Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-12-12 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 12, 2017 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. November 14, 2017 Regular Meeting. 2. November 28, 2017 Study Session. V. PUBLIC FORUM VI. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: 2017-01911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Jorge Yant DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit for Marijuana Retail Sales and Site Design Review for Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) in the existing building located at 181 A St. The marijuana businesses are proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the building and according to the application materials, the Marijuana Retail Sales will be located at 181 A St. and the Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) will be located at 185, 191 and 195 A St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09BA; TAX LOT#: 14600 & 14900. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02134 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1068 E. Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Marcel Verzeano Trust(Paulena E.C.Verzeano, trustee) DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan Modification, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 33-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal Permit for the property located at 1068 East Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. As originally approved,the project consisted of 29-units. The requested modification would add four additional apartments(all less than 500 square feet)to the original proposal,for a total of six small rental units. The application also proposes to remove one additional tree which the applicants had originally proposed to preserve. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3/Pedestrian Places Overlay; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09AD; TAX LOT#: 6800 and 6801. VII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND FE 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). CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 14,2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Dennis Slattery, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council passed first reading of the cottage housing ordinance at their November 7, 2017, meeting. Second reading would occur November 21, 2017. The Planning Commission annual update to City Council was scheduled for December 5,2017. The Planning Commission's meeting for December 26, 2017,was canceled. There would be a Study Session November 28, 2017. CONSENT AGENDA A. 1. October 10,2017 Regular Meeting. 2. October 24,2017 Study Session. Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the minutes of the October 10,2017, meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Chair Pearce abstained. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Norton addressed the October 24, 2017 minutes. It showed him in attendance when he was absent. Commissioner Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes of the October 24,2017 meeting as amended. Commissioner Norton abstained. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM -None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2017-00406,2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Senior Planner Derek Severson explained Condition 8(b)under Section 3. Decision requested clear property lines along the subject property's south boundary. The Commission declared no ex parte regarding the matter. Chair Pearce would abstain from the vote. Ashland Panning Commission November W, 2017 Commissioners MindlinlThompson m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2017-00406, 2300 Siskiyou Boulevard. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Chair Pearce abstained. TYPE 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION APPEAL: PA-2017-00978 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 232 Nutley OWN ERIAPPLICANT: Leah K. Henigson Trust(Leah K Henigson, trustee) DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to construct an approximately 999 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 232 Nutley Street. The application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming development COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Rural Residential;ZONING: RR-.5;ASSESSOR'S MAP#:391E08AD; TAX LOT: 8000 Chair Pearce read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Mindlin, Norton, and Thompson declared one site visit, no ex parte. Commission Miller declared two site visits and one ex parte. She encountered one of the neighbors who explained they had written a letter and proceeded to share the contents with Commissioner Miller. She did not think it would create any bias in her decision. Commissioner Dawkins disclosed he had grown up in the area and knew it well. He declared two site visits and ran into one of the appellants during a work party. They did not discuss the matter. Commissioner Brown declared no new site visits and no ex parte. Chair Pearce visited the site November 13, 2017, and ran into Ms. Henigson. He introduced himself and neither discussed the matter. He also talked to Ms. Henigson and both attorneys regarding procedural matters for the meeting earlier in the day. Staff Report Senior Planner Derek Severson explained the property was west of the Nutley Street and Alnutt Street intersection. An unpaved driveway extended through from Nutley Street to Alnutt Street. At the bottom of the property was a 256 square foot(sq.ft.)accessory building described as a barn. This was a de novo appeal of staffs approval of a request for Site Design Review to construct a 999 sq. ft. accessory residential unit(ARU). The application included a request for a conditional use permit(CUP)to expand an existing non- conforming development. The proposal would demolish the existing 256 sq. ft. barn to construct a 999 sq. ft. ARU with utilities extended and three new parking spaces added. They would install one standard and one compact parking space at the entrance to the driveway in front of the house. The ARU would have a 30x25 or 750 sq. ft. footprint in lieu of the current 256 sq.ft.footprint. The property was zoned RR-.5. ARU's required a Site Design Review approval and had to address pertaining criteria in addition to criteria for an ARU in the RR zone. In addition to the standards in Ashland Municipal Code(AMC)subsection 18.2.3.040(A),ARVs in the RR zone had to meet the following requirements: 1. If the accessory residential unit is not part of the primary dwelling,all construction and land disturbance associated with the accessory residential unit shall occur on lands with less than 25% slope. 2. The lot on which the accessory residential unit is located shall have access to an improved city street, paved to a minimum of 20-feet in width,with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. 3. No on-street parking credits shall be allowed for accessory residential units. 4. If located in the Wildfire zone,the accessory residential unit shall have a residential sprinkler system installed. Existing nonconformities—AMC 18.6.1 Nonconforming Development& 18.1.4 Nonconforming Situations: • Street not fully improved to city standards. (Paved width of Nutley is approximately 17% feet at frontage; Alnutt is one-way and approximately 12 feet in width.) • The lot area is less than the minimum for the zone. RR-.5 zone requires a '/z-acre minimum lot size (i.e. 21,780 square feet); subject property is 0.29 acres (12,632 square feet). Ashland Panning Commission November 14, 2017 Page 2 of 11 • Existing lot coverage exceeds the maximum allowed. The existing coverage was approximately 33%where 20%was the maximum for the zone. The application noted 38% existing coverage. • Existing driveway is over 50 feet in length and does not meet flag drive standards. A flag drive serving one lot required 12-feet of paving centered in a 15-foot clear width. The existing driveway was approximately nine- feet wide and not paved. • The site was less than the minimum for the zone. Where the property in the RR-.5 required a minimum half acre lot size, the subject property was .29 acres or 12,632 sq.ft. • NOTE: The existing barn complied with the setback&height regulations of the zoning district. Lot Coverage-Current • House: 1,612 sq.ft. • Paved Driveway/Parking: 290 sq.ft. • Barn: 256 sq.ft. • Total: 2,158 that was within the 20%allowance for the zoning district. • Permits were issued in 2003 &2004 to allow 577 sq.ft. and 72 sq.ft. of new coverage. Lot Coverage—Questionable Areas • Decks: 647 sq. ft.—in 2003 and 2004 decks with surfaces that allowed water to flow through were not included in coverage. The code changed in 2014 and now included decks in the coverage. • Driveway: 1,350 sq. ft. — in 2003 and 2004 the code spoke to paved driveways counting towards coverage. It was not clear the driveway was counted beyond the paved portion. The code changed in 2014 and now included unpaved driveways and parking spaces in the coverage. • Playhouse: unknown • Decks & unpaved driveways are clearly included as coverage in the ULUO as of 2014. Previously, decks that allowed water to flow through the surface were excluded from coverage and coverage was defined to include "paved driveways." • Existing 33% Coverage: 4,155 sq.ft. • Allowed 20% Coverage: 2,526 sq.ft. Lot Coverage-Proposed • Added 3 Parking Spaces: +452 sq.ft. • Proposed ARU: + 558 sq.ft. • Proposed Deck: +380 sq.ft. • New Coverage: + 1,390 sq.ft.of coverage • Proposed 44%Coverage: 5,545 sq.ft. of coverage Regarding street frontage not meeting current standards,staff looked at that in terms of the local improvement district(LID) process that occurred in the early 2000s for Strawberry Lane. AMC 18.4.6.040.J Publicly Funded Street Improvements granted an exemption to street standards as part of that LID process. It specifically spoke of allowing street improvements constructed through a public funded project to be permitted to reduce required curb-to-curb width. It required approval from the Planning, Engineering, Police,and Fire Departments. Through the LID process,the street width would have been reviewed and determined sufficient. The application was processed with a CUP process to address the non-conforming situations in AMC 18.1.4.040 Non- Conforming Development. The application was treated as a non-conforming development. The structure met the setback and height requirements. The coverage on the site, the deck, and driveway were driving the non-conforming development not meeting the standards. The code stated a non-conforming development could be enlarged or altered subject to the approval of a CUP and approval of required building permits. The planning action did not need to be required for exempt alterations. Because it was expanding a non-conformity in coverage, it was not exempt so it was processed as a CUP. The hillside ordinance regulated development as defined in the code on properties in the hillside overlay and portions of Ashland Panning Commission November 14, 2017 the property that have slopes greater than 25% being disturbed to trigger a hillside development permit. In this case, during the pre-application process, staff went to the property, measured the slopes and reviewed GIS data. Both had it close to 25%. They instructed the applicant to get an analysis from a surveyor of the area being disturbed. The analysis was included in the application as less than 25%. Additional information was included in the November packet from the surveyor that discussed the methodology used. The appellant's material spoke to slope in terms of natural slope or averaging slope across property lines. The code was not clear on how slope was calculated. In this case, the applicant did not have a full analysis because the slope was not over 25%. The standards for RR-.5, prohibited ARVs on a slope over 25%. If it were over 25%, they would look into a variance. For tree removal, the subject property was single-family residentially zoned and exempt from tree removal provided it was not disturbing something in a water resource protection zone or on a sloped area. Staff included a condition requiring a tree protection plan prepared by an arborist with the building permit submittals. The appellant's also had concerns regarding setback compliance. The deck had a corner that projected over the single story 10-foot setback. Staff included a condition on the original approval that the building had to meet setbacks. The building permit would address modifying the deck to comply with the setback. Staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the staff decision. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson confirmed all prior building permits were from the same homeowner. Recreational space included the deck area. The applicant was willing to share the deck between the two units. There were driveway concerns from an adjacent neighbor.The applicants and neighbor's driveways would come together in the right of way and not on private property. The driveway and parking space were narrow. The driveway standard was 12-feet wide. Having the applicant modify the driveway would trigger more site disturbance. It could be paved to the 9- foot width without modifying lot coverage. If they paved it to the 12-foot standard, it would add more coverage and require an application. The surveyor report called out a single data point for the 24.4%slope but they were actually delineating the footprint of the building proposed. Materials submitted in the November packet indicated the surveyor took 173 reading points in the area on the ground to determine the overall slope of the area. It was the area of disturbance for the footprint. Another data point showed 19.6%to the other side of the structure. The surveyor needed to verify that percentage. The project did not include grading or drainage plans. Although the disturbances increased coverage, it was limited to the expansion of footprint. The applicant would provide that information to building and engineering at the time of the building permit. The disturbance proposed was not at a level requiring those specific plans. Soil disturbance would occur in the footprint for basement construction. It was shown as not habitable but had a bathroom with no heat. As conditioned, it would be storage space and the applicant's would remove the bathroom. The applicant would fully demolish the barn but might use some of the materials for the ARU. Staff did not have a clear detail on excavation outside the footprint. Applicant's Presentation Amy Gunter/Rogue Planning Development Services/1424 South Ivy/Medford, OR/Explained there was adequate information within the record to uphold the Planning Division's decision to approve the ARU proposed at 232 Nutley Street. The staff reports laid out the issues and the basis for the decision, the appeal, and provided substantial Findings related to each of the items addressed by the appellants. Ashland Panning Commission November W, 2017 The proposed structure exceeded the required 6-foot side yard setbacks. Other than the small deck encroachment area, it complied with the rear yard setbacks. Structure orientation did not dictate setbacks. Setbacks were designated by property lines. The structure was designed similarly to one and a half stories where the upper floor did not exceed more than 50%of the floor below. The walls of the upper floor were approximately 3-feet which was the amount of exposed wall area on second floors of half stories. Not more than half of the floor area below and not more than 3-feet of exposure around the sides. The structure was in compliance. Based on the applicant's measurements, the proposed structure was four feet taller than the existing barn. The overall height was roughly the same except for the piece that popped up at the bedroom. Regarding structure and disturbance, there was an existing below-grade room in the barn. It was approximately 8.5 x 16. That was where they would put the basement in the ARU. It would be approximately the same depth just wider with a 6.2-foot ceiling height. Excavation would not go down any further than where the existing disturbance was for the below-grade room. The footprint of the barn was 256 sq.ft. There was a small lean-to structure on it that was not included. The area would be replaced with a 774 sq.ft.footprint for the ARU. The barn was 400 sq.ft.and would be replaced with a 999 sq.ft.for the ARU. The building designer took the measurements and determined the structure was 2,035 sq.ft. They measured again and came up with a slightly lower number. There was a 9 sq.ft. difference. It would be easy to bring the structure into compliance without major modifications. Removing the bump-out would bring the structure below 975 sq.ft. There was a communication issue about when the additions were made. Ms. Gunter clarified Ms. Henigson made the additions that increased the lot coverage that brought it to a non-conforming level that was approved through building permits. There was not a lean-to structure next to applicant's home. This was an area Ms. Henigson stored items under the eaves of the house. The playhouse could be removed. Stephan Barott from Stephan Barott Land Surveying surveyed the land and did 173 data points on the property. The average slope area of the building ranged from 24.4% on one side of the footprint and 19.6% on the other side. Mr. Barott ground-truthed the land to determine the actual slope of the property. Because the slope was less than 25%, the hillside ordinance was not applicable. One of the appellants' hired Polaris Land Survey who provided LiDAR data on the property. It was her understanding a ground survey was more accurate than LiDAR or GIS data. They believed that was the reason why none of the requirements for the physical environmental constraints review were submitted. The property had access to improved city streets. The code did not differentiate width, it only indicated paved. The definition of paving included all of the infrastructure for the street, curb, gutter, sidewalks. The roads were improved to city standards at the time. Parking was currently tandem parking in the driveway with another space adjacent to the barn. The proposed parking spaces would eliminate parking on the driveway. Two parking spaces for the main house would be there as well. An interior fire suppression system would be required in the ARU. The Ashland Fire Department provided comment on the pre-application and did not indicate fire suppression issues. Ashland Panning Commission November W, 2017 The proposed level of detail was consistent with ARU applications. Detailed landscape plans were not necessarily required because they were often beyond the scope of the proposal. The subject property had natural vegetation and no landscaping. The file contained a discussion on what would be planted in areas of disturbance and when. Erosion control plans were triggered on larger parcels or when subject to physical environmental constraints. This parcel was not very large and the areas of disturbance were under 25%. A grading plan was not submitted. There was recreation space on the property. Between the decks was a yard area to the side of the existing single-family home that was flat and usable. It was less than one-tenth of a mile to the Talent Irrigation District ditch trail and Hald Strawberry Park. It was half a mile from Lithia Park. The ARU, conditional use permit and the variance request were in substantial conformance with the standards and could comply with the imposition of conditions of approval. The Rogue Valley was in the midst of a rental crisis. The City was actively seeking to modify the code to allow for additional dwelling units. The Housing and Human Services Commission recommended making ARVs an outright permitted use. It allowed a property owner to downsize their home and not have to leave the area. Questions of the Applicant-None Appellant's Presentation Chris Hearn/515 East Main Street/Represented Patricia Zoline in the appeal. Her lot was west of the subject property on a steep hillside. He referenced minutes from 2001 that highlighted the debate on allowing ARVs in the RR zones and whether it was appropriate on hillside slopes and in wildfire areas. Issues with ARU size included: • 500 sq.ft.ARU does provides affordable housing rental. • 1,000 sq.ft.ARU provides market-rate rental housing that will be a more expensive rental than a smaller unit. • It the applicant moves into the ARU and puts the primary residence on the rental market, it would not affect the affordable rental market. Neighbors had several issues with the application and Mr. Hearn wanted to focus on lot coverage and the maximum slope issues. Lot coverage issues included: • Site Design & Use Standards must comply with lot coverage provisions of the zone(20%) 18.5.2.050.A. • ARUs shall comply with overall maximum lot coverage requirements of the zone(20%), 18.2.3.040.A.4. • CUP in the RR Zone: Criteria to be considered in light of residential use developed at zone density, 18.5.4.050.A.5.a. • Zoning RR-.5 = .50 acres(21,780 sq.ft.) • 232 Nutley Lot Size = .20 acres (12, 632 sq.ft.) • Max Permitted Lot Coverage: 20% • Lot Coverage in 1993: 22% • Lot coverage after 2003 Expansion: 34% • Lot Coverage after 2017 Expansion: 43% Mr. Hearn had an expert that would debate the slope was 24.4%. For lot coverage, they had estimated 43% and staffs estimate was 42%. It was over double the maximum lot coverage allowed. The lot coverage in the 1990s was 22% and after Ms. Henigson's expansion, it was 34% and with this application, it would be 43%. There was a discrepancy on the square footage of the house between the Jackson County Assessor's office and what the applicant indicated. For the adjacent properties, lot coverage ranged from 9% to 25%for an average of 15%. The subject property would be much higher than the average. The decks were not originally counted as lot coverage. Under the old code, driveways were not counted but currently were under the new code. The property consisted of the original house, Ashland Panning Commission November W, 2017 Page 6 of 11 the lean-to area, the playhouse, and the barn. The prior remodel was nonconforming and not legal according to the code at the time. They thought the lot coverage at that time was 22%or more. Mr. Hearn explained the disturbance area around the new ARU would be more than what the applicant stated. Any site disturbance to properties and soils over 25%slope meant it was a"dead" project and would not happen without a variance. They thought reasonable site disturbance would exceed the actual footprint of the ARU especially with the excavation and the basement. The plan provided November 7, 2017, still showed a bathroom in the basement. They were predicting substantial site disturbance outside the footprint area of the ARU. Limiting the ARU to 500 sq. ft. made it much more affordable and was recommended by staff. He thought the applicant was reaching beyond what was reasonable or conservative. Deborah Vincent/PO Box 46061Medford,OR 97501/Represented Greg and Allison Koenig in the appeal. She addressed the supplemental letter written by the applicant November 7,2017. She clarified Greg and Allison Koenig lived in Ashland full time. Mr. Koenig worked in the area and Ms. Koenig was retired from Rogue Community College. Both served the community as volunteers. In 2012, Ms. Henigson had a pre-application conference with City staff for the same ARU. The City's written comments at that time were the slope of the subject property was greater than 25%and staff required a slope analysis.They also stated the applicant would have difficulty meeting a few of the standards including the width of Nutley Street that was less than the 20-foot minimum required. Ms. Vincent questioned how five years ago the application was not going to make it to approval and now the slope analysis was not required and the slope was less than 25%. Robin Warren/Geotechnical Engineering & Geologic Consulting LLC/1314 B Center Drive/Medford, OR 975011Addressed the slope and explained the map provided by the applicant's surveyor showed elevations at a 10-foot difference over a 30-foot distance. Based on their survey data,there was a 33%slope. The soil was highly erosive. When it was disturbed, it was difficult to plant. The other issue was retaining walls for the basement. The footing for the retaining wall was outside the footprint. The footprint for the excavation would be substantially bigger than the structure being built. Shawn Kampmann/Polaris Land Surveying LLC/151 Clear Creek Drive/Reviewed the data on the slope and compared it to LiDAR data he collected. He distributed a document on LiDAR standards. It was based on the LiDAR Consortium of Oregon. The accuracy was .3 feet. National accuracy standards for the slopes was based on half of a contour interval. One-foot contour maps would have an accuracy of plus or minus half a foot. LiDAR was based on millions of laser points that were high density for the accuracy. He prepared a slope analysis map with the GIS data based on Mr. Barott's map. Mr. Kampmann drew cross sections. The north cross-section showed a 28.5% slope. The south cross section indicated a 32% slope. When he compared his map to Mr. Barott's survey map, he came up with similar slope but still over 25%. He was not allowed to field or ground-truth his LiDAR data. It matched Mr. Barott's survey as far as contour slope between contours. Ms. Vincent stated based on all the reasons the Commission had heard from the experts and attorney's arguments, she requested the Commission remand the application back to staff and require the applicant provide evidence that she met all of the criteria. She had not met the criteria and staff had not required her to meet the criteria. The hillside land part and environmental constraints mapping requirements had to be met on this type of soil,on the hillside. The entire slope had to be considered. She requested to keep the record open so they could address the testimony in writing. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Brown wanted clarification on whether the entire slope needed to be considered or just the excavation area. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Commission only had to look at the area going to be excavated. His understanding of the appellant's experts was when considering areas outside the building envelope, there was a need to grade to construct the larger structure, that it would hit areas greater than 25%. Ashland Panning Commission November 14, 2017 Mr. Kampmann clarified he calculated the slopes between the east side of the existing building and just barely beyond the back of the proposed building. The slope analysis showed that most of the slope area was over 25%. He used the maps provided in the record. He added color-coded LiDAR data depicting areas at 25% to 35%, one over 35%and another under 25%. Without seeing the 173 points Mr. Barott referenced, or being able to ground-truth the land, it was difficult to determine the calculation discrepancy he was getting. If the building area was under 25%, the slopes would be very steep outside of the envelope. Mr. Molnar confirmed the existing cut behind the barn was not included in the slope since it was past the building footprint. Mr. Kampmann explained the LiDAR map was within 1%of Mr. Barott's land survey map. Mr. Hearn admitted not requiring a Type I Conditional Use Permit instead of Type II was harmless. He did not think a permit was issued for the lean-to structure. The Jackson County Assessor's office indicated the square footage for the additions and deck were different from the permit history. The appellants were trying to demonstrate that in order for it to be a nonconforming use, it had to have been legal at the time it was created. If there were not permits that reflected the actual square footage of the structure being built,then potentially it was not a legal nonconforming use. The City should require a variance and not a CUP under the facts in this case. Mr. Hearn explained there was a discussion of Ms. Henigson applying for a variance in the early staff memos years before. The application did request a variance on the final page. Staff responded in February 2017 that following discussions with the Community Development Director, it could be handled as a CUP instead of a variance. Changes to the code in 2015 allowed that alternative procedure under certain circumstances. One of the criteria in the CUP was the impact to the adjoining properties. Mr. Hearn responded it was a livability issue for the neighbors and noise. Ms.Vincent read from AMC 18.5.4.050 Approval Criteria(A)(1)and (A)(3). Neighbors were concerned about the steepness, traffic, and a large tree by the driveway that would be retained. Erosion, dust, and drainage of granitic soils currently occurring would worsen with construction. Other concerns were tree removal. Public Testimony Robert Heilbroner12664 Anderson Creek Road/Talent,OR/Explained he was a friend of Ms. Henigson's and referred to a letter he submitted into the record. This had a lot to say about the kind of community Ashland wanted to be. Remaining affordable, livable, and a mixed community was important and endangered by some of the economic developments. Having a livable community had to involve poor people, the working poor, professionals, not just wealthy people. Ms. Henigson was the type of person Ashland needed to keep and provided her history. On most points, the law consisted of technical issues and not the spirit of the law. Ms. Henigson had put in a lot of time and money for this project and had done so in a responsible way. She was ecologically oriented. Amy Munro1570 Nyla Lane/Was also a friend of Ms. Henigson. She agreed with Mr. Heilbroner's testimony on the irrelevance of who will live in the ARU. She thought the idea of traffic issues was ludicrous. She also agreed the opposing side was straining and hoped the Planning Commission would see through that. She had never seen such contentious behavior as she was witnessing here. It was a shame. Lisa Odegaard12664 Anderson Creek Red/Talent, OR/Felt sad for the contentiousness and straining. She questioned whether it be so bad to have Ms. Henigson build this house. What would it really be like for these two neighbors? Ms. Henigson could age in place. But she did not have a lot of money. She asked whether the neighbors could see the positive and work in a way that drew everyone together and not look for petty things. Rosa Henigson-Kann/345 Alta Avenue/Explained she was Ms. Henigson's daughter. She read from a letter she wrote noting the housing crisis. It was painful to know how many resources were used to prevent Ms. Henigson from renting her Ashland Panning Commission November 14, 2017 Page of 11 home to a family. She grew up on Nutley Street and it was the community of Ashland that developed her sense of duty to give back to those less fortunate. It steered her career in social services. She shared her experience as a social worker. William Potts/365 Strawberry Lane/Supported the applicant and proposal. The structure currently on the site was an eyesore and needed to be removed. He trusted the City Planning Department and the Planning Commission to do what was right for the community. As long as the regulations were upheld, he supported the proposal. He hoped the City and the Commission would not be swayed by people who could afford good counsel and expert testimony. Christine Abbott Stokes/215 Nutley Street/Agreed with Mr. Potts testimony. She supported replacing the barn in a way that would serve the applicant and meet the standards. One of the dangers on the street was how steep it was. Allowing cars to go through the property to Alnutt Street would avoid the possibility of issues with her driveway. Rod Farmer/196 Nutley Street/Explained his concerns were not personal with their neighbor and had two issues regarding the proposal. One was lot coverage. The lot was narrow and several structures seemed "squeezed" in on the property. Coverage access allowed for future applications in the same vicinity to be increased by City staff. The hillside was fragile and needed to be protected from over development. The 500 sq.ft. proposal from 2012 and the geotechnical evaluations seemed reasonable yet was not included at this time. The lot disturbance issue was the primary focus for him. Lyndi Farmer/196 Nutley Street/Reiterated this was not personal. They would have looked at these issues no matter who was presenting the project. The Planning Commission's decision would set a precedent for the neighborhood. Tricia Acheate112670 Takelma Way/Commented that everything that needed to be said was said. Susan A Hunt1220 Nutley Street/Lived directly adjacent to 232 Nutley Street and down the slope. Her property was heavily impacted by the ARU. It would be a three-story structure looming over her home. It would increase lot coverage to over 40%. It was far beyond what should be allowed. She was concerned about erosion. The proposal did not come close to meeting the requirements. It would set a precedent and endanger the neighborhood's character. Applicant's Rebuttal Ms. Gunter explained the slope of the area of disturbance was based on ground-truthing provided by an Oregon licensed surveyor. Not based on offsite data taken from airplanes and topographical maps. The rental was not per code affordable but provided an affordable option for the property, the owner, and the neighborhood. All the additions including the playhouse were permitted. A neighbor called and had a stop work order placed on the playhouse during construction. She addressed the slide submitted by the appellant regarding lot coverages. They did a similar analysis. On 162 Alnutt Street, the paved driveway was not included in the Jackson County Assessor's data of the property coverage. The lot alone as one acre was 1200 sq.ft. over lot coverage if the paved driveway was included. The precedent for lot coverage over 20% in that neighborhood already existed with the property at 162 Alnutt Street. The variance to roadway width was included in the application. Ms. Gunter clarified only one tree was proposed for removal and another one that may need removal. The applicant was trying to preserve as much as possible. Drainage plans were required for building permits. All new construction was required to be connected to the City's storm drain system and reduced the amount of runoff. There were continuous sidewalks throughout the neighborhood. The square footage discrepancies were minimal and easily remedied through minor modifications. The unit was not proposed as 500 sq.ft. because there was a 25%difference in cost between a 500 sq.ft. structure and one a 1,000 sq. ft. It would not be a three-story structure. Ashland Panning Commission November 14, 2017 Page 9 of 11 Chair Pearce discussed keeping the record open with Mr. Severson. Ms.Vincent withdrew the request to keep the record open. Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to extend the Public Hearing meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote. ALL AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Deliberations&Decision ARU Criteria—no disturbance allowed on any areas in slopes over 25% The Commission addressed the varying surveyor studies and determined there was insufficient information and it needed to be remanded for more work. ARU in the RR zone—does not abut a street with a 20-foot paved width The City did not need to meet the street design standards when it built the street. However, it did not meet the ARU criteria and required an exception or a variance. If the proposal progressed, staff would notice a variance and make a decision on the variance. Mr. Molnar explained the street was approved through a LID process and allowed for an exception due to the topographical constraints. The relative standard was based on an ARU in a Rural Residential zone that required a 12-foot wide paved surface that did not comply with the subject property. He suggested re-noticing with a variance. State statute allowed the Planning Commission to grant requests to keep the record open two ways. The Commission could extend the timeline or continue the proceeding to another date. It would involve extending the 120-day rule. He thought the latter applied better to the current situation. He suggested reopening the hearing to find out if the applicant was willing for a continuance and grant an extension for the 120 days. If the applicant was not willing,the Commission needed to make a decision. Application Criteria The CUP and site design submittals were incomplete. The CUP required building location, landscaping, and a map of natural features. The Commission needed more information on landscaping and natural features on the site. Hillside Lands Permit The Commission needed to know the land disturbance and the limits of construction. Chair Pearce confirmed that Nutley Street would be the front yard and not Alnutt Street. Driveway Issues AMC 18.5.2.050 Approval Criteria required paved access to and throughout the property. An exception was possible. Mr. Severson explained the Commission could interpret that two ways. One, paving the driveway was a requirement or two, not paving was one of the nonconformities covered under the CUP. One of the nonconformities was the driveway was not to standards in terms of paving or width. Looking at the modifications the applicant was making, staff considered it a CUP instead of requiring them to come up to standard. An exception was possible. The applicant had to meet the flag lot standard. Since they did not, it would be an exception. Mr. Molnar thought it could be handled in the CUP because the pavement requirement was triggered by the length of the driveway and not the number of units. Since it was a driveway greater than 50-feet by definition it was required to meet flag drive standards. Paving was in the flag drive standards. Mr. Severson added staff had considered making it existing and nonconforming because it was a 9-foot wide unpaved drive. Chair Pearce noted it was now two dwelling units. AMC 18.4.3.080(D)(1) Driveways and Turn-Around Design stated a driveway serving two units had to be a minimum of 12-feet wide. Driveways over 50-feet in length had to meet width and design requirements in AMC 18.5.3.060(D). Commissioner Norton did not think the 9-foot wide driveway would work with a second dwelling unit. Chair Pearce thought the Commission should review an application and hear a staff report to make an informed decision on the driveway. Ashland Panning Commission November W, 2017 Page 10 of"11 Parking Issues Staff did not know parking was 8-feet from the house until this meeting. Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Mindlin did not think there was anything to discuss regarding the CUP. The subject property was a residence in a residential zone. Commissioner Brown addressed the lot coverage. The Commission did not have to agree to expand it further than it was. They needed to decide if they wanted to approve a lot that was too small for a coverage that was too large. Commissioner Dawkins/Miller to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Thompson thought the ultimate issue was whether the Commission could approve an expansion of the non- conformity with respect to lot coverage under the CUP process. Planning staff thought the lot could go to 43%as long as there were Findings under the CUP standards that justified it if they determined the impact of that decision would not have a greater adverse material effect on the livability in the impact area. There was a possibility it would not be reversed by LUBA and the Commission had the authority to approve the application. The question was whether the Commission wanted to make that decision. They were not in the position to make that decision at this meeting because there were so many other problems with the application. They needed more information. Commissioner Brown had concerns regarding the slope. There was also a problem with the driveway. It was 50-feet and regardless of the number of units,it needed to be widened to at least 12-feet,with a 15-foot clear and paved. Mr. Severson explained the Commission could look at it under the nonconforming of the site that existed now. However, if the Commission leaned towards paving the driveway, it had to be paved to the flag drive standards or a variance requested. The Commission discussed extending the planning action. Mr. Severson explained the applicants could extend up to 245 days. They had extended 30 days to date. Chair Pearce re-opened the record to hear from the applicants. The applicants were willing to extend the decision period for 120 days. Chair Pearce closed the record. The planning action was continued. Staff would re-notice the hearing when the applicant chose to come back. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Panning Commission November W, 2017 Page "1"1 of"11 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES November 28,2017 CALL TO ORDER Chair Roger Pearce called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Debbie Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager Melanie Mindlin Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Haywood Norton Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Roger Pearce Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy Brown, Jr. Dennis Slattery ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the City Council passed the second reading of the cottage housing ordinance at their November 21, 2017, meeting. The ordinance will go into effect December 21, 2017. The Planning Commission would present an annual report to the City Council December 5, 2017. An unsolicited letter in the record supporting the cottage housing ordinance came from 1000 Friends of Oregon. The Council asked staff to report back in a year on how it was working. A Public Open House on the Transit Triangle would happen December 11, 2017, at the Ashland Senior Center to provide an overview and draft amendments. PUBLIC FORUM -None DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Accessory Residential Unit Development Standards Planning Manager Maria Harris explained staff had refined the ordinance further based on information from the October 24, 2017, Study Session. She provided the following information: Legislative History • 1991: ARVs allowed in Single-Family Zones(R-1) • 2002: ARVs allowed in Rural Residential Zones (RR) • 2008: ARVs allowed in the Multi-Family Zones (R-2& R-3) • 2015: ARVs changed from conditional to permitted use. Background • 177 ARVs approved since 1991 • Last ten years (2007-2017) 0 65 units approved 0 35 units less than 500 sq.ft. • Household sizing is decreasing • 2012 Housing Needs Analysis Ashland Panning Commission November 28, 2017 Page 1 of 4 o Greatest need is rental studio units o Second need is one-bedroom rental units Staff focused on single-family zones. They chose not to change the standards for R-2, R-3,and RR due to parking and the higher densities allowed. There were some exceptions. These zones did not have as much available on-street parking. Also, multi-family had multi-family development potential outside of the ARU provision. A single-family home in the R-2, R-3, and RR zones could add a second unit under the existing multi-family zone regulations. As long as it was less than the minimum lot size for two units they could build a 500 square foot (sq. ft.) ARU. If it was the size required for two units or more, they could do multiple units. Ms. Harris provided examples where ARUs were added to houses, converted garages, and within the existing footprint of a house. ARUs less than 500 sq. ft. attached or within an existing home would not require planning approval site design review. It would be a building permit. In addition, it would not require off- street parking. For an ARU in an existing home at least five years old, the owner could make the existing residential units 75% of the primary residence. It changed the percentage from 50% of the primary residence to 75%. Another example was a 400 sq. ft. unit built above a garage. The home itself was 2100 sq. ft. Under the draft ordinance,this would require a planning approval because it was detached. Any detached ARU would require planning approval and off-street parking. New to the ordinance was if an application was submitted for site design review, staff excluded some of the standards that applied to multifamily development and tried to limit that scope. This was something for the Commission to consider. Staff looked at other communities'standards and added the requirement when there was outdoor living space, like a balcony, it should be directed towards the interior yard.Another consideration was making the door to the accessory secondary or subordinate to the main entrance of the house. These were possible incentives for people to utilize the existing footprint rather than having additional physical disturbances of the lot. The ordinance changed the parking standard when required to one space for less than 800 sq. ft. If the unit was between 800 sq. ft. and 1000 sq. ft., it required two spaces. In the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.5.2.020 Applicability (C)(2) staff indicated R-1 and R-1-3.5 zones. R-1 served as an umbrella for R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and R-1-10 zones. It was also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In 2008,the code was amended to allow ARUs in R-2 and R-3. AMC 18.4.2.030 Residential Development (C)(1) was a repeat of language under AMC 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (A) R-1 Zone. For AMC 18.4.2.030 (C)(2), the language was moved to a numeral because it was becoming lengthy. The process reflected the current code. It was the same for R-2 and R-3 in site design review to add an ARU as it was to add a second unit. When it was put into the ordinance in 2008, undersized R-2 and R-3 lots were not big enough to add a full second unit. It would allow the same accessory to the single-family dwelling as R-1 zones. If it was not big enough under the densities of R-2 and R-3, someone could still do an ARU that was 500 sq. ft. or less. Under AMC 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit(C)(1),the Commission wanted to remove the second sentence, "Lots meeting the density standards in section 18.2.5.080 for two or more units are not eligible for an accessory residential unit." Initially, staff was concerned about giving R-2 and R-3 the same exemption as R-1. In R-1 zones there tended to be more on-street parking available. Off street parking was more of a demand because of mixed use in the R-2 and R-3 zones. The lots also tended to be narrower with less street frontage. Ashland Panning Commission Nolemb r 28, 2017 Page 2of4 AMC 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (A)(5) was exempted from the flag drive requirements. At the least, they could make it conform to what a single-family home would be required to do. Commission comment suggested a minimum that included "except for the minimum of a 9-foot driveway width." Commission comment also thought parking should not be exempted in areas where it was only allowed on one side of the street. In new subdivisions, street width was reduced with parking on one side of the street. AMC 18.2.3.040 Accessory Residential Unit (A)(2) spoke to ARUs not being subject to the minimum lot area requirements of the zone. The Commission could determine if they wanted it to be that limited or if the intention was to encourage smaller 500 sq. ft. units. Ms. Harris clarified it did not increase density. It was a different way of calculating the density for the performance standards options. Mr. Molnar added since the later 1980s, most of the subdivisions and single-family zones were done under the performance standards. It eliminated many developments from building ARUs that brought up the question of revisiting the provision. Chair Pearce read from a new state statute that required. "... a city with a population greater than 2500, shall allow, in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings, the development of at least one ARU for each detached single-family dwelling. Subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design." He noted it did not relate to density. There was some confusion on the statute that would be clarified in the future by the state. Ms. Harris explained limiting conversions to houses in existence for 5 years was an attempt to make the ordinance more timeless rather than locking in the existing housing stock at the time it was adopted. The Commission suggested striking the language in AMC 18.2.3.040(3)(8) that stated a lot had to have access to an improved city street paved to 20-feet in width with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. To date, no lot in the RR zone complied with the requirement. AMC 18.2.3.040 (13)(1) prohibited any land disturbance on lands with 25% slope or greater. Chair Pearce thought the physical constraints ordinance for hillside lands covered this and it was not necessary for this ordinance. Commissioner Mindlin suggested allowing ARUs in all of the situations as long as it was under 500 sq. ft. It would encourage the smaller units the city needed and would have less impact. They suggested striking AMC 18.2.3.040 (13)(1) and (13)(2). Chair Pearce addressed AMC 18.4.2.030 Residential Development(13)(1) and wanted it made clear that only the following standards from Chapter 18.4.2 applied. Mr. Molnar clarified they would still be required to have 50% or 45% of the lot landscaped depending on the zone. Commissioner Norton expressed concern of the cumulative effect of allowing ARUs in subdivisions. The Commission thought windows should be removed from AMC 18.4.2.030(J)(2) so that just exterior doors and outdoor living areas on the second story were oriented towards the interior of the property. Commissioner Dawkins noted a tree on B Street that had protective fencing around it during the construction of three big buildings. The tree died from lack of water. He suggested adding watering to the tree protection requirements. UPDATES A. Community Development Department Housing Program Community Development Director Bill Molnar gave an overview of what Housing Specialist Linda Reid presented at the November 21, 2017, City Council meeting. The City had been committed for almost 30 years to housing and made various contributions from updating the land use ordinance to fee waivers and staffing. Other achievements included annexation requirements for mandatory affordability. The City had 172 deed-restricted units in the program. Staff Ashland Panning Commission Nolemb r 28, 2017 Page 3 of 4 would provide an update in the future on the regional housing strategy. Another item was informal discussion regarding the Croman Mill property and a residential development on the southern part of the property near Siskiyou Boulevard. The railroad clean up would occur spring 2018. There was a possibility of having some additional housing in the area. A new bill passed that would provide 1% loans to cities to purchase property for affordable housing. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Submitted by, Dana Smith, Executive Assistant Ashland Panning Commission November 28, 2017 p %i,'I Planning Department,51 Winb urn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520 C I T y 0 F rN 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www,ashland,orus TTY: 1-800-735-2900 -ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2017-01911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street OWN ER/APPLI CANT: Jorge Yank DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional.Use Permit for Marijuana Retail Sales and Site Design Review for Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) in the existing building located at 181 A St. The marijuana businesses are proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the building and according to the application materials, the Marijuana Retail Sales will be located at 181 A St. and the Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) will be located at 185, 191 and 195 A St. COMPI?,EHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 09BA; TAX LOT #: 14,600 & 14900. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: I uesday Deceinber '12, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Cenlbi'., 1175 East Main ,Stmet SUBJECTIFROPERTY 181 A ST PLANNING ACTION #2017-01911 r co 0 Notice is hereby gaven that a PUBLIC HEARING on the foflowing request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above.The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law stater,that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by Vetter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based an also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an,action for daimages in circuit court. A copy of the appfication, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable crite6a are avaiWble for inspection at no cost and wifl be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,Community Development and Engineering Services,51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chafer shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900), Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFIR 35.102.-35.104 ADA T41e 1). If you have questions or comments,concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Divpsjon,541-488-5305. Aclions\Noficing FaldcAMailed Nofices&Sig ns\201APA-2017-01911 PC Nm'CeLdox CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - 18.5.4.050.A 1 A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria,or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. 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. f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. 1. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. �f 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. R-2 and R-3.Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements,developed at the density permitted by chapter 18.2.5 Standards for Residential E. 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 �a.. 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, 3I complying with all ordinance requirements. k. CM-NC.The retail commercial uses listed in chapter 183.2 Croman Mill District,developed at an intensity of 0.60 gross floor to area ratio,complying !; with all ordinance requirements. 1. 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. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone:The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone(part 18.2),including but not limited to:building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,density and floor area,lot coverage, building height, building orientation,architecture,and other applicable I 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 1I 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. s 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. I. 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. G:Ncomm-devlplanning\Planning AclionslNolicing PolderWailed Notices K Signs120171PA-2017-0191 I_PC_Notice_doex j 1 ii L' 18.2.3.190 Marijuana-Related Uses. B. Marijuana-Related Businesses. 1. Marijuana-related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2 or a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4.See Table 18.2.2.030—Uses Allowed by Zone for zones where marijuana-related businesses are allowed. See definition of marijuana-related businesses in part 18.6. Marijuana-related businesses shall meet all of the following requirements. a. The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer,cargo container,or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana production,cultivation,and storage of merchandise, raw materials,or other material associated with the business are prohibited. b. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review approval if required by section 18.5.2.020. Security bars or grates on windows and doors li are prohibited. c. The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products;such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the business'exterior refuse containers. d. Light and Glare.Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and glare from light systems associated with indoor cultivation so as to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure.Grow light systems within a greenhouse are prohibited. e. Building Code.Any structure,accessory structure,electrical service,plumbing,or mechanical equipment(e.g., lighting,fans,heating and cooling systems)associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation. f. Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements.The following methodology shall be used for marijuana related-businesses that are required to be separated by a specific distance(Le., marijuana production facility,marijuana wholesale facility,marijuana retail outlet). For the purposes of determining the distance between a marijuana related-business and another marijuana-related business,"within 1,000 feet"means a straight line measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from the closest point anywhere on the premises of an approved marijuana related-business to the closest point anywhere on the premises of a proposed marijuana-related business of the same type. If any portion of the premises of a proposed marijuana related-business is within 1,000 feet of an approved marijuana related business of the same type,it may not be approved. For the purpose of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices,kitchens,rest rooms,and storerooms. g. The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may j suffer from state or federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted. Furthermore,the owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the City's order to halt or suspend business if state or federal authorities order or otherwise subject the City to enforcement to comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the business as permitted under section 18.2.3.190. h. A marijuana-related business must obtain an approved license or registration from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. 2. Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale. In addition to the standards described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as applicable. See definition of nl marijuana processing and production in part 18.6. a. Marijuana laboratories,processing,production,and wholesale shall be located 200 feet or more from residential zones. i` b. Marijuana Production. i. Marijuana production shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per lot. ii, A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana production facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses. c. Marijuana Wholesale.A marijuana wholesale facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana wholesale facility. See subsection 18,2,3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses. 3. Marijuana Retail Sales. In addition to the standards described above in subsection 18.2.3.390.6.1, marijuana retail sales shall meet the following requirements, See definition of marijuana retail sales in part 18,6, a. Location. i i. Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. 'i G:1coinm-devVplanning\Planning Ac[imisL�Naticiag Foldcr\Nlailed Noliccs&Signs120171PA-2017-oi911_PC_Nolece.docx ii. Marijuana retail sales,except as allowed above in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.3.a.i,must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zones. i iv. A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana retail sales outlet. Medical and recreational marijuana retail sales do not need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in one building if the configuration moets all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules.No more than two registrations or licenses issued by the State of Oregon(e.g.,a medical dispensary registration and a recreational sales license)may be located in one building.See subsection 18.2.3.190.13.Vfor methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related- businesses. " b. Drive-up Use.The marijuana retail sales outlet must not include a drive-up use. i' h' i' 3 L. ii 3 f� l f< i it I` �l i� G:lcomm-devlplanningTIamiing ActionsWaticing PolderWailed Notices&SISoO0MPA-2017-01911 PC_Notice.docx a ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT December 12,2017 PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01911 OWNER/APPLICANT: Plexis Healthcare Systems Inc./Jorge Yant LOCATION: 181 A St. ZONE DESIGNATION: E-1 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment ORDINANCE REFERENCES: (See also http://www.ashIand.or.us/SIE/files/AMC®ChDt 18®current.pdf) 18.2.3.190 Marijuana-Related Uses 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: 11/3/2017 REQUEST: A request for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales and Site Design Review for marijuana production (indoor grow) in the existing building located at 181 A St. The marijuana businesses are proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the building and according to the application materials, the marijuana retail sales will be located at 181 A St. and the marijuana production will be located at 185, 191 and 195 A St. I. Relevant Facts 1) Background -History of Application In August of 1999,the property received Site Design Review approval to remodel the historic building into the "A Street Marketplace" (PA 99-108). The original building consisted of three contiguous structures, including two concrete structures and one steel building. The two concrete structures were approved for a combination of retail, food service and light industrial uses. The metal siding on the eastern portion of the building was removed and described as an open-air pavilion that could be used for plaza space and outdoor markets. In May 2001, the property received a Conditional Use Permit approval for a Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 1 of 15 temporary use to operate an outdoor market in the open-air pavilion and a portion of the parking area on Saturday mornings from May through October (PA 2001- 038). The operation of the outdoor market concluded in October 2001 because the temporary use was required to cease when the interior space of the market place was completed and open to the public. r Figure 10 Open-Air Pavilion In September 2002, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to use the open-air pavilion and interior public space as a theater, nightclub and bar was denied(PA 2002-094). In October 2002, the property received Site Design Review approval to enclose the open-air pavilion (PA 2002-113) and Conditional Use Permit approval for a nightclub located in the interior courtyards and pavilion space (PA 2002-115). Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 2 of 15 w �Urd(m/,4NIt1 dN1fifR4�PVf�k4V�1�.�®ar�rta�, J�f�v 91q y7rI dlll�lll�'�`rrr�rrrr�r�rrn�a�. Figure 20 Pavilion After Enclosure In March 2003, the Planning Commission approved a modification of the Conditional Use Permit for a nightclub to allow unrestricted hours of operation. The previous 2002 approval restricted the use of the pavilion space to 10:00 pm and no amplified music after 7:00 pm. There are no other planning actions of record for this property. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description The project involves two contiguous parcels with frontage along Oak St. and A St. The combined area of the two parcels totals approximately 40,738 square feet. The subject building is located on the north side of A St., with Oak St. on the west side of the building and the railroad tracks to the north of the building. The application identifies the building as 16,225 square feet in size. The site and properties immediately surrounding the site are zoned Employment(E- 1). The properties on the west or opposite side of Oak St. from VanNess Ave. to B St. are zoned Low Density Multiple-Family (R-2), as well as the properties to the south on B St. The subject site is located in the Detail Site Review and the Historic District overlays. Specifically, the site is located in the Railroad Addition Historic District and the building is identified as historic contributing. The building is dated at 1912 and was originally constructed for the Ashland Fruit and Produce Association. In 1945, Oak Tank and Steel moved to the building. The site was converted in the early 2000's from light-industrial uses (i.e., Oak Tank Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 3 of 15 and Steel) to the "A Street Marketplace" which included retail, food service, nightclub, light industrial and office uses. What appears to be one building was originally three separate structures. The two structures that are shorter in height are the original indoor portions of the building. The eastern end of the building was a metal building that was converted to an open-air pavilion. Subsequently,the pavilion was enclosed with block walls with a sand slurry finish. The parking area for the site is located to the southeast of the building and contains 43 parking spaces. Oak St. is designated as an avenue and A Street is designated as a neighborhood collector. Sidewalks are in place along the property frontage and both streets are shared facilities for automobiles and bicycles. Current Proposal The application involves a request for a Conditional Use Permit for marijuana retail sales and Site Design Review for marijuana production(indoor grow)in the building located at 181 A St. The marijuana businesses are proposed to be located in the eastern portion of the building. According to the application materials, the retail sales area will be located at 181 A St. and the production area at 185, 191 and 195 A St. The marijuana production use would be located in the portion of the building that was formerly the open-air pavilion. According to the application, the retail sales area would be 1,850 square feet in size and the production area would be 4,180 square feet in size. The remainder of the building is slightly over 10,000 square feet in size and identified in the application as general office space. The proposal does not involve any changes to the exterior of the building or site. IL Proiect Impact Marijuana retail sales that are located on streets that are not classified as a boulevard and are located 200 feet or more from a residential zone are a conditional use and require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A Street is classified as a neighborhood collector. As a result, the proposal to locate marijuana retail sales at 181 A St. requires a Conditional Use Permit. The requirement for a separation from residential zones by 200 feet or more is discussed further below. All marijuana-related businesses are subject to Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.4 if the proposal involves a threshold covered in the applicability section for commercial, industrial, non-residential and mixed uses in AMC 18.5.2.020.A. One of the requirements for Site Design Review is a change to a more intense building occupancy. Specifically, AMC 18.5.2.020.A.7 requires Site Design Review if there is "any change of occupancy from a less intense Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 4 of 15 to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the building code, or a change in use that requires a greater number of parking spaces." The applicant submitted a letter regarding the requirement for Site Design Review for the marijuana production (indoor grow)use that is included in the packet. The Building Division indicated that indoor agricultural is typically considered a more intense occupancy than the previously approved retail or nightclub uses because of the potential storage and use of chemicals. If a question regarding occupancy arises during the building permit process, the change of occupancy is determined by the applicant having a licensed Oregon architect perform and submit an occupancy analysis. The public notice and the evaluation in this staff report include Site Design Review for the marijuana production use. The application is a Type I review because no additions to the building are proposed and because the building is an existing structure. A notice of complete application was mailed and posted in November. The City received a variety of written comments about the application during the comment period.The comments are included in the Planning Commission's meeting packet. AMC 18.5.1.050.C.2 allows the Staff Advisor to refer a Type I application to the Planning Commission through the Type II process. The application was scheduled for a public hearing due to the concerns raised during the comment period, as well as because of potential issues in meeting the approval criteria as outlined below. Marijuana Retail Sales As discussed earlier,the building was repurposed and remodeled beginning in 1999 from an industrial use to the A St. Plaza, nightclub and subsequent office use. The proposal doesn't involve additions to the existing structure, changes to the exterior of the building or changes to the site or parking area. During the past 19 years, City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and transportation have been in place to serve the building and previously approved uses. The existing building and site meet the requirements for the E-1 zone. The proposed marijuana retail sales use meets the special use standards for marijuana-related businesses. As discussed earlier,the nearest residential zone is situated on the west side of Oak St.According to the application,the closest point of the proposed location of the marijuana retail sales use at 181 A St. is 230 feet from the residential zone. The measurement of the distance from residential zones is discussed in a separate section below. AMC 18.2.3.190.B.2.b requires marijuana retail facilities to be located more than 1,000 feet from another production facility, prohibits marijuana retail sales in the Downtown Design Standards Overlay and prohibits a drive-up use (i.e., window). The location is more than 1,000 feet from other existing marijuana retail sales uses. The proposed location is a little over a half of a mile or 2,900 feet from House of Leaves at 488 N. Main St. and slightly under a half of a mile or 2,500 feet from Rogue Valley Cannabis located at 505 Siskiyou Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 5 of 15 Blvd. There are four additional approved marijuana retail establishments in Ashland and those stores are located a greater distance from the site than the two stores described above. The site is not located in the Downtown Design Standards Overlay and does not include a drive-up use. The parking ratios in AMC 18.4.3.040 require a total of 30 parking spaces for the proposed combination of marijuana retail sales, marijuana production and office uses. The existing parking area for the site is located to the southeast of the building and contains 43 parking spaces. The Parking Analysis included in the application shows a parking demand of 36 spaces for the proposed combination of uses. The Parking Analysis shows 12 parking spaces required for the proposed marijuana retail sales use at 1 space per 149 square feet, which exceeds the land use requirement in AMC 18.4.3.040 for a total requirement of six parking spaces based on 1 parking space per 350 square feet of retail space. The primary issue in meeting the approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit involves the generation of traffic on surrounding streets in comparison to the target use of the E-1 zone. Specifically, the application does not demonstrate that proposed marijuana retail sales 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, ..." as required by the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria. In terms of evaluating the impacts of a proposal,the Conditional Use Permit approval criteria state, "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." The target use in the E-1 zone for properties located in the Detail Site Review overlay is a general office use developed at an intensity of.50 floor to area ratio. The floor-area ratio or FAR is defined in AMC 18.6.1.030 as "The gross floor area of all building on a lot divided by the lot area." In this case, the site area is 40,738 square feet. As a result, the target use of the site is a general office building that is half of the size of the lot or 20,369 square feet in size. According to the Trip Generation Analysis submitted with the application, the vehicle trip generation at the p.m.peak hour from 4 to 6 p.m. for a general office use is 1.49 vehicle trips per 1000 square feet of building and a single tenant office space is 1.74 per 1000 square feet of building. Using the general office and single tenant trip generation rate for the target use, a 20,369 square foot office building would generate 30 to 35 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour. In comparison, the analysis submitted with the application projects 75 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour for the building including the proposed marijuana retail sales use, marijuana production use and using the remainder of the building for general office. The Trip Generation Analysis uses a rate of 28.2 vehicle trips per 1000 square feet of marijuana Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 6 of 15 retail sales based on a study of marijuana dispensaries. This trip generation rate is higher than the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rate for a specialty retail center or pharmacy without a drive through window. As a result, at 75 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour, the proposal would approximately double the 30-35 vehicle trips generated by the target use, a 20,369 square foot office building, during the p.m peak hour. The Trip Generation Analysis includes a discussion and map which shows the distribution of the trips on nearby intersections including A St. at First St., A St. at Pioneer St. and A St. at Oak St. Typically, an increase in the generation of traffic or vehicle trips alone would not automatically be considered a negative impact when evaluating whether a proposal will have a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the surrounding area compared to the target use. Instead, the analysis would evaluate the impact of the increase in vehicle trips on the performance of the transportation system. In this case, the questions include the impact of the additional vehicle trips on the performance of the nearby intersections, pedestrian travel, pedestrian crossings and safety, and bicycle safety. In this case, the City has accident data for the vicinity since 1998. That information shows that since 2004,there have been 12 accidents at or near the intersection of A St. and Oak St. since 2004 and 20 accidents on A St. between the intersection with First St. and Pioneer St. since 1998. The area is also regularly used by pedestrians and bicyclists. The Public Works Department reviewed the Trip Generation Analysis and suggested that amount of traffic generated throughout the day by the proposed uses should be reviewed and considered rather than limiting the analysis to p.m.peak hour. The Trip Generation Analysis included in the application reviews the change in vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour(4 to 6 p.m.). The concern is the amount of vehicle trips generated throughout the day and the cumulative impact on performance transportation system,particularly as it relates to safety. Since marijuana retail sales are a relatively new use nationwide,the overall amount of traffic and the daily distribution of the vehicle trips throughout the day is beginning to be studied. At this point, it doesn't appear to be clear that the traditional travel patterns of having more trips in the morning and evening peak hours is reflective of the marijuana retail sales establishments. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 7 of 15 Issue: The application identifies a doubling of vehicle trips generated by the proposed uses compared to the target use of a general office. However, the application doesn't demonstrate that the additional traffic generated by the proposed marijuana retail sales use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area when compared to the development of the subject lot with the target use of a general office. Specifically, the application doesn't address the impact of the additional vehicle trips on the performance of the nearby intersections, pedestrian travel, pedestrian crossings and safety, and bicycle safety. In addition, the information submitted with the application evaluates vehicle trips generated during the p.m.peak hour between 4 and 6 p.m.but does not address traffic generated throughout the day. Marijuana Production (Indoor Grow) As discussed earlier,the proposal doesn't involve additions to the existing structure, changes to the exterior of the building or changes to the site or parking area. During the past 19 years, City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, and transportation have been in place to serve the building and previously approved uses. The existing building and site meet the requirements for the E-1 zone. The proposed marijuana production use meets the special use standards for marijuana businesses. As discussed earlier,the nearest residential zone is situated on the west side of Oak St. and the proposed location of the marijuana retail sales use at 181 A St. is approximately 300 feet from the residential zone. The measurement of the distance from residential zones is discussed further below. AMC 18.2.3.190.B.2.b requires marijuana production facilities to be located more than 1,000 feet from another production facility and limits the size of a production facility to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The proposed marijuana production use is almost three miles or 15,102 feet from the marijuana production use at 3161 E. Main St. which exceeds the required separation. The proposed marijuana production use is 4,180 square feet in size which is below the maximum size of 5,000 square feet. The parking ratios in AMC 18.4.3.040 require a total of five parking spaces for the proposed marijuana production use which is accommodated by the existing parking area for the site. The marijuana production use does require one additional parking space per company vehicle. The application doesn't address if there will be company vehicles associated with the production use and a condition is added requiring this information with the building permit submittals. The application states that no significant changes to sewage are expected for the production use. The Public Works Department raised an issue regarding the potential chemical content of wastewater generated by the indoor grow and the ability of the City's wastewater treatment plant to treat the effluent to acceptable levels required under state and federal Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 8 of 15 permits. Specifically, the issue is the type and amount of fertilizer or other agricultural chemicals used in marijuana cultivation that would be potentially directed into the City's sewer system. Often industrial uses are required to pre-treat wastewater before dispensing it to the public system. In addition, the rate of discharge of this type of wastewater can be an issue and may need to controlled and metered. A condition is added requiring the applicant to submit information on the sewage volume and constituent details, as well as anticipated water and electric demand. Many of the written comments raised concern about odor generated by growing marijuana indoors and the impact on air quality. AMC 9.08.060 addresses the creation of nuisances that affect public health and specifically prohibits premises that cause an offensive odor. AMC 6.50.060.17 requires marijuana dispensaries to install an air filtration system that to the greatest extent feasible confines all objectionable odors associated with the use to the premises. A condition is added that requires that an air filtration system is installed meeting the requirements of AMC 6.50.060.F. Measuring 200 feet from Residential Zone The special use standards for marijuana-related businesses in AMC 18.2.3.190.13 require marijuana retail sales and production to be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone. As discussed earlier, the nearest residential zone is situated on the west side of Oak St. According to the application,the closest point of proposed location of the marijuana retail sales use at 181 A St. is 230 feet from the residential zone. The proposed location of the marijuana production at 185, 191 and 195 A St. is approximately 300 feet from the residential zone. The application has been evaluated measuring the required 200 feet from the zoning district boundary to the portion of the building that the uses will occupy. This is the methodology that has been used in past applications involving marijuana-related businesses as well as other uses that require separation from residential zones such as auto repair facilities. The applicant has pointed out that the methodology for measuring separation requirements between marijuana businesses (e.g., 1000 feet of separation required between marijuana retail sales establishments) in AMC 18.2.3.190.B.F uses a similar methodology of measuring to the premises of a marijuana-related business. Premises is defined as "all public and private enclosed areas with a building at the location that are used in the business separation, including offices, kitchens, rest rooms and storerooms." However, the Planning Commission may have the ability to interpret and apply the separation requirement using a different approach. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 9 of 15 Issues: The special use standards for marijuana-related businesses in AMC 18.2.3.190.13 require marijuana retail sales and production to be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone. The application has been evaluated measuring the required 200 feet from the zoning district boundary to the portion of the building that the uses will occupy. The Planning Commission may have the ability to interpret and apply the separation requirement using a different approach. U Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The special use standards for Marijuana-Related Businesses are detailed in AMC 18.2.3.190.13 as follows: B. Marijuana-Related Businesses. 1. Marijuana-related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter 18.5.2 or a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. See Table 18.2.2.030— Uses Allowed by Zone for zones where marijuana-related businesses are allowed. See definition of marijuana-related businesses in part 18.6. Marijuana-related businesses shall meet all of the following requirements. a. The business must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor marijuana production, cultivation, and storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the business are prohibited. b. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review approval if required by section 18.5.2.020. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. c. The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by- products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the business' exterior refuse containers. d. Light and Glare. Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and glare from light systems associated with indoor cultivation so as to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure. Grow light systems within a greenhouse are prohibited. e. Building Code. Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing, or mechanical equipment (e.g., lighting, fans, heating and cooling systems) associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation. f. Methodology for Measuring Separation Requirements. The following methodology shall be used for marijuana related- businesses that are required to be separated by a specific distance (i.e., marijuana production facility, Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 10 of 15 marijuana wholesale facility, marijuana retail outlet). For the purposes of determining the distance between a marijuana related-business and another marijuana-related business, "within 1,000 feet" means a straight line measurement in a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction from the closest point anywhere on the premises of an approved marijuana related- business to the closest point anywhere on the premises of a proposed marijuana-related business of the same type. If any portion of the premises of a proposed marijuana related-business is within 1,000 feet of an approved marijuana related business of the same type, it may not be approved. For the purpose of this section, premises is all public and private enclosed areas within a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens, rest rooms, and storerooms. g. The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted. Furthermore, the owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonably disobey the City's order to halt or suspend business if state or federal authorities order or otherwise subject the City to enforcement to comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the business as permitted under section 18.2.3.190. h. A marijuana-related business must obtain an approved license or registration from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. 2. Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale. In addition to the standards described in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, above, marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall meet the following requirements as applicable. See definition of marijuana processing and production in part 18.6. a. Marijuana laboratories, processing, production, and wholesale shall be located 200 feet or more from residential zones. b. Marijuana Production. i. Marijuana production shall be limited to 5,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per lot. ii. A marijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana production facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses. c. Marijuana Wholesale. A marijuana wholesale facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana wholesale facility. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses. 3. Marijuana Retail Sales. In addition to the standards described above in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1, marijuana retail sales shall meet the following requirements. See definition of marijuana retail sales in part 18.6. a. Location. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 11 of 15 i. Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. ii. Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection 18.2.3.190.B.3.a.i, must be located 200 feet or more from a residential zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18.5.4. iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zones. iv. A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana retail sales outlet. Medical and recreational marijuana retail sales do not need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in one building if the configuration meets all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules. No more than two registrations or licenses issued by the State of Oregon (e.g., a medical dispensary registration and a recreational sales license) may be located in one building. See subsection 18.2.3.190.B.1.f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses. b. Drive-up Use. The marijuana retail sales outlet must not include a drive-up use. The approval criteria for a Conditional Use Permit are described in AMC 18.5.4.050.A as follows. 1. That the use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program. 2. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. 3. That the conditional use will have no greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area 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. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 12 of 15 f. The development of adjacent properties as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. g. Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use. 4. A conditional use permit shall not allow a use that is prohibited or one that is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 5. For the purposes of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval criteria of this subsection, the target uses of each zone are as follows. f. E-1. The general office uses listed in chapter 18.2.2 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. The approval criteria for Site Design Review are detailed in AMC 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 Site Development and Design Standards. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 13 of 15 IV. Conclusions and Recommendations There are two key considerations for the Planning Commission: 1) the comparison of the generation of traffic from the proposal and target use and whether there is a greater adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area. Specifically, the application does not fully address the impact of the additional vehicle trips on the transportation system including the performance of intersections in the vicinity,pedestrian crossings and safety, and bicycle safety,and 2)the manner in which the required 200 feet or more from the proposed marijuana retail sales and production uses to residential zones is interpreted and applied. Staff recommends the applicant provide a more detailed evaluation of potential impacts to the transportation system associated with the increased vehicle trips. Specifically, the evaluation should address vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Additionally, the application should address the traffic generation throughout the day rather than limiting the analysis to a morning or evening peak hour. Should the Commission decide to approve the application, staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the proposal: 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2. That a utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Ashland Engineering, Electric, Building, Fire and Planning Divisions prior to the building permit submittals. The utility plan shall include proposed utility upgrades and the connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes, fire lines and hydrants, sanitary sewer pretreatment and flow control, storm drain lines and upgrades to electric services. That information on the water use, electric use and sewage amount and type for the marijuana production including but not limited to water demand, electric demand, and the volume, load and constituent details for the waste water shall be submitted with the utility plan. 3. That the building permit submittals shall include: a. A modification of the occupancy classification shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Building Division. b. An air filtration and ventilation system that meets the requirements of AMC 6.50.060.17 shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Building and Planning Divisions. c. Demonstrate compliance with the use standards in AMC 18.2.3.190.B.d including but not limited to secure disposal, no outdoor storage and shielding lighting systems to confine light and glare from light systems associated with indoor cultivation. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 14 of 15 d. Demonstrate compliance with the parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3.040 including but not limited to specifying if there will be company vehicles associated with the marijuana production use and providing parking spaces as required. 4. That prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. That the property owner shall record a declaration which waives any claim or right to hold the City liable for damages they or a tenant may suffer from state or federal enforcement actions for activities the City permits as a result of its approval of the proposed use or development once such approval is granted in accordance with AMC 18.2.3.190.B.1.g. 5. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: a. That verification that the marijuana-related business has an approved license or registration from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules.in accordance with AMC 18.2.3.190.B.1.h. b. That City of Ashland business licenses are approved for the marijuana retail sales and production uses. The marijuana retail sales use shall meet all requirements of AMC 6.50 including but not limited to operation hours no earlier than 9:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. c. That a sign permit in accordance with AMC 18.4.7 shall be obtained prior to the installation of any signage that is visible from the public right-of-way. Planning Action 2017-01911 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/mh Applicant:Jorge Yant Page 15 of 15 LIMITED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZATION TO ACT on behalf of the undersigned owner of real property described as Tax Lots 14600& 14900 on Jackson County Assessor reap 39-1 E-09BA. LET IT RE KNOWN that CSA Planning, Ltd. (CSA) is the duly authorized representative of Plexis Healthcare Systems Inc. and Jorge Yant, the owner/applicant of the above described real property, and, by this instrument, do hereby authorize CSA to perform all acts procedurally required to obtain land use and development applications and permits as may be required by and through the City of Ashland as legal prerequisites to actual development of the described real property. THIS LIMITED AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY shall be used for only the limited and special purposes above described and shall not be used to buy, sell or convey any part or any interest whatsoever in this or any other land owned by the above property owner. THIS LIMITED ANT) SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY has been expressly authorized by the undersigned applicant and shall expire on December 31, 2018, but may be extended by the mutual consent of the parties, Done and dated this day of , 2017. Authorized Represent ave i CEIVED M City of' i zsh la i P 1 f BEFORE THE CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND RECEIVED JACKSON CO'UNlTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF A CONDITIONAL USE Colty of Ashkand PERMIT FOR RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA RETAIL SALES AND PRECAUTIONARY APPLICATION FOR ) SITE DESIGNS REVIEW FOR A PORTIONS OF ) AN EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED FOR � RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA RETAIL � SALES AND MARIJUNIA PRODUCTION. THE PROJECT INVOLVES AN INTERIOR ) FINDINGS GS OF FACT AND REMODEL OF A PORTIONS OF AN ) CONCLUSIONS, OF LAW EXISTING BUILDING AND UTILIZES AN Applicant's Exhibit 2 EXISTING PARKING LCT ON PRIVATE LAND. THE RETAIL PROJECT IS � LOCATED AT 191 A STREET AND THE PRODUCTION USE IS LOCATED AT 185, y 191, AND 195 A STREET IN THE CITY OF � ASHLAND, OREGON. � Applicant:: Jorge Yant Owner: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. Agent of Record: CSA Planning, Ltd. i I SCOPE AND MATURE OF THE APPLICATION The Applicant proposes a Recreational Marijuana Retail Sales facility and a General Manufacture use which includes Marijuana Production facility within an existing building. The Recreational Marijuana. Retail Sales use is a conditional use in the E-1 zone where it is not located on a Boulevard and the Marijuana Production facility is a permitted use in the E- 1 zone. A precautionaryite Pesig_m,,Previrentlew is being submitted for both uses. The remaining north half of the building is currently vacant and no new uses for that portion of the building are proposed at this time, the most recent use of that portion of the building was for professional offices. The Site Design Review treats the remainder of the building as professional office uses from an overall site use standpoint. Page 1 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit, Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH CONSOLIATED APPLICATION The following evidence is Submitted in support of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review- Exhibit 1. Signed and Completed Application Forms and Authorization from the current property owners Pleads Healthcare Systems, Inc. and the Applicant Jorge Yant Exhibit 2. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (this document) which demonstrates how this Consolidated Land Use Application complies with the relevant substantive criteria of the City of Ashland Exhibit 3. Vicinity Map Exhibit 4. Jackson County Assessor plat map 39S-I E-09BA which contains and depicts the subject property Exhibit 5. Current City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map depicting the subject property Exhibit 6. City of Ashland Marijuana Eligibility Maps a) Area Map b) Detail Map Exhibit 7, Current City of Ashland Zoning Map on Aerial depicting the subject property Exhibit 8. Overlays Map depicting the subject property Exhibit 9. 200-Foot Impact Area Map of Recreational Retail Conditional Use Exhibit 10. Site Plans a) 1999 & 2002 Site Plan Design Materials b) Project Floor Plan c) Existing Elevation Photos Exhibit 11. Transportation Impact Analysis and Parking Demand Analysis prepared by Sandow Engineering is RECEIVED QtY Of ftllaric Page 2 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Alexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. III APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA The criteria under which the consolidated land-use application must be reviewed are laid forth in the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18. The relevant approval criteria are recited verbatim below: PROCEDURAI CRrrERlA 18.5,1,010 Purpose and Appkability A,, Purpose, This chapter establishes procedures to init0te and make final decisions on planning actions r,mder the I and Use Ordinance ("0,)Is ordinance"), pursuant to City policy and state law, B. Appkability of F'tWew Procediires, All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the following procedures. suairnarized in subsections 1 - 4, below, and as designated in Table 18.5,1.010, Building permits and other approvals, including approvals from other agencies such as the state department of transportation or a natural resource regulatory agency, may be required, FaliUre to receive natire of any SUCII requirement does riot waive that requirement or invalidate any planning action under this ordinance, 1, Ministerial Action (Staff Advisor Decision), The Staff Advisor makes Ininliterial decisions by applying City standards and criteria that(to not require the,use of substantial discretion (e,g., ferice, sign and horne occupation permits), A public notice and public hearing are not required for Ministeriat decisions, Procedures for Ministerial actions are contained in section 18.6.1,040, 2, Type I Procedure (Administrative Decision With Noti:ce), Type I decisions are rTwde by the Staff Advisor with public notice and an opportunity for appeal to the Planning Commission, Alternatively tl'ie Staff Advisor may refor a Type I application to the Con-irnission for its review and decWon in a public meeting, Procedures for Type I actions are contained in section 18.51,050, 3. Type 11 Procedure (Quasi-Judicial Review/Public Hearing Review), Type it decisions are made by the Planning Commission after a pubfic hearing,with an opportunity for appeal to the City Council, Applications involving zoning map amendments consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and minor map amendments or corrections are subject to quasi-fudiciM rewleW Under the Type it procedure, Quasi-judicial decisions involve discretion but Implement policy, Procedures for Type ll acflons are contained in,section 18,5,1,060. 4, Type III Procedure (Legislative Decision), The Type III procedure applies to the creation, revision, or Wrge-scale implementation of public policy (e,g,, adoption of regulations, zone changes, comprehensive plan amendments, annexations). Type III reviews are considered by the Planning Commission, who makes, a, recommendation to City Council, The Cot.incil makes the final decision on a legislative proposal through the enactment of an ordinance, Table 18,5.1,010—Summary of Approvals by Typo of Review Procedure a Planning Actions Review ApplIcable Regulations Procedures Conditional Use Permit Type I or Il Section 18.5,4 Site Design Review Type I or 11 Chapter,18,5,2 18,&1.0 0 Determination of Review Procedure Where Table 18,51,010 designates more than one possible review procedure, e,g,,, Type I or Type it, the applicable review procedure shall be based on the criteria contained in the ordinance chapters or sections referenced in the tabie, REXEIVEK")�') ......... Page 3 of 26 Nil Im QtY Ot Ashland Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use 1711errnit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 18,6,11.050 Typo I Procedure(Administrative Decision with Notice) "I"ype I deeds oras are made by the Staff Advisor, following public notice and a public conitnent period, ....I ype I decisions provide an opportUnityfor appeal to the Planning Commission, C, Decision, 1, At the CWIGIUSiOr) Of the COMMIlt pedod, the Staff Advisor shall review the corornents received arid prepare a decision approving, approving with conciltions, or denying the appkcation based on the applicable ordinance crRetta. The Staff Advisor small prepare a decision within 45 days of the City's determination that art aplAcation is complete, unless the applicant agrees to, a longer time period. Alternatively, the Staff Advisor rmy transmit written corninents received along with a copy of the application to the Plarining Cornmission for review and decision at its next regularly scheduled meeting, 2, Where the Staff Advisor refers a Type I application to the Planning Gonirnission, the Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application through the Type Il procedure based on the applicable ordinance criteria, "I"he Commission may continue its review to the next meefing to allow the applicant time to respond to questions, provided the Commission must make a final decision witifln, the 1120-day period prescribed under State law (ORS 227,178) and as described in st0secfion 18,6,1,090,B of this ordinance, SUBSTANTIVE CRITERIA Special Use Standards 1t1. .03.190 Madjuana-Related Uses B. Marijuana-Related Businesses- I. Marijuana related businesses may require Site Design Review tinder chapter ,j„ 5","2' or a Conditional Use Permit under chapter 18 -,5,4, See Table 1822,030-- Uses Allowed' by Zone for zones where rnarijuana-related businesses are allowed, See definiflon of marijuana-related businesses in part jg,,O, MadjItmna.-related btisinesses shall meet all of the following reqL,firernents. a. The business rnust be located In a permanent building and may not locate In a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle, Outdoor marijuana production, curlivat0n, arid storage of merchandise, raw materials, or,other material associated with the bUSlueSS are prohibited. b, Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the business most be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review approval if required by section 18,6.2,020, Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited, c, The business niust provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or byproducts, such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the business"exterior refuse containers, d, Light and Glare. Shield lighting systems and use window coverings to confine light and glare from light systerns associated will) indoor cultivation so as to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure. Grow light systerns within a greenhouse are prohibited, e, Building Code, Any structure, accessory structure, electrical service, plumbing, or mechanical equipment (e.g,, lighting, fans, heating and cooling systems) associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation. C Methodology for Measuring Separafion Requirements, The following methodology shall be used for marijuana related- businesses that are required to be, separated by a specific distance (o,e., marijuana production facility, inarijuana wholesale facility, marijuana retail outlet), For the Purposes of determining the distance between a marijuana related-business and another marijuana-related business, "within 1,000 feet" means a straight line measurement Ira a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less in every direction train: the closest point anywhere on the premises of an approved madjuana related- business to the, closest point anywhere on the premises of as proposed marijuana-related business of the same type, If any portion of the premises of a proposed marijuana related-bUSifICSS IS Within 1,000 feet of art approved marijuana related business of the carne type, it rimy not be approved. For the Purpose of this section, premise's is all public and RECEIVED-_-. Page 4 of 26 ClIty of Ast"Aand ft Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systerns, IInc, private enclosed areas within a building at the location that are used in the business operation, including offices, kitchens, rest rooms, and storerooms. g, Tfje property owner shall record a declaratiori which waives any claim or right lo hold the City liable for damages they at,a terrant may suffer frorn state or fodoral enforcement actions for activitles the City perrnits as a resent of its approval of the proposed rise or development once such approval Is granted, Furthermore, the owner and tenant agrees not to unreasonabiy disobey the CRy's order to halt or mrspend business if state or federal aut1lorilles order or otherwise subject the City to onforcernetit to comply with laws in contradiction to the continued operations of the btisiness as permitted under section 18,13,19it, hi, A rnarijuana-rMated business rntmt obtain an approved license or regisftation from the State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Adn'tinistrative RWes, 2, Madjuat ia 1-aboratories, Processing, Production, and Wholesale. in addition to the slat adat,4 dewribed in subsection lJ3,2,3J,qg,ftJ, above, marijitana iaboratortes, processing, production, and whoWsWe shall meet the following repit.flremonts as applicable, See deflnftri of niarijuana processing and production in part 1,8461, b, Marijuana Prodt rction, 1, Marijuana production shall be limited to 6,000 SqU.1re feet of gross leasable floor area per lot, 4, A rnarijuana production facility shall be located more than 1,000 feet From another rnadjuana production facility, See subsection2.,,1,19 ,13 1J for nietliodology for measuring the reCiLfted distance between marijuana related-businesses, 3, Marijuana Detail Sales, in addition to the standards described above in subsection ,1,B niadjUana: retail sales shalt meet the following req ui rerne tits, See definition of marijuana retail sales in pall a, Location, I, Marijuana retail sales are allowed if located on a propeily with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above In subsection l8,2,3,190.,B,3,,a,i, must be located 200 feet or rnore from a residential zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Pen-M under chapter Iii. Marijuana retail sales are not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards,Zones. iv, A niarijuana rotail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,00�O feet from another marijuana retail sales Outlet, Medical and recreational marijuana retail sales do not need to be separated by 1,000 feet if located together in one building ifthe configuration meets all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Doles, No more than two registrations or licenses issued by the State of Oregon, (e.g,, a nierfical dispensary registration and a recreational sales license) may be located in one building, See subsection ,1 8",2",3JKB ,I",f for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana uana related-businesses, lo, Drive-Up Use, The rnadjuaria retail sales outlet must not include a drive-up use, Conditional Use Permit(Retail Use Only) 18.5.4.05OApproval Criteria A. Approval Criteria. A Conditional Use Permit shafl be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, at, can be made to conform through the imposition of condMons. i. 't-tiat time use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district kil which the use is proposed to be located, and H conformance with relevant Comprehensive plan policies that are not implemented by any City, State, or Federal law or program, Z That adequate capacity of City facififles for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved aca-.,ss to and throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property, 3, 'That time conditional use will have no greater adverse material eff(-x;t on the livability of the impact area whon compared to the development of the subject lot-fittVal"L .1"Tezone, pursuant Tea H Page.5 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application--Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Piexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 0,. .,n"5 alitm i' f proposed use lh�reataraa�e use tp(te��(rr�Gi�rti,� �, below, 1filWren ev n there effect r�rf the .aro c° �we on tiro p owing factors of livability of fire impact area shall be considered in relratlora to al zone. a, Sbnilarlty In scale, bulls, and coverage, b, Generatlon of traffic and effects on srurrorrnding streets, Increasers In pedestrian, bicycle, and nrcass transit use are considered beneficial regardless of capacity of facilities, c. Architectural cornpratiblllty with the Impact area, d� Air"quality, lncluding the generation of drrst, ortors, or other environmental pollutants, e, Generation of nolse, light., and glare, f, T l,ie development of adjacent properties as envisioned In the Gomprehenslve Plan, g, Other factors found to be relevant by the approval authority for review of the proposed use, d, A conditiorml use pern°rit shall not allow a use that Is prohibited or one that Is not permitted pursuant to this ordinance, 5, For the purprorses of reviewing conditional use permit applications for conformity with the approval critor°ha of this subsection, the target users of each zone are as follows, f, E•1, The general office uses listed In chrapter 1 2 2 Base Zones an(]Allowed Uses, developed at an lntensity of 035 floor to area ratlo, complying wa+ith all ordinance requlrement% and wittaln the Detailed Site Review overlay, at an intensity of 0,50 floor to area ratio, c,ornplying with all ordinance requirera°rentrs, Site resign Review %&2.05g Approval Criteria An application for«bite Design Revlow shall be approved If the proposal meets the criteria In subsectlons A, U, C, and D below,The approval authority may, In approving the apphlcration, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the apraplicable criteria, A� Underlying Zone, The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 1g 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 sCandar(K B, Overlay Zones,The proposal compliers with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 1&3)' . C1. Site Development and Design Standards, The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18A, except as provided by subsection E, below, D, (pity Facilities, The proposal complies with the applicable standards In section 18,4,6ublic Facilities, and that acteclr.rate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, r,rrban 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 Cosign Standards, 'The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 188 if the circurrastanc es in either subsection 1 or 2,, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meetln,g 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 requester)Is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty,; or 2, There is nodemonstrable difficulty In meeting the specific requirements, but granting'the exception will resault in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards, RECEIVED Po, j Page 6 of 26 i Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Fant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. IV FINDINGS OF FACT The City of Ashland reaches the following facts and finds them to be true with respect to this matter: 1. Property Location: The subject property is located on the east side of A Street between Oak and I" Street and is bordered to the east by the CORP Railroad right-of-way. Tolman Creek Road and Washington Street. The property is south of Highway 66 (Ashland Street). The: situs address is 640 Tolman Creek Road in Ashland, Oregon. 2. Ownership: Tax Lot 14900 and Tax Lot 14600 are both owned in fee simple by Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 3. Property Description and Size: The subject properties are identified as Tax Lots 14900 and Tax Lot 14600 in Township 39 South, Range I East, Section 09BA in the Assessor's records of Jackson County. Tax Lot 14900 is approximately 0.49 acres and Tax Lot 14600 is approximately 0.43 acres. The prior "A Street Marketplace" project resulted in the building being demised into a number of "suites" which are assigned separate addresses. These addresses range from 101 A Street to 195 A Street with the lowest numbers at the west end of the building and the largest numbers at the east end of the building; the land use application concerns the 181 A Street Address for the proposed retail use and the 185 & 191 & 195 addresses for the proposed production use. 4. Existing Land Use and Prior Approvals: Tax Lot 14900 contains the "'Ashland Fruit & Produce Association Building later known as the Oak Street Tank & Steel Building". Most of this building has existed in this location since 1912. In 1999, the site changed in use from the prior steel tard,, manufacturing business to the "A Street Marketplace" use. The primary use was retail. The conversion of the: building involved an internal and external remodel of the building as well as the construction of a new parking lot. That project went through full Site Design Review and was approved through Planning File No. 99-108, Following Site Design Review and use as the "A Street Marketplace", the property was acquired by Plexis Healthcare Systems, Incorporated, Plexis eventually converted the entire building to office space with some employee recreation space in the metal building on the east end of Tax Lot 14900. Plexis is now located in Medford and the property is currently vacant. 5. Comprehensive Plan Map: The Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the subject property is Employment. 6. Existing Zoning. The zoning on the properties is uniform and they are designated E-1. The properties are located in the Detail Site Review Zone, the National Historic District overlay and the Railroad District Overlay. RECEIVED wJ .......... ........... CRY Of AK',411arpcf Page 7 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yank Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 7. Surrounding Land Uses Description: The aerial/zoning map, Exhibit 7, accurately depicts the pattern of land partitioning and development in the surrounding area. See also, Exhibits 3 and 4. The land uses which presently surround the property are: West: Immediately to the west of the proposed retail marijuana use is the remainder of Oak Street Tank and Steel building that is currently vacant and for which no new use is currently proposed. Beyond this portion of the subject property, is Oak Street and further to the west are single-family dwellings. These residential lands are planned multi-family and are zoned R-2. South: Immediately south of the subject properties across A Street is a large building with a collection of uses that are retail, offices and service in nature. Tenancy in this building is varied and has changed over the years with many smaller tenants within the larger building. This building consumes the block between Pioneer Street and Oak Street. To the cast of Pioneer Street is a corrugated steel building attached to a split face block building. This building appears to house small retail tenants. Further to the southeast is the Ashland Food Co-Op building. These lands are all planned Employment and zoned E-1. East: Land to the east is Ashland Hardware. This land is planned Employmerint and zoned E-1. North: To the north is the Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad (CORP) Siskiyou line. Across the railroad to the north is Ashland Lumber and some vacant land. These lands are all planned Employment and zoned E-1. 8. Essential Public Facilities (except streets): a. Water: The existing building is served by municipal water. Water demands are not expected to increase substantially for the proposed retail use. The marijuana production use will increase water use above the existing office and prior retail uses. However, water usage will remain at levels typical of many types of industrial uses allowed in the E-1 zone. b. Sanitary Sewer: The building is currently connected to sanitary sewer and no significant changes to sewerage are expected to be necessary to serve the retail or production uses. c. Storm Drainage: The site is currently served by municipal storm drainage. No changes to the site design are proposed that would alter the storm drainage conditions on the site. d. Electricity: The existing building has a number of large electrical services already installed. The proposed retail marijuana use will likely reduce the demand for electricity for that portion of the building when compared to the prior Plexis office use or will be comparable to the prior A Street Marketplace retail uses. The marijuana production uses are expected to increase demand for electricity beyond the prior office uses. However, this portion of the building has an existing service that appears to be a 3-phase 480volt service so it appears the site has historically been served with power appropriate for the proposed marijuana production facility. RECEIVEI' P,age 8 of 26 QtY Of AShlarid Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design IReview and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 9. Transportation Facility Analysis: a. Functional Classification and Standards Analysis: The existing building is located at the comer of Oak Street and A Street. Oak Street is functionally classified as an Avenue which provides concentrated pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle access from boulevards to neighborhoods and to neighborhood activity centers and is planned for traffic volumes from 3,000 to 10,000 ADT. A Street is functionally classified as a Neighborhood Collector distributes traffic from boulevards or avenues to neighborhood streets and is planned for traffic volumes from 1,500 to 5,000 ADT. b. Trip Generation and Potential Impacts Analysis: The Applicant engaged Sandow Engineering to evaluate potential transportation impacts from the proposed Marijuana Retail Facility Use, see Exhibit 11. The analysis indicates that trip generation will only be approximately 47 peak hour trips more than an office building use. Once these trips are distributed on the street network to and from the site, the potential additional traffic volumes are nominal when compared to existing traffic conditions c. Access: The project proposes to use the existing parking lot access on A Street. The driveway is somewhat unusual because it exists right where the centerline of A Street jogs about 60 degrees to the south (if one were heading west to cast). At the access location, the centerline of the driveway lines up with the centerline of A Street, While unusual, the geometry works well. The right-tum into the lot is made acute by the geometry but the only conflicting movement is the "left" into the parking lot which is readily visible to any northwest bound traffic on A Street looking to turn into the parking lot. The "left" into the parking lot physically involves going straight. Sight distance to northwest bound traffic is about 160 feet and the curve and relative narrowness of the street will keep northwest bound traffic moving slow so visibility to, identify gaps for entry into the parking lot is good. For exiting traffic, there is a sight line down the sidewalk that provides about 130 feet of visibility to identify cars moving northwestbound that would conflict with outgoing movements, For left turns exiting the parking lot, sight distance is directly down A Street all the way to Oak. 10. Site Design Review Discussion and Analysis: a. Site Grading: No grading of the site is proposed or required. ii b. Parking: Applicant engaged Sandow Engineering to estimate parking demand for the proposed uses, see Exhibit 11. According to that analysis, the site is adequately parked to meet peak parking demands of the proposed uses. No changes to the existing parking lot are proposed or necessary to serve the use. c. Loading: The existing site plan does not depict a dedicated loading area. A dedicated loading area is not required for this use. Retail deliveries in small vehicles At the intersections nearest the site, additional volumes would be on the order of 4 to 6 cars per turning movement per hour. This can be conceptualized as one additional car in each turning movement every 6-12 minutes which is functionally imperceptible from daily traffic variations that normally occur in the peak hour due to a variety of factors, R E G IV E D Page 9 of 26 City of nd Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: ('lexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. (UPS/FED-EX/etc) can utilize standard parking spaces and or on-street parking in front of the building. On only rare occasions a larger semi loading need may occur. Use of the parking lot will be adequate and straightforward for semi-loading and unloading outside the retail hours of operation; applicant will stipulate to limiting semi deliveries between the hours of Gam and gam. d. Elevations: No changes to the building elevations approved through Planning File No. 99-108 are proposed or required (except for new signage that will comply with the City's sign code and be obtained through a future sign permit ministerial action). c. Historic Context: No changes to the historic context are expected to result from the proposed use. No external changes to the building are proposed and interior changes will not include structural changes, or removal of any major historic building components. The building's interior is a mix of modern and historic elements from the prior A Street Marketplace remodel and subsequent remodel for the Plexis Corporate headquarters, L Landscaping and Tree Removal: No landscaping is proposed to be changed and all trees are planned to be retained. 11. State Licensing: Applicant has state licenses pending for Recreational Marijuana Retail Location and an Indoor Recreational Marijuana License Tier I (less than 50001csf) with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), The pending review has been issued the following permit numbers by OLCC: * Retail-0 5 0-10 0849 9FD7C * Producer-020-1008876F722 12. Marijuana Special Uses Standards Analysis: Locational Analysis: a. Recreational Retail; i. Locational Analysis: See Exhibits 6(a) and 6(b), which show the City's Marijuana eligibility maps, The analysis indicates that the entrance to the recreational retail use will be approximately 270 feet from the nearest residential zone and the northwestern most portion of the interior of the recreational marijuana retail use will be approximately 230 feet from the nearest residential zone. ii. General Standards: OLCC permit standards require secure disposal of all marijuana refuse and applicant will accept a condition of approval requiring such storage be located inside the building. The use is proposed in a permanent building and no modifications to the site or building exterior are proposed or required. No changes in exterior lighting are proposed or required. Building permits will be obtained for all the interior remodel work requiring permits. Applicant agrees and will stipulate to the liability waiver at ALOU 18.2.3.190(8). RECEIVED Page 10 of 26 City of Ashk,,and Consolidated .and Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis, Healthcare Systems, Inc. b. Indoor Production i. Locational Analysis: Unlike the "retail" component of the Marijuana eligibility map at Exhibit 6 that depicts where retail could potentially be allowed, the production component of the map shows where marijuana production is prohibited based upon the separation requirement of 1,000 feet. In other words, marijuana production uses are allowed in any zone where they are permitted and provided the 1,000 foot separation is maintained. As the City's map shows, there is no marijuana production use within a 1,000 feet of the proposed project and indoor marijuana production of less than 5,000 feet is permitted in the E-1 zoning district, ii. General Standards: OLCC permit standards require secure disposal of all marijuana refuse and applicant will accept a condition of approval requiring such storage be located inside the building. The use is proposed in a permanent building and no modifications to the site or building exterior, are proposed or required. No changes in exterior lighting are proposed or required. Building perinits will be obtained for all the interior remodel work requiring permits. Applicant agrees and will stipulate to the liability waiver at ALOU 18.2.3.190(g). iii. Size Limitation: Applicant's proposed marijuana production space is less than 5,000 square feet. .13. Livability Impacts Analysis (Delimited to Recreational Retail CUP Only): The below evidence constitutes the testimony of Applicant's agent, CSA Planning Ltd., on potential impacts to livability associated with the proposed Recreational, Retail Marijuana use 2. The: recreational retail marijuana use is proposed to have the following operating characteristics: * Hours of Operation: The recreational retail facility is proposed to operate from. gam to qpm seven days a week; this time is, two hours less in the morning and one hour less in the evening than allowed by OLCC permit (7am-I OPM). This is the time for public sales; Applicant herewith stipulates to limiting public sales during this time period if the same is made a condition of approval by the City of Ashland. Employees may arrive before or after public sales times, * Operating Requirements: Sales and Operations will be conducted in a manner d consistent with OLCC permitting requirements and the established operating rules for Recreational Marijuana Retail Facilities, see OAR 845-025, These operating regulations include requirements such as prohibiting sales to minors, prohibiting on-site consumption, requiring a security plan and implementation of the approved security plan, etc. CSA Planning Ltd. has over 35 years of Land use planning experience in the State of Oregon, CSA principal Jay I larland has been involved in numerous land use proceedings in Oregon and has broad experience in all matters of real estate development in Oregon genet-ally and Southern Oregon specifically. R E(#`E I VE M Page 11 of 26 City Of, ft"Oarld Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. The impacts analysis testimony in this section is based upon the above described operating characteristics. The analysis compares the potential impacts in relation to the general office uses that would otherwise be allowed as the "target use" of the E-1 zone, The analysis is directed at the impact area which is a defined terin in the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) at section 18,6,1. The impact area is analyzed as the 200-foot notice area for the project, see Exhibit 9 for a map depicting the notice area/impact area. The below 'Fable details the general information applicable to properties in the impact area: Table I Impact Area Property Details Source:CSA Planning Ltd. &Jackson County GIIS MEMO= 41 391E09BA 14700 Spur Rail Property Owners 0.56 El-Res None $0 Assoc. Inc, 391E09BA 1100 A Street Arts Building LLC 258 A Street 0.21 E1-Res 18,565 sq ft Comm. $1,402,780 Bldg. 391 E04CD 1200 Fellowship Inc 50 E Hersey St 3,42 El-Res 2,944 sq ft $3,325,450 Church/Temple 39IE09BA 1200 Dennis/Darlene Donnelly 2,46 A Street 0.28 EI-Res 1447 sq ft Comm. $164,790 Bldg. 391E09BA 1300 RNN Properties LLC 270 First St N 0.05 R2 Residence 125,900 Robert/Mary Hodges Living 2048 sq ft Lumber 391 E04CD 1400 468 Oak St 1 A3 El-Res $131,260 Trust Yard 391 E04CD 3400 Robert/Mary Hodges Living Clear Creek Dr 0.1 El-Res None $0, Trust 391 E04CD 3500 Robert/Mary Hodges Living Clear Creek Dr 0.26 El-Res None $0 Trust Clear Creek Investments 120 Clear 391 E04CD 3600 1.29 El-Res None $0 LLC Creek Dr 3911E04CC 5800 John Michael Van Ausdall 40 Van Ness 0.46 El-Res/R2 Ave Residence $163,560 391 E04GC 5801 Lisa Dawn Vanderzwan 337 Oak St 0.18 R2 Residence $159,470 391 E04CC 5900 Margaret Nash Rubin 323 Oak St 0,42 Res/El- Residence $209,590,590 R2 391E091BA 13400 Valley of the Rogue Bank 250 Pioneer St 0.77 ResEll- Bank $1,072,310 N /132 391E09BA 13401 Ashland Food Coop 237 First St IN 0.98 ResEl- Supermarket $1,549,880/R2 294 Pioneer St 391E09BA 13500 Ashland Food Coop N 0.08 E1-Res Parking Lot $2,710 391E09BA 13600 Ashland Food Coop Pioneer St N 0.08 EI-Res None $0 391E09BA 13601 Ashland Food Coop 300 Pioneer St N 0.11 El-Res Office $1910,650,00 9 391E09BA 13700 Ashland Food Coop IN 30Pioneer St 0.05 EI-Res Converted SFR $50,790 391E09BA 13800 Ashland Food Coop ASt 0.11 El-Res Storage $50,790 222/224 A St 391E09BA 13900 ASC Properties LLC and 322 0A9 El-Res Mi'sc Comm $190,,330 Pioneer St N 391E09BA 14000 Bjorklund LLC 1.03 E1-Res Retail/Apts $1,793.690 RECEIVED Page 12 of 26 CRY Of Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Pori-nit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. 11 391 E09BA 14600 Plexis Healthcare Sys Inc A St 0.43 EI-Res Parking Lot $25,420 391E09BA 14602 Emard Properties LLC 249 A St 1.12 El-Res Ashland General $11,569,330 Hardware 391E0913A 14800 'Union Pacific RR Co Clear Creek Cr 2.27 El-Res RR Tracks $0 391E09BA 14900 Plexis Healthcare Sys Inc A St 0.49 El-Res A Street Market $1,593,010 Place 391E091313 16700 Oaky Doaky LI-C 295 Oak St 0.24 R-2 Residence $191,920 391E09BB 16800 Clair Van Der Zwan 303 Oak St 0.11 R-2 Residence $134,320 391E09BB 16801 Francis Peckham 315 Oak St 0.16 R-2 Residence $147,640 391E04CD 1400 David'Clawson 384 Oak St 1.43 EI-Res Lumber Yards Purged Acct 391E09BA 1460OA3 Jackson County 384 Oak St El-Res Purged Acct 391E09BA, Southern Pacific Trans Cc E1-Res Purged Acct 146001k11 391E09BA Southern Pacific Trans Co El-Res Purged Acct 14602MI a. Scale, Bulk and Coverage Analysis: The proposed recreational marijuana retail conditional use will occupy just 1,850 square feet of space within an existing building that was most recently used as part of a single-tenant office but has previously been used as a retail use (for which the most recent Site Design Review approval was concerned). Nothing about the exterior of the building will be changing or must be changed so the scale, bulk and coverage of the use is no different than an office use would otherwise require. b. Traffic Livability Impact Analysis: Applicants engaged Sandow Engineering to evaluate the: potential traffic impacts. In real world terms, the proposed recreational marijuana retail use will generate, on average, about one additional car per intersection movement at nearby intersections every 6-12 minutes in the pm peak hour, when compared to an office use of that space. A change in traffic volumes of this magnitude is on the order of the daily fluctuation in traffic volumes that occurs due to a variety of exogenous and/or stochastic factors on streets functionally classified as Neighborhood Collectors and Avenues. Another way to conceptualize the impacts on livability related to traffic is the effect the proposed use will have in rotation to the planned volumes of the streets it will utilize. It is common to assume that 10% of the daily traffic volume on a street will occur in the PM Peak Hour. Using this assumption:, A Street is planned to carry up to 500 PM peak hour strips and Oak Street is planned to carry up to 1,000 PM peak hour 3 trips. The change in volumes on A street east and west of the site represent about 5 percent each direction of the planned volume of A Street which is a volume change that is too small to cause significant impacts on livability from a traffic change standpoint. 3 See ALUOTable I8,4,6.040.F RECEIVE ,y of Aw h' t id Page 13 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. c. Architectural Compatibility Analysis: No external changes to the building are proposed that would change the architectural character of the building. Thus, its compatibility in relation to the office use that was there previously will be unchanged, d. Air Quality, Emissions: The retail use is not expected to produce any detectable emissions or odor beyond the property line. No dust suspension of any significance is expected. These potential sources are minimal overall and, to the extent they exist at all, are no greater than would be expected to result from an office use of the site. c. Noise, Light and Glare Analysis: Noise sources are minimal and are lin-lited to associated traffic noise, which is nominal in relation to the background noise from traffic already on the higher order streets adjacent to the site. No new exterior lighting is proposed or required. The direct sidewalk entrance to the: fecreational retail facility already has an exterior light that overhangs from the roof and A Street has pedestrian scale street lights on the south side of the street. Since no new lights are proposed or required and were in existence to serve the office use, no new potential source of impact is identified, i. f. Development of Adjacent Properties Analysis: i. Existing Development: There are 27 properties in the Impact Area, 22 of which are developed. Based upon the assessors data, aerial photo surveys and site investigations these lands are generally developed with the types of uses and at intensities typical of the E-1 zoning district and R-2 zoning districts that are located in the impact area. Applicant has not identified any potential source of II impact that would affect the continued operations of these properties for uses allowed in the zone to any meaningful degree. ii. Vacant Land: There are five vacant properties in the Impact Area and these are analyzed in turn, as follows: TL 14700- The assessor lists this property as "vacant" and attributes no land value or improvement value. In reality, it has some pavement and functions as the drive aisle and parking or some office buildings off of Clear Creek Drive. This property is separated by the railroad tracks from the subject property and there is nothing about the proposed retail use that would prevent this property from being used as parking and a drive aisle to serve the office buildings in the area. • TLs 3400 & 3500- The assessor lists these properties as "vacant" with no improvement values. However, aerial inspection indicates they are used in conjunction with Ashland Lumber Company yard. Applicant identifies no potential impacts with a lumber yard operated in the E-1 zone across the railroad tracks from the proposed use. • TL 3600- This property is 1.29 acres is size and is located across the railroad tracks from the subject property and is a ?11?111T..")feet of walking Page 14 of 26 F Y OtASh1rF`,,Nr1d Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. distance (if you do not cross the tracks) rrom the proposed recreational retail marijuana use. The site is vacant and could be used for future office buildings or a variety of other uses in the E-I zone. Applicant cannot identify any likely impacts from the proposed recreational retail marijuana use on a potential future development of this site. TL 13600 — The assessor attributes no improvements to this site but it is improved with pavement and is used as a parking lot in conjunction with the Ashland Food Co-Op, The proposed use is adequately parked so there is no reason to expect parking conflicts from the recreational marijuana retail use to spill over onto this lot, Except for this potential issue that is unlikely to cause any impacts, no potential conflicts with this lot were have been identified. V PROCEDURAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The City of Ashland reaches the following conclusions of law with respect to the review procedure for the sul7jcct land use action: Procedural Criterion 1 PIROCEDURAt.CRITERIA 18.5.1.010 Purpose and Applicability A, Purpose, This chapter establishes procedures to Initiate and irnakefinal decisions on planning actions under the Land we Ordinance ("this, ordinance"), pursuant to City policy and state law. B, Applicability of Review Procedures, All planning actions shall be subject to processing by one of the following procedures summarized in subsections 1 - 4, below, and as designated In Table 18,51,010,, Building permits and other approvals, including approvals from other agencies such as the state department of transporlation or a natural resource regulatory agency, may be required, Failure to receive notice of any such requirement does not waive that requirement or 'invalidate any planning action under this ordinance, 1, Ministerial Action (Staff Advisor Decision)„ The Staff Advisor inakes ministerial decisions by applying City standards and criteria that do not require the use Of Substantial discretion (e,g,, fence, sign and home occupation permits). A public notice and public hearing are not required for Ministerial decisions, Procedures for Ministerial actions are contained in section 'M5,1,040, 2, Type I Procedure (Adniinistrative Decision 'With Notice), 'Type I decisions are made by the Staff Advisor with, public notice and an opportunity for appeal to, the Planning Commission, Alternatively the Staff Advisor may refer a 1`ype I application to the Commission for its review and decisioin In 9,, public treeting. Procedures for Type I actions are contained in section 18.51 e050, 1 Type, Ii Procedure (Quasi-Judicial Review/Public Hearing Review), "Vype 11 decisions are made by the Planning Cornmission after a public hearing, with an owmt the City Council, . ......... Page 15 of 26 1A, J, 'ityof Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. Applications involving zoi*g hiap arnericirnents consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and miner mar) arriendments or corrections are subject to (',IUa0,IjUdjcIaI roview under the ['ype 11 procedure, OmskjudiclW decislons Involve discretion but irnplernent imlicy, Procedures for 1"ype li actions are contained in section '18,51,060, 4Fy,pe III F'rocedure (Legislative Decision), The Type III proc*dure applies to the creatbr), re0sion, or large-scale implementation of public policy (e,g,, adopflon of regulations, :one changes, oornprehensNe plan arnendrnents, annexations). Type III reviews are considered [)y the F1anning CorniNssion, who makes a recornniendation to CHY COMICH, The Cow,foil rnakes the final decision on a legislative proposal through the enachnei reit of an or(finance, RECEIVED ,V Of .............- Page 16 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare ysterns, Inc. Ta le 18,5.1 A10,—Surnmary of Approvals by Type of Ravlow Procedure Planning Actions Review Applicable Regulations Procedures Conditional Use Permit "I"ype I Or it Section 1&6A Site Design RevWW Type I Or ll Chapter '18,52 Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland concludes the submitted land use application is a consolidated review that includes determinations of compliance with Special Use standards applicable: to marijuana-related uses as well as approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a precautionary Site Design Review Approval. These inter-related permits can all be processed as a Type I procedure subject to request of hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Procedural Criterion 2 18,5,1,020 Dotorminatlon of Review procedure Where Table 18,51,010 designates more than one possible review procedure, n,g,ir Type i of, i,ype ii, the applicable revIew procedure shall be based ori the criteria contained in the ordinance chapters, or sections referenced in the table, Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland concludes the submitted land use application is a consolidated review that includes several inter-related permits that all fall under the Type I procedure and the Type 1 procedure is,the correct procedure for the subject application. Procedural Criterion 3 18.5,1.050 Type I Procedure(Administrative Decision with Notico) Type I decisions are fnade by the Staff Advisor, following public notice and a pUblic comnient period, Type I declMons provide an opportunity for appeal to the Planning CornmisMon, C. Decision, 1, At the conclusion of the comment period,the Staff Adviser shall review the comments received and prepare, a decision approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application based on the applicable ordinarme criteria,The Staff Advisor shall prepare a decision within 45 days of the City's detwirnination that an application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer firrie period, Alternatively, the Staff Advisor may transmit written comments received along with a copy of the application to the Planrflng Commission for review and decislon at its next regularly scheduled meeting. 