HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-02-13 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
February 13, 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.January 9, 2018 Regular Meeting.
V.PUBLIC FORUM
VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A.Approval of Findings for PA-2017-02129,475 East NevadaStreet.
VII.TYPE IIPUBLIC HEARINGS
A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01911
SUBJECT PROPERTY:181 A Street
OWNER/APPLICANT:Jorge Yant
A continued public hearing from December 12, 2017 to review an application for a
DESCRIPTION:
Conditional Use Permit for Marijuana Retail Sales in the existing building located at 181 A St. The applicant
withdrew the previously proposed Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) located at 185, 191 and 195 A St and
as a result, the indoor grow is no longer a part of the application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment; ZONING: E-MAP: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOT #: 14600 & 14900.
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
January 9, 2018
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
Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dennis Slattery, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced John and Scott Fregonese would provide a presentation on the Infill
Strategy January 16, 2018, at the City Council Meeting. Staff originally continued PA-2017-01911, regarding the proposal for
a 4,000 square foot (sq. ft.) marijuana grow and 2,000 sq. ft. of retail to the January 23, 2018, Planning Commission meeting.
The applicants requested postponing until February. Since there was no date certain, staff would re-notice it to the surrounding
property owners. The applicant modified the application and withdrew the marijuana grow from the proposal. The annual
9, 2018, at the Ashland Springs Hotel.
AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
The Wildfire Lands Committee would meet January 31, 2018.
CONSENT AGENDA
A.Approval of Minutes
1.
December 12, 2017 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Thompson/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed 7-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Eric Elerath/419 Clinton Street/Recently purchased a house in the river walk neighborhood. He thought some of the
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were flagrant violations of rights to speech. He received a letter of
Findings from Community Development Director Bill Molnar regarding 345 Clinton and a density transfer. He had objected
to it because there were a lot of issues not addressed in the application. He had issues with the conditions and the
language of any CC&Rs required as part of the density transfer. If they were found invalid, the density transfer was revoked.
He wanted to know the process that determined whether conditions were invalid.
Chair Pearce explained the Community Development staff made that type of determination. It was not in the Planning
CommissionMr. Molnar or his staff.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 1 of 10
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2017-02134, 1068 Main Street.
The Commission had no ex parte contacts regarding the matter.
Commissioners Miller/Thompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-02134, 1068 Main Street. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
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
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);
04AD 100.
Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
The Planning Commission declared no ex parte contact and one site visit with staff. Chair Pearce spoke to Mark Knox five
years ago regarding the matter. He recalled Mr. Knox had explained the project would need a Comprehensive Plan
amendment and a rezone for density. Chair Pearce also participated in one site visit with the Commission and staff.
This was a Type III hearing of a rezone that needed a Comprehensive Plan amendment. There were permit applications.
The action was a legislative rezone. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council who had
full legislative discretion. In all rezones and map amendments, the City had to make Findings that it was consistent with
statewide planning goals and guidelines. The Planning Commission could only make a conditional decision for the City
Council to consider. The City Council could send it back for adoption by the Planning Commission or they could adopt the
Findings provided.
Senior Planner Derek Severson clarified the only items preliminary or conceptual in the submittal was the building designs.
The intention was doing the project in phases. It would be sold to different people to build out each phase. This
was incorporated into the conditions and would come back as a Type I if there were no significant modifications.
Staff Report
Mr. Severson explained the subject property consisted of three lots along the north side of East Nevada Street, Tax Lot
1100, 1200, and 1300. The subject properties had the city limit line and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) line running
through the back two-thirds of the land. There was a portion outside the city limits and the UGB. Under the Regional
Problem Solving Agreement in 2012, the City was committed to not go beyond the UBG for the next 50-60 years depending
on how long it took to double the population.
The current application would amend the Comprehensive Plan, change the zone, and have approvals only to the portion
within city limits. The three lots were 4.5 acres with 2.4 acres actually in city limits. The proposal would demolish the
existing house on Tax Lot #1200. The trailer house would most likely remain until that area was developed. There was a
City tax lot in the proposal and staff recommended including the .35 acre in the rezone for the affordable housing
development.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 2 of 10
The application included the following components:
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (Single Family Residential Reserve to North Mountain Neighborhood Plan).
Zone change (RR-.5 to NM-MF).
Outline Plan approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision.
Site Design Review approval.
Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees greater than 6-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.).
The exception to Street Standards to not install bike lanes, and to not install sidewalks on a portion of East Nevada.
Note: Portions of the subject properties are located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those
portions within the city limits.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.9.020.B - Plan Amendments and Zone Changes - 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.
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.
The existing R-.5 zoning dated back to the 1970s. The City began the neighborhood plan process in 1994 and adopted it as
the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) in 1997. The area filled out with the NMNP in place along with the facilities
to support current and future development. The proposal would update the half-acre minimal lot size zoning at the subject
property and continue the same level of development.
The applicants proposed two units on Tax Lot 1100. The rock outcropping on the lot was steeper than 35% and not
buildable per code. The applicants provided site plans depicting attached housing, detached units and two attached units
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 3 of 10
sharing an attached garage. They did not want to install sidewalks along the rock outcropping of East Nevada Street or bike
lanes at another section of the street. Camelot Drive would extend into the site as a public street with full street
improvements on both sides. They would also extend the North Mountain Avenue right of way and rename it Franklin Street
to access an alley at the rear of the site. The applicants wanted the alley to be public but the Public Works Department
disagreed and thought it should be private. The applicants provided a Civil Site Plan, plans for Grading and Drainage,
Landscape Irrigation, Planting, Electric Service, Tree Removal and Protection, and Conceptual Elevations for the units.
initially wanted Trees #1, #2, and #5 preserved and protected. However, due to 5-8-feet of grading near trees #1, #2, #3
and #5 for access, the Tree Commission recommended the following:
1.That all native species such as the Oaks to be removed be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with four-inch caliper
native species that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity.
2.That the conifers to be removed such as the Juniper & Ponderosa Pine be mitigated on a one-for-one basis with
conifers that will attain a similar size to the tree being removed at maturity, and that is at least ten feet tall at
planting.
Key Items from the Staff Report included:
Open/Recreation Space Staff asked for a revised plan with usable recreation space placement and treatment.
Building Orientation Staff recommended a condition that corner units at Camelot Drive and Franklin Street have
an orientation with entry and pedestrian connection directly to the higher order East Nevada Street.
Street Improvements
Nevada Street to include standard Avenue improvements where the rock is not impacting.
o
Staff supported the exception for sidewalks at the rock.
o
Staff supported the exception for Bike Lanes (sign-in favor of future bridge L.I.D.) There were 107 vehicle
o
trips per day on that section of Nevada Street. The Avenue Standard called for bike lanes under all
circumstances with a trip generation number of at least 3,000 vehicle trips per day.
Staff recommended a Pedestrian Refuge at the toe of the rock with 18 to 24-inches flattened, surfaced
o
with decomposed granite or concrete maintained weed-free as a refuge for pedestrians.
Staff recognized the following changes in circumstances:
Extension of essential services in conjunction with NMNP adoption and build-out.
Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Commitments to Efficient Land Use within existing boundaries.
Housing Crisis.
Need for More Land to Accommodate Moderately Priced and Affordable Ownership & Rental Units.
The changes supported the requested up-zoning. The additional units were in the public interest. The Planning
Commission could recommend that the Council consider requiring the three ARU units currently listed as optional as well as
additional density to utilize available density and bonuses.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Severson explained the applicants were offering 23 units. The maximum number of houses would be 24 units. With
density bonuses, it could increase to 28 units, possibly 30. The Avenue Classification was in the Transportation System
Plan (TSP). If the bridge went in, it would connect to Oak Street and Mountain Avenue.
When the original subdivision was developed, it looked like it needed an alternative connection for fire access. That resulted
in the avenue designation. With the recent discussions regarding the bridge, the Public Works Department was considering
revisiting the avenue designation during the next TSP update. They also discussed the potential of Kestrel Parkway taking
over the avenue function.
In terms of not having bike lanes, the Public Works Department could have the Transportation Commission investigate the
use of bike Sharrows.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 4 of 10
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained sidewalk and park row were the same whether it was a residential
neighborhood street or a residential avenue. The Avenue Standard allowed parking bays that were one foot smaller in
dimension.
Mr. Severson clarified the application would provide 4 units of affordable housing that was 25% of the base density. A
memo in the file spoke to transferring the land to an affordable housing provider in the future. It would be a 60% area
median income level of affordability that had a conversion factor. The base density would be 25% or six units. Because
they were at 60% area median income, there was a 1.5 conversion factor resulting in 4 units at the lower level.
The code discussed having affordable housing completed before 50% of the units were built. The applicants did not want it
tied to this requirement because the affordable housing provider was not related to the project and applicants would not be
building the affordable housing. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know what methods existed that would ensure the
affordable housing would be built. Mr. Molnar thought it could be recommended to City Council as a condition. The specific
standard stated that 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to the issuance of a
Mr. Severson noted the applicants were
asking for an exception to that standard.
Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning and Development Services/1424 South Ivy/Medford, OR/Thought the Planning
Commission could find the change in circumstances with the development of the North Mountain Neighborhood, Skylark,
Mountain Meadows, Julian Square and the Great Oaks Subdivision to necessitate changing the zoning and the
comprehensive plan map designation for the subject property. The need for all housing types and compliance with the
standards from the NMNP was in substantial conformance with the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan.
The proposed development for 20-23 units addressed minimum density standards for the NMNP. The layout was similar to
atownhouse development and provided a mix of housing types. It allowed four affordable housing units restricted to the
60% area median income. This type of affordable housing was in higher demand.
The Conceptual Elevations complied with the NMNP. The C Units were proposed to front on Camelot Drive. The applicants
wanted to rotate these units to face on North Mountain Avenue with access from the rear. It would improve orientation to
Nevada Street and provide ease of construction. This was a 10% substantial change for orientation from Outline Plan to the
Final Plan. It could trigger a Type II planning action at the final plan stage. The Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) called for
higher order street. It also spoke to the design of the front facade, the entry layout,
corresponding setbacks, and a primary orientation to the front. The front entrances to the D corner units at Camelot Drive
and Nevada Street faced West and the other corner unit at Franklin Street and Nevada Street faced East. Both were
oriented to their front. The sides would be oriented towards Nevada Street. The Site Design Chapter stated when buildings
are located within 20 feet of a street, the primary entrance opening facing the street connected via a right-of-way. The
proposed units complied with the North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.3.5.100 Site Development and Design
Standards. It also met the standards in 18.3.5.100(A) Housing.
Adequate area was provided for the open spaces. The Subdivision open space exceeded the required 5,270 square feet of
area. The multi-family recreational space was required to be 8,422 square feet. The application provided 2,500 square feet
of play area, 1,870 square feet of deck and 2,100 square feet of patio all more than 6' by 8'. There was also more than
5,150 square feet of lawn area. Many areas of open space could be private or common. Ms. Gunter described potential
landscape features that included a path to a vista viewpoint.
