Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-08 Planning PACKET Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 8, 2015 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. October 27, 2015 Special Meeting. 2.November 10, 2015 Regular Meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-01284, 474 Russell Drive. A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-01517, 209 Oak Street. B. VII. TYPE I PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02038 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 85 Winburn Way APPLICANT: Carlos Delgado, Architect OWNER: Bryan & Stephanie DeBoer DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints to allow the construction of a single family residence on the property located at 85 Winburn Way. The application includes requests for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands (18.3.10.090.B Hillside Grading & Erosion Control) to allow structural retaining walls along the west side of the property to exceed seven feet in height and for Tree Removal Permits. 18 of the site’s 21 trees are proposed for removal, including three significant trees 18-inches or more in diameter which require Tree Removal Permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09 BC; TAX LOT: #3000. 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. VIII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01856 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 229 W. Hersey St. OWNER/APPLICANT: RW Signature Properties LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family residential units for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requested for an Exception to Street Standards to construct a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot bio-swale parkrow where a six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow planting strip are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOT: #9900. IX. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS & AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar updated the commission on the Normal Neighborhood Plan. He stated the City Council has held two meetings and approved first reading of two of the three ordinances. The Council made a minor amendment to reduce the size of the neighborhood commercial overlay and the ordinances have been continued to November 17, 2015. Mr. Molnar requested the commission check their holiday schedules and stated it is likely either the November or December study session will be cancelled. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PL-2015-01677 DESCRIPTION: An ordinance amending chapters 18.2.2, 18.2.3, 18.2.5, 18.3.3, 18.3.5 and 18.6.1 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to homegrown marijuana cultivation and marijuana- related businesses including production, processing, retail sales, testing, and wholesale. Planning Manager Maria Harris reviewed the draft ordinance and noted the ordinance addresses both homegrown marijuana and marijuana related businesses. She explained the following changes have been made to the ordinance since the commission’s last review: Laboratories were added as an eligible use in the E-1 and M-1 zones. Marijuana related businesses were added to the list of prohibited uses for a home occupation. The limitation on the number of indoor plants was deleted. Removed the sliding scale for number of plants allowed on larger lots. Removed language prohibiting homemade marijuana extracts. Added language to ensure outdoor grows are secured at all times. Added 1,000 ft. separation requirement for retail outlets. Added language that prohibits vacant dwelling units for being use for marijuana cultivation. Ashland Planning Commission October 27, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Harris identified the following items for commission deliberations: Cultivation Area Location Ms. Harris stated the draft ordinance includes a requirement for residents to locate the cultivation area closer to their primary residence than to dwellings on adjoining properties or to dwellings in the same multifamily development. However, staff has some concerns about this. Ms. Harris explained this would be a fairly complicated standard for a resident grower to figure out and would likely require review of aerial maps to determine distances. This requirement would also be more difficult for staff to administer and enforce. Maximum Plant Height Ms. Harris stated the current draft sets a 10 ft. maximum height, however staff has suggested coordinating this with the 6.5 ft. maximum fence height. Setbacks Ms. Harris stated the draft ordinance establishes a 10 ft. setback from property lines and 20 ft. from residences. If the commission changed this to 20 ft. from property lines and 30 ft. from residences it would adversely impact many of the homes in the R-1.5 zoning district, as well as smaller lots and townhouses throughout town. Ms. Harris stated on larger lots the setback is not an issue, but smaller lots would not have an area eligible for outdoor growing. Southern Oregon University & Croman Mill Districts Ms. Harris clarified the need to add a provision for homegrown marijuana in the Southern Oregon University and Croman Mill zoning districts. She noted this was an oversight and should have been included in the original draft. Questions of Staff Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with the cultivation space requirements and stated he is not clear why this limitation is needed or whether 50 sq.ft. is enough space. He also recommended the measurement of the setback be taken from the center of the plant’s base. Comment was made that the restrictions are there to limit odor. Dawkins countered that residents are already limited to four plants. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the intent was to limit the size of the planting area and associated odor, and stated a single marijuana plant can grow to 25 sq.ft. Commissioner Thompson suggested the ordinance include a reference to the limitations set by the state law. Ms. Harris stated staff did discuss this with the city’s attorney and came to the conclusion to not reference all of the state’s laws and rules since they are constantly evolving. Commission Thompson requested the ordinance include a statement similar to “In addition to the requirements contained in…” so that people are aware that there are other requirements that apply. Commissioner Pearce commented on section 18.2.3.190.A.3 and asked how this ordinance would apply to someone who owned multiple lots. Ms. Harris stated if someone owns multiple lots on a contiguous piece of property staff would treat this as a single lot; however, she stated she would look into this further. Request was made to amend the Homegrown Marijuana definition (pg. 36) to read: “…for personal consumption, whether for medical or non-medical purposes, or for a medical marijuana card holder.” Amendment request was also made to change 18.2.3.190.4.B.1.a to read: “Outdoor marijuana cultivation or storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the business is prohibited.” A typo was noted at the top of page 36; it should be corrected to read: “…cultivation of fragile or out-of-season plants for personal enjoyment or for subsequent use.” Staff was asked whether limiting the height would reduce odors. Ms. Harris explained the 6.5 ft. height limitation was suggested to address visibility issues from other residences as well as security concerns. She stated if people can’t see it hopefully they won’t try to access it. Comment was made that using the fence height is an easy marker for homeowners to know where they need to top their plants. Comment was made expressing concern with the term “limiting view” and it was questioned if the ordinance should say “prohibit view” instead. Ms. Harris stated you can’t completely limit the view from a two-story residence, but if you go with the fence height limitation neighbors won’t be able to see the plants from yard level. Ashland Planning Commission October 27, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Staff was asked how the noise created by fans will be addressed. Ms. Harris clarified the legal department will be updating the nuisance section of the municipal code to address this. Staff was asked if a minimum setback would present the same problems as requiring residents to locate grow areas closer to their residence than adjacent residences. Ms. Harris stated the setback is a bit more manageable because it is a set figure that applies to everyone. Staff was asked why the plant height would be limited if they are not visually unappealing and it was noted other plants (tomatoes, etc.) do not have a height limitation. Ms. Harris explained staff has received concerns from residents with children who live next door to grows and this would limit the potential for children to access the plants. Staff was asked to explain the removal of the indoor growing limitation. Ms. Harris stated the city cannot legally enter a person’s home and therefore any city limitation on the number of indoor plants would be unenforceable. It was noted, however, that the state does limit the total number of plants allowed. If you have four or less plants total, you are not subject to the state’s licensing requirements, but if you have more than four plants you must adhere to the state’s regulations. Commissioner Dawkins noted that retail establishments cannot be both medical and recreational; they have to be registered as one or the other under state law. Commission Deliberations Commissioner Mindlin stated she is not in favor of limiting height and stated marijuana is now legal and people’s attitudes will eventually change about seeing it. She added limiting the height could create a hardship for someone attempting to grow a plant and could kill it. However, she stated she is very concerned with odor and voiced support for the restriction on the size of the cultivation area, even if this means people can’t grow four large plants outdoors. Commissioner Norton voiced support for Dawkins’ idea to use the base of the plant when measuring where it sits in the 50 ft. cultivation area. Commissioner Brown stated he would prefer to be more restrictive starting out and agreed that the community’s attitude will change over time. He voiced support for the 6.5 height limit and stated this will help with security. He added if down the road they find 6.5 ft. is not working it can be increased. The setbacks could also be changed to be more lenient in the future if it’s deemed appropriate. Commissioner Pearce voiced support for the larger setbacks and keeping the language that states the cultivation area needs to be closer to the residence than neighboring residences. Commissioner Miller disagreed and sated this is too subjective. She added the city has setbacks for chickens, and goats, and everything else and believes this would work fine. She noted she is also in favor of the larger setbacks, even though this won’t work for townhouses and smaller lots. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not in favor of the cultivation area. He stated growing marijuana is a big job and most people won’t find satisfaction in it. And by legalizing it, there will be a much wider selection available at retail stores. He added if the ordinance is too restrictive it will push people to grow indoors and people should be allowed to use our climate for this. The commission discussed reducing commercial sites from 10,000 sq.ft to a maximum of 5,000 sq.ft. Comment was made that they should not be encouraging commercial sites in the city and these should be located in agricultural areas instead. Statement was made that if the maximum size was reduced this would push these uses out to where they really belong. General agreement was voiced to lower the maximum commercial site size to 5,000 sq.ft. Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to restrict commercial sites to 5,000 sq.ft. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to include the Southern Oregon University and Croman Mill zoning districts to the ordinance. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. Ashland Planning Commission October 27, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Ms. Harris clarified she would correct the minor word-smithing items raised during deliberations and would include a reference in the homegrown section to the state law requirements. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to recommend approval of PL-2015-01677 as amended. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Thompson, Brown, Norton, Miller, Pearce, and Mindlin. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission October 27, 2015 Page 4 of 4 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Greg Lemhouse ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director announced the first reading of the final of the three ordinances for the Normal Neighborhood Plan will go before the City Council next week, and the public hearing for the marijuana ordinance is scheduled for December 1. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse added the Council will also be conducting second reading of the ordinances on downtown behavior at their next meeting. AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Thompson provided an update on the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee. She explained there will be a phased approach and the consultant’s draft parking plan is available on the City’s website. Details include hiring a city parking manager, negotiating shared use agreements with the owners of private parking lots, and potentially paid parking and residential permits. Thompson stated the first phase will last 18 months and the plan will go before the City Council for approval early next year with a potential start date of July 1, 2016. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1. October 13, 2015 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Thompson/Miller m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-00797, 266 Third Street. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-00797. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2015 Page 1 of 6 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01517 SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 209 Oak St., 221 Oak St., 225 Oak St. and 11 B St. (And shared driveway partially on 237-239 Oak St.) OWNER/APPLICANT: Spartan Ashland Natalie Real Estate, LLC AGENTS: Kistler, Small & White, Architects DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for the properties at 209 Oak Street, 221 Oak Street, 225 Oak Street and 11 B Street. The proposal includes the renovation of two existing, historic homes; the construction of six townhouses along B Street; and the construction a new, detached residential cottage. Also included are requests for a Variance to allow a 15-foot wide, one-way driveway where a 20-foot driveway width would typically be required; two Conditional Use Permits to allow a 25 percent increase in the Maximum Permitted Floor Area, and to allow a commercial use within an existing, historic residential building; an Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk along B Street where a planting strip would typically be required between the curb and the sidewalk; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow the placement of a new residence on proposed Lot #9 to be placed behind the setback line of adjacent historic buildings; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees which are within the footprints of proposed buildings. (The proposal involves use of the existing driveway which is partially located on the adjacent property to the north at 237-239 Oak Street; this property’s owner has signed to allow the application to move forward using the shared driveway.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09BB; TAX LOTS: 15600, 15700, 15900 and 16000. (Continued from October 13, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting.) Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided an overview of the proposal, the applicant’s new submittals, and outlined the issues from the October meeting as follows: 1)Number of Residential Units. The current submittals have eight residential units, with six townhomes, one cottage, and one residential unit in the Smith-Elliot house, and a commercial office use proposed in the Mickelson-Chapman house. 2)Entry Fire Separation. The current submittals have not changed the treatment of the slanted partitions providing the required separation between the units. The Historic Commission has recommended approval as submitted. 3)Metal Roofs. The Historic Commission has stated metal roofs are inappropriate for the two historic homes being restored, and that composition shingles are the most historically appropriate treatment. They are supportive of metal roofing for the new cottage and while their recommendations do not speak specifically to the townhomes, they have recommended approval as submitted. 4)Commercial Use of the Historic Home. The Historic Commission has recommended against a conditional use permit for the commercial use. 5)Compatibility of Townhomes. At the last meeting it was questioned whether a pitched roof design would be a more historically-compatible treatment for the residential units, however the Historic Commission did not have concerns with the proposed roof design. 6)B Street Streetscape. The applicants have requested an exception to the Street Standards to continue the existing sidewalk pattern and the Historic Commission expressed support for this request noting that it would accommodate deeper front porches while retaining the historic location of the sidewalk. However, staff believes that a full city standard 7 ft. parkrow and 6 ft. sidewalk would be preferable, but should the commission grant an exception, staff strongly recommends a minimum 6 ft. sidewalk with trees planted behind the sidewalk at one tree per 30 ft. to achieve canopy coverage. 7)Driveways & On-Site Circulation. The current submittals do not include any widening of the driveway as discussed in October, but the applicants have added a pedestrian walkway within the 15 ft. driveway from the recreational space to B Street. Mr. Severson read aloud the recommendations from the Historic and Tree Commissions, and reviewed staff’s recommended conditions for approval. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Questions of Staff Mr. Severson stated the application complies with the City’s setback requirements; clarified the application shows a 10 ft. setback to the start of the bay windows; and commented on the potential use of structural soil for trees in a narrower parkrow. Concern was expressed that trash facilities are not listed on the site plan. Mr. Severson clarified the applicants will need to meet the City’s standards and will also need to work with Recology on the placement of trash facilities. Mr. Severson clarified as proposed, the applicants meet the parking demand on-site and there is no need for an on-street parking credit. Regarding the ADA parking space, Mr. Severson stated it is his understanding that the one space can serve both the residences and the office space. Applicant’s Presentation Ray Kistler/Stated there is no standard for one-way driveways and does not believe access to the site warrants two-way traffic. He also clarified the proposed pedestrian path would be flush with the driveway but a different material would be used. He stated there is room for a 20 ft. wide driveway but does not believe this serves a purpose or looks as nice. Mr. Kistler commented on the City’s parkrow and sidewalk requirements and stated it is up to the commission on what they would like to see here. He stated they could make the sidewalk compliant with the standard but this would take 7 ft. from the property frontage and would negatively impact the people who live in these units. He suggested a compromise be reached on the parkrow. Regarding the firewall separation, Mr. Kistler stated their intent was to tie this element to the Winston building next door. Questions of the Applicant The applicants were asked to comment on their solution for the trash. Leslie Gore responded that they have met with Recology and they recommended individual cans picked up at the curb. Comment was made expressing concern with the number of cans that would be placed on the street for pickup, especially since B Street is already fairly narrow. Mr. Kistler stated there is space behind the Mickelson house and they could potentially add a screened enclosure at this location. Mr. Severson noted Recology conducted pickups on the street for the units that are there now. The applicants were asked if there is an opportunity to push the porches and townhomes back a little so they wouldn’t be as close to the sidewalk and parkrow. Mr. Kistler stated the private outdoor space in the back of each unit in addition to the garage space for each unit would make this difficult to accomplish. The applicants were asked if they meet the backup space requirements and Mr. Kistler responded that they have 2 ft. more than the minimum. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to clarify the roofing material standard. Mr. Severson explained the design standards specifically say wood and metal are to be avoided, and stated the Historic Commission recommended composition shingles for this project. Staff was asked if the commission decided to not follow this standard, would they have to justify their decision with specific criteria, and could they consider the City’s sustainability goals. Mr. Molnar clarified AMC 18.4.2.050.B states for projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays, different treatments may be considered to address compatibility. Comment was made that if they allow the metal roof this gets ahead of the curve of where the City is heading, but it may make it difficult for other applicants if they do not know what the commission is wanting. Comment was made that there is a difference between requiring a different material versus allowing the applicant to do what they have asked for. Applicants Rebuttal Leslie Gore clarified the proposed metal roofs are a recyclable material. She also clarified the historic housing units are just 2 bedrooms and 1 bath each, and do not lend themselves to be multifamily units. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:15 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Deliberations & Decision The commission identified the key issues for deliberation: Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Norton commented that the office space is the element that is causing issues for the site. He stated if the office goes away, the ADA parking issue goes away, they won’t need to put a pathway in, and the extra space can be used to solve the garbage issue. It would also allow for better landscaping and provide a better transition to the new building. Commissioner Brown stated he is comfortable with an office on the corner. He added a commercial use would work better than a residential unit due to what is already occurring on that corner, and stated as long as the building maintains its character he is comfortable with granting the CUP. Commissioner Pearce stated the office use meets the criteria for a CUP and it would not be a greater impact than other uses in the zone. He added the code does not regulate historic uses and stated he would support a commercial use. Commissioners Thompson, Dawkins, and Mindlin agreed with Pearce, and Dawkins noted this building has had commercial uses in the past. Commissioner Miller stated she would prefer to keep this residential but would not fight this issue. Sidewalk/Parkrow Commissioner Dawkins voiced support for widening the sidewalk and agrees with the Historic Commission recommendation to maintain the larger patios. He stated this would allow a landscaped area above the trees and would provide a better transition to the building on the corner. Commissioner Miller agreed and stated the parkrow would be problematic. Commissioner Thompson noted there are a number of historic areas in the city with no parkrows and does not think this would be an oddity. Commissioner Brown stated widening the sidewalk and installing trees along the building side is the right approach and would provide shade for the sidewalk and units. Commissioner Pearce agreed and stated adding another 7 ft. to the project for the parkrow would make it very problematic for the townhouses to work, and voiced support for a 6 ft. sidewalk with no parkrow. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is interested in a narrower parkrow, but will not go against the group. Roofing Material Commissioner Dawkins stated it is appropriate to allow the metal roof. He stated they need to look at this from a sustainable approach and stated the applicant can put a roof on that looks the way the Historic Commission prefers without using asphalt material. Commissioner Thompson voiced concern with going against the Historic Commission’s recommendation without having a broader discussion about revising the historic district standards. Commissioner Miller stated she would support metal over composition if these are their only choices, and stated she is more concerned about the pitch of the roof than the material. Commissioner Mindlin stated the value of metal roofing is high (rainwater runoff, fireproofing, etc.) and stated wood shingles are the most historically compatible material but these would not be allowed for fire reasons. She stated composite roofs are not as good and do not look the same as wood, and voiced support for taking this up with the Historic Commission. Mindlin voiced her opinion that they have sufficient grounds to allow the applicant to do what they have proposed, and stated this is different than setting a new standard. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Thompson and stated he is hesitant, but stated he will not say no to metal. Commissioner Miller recommended they make it clear the metal roof should be darker in color and not shiny or reflective. Driveway Commissioner Pearce commented that there are no special or unique circumstances to justify the variance to the driveway on B Street. He noted the applicant’s statement that there is room for a 20 ft. driveway and stated this would allow for two-way traffic off B St. He stated this project will add quite a bit of traffic to the site, and with Oak being the busier street it is important to have an alternate access. Commissioner Brown gave his opinion that the proposed traffic patterns work for the site and noted that B Street is very narrow. He stated he is okay with the variance and with the proposed 15 ft. width. Commissioner Thompson commented that because of the constriction at one end she is okay with the 15 ft. driveway onto B Street and stated it seems to work well with the site plan. Commissioners Norton, Mindlin and Dawkins also voiced their support for the proposed 15 ft. driveway width. Concern was expressed regarding vision clearance at the B Street driveway and Mr. Severson stated they can include a condition that requires a wider apron width, no parking within 10 ft. on either side, and trees selected and placed to ensure the vision clearance standards are met. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2015 Page 4 of 6 Proposed Staff Conditions Based on the commissions discussions, Mr. Severson stated they will want to remove the Historic Commission recommendations for the composition shingle roof and a residential use only in the Mickelson-Chapman house, and edit condition #9L to state “Pedestrian circulation shall not reduce the driveway width below the proposed 15-ft. width but may include a materially distinct pedestrian path within the driveway.” Recommendation was made to modify condition #9M to state “Building permit submittals are to include the identification of the placement of the trash enclosure, if any.”Mr. Severson questioned whether there was any interest in tying the restoration of the historic homes to the construction of the townhomes and if so, suggested a condition that would state prior to the issuance of the fourth occupancy permit, the restoration of one of the historic homes should be completed and before the completion of the last townhome or cottage the second restoration shall be completed. Commissioner Pearce commented that until they know how the financing for this project will work he is reluctant to include such a condition. Commissioner Dawkins noted they have had issues in the past with affordable units never getting built and gave his opinion that it is reasonable to include a condition that addresses this. Commissioners Brown and Mindlin supported a condition to address the timing, and Mindlin noted this is the only tool they have to ensure this gets done. Commissioner Norton commented that if the houses are not improved the applicants will have a difficult time selling the townhouses and he is not sure this condition is necessary. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-2015-01517 with the modifications and staff recommendations for conditions #3, #4 ,#9J, #9L, #9M (including adding “if any” to the end), #11A, and conditions as stated by staff addressing the timing and the vision clearance along B Street. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Norton stated he can’t support the motion and stated the full 25% bonus plus the office space is too much for the site. Commissioner Pearce stated he is uneasy about the timing condition, but he will support the motion. Commissioner Miller stated she reluctantly supports the motion and stated her preference would be for the units to look more residential. Commissioner Mindlin voiced support for the motion and believes they have addresses all the issues. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Thompson, Miller, Pearce, Dawkins, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioner Norton, NO. Motion passed 6-1. B.PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01284 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 474 Russell Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Laz Ayala/Ayala Properties, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct two mixed-use buildings for the property located at 474 Russell Street. “Building A” will be a two-story, mixed use 8,688 square foot building consisting of commercial space and garages on the ground floor, and four residential condominiums on the second floor; “Building B” will be a two-story 12,617 feet commercial building consisting of commercial space with six residential condominiums on the second floor. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 09AA; TAX LOTS: 2805. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Pearce, Norton, Mindlin, Brown, and Miller conducted site visits; no ex parte communication was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the application to construct two mixed use buildings at 474 Russell Drive. He noted the bulk of the infrastructure is already installed, including the parking lots, streetscape, and pedestrian connection. He reviewed the site plan, Tree Commission recommendations, landscape plan, floor plans, and elevations. He commented on the commercial/residential split requirements (AMC 18.2.3.130.B.1) and provided a detailed overview of the parking calculations. Mr. Severson explained the applicant’s have illustrated how the parking will work as the commercial space develops and provided a summary of their parking management strategy. He stated in evaluating the request staff believes there is reasonable assumption that the residential and commercial parking demand will be offset and staff is recommending approval of the parking management strategy and requiring 28 on-site spaces with 4 on-street credits and a 12.8% reduction. Mr. Severson commented that it difficult to tell from the submittal how wide the entryways are and whether they would provide adequate protection from sun and rain, and noted staff has recommended a condition of approval to address this. He also commented on the fenestration standard and suggested the commission consider the number and placement of windows to ensure large masses are divided into a more human scale. Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented. Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2015 Page 5 of 6 Applicant’s Presentation Mark Knox/604 Fair Oaks/Mr. Knoxintroduced Laurie Sager, Laz Ayala, Cindy Dwyer, and Gary Caperna. He thanked staff for the thorough presentation and stated they have no issues with the recommendations of the Tree Commission. He commented briefly on the parking and stated he would let the project architect comment on the number and placement of windows. Mr. Caperna addressed the commission and stated he understands staff’s concern, but some of the window placement is restricted by what’s happening internally in the building. He stated they could potentially add some high windows and noted some of the window locations suggested by staff are on walls where you would normally place a bed. He stated staff’s suggestion might be more aggressive than what they can feasibly incorporate, and noted engineering issues need to be considered. Regarding the overhang at the entries, Mr. Caperna stated they could address staff’s concerns by recessing the doors a little more and extend the canopy to satisfy whatever conditions the Planning Commission adopts. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Knox clarified there are 10 units proposed and each unit will have its own garage space. Regarding the west elevation, he explained this side of the building faces the undeveloped railroad property and if the commission requires additional windows on this frontage they should serve a purpose. Landscape Architect Laurie Sager addressed the commission and suggested trees or plant materials be considered as part of the solution. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 9:45 pm. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Brown voiced support for the site plan and parking, but stated if the fenestration requirements are going to be addressed with plantings the applicants need to provide a revised landscape plan that shows this. Commissioner Dawkins voiced support for windows on the east side and questioned covering the walls with plants. Commissioner Mindlin stated this is a small element of the proposal and believes they could condition this and leave it up to staff to make sure it is met. Commissioner Pearce agreed and stated if the applicants can work with staff on the east wall he is fine with moving this forward. Mr. Severson read aloud the proposed staff recommendation to address this issue (Condition #9K) and stated if the commission is not concerned about the west side and the walls adjacent to the plaza space the condition could be revised to just state the east end. Recommendation was made for an additional modification that would change the condition to read “additional windows, or other design treatments” so that staff is not limited to approving only windows. Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve PA-2015-01284 with the addition of condition #9K as discussed. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Pearce, Miller, Thompson, Norton, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission November 10, 2015 Page 6 of 6 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 8, 2015 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-011517, A REQUEST FOR ) OUTLINE PLAN, FINAL PLAN AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVALS ) FOR THE PROPERTIES AT 209 OAK STREET, 221 OAK STREET, 225 OAK ) OAK STREET AND 11 B STREET. THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE REN- ) OVATION OF TWO EXISTING HISTORIC HOMES; THE CONSTRUCTION ) OF SIX TOWNHOUSES ALONG B STREET; AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ) A NEW, DETACHED RESIDENTIAL COTTAGE. ALSO INCLUDED ARE ) REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 15-FOOT WIDE, ONE-WAY ) DRIVEWAY WHERE A 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY WIDTH WOULD TYPICALLY BE ) REQUIRED; TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO ALLOW A 25 PERCENT ) INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED FLOOR AREA, AND TO ALLOW ) A COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN AN EXISTING, HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL ) BUILDING; AN EXCEPTION TO THE STREET STANDARDS TO ALLOW A ) FINDINGS, CURBSIDE SIDEWALK ALONG B STREET WHERE A PLANTING STRIP ) CONCLUSIONS, WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDE- ) AND ORDERS WALK; AN EXCEPTION TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STAND- ) DARDS TO ALLOW THE PLACEMENT OF A NEW RESIDENCE ON THE PRO- ) POSED LOT #9 TO BE PLACED BEHIND THE SETBACK LINE OF ADJACENT ) HISTORIC BUILDINGS; AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TO REMOVE FIVE ) TREES WHICH ARE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINTS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS OR ) ADJACENT TO REQUIRED SIDEWALKS. THE PROPOSAL INVOLVES USE OF ) THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WHICH IS PARTTIALLY LOCATED ON THE AD- ) JACENT PROPERTY TO THE NO ) OWNER HAS SIGNED TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION TO MOVE FORWARD ) USING THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. ) ) APPLICANT: Spartan Ashland Natalie Real Estate, LLC ) Kistler, Small & White, Architects (agents) ) ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECITALS: 1) Tax lots #15600, 15700, 15900 and 16000 of Map 39 1E 09 BB are located at 209 Oak St., 221 Oak St., 225 Oak St. and 11 B St. and are zoned R-2, Low Density Multi-Family Residential. 2) The applicants are requesting Outline Plan, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for the properties at 209 Oak Street, 221 Oak Street, 225 Oak Street and 11 B Street. The proposal includes the renovation of two existing, historic homes; the construction of six townhouses along B Street; and the construction a new, detached residential cottage. Also included are requests for a Variance to allow a 15-foot wide, one-way driveway where a 20-foot driveway width would typically be required; two Conditional Use Permits to allow a 25 percent increase in the Maximum Permitted Floor Area, and to PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 1 allow a commercial use within an existing, historic residential building; an Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk along B Street where a planting strip would typically be required between the curb and the sidewalk; an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow the placement of a new residence on proposed Lot #9 to be placed behind the setback line of adjacent historic buildings; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees which are within the footprints of proposed buildings or adjacent to required sidewalks. The proposal involves use of the existing driveway which is partially located on the adjacent property to the north at 239 Oak Street; this red driveway. The proposal is outlined on plans on file at the Department of Community Development. AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 3) The criteria for Outline Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity. c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 4) The criteria for Final Plan approval are described in as follows: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 2 intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. AMC 18.5.2.050 5) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in as follows: A. ƓķĻƩƌǤźƓŭ œƚƓĻʹ The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. hǝĻƩƌğǤ œƚƓĻƭʹ The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. {źƷĻ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ğƓķ 5ĻƭźŭƓ {ƷğƓķğƩķƭʹ The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. /źƷǤ CğĭźƌźƷźĻƭʹ The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. 9ǣĭĻƦƷźƚƓ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ {źƷĻ 5ĻǝĻƌƚƦƒĻƓƷ ğƓķ 5ĻƭźŭƓ {ƷğƓķğƩķƭ͵ The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 3 AMC 18.5.5.050 6) The criteria for a Variance are described in as follows: 1. 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. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. 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. AMC 18.5.4.050.A 7) The criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in as follows: 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of the zone, pursuant with subsection 18.5.4.050.A.5, below. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the impact area, the following factors of livability of the impact area shall be considered in relation to the target use of the zone. a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. Increases in pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of 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. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 4 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. a. WR and RR. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. b. R-1. Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. c. wΏЋ ğƓķ wΏЌ͵ Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones. d. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base 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 with all ordinance requirements. e. C-1-D. The general retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base 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 with all ordinance requirements. g. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, complying with all ordinance requirements. h. CM-C1. The general light industrial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. i. CM-OE and CM-MU. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 5 k. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 18.3.2 Croman Mill District, developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. l. HC, NM, and SOU. The permitted uses listed in chapters 18.3.3 Health Care Services, 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood, and 18.3.6 Southern Oregon University District, respectively, complying with all ordinance requirements. AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1 8) The criteria for an Exception to Street Standards are described in 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. 9) that is Not a H AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 6 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 10) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on October 13, 2015 at which time testimony was heard and evidence was presented. During the staff report, it was noted that based on insufficient information in the initially submitted materials, the Historic Commission postponed making a recommendation on the Planning Action until their November meeting and that staff therefore recommended that the application be continued by the Planning Commission as well. Because the Historic Commission determined that additional materials were necessary before they could make a formal recommendation on a project involving issues with potentially significant impacts in an the hearing untilits next regular meeting on November 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at which time additional testimony was received and additional evidence was presented. Subsequent to the closing of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site. Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 7 Hearing Minutes, Notices, 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 Outline and Final Plan approval, Site Design Review, Variance, two Conditional Use Permits, Exception to Street Standards, Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards, and Tree Removal Permit meets all applicable criteria for Outline and Final Plan approval described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.A.4 and B.5; for Site Design Review approval described in Chapter 18.5.2.050; for Variance approval described in Chapter 18.5.5.050, for Conditional Use Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.4.050.A, for Exception to Street Standards described in Chapter 18.4.6.020.B.1; for approval of an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards described in Chapter 18.5.2.050; and for Tree Removal Permit approval described in Chapter 18.5.7.040.B.2. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that property lines between the four existing adjoining lots are to be dissolved and redrawn as a single lot, and the nine individual buildings proposed with the development will be placed on footprint lots with a single common lot beneath them through the current request for Outline and Final Plan subdivision approval under the Performance Standards Options chapter (AMC 18.3.9). A rectangular space of 1,958 square feet, or five percent of the project area, will be provided for communal recreation space. The applicants emphasize that this area is intended to extend living areas and foster a sense of community, and will incorporate a major recreational facility such as a multi-sport court or pool, a barbecue and dining area. In addition, the applicants note that 50 percent of the entire site will be landscaped as open space; they explain that this amount is dictated by the placement of the existing, historic homes and the goal of providing a usable recreational area as opposed to long, linear connections. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. city regulations are met or will be met with the completion of the proposed development. The Planning Commission finds that the 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. provided note that all utilities associated with the development of the property will either be directed toward Oak Street or B Street, and that all public facilities are available within the adjacent rights-of- way including six-inch sanitary sewer mains in both Oak and B Street adjacent to the property, an eight- inch water main in B Street and a six-inch water main in Oak Street. The applicants state that they have worked with the various utility companies to ensure both existing and proposed utilities are available to provide the necessary services, and that at no time has there been an indication by these service providers that services will be unavailable or exceed capacity. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 8 The Commission finds that the applicants have been advised during the pre-application conference and in subsequent written communications that there are currently no storm drainage facilities in place for this block of B Street, with the exception of the gutter at the curb. The applicants have been advised that if necessary, a new storm drain line would need to be installed within B Street to connect to the existing storm drain line in place in Water Street. The applicants have responded that it is their intention to use bio-swales and permeable paving for water retention on site, and have indicated that as with their project on the adjacent property at 66 Water Street this development will not add any stormwater load to the adjacent city stormwater system. The applicants further explain that in a recent storm event, they noted significant flooding on B Street and that while a new storm drain would be desirable, they observed that the volume of water was coming north on Oak Street, hitting the curb at Oak and B Streets, and turning downhill down B Street. Therefore, the applicant does not believe that the installation of a storm drain should be a condition of approval of this Site Design Review unless the development will contribute to the generation of storm water into B Street. T Works/Engineering Department to reduce the impact on the neighborhood if the city decides this is an appropriate time for the addition of a storm drain during the construction of this project, and will provide the infrastructure as determined by Public Works to the storm drain system for water collected on the site, however the applicants indicate that they do not feel that the development should be held financially responsible to address stormwater arriving on B Street from other locations in Ashland. The Commission finds that the approval criterion requires a finding that adequate key city facilities for urban storm drainage can be provided and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. There are no city facilities available in B Street, and the applica will add no additional load to the city system, or deal with Public Works if deemed necessary, does little to demonstrate that this criterion is met. However, staff have indicated that in discussing the issue with the Public Works Department and Engineering staff, they have noted that through a combination of low impact development strategies such as the use of permeable paving and on-site detention/bio-swales proposed by the applicants, the applicants could likely address their stormwater on site, with the caveat that the applicants may have to provide some means to address overflow during large storm events, either through discharge into the B Street gutter if this could be accomplished in a way that met Public by providing themselves a drainage easement over their adjacent property at 66 Water Street to access the Water Street storm drain line. The Commission has accordingly attached conditions to this effect to address storm drainage in meeting this criterion. The Commission further finds that the application indicates that a final Electric Utility Plan will be accommodated, but also to minimize the aesthetic impacts to the proposed buildings. All electrical services are proposed to be provided from B Street where the service currently exists, and all electrical work is to be completed under the direction and standards of the City of Ashland Electric and Building Departments, while work within the adjacent rights-of-way, including any necessary construction detouring, will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Engineering Department and/or Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 9 The Commission finds that the applicants have indicate that they have addressed, or will address at the time of building permit submittals, all code issues relating to the Ashland Fire Department, including an FDC (Fire Department Connection) valve along the front of the buildings. They note that a fire hydrant is available within 150 feet of the property boundary, on the property directly across the street, with adequate pressure to service the buildings, and they note that all work in meeting these requirements will be completed under the direction of the Ashland Building and Fire Departments. Conditions requiring compliance with applicable fire and building code requirements have been attached below, along with conditions requiring that the applicant provide final utility, electric, drainage and erosion control plans for review and approval prior to building, excavation or demolition permits or signature of final survey plats. In terms of adequate transportation, the Commission finds that paved access to the property is available row planting strips in place. The property also fronts on B Street, a Neighborhood Street. B Street is paved with curbs, gutters and approximately 4 ½ foot curbside sidewalks in place along the property frontage. The applicants have requested an Exception to Street Standards in order to avoid adding parkrow planting strips along B Street with redevelopment of the site. The Planning Commission finds that the third approval 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.Commission further finds that trees are the only notable natural features on the property, and indicate that the development will be done with the least possible removal of trees. The Tree Inventory provided with the application identifies 12 trees on the site greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and five of these are proposed for removal based on their locations relative to the construction of the driveway, sidewalk and the townhome on Lot #5. The Commission finds that none of the trees proposed for removal are significant natural features of the site, and further finds that the Tree Protection Plan provided includes protection of the large stature trees along Oak Street which are the most significant natural features of the property, and these trees are to be retained on the common lot. The fourth approval The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan.Commission finds that the proposal will not prevent the development of adjacent lands as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission finds that the fifth Outline Plan approval 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.Commission finds that landscape and irrigation plans will be provided, and irrigation systems will be installed to insure the success of the landscape plantings. In addition, the application materials note that the developer will provide professional grounds keeping insuring that the open space is properly maintained. The application further notes that the project is PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 10 owned by the applicant and will be developed in a single phase. The Commission has included conditions to require that final landscaping and irrigation plans be provided for review of the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of building or excavation permits or the signature of a final survey plat, and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. The Planning Commission finds that the sixth approval The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapterCommission finds that the base density of the 0.83 acre subject property at the R-2 density of 13.5 units per acre would allow up to 11 units, and that only eight units are proposed which complies with the allowed base density. The Commission further finds that because the property is located within an historic district, it is exempt from the minimum density provisions of AMC 18.2.5.080 The Planning Commission finds that the The development complies with the Street StandardsThe Commission finds that an Exception to the Street Standards with regard to providing a required park row planting strip on B Street has been requested, and that other than this Exception the proposed development complies with the Street Standards. This Exception is discussed below section 2.8. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants are requesting Site Design Review approval to construct six two-story, two-bedroom, residential townhouse units and one single-story cottage and to The Bricks on elements designed to fit into the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District in terms of massing, scale and site placement. The applicants emphasize that the design will complement both the award-winning Winston Building on the adjacent property at the corner of B and Water Streets and the historic homes on the other border, facing Oak Street. They note that the overall site layout is intended to support the pedestrian character of the neighborhood. They further explain that a one-story cottage is to be constructed, and that it will be contemporary, incorporating style elements from the related buildings to contribute to the overall cohesiveness of the site. The application goes on to explain that the north portion of the site, currently the flag lot at 225 Oak Street (Tax Lot #16000), is proposed to be utilized for vehicular access to garages and would also serve as the communal recreational area for the development with a multi-sport court and a landscaped garden/picnic area. 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.n -2 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and that within this zone, the minimum lot area is based on what is necessary to achieve the proposed density. In this instance, the combined parent parcel has a base density of 11 units where only eight units are proposed a s. The Commission further finds that for a Performance Standards Options subdivision with footprint lots on a single common open space property, setbacks are based on the perimeter PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 11 setbacks of the parent parcel, with Oak Street as the front property line where a required 20-foot setback applies because the property is within an historic district, and B Street as a side property line with a required ten-foot setback. The rear yard, opposite Oak Street, has a ten-foot per story setback requirement and the side yard opposite B Street has a six-foot setback requirement. The setbacks proposed appear to comply with these requirements. B Street here is a side yard abutting a public street and a ten-foot side yard setback is required. There is no provision to reduce side yards for porches or patios, however AMC 18.2.4.050.C provides a general exception for structures including entry stairs, uncovered porches and patios which are less than 30-inches in height to be exempted from side yard setbacks, and a condition has been included below requiring a demonstration of compliance with the setback requirements and general exception provisions in the building permit submittals. The Planning Commission finds that the The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). The Commission finds that in addition to its R-2 residential zoning, the subject property is located within the Historic District Overlay, and that the applicable standards for the Historic District overlay zone are incorporated into the Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4, which are addressed below. The Planning Commission finds that the The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from ontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. In terms of parking, the Commission finds that the application proposes eight residential units including the six two-bedroom townhouses, one detached cottage, and one residential unit within the Smith-Elliot house in addition to the 1,308 square feet of office space in the historic home on Lot #2. Floor plans reflecting this proposal have been provided, and the applicants have included parking calculations which note that the eight units each require 1¾ parking spaces while the 1,308 square feet of office requires three spaces (1308/500 = 2.616) for a total of 17 spaces, including one van-accessible space for the commercial use. 17 spaces have been proposed on-site to meet this requirement. With regard to the Basic Site Review standards, the Commission finds that the proposed new buildings have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street and placed within 20 feet of the street. These buildings are accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Parking has been placed behind the buildings, and is visible from the second-story windows. Sidewalks and street trees will be provided, and the applicants have requested an Exception in requesting to not provide standard park row planting strips on B Street. Automobile parking and circulation areas are placed behind the buildings and largely hidden from the street view. The townhomes proposes are to be brick with metal accents and roofing, while the historic PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 12 homes are to be sided in wood painted in appropriate colors, and the application notes that approximately 50 percent of the site is to be landscaped for recreational use with five percent of the lot area being provided in a multi-sport communal recreational facility at the rear of the property and smaller patios on the units providing more individual/passive recreation areas. With regard to the Historic District Overlay standards, the Commission finds that the property is located in a transitional area between the downtown commercial area and the Railroad District, and that the new buildings proposed have a similar height, width, and mass to other buildings in the neighborhood, and do not violate the existing scale, particularly given the proximity to the Historic Ashland Armory. The buildings are spaced appropriately in groupings of two units to remain in keeping with the neighborhood character. The brick townhouses are proposed to have backward sloping, standing seam roofs behind parapets on three sides, with a short parapet wall screening the roof and providing architectural relief and building identity. The front entrances are noted as being well-articulated in form to create a strong sense of entry from the street with covered porches. The applicants explain that the townhouses sit on a raised platform similar to many of the older buildings in Ashland, and suggest that the proposed buildings are traditional in symmetry, volume, rhythm and setting, but have contemporary elements as well and are in harmony with the existing historic neighborhood without being imitative. The applicants also note that the proposed garages are situated behind the townhouses to minimize their visibility from the street. The Commission finds that the application proposes to restore the existing historic homes at 209 Oak Street and 221 Oak Street, noting that there will not be any additions to the original structures and the original features will be retained to the extent possible. Exterior finishes and colors are proposed to be consistent with the historic buildings, and windows will be the size and placement of the original construction with wood windows and dark bronze exterior cladding. The original roof form and pitch are to be retained, and the applicants have proposed a metal roof in lieu of asphalt composition shingles noting that asphalt shingles are outlawed in most countries in Europe due to their toxicity, and as an historic homes would not be a bright metal, but rather would be a vintage metal roofing that is darker, and has more texture for the historic buildings to be compatible with the Historic District. The Commission finds that metal roofing is generally to be avoided in the historic district; the Historic District Design Standards in AMC 18.4.2.050.B provide for consideration of height, massing, scale and roof shape, pitches, and materials consistent with historic buildings in the immediate vicinity considerations for determining historic compatibility. The Commission further finds, however, that these For projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the In this instance, the Commission finds that the metal roofing as proposed is appropriate. The Planning Commission finds that the fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 13 adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.e Outline Plan discussion found above in section 2.3. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application includes the construction of a new adjacent historic buildings along Oak Street. AMC 18.4.2.050 includes Historic District Development standards calling for new buildings to be constructed in the same plane as the facades of adjacent historic buildings, and noting that front walls that are constructed forward of or behind the façade of adjacent historic buildings are to be avoided. The Planning Commission finds that an Exception to this standard is required. The Commission finds that there are several reasons for the proposed placement. As noted by the applicants, one of the primary considerations in creating the proposed site design has been preserving deliberately set back in order to preserve the dominance of the historic homes in the Oak Street streetscape. The applicants further explain that both houses are quite setback on the lot, with 209 Oak Street at about 30 feet from the property line and 221 Oak Street at approximately 60 feet from the property line. The Historic District Design Standards would require the cottage be setback approximately 45 feet, which would block the view of 221 Oak Street from the corner. The applicants suggest that the cottage was designed in scale and function as an auxiliary unit of the new brick townhouses, and while the cottage was not oriented to the front of the lot it is facing the decorative driveway creating an interior frontage to the site. The applicants suggest that this cottage orientation will soften the parking lot area for both tenants of the development and the guests and owners of the Oak Street Station Bed & Breakfast on the adjacent property who will share the use of the driveway easement. The applicants also suggest that the existing, large stature trees in the front yard area between the homes along Oak Street would make construction in this area problematic. The applicants conclude that they have already proposed to provide a major recreational facility on site, and believe that there is a greater potential for another communal recreational space under the existing large trees at the front of the property rather than in moving the cottage into this area to provide more centralized recreational space. The Planning Commission finds that the placement of large, well-separated historic homes with large front yards and large trees are defining characteristics of the site and streetscape, and that moving the cottage forward into this streetscape strictly to adhere to the standard would detract from this character and adversely impact these large stature trees. The Commission further finds that the auxiliary or more appropriate to the historic streetscape character, and the space remaining in the front yard area along Oak Street under the large stature trees has potential for use as a common open space. 2.6 With regard to the requested Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area by 25 percent, the Planning Commission finds that residential properties within the historic districts are subject to Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) limitation based on lot size. The land use ordinance establishes an adjustment factor based on lot size and then applies a graduated floor area PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 14 ratio (FAR) to the adjusted lot size to yield the MPFA for the lot. In this instance, the applicants note that the 35,964 square foot lot area times the 0.47 adjustment factor yields an adjusted lot area of 16,903 square feet, and that a 0.56 FAR times this 16,903 square foot lot area yields an MPFA for the property of 9,465 square feet. The ordinance provides that applicants may exceed the MPFA by as much as 25 percent through a Conditional Use Permit, and the applicants here are requesting that full 25 percent overage to construct 11,832 square feet of combined building area on the subject properties. The applicants note that the proposed new buildings were designed to closely follow the Historic District Design Standards to provide a comprehensive site plan that is contextually compatible with other buildings in the neighborhood. The applicants emphasize that the proposed buildings do not mimic a specific building or architectural period but use design elements to bridge the historic homes on one edge and the award-winning urban Winston Building on the other. Design features to provide the bridge to historic homes include recessed entries, covered porches, a parapet defined by proud brick coursing, and bay windows, while the more modern elements include historic corrugated galvanized metal siding used at the cantilevered semi-circular fireplaces on the side and angled bay windows. The applicants assert that in the end, the proposed site design is current and cohesive, with a strong residential community feel while providing the sense of pedestrian orientation desired in the Railroad District. The applicants further note that they are committed to the preservation of the existing Historic Contributing homes known as the Mickelson-Chapman House and the Smith-Elliott House. With the proposal, non-conforming additions to the homes will be removed and no new additions to the original structures are planned. The applicants suggest that these changes will greatly improve the safety and appearance of both buildings. The applicants further note that they are seeking guidance and historic photos from local historian Terry Skibby to provide detail integrity. The applicants note that the use will be in conformance will all standards in the zoning district except for those where Exception or Variances have been requested, and with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies not otherwise implemented elsewhere. They emphasize that they have addressed or will address provisions for adequate public facilities (as addressed elsewhere in section 2.3 of these findings), and effect on the livability of the impact area than would development to the target use. The applicants explain that the proposal will be similar in bulk and coverage to surrounding historic properties, and will be less dense than the target residential use. The applicants further suggest that they do not believe there will be any adverse material impact on traffic for surrounding streets, that all new construction will be compatible with the Historic District Design Standards, and will not have any discernible environmental impacts in terms of dust, odors, noise, light or glare. The Planning Commission finds that, while it would typically be difficult to support a request to exceed PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 15 the Maximum Permitted Floor Area regulations by the maximum allowed amount for new construction, in this instance the restoration of the two existing historic homes and the applicants further efforts to design contemporary townhomes which are nonetheless compatible and to place them in pairs while minimizing and screening the area of the site dedicated to parking and circulation result in an appropriate massing in the historic streetscape that are commendable and merit approval of the request. With regard to the requested Conditional Use Permit to allow the commercial use of the existing R-2 zoned building at 209 Oak Street, the Planning Commission finds that the applicants propose to restore this building for use as professional office spaces. The applicants note that there are commercial uses in place at the three other corners of the intersection, and suggest that the proposed office use will have no more adverse material impact on the livability of the impact area than would the target residential use. They further note that given the noise from events at the Historic Ashland Armory across the street, the building is in some sense more suited to non-residential use. The applicants explain that the proposed use will have no impact on the scale, bulk, coverage or architectural compatibility of the existing historic building, and will not have adverse material impacts on traffic or generate discernible increases in environmental pollutants, noise, light or glare. The Planning Commission finds that the transitional location seems well-suited to professional office use in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment of the site and restoration of the two historic homes. 