 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, TWO COMMON OPEN SPACE ) & PARCELS AND TWO LARGER LOTS INTENDED FOR FUTURE COTTAGE HOUS- ) ORDERS ING DEVELOPMENTS TOTALING 19 COTTAGES. ) ) OWNER/APPLICANT: CMK Development, LLC/Taylored Elements ) Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lot #200 of Map 39 1E 05AD is a vacant parcel located between the western terminuses of Otis and Randy Streets, and the southern terminus of Van Sant Street and is zoned R-1-5-P (Single Family Residential). 2) The applicants are requesting Outline Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to develop a 27-lot subdivision for the vacant 5.92-acre parcel (Tax Lot #200) at the current western terminuses of Otis and Randy Streets, west of Elizabeth Avenue. The proposed subdivision would include 23 single family residential lots, two common open space parcels and two larger lots intended for future Cottage Housing developments totaling 19 cottages. 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. PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 1 f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. 4) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 10, 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. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan approval meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval. The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, ordinance requirements of the CityThe Planning Commission notes that for developments of fewer than ten lots, Outline Plan approval may be requested concurrently with Final Plan while developments of ten or more lots, as is the case here, require Outline Plan approval be obtained prior to requesting Final Plan approval. The Commission further notes that with development of the individual single family-zoned lots, a demonstration that adequate off-street parking (i.e. typically, two spaces per residence) is provided consistent with AMC 18.4.3 will be required. In addition, the Performance Standards Options Chapter Parking Standards in AMC 18.3.9.060 require: PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 2 At least one on-street parking space per dwelling unit shall be provided, in addition to the off-street parking requirements for all developments in an R-1 zone, with the exception of cottage housing developments. On-street parking spaces are to be immediately adjacent to the public right-of-way on publicly or association-owned land and be directly accessible from public right-of-way streets. On-street parking spaces are to be located within 200 feet of the dwelling that it is intended to serve. In addition, on-street public parking may be provided pursuant to minimum criteria established under subsection 18.4.3.060.A. -of-way, or any other signs related to the regulation of on-street parking, shall be consistent with the Street Standards in 18.4.6.030 and with land use approval. The Planning Commission finds that as proposed, the 23 single family lots and the accessory residential unit (ARU) proposed for Lot #20 require a total of 24 on-street parking spaces, and t demonstrates that 32 on-street parking spaces are available to meet the requirements. The Commission finds that the proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances or Exceptions, and that the first 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 With regard to this criterion, the Commission finds that adequate city facilities can be provided to the subdivision and that this will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. In initial consultations, City of Ashland utility departments have noted that all facilities in the area are adequate for the proposed development and will not operate beyond their capabilities with the development proposed. Of particular note: Water : The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by eight-inch water mains in Vansant, Randy and Otis Streets. Water lines in the area are high pressure, and will require pressure reduction valves. There is adequate water pressure for the residences, common area irrigation and fire hydrants. Public Works has noted the issue with , and Public Works/Engineering is working with the project civil engineer who is addressing it through the civil drawings by providing one dead-end main on Otis Street and another separate main in Randy Street to feed the remainder of the development. Public Works has indicated that they have reviewed the preliminary design drawings which will address the pressure issue. Sewer: The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Vansant Street and by six-inch sanitary sewer mains in both Randy and Otis Streets. Proposed sewer lines are shown on the conceptual utility plan. A line is proposed in the new north-south extension of Otis Street and another in Randy Street. The proposed sewer lines utilize gravity and will be extended to the east. Easements are proposed PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 3 for the three lots that abut Otis Street and for Lot #25 to provide connections to the proposed utility infrastructure. Urban Storm Drainage : The Public Works Department has indicated that the property is currently served by 12-inch storm sewer mains at the northwest and northeast corners of the property as well as by a 12-inch storm sewer main located in Randy Street. A storm drainage system has been conceptually designed with below grade collection systems and a large open space parcel that has a dry pond storm drain facility. This facility is not a pond and the lot will typically remain dry except during extreme weather events. Even then, drainage will be designed in a manner that does not allow standing water in the dry pond. Electricity: The applicants have met with the Electric Department to develop a preliminary service plan, and the Electric Department has confirmed that they have reviewed and approved the preliminary electric service plan for the development, and have also pointed out that the plan includes accommodations for stubbing in service to eventually underground the electric service for the neighboring property at 375 Otis Street. Paved Access & Adequate Transportation: The applicant proposes to extend Randy and Otis Streets through the subdivision with improvements according to city street standards, and has provided a Transportation Impact Analysis which concludes that the proposed development can be approved without creating adverse operational impacts on the transportation system and without degrading the performance of an existing or planned facility such that it would not meet ransportation System Plan (TSP). Specific street improvements are addressed in further detail in the Street Standards discussion later in this document. Based on the above, the Planning Commission concludes that adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way and will be extended by the applicant to serve the proposed development. Conditions are attached 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 Final Plan submittal, and that civil infrastructure be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The third criterion for approval of an OThe 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, The Planning Commission notes that there are no significant trees on the property, and that the application does include an inventory of trees on the adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line, and details of proposed tree protection for these trees during all site work. The Planning Commission further notes that the property has been used as irrigated pasture land and hay fields for many decades. A portion of the Helman Ditch, an old irrigation line, enters the site from a wooden culvert that daylights into the southeastern portion of the property from under the railroad tracks where there are willows and blackberries present. This water follows a channel where the irrigation line PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 4 crosses the property and drains into a catch basin on the south side of Otis Street. The water is piped under the street before it daylights again on the east side of the 375 Otis Street property. There are several irrigation users including the subject property, 375 Otis Street and Billings Ranch, and according to the applicant discussions are underway with the Jackson County Water Master to develop a plan to maintain irrigation access for these users with development of the property. The Planning Commission notes that no wetlands are identified on the property in the National or Local Wetlands Inventories It is unlikely that there are jurisdictional wetlands or waterways on the property based upon a review of wetland maps, the county soil survey and other information. An onsite determination or delineation may be needed prior to site development; the wetland delineation report should be submitted to the Department of State Lands for review and approval.To verify that none of the water identified as being associated with irrigation in fact constitutes a wetland, a condition has been included b wetlands are present be provided with the Final Plan application. Subject to DSL concurrence with regard to wetlands, the Planning Commission concludes there are no significant natural features on the subject property. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, adjacent land from being developed for The Planning Commission finds that adjacent lands are largely developed, and that development of the subject property in a manner consistent with the underlying zoning, extension of utilities and installation of city standard street improvements will not prevent any adjacent land from developing as envisioned in 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 The Planning Commission notes that the Performance Standards Options Chapter (AMC 18.3.9) requires at least five percent of the total lot area to be provided as common open space. Here, the 4.76 acres proposed for single (207,345.6 square family lots equate to 207,345.6 square feet and require 10,367 square feet of open space feet x 0.05 = 10,367.28 square feet). The Planning Commission finds that two separate open space parcels are to be provided: t northeast corner of the site, near the existing terminus of Randy Street; the second open space parcel is proposed between the railroad tracks and the extension of Otis Street along the properties southern boundary. These two open space parcels total more than 17,855 square feet. The Planning Commission further notes that Lots #24 and #25, which the applicant is reserving with the potential for future cottage housing development, will have separate open space requirements as part of the Cottage Housing ordinance review, and their individual open space requirements would be considered separately under that review. The Planning Commission further notes subdivision is to have two phases for the single family lot development, and the open spaces are proposed to be PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 5 developed with each phase. Phase 1 is anticipated to provide the East/West connection of Randy Street and include the lots on the north and south side of the street. Phase 2 will consist of the Otis Street connection. A condition has been attached to require that the Final Plan application provide final phasing details which demonstrate compliance with AMC 18.3.9.040.A.4.b, which requires that phased subdivision provide 50 percent of the value of the recreational amenities with the first phase and all recreational amenities when 2/3 of the units are finished, of the open space and common areas. With that, the Planning Commission concludes that there will be and phasing of the development. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter The Planning Commission finds that the total lot area is 5.92 acres or 257,875.2 square feet. After excluding the areas of the two lots (#24 and #25) which are being set aside for future cottage housing development, the remaining lot area is 4.76 acres or 207,345.6 square feet with a base 4.76 acres x 4.5 density of 21 dwelling units at the R-1-5 base density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre ( dwelling units per acre = 21.42 dwelling units ). The Planning Commission further finds that all units in the development are proposed as Earth Advantage, and that the Performance Standards Options chapter provides for a density bonus of up to 15 percent for 21.42 dwelling units this Conservation Housing, which would allow the density to increase to 24 units ( x 1.15 = 24.633 dwelling units ). The Planning Commission finds that as proposed, with the full 15 percent Conservation Housing density bonus, the 23 single family residential lots, including a detached accessory residential unit(ARU) proposed on Lot #20, falls within the allowed density. The Planning Commission notes that the applicant has proposed to reserve two of the proposed lots for future cottage housing development. Lot #24 on the west side of Otis Street is proposed at 20,173 square feet and is noted as accommodating nine future cottage units, while Lot #25 on the east side of Otis Street is proposed at 30,551 square feet and is noted as accommodating ten cottage units. The Planning Commission finds that w housing exceed the lot areas necessary for the number of cottage dwelling units proposed, the lot sizes proposed would accommodate cottage development as follows: \[ƚƷ ϔЋЍʹ ЋЉͲЊАЌ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ŅĻĻƷ ğƷ ƚƓĻ ĭƚƷƷğŭĻ ķǞĻƌƌźƓŭ ǒƓźƷ ƦĻƩ ЋͲЎЉЉ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ŅĻĻƷ ў Б͵ЉЏВЋ ķǞĻƌƌźƓŭ ǒƓźƷƭ \[ƚƷ ϔЋЎʹ ЌЉͲЎЎЊ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ŅĻĻƷ ğƷ ĭƚƷƷğŭĻ ķǞĻƌƌźƓŭ ǒƓźƷ ƦĻƩ ЋͲЎЉЉ ƭƨǒğƩĻ ŅĻĻƷ ў ЊЋ͵ЋЋЉЍ ĭƚƷƷğŭĻ ķǞĻƌƌźƓŭ ǒƓźƷƭ The Planning Commission finds that as proposed, Lot #24 is not large enough to accommodate more than eight cottage dwelling units. A lot size of at least 22,500 square feet would be necessary for nine i.e. 9 cottage dwelling units x 2,500 square feet/cottage dwelling unit = 22,500 square feet units (). The Commission further finds that Lot #25 as proposed would accommodate up to the maximum allowed 12 cottage dwelling units. The Commission further notes that the current application does not propose cottage housing development at this time lots which could accommodate future cottage housing development are simply being reserved through the current proposal. A condition has been attached to make clear that PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 6 prior to the development of these lots as cottage housing, demonstration of compliance with the Cottage Housing regulations in AMC 18.2.3.090 will need to be provided and Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals obtained, including that the size or number of units for Lot #24 be adjusted to comply with The final Outline Plan approval criterion is that, The Planning Commission notes that both Randy and Otis Streets are cla neighborhood street are as follows: Right-of Way Width : 47- to 57-foot r-o-w Curb-to-Curb Width : 22- to 28-foot curb to curb width Travel Lane: 11- to 15-foot queuing Bike Lanes: N/A (generally not needed due to low volumes/low speeds) Parking Bays: 7 feet Curb: 6-inches on both sides Parkrow: 7- to 8-foot Park Row on both sides (8-foot where no on-street parking) Sidewalk: 5- to 6-foot Sidewalk on both sides (6-foot where frequent two-way pedestrian traffic) The Planning Commission finds that the two streets are to be extended as neighborhood streets and that as proposed they demonstrate compliance with the above street standards. The proposed right-of-way widths and improvements to the proposed rights-of-way will conform to the applicable street standards, and the streets are proposed to transition from the existing improvements which have a curbside sidewalk along Randy Street and no sidewalks in place along Otis Street to fully comply with current standards. Sidewalks are proposed to be five feet in width, and park rows with irrigated street trees are proposed at a seven-foot width in keeping with the above standards. Sidewalks are to include ADA access ramps where required by the City of Ashland Public Works/Engineering division. Standard, pedestrian scale streetlights are proposed. The Commission notes here that the applicant suggests that Sternberg lights will be used, however the Commission finds that as a new residential development outside of the Historic Districts, the standard street light is the type of light is already deployed in the immediate neighborhood. As such, a condition has been included that the Final Plan address the applicable city street light standards, and that Eurotique lights be used unless another type of light is already in use within the immediate neighborhood. The Commission notes that the proposed right-of-way width for Randy Street is 57 feet to allow for on- street parking on both sides, curbs, gutters, landscaped parkrow planting strips and sidewalks, with the minimum transition from existing curbside sidewalks allowed by engineering standards. Randy Street is proposed to connect through to Vansant Street, which has the same right-of-way width, and the sidewalk and parkrow will transition to those in place within the Billings Ranch subdivision. Otis Street is proposed to be connected through the property to intersect with Randy Street with a proposed right-of-way of 56.6 feet, which is slightly wider than the existing Otis Street right-of-way. Along the frontage of proposed lots on the north side of Otis Street, landscaped park row planting strips and sidewalks are proposed. There is one lot at 375 Otis which is surrounded by the subject property but is not part of the proposed development, PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 7 and there is not currently adequate right-of-way available to construct sidewalk and park row along this The Commission finds that the subdivision lay-out allows for the accommodation of emergency vehicles, and all turning radii are large enough to accommodate vehicles including emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. The Commission notes that controlled access standards require that driveway curb cuts and aprons are to be no closer than 24 feet from the next adjacent driveway, and that all proposed driveway curb cuts are to be more than 35-feet from the nearest intersection. The Commission finds that as illustrated, Lots 4 & 5, Lots 8 & 9, and Lots 10 & 11 are very close to these separation distances, and as such a condition has been attached that the separations be verified to comply with the standards in the Final Plan submittal. The Commission notes that a neighbor has raised concerns that the connection from Randy to Vansant Street takes a 90-degree turn just past the point of connection, and due to mature landscaping in the park row planting strip along the north and east sides of Vansant, there is direction on Vansant, and that this is exacerbated by differing street widths at the point of transition. This neighbor requests traffic calming measures at the point of connection such as bulb-outs, warning signs or lights. The Commission finds that at the intersection of Otis and Randy Streets, the applicant has proposed to extend the curb line to reduce crossing distance and has proposed a three-way stop