Public Facilities - Water
There are no wells on site.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 5 of 10
The proposed civil engineering plans have located a public water line to extend to the development from Nevada
Street and through the development via the public alley and Camelot Drive. The meters would be located as close
to the units as practical without the need for pressure increasing devices or cross-connection issues.
Without the alley and with Camelot Drive as a public street, private lines can be extended via private laterals to the
detached res
Fire Hydrants are proposed at the intersection of the alley and Franklin and Camelot and the alley. In the event the
alley becomes private, the hydrants would be verified to be within the right-of-way of the two streets.
Electric
Electric services to the properties outside of the Urban Growth Boundary are required to be provided and
maintained (tax lot 201 has City of Ashland electric service).
Electric service is allowed to and through the development via either a public alley or private driveway.
Transportation
Alleys: The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan (10.05.05) recommends alleys. Throughout the Land Use
Ordinance specifically in the connectivity standards found in 18.4.6.040(E) regarding 1) Interconnection; 2)
Connectivity to Abutting Lands: 5) Use of alleys is recommended where possible.
Accessing more than three lots via a private driveway requires an exception with demonstrable difficulty.
o
In the development of the subdivision layout, all indications in the code are to provide alleys, not private
driveways.
Pedestrian Refuge: Decomposed granite has been discouraged in other applications. The applicant is worried
about creating a safety hazard by encouraging pedestrians to walk in the roadway on a blind curve against the flow
of traffic. There is a sidewalk along the South side where pedestrians should walk instead of the roadway.
The requested modifications to conditions of approval included the mitigation standard in Condition 4 from the Tree
Commission. The mitigation exceeded what was required by code. The AMC required 1.5-inch caliper trees. The applicant
proposed 2-2.5-inch caliper trees. Kerry KenCairn was an arborist and landscape architect. She did not recommend using
trees larger than 2.5-inch caliper due to the rocky terrain. The adjacent neighborhood was unable to plant one tree per
thirty feet of frontage required by the code because of the impenetrable rock they encountered. The applicant wanted
flexibility with the spacing standards in case they encountered something similar. It would also be difficult to find a 10-foot
conifer tree. In addition, they were hard to plant and sustain. The applicant wanted the Conditions to allow for 2.5-inch
caliper deciduous trees, and six to eight-foot tall native conifer trees.
Another request for modification was t supported by
the AMC for Site Design Review or the North Mountain Design Standards.
A final request for modification was requiring dedication of an additional right-of-way. The applicant proposed the layouts to
meet the NMNP standards. It was a 3-foot difference to widen the park row, sidewalk, and parking bay that would encroach
on the property and require dedication. The applicant requested it to be a public pedestrian access easement if found to be
necessary by the Commission versus a dedication of a public right of way.
Questions of the Applicant
Ms. Gunter addressed affordable housing and noted the code was not clear. When there was a transfer of property to a
different developer, the applicant was excepted from all of the construction standards. When the property was sold, deeded,
or transferred to a different developer, she did not think it should hold up a development no longer associated with affordable
housing.
With the maximum conservation density bonus, open space density provided a 35% density bonus that equated to 8.4
additional units. They could not find more space for additional units on the property due to the pond size for stormwater
retention treatment, the number of impervious surfaces, and the parking spaces for three-bedroom units. It was built in a
manner that maxed out parking, open spaces, and setbacks. The three optional accessory dwelling units had parking provided.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 6 of 10
Commissioner Brown confirmed the applicant could not sell the affordable housing land to anyone not building affordable
housing. Ms. Gunter 18.5.8.050
Approval Criteria and Standards (G) Subsections 4 and 6, timing, location, distribution, and design. They planned to sell
the land for affordable housing. Once sold, it would be difficult to control the development of the affordable housing units.
Habitat for Humanity was interested in the property. Mr. Molnar clarified 18.5.8.050(G2-G5) allowed for exceptions.
Ms. Gunter thought it would cost $200,000 to build each affordable unit. She confirmed street improvements would be
constructed prior and were not the responsibility of the affordable housing developer. Due to construction, the applicant wanted
to defer installing park rows, sidewalks, and street trees until just before the site review.
Staff had rejected the request to bond and the exception to delay improvements for Franklin Street. The areas of exception
were Camelot Drive to the rock outcropping. The applicant had requested to bond for the sixty-foot lot at the base of the hill
because there were no other sidewalks or pedestrian crossings when the adjacent property to the west was developed. There
was a sidewalk opposite the rock outcropping on Nevada Street.
Ms. Gunter addressed removing trees #12, #13, #14, and #15. The proposal would build a 3-foot retaining wall at the base of
the hill. The lot from the base of the hill to the property line was 60-feet wide. In addition to the retaining wall, there was a
driveway with a 20-foot clear width and a 15-foot paved width and two lots. Construction would have a negative impact on the
trees. One of the two units would front on Nevada Street and the other would face the driveway.
Kerry KenCairn/545 A Street/Explained there was a flat surface area and anything above that was too steep for a road. It
was already graded and in order to make both lots viable, it was practical to remove tree #15. The graded driveway already
went under the two Oak trees in the back northeast corner and would not affect them. Ms. Gunter commented Jackson County
code did not require paving that part of the driveway. The applicants did not plan to pave that section. Ms. KenCairn noted
tree #15 was too close to the construction to preserve. Ms. Gunter added native trees would not flourish when irrigation was
installed.
Public Testimony
Gerald Stein/989 Camelot Drive/Wanted to know how many parking spaces, garage spaces, outdoor spaces were
proposed. Camelot Drive was narrow and parking was already a challenge. He was concerned parking would encroach
where he lived on Nevada Street. He had traffic concerns with the extension of Camelot Drive and wanted to know if a
traffic study had occurred. Another concern was water pressure.
Tom Marr/955 N Mountain Avenue/Lived there for more than 25 years and would be the most impacted as far as proximity
to the project. He thought parking should go in first to accommodate the construction that would be extremely disruptive.
He wanted constraints for dust control, noise, hours of operation, and traffic control. He testified before the Tree
Commission to preserve as many native trees as possible. He also wanted an assurance the electric, water, and sewer
would not enter his property for the use of these 22-28 homes. He supported a buffer for the freeway. He liked the
pedestrian refuge. He did not support the Nevada Street Bridge or the City requiring the applicant to sign a future LID to
build the bridge. He suggested not developing the City property and keeping it natural.
He confirmed that he was affected by freeway noise almost constantly. The sound would change. At times it was very loud
and he could hear it from inside his house.
Andrea Napoli/325 Stoneridge Avenue/Was concerned about adding more car-dependent density to the neighborhood.
Currently, there was no bike connection from North Mountain to the rest of town. There were no bike lanes, the streets were
narrow and there was limited sight distance if a bicyclist was on the road. There was not a bike-pedestrian bridge that
connected to Nevada Street but it was in the NMNP. The Outline Plan approval noted adequate key facilities could be
provided including adequate transportation. It also stated the proposal complied with applicable standards in Section 18.4.6
Public Facilities. Adequate transportation included pedestrians and bicyclists. She questioned how the plan met adequate
transportation without a bike connection to the rest of town.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 7 of 10
Iraj Ostovar/566 Park Street/Supported the annexation. It would add 20-22 lots and there were not many lots available for
building at this time. The proposal provided affordable housing. It would add to the base revenue for Jackson County and
the City. He thought it was a valuable project.
Dan Thomas/18227 Hwy 66/Was the construction manager for Habitat for Humanity. This was a prime opportunity for
Habitat for Humanity to build houses. With their corporation partnerships, donations, and volunteer base, they could build a
house that would sell as an affordable home. They sold to the federal standard of 40% -70%. The cost of land in Ashland
was an issue. There were questions regarding the proposal that needed to be resolved. Habitat for Humanity fund raised
because they sold at a zero interest loan. Most families stayed in their homes for 30 years. This was an opportunity for
Habitat for Humanity but they were limited by funds and could not spend $100,000 for property and then pay another
$200,000 to build a home for a family on minimum wage. Currently, they built 5-6 homes a year. He thought they could
start building within a year or two.
Ms. Gunter explained thirteen three-bedroom units would require 26 parking spaces. The seven detached and semi-
detached three-bedroom units would need 14 parking spaces. The three units less than 500 square feet required three for a
total of 43 on-site spaces. On-street parking at one space per lot required twenty parking spaces for a grand total of 63. Not
all the units would be three-bedroom so the parking ratio could decrease. There were twelve garage units. The remainder
were surface and on-street parking.
Steve Walker, the water quality supervisor for the Public Works Department had addressed water pressure with the
applicant. There was one hundred-pounds static PSI on one side of the street and 90 pounds PSI on the other side. He did
not see any impacts to water pressure for the proposed development.
xplained the code allowed for 60%-80% that gave the pro rata of the 1.5 units
per 1 for affordability. Habitat for Humanity was within that range at 40%-75%.
Ms. Gunter responded to testimony regarding adequate key facilities, transportation, and circulation. The applicants had a
transportation engineer look at the project. Through the analysis, offsite improvements were not required because of the
number of trips generated by the project were below development thresholds. They looked at the rationale nexus of what
improvements the City could require based on the transportation impacts of the project. The proposed transportation
improvements along the entire frontage of the project complied with the City standards. They addressed the exception and
believed there was demonstrable difficulty meeting the exception. The transportation analysis did not show a rationale for
offsite improvements to the bridge or North Mountain Avenue.
Additionally, developments were required to pay system development charges (SDCs) for transportation that could pay for
offsite bicycle facilities that would better serve the community. There was not an adequate right of way to develop bike
lanes. The bike lanes would go from Franklin Street to Camelot Drive then stop.
Mr. Molnar explained there were two ways an applicant could provide affordable housing. They could build it or provide title
to sufficient amount of buildable land for development transfer to a non-profit affordable housing developer. The provision
clearly did not require the applicant to give it to a not for profit housing developer. Community Development staff and the
City Legal Department had been discussing that language. They concluded that it was clearly an obligation as part of the
application to make that a reality. By the time it went to Council, it should be clear that if a not for profit developer was
involved, they had a very strong agreement in place to make the four units a reality under that provision. City Attorney Dave
Lohman was not sure it did not require an obligation to negotiate or provide that land to the not for profit developer.
Ms. Gunter responded it had been done differently in the past for a variety of affordable housing developments. The code
was originally written because people had shirked their responsibility. That was not the intention here. It did not appear
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 8 of 10
there was a precedent in the code to give the land away. Past practices varied from selling, donating, or transferring the
land. It was not clear in the code.
Deliberations & Decision
Mr. Severson explained there was a North Mountain Avenue Standard in the NMNP. It contained a median down the middle
of the street and was approximately 3-feet smaller for the park row and parking bays. The Planning Commission agreed to
keep the North Mountain Avenue Standards for park rows and sidewalks.