2.7 The Planning Commission finds that a Variance to allow a 15-foot wide driveway to serve more than seven parking spaces where a 20-foot width is required was previously approved when 221 Oak Street was partitioned in 2007, in part to avoid impacts to existing trees. As part of the current request, the applicants have asked for a Variance to extend the existing, shared 15-foot wide driveway between 221 and 239 Oak Street through the project to provide vehicular access. The existing driveway is partially located on the adjacent property to the signed the application to allow the request to move forward based on use of the shared driveway. The Planning Commission finds that part of the driveway requirement calling for a 20-foot width where more than seven parking spaces are served is to allow for two-way circulation. As part of the Variance proposed here, the applicants would limit circulation on the driveway to one-way, with vehicles to enter from Oak Street at the existing driveway entrance and exit from a new driveway onto B Street. Additional curb cuts along B Street would be removed. The applicants suggest that the new one-way circulation with the existing 15-foot driveway will have greater benefits to the residents of the development and to surrounding streets than expanding the driveway to 20 feet to accommodate two-way circulation. The applicants emphasize that the proposed exit will be onto B Street which has less traffic than Oak Street, will eliminate existing driveways which currently require backing into B Street, and will be located approximately 40 feet further from the intersection of Oak and B Streets than the current driveway. The applicants conclude that the location of the historic house at 221 Oak Street prohibits the expansion of the driveway width there, and the applicants suggest they are preserving this house out of a sense of civic mindedness. In considering the request, the Planning Commission finds that the original 15-foot driveway width was approved through a Variance which considered the historic setting of adjacent homes, the historic PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 16 - existing driveway placement as factors in requesting the Variance. At the time, it was also noted that two trees - a 16-inch d.b.h. Maple street tree in the park row planting strip roughly six feet south of the existing curb cut and a 40-inch d.b.h Cedar in the front yard of the parent parcel, roughly eight feet south of the existing gravel driveway had tree protection zones extending into the existing drive, and that it would be best not to change the grade or width of the existing driveway as Cedar trees have only a moderate tolerance for construction to construction disturbance while Maples have a poor tolerance. It was noted at the time that achieving a 15-foot paved width was possible with the trees, but that widening the driveway to its full required 20-foot width would result in the ultimate removal of these two trees. The presence of established significant trees in the front yard and park row of 221 Oak Street were considerations, which when viewed in combination with the location of the existing house and pre- existing shared driveway which limits the ability to found to be unique or unusual circumstances that were not self-imposed, and which the Commission finds still to be valid with the current request. The Commission further finds that this 15-foot width can be found to be the minimum width necessary to address the unique circumstances related to the subject property, and that limit circulation on the driveway to one-way in from Oak Street and out onto B Street addresses the underlying concern of the width standard, which seeks to efficiently accommodate two-way circulation, while having the added benefit of reducing driveway conflicts at the access points along streets which have heavy on-street parking and pedestrian and vehicular traffic due to their proximity to the downtown and the surrounding Railroad District neighborhood. A condition has been included below to require that the driveway width be at least 15-feet for its full extent, and that a revised pedestrian circulation plan be provided prior to the issuance of building permits or signature of a final plat which identifies a internal pedestrian circulation through the site to provide connections between the recreation space, parking spaces and the individual residential units. This pedestrian circulation shall not reduce the driveway width below the proposed 15-foot width, but the Commission finds it appropriate that pedestrian circulation may include a materially distinct pedestrian path within the driveway as long as this pedestrian path does not decrease the width available for automobile circulation when not in use by pedestrians. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds that the existing sidewalk along B Street is approximately four- and-a-half feet in width, installed curbside with no street trees and a low retaining wall between the sidewalk and the yard areas of the subject properties. The Commission further finds that B Street in this ransportation System Plan, and with Site Design Review approval, the applicants would typically be required to bring the street frontages up to current city street standards, which would include the installation of new city standard curbs; seven-foot wide parkrow planting strips with new irrigated street trees spaced one tree per 30 feet of frontage; and six-foot wide sidewalks along B Street, with a transition from the newly installed curbside sidewalks near B & Water, and the planting of new street trees if needed in the park row planting strip along Oak Street. The application includes a request for an Exception to the Street Standards to allow a curbside sidewalk along B Street where the Street Standards require a planting strip between the curb and the sidewalk. The applicants suggest that in this case, the Exception should be granted to accommodate added porch PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 17 width for the proposed brownstone buildings along B Street. The applicants suggest that this request was supported by the Historic Commission when they informally reviewed the application on August 8, 2015. The applicants go on to explain that this block is a uniquely urban setting and the proposed development is a site-specific design that would not be suitable even a block away. They note that there is not now nor will there ever be a parkrow on the opposite side of the street and further assert that the existing continual on-street parking provides a buffer for pedestrians. The applicants point out that the park row requirement would greatly reduce the size of patios in the front of the brick townhouses, which were increased in response to a request by the Historic Commission, and they emphasize that the patios, and the associated floor plans, were intended to orient public activity and recreation toward the street, and the reduction required by a parkrow would run counter to this intent to have interesting and attractive walkways. Finally, the applicants note that there would be a need to offset the sidewalk installation, as there was no parkrow installed in front of the Winston Building on the corner of Water and B Streets, and they feel that instead matching the curbside sidewalk of the Winston Building would be the most beneficial installation overall. Exceptions to Street Standards require a demonstration that there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standard due to a unique aspect of the site or its proposed use; that the facilities and resultant connectivity proposed are equal or superior to those required under the standards; that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and that the exceptions are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Street Standards. The Commission finds that area are unique and merit an Exception, but further finds that the sidewalk itself should be widened to the required six-foot width rather than left at its current, substandard four-and-a-half foot width as illustrated in the applicants submittals, as a four-and-a-half foot sidewalk cannot be found equal or superior with pedestrian volumes in the area. The Commission has included a condition to require six- foot sidewalks be installed and that trees from the approved street tree list be planted behind the sidewalk to achieve the required 30-foot street tree spacing to insure the development of a full tree canopy for this B Street corridor. 2.9 The Planning Commission finds that the applicants note that trees are the only notable natural features on the property, and indicate that the development will be done with the least possible removal of trees. The Tree Inventory provides identifies 12 trees on the site greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.), and identifies five of these to be removed, including: Trees #7 and #8 which are bothmedium to large Modesto Ashes located adjacent to the sidewalk; Tree #9, a small Tree of Heaven also located adjacent to the sidewalk; Tree #10, a small Big Leaf Maple located between the proposed driveway and patio on Lot #6 and noted as being stressed by years of neglect; and Tree #11, a 20-inch d.b.h. Sycamore tree located within the proposed footprint of the townhome on Lot #5 and described as being diseased and more than 25 percent dead. The application materials suggests that the tree removals requested will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, surface waters, adjacent trees or existing windbreaks, and further points out that the site has many mature trees and the removal of the five trees requested will not significantly PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 18 negatively impact the overall tree canopy. The applicants further note that a landscaping and irrigation plan will be provided and will include the identification of mitigation trees and additional street trees to meet city standards. With regard to the requested removals, the Planning Commission finds that any extension of the sidewalk beyond its existing four-and-a-half foot width would encroach into the root system of the three trees adjacent to the sidewalk the two Ash trees (#7 and #8) and the Tree of Heaven (#9) - and that the removal of the existing cement retaining wall would also likely expose the roots of these trees. The Commission finds that with the removal of these trees, a six-foot sidewalk can be installed while allowing the applicants to maintain the larger porch designs preferred by the Historic Commission, with a landscaped area in front of the porches, and still allow the planting of additional street trees. The Planning Commission finds that Tree #10 and its removal is necessitated by the driveway installation. The Commission further finds that Tree #11 is within the proposed footprint of the townhome on Lot #5 and is diseased and dying according to the arborist. Protection Zone illustrated for Trees #1-#4 is inadequate and should be extended north toward the driveway to the maximum extent possible; a condition to this effect has been included below. Conditions have also been included at the recommendation of the Tree Commission that the applicants apply mulch at the base of all trees to be retained and begin a watering regimen to mitigate any negative impacts of development, and that the applicants install three-inch caliper street trees selected from the approved street tree list along B Street to mitigate the requested removals and the lack of a standard parkrow planting strip. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal for Outline and Final Plan approval, Site Design Review, Variance, two Conditional Use Permits, an Exception to Street Standards, an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards, and a Tree Removal Permit for the properties located at 209 Oak Street, 221 Oak Street, 225 Oak Street and 11 B Street is supported by evidence contained within the whole record. Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the following conditions, we approve Planning Action #2015-01517. Further, if any one or more of the conditions below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then Planning Action #2015-01517 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 specifically modified herein, including that the existing historic homes at 209 Oak Street and 221 Oak Street shall be fully restored as part of the current application. 2)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 19 3)That the recommendations of the Ashland Historic Commission from their November 4, 2015 meeting that the porch and dormers of the historic homes be restored and that siding be replaced in kind where necessary, and that the Exception to Street Standards be approved to allow a curbside sidewalk in keeping with the historic pattern to allow for larger porches shall be conditions of approval. November 5, 2015 4)That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise modified herein. These recommendations include that the Tree Protection Zone illustrated for Trees #1-#4 is inadequate and shall be extended north toward the driveway to the maximum extent possible; that the applicants apply mulch at the base of all trees to be retained and begin a watering regimen to mitigate any negative impacts of development; and that the applicants plant three-inch caliper street trees selected from the approved street tree list along B Street to mitigate the requested removals and the lack of a standard parkrow planting strip. 5)That prior to the installation of any signage, a sign permit shall be obtained. All signage shall meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance (AMC 18.4.7) including the specific limitations for Conditional Use Permit signage found in AMC 18.4.7.060.B.2. 6)That the roofing of the two historic homes to be restored shall not utilize wood shingles or metal roofing, both of which are noted as to be avoided in the Historic District Development Standards for the rehabilitation of existing historic buildings. The final roofing material treatment shall be asphalt or composition shingles which match the original roofs in color and texture or another non-metal or wood roofing deemed acceptable by the Historic Commission. Roofing materials shall be detailed in the building permit submittals for the review and approval of the Staff 7)That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, any necessary shared access easements, fire flow, fire sprinklers, fire department connection, fire hydrants, fire extinguishers, key box, approved addressing, approval of any gates, fences or other access obstructions; and fire safety measures during construction. 8)That the applicants shall obtain Demolition/Relocation Review Permit approvals through the Building Division prior to the demolition of any buildings greater than 500 square feet if deemed necessary by the Building Official pursuant to AMC 15.04.210-216 . 9)That building permit submittals shall include: a)The identification of all easements, including but not limited to public or private utility or drainage easements, mutual access easements allowing for the use of the shared driveway by 239 Oak Street, fire apparatus access easements, and public pedestrian access easements. b)The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and Historic Commission Review Board. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. c)Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 20 d)Revised Landscape, Irrigation and Tree Protection Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) The recommendations of the Tree Commission from their November 5, 2015 meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff Advisor; and 2) the required size and species specific replacement planting details and associated irrigation plan modifications, including the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications. e)A stormwater drainage plan for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. This plan shall incorporate low impact development measures such as permeable paving and on-site bio-swale stormwater detention as proposed by the applicants to meet Public Works/Engineering standards and ensure that post-development peak stormwater flows do not exceed pre-development levels and that no additional stormwater load is added to the B Street corridor, and if it proves necessary to obtain drainage easements over adjacent properties or upgrade existing stormwater facilities in order to meet these standards and accommodate large storm events, all necessary expense. f)A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades g)An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. h)The drawings necessary to verify compliance of the patios and entry stairs with the standard ten-foot side yard setback requirement along B Street and the general exception provisions of AMC 18.2.4.050.C, which exempt uncovered patios, porches and entry stairs from these setback requirements. i)Calculations demonstrating that the final building floor area does not exceed the 11,830 square foot maximum permitted floor area approved here, based on the methodology detailed in AMC 18.2.5.070. j)That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of a six-foot wide curbside sidewalk, pedestrian scale street lighting, and minimum three-inch caliper street trees selected from the approved street tree list and to be planted behind the sidewalk at a space of one tree per 30 feet PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 21 frontage for the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments. These plans shall detail the necessary transitions to existing improvements at either end of the corridor, the removal of curb-cuts other than for the proposed one- way driveway, and shall include colored concrete. If necessary to accommodate city standard street frontage improvements, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or provide public pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or right-of-way dedications shall Departments. k)Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes four bicycle parking spaces for the studios without private garages and an additional two parking spaces for the proposed office use. The inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. l)The identification of internal pedestrian circulation routes through the site to provide connections between the recreation space, parking spaces and the individual residential units. Pedestrian circulation shall not reduce the driveway width below the proposed 15- foot width, but may include a materially distinct pedestrian path within the driveway as long as this path does not decrease the width available for automobile circulation when not in use by pedestrians. m)The identification of the placement of the trash enclosure, if any. 10) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including demolition or the storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the tree within the footprint of Unit 4 to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site. Tree protection measures shall be in the form of chain link fencing six feet tall, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of AMC 18.4.5.030.C. (The removal of any additional trees shall require that the applicant submit a revised Tree Removal Permit application with an accurate tree ability to accommodate the redevelopment of the site, a clear identification of the trees to be removed, written findings in support of the removal request, and a plan detailing the species and placement of proposed mitigation trees.) b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for existing structures) shall be paid. PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 22 11) That prior to the final approval of the project, signature of the final plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscaping including the one-way driveway installed to the proposed 15-foot width for its full extent, landscaping including one mitigation tree, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, approved by the Staff Advisor. c) Sanitary sewer laterals, water services including connection with meters at the street, and underground electric services shall be installed according to the approved plans to serve all units prior to signature of the final survey plat or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. d) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet of frontage, and street lighting on B Street, and any additional street trees necessary on Oak Street, shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. All curb cuts other than one on each frontage for the proposed one-way driveway shall be removed with the frontage improvements. f) Restoration of the two historic homes shall be completed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. . g) The CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association or similar maintenance agreement shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to signature of the final survey plat. This agreement shall describe the responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting strips and street trees, and the approved Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the approved plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. h) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. i) The one way driveway shall be installed according to the approved plan with a minimum 15-foot width in a permeable paving surface if necessary for stormwater drainage, striped and/or signed to make limitations to one way travel and no parking along the driveway clear, and evidence of a recorded shared access easement for use of the drive by the j) That prior to the fourth residential unit obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicants shall obtain a building permit for the restoration of one of the historic homes, PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 23 and prior to the eighth residential unit obtaining a certificate of occupancy, the applicants shall obtain a building permit for the restoration of the other historic home. k) That the B Street driveway shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The driveway apron shall be installed to the maximum allowed residential curb cut width, the curb painted yellow and/or signage provided to denote no parking ten feet to either side of the driveway, and street trees and other landscaping shall be selected, placed and maintained to provide for vision clearance at this driveway. December 8, 2015 Planning Commission Approval Date PA #2015-01517 December 8, 2015 Page 24 TYPE I PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2015-02038 85 Winburn Way ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT December 8, 2015 PLANNING ACTION: #2015-02038 OWNERS: Bryan & Stephanie DeBoer APPLICANT: Carlos Delgado, Architect LOCATION: 85 Winburn Way ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-7.5 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 22, 2015 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 21, 2016 ORDINANCE REFERENCE: ( seehttp://www.ashland.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use code on-line): 18.2.5Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.10 Physical & Environmental Constraints 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.5.1 General Review Procedures 18.5.7 Tree Removal REQUEST: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the development of Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints to allow the construction of a single family residence on the property located at 85 Winburn Way. The application includes requests for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands (18.3.10.090.B Hillside Grading & Erosion Control) to allow structural retaining walls along the west side of the property to exceed seven feet in height and for Tree Removal Permits. 18 of the site’s 21 trees are proposed for removal, including three significant trees 18-inches or more in diameter which require Tree Removal Permits. I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Applications In November of 1980, a lot line adjustment was granted. In January of 1983, a request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review to construct an arbor addition for outdoor seating at the Creek View Café was approved. The Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 1 of 19 application included a setback Variance to build within nine feet of the front property line and a Variance to the parking requirement of 23-24 spaces for 40 indoor and 50 outdoor seats. With the approval, only seven automobile and seven bicycle parking spaces were required to be provided for 90 seats (i.e. a Variance of 16 spaces). That approval was based largely on the high percentage of patrons who were park visitors or downtown pedestrians patronizing the establishment as a secondary destination. In March of 2003, a request for Site Review approval for the construction of an enclosure for the Lithia Park Café was approved. From late 2010 through mid-2011, a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change from Single Family Residential (R-1-7.5) to Commercial Downtown (C-1-D), Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit, Tree Removal Permit to remove five trees, Site Review approval to construct a new 10,632 square foot café/restaurant, and a Development Agreement for the four properties located at 59-85 Winburn Way was considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval with a number of conditions, but the application was ultimately withdrawn before the findings and Development Agreement were finalized and signed. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The Site The parcel is roughly rectangular and has an area of approximately 0.29 acres. The property currently contains a café building previously known as the Lithia Park Café or Creek View Café. County records indicate that the block building is currently approximately 1,064 square feet and dates to approximately 1950. County records also note a 347 square foot accessory structure and covered patio area. Winburn Way is paved along the subject property’ frontage with curbs, gutters and curbside sidewalks in place. Ashland Creek, a fish-bearing riparian stream, and the National Register of Historic Places-listed Lithia Park are located to the east, just across Winburn Way, and the historic Skidmore Academy District residential neighborhood is located along Granite Street to the west. Topographically, there is a significant ridge separating the property from the homes on Granite Street, resulting in an elevation gain of as much as 24 feet between the ground level of the subject property and the backyard above. The Proposal The proposal involves demolishing the existing structures on the site and constructing a new single family residence. Because this will entail the disturbance of hillside lands (those with slopes of 25 percent or more) and of severe constraints lands (those with slopes of 35 percent or more) a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit is required. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 2 of 19 The application also includes a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands to allow structural retaining walls along the west side of the property to exceed seven feet in height. AMC 18.3.10.090.B includes Hillside Grading & Erosion Control standards which do not allow wall in excess of seven feet and instead require terracing. The application identifies 21 trees on the subject property, and notes that with the proposed development 18 of these trees will be removed. Tree removal here is considered under AMC 18.3.10, the Physical & Environmental Constraints chapter, and under AMC 18.5.7, the Tree Removal Permits chapter, which regulates the removal of significant trees on R-1 zoned properties not occupied solely by a single family residence and associated accessory structures. Three of the 18 trees to be removed are considered to be significant because they are 18-inches or more in diameter and therefore require Tree Removal Permits. I. Project Impact Because the proposal is limited to the construction of a single family residence in a residential zone, no Site Design Review application is required and the current request is limited to consideration of a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit. While the subject property is located in the Skidmore Academy Historic District, the application is not subject to review by the Historic Commission or to consideration in light of the Historic District Development Standards. The Historic Commission’s powers and duties are to “review and make recommendations concerning the improvement of designated historic properties in connection with the issuance of building permits, zone changes, conditional use permits, variances, sign permits, and site reviews (see AMC 2.24.040.D).” AMC 18.3.10.050 provides that applications for Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permits are subject to “Type I” administrative review procedures. The proposal involves the disturbance of hillside lands with slopes of 35 percent or more which are considered to have “severe constraints” to development and are often considered to be unbuildable. The proposal also involves removal of a fifty-year old nonconforming commercial structure and use and replacing it with a home consistent with the current single-family residential zoning. The Staff Advisor opted to exercise the authority provided under AMC 18.5.1.010.B.2 and refer the request to the Planning Commission for its review and decision through a public hearing because of the change in use and the degree of physical improvements including the development of severe constraints lands downslope of existing residential properties and the complexity of the tree removal permit requests. The subject property here is unique in that its location, while prominent, is at the edge of the downtown core, at street level and with slopes previously created - and left largely un-retained - when the site originally developed. In addition, the existing commercial development located on the site includes a nonconforming structure and use that predates the current single-family residential zoning. However, the proposal to re-develop the site with a single-family home is consistent with the current zoning. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 3 of 19 A.Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit The first criterion for the approval of a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit 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 application explains that the proposed residence and associated site work have been designed in accordance with the requirements and standards of the Hillside Development chapter of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. All site grading, retaining wall design, drainage and erosion control plans will either be designed or approved by a geotechnical expert. A detailed site analysis and geotechnical report prepared by Rick Swanson, P.E., G.E., of Marquess & Associates has been provided, and all cuts, grading and fill will also conform to the Oregon Residential Structural Specialty Code. The application further notes that one proposed wall exceeds the standards of the ordinance which require terracing for walls in excess of seven feet, and an Exception is requested. The application goes on to point out that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the ordinance, that erosion control measures will be implemented on the site throughout the duration of the construction to minimize any run- off or erosion from disturbed areas and that permanent landscaping will be installed to prevent erosion in the long-term. The applicant emphasizes that the structure complies with the lot coverage, setbacks, and maximum permitted floor area, and has been shifted to the steeper south side of the parcel to comply with solar setbacks. The applicant further points out that while the north end of the site has lesser hillside constraints, there is not enough area to construct a new residence here to comply with solar setback standards. The applicant also indicates that access management standards require a separation from the existing driveway of at least 24 feet which requires that the driveway be located on the northern end of the property. The application recognizes that the site has slopes which are in excess of 35 percent and which are defined by code as “severe constraints lands.” These lands are described as being extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling or vegetation removal, and whenever possible alternative development should be considered. In considering the severe constraints lands, the applicant notes that their geotechnical expert has advised that the steep slopes require retention to protect the proposed residence from erosion as well as to provide protection in the event of an earthquake or slope failure and to provide protection by supporting the slope which supports the property uphill. The materials provided further explain that the applicant considered requesting a front setback variance as a means to pull the home away from the more sloped portion of the site, but ultimately determined that such a variance would be inappropriate and detrimental to the development pattern on Winburn Way. When considered in light of this development pattern, the need to retain the slope at the rear of the property, and design efforts to limit the width of the residence to minimize slope disturbance, the applicant asserts that the encroachment into the slope exceeding 35 percent is warranted. The application materials further detail that the geotechnical expert and structural engineers determined the location and heights of the proposed retaining walls. The existing stacked rock retaining wall that transects a number of the properties on Winburn Way will be retained above the areas of disturbance to prevent erosion and disturbance on Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 4 of 19 the adjacent properties and the properties above on Granite Street for which the wall was originally constructed. All disturbed areas are proposed to be re-vegetated with properly selected plant materials to prevent further erosion, and a planting plan is included with the application materials. The application emphasizes that upon completion, there will be no un-retained cut slopes proposed for the site. Due to the excessive slope at the west edge of the development area, the retaining wall is greater than seven feet in height and cannot be terraced. According to the project geotechnical expert, surface erosion is present. The building area in hillside portions of the site has been minimized to reduce disturbance. The slope at the rear of the property will require a visible sloped retaining wall from 11 to 15 feet in height at the maximum in order to stabilize the hillside. According to the project geotechnical expert, the retaining wall cannot be terraced as terracing would weaken and destabilize the slope and there is simply not enough area to provide terracing. The applicant emphasizes that the Development Standards for Hillside Land specifically exempt structure foundation walls from the height limitations of the ordinance, and further explain that the proposed wall is behind the residence similar to all of the structural retaining walls along Winburn Way and will be primarily visible to the residents from the subject property itself. The view of the full height will not be visible in its entirety from adjacent properties or from the right-of-way due to the terracing of the landscape walls and planters adjacent to the property lines. The application concludes that the majority of the development is on existing level areas of the site, with the structure to be cut into the hillside to the extent the site permits. The structure is designed to step away from the front property line to reduce the visual bulk of the proposed residence. A planting plan has been provided detailing the re-vegetation of disturbed areas including the upper retaining wall terraces with native plants or similar species, and the site is to be irrigated. The proposed trees to be planted are to be larger stature specimens to provide instant screening and buffering between the residence and neighboring properties. The application suggests that the request to disturb un-natural, manmade severe constraints lands through the construction of slope stabilizing, structural retaining walls will reduce the existing potential hazards and potential adverse material impacts that the existing overly steep, un-retained cut slope creates. The project team suggests that the cut slope will be improved versus leaving those slopes un-retained based on the geotechnical experts letter addressing hillside stability provided as Attachment E to the application. The applicant also points out that they had initially sought to retain the majority of trees on the site, including three large Oak trees on the cut face of the embankment, but upon review of the trees by a certified arborist it was determined that the trees exhibit signs of decline with large decay pockets at the base of their trunks. The trees proposed for removal from lands with slopes of 25 percent or more have been identified by the arborist as either exhibiting health issues or exhibiting structural issues that pose a threat to the safety of the residents. The second approval criterion is, “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.” Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 5 of 19 The application explains that the site has been assessed by a geotechnical expert and by structural engineers, and they have determined that the proposed construction of a structural retaining wall on the steep slope of the property mitigates the potential hazards caused by an un-retained cut slope. There are concerns about the residential structure’s safety and risk located at the bottom of an unstable and extremely steep unnatural cut slope. The project engineers have determined that leaving the cut slope un-retained creates a situation where there are potential hazards and that the proposed development mitigates those without causing additional hazards. The application further suggests that the natural grade differs from the current slope, which has been altered over time, and is nearer to 15-20 percent. The adjacent northern and southern properties’ cut slopes are considerable different that on the subject property, and the applicant concludes that the varying cut slope on the subject site appears to have been created by the original property owner (Perozzi) for his personal residence which was directly above the subject property at the top of the cut slope with a large, flat yard that crosses the west property line onto the subject property and appears to have been created for his residence’s benefit. This created a cut slope that is fairly uniform on the city-owned properties to the south and north of the subject site. The applicant further explains that they have planned for retention of the slope in a manner similar to the other buildings along Winburn Way, however they emphasize that their site is more restricted by its limited depth on the more buildable southern portion of the site. The applicant emphasizes that no fill is proposed as part of the project to eliminate the potential hazard that fill slopes can create. All cuts are to be structurally retained with engineered retaining walls, and all landscaping is to be maintained in perpetuity and monitored as part of the property owners’ yard. These measures are intended to prevent potential hazards to adjacent properties. The application also points out that the subject property is outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain, and that the Winburn Way curb line is 2½ to three feet higher than the FEMA base flood elevation. The project’s civil engineer has provided a letter to address any potential concerns over proximity to the floodplain as “Attachment D” to the application. The third approval criterion is, “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.” The applicant suggests that the building footprint of the property is severely reduced by the impact of yard and solar setbacks, cut slope erosion safety setbacks, and the garage/access safety constraints posed by parking in the “Ice Rink Lot” to the south and the opposing head-in parking across Winburn Way. The applicant suggests that the proposed residence and associated retention measures for the steep slopes at the rear of the property will reduce adverse impacts on the environment by protecting the properties to the west above the slope and the properties to the north and south adjacent to the un- retained slope. Based on the information provided by the project geotechnical expert and upon observations of the cut slope on adjacent properties, the applicant finds that the existing condition of exposed cuts creates adverse impacts and have the potential for very Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 6 of 19 serious adverse impacts and potential hazards due to an un-retained ten- to 20-foot tall cut bank which in some areas has slopes in excess of 50 percent. The applicant suggests that once a structure is constructed on the site, even if the slope was left untouched now, geological forces would likely eventually require retention measures at some point in the future. The applicant indicates that it is prudent to address slope stability in advance of constructing a structure on site rather than going back after the fact and potentially undermining the foundation of a new residence and the other existing residences on Granite Street above. The applicant further explains that a stairway is proposed between the rear retaining walls, and that this stairway will serve two functions: first, in providing a measure of terracing to reduce the structural mass of the rear wall of the residence and the wall-side retaining wall; and second, in allowing the construction of a walkway that will provide not only residential access to the rear of the property but will also allow for firefighter access pathway as required in the wildfire lands overlay of the city. The proposed method of retaining wall construction is noted as being similar to that used for construction of the Community Development and Engineering Services building at 51 Winburn Way, but the proposed retaining wall is also to be the rear wall of the residence for most of its span where the Community Development building wall is separate from the retaining wall. The applicant concludes that the site restrictions and conditions warrant pushing the proposed building’s footprint into the unusually steep manmade slope that is an unusable area of the lot. They argue that without retaining the slope, the restrictions of the site due to yard area setbacks, solar setbacks, and provisions for parking, the buildable area would be reduced to an area unreasonable for the site. They further emphasize that the proposed residence and site improvements comply with all land use setbacks and no variances are requested, and that with the proposal control of soil erosion will be improved, sedimentation of lower slopes decreased, and the risk of landslide damage or flooding problems reduced. They assert that the proposal is designed in a manner that is sensitive to locally significant properties and city amenities, and that the building design is historically compatible and will enhance the streetscape by providing large overhangs; deep, useable porches; initial planting of mature landscaping; and a side-loading garage. They suggest that the proposed materials of natural stone and wood, the use of flat roofs, and the rhythm of openings address the transition between Ashland’s historic, commercial downtown, Lithia Park, and the adjacent residential neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Severe constraints lands are described in the Hillside Ordinance as being extremely sensitive to development, and whenever possible alternatives to their development are to be considered. Typically, proposals involving the development of hillside lands with severe constraints are on steep, undisturbed natural slopes visible from around the city with the potential for impacts to properties above and below them. The subject property here is unique in that its location, while prominent, is at the edge of the downtown core, at street level and with slopes previously created - and left largely un-retained - when the site originally developed. In addition, the existing commercial development located on the site includes a nonconforming structure and use that predates the current single-family residential zoning. However, the proposal to re- develop the site with a single-family home is consistent with the current zoning. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 7 of 19 When the existing sloped areas and residential setbacks are considered, the site is constrained at its shallowest point to only approximately sixteen feet in depth between the front setback line and regulated hillside slopes. As such, staff believes that it is necessary and reasonable that re-development of the site will impact these slopes to some degree, and the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed home can be constructed in keeping with the approval criteria and development standards for hillside lands with severe constraints. B.Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands The application explains that there is one Exception requested to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands. The proposed retaining wall along the west side of the proposed residence is more than seven feet tall and will not have terraces. In the “Hillside Grading and Erosion Control” portion of the standards, AMC 18.3.10.090.B.4.B requires that exposed cut slopes greater than seven feet be terraced, that the cut faces on a terraced section not exceed five feet, that terrace widths be a minimum of three feet, and that the total cut slopes not exceed a vertical height of 15 feet. The first approval criterion for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands 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 applicant suggests that the site is unique in that it has historically had commercial development while the original business owner owned and resided on the adjacent property above. The existing landscaping and retaining walls on the upper portions of the subject property were installed to create a flat back yard for the property above. The application materials explain that the parcel is relatively level except for the rear (western) portion, which has overly-steepened, un-retained cut slopes with slopes in excess of 35 percent. The applicant further notes that the parcel is wider along the street than it is deep, and that the buildable area is reduced by both the standard setbacks and the solar setbacks as they pertain to the north property line. Due to the location on a busy public street with high volumes of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, including head-in parking for Lithia Park and the proximity to the skating rink and children’s playground, the project team found it imperative that the garage be side-loading with all vehicular movement areas on the property to reduce the potential for conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. The applicant suggests that this situation, coupled with the solar setback, required that the construction on the site be on the south end where the steeper slopes are located. The application details that the wall of the proposed residence is to be placed against the hillside, forming retention for the steep slopes behind the wall. A portion of the wall is the structural retaining wall for the structure, but also for the support of the steep slope, and provides a stairway for a required firefighter access pathway to the rear of the structure. The second approval criterion is that, “The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter.” Here the applicant notes that the wall of more than seven feet tall without terracing will provide superior retention for Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 8 of 19 the steeply sloped portions of the property. The project geo-technical expert found that terracing the slope would weaken the structural support that is necessary for the steep embankments and would further increase the disturbed area. The applicant concludes that providing a wall without terraces will protect a greater area of the slope and will result in greater protection of the topography and trees on the upper portions of the property. The third criterion is that, “The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty.” The applicant indicates that the exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty, and that no adjacent properties will be negatively affected by the proposed wall height. The application materials further suggest that the proposed wall height will provide stability for the property uphill, and that the exception has been recommended by the project geo-technical expert to reduce cuts into the hillside for terracing both to minimize destabilization of the existing slope and because a single wall has more strength than a series of shorter walls. The fourth and final approval criterion is that, “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 purpose and intent of the chapter speak to providing: safe,orderly,andbeneficialdevelopmentofdistrictscharacterizedbydiversityof physiographicconditionsandsignificantnaturalfeatures;tolimitalterationof topographyandreduceencroachmentupon,oralterationof,anynatural environmentand;toprovideforsensitivedevelopmentinareasthatare constrainedbyvariousnaturalfeatures.Physiographicconditionsandsignificant naturalfeaturescanbeconsideredtoinclude,butarenotlimitedto:slopeofthe land,naturaldrainageways,wetlands,soilcharacteristics,potentiallandslide areas,naturalandwildlifehabitats,forestedareas,significanttrees,and significantnaturalvegetation. The application emphasizes that the proposed retaining wall is supporting a hillside that appears to have been artificially created through cuts for the development of the sites along Winburn Way, and suggests that the retaining wall as proposed will provide stability for an overly steep, un-retained slope. Staff Recommendation In staff’s assessment, the shallow depth of the lot combines with the constraints of the steep, artificial cut slope and existing retaining to create a demonstrable difficulty in retaining the cuts at the rear of the property with a series of short terraced walls. The project geo-technical expert has determined that the proposed wall of 11 to 15 feet tall without terracing will provide superior retention for the steeply sloped portions of the property because a single wall has more strength than a series of shorter terrace walls, that terracing the slope would weaken the structural support necessary for the steep embankments, and that terracing would further increase the disturbed area. In staff’s assessment the application can be found to meet the approval criteria for the requested Exception. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 9 of 19 C.Tree Removal Permits The application identifies 21 trees on the subject property, and notes that with the proposed development 18 of these trees will be removed. Tree removal here is considered under AMC 18.3.10, the Physical & Environmental Constraints chapter which regulates the removal of trees in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, and under AMC 18.5.7, the Tree Removal Permits chapter, which regulates the removal of significant trees on R-1 zoned properties not occupied solely by a single family residence and associated accessory structures. Tree Conservation, Protection and RemovalStandards in AMC 18.3.10.090.D The Development Standards for Hillside Lands include specific standards for “Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal” which require that all trees of six-inches or more in diameter be inventoried and their suitability for conservation evaluated in terms of their health, structure, species, longevity, variety and size. Under these standards, conifers of 24-inches or more in diameter at breast height and broadleaf trees of 12- inches or more in diameter at breast height are considered to be significant and are to be protected and incorporated into the project design whenever possible. In terms of the Development Standards for Hillside Lands, all requested tree removals are subject to the following standards: Thetreeislocatedwithinthebuildingenvelope. o Thetreeislocatedwithinaproposedstreet,driveway,orparkingarea. o Thetreeislocatedwithinawater,sewer,orotherpublicutilityeasement. o Thetreeisdeterminedbyalandscapeprofessionaltobedeadordiseased,orit o constitutesanunacceptablehazardtolifeorpropertywhenevaluatedbythestandards in18.3.10.090.D.2. Thetreeislocatedwithinoradjacenttoareasofcutsorfillsthataredeemed o threateningtothelifeofthetree,asdeterminedbyalandscapeprofessional. The trees proposed for removal from the regulated hillside lands include Trees #11, #12, #13, #15, #16, #18, #23, and #24. Of these, Trees #15, #18, #23 and #24 are considered to be significant trees under the Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal Standards. The application emphasizes that the tree removals requested here are all on the steep slopes above the buildable area of the site, and include: Trees #11, #12, #13 and #15: These are four Big Leaf Maples, two of these are seven- inches in diameter, one is ten-inches in diameter, and one (#15) is 12-inches in diameter and considered to be significant. The three smaller trees are noted as being in fair to good health but are juvenile trees that are growing with a significant lean towards the proposed residence. The arborist indicates that infant leaning Trees #11 and #12 will become more of a concern as they mature, threatening people and structures in proximity, but suggests that Tree #13 has good structure and is outside of the immediate construction footprint. The arborist concludes that this tree is viable and could be Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 10 of 19 preserved. The applicant notes that the larger tree (Tree #15) will be negatively impacted by construction and preservation would require the removal of a large, seven-inch stem which would further impact the tree. The arborist report suggests that this tree has a full canopy and is in good health, and that while its critical root zone will be impacted by construction it is a fairly young tree and may be able to withstand some root cutting and remain viable in the landscape. The arborist notes that the lower seven-inch leg may need to be removed to accommodate the proposed building and recommends that deadwood be removed from the canopy. The applicant notes that Big Leaf Maples are intolerant to construction impacts and are a common species in the vicinity, and proposes to remove all four trees. Trees #16-17: These are bothEnglish Walnut Trees, one six-inches in diameter and the other eight-inches in diameter. Tree #16 is at the edge of the sloped area, and #17 appears to be outside of the steeply sloped area. The six-inch diameter tree is noted as having included bark and an eight-inch co-dominant leader which has caused structural instability while the eight-inch tree leans significantly. The project arborist suggests that Tree #16 may be able to be preserved with some pruning, but indicates that Tree #17 has a substantial lean which predisposes it to eventual uprooting failure. The arborist explains that English walnuts are intolerant to construction; produce a chemical called juglone that prohibits other vegetation from growing under their canopy creating an environment that is not conducive to growing future trees or plants; and produce walnuts which, in proximity to a deck, patio or staircase could create a slipping hazard. The arborist recommends that both of these trees be removed. Trees #18, #23-24: Three Oak Trees (quercus kelloggii and quercus garryanna). These are the largest and most visible trees on the site. Tree #18 is a significant (15-inch diameter) Black Oak that is noted as being in poor health. It is within the proposed building footprint and has a significant decay pocket at its base and there is only three- to five-inches of viable rind wood supporting the tree. The arborist suggests that this tree is currently a hazard as it has a heavy lean toward the existing building and future residence and it has limited anchoring support due to its location on the cut bank. Tree #23 is a significant (26-inch diameter) Black Oak. The applicant explains that according to the arborist’s report, this tree looks good from a distance and has a healthy and full crown, but upon closer inspection it is in hazardous condition as it has three co-dominant stems which, due to weak attachments have been cabled together in the past. These cables have broken and are now hanging in the canopy. The applicant notes a large decay pocket leading to a cavernous hollow in the tree, and the arborist finds it to be an imminent danger of collapse and in need of removal given its location 3 ½ feet from the cut bank with a portion leaning toward the existing building and future house. Tree #24 is a significant (16-inch diameter) White Oak on the edge of the cut bank with exposed roots. The applicant explains that the erosive soil on the site is a poor growing medium for the tree and that the tree is in danger of uprooting with further erosion of the cut slope. The arborist emphasizes that the erosion which has taken place has compromised the stabilizing function of the roots, and the trees poses a major threat of collapse and should be removed. With regard to the Oaks, the applicant further explains that in the past few years, Oaks in this particular area, including on the subject property, have succumbed to Sudden Oak Death. In August of 2014, an approximately 36-inch diameter white oak tree fell, Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 11 of 19 destroying a shed on the subject property and lightly impacting the roof of Pioneer Hall on the adjacent city property. An arborist consulted by the Parks Department at the time determined that the tree’s collapse may have been due to Armillaria or “Oak fungus”, a common fungal root disease that can cause a reduction in growth, wood decay and ultimately death of the infected tree. This raised concerns with the Parks Department with the health and safety of trees on the slope above the Ice Rink lot to the south of the subject property, and after consulting an arborist, the Parks Department ultimately obtained emergency tree removal permits to remove eight significant trees when it was determined based on an arborist’s assessment that they posed “an immediate danger of collapse, as defined in AMC 18.61.020, as both situated on a cut bank with granitic soils and a heavy lean, therefore considered an extreme hazard. With the impending rainy season, the arborist fears that these trees may fail at any moment, and are in need to be removed as soon as possible.” The applicant also notes that in the last year, a large Oak across the street in Lithia Park that was exhibiting signs of Sudden Oak Death had to be removed. The applicant emphasizes that Sudden Oak Death presents itself in the root system below the soil and there is little warning before the tree topples. The tree that fell on the subject property looked perfectly healthy until it fell. A certified arborist has reviewed the health of the trees and provided a comprehensive evaluation as Attachment C to the application. The applicant emphasizes that these three Oaks proposed for removal are all located on the un-retained cut slope, and their location above the building envelope and the presence of decay pockets pose a hazard to the subject property and those adjacent to it. Staff Recommendation Based on the project arborist’s report and the applicant’s other submittals, staff believes that Trees #11, #12, #16, #18, #23, and #24 can be found to meet the “Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal Standards” given their locations and conditions, however the arborist’s report indicates that Trees #13 and #15 may be able to be preserved with the proposed development. In staff’s assessment, the Planning Commission should consider a condition to require that trees #13 and #15 be preserved and protected based on the arborist’s recommendations. Tree Removal Permits Chapter 18.5.7 The Tree Removal Permits chapter considers all trees over 18-inches in diameter to be significant, and requires permits for the removal of any significant trees on R-1 zoned property not occupied solely by a single family residence and its associated accessory structures. Three of the 18 trees to be removed here are considered to be significant because they are 18-inches or more in diameter and therefore require Tree Removal Permits. These include Tree #1 (18-inch Black Pine), Tree #23 (26-inch Black Oak) and Tree #25 (19-inch Black Oak) which are all considered to be significant in terms of the Tree Removal Permits chapter (AMC 18.5.7). These trees are further described as follows: Tree #1, an 18-inch diameter Black Pine, is described as currently in a healthy state, but the arborist’s report notes that a patio and wall are to be constructed within five feet of the tree. The construction will negatively impact the critical root zone and render the tree Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 12 of 19 unstable, creating a hazard. Because of the location in regard to future construction impacts, the arborist recommends removal of the tree. Tree #23 is the 26-inch diameter Black Oak also considered above. The applicant explains that according to the arborist’s report, this tree looks good from a distance but upon closer inspection it is in hazardous condition as it has three co-dominant stems which, due to weak attachments have been cabled together in the past. These cables have broken and are now hanging in the canopy. The applicant notes a large decay pocket leading to a cavernous hollow in the tree, and the arborist finds it to be an imminent danger of collapse and in need of removal. Tree #25 is described as a 19-inch diameter Black Oak that is in fair condition, but which is also on the cut bank and leaning toward the public parking lot to the south. The applicant notes that this tree also has a decay pocket at its base. The application materials discuss recent incidents of Sudden Oak Death in the immediate vicinity, and emphasizes that the Oaks proposed for removal are all located on the un-retained cut slope, and their location above the building envelope and the presence of decay pockets pose a hazard to the subject property and those properties adjacent to it. They further emphasize that there are no reasonable alternatives such as pruning that would alleviate the hazards because the trees are leaning and have pockets of decay at their bases. The application speaks to the non-hazard removal criteria for these trees, emphasizing that the removals requested will not have significant negative impacts on erosion or soil stability, and that there is no surface water present on the site. They further suggest that the proposal will benefit the remaining trees as competition for light, air and ground water will be lessened. They suggest that the trees to be removed are not part of a windbreak, and are in an area that will be retained with a structure or with new landscaping that is more appropriate to the site. They point out that there are numerous Maples, Walnuts and Oaks on other properties within 200 feet, and that the tree removal proposed will not have a negative impact on canopy coverage. They further emphasize that most of the trees proposed for removal are in hazardous condition and that there are no reasonable alternatives such as pruning that would alleviate the hazards because the trees are leaning and have decay pockets. They propose to mitigate the non-hazard tree removals with the installation of large stature (two-inch diameter or greater) deciduous trees as part of the proposed landscaping plan. In addition, new street trees are to be planted in the front yard retaining wall planter beds to mitigate the removal of the two Maples currently planted behind the sidewalk. Staff Recommendation The arborist suggests that Tree #23 poses an imminent danger of collapse, and that Tree #25 is on a cut bank leaning toward the adjacent public parking lot and that these hazards cannot be alleviated. In staff’s view, both of these trees can be found to meet the criteria for removal as hazards based on the arborist’s assessment. In staff’s view, Tree #1 cannot readily be deemed a hazard since the arborist’s assessment makes clear that the tree is currently in a healthy state but will be rendered a hazard with the proposed development in proximity to its root zone. However, the proposed removal of Tree #1 is necessitated by the applicant’s pushing the building to the southernmost portion of the site to comply with solar access standards and to Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 13 of 19 accommodate a basement garage and driveway which will enable cars to exit to the street in a forward manner to avoid conflicts with pedestrians, vehicular traffic and cars backing out of head-in parking across Winburn Way which could be found to be in keeping with the standards for removal of a tree that is not a hazard. The Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the application as this report is being prepared; a condition of approval has been recommended below to require that the recommendations of the Tree Commission be made conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The approval criteria for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit are as follows: AMC18.3.10.050ApprovalCriteria.AnapplicationforaPhysicalConstraintsReview PermitissubjecttotheTypeIprocedureinsection18.5.1.050andshallbeapprovedifthe proposalmeetsallofthefollowingcriteria. A.Throughtheapplicationofthedevelopmentstandardsofthischapter,thepotential impactstothepropertyandnearbyareashavebeenconsidered,andadverseimpacts havebeenminimized. B.Thattheapplicanthasconsideredthepotentialhazardsthatthedevelopmentmay causedbythe createandimplementedmeasurestomitigatethepotentialhazards development. C.Thattheapplicanthastakenallreasonablestepstoreducetheadverseimpactonthe environment.Irreversibleactionsshallbeconsideredmoreseriouslythanreversible actions.TheStaffAdvisororPlanningCommissionshallconsidertheexisting developmentofthesurroundingarea,andthemaximumdevelopmentpermittedbythis ordinance. The approval criteria for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands are as follows: AMC18.3.10.090.H.ExceptiontotheDevelopmentStandardsforHillsideLands.Anexception underthissectionisnotsubjecttothevariancerequirementsofchapter18.5.5Variances.An applicationforanexceptionissubjecttotheTypeIprocedureinsection18.5.1.050andmaybe grantedwithrespecttothedevelopmentstandardsforHillsideLandsiftheproposalmeetsallof thefollowingcriteria. 1.Thereisdemonstrabledifficultyinmeetingthespecificrequirementsofthischapterdue toauniqueorunusualaspectofthesiteorproposeduseofthesite. 2.Theexceptionwillresultinequalorgreaterprotectionoftheresourcesprotectedunder thischapter. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 14 of 19 3.Theexceptionistheminimumnecessarytoalleviatethedifficulty. 4.TheexceptionisconsistentwiththestatedPurposeandIntentofchapter18.3.10 PhysicalandEnvironmentalConstraintsOverlaychapterandsection18.3.10.090 DevelopmentStandardsforHillsideLands. The approval criteria for Tree Removal Permits are as follows: AMC18.5.7.040.BTreeRemovalPermit. 1.HazardTree.AHazardTreeRemovalPermitshallbegrantediftheapprovalauthority findsthattheapplicationmeetsallofthefollowingcriteria,orcanbemadetoconform throughtheimpositionofconditions. a.Theapplicantmustdemonstratethattheconditionorlocationofthetreepresentsa clearpublicsafetyhazard(i.e.,likelytofallandinjurepersonsorproperty)ora foreseeabledangerofpropertydamagetoanexistingstructureorfacility,andsuch hazardordangercannotreasonablybealleviatedbytreatment,relocation,or pruning.Seedefinitionofhazardtreeinpart18.6. b.TheCitymayrequiretheapplicanttomitigatefortheremovalofeachhazardtree pursuanttosection18.5.7.050.Suchmitigationrequirementsshallbeaconditionof approvalofthepermit. ATreeRemovalPermitforatreethatisnotahazardshallbe 2.TreeThatisNotaHazard. grantediftheapprovalauthorityfindsthattheapplicationmeetsallofthefollowing criteria,orcanbemadetoconformthroughtheimpositionofconditions. theapplicationtobeconsistent 1.Thetreeisproposedforremovalinordertopermit withotherapplicableLandUseOrdinancerequirementsandstandards,including butnotlimitedtoapplicableSiteDevelopmentandDesignStandardsinpart18.4 andPhysicalandEnvironmentalConstraintsinpart18.10. 2.Removalofthetreewillnothaveasignificantnegativeimpactonerosion,soil stability,flowofsurfacewaters,protectionofadjacenttrees,orexistingwindbreaks. 3.Removalofthetreewillnothaveasignificantnegativeimpactonthetreedensities, sizes,canopies,andspeciesdiversitywithin200feetofthesubjectproperty.The Cityshallgrantanexceptiontothiscriterionwhenalternativestothetreeremoval havebeenconsideredandnoreasonablealternativeexiststoallowthepropertyto beusedaspermittedinthezone. 4.Nothinginthissectionshallrequirethattheresidentialdensitytobereducedbelow thepermitteddensityallowedbythezone.Inmakingthisdetermination,theCity mayconsideralternativesiteplansorplacementofstructuresofalternate landscapingdesignsthatwouldlessentheimpactontrees,solongasthe alternativescontinuetocomplywiththeotherprovisionsofthisordinance. 5.TheCityshallrequiretheapplicanttomitigatefortheremovalofeachtreegranted approvalpursuanttosection18.5.7.050.Suchmitigationrequirementsshallbea Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 15 of 19 conditionofapprovalofthepermit. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations As discussed above, severe constraints lands are considered to be extremely sensitive to development, and whenever possible alternatives to their development are to be considered. Typically, proposals involving the development of hillside lands with severe constraints are on steep, undisturbed natural slopes visible from around the city with the potential for development to significantly impact properties both above and below. When the existing sloped areas and residential setbacks are considered, the site is constrained at its shallowest point to only approximately 16 feet in depth between the front setback line and regulated hillside slopes. The subject property is unique in that it includes slopes previously created - and left largely un-retained - when the site originally developed. On what would normally be the downhill slope of a severe constraints property, the subject property is relatively flat and adjacent to a street and park. In addition, the existing commercial development located on the site includes a nonconforming structure and use that predates the current single-family residential zoning. However, the proposal to re-develop the site with a single-family home is consistent with the current zoning. In staff’s opionion, it is necessary and reasonable to expect that re-development of the site will impact these slopes to some degree, and the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed home can be constructed in keeping with the approval criteria and development standards for hillside lands with severe constraints. The shallow depth of the lot combine with the constraints of the steep, artificial cut slope and existing retaining pose a demonstrable difficulty in retaining the cuts at the rear of the property through the short terraced walls called for in the development standards. The project geo-technical expert indicates that the proposed wall of 11-15 feet in height without terracing will provide superior retention for the steeply sloped areas at the rear of the property because a single wall has more strength than a series of shorter terraced walls, and that terracing the slope would weaken the structural support necessary for the steep embankments while further increasing the extent of site disturbance necessary. In staff’s assessment, based on the project geo-technical expert’s recommendation, the requested Exception with regard to the rear wall height can be found to meet the applicable criteria and merits approval. The application identifies 21 trees on the subject property, and notes that with the proposed development 18 of these are to be removed. Tree removal here is considered under both the Physical & Environmental Constraints chapter, which regulates the removal of trees in areas identified as Hillside Land and Severe Constraint Land, and under the Tree Removal Permits chapter, which regulates the removal of significant trees on R-1 zoned properties not occupied solely by a single family residence and associated accessory structures. Based on the applicant’s submitted materials including an arborist’s report, staff believes that the bulk of the tree removals requested are consistent with the applicable criteria and should be approved particularly given that a number of the trees proposed for removal have been determined to pose a hazard in their current state even if no development were proposed. Howeve,r based on indications from the arborist that Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 16 of 19 Trees #13 and #15 may be able to be preserved in conjunction with the proposed development staff have recommended a condition below that they be preserved and protected. Staff believes that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed home can be constructed in keeping with the applicable criteria and development standards, and recommends that the application be approved with the conditions detailed below: 1.That all proposals of the applicants shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2.That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height –6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade shall be provided with the building permit submittals. 4.Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, circulation areas and other lot coverage shall be provided with the building permit submittals. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 45 percent allowed in the R-1-7.5 zoning district. 5.Verification that the new home complies with the Maximum Permitted Floor Area requirements of AMC 18.2.5.070 shall be provided with the building permit submittals. 6.That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 7.That the property owner(s) shall sign in favor of local improvement districts for the future improvements of Winburn Way as required in AMC 18.4.6.030.B., including but not limited to sidewalks, parkrow, curb, gutter and storm drainage prior to the issuance of a building permit. 8.That the recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their December 3, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 17 of 19 9.That the applicant shall provide a revised Tree Protection and Removal Plan (Sheet L-2.0) which details the preservation and protection of Trees #13 and #15 as recommended by the project arborist prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10.That a Verification Permit shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to site work, staging, building demolition, 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 to be protected on and adjacent to the site. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall. 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. 11.Replacement trees to mitigate the trees removed, including the two street trees to be removed, shall be planted and irrigated according to the approved plan. Street trees shall be chosen from the adopted Street Tree List. 12.A written verification from the project geotechnical expert addressing the consistency of the building permit submittals with the geotechnical report recommendations (e.g. grading plan, storm drainage plan, foundation plan, etc.) shall be submitted with the building permit. 13.That a preconstruction conference to review the requirements of the Hillside Development Permit shall be held prior to site work, the issuance of an excavation permit or the issuance of a building permit, whichever action occurs first. The conference shall include the Ashland Planning Department, Ashland Building Department, the project engineer, project geotechnical experts, landscape professional, arborist and the general contractor. The applicant or applicants’ representative shall contact the Ashland Planning Department to schedule the preconstruction conference. 14.That the foundation shall be designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design experience in accordance with 18.3.10.090.F. 15.That Marquess & Associates shall inspect the site according to the inspection schedule of the engineering geology report by Rick Swanson included in the application and date stamped October 23, 2015. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Marquess & Associates shall provide a final report indicating that the approved earthwork, foundation installation, subdrainage installation, 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. 16.That all measures installed for the purposes of long-term erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls, retaining walls and landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas in accordance with 18.3.10.090.B.7. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 18 of 19 17.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. 18.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed including approved addressing and provisions for an approved firefighter access pathway (i.e. footpath) around the structure. 19.That the new driveway approaches be permitted through the Engineering Division and are required to comply with the maximum widths for residential curb cuts and be separated from existing driveways by a minimum of 24-feet per City of Ashland Street Standards. 20.That the applicant shall obtain approval of a Demolition/Relocation Review Permit prior to the demolition of any structures on the site if deemed necessary by the Building Official. Planning Action PA #2015-02038 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: Bryan and Stephanie DeBoer Page 19 of 19 TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING _________________________________ PA-2015-01856 229 W. Hersey Street ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT December 8, 2015 PLANNING ACTION: #2015-01856 OWNER/APPLICANT: RW Signature Properties LLC LOCATION: 229 W. Hersey St. ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density Multi-Family Residential APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE: November 30, 2015 120-DAY TIME LIMIT: March 29, 2016 ORDINANCE REFERENCE ( seehttp://www.ashland.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use code on-line): 18.2.2 Base Zones & Allowed Uses 18.2.5Standards for Residential Zones 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation & Design 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.6.020 Exception to Street Standards 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.7 Tree Removal Permits REQUEST: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family residential units for the property located at 229 West Hersey Street. Also included are requested for an Exception to Street Standards to construct a five-foot sidewalk and five- foot bio-swale parkrow where a six-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow planting strip are required, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove three trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). I. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application A demolition permit (BD #9706081) was issued in 1997 to allow the demolition of a 1,116 square foot residence, a 288 square foot garage and a 480 square foot barn. There are no other land use actions of record for this property. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 1 of 13 B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The Site The subject property is a vacant parcel located on the south side of West Hersey Street between North Main Street and Laurel Street. The property is rectangular in shape, with 75 feet of frontage along West Hersey Street, a depth of approximately 200 feet, and a total area of approximately 15,000 square feet. The property fronts on alleys along its west and south property lines. West Hersey Street is classified as an Avenue in this vicinity under Ashland’s Transportation System Plan (TSP). Hersey Street is paved with curbs and gutters in place, but lacks sidewalks or park row planting strips along the subject property’s frontage. The alleys along the property’s west and south frontages are both paved to varying widths. The application notes that the site has no significant natural features, and has a slope of approximately four percent to the north. The applicant further explains that there are two multi-stemmed elm trees (one 15–inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and the other approximately six–inches d.b.h.) on the east property line, and that there are a seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree and three smaller stature trees (less than six-inches d.b.h.) near the west and south property lines. All of the trees on the subject property are proposed for removal. The applicant also notes that there are six trees on the adjacent property to the east. The property and those in the immediate vicinity are zoned R-3, High Density Multi- Family Residential. The Proposal The application requests Site Design Review approval to construct 11 multi-family residential units. These units include a two-story 1,850 square foot single-family residence with a 440 square foot attached garage and a small 480 square foot unit above, all fronting on Hersey Street, and nine 480 square foot one bedroom apartments in two buildings behind the main house. The units along the north-south alley are proposed as a two-story structure with the apartments above over-sized garages, while the units along the east-west alley at the rear of the property are proposed as two single-story units and two two-story units. The apartments are proposed adjacent to both alleys, with a common open space behind the main house on the southeastern portion of the property. All of the units are proposed to have semi-private balcony or patio space adjacent to the common courtyard, and all of the units are to comply with Earth Advantage ® and Energy Star® requirements in order to qualify for a requested density bonus. The applicant has also requested Exception to Street Standards. City standard frontage improvements for an Avenue would typically require a seven- to eight-foot landscaped parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk along the property’s full street frontage, with a right-of-way dedication or a public pedestrian easement required for any portion of these improvements that extend beyond the existing public right-of-way. In this instance, the application proposes a five-foot sidewalk and a five-foot bio-swale parkrow. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 2 of 13 A Tree Removal Permit is also requested to allow the removal of the three trees greater than six-inches d.b.h. II. Project Impact As explained more fully above, the application consists of Site Design Review, an Exception to Street Standards and Tree Removal Permit approval requests. Applications involving residential Site Design Review for a total building area in excess of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area trigger “Type II” application procedures and require a decision by the Planning Commission through a public hearing. The applicable criteria for each required approval are addressed below. A.Site Design Review Proposal Underlying Zone Requirements The first approval criterion for Site Design Review is that, “The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards.” The application materials provided note that the property is 14,997 square feet in area and is R-3 zoned, and meets the minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the R-3 zoning district. The subject properties’ underlying zoning is R-3 (High Density Multi-Family Residential) and within this zone, minimum lot area is based on what is necessary to achieve the proposed density. In this instance, the base density is 20 dwelling units per acre, and the 0.344 acre subject property has a base density of 6.88 dwelling units (0.344 acres x 20 du/acre = 6.88 du). The applicants propose to take advantage of the density bonus provisions of the ordinance and request a 15 percent density bonus for conservation housing and a 10 percent density bonus for providing additional outdoor recreation space. With a 25 percent density bonus, the allowed density for the parcel is 8.6 dwelling units (6.88 du x 1.25 = 8.6 du). Each of the ten units proposed counts as a 0.75 dwelling units for purposes of density calculations because the units are less than 500 square feet, and as such the proposed density is 8.5 dwelling units \[(0.75 x 10 d.u. less than 500 square feet) + 1 d.u. = 8.5 du\]. Conditions have been recommended below to require that the building permit submittals include demonstrations that the conservation housing and additional recreation space requirements are satisfied to allow the proposed density bonuses. The application explains that the main house’s front porch is to be setback eight feet from the front property line, while the structure itself will be setback 15 feet. The main house is to be setback nine feet from the alley and six feet from the east property line, and the apartment buildings are proposed to meet the six-foot side yard and ten-foot per story rear yard setbacks for the zone. The applicant further notes that the proposal is at 62.6 percent lot coverage, which is significantly under the 75 percent coverage limit within the R-3 zoning district. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 3 of 13 Overlay Zone Requirements The second Site Design Review approval criterion is that, “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).” The application materials note that the property is not located within any overlay zones. Site Development and Design Standards The third approval criterion is that, “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below.” Generally, these Site Development & Design Standards seek to improve each project’s appearance; to create a positive, human scale relationship between proposed buildings and the streetscape which encourages bicycle and pedestrian travel; to lessen the visual and climatic impacts of parking; and to screen adjacent uses from adverse impacts of development. To these ends, buildings are to have their primary orientation to the street rather than to parking areas, with visible, functional and attractive entrances oriented to the street, placed within 20 feet of the street, and accessed directly from the public sidewalk. Sidewalks and street trees are to be provided along subject properties’ frontages, and automobile parking and circulation areas are not to be placed between buildings and the street. In terms of parking, each of the ten one-bedroom/less than 500 square foot units requires one space while the main house requires two spaces, for a total of 12 required parking spaces. The application illustrates 12 off-street parking spaces that are to be provided, and further notes that nine bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in the proposed private garages while four additional covered bicycle parking spaces are to be provided under the balcony outside the laundry room. Conditions have been recommended below to require that the building permit submittals demonstrate that the automobile and bicycle parking areas meet the area design and dimensional requirements of the code, including a clear demonstration that required paved back-up areas are to be provided behind each space, and that the driveways meet the nine-foot minimum width requirement of AMC 18.4.3.080.D. Basic Site Review The application explains that the main house will have its primary orientation to Hersey Street, and will have a large front porch and a direct pedestrian connection to the Hersey Street sidewalk. No parking is proposed between the building and the street, with all garage and surface parking placed to the side or rear of the main house and all vehicular access from the alley. The apartments proposed are more than 20 feet from the street, and have their orientation to the courtyard or alley, depending on their location. The application notes that the building materials proposed are compatible with the surrounding area, and are a mix of wood-shingle siding, stucco bases, metal railings and composite roofing, and generally subdued (not bright or neon) paint colors. The application has proposed a sidewalk and parkrow planting strip, and street trees are to be provided however the application includes a request for an Exception to allow these to be narrower than standard and to utilize a bio-swale in place of the standard parkrow planting strip. The Exception request is discussed in detail under “B” below. In initially reviewing the application, staff noted that projects subject to Site Design Review require that a minimum of eight percent of the lot be provided in recreation area, and that a density bonus of up to ten percent was available for additional recreation area Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 4 of 13 provided beyond this minimum requirement. The applicants are requesting this bonus for additional recreation area. AMC 18.4.2.030.H.2 notes that “areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted toward this (recreation area) requirement.” Staff noted that the areas shown as open space include a dry stream bed and retention pond basin, and areas planted in ajuga, lavender and other ground covers or shrubs that are not suited to human recreational use could not be counted toward the recreation area requirement or density bonus, and asked that the applicant clarify the proposed recreation space and its treatment to both satisfy the standard and the requirements for the density bonus. The applicants have clarified the open space proposed to address these requirements, and a revised planting plan provided as sheet LP-1 details out that the combination of private decks and patios, common deck area in the courtyard, the porch and deck of the main house and the back yard area of the main house total 2,926 square feet which exceeds the 2,699 square feet necessary to provide the required recreation area and additional area for the requested density bonus. A common refuse area is to be provided adjacent to Unit #4 on the west alley, and the application notes that it will be screened according to standards. The application further notes that a final Landscape and Irrigation Plan will be provided with the building permit submittals to address the city’s landscaping and irrigation standards and the Earth Advantage requirements. The application notes that all trees on the subject property are to be removed including two multi-trunked elms and a seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree, and that the six existing trees on the adjacent property to the east are already protected by a six-foot fence. Public Facilities The fourth approval criterion for Site Design Review approval is that, “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.” The application notes that adequate public facilities are available and will be provided to the subject property, including: Water: There is a 12-inch water main in West Hersey Street, and six-inch water mains in each of the alleys. The application explains that nine new apartments are to be served by a common water meter off of the alley near the south property line, while the main house and its attached unit will be served by an existing ¾- inch meter adjacent to Hersey Street. The applicants are in continuing discussion with the Fire Marshal. The main in the southern alley serves an existing fire hydrant, and the applicant notes that there is a hydrant on the northwest side of the alley that intersects Hersey Street. The application states that the apartments will likely have fire sprinklers installed subject to the final requirements of the Fire Department. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 5 of 13 Sanitary Sewer: There is an eight-inch sanitary sewer line in the alley to the west of the subject property. Electric: The applicants have been working with the Electric Department to create an Electric Service Plan for the property, and the application notes that underground electric service is available in the alley to the south of the subject property, and that two transformers are to be placed to serve the proposed development. Urban Storm Drainage: A ten-inch storm sewer line in the alley to the west of the property feeds into a 12-inch storm sewer line in Hersey Street. Paved Access: The application notes that West Hersey Street, an Avenue, has paving with a bike lane, curbs, and gutters in place along the subject property’s frontage, with sidewalks and a parkrow planting strip to be installed with the current proposal. An existing, unused curb cut along Hersey Street is proposed for removal as part of the current application. An Exception to Street Standards is requested to allow the sidewalk and parkrow to be narrower than required, and to allow a bio-swale to be used in lieu of a standard parkrow planting strip. This Exception is discussed fully below. Public Works staff has indicated that they have been in contact with the applicant’s civil engineers as they develop final engineering plans for the project. Conditions have been recommended below to require that the applicants provide final civil plans including utility, electric service, grading, and drainage for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. B.Exception to Street Standards The applicant includes a request for an Exception to Street Standards. City standard frontage improvements for an Avenue like West Hersey Street here typically require a seven- to eight-foot landscaped parkrow planting strip with irrigated street trees and a six-foot wide sidewalk along the property’s full street frontage, with a right-of-way dedication or a public pedestrian easement required for any portion of these improvements that extend beyond the existing public right-of-way. In this instance, the application proposes a five-foot sidewalk and a five-foot bio-swale parkrow to match the existing frontage improvements in place on the property immediately to the southeast. The application notes that the request is being made to match the existing improvement due both to limited right-of-way and to public infrastructure in place which limits the area available for sidewalks and parkrow. The application further explains that the request for a one-foot narrower sidewalk and two-foot narrower parkrow is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty and that the quality of street improvements and comfort of pedestrians will be enhanced by the resultant sidewalk across the subject property connecting to the existing improvement to the southeast, and further suggests that there are low pedestrian volumes along Hersey in this vicinity due to the inconsistent improvements and this proposal will provide a safe route. The applicant notes that if an LID were formed to complete sidewalks on the south side of Hersey Street they believe that the existing right-of-way could accommodate continuous improvements of the dimensions proposed. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 6 of 13 Exceptions to Street Standards require a demonstration that there is a demonstrable difficulty in meeting the standard due to a unique aspect of the site or its proposed use; that the facilities and resultant connectivity proposed are equal or superior to those required under the standards; that the exceptions requested are the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty; and that the exceptions are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Street Standards. In staff’s assessment, it appears that there are established trees and some infrastructure elements such as hydrants, power poles and pedestals that would likely complicate sidewalk installation as they would anywhere. For staff, the key consideration is that between the alley to the west of the subject property and the corner of North Laurel Street, there are only three parcels – the subject property, the property at 227 West Hersey Street which already has a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkrow in place, and the property at 219 West Hersey Street on the corner. The placement of the existing house at the corner of Laurel and Hersey appears to be less than 15 feet behind the curb, and the small porch on the Hersey Street side is approximately 13 feet behind the curb. The placement of this home is such that full standard sidewalk and parkrow installation seems unlikely, and in staff’s view a five-foot sidewalk and five-foot parkrow which could be accommodated in the existing right-of-way seem the most likely improvement here. The eventual completion of a consistent, continuous five-foot sidewalk and five- foot parkrow between the alley and the corner seems the best compromise which would provide equal connectivity while being the minimum exception necessary here. C. Tree Removal Permit The applicant explains that there are three trees on the property over six inches in diameter: two multi-stemmed elm trees (one 15–inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) and the other approximately six–inches d.b.h.) on the east property line, and a seven-inch d.b.h. pine tree. All of the trees on the subject property are proposed for removal. The application notes that the larger elm is unsightly and does not appear to be in good health, and that both elms appear to have been seedling starts from a larger tree that was previously removed. Neither has been maintained, and all three trees are in areas proposed for construction in developing the site according to the Site Development and Design Standards. The applicant suggests that removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks, and will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property, explaining that there are a significant number of conifers and deciduous trees within 200 feet of the subject property, and that the property to the east which would have the most potential for impact has 12 deciduous trees in their yard. The applicant emphasizes that more than 20 new trees are proposed to be planted throughout the subject property, further explaining that while no conifers are proposed for mitigation due to the nature of the proposed multi-family development the number of deciduous trees proposed is nonetheless more than double the required mitigation ratio. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 7 of 13 The applicant concludes that there was no environmental benefit provided by the three trees which will not be achieved with the proposed mitigation trees. The applicant also notes that there are six trees on the adjacent property to the east which are protected by the existing six-foot fence, and no additional tree protection fencing is proposed. A tree inventory and assessment of the trees’ conditions has been provided, along with photos of the trees, although these do not appear to have been prepared by an arborist. The larger elm is noted as having three trunks, as being in poor health and leaning with white rot and decay pockets evident, while the smaller pine is noted as being in poor health and of small diameter. For staff, without assessment by an arborist it is difficult to determine whether the health of the elms merits removal, or if they could be treated to remediate their condition in order to retain them on site. The Tree Commission has not yet reviewed the application as this report is being prepared; a condition of approval has been recommended below to require that the recommendations of the Tree Commission be made conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor. Dependent upon the Tree Commission’s recommendation, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether they believe a an arborist’s report is necessary to make a determination regarding removal of the elms; if so, the Commission could opt to continue the application until an arborist’s report is provided. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B.Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C.Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D.City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E.Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 8 of 13 Site Development and Design Standards. 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. The criteria for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a “Tree That is Not a Hazard” are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.B.2 as follows: 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 9 of 13 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The applicant concludes that the proposal is for ten small, energy-efficient units with generous site amenities and covered, secure parking and storage, laundry facilities and a large common open space and suggests that the units proposed are of a desirable size for singles and some couples, that the proposed main house will make a positive contribution to the West Hersey streetscape, and that the project should be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and the city. Staff concurs with the applicant, and is generally very supportive of the request. For staff, the key issues with the proposal are in insuring that the open space is treated in such a way to accommodate recreational use; that the Exception to Street Standards is merited; and that the proposed tree removals are carefully considered. We believe that the application has clearly detailed the treatment of the open space to more than satisfy the standards. In addition, the location of the existing house at the corner of Laurel and Hersey Streets is likely to constrict future sidewalk installation to the point that the requested Exception would likely provide for a continuous, consistent sidewalk installation between the alley adjacent to the property and the corner of Laurel Street. With regard to the requested removal of the elm trees near the east property line, the application suggests that these trees are in poor health and need to be removed, however for staff it is unclear absent an arborist report whether or not they might be able to be treated to remediate their condition and preserved on site. After reviewing the Tree Commission’s recommendations, the Planning Commission may wish to consider whether a continuation is necessary to allow the applicants to provide an arborist’s report more fully assessing these trees. Should the Commission determine that no arborist’s report is needed and approve the request, staff would recommends the following conditions be attached to the approval: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify this approval shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3)That all recommendations of the Ashland Tree Commission from their December 3, 2015 meeting, where consistent with the applicable ordinances and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor, shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 4)That all requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed, including approved addressing; fire apparatus access; fire flow; fire sprinklers for those units determined by Building and Fire Code to require them based on review of final building permit plans; and provisions for “Knox Box” key boxes. 5)That building permit submittals shall include: a)The identification of all easements, including but not limited to any required public and private utility easements, mutual access easements, public pedestrian access easements, and fire apparatus access easements. b)The identification of exterior building materials and paint colors for the Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 10 of 13 review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Colors and materials shall be consistent with those described in the application, and very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used. c)Specifications for all exterior lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. d)Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the building permit submittals. These revised plans shall address: 1) Any recommendations of the Tree Commission from their December 3, 2015 meeting where consistent with applicable criteria and standards, and with final approval by the Staff Advisor; 2) Required size- and species-specific planting details and associated irrigation plans addressing the requirements for programmable automatic timer controllers and a maintenance watering schedule with seasonal modifications to satisfy the Water Conserving Landscaping Guidelines and Policies. e)Stormwater drainage and grading plans for the review and approval of the Engineering, Building and Planning Departments. f)A final utility plan for the project for the review and approval of the Engineering, Planning and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of any necessary connections to public facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm drainage pipes and catch basins. Meters, cabinets, vaults and Fire Department Connections shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering access needs. Any necessary service extensions or upgrades shall be completed by the applicant at applicant’s expense. g)An electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including any transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of demolition, excavation or building permits. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, sidewalks and pedestrian areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. h)That the applicants shall provide engineered plans for the installation of a five-foot width parkrow with irrigated street trees, five-foot sidewalk, and pedestrian scale street lighting on the property’s full West Hersey Street frontage for the review of the Planning and Public Works/Engineering Departments. These plans shall detail the removal of the existing curb-cut and relocation or removal of the existing phone pedestal near the alley from the sidewalk corridor so that the sidewalk can be continued in the future. If necessary to accommodate these street frontage improvements, the applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way or provide public pedestrian access easements. Any necessary easements or right-of-way dedications shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning and Public Works/’Engineering Departments. i)Identification or required bicycle parking, which includes nine bicycle Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 11 of 13 parking spaces in the garages and four covered bicycle parking spaces outside of the laundry area. If bicycle parking is provided in garages, final interior dimensions of garages shall be provided to insure adequate space needs. Inverted u-racks shall be used for non-garage bicycle parking, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design and rack standards in 18.4.3.070.I prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements are met. j)Demonstration that all parking spaces provided meet the dimensional requirements of the Parking Area Design Requirements in AMC 18.4.3.080.B, and that the full required paved back-up area is provided behind each space. Standard parking spaces are required to be a minimum of nine-feet wide by 18-feet deep and compact spaces are required to be a minimum of eight feet by 16 feet, and a 22-foot clear back-up area must be provided behind each space. Up to 50 percent of parking spaces may be compact. Driveways provided are required to be a minimum of nine- feet in width per AMC 18.4.3.080.D. All dimensional requirements will be site-verified prior to occupancy approval. k)Demonstrations that the conservation housing and additional recreation space requirements are satisfied to meet the requirements for the requested density bonuses. l)Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with Solar Setback Standard A in the formula \[(Height – 6)/(0.445 + Slope) = Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural grade. m)Lot coverage calculations including all building footprints, driveways, parking, and other coverage areas. Lot coverage shall be limited to no more than 75 percent as allowed in the R-3 zoning district. n)That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be detailed on the building permit submittals. 6) That prior to the issuance of the building permit, the commencement of site work including excavation or the storage of materials: a) A Tree Verification Permit shall be obtained, and tree protection measures installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by Staff Advisor. The Verification Permit is to inspect the identification of the trees to be removed and the installation of tree protection fencing for the trees to be retained and protected on and adjacent to the site. b) That all necessary building permits fees and associated charges, including permits and connections fees for new, separate, underground electrical services to each proposed unit, and system development charges for water, sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation (less any credits for previously demolished structures) shall be paid. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 12 of 13 7) That prior to the final approval of the project or issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a) All hardscaping, landscaping including required recreational areas and mitigation trees, and the irrigation system shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor. b) All utility service and equipment installations shall be completed according to Electric, Engineering, Planning, and Building Departments’ specifications, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. c) That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent residential proprieties. e) All required street frontage improvements, including but not limited to the sidewalk, parkrow with irrigated street trees spaced at one tree per 30 feet of frontage, and street lighting shall be installed under permit from the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. The existing curb cut on West Hersey Street shall be removed and vehicular access to the proposed development shall be from the alleys. f) Screening for the trash and recycling enclosure shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Use Standards, and an opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure as required in AMC 18.4.4.040. g) The applicant shall provide evidence of Earth Advantage and Energy Star Certifications necessary to satisfy the requirements for the conservation housing density bonus requested. h) All bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved plan, inspected, and approved by the Staff Advisor prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Planning Action PA #2015-01856 Ashland Planning Division – Staff Report.dds Applicant: RW Signature Properties LLC Page 13 of 13