for traffic control. The Commission finds that based on the materials provided, while it is unclear that a three-way stop is required given anticipated traffic volumes, a three-way stop would likely be beneficial in slowing Randy Street traffic through the intersection. A condition of approval has been attached that the applicant work with the Public Works/Engineering Division prior to completion of their civil drawings for the Final Plan submittal to determine whether a three-way stop is appropriate at this intersection and whether additional traffic calming or safety measures are needed at the transition to Vansant Street. The Commission further notes that the proposal includes extension of an alley which is to connect the existing alley along the tracks in the adjacent Billings Ranch subdivision through the proposed open space to Otis Street. The Commission finds that where proposed or required, alleys are to have a 16-foot dedicated right-of-way width improved with 12 feet of paving, no curbs, and two-foot gravel or planted strips on both sides. If alleys are to be maintained by the city as part of the city system they also need to be dedicated as public right-of-way, and if necessary there may need to be access easements provided to enable maintenance access. A condition has been attached here to require that the alley right-of-way be dedicated, that the civil drawings incorporate alley improvements to city standards, and that these improvements be completed, inspected and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat. The Planning Commission notes that a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been provided which indicates that the project is estimated to generate approximately 30 new trips during the A.M. peak hour and 40 new trips during the P.M. peak hour. This is below the 50 trip threshold which triggers a formal TIA, however the applicant has nonetheless completed a TIA which concludes that the proposed development can be approved without creating adverse operational impacts on the transportation system and without degrading the performance of an existing or planned facility such that it would not meet the performance standards PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 8 The Planning Commission concludes that, with the conditions attached below, the proposal is consistent with the applicable Street Standards. 2.9 The Planning Commission notes that the subject property does not contain any trees over six- inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and further notes that a Tree Inventory and Tree Protection Plan have been provided addressing those trees on adjacent properties within 15 feet of the property line. In addition, the application includes landscape and irrigation plans for the proposed open spaces and park row planting strips. The Tree Commission supported approval of the application with the recommendation that the applicant consider adjustments to their landscaping plan which would emphasize native species in their plant selection. A condition has been attached below to require that the final plan submittal include a final landscape and irrigation plan incorporating the Tree Commission recommendations, with final size- and species-specific landscape planting and irrigation details. 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 Plan approval for a 27-lot Performance Standards Options subdivision is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #T2-2019-00013. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #T2-2019-00013 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. 2.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. Street and subdivision names shall be subject to City of Ashland Engineering Department review for compliance with applicable naming policies. 3.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for street and sidewalk installation, new driveway approaches or any necessary encroachments. 4.That all recommendations of the Tree Commission from their September 5, 2019 regular meeting shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. 5.That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to any site work, storage of materials, staging or issuance of a building or excavation permit. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction activity, including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles, shall occur within the tree protection zones. 6.The Cottage Housing Developments for Lots #24 and #25 are not approved here. Subsequent to Final Plan approval, the development of either of these lots with more than a single family PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 9 residence will require further land use approval (i.e. a Cottage Housing Development requires Site Design Review Approval, demonstration of compliance with the Cottage Housing regulations in AMC 18.2.3.090, and Performance Standards Subdivision approval. Compliance with Cottage Housing regulations will include demonstration that the lot size or number of units for Lot #24 has 7.That the Final Plan submittals shall include: a.Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments with the Final Plan application. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean- drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b.That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment with the Final Plan application. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation (with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. c.The engineered construction drawings for the proposed street extensions of Randy and Otis Streets and the proposed multi-use path and alley for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions with the Final Plan application, prior to work in the street right-of-way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. i.Randy Street is a residential neighborhood street and is proposed with a 57-foot right- of-way to allow for on-street parking on both sides, curbs, gutters, seven-foot landscaped parkrow planting strips and five-foot sidewalks, with the minimum transition from existing curbside sidewalks allowed by engineering standards. Randy Street is proposed to connect through to Vansant Street, which has the same right-of- PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 10 way width, and the sidewalk and parkrow will transition to those in place within the Billings Ranch subdivision. ii.Otis Street is a residential neighborhood street and is proposed to connect through the property to intersect with Randy Street with a proposed right-of-way of 56.6 feet, which is slightly wider than the existing Otis Street right-of-way. Along the frontage of proposed lots on the north side of Otis Street, seven-foot landscaped park row planting strips and five-foot sidewalks are proposed. Prior to completion of their civil drawings for the Final Plan submittal, the applicants shall work with their engineers and the Public Works/Engineering Division to determine whether a three-way stop is appropriate at the intersection of Randy and Otis Streets and whether additional traffic calming or safety measures are needed at the transition to Vansant Street. iii.The alley and multi-use path shall be designed to the applicable city street standards, which require a 16-foot right-of-way with 12 feet of centered paving for an alley and a 10- to 18-foot right-of-way with a 10-foot paved path centered in the right-of-way between two- to four-foot buffer strips. d.A site plan illustrating final proposed building envelopes and demonstrating that adequate driveway separation (i.e. at least 24 feet between all driveways) will be provided. e.A final phasing plan for completion of the subdivision demonstrating compliance with the requirements of AMC 18.3.9.If an outline plan is phased, 50 percent of the value of the recreational amenities shall be provided in the first phase and all recreational amenities shall be provided when 2/3 of the units are finished. f.Final site lighting details. The Final Plan submittals shall address the applicable city street the historic districts unless another type of light standard is already in use within the surrounding neighborhood. g.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to comply with the applicable coverage allowances of the R-1-5-P zoning district. Lot coverage includes all building footprints, driveways, parking areas and other circulation areas, and any other areas other than natural landscaping. h.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. i.A storm drainage plan detailing the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre- development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. j.A final landscape and irrigation plan incorporating the Tree Commission recommendation with final size- and species-specific landscape planting and irrigation details. k.A final grading and erosion control plan. n.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 11 pathways, and dire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. o.That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. p.That the applicant shall provide evidence of Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) concurrence that there are no wetlands present on the property. q.That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including open space, landscaping and street trees and their planting strips. r.The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved Tree Preservation and Protection Plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. s.A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four feet in height. Fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. 