2, Where the Staff Advisor refers a Type i application to the Planirflng Commission, the GofnrNssion shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application through theC "r'y,",ple H procedure R Him Em I V E Page 17 of 26 ("I;ity of Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Alexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. based on the applicable ordinance criteria. The Commission may continue its review to the next rneeting toaHow the applicant Mile to respond to questions, provided the Cornimission must make a final declsk)n Mthin the 120-day period prescribed under State law (ORS 227,178) and as described In subsection '18,&1 MQC B of this ordinance, Conclusions of Law: With respect to the application of the 71'ype I procedure itself, the Applicant believes the subject permit requests are relatively straightforward. Consequently, the Applicant respectfully requests the permits be reviewed at the staff level through the standard 'I'ype I procedure and then made subject to notice and opportunity to request a hearing in front of the Planning Commission. VI CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the Evidence submitted with the Application and listed in Section 11 and the Findings of Fact in Section TV, the City of Ashland reaches the following conclusions of law with respect to the relevant substantive approval criteria for the subject land use application: Special Use Standards I Special Ilse Standards 18,23,190 Madjuaria-Related Uses B. MarijiLlana-Related Businesses; 1, MadjUaria-related businesses may require Site Design Review under chapter 18,51 or a Conditional Use Permit Linder chapter 18,5A, See Table 1822,030— Uses Allowed by .Sone-fr zones where ---------- triaHjUaria related businesses are allowed. See definition of inarijiLlana-reWted businesses In part 18-,.6, Marijuana-related businesses shall meet all of the foi1lowing requirements, a "rhe business rnLlst be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or rnotor vehicle, Outdoor rnarijuana production, cultivation, and storage of merchandise, raw miateirials, or other material associated with the business are prohibited, b, Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the bus4less "lust be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Design Review approval if required by seclion 18.5,2,,0210,l, Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited, c, The business must provide for secure disposal of marijuana rernnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall riot be placed within the busIness'exterior refuse containers, dtight and Mare, Shield lighting systerns and use window coverings to corifine light and glare from light systerns associated with indoor cultivation so as to confine light and glare to the interior of the structure. Grow light systems within a greenhouse are prohibitod, e. Building Code, Any StrUCtUre, a('rA-msory strUcture, electrical service, plumbing, or mechanical equItarrient (,e" ,w lighting, falls, heating and cooling systerns) associated with a business shall satisfy the Building Code requirements and obtain all required building permits prior to installation, f, Methodology for Measurkig Separation Requirements. The l'oflowing methodology shall be Used for marijuana related- businesses that are required to be separated by a specific distance (i,e,, marijuarta production facility, marijuana wholesale facility, rnarijUana retaH outlet F',,,j,the purposes REMP ...... ....... ...... ... Page 18 of 26 M City Of Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit. Applicant: Jorge Yant Owwnershi'pa: Plexis Healthcare Systema, Inc. of determining the distance between a marijuana related-business and another marijuana-relarted tausdness, "within 1,000 feet" paeans a straight line rrreasrarernent In a radius extending for 1,000 feet or less In every direction from the closest point anywhere can the premises of an approved marijuana related- Nr slness to the closest point anywhere on than premises of a proposed rnardlu,ana-rodaated business of tare same type, If any portion of the parerrilseas of a proposed naariluana related-business Is within 1,00foot of an approved rn ar-ijuana related business of the same type, it niay not be approved, For the purpose of this section, prer"raises is aall public and private enclosed areas within a building at the location that are used in the lousiness operation, including offices, kitchens, rest morns, and storerooms, go The property owner shall record a declaration which waives any c,lairra or right to hold the City liable for damages ffiey or as tenant rn ay suffer from state orfederal enforcement actions for activities the City perrralts as a rcasult of its approval of than paroprose,cd use or dovelopnaent once such approval is granted. Furthermore,the owner mid tenant agrees rant to a,rnrerasonaalaly disobey the City's odea to halt or suspend business If state or federal authorities order or othemise subject the City to enfor•certient to caorraply with laws in contradiction to the coratdr°ued operations of the business as permidtec:d under section 18,2.3,190,. ha A raaaarrduaaraa-related buslnaass rrarast obtain an approved license or rcagistrationi from that; State of Oregon and meet all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative ptules, Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith concludes as follows with respect to the above general standards applicable to all Marijuana.Related Businesses: Both the production and retail uses are proposed to be located in permanent building. Neither the recreational retail use nor the production use requires modification to the subject site or the exterior of the building; the Site Design Review criteria has been. addressed herein as a precautionary measure to demonstrate the existing building is substantially appropriate to serve the needs of the proposed uses without need for site or exterior building modifications. OLCC requires secure disposal of by-products as a State Permit requirement, see OAR 815-025-7750. Applicant will accept a condition of approval requiring the secure disposal storage to be located within the building. • The proposed production facility is located in a portion of the building with minimal. glazing. These windows can be easily covered to eliminate glare from grow lights inside the "flower room". No new lighting is proposed or required for the retail facility. • Building permits will be required for all interior work that requires a building permit. • The locational analysis utilized the City's methodology and the City's published map to determine that all required separations are satisfied. • Applicant herewith agrees to accept a condition of approval requiring recordation of a declaration of liability waiver.. • Both the recreational retail use and the production use have pending permits with OLCC and the Applicant will accept a condition of approval requiring state permit issuance prior to the conduct of sales or production activities. i i i Page 19 of 26 t Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: 'lexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. Special Use Standards 2 2, Marijuana Laboratories, Processing, ProdUctlon, and Wholesale, In addition tri the standards described in subsection '18.2,3190,13,1 I P , above, rnadjuana laboratories, processing, producdon, and wl olesal,,shall meet the Wowing requiren-wnts as,applicable, See definition of niadjuana processing and tn'oductilon In part 1 Qk, b, Marijuana Production, I, Marijuana production sl'vill be limited to 6,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area per lot, ijw A, rnarijuansa prodt.iction facility shall be located more than 1,,000 feet from an marijuarla production facilfty. See subsection 19, f(,.)r rnethodology for rneasurhigi the required distance between rnarijuana related-businesser', Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith concludes as follows with respect to the above general standards applicable to all Marijuana Production Businesses: * The actual flower room is proposed to be less than 2,000 square feet and the total OLCC permitted area will be less than 5,000 square feet, * Exhibit 6(a) and 6(b) shows that there are no marijuana production facilities within a 1,000 feet in any direction. Special Use Standards 3 1 MariiLlarra Retall Sales, In addRion to the standards described above 41 subsection 1 8 2,3_�,'1 9"0'4B rnarquana retail sales shall meet the following requirements, See definition of nradjuana retail sales in part.18,Q, a. Location, i, Marijuana retaii sales are allowed if located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, ii ii, Marijuana retail sales, except as allowed above in subsection -111.18,2�,3- 90 1,3 must be — 1- -,1-1 11-0 — located 200 feet or more from as residential zone and are subject to a Conditional Use Permit under chapter I8,5A. iii, Marijuana retail sales we riot permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zones, iv, A marijuana retail sales outlet shall be located more than 1,000 feet from another marijuana Wait sales OUtiet, Medical and recreational rnarijuana retail sales do not need to be separated by ,1,000 feet if located together in one building if the configuration meets all applicable Oregon Revised Statutes arid!Oregon Administrative Rules. No more than two registrations or licenses Issued by the State of Oregon (e,g,, a medical dispensary registration and a recreational sales license) may be located in one b0iding, See subsection for methodology for measuring the required distance between marijuana related-businesses, b, Drive-up use,'rhe marijuana retail sales outlet must not include a drive up Use, Conclusions, of Law: The City of Ashland herewith concludes as follows with respect to the above general standards applicable to Recreational Marijuana Retail Businesses: The proposed recreational retail sales use is not located on a Boulevard, therefore, the use requires a conditional use permit under ii above. Page 20 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application-Site Design Review and Conditional Use permit Applicant: Jorge Want Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. * Applicant has applied for and addressed the conditional use permit criteria herein below. The location of 200 feet from a residential zone, based upon the City's map, indicates that the nearest interior portion of the use is approximately 230 feet from a residential zone and the entrance to the use is, approximately 270 feet from the residential zone across Oak Street to the northwest, see Exhibits 6(a) & 6(b) * The proposed recreational retail site is not located in the Downtown Design Standards Zone, see Exhibit 8. * The 1,000 foot separation requirement from the nearest retail sales establishment, based upon the City's map, indicates, there are no other permitted retail establishments that are within a 1,000 feet. * No drive-up sales are proposed and the sarne is prohibited by OAR 845-025-1300(8). Conditional Use Criterion I Conditional Use Permit(Dolinlited,to Recreational Retall Use Only) 18.5.4.,05OApproval Criteria A, Approval Criteria, A Conditional Use Permit WWI be granted if the approval authority finds that the application, ineets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform thrm,igh the imposition of concIftions. 1� That the use would be in conformancew0i all standards within the zoning district 41 which tile use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with reWvant Comprehensive ptan policies that are not implemented by any("ity, State, or Federal law or program. Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith concludes that Recreational Retail Marijuana uses can be allowed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan at the proposed location subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and the same is requested herein. The City further concludes that it can feasibly conform with applicable standards for the zoning district generally and the special use standards applicable to Marijuana Related Businesses as addressed herein above, Conditional Use Criterion 2 2, 'rhat adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved amess to nand throughout the development, and adequate transportation can and will be provided 'to the subject property, Conclusions of Law: Based upon the evidence in Findings of Fact in Section IV and the traffic analysis in Exhibit 11, the City of Ashland herewith concludes that the site is already served by water, sewer, electricity, storm drainage, and transportation and the proposed use will not appreciably increase demand for such utilities from the prior use to which the property is already served. The City of Ashland further concludes the site has access and the parking lot is paved. . ......... C jig Page 21 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yanit Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. Conditional Use Criterion 3 1 Ttiatth(-.) condiflonal use Will have no greater adverse rnateNal effect on the livability of the irnpact mega when compared to Ore development of the stibJect let With the target use ofthe zone, purstiant with subsection 11x1,5,4,,05t), profaosed use on Ole A& below, Wheri evaluating the effect of the impact area, the following factors of livability of the irnpact area shall be considered in rMation to the target use of the zone, a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and covorage, bo Generation of traffic and effects on Surrounding streets, Increases in pedestrian, b1cycie, and rnass transit usr) are considered berieficial regardless of capacity of facilities, c, ArchRoctural compatibility with the linpact area, d, Air quality, including the generation of dust, odors, of,other efivirownental P0IIL1(@nK a. Generation of noise, light, arW glare, f, 'rhe 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, Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith incorporates and adopts the Findings of Fact Number 13 in Section IV, and concludes thereupon, that the proposed use will have no greater adverse effect on the livability within the impact area when compared to an office use in terms of any of the listed factors ina through fabove. Conditional Use Criterion 4 4, A coridifloriat use pernilt shalI not allow a use that is prohibited of-one that is not porryi1tted pursuant to this ord4lance. Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith concludes that Recreational Retail Marijuana uses can be allowed in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan at the proposed location subject to Conditional Use Permit approval and the same is requested herein. Conditional Use Criterion 5 �For the purposes of reviewing conditional rise permit appficallons for conformity with the approval criteria Of this subsection, the target LISeS of each zone are as follows, f, E-1 'The general office uses listed in chapter '11,8,2,m21 Base Zones and Allowed Uses, developed at an intensity of 0,35 floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance reqUirarnentsi and within the I'Malled Sfte Review overlay, at an Intensity of 0,60 floor to area: ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements, Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith concludes that the analysis of potential fj impacts on the proposed use on the impact area was evaluated in comparison to a general office use which is the proper target use for the E-1 zone pursuant to AL UO 18.5.4.050(5)(t) above. CkYPage 22 of 26 I Of Consolidated Land Use Application-Site Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. Site Design Review Overarching Applicability Conclusion Overarching Site Design Review Applicability Co,nclus,io,ns of Law: Applicant herewith provides conclusions of law addressing the Site Design Review criteria as a precautionary measure in the event Site Design Review is found to be applicable. The Applicant seeks to move forward with their project and wishes to avoid multiple land use procedures in the event some narrow aspect of the project is ultimately found to require Site Design Review. The code includes several internal tensions regarding Site Design Review applicability as applied to the facts of this particular project, as follows: • Section 18.5.2.020(A) sets forth applicability requirements for Site Design Review for commercial and industrial uses and subsections (7) and (8) thereunder could plausibly trigger a Site Design Review, • Section 18.2.3.190(B)(b) refers to requirements for site plan review where changes to the site or exterior of the building are proposed (or necessary to serve the use); no such changes are proposed or necessary for this site to serve the proposed use. • Section 18.4.2.040(B)(6) expressly provides that existing sites need only be improved to current standards in proportion to the amount of building increase proposed. No new building increase is proposed in this instance; it would be absurd to read the code to require 100% site design improvement compliance for an internal remodel project and 35% site design improvement compliance on a 35% building, expansion proposal. • The building is located in the Railroad Historic District where preservation is a key consideration. Building or site changes that are not needed to serve a change in use of an existing building runs counter to preservation considerations, • The last major alteration of this building occurred about 17 years ago and was reviewed under the Detail Site Design Review requirements, The vast majority of these same standards continue to apply. To resolve the above tensions, the Applicant has provided findings and conclusions addressing the Site Design Review criteria a precautionary measure. Applicant contends that if Site Design Review is required at all, it is required in a limited way. Specifically, to evaluate the degree to which the existing building is adequate to accommodate the proposed uses and design requirements and if changes to the building or site are found to be necessary to serve the proposed uses then current standards would apply to those uses. R ECo E IV P',77 If" %.01 Page 23 of 26 Consolidated Land Use Application®Site Design (Review and Conditional Use Permit Applicant, Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. Site Design Review Criterion 1 SUBSTANTIVE CRITEMA Site Design Review 18,52050 Approval Criteria An appllcafiorn for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below, The approval authority may, in approving the application, irnpose Conditions of approval, consistent Mth the appkable criteria, A, Underlyirig Zone, The proposal complies wfth all of the applk,,,,,We provisions of the underlying zone (part 18,2), Including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and diniensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, bt,iilding orientabon, architecture, and other applicable standards, Conclusions of Law- The City of Ashland concludes that no changes to the building, setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density, floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, or architecture are proposed or required. The City of Ashland concludes, based upon the letter from Sandow Engineering at Exhibit 11 that the site has existing parking that will be adequate to serve the us as well as an office use of the remaining portion of the building. Site Design Review Criterion 2 R. Overlay Zones, The proposal complies,with applicable overlay zone requirements (parl '18,33), Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland concludes that the property is within the Detail Site Review overlay and the Railroad District overlay. The City concludes that the proposed design was found to comply with both of the requirements of this overlay the last time the building exterior and site design were modified and no now exterior or site design changes are proposed or required to serve the subject use. Site Design Review Criterion 3 C, Site Development and Design Standards, The proposal complies Mth the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18A,except as,provided by subsection E, below, Conclusions of Law: Consistent with its overarching conclusions of law with respect to the applicability of Site Design Review, the City concludes that the major change in site design considerations are the following: Changes to parking demand to serve the new use. If additional parking was necessary to serve the new use then current site design standards would apply to the R E C E I Page 24 of 26 GRY Of Consolidated handl Use Application—Site Design Review and Conditional Use Perrnit Applicant: Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. parking lot redesign. Based upon the evidence in Exhibit 11, the site will continue to have adequate parking to the meet the needs of the proposed uses. 0 If changes to the structure itself were necessary to serve the new use that would affect the exterior of the building. In this instance, the existing building is well laid out for the proposed uses so the changes to the interior design of the building are not ones that are expected to trigger any structural changes that would affect the exterior of the building. As such, the current site and building design has been reviewed through the Detail Site Design Review process in 1999 and no changes to the exterior of the building or the site are needed and therefore the site can continue to be found to comply with Section 18.4 to the extent those standards are applicable to a change in use that does not necessitate a change to the building exterior or site design layout. Site Design Review Criterion 4 D, City Facilities, The proposal comphes with the applicable standards in section 1 A Flublic FaciHfies, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, arid adequate trarisportation can and will be provided to the Subject property. Conclusions of Law: The City of Ashland herewith incorporates and adopts Number 8 in the Section of IV Finding of Fact, and concludes based thereupon, that the site is already served with adequate water, sewer, electricity, storm drainage and transportation -facilities. The City of Ashland further concludes that the site has paved access to and throughout the parking lot (as well as concrete sidewalks for pedestrian circulation). Site Design Review Criterion 5 E, Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards, The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 188 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist, I There, is a demonstrable dMiculty meeting the specfflc, requirements of the Site Developrnent arid Design Standards due to a luinique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval at 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 exmpfion recittested is,the rnininnurn wNch would alleviate the difficulty.;or ,2, 'There is no demonstrable difficulty in rneeOng the specific requirements, but gralltingthen exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards, Conclusions of Law: [Reseriecl at the Mne offiling]4 Applicant reserves the right to apply Section E in the event the land use review process points up site design iSSLICS Nvherein the City seeks to require changes to the site which are not necessary to s k' 6,"KOCCUPWICY. Page 25 of 26 (3,11Y 01' Consolidated Land Use Application:-Site Design Review and Conditional Use Pennit Applicant. Jorge Yant Ownership: Plexis Healthcare Systems, Inc. VII ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS Based upon the: foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City of Ashland herewith concludes the Application satisfies all the relevant substantive criteria of the City of Ashland. On this basis, the Application is herewith approved, Respectfully submitted on behalf of applicant: CSA PLANNING, LTD. Jay Harland Consulting Planner Dated October 3, 2017 RECEIVEP QtY Of Page 26 of 26 { r��� � ��I � � IIIA°'�I`� � M r"",�► ��� ....,,...�� EXHIBIT 3 ALAE A ESR ,, � ) a 411111 DERTIN W, EVA C A NB I GC I N" INA E1I19 � P a I ►" �x " " �� E """^"" 6""a .. .. jjr wz All rw EP"P, EP"pal zzl ..� ��� ��'R""►�"� �P LH ,�^ "�" Fill ^ 9r✓w+^ 147 .off -J. . .......... ." wm ,SIE ,. " . DR I AY "�pry.���"N^✓ gi'"TM�w�yw„�pn �",""may �'.. ".a� /"A.M p w M:7� "�"�m'yd"y�,� �''" '� III �,VY z -fr 'G�j °"q.✓ �6^'m ,e fM �ab"�rr n ' ,u F '% vox � W�. m ICSH. "" P Subject LetsiciI�iN .. Tax Lots �� p�a,k��v .,. � ��I ? --------- Railroad N'lexis CUFF IS City Limits 39-1E-09BAr-14900 & 14600, (3ltY� O Urban Growth Boundary S I I 0 500 1,000 Feet i 10-3-2017 Sourm Jackson Co.GIS;GSA Planning,Ltd. I I r v CD CD pDGS pca p u p pp � y lsvr;+n:lc ac.�vl^a'7:tv' f 'ado Bad gs�a a �o� sa ^L, R a i—y s VV. e � P' P4, LA QJVoI x } 9w ✓ � f x ✓ � �' �, 1 - x Y r r Y �•; rra ��; ✓ t r w t " r rcaY�� � ®Y t r. � � r� f ✓ ° 5 f f PP, ( v 7 S Y a Er "�� a,�a ��""^..,,r l,.,x �''e. �y"G ""`_^.x„,�,•T��IQ,j�/ /!{{///�" ��` :! x� �s HMO It tlCdVIN'tB S I` J — p ✓ I""G4 y,,, [ i 0 E E m �mlxµ p N 1mN��o�4'bV,��7iS-E A�I.badl7.EY7B0 � rA�" ""!�dd S 6r At✓,,h,11 `„'4 atv'�51� I �a �,;' 3909 904 EXHIBIT 604 504 'r I 5409,41 oo 3740 up II 9190 �'.:626poo 53017 4200�� (. 895 t"U f 210 ..� 204 azao Sao 69i7 r Boo 8171 291 215 r z17,221f220 01 2ao?409 1 �� 5044 212 213 r 9100 ply 006� � 602 is i 40�f �407400 ��� � �u, ,. 930+7 17001, ' r / "",402 �� 448 ' U415 4171302 1301 300' 7 9400 603 �� 443 400 j410 ( 415 1 304 5001 �� 412 49 3 lll(llll(l1,1f1 r l �lll��tL741 b ll/i,,,,41„414 303 "yr, Y,iy °.o 8474 19o91aa9 i �, i �f foo , r� ,,,;; 7� �', 1 3 li r27oo> i50D i 9840 <` r/ r� �71Ir11' 240fl 21001 800 r24 �m�IltllillJfil���� �� 'Jul'9090 124}1 o-� '. 28087- 1991 i "�d„ 2600 �308,306 307 3300 �' r' - l l r a rr 1 w(� if U 2709 �2af4Yo2299 �`'�� � 9 ..1 6 ^ � ��,,���� � SE*� V.043 2500 -i 'H 1 � 2100,7100 "f, j r 9905 r „f 240(7 h ;p 1 ,12042 1 1 , i f 4500 4700 l f 12000 9 8wn �/ ,�i `hG i 16411 t 1903 4800f i 4640 �°G 5309 '� ' f r' � 9893 i 04 5200 t 0„✓ 5704 , ' 1800 T' f 5100 d 90000 �. 1400 3400Y// �� 1942 2000 w 7400 5000 i 1 1901 59411 �I 11(h�/r�r � ro1 349 t �. � �% �/ l s94o °° '°,,✓��%�' / '900 a^� �, iG8D21l�� � 1499D ;,;�" � ,,,pr ` " ( i 40 i "' ',a""'"r" "�%,/r",✓.�i''✓'/"^"`e'"�'; �� ��1i1�I1'1171V. ;' i ,� `'.f 1904 ,' 1goo ✓� TUU „ .'r„`°✓,^*� ', i"�°%i"„".�90o©O r"?" „„�„i,�; j i ���U1fi791�o.16(0800 „ ?„ 96404 J I�li �,,, „` d s ✓✓r�,a a ,: 'aUd� '� �i! ,61111iBi{DD� ri Al'7111 "~ ✓fr,-""'"942002 f; 1 1�.3p016399 ,%" d ,,,„ 147o2r 4D4 r 90001ar adrmmrnnn�r,irirnrannl r may! 14704 ,147041 r r,, r" ,,/r� i^ ,✓,„✓",'✓",a'J:'",l ' , „Y4V 'f r ✓�%;✓' ,�';'�'' /, ;tl iP `14909 ,f; tl f 6(1001 641043. ,,.✓" r " /, y.„� 13700 ` ;1460014747 "SoC103 i� 'i 1 r��r„�p�`"�ai,''��a�,,.^^��„a✓^,"r"',�/"✓r✓+�✓fir/r�v%.G f �j%1°6000�.1 �I Iib�ilU�]Ur,Iv1�9��h �C�lr��-� �>' �%,,1,,r,,.3,540 r✓r 136 1a$o91380 1 ' 616a6�0,;4.04602 0�0 4662 pr693, f r r"✓ ✓",' „r' 'l�;% t 15944.. !4i�", FA�ra�„�.vl,, ,,.. ;�;N � r 309 , i a1N ,� 156411 ✓ r"s^/i ^'/',"�a'a �f1 fr �j, Y, 14603 i, `a'a'Ur° ��'✓'%'��"�/� � j h "��;�?S /'� '`` � 1'�00 � fi � rU � i; """w„„ � -<� 6790 R "�, »" /r ✓ r°r ✓.a'' " 113449 1200 1 „ �*'"' 849000900 11040f a, r r3/'""�'✓° 199W,r1„ a /i145o0r ,/'a' '9900; p00e900 �,, nw, � '14641 �d4ti111 ;a�/aa��'/a'°/`�' ^fi,1sr�/% '' , �r'r✓rrr .�1,%'✓ / � 84442 9080010700,98063 �;j 1390 r9 9 200✓r.✓ r' 1�tr^""� '"✓ lf�/,ono,-, R � r,,, "„ 10090 Co^, i rs, :.�"^r^"e a, ✓✓r""�%r' ' �>��1304 f ,r ,10240 19Y9" a r"/f` � ""r r, ",,✓'a 13300 �fl� ;,`9L10';- J�, 12300 /" Ymu�nrai '1'600 �1�>�,!�Jlyl i � "•,, ` mP�� Ursa �' ., ✓ ,// i>`a� 1320013140 1 �rl97ar 9500 ; �✓ �'.6r!�r 1 13000,.� � i �11700�� ��� irarr 90 1�,'���1 ',700 ,� �,:900090 � 6500I , 198(31 H v .,, < 12906.92809. 2009 I'""" J r 664 .. '. �� , ',,«i�,ra r✓"+.>�","i',,"��,�"^"'"" ��;,;//.r���f'�i,^,Trn,^ I N,u WJ(l i i 1rvYu�iruii9q �" '1 �I��III��;f1 H 9a6ao 11600,��,�r� r1�2oo,125ao;� i�9ao ! 12790 ssoo� 200 ,�" " 2440 �l 'in � P` `.,rP �„a11700, �,a"�,a✓a ,ar�''r.+:S+'° iw,�ll r 1ru3Ai� t'J/ � �1 lr ��Illlfl)�Ui' ,;;90040 '9'&40 „f 9; '. a'�✓✓1;,//a orf 121,90,a42600�/�/ 92,'V00 r.��14�r�� l�iJf 1����,1�l�1 r i5g00 � ( '�9�04 1 ���� � 1�259Q 1 l it e 1„ a✓�r r ear!;^�^' V)f . 92200. x5300 5204 '� -2209 i 1/�j �r a � ii ..,, r- �"� ✓�'s';"�"��'r 12709 » ,e 2346 D 2640 btu 1� ////�� 1111fv l., � (119U(yirrir 9666 Ili 19100 y050(1 i'�,� �9240o Ua",,ri :91909 �U1��(�)�11 ! 5100 IJ�i1�kJr'j'fl J m„�! 9509 JI , ✓ �"r� Vii'^ 14��7" 1234o�J�,,n, , � 504.0 v �!UUi A,ra91�4500 1' ?rsU! r „� �lrea,mi�0 1 , lUaluwl`fl raa11909°'a+pf, ��` 19600 1 '12440 �i 4804 �����6o4l�wai�`2800 �� �y791400 �tl� �SE100 /,��i"� +" "✓'""9/" ^"�J"�a�,'r ���J��JJii�uror�� �� � 4300���� ��,,l� �'; 9600 "", �f'� i'rr `!^'✓ °✓r IF l� iWl �/ rr o r a>r ✓,,� �' �,a 5890 � � 4200 �� �,9100 ifiamnrA r^' 1'f54o,„�'r Y'`�,✓i';%3f r'a"'"'✓�iM�a/ 5740 5'&00 � 410Q 4004 �-'� 1'JfG3Nfifil 'p139104 / / ':;/''°;::✓A,90100:"",r, ,r10905 „. 45906 13904 8600, h1. 8009D00 9490' a'r "9004- l M l 40002 / /'a rax' rr �IV � 610D G200 8700 4404 11400 'a�a 9ri�.�'r^,'�a,40043 ,r"„, „✓a,,� ,�"�r gra ae�wr�00. � 63110 6y0p � yf h,8800,1" �� 0���7990 a1iTn' r „ � 112070 �,N40o91 �r`almr'�a�'�a"� ✓,"��" rr""✓ lanir� u u o.ma 1 x7740"�19 mimx�re '40001 11101 70002. X40040�,,,, /1,r;�°si�,�l +��✓�'�.�if r� 9500 �C)0 1A409 99300 'yp000 " �q a, „+.Y 9909 ^�a✓u 9600 ��"` 50000 rkrl,P7u 1luidianu aurtlr �"'+", ,+''` a /� e"�/ r:✓1✓ 1J�V71I17, Ili Irl 6��1 ""„U 140 �60Up1004140 1191 99 1m00 10844 80001j1' 700 10 N VU1 684018500'8440 8300SF r 14200 r3 ��i6 a 99700 6594 790q 14204 9104,9474 14640 90300, 3000 "a,aa"° ,� „ B8pD J j � 0200 8200 d r rl�tsi f ri � 1 I Comp Plan Subject r Commercial re d'aor 1 Comprehensive Plan �.a � k l r Tax Lots jfj � pwntarn Plexis CUP sr, -� Railroad I Employment 39-1 E-09 BA tax lots 14900 8, 14600 � t Industrial QtY Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential 300 150 0 300 Feet High Density Residential +CSA, Planning LTD .9 7 r AP GIS: Jack�on County GIS. f i d i kkr ar nr„ jI EJ i /Y( a Cl �d "1r y t 1' f���p r4 'rv�"�'r q i r ii i ,l r �� � fJ r ..,.i' l' '..,.,,'��'� I� ,,,�,,,� t r ' !l f i i `r �'<„✓� kty��r' �i M u u//ljr � (L „qry �ry � g. f � P r " n " 'z / fl yr r s � �„ j 1 r, 117 \ J r ``G" �di�fdh/ ?9//p+ d� M d+ S / �j '� k r { V ✓ 7t /y r �` �, A'F,y, � \., �, V � l ! r J _,.... �; A�� „ � � " r•_ �r r U All 0f t �s C ' LLI fa 75 .4Lu G I I p I^I EC � rp( EXHIBIT Ile / NW Extent of Retail Use o / / r / / 1 n_ Subject Marijuana Eligible TaxRots withMarijuanaRetail Detail CUP Plexis CUP Buildincg Footprints 2015 39-1E-0913A tax lots 14900 & 14600 Tax Lets ;l +—� Railroad Im 50 25j All lines are approximateCSA Planning LTD 09-28-Niz Source:CSA elanning, -,1tdLQb of Ashland GIs: _Jackson ColuInt'XiIL—i i J w Ill fl e, EXHIBIT 7 � f r. d 6K � f i r U iipuu i ill �w a 1 r �,t 17 pry r _i Subject 2016 Aerial W E E 1 " � r Zoning Map Tax Lets Plexis CUP �—�— Railroad 39AE-0913Atax lots 14900 & 14600 ; f Ashland Zoning 300 150 0 300 Feet CSA Planning LTD y _ I T PATTERSON ST. s r N a � � o e. ,e f 0 �- 14 i �, r a 1E R = "-S:J 001, 100 qac 1 V' r qq II K� I I � ono- �° �'d '�� ' "'� �1� "'��d iGdY lea, p �✓ �� � a �'� � 4 � � ,�,c� �x J �w M am Gr AO ....„ �y 'n��a�L, A � �� �rir rr1 ` li fr q& 1d Mfr rd �,1'' ,.,. �w � w� ��� Tax District a Subject National Historic TLotsfie” Historic IDisticts �"� �v ,..��:� --� —M� RailroadF"Isxls CUP Site Design Vanes imi Downtown 39-1 E-09BA tax lets 14900 14600 s 1 District Detailed Site � ' ww� Review Zone Railroad District 3i � � °��n"� V� � Skidmore Academy 19 300 150 0 300 Feet District CSA Planning LTD 1 9Lgp�CSA Plan nina. Ltd:City DL61WAnd_Q IS: Jackson County Q& i EXHIBIT 9 200-Foot Impact Area Map Of Recreational Retail Conditional Use Applicant: Plexis CUP 4� "llo 213", 16 221, 4 01402) 200 4 446 i 801 217 ST 200 100 402 141 1 11 „01 B05 kid 3 403 4,44 410!41z, I 41 I I � 1414 301 ko low g04 500 4U jo$ 320� $14 1201 f elao 200 101 1"3 �/t 162 two! 14 IWO (101 14603 6900 14601 113l00 1020 100 66( IZ400- '2100 240 VO �54),Id 6300 2WO MO AW 122 JI'li , I, , ll3o 2U0 d 4"d f240D 4700,,' 4(�110 ',' 020, N11 11600 10101 6700, 300 10104 ,1( �� 11411 " 630 't14 6wo 0d1 670600 114 0103 1 030 6540 0200 9 00 gm� d$00, 4,400' ONO' 4 11N h 11(m 4" is 10301 00 8200 820 "IM6,10300 f ", I , ' 0& a 3HO I;r"T "i6b 16"O"Kifthi Sim S re:Jackson County Front Counter Application City of ifil,('A'[ I s r rY n Mon Al lit 'a mom � r No OWN `� �■■ SFr,,, ���' 1r�\ ISI '. - •... .� �; We Me -- t :■■■ �1�� Fes . _ITS F F s 1,41 OR ,a' im PA lid_ � 1�' ? € ■�`[I a�RIA �a�■■■ PF/ / m Al 1�1 \ S 1� I�a>�1 �� 1g_��� I�� _ �-= _■ern Oil, 5 02 I I.1�.,t 1�� .� I I� , •� tl I I.1���a �� 1�` Ii�� �'■■■■� 1 I Yy3Si o Cly. 1 Ms Ear.■ ■■■ IT._ - ■■>. b L' M \er° Or h'1�jr 1 1/�^1or yffff` F 439 qp so � 4 I�YP p N ° w a � s� R + a_ i 950 1 \ J 4 10 Ar + Ntq � W >0 CO �� } cu > - c� + UA a I I 'I,� r ,� �"• ''�rid ,.�!M'l` � 6C10rfn M .� e. ,; ••r ftl nils- ; ,� � r +, *�'►l. ��` . . c ' vIii a nn Ar Pik IP 74 - '- •+.j`' ;Aye;., e fir• ni EXHIBIT 1 1 Southern fagade. Dispensary entrance � Southern facade. Dispensary Entrance on right, building entrance on left, on right. I' ggpp pp u� i (I P i i r, Eastern half of Southern fagade. Eastern fagade from parking lot Production entrance in center. I Existing Elevations ii i No changes proposed to existing Plexis Building building facades. Conditional Use Permit 39-1 E-09PA Tax Lot 14900 �M r CSA Planning, Lfdw h f EXHIBIT 11 SANDOW ENGINEERING 160 MADISON STREET SUITE A 1, EUGENE OREGON 97402 ,: 541.513.3376 October 2, 2017 Karl Johnson, E.I.T.,Associate Engineer City of Ashland, Public Works/Engineering 20 East Main St Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: A St. Market Place CUP-Trip Generation Analysis and Parking Analysis. Dear Mr.Johnson Sandow Engineering has prepared a trip generation and parking estimate for the proposed A St, Marketplace Conditional Use Permit(CUP).The proposal is to convert the use of an existing 16,225- sf building located at 181 A Street in Ashland, Oregon. The most recently this site was used as a single tenant office and the proposed use will be comprised of approximately 4,180-sf of marijuana grow/processing area and 1,850-sf of retail area for marijuana sales. The remaining 8,545-sf of the building is assumed to be General Office.The following information provides an estimate of the number of trips generated by the change of use as well as the number of parking spaces needed on site. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS The site has been occupied by various users is in the past 15 years.The most recent usage is the corporate headquarters for a single tenant office-Plexis Healthcare Systems Incorporated. The proposal is to convert a portion of the building to a marijuana grow/processing/retail operation. The following describes the process used to determine the increase in traffic to the site beyond the target office site usage. EXISTING USE The existing 16,225-sf building was previously used as an office building.The ITE Trip Generation Manual (9t"edition)was used to estimate the current trip generation of the buildings existing use. Table 1 illustrates the trip generation of the existing use for the PM peak hour TABLE 1: PM PEAK HOUR -TRIP GENERATION EXISTING USE PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Land Use Size (ksf) Rate Trips 715-Single-Tenant Office Space _ 16.225 1.74 28 Total 28 PROPOSED USE The proposed use for the building will consist of a marijuana grow, processing, and retail sales as well as office space.The ITE Trip Generation Manual (9t°'edition) General Office Building (LUC 710) RECEIVE` City of Ashlamd Proposal from Kelly Sandow Pt RE:A St. Marketplace CUP Trip Generation-Parking Analysis October 2, 2017 Page 2 was used for the office portion of the trip generation estimate. The ITE Manuals do not have land use codes (LUC)for marijuana grow/processing facilities or retail sales. It was determined that the Warehouse LUC was the closest match for the grow/processing portion of the site. The retail/dispensary portion of the site is a fairly new land use type and has sparked the need for providing additional data for estimating trip generation. Recently, Spack Consulting collected data at 4 marijuana dispensaries to provide trip generation estimates for this type of land use. The data was collected for 3 days (24 hour counts each day) at each of the sites for a total of 12 data points.The study from Spack Consulting shows an average rate of 28.2 trips/1000-sf.The data from Spack Consulting is provided as an Attachment.Table 1 illustrates the estimated trip generation calculation of the proposed use for the PM peak hour. TABLE 2: PM PEAK HOUR -TRIP GENERATION PROPOSED USE PM Peak Hour Trip Generation ITE Land Use Size (ksf) Rate Trips 150—Warehouse (Marijuana Grow/Production) 4.18 Ln(T) =0.64 Ln(X) * 1.14_ 8 710—General Office Building 10.225 1.49 15 Marijuana Retail Sales 1.85 28.2* 52 Total 75 T Previous Use 28 Total New Trips Added 47 *rate from Spack Consulting,see attachment, As illustrated above, the proposed land use will generate 75 trips during the PM peak hour. The existing use generates 28 trips during the PM peak hour.The proposed land use is only expected to generate 47 additional trips during the PM peak hour. In prior projects, City of Ashland does not require a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)when a redevelopment generates less than 50 more vehicle trips during the peak hour.As illustrated, the proposed land use will not generate more than 50 trips, and is therefore, below the threshold that Ashland has typically considered significant and in need of a more detailed analysis. The traffic will split on A Street with approximately 50%to and from the east and approximately 50%to and from the west. Figure 1 illustrates the added development traffic on the system. The added traffic to each intersection is described in the following. A Street at Oak Street: The intersection of A Street at Oak Street is anticipated to have an increase of 19 vehicles during the pm peak hour.The heaviest movement at this location is anticipated to have 9 additional trips resulting in 1 car every 6.6 minutes. The added traffic will have a negligible impact to the intersection. A Street at Pioneer Street: The intersection of A Street at Pioneer Street is anticipated to have an increase of 27 vehicles during the pm peak hour. The heaviest movement at this location is RECEIVED --"11V SANDOW .'J ENGINEERING City of AGhland Proposal from Kelly Sandow Pr_ RE: A St. Marketplace CUP Trip Generation-Parking Analysis October 2, 2017 Page 3 anticipated to have 11 additional trips resulting in 1 car every 5.5 minutes. The added traffic will have a negligible impact to the intersection. A Street at 1St Street:The intersection of A Street at 1St Street is anticipated to have an increase of 20 vehicles during the pm peak hour.The heaviest movement at this location is anticipated to have 10 additional trips resulting in 1 car every 6 minutes. The added traffic will have a negligible impact to the intersection. The added traffic from the proposed development is anticipated to have a negligible impact to the adjacent intersections. PARKING ESTIMATE Generally, parking estimates are based on parking rates in City Development Code or data contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation manual (4th edition). The City code contains parking rates for the Office and Production land uses proposed for the building however, there is no land use category within the City code or the ITE manuals that accurately describes the retail dispensary land use.The retail dispensary land use is fairly new and has sparked the need for providing additional data for estimating parking demand. Recently, Spack Consulting collected data at 4 marijuana dispensaries to provide parking estimates for this type of land use.The data was collected for 3 days (24 hour counts each day) at each of the sites for a total of 12 data points.The study from Spack Consulting shows an average peak parking demand overall the studies sites is 6.73 spaces per 1,000 sf building area.The data from Spack, Consulting is provided as an attachment. Table 2 provides the parking demand for the proposed change of use. TABLE 2. PARKING DEMAND ESTIMATE Land Use _ Size(ks€) Rate Peak Parking Demand i Marijuana Retail Sales 1.85 6.73/1000-sf* 12 7 \ti, Office Building(Urban) 10.225 1/500-sf 20 Warehouse 4.18 1/1000-sf 4 Total 36 *rate from Spack Consulting,see attachment As demonstrated,the proposed change of use is estimated to have a peak parking demand of 36 vehicles. Existing,the parking lot on site contains 43 parking spaces, one of which is an ADA accessible space. Therefore, it can be shown that the peak parking demand for the proposed change of use can be met. FINDINGS The proposed change of use is estimated to generate 47 additional trips during the PM peak hour, therefore a detailed TIA is not required for the CUP e r sportation impacts are expected to be minimal. R � SANDOW City of Minland ENGINEERING Proposal from Kelly Sandow PL RE:A St. Marketplace CUP Trip Generation-Parking Analysis October 2, 2017 Page 4 The estimated parking demand is 36 parking spaces during the peak parking time. There are currently 43 off-street parking spaces available.The available off-street parking is sufficient to meet the peak parking demand for the proposed use. Please contact me with question or additional information needed. 5' cerely, Kelly andow, PE �1`rv��Ff`�J�� � R ,Z PE r OREGON 3 - F`{� 4, RENEWAL 06/30/18 RECEIVED SANDOW City Of Ashland ENGINEERING i a� � ap C CL LU au py a� ai LL O)l i wy. CL c W � rn i fT'Y � 6✓1 d § i r to iR !I ( LLa LU f -Su ul i f�Q O O u 000- N G STgi1s G@¢ E V U ti Q��a7K�.�i a� � Z �• al 8�S �'S a >I I - Fl t5 /3 U m d r / I O �v^ • 4yr �' [� /�/ L 7 U Ilk JIG Is �° Cf h y33 § / � \ M n g �1'3mC N W 'J gig _ C LU LLI I, o m o n � N _ � M o � 0I� Y MM 3 0 W Z x W o t S5 o O � a � Z a m 0 og o Q J a W W z H 4 N N r O z v a z Ir N W CD0 v N H � 99 W xx1 ® ca Z V Q LUa = u.� < L a o O W w Lu _ � 0 0 -6 J W a LL d l Memorandum CSA Planning, Ltd To: Fotini Kaufman, Assistant Planner 4497 arMedford, R 9 101 Medford,OR 97504 Cc: Jorge Yant, CEO Plexis Telephone 541.779.0569 Fax 541.779.0114 Date: November 21, 2017 Jay@CSAplanning.net Subject: Site Design Review Applicability We spoke last week in regards to the Marijuana Production facility requiring a Site Design Review. Our phone conversation concerned the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) Section 18.5.2.020(7) which is one of 9 provisions in Section 18.5.2.020 that sets forth applicability "thresholds" for Site Design Review, as follows: 7. Any change of occupancy from a less intense to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the building code, or an change in use that requires a greater number of parking spaces. This memo follows up on our conversation with a more in-depth look at the application of the above code section to the subject circumstances. Background As we discussed on the phone, the above provision does not lend itself to easy categorical distinctions concerning land use intensity. The building code is not really structured to grade occupancies based upon "intensity" from an overall land use perspective. The building code tends to be more concerned with categorizing uses that present similar "hazards- or similar "design considerations" which may have very little to do with the daily land use activities because they only present themselves in rare circumstances - like in the event of a fire or earthquake or they relate to how you build something and not so much how it is used. Moving from one category to another does not necessarily mean the change is a "more intensive occupancy". However, determining that a change from one occupancy category to another will not result in a change in intensity will typically require the exercise of discretion. In the present case, it appears the Marijuana Production Facility will change the occupancy category of that portion of the building. The City could conclude that this change is a -horizontal change" in the building code between categories of similar land use intensity and the threshold in 18.5.2.020(7) would not be crossed. Based upon the analysis below, this is appears to be a supportable conclusion. The issue for the Applicant was that it did not make sense to wait until production facility building permitting for the discretionary determination regarding the Site Design Review applicability to be made. Moreover, because the CUP is required for the retail use and the Applicant is in a discretionary land use process for that use, the Applicant elected to file the Site Design Review information to avoid having two parallel but separate applications for interrelated uses. Filing the Site Design Review at the start of the process assured the two land use applications would-be synchronized, in the event the staff ultimately concluded a Site Design Review is required for the production facility. Building Code Occupancy Change "intensity"Analysis Based upon this guide, (htp://www.oregon.gov/bcd/Documents/brochures/BidCICodeMarijuanaaAfinaI.pdf], it appears that the Marijuana Production Facility would be classified as U or F-1 type occupancy. The prior use of this space has changed numerous times. We are not architects, but from our reading the code the prior building uses could be categorized as follows: 1. The original use of this space was for a F-1/S-1 'type occupancy for industrial and warehousing uses. Uses of an F-1 occupancy nature are the types of uses the building was originally constructed to serve. 2. When the use was devoted to the 'A Street Marketplace', this portion of the building was a theater. This would have likely been considered an Assembly Group A use of some type. 3. The most recent Plexis use was a gymnasium/rec roam/meeting room for the company. This would have likely been considered an Assembly Group A use of some type (assuming the occupancy was approved for greater than 50 people - which seems likely). See this link: http://ecodes.biz/ecodes support/free resources/Oregon/14 Structural/PDFs/Chapter%203 %20-%20Use%20and%200ccupancy.pdf Based upon purpose for which the building was originally constructed and the subsequent uses described above, it is reasonable to conclude that a U or F-1 occupancy for the proposed marijuana production facility is a "horizontal" shift and the proposed occupancy is not more intensive than the prior use. Conclusion The Applicant has no objection to a supported decision that concludes a Site Design Review is not required. Please lot us know if any additional information would be helpful in processing the Application. CSA Planning, Ltd. Ja Harland President cc: File Memorandum Page 2 I �- Ashland Planning Commission Re: Planning Action: 2017 - 01911 181 A Street We live at 303 Oak Street and oppose the proposal to put an indoor marijuana grow at 181 A Street. Our opposition is based on concerns for the air quality in our neighborhood. Also, we don't think an indoor commercial grow is an appropriate use of commercial real estate when land zoned for agricultural use is available outside the city limits. Thomas C Hausken Lincoln Briney 303 Oak Street Ashland, OR. RECEIVED DEC o6 zua CO Of Ashland December 5, 2017 Ashland Planning Commission Planning Action: 2017- 01911 181 A Street I am writing this letter in response to a request for a Conditional Use Permit to have a marijuana grow in the building at 181 A Street. 