For the private alley, staff looked at functional access versus legal access. With the exception of the A Unit, all of the units
fronted directly on the public right of way. While they were accessed from an alley at the rear, they all had frontage on a public
street. Typically, with flag drives, staff did not count the flag drive lots that had frontage on a public street even though they
took access from the flag drive. The applicant could convert to a private alley without requiring exceptions to the access
requirement.
In the affordable housing requirements, different phases were acceptable provided there were assurances the project would
be built. It was not clear where it fell under the statutory provision. Nor was it clear whether it referred to getting an exception
to phasing that would require building the affordable units before 50% of the project was completed. If that was the case, it
might set a standard for an exception and would need adequate assurances that the project would be built. The Commission
could make a recommendation to the City Council that having a deed restriction on the property was adequate assurance it
would remain affordable and transferred to an affordable housing provider.
Mr. Molnar thought there were strong similarities between the City Street Standards and North Mountain Avenue Standards.
The only difference was 6-feet versus 5-feet for sidewalks. The parking bay standard of 7 on a residential street would
ultimately be decided by the Public Works Director. Commissioner Dawkins spoke to the bike lane exception. It did not make
sense to have a bike lane going up the hill. He suspected people would bike through the old mill lumber site to Bear Creek
because it was flat. If a bridge went in, bicyclists would most likely follow Kestrel Parkway and a private roadway that
connected to North Mountain Avenue.
The Planning Commission supported applying the North Mountain Avenue Standards and agreed with the exception made for
the bike lane. Chair Pearce noted they would have to make Findings that the application met the street criteria exceptions
and there were adequate transportation facilities.
The Commission agreed to modify 9(m)(i) and remove the language referring to the refuge area by the rock outcropping.
They supported the applicant signing the agreement to participate in a future Local Improvement District (LID) regarding the
Nevada Street bridge.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES.
Motion passed 7-0.
The Commission discussed the affordable housing component. Commissioner Mindlin supported having them build 50% of
their project but at that time they had to start building the affordable units. If they transferred the land, it should be restricted
so that it returned to the applicant if the affordable units were not built in a timely manner. She thought the affordable housing
provider should be able to access the additional density if they wanted. Commissioner Miller did not support making the units
smaller than 2 or 3-bedrooms. Commissioner Dawkins clarified the ordinance already had the language regarding building
50% of a project then requiring construction to begin on the affordable housing portion. Commissioner Norton thought all the
D Units should be built at the same time. It would be less expensive. The units should look similar as well. He supported
language to build the affordable units at the 50% point. Chair Pearce suggested having them all built by the time certificates
of occupancy were issued.
The Commission agreed that by the time 50% of the project was complete, construction should start on the affordable units.
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 9 of 10
They retained all the requirements in 18.5.8.050(G) with the exception of allowing the units to be clustered.
Chair Pearce explained the project needed to be in conformity with the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. He had
written a document that addressed compatibility with the goals for inclusion in the Findings.
evergreens to 6-8 feet. The applicant could plant comparable trees. They also agreed on not paving the driveway past the
western post units to protect Trees #16 and #17. The applicant needed to further identify the condition for the new site plan
for open space.
The Commission addressed 9-C-1 and gave the applicant permission to rotate the C Units on Camelot Drive and Nevada
Street and Nevada Street and Franklin Street. They agreed to keep the alley private and not public. For the right of way
improvement along Nevada Street, the Commission and staff supported it being a public easement if improvements extended
outside the existing right of way. Building the three additional accessory dwelling units would remain optional.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to extend the meeting to 10:10 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES.
Motion passed 7-0.
The Commission was fine with the applicants having the option to get a bond for the 60-foot street improvements.
Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve Planning Action PA-2017-02129 with the following items:
Retain the North Mountain Avenue Standard.
Accept the bike lane exception.
Modify 9(m)(i) and remove the language referring to the pedestrian refuge area by the rock outcropping.
Retain signing the agreement to participate in a future Local Improvement District (LID) regarding the Nevada
Street bridge.
Retain all the requirements in 18.5.8.050(G4-G6) with the exception of permitting the units to be clustered.
Reduce the caliper of trees to 2.5 inches and the size of the evergreens to 6-8 feet and allow the applicant to
plant comparable trees.
Not paving the drive just past the garage at the western post units to protect Trees #16 and #17.
The applicant needed to further identify the condition for the new site plan for open space.
For 9-C-1, rotate the C Units on Camelot Drive and Nevada Street and Nevada Street and Franklin Street to
comply with driveway length if the developer wanted.
The alley will be private and not public.
Have a public easement for the right of away improvement along Nevada Street if improvements extended
outside of the existing right of way.
Keep the 3 accessory dwelling units as optional.
The applicants had the option to get a bond for the 60-foot street improvements.
DISCUSSION: Chair Pearce clarified these were recommendations on legislation and proposed findings, conclusions and
conditions on the Outline Plan, and the Site Design Review. All conditional on Council approval of the rezoning. The Council
could send them back to the Planning Commission for final approval or they could approve them themselves. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Brown, Norton, Thompson, Mindlin, Dawkins, Pearce, and Miller, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
Submitted by,
Dana Smith, Executive Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
January 9, 2018
Page 10 of 10
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 13, 2018
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2017-02129,A REQUEST FOR )
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT; ZONE CHANGE; OUTLINE PLAN)
APPROVAL FOR A 20-LOT, 23-UNIT SUBDIVISION; SITE DESIGN REVIEW; )
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE TEN TREES GREATER THAN SIX-)
INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT; AND EXCEPTION TO STREET)
STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 475 EAST NEVADA ST.)
)
-.5-)
FINDINGS,
THE PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DES-)
CONCLUSIONS,
-)
ORDERS &
NOTE:
-FAMILY (NM-PORTIONS)
RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS.)
THE CURRENT REQUEST INVOLVES ONLY THOSE PORTIONS WITHIN THE CITY)
LIMITS.\])
)
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Young Family Trust & City of Ashland)
)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1)Tax lots#1100, 1200 and 1300 of Map 39 1E 04A and Tax Lot #100 of Map 39 1E 04AD are located
at 475 East Nevada Street and are presently zoned RR-.5-P, Rural Residential.
2)The applicantsare requestingComprehensive Plan Map Amendment; Zone Change; Outline Plan
approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit subdivision; Site Design Review; Tree Removal Permit to remove ten trees
greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and Exception to Street Standards for the
Family Residential Res-.5-
NOTE:
-Family (NM-Portions of the subject properties are
located outside of the city limits; the current request involves only those portions within the city limits.)
The proposal is outlined inplans on file at the Department of Community Development.
3)The criteria for Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are described in AMC 18.5.9.020 as follows:
Type II.
A.The Type II procedure is used for applications involving zoning map amendments
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map, and minor map amendments or corrections.
Amendments under this section may be approved if in compliance with the Comprehensive
Planand the application demonstrates that one or more of the following.
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 1
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.
Type III.
B. 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.
4) 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.
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 2
b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and
through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and
adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate
beyond capacity.
c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors,
ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the
development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas,
and unbuildable areas.
d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the
uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if
required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases
have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project.
f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this
chapter.
g. The development complies with the Street Standards.
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,
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
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 3
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
windbreaks.
c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,
sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The
City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal
have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to
be used as permitted in the zone.
d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below
the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City
may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate
landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the
alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance.
e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted
approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a
condition of approval of the permit.
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 4
7) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 as follows:
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.
8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on January 9, 2017
at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing,
the Planning Commission approved the application,
the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change, subject to conditions pertaining to
the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes, orders and recommends
as follows:
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision
based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 5
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for Outline Plan, Site Design Review, Tree
Removal Permit and Exception to Street Standards approvals meets all applicable criteria for Outline Plan
approval described in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3; for Site Design Review approval described in AMC 18.5.2.050;
for a Tree Removal Permit as described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B; and for Exception to Street Standards as
described in AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1. The Planning Commission further finds that the requested Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change meets the applicable criteria in AMC 18.5.9.020.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that, as detailed in AMC 18.5.9.020, Zone Changes may be
processed as a Type II procedure when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however when
a Zone Change is proposed that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation as is the case
here it requires a Type III procedure with a hearing and recommendations from the Planning Commission
followed by decision through a hearing before the City Council in conjunction with the adoption of
necessary ordinances and amended maps.
The approval criteria for a Type II Zone Change, where the Zone Change is consistent with the existing
Plan designation, require that one or more of the following be demonstrated:
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; and
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
housing seems the most relevant.
Where a Zone Change request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation, the Land Use
Ordinance calls for a Type III review, noting that, 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
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 6
Type III reviews typically involve
large-scale implementation of public policy
however because the current request requires not only a zone change for a relatively small group of
properties but also an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan Map designation and as such triggers Type
III review. In past applications involving what are essentially minor, property specific changes to the
Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission and Council have looked for a compelling public need
but have also relied upon criteria of AMC 18.5.9.020.A in considering the more property-
specific aspects of the requests. The Pla
here accordingly looks at the changes in circumstances or conditions which necessitate the request, but
does so with the more property-specific criteria in mind as well.
The application There has been a significant change in the neighborhood development
part of the large area of underdeveloped land on the north side of Bear Creek, accessed only by a gravel-
surfaced North Mountain Avenue. Between 1997 and today, major public and private expenditures were
made to bring paved streets, sewer and water service to this area. The current property owner sees the
great value in working with the City and providing additional developable land consistent with the
adjacent property zones and development pattern allowing for further the Comprehensive Plan with
respect to urbanization.
primary change in circumstances is the development and build-
out of the adjacent Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision properties (immediately) to the south. When the
comprehensive plan designations were set, the properties to the north of East Nevada Street and the areas
to the south were designated as Rural Residential. With the North Mountain Plan overlay, the zoning of
the properties to the south of East Nevada Street was modified to correspond to the North Mountain Plan
Overlay. The properties to the north of East Nevada Street were not included in the North Mountain Plan
Overlay.
The Planning Commission finds that i
Neighborhood Plan, the entire area - including the subject properties was given residential half-acre
were extended and upgraded to serve the Mountain Meadows development on the east side of North
Mountain Avenue. At that point, there began to be interest on the part of property owners in developing
but
there were concerns about a piecemeal approach to development versus a more coordinated effort. This
ultimately lead to a grant-funded master planning process that began in January of 1994 and ended in May
of 1997, with the City Councildoption of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan which included
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments in conjunction with new chapter in the Ashland
Land Use Ordinance that set the zoning framework for the district and provided design standards for
development within the approximately 75-acre North Mountain Neighborhood.
The Planning Commission finds that,
the area, these changes in and of themselves do not
However, the current housing shortage and the well-documented need for more land to accommodate
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 7
moderately priced and affordable ownership and rental units is a change in circumstances which we
believe necessitates the requested up-ent to more
efficiently use lands within its existing boundaries under the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process,
and the changes noted by the applicant in bringing city facilities to the area in conjunction with the North
ent support this more efficient land use.