8.Prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat: a.That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 12 months and approved by the City of Ashland within 18 months of this approval. b.The final survey plat shall include necessary dedication of necessary public right-of-way to accommodate the street system proposed by the applicant. c.That the subdivision name and all street names shall be approved by the City of Ashland Engineering Division. d.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, drainage, irrigation, and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final survey plat as required by the Ashland Engineering Division. PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 12 e.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utility installations, street and alley installation shall be completed according to approved plans prior to signature of the final survey plat. f.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase of the subdivision, 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 within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. h.Any additional right-of-way necessary to accommodate city standard street improvements for the proposed street system, including the alley/multi-use path, shall be dedicated to the city on the final survey plat. All public improvements including but not limited to the paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, street trees in irrigated park row planting strips and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. 9.That prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) on Lot #20, the applicant shall obtain required Site Design Review approval unless the proposed ARU qualifies as being exempt from Site Design Review under AMC 18.2.3.040.A. 10.That prior to the issuance of a building permit for any unit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Earth Advantage® certifications necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing density bonus are being pursued, and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall provide evidence of the required Earth Advantage® certification. October 8, 2019 Planning Commission Approval Date PA-T2-2019-00013 October 8, 2019 Page 13 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2019-00001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Highway 99 North OWNER: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC (agents) APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR- 5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments. (The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-5, Proposed City R-2; 38 1E 32; TAX LOT #: 1700 & 1702. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 E. Main St. Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson in the Ashland Planning Division at 541-488-5305 or via e-mail to derek.severson@ashland.or.us . 18.5.8.050 Annexations - Approval Criteria and Standards An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of the following approval criteria. A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present city limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards. 1. For vehicular transportation a 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35 percent, shall not be included. G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. 1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit. 2. As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 6. b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. d. 3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with the market rate units in the development. a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3. Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the development. 4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 5. That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project 6. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 7. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. b. That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to the City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a proportional mix of unit types. c. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services. e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5. f.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. 8. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met. 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1, or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Design Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request. 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services. 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an island completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. 18.5.9.020 Zone Change - Applicability and Review Procedure Applications for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are as follows: A. Type II. The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections. Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following. 1. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances. 3. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action. 4. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 5. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment, or industrial zoned lands (i.e., Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25 percent of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in subsection 18.5.8.050.G. 6. The total number of affordable units described in 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 or 5, above, shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. 18.5.9.020.A, subsections 4 and 5 do not apply to Council initiated actions. 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. AMC 18.5.2.050 SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: 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 18.4.6.020.B.1 EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS APPROVAL CRITERIA Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT October 8, 2019 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T3-2019-00001 APPLICANT: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC OWNER: Linda Zare AGENTS: Casita Developments, LLC Kendrick Enterprise, LLC LOCATION: 1511 Hwy 99N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: (*Type III applications not subject to 120-day limits pursuant to ORS 227.178.7) ORDINANCE REFERENCES: (See also https://ashland.municipal.codes/LandUse ) 18.2 Zoning Regulations 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3 Special Districts and Overlay Zones 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay 18.3.11 Water Resources Protection Zones (Overlays) 18.4 Site Development and Design Standards 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design 18.4.3 Parking, Access and Circulation 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.7 Signs 18.4.8 Solar Access 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.7 Tree Removal 18.5.8 Annexations 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan, Zoning & Land Use Ordinance Amendments 18.6.1 Definitions Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 1 of 18 REQUEST: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to right-of-way constraints including width, grade and existing encroachments. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (One- and Two-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to Annexation. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application There are no planning actions of record for the subject property. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The subject property consists of two tax lots totaling 16.87 acres which are contiguous to the city limits at the northwest corner of Ashland. Tax Lot #1700 is an 11.81-acre parcel which contains a 1,182 square foot single family residence built in approximately 1948 according to Tax Lot #1700 is located behind a series of smaller lots containing commercial uses along the highway (Anderson Auto Body, Paradise Garden Supply, the Animal Medical Hospital, and various medical offices, restaurants and auto dealerships), and the existing home is accessed via a driveway easement running between Paradise Garden Supply and the Animal Medical Hospital. Tax Lot #1702 is a 5.06-acre vacant parcel located southeast of Tax Lot #1700, and is located immediately adjacent to the highway with approximately 902 feet of linear highway frontage. Both are irregularly shaped, and generally extend northwest of the railroad overpass at the north end of Ashland along Highway 99N. The parcels are generally bounded on the south side by the railroad tracks and on the north side by Highway 99, and to the west by commercial development on county lands within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The application notes that the majority of Tax Lot #1700 is steep and densely forested with native Oak savannah, but indicates that there are a limited number of trees in and around the areas of proposed development. Trees are noted as being concentrated within the wetland and its associated protection zone, around the existing single family residence, and in the northwest portion of the property where development is not proposed. The applicant indicates that subsequent applications involving site development will include a detailed tree inventory and assessment and include any necessary tree removal permits. The application notes that there is a riparian land drainage identified as a tributary of Bear Creek at the north end of Tax Lot #1700. In addition, two wetlands have been identified of the subject properties. One is only 60-square feet and is located at the base of a small depression northwest of the existing single family residence on Tax Lot #1700. The other is larger at approximately 4,606 square feet in area and located on Tax Lot #1702. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 2 of 18 view, it would be advisable to update the Wildfire Lands, Physical & Environmental Constraints Hillside Lands and Severe Constraints, and Water Resource Protection Zones maps and associated overlays to fully incorporate the subject properties with annexation. In addition to these natural water features, a 100- According to the federal Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Billings Siphon is a high pressure pipeline that is critical infrastructure for the continued functioning of irrigation facilities within the Talent Irrigation District, and the pipe and the easement are owned by the United States government, administered under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and operated and maintained under a federal contract by the Talent Irrigation District (TID). The application explains that while the site has a generally consistent grade and is moderately sloped with an approximate ten- to 15-percent slope from southeast to northwest, the western half of Tax Lot #1700, west of the existing residence, consists of large terraces with areas of steep slopes between and a substantial amount of this lot has slopes in excess of 35 percent The applicant notes that the existing residence is serviced by Rogue Valley Sanitary Sewer Service (RVSS) and is within the district boundaries for sanitary sewer service. The existing residence is served by Pacific Power for electric service, and water service is from a well on the property. While city code requirements would typically necessitate that all utilities Agreement Valley Sanitary Authority which dates to November 8, 1995 and which provides that the district shall continue to provide sanitary sewer services it has historically provided to terri agree to joint provision of service to areas within the City or its UGB by contract, mutual agreement or other method. Preliminary discussions with the Public Works Director have indicated that the city would be generally agreeable to the sewer service district serving the development of the property given the scope of future development and difficulties in extending infrastructure and services which would otherwise require that sewage be pumped back uphill. The subject properties are located in Jackson County Boundary (UGB) and are contiguous to the city limits. The current zoning within the County is RR-5 (Rural Residential, with a five-acre minimum lot size) and the city Comprehensive Plan designation is Multi-Family Residential. The applicant proposes to annex the properties as R-2, a Low-Density Multi-Family Residential zoning which allows for a base density of 13 ½ dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Highway 99 North is a state highway under Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) jurisdiction, and was recently re-striped by ODOT as part of a lane reduction program which includes a single motor vehicle travel lane in each direction with a shared central turn lane and bicycle lanes on both sides. With annexation, the highway would come into the city limits and be subject to city street standards as an extension of North Main Street, a boulevard or arterial street. The subject properties are setback substantially from the Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 3 of 18 subject property. The applicant notes that there is a bar ditch, a steep incline and in some locations a secondary ditch that conveys stormwater diverted from the railroad across the south end of the subject property, and the roadside ditch and culvert system enters an underground system at the shared, west property line of Anderson Auto Body and then daylights again further west of the Animal Medical Hospital. II. Project Impact The application includes a request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to right-of-way constraints including width, grade and existing encroachments. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (One- and Two-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. Neither Outline Plan subdivision nor Site Design Review approvals are requested here, and both would be applied for subsequent to Annexation. For annexations, the Council; the City Council would need to conduct a hearing of its own and then, if approved, the annexation would be completed with the adoption of an ordinance annexing the property. A. Annexation and Rezoning The approval standards for an Annexation require: that the subject property be located within the City's Urban Growth Boundary; that the proposed zoning for the annexed area be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation and that the project, if proposed concurrently, is an allowed use; that the land is currently contiguous to the present city limits; that adequate city facilities for water, sewer, electricity, and urban storm drainage can and will be provided; that adequate transportation can and will be provided including facilities necessary to accommodate motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians and transit; that, for residential annexation, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the property will occur at a minimum of 90 percent of the base density of the property less any reductions for natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints and that the owner sign and record an agreement ensuring that future development will occur in accord with this minimum density; that the proposal meet the affordability requirements set forth in AMC 18.5.8.050.G; that one or more of the standards in AMC 18.5.8.050.H, which includes Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 4 of 18 demonstration that there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and re- developable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. In this instance, the subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is contiguous with the existing city limits boundary to the south. The requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation Multi-Family Residential and, while Site Design Review approval is not currently requested, a conceptual multi-family development plan is provided to demonstrate how the property could be developed to the required minimum density in keeping with applicable standards. Adequacy of Public Facilities Annexation requests must demonstrate that adequate city facilities can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Each of the listed city services is discussed below: Water: The Water Department has noted that the property is not currently served by a water main, and a new main will need to be installed to connect to the existing city water system. The nearest point of connection is the intersection of North Main Street and Highway 99 North. The applicant notes that water lines to service the property are proposed to be extended, and indicates that these will be adequately sized to provided water pressure for residential service and fire suppression systems. Sanitary Sewer: The Public Works Department has noted that the property is not currently served by a sanitary sewer main, and further explained that the nearest main which would provide a point of connection to the city system is at the intersection of North Main Street and Highway 99 North. The applicant notes that the property is within the Rogue Valley Sanitary Sewer Service (RVSS) district boundary, and that the existing site is connected to the RVSS system. The applicant further explains that within the highway right-of-way due north of the project is the end of an eight-inch RVSS sewer main, and indicates that RVSS engineers have indicated that RVSS is required to connect to RVSS due to its location within the district boundaries. The applicant cites an rban Services Agreement from 1995 which requires that the property be served by RVSS. Staff has included a copy of this 1995 agreement and a letter from RVSS Manager Carl Staff Exhibit S-1 Tappert, PE as . Tappert indicates that based on the 1995 agreement, it is his understanding that these properties will remain in the RVSS sewer service area after they are annexed. His letter notes that sewer service was extended to the property in 1983, but does not speak to adequate capacity of the facilities for the development proposed. Storm Drainage: The Public Works Department has noted that the property is not currently served by a storm sewer main, and has indicated that a new storm sewer main will need to be installed to connect to the existing city system. The nearest point of connection is at the intersection of Jackson Road and Highway 99 North, uphill to the southeast. The application indicates that the future development of the property is required to be compliant with the regionally-adopted Rogue Valley Stormwater Design Manual, and further notes that the project Civil Engineers have performed preliminary stormwater generation calculations based on the maximum coverage areas in the zone Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 5 of 18 and have proposed potential surface detention, and recognize that below-grade collection, detention and treatment will be necessary with the future development of the site. With regard to storm drainage, the letter from RVSS provided in Staff Exhibit S-1 notes that the jurisdictional boundary for stormwater management is defined by the city limits, and any development prior to annexation would be subject to RVSS requirements relative to stormwater quality and