1 live at 323 Oak Street, very close to the building, and suffer from severe asthma. I already deal with the air quality in Ashland all year round and with the addition of the exhaust, I have dire concerns.. I breath on a nebulizer machine 2-4 times a day depending on my symptoms. I have two inhalers and I go to the hospital every two weeks for xolair shots for asthma. know how strong that exhaust can be. I don't have anything against medical marijuana, but I do have great concerns about a grow operation so near my home. Shannon Crane 323 Oak Oak Street Ashland, OR. 97520 Shannon Crane lives in my home with me for many years. I know how severe her asthma is and would hope that the Planning Commission would not approve this Planning Action for a marijuana grow so near to our home. I also do not have the same concerns for the establishment of a dispensary in the building at 181 Oak Street. Margaret Rubin 323 Oak Street Ashland, OR. 975200 RECEIVED DEC 06 2UI1 City Of Ashland December 5, 2017 Ashland Planning Commission Planning Action: 2017- 01911 181 A Street I am writing to oppose the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor marijuana grow at 181 A Street. Living acrossAshland Creek from a place on Water Street where people often smoke I am aware of how pervasive the odor can be. 1 know friends who have sold their homes because of the air quality created by a marijuana grow. Ashland has an ordinance forbidding roosters within the city limits. I see no reason why the city should not adopt a similar ordinance banning commercial grows within city limits based on neighborhood livability. This would not prevent a dispensary from acquiring marijuana grown in areas zoned for agriculture. Barry Peckham 315 Oak Street Ashland, OR. 97520 f� 'CF DEC p6 ,LutI Dana Smith From: Bill Molnar Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:52 AM To: Maria Harris; Dana Smith Subject: FW: Oak St. Tank& Steel Please include in the file -----Original Message----- From: Ellen [mailto:jehamer@mighty.net] Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:02 AM To: Bill Molnar<bill.molnar@ashland.or.us> Subject: Oak St.Tank&Steel Hi Bill;- If ill;If I may take a moment of your time, I would like to express my deep dismay and concern about the possibility of the wonderful old Oak St.Tank and Steel building being used as a marijuana grow facility. Let me be clear, 1 have no problem with marijuana use nor do I live in the neighborhood. However 1 do feel that this use is highly inappropriate ( it being right in the historic railroad district)and potentially troublesome ( being so close to downtown which is already struggling with difficult and illegal transient behavior). I know they have tried commercial use in the past to not much success but this does not seem a suitable place for such a business. Surely there must be something more appropriate and beneficial to the neighborhood -too bad OSF can't find some use for it perhaps as an indoor production facility or combination use building . Thank you for your time and consideration. Hope all is well. Best, Ellen Hamer 1 1 Dana Smith From: Bill Molnar Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:11 AM To: Maria Harris; Dana Smith Subject: FW: marijuana Please place in the file From:jrandbjo@mind.net [mailto:jrandbjo@mind.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:03 AM To: Bill Molnar<bill.molnar@ashland.or.us> Subject: marijuana Please share this message with the planning commission.... The Plexis/Oak Street Tanis and Steel building sits at the busy intersection of Oak and A streets, near a RR crossing, is only 3 blocks from the downtown Piaza and definitely is NOT an acceptable location for a marijuana grow! Betty Jo Reynolds Ashland Brent Thompson P.O. Box 201 Ashland, OR 97520 16 November 2017 Ashland Planning Commission 20 East Main St Ashland OR 97520 Re: Planing Action On A St for Marijuana Processing. Piexis Bldg. To the Planning Commission, Regarding the proposed processing operation or plant for marijuana, a concern raised is that there will be a penetrating odor of marijuana throughout the neighborhood. In a more rural neighborhood where it is grown perhaps the odor is less of a concern. In an E-1- R-2 Zone which includes residences nearby, let's ensure that an adequate air filter system will keep the processing odors from permeating the neighborhood. The reality is that the smell of green or raw marijuana can exacerbate asthma symptoms. If the air filter system is not feasible, i recommend denial of the application. Thank you. Best Regards, Brent Thompson RECEIVED NOV 17 2017 pity Of Ashland November 17, 2097 Leslie Gore 92 Church Street Ashland, OR 97520 Planning Commission REcEivLzr) Re "Plexis 181A Street NOV 17 2017 Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to urge you not to approve a Marijuana processing facility in the 181 A Street. While the intended use might be an allowable use per code, the impact of such an operation on in our city code demands that the Planning Commission use your over-site duties to vote against approval. We all can recognize the changing times in regards to Marijuana and many of us voted to normalize recreational use. However the commercialization of the industry is bringing some unwelcome realities. If you allow this plant, and the others that will be able to follow suit, you will change the nature of our city. We do not to want the first result on a google search to be: "Ashland-the weed capital" of Southern Oregon. Please ask the teachers in the High School if the weed culture is not having a significant negative impact on our children. Many Ashland families have options and few young families will stay,or move here,if weed, instead of art, nature and theater is what we offer. This building can and should be used for more positive, less corrosive, businesses. Kind regards, Leslie Gore 11/17/2017 FW:181 X Street--Comments P, Reply all I v ® Delete Junk I v ••• X FW: 181 A' Street--Comments RT Regan Trapp i Reply all I v Today,3:51 FM Fotini Kaufman; acarlsonassociates@charter.net Inbox Fotin i, Could you please address the questions below regarding 181 A Street? Thank you! Megan M. Trapp Permit Technician—Community Development City of Ashland 2401 Regan Trapp@ashland.onus [� 541-552-2233 {1 TTY 800-735-2400 541488-6006(fax) This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact sue at 541-552-2233. Thank you. From: acarlsonassociates@charter.net [maifto:acarlsonassociates@charter.net] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:46 PM u To: Regan Trapp NOV 17 2017 Cc: 'gm@ashlandfood.coop'; 'info@gatheringglass.com' Subject: RE: 181 A'Street--Comments LBy Regan Trapp: Thank you for the documents on the-above application which I have quickly reviewed. I have three initial concerns that I would like clarified or addressed. 1. 1 was cinder the impression that my-properties, and others in the area, are included a residential overlay for zoning and that 1 would be able to put an apartment upstairs if-all other planning criteria were met. This would then be residential within the 200 foot restriction area delineated in the application. Does this application, if approved, affect my zoning and potential future use? This may also be a concern for other neighbors, such as the Food Co-opr that currently uses a vacated house for non-residential purposes. 2. Will approval of marijuana uses affect my tenant's (Gathering Glass Studio) ability to continue having school group tours of their studio and glass blowing operations? 3. Condition 3d regarding Air Quality includes criteria regarding odors and other environmental pollutants. This is addressed in section 13 d only as it relates to the "retail uses"yet the conditional use permit is for"Marijuana Retail Sales and Production (Indoor Grow). I believe even indoor grow can produce significant odors that should be httpss:/loutlook.office365.com/awa/projection.aspx 112 11/17/2017 ( FW:181 X Street--Comments �- Reply all ® Delete Junk �' ••• }( Although I will continue to review the application in more detail, I do appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments on short notice due to the non-receipt of your mailed notices. Sincerely, Allen M. Carlson, Manager ASC Properties, LLC 1248 Vawter Road Medford, OR 97501 (541) 944-5624 cell (541) 734-7046 (Note that new address and phone information has been provided to Jackson County Property Tax personnel). ----------------------------------------- From: "Regan Trapp" To: "acarlsonassociatesOcharter.net" Cc: "Fotini Kaufman" Sent: 17-Nov-2017 21:33:40 +0000 Subject: 181 A'Street Attached is the applicant's submittal as well at the Notice of Complete for the planning action. You have until 4:30 to get your comments to us. If you have further questions, please call Fotini Kaufman at 541-552-2044 and she will be able to help you. Thank you! Regan M. Trapp Permit Technician —Community Development City of Ashland Reean.Traop@ash.3and.onus 541-552-2233 TTY 800-735-2900 541488-6006(fax) This ennail is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If,you have received this message in error, please contact-me at 541-552-2233. Thank you. https:1loutlook.office365.comlowa/projmtiorl.aspx 212 1111712017 Re:Comments on Planning Action PA-2017-0191. 9 Reply all ® Delete Junk I v ••• X Re: Comments on Planning Action PA-2017-01911 Fly Fotini Kaufman Reply all Today..4:09 PM Dave Brennan cdaveb@mind,net>; planning v0 Inbox Hi Dave, Thank you for your comments, I have entered them into the record for the planning action. If you have any questions on the application, do not hesitate to ask. Best, ��D �o Fotini Kaufman �A Assistant Planner D IDA City of Ashland,Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way,A_sh_land,oft 97.520 541.552-.2044 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland,and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. 1,Fyou have received this message in error,please contact me at(541)552-2044. Thank you. From: Dave Brennan<daveb@ mind.net> Sent: Friday, Novemtber 17, 2017 3:21:56 PM To: planning Subject:Comments on Planning Action PA-2017-01911 November 17, 2017 Dear Ashland Planning Department, These are my comments regarding planning action PA- 2017-01911, a request-for perm.0 for marijuana retail sales and indoor grow at 181 A Street. I live at 495 Poplar Place, about 1000 feet from the proposed grow and store. My wife and walk or bicycle past 181 A Street numerous times each week, and are frequent customers of neighboring businesses. My concerns relate to Ashland ordinance 18.1.5.040.A.3, which addresses the "adverse material effect on the livability of the impact area". This building is directly across Oak Street from a residential area. It is in close proximity to businesses whose customers congregate outdoors. It is near a City parks walkway that leads from Oak Street down to and along Ashland Creek. https:/loudook.office365.comlowalprojection.aspx 112 11/17/2017 Re:Comments on Planning Action PA-20V-04 P Reply all v ® Delete Junk I v ••• X business neighborhoods to loud, industrial-level noise that would exceed what typical retail or office space creates. I am also concerned about the odors vented to the outside impacting the surrounding neighborhoods. find the strong, pungent odor-of marijuana objectionable. Would this business have an HVAC system that vented these odors to-the outside, where they could impact the surroundings? What would the anticipated water usage for the grow operation be, and at what times of year? I am concerned that any agricultural operation relying on city water could create a burden on the system, especially if water used ;leaked in the summer. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed use. Sincerely, /s/David A. Brennan haps:lloutlook_office365.coml0walprojection.aspx 212 11/1612017 A St.Indoor Grow Reply all ® Delete Junk X A St. Indoor Grow B Bob <Bobashiandlumber@lithiawater.com> ilm Reply all Today,11:43 AM Fotini Kaufman; Carolyn Schwendener v Inbox Flag for follow up.Start by Thursday, November 16,2017. Due by Thursday, November 16,2017. You replied on 11/16/2017 12:14 PM. Action Items ... .. ... ... ... Would like the planning process to address the awful odor pot grows create and the side effect the odor has on some (self-included)of creating congested lungs. My place of business is approximately 100 feet from the proposed site we really don't want to smell skunk every day. My home in the county is almost unlivable in the fall because of this air pollution I really don't want to see it happen in town as well. Feel free to contact me with questions or if further input is required. Thanks Bob Hodgins LEE ASHLANDIUMBER CO. 384 Oak Street P.O. Box 700 Ashland, OR 97520 Voice:541-482-1621 Fax : 541-482-4458 (� Cell :541-973-8868 Noy � https://outlook.oifiice365.com/owalprojeclion.aspx 111 November 17, 2017 City of Ashland Planning Division 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street Dear City of Ashland Planning Division Please consider carefully the implications of granting this application. Marijuana grow operations emit pervasive and .penetrating odors that are very offensive. If this a.p.plication is granted the skunk-like odors associated with growing and processing marijuana will negatively affect air quality outside the building,will penetrate inside surrounding businesses, will be smelled inside cars driving by and will certainly be smelled by pedestrians walking in the area. Allowing such a large scale marijuana growing and processing operation so near to downtown is unacceptable. It will negatively affect livability,tourism, and housing values. Any kind of business that has such a negative impact on the wellbeing of Ashland's citizens,tourists and fellow business owners should not be accepted. The Ashland Planning Division has asked for comment from entities within 200 feet of the building. However, it is well known that odors emanating from marijuana grow sites and operations can be smelled much further awaythan 200 feet. For example,when driving along Eagle Mill Road you can smell the skunk odor of marijuana quite a distance away from the actual grow site. Imagine how it will be if marijuana is being grown and processed in such a large facility such as the old Plexis building so close to downtown. The smell will be overwhelming. Think about the impact on tourism. I live off Oak Street and walk by the old Plexis building on my way into town. There are always numerous cars, pedestrians and cyclists in this area,throughout the day and evening. We will all be negatively affected by the skunk- like odor. Would a tobacco processing facility be allowed in this building? Not Would a meat packing plant be allowed in this building? No! The odors associated from these kinds of operations are offensive and not suitable for residential areas or close to downtown. The same is true for growing and processing marijuana. At one time in history the old Plexis building was on the outskirts of town and probably considered suitable for such businesses but it is not now. This building and the surrounding area is a vital part of our downtown. Please reject this application and preserve Ashland's air quality and livability. Sincerely., RECEIVED Claudia Van Dyke NOV 17 2011 732 Sylvia Street City of Ashland Ashland OR 97520 l l November 17, 2017 City of Ashland Planning Division 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon 97520 RE: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-01911 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 A Street Growing cannabis creates a horrible odor. Cannabis grow operations are incapable or unwilling to prevent this odor. This must stop. A lot of people are sick and tired of not being able enjoy their own backyard without smelling the spunk stench of pot. A lot of people are sick and tired of not being able to walk around town without getting punched in the nose by the skunk stench of pot. A lot of people are sick and tired of not being to drive anywhere in this county without having to deal with the skunk stench of pot. Any other industry would be forced to keep their stench on their own property(through filters, scrubbers,etc.) or be shut down. The cannabis industry must follow rules and regulations like any other business. If I understand the criteria for a conditional use permit,the CUP cannot allow a net increase in offensive odor. This business will increase odor. I encourage you to reject this application. Sincerely, Dan Van Dyke 732 Sylvia Street RECEIVED NOV 1 `? M City of Ashland l Regan Trapp From: acarlsonassociates@charter.net Sent: Friday, November 17,2017 1:58 PM To: 'gm@ashiandfood.coop; 'sgreen@ashiandfood.coop'; 'info@gatheringglass.com' Cc: Regan Trapp Subject: Marijuana Grow&Sales at A Street Market PlaceFW: 181 A' Street Attachments: PA-2017-01911.docx;A_181_PA-2017-01911_Appli cant To ASC Tenants: I just received this email from the City requesting comments on a proposed permit approval for Production and Sale of marijuana. While I have not had time to review the 47+ pages of the application and approval,and probably can't without professional assistance, a quick glance concerns me about the applications claim that the "retail sales"will not produce any smells but does not comment on the stench associated with growing pot which appears to also being approved. The deadline for comments, according to the City, is 4:30 today. They claim this notice was sent to me at my address on the property tax records and suggest that the post office may not have forwarded it to my new address,even though my property tax statements and all other mail has been forwarded. Please try to look at this and send any comments directly to the City,with a copy to me by 4:30. Call if you want to discuss. Thanks Al Carlson, Manager RECEIVED ASC Properties, LLC (541)944-5624 NOV 17 2017 ----------------------------------------- CRY of Ashland From: "Regan Trapp" To: "acarlsonassociates@charter.net" Cc: "Fotini Kaufman" Sent: 17-Nov-2017 21:13:40+0000 Subject: 181 A'Street Attached is the applicant's submittal as well at the Notice of Complete for the planning action. You have until 4:30 to get your comments to us. If you have further questions, please call Fotini Kaufman at 541-552-2044 and she will be able to help you. Thank you! ?��awv ". ?z Permit Technician—Community Development City of Ashland Regan.Trapp@ashland.or.us i November 17, 2017 Subject: Planning Action PA-2017-01911, 181 A Street Ashland .... ............................ Ashland Planning Committee Staff, Having received the Notice of Application for a Marijuana Retail Sales and Indoor Production Facility next to Ashland ACE Hardware I was concerned. Not wanting to react hastily but with careful consideration I decided to respond after a couple days. However I was reminded that today was the deadline when several customers called to express their concerns. They had just read an article in last night's paper about the proposed Conditional Use Permit and were not happy. Their concerns fall in line with mine and some of them are listed below. 1) In addition to reputable customers these retail operations can attract a seedy clientele as well. That's probably why they are usually located next to payday lenders and pawn shops. The Hardware Store already has a problem with theft,transients leaving messes and bothering customers. This adds significant cost for our customers and stretches the Police department trying to handle all the issues. Do we really want to exacerbate the issue? One of our long time customers stated that they would not feel comfortable leaving their vehicle in our parking lot early or late in the day for fear of problems. This concern was made all too real for my family in the last couple years.A grow site was installed on the property next to our personal residence. We dealt with strange vehicles casing our neighborhood,guard dogs, armed vigilantes and security lights to protect the crop.We were even awakened by gunshot and cars speeding away in the middle of the night. Imagine this happening on A Street with families on vacation biking/walking through the Railroad District. 2) Production and processing of Marijuana can be both malodorous and dangerous. Are there adequate safe guards and enforcement mechanisms in place? Especially in such a densely populated area. If safeguards don't work and the neighborhood smells it will surely drive customers away and drive down real estate prices. Is this really what Ashland wants? Many local residence love A Street because it's a true walking community. Imagine the First Friday Art Walks overlaid with the smell of processing Marijuana.Who knows it might even make its way to the plaza. Isn't there a more industrial area that would make a better fit? In closing as a business and property owner on A Street I respectfully ask the Committee to consider the full impact and potential consequences and not grant this Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, RECEIVED ECEIVED Phil Emard' Ashland ACE Hardware NOV 17 2017 541-301-2691 City Of A-lshland 19/17/2017 Fvv:181 A Street l Reply all I v ® Delete Junk v •y• X FW: 181 A Street MH Maria Harris Reply all I Today,12:05 PIA Bill Molnar; Fotini Kaufman v Inbox You replied on 11/17/2017 12:07 PM. From: Noelle Christensen [mailto:noelle.christensen@massif.comj Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 11:22 AM To: Maria Harris <maria.harris@ashland.or.us> Subject: 181 A Street Ms. Harris- wish to formally submit my opposition to the proposed Marijuana Dispensary and Farm at 181 A Street in Ashland. manage a business located at 498 Oak Street,separated from this A street location by only one business,the Ashland Lumber Co. building. The location is a historic building and we of course want to see a thriving business fill the walls. Our concern with the proposed Indoor Marijuana farm and dispensary is that it will have odor and exhaust causing the neighborhood to smell of marijuana and will diminish the quaint family oriented feel of the A Street businesses. Our staff of 3S employees walks past this 181 A Street location on a daily basis,to frequent the 4&20Blackbirds bakery,Ashland Hardware Store,Ashland Co-op grocery,as well-as other businesses on A street. We see large groups of students walking up Oak Street each week throughout the Shakespeare season, attending plays as school field trips, who would walk past the building as well. Though you may find that this location isn't adjacent to a school, it seems a terrible location for an indoor marijuana grow. It is a public,visible location in the heart of our historic railroad district. Tourists and locals alike frequent this neighborhood, love A Street for all the galleries,-First Friday Art Waik,and the wonderful restaurants. Massif is a federal contractor supplying protective clothing to aviators working in our Armed-Forces. When military -personnel visit our office,we love to walk them downtown to show off our quaint beautiful downtown. If this dispensary is opened,we would hesitate to do so, as marijuana is still not federally Ictal,so it would potentially offend-our customers to see us associated and adjacent with this type of business district. We a-re supportive of these businesses legal rights to exist and prosperandknow that dispensaries exist elsewhere in town. Our-concern is with the indoor grow portion,which does not-seem appropriate for this central location-with exposure to much of our railroad district. Please consider our opposition as you review the application. Sincerely, Noelle Christensen Massif https:/loutlook.office365_com/owalprojection.aspx 112 11/17/2017 comment on Planning Action#PA-2017-01911(for 181 A Street,permit for lrldlo( wr,Retail marijuana sales) P Reply all I Y ® Delete Junk I v ••• X comment on Planning Action #PA- 201701911 (for 181 A Street, permit for Indoor Glow, Retail marijuana sales) j John Scarborough <johnscar@mind.net> i. P Reply all IV Today;11:52 AM planning v Inbox You replied on 11/17/2017 12:02 PM. I Action Items Hello Planning Department, am writing at about noon on Friday November 17, 2017;the last day for public comment on PA- 2017-01911, "A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review for Marijuana Retail Sales and Production (Indoor Grow) in the existing building at 181 A Street" is today. . am opposed to approval of#tPA- 2017-01911. In the long term,Jackson County and the City of Ashland jurisdictions will be able to introduce and enforce new regulations for reducing indoor growing's greenhouse emissions, harmful effluents, hazardous waste, and energy footprint (for all of which see https: muitca.us sustainability/environmental-impacts-indoor-marijuana-production ), but today there are insufficient controls in place to ensure that hosting indoor grow in Ashland will not put health and economic balance at risk. Also, how will the city's commercial and tourist industries be affected? What are Jorge Yant's plans for advertising the proposed business's operations? Signboards and integrated advertising for a large indoor grow and retail sales operation will have an effect on attracting more businesses. For these reasons I am opposed to PA-2017-01911. JOHN SCARBOROUGH L Scarborough Consulting q !� Mobile+1-541-941.4433 NOV r l jj Ashland_Oregon 97520 hUps:/loutlook.office3B5.com/awalprojecfion.aspx 112 Environmental Impacts of Indoor Marijuana Production Policy Brief Multnomah County Office of Sustainability Last Updated -9/23/2015 Issue: As the recreational marijuana market legalizes, industrial indoor marijuana manufacturing facilities are likely to proliferate. Like any other industry, these facilities will have an environmental impact. Based on current industry practices, indoor marijuana production is assumed to have a high energy use intensity, in addition to a high use of chemical fertilizers and some utilization of pesticides and fungicides. Background: In 2014 Oregon voters legalized, for recreational use, the production and sale of marijuana (Measure 91). The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is charged with establishing a statewide regulatory framework, including licensing of production facilities. Local governments are allowed to set time, use and manner restrictions on licensed marijuana facilities and can prohibit the establishment of licensed recreational marijuana producers, processors, wholesalers and/or retailers. The legalization of the recreational marijuana industry has prompted concerns over the environmental impacts of indoor grown marijuana, in particular the amount of energy that this industry will consume. Other concerns include wastewater impacts due to the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides. Impact: Indoor marijuana production uses a lot of energy. PGE; estimates that the average indoor marijuana production-facility uses 18 times more energy than an average single family home. The Northwest Power Conservation Council estimates that a conventional grow operation is anticipated to add between 80-163 average megawatts' of new demand to the Northwest's power system. In the Portland metropolitan region, indoor Over one-third of all consumption based marijuana production is expected to have a small, but not carbon emissions Borne from the things we insignificant, impact on overall electricity demand. This buy Here is a comparison of the carbon increased demand is likely to also increase greenhouse gas footprint for several consumer products. emissions since two-thirds of our region's energy mix comes from fossil fuels. Marijuana: 1 grain (indoor)= `iii lbs of CO2 Marijuana producers do have options for reducing their Beer:six pack=7 lbs of CO2Beet. 1 Ib=b0.5 lbs of CO2energy footprint. Switching to energy-efficient lights could reduce power consumption by half. Lighting is about 80 percent of the energy cost of indoor marijuana cultivation. Other improvements in heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems could also reduce electricity use for that equipment by 10 percent. Other environmental impacts are also associated with marijuana production. Waste water from a production facility may have elevated concentrations of fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides. Water use may also be a factor. Water needs of a production facility might be difficult to meet, especially as many parts of the state continue to experience drought conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the types of waste products that will be associated with marijuana production. Legalization might ultimately decrease the environmental impacts of marijuana production, as growers gain more access to advice and incentive programs. Fven so, the scale of environmental impacts merits explicit attention and the development of a new regulatory framework provides an opportunity for policy design: ' An average megawatt is the amount of electricity produced by the continuous production of one megawatt over a period of one year. The term, sometimes also called average annual megawatt, defines power production in megawatt increments over time Multnomah i�County Office of Sustafnabillty 11I1712o17 Re:Comments regardin,-former Plexis build,( . t) Reply all v Delete Junk I v ••• X Re: Comments regarding former Plexis building K Fotini Kaufman Reply all I v Today:11:12 AM Will at Indigo Creek Outfitters <will@indigocreekoutfitters.com> Sent Items Hi Will, Thank you for your comments, I have entered them into the record for the planning action. If you have any additional questions on the application as it continues going through this process, do not hesitate to ask. Best, Fotini Kaufman pIC� T0N Assistant Planner NOV 17 2011 City of Ashland,Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,OR 97520 By 541.552.2044 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland,and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error,please contact me at(541)552-2044. Thank you. From:Will at Indigo reek Outfitters<will@ indigocreekoutfitters.com> Serit: Friday, Movember 17, 2017 11:08:13 AM To: Fotini Kaufman Subject: Comments regarding former Plexis building Thank you for the opportunity to provide_comments regarding the application for a potential marijuana gravy operation and-dispensary to be located inside the farmer Plexis building on-.A Street. I'm the owner of a company headquartered at 130 A Street. We are a whitewater rafting company that uses our retail and office space as a meeting location for our customers and as a space to conduct our trip orientations. We have been at our location for 8 years and take pride in our reputation as being a farnily-friendly and professional company. Our target market is families visiting Southern Oregon. Catering to families with young kids is important to me because my wife and I have three kids of our own haps:llouflook.office365.com/cwaVojechon.aspx 1i2 11/17/2097 Re:Comments regarding former Plexis buiidi�,, Reply all w ® Delete Junk I v ••• X I have a few concerns regarding this application. Primarily I am concerned about the the lack of a local workforce that wants to work in the marijuana industry. The local workforce isn't able to keep up with production so outsiders are brought in to fill the void. These folks have no stake at all in the local community. They are looking for a quick buck and then leave. Sometimes not without leaving their mark (literally). Here are things we deal with on an annual basis: gas siphoned out of vans and trucks, vehicles hit/damaged w/o note, items stolen off of trailers, dumpsters filled with trash not from our biz, urine and human feces next to or on the sidewalk... It's impossible to say this is all related to the marijuana industry workforce. But it seems to happen excessively during trim season when the trimmers are moving their RVs/buses around Water Street/Oak Street/A Street/ B Street and hardly ever any other time. Adding a grow operation on A Street is only going to fuel the problem. Second, I'm concerned about air quality. A grow operation across the street is going to reek - I don't care if it's inside or outside. Interestingly, in their application they said that there would be no emissions or air quality concerns related to their retail business BUT never mentioned the production side of things. Our trip orientations are conducted outside so this is a major concern. Additionally, our customers who arrive early sometimes sit outside at our picnic tables. Third and final comment. Driving and parking on A Street is becoming more and more challenging. The parking lot they will be using only has one entrance/exit off of A Street. I recommend adding a second entrance/exit to ease congestion. The current entrance/exit is on a turn that is sometimes blind if a delivery truck is stopped. All the best, Will Volpert Indigo Creek Outfitters I IndipoCreekOutfitters.com (541)28214535 Iwill(&.indiaocreekoutfitters.com "We deliver experiences that create lasting memories." https:l/outlook.oifice365.com/owalprojection.aspx 212 ( f / 11/17/2017 Cannabis growing operation on Oak and A Stl P Reply all Delete Junk I_v ••• X Cannabis growing operation on Oak and A Street GM Garth Mix <garthmix@m%.com> ` Reply all v Today,10:24 AP: Fotini Kaufman Inbox You replied on 11/17/2017 10:57 AM, To whom it may concern, Growing cannabis on Oak and A Street is not the place for such an operation and a waste of a great public space. Like we need more derision between cannabis growers and property owners in this town. If the city of Ashland is letting this go through(you can't even open the blinds on a window without a permit or review), there must be a lot of$$$ involved with the 6000sf of real estate near the center of town. The space could be an excellent community use area expanding venues and events from lettered street businesses and the Armory. In no way can I see having an akin to a pig farm there, corroborating or enhancing the local community in an area so close to Ashland's social center. If growing is allowed in such a valuable space, it will only benefit a moneyed few and will only add to local dissent. Splendid idea, evolving indoor growing and-supply of a good and valuable product, yet the grow operations should be on the outskirts of the town. There's a reason we historically don't see pig farms near the center of town, and-the same rules should be applied-to cannabis. Please consider other options.-The space could be so much more. Sincerely, Garth Mix --------------- ------------ ------------ a V 7 201?y Garth Mix GMiX Designs 360.739.9756 www.gmixdesions.com haps://outlook.office365.comiawalprgecbon.aspx 1/2 11/171201.7 Re:Proposed Marijuana Farm on A Street( Reply all [ ® Delete Junk X Re: Proposed Marijuana Farm on A Street FK Fotini Kaufman Reply all [ Today.8:32 AM Nic VanDerZwan <nicolaas@charter.net> Sent Items Hi Lisa, Thank you,-I have received your comments and have entered them into the record for the planning action. If you have any questions on the application, do not hesitate to ask. Best, Fotini Kaufman Assistant Planner # NOV City of Ashland,Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,OR 97520 By 541.552.2044 Tel 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland,and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. if you have received this message in error,please contact me at(541)552-2044. Thank you. From: Nic VanDerZwan<n icolaas@cha rter.net> Sent`Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:52:49 PM To. b4igo@charter.net; Fotini Kaufman Subject:Proposed Marijuana Farm on A Street To whom it may concern: This letter is in response-to the application for a marijuana farmJdispensary, in the old Tank and Steel building on A street, in downtown Ashland.I am a long time Ashland resident and homeowner. I would like to voice my strong opposition to the above proposal. I feeFthat a `grow' at this particular site will have a very negative impact to the downtown area. The incredibly potent smell,the large water usage, and possibly hazardous fertilizers so close to Ashland Creek, seems like a bad-idea. This area is very community minded, with lots of shops and restaurants. I know myself as a homeowner am not at all thrilled to live across the street form a large grow site. I don't believe that the many B&Bs and their clientele will be pleased either. I believe that marijuana should be classified as an agricultural crop and be kept in county and/or rural locations. I understand the use of air scrubbers and carbon filters may be helpful, but it is likely that the https://outlook.ofice365.com/owalprojection.aspx 112 11/17/2017 ` Re:Proposed Marijuana Farm on Street P Reply all Delete Junk I v ••• X park on Hersey St. I fear they will begin to congregate even more so in the area if this proposal goes through... And they are becoming increasingly more and more aggressive and rude. Myself, as well as many residents would appreciate a reconsideration of this project. I'm not opposed to marijuana,but that large of a farm operation, in such a busy downtown area, I feel,would have a very negative impact on our town.Even my 17 year old son dislikes the idea of a dispensary and marijuana farm so close to home. Thank you for your consideration, and hearing my concerns. Lisa VanderZwan 337 Oak Street, Ashland Oregon Mtps:lloutlook.olfice365.comlowalpro*ion.aspx 212 11/17/2017 ` Plexis bldg marijuana growlretail in Railroad Dist. Reply all+ v ® Delete Junk I v ••• __X Plexis bldg marijuana grow/retail in Railroad District B Steve Barnard <sbarnard541@gmail.com> i Reply-all v Yesterday,4:57 PM Fotini Kaufman v Inbox Flag for follow up.Start by Thursday,November 16,2017.Due by Thursday, November 16,2017. You replied on 11/17/2017 8:31.AM. Hello, My name is Steve Barnard I am the owner of"A" Street Print & Parcel-Community Business Center, located at 258 A Street for the past 10 years. My business is about a block or so from the Plexis bldg being considered for a marijuana grow and retail location. I am very much against that location being used for those purposes as this area is a mix of small local businesses and residential living_ Businesses along the A Street corridor are family friendly and represent all the local community as such. I am not against the legal marijuana grow/retail industry and actually am fully supportive. But I can already envision the seasonal transient community invading the Railroad District as they have on the Downtown Plaza businesses and other high profile areas around town. In addition to the transient/panhandlers attracted to a high profile location such as this I am also concerned about the increased traffic flow along A Street which. is already beyond capacity and extremely dangerous. Thanks for considering my input, D 4"D M Steve Barnard NOV 258 A Street, Ste 1 17?z417 Ashland, OR 97520 �Y 541-552-OS05 Ntps:tloullook.othce365.com/mva/proje on.aspx 112 11/16/2017 `` Planning Action:PA-2017-0194 ff t l P Reply all I v h Delete Junk f v ••• X Planning Action: PA-2017-0194 H hafslack@jeffnet.org 6 Reply all v Today,4:13 PM Fotini Kaufman Inbox You replied on 11/16/2017 4:44 PM. Ms. Kaufman, Thank you for the help with helping to understand Planning Action PA-2017-0194(181 A street).The following are some concerns i feel need to be addressed concerning the indoor grow operation.I don't see how they are being addressed in the application. - How is the waste water from the indoor grow operation to be disposed of?I assume chemicals used will be found in this water.This could impact the city waste water treatment process and meeting water quality requirements. - How will the lighting requirements not be higher than previous uses for the building? Conservation is a major topic in this city. - Every year water conservation is a major issue. How will this operation not add to this issue/ - How will any odors from this operation be controlled? Thank you, Harold Slack 399 Guthrie Street Ashland, OR 97520 f �jD n I.ie l!D � 11 7~I NOV 16 2017 �Y h":/loutlook.olfice365.com/owa/projection_aspx 1/2 1� _Z011-019f1 To the Members of the Ashland Planning Department:artment: 11/16/2017 As a resident of Ashland and a small business owner, I am writing to strongly oppose the application for the use of the Oak Street Tank& Steel Building at 181 A street for an indoor marijuana grow and retail location. I do not believe that this type of facility is in concert with a walk-able, family oriented, tourist-driven economy of Ashland. I also believe that there are many other parts of the Rogue Valley (including in Ashland)where this kind of facility would be more appropriate, instead of sacrificing one of our few treasured historic commercial buildings within walking distance to downtown. Has the council considered the smell of this type of growing operation? What does this type of business hope to contribute to the culture and community of Ashland? Does this business dovetail with the types of tourists and school groups that drive the Shakespeare festival, Ashland's most important contributor to the local economy? Marijuana.is and should be legal here in Oregon, but placing a large warehouse marijuana growing operation in the heart of Ashland's commercial and tourist zone is a step way, way too far. Sincerely, RECEIVED Andrew Myer NOV 16 2017 880 Cambridge St Ci Of AshlV Ashland, OR 97520 V 11!1612017 l' Plexis Building \ P Reply all J ® Delete Junk ••• X Plexis Building B j brown <jbbookkeeping@gmail.com> Reply all v Today,3:38 PM Potini Kaufman v Inbox You replied on 11/16/2017 3:39 PM. 4011111 Action Items Dear Fotini Kaufman, I am a resident of the Historic Railroad District. It has come to my attention that there is an application in place for the Plexis Building to be occupied by a commercial indoor mar Juana growing and retailing business. I feel strong concern for the well-being of my neighbors, and I do not see this type of business as a benefit in this neighborhood. To me, a commercial growing business is a "farm" and should be outside of city limits. I and my son walk down A Street past this building regularly{4-5 times/week} and the smell of marijuana is not what we want to encounter. I imagine, it is not something many tourists want to encounter, either. Please take into deep consideration the opinions and voices of the residents of the ENTIRE RR district and it's small business owners, before allowing this project to proceed. Please consider extending a longer period for public comment than usual for this unusually large and unique proposed plan. Thank you, Jennifer Brown 192 Van Ness-Avenue Ashland-OR-97520 --------- --- ------- 707-349--$733 RECEIVED Nov 16 2017 CRY of Ashland haps://outlook.olfice365.com/owa#ojecfion.aspx 112 11116/2017 Re:Plexus.building proposal ` P Reply all v ® Delete Junk I w ••• X Re: Plexus building proposal K Fotini Kaufman Reply all u Today,3:13 PM Vanessa Houk <sunriver@gmail.com> Sent Items Hi Vanessa, Thank you, I have received your comments and have entered them into the record for the planning action. If you have any questions on the application, do not hesitate to ask. Best, Fotini Kaufman puBpea V 10 A110 Assistant Planner ILOZ 9 d� T p QN City of Ashland,Community Development Department U 51 Winburn Way,Ashland,OR 97520 433 A1333a 541.552.2044 Tel ■■ 800.735.2900 TTY 541.552.2050 Fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland,and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. 1f you have received this message in error,please contact me at(541)552-2044. Thank you. From:Vanessa Houk<sunriver@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday,-November 16, 2017 12:47:10 PM To:planning Subject: Plexus building proposal H i, I'm going to make this a really short message and get right to the point. I do not want you to approve the Marijuana farm and site in the plexus building. We have a housing crisis. We don't have a pot crisis in this town. Thank you. Vanessa Houk hups:/Iougook.office365.comlowa/projection.aspx 112 1111612017 A St.Indoor Grow �7 Reply all E ® Delete Junk 1 V ••• X A St. Indoor Grow Bob <Bobashland lumber@ lithiawater.com> Reply all of Today;11:43 AM Fotini Kaufman; Carolyn Schwendener y Inbox Flag for follow up.Start by Thursday, November 16,2017.Due by Thursday, November 16,2017. You replied on 11/16/2017 12:14 PM. .� Action Items Would like the planning process to address the awful odor pot grows create and the side effect the odor has on some (self-included)of creating congested lungs. My place of business is approximately 100 feet from the proposed site we really don't want to smell skunk every day. My home in the county is almost unlivable in the fall because of this air pollution I really don't want to see it happen in town as well. Feel free to contact me with questions or if further input is required. Thanks Bob Hodgins ASHLANULUMBERS .a 384 Oak Street P.O. Bax 700 ------------- Ashland,OR 97520 Voice: 541-482-1621 Fax : 541-482-445$ ������ Cell : 541-973-8868 ED Nov,, 6 201 t ply OfAshland https://outlook.ofice365.com/owalorojection.aspx 1!1 11/16/2017 FW:Application for Marijuana dispensary t) Reply all Delete Junk J V ••• FW: Application for Marijuana dispensary em Bill Molnar i Reply all J v Today, 4:39 AM Maria Harris; Fotini Kaufman Inbox You forwarded this message on 11/16/201710:03 AM FYI From:loan Drager[mailto:jddrag@opendoor.com] Sent:Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:08 AM To:City Council<council@ashland.or.us> Subject:Application for Marijuana dispensary This is a terrible location as it is on one of the busiest intersections of Ashland without a stop light. I sent many requests to the transportation commission to get a cross walk located there, and there was supposed to be a stop and pedestrian sign. Ale now have a crosswalk. Oak and A St.'s are busy streets as we have created a major shopping district there with the Grange co-op,ACF, and other business located on A. Oak is main artery to downtown from Hersey,Van Ness, and many neighborhoods in the not end of town. Please consider this carefully for any business that is likely to increase traffic and parking congestion. Sincerely, Joan D. Drager 123 Central Ave. Ashland, Oregon 541-488-4645 jdredrager�g_maiLcotn htt ://www.dail idin2s.com/news/20171116/ rovc,-shove-and-sell RECEIVED GdY Of Ashland hnps://outlook.offiGe365.com/0wa/prcjection.aspx 111 91113!2017 l I 181 A Street,Former Plexis Reply all v ® Delete Junk I v X 181 A Street. Former Plexis DO Donald Olson <dmaxo@me.com> %'MA f? Reply all I v Today;1:20 PM Fotini Kaufman; Carolyn Schwendener v Inbox I understand the former Plexis site is being considered for an indoor marijuana grow site and retail store. I strongly oppose approval of such a use for this building so close tothe heart of our Ashland downtown. Ashland already has sufficient marijuana retail spaces. A large commercial grow site,even indoor,should be located outside the core part of town (ideally outside the city limits). An indoor grow site will attract even more transients to the downtown area to work part time in the grow site (e.g., as trimers). in general Ashland should limit marijuana growing and selling to the small number already in place. Donald Olson 111 N Third St Ashland OR 97520 541-708-0540 dmaxo@me.com RECEIVE® City Of Ashland Mps:lloullook.ofice365.comlowalprojeclion.aspx 1l9 l l Carolyn Schwendener From: eileen piker<ewpiker@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 11:00 AM To: Fotini Kaufman Cc: Carolyn Schwendener Subject: 181 A Street- PA-2017-01911 Fotini, I live in the Railroad District and regularly walk in the area by 181 A Street on my way to the coop and around town with my dog. I strongly object to the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Design Review for Marijuana Retail Sales and Production (Indoor Grow) in the existing building at 181 A Street based on the following; -The City of Ashland already has more than sufficient Retail Marijuana sites -This location is too close to residential houses and the prime downtown business district-e.g. Coop and Main Street/OSF Theatre -1 am strongly concerned that the site will attract homeless and travelers to hang out around the area -I would like this site to remain a commercial business site; perhaps the site could be broken down to smaller spaces - I think a Production Grow site would be better located in the commercial/industrial area on the other side of the railroad tracks or other areas outside downtown Ashland Thank you for your consideration. Eileen Piker 625 B Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-708-0758 ewpiker@yahoo.com RECEIVED City of Ashland 1116!2017 Oak St Building t) Reply all IV ® Delete Junk I v ••• [ K Oak St Building CSD Darlene Donnelly <darlene.m.donnelly@gmail.com> Reply all I v Yesterday, 8:50 PM planning Inbox Dear Planning Dept, So sad to get this notice that the city is considering allowing one of the few remaining historic commercial buildings in our beautiful city to become a full city block of pot growing and sells. What will become of this valley as everywhere we go far and near, everything is marijuana based. Maybe it would be more appropriate off of this very busy street and tucked away a little. Poor A st is trying to be the artist walk not the pot walk. Oh well, progress. Thanks for listening, Darlene Donnelly RECEIVED City of AShiand https://outlook.office365.comiawalprojecti on.aspx 111 Kit i", Planning Department,51 Winbtlrn Way,Ashland, Oregon 97520 C I T V 0 F F 541-488-5305 Fax:541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-29,00 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: PA-2017-02134 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1068 E. Main Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Marcel Verzeano Trust (Paulena E.C. Verzeano, trustee) DESCRIPTION: A request for Outline Plan Modification, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 33-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, and Tree Removal Permit for the property located at 1068 East Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. As originally approved, the project consisted of 29-units. The requested modification would add four,additional apartments (all less than 500 square feet) to the original proposal, for a total of six small rental units. The application also proposes to remove one additional tree which the applicants had originally proposed to preserve. COMPRE HENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: High Density, Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3/Pedestrian Places Overlay; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 IE 09AD; TAX LOT 4. 