The applicant requests to rezone the properties to North Mountain, Multi-Family (NM-MF) zoning, which
allows for up to 12 dwelling units per acre. The mix of units proposed includes townhouses, four single
family units attached at the garages, and three detached single family residences with the possibility for
three attached second units, and the application suggests that the proposed mixture of housing types and
density is consistent with the adjacent North Mountain Neighborhood context and further cites the
Townhouse Residential discussion in 2.04.04 of the Comprehensive which notes that this townhouses at
encourage innovative residential housing to provide low-cost, owner-
occupied housing in addition to lower density rental units.
Planning staff had noted that in considering the need for low- and moderately-priced rental and ownership
housing, the Planning Commission and Council may wish to consider requiring the applicant to construct
the three small accessory units currently described as optional in the application, and also to consider
requiring the applicants to look at other options to further increase the density of the development with
the inclusion of more and/or smaller units that would be possible by using available density bonuses. The
Planning Commission finds that requiring the applicant to provide additional residential units or smaller
units as a condition of a Type III application approval would fall under the legislative authority of the City
Council. The Planning Commission would however be open to considering an increase in the requested
density by utilizing available density bonus options at the time of Final Plan, and in particular believes
that the applicants should make the option of requesting available density bonuses utilizing the parent
parcel density and available density bonuses to an affordable housing provider partner.
The application emphasizes that the property owner is committed to partnering with a non-profit
affordable housing provider and has been in discussions with Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity about
dedicating the area for four units of housing and associated street improvements, parking, private
yard/setback areas, access to common refuse area and recreation space and full participation in the
n. This portion of the development would be deed restricted as affordable to those
at 60 percent of the area median income for 60 years. The applicants propose to extend water, sewer,
storm drain and electric facilities to and through the development with the Outline Plan approval, but hope
to defer sidewalk, parkrow and irrigation for the new Franklin Street extension proposed until housing is
developed by posting a bond for these improvements.
The criteria for affordable units calls for the units to be completed proportionally with the market rate
units, distributed evenly throughout the project and to be constructed using comparable building materials
and include equivalent amenities to the market rate units. Because they propose to provide property
directly to an affordable housing provider to be developed separately, the applicants have requested
Exception to these standards. AMC 18.5.8.050.G. provides for exceptions where an alternative mix of
housing types, phasing or distribution would accomplish additional benefits and be completed in a timely
fashion. The applicants explain that the dedicated land must be located in one area to limit development
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 8
costs, and that this further facilitates coordinated site planning so that the building placement, yard areas,
play areas, parking, etc. can be planned as part of the initial development to further minimize development
costs. They further suggest that attached wall, townhouse structures that are contiguous to one another
with similar designs and floorplans minimize development and long-term maintenance costs and are thus
beneficial to the affordable housing providers. They conclude that in their discussions with Habitat, it has
been indicated that the housing need for affordable units is critical, and they believe that with the zone
change it would be possible to transfer title to the property, and complete Final Plan and Site Review in
the very near future. In addition, the city has proposed to include an adjacent, city-owned 0.35 parcel in
the zone change in hopes that it might be able to be incorporated into a future affordable housing
development to provide for additional affordable units and allow the development of both sites with more
efficient use of funds, labor and materials than would occur with the development of the same number of
In considering the requested Exceptions, the Planning Commission finds that while clustering the
affordable units contrary to the distribution requirements of AMC 18.5.8.050.G.5 is acceptable in
facilitating coordinated site planning as requested by the applicants, the project should remain subject to
the other standards and requirements for affordability, including timely completion of the affordable units
(AMC 18.5.8.050.G.4) and for the use of comparable materials and amenities (18.5.8.050.G.6). The Co
A zone change to NM-MF,current Comprehensive Plan Map
designation, requires a
discretionary decision by the City Council, and in similar previous requests, the Council has looked for a
compelling argument that such a change addresses a clear public need. The Planning Commission finds
that the compelling change of circumstance necessitating the requested change is the housing shortage
and the need for more land to accommodate affordable and moderately-priced rental and ownership
housing. The Commission further finds that the extension of city facilities to the area, adoption of the
North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park II
subdivision immediately to the south can be found to be significant changes in circumstances since the
original zoning was established which further support the requested Zone Change and Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. current commitment to maintain the
existing Urban Growth Boundary for the foreseeable future as adopted in the Regional Plan Element (XIV)
of the Comprehensive Plan, and instead seek to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land
use inside existing boundaries, the Commission believes that that these circumstances necessitate the
requested up-zoning, and we accordingly recommend that the City Council approve the requested Zone
Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal satisfies all applicable criteria for Outline Plan
approval.
The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that,
ordinance requirements of the CityCommission finds that the proposal meets or can meet all
applicable ordinance requirements, and that this criterion has been satisfied.
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 9
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 public facilities for
electricity, natural gas, telephone, television and internet are immediately available to the subject
properties from the adjacent rights-of-way and these services will be placed underground to serve the
property. With regard to specific facilities, the application materials note:
{ğƓźƷğƩǤ {ĻǞĻƩ: Existing sanitary sewer lines are available in Camelot Drive approximately 30-
feet south of the intersection of Camelot and East Nevada Street, and there is another line in East
Nevada Street at is intersection with Patton. The application explains that the Engineering
Division has indicated that the lines are in adequate condition and have capacity to support the
proposed subdivision, and the applicants indicate that they will extend the sewer lines up East
Nevada to service the subdivision.
ğƷĻƩ: An existing 15-inch water line is in place within East Nevada Street, and the application
notes that extension of the line through the development with fire hydrant installation to meet
Fire Code will have adequate capacity and availability to service the proposed residences. In
discussing the proposal with Water Department staff, they have noted that because of the grade
change between the curb and some developable areas of the property, there may be more than
a 30-foot elevation gain between the water main and two-story buildings on the embankment
above. This poses a potential cross-connection issue, as does an existing well in place on the
property, and the Water Department has indicated that this cross-connection potential will need
{ƷƚƩƒ 5ƩğźƓğŭĻʹ The application materials indicate that storm drainage on site will be controlled
through an on-site detention system with a bio-swale at the terminus of Camelot Drive and the
proposed new alley.
{ƷƩĻĻƷƭ ε ƩğƓƭƦƚƩƷğƷźƚƓʹ The application explains that the properties front on East Nevada
Street and will have direct access by way of the proposed new street, the extension of Camelot
Drive and a new proposed alley. The application notes that the proposed improvements are
residential units will not trigger a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA).
More specifically, with regard to East Nevada Street, a two-lane avenue, the application notes
that there is a paving, curb and gutter in place along the property frontage. The applicants
propose a five-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow along the eastern sectio
East Nevada Street frontage, with the parkrow planting strip proposed to be reduced to five-feet
where eight on-street parking bays are proposed on Nevada Street. These eight on-street parking
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 10
bays will require relocation of the existing curb and gutter. In the area of the steep, rocky
outcropping the applicants have requested an exception to the street standards to not extend
sidewalks along the frontages of tax lots #1100 and #1200 due to the physically impenetrable
rock and the difficulties associated with its excavation. The application suggests that they would
be willing to post a bond in lieu of installing sidewalks on the flatter approximately 40-foot section
of tax lot #1100 in order to allow its frontage to be completed in conjunction with the future
development of the large adjacent property to the west at 375 East Nevada Street, rather than
extending a short section of sidewalk that would not connect to adjacent properties at this time,
particularly given that there are no crosswalks connecting to the sidewalks on the south side in
this vicinity. The Commission finds that the sidewalk and parkrows proposed on East Nevada
Street are consistent with the Avenue standard illustrated in the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan, and given the Exceptions requested elsewhere, the parkrow should be kept to their
minimum seven-foot width detailed for an Avenue, even where parking bays have been
proposed.
The applicants propose enhanced intersection treatments at East Nevada Street and Camelot to
include amenities such as street lighting, a seating area, and a widened crosswalk using
contrasting color or material (i.e. scored or colored concrete) to provide connectivity between
the proposed sidewalks and the sidewalks for the existing and future development in the North
Mountain Neighborhood to the south. In discussions of the crosswalk treatment with Public
Works, Engineering and Planning staff, they have noted that the ramp and crossing need to be
placed to better align with ramps opposite so that the ramps are directly connected to those
across the street with the shortest, most direct routes possible as this is an Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) concern for visually-impaired pedestrians.
Camelot Drive is proposed to be extended onto the property as a neighborhood street with a
proposed 48-foot right-of-way width providing a 15-foot travel surface, eight-foot planting strips
and five-foot sidewalks on each side. Two seven-foot wide parking bays would be provided on
the west side, with street improvements on this extension to generally match those on the
existing street and enhanced crossing treatments with truncated domes and enhanced
crosswalks provided at the Nevada Street intersection.
The application also proposes to extend half-street improvements from a newly named Franklin
Street within existing right-of-way at the east end of the Young property. The applicants note
that this would be a neighborhood street with a 60-foot right-of-way and improved with a five-
foot sidewalk, seven-foot landscaped parkrow, seven-foot on-street parking bays and a 15-foot
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 11
travel lane. The application suggests that these improvements would be bonded and completion
deferred until the residential units adjacent to the new street were developed.
The applicants also propose a 22-foot public alley extending from the proposed Franklin Street
to the fire truck turn-around on the west side of the upper level of development. Parking for the
proposed units would be accessed from this alley, eliminating the need for front yard driveways
for units on East Nevada and Franklin Streets. Public Works and Engineering staff have indicated
that given that this alley will function essentially as a private driveway serving the development
without either a need for or benefit from public access, it should be a private driveway or private
alley and not necessitate city maintenance responsibilities. In addition, Public Works and
Engineering staff have expressed concern with what appears to be services stubbed out to serve
these be corrected in the final civil drawings to avoid the potential illegal extension of urban
services outside of the urban growth boundary. Conditions to this effect have been included
below.
The application includes preliminary civil drawings prepared by Thornton Engineering, and conditions
have been included below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the
review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that these plans address the Water
Department comments regarding cross-connection concern and premises isolation; the Engineering
Department concerns about the alignment of the crossings at Camelot Drive, treatment of the alley as
private, and extension of services outside the urban growth boundary; and that the civil infrastructure be
installed, 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,
The Commission finds that there is an approximately 18,000 square foot steeply
sloped area of the property associated with the large roadside outcropping which has been proposed for
The Commission finds that the inclusion of this rock
outcropping and the sloped area adjacent in common open space provides a significant amenity to the
future residents of the development, and further finds that some form of pedestrian access (i.e. a path to a
gazebo or other sitting area) should be provided to give future residents access to the vista here. A
condition to this effect has been included below.
The applicants have provided a survey identifying 27 trees on the property which are greater than six-
inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, ten are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the
application including a 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Ponderosa Pine, a 16-inch d.b.h. Cedar
tree, a nine-inch d.b.h. Pine, a 30-inch d.b.h. Ash tree, four seven-to-eight-inch d.b.h. Oak trees, and a six-
inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. Walnut tree. The Commission finds that the trees proposed for removal are the
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 12
minimum necessary to permit the parcel to be developed as proposed under the requested zoning. The
trees are noted as being located where streets, driveways and building envelopes are proposed to comply
with the applicable standards while responding to the significant topographical constraints.
The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that,
The Planning
Commission finds
Plan Amendment and Zone Change, will enable this parcel to develop with four affordable housing units
instead of the single family residence that would be possible under the current designation, and the
properties to the west and south will not be prevented from developing according to its Comprehensive
Plan designation, while properties to the north are outside of the city limits.
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 tf the proposed open space
and common areas. A condition has included
for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan submittal.
The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established
The Planning Commission finds that the developable portion of the subject property
is approximately two acres, and at the 12-dwelling unit per acre density of the requested NM-MF zoning,
the base density of the subject properties is 24 units. The North Mountain Neighborhood Plan calls for a
minimum density of between 75 and 110 percent meaning that at a density of between 18 and 26.4
dwelling units is required. As proposed, the applicants would develop at least 20 units, with three
within the requirements of the requested zoning district. Despite indications in the application that the
proposal may qualify for density bonuses with regard to affordability and energy efficiency, no density
bonuses are being requested. The Planning Commission finds that density bonuses not requested here
may be available, and the Commission would be open to considering additional affordable units supported
by a density bonus at the Final Plan should the applicants decide to pursue them.
The final Outline Plan approval criterion is that,
The Planning Commission finds that the application generally complies with the Street Standards but has
requested some Exceptions, discussed later in this document, to address the physical constraints posed by
the large rock-outcropping.
2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the development of attached housing requires Site Design
residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.030.
The Commission finds that the application includes the identification of building envelopes, site
landscaping and open space, and required parking and circulation along with conceptual building
elevations intended to illustrate that the property can and will be developed according to the applicable
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 13
standards under the requested zoning. The application explains that
Design Review approvals for the specific buildings to be proposed will be delayed until each phase
develops, and that these Site Design Reviews will include final building designs as well as final
landscaping and irrigation details. Conditions of approval have been included below to require that Site
Design Review approvals for buildings within each phase be obtained concurrently with Final Plan
approval for each phase, and that these Site Design Reviews be generally consistent with the site lay-out
and conceptual designs here, with the exception of final building designs.
The first criterion for Site Design ReThe proposal complies with all of the applicable
provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot
area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation,
architecture, and other applicable standardsThe Planning Commission finds that the proposed
development will comply with all applicable provisions for the underlying zone.
The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements
(part 18.3).The Planning Commission finds that the property is proposed for inclusion in the NM-MF
district within the North Mountain Neighborhood overlay zone, and that all applicable standards have
been addressed.
The Commission further finds that the
are present, that garages be located a minimum of 15 feet behind the primary façade and a minimum of
20 feet from the sidewalk. The applicant notes that the garages which take access from a public street will
be ten feet behind the primary façade. In assessing the site plan, it appears that the only units with a garage
taking access from a public street are the two units on the west side of Camelot Drive. These units are at
the juncture of the alley and Camelot, and have an 18-foot wide driveway and a garage ten feet (rather
than the required 15 feet behind the façade of the units). This appears to conflict with the standard both
in terms of having a garage from the street where alley access is available to at least one of the units, and
in having the garage five feet closer to the façade than allowed. Given that the Site Review request is
conceptual at this stage, the Commission does not believe an Exception is appropriate and have
accordingly included a condition that this situation be addressed in the Final Plan/Site Design Review
submittal to either meet the standard or request an Exception.
The proposal complies with the applicable
Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E (which addresses
Exceptions) below.
and Design Standards and includes site layout plans, landscaping, irrigation and planting plans as well as
conceptual elevations to supplement the written findings provided. In considering these standards, the
Commission finds that multi-family residential property requires that eight percent (here 8,433 square
feet) of the site be provided as recreational space, and the Performance Standards requires that at least five
percent (here 5,270 square feet) of the site be provided in common open space. While the application
indicates that approximately 22 percent of the site (or 23,305 square feet) is provided in multi-family open
space, the landscape plan illustrates only approximately 4,533 in lawn area, with the remainder of the
property planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover which are not suitable for recreational use. Some
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 14
of the lawn areas shown have depths as narrow as four feet, some are placed immediately adjacent to the
parking area or street right-of-way, and one is within a required park-row planting strip. To demonstrate
that the eight percent recreation space requirement is met, a plan clearly illustrating all areas to be counted
towards open and recreation space needs to be provided. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation
space requirements need to be outside of the right-of-way and placed where they are likely to be used
recreationally, surfaced for recreational use, of sufficient depth to allow recreational use, and not include
thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum
dimension of six feet in depth and eight feet in width (the minimum porch dimension as defined in AMC
18.6.1) exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate recreational use.
Placement of utility infrastructure such as vaults, transformers or cabinets needs to be considered, and
areas set aside for these items should not be counted as required open or recreational space. The
Commission has accordingly included a condition requiring a revised plan fully addressing these issues
be provided for review and approval with the Final Plan application.
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
Public facilities requirements are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan section 2.4 earlier in these
findings.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes a request for an Exception to Street
Standards to not extend sidewalks along the frontages of Tax Lots #1100 and #1200, west of the
intersection of Camelot and East Nevada, due to the steep and rocky slope in this area, and to not install a
multi-use path or other alternative to the sidewalk due to the same rocky slopes. The application asserts
that the rock is impenetrable here, and has included a report by a geotechnical expert. The applicants note
that they considered installing a multi-use path as an alternative, but the slopes were too steep to do so
safely, and they further note anecdotally that when the subdivision to the south was installed a local
backhoe operator broke many pieces of equipment trying to install street improvements here and the rock
ultimately dictated the location of the existing curb. To provide for pedestrian connectivity, the applicants
propose to install enhancements to the intersection of Camelot Drive and East Nevada so pedestrians using
the north side sidewalk on the eastern portion of the proposed development can cross to the south side in
the area where no sidewalks will be installed. These enhancements are to include amenities such as street
lighting, seating, and a widened crosswalk using contrasting color or material (i.e. scored or colored
concrete) to provide connectivity between the proposed sidewalks and the sidewalks for the existing and
future development in the North Mountain Neighborhood to the south
After visiting the site, Planning staff had noted that they believed there were opportunities in the area at
the base of the rock outcropping where sidewalks are not currently proposed to instead remove weeds and
flatten an 18- to 24-inch area behind the curb and surface it in concrete or compacted decomposed granite
in order to provide an area of refuge where pedestrians could step out of the roadway when cars pass to
provide. Staff had recommended that the civil plans provided for Final Plan review include such a
pedestrian refuge in this area. After consideration, the Commission finds that that this area is still
constrained by the presence of the rock outcropping and that the presence of a small refuge area might
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 15
encourage pedestrians to that side of the street where there would be minimal facilities and very limited
area to step out of the right-of-way to avoid cars. The Commission accordingly finds that the small
pedestrian refuge is not an appropriate treatment here. The Commission further finds that the rock
outcropping does pose a demonstrable difficulty in completing city standard frontage improvements on
East Nevada Street, and that the proposed intersection enhancements will yield equivalent facilities and
connectivity in terms of providing for the ability to safely and efficiently cross the roadway to the
sidewalks on the opposite side. This exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty posed
by the rock outcropping and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Street Standards.
Planning staff had noted that the street cross-
frontage were inconsistent with the standard improvements for an Avenue under the Street Standards, and
had recommended that the civil drawings be updated to reflect the required park row and sidewalk width
in the standards. The applicants asserted that the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan provided for an
alternate Avenue standard within the North Mountain Neighborhood. Planning Commissioners find that
there are differing street standards in the code with regard to Avenues. The standard Avenue cross-section
described in AMC 18.4.6.040.F calls for a seven- to eight-foot park row planting strip and a six-foot
sidewalk to be installed in residential areas; the cross section called out in the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan for North Mountain Avenue calls for a five-foot sidewalk with a seven-foot park row
planting strip. Planning Commissioners find that the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan should govern
in this case, and that a five-foot sidewalk and seven-foot park row planting strip are an appropriate Avenue
treatment for East Nevada Street here.
The applicants have also requested an Exception to not install bicycle lanes on East Nevada Street because
there are none elsewhere on this corridor, the rock slope limits the ability to expand the right-of-way, and
the average daily trip counts are very low. Subsequent to the mailing of a notice of public hearing,
neighbors Andrea Napoli and Don Morehouse who reside on nearby Stoneridge Avenue submitted written
comments indicating that they believed that bicycle access was necessary for the neighborhood before a
zone change could occur, noting that currently there is no real bicycle access between the North Mountain
Neighborhood and the rest of town, describing the existing bicycle lanes on North Mountain Avenue as
dangerous and disappearing, and noting that there is currently no bridge connection over Bear Creek to
Oak Street or the Bear Creek Greenway and suggesting that they do not believe a finding of adequate
transportation can be made with regard to bicycle access. As noted by the neighbors, there are bicycle
lanes on North Mountain Avenue in some places, but they are not continuous and require cyclists to merge
into traffic or use a variable width gravel shoulder. While properties in adjacent developments including
Meadowbrook Park II immediately to the south have been required to sign in favor of a future Local
Improvement District for East Nevada Street which would include construction of a bridge over Bear
Creek, this bridge is not currently in place.
The Planning Commission finds that an Avenue is typically envisioned to accommodate between 3,000
and 10,000 average daily trips (ADT) as a design assumption. For lesser order streets, the Street Design
Bike lanes are generally not needed on streets with low volumes (less than
3,000 ADT) or low motor vehicle travel speeds (less than 25mph). For over 3,000 ADT or actual travel
speeds exceeding 25 mph, six-foot bike lanes \[are required\]; one on each side of the street moving in the
same direction as motor vehicle traffic. ADT within
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 16
the threshold which requires bike lanes, the most recent actual ADT counts for this section of East Nevada
Street, taken by the Engineering Division in 2017, have the ADT at 107 trips. On nearby Fair Oaks
Avenue, which likely is taking more of the traffic from the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision out to
Mountain Avenue because it is a less circuitous route, ADT was only slightly over 400 trips in 2016, and
Engineering staff indicated that it was doubtful even with additional construction completed in 2017 that
the current ADT there would be over 500 trips now. The Planning Commission finds that the current
ADT on East Nevada Street do not necessitate bicycle lanes, and could accommodate cyclists as shared
users of the street without frequent conflicts due to vehicle cross traffic, although the Avenue classification
typically requires them. The Planning Commission further finds that an Exception is merited, but that the
applicants will be required to sign in favor of a future Local Improvement District (LID) for East Nevada
Street as have others in the North Mountain Neighborhood. Such an LID could include both bicycle lanes
and bridge construction.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants have provided a survey identifying 27 trees on
the property which are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, ten are proposed to
be removed in conjunction with the application including a 16-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)
Ponderosa Pine, a 16-inch d.b.h. Cedar tree, a nine-inch d.b.h. Pine, a 30-inch d.b.h. Ash tree, four seven-
to-eight-inch d.b.h. Oak trees, and a six-inch and a ten-inch d.b.h. Walnut tree. The Commission finds
that the trees proposed for removal are the minimum necessary to permit the parcel to be developed as
proposed under the requested zoning. The trees are located where streets, driveways and building
envelopes are proposed to comply with the applicable standards while responding to the significant
topographical constraints of the site.
The applicants further explain that the trees to be removed on the upper level of the development include
the Cedar, Ponderosa Pine and Ash trees which are requested for removal to accommodate the extension
of Camelot Drive, which must respond to the existing street location, topography, block length and fire
truck turn-around standards.
The applicants go on to note that the majority of the trees to be removed are on the lower level of the
property on tax lot #1100. These trees are described as being crowded together where the driveway will
need to be located to access the proposed lower level units and to maintain vehicular access for the portion
y limits while complying with driveway separation
requirements.
The Commission finds that the removals will not have a significant negative impact on erosion or soil
stability, noting that the development of the property will address erosion and soil stability. The applicants
emphasize that there are no surface waters on the site, and that the trees proposed for removal are not part
of any windbreaks. They also suggest that the removals will generally have no significant impact on tree
densities, canopy size or species diversity, although they recognize that the Ponderosa and Cedar may
have adverse impacts with regard to this criterion while suggesting that their removals could not be
avoided. They explain that with shallow soil depths and significantly rocky soils, large conifers require
wider spreading root structure and necessitate larger protection zones which would make it more difficult
to preserve and protect them with the proposed development. The applicants propose to plant numerous
deciduous trees that are more than 1½- inch caliper to mitigate the removals proposed, and that three
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 17
mitigate the large conifers to be removed.
In reviewing the proposal at their regular meeting in January, the Tree Commissioners
2.8 The Planning Commission finds that Oregon state law requires that amendments to comprehensive
plans to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines (ORS 195.175(2)(a)). The
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would change the site Comprehensive Plan Map designation
state law requirement, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and the project proposed for the site under PA #2017-02129 comply with the Statewide
Planning Goals & Guidelines as described below:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement -
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezone affect four
parcels, so its impacts are not widespread. The City publicized the proposal as required by the
in
website and in the local newspaper.
Goal 2: Planning
- T
Mountain Neighborhood District, which is a large planned district in the northern part of the
Ashland. The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning effectively brings these
parcels into the North Mountain Neighborhood District. Permits for the proposed development of
t
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 18
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
- The sites that are the subject of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone are within both the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of
the City of Ashland. No Agricultural lands are affected by the proposed development of the site
under the proposed amendments. Adjacent lands in Jackson County to the north are not designated
Agricultural. To the extent this rezone allows for greater
less pressure for housing outside the UGB.
Goal 4: Forest Lands -
The sites that are the subject of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and
rezone are within both the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) of the City of
Ashland. No Forest lands are affected by the proposed development of the site under the proposed
amendments. Adjacent lands in Jackson County to the north are not designated Forest. To the
extent this rezone allows for greater density withi
housing outside the UGB.
Goal 5: Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces -
No natural
resources, scenic resources, or historic resources have been identified on the sites. The proposed
development of the site under PA-2017-02129 has been determined by the Ashland Planning
percent of the site to be dedicated to recreational open space.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality -
The rezone sites are planned for residential
development and this development is not anticipated to negatively impact air, water or land
resources. The sites will be fully served by City utilities, which is not currently the case pre-
rezone.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Hazards -
The sites are not within any flood, landslide or
liquefaction-
Goal 8: Recreational Needs -
The sites are near City parks and other recreational resources. The
proposed development of the site under PA-2017-02129 has been determined by the Ashland
Planning Commission to comply, as conditioned, with City Land Use Code requirements for
recreational open space on site.
Goal 9: Economic Development -
The City has adequate industrial and commercially zoned land
elsewhere. The subject properties have been zoned residential reserve. The residential nature of
the zoning will not change, but greater density will be allowed, and some affordable housing units
will be provided.
Goal 10: Housing -
The Comprehensive P
housing goals and policies by increasing zoned residential density in an area that is already
developing with urban levels of housing density. The proposed development for the site will also
provide some needed affordable housing in the City of Ashland.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services -
that there are adequate public facilities and services to serve the rezoned parcels and to serve the
proposed development of the site under PA-2017-02129.
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 19
Goal 12: Transportation
- The street grid in the North Mountain Neighborhood area is adequate
to handle the additional traffic from development of the subject parcels at the higher, rezoned
density. The proposed project for the site under PA 2017-02129 will provide additional street
parking and sidewalks for the area. The transportation study done for the proposed development
found that it did not meet any of the thresholds to require a transportation impact analysis.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
-
Boundary and City Limits will promote the more efficient use of land and energy.
Goal 14: Urbanization
- The Urbanization Goal is furthered by greater residential density within
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway
- Not applicable.
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources
- Not applicable.
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands
- Not applicable.
Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes
- Not applicable.
Goal 19: Ocean Resources
- Not applicable.
Comprehensive
Plan (ORS 195.175(2)(b)). With approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map designation amendment to
-Family
(NM-Comprehensive Plan. The NM-MF designation is one of the
zoning designations approved by the City for adoption within the North Mountain Neighborhood District.
The Commission conditionally approves the proposed Outline Plan and Site Design Review for Planning
Action PA #2017-02129, subject to City Council approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to North Mountain Neighborhood Plaand rezone of the sites consistent with that
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to NM-MF. The Council may wish to adopt the Outline Plan and
Site Design Review approvals prior to acknowledgment of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment by
the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) by adopting these findings as
well, or could alternatively send the Outline Plan and Site Design Review requests back to the Planning
Commission for final approval following acknowledgment.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that
the proposal for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Outline Plan approval, Site Design
Review approval for a 20-lot, 23-unit Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal
Permit is supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
For the Commission, it is clear that the extension of city facilities to the area, adoption of the North
Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and subsequent development of the Meadowbrook Park II subdivision
immediately to the south represent a change in circumstances since the current zoning was established in
Commissioners the
compelling changes in circumstance which necessitate the requested Plan Amendment and Zone Change
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 20
are the well-documented housing shortage around the lack of rental and ownership units that are affordable
process to accommodate anticipated growth with more efficient land use inside existing city boundaries.
The extension of public facilities to support more dense development than was possible when the current
zoning was established nearly 50 years ago sets the table for more efficient land use now, and given the
current need for more housing, the Commission recommends that the City Council approve the requested
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following
conditions,
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change and we further approve the Outline Plan, Site
Design Review, Tree Removal and Exception to Street Standards components of Planning Action #2017-
01059 subject to the Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change.
Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then
Planning Action #2017-01059 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the
approval:
1.That proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein.
2.That any new addresses or street names shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering
Department.
3.That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in
the public right of way.
4.That 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 including
demolition, staging, storage of materials or issuance of any permits. 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.
5.That the applicants shall obtain necessary Demolition and Relocation Review Permits from the
Building Division prior to the demolition of any buildings over 500 square feet as required in AMC
15.04, if deemed necessary by the Building Official.
6.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
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 21
corridor.
7.That prior to the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change being formalized, the
applicants shall sign in favor of a Local Improvement District for the future improvements to East
Nevada Street including future bridge construction and street improvements, including but not
limited to bike lanes sidewalks, parkrow, curb, gutter and storm drainage, prior to signature of the
final survey plat. The agreement shall be signed and recorded concurrently with the final survey
plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or
assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or
participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City
ordinances and resolutions.
8.That prior to Final Plan approval:
a.A revised plan to demonstrate that the open and recreation space requirements are met
illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space and their placement,
dimension and treatment, and shall include some form of pedestrian access (i.e. a path to a
gazebo or other sitting area) to provide access for future residents to the vista here.
Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space need to be placed and surfaced for
recreational use and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation, and individual
patio, porch or deck areas need to have a minimum dimension of six feet in depth and eight
feet in width exclusive of circulation routes, door swing areas, etc. to accommodate
recreational use. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as transformers,
vaults and cabinets are not to be included as open/recreational space. Common area and
open space improvements (i.e. landscaping and irrigation, etc.) shall be installed according
to the approved plan, inspected and approved prior to signature of Final Survey Plat.
b.A phasing plan be provided which details the proposed phasing/timing of the development
with the final plan submittal.
c.Site Design Review approval for the final building designs shall be obtained concurrently
with Final Plan approval for each phase. Site Designs shall be generally consistent with
that approved here, with the exception of final building designs.
i.The Site Design Review shall address the two units on the west side of Camelot
Drive which are at the corner of the alley and Camelot, and have an 18-foot wide
driveway and a garage ten feet, rather than the required 15 feet, behind the façade
of the units. The Site Design Review shall consider this both in terms of having a
garage where alley access is available to at least one of the units, and in having the
garage five feet closer to the façade than allowed and shall either adjust the design
or request an Exception.
d.Final Plan and Site Design Review submittals which include the city-owned property (Tax
Lot #100) will need to include a tree inventory/protection plan and determination of
wetland presence for this property.
e.All requirements of the geo--technical
expert reviews grading and building plans for compliance with recommendations and that
the geo-technical expert observes earthwork, foundation and drainage installation phases
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 22
of construction and provides a written report of these observations certifying that all
construction was consistent with recommendations shall be conditions of approval. The
final plan submittals shall include written verification from the project geo-technical expert
addressing the consistency of the grading and drainage plans with the report
recommendations, and shall include a detailed inspection schedule addressing needed
f.
deployed in the neighborhood.
g.Final Trash enclosure placement and screening details.
h.Final lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to be allocated to comply
with the 75 percent lot coverage allowance in the NM-MF zoning district, including all
building footprints, driveways, parking, circulation areas and other proposed lot coverage.
i.The identification of all proposed easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus
access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, access and parking shall be indicated on the
Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire
Departments.
j.That a final utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning,
Engineering, and Building Divisions with the Final Plan application. The utility plan shall
include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water
lines and meter sizes, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric
services. The utility plan shall also address the issues raised by the Water Department
relative to cross connections and premises isolation due to the grade difference between
the water main in East Nevada Street and the residential units. The utility plan shall not
include the stubbing out of future services connection to serve the applican
outside the city limits/urban growth boundary.
k.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 with the Final Plan application.
l.That the applicant shall submit an 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 vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric
Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all proposed 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.
m.That the engineered construction drawings for the proposed street improvements including
East Nevada Street, the extension of Camelot Drive, the extension of the proposed new
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 23
street (Franklin Street), and the intersection enhancements at Camelot Drive and East
Nevada Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and
Engineering Divisions with the Final Plan application, prior to work in the street rights-of-
way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor.
i.For the proposed 22-foot alley at the rear of the property, the alley shall be a private
facility rather than a public alley.
ii.For East Nevada Street, the section which is to sidewalks shall include the
minimum five-foot width, seven-foot park row planting strips (even where parking
bays are proposed) required for an Avenue in the North Mountain Neighborhood
Plan.
iii.For the Camelot Drive extension, a 15-foot queuing lane shall be provided with
seven-foot parking bays on one side, with eight-foot park rows and five-foot
sidewalks on both sides, and for the enhanced intersection treatment, revised
drawings shall be provided which address the ramp and crossing placement to better
align with ramps opposite so that the ramps are directly connected to those across
the street with the shortest, most direct routes possible in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
iv.For the Franklin Street extension, a 15-foot queuing lane shall be provided with
seven-foot parking bays on one side, with seven-foot park rows and five-foot
sidewalks the west side.
n.Where necessary to accommodate city standard improvements or to align frontage improvements,
necessary additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city or easements provided. All public
improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, park row planting strips with irrigated
street trees, and standard Eurotique residential street lights 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.
o.That CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the
maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways and parking
areas, planting strips, shared garage spaces and street trees.
p.