erosion control; upon annexation, development would be under the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland for stormwater requirements. Electric: The application explains that the property is currently served by Pacific Power, but that with the development the property will be served by the City of Ashland Electric Department with the installation of new electrical infrastructure by the applicant. The application explains that there is presently low-voltage city electric service in place to power street and landscape lighting in and around the central median at the railroad trestle overpass. With the proposal, electric lines are to be provided in or adjacent to the highway right-of-way to provide adequate infrastructure to the proposed development and future development in the vicinity. The Electric Department has indicated that they have preliminarily approved the appli necessary capacity to serve anticipated future development of the property. They have further noted that this preliminary service plan does not consider how development would be served on site, and is limited to bringing necessary capacity onto the property. Public Facilities For staff, the detail provided in the application narrative is somewhat limited and while preliminary civil drawings were prepared by the project engineer, they were provided to staff approximately seven weeks after the application was submitted, well after the various departments had reviewed the application and only one-week before the staff report was to be prepared, and have not been fully reviewed by Public Works/Engineering or the utility The letter from RVSS in Staff Exhibit S-1 was received as this staff report was being completed. In Planning Water: The applicant indicates that water lines to service the property are proposed to be extended, and further notes that these will be adequately sized to provided water pressure for residential service and fire suppression systems. For staff, the primary issue with regard to water service is that the Public Works/Engineering Department will need adequate time to fully review the recently-provided civil drawings and provide their comments with any recommendations or concerns to the Commission. Sanitary Sewer: Normally, as part of an annexation, the applicant must agree to deposit an amount sufficient to retire any outstanding indebtedness for applicable special districts as defined in ORS 222.510 such as the Jackson County Fire District or RVSS - and with s and would be served by city services. Here, the applicant proposes to serve the property via RVSS based see attached Exhibit S-1 on a 1995 agreement () and the Public Works Department has indicated that this is acceptable for the city. The location, without existing city services and with steep grades and railroad tracks preventing easy extension, is difficult to serve and would likely require the installation of pump stations whereas the ready availability of RVSS facilities flowing downhill of the site make them a logical alternative. However, the Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 6 of 18 application and subsequent letter from RVSS (Staff Exhibit S-1) simply indicate that RVSS is to serve the property, and does not provide any confirmation from RVSS to demonstrate that adequate capacity is available to serve the site and its future level of development. The agreement between the City, the County and RVSS notes that applications which would result in new hook-ups to District services require a formal confirmation from the District to determine whether adequate capacity is available, or can be provided, to serve the proposal. extended to serve the site is needed. Storm Sewer: The narrative provided sppotential surface detention while the civil drawings identify connection to existing roadside storm drain facilities rather than connecting to the existing city system. The narrative does not discuss a new storm sewer main connection noted as necessary by the Public Works/Engineering staff. The RVSS letter (Staff Exhibit S-1) indicates that RVSS will not handle stormwater for the property upon annexation. Absent full review of the civil drawings by the Public Works/Engineering Division, staff does not believe that the proposal in its current form meets the burden of proof with regard to demonstrating that adequate storm sewer facilities can and will be provided to serve development of the property. Prior to a recommendation of approval from the Commission, staff believes that the Public Works/Engineering Division will need to complete review of the civil drawings and this may necessitate revisions with further detail with regard to storm water drainage. Electric: The Electric Department has indicated that they have preliminarily approved the service plan to bring adequate capacity to the site, and has further noted that this does not address future site development. For Planning staff, the primary concern here is that the service plan is unclear but appears that it may have a transformer/vault installation and associated extension of services onto the property in a location very near the identified wetland and the associated buffer-acre vacant site available, the final service plan will need to make clear that utility installations will not disturb this wetland or its water resources protection zone. in the record for the Commission to make a finding that adequate capacity for public facilities can and will be provided. Additional time is required for Public Works/Engineering review of the civil drawings and this review is likely to necessitate additional information from the applicant, particularly with regard to stormwater drainage. In addition, staff believes that more definitive information is needed to demonstrate that adequate capacity for sanitary sewer is available and will be provided via the RVSS lines. Commission hearing will need to be continued, and it would be helpful for the Commission to provide direction to the applicant and staff if any additional information is seen as needed beyond that noted here by staff. Adequacy of Transportation Facilities & Exception to Street Standards Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. transportation for annexations is vehicular, bicycle, Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 7 of 18 pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards 1. For ǝĻŷźĭǒƌğƩ ƷƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ a 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For ĬźĭǤĭƌĻ ƷƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For ƦĻķĻƭƷƩźğƓ ƷƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For ƷƩğƓƭźƷ ƷƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓ, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. Transportation Impact Analysis Kelly Sandow PE, of Sandow Engineering, LLC has evaluated the impacts of the proposal, and her transportation impact analysis (TIA) is provided with the application. Key findings of the TIA include: The TIA shows all studied intersections (Hwy 99N at South Valley View, Highway 99N at Jackson Road, North Main Street at Jackson Road, North Main Street at Maple Street, and Hwy 99N at the project access points) will meet the mobility standards through the Year 2034 with the addition of the traffic associated with anticipated development of the subject property. The addition of development traffic will not substantially increase queuing conditions over the background conditions. All site driveways are projected to operate safely and efficiently. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 8 of 18 The TIA recommends that Highway 99N be restriped to include a left-turn lane for vehicles entering the site. The TIA concludes that the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) has been demonstrated to be met. Proposed Frontage Improvements The subject properties front on Highway 99N, sometimes referred to as the Rogue Valley Highway, which is a state highway under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation. Highway 99N becomes North Main Street within the city limits. North Main Street is a boulevard or arterial as classified in the Transportation System Plan (TSP). City street standards for an arterial street generally call for 11-foot motor vehicle travel lanes, a 12-foot median/center turn lane, six-foot bike lanes on each side, eight- to nine-foot parking lanes where on-street parking is appropriate, a six-inch curb, a seven- to eight-foot parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees, and six-foot sidewalks. Annexation includes the ability to require extension of sidewalks to connect to existing city facilities up to a quarter mile away. The Road Diet has one motor vehicle travel lane in each direction separated by a single, shared center turn lane, and variable width bicycle lanes on the shoulder. There are no curbs in place along the property frontage, and roadside ditches are present in some locations. On the opposite side of the roadway, a guardrail is in place at the outside edge of the bike lane. As proposed, the application proposes some varied treatments of the right-of-way in sections, depending on conditions: At the railroad trestle on the south end of the site: ķĻƭĭƩźĬĻƭ ğ ƭŷğƩĻķ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ Ʒƚ ĬĻ źƓƭƷğƌƌĻķ źƓ ƌźĻǒ ƚŅ ĭźƷǤ ƭƷğƓķğƩķ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉͲ ƦğƩƉ ƩƚǞ ğƓķ ĬźƉĻ ƌğƓĻ͵ LƌƌǒƭƷƩğƷźƚƓƭ źƓĭƌǒķĻķ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ƓğƩƩğƷźǝĻ ƭǒŭŭĻƭƷ ğ Ў ч ŅƚƚƷ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ ǞźƷŷ Њ ч ŅƚƚƷ ĬğƩƩźĻƩ ğƓķ ğ Ѝ я ŅƚƚƷ ĬźƉĻ ƌğƓĻ͵ /ƩƚƭƭΏƭĻĭƷźƚƓƭ ƦƩƚǝźķĻķ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ ĭźǝźƌ ķƩğǞźƓŭƭ źƌƌǒƭƷƩğƷĻ ğ ƷŷƩĻĻΏŅƚƚƷ ĬǒŅŅĻƩ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƷŷĻ ƷƩğǝĻƌ ƌğƓĻ ğƓķ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƭźǣΏΏ ƷŷĻ ƷƩĻƭƷƌĻ͵ ŷźƭ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ Ǟƚǒƌķ ĻǣƷĻƓķ ƭƚǒƷŷ Ʒƚ ĭƚƓƓĻĭƷ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉƭ͵ ĭƌğƩźŅźĻķ͵ In the more sloped area at the south end of the site: ŷĻ ğƦƦƌźĭğƓƷ Ǟƚǒƌķ ǞźķĻƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ĬźƉĻ ƌğƓĻ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ŅǒƌƌͲ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ ƭźǣΏŅƚƚƷ ǞźķƷŷ ğƓķ źƓƭƷğƌƌ ğƓ ĻźŭŷƷΏŅƚƚƷ ĭǒƩĬƭźķĻ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ͵ Beyond the sloped area: ŷĻ ğƦƦƌźĭğƓƷ Ǟƚǒƌķ ǞźķĻƓ ƷŷĻ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ĬźƉĻ ƌğƓĻ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ŅǒƌƌͲ ƩĻƨǒźƩĻķ ƭźǣΏŅƚƚƷ ǞźķƷŷͲ źƓƭƷğƌƌ ğ ƭĻǝĻƓΏ Ʒƚ ĻźŭŷƷΏŅƚƚƷ ƦğƩƉƩƚǞ ƦƌğƓƷźƓŭ ƭƷƩźƦ ğƓķ ğ ƭźǣΏŅƚƚƷ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ƭƚǒƷŷ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƦƩźƒğƩǤ ķƩźǝĻǞğǤ͵ {źķĻǞğƌƉƭ Ǟƚǒƌķ ğƌƭƚ ĬĻ ĻǣƷĻƓķĻķ źƓƷƚ ƷŷĻ ƭǒĬƆĻĭƷ ƦƩƚƦĻƩƷźĻƭ ğƌƚƓŭ ƷŷĻ ķƩźǝĻǞğǤ͵ To the north of the driveway: ŷĻ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ źƭ ƦƩƚƦƚƭĻķ Ʒƚ ƷƩğƓƭźƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ ğ ƭźǣΏ Ʒƚ ĻźŭŷƷΏŅƚƚƷ ĭǒƩĬƭźķĻ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ ǞźƷŷ ĭǒƩĬ ğƓķ ĻǣƷĻƓķ ƓƚƩƷŷ Ʒƚ ĭƚƓƓĻĭƷ Ʒƚ ĻǣźƭƷźƓŭ ĭǒƩĬƭźķĻ ƭźķĻǞğƌƉ͵ Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 9 of 18 While city standards seek a gridded, interconnected street system within and through the development that provides for broader connectivity, the presence of the railroad tracks along one boundary of the subject properties combined with site topography prevents connection to the adjacent street system. The application notes that curb cuts on neighboring properties would be retained as they currently exist with the proposed sidewalk installation, unless ODOT required otherwise. The application further suggests that there is a mix of overlapping standards between the state, the county and the city and that the proposal seeks to balance these with conditions on- site in the adjacent right-of-way including available right-of-way width and topography, existing sign installations, encroaching site improvements on neighboring properties, grade the mix of zoning, uses and improvements in place. As such, the applicant has requested an Exception to the Street Standards because the standard sidewalk and parkrow configuration cannot be met for the full frontage. should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. The application includes a copy of e-mail communication with Paige West, RVTD Planning & Strategic Programs Manager. West indicates that for RVTD, a bus stop installation at the extreme south of the site is not desirable given slope issues. With the slope present, there would be an issue for buses accelerating from a stop generally, and this would be even more of a concern in winter with icy conditions. West however suggests that a transit stop could be placed just to the north of the driveway access if the sidewalk is to be extended further north to provide pedestrian access. West also notes that someone getting off a north-bound bus would be dropped off near Jackson Road close to the railroad trestle. Th that currently sees a couple of passengers each day. West points out that this stop could see increased use with the proposal, and encourages the applicants to consider pedestrian safety crossing the highway. The next stop to the north is near the signalized intersection of Highway 99N and West Valley View Road. West points out that the guardrail opposite the development will not allow a new northbound stop to be established. She further suggests that the applicant consider a bus pass program for residents through a perpetual agreement. The applicant would pay 45 cents per person per month, and the residents would then pay only $10 per month for an unlimited monthly bus pass. (Currently, a full fare monthly pass is $56, and a reduced fare pass available to those 10-17 years of age, over 62 years of age, on Medicare, people with disabilities or Valley Lift clients is $28 per month.) The application concludes that based on this information, it is unlikely a new bus stop could be located nearer the property frontage than the existing stops near the West Valley View Road intersection and near the North Main and Highway 99N intersection, which the applicant notes are approximately 1,800 feet to the north and south, or approximately a five- to ten- Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 10 of 18 minute walk from the property. The applicant concludes that the existing stops coupled with the improved sidewalk system provides adequate transit for the proposal when considered in light of the additional services additional services. The applicant also indicates that to encourage transit ridership, a partnership with RVTD is being explored to provide reduced transit fees. The Transportation Commission considered the proposal at the pre-application level. At that As a commission we have concerns regarding access and safety of pedestrians and cyclists to and from the North and South Lanes of N Main Street. We suggest a traffic signal and reduction in speed on Hwy 99 be evaluated as a possible way to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists to both N Main Street and local transit stops. Further, the commission suggests the addition of sidewalks that meet City street standards and transit stop to improve connectivity to existing infrastructure. The Transportation Commission looks forward to receiving an update on this development as the plan Staff solidifies. Exhibit S-2 . Staff Recommendation and pedestrian transportation. Vehicle travel lanes are in place, bike lanes are to be widened where necessary to meet standards, and sidewalks are to be provided along the frontage and extended to connect with the existing pedestrian facilities in both directions. The exception requested with regard to the parkrow configuration along the frontage seems merited. For staff, the primary transportation concern that remains in question is transit. Both the Transportation Commission and RVTD staff have expressed concerns with pedestrian safety in accessing existing transit stops which are a third of a mile or more away in each direction, with RVTD noting that the location of the northbound stop near Jackson Road and the railroad trestle is challenging for pedestrians to cross the highway and that alternatives for a new northbound stop nearer the site are limited by the presence of a guard rail. RVTD notes that a southbound stop north of the proposed driveway would be feasible. During Transportation Commission discussion of the proposal, individual commissioners expressed concern that the existing stops were too far and slopes along the roadway too challenging to support regular transit use for future residents who might have disabilities. Transportation Commission review typically occurs at the pre-application level, however in this case the issues raised at the pre-application level have not been fully addressed. In Transportation Commission and their recommendations considered by the Planning Commission prior to making a recommendation to Counci assessment, given that RVTD has indicated that a stop north of the driveway is feasible, staff believes that at a minimum a southbound stop should be provided along the frontage to meet the requirement for adequate transit transportation facilities, rather than requiring transit users to walk 1,800 feet or more to the nearest stop. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 11 of 18 Minimum Density For all residential annexations, annexations require that a plan be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The code further provides that for purposes of computing density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35 percent, shall not be included. To ensure compliance with this requirement, the code also requires that the owner sign an agreement for recording with the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. The applicant indicates that after excluding undevelopable areas due to significant natural features and physical constraints posed by slopes exceeding 35 percent, the riparian drainage area, and the wetland area and its buffer zone, the developable area of the property is 13.75 acres. For the proposed R-2 zoning, the base density for 13.75 acres is 185.625 dwelling (13.75 acres x 13.5 dwelling units/acre units and the minimum density is 167 dwelling units = 185.625 dwelling units x 0.90 minimum density = 167.0625 dwelling units) . The application notes that the property owner will sign an agreement with annexation that future development will occur in accord with this minimum density, and the applicant has provided a conceptual development plan including building designs, site lay-out and findings to demonstrate how this could be achieved on site. Affordability Requirements Annexations are also required to demonstrate that they will meet the affordability requirements set forth in AMC 18.5.8.050.G., which generally requires that the total number of units shall equal or exceed 25 percent of the base density. The application explains that the project is proposed as rental units and that the affordable rental units will be restricted to 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) as provided in AMC 18.5.8.080.G.1. At this level, each rental unit provided counts as 1.5 units for the purposes of meeting the standard, and the applicant explains that these units will be provided with the future Site Design Review for multi-family development of the property. Units are to be evenly dispersed through the development and of a comparable bedroom mix to the market rate units, and it is anticipated that 12 of the future buildings would contain two units each while two of the future buildings would contain three units each. The applicant notes that they envision 28 two bedroom units and 168 one bedroom units of around 500 square feet in area. Five Year Supply The final annexation criterion is that one or more of the standards in AMC 18.5.8.050.H. are met. Of these, the applicable standard addressed with the proposal is a demonstration that there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and re-developable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. The applicant explains that the area is envisioned and proposed for annexation as Multi-Family Residential, and based on city data in the Housing Element and Buildable Lands Inventory there is less than a five-year supply of available Multi-Family Residential zoned land. The applicant provides detail based on city data which notes there is a 4.8-year supply of available Multi-Family Residential land Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 12 of 18 combined between the R-2 and R-3 zones. Underlying Zone The first criterion for Site Design Review apThe proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. Overlay Zones The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). 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. 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. facilities are addressed in the Annexation section above. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Annexation approval for a property to be zoned E-1 are described in 18.5.8.050 as follows: An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of the following approval criteria. A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning. C. The land is currently contiguous with the present city limits. D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for these facilities. E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards. 1. For vehicular transportation a 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard with a Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 13 of 18 minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. Where future street dedications are indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and included with the application for annexation. 2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated. 4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new structures on the annexed property. F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35 percent, shall not be included. G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements. 1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein. a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit. b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit. c. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit. d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit. 2. As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 6. b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 14 of 18 c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a unit of government, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235. d. The land to be transferred housing program requirements. 3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with the market rate units in the development. a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum required floor based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3. Table 18.5.8.050.G.3 Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet) Studio 350 1 Bedroom 500 2 Bedroom 800 3 Bedroom 1,000 4 Bedroom 1,250 b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the development. 4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed, and made available for occupancy, as follows. a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50 percent of the market rate units. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy. 5. That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project 6. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units. a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate units b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency, including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. 7. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or more of the following. a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the on- site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 15 of 18 b. That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to the City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a proportional mix of unit types. c. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion. d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services. e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5. f. That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations. 8. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent. H. One or more of the following standards are met. 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1, or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Design Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request. 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services. 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one year. 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City. 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an island completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 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. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 16 of 18 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. The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC Section 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows: Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The application requests Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 (Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The application also requests an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements to respond to right-of-way constraints including width, grade and existing encroachments. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased development of 196 apartments (One- and Two-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story buildings. However, Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review approvals are not requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to Annexation. Annexation procedures require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, as well as hearings and ordinance adoption by the City Council. The Planning Commission has the authority to make the final decision with respect to other land use permits, but annexations and zoning map amendments call for a decision through a hearing before the Council and adoption of the decision by ordinance. As such, as ultimate decision, a recommendation will need to be provided to the Council for the Annexation/Zone Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 17 of 18 Change request. Annexations are a discretionary decision on the part of the Council, and unlike standard land use applications considered by the Planning Commission, the current Annexation request is not subject to the 120-Day Rule. The site involved here is a challenging one. There are significant road cuts and significant areas of unimproved right-of-way along the property frontage providing a barrier between the state highway and the developable area of the property. There are limited improvements currently in place to provide utilities or transportation facilities to the property, overlapping jurisdictions, and railroad right-of-way limits connectivity between the property and contiguous areas of the city. The site topography, wetlands, stream corridor and steeply sloped, forested areas present difficulties in extending utilities and access. The Billings 100-foot wide easement. And established commercial uses along the highway limit access between the subject property and the roadway for a large proportion of its width. The applicant is in a position of trying to address these complications while facing a discretionary process for annexations, and trying to balance needed expenditures without any certainty of returns. Staff does not believe that the current application is ready for approval. In particular, staff believe that additional information is needed with regard to providing utilities to the site and with regard to transportation and in particular transit facilities. However, we felt that there was a clear benefit to having an initial hearing to consider the proposal, allow all parties to gain an understanding of the site and its issues, and to then provide the applicant and staff with a clear direction on issues requiring further attention and additional items needing to be submitted before the Commission can make a formal recommendation to Council. With that in mind, staff recommends that the item be continued and that the Commission speak to the issues identified by staff herein, and to any other issues they believe need to be further addressed. Planning Action PA-T3-2019-00001 Ashland Planning Division Staff Report.dds Applicant: Rogue Planning/Casita Developments/Kendrick/Zare Page 18 of 18 14 13 7 7 7 5 5 W BIOSALE 7 EXISTING 6 7 7 W ETLANDS 7 7 4 7 F 2 50 4 10 9 12 11 4 7 4 1 7 6 6 36 7 6 77 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 77 4 5 5 2 54 6 6 2 6 3 7 7 8 7 4 7 7 5