6800 and 6801. NOTE: The Ashland Tree Commission will also,review this Planning Action on Thursday, December 7,2017 at 6:00 PM in the Community Development and Engineering Services building(Siskiyou Room), located at 51 Winbum Way. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesda.),, December 12,2017 at 7�0011V1Iljl Ashland Chyie Center, 117.5 1,7ast 31ain,,Vreet "'NN "z 0 NINE is PE Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street,Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application,are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue,precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also prectudes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost,if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department,Community Development and Engineering Services,51 Winburn Way,Ashland,Oregon 97520, During the Public Hearing,the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable crlteria. Uniess there is a continuance,if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title 1). If YOU have questions or comments concerning this request,please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division,541-488-5305, ActionsWoficing FolderMMailed Notices&Sig"s12017hPA-2017-0213l,,I'ype 2.ducx OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 i Approval Criteria for Outline Plan. The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. j 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. i g. The development complies with the Street Standards. APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR FINAL PLAN 18.3.9.040.B.5 Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan.This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another.Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan, b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan,but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance, c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase,the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. MINOR MODIFICATIONS 18.5.6.040 C. Minor Modification Approval Criteria.A Minor Modification shall be approved only upon the approval authority finding that all of the following criteria are met. 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval,except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example,a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access,circulation,etc.Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5,1. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use,or requiring a variance,administrative variance,or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements, 3. The approval authority shall approve,deny,or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings;except that conditions of approval do not apply,and findings are not required,where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. r; j i G:ScoFnm-devSpla:winglPlanning ActionsWoficing PolderWailed Notices Fe Sign5520175PA-2017-02134_Type 2,docx SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone:The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone(part 18.2),including but not limited to:building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions,density and floor area,lot coverage, building height,building orientation, architecture,and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones:The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements(part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards:The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part IM,except as provided by subsection E,below, D. City Facilities:The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water,sewer,electricity,urban storm drainage,paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E, Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards.The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2,below, are found to exist. 1, There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site;and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties;and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design;and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.;or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements,but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. I TREE REMOVAL.PERMIT 18.5.7.040.8 1. Hazard Tree,A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria,or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard(i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property)or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility,and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment,relocation,or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. I b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050.Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. f 1 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard,A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria,or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and { standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and E=nvironmental Constraints in part 18.10. iv. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion,soil stability,flow of surface waters,protection of adjacent trees,or existing windbreaks. c, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities,sizes,canopies,and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property.The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination,the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees,so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. h e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each free granted approval pursuant to section 18,5.7.050.Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 'r i= 6 LIE l` yy E G:lcomm-devlpianningTianning AaianslNolicing FolderWailed Notices&5igns1201 APA-2017-0213q_Typc 2.docx i e i I' R €: �: s IP 1 E I r s I I% I? +3 5 �� ��t ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF + PORT December 12,2017 I �I i PLANNING ACTION: 92017-02134 OWNER: Marcel Verreano Trust (Paulena E.C. Verzeano, trustee) APPLICANT: KDA Homes, LLC r LOCATION: 1068 East Main. Street ZONE DESIGNATION: R-3,Pedestrian Places overlay COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: High-Density Multi-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFEIZENCES: (See also lyt L//www gca�le��ghti iWp cjrj �Jl�� l�l�tmam � /!'/[,andUse/inde: .'l ant, T) 15.(14.21 tl Demolition 18.2.4 General Regulations for: Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 1.8.3.9 Performance Standards Options &PSO Overlay 18.4.2 Building Placement, Orientation&Design 18.4.3 Parking, Access and Circulation. 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting & Screening 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and.Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.4.7 Signs 18.4.8 Solar Access 18.5 Application Review Procedures and Approval Criteria 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Laine Adjustments 18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Actions 18.5.7 Tree Removal. 18,6.1 Definitions APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: December 3, 21117 REQUEST: A request for Outline Plan Modification, Final. Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 33-unit,28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision„ and Tree Removal Permit for the property located at 1068 East Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. As originally approved, the project consisted of 29-units. The requested modification would add four I additional apartments (all .less than 500 square feet) to the original proposal, for a total of six small rental units. The application also proposes to remove one tree which the applicants had previously proposed to preserve. Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashiand Planning Department-Staff Report 1 dds J .Applicant:KDA Homes,LL.G Page 1 of 13 i I. Relevant Facts 1) Background- History of Application i Planning Action ##1986-00051 was administratively approved on June 11, 1986 granting Site Design Review approval to develop a 20-unit apartment complex on the subject property. This approval was appealed by neighbors who were j concerned with "additional traffic and the fact that there were too many apartment complexes cropping up in that area." The Planning Commission approved the application unanimously, and the approval was subsequently granted a two-year administrative extension with Planning Action 91987-00070 but was never built. I Planning Action #1992-00008 was administratively approved on December 24, 1991 granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow up to 2,000 square feet of the existing approximately 2,700 square foot home to be used as professional offices, with residential use in the remaining space. At the time it was noted that the home was well-maintained and that the proposed parking and driveway improvements associated with the office use would be completed in"Hollywood n strips" to help maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and benefit the existing mature trees. Planning Action 92017-01059 was approved by the Planning Commission on August 8, 2017 granting Outline Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 29-unit, 28- lot Performance Standards Option subdivision. The proposal included partial demolition and relocation of the existing house on site and a Tree Removal Permit to remove 10-12 of the site's 25 trees. There are no other planning actions of record for the property. 2} Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description } The subject property is generally rectangular in shape, consisting of two tax lots with a combined area of approximately 1.78 acres (77,910 square feet), located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Main Street and Mountain Avenue. The subject property is generally flat with an approximate four percent slope down to the north. The application identifies 25 trees on the property greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height(d.b.h.). The subject property and properties immediately to the north and east are zoned R-3 (High-Density, Multi-Family Residential) while properties to the west and south are generally zoned R-2 (Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential). The property immediately to the south is owned by the Ashland School District and is part of the Ashland High School campus. i; The subject property is located within the "Pedestrian Places" overlay, which envisioned the development of a neighborhood center and arts community around the Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland planning Department—Staff Report 1 dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 2 of 18 f u intersection to complement surrounding civic uses, schools, and the nearby historic district and take into account the existing house on the property. The overlay includes envisioned frontage improvements and intersection treatments which have been adopted into the Transportation System Plan. (TSP project #R42 envisions improvements at this intersection to include: enhanced corners treatments, widened sidewalks, street trees, stormwater detention planters, bus shelters for future RVTD route 813, special concrete crosswalks and paving at the intersection, and ornamental streetlights. The overlay also provides some flexibility for properties including allowing additional special permitted uses (professional, financial, business and medical offices;personal service establishments;stores, shops, and offices supplying commodities or performing services; and restaurants) not typically permitted in I. residential zones subject to certain development standards and limitations. The current application does not propose special permitted uses in conjunction with the subdivision, but the frontage improvements and corner treatment have been designed with the Pedestrian Places concepts in mind and the option to utilize the allowances of this overlay would remain open for the property in the future. The property currently contains an approximately 3,265 square foot single family residence which, according to Jackson County tax records,was built in or around 1900. The application materials indicate that the home has been in the current u owner's family for more than 100 years, and note that the iconic old house on the i property is a 1909 addition to a pre-1900 home which is attached to the rear of j the 1909 addition. The application notes that the older portion of this structure is to be demolished, with the 1909 addition portion to be relocated roughly 40 11 feet nearer to East Main Street in conjunction with the further development of the property. (Building demolitions and relocations are regulated through the Building Division under AMC 15.04.210. Generally, the relocation of buildings on the same tax lot is exempt from the demolition and relocation regulations) The property has approximately 329 linear feet of frontage on East Main Street, r an Avenue or Major Collector in the adopted Transportation System Plan(TSP). r The property also has approximately 234 linear feet of frontage along South Mountain Avenue, an Avenue or Major Collector Street. East Main Street is paved with curbs, gutters, a variable width parkrow planting strip and a five- to six-foot sidewalk in place, but it lacks street trees within the planting strip. The conceptual plan for East Main Street in this vicinity adopted with the Pedestrian Places ordinance illustrated ultimately completing the streetseape with an eight-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow, and indicated that while the existing roadway and curb would remain, approximately three feet of additional right-of-way would be necessary. The applicants have indicated that they will improve the full frontage to the current standards for an Avenue IE with six-foot sidewalks and seven-foot park row planting strip with street trees and will dedicate an additional three feet of right-of-way in keeping with the Pedestrian Places concept plan's vision. Mountain Avenue is fully improved along the property's frontage, with paving, curbs, gutter, a variable width parkrow planting strip and an approximately five- Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report 1 dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 3 of 18 to six-foot wide sidewalk in place. The parkrow planting strip here also lacks street trees. The conceptual plan for Mountain Avenue in this vicinity adopted with the Pedestrian Places ordinance illustrated ultimately completing the streetscape with an eight-foot sidewalk and seven-foot parkrow, and indicated that while the existing roadway and curb would remain, approximately seven feet of additional right-of-way would be necessary. The applicants have indicated that they will improve the full frontage to the current standards for an Avenue with six-foot sidewalks and seven-foot park row planting strip with street trees. '. Emerick Street, which runs north from East Main Street near the property's northwest corner,previously extended south through the subject property but this j section of Emerick right-of-way was previously vacated by the City. E. Current Proposal The application is a request for an Outline Plan Modification, Final Plan and Site Design Review approvals for a 33-unit, 28-lot Performance Standards Option subdivision, and a Tree Removal Permit. As previously approved, the project consisted of 29-units; the modification requested here adds four additional apartments - all less than 500 square feet - for a total of six small rental units. The application also proposes to remove one additional tree which the applicants had previously indicated would be preserved. As before,the proposal includes a variety of unit types and sizes. Of the 33 proposed units, 19 are three-bedroom units,seven are one-bedroom units over garages, and six are studio apartments. The one and three bedroom units are to be sold individually, while the six studio units are planned as rental units which would be accessory to the units below. The application includes a Solar Access Performance Standard which would allow the southern units to shade the northern units, with shading limited to garage walls and no higher than the bottom sill of windows on walls into living space. K Project impact Because the proposal involves the addition of four units, which is more than a ten percent increase over the Outline Plan approval, a Type 11 procedure to modify the Outline Plan in conjunction with Final Plan approval is required. Outline Plan The first approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City." The application materials assert that the E proposal meets all applicable ordinance requirements, is requesting no Variances or Exceptions, and that this criterion has been satisfied. The second approval criterion for Outline Plan approval is that, "Adequate key City_facilities can be provided including water, server, 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. " The application indicates that adequate key city facilities are available within the adjacent rights- Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report I dds ' Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 4 of 18 of-way, and can and will be provided with the proposal, and that in conversations with the representatives of the various utilities it has been indicated that the proposed development will not cause any facilities to operate beyond capacity. The application includes a conceptual utility plan prepared by a civil engineer. I • Water: The property is currently served by a six-inch water main in East Main Street and a six-inch water main in South Mountain Avenue. The application notes that a private water line will loop through the property connecting to mains in both rights-of-way in order to provide consistent water pressure to the site to address both domestic use and emergency needs. • Sewer: The property is currently served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in East Main Street and an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in South Mountain Avenue,and the applicants suggest that in consulting the Public Works Department they have been told that these lines have adequate capacity to serve the project. A proposed new sewer line will loop through the property and connect to the South Mountain Avenue line near the low point of the property. • Electricity: The application notes that both South Mountain Avenue and East Main Street have existing overhead power lines in place with the capacity to serve the project, and that �t 3. the applicants propose to underground power to serve the new units with the addition of up to four transformers which are to be dispersed around the site in discreet but accessible locations. Final electrical distribution plans including transformer sizes and locations and street light placement will be provided for review and approval prior to signature of the E, final survey plat. i • Urban storm drainage: The property is currently served by a 12-inch storm sewer main in East Main Street and a 12-inch storm sewer main in South Mountain Avenue. The applicants propose a storm water detention and water quality control tank near the low point of the property, near the intersection of East Main Street and Mountain Avenue. An outlet control structure will sit adjacent to this tank and will slowly emit stormwater into the existing public systems within the rights-of-way to limit post development flows to no IT more than would otherwise be encountered in a 25-year storm event. • Paved Access & Adequate Transportation: Both East Main Street and South Mountain Avenue along the property's frontage are improved, with variable width sidewalks and ry parkrow planting strips, curbs, gutter and paving already in place. The applicants have proposed to widen both the sidewalks and parkrows fully to Avenue standards and to plant new street trees along both frontages. The applicants note that they propose to provide three feet of additional right-of-way along East Main Street as envisioned in the Transportation System Plan and Pedestrian Place Ordinance, noting that they hope this will ll k accommodate future installation of a bus shelter and associated bicycle parking facilities. Conditions have been recommended below to require that final electric service, utility and civil plans be provided for the review and approval of the Staff Advisor and city departments, and that civil infrastructure be installed according to these plans, inspected and approved is prior to the signature of the final survey plat. 3 i Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland#Tanning Department—Staff Report/dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 5 of 18 �I The third criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, "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 t included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. " The application indicates that the only significant natural features are a number of large trees concentrated around the perimeter of the old house. The submittals identify the trees and how the proposal has attempted to retain the majority, including the original arborist's report detailing their health and recommendations for removal or protection and preservation. The applicants suggest that the maintenance of the site's trees has been largely ignored for many years, and I they appear to be stressed due to the recent drought. The applicants emphasize that they have made an effort to preserve as many of the site's healthy trees as possible and to incorporate them into the project open space or on the lot with the older house. The fourth criterion for approval of an Outline Plan is that, The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land fi-om being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. " The applicants assert that the proposal, which seeks to develop the site in a manner nearer to its target use, will not prevent adjacent properties from being developed in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. f The fifth approval criterion is that, "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. " The application includes draft CC&R's which address the maintenance of the proposed common areas (see 3.6 on pages 9-10 of the "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions"provided). The sixth criterion is that "Thero osed density meets the base and bonus densitystandards p p ty established under this chapter. " The subject property is 1.788 acres, and at a base density n of 20 dwelling units per acre has a base density of 3 5.6 dwelling units and a minimum density of 28 dwelling units. The applicants propose a total of 33 units, including the old house which is being relocated on a larger 0.27-acre parcel. The final Outline Plan approval criterion is that, "The development complies with the Street r Standards. " As previously noted, both East Main Street and South Mountain Avenue along the property's frontage are improved, with variable width sidewalks and parlaow planting strips,curbs, gutter and paving already in place. The applicants have proposed to widen both the sidewalks and parkrows fully to Avenue standards and to plant new street trees along both ftontages. The applicants note that they propose to provide three feet of additional right-of-way along East Main Street as envisioned in the Transportation System Plan and Pedestrian Place Ordinance, noting that they hope this will accommodate future installation of a bus shelter and associated bicycle parking facilities. A condition of approval is recommended below to require that sidewalk widening, installation of a full parkrow planting strip with street trees and irrigation, and right-of-way dedication be included on the P g p g g Y final civil plans, and that these improvements be installed according to the approved plans, inspected and approved prior to signature of the final survey plat. iY x Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report I dds Applicant:KLA Homes,LLC Page 6 of 18 l Final Plan As noted in AMC 18.3.9.050.13, Final Plan approval is to be granted upon a finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan approval. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the potential for minor modifications from one planning step to another asp art of what is often a two-step subdivision process. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the Outline Plan with the Final Plan meets the following criteria: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these 1 distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. 1 c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent.. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or ` increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. l In this instance, because the Final Plan involves an increase in the number of units beyond the ten percent allowed, the application requires a modification of the Outline Plan concurrently with the Final Pian. Because they are being considered concurrently, there is no variation between the modified Outline Plan and the Final Plan and a simple finding of i substantial conformance can be made for the Final Plan criteria. Site Design Review The development of attached housing requires Site Design Review approval and is subject to the `Building Placement, Orientation and Design" standards for residential development found in AMC 18.4.2.03 0. The first 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." As was the case with the original Outline Plan approval request, the application materials provided assert that the proposed development will comply with all applicable provisions for the underlying zone detailed in AMC 18.2 including building and yard setbacks, lot area, Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report I dds e Applicant,KDA Homes,LLC Page 7 of 18 h E> f 'i dimension, density, floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. 1 The second approval criterion is that, "The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3)." In this instance, the property is located within the Iligh-Density, Multi-Family Residential R-3 zoning district and the Pedestrian Places overlay zone, and the application asserts that all applicable standards have been addressed. The third criterion for the Site Design Review approval is that, "The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E (which addresses Exceptions) below." The application materials explain that to the best of the applicants' knowledge, the proposal complies with Site Development and Design Standards including provisions for access management, building orientation, and parking configuration. The Site Development and Design Standards require that, "Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a street. Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved walkway." In the Outline Plan approval, staff had noted that the southeastern-most unit in Building 5 at the project entry on Mountain Avenue needed a stronger orientation with an entry to Mountain Avenue to better address this standards; a porch and street-facing entry have been added in the current submittal. n Open Space Open space and recreational area requirements were an area of particular focus in the original Outline Plan approval. The original findings noted that "Open Space" is defined in AMC 18.6.1 as follows: I Open Space. A common area designated on the final plans of the development, permanently set aside for the common use of the residents of the development. Open space area is landscaped and/or left with a natural vegetation cover, and does not include thoroughfares, parking areas, or improvements other than recreational facilities. 3 Two separate open space and recreation area requirements apply in the Land Use Ordinance. In the Residential Development standards which apply to all residential projects subject to Site Design Review, AMC 18.4.2.030.H reads as follows: E! Open Space. Residential developments that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall conform to all of the following standards. 1. Recreation Area. An area equal to at least eight percent of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development. 2. Surfacing Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement. 3. Decks and Patios. Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open Planning Aeon#2017-92134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report 1 dds is Applicant;KDA Homes,LLC Pago 8 of 18 space. 4. Play Areas. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for open space. In addition, the Performance Standards Options Chapter, AMC 18.3.9.050.A.2 includes an open space requirement: O en Space Re aired. All developments with a base density of ten units orgreater shall be required to provide a minimum of five percent of the total lot area in Open Space; that area is not subject to bonus point calculations, however, density bonuses shall be awarded to open space areas in excess of the five percent required by this subsection." In considering these requirements for the original Outline Plan approval, the Planning Commission noted that initial information presented with the application did not clearly E identify how the applicable open space standards had been met. While the original application indicated that approximately 9%2 percent of the site was to be provided in open space, the original landscape plan illustrated the bulls of those areas which could be considered as open space or recreation area either bisected by pedestrian thoroughfares; heavily planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover to a degree that rendered them not suitable for recreational use; or individual units' private porches with depths in some cases j of only five feet that included circulation routes to an entry through the portion proposed as recreational space. The original approval therefore included a condition that a revised plan ' be provided with the final plan submittal demonstrating that the open and recreation space requirements were met illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space and their dimension and treatment. The landscaped areas to be counted toward recreation s space in this revised plan needed to be surfaced for recreational use and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation,and the private individual porches,patios and decks i. I� were not to be included. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as ,, transformers, vaults and cabinets which would compromise their functionality for recreational use--were also not to be included as open/recreational space. As part of the current request,the applicants propose some changes to the original open space proposal. A new community garden area is proposed in the southwest corner of the property, and two other larger common areas are now proposed to be planted in lawn to better support recreational use. Play structure details are illustrated for the children's play area. In addition, the revised landscaped plan provided has been modified to illustrate circulation routes on the private porches to make those areas to available and suitable for private recreational use clear, and theorches have at least aseven-foot usable depth, The P p application explains that 5112 percent of the site is provided in common open space, and an additional five percent is provided in usable private porch and balcony space for a total of 101/2 percent. In staff's view, the treatment of open space here is much improved and addresses concerns previously raised by staff. The application further notes that those units I 1 along East Main and North Mountain Avenue have wider than normal stair treads to encourage their use for seating and socializing along the streetscape; while these areas are P not proposed to count toward the recreational space requirement, the applicants suggest that i they provide an important and obvious additional amenity for tenants while also positively I` Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department--Staff Report I dds 3- Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 9 of 18 i' contributing to the pedestrian streetscape. The fourth approval, criterion for, Site Design Review addresses city facilities and requires that,"The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City Jacilities .1br ivater, sewer, eleciricity, urban storin drainage,pared access to and throughout the properly and adequate transportation can and ivill be provided to the subject property" Public facilities requirements are addressed in detail in the Outline Plan section earlier in this report. Solar Access Performance Standard The Pedestrian Places Overlay provides that, "The solar access setback in chapter .1 8,4 8 Solar Access applies only to those lots abialing, a residential zone to the north, " Performance Standards Subdivision are generally subject to the solar access requirements of AMC 18.4.8 which require that land divisions creating new lots either demonstrate that the lots are designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a solar setback which does not exceed 50 percent of the lot's north-south lot dimension or to identify a solar envelope to define the height requircincrits that, will protect the applicable solar access standard. The applicants here have proposed a Solar Access Performance Standard which when combined with low roofpitches,driveway placement and the avoidance of large,north- facing gables results in shading onto the south walls of garages (uriheated spaces) or no higher than the bottom of south facing window sills. The application materials include solar studies to illustrate the proposed shading, and the findings note that the most impacting shadows are for the third-floor apartment units which shade the trash enclosures, garage walls, and below the window sills, of the south facing walls on the windows to the north. In staff s view, enabling the provision of additional rental units merits the requested flexibility with regard to solar access. Tree Removal Permits The original Outline Plan application included a survey identifying 25 trees can the property which are greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. Of these, 14 were proposed to be removed in conjunction with the application including Tree#14, a Fir, and Tree #15, a Western Cedar tree which the applicants noted as the most significant trees on the property. The application Doted that the project arborist had indicated that both of these trees were damaged or stressed from the lack of proper care and water and both would require significant pruning. The Outline Plan application further explained that the remaining trees proposed for removal were dead or in marginal to fair condition. The applicants indicated that in conversations with their arborist, all. of the site's trees had previously been neglected and had either been compromised due to a lack of water, a lack of maintenance or the impact of adjacent urban development in the form of the sidewalks constructed along the property's frontages. The Outline Plan application pointed out that in the location where the old house was to be relocated, there were two trees (#9 and#18) which were in good condition and which would not be impacted by the home's proposed relocation, new footing or new utilities. Tree #18 was to have a portion of a new sidewalk and a parking space over its root zone, but the application explained that the parking space was proposed with compact dimensions and a porous surface to minimize impacts to the tree and the arborist was to be consulted during Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 10 of 18 I the construction of the home's new footings. After reviewing the application at its regular meeting on July 6, 2017,the Tree Commission recommended that the application be approved subject to four recommendations: f r 1) That the recommendations of the project arborist be conditions of the approval, including that the trees to be protected be watered during construction and that the project arborist supervise any activity within the Tree Protection Zones; P 2) That existing Trees #1, #2, #7, #S and #9 be fully enclosed with tree protection fencing and protected during all site disturbance. Protection of these trees as recommended will necessitate closing the East Main Street driveway during construction; 3) That the applicants make every effort to preserve and protect Tree#14 (40-inch d.b.h. Douglas Fir) as proposed during the July 61h Tree Commission meeting, including having an arborist on-site during all disturbance (demolition, foundation removal, house move, and all excavation) and utilizing a post and j beam foundation within the tree protection zone for the relocated house; and 4) That the applicants pursue the option of preserving and protecting Tree#24 (24- inch d.b.h. Oak Tree), which may necessitate meandering the sidewalk to curbside within its tree protection zone. Subsequent to the Tree Commission meeting and a Planning Commissioners' site visit to the property which included some neighbors concerned with tree removals,the applicants noted that in addition to saving #14 and #24 as recommended by the Tree Commission, it might also be possible for them to save two additional Walnut trees in the southwest corner of the property meaning that only ten to 12 trees would be removed and a total of 32 new trees would be planted. Planning Commissioners noted that Walnut trees can be toxic to plantings around them and detrimental to the use of surrounding open space, and the Planning Commission's approval of the project ultimately found that Tree Commission's recommendations were based in careful consideration of the site and its trees, and included a condition making the Tree Commission recommendations conditions of approval,with the understanding that the applicants would have the option of preserving the Walnut trees in the southwest corner, but would not be required to do so. The current application explains that as the engineering and construction drawings for the is project have become more refined and the project arborist has been to the site multiple times, the arborist now believes that Tree #14 will not survive the proposed construction disturbance and will ultimately pose a serious safety issue for residents of the development. As such, the applicants now propose to remove Tree#14, as had been originally requested. The Tree Commission did not have a quorum to convene its regular meeting in December of 2017 and as such will not be able to consider the request before the Planning Commission i hearing. With regard to the removal of Tree #14, staff would note that the Tree Commission's previous recommendation was that the applicant "make every effort" to 5 preserve and protect Tree#14,and it seemed to staff that while they supported the applicants' efforts they were unsure that it would be possible given the tree's proximity to the existing house and the proposed demolition and relocation. II Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 11 of 18 f i I is III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Outline Plan approval from the Performance Standards 3 Options Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 as follows: a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer,paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a Cityfacility 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 r 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 ofopen 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. The criteria for Final Plan approval from the Performance Standards Options Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.3.9.040.B.5 as follows: p it �r a. The number of d�t�elling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number ofunits exceed those permitted I 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 thatprovided on the outline plan. d The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. C. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open.space reduced below thatpermitted in the outlineplan. ` The criteria for the Modification of a previous land use approval are detailed in AMC 18.5.6.040 as follows: Planning Action##2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report t dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 12 of 18 3 1. Minor Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Notice shall be provided in accordance with chapter 18.5.1. j 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be deemed a Major Modification and/or may be subject to other ordinance requirements. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings; except that conditions of approval do not apply, and findings are not required, where the original approval was approved through a Ministerial review. The criteria for Site Review approval from the Site Design Review Chapter are detailed in AMC 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 and 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 Cityfacilities 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 I 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. Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report 1 dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 13 of 18 i The criteria for Tree Removal are described in AMC 18.5.7.040.13 as follows: 1. Hazard Tree. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the fallowing criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. I a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard(i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or i property) or aforeseeable danger ofproperty damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Stich mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of'the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and �j standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and f Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability,flow of surface waters,protection of'adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. C, Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives 1 to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. .In making this �€ 3 determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Stich mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit.. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations As noted with the original Outline flan, staff are supportive of infill development on this property, and appreciate the applicants' efforts to preserve the old home and incorporate it into the development in a manner consistent with its historical character while also seeking �! Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report t dds Applicant;K7A Hames,LLC Page 14 of 18 to preserve as many of the site's larger, significant trees as possible. Staff are also appreciative of the applicants' willingness to amend the proposal at this stage in order to pp Pp g p p incorporate much-needed smaller rental units into the proposal. Should the Commission concur with staff and approve the project, staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the approval: I E 1. That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise E modified herein. i. 2. That the plans submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in substantial conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to modify the current Site Design Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That any new addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Engineering Department. 4. That permits shall be obtained from the Ashland Public Works Department prior to any work in the public right of way, including but not limited to permits for new n driveway approaches or any necessary encroachments. 