Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-09 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 2018 AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES IV.CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. September 11, 2018 Regular Meeting 2. September 25, 2018 Study Session V. PUBLIC FORUM VI.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T1-2018-00011, 294 Skycrest Drive. VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS OWNER/APPLICANT: Tudor Properties, LLC/Kistler Small + White, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 15-unit apartment complex consisting of six apartment buildings, a separate 221 square foot laundry facility and a 30-space parking lot for the property at 880 Park Street. The application includes requests for Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing asphalt multi-use path along Siskiyou Boulevard and to construct a meandering sidewalk along the subject properties Park Street frontage rather than installing new city standard sidewalks and parkrow planting strips, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)., including two Green Ash (), one Modesto Ash (), and two Redwoods Fraxinus pennsylvanicaFraxinus velutina () including a multi-trunked cluster with five trunks of diameters ranging from Sequoia sempervirens eight- to 14-inches d.b.h. Note: An existing approximately 895 square foot shop building on the southeastern portion of the property would be demolished as part of the proposal. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; 39 1E 15AD; TAX LOT: 3402. Please Note:The hearing and record for 880 Park are closed. The Planning Commission will deliberate and " make a decision at this meeting. OWNER/APPLICANT: Rogue Panning & Development Services, LLC In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please 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. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 72-unit studio The application also includes requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 15 trees that are more than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.); an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to treat storm water run-off in a combination of bio-swales, underground treatment facilities and detentions ponds rather than in landscaped parking lot medians and swales; and for Exceptions to Street Standards to retain the existing curbside sidewalk system along the frontage of the property and for the location of the driveway curb cut on Quincy Street, which is proposed to be shared with the property to the east and which would exceed the maximum driveway curb cut width for residential developments. (All of the proposed units are studio units that are less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area and each counts as ¾ of a unit for purposes of density calculation; density bonuses are requested for conservation housing, outdoor recreation space and major recreation facilities.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R- OWNER: Rogue Credit Union & Columbia Care Services, Inc. APPLICANT: Columbia Care Services, Inc./Jerome White, KSW Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for a Land Partition and Site Design Review to create three parcels from the parent property located at 1661 Ashland Street. Parcel 1 would be 33,278 square feet in area and lti-family dwelling three-story building in two connected wings; Parcel 2 would be 9, 913 square feet in area and would contain a future two-story commercial building; and the third parcel would be 22,462 square feet and would contain the existing Rogue Credit Union building. (25 of the 30 proposed units are studio units that are less than 500 square feet in gross habitable floor area and each counts as ¾ of a unit for purposes of density calculation; the five remaining units are two- and three-bedroom and count as full units for density purposes.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C- 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 - Draft September 11, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Melanie Mindlin Derek Severson, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the City Council delayed the Second Reading of the Wildfire Mitigation Ordinance. Council requested additional background regarding interviews with local insurance companies. Council also wanted to know the staff resources needed to implement the ordinance. Testimony on a provision that relaxed hard surface for new construction and the 5-foot non-combustible requirement would be addressed at a different meeting. The Wildfire Ordinance was on the agenda for the City Council meeting September 18, 2018. Council would have a Public Hearing for the Transit Triangle Ordinance September 18, 2018 as well. would provide an update on the Regional Housing Strategy draft. Southern Oregon University would soon solicit requests for proposal to update their ten-year plan. It will ultimately be adopted as a technical document in the Comprehensive Plan for the University. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES - None CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. August 14, 2018 Regular Meeting 2. August 28, 2018 Study Session Commissioner Norton made a correction to the minutes for the meeting August 14, 2018. On the bottom of page 3, the discussion following the motion regarding Election of Officers, first sentence should read, er Norton had gone back and looked at the periods other Chairs had served. One had Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve the minutes of August 14, 2018 as amended. Commissioner Mindlin abstained. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 4-0. Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to approve minutes of August 28, 2018. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/ Spoke to Ashland expending its quality of life due to development, design and climate change. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 1 of 9 Louise Shawkat/Ashland/ Noted the wildfires had overshadowed the current drought. She distributed a document to the Commission on calculating water usage and submitted cover copies of three books on moving towards renewable energy, sustainable cities, and energy wise homes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2018-00001, 449-459 Russell Street. The item was inadvertently left out of the packet and postponed to the next meeting. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-T1-2018-00011 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 294 Skycrest Drive APPLICANT/OWNER: Brian Smith & Diane S. Steffey-Smith / Piper Von Chamier for KenCairn Landscape Architecture APPELLANT: Mary Jane Chilton DESCRIPTION: request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a 2,760 square-foot residence in Hillside and Severe Constraints Land. This application includes Tree Removal for two trees (one Black Oak and one Madrone) in or near the building footprint, a Variance to surpass the allowed lot coverage because of the existing flag driveway that serves the property to the North, and a Minor Modification to build the garage partly outside of the originally approved building envelope to minimize the driveway length and disturbance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Residential; ZONING: RR-.505DC; TAX LOT: 2802 Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Mindlin, Dawkins, Norton, and Thompson declared no ex parte and one site visit. Chair Pearce had no ex parte but drove past the site. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on 294 Skycrest Drive. Staff had approved the application July 27, 2018 with conditions. He addressed the context and creation of the lot and The Tree Commission recommended approval as presented. The canopy on a large black oak tree had started dying and rot was evident in tree as well. The applicant would plant mitigation trees to replace the lost canopy. The garage would come to the edge of the black oak tree. The setback was originally five feet. The applicant changed it to six-feet in the application. The appellant, Mary Jane Chilton based her appeal on four issues. Mr. Severson addressed each one: 1. The 2018 decision to grant a P&E permit is not valid as it is based on a previous building permit that expired years ago . Land use approvals were not based on building permits and were typically approved prior to issuing a building permit. The appellant might have thought the lot was not legal. Partition Plat #P-48-2006 in Planning Action #2005-01476 was signed by staff May 24, 2006 and recorded by Jackson County. 2. Codes require that RR-.5 standards be adhered to by all taxpayers without differential treatment for tax lot size and variances according to taxes assessed and paid by existing neighbors. In general regulations applied uniformly throughout the city and Variances and Exceptions were allowed. A Variance considered code provisions not accounting for specific or unique physical circumstances of the site irrespective of taxes paid. The approval criteria for a Variance included consideration that the code did not account for special or unique physical circumstances. Lot coverages were set by zoning districts as a percent of the lot size. Individual zoning districts had a minimum lot size requirement. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 2 of 9 3. As a neighbor, she will be subjected to the inconvenience of noise and intermittent blockage of our driveway. She was also concerned about the steep embankment to the building site. These and other conditions are cause for anxiety and hence diminish her quality of life. The applicant was responsible for maintaining access easements that were in place prior and post construction. Part of the approval required a construction plan for staging and storing materials. The Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) regulated construction noise. Excessive noise would be subject to Code Compliance. Two experts provided geotechnical analyses and recommendations that adequately addressed code requirements and minimized impacts or potential hazards. 4. The the same consideration for Variances that may be required in order for us to create a buildable tax lot that would benefit the city revenue base. The the 35% requirement. It would require an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. If Ms. Chilton pursued an Exception, she would receive the same consideration as the applicants of this planning action. Staff continued to support the application and recommended the Planning Commission deny the Appeal. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson addressed negatively impacted. With the construction staging plan in place he was not sure how it would adversely affect her. Additionally, he did not know if she had direct access to Grandview Drive. Another question regarded the criteria in altering the original building envelope. Mr. Severson explained the approval criteria for creating a lot was not supposed to disturb areas that were not considered buildable like a slope more than 35%. An Exception looked at whether that outweighed the impact additional site disturbance and tree removal farther down the lot would have. This was the minor alteration to the original land use action. The square footage showed 23.4% in one section and 23.7% in another. Staff approved 23.7% at 4,356 square feet (sq. ft.) for the Variance. The minimum coverage was 4,350 sq. ft. for the zone. Piper Von Chamier/KenCairn Landscape/ Spoke to the application. Ms. Von Chamier submitted driveway exhibits into the record. The square footage for the proposed new paving was 1,560 sq. ft. The driveway area required for access was 860 sq. ft. The housing foot print was 2,305 sq. ft. Total increase was 18% minus the 860 sq. ft. There was 150 sq. ft. of miscellaneous pavement that included a small patio. Total square footage minus the 860 sq. ft. of access pavement was 3,315 sq. ft. or 18.1%. The last exhibit showed Parcels 2, 3, and 4. They were originally one parcel that was separated. At one point, Parcel 4 was created as a gift to the City. If Parcel 4 was divided between Parcel 2 and 3, it would provide sufficient square footage for the lot coverage they were proposing. The Variance for the lot coverage was the standard procedure for a smaller lot that was under half an acre. They moved the house closer to the existing driveway to minimize the lot coverage by avoiding a longer driveway. They were still over by a small amount. Questions of the Applicant Ms. Von Chamier addressed Exhibit E2 of the exhibits submitted into the record. The calculation showed 3,515. It was their understanding they needed to build an additional parking space for a flag lot. The corner of the garage was 50-feet from the street. Kerry KenCairn of KenCairn Landscape further explained they did not need the space. It was part of an earlier application and they thought it was Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 3 of 9 required. It was not part of the existing proposal. Mr. Severson clarified it was paved and used by the neighbor. Ms. KenCairn addressed the decision to go outside of the original building envelope. The original building envelope was proposed twelve years ago. It would have created more land disturbance. Moving the building would facilitate less alteration of the existing property. Ms. Von Chamier added the farther away it was from the driveway, more of the lot was covered by pavement or building. Ms. Chilton was not present at the meeting. Questions of the Appellant - None Public Testimony Bob Hilton/Ashland/ Explained he owned the adjoining property to 294 Skycrest Drive. He originally location because it would have impinged substantially on the use of his downstairs two car garage. The new location would minimize that impact. He no longer opposed the application. Rebuttal by Applicant - None Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Norton m/s the dismissal of the appeal of the PA-T1-2018-00011 and upholding the original decision from staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins noted the grade change was part of the reason the Black Oak tree was dead. Commissioner Mindlin was concerned about the change to the building envelope but was willing to let it go since the neighbor no longer had an issue with the location. Commissioner Thompson agreed with Commissioner Mindlin. Chair Pearce concern was the contradiction in square footage. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Norton, Dawkins, Mindlin, Pearce, and Thompson, YES. Motion passed 5-0. OWNER/APPLICANT: Tudor Properties, LLC/Kistler Small + White, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct a 15-unit apartment complex consisting of six apartment buildings, a separate 221 square foot laundry facility and a 30-space parking lot for the property at 880 Park Street. The application includes requests for Exception to the Street Standards to retain the existing asphalt multi-use path along Siskiyou Boulevard and to construct a meandering sidewalk along the subject properties Park Street frontage rather than installing new city standard sidewalks and parkrow planting strips, and for a Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)., including two Green Ash (), one Modesto Ash (), and two Redwoods ( Fraxinus pennsylvanicaFraxinus velutinaSequoia ) including a multi-trunked cluster with five trunks of diameters ranging from eight- to 14- sempervirens inches d.b.h. Note: An existing approximately 895 square foot shop building on the southeastern COMPREHENSIVE PLAN portion of the property would be demolished as part of the proposal. DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-339 1E 15AD; TAX LOT: 3402. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Mindlin, Thompson, and Norton declared no ex parte and one site visit. Commissioner Dawkins had no ex parte and no site visit. Chair Pearce declared no exparte but drove past the site often. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on the application. The request was for a site design review to construct a 15-unit complex consisting of six apartment buildings, a separate 221 square foot (sq. ft.) laundry facility, and a thirty space parking lot. There two Exceptions to the Street Standards. One would retain the asphalt multi-use path on Siskiyou Boulevard. The second would construct a meandering sidewalk along the subject property Street frontage. This would accommodate the replacement of existing power poles instead of installing new city standard sidewalks. The application would remove seven trees one of which was a Redwood tree with a multi-trunked cluster eight to 14-inches in diameter. Two story buildings would front Siskiyou Boulevard with a basement by City code creating three levels. Mr. Severson described the location of the buildings, entrances, the recreational area, laundry facility, the trash enclosure and parking lot. The applicants would use a retention pond for storm water with a control structure that would meter stormwater into the ditch along Siskiyou Boulevard. Units would consist of four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a kitchen. Each apartment could rent bedrooms individually. Similar to the quads used at Southern Oregon University. City code considered them four-bedroom apartments. Tree removal was one of four key issues. The Tree Commission considered the application and looked closely at the Redwood tree removal. They did not think it would survive the excavation for the basement and supported removal. A positive gain was increased canopy for the site. The Tree Commission requested less than half the street trees be something other than Raywood Ash. The Raywood Ash tended to tip. The trees also needed to be watered twice a week. Staff would address these conditions in the Findings. The second issue was the project base density was 14.88 units and the applicant proposed fifteen. It required a 1.46 density bonus. The applicant would address this with additional recreational space. The third key issue was the multi-use path on Siskiyou Boulevard. The applicants wanted to retain the mutli-use path instead of installing standard frontage improvements. There was a letter from Sue Newberry supporting improving the path and bringing it into line with the standard. Mr. Severson noted there were several cracks in the path but nothing that altered or impaired the asphalt. Staff talked to the Electric Department about installing longer arms for the street light poles. Staff concurred with Ms. that meandering sidewalks were not the best treatment for people with strollers or who were visually impaired. If the arms could not be put on the light poles, then curbside sidewalks should be installed. The fourth issue was the parking lot treatment. Current standards talked about having swales in parking lot medians to reduce microclimatic environmental impacts as well as having some groundwater recharge. The applicants would use permeable concrete and the detention pond at the northwest corner of the site. The slopes on the site would not allow them to use swales. Staff recommended approval of the application with the conditions noted in the packet. Questions of Staff For the multi-use path, based on what was necessary for the Electric Department the Public Works Department was willing to accept the meandering sidewalks. The Public Works Department read and recognized the comments made by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) opposing meandering sidewalks. The Electric Department planned to replace some existing poles. Pole placement had to be precise and in alignment. There needed to be more discussion with the Electric Department, Planning Department staff and the applicants on longer extension arms for the poles. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 5 of 9 Ultimately curbside sidewalks were ideal although it would place the trees on the applicant instead of the park row. Mr. Severson did not know the size of the mitigation trees. The main comments from the Tree Commission were how the tree mitigation would achieve an excellent canopy. The standard in the code was 1.5 to 2-inch caliper for mitigation trees. Part of the meandering sidewalk involved avoiding an electrical cabinet and the detention pond. The applicants were asking for eight on street parking spaces and were not asking for any credits. There was parking on Park Street but not Siskiyou Boulevard. There were improvements that could be done to the ditch but the City did not have a standard for bio swale treatment. Some landscaping could occur as long as it was maintained in a way that did not decrease water flow. It was a state right-of-way. The applicant would speak to trash management and the ability of permeable pavement to withstand a garbage truck. Matt Small/Kistler, Small & White/Ashland/ Introduced team members that were present to answer questions. Housing in Ashland was in short supply. In particular, affordable and rental housing. It had been close to twenty years since a project involving apartments was considered. He read excerpts from the Housing Needs Analysis that emphasized the need for multi-family rental and strategies to provide more housing. A major component of the current Oregon land use laws was promoting density. The subject property was zoned R-3, high density multi-family residential. He addressed the following comments from the Planning Department staff and neighbors: Tree Mitigation and Street Trees. It was unfortunate the Redwood tree cluster had to be removed but there was no option. Any design change would significantly decrease the number of units. Alternately, it would not survive nine months of construction. The applicants were proposing a significant landscaping plan. They applicants greed to replace Raywood Ash with any tree recommended by the Tree Commission. Density. The site plan showed 8.2% recreation space and they were requesting an additional unit. They were roughly 307 square feet short. However, there was room in the site plan if they needed to increase outdoor recreation space. Density calculations were 14.8 units. Mr. Small was recommending that instead of rounding down, the City round up given the housing situation. Park Street Sidewalk. The plan would remove a pole in the driveway to the parking area. That was the reason for installing new poles. According to the Electric Department, they had to fall in line with the existing poles. The applicant was willing to the move the sidewalk wherever it worked. However, moving the sidewalk next to the street would place the trees under the powerlines. Siskiyou Boulevard Sidewalk. Bringing the sidewalk to city standards would be disruptive to the whole street. The applicant was willing to address ADA or asphalt issues with the existing configuration. Proximity Concerns. For comments opposing the close proximity of the project Mr. Small reiterated the housing situation in town. Everything presented in the plan was allowed in the code. Traffic Study. Typically, a traffic impact analysis occurred when the threshold of peak hour trips reached fifty. Their review of peak hour tips resulted in eight to 8.5 peak hour trips. It was considerably lower than the threshold. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 6 of 9 Groundwater. They had a soils report done and there was shallow water on the site. They were addressing it with under slab drain pipe and drain pipe along the footings. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Small did not know the current condition of the ditch. He thought the owner would be willing to improve the ditch if it was not too costly. This was an ODOT right-of-way and they would have input as well. He suspected the ditch near the site that was filled in with trees had underground piping. It was expensive and Mr. Small was surprised ODOT gave the permission to plant trees there. Mr. Severson clarified required density as 80% of the base. Ona Williams, would be the manager of the proposed apartments and currently managed the apartments adjacent the subject property. They had a ten-yard dumpster emptied once a week. A smaller dumpster would fit in the trash enclosure for the new complex. It would be dumped once a week as well. They used four recycling containers at the property she managed that were emptied once a week without issue. The new site would most likely have three recycle containers. Two for co-mingled items and one for glass. Ms. Williams confirmed Recology came into the apartment complex she currently managed and emptied the recycling containers without issue. Mr. Small had several conversations with the Electric Department to resolve the issue of replacing the light pole. They did not specifically discuss arm extensions but the applicants were open to that option. He did not support bringing the multiuse path on Siskiyou Boulevard to Public Works standards. It would create an anomaly along that stretch of road. Mr. Severson clarified it was a Public Works maintenance standard and not a full curbside sidewalk. An example would be filling cracks in the asphalt path. Mr. Small thought the applicant would be willing to maintain the path to that standard and look into ADA standards for slopes and cross slopes as well. Public Testimony Virginia Dugan/Ashland/ Her fence was immediately south of the property. She wanted to know what the applicant might do with the fence. She researched a tree they were planning to plant. It would grow 80-feet high and 60-feet wide, blocking her view. The roots would go into her property. She did not want the trash enclosure next to her property. Other concerns were traffic, density, and noise. Colby Morgan/Ashland/ Was concerned with the dormitory style apartments. He wanted the tree protection plan to include his trees because of their proximity to the site. Dormitory style apartments would create a significant impact on parking. He suggested a traffic study, on street parking and reducing the number of units to create more parking. Taylor York-Morgan/Ashland/ Spoke tonoise, trash, and lighting. She supported a more substantial fence. She lived next to the existing apartment complex and commented on loud music and being harassed by tenants in her own backyard. She wanted the trash enclosure moved from her property line and better tree protection. Susan Williams/Ashland/ Wanted3.5-inch caliper trees planted instead of 2-inch caliper. She showed a photo/illustration of what the building might look like from the street. It would affect the quality of life. She agreed with a suggestion to reduce the number of units from 15 to 12 and how that could significantly change the view. Janet Robbins-Turk/Ashland/ Requested a 7-day continuance. She was very concerned about the proposed building, the level of density and building height. She understood the need for housing. She read from a traffic flow study. The ability to rent out individual bedrooms would have a detrimental effect on parking, increase traffic congestion, and create safety issues. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 7 of 9 Tim Turk/Ashland/ Continued reading Ms. Robbins-roposed development fell below the threshold of traffic impact study because it was based on 15 units, not quad style apartments. They objected to the sidewalk development along Park Street. The meandering path would not be good for strollers or people with disabilities. They requested Tree #7 be preserved. He described groundwater issues, flooding and noted the detention pond itself would flood during heavy rain. David Hall/Ashland/ His backyard was next to Tudor Square apartments and he had issues with people tossing liquor bottles into his yard. The new project would be in front of his place. The corner was not perpendicular. There were groundwater issues. Negotiating Park Street was difficult for children because people drove 35 mph. He demanded a sidewalk and a street light at the corner and a seven- day continuation. Jared Cruce/Ashland/ Agreed on the need for housing. The argument was how to do it and preserve the quality of life and the intersection at Park Street. Dorm style apartments would increase parking. The applicant did not answer questions on trash or the condition of the ditch. Park Street was a major artery for Linda Avenue and Terra Avenue. He wanted a study and a continuance. Ken Morrish/Ashland/ People sped on Siskiyou Boulevard and Park Street. The project could result in 60 additional cars. There were issues getting onto Siskiyou Boulevard. It was unsafe. People would lose property value, and six to seven homes would lose the view of Grizzly Peak. He suggested having two stories and reducing the number of units. Steve Case/Ashland/ Lived on Park Street since 1978. There was a hidden driveway that made it difficult. He agreed with everything stated. The four bedroom fifteen-unit complex should be called 60 one bedroom units instead. Parking concerned him. Craig Breon/Ashland/ The average apartment size supported 1-3 bedrooms, not four bedrooms. He commented on traffic and noise. It was not conducive to potentially have 60 students living in this location. He questioned the 8 peak hour trips. He suggested reducing the buildings to two, having only two stories and 3 bedrooms instead of four. Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to continue the meeting. Voice Vote ALL AYES. Motion passed 5-0. Rebuttal by Applicant Mr. Small explained four bedroom apartments could accommodate four individuals or families. It created different scenarios. Three-bedroom units would require the same number of parking spaces as four bedrooms. Testimony cited issues with existing traffic problems. It was not incumbent on this project to correct existing issues. The applicant would address questions raised regarding trash and the ditch. He clarified the image of street frontage along Siskiyou Boulevard would not be flat. There would be porches, steps, and decks added to intentionally create an interesting street frontage. The buildings would be considerably shorter than the building to the south. The height was roughly 9.5 feet shorter than what was allowed. For the location of the parking lot, it was difficult to access parking from Siskiyou Boulevard. There needed to be a separation from the driveway and streets. It was important to place the parking to the back of the lot. The Landscape Plan called for 1.5-2-inch caliper trees. The applicant was open to increasing the caliper. He was not sure what the parking requirement was for dormitory style parking. The applicant would address the fence along the south end of the property and replace it if necessary. Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Water drainage coming onto the site would be captured at the top and diverted through underground pipes. The project would improve the water condition on the site. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Small explained the porous concrete of the parking lot would allow the water to percolate through to the surface below. There it would be gathered and taken into the pond on Siskiyou Boulevard and Park Street. Jim Higday from Marquess & Associates and the civil engineer on the project addressed the slopes being too steep for a drainage swale. A swale needed a flat slope. They looked into putting a swale parallel to Park Street. Under the current code of Rogue Valley Sanitary Sewer (RVSS) and the City, the street and existing slopes were too steep to qualify as a swale. They looked into what could happen in the parking lot to address water, storm quality, and percolation. There was not enough planter area in the parking lot for detention and proper water quality. As a result, they went with the pervious pavement instead. It allowed the water to percolate first into clean drain rock then into a pipe system where it was piped down to the pond at the intersection. Mr. Higday clarified there was not an issue with trash trucks driving on pervious pavement. He confirmed this was the only solution due to the existing slopes and the street. There was a requirement in Pretreatment to cool the water on the surface. One of the options was planting trees to shade the asphalt. There was not enough coverage to do that with this location so they used concrete. He provided detail on how drainage would work. The pavement drainage system would account for groundwater three feet below the surface. A Geo technical conducted a report. Mr. Small addressed light spill into neighboring properties. The property was approximately 8-feet lower than the property to the east. There was an existing fence along the property line. The applicant was willing to improve the fence to prevent light spill. Deliberations & Decision The Commission discussed continuing the hearing to a day certain or holding the record open for people to submit additional evidence. Commissioner Norton wanted to continue the hearing to the first meeting in October. Commissioner Norton m/s to continue the hearing to the first meeting in October. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Dawkins/Thompson m/s to continue the meeting. Voice Vote: ALL Ayes. Motion passed 5-0. Commission comment wanted to know the code on dorms as apartments. There was concern about Park Street and potential safety issues. The Commission decided to keep the record open until September 18, 2018, 4:30 p.m. for all comments. A second comment period would subsequently occur until September 25, 2018, at 4:30 p.m. This would allow people to submit comments on what was submitted the week prior. A third comment period would happen the week following September 25, 2018. It would close October 2, 2018 th at 4:30 p.m. This allowed the applicant to respond to all comments received September 12 through the th 25. Comments would be posted on the website or emailed as a PDF document upon request. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission August 14, 2018 Page 9 of 9 B ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES - Draft September 25, 2018 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Alan Harper Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Roger Pearce Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar introduced new Planning Commissioner Alan Harper. Last week, the City Council had a hearing on the Infill Strategy Transit Triangle. Right before the meeting, staff received a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). As part of the record, they wanted staff to look at the impact of increased density at the intersection of Ashland Street and Tolman Creek Road. Staff had already compiled some of that information already but thought it was best not to consider First Reading. Council conducted the Public Hearing for input. The item would go back to Council at their October 16, 2018 meeting. It would most likely be a continuation of the public hearing since the complete analysis for ODOT would not be done by that time. At the Council Study Session October 1, 2018 staff would provide a Housing Element Update. The Planning Commission meeting October 9, 2018 would have the 880 Park Street deliberation and a 30-unit affordable housing project behind the Rogue Federal Credit Union on Ashland Street. The Commission would also hear another large apartment project at 188 Garfield Street. Mr. Molnar would look into whether Commissioners Brown and Harper could participate in the deliberation for 880 Park Street. He thought if they watched the video and reviewed the record they might be able to participate. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins provided an update on the Ashland Transportation Expansion and Feasibility Study. He recommended the Commission read Technical Memorandum #1 on the 2018 Transit Feasibility Study webpage. He distributed a document on the Ashland Conceptual Transit Concepts depicting feasible routes. PUBLIC FORUM Brent Thompson/Ashland/Wanted the Planning Commission to reinstate the ability of property owners to do minor land partitions without bringing services to the new lot. The owner would be required to disclose there were no Ashland Planning Commission September 25, 2018 Page 1 of 2 services at the time of sale or they could put in services when they wanted to build. He also wanted a revision of the minor lot partition that maintained the current amount of landscaping requirements. Lastly, he wanted a revision to the ARU ordinance that would allow two units no larger than 300 square feet each. Huelz Gutcheon/Ashland/Spoke to solar energy, read from a newspaper article and expressed support for solar energy. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Vice Chair Mindlin moved agenda item B. Alan Harper Introduction and Presentation on Views from Communities Around the World to D. A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2018-00001, 449-459 Russell Street. Commissioner Dawkins, Thompson, and Norton had no ex parte. Commissioner Brown, Mindlin, and Harper abstained. The Commission and staff discussed whether there was sufficient quorum to approve the Findings. Commissioners Mindlin/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-T2-2018-00001. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Commissioner Brown, Thompson, and Harper abstained from the vote. Motion passed 3-0. B. Confirm Planning Commission Retreat date May 11, 2019. The Commission confirmed May 11, 2019 as their next retreat date. C. Confirm term limits for Commission Chair. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 2.10.050 Election of Officers, Secretary, and Subcommittees stated that neither the chair or vice-chair could serve for more than three consecutive annual terms. Mr. Molnar would follow up with the Legal Department for clarification. D. Alan Harper Introduction and Presentation on Views from Communities Around the World. Commissioner Harper shared his background and credentials. He and his family undertook an eighteen- month trip to 41 countries. He provided a presentation and discussed his experiences from a planning perspective. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Planning Commission September 25, 2018 Page 2 of 2 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 2018 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #T1-2018-00011, AN APPEAL ) OF THE FOR A PHYSICAL ) AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT ) A 2,760 SQUARE-FOOT RESIDENCE IN HILLSIDE AND SEVERE ) CONSTRAINTS LAND LOCATED AT 294 SKYCREST DRIVE. THE ) APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL FOR TWO TREES (ONE ) BLACK OAK AND ONE MADRONE) IN OR NEAR THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, ) A VARIANCE TO SURPASS THE ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE BECAUSE OF ) THE EXISTING FLAG DRIVEWAY THAT SERVES THE PROPERTY TO ) THE NORTH, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ) FOR HILLSIDE LANDS AND A MINOR MODIFICATION TO BUILD PORTIONS ) FINDINGS, OF THE HOUSE AND GARAGE PARTLY OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINALLY ) CONCLUSIONS APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND SEVERE CONSTRAINTS LANDS TO ) & PLACE THE GARAGE NEARER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND ) ORDERS MINIMIZE THE DRIVEWAY LENGTH AND ASSOCIATED SITE ) DISTURBANCE. STAFF INITIALLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION ) ADMINISTRATIVELY SUBJECT TO A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS . ) SUBSEQUENT TO THE MAILING OF A NOTICE OF DECISION, MARY JANE ) CHILTON WHO RESIDES JUST NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT ) 363 GRANDVIEW FILED AN APPEAL REQUEST. ) ) OWNER: Brian and Diane Smith ) APPLICANT: Kerry KenCairn Landscape ) APPELLANT: Mary Jane Chilton ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1)Tax lot #2802 of Map 39 1E 05DC is located at 294 Skycrest Drive and is zoned RR-.5 (Rural Residential). 2)The application is a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a 2,760 square-foot residence in Hillside and Severe Constraints Land located at 294 Skycrest Drive. This application includes Tree Removal Permit for two trees (one Black Oak and one Madrone) in or near the building footprint, a Variance to surpass the allowed lot coverage because of the existing flag driveway that serves the property to the North, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands and a Minor Modification to build portions of the house and garage partly outside of the originally approved building envelope and Severe Constraints Lands to place the garage nearer the existing driveway and minimize the driveway length and associated site disturbance. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 1 3)The criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit approval are described in AMC 18.3.10.050 as follows: A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. 4) The criteria for a Variance are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.5.050, as follows: A.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. B.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. C. further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. D.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. 5)The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.7.040, 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. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 2 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. 6)The criteria for an Exception to the Development Standard for Hillside Lands are described in AMC Chapter 18.3.10.090.H, as follows: H. Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. 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. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. 7) The criteria for a Minor Modification are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.6.040, as follows: C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 3 8) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on September 11, 2018 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following closing of the record and the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, upheld the administrative decision and approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit meets all applicable criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval described in section 18.3.10.050, for a Variance described in section 18.5.5.050, for a Tree Removal Permit described in section 18.5.7.040, for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands described in section 18.3.10.090.H, and for a Minor Modification described in section 18.5.6.040. The site plan and elevation drawings provided delineate the proposed single-family residence building footprint, design and associated improvements to the home site. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the application involves a request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, a Variance, a Tree Removal Permit, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands and a Minor Modification to construct a 2,760 square-foot residence for the property located at 294 Skycrest Drive. The Commission further finds that the current application was approved by staff on July 27, 2018 with a 12-day appeal period which extended through the end of business on August 8, 2018. On August 3, 2018 prior to the end of the appeal period, Mary Jane Chilton timely filed a notice of land use appeal. Ms. Chilton resides in the noticing area for the application, and had submitted written comments during the public comment period and thus had standing to appeal. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 4 The notice of appeal identified four specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified: 1) that the 2018 decision to grant a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is not valid as it is based on a previous building permit that expired years ago, 2) that city codes require that RR-.5 standards be adhered to by all taxpayers without differential treatment for tax lot size and variances according to taxes assessed and paid by existing neighbors, 3) that as a neighbor, she will be subjected to the inconvenience of noise and intermittent blockage of their driveway, and 4) that she has concerns about the steep embankment to the building site, and that these and other conditions are cause for anxiety and hence diminish her quality of life. Ms. Chilton also asked that she be granthe same consideration for Variances that may be required in order for us to create a buildable tax lot that would benefit the city revenue base. de novo except that the decision of the Planning Commission is the final decision of the City. Consideration of the appeal is not limited to the application materials, evidence and other documentation, and specific issues raised in the review leading up to the Type I decision, but may include other relevant evidence and arguments. The Commission may allow additional evidence, testimony, or argument concerning any relevant ordinance provision. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The application includes a total area of disturbance of 3,578 square-feet. Any alteration of Hillside Land that includes earth-moving activity disturbing a surface area greater than 1,000 square-feet requires a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit, which was requested and approved by the Staff Advisor. The project involves the disturbance of lands with slopes of less than 25 percent where development is generally not regulated; of lands with slopes of between 25 and 35 f lands with slopes greater than 35 . The subject property is also classified as Wildfire Lands. The average slope of the property is 48 percent, but the vast majority of the Severe Constraints land is outside of the building envelope. The average grade of the building site is 24 percent. The lot slopes generally from west to east. The first approval criterion is that, Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. The proposed residence has a main floor, daylight basement and a garage. The proposed home is 2,760 square feet with two stories. The majority of the site (80.4 percent) is proposed to be left in a natural state with limited excavation and areas of development limited to those immediately adjacent to the proposed residence. The building envelope and home site have been located on the western portion of the lot, near PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 5 Skycrest Drive, and nestled within the existing tree canopy to minimize any views of the home from the neighboring properties. The home will be developed on the more level, lesser sloped portions of the lot. A stepped foundation is being utilized to reduce grading on the site. The second approval criterion is that, That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the Geo-technical site evaluations performed by Mark J. Amrhein, PE, GE of Amrhein Associates, Inc. in 2008 and more recently by Robin Warren, PE of Applied Geotechnical Engineering & Geologic Consulting in late 2017 were provided with the application. The geo-technical experts conclude that the property is suitable for The geo-technical report identified the constraint issues listed in the Hillside Ordinance (seismic factors, erosion control, slope stability, storm water etc.), noting that the m specifically lists appropriate mitigation requirements for the construction, and provides recommendations for lot development and erosion control measures. A condition was included to require that foundation be designed by an architect or engineer with demonstrable geotechnical design expertise, and reviewed by the project geotechnical expert to verify consistency with his recommendations. The third criterion is that, That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinanc The Planning Commission finds that proposed building design reflects the Hillside Building and Design Standards found in AMC 18.3.10.090.E. The residence is designed to follow the curvature of the hillside. The roofline is broken into multiple gables mimicking the irregular shapes found in the surrounding hills. The deck extends over the daylight basement, and provides outdoor space for the upper level. The residence is configured in an upside- continuous horizontal planes. The proposed residence meets the setback requirements, and avoids the access easements to the west and south. The proposed residence is stepped into the hill, is 19 feet tall from the downhill (east) side, and is 12½ feet tall on the uphill (west) side. The roof of the residence is proposed in shingles and will have a 5½:12 pitch. The main entrance is on the west side of the house, next to the garage, and has a covered porch. A deck is proposed on the main floor extending east from the house. The main floor is stepped back from the daylight basement floor beneath it with the deck extending over the difference. The parcel is subject -01476 which allows shading of the property to the north equivalent to the shadow that would be cast by a 16-foot tall fence constructed on the north property line. The submittal demonstrated compliance with this standard. In considering the Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit component of the current request, staff felt the application had taken into consideration potential impacts to the property and nearby PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 6 areas. 80.4 percent of the lot is proposed to remain undisturbed. The building envelope is limited to the flatter areas of the site. The residence has been designed to minimize contrast between it and the surrounding landscape. Disturbance on the site is being kept to a minimum. The sole grading to occur on- site will be for vehicular access, parking, storm water control and the building pad, and the graded areas are to be revegetated. The Planning Commission finds that the application meets all applicable criteria for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that a Variance may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. Planning staff have noted that at the time of the lot creation in 2005, the Planning Commission considered the creation of lots smaller than the minimum size for the zone with the following finding The Planning Commission finds that the subject site is unusual in that it is an oversized parcel in the Skycrest Drive neighborhood that contains a buildable area under 35% slope and has not been previously divided. The subject property is 1.10 acres and the Commission finds that the despite the proposed parcels not meeting the dimensional requirements of the RR-.5 zoning district, the based density of one house per half acre is met by the proposed partition and development. Though three lots are being created, one home site is being created on the northerly parcel which along with the existing home will ultimately result in two single-family homes on 1.10 acres. The Commission (finds that the) positive benefit of the proposal is that the Ashland parks system will obtain an important link to the Ditch Road and to the Hald-Strawberry park and trail system by the creation of the easterly lot which will be dedicated to the Ashland Parks Department. The Commission finds that the lot dimensions of the parent parcel which necessitate the variance were not self-At the time, lot coverage on the under-sized lot being created was not addressed. The first approval criterion for a Variance is that, provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination Within the RR-.5 zoning district, which typically requires a ½-acre (21,780 square foot) minimum lot size, the maximum allowed lot coverage is 20 percent. The subject property here is under-sized for the zoning district at 18,295 square feet, and the district-maximum 20 percent lot coverage would allow a maximum * 3,659 square feet of coverage. The lot coverage proposed here is 4,350 square feet of 23.8percent which * Note: exceeds the maximum allowed coverage and requires a Variance. ( Some portions of the application refer to the requested coverage as 4,448 square feet or 24.3 percent, while the narrative description of the proposed Variance on page 16 of the application materials requests 4,350 square feet or 23.7 percent coverage. 23.7 percent coverage is the request considered and initially approved by staff.) PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 7 The second criterion is that, The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. Staff noted that the subject property is under-sized for the district, that 20 percent coverage for a minimally-sized for the district ½-acre lot would be 4,356 square-feet while the proposed total lot coverage is 4,350 square-feet, and that the subject property includes private driveway access easements serving adjacent properties at 363 Grandview Drive and 290 Skycrest Drive. The application notes that these shared driveways comprise a total of 1,560 square feet of impervious surface on the subject property, which equates to approximately 8.5 percent lot coverage. If the shared driveway areas were excluded from coverage, the lot coverage proposed would consist of the house footprint, 335 square feet of new but including the approximately 860 square feet of coverage necessary for a driveway to the serve the proposed residence, lot coverage for the subject property would be at 3,650 square feet and would comply with the lot coverage allowance for the zoning district. The third criterion is that, the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. In considering similar requests (e.g. PA #2010-- 01477 and #2007-01215 for 510 Granite Street) involving driveways shared by adjacent properties, the Planning overall coverage when the driveway is required to serve other properties and the reduction or removal of property owners of legally-established rights of ingress and egress. The Planning Commission finds that excluding shared driveway areas from lot coverage calculations for the subject property is appropriate in order to allow a reasonable degree of development on the subject property. The fourth criterion is that, The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. The Planning Commission finds that the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. would deprive adjacent property owners of legally-established rights of ingress and egress. The Commission further finds that the application meets the applicable approval criteria for a Variance. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that a Tree Removal Permit may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The application identifies 14 trees of six-inches or more in diameter and breast height (d.b.h.) including oaks, a pine and a madrone. Eight of these are proposed to be removed in conjunction with the proposed development, including six which were approved for removal in the 2005 partition creating the lot and PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 8 two additional trees including a 20-inch d.b.h. Black Oak (Tree #1) and a nine-inch d.b.h. Madrone (Tree #5) that are proposed for removal with the current request. The Black Oak is noted as being in fair condition with evidence of root rot. It is directly adjacent to the foundation wall of the house and would be impacted by excavation. Loss of foliage was confirmed on-site by Planning Commissioners in a site visit conducted prior to the hearing. The Madrone tree is noted as being in poor condition with sparse foliage. It lies within the proposed footprint of the house and within the previously approved building envelope. The application proposes eight trees to mitigate the trees proposed for removal. The mitigation trees identified include a mix of Oregon White Oak, Vine Maple, Coast Silktassel, and Cascara Sagrada. The Tree Commission considered the request at its regular meeting on July 12, 2018 and recommended that the application be approved as submitted. The Planning Commission finds that the application meets the applicable criteria for Tree Removal the trees are proposed to be mitigated and will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, ct on tree densities, sizes, canopies and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that an Exception may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The Planning Commission finds that including slopes over 35percent within the modified building footprint requires an exception. The first approval criterion is that, 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. The application explains that a band of steepened land underneath the proposed home and garage appears to have been representative of the rest of the site which has a more consistent, slowly changing grade. The steep grade seems to have been artificially created and is over 35 percent slope. The Development Standards for Hillside Lands include general requirements that development is to occur on lands defined as having a building area. Slopes greater than 35 percent are generally considered unbuildable. The second criterion is that, The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. Because the grade is unusual for the site, this section of steeper slope is bracketed by gentle slopes. The area under 25 percent slope would not allow enough space for the home site. The proposed building envelope takes advantage of less steep portions of the site. The proposed home is a vertical volume that steps with the topography. Locating the garage on the uphill and west side of the house minimizes the grading and paving necessary for the home and vehicular access, resulting ultimately in less disturbance and more protection of the hillside. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 9 The third and fourth criteria are that, The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty and The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The Planning Commission finds that located a small portion of the garage in this artificially created area is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Only 92 square-feet of the garage is proposed to be located on slopes over 35 percent, and the buil consistent with the purpose of chapter 18.3.10. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that a Minor Modification may be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. The originally approved building envelope excluded slopes greater than 35 percent. The minor modification requested here would allow a portion of the garage to be built on the steeper portion of the site. 92 square-feet of the garage and a portion of the driveway is proposed to be located on slopes greater than 35 percent, which are outside of the originally approved building envelope. Placing the garage within the steeper area on the northwestern portion of the lot decreases potential grading by reducing the amount of driveway that would be needed if the garage were moved downhill or further to the east. Facing the opening of the garage to the west rather than the south allows circulation to the house at 290 Skycrest to remain undisturbed by circulation to and from the garage at 294 Skycrest, and the proposed location of the garage removes it from the views of the upper lot and from Grandview Drive above as well. In addition, one tree outside the building envelope is requested for removal due to the location of the garage foundation. The application indicates the tree is a Black Oak (Tree #1) in fair condition but with evidence of root rot. The home site has been located to nestle within the existing tree canopy and to minimize views of the home from the neighboring properties. The building envelope modification the natural slope of the site. The basement below the first floor daylights on the downhill side. The proposed building envelope modification and proposed garage location allows the roofline to step with the hill and avoid roofline exposure. The Planning Commission finds that the application meets the applicable approval criteria for a Minor Modification and is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds the lot in question is not shaped like a flag lot. The driveway is no longer than 50 feet to the building site and the third parking space required for a flag driveway is not required here. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds that the appeal request submitted raises the following issues as the basis for the appeal: 1) That the 2018 decision to grant a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is not valid as it is based on a previous building permit that expired years ago. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 10 2) That city codes require that RR-.5 standards be adhered to by all taxpayers without differential treatment for tax lot size and variances according to taxes assessed and paid by existing neighbors 3) That as a neighbor, she will be subjected to the inconvenience of noise and intermittent blockage of their driveway 4) That she has concerns about the steep embankment to the building site, and that these and other conditions are cause for anxiety and hence diminish her quality of life. Ms. Chilton also asked the same consideration for Variances that may be required in order for us to create a buildable tax lot that would benefit the city revenue base. The Commission finds that in response to the initial comments about the expiration of a building permit, Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits generally and this Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit specifically are not based upon building permits. Typically, land use approval would first be requested and once that approval is obtained the applicants could then apply for a building permit. In this instance, the applicants can apply for a Single Family Residence building permit once their land use approval is final. The building permit would be reviewed for consistency with the land use approval. In reviewing City of Ashland building permit records under the current permitting system (EnerGov), the previous permitting system (Eden), and prior permits which are archived on paper, staff were unable to locate any building permit records for 294 Skycrest, which is currently a vacant parcel. Staff have explained that the appellant may in fact be suggesting that the land use approval which created the subject property, rather than a building permit, has expired. The appellant did not attend the Planning Commission appeal hearing and as such could not clarify this point of the appeal. Partition Plat #P-48- 2006 creating the parcels that were approved on January 10, 2006 by Planning Action #2005-01476 was signed by the Ashland Planning Department on May 24, 2006 and recorded by Jackson County as survey plat CS 19196. As detailed in AMC 18.5.3.090, Final plats require review and approval by the Staff Advisor and City Surveyor prior to recording with Jackson County. Within 18 months of the date of plat.A new lot is not a legal lot for purposes of ownership (title), sale, lease, or development/land use until a final plat is recorded for the partition or subdivision containing the lot is recorded. The Planning Commission finds, with regard to the second issue raised, that the Land Use Ordinance AMC Chapter 18 applies uniformly throughout the City of Ashland. The Ordinance specifically provides that wpractical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the ordinance may result from the strict application of certain provisions, granted. Variances are addressed in AMC Chapter 18.5.5, which includes specific review procedures and approval criteria. The ordinance also provides for exceptions to certain development standards (e.g., Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards, Solar Setback, Street Standards, Hillside Development Standards, Water Resource Protection Zone Standards) which in each case are considered in light of specific review procedures and approval criteria detailed in the relevant chapters. None of the approval criteria consider taxes assessed or paid. In each case, the approval criteria are specific to the circumstances of the individual site and proposal, although as is the case here previous precedent may be PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 11 considered relative to the review criteria where it provides some direction with regard to their application. differential treatment for tax lot sizer a the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances zoning district as a percent of the lot size, and zoning districts also typically have a minimum lot size requirement. The Planning Commission finds that when a lot is significantly undersized for its district, lot size is an essential consideration in considering an appropriate Variance to coverage. the same consideration for Variances that may be required in would benefit the city revenue base. 363 Grandview Drive is oversized for the RR-.5 zoning district. In addition, she also owns a small, narrow, rectangular parcel approximately 1,014 square foot in area which is contiguous to her property and separates it from the subject property to the south. Her combined property area is more than one-acre and might accommodate further partitioning solely based on its size, however in preliminary analysis of geographic information system (GIS) data, nearly all of the undeveloped areas of the property appear to Hillside Lands in AMC 18.3.10.090.A.1.b Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or equal to 35 percent cannot be subdivided or partitioned be necessary in order to further partition her property. Ms. Chilton has discussed the potential for further partitioning her property with Planning staff, and has been advised that a pre-application conference would be the appropriate next step in considering her options. Should an application ultimately be submitted, Ms. Chilton would receive the same consideration consideration of the applicable criteria relative to the specifics of her request being granted the applicants here. However, benefit to the city revenue base is not a criterion for an Exception. The Commission finds that in response to assertion of an inconvenience the project will cause to neighbors, t property at 363 Grandview Drive and the neighboring property to the south at 290 Skycrest Drive. It would be the maintained during construction, and after. Condition #2b of the original staff decision now under consideration required that, prior to the submittal of a building permit, a construction staging and materials storage plan for the project be provided for staff review to delineate where materials would be stored, where construction would be staged, where contractors would park their vehicles during construction to minimize these impacts. Construction noise is regulated in AMC 9.08.170.D.6 which sets specific parameters for noise as it relates Construction or Repair of Buildings, Excavation of Streets and Highways.This section generally allows for construction and its associated noise city wide between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The Commission finds that in response to Ms. Chilconcern with the impacts of construction to the steep embankment to the building site, the application includes details of geo-technical site evaluations PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 12 performed by Mark J. Amrhein, PE, GE of Amrhein Associates, Inc. in 2008 and more recently by Robin most recent report concludes that the property is suitable for SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the request for a Physical Environmental Constraints Permit, Variance, Tree Removal, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands and Minor Modification is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. The Planning Commission denies the appeal, and re-affirms Physical and Environmental Constraints Permit, Variance, Tree Removal, an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and Minor Modification approvals to allow the construction of a single-family residence at 294 Skycrest Drive. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #T1-2018-00011 is denied. The following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval: 1) That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified here. 2) That prior to the submittal of a building permit: a.That the foundation shall be designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience in accordance with 18.3.10.090.C. b.A construction staging / storage plan for the project shall be submitted for review and approval to delineate where materials will be stored and contractors will park. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 13 c.That the driveway located on the subject property serving 290 Skycrest Drive to the south shall be maintained to the width and grade requirements of 18.5.3.060. d.That the new paving and driveway shall meet requirements of 18.5.3.060.F. e.That the applicant 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. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the building permit submittal. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. f.That the storm drainage plan shall be designed, constructed and maintained in a manner that will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent and downstream properties in accordance with 18.62.080.C.1. The storm drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the Ashland Engineering and Building Divisions prior to application for a building permit. g.That written verification from the project geotechnical experts addressing the consistency of the building permit plan submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit submittals. h.That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Sample exterior building colors shall be provided with the building permit submittals for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. i.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that the proposed construction complies with the Solar Setback B along with elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from natural grade. 3) That a preconstruction conference be held prior to site work, the issuance of an excavation permit or the issuance of a building permit, whichever action occurs first. The preconstruction conference project team, including the project engineer, project geotechnical experts (i.e. Applied Geotechnical Engineering), the general contractor, landscape architect and their excavation subcontractors to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit and erosion control. 4) That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a.That the temporary erosion control measures (i.e. silt fence and bale barriers) shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to any site work, storage of materials, issuance of an excavation permit and issuance of a building permit. The temporary erosion control measures shall be inspected and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, storage of materials, the issuance of an excavation permit, and/or the issuance of a building permit. PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 14 b. outside of the building footprint or the building footprint be modified to be outside the utility easement or some combination thereof to avoid locating building footprint in a utility easement. c.That all erosion control measures required by the project geotechnical expert including but not limited to erosion netting / fabric installed on the downhill side of the construction area shall be installed and inspected prior to issuance of a building permit and maintained throughout the duration of the construction. d.That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, excavation, and/or storage of materials. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with project landscape architect proposal. 5) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a.All service and equipment installation shall be installed according to Ashland Electric Department specifications prior to certificate of occupancy. b.The landscaping and irrigation for re-vegetation of cut/fill slopes and erosion control shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Vegetation shall be installed in such a manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation. c.That a representative of Applied Geotechnical Engineeringshall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report created by Applied Geotechnical Engineering, included in the application and date stamped June 2018. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Applied Geotechnical Engineering shall provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage and erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and that all scheduled inspections were conducted by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project. 6) That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.3.10.090.B.4 - 6. October 9, 2018 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #T1-2018-00011 October 9, 2018 Page 15