AMC 18.4.4.060. 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. 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.
q.The approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in
the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation
of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland
Municipal Code.
February 13, 2018
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA #2017-02129
February 13, 2018
Page 24
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Addendum
February 13, 2018
PLANNING ACTION:
PA-2017-01911
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Plexis Healthcare Systems Inc./Jorge Yant
LOCATION:
181A St.
ZONE DESIGNATION:
E-1
COMP.PLAN DESIGNATION:
Employment
ORDINANCE REFERENCES:
(See also http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/AMC_Chpt_18_current.pdf )
18.2.3.190Marijuana-Related Uses
18.5.4Conditional Use Permits
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON:
11/3/2017
REQUEST:
A request for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales located at 181 A St.
I.Relevant Facts
1)Background - History of Application
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 12, 2017 to review
the application. During the proceedings, the applicant requesteda continuance to
address the issues raised in the staff report and granted a 30-day extension to 120-
day review period required by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 227.178. As a
result, the Commission continued the public hearing to the January 23, 2018
meeting.
Subsequent to the December 12meeting, the applicant submitted a letter
requesting to movethe public hearingtothe February 13, 2018 meeting to allow
adequate time to collect traffic field data and complete the transportation
analysis. In addition, the applicant withdrew the marijuana production (indoor
grow) component of the application and granted a 60-day extension to the 120-
day review period. The 60-day extensionmovesthe required final decision date
to May 2, 2018.
A notice of complete application was mailed and posted in November2017. The City
received a variety of written comments about the applicationduring the comment period
and the application was scheduled for the December 12, 2017 public hearing.
2) Detailed Description of the RevisedProposal
The applicant withdrew the marijuana production (indoor grow) component of the
application. As a result, the revised proposal is limited to a marijuana retail sales use
located at 181 A St. Marijuana retail sales that are located on streets that are not
classified as a boulevard and are located 200 feet or more from a residential zone are a
conditional use. A Street is classified as a neighborhood collector. As a result, the
proposal to locate marijuana retail sales at 181 A St. requires a Conditional UsePermit.
According to the application, the building is 16,225 square feet in size. The proposed
retail sales area is 1,850 square feet in size, which is approximately 11 percent of the
total building area.The findings of fact included in the application statethat the
remainder of the building is currently vacant and there is no new use currently
proposed.
The parking area for the site is located to the southeast of the building and contains
43 parking spaces. Oak St. is designated as an avenue and A Street is designated as
a neighborhood collector. Sidewalks are in place along the property frontage and
both streets are shared facilities for automobiles and bicycles.
The proposal does not involve any changes to the exterior of the building or site.
II.Project Impact
As discussed in the previous staff report,the building was repurposedand remodeled
beginning in 1999 from an industrial use to the A St. Plaza, nightclub and subsequent office
use.The proposal doesn’t involve additions to the existing structure, changes to the exterior
of the building or changes to the site or parking area. During the past 19 years, City facilities
for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and transportation have been in place to
serve the building and previously approved uses.The existing building and site meet the
requirements for the E-1 zone.
The primary issuesarethose raised at the December 12, 2017 public hearing including the
generation of traffic by the proposed marijuana retailsales establishment and the method for
measuring the required 200 or more feet from a residential zone.
1)Traffic Impacts
Theapproval criteria for aConditional Use Permit require that adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. In addition, the
approval criteria involve an evaluation of the generation of traffic in the impact area
in comparison to the target use of the E-1 zone. The impact area is shown in Exhibit
9 of the original application that was reviewed at the December 12, 2017 Planning
Commission meeting.
Previously, staff raised three issues regarding traffic impacts: a) whether the
application demonstrates that the additional traffic generated by the proposed
marijuana retail sales use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area when compared to the target use ofa general office, b) the impact
of the additional vehicle trips on the performance of the nearby intersections,
pedestrian travel, pedestrian crossings and safety, and bicycle safety, and c)
addressing traffic impacts throughout the day in addition to evaluating the p.m. peak
hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
At the time of writing, the Public Works Department was reviewing the revised
submittals.
a.Target Use Comparison
The applicant’s findings evaluate the traffic impacts based on a comparison of the
traffic generated by the 1,850 square foot space used as marijuana retail sales and the
same size space used as a general office. The trip generation analysis submitted with
the original application estimatesthat a marijuana dispensaries create 28.2 trips for
every 1,000 square feet of floor area during the p.m. peak hour. In comparison, the
trip generation analysis used a rate of 1.49 to 1.74 trips for every 1,000 square feet
of office floor area during the p.m. peak hour.
The application asserts that the proposed marijuana retail sales use generates on
average one additional car per intersection movement at nearby intersections every 6
–12 minutes in the p.m. peak hour compared to an office use of the same space.The
revised application also indicates that the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection
will not have operational or safety concerns and the project traffic volumes are within
the range typical for the intersection.In terms of street volume, the findings state that
there will be about a five percent increase in traffic volume on A St. to the east and
west of the proposed location. The application asserts that the increase “is too small
to cause significant impacts on livability from a traffic change standpoint.”
Conditional Use Permit
The approval criteria for a outline the requirements for the
target use comparison in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows.
3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject
lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5,
below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area,
the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in
relation to the target use of the zone.
a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other
environmental pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review
of the proposed use.
Because the property is located in the Detail Site Review Overlay, the target use in
the E-1 zone is a general office use developed at an intensity of .50 floor to area ratio.
The gross floor area
The floor-area ratio or FAR is defined in AMC 18.6.1.030 as “
of all building on a lot divided by the lot area
.” In this case, the site area is 40,738
square feet. As a result, the target use of the site is a general office building that is
half of the size of the lot or 20,369 square feet in size.
b.Intersections, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
The revised application includes an intersection evaluation (Exhibit 12 in the revised
application) that is limited to the intersection of A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. The
engineering evaluation determined that the traffic increase from the proposed
marijuana retail sales use “willnot create operational or queuing concerns at the
intersection.” The report recommends three changes to the area of the intersection to
improve safety –lighting the crosswalk, centerline yellow stripingand removal of a
ramparea on the north side of the building to discourage pedestrian movements.
c.Daily Traffic
The revised application doesn’t address the issue of the impact of cumulative daily
trips.The Public Works Department previously suggested that amount of traffic
generated throughout the day by the proposed uses should be reviewed and
considered in addition to the p.m. peak houranalysis. The Trip Generation Analysis
included in the application reviews the change in vehicle trips during the p.m. peak
hour (4 to 6 p.m.). The concern is the amount of vehicle trips generated throughout
the day and the cumulative impact ontransportation systemperformance, particularly
as it relates to safety and pedestrian and bicycle travel.
d.Summary
Therevised application addresses some but not all of the previously raised issues
regarding traffic impacts.According to the original application materials, the number
of vehicle trips generated by a marijuana dispensary is significantly higher than the
target use of general office. In terms of making the target use comparison, the
Conditional Use Approval criteria list seven factors that are to be evaluated when
assessing the material effect on the livability of the impactarea including, “
f. The
development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.”
The Planning Commission has the ability to consider whether traffic from the
proposed marijuana retail sales use will reduce transportation capacity for future
permitted uses and development in the vicinity. For example, most of the square
footage of the building on the subject property is vacant and could house a range of
uses that would be permitted outright, or there are other properties in the vicinity that
could potential redevelop to house future permitted uses.Theapplication and
engineering analysis appear to be focused on current conditionsand the performance
of one intersection. At a basic level, intersections and related transportation systems
can accommodate a certain level ofvehicle traffic. As a result, the vehicle capacity
or adequacy of a transportation system is a finite resource that if used now, may not
be available for future uses and development.
In the written comments and testimony received at the first public hearing, the area
was described as a walkable neighborhood and shopping area that residents regularly
use and travel to and through on foot.Thesidewalk on A St. is a relatively narrow
curbside sidewalk and bicycles are required to share the travel lanes with motorized
vehicles. Traffic impacts to pedestrian and bicycle travel are usually focused on
safety at street crossings and the walkabilityof an area isn’t typically addressed.
Again, the issue of whether an increase in vehicle traffic from the proposed marijuana
retail sales use creates a greater adverse material effect onpedestrian and bicycle
travel inthe area compared to a general office as the target use is a factor that could
be considered under the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria.
Itisn’t clear from the revised application whether the intersectionevaluation includes
the remaining 14,375 square feet of the building in the assessment of the A St./Oak
St./VanNess Ave. intersectionvolumes, operations and safety. Additionally, while
the revisedapplicationsays the proposed marijuana retail sales use will not create
operational or queuing concerns, the evaluation doesn’t provide an assessment or
measure of the performance of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection currently
or in the future. This information can be important in assessing how the intersection
is performing now and at what point in the future, it may begin toexperience
problems. Finally, the revised applicationdoesn’t address two of the three
intersections located in the impact area –A St./Pioneer and A St./First St.
As mentioned above, the amount of traffic generated throughout the day isn’t covered
in the revised submittals.
Issue:
The application appears to address a limited setof transportation issues,
specifically increases in traffic onA St. and operations of the A St./Oak St./VanNess
Ave. intersection. In comparison, the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria require a
somewhat broader assessment, both in terms of a larger geographic area and of the type
and range of impacts.
According to the application, the number of vehicle trips created by a marijuana
dispensary during the p.m. peak hour (28.2 trips/1,000 square feet) is projected to be
significantly higher than the target use of a general office (1.49 – 1.74 trips/1,000
square feet).TheConditional Use Permit approval criteria allow the consideration of
whether traffic from the proposed marijuana retail sales use will reduce transportation
capacity for future permitted uses and development in the vicinity, as well as potentially
negativelyimpactpedestrian and bicycle travel.
The revised application doesn’t address the impact of the daily traffic generated by the
marijuana retail sales establishment, or the traffic impact to other nearby intersections.In
addition, it isn’t clear whether the intersection evaluation includes the remaining 14,375
square feet of the building in the assessment of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave.
intersectionvolumes, operations and safety. The revised application also doesn’t include
an assessment or measure of the performance of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave.
intersection.
2)Measuring 200 feet from Residential Zone
Marijuana-Related Businesses
The special use standards for include the
requirements for the 200-foot buffer from residential zones in AMC 18.2.3.190.B
as follows.
B.Marijuana-Related Businesses.
3.Marijuana Retail Sales. In addition to the standards described above in
subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, marijuana retail sales shall meet the following
requirements. See definition of marijuana retail sales in part 18.6.
a.Location.
ii.Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection
18.2.3.190.B.3.a.i, must be located 200 feet or more from a
residential zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit under
chapter 18.5.4.
Thenearest residential zone is situated on the west side of Oak St. According to the
application, the proposed marijuanaretail sales is 230 feet to the residential zone
measured from the closest pointof the interior of the building.
The revised application includes a letter from Mark S. Bartholomew regarding the
measurement of the 200-foot buffer requirement. The letter argues that the required 200
feet or more from a residential zone is focused on the use and therefore, the
measurement should be from the portion of a building where the marijuana retail
business occurs to the nearest edge of a residential zone. At the time of writing, the
LegalDepartment was reviewing the revised application materials.
The floorplan included in the revised application submittals (Exhibit 10b) shows an
interiordoor connectingthe proposed marijuana retail sales establishmentto the western
portion of the building.It appears that there is pedestrian access from the Oak St. end of
the building through what appears to be a main hall or corridorto the proposed
marijuana retail sales store. If this is the case, then presumably a visitor to oremployee
of the proposed marijuana retail sales establishment could enter from Oak St. at the far
western end of the building. Thequestion then becomes whetherthe required buffer
from the residential zone shouldbe measured from the west end of the building.In
addition, the interior door to the proposed marijuana retail establishment may be
necessary to reach other building facilities (e.g., bathrooms) or to meet a building code
(e.g., emergency routes).
The Oak St. end of the building is approximately 24 feet from the residential zone to the
west. If the Planning Commission agrees with the attorney’s letter and the application
of the 200-foot requirement to themarijuana retail sales use, it appears the interior door
connecting the proposed marijuana retail establishment to the western portionof the
building needs to beeliminated to meet the buffer requirement.A condition is suggested
at the end of this report requiring the interior building access to be eliminated.
Issues:
The special use standards for marijuana-related businesses in AMC 18.2.3.190.B.a.ii
require marijuana retail sales to be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone.
Based on the floorplan submitted with the location, the proposed marijuana retail sales
establishment does not appear to meet the 200-foot requirement because of an interior
door linking the proposed store to the remainder of the building. It appears a visitor to
or employee of the proposed marijuana retail sales establishment could enter from Oak
St. at the far western end of the building and travel through a hall/corridor to the
proposed store. The west end of the building is approximately 24 feet from the
residential zone to the west. A condition is suggested at the end of this report requiring
the interior building access to be eliminated.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
Marijuana-Related Businesses
The special use standards for are detailed in
AMC 18.2.3.190.B asfollows:
B.Marijuana-Related Businesses.
1.Marijuana-related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter
18.5.2or a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. See Table 18.2.2.030 –
Uses Allowed by Zone for zones where marijuana-relatedbusinesses are allowed.
See definition of marijuana-related businesses in part 18.6. Marijuana-related
businesses shall meet all of the following requirements.
a.The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a
trailer, cargocontainer, or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana production,
cultivation, and storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material
associated with the business are prohibited.
b.Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the
business must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain
Site Design Review approval if required by section 18.5.2.020. Security bars or
grates on windows and doors are prohibited.
c. The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-
products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the
business’ exterior refuse containers.
d. Light and Glare. Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine
light and glare from light systems associated with indoor cultivation so as to
confine light and glare to the interior of the structure. Grow light systems within
a greenhouse are prohibited.
e.Building Code. Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing,
or mechanical equipment (e.g., lighting, fans, heating and cooling systems)
associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and
obtain all required building permits prior to installation.
f.Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements. The following
methodology shall be used for marijuana related-businesses that are required
to be separated by a specific distance (i.e., marijuana production facility,
marijuana wholesale facility, marijuana retail outlet). For the purposes of
determining the distance between a marijuana related-business and another
marijuana-related business, “within 1,000 feet” means a straight line
measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction
from the closest point anywhere on the premises of an approved marijuana
related- business to the closest point anywhere on the premises of a proposed
marijuana-related business of the same type. If any portion of the premises of a
proposed marijuana related-business is within 1,000 feet of an approved
marijuana related business of the same type, it may not be approved. For the
purpose of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within
a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including
offices, kitchens, rest rooms, and storerooms.
g.The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right
to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or
federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its
approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted.
Furthermore, the owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the
City’s order to halt or suspend business if state or federal authorities order or
otherwise subject the Cityto enforcement to comply with laws in contradiction
to the continued operations of the business as permitted under section
18.2.3.190.
h.A marijuana-related business must obtain an approved license or registration
from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and
Oregon Administrative Rules.
2.Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale.In addition to the
standards described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories,
processing, production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as
applicable. See definition of marijuana processing and production in part 18.6.
a.Marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall be located
200 feet or more from residential zones.
b.Marijuana Production.
i.Marijuana production shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable
floor area per lot.
ii. A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from
another marijuana production facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for
methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana
related-businesses.
c. Marijuana Wholesale. A marijuana wholesale facility shall be located more than
1,000 feet from another marijuana wholesale facility. See subsection
18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between
marijuana related-businesses.
3.Marijuana Retail Sales. In addition to the standards described above in subsection
18.2.3.190.B.1, marijuana retail sales shall meet the following requirements. See
definition of marijuana retail sales in part 18.6.
a.Location.
i.Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary
line adjacent to a boulevard.
ii.Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection
18.2.3.190.B.3.a.i, must be located 200 feet or more from a residential
zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4.
iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards
Zones.
iv.A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from
another marijuana retail sales outlet. Medical and recreational marijuana
retail sales do not need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in
one building if the configuration meets all applicable Oregon Revised
Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. No more than two registrations
or licenses issued by the State of Oregon (e.g., a medical dispensary
registration and a recreational sales license) may be located in one
building. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring
the required distance between marijuana related-businesses.
b.Drive-up Use.Themarijuana retail sales outlet must not include a drive-up use.
Conditional Use Permit
The approval criteria for a are describedin AMC
18.5.4.050.A as follows.
1.
That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in
which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant
Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal
law or program.
2.That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm
drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate
transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.
3.That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability
of the impact area whencompared to the development of the subject lot with the
target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When
evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors
of livability of the impact area shallbe considered in relation to the target use of the
zone.
a.Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage.
b.Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial
regardless of capacity of facilities.
c. Architectural compatibility with the impact area.
d.Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, or other environmental
pollutants.
e.Generation of noise, light, and glare.
f.The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan.
g.Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the
proposed use.
4.A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not
permitted pursuant to this ordinance.
5.For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with
the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows.
f.E-1.The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2Base Zones and
Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0.35 floor to area ratio,
complying with all ordinance requirements; and within the Detailed Site
Review overlay, at an intensity of 0.50 floor to area ratio, complying withall
ordinance requirements.
IV.Conclusions and Recommendations
There continue to betwokey considerations for the Planning Commission: 1) the comparison
of the generation of traffic from the proposed marijuana retail sales establishment and the
target use of general office and whether there is a greater adverse material effect on the
livability of the impact area, and 2) the manner in which the required 200 feet or more from
the nearest residential zone tothe proposed marijuana retail sales establishment is applied.
As discussed above, the revised application submittals appearto address a limited setof
transportation issues, specifically increases in traffic onA St. and operations of the A St./Oak
St./VanNess Ave. intersection. In comparison, the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria
require a somewhat broader assessment, both in terms ofa larger geographic area and of the
type and range of impacts.
The proposed marijuana retail sales establishment at 1,850 square feet is modest in size.
However, marijuana dispensaries generate 18 times more vehicle tripsduring the p.m. peak
hour (4 –6 p.m.) than the target use of a general officeaccording to the application materials.
The effect of the proposal on development of adjacent properties is as a factor that can be
considered in the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria.Given that capacity of any
transportation system to accommodate vehicle traffic is limited, staff believes an important
issue to consider is whethertraffic from the proposed marijuana retail sales use will reduce
transportation capacity for future permitted uses and development in the vicinity, as well as
potentially create an adverse material effect onpedestrian and bicycle travel.
The revised application doesn’t address the impact of the daily traffic generated by the
marijuana retail sales establishment, or the traffic impact to other nearby intersections. In
addition, it isn’t clear whether the intersection evaluation includes the remaining 14,375
square feet of the building in the assessment of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection
volumes, operations and safety. The revised application also doesn’t include an assessment
or measure of the performance of the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection.
The floorplan included in the revised application submittals shows an interior door connecting
the proposed marijuana retail sales establishment to the western portion of the building. It
appears a visitor to or employee of the proposed marijuana retail sales establishment could
enter from Oak St. at the far western end of the building and travel through a hall/corridor
to the proposed store. The west end of the building is approximately 24 feet from the
residential zone to the west. Condition 2.a below is suggested and requires the interior
building access to be eliminated.
Should the Commission decide to approve the application,staff recommends that the
following conditions be attached to the proposal:
1.That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise
specifically modified herein.
2.That the building permit submittals shall include:
a.The interior door connecting the approved marijuana retail sales establishment
with the remainder of the building shall be eliminated. The building permit
submittals shall verify that the marijuana retail sales establishment meets all
applicable building codes without the interior access/egress.
b.An air filtrationand ventilation system that meets therequirements of AMC
6.50.060.F shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Building and Planning
Divisions.
c.Demonstrate compliance with the use standards in AMC 18.2.3.190.B.d
including but not limited to secure disposal, no outdoor storage and shielding
lighting systems to confine light and glare from light systems associated with
indoor cultivation.
3.That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a.That the property owner shall record a declaration which waives anyclaim or
right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state
or federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its
approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted in
accordance with AMC 18.2.3.190.B.1.g.
4.That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a.That verification that the marijuana-related business has an approved license or
registration from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised
Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules.in accordance with AMC
18.2.3.190.B.1.h.
b.That City of Ashland business licenses are approved for the marijuanaretail use.
The marijuanaretail sales use shall meet all requirements of AMC 6.50 including
but not limited to operation hours no earlier than 9:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m.
c.That a sign permit in accordance with AMC 18.4.7 shall be obtained prior to the
installation of any signage that is visible from the public right-of-way.
d.That any dead or dying landscaping in and surrounding the parking lot shall be
replaced and irrigated in accordance with the originally approved landscape plan.
e.That a plan for the improvements to the A St./Oak St./VanNess Ave. intersection
described in the intersection evaluationby Sandow Engineering dated January
16, 2018 shall be submitted and approved by Ashland Planning and Engineering
Divisions and installed according to the approved plan.