5. That prior to signature of the final survey plat: a. All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, access and parking shall be indicated on the final survey plat submitted for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building I` and Fire Departments. b. That a final utility pian for the parcels shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes,fire hydrants,sanitary sewer lines, storm drain lines and electric services. C. That the location and final engineering for all storm drainage improvements associated with the project, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Departments of Public Works, Planning and Building Divisions, ° d. That the applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to j the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of vision clearance areas, l while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all 33 units prior to signature of the final survey plat. At the discretion of the Staff Advisor, a bond may be posted for the full amount of underground service installation(with necessary permits and connection fees paid) as an alternative to installation of service prior to signature of the final survey plat. In either case, the electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric Department and Ashland Engineering Division prior to installation. it E Planning Action 2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department--Staff Report!dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 15 of 18 v E e. That the final engineered construction drawings for the public sidewalks along Mountain Avenue and East Main Street shall be submitted for review and approval of the Ashland Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to work in the street right-of-way or installation of improvements in the pedestrian corridor. The sidewalks shall be a minimum of six feet in width with seven-foot landscaped parkrows between the sidewalk and the street. All frontage improvements,including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, 3 and street lighting, shall be constructed across the entire frontage of the site. The sidewalk shall be constructed to City of Ashland Street Standards. If necessary to accommodate city standard avenue improvements or to align frontage improvements, necessary additional right-of-way shall be dedicated to the city,including the three additional feet of right-of-way along East Main Street proposed by the applicants to accommodate the potential for future sidewalk widening, bus stops, bicycle parking, etc, envisioned in the Pedestrian Places concept plan. All public improvements including but not limited to the sidewalk, street trees, and street lighting shall be installed to City of Ashland standards under permit from the Public Works Department ] and in accordance with the approved plan prior to signature of the final survey plat. 3 f. That final CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. The CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use-improvements including landscaping, driveways, planting strips, shared garage spaces and street trees. g. That all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the "Fences and Walls" requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060. The final CC&Rs shall include stipulations on height limitations for front, side and rear yard, and shall note that fences adjacent to common open space areas shall not exceed four feet. The location and height of fencing shall be identified at the time of building permit submittals, and fence permits shall be obtained prior to installation. h. That the recommendations of the Tree Commission from their July 6, 2017 regular meeting—with the exception of the protection of Tree 414 - shall be conditions of approval, where consistent with applicable criteria and standards and with final approval of the Staff Advisor and shall be incorporated into a revised final Tree Protection Plan to be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor prior to the signature of the final survey plat. The revised Tree Protection Plan shall include recommendations h from the project arborist to ensure the protection of Tree #24 during the installation of below grade storm water catchrnent facilities and sidewalks nearby. h i. The final Tree Protection Plan and accompanying standards for compliance shall be noted in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs must state that deviations from the plan shall be considered a violation of the Planning Application approval and therefore subject to penalties described in the Ashland Municipal Code. 6. That the building permit submittals shall include: a. Identification of all easements, including but not limited to any public or Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff Report/dds �I Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 16 of 18 private utility easements. b. Solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies with the proposed solar access performance standard. Permit submittals shall include calculations, elevation drawings or cross sections clearly identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and their height(s) from natural grade to support the required calculations. C. Demonstration that exterior lighting shall be directed onto the property and shall not directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. Exterior lighting details including fixture specifications, placement details and shrouding details (if necessary) shall be provided on building permit submittals. d. That exterior building materials and paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with those described in the application materials. Sample exterior building colors shall be provided with the building i permit submittals for review and approval of the Staff Advisor. Very bright or neon paint colors shall not be used in accordance with the Site Design and Development Standards. e. That the building permit submittals shall identify the required sheltered bicycle parking spaces for each home. The building permit submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking design, spacing and coverage requirements in AMC 18.4.3.070 are met, and all bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. f. That storm water from all new impervious surfaces and run-off associated with peak rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm !' water collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street,public storm pipe or public drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On:-site collection systems shalI be detailed on the building permit submittals. 1= i 7. That prior to the issuance of a building permit; f a. That the tree protection fencing and other tree preservation measures shall be !� installed according to the approved plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor and trees to be removed tagged or otherwise identified on site prior I° to any site work, storage of materials or issuance of the building permit. The tree protection shall be chain link fencing six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.4.5.030.C. and no construction shall occur within the tree I protection zone including dumping or storage of materials such as building supplies, soil, waste, equipment, or parked vehicles. jq b. That all necessary building permits fees and charges, including permits for ' I new electric and water services, and system development charges for water, I sewer, storm water, parks, and transportation shall be paid prior to the jf issuance of building permits. r C. The requirements of the Ashland lire Department, including approved addressing, fire apparatus access and approach, fire flow, hydrant distance i= and clearance, and fire sprinklers where applicable, shall be complied with prior to issuance of the building permit or the use of combustible materials. Fire Department requirements shall be included on the engineered Planning Action 2097-02134 Ashland Planning Department--Staff Report 1 dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 17 of 18 construction documents. If a fire protection vault is required, the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk corridor. 10. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: f j. That the required bicycle parking shall be installed according to the approved i plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. 1 k. That all landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the s approved plans, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. 1. That the screening for the trash and recycling containers shall be installed in accordance with the Site Design and Development Standards prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste receptacle shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance with 18.4.4.040. in. That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not k directly illuminate adjacent proprieties. r �i. I a 3 Planning Action#2017-02134 Ashland Planning Department—Staff ftopott 1 dds Applicant:KDA Homes,LLC Page 18 of 18 & ada ra 'esign Inc Landscape Architecture. Design & Consultation 541-664-70155 2994 Wells Fargo Rd Central Point,Or 97502 madaradeSinginC.GOM CERTIFIED ARBORIST:THOMAS MADARA Client: KDA Homes December 6, 2017 604 Fair Oaks,CoK Ashland,Or 97520 Site: 1068 E. Main St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland Planning Department, In regards to the proposed multi-family housing and historic house preservation project at 1068 E. Main Street, Ashland, I have been asked to provide additional comments regarding Trees#14 and#24. Based on additional information and the most current architectural and civil engineering plans (which I assisted developing with tree preservation in mind), Tree#14, a 40"dbh Douglas Fir, directly abutting Unit#21, should not be retained as it would be dangerous to both life and property. The original application (June 2n` 2017) included my recommendation that this tree should be removed, however, at the July 6h, 2017 Tree Commission meeting there was "an offering"by the applicant, which I reluctantly agreed to, that some creative construction could be possible to preserve the subject tree. It was always understood that, based on the progress during construction, the tree may need to be,removed for safety concerns. After two subsequent site visits since the July meeting and review of the proposed Architectural Drawings and Civil Engineering drawings, it's my recommendation to remove the tree. In addition, Tree #24, a 24"dbh Oak Tree, located along South Mountain Avenue, should also be removed The reasoning is the tree has shown signs of.severe stress (as noted in the attached image) as a result of a lack of maintenance and the proximity to the adjacent sidewalk. Additionally the height of its root structure relative to the sidewalk grade and the proposed work on the opposite side will further limit its survival and pose the eventual need for replacement. Per the Landscape Plan there are several trees that will effectively balance the removal and further the diversity of trees within the city to be planted within the near vicinity at the time of Landscape Installation, prior to the Final Certificate of Occupancy of the adjacent unit(Unit#8). Oregon State Landscape Architect Board, License Number 528 Oregon Landscape Contractors License, License Number 11416 International Society of Arboriculture, License Number PN-6204-A N61 I . ............ By rr 4 pP �;�fry✓ A � A/ f , I� r M ' W 1 "IC r (J TEN SIX"rY EIGHT C o PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN OUTLINE PLAN MODIFICATION, SITE REVIEW PERMIT AND FINAL PLAN SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1068 E. MAIN STRE ET ......... / /�/ i; iii/, .......... "MI II II SUBMITTED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY ICDA HOMES, LLC N V o 604 FAIR OAKS COURT ASHLAND, OR 97520 J1 NOVEMBER 3RD 2017 1 ( Page L PROTECT INFORMATION: PROJECT NAME: "Ten Sixty Eight" PLANNING ACTION: A request for an Outline Plan Modification, Site Review Permit and Final Plan Subdivision for a 33 unit/ 28 lot subdivision on the property located at 1068 E. Main ,Street and the vacant parcel directly to the cast. The proposal also includes the removal of one additional tree since the Outline Plan and Site Review Permit, approved by the Ashland Planning Commission in July of 2017, Planning Action #2017-01059. The subject tree was originally proposed to be removed, but during the July 2017 Tree Commission hearing, the applicants agreed to try and preserve the tree. However, the Project Arborist states the tree poses a potential life and safety issue for neighbors and future residents. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1068 E. Main Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 09AD Tax Lots 6800 & 6801 COMPREHENIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential District ZONING DESIGNATION: R-3, High Density Multi-Family Residential District(20 units per acre) ZONING OVERLAYS: Pedestrian Places PARCEL SIZE:. Two parcels consisting of 1.78 Acres (77,910 Square Feet) BASE DENSITY: 35.6 Dwelling Units (20 X 1.78) PROPOSED DENSITY: 3 3 Total (31.5 total units based on Accessory Residential Unit definition) 1 Existing house 26 Townhome units 6 Accessory residential units< 500 sq. ft. (4.5 units) APPLICANTS: CIVIL ENGINEER: KDA Homes, LLC Construction Engineering Consultants 604 Fair Oaks Court P.O. Box 1724 Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, Oregon 97501 ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/ARBORIST: Gary Collins, AIA Madara Design, Inc. PO Box 262 2994 Wells Fargo Road Jacksonville, OR 97530 Central Point, OR 97502 2Page SURVEYOR: ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Polaris Land Survey Huycke O'Connor Jarvis, LLP P.O. Box 459 823 Alder Creek Drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 Medford, Oregon. 97504 II. SITE DESCRIPTION: The two parcels are located on the corner of South Mountain Avenue and E. Main Street, directly below the Ashland High School's football field. The property is .93 acres and .85 acres (1.78 acres) one of which is vacant and the other retains the existing old house. The property is rectangular shaped measuring 315' along E. Main Street x 237' along S. Mountain Avenue. A number of large stature trees exist, but primarily around the area of the house. It should also be noted the 1909 house was actually an addition to the rear part of the house which will be removed due to its dilapidating condition. There is limited information about the original home's construction date, but it as well as the addition, was constructed by the grandfather of the current owner who is now in her 80's. The old home is accessed from E. Main Street via a long driveway off the home's west side that is canopied by various trees. A sidewalk extends to the old home from the E. Main Street sidewalk which gives the home a strong "sense of entry" coupled by its Craftsman architecture and extended setback from the street. The property slopes to the north roughly 4% and beyond the existing house and the sites mature trees, has limited physical constraints. The property does abut to the Ashland High School football field which is separated not only by a short retaining wall along the southern property line, but sits below the field's surface by roughly 10'. The property is zoned R-3, Multi-Family Residential and within the Pedestrian PIaces Overlay. The neighboring properties consist of the Ashland High School baseball field to the east across South Mountain Avenue, football field to the south, multi-family to the west and single family homes across E. Main Street to the north. III. PROPERTY HISTORY: The current property owner has owned the subject property since 1950 and prior to that time the property was owned by her family dating back more than 100 years. As noted, the front of the iconic old 1909 house is actually a large addition to the original house built prior to the turn of the century which is attached in the rear of the 1909 addition. Aerial photos from 1939 appear to identify stacks of lumber within the northeast corner of the property, likely related to the lumber mill which operated on the site of the current Community Center property (where Council Chambers currently reside), but the property has largely sat vacant and used as a single family residence up to the 1990's. Since the late 1990's, the home has been either vacant or intermittingly used as professional office space. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & MODIFICATION: As originally proposed with the Outline Plan, the applicants intend to retain the existing 1909 portion of the house, but relocate it "on-site" roughly 40' to the north, centered between two mature trees and on a new foundation which it currently needs. Once the home is set on its new foundation, revised lot is finalized, and the rear wall repaired (where the original home abutted), the home will then be sold allowing for Phase 11 to occur. The existing 3 1 P a g e driveway off of E. Main Street and the adjacent mature trees aligning the driveway will remain "as is". The applicants contend the end result will be a considerate approach to historic preservation and environmental conservation to retain an old historic house and keeps its iconic streetscape appearance (deep setback from street, sidewalkiporch symmetry and long procession entrance), while at the same time produce a multi-family development plan that not only respects the old home, but also optimizes the zone's required multifamily density and provides for a mixture of much needed housing types. Once relocated and segregated on its parcel, the old home will sit on .28 of an acre parcel and sit back roughly 40' from the front property line. The old home site would retain the property's remaining density, but continue to be a single-family residence or convert to other uses as designated in the R-3 and Pedestrian Places Overlay Zones. Outline Plan Modification: The original Outline Plan application was approved for one single family house, 26 townhomes and 2 accessory residential unit apartments, less than 500 sq. ft. in size, above two of the townhomes on the south side of the property, adjacent to the Ashland High School football/soccer field. However, soon after the Planning Commission's approval, discussions ensued with the Planning staff where it was determined an additional 4 accessory residential apartments, for a total of 6 small rental apartments, could very easily be added to the development,with little impact on the site's natural features, the old home site, or the development itself. The primary emphasis for the additional units is to provide needed rental housing in Ashland as expressed in the Housing Needs Analysis, Rental Needs Analysis and Draft Housing Element Narrative. In order to accomplish this notable goal, the design of the 2 approved accessory residential apartments will be "repeated" and occupy generally the same footprints (location and size) of two previously approved buildings along the south property line (See Site Plan — above Units #24 — 27). The end result will be three pairs of two-units (Units #22 - #33) consisting of three-stories with ground floor parking (3 spaces), second floor main unit (697.7 sq. ft) and third floor accessory residential apartments (499.5 sq. ft.). The parking plan remains the same as originally submitted with the Outline plan as that plan had extra parking spaces now proposed to be allocated to the new units. Vehicular ingress and egress will be from S. Mountain Avenue with an internal looping system and pedestrian access penetrates the site in various locations. All of the street fronting units will have patios and/or porches with short connecting sidewalks as required by the City's Site Design&Use Standards for multi-family developments. The majority of the internal units will be oriented to the subdivision's private open spaces and driveways. Overall, the proposal has been designed in accordance with the purpose statement of the Performance Standards Options subdivision, as well as many recent policies and codes adopted to address Ashland's land use building inventory needs, housing needs, efficient use of the land, historic preservation, environmental considerations, neighborhood context and be aesthetically pleasing to the community and tenants with the intent to provide an improved quality of life when compared to conventional zoning developments. 41Page Site Design: In accordance with the City's adopted Site Design Standards as well as the recently adopted Pedestrian Places Overlay, the proposal attempts to be respectful of the E. Main Street and North Mountain Avenue streetscapes by orientating the units along the street frontages, with direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk and vehicular access from the back, directly off an internal driveway. Elevated porches, deep roof overhangs, articulated facades, attractive landscaping and added street trees within newly planted planting bays are intended to enhance the pedestrian vibe along the streets and provide the project residents a positive semi-private outdoor experience. Solar Access: As originally approved with the Outline Plan application approved in July, the four additional units apartment units proposed herein, are also being proposed under the Solar Access Performance Standard, 18.4.8.040 B, which allowed shadowing from the proposed units to occur on the south wall of the unit to the north, within the development, as long as the shadow did not cast above the window sills. As illustrated, the shadow being cast from the four additional accessory residential units cross the main driveway and primarily land on unheated space such as the trash enclosure, the driveway, unheated garage space or below the window sill of Units #12 and#13. Tree Removal: The original application proposed to remove various trees, including Tree #14, a large Douglas Fir tree, currently located directly at the base of the old house. However, prior to the July Planning and Tree Commission hearings, as the applicants met with neighbors, concerned citizens and the site visit occurred with the Planning Commission, the applicants re-evaluated the "possibility" of preserving Tree #14, once the old house was moved, by proposing to build the footings of the proposed unit's porch on post and pier with the intent to mitigate impacts to the tree's root system. During the Tree Commission meeting, the Tree Commission and the applicant's discussed the proposal, but it was clear from both the project Arborist and the Tree Commission members the preservation of the tree would be problematic with no guaranteed results. Unfortunately, as the engineering and construction drawings have become more refined and the Project Arborist has been to the site multiple times, he firmly believes Tree #14, would die and be a life and safety issue for the residents. As such, the proposal is to remove Tree 414 during the project's initial construction. The applicants do not take this lightly, as evidenced with their tree preservation and conservation efforts, but must follow the recommendations of a certified Arborist. Open Space: The project's open spaces are proposed to be changed slightly. The applicants are proposing to add a new community garden bed in the southwest corner of the property and also propose the common area west of the "kiddie" play area to be lawn. The primary reason for the community garden beds is the applicants have heard from residents of other projects, Verde Village in particular, about the positive attributes of gardening in compact urban housing projects. Similarly, the change to the lawn area is also in response to a certain Planning Commissioner's comments about having open spaces within multi-family developments where a ball or frisbee can be thrown which in the applicant's opinion makes sense next to the kiddie play area (see attached plans for playground equipment, intended for young children). Of course, the subject site is also adjacent to 51Page the Ashland High School's football field, across the street from. the Ashland High School's baseball field and less than a 5 minute walk to Garfield Park where ultimate recreational activities for all ages can occur. Overall, the common open space areas have been strategically designed so that the majority of the residents have the ability to interact with the open spaces and benefit from the natural light and building separation each provides. That said, a total of 3,295 square feet of common open space is required (5%) and 3,690 square feet is provided (5.5%). In addition, an additional 5% of the property is dedicated to private porches and balconies, less door swing areas and walkways, as illustrated on the site plan. All of the units have some type of private recreational space such as a porch or deck. The applicant's believe the combination of the two types of open spaces provide a more livable environment in an urban setting when compared to common wall multi-family housing with only one area of open space. Lastly, what is not clear, but needs to be stated, the units fronting both E. Main Street and N. Mountain Avenue have wider than normal stair treads which are designed to encourage tenants to also sit and recreate or socialize from. These spaces and their porches, although not counted per the conditions of the Outline Plan, should be recognized as they provide an important and obvious recreational benefit to not only the tenants, but also provide an attractive architectural element, human scale component and traffic calming opportunity to the site's two busy streets. Density: The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family, allowing a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 16 dwelling units per acre. The subject properties combined are 1.788 acres and have a base density of 35.6 dwelling units and a minimum of 28.48 dwelling units. The applicants are proposing a total of 33 dwelling units, including the old house which is intended to remain on a larger parcel setback from East Main Street in an attempt to respect its iconic setting and preserve the site's largest trees. The proposed density per acre will be roughly 90% of the base density. Unit Types: The proposal includes a variety of unit types and sizes. Of the 33 proposed units, 19 are three bedrooms, 13 of which have their bedroom spaces on the second floor and 6 with ground floor master bedrooms, 7 two-bedroom units over garages and 6 apartment studio units. The chosen unit types are intended to provide a variety of housing for families, elderly and young single occupants. The proposal is for a subdivision with 27 of the units being for sale and 6 of the units (20%) being rental apartments. Further, as the applicants have experienced with a similar project, the Ridgeview Subdivision roughly 80 yards to the north of the subject property, 30% of those "for sale" units are being rented so it's fair to assume a good portion of the proposed units, along with the 6 apartment units, will be used as rental housing. Parking Calculation: The project's Architect has attempted to spread the project's parking spaces throughout the development so no one area of the development is concentrated with parking in order to avoid excessive vehicular lights and noises, excessive walking distances or concentrated heat gain areas from pavement solar reflection. That said, the parking calculations are in accordance with AMC Chapter 18.4.3, requiring a total of(58.25) 59 spaces based on the proposed number of units 6 1 P a g e and bedrooms. A total of 65 parking spaces are provided, including a centrally located handicap space, four of which remain with the old house. Of the 65 parking spaces provided, 44 parking spaces are enclosed within garages and 21 parking spaces remain uncovered. All of the units, but for the accessory dwelling units, have been assigned at least one garage parking space. All bike parking spaces are within the garages in accordance with AMC 18.92.060 B., but for the accessory dwelling units which will be located in two locations, within Iockers, between the accessory unit buildings (F units) so that they are within close proximity to those units. The on-site parking space calculations are as follows: AMC 18.4.3.040 Automobile Parking Spaces for Multi-Family: Use Units Spaces Per Unit Required Provided Single Family Home 1 2 2 4 3-bedroom 19 2 38 38 2-bedroom 7 1.75 12.25 13 Studio Apts. (<500 sq. ft.) 6 1 6 6 Overflow - - - 4 Total 33 - 58.25 (59) 65 Parking Configuration: As noted, the project's parking spaces are dispersed throughout the proposed development. In some cases, the spaces are across driveways and technically within the boundaries of another unit's property. For example, the enclosed parking spaces for Unit #20 are under Unit #23 (across driveway). In another example, Unit 414's enclosed parking spaces are tucked under the living space of Unit #25. Each of these parking spaces is separated by partition walls with each having its own garage door, door opener and locks. Parking spaces within the footprint of a building will technically be the property of the underlying title owner, but a perpetual use easement will be granted to the assigned unit owner/tenant, all of which is described within the subdivision's CC&R's and Bylaws. Phasing The applicants intend to phase the property with the old house lot being the first phase and the remaining townhome development the second phase, in accordance with AMC 18.5.3.030.C. The old house site will be completely independent from the townhome portion of the project and will not share in HOA affairs or dues. Further, it is the applicants' intention to first remove the dilapidated rear of the home, move the old home on its new foundation, underground it's overhead electrical line, record the parcel as Phase 1 of the development, remodel the rear of the house and market and sale prior to beginning vertical construction of Phase II. For efficiency and financial reasons, some financial bonding will likely be necessary for the new sidewalk and street trees along the old house's East Main Street frontage as those improvements should occur at the time the remaining project's sidewalks and landscaping is installed. 7 1 P a g e Utilities: The project's Civil Engineer has inquired with the Engineering and Public Works staff regarding utilities. These inquiries have shown that all necessary services are available to the site via the mains in the E. Main Street or South Mountain Avenue rights-of-way. A Conceptual Utility Plan (C.1) has been provided illustrating the all utility types,routes and connections. 1) Storm Drainage: The Conceptual Utility Plan identifies a storm water detention and water quality tank near the low point of the property (intersection of E. Main and S. Mountain). An outlet control structure sits adjacent which slowly emits storm water into the existing public system in the right-of-way so that no excess volumes flow off the property any more than a 25 year storm event. 2) Water: A 6" water main is available to the subject site within both South Mountain Avenue and East Main Street. A private water line will loop through the property connecting both mains in order to provide consistent water pressure to the site for both domestic use and emergency needs. 3) Sewer Service: There is an existing 8" sewer line located within both South Mountain Avenue and East Main Street to serve the development. The Public Works Department has stated that the sewer lines are adequate to serve the project. The proposed sewer line will loop through the property and connect to the South Mountain Avenue line near the low point of property. 4) Electrical: Both South Mountain Avenue and East Main Street have existing overhead power Iines and the capacity to service the project. All electrical lines servicing the proposed development will be routed down the existing power poles and buried underground to the proposed units. Electrical transformer locations, possibly up to four, will be evenly dispersed throughout the site in discrete, but accessible locations. At the time of the Final Pian submittal, an Electric Distribution Plan illustrating the location and size of the transformer vaults will be submitted. The Electric Distribution Plan will also indicate the location of any planned street lights along the rights-of-way. Conclusion: The applicants remain excited about the proposed plan and hope the neighbors and community will continue to be also. The applicants have strived to address the many values the Ashland Planning staff advocate and the municipal code requires while at the same time address market demand, budget constraints and our own self consciousness of a developments impact on a site's physical features, surrounding neighbors and the community. To this end, the applicants firmly believe the proposed plan is an excellent approach in fusing together these values in order to provide much needed housing in Ashland while at the same time preserve an iconic old house, design multi-family buildings that are context sensitive, preserve as many large statured trees as possible, work with our neighbors, provide a mixture of housing types and sizes, address vehicular and pedestrian access management issues and design to a human scale so as to not overwhelm the streetscape. V. FINDINGS OF FACT: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and neighbors better understand the proposed project. In addition, the required findings of 8 1 P a g c fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the requirements and procedures outlined in the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) pertaining to the Performance Standards Options Subdivision requirements in Chapter 18.3.9 and Site Development and Design Standards Chapter 18.4. For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in "outline"form with the City's approval criteria noted in BOLD font and the applicant's response in regular font. Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. Section 18.5.6.030 C. Major Modification Approval Criteria 1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of review is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Review only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. The proposed modifications noted herein are in compliance with the Ashland Municipal Code. Written Findings of Fact have been provided (below) addressing the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, Planning Action 2017-01059. 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, administrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the proposal does not include any modifications of a conditional use, variance, administrative variance or exception. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application, based on written findings. Below are written findings for the request for an Outline Plan Modification, Site Review Permit and Final Plan Subdivision for a 33 unit 128 lot subdivision on the property located at 1068 E. Main Street and the vacant parcel directly to the east. The proposal also includes the removal of one additional tree since the Outline Plan and Site Review Permit, approved by the Ashland Planning Commission in July of 2017, Planning Action#2017-01059. Section 18.3.9.040 A.3 Outline Plan for Performance Standards Options Subdivision Criteria (per Section 18.5.6.030 C Modification of Ori final Approval The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds the following criteria have been met: A. That the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. 9 1 P a g e The proposed development meets all applicable City ordinances and design standards of the City of Ashland. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions or Variances with the proposal. B. That 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. All of the site's utilities will extend to and from East Main Street or South Mountain Avenue. Based on discussions with the various service providers, there is adequate capacity to serve the development. All utilities will extend to and through the property as identified on the Utility Plans, Sheets A — E (13 sheets total). All utility plans have been reviewed by the respective City departments or service agencies. C. That 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. The only significant natural features are a number of large trees concentrated around the perimeter of the old house. The submittals identify the trees and how the proposed development has attempted to preserve the majority of the site's trees. The original Outline plan submittals included an Arborist Report detailing the health of the trees and if they should be removed or treated with special care. Unfortunately, maintenance of the site's trees has been largely ignored for many years and some appear to be stressed due to recent drought conditions. Nevertheless, efforts to preserve as many of the site's healthy trees have been incorporated into the project's common areas or remain within the ownership of the old home's property boundary. Unfortunately, as the engineering and construction drawings have become more refined and the Project Arborist has been to the site multiple times, he firmly believes Tree #14 (Douglas Fir) would die and be a life and safety issue for the site's future residents. As such, the proposal is to also include Tree #14 for removal during the project's initial construction. The applicants do not take this lightly, as evidenced with their tree preservation and conservation efforts, but feel obligated to follow the recommendations of a certified Arborist. D. That the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. E. That 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. 101Page Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) have been drafted by the project's Land Use Attorney for review and approval by the City. The documents address the project's common areas in order to provide adequate provisions for maintenance. F. That the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this Chapter. The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family, allowing a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 16 dwelling units per acre. The subject properties combined are 1.788 acres and have a maximum base density of 35.6 dwelling units (100%) and a minimum of 28.48 dwelling units (80%). The original Outline Plan proposed 29 units and the applicants are now proposing a total of 33 dwelling units, including the old house which is intended to remain on a larger .27 acre parcel setback from East Main Street in an attempt to respect its iconic setting. The overall proposed density is 31.5 units or 89% of base density. G. The development complies with the Street Standards. The application complies with the City's adopted Street Standards, February 2, 1999,with 6' sidewalks, 7' park rows and 6" curbs. The applicant is also proposing to dedicate an additional 3' of land along the East Main Street right-of-way per the City's adopted Transportation System Plan. and Pedestrian Places Overlay. Section 18.3.9.040 A2.k. Written Statement for Outline Plan Subdivisions i. The character of the proposed development and the manner in which it has been designed to take advantage of the Performance Standards Concept. The proposal has been designed in accordance with the purpose statement of the Performance Standards Options subdivision, as well as many recent policies and codes adopted to address Ashland's land use building inventory needs, housing needs, efficient use of the land, historic preservation, environmental considerations, neighborhood context and be aesthetically pleasing to the community and tenants with the intent to provide an improved quality of life when compared to conventional zoning developments. ii. The proposed manner of financing. The proposed manner of financing will occur through conventional loans and personal investment capital. iii. The present ownership of all the Iand included within the development. See attached application information. - ------ 11 Page iv. The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and private thoroughfares. The method proposed to maintain common open areas, buildings and private thoroughfares will be via a Home Owners Association, including the incorporation of private restrictions and maintenance provisions (CC&R's), all of which have been included herein. v. The proposed time schedule of the development. The general time schedule of the development will likely occur in early 2018 and be completed towards the end of the summer. vi. The findings of the applicant showing that the development meets the criteria set forth in this Ordinance and the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. As noted herein, the proposal complies with the City's Land Use Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. No exceptions or variances are proposed with this application. The applicant's have gone to significant lengths to address not only the adopted standards, but conceptual elements noted within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. As such, the proposal complies with the City's development standards and pertinent development criteria. Section 18.3.9.040 B.5 Final Plan for Performance Standards Options Subdivision Criteria Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. As noted above, the subject application is for an Outline Plan and Site Review Permit modification request and a Final Plan Subdivision approval. The Outline Plan and Site Review Permit modification is to add four additional Accessory Residential Units, revise building elevations above units #24 - #27 and revise the project's common open space areas to provide for better flow, circulation and appropriateness. 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. 121Page None of the yard depths or distances between buildings have been modified. The only building modifications have occurred above the second floor of units #24 - #27 in order to accommodate the four third-floor additional accessory residential units. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. The open space areas (size) have not changed since the Outline Plan approval. The only changes have been to the type of open space whereas the Outline Plan showed a garden bed area on the north side of Units #17 -- 21 and that area has been revised to be a multi-purpose grass area (better use of space). Another area slated to be for Bocce Ball is now garden beds (easier material access). d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. As noted, the only change to the proposed buildings is the addition of a third floor above Units #24 - #27 in order to accommodate the four additional accessory units. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and 'intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. The proposal does not include any additional density requests than what's permitted outright within the R- 3 zone. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. The proposed development complies with the City's Street Standards, other than the area near the E. Main and Mountain intersection where the standard plant strip / parkrow is less than 7' in order to accommodate the street's existing turn lane. 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. As noted, the subdivision will be developed in two phases with the relocation, remodel and recording of the plat for Phase I and the construction and recording of the townhomes and accessory units for Phase II. 131Page Section 18.5.2.050 Site DesilZn Review Approval Criteria: An application for Site Design Review shall be approved if the proposal meets the criteria in subsections A, B, C, and D below. The approval authority may, in approving the application, impose conditions of approval, consistent with the applicable criteria. 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. To the best of the applicant's knowledge all City regulations of the underlying R-3 zone are or will be complied with. All building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards have been evaluated and re-evaluated to ensure consistency with the applicable provisions of the Ashland Municipal Code. The applicants are not requesting any exceptions or variances. B. Overlay Zones. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the proposal complies with all applicable overlay zone requirements which include the Pedestrian Place Overlay requirements of Chapter 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. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the proposal complies with all applicable Site Development and Design Standards which include provisions for access management, building orientation, parking configuration, etc. The application's various plans have been largely based on the examples listed within the City's Site Development and Design Standards. 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. To the best of the applicant's knowledge, the proposal complies with all 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. Multiple meetings have occurred with the City's various department 141Page heads / staff and other utility providers and at no time was there any indication adequate capacities of any public facilities are in question. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part AMC 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. Not applicable. No exceptions are proposed. 18.4.2.030 Buildine Placement Orientation and Desi n- Multi-Family Residential Development 18.4.2.030 Residential Development A. Purpose and Intent. For new multi-family residential developments, careful design considerations must be made to assure that the development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the use of earth tone colors and wood siding will blend a development into an area rather than causing contrast through the use of overwhelming colors and concrete block walls. As noted with the original Outline Plan application, multiple concept plans were explored prior to commitment to the proposed plan. The concept plans included the old house being demolished, the old house remaining in-place (on its current foundation), three mixed-use buildings along the streets similar to Pedestrian Place Concept Plan and a cottage house plan with units along the street frontage and a common parking area behind, but for numerous reasons those plans were fraught with issues which included the applicant's historic preservation values, tree preservation concerns, solar access conflicts, density below the base zone's required minimum, variances, solar reflective heat gain and market acceptance. In the end, the applicants contend the proposed plan, is far superior then the alternative concept plans and will provide much needed housing to the community. 1. Crime Prevention and Defensible Space. a. Parking Layout. Parking for residents should be located so that distances to dwellings are minimized. However, avoid designs where parking areas are immediately abutting dwelling units because there is little or no transition from public to private areas. Parking areas should be easily visible from adjacent areas and windows. Although not necessarily the design team's primary consideration, consideration of defensible space is always a point of discussion. In this particular case, the parking areas are dispersed throughout the property so no one area of the development is concentrated with parking in order to avoid excessive vehicular lights and noises, excessive walking distances or concentrated heat gain areas from solar reflection. b. Orientation of Windows. Windows should be located so that vulnerable areas can be easily surveyed by residents. 15IPage Windows have been located so that any vulnerable areas can be easily surveyed by residents. c. Service and Laundry Areas. Service and laundry areas should be located so that they can be easily observed by others. Windows and lighting should be incorporated to assure surveillance opportunities. Mail boxes should not be located in dark alcoves out of sight. Barriers to police surveillance such as tall shrubs and fences should be avoided. There are no common service or laundry areas within the proposed development. However, appropriately placed windows are planned to be incorporated throughout the project to minimize uncomfortable zones and to promote natural surveillance opportunities. Mail box location has yet to be determined, but surveillance will be a consideration when discussing with the Ashland Postmaster. Considering the site layout and the various private entry locations, there is not any planned site lighting at this time. All lighting will be on the buildings themselves which will provide adequate lighting for the site. All lighting will be shrouded and down lit so as to eliminate glare. d. Hardware. Reliance solely upon security hardware in lieu of other alternatives is discouraged. The applicants are aware of this provision and do not intend to rely on any security hardware at this time. e. Lighting. Site development should utilize lighting prudently. More lighting does not necessarily mean better security. Lighting should be oriented so that areas vulnerable to crime are accented. As noted above, considering the site layout and the various private entry locations, there is not any planned site lighting at this time. All lighting will be on the buildings themselves which will provide adequate lighting for the site. All lighting will be shrouded and down lit so as to eliminate glare. f. Landscaping. Plant materials such as high shrubs should be placed so that surveillance of semi- public and semi-private areas is not blocked. Thorny shrubs will discourage crime activity. Low shrubs and canopy trees will allow surveillance, hence, reduce the potential for crime. The applicants are aware of this provision and have chosen plant material and location based on the local climate,water conservation techniques, maintenance and surveillance. B. Applicability. Except as otherwise required by an overlay zone or plan district, the following standards apply to residential development pursuant to section 18.5.2.020. See conceptual site plan of multi-family development in Figure 18.4.2.030 (see below). C. Building Orientation. Residential buildings that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall conform to all of the following standards. See also, solar orientation standards in section 18.4.8.050. t. Building Orientation to Street. Dwelling units shall have their primary orientation toward a 161Page street. Where residential buildings are located within 20 feet of a street, they shall have a primary entrance opening toward the street and connected to the right-of-way via an approved walkway. The applicants believe a successful development is one that is not only livable and appreciated by the tenants, but one that also respects the adjacent rights-of-way in relation to human scale design. In this case, the buildings have not turned their back on either street which are considered "busy", but instead incorporated primary entrances directly off the street with porches for aesthetic purpose and pedestrian comfort. 2. Limitation on Parking Between Primary Entrance and Street. Automobile circulation or off- street parking is not allowed between the building and the street. Parking areas shall be located behind buildings, or on one or both sides. Automobile circulation and off-street parking is between the buildings and the streets. Parking areas are located behind buildings, or on one or both sides but are limited and discrete from the public realm. 3. Build-to Line. Where a new building is proposed in a zone that requires a build-to line or maximum front setback yard, except as otherwise required for clear vision at intersections, the building shall comply with the build-to line standard. Not applicable as there is no build-to line or maximum front setback. 171Page MULTI--FAMILY CONCEPMAL SITE QESIGN street Trees one On street parking Sulldings oriented �. W street each 30 feet) Private outdoor space Common open i space • n • t r� Covered hike parking Preserve exioNng screened trash trees enclosure Pub11c alley access Figure 18.4.2.030 D. Garages. The following standards apply to garages, carports, canopies, and other permanent and temporary structures used for parking or storing vehicles, including those parking and vehicle storage structures accessory to detached single-family dwellings. The standards are intended to balance residents' desire for a convenient, safe, and private vehicle access to their homes with the public interest in maintaining safe and aesthetically pleasing streetscapes. The standards therefore promote pedestrian safety and visibility of public ways, while addressing aesthetic concerns associated with street-facing garages. For the purpose of this subsection, a garage opening is considered to be facing a street where the opening is parallel to or within 45 degrees of the street right-of-way line. t. Alleys and Shared Drives. Where a lot abuts a rear or side alley, or a shared driveway, including flag drives, the garage or carport opening(s) for that dwelling shall orient to the alley or shared drive, as applicable, and not a street. 181Page All garages are oriented internally and no garages face a public street. 2. Setback for Garage Opening Facing Street. The minimum setback for a garage (or carport) opening facing a street is 20 feet. This provision does not apply to alleys. All garages are oriented internally and no garages face a public street. E. Building Materials. Building materials and paint colors should be compatible with the surrounding area. Very bright primary or neon-type paint colors, which attract attention to the building or use, are unacceptable. All proposed building materials are commonly found throughout Ashland and all paint colors are intended to be earth tone, but for minor instances for accent treatments. In no case are bright neon-type colors which are intended to attract attention will be used. F. Streetscape. One street tree chosen from the street tree list shall be placed for each 30 feet of frontage for that portion of the development fronting the street pursuant to subsection 18.4.4.030.E. The project's landscaping plan identifies street trees, 1 per 30', of street frontage on both East Main Street and South Mountain Avenue. All trees have been chosen by the Ashland Street Tree Guide. G. Landscaping and Recycle/Refuse Disposal Areas. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas shall be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. Landscaping and recycle/refuse disposal areas will be provided pursuant to chapter 18.4.4. The plans identify a recycle and refuse area in the center of the project, easily accessible for Ashland Recology service equipment. Such areas are also screened from public view via walls and a gate. Plans were reviewed and approved by Ashland Recology. H. Open Space. Residential developments that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall conform to all of the following standards. 1. Recreation Area. An area equal to at least eight percent of the lot area shall be dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development. Phase I: Of the site's 12,013 square feet, roughly 4,000 (30%) square feet is considered open space and comprises the front and rear yards. As such, Phase I has significantly more than 8% of its property dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the home site. Phase I1: Of the site's 1.51 acres, roughly 6,884 square feet or 10.5% is dedicated to open space for recreational use by the tenants of the development. This includes the recreational spaces between the Type #3 Building, the Kiddie Play Area and the Multi-Use Open Space north of the Type #4 Building, the 191Page Garden Bed area west of Unit 22 and all front porches, decks and patios, not encroached upon by door swings or access. Of the 10.5% dedicated, 5.5% is dedicated to the common areas and an additional 5% is dedicated to front porches,patios and decks. The applicants have attempted to create both common and private recreational spaces in order to provide the tenants a comfortable urban living environment. The recreational spaces are well thought--out and provide dual purpose by not only providing recreational space for resident children and/or adults, but also help articulate the building's architecture, enhancing the public right-of-way and adding human scale to this section of East Main Street and South Mountain Avenue. For example, all of the units along both East Main Street and South Mountain Avenue have 8' deep porches and the internal units, Units 49 - 421 abut three of the subdivision's four common open space areas, one a small grassed play area, a small tot lot play area and the other a passive landscaped courtyard. 2. Surfacing. Areas covered by shrubs, bark mulch, and other ground covers that do not provide suitable surface for human use may not be counted towards this requirement. All surface areas within the identified recreational space areas are useable and suitable for human activity. 3.Decks and Patios. Decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space. As noted in item #1 above, a combination of recreational spaces are proposed in this development which includes decks,patios and porches. 4. Play Areas. Play areas for children are required for projects of greater than 20 units that are designed to include families. Play areas are eligible for open space. A small play area (tot-lot) has been provided within the central part of the development which is very visible for project residents to monitor. Additional play areas are within very close walking distance to the property. The application includes an exhibit of the tot-lot equipment proposed. Section 18.3.12.060 Pedestrian Place Overlay: D. Development Standards. The following standards shall apply to development in the Pedestrian Places overlay in addition to all applicable provisions of this ordinance. 1. Building Setbacks. The solar access setback in chapter 18.4.8 Solar Access applies only to those lots abutting a residential zone to the north. 201Page The property to the north is East Main Street, a 60' public right-of-way with the fronting units sitting back an additional 20' for a total of 80'. The proposed buildings along the East Main Street frontage only shadow 29' of the street's right-of-way complying with the above standard. Internal solar access does not apply, but the applicants have made every effort to mitigate shadowing onto the project's internal buildings by reducing roof pitch and attaching buildings. In fact, the only area where shadows are cast are from the "E-F" Units which sit along the south property line and shadow the main entry drive and a portion of the wall area of the units to the north. Most of the shadowing occurs onto non-headed space (garages), but a shadowing does occur on Units #19 and #20 and Units 412 and#13, below window sills, due to the two third-floor accessory residential apartment units sitting above Units #22 and#27. 2. Plazas and Landscaping Ratio. Outdoor seating areas, plazas, and other useable paved surfaces may be applied toward meeting the landscaping area requirements in chapter 18.4.4 Landscaping, Lighting, and Screening, but shall not constitute more than 50 percent of the required area. The proposal does include a small plaza on the corner with seating and for improved streetscape appearance. The plaza does include hardscape surfaces for durability and maintenance. Although permitted,the applicants have not included the plaza area as part of any landscape ratio reduction. E. Development in Residential Zone. The following standards apply to development located in the Pedestrian Places overlay and a residential zone, in addition to all applicable provisions of this ordinance. 1. Special Permitted Uses. In addition to the permitted uses in the underlying residential zone, the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted subject to the requirements of this section. a. Professional, financial, business and medical offices, and personal service establishments. b. Stores, shops, and offices supplying commodities or performing services. c. Restaurants. Not applicable as the proposal is for multi-family residential, a permitted use of the R-3 zoning district is proposed. 2. Development Standards and Limitations. a. The maximum gross floor area occupied by a special permitted use shall be 2,500 square feet. Not applicable as the proposal is for a permitted use. b. Special permitted uses shall be allowed in a building or in a group of buildings including a mixture of businesses and housing. At least 50 percent of the total gross floor area of a building, or of where there is more than one building on a site, 50 percent of the total lot area including accessory uses such as parking, landscaping and public space, shall he designated for residential uses. 21 Page Not applicable as the proposal is for a permitted use. c. The development shall meet the minimum housing density requirements of the underlying zone. The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Multi-Family, allowing a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre and a minimum of 16 dwelling units per acre. The subject properties combined are 1.788 acres and have a base density of 35.6 dwelling units and a minimum of 28.48 dwelling units. The applicants are proposing a total of 33 dwelling units, including the old house which is intended to remain on a larger parcel setback from East Main Street in an attempt to respect its iconic setting and preserve the site's largest trees. The proposed density per acre will be roughly 90% of the base density. It is the applicants' intention to "retain" the remaining available density by applying it to the old house lot so that if it is ever partitioned, the house divided or its use intensified (such as a traveler's accommodation, neighborhood market, art center, etc.), the future property owners will have the ability to justify the more intensified use based on the zone's target use as applied in AMC 18.5.4.050 5(c)3. d. Mixed-use buildings shall be setback not more than five feet from a public sidewalk unless the area is used for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas, or for a required public utility easement. Not applicable as the proposal is for a permitted use. e. Mixed-use developments shall have a minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .50. Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum FAR. Projects including existing buildings or vacant parcels of a half an acre or greater in size shall achieve the required minimum FAR or provide a shadow plan (see graphic) that demonstrates how development may be intensified over time to meet the required minimum FAR. Not applicable as the proposal is for a permitted use. Section 18.4.4 Landscaping,Lighting, and Screening—Site Design Review: 18.4.4.030 Landscaping and Screening A. General Landscape Standard. All portions of a lot not otherwise developed with buildings, accessory structures, vehicle maneuvering areas, parking, or other approved hardscapes shall be landscaped pursuant to this chapter. The proposal complies with this standard. As noted on the Landscape Plan, all portions of the lot are landscaped that do not have buildings, driveways or parking areas. 221Page B. Minimum Landscape Area and Coverage. All lots shall conform to the minimum landscape area standards of the applicable zoning district (see Table 18.2.5.030.A - C for residential zones and Table 1.8.2.6.030 for non-residential zones). Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, areas proposed to be covered with plant materials shall have plant coverage of not less than 50 percent coverage within one year and 90 percent coverage within five years of planting. The proposal complies with this standard and the R-3 zone's maximum 75% lot coverage. Further, the landscaping plan has been designed by a certified landscape designer and tree arborist who has worked within the Rogue Valley for over 30 years who is very capable of identifying plant choices that are best suited for the property based on not only climate, but also the site's physical characteristics. The plantings have all been chosen to cover their respective landscape areas by 50% within the 0 year and 90% after five years. C. Landscape Design and Plant Selection. The Iandscape design and selection of plants shall be based on all of the following standards. 1. Tree and Shrub Retention. Existing healthy trees and shrubs shall be retained, pursuant to chapter 18.4.5. Consistent with chapter 18.4.5 Tree Preservation and Protection, credit may be granted toward the landscape area requirements where a project proposal includes preserving healthy vegetation that contribute(s) to the landscape design. To the best of the applicant's ability and in accordance with various other code factors considered herein, the applicants contend as many of the site's existing healthy trees and shrubs have been saved. Unfortunately, a number of the site's trees are in a marginal condition and have not been properly maintained or stand too precariously close to proposed buildings and could potentially be a hazard if not immediate,but soon after the disturbance occurs. 2. Plant Selection. a. Use a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground covers. A variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, and ground covers have been selected for this application. b. Use plants that are appropriate to the local climate, exposure, and water availability. The presence of utilities and drainage conditions shall also be considered. The Landscape Designer has used plants appropriate to the local climate. The landscaping plan identifies plants and trees located in areas for optimum purpose such as shade, privacy, aesthetic and exposure for the purpose of water conservation. c. Storm Water Facilities. Use water-tolerant species where storm water retention/detention or water quality treatment facilities are proposed. 231Page Not applicable as the project's storm water facility is underground, located on the corner of the two public rights-of-way. d. Crime Prevention and Defensible Space. Landscape plans shall provide for crime prevention and defensible space, for example, by using low hedges and similar plants allowing natural surveillance of public and semi-public areas, and by using impenetrable hedges in areas where physical access is discouraged. The proposed landscape plans do not include tall plantings of hedges along walkways in order to encourage comfortable and safe pedestrian activity. e. Street Trees. Street trees shall conform to the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. All proposed street trees were chosen from the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. 3. Water Conserving Landscaping. Commercial, industrial, non-residential, and mixed-use developments that are subject to chapter 18.5.2 Site Design Review, shall use plants that are low water use and meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.I Water Conserving Landscaping. Not applicable as the application is for residential, multi-family housing. However, the project's Landscape Designer has chosen water conservation landscaping where possible. 4. Hillside Lands and Water Resources. Landscape plans for land located in the Hillside Lands overlay must also conform to section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands, and in the Water Resources overlay must also conform to section 18.3.11.110 Mitigation Requirements for Water Resource Protection Zones. Not applicable as the subject property is not within a designated hillside or water resource area. S. Screening a. Evergreen shrubs shall be used where a sight-obscuring landscape screen is required. b. Where a hedge is used as a screen, evergreen shrubs shall be planted so that not less than 50 percent of the desired screening is achieved within two years and 100 percent is achieved within four years. Living groundcover in the screen strip shall be planted such that 100 percent coverage is achieved within two years. No site-obscuring landscaping is necessary, but if it is determined during construction one should be necessary,the applicants will use an evergreen type of shrub. 24IPage 6. Plant Sizes a. Trees shall be not less than two-inch caliper for street trees, and 1.5-inch caliper for other trees at the time of planting. b. Shrubs shall be planted from not less than one gallon containers, and where required for screening shall meet the requirements of 18.4.4.030.C.5 Screening. All street trees will be 2" caliper and all others 1.5" caliper per the above standard. All plants are at least one-gallon. D. Tree Preservation, Protection, and Removal. See chapter 18.4.5 for Tree Protection and Preservation and chapter 18.5.7 for Tree Removal Permit requirements. Tree protection measures in accordance with Chapter 18.4.5 will be implemented at the time of construction. Details of the tree protection plan will be provided with the application's Final Plan. documents. E. Street Trees. The purpose of street trees is to form a deciduous canopy over the street. The same effect is also desired in parking lots and internal circulation streets; rows of street trees should be included in these areas where feasible. All development fronting on public or private streets shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the following standards and chosen from the recommended list of street trees. 1. Location of Street Trees. Street trees shall be located in the designated planting strip or street tree wells between the curb and sidewalk, or behind the sidewalk in cases where a planting strip or tree wells are or will not be in place. Street trees shall include irrigation, root barriers, and generally conform to the standards established by the Community Development Department. All street trees are proposed to be planted in the 7' wide planting strips paralleling each street. All street trees will include irrigation and planted in accordance with the standards of the Community Development Department. All irrigation and maintenance of the trees and groundcover within the planting strips will be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association. 2. Spacing and Placement of Street Trees All street tree spacing may be made subject to special site conditions that may, for reasons such as safety, affect the decision. Any such proposed special condition shall be subject to the Staff Advisor's review and approval. The placement, spacing, and pruning of street trees shall meet all of the following requirements. a. Street trees shall be placed at the rate of one tree for every 30 feet of street frontage. Trees shall be evenly spaced, with variations to the spacing permitted for specific site limitations, such as driveway approaches. 25IPage b. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 25 feet from the curb line of intersections of streets or alleys, and not closer than ten feet from private driveways (measured at the back edge of the sidewalk),fire hydrants, or utility poles. d. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 20 feet to light standards. Except for public safety, no new light standard location shall be positioned closer than ten feet to any existing street tree, and preferably such locations will be at least 20 feet distant. e. Street trees shall not be planted closer than 2.5 feet from the face of the curb. Street trees shall not be planted within two feet of any permanent hard surface paving or walkway. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for trees, or tree wells, shall be at least 25 square feet; however, larger cuts are encouraged because they allow additional air and water into the root system and add to the health of the tree. Tree wells shall be covered by tree grates in accordance with City specifications. g. Street trees planted under or near power lines shall be selected so as to not conflict with power lines at maturity. h. Existing trees may be used as street trees if there will be no damage from the development which will kill or weaken the tree. Sidewalks of variable width and elevation, where approved pursuant to section 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards, may be utilized to save existing street trees, subject to approval by the Staff Advisor. To the best of the applicant's ability, the above street tree standards can and will be met. The proposed project is a collaboration of many professionals, including a Landscape Designer and Civil Engineer, who have reviewed the City's street tree standards and designed the project accordingly. 3. Pruning. Street trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above sidewalks and 12 feet above street roadway surfaces. The applicants will include this or similar language within the eventual Home Owner Association documents in order to maintain proper clearance. 4. Replacement of Street Trees. Existing street trees removed by development projects shall be replaced by the developer with those from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission. The replacement trees shall be of size and species similar to the trees that are approved by the Staff Advisor. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. Based on the applicant's testimony and conversation with the Ashland Tree Commission on July 6th, 2017, the only street tree intended to be removed is Tree #25 (Almond) near the intersection of South Mountain and East Main. Originally, both trees (424 and 425) were proposed to be removed as both trees have been stressed due to years of neglect and possibly because if the adjacent sidewalk. Both need significant 26Page pruning as both have lots of dead wood. However, the applicant's had agreed to pursue options of preserving Tree #24. Tree 425 will be removed but its replacement will be chosen from the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide and will be similar in type and eventual size. F. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening. Parking lot landscaping, including areas of vehicle maneuvering, parking, and loading, shall meet the following requirements. 1. Landscaping. a. Parking lot landscaping shall consist of a minimum of seven percent of the total parking area plus a ratio of one tree for each seven parking spaces to create a canopy effect. b. The tree species shall be an appropriate large canopied shade tree and shall be selected from the street tree list approved by the Ashland Tree Commission to avoid root damage to pavement and utilities, and damage from droppings to parked cars and pedestrians. See the Ashland Recommended Street Tree Guide. c. The tree shall be planted in a landscaped area such that the tree bole is at least two feet from any curb or paved area. d. The landscaped area shall be distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter at the required ratio. e. That portion of a required landscaped yard, buffer strip, or screening strip abutting parking stalls may be counted toward required parking lot landscaping but only for those stalls abutting landscaping as long as the tree species, living plant material coverage, and placement distribution criteria are also met. Front or exterior yard landscaping may not be substituted for the interior landscaping required for interior parking stalls. Not applicable as the proposal does not include a parking lot. However, there are areas of consolidated parking, specifically on the west property line, where 7 parking spaces are proposed. The applicants have designed the landscaping around the subject spaces in accordance with the above standards. 2. Screening. a. Screening Abutting Property Lines. A five foot landscaped strip shall screen parking abutting a property line. Where a buffer between zones is required, the screening shall be incorporated into the required buffer strip, and will not be an additional requirement. b. Screening Adjacent to Residential Building. Where a parking area is adjacent to a residential building it shall be setback at least eight feet from the building, and shall provide a continuous hedge screen. c. Screening at Required Yards. 27Page i. Parking abutting a required landscaped front yard or exterior yard shall incorporate a sight obstructing hedge screen into the required landscaped yard. ii. The screen shall grow to be at least 36 inches higher than the finished grade of the parking area, except within vision clearance areas, section 18.2.4.050. iii. The screen height may be achieved by a combination of earth mounding and plant materials. iv. Elevated parking lots shall screen both the parking and the retaining walls. Not applicable as the proposal does not include a parking lot. However, landscape screening and setbacks along adjacent property lines is proposed. In addition, parking spaces within the vicinity of the public rights-of-way are to be screened with landscaping in order to minimize visibility of autos. G. Other Screening Requirements. Screening is required for refuse and recycle containers, outdoor storage areas, loading and service corridors, mechanical equipment, and the City may require screening other situations, pursuant with the requirements of this ordinance. 1. Recycle and Refuse Container Screen. Recycle and refuse containers or disposal areas shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood fence or masonry wall five to eight feet in height to limit the view from adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. All recycle and refuse materials shall be contained within the screened area. The project's recycle and refuse area will be screened by an enclosed block wall with metal gate. 2. Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view, except such screening is not required in the M-1 zone. No outdoor storage is proposed. 3. Loading Facilities and Service Corridors. Commercial and industrial loading facilities and service corridors shall be screened when adjacent to residential zones. Siting and design of such service areas shall reduce the adverse effects of noise, odor, and visual clutter upon adjacent residential uses. No loading or service facilities are proposed. 4. Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment shall be screened by placement of features at least equal in height to the equipment to limit view from public rights-of-way, except alleys, and adjacent residentially zoned property. Mechanical equipment meeting the requirements of this section satisfy the screening requirements in 18.5.2.020.C.3. 28JPage a. Roof-mounted Equipment. Screening for roof-mounted equipment shall be constructed of materials used in the building's exterior construction and include features such as a parapet, wall, or other sight-blocking features. Roof-mounted solar collection devices are exempt from this requirement pursuant to subsection 18.5.2.020.C.3. b. Other Mechanical Equipment. Screening for other mechanical equipment (e.g., installed at ground level) include features such as a solid wood fence, masonry wall, or hedge screen. At this juncture, it's not anticipated any mechanical equipment will be visible from the adjacent rights-of- way. Roof mounted solar equipment is being explored, but if not installed, Solar (panel) Reserve Areas will be identified at the time of the building permit so that tenant owners can opt to install with little conflict. H. Irrigation. Irrigation systems shall be installed to ensure landscape success. If a landscape area is proposed without irrigation, a landscape professional shall certify the area can be maintained and survive without artificial irrigation. Irrigation plans are reviewed through a Ministerial process at the time of building permit submittals. The project's Landscape Designer will ensure the landscaping and irrigation systems will work as planned. 18.4.4.050 Outdoor Lighting A. Purpose. This section contains regulations requiring adequate levels of outdoor lighting while minimizing light spillover onto adjacent properties. B. Applicability. All outdoor lighting is subject to the requirements of this section. Where a proposed development is subject to Type I, Type II, or Type III review, the approval authority may require specific lighting levels or limit lighting as a condition of approval to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. C. Standards. As a guideline, lighting levels shall be no greater than necessary to provide for pedestrian safety, property/business identification, and crime prevention. All outdoor lighting, except streetlights, shall comply with the following standards. 1. Arrange and install artificial lighting so there is no direct illumination onto adjacent residential properties. 2. Provide light poles no greater than 14 feet in height for pedestrian facilities. (Pedestal or bollard style lighting is an alternative method for illuminating walkways located inside a development but not located in a public street right-of-way.) 29Page 3. Where a light standard is placed over a sidewalk or walkway, maintain a minimum vertical clearance of eight feet. 4. Install light fixtures where they will not obstruct public ways, driveways, or walkways. Where a light standard must be placed within a walkway, maintain an unobstructed pedestrian through zone per Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) compliance. 5. Except as permitted for signs, direct outdoor light fixtures downward and have full shielding to minimize excessive light spillover onto adjacent properties. 6. For streetlight requirements, see subsection 18.4.6.040.D.18. D. Maintenance. Outdoor lighting shall be maintained in good condition, or otherwise replaced by the property owner. All proposed lighting will be adequate to service the proposed development and no light will spillover onto adjacent properties. Because the site is adjacent to the Ashland High School's football / soccer field where lighting spills over onto the subject property, the applicant's believe the projects lighting will only be minimal. All lighting will meet the requirements of the City of Ashland, specifically Section 18.4.4.050 C. Outdoor Lighting Standards. Section 185.7.040 Tree Removal Permit: 18.5.7.040 Approval Criteria B. Tree Removal Permit. 2. Tree is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. The trees proposed for removal are the minimum number of trees on the site that should be removed based on their health, condition or location. Further, the trees proposed for removal are the minimum necessary to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards of the Ashland Land Use Code. 3 0 1 P a g e A total of 13 trees are proposed to be removed and a possible 10 if Tres 424 cannot be preserved during initial excavation. As noted previously, Tree #14 was originally intended to be removed, but during the July 6a', hearing with the Tree Commission, it was felt it could be saved with some strategic construction techniques. However, after again visiting the site and evaluating the subject tree, the Project Arborist felt the tree would be a danger regardless of technique and again reiterated the need to remove the tree. Similarly, during the hearing with the Tree Commission, Trees #24 and #25 were also requested to be removed as they lacked years of maintenance and water. But, during the discussions, the applicants agreed to explore preserving Tree #24 which may necessitate meandering the sidewalk to curbside in order to avoid the tree's trunk and root zone. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The removal of the trees on the subject property will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. The property is mildly sloped and proposed earth cuts and fill work will be primarily limited to the Phase II portion of the property (multifamily phase) where few trees now exist and, according to the Arborist's Report, should be removed due to their health and/or construction activities planned within close proximity to the trees. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. Removal of the trees will not have a significant negative impact on the sites remaining tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property as explained in the Arborist Report. As noted previously, this development application was designed by a combination of professionals including a Landscape Designer, Arborist, Civil Engineer, Architect, Surveyor, Construction Contractor and Land Use Planner who met on-site on multiple occasions in an attempt to fully evaluate the site's trees and other natural features with the intent to minimize the project's development impacts. To this end, the applicants fully believe the trees proposed for removal will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. 31 JPage As noted previously, the site planning of this property consisted of a number of concept plans that were eventually rejected for one or multiple reason. During this period, the primary goal was to save the old home and as much of its iconic site and street presence as practically possible without sacrificing the site's healthy trees or codified site design standards and transportation goals. That said, roughly one month before the submittal, the application had two less units than required and thus a "Variance" would have been necessary. This scenario wouldn't have been considered or necessary if the applicant's primary goal was to simply obtain density without conscientious site planning. In the end, the applicants and project Architect decided to consider a unique design option to obtain the zone's required density by adding a total of six small accessory residential apartment units above Units #22 and 427. Originally it was only two accessory residential apartments, but after discussing housing need options with the Planning staff after the Outline Plan hearing, the applicants have agreed to add an additional four additional accessory residential units. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. A total of 37 new trees are being proposed to mitigate the removal of the proposed 13 trees, possibly 14 if Tree #24 is not able to be preserved during construction. All of the replacement trees will be property irrigated and maintained by the project's Home Owner Association. All new street trees will be at least 2" caliper trees, chosen from the City's Adopted Street Tree List. VI OUTLINE PLAN CONDITIONS In accordance with the final decision and conditions of approval of Planning Action 2017-01059, Conditions 96(a-f),the following clarifies how these conditions have been complied with: That the Final Plan submittal shall include: a. A revised treatment for the unit at the project entry on Mountain Avenue (Unit 21E, Lot 27) which includes a strong orientation/entry oriented to Mountain Avenue. The subject unit number has changed and is Unit 427, Lot 927). Nevertheless, the front entry of the unit has been revised to illustrate its entry onto Mountain Avenue as depicted in the Building Type 5 illustration. b. A revised plan to demonstrate that the open and recreation space requirements are met illustrating all areas to be counted towards open and recreation space and their dimension and treatment. Landscaped areas counted toward recreation space need to be surfaced for recreational use and not include thoroughfares for pedestrian circulation. Individual patio, porch or deck areas shall not be included. Areas containing above-ground utility infrastructure such as transformers, vaults and cabinets are not to be included as 32Page open/recreational space. Common area and open space improvements (i.e. landscaping and irrigation, etc.) shall be installed or bonded for in accordance with the procedures in the Subdivision chapter prior to signature of the Final Survey Plat. The submitted site plan and landscaping plan illustrate the areas, uses and treatments of the open and recreation space. The plan has four main "common" open space/recreational areas. The first is identified as a "recreational activity space", between Units #9-#16, consisting of turf as suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners. The second and third areas consist of"Kiddie Play Area" and Multi-use Open Space north of Units #17 - #21, consisting of play equipment as depicted in the attached exhibits and turf area as suggested by one of the Planning Commissioners. The fourth area is identified as "owners gardens" within the southwest corner of the property, west of Unit 422 and 428. Combined, without pedestrian sidewalks or paths or transformers equate to 3,690 square feet. Furthermore, an additional 3,194 square feet is comprised of decks, porches and patios scattered between the units, but excluding door swings and paths to account for a total recreational/open space area of 10.5% of the 1.51 acres. Note: Chapter 18.4.2.030 H.3 of the Site Design & Use Standards specifically state decks, patios, and similar areas are eligible for open space. Based on other applications, this allowance has been utilized to encourage front porches and other semi-private public spaces to support neighborly interaction on the street. The applicants believe this particular application, especially due to the circumstances of preserving a historic house, preserving many of the site's large statured trees and now adding four additional much needed small rental units, should be eligible for the allowance. If for some reason it is determined the proposal is not allowed to utilize the provisions of 18.4.2.030 H.3,then the applicants would be willing to submit an addendum to the application requesting a Variance to this particular section of the code as the alternative would be to redesign the proposal without the historic house (i.e. demolish it), add two additional townhome units and relatively simply add additional open space / recreational space. c. Final site lighting details. No site lighting details are proposed at this time. The applicants contend the site will be well lit naturally by the ambient lights of the individual units both from within and outside (front porch or deck lights). In either case, all individual outdoor lights will be shrouded so as to not produce light glare onto neighbors. If for any reason site lighting is necessary, the applicants will produce lighting details prior to site construction. d. Final trash enclosure placement and screening details. Included in the plans are the trash and screening details. The plans were reviewed by Ashland Recology. -- - 33 1 Page e. Lot coverage calculations demonstrating how lot coverage is to be allocated to comply with the 75 percent lot coverage allowance in the R-3 zoning district, including all building footprints, driveways,parking and circulation. areas. Within the legend of the submitted Site Plan, the project Architect has identified a total lot coverage of 74.1%, not including the old house site which would significantly reduce the total lot coverage number if combined. f. All easements for public and private utilities, fire apparatus access, and reciprocal utility, maintenance, access and parking shall be indicated on the Final Plan submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. All necessary easements or common access areas have been identified on the preliminary plat. The final plat will include specific language and indicators as to the easements purpose. Attachments: Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (draft) Civil---Cover Vicinity Map—Community Map Civil—Street Cross Section Preliminary PUD Map Civil—Utility Plan Site Plan Civil—Lane "A" Building Plans and Elevations, Building Type 1 Civil—Lane "B" Building Plans and Elevations, Building Type 2 Civil—Lane"C" Building Plans and Elevations, Building Type 3 Civil—Storm Line Building Plans and Elevations, Building Type 4 Civil—Grading Plan Building Shadows Profile Study Civil—Erosion& Sediment Control Building Plans and Elevations,Building Type 5 Civil—Erosion& Sediment Control Landscape Plan Civil—Erosion& Sediment Control Irrigation Plan Civil—Details (4 sheets) Playeraft Plans (8 sheets) Trash Enclosure 341Page DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TEN SIXTY-EIGHT TOWNHOMES,A PLANNED COMMUNITY THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS is made the day of 2018, by Ten Sixty-Eight Townhomes Owners' Association, an Oregon nonprofit corporation (the "Association") and shall be effective upon its recording in the Official Records of Jackson County Oregon. RECITALS, INTENT AND PURPOSES A. Ten. Sixty-Eight Townhomes is a Class I Planned Community, and is subject to the Planned Community Act(ORS 94.550 to 94.785). B. It is the desire and intent of Declarant to subject the Project to the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in this Declaration. DECLARATION NOW, THEREFORE, the Association and Declarant declare that the real property, consisting of Lots 21 through 27 (all of which property now or hereafter subject to this Declaration is called "the Project") shall be held, conveyed, hypothecated, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved, subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, all of which are in furtherance of a plan for the subdivision, improvement and sale of the Project as an interrelated development, and which are established for the purpose of enhancing and perfecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Project. All of the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein set forth shall run with the Project and shall be binding on all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Project or any part thereof, and shall be for the benefit of each Owner of any portion of the Project, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon each successor in interest of such Owners. NAME The name by which the Project shall be known is TEN SIXTY-EIGHT TOWNHOMES, A PLANNED COMMUNITY. ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS In addition to the terms elsewhere defined herein, the following terms shall have the following meanings whenever used in this Declaration: 1.1 Declarant and Future Declarant. KDA HOMES, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, is the Declarant. All rights and obligations of the Declarant pursuant to this Declaration shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the respective successors and assigns of Declarant. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 1 1.2 Owner. The record Owner, or Owners, if more than one, of a Lot, including Declarant and including a vendee under a recorded land sale contract or recorded memorandum of land sale contract. 1.3 Real Property. The Real Property is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 1.4 Project. Lots 1-27 of Ten Sixty Eight Townhomes, a Planned Community, as platted in the official records of Jackson County and recorded in the Plat Record as No. 1.5 Lot. That portion of the Project conveyed or to be conveyed by the Declarant to an individual Owner in fee simple. For the purposes of this Declaration, a Lot shall exist from and after the date of recording an instrument making such Lot subject to this Declaration. 1.6 Dwelling Unit. The residential structure constructed on a Lot, including any Accessory Residential Unit, garage, carport, patio, lanai or other physical appurtenance to such structure. 1.7 Common Area. All of the Project, excepting the Lots therein but including easements on Lots or other real property which have been or will be duly conveyed to the Association with the exceptions as described on the title report. 1.8 Association. Ten Sixty-Eight Townhomes Owners' Association. 1.9 Board. The Board of Directors of the Association. 1.10 Articles; Bylaws. The Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Association, respectively. The Bylaws are marked Exhibit "B", incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 1.11 Declaration. This Declaration, as from time to time amended or supplemented. 1.12 Mortgage. A mortgage or a deed of trust of record encumbering a Lot. The term "Mortgagee" shall include the beneficiary under a deed of trust and the vendor under a recorded land sale contract or recorded memorandum of land sale contract. 1.13 Architectural Committee. The ACC as created pursuant to Section 6. 1.14 Architectural Rules. A document or documents which specify architectural, landscape architectural and engineering guidelines as of the date of the sale of the first Dwelling Unit, and as may be subsequently amended or supplemented upon recommendation by the ACC and approved by the Board. 1.15 Accessory Residential Unit. Those rental apartment Units located above Dwelling Units 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 respectively, which cannