HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-09 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record.
You will then be allowed to speak. Please note 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
January 9, 2018
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. December 12, 2017 Regular Meeting
V. PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-02134, 1068 Main Street.
VII. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02129
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 475 E. Nevada St.
OWNER/APPLICANT: Young Family Trust & City of Ashland/Rogue Planning & Dev. Services
DESCRIPTION: A request for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan
approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision; Site Design Review; and Tree Removal Permit for the
properties located at 475 East Nevada Street. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is
-.5-
-Family (NM-M
of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only
those portions within the city limits.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: Single Family
Residential Reserve (Existing), North Mountain Neighborhood (Proposed); ZONING: RR-.5-P
(Existing), NM-MF (Proposed);
1200 & 1300 and 39 1E 04AD 100.
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).
B
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 12, 2017
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:02 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Senior Planner
Melanie Mindlin Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Open House for the Ashland Infill Transit Triangle occurred
the night before and had approximately 30 attendees. The stakeholder meeting happened earlier in the day and involved
design professionals, contractors, and developers. The next step was presenting the preliminary findings at the January
16, 2018, City Council meeting. The Planning Commission Study Session for December 26, 2017, was canceled. There
would be a public hearing at the January 9, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
A.Approval of Minutes
1. November 14, 2017 Regular Meeting.
2. November 28, 2017 Study Session.
In the minutes of November 14, 2017, Chair Pearce noted on page 7, Questions of Applicant should read Questions
of the Appellant.
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2017 as amended. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
Commissioner Miller/Mindlin m/s to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2017. Commissioner Brown
abstained. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM None
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2017-01911
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Jorge Yant
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit for Marijuana Retail Sales and Site Design
Review for Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) in the existing building located at 181 A St. The
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 1 of 8
marijuana businesses are proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the building and according
to the application materials, the Marijuana Retail Sales will be located at 181 A St. and the Marijuana
Production (Indoor Grow) will be located at 185, 191 and 195 A St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSES14600 &
14900.
Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins declared no ex parte and one visit where he ran past the building. Commissioner Miller declared
no ex parte but drove past the building several times a week. Commissioner Brown declared no ex parte but drove past
the site twice a day. Commissioner Thompson declared no ex parte and no special site visit. Commissioner Norton and
Chair Pearce declared no ex parte, one site visit. Commissioner Mindlin knew the site well and had no ex parte.
The Commission had no cause for bias or financial interest in the matter.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the application was a request to use a portion of the building at A Street and
Oak Street for marijuana retail sales, and marijuana production/indoor grow. The application applied to the eastern side
of the building and included 181, 185, 191, and 195 A Street.
Both proposed uses are subject to Special Use Standards for Marijuana Related Businesses AMC 18.2.3.190.B
Marijuana retail sales is subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) AMC 18.5.4.050.A
Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) is subject to Site Design Review AMC 18.5.2.050
The application was noticed originally as a Type I application. It was an existing building with no additions or exterior
changes. There were no changes to the site regarding circulation and parking. The City received 30 comments during
issues in meeting the approval criteria, it was scheduled for a public hearing.
The property was zoned E-1 Employment. The closet residential zone was west of Oak Street and zoned R-2 Multi-
family. The property was in three overlays, Historic District Railroad Addition, Historic District Detailed Site Review, and
the Residential Overlays.
There were two parcels. One was where the building was located and the other was the parking lot. The building was
built in 1912 and considered a historic contributing resource. It was 16,000 square feet (sq. ft.) and 390 feet in length.
Both parcels combined, the property was just under one acre. It started out as Ashland Fruit and Production Association,
then Oak Tank and Steel. In 1999, it was approved to the A Street Market Place that was a mix of retail, food service,
light industrial and office uses. Later a portion was approved for a night club and recently the building was used for an
office use. The parking lot had 43 spaces. The retail use was proposed at 1,850 sq. ft. and production at 4,180 sq. ft.
The CUP criteria for the retail portion of the application required analysis of what was proposed compared to the target
use of the property and if it created any greater adverse impacts on the impact area and livability. The notice area
included twenty-one property owners.
Issues staff raised regarding the application included the following:
Marijuana Retail Sales (CUP)
Traffic generation of proposed use compared to target use of a general office building. In this case, it was
slightly over 20,000 sq. ft. Comparing it to what was proposed and whether there was a greater adverse
material effect on the livability of the impact area.
Impact of trips on intersections, pedestrian crossings and safety, and bicycle safety. The proposal would
double the number of trips created by the target use. Staff wanted to determine the incremental change
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 2 of 8
compared to the target use as well as the performance of the transportation system and whether the increase
would affect intersection function, pedestrian crossings and safety, and bicycle safety.
Marijuana Retail Sales and Marijuana Production
Measuring the Required 200 feet from Residential. In this proposal, the retail location was 230 feet away from
the residential zone.
The Commission could look at the standard and interpret it differently. It was not explicitly defined in the code.
Marijuana Production (Site Design Review)
Window and Door Coverings. Marijuana business standards require applicants to keep all light and glare in the
building.
The applicant would use blackout devices on the windows. However, it was in conflict with the site design use
standard that required the doors and windows on A Street to have visibility.
At this point, staff recommended the applicant provide more detailed information on potential impacts to the
transportation system associated with the increase in vehicle trips. The Public Works Department asked the applicant to
analyze traffic throughout the day instead of PM Peak Hour from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The applicant also needed to
address the visibility standards for the windows and doors in the production facility.
There were several written comments concerning odor. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) prohibited nuisances that
affected public health, specifically offensive odor. Staff would add a condition to the application to install an air filtration
system in the production facility to confine the odor to the premises to the greatest extent possible. It was a requirement
for retail sales and staff used the same standard as a condition for the production facility.
Questions of Staff
Ms. Harris clarified water usage, electric usage, and waste treatment was addressed in the staff report. Staff consulted
with the Public Works Department and the Electric Department. Both Departments thought there was adequate capacity.
They did raise an issue regarding treatment and rate of sewage released from the indoor grow operation due to agricultural
chemicals potentially being in the water. The Building Division thought the issues could be addressed during the building
permit process.
The application was very brief on water, electric use, and waste. Commissioner Dawkins explained capacity was one thing
and aligning with City policies was another. The report might be too vague to support. Ms. Harris further clarified staff
focused on the CUP and site design review criteria that stated adequate capacity of public facilities. Community
Development Director
water show adequate supply to accommodate future growth. Staff looked at the capacity of the facilities in the area to
serve the proposed use and if upgrades were needed. They did not look at whether it was a high water user.
Commissioner Miller thought it was something they needed to consider.
Ms. Harris confirmed the AMC required a blank wall within 3-feet of a sidewalk to have visibility. Blacking out the windows
to satisfy the marijuana rules made it conflict with the visibility standard.
Jay Harland/CSA Planning, LTD/4497 Brownridge Terrace/Medford, OR/Represented Plexis Healthcare Systems.
The application was a re-use of a portion of the existing building. It would use one-third of the building. The remaining
two thirds would not be occupied by these uses.
There were two different permits, the site design review and the CUP. Public comments mostly pertained to the livability
concerns regarding production and less to the retail piece. Mr. Harland responded to the following issues:
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 3 of 8
Traffic
They planned to request a continuance or keep the record open so they could provide more information. The applicant
did not want to incur additional expense until they had more specifics on what the City wanted.
Residential Separation Measurement
It made sense to apply the code to the uses and not some other standard.
Odor
Marijuana odor was an issue for the region. As it related to this application, the odor would be controlled indoors. In
a continuance, he su
operation manager. The operations manager was confident they could manage it with a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) unit and eliminate any technical odor at the perimeter of the property. Any condition needed to take
into account the ambient smell that existed in the valley during October.
Water and Effluent
The operation aligned with the regarding water and effluent. They did not want to waste nutrients that
could be going to the plants on the production side. They were paying for the water and wanted the system to be as
efficient as possible. Indoor grows allowed some economy of scale to do that.
Window Coverings
They would talk further with staff and come up with a condition of approval that made sense.
Retail Use
Mr. Harland visited three marijuana dispensaries in Medford, OR. Operators were diligent on asking for identification.
He did not detect any odor nor could he hear anything occurring behind the scenes. He compared it to a convenience
store. He went on to submit documents into the record.
Questions of the Applicant
Commissioner Thompson asked if Mr. Harland would accept a condition that agreed to provide no detectable odor as
opposed to containing the odor to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Harland agreed and noted the memorandum
submitted into the record stated minimally detectable odor at the property line and not detectable at the adjacent
properties.
Commissioner Norton asked about noise control for the air filtration systems. Alternately, there was no information on
the type of system, noise control, or heat cooling systems for the lights.
Operations Manager Drew Morrison explained the majority of the infiltration systems would use charcoal filter systems
inside the building. It would alleviate the noise outside the building. The HVAC system would not operate longer than
normal use for the building. Room design included a heat bubble to capture most of the heat above the lights. The
plants required twelve hours of lighting and 12 hours off. Lights would be on during normal operating hours.
Commission Miller asked about water usage and volume. Mr. Morrison had looked at how much water would be used
and would submit that information with the continuance and additional information for electricity and sewer usage.
Commissioner Norton noted marijuana regulations required everything to do with the grow had to be stored inside the
building. He wanted to know the waste volume and collection frequency. Mr. Morrison explained plant waste needed to
be contained for 3 days under the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) regulations. The volume would be
minimal. The majority of the plant was used for processing. The waste would be transferred to a partner wholesale
facility once a month.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 4 of 8
Chair Pearce addressed Exhibit 10-B and asked about circulation. Mr. Harland explained there was an existing entry in
the west of the building that went into the public area. They could close that entrance. It would be unfortunate to close it
but they would to meet the standard. They could still provide an emergency exit with it closed.
Public Testimony
Brent Thompson/P.O. Box 201/Owned 310 Oak Street across from the subject property. His tenants were not in favor of
the application. The smell of marijuana could exacerbate asthma symptoms. He thought policing the air filtration system
would be a nightmare. There were run off concerns regarding the roof. Just on enforcement and permeating smell, the
Planning Commission should deny the application.
Eileen Piker/625 B Street/Reiterated written comments she provided earlier. She had a strong objection to the application
for two reasons. One, Ashland had more than enough retail marijuana. Two, the location was too close to residential and
prime downtown business districts.
Allen Carlson/1248 Vawter Road/Medford, OR 97501/Owned property across the street. He had three concerns that he
had submitted in writing. The one on odor was addressed. Another was groups of children that toured the glass blower
facility and if that activity would be affected by the proximity of the operation. He was concerned about the residential
overlay. The properties he owned were designed to have residences above the production facilities. He was concerned
he might lose that use of the property by having the marijuana grow as a neighbor.
Dianne Cooper/183 E Hersey Street/Opposed granting the business. It would cause more traffic issues. Having a large
business that contributed nothing to that area was an error. This particular industry would increase traffic and create
problems for businesses. She shared her personal experience living next to a house growing marijuana plants outdoors.
The smell was horrendous. Another concern was pesticide or fertilizer use. This business did not belong in the Railroad
District.
Will Volpert/2917 Camp Baker Rd/Medford, OR 97501/His business, Indigo Creek Outfitters, was located at 130 A Street.
The main entrance to the rafting center was approximately 300-feet from where the applying business would be located.
He was concerned about air quality and emissions from the proposed business. The application did not address emissions
from the grow operation. He encouraged the City to consider whether this was an appropriate location for a grow operation
given the thousands of locals and visitors combined who walk in its vicinity. He was concerned about vehicle traffic and
parking. A Street had some turns that created blind corners. The subject parking lot was in a dangerous location. He had
witnessed a bicyclist get hit there and cars tended to speed around the turn. He thought the applicant should consider
adding a second entrance to the parking that was not on a turn. Lastly, how could the City justify approving a grow operation
that would use clean drinking water while encouraging water conservation? The City spent time and money educating the
public on conserving drinking water. There was some irony making this scarce resource available to a marijuana grow
operation in town. He opposed the application and asked the Commission to do the same.
Barry Peckham/315 Oak Street/Opposed the application
Plexis Healthcare Systems leave. They were good jobs in the community. His main concern was a neighbor that suffered
from asthma and used a nebulizer up to three times a day. The proposed use had the potential of ruining her life and
causing her to move from the area. The smell of marijuana was pervasive, especially if smoked. He questioned why the
City would set this precedent. This was an agricultural crop. In California, the electric use for indoor grows was huge.
Utility bills would skyrocket. During the summer Oak Street experienced a few blackouts during hot weather. He also
wondered how many comments received were for and against the application.
Ms. Harris responded the City received 30 comments all against the planning action.
Kim Locklin/262 B Street/Did not support the application. As a realtor, every day she sold Ashland culture. She was not
against cannabis growers. The growers she found property for had their own wells, solar systems, and were not drawing
off public power and water. She was concerned the Commission was considering a proposal that would negatively impact
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 5 of 8
businesses and residents. This was in the Historic District. It was downtown preservation that brought tourists and money
to the town. She urged the Commission to consider that and the usage.
Mike Lisk/5717 Fishers Ferry Rd/Gold Hill, OR/Opposed the development. The traffic and parking in the Railroad District
were terrible. The proposal would add to those issues. He was surprised there were not more people present to speak
against the planning action. He did not think Ashland smelled like marijuana nor did he think this was a small subject. If
people outside the 200-foot area knew of the proposal, there would be more complaints. He assumed this was on one tax
lot. He believed the OLCC made growing and selling marijuana on the same property illegal. Different addresses did not
create different tax lots.
Mr. Harland talked to Mr. Carlson regarding his testimony and clarified it was regulatory based. There was nothing in the
regulations that would affect his ability to conduct school tours of the glass blower facility. They would provide more
information on some of the other issues soon.
Discussion
Discussion
Ms. Harris addressed the Continuance and thought they would need to request a 30-day extension of the 120-days.
That would make it early March 2018. The matter could be appealed to the City Council. If the Planning Commission
granted a continuance and it came up in January, they would need the extra time in case it was appealed.
Mr. Harland granted a 30-day extension of the 120-days. Chair Pearce closed the hearing and continued it to the
January 23, 2018 Planning Commission. The meeting would start at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Commissioner
Norton requested the applicant provide information addressing the issues to staff sooner to include it in the packet.
Ms. Harris explained OLCC regulated growing and selling on the same premises. The City ordinance required the
applicant to get a license from OLCC and meet their requirements. The assumption was the state was reviewing that
information. City rules would allow production and retail at the same site as long as they met all the other requirements.
Commissioner Brown wanted the applicant to provide more information on sewer, water, and electricity. He wanted the
volumes and frequency of water and electricity per month. For sewer, how much was put out as chemicals, quantities,
recovery, and recycling. For air pollution, what type of system, volumes, outgassing from the plants, and retail
operations during the day and night. He wanted real volume numbers, the type of systems being used, how much did
they recover, and how long did each take to recover. The applicant needed to provide more information on traffic as
well. Staff also needed to find out if the state allowed both facilities on the same site.
Commissioner Dawkins added there was a policy in the City on energy independence. It was common knowledge that
marijuana grows took a tremendous amount of energy and water. How would water volume effect drought cycles? He
thought the Conservation Commission and City Administrator should review the application. The use was contrary to City
policies.
Chair Pearce wanted more information on real capacity issues if there were any. Commission Thompson added there
may be adequate capacity for electricity but it could bump the City into another rate tier. Mr. Molnar clarified the approval
standard under a CUP for adequate capacity was the same as if it were outright permitted. It was difficult to differentiate.
Commissioner Miller supported having the Conservation Commission review these types of planning actions. In addition
to the technical discussion there needed to be one on livability.
Commissioner Dawkins went on record that he was not prejudiced against the project itself. He disagreed with several
public comments in the packet. Commissioner Mindlin noted the Economic Development Commission that met several
years ago recommended against high water use activities in the city. She was interested in the rules for manufacturing
in an employment zone.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 6 of 8
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02134
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1068 E. Main Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Marcel Verzeano Trust (Paulena E.C. Verzeano)
, trustee
DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan Modification, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals
for a 33-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal Permit for the
property located at 1068 East Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. As originally
approved, the project consisted of 29-units. The requested modification would add four additional
apartments (all less than 500 square feet) to the original proposal, for a total of six small rental units.
The application also proposes to remove one additional tree which the applicants had originally
proposed to preserve. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density, Multi-Family
Residential; ZONING: R-; TAX LOT #:
6800 and 6801.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Dawkins, Miller, Brown, Pearce, Norton, and Mindlin declared no new ex parte or site visits.
Commissioner Thompson declared no ex parte and that she drove past the site.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Derek Severson explained this was a request for Outline Plan Modification, Final Plan, and Site Design
Review approvals for a 33-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision. It also included tree removal. The
request before the Commission would add 4 additional small apartments for a total of 33 units. The four units were each
less than 500 square feet. They would be added to the upper level of the south units along the high school fields. It would
remove trees #14 and #24. They were trees the applicant was going to attempt to preserve but could not.
An average of 18% would be rental units under 500 square feet. Parking for the additional units would come from surplus
service parking. The application included solar cross sections with shadows falling largely on the garage face opposite
the driveways and window sills.
previously regarding the open spaces not landscaped in a way that facilitated recreational use. The application had counted
private porches and patios that had pedestrian circulation through them and dimensions to the point they were not very
functional. The applicants added grass and improved recreational space. The porches were now detailed showing areas
of circulation, recreational use, and a community garden area.
The last change was the tree removal request. The Tree Commission asked that the applicants attempted to preserve the
trees. think either tree would survive the proposed construction. Upon further analysis, the
applicant agreed and this modification would remove both.
Staff generally supported the proposal and recommended some conditions.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson clarified the applicants looked into swinging the sidewalk out and reducing the park row to accommodate the
Oak tree. With ADA grades at the corner treatment, and the park row already narrowed for bus circulation, he doubted
they could swing it further. The extra parking came from a number of surplus parking spaces. There was nothing
substantially different in the Findings.
Mark Knox and Laz Ayala/KDA Homes/604 Fair Oaks Court/Mr. Knox explained the project was approved in July
2017. Due to the housing situation in Ashland, they decided to add four more units. They also moved some open
space, added grass, and a community garden.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 7 of 8
Questions of the Applicant
Mr. Knox had told the Tree Commission they would try and save tree #14 but the arborist thought it was unlikely. They
met several times and the arborist noted the tree was already stressed and would not survive further construction. The
modification would remove tree #14 and #24. They were planning on planting 34 trees on the property.
The community garden would belong to everyone at the property. The idea, if space permitted, was each unit would
have their own garden bed. Handicap parking was located in the center. As they refined the plan, they decided to
replace handicap parking and install mailboxes in that location to create a community common space.
The vertical accessory unit would be owned by unit directly below. The ground floor would have a two car garage and a
single car garage. A 700 square foot two-bedroom unit would be above with the 499 square foot accessory on top. Mr.
Ayala added the intention was using them as rentals.
Mr. Knox clarified this type of proposal did not require handicap parking spaces. They would look into the 6-foot
retaining wall/sign possibly blocking vision at the corner of East Main Street and South Mountain.
Public Testimony
Rick Harris/190 Oak Street/Appreciated the developers attempting to meet a need in Ashland for small units available for
purchase or rental. It was worth the flexibility to add the additional units. Even though it took four parking spaces, it
provided the off-street parking space required. This was a reasonable way to use a lot that was zoned for this to create
the level of density required without further expansion of the urban growth boundary.
- None
Deliberations & Decision
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve Planning Action 2017-02134. DISCUSSION: Commissioner
Dawkins appreciated the developers finding four more rental units. He had said at the last meeting that tree #14 should
be removed. Commissioner Brown thought they addressed comments made at the last meeting regarding open spaces
and use. Along with the additional units, it fit the good criteria. Commissioner Miller explained she was not normally in
favor of smaller units but this was so close to Southern Oregon University (SOU), it made sense. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Thompson, Pearce, Dawkins, Miller, Brown, Mindlin, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
December 12, 2017
Page 8 of 8
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 9, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2017-02134, A REQUEST FOR )
OUTLINE PLAN MODIFICATION, FINAL PLAN AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW )
APPROVALS FOR A 33-UNIT, 28-LOT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OPTIONS )
SUBDIVISION AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED )
AT 1068 EAST MAIN STREET AND THE VACANT PARCEL DIRECTLY TO THE )
EAST. AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, THE PROJECT CONSISTED OF 29-UNITS. )
FINDINGS,
THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION WOULD ADD FOUR ADDITIONAL APART- )
CONCLUSIONS &
MENTS (ALL LESS THAN 500 SQUARE FEET) TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, )
ORDERS
FOR A TOTAL OF SIX SMALL RENTAL UNITS. THE APPLICATION ALSO )
PROPOSES TO REMOVE TWO TREES WHICH THE APPLICANTS HAD PREV- )
IOUSLY PROPOSED TO PRESERVE. )
)
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Marcel Verzeano Trust (Paulena E.C. Verzeano, trustee)/ )
KDA Homes, LLC )
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots #6800 and #6801 of Map 39 1E 09AD is located at 1068 East Main Street and is zoned R-3,
High-Density Multi-Family Residential.
2) The applicants are requesting Outline Plan Modification, Final Plan and Site Design Review
approvals for a 33-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal Permit for
the property located at 1068 East Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. As originally
approved, the project consisted of 29-units. The requested modification would add four additional
apartments (all less than 500 square feet) to the original proposal, for a total of six small rental units. The
application also proposes to remove two trees (#14 and #24) which the applicants had previously proposed
to preserve. The proposal is outlined in plans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 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
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 1
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases
have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
4) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 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.
5) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows:
Underlying Zone:
A. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the
underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building
orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.
Overlay Zones:
B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part
18.3).
Site Development and Design Standards:
C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site
Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E,
below.
City Facilities:
D. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6
Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity,
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 2
urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.
E. The approval authority may
approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the
circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist.
1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site
Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an
existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will
not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the
exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design;
and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.;
or
2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but
granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the
stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards.
6) The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B as follows:
1. Hazard Tree.
A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority
finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform
through the imposition of conditions.
a.The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents
a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or
a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and
such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation,
or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6.
b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree
pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition
of approval of the permit.
2. Tree That is Not a Hazard.
A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall
be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following
criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions.
a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent
with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including
but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4
and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10.
b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil
stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 3
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.
7) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on December 12,
2017 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, Final Plan, Site Design Review
and Tree Removal Permit approvals meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval described in AMC
18.3.9.040.A.3; for Final Plan approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5; for Site Design Review approval
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 4
described in AMC 18.5.2.050; and for a Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves the addition of four units, which is more
than Type II procedure
to modify the Outline Plan in conjunction with Final Plan approval is required. The Commission further
finds that the current proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan approval.
The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that,
ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets all applicable
ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied.
Adequate key City facilities can be
provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm
drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause
The Planning Commission finds that adequate key city
facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of-way, and can and will be provided with the proposal,
and that in conversations with the representatives of the various utilities it has been
indicated that the proposed development will not cause any facilities to operate beyond capacity. The
application includes a conceptual utility plan prepared by a civil engineer.
Water:
The property is currently served by a six-inch water main in East Main Street and a six-
inch water main in South Mountain Avenue. The application notes that a private water line will
loop through the property connecting to mains in both rights-of-way in order to provide consistent
water pressure to the site to address both domestic use and emergency needs.
Sewer:
The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in East Main Street
and an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in South Mountain Avenue, and the applicants suggest that
in consulting the Public Works Department they have been told that these lines have adequate
capacity to serve the project. A proposed new sewer line will loop through the property and
connect to the South Mountain Avenue line near the low point of the property.
Electricity:
The application notes that both South Mountain Avenue and East Main Street have
existing overhead power lines in place with the capacity to serve the project, and that the applicants
propose to underground power to serve the new units with the addition of up to four transformers
which are to be dispersed around the site in discreet but accessible locations. Final electrical
distribution plans including transformer sizes and locations and street light placement will be
provided for review and approval prior to signature of the final survey plat.
Urban storm drainage
: The property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in East
Main Street and a 12-inch storm sewer main in South Mountain Avenue. The applicants propose
a storm water detention and water quality control tank near the low point of the property, near the
intersection of East Main Street and Mountain Avenue. An outlet control structure will sit adjacent
to this tank and will slowly emit storm water into the existing public systems within the rights-of-
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 5
way to limit post development flows to no more than would otherwise be encountered in a 25-year
storm event.
Paved Access & Adequate Transportation:
Both East Main Street and South Mountain Avenue
e width sidewalks and park row planting
strips, curbs, gutter and paving already in place. The applicants have proposed to widen both the
sidewalks and park rows fully to Avenue standards and to plant new street trees along both
frontages. The applicants note that they propose to provide three feet of additional right-of-way
along East Main Street as envisioned in the Transportation System Plan and Pedestrian Place
Ordinance, noting that they hope this will accommodate future installation of a bus shelter and
associated bicycle parking facilities.
The Commission has included conditions to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be
provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that civil
infrastructure be installed according to these plans, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the
final survey plat.
The existing and natural features of the land;
such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in
the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas,
and unbuildable The Commission finds that the only significant natural features are a number of
large trees concentrated around the perimeter of the old house. The submittals identify the trees and how
health and recommendations for removal or protection and preservation. The application suggests that the
to the recent drought. The Commission finds that the applicants have made an effort to preserve as many
as possible and to incorporate them into the project open space or on the lot with
the older house.
The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that,
adjacent land from being developed for the uThe Commission
finds that the proposal, which seeks to develop the site in a manner nearer to its target use, will not prevent
adjacent properties from being developed in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The fifth approval criterion is that,
and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early
phases have the same or higher ratio of amThe Commission
finds that the
areas in 3.6 on pages 9-ided.
The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established
The Commission finds that the subject property is 1.788 acres, and at a base density
of 20 dwelling units per acre has a base density of 35.6 dwelling units and a minimum density of 28
dwelling units. The applicants propose a total of 33 units, including the old house which is being relocated
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 6
on a larger 0.27-acre parcel.
The final Outline Plan approval criterion is that,
The Planning Commission finds that, as previously noted, both East Main Street and South Mountain
Avenue along row planting
strips, curbs, gutter and paving already in place. The applicants have proposed to widen both the sidewalks
and park rows fully to Avenue standards and to plant new street trees along both frontages. The applicants
note that they propose to provide three feet of additional right-of-way along East Main Street as envisioned
in the Transportation System Plan and Pedestrian Place Ordinance, noting that they hope this will
accommodate future installation of a bus shelter and associated bicycle parking facilities. The
Commission has included a condition of approval to require that sidewalk widening, installation of a full
park row planting strip with street trees and irrigation, and right-of-way dedication be included on the
final civil plans, and that these improvements be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and
approved prior to signature of the final survey plat.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Final Plan
approval. As noted in AMC 18.3.9.050.B, Final Plan approval is to be granted upon a finding of
substantial conformance with the Outline Plan approval. This substantial conformance provision is
intended to facilitate the potential for minor modifications from one planning step to another as part of
what is often a two-step subdivision process. Substantial conformance is noted to exist when comparison
of the Outline Plan with the Final Plan meets the following criteria:
a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved
outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan.
b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those
shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the
minimum established within this Ordinance.
c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan.
d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten
percent.
e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent
of this ordinance and the approved outline plan.
f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline
plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the
performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open
space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be
transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline
plan.
In this instance, the Planning Commission finds that because the Final Plan involves an increase in the
number of units beyond the ten percent allowed, the application requires a modification of the Outline
Plan concurrently with the Final Plan. Because the Outline Plan modification and Final Plan are being
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 7
considered concurrently, there is no variation between the modified Outline Plan and the Final Plan and
the Commission makes a simple finding of substantial conformance for the Final Plan criteria.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the development of attached housing requires Site Design
Review approval and is subject to the
residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.030.
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 standardse Plan approval
request, the Commission finds that the proposed development will comply with all applicable provisions
for the underlying zone detailed in AMC 18.2 including building and yard setbacks, lot area, dimension,
density, floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable
standards.
The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements
(part 18.3).Commission finds that the property is located within the High-Density,
Multi-Family Residential R-3 zoning district and the Pedestrian Places overlay zone, and that all
applicable overlay zone requirements have been addressed.
The third criterion for the Site Design Review approval iThe proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E (which addresses
Exceptions) below.Planning Commission finds that the proposal complies with Site Development
and Design Standards including provisions for access management, building orientation, and parking
configuration.
The Commission finds that the Dwelling units shall
have their primary orientation toward a street. Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a
street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via
e southeastern-most unit in
Building 5 at the project entry on Mountain Avenue needed a stronger orientation with an entry to
Mountain Avenue to better address this standard. The Commission finds that a porch and street-facing
entry have been added in the current submittal.
The Planning Commission finds that the open space and recreational area requirements were an area of
defined in AMC 18.6.1 as follows:
Open Space.
A common area designated on the final plans of the development, permanently set
aside for the common use of the residents of the development. Open space area is landscaped
and/or left with a natural vegetation cover, and does not include thoroughfares, parking areas, or
improvements other than recreational facilities.
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 8
Two separate open space and recreation area requirements apply in the Land Use Ordinance. In the
Residential Development standards which apply to all residential projects subject to Site Design Review,
AMC 18.4.2.030.H reads as follows:
Open Space.
Residential developments that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall
conform to all of the following standards.
1. Recreation Area. An area equal to at least eight percent of the lot area shall be dedicated
to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development.
2. Surfacing.Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not
provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement.
3. Decks and Patios. Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space.
4. Play Areas. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that
are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for open space.
In addition, the Performance Standards Options Chapter, AMC 18.3.9.050.A.2 includes an open space
requirement:
Open Space Required.
All developments with a base density of ten units or greater shall be
required to provide a minimum of five percent of the total lot area in Open Space; that area is not
subject to bonus point calculations, however, density bonuses shall be awarded to open space
In considering these requirements for the original Outline Plan approval, the Planning Commission noted
that initial information presented with the application did not clearly identify how the applicable open
space standards had been met. While the original application indicated that approximately 9½ percent of
the site was to be provided in open space, the original landscape plan illustrated the bulk of those areas
which could be considered as open space or recreation area either bisected by pedestrian thoroughfares;
heavily planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover to a degree that rendered them not suitable for
in some cases of only five feet that
included circulation routes to an entry through the portion proposed as recreational space. The original
approval therefore included a condition that a revised plan be provided with the final plan submittal
demonstrating that the open and recreation space requirements were met illustrating all areas to be counted
towards open and recreation space and their dimension and treatment. The landscaped areas to be counted
toward recreation space in this revised plan needed to be surfaced for recreational use and not include
thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and the private individual porches, patios and decks were not to
be included. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as transformers, vaults and
cabinets which would compromise their functionality for recreational use were also not to be included
as open/recreational space.
The Planning Commission finds that as part of the current request, the applicants propose some changes
to the original open space proposal. A new community garden area is proposed in the southwest corner
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 9
of the property, and two other larger common areas are now proposed to be planted in lawn to better
the revised landscaped plan provided has been modified to illustrate circulation routes on the private
porches to make those areas to available and suitable for private recreational use clear, and the porches
have at least a seven-foot usable depth. The application explains that 5½ percent of the site is provided
in common open space, and an additional five percent is provided in usable private porch and balcony
space for a total of 10½ percent. The Planning Commission finds that the treatment of open space here is
much improved and addresses the concerns previously raised. The application further notes that those
units along East Main and North Mountain Avenue have wider than normal stair treads to encourage their
use for seating and socializing along the streetscape; while these areas are not proposed to count toward
the recreational space requirement, the applicants suggest that they provide an important and obvious
additional amenity for tenants while also positively contributing to the pedestrian streetscape.
The fourth approval criterion fThe
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
The Planning Commission finds that the public facilities requirements are addressed in detail in the
Outline Plan section earlier in this document.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that tThe solar
access setback in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the
Performance Standards Subdivision are generally subject to the solar access requirements of
AMC 18.4.8 which require that land divisions creating new lots either demonstrate that the lots are
designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a solar setback which does not exceed 50
percent of the lot's north-south lot dimension or to identify a solar envelope to define the height
requirements that will protect the applicable solar access standard. The Commission finds that the
applicants here have proposed a Solar Access Performance Standard which when combined with low roof
pitches, driveway placement and the avoidance of large, north-facing gables results in shading onto the
south walls of garages (unheated spaces) or no higher than the bottom of south facing window sills. The
application materials include solar studies to illustrate the proposed shading, and the findings note that the
most impacting shadows are for the third-floor apartment units which shade the trash enclosures, garage
walls, and below the window sills of the south facing walls on the windows to the north. The Planning
Commission finds that enabling the provision of additional rental units merits the requested flexibility
with regard to solar access.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the original Outline Plan application included a survey
identifying 25 trees on the property which are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of
these, 14 were proposed to be removed in conjunction with the application including Tree #14, a Fir, and
Tree #15, a Western Cedar tree which the applicants noted as the most significant trees on the property.
The application noted that the project arborist had indicated that both of these trees were damaged or
stressed from the lack of proper care and water and both would require significant pruning.
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 10
The Outline Plan application further explained that the remaining trees proposed for removal were dead
or in marginal to fair condition. The applicants indicated that in conversations with their arborist, all of
lack of maintenance or the impact of adjacent urban development in the form of the sidewalks constructed
The Outline Plan application pointed out that in the location where the old house was to be relocated, there
proposed relocation, new footing or new utilities. Tree #18 was to have a portion of a new sidewalk and
a parking space over its root zone, but the application explained that the parking space was proposed with
compact dimensions and a porous surface to minimize impacts to the tree and the arborist was to be
After reviewing the application at its regular meeting on July 6, 2017, the Tree Commission recommended
that the application be approved subject to four recommendations:
1) That the recommendations of the project arborist be conditions of the approval, including that
the trees to be protected be watered during construction and that the project arborist supervise
any activity within the Tree Protection Zones;
2) That existing Trees #1, #2, #7, #8 and #9 be fully enclosed with tree protection fencing and
protected during all site disturbance. Protection of these trees as recommended will necessitate
closing the East Main Street driveway during construction;
3) That the applicants make every effort to preserve and protect Tree #14 (40-inch d.b.h. Douglas
th
Fir) as proposed during the July 6 Tree Commission meeting, including having an arborist
on-site during all disturbance (demolition, foundation removal, house move, and all
excavation) and utilizing a post and beam foundation within the tree protection zone for the
relocated house; and
4) That the applicants pursue the option of preserving and protecting Tree #24 (24-inch d.b.h. Oak
Tree), which may necessitate meandering the sidewalk to curbside within its tree protection
zone.
which included some neighbors concerned with tree removals, the applicants noted that in addition to
saving #14 and #24 as recommended by the Tree Commission, it might also be possible for them to save
two additional Walnut trees in the southwest corner of the property meaning that only ten to 12 trees would
be removed and a total of 32 new trees would be planted. Planning Commissioners noted that Walnut
trees can be toxic to plantings around them and detrimental to the use of surrounding open space, and the
recommendations were based in careful consideration of the site and its trees, and included a condition
making the Tree Commission recommendations conditions of approval, with the understanding that the
applicants would have the option of preserving the Walnut trees in the southwest corner, but would not be
required to do so.
The current application explains that as the engineering and construction drawings for the project have
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 11
become more refined and the project arborist has been to the site multiple times, the arborist now believes
that Tree #14, a 40-inch diameter Douglas Fir, will not survive the proposed construction disturbance and
will ultimately pose a serious safety issue for residents of the development. The arborist further believes
that Tree #24, a 24-inch diameter Oak, should be removed as it is showing signs of severe stress due to
lack of maintenance and its proximity to the sidewalk. The arborist further explains that the height of the
and the proposed work on the opposite side will further limit
its survivability. The arborist emphasizes that there are several trees in the Landscape Plan which balance
the requested removals and further notes that species diversity will benefit with the mitigation plantings.
As such, the applicants now propose to remove Trees #14 and #24, as had been originally requested. The
Planning Commission finds that based on the information presented by the project arborist, the two
additional tree removals requested are merited.
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 Modification, Final Plan, Site Design Review approval for a 33-unit, 28-lot
Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal Permit is supported by evidence contained
within the whole record.
The Planning Commission is appreciative of this infill development proposal and of efforts
to preserve the old home and incorporate it into the development in a manner consistent with its historical
. The
Commission is also appreciative of the applican
to incorporate the much-needed additional smaller rental units.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions, we approve Planning Action #2017-02134. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below
are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2017-02134 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 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 current Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3.That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department.
4.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.
5.That prior to signature of the final survey plat:
a.All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility,
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 12
maintenance, access and parking shall be indicated on the final survey plat submitted for
review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments.
b.That a final utility plan for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location
of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,
fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services.
c.That 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.
d.That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load
calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers,
cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by
the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and
cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance
areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services
shall be installed underground to serve all 33 units 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.
e.That the final engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalks along Mountain
Avenue and East Main Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland
Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way or installation
of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalks shall be a minimum of six feet
in width with seven-foot landscaped parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All
frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and street
lighting, shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be
constructed to City of Ashland Street Standards. If necessary to accommodate city
standard avenue improvements or to align frontage improvements, necessary additional
right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city, including the three additional feet of right-of-
way along East Main Street proposed by the applicants to accommodate the potential for
future sidewalk widening, bus stops, bicycle parking, etc. envisioned in the Pedestrian
Places concept plan. All public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk,
street trees, 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.
f.That final CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and
maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting
strips, shared garage spaces and street trees.
g.
requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060. The final CC&Rs shall include stipulations on height
limitations for front, side and rear yard, and shall note that fences adjacent to common open
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 13
space areas shall not exceed four feet. 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.
h.That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their July 6, 2017 regular meeting
with the exception of the preservation and protection of Trees #14 and #24 - shall be
conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with
final approval of the Staff Advisor and shall be incorporated into a revised final Tree
Protection Plan to be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the
signature of the final survey plat.
i.The final Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted
in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a
violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described
in the Ashland Municipal Code.
6.That the building permit submittals shall include:
a.Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public or private utility
easements.
b.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with the
proposed solar access performance standard. Permit submittals shall include calculations,
elevation drawings or cross sections clearly identifying the highest shadow producing
point(s) and their height(s) from natural grade to support the required calculations.
c.Demonstration that exterior lighting shall be directed onto the property and shall not
directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Exterior lighting details including fixture
specifications, placement details and shrouding details (if necessary) shall be provided on
building permit submittals.
d.That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding
area and consistent with those described in the application materials. Sample exterior
building colors shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and
approval of the Staff Advisor. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in
accordance with the Site Design and Development Standards.
e.That the building permit submittals shall identify the required sheltered bicycle parking
spaces for each home. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking
design, spacing and coverage requirements in AMC 18.4.3.070 are met, and all bicycle
parking shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
f.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak
rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system
(i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an
approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029.
On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals.
7.That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 14
a.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 and trees to
be removed tagged or otherwise identified on site prior to any site work, storage of
materials or issuance of the building 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 shall occur
within the tree protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building
supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles.
b.That all necessary building permits fees and charges, including permits for new electric
and water services, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks,
and transportation shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
c.The requirements of the Ashland Fire Department, including approved addressing, fire
apparatus access and approach, fire flow, hydrant distance and clearance, and fire
sprinklers where applicable, shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit
or the use of combustible materials. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the
engineered construction documents. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall
not be located in the sidewalk corridor.
8.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a.That the required bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
b.That all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor.
c.That the screening for the trash and recycling containers shall be installed in accordance
with the Site Design and Development Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste
receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.4.4.040.
d.That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate
adjacent proprieties.
January 9, 2018
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2017-02134
January 9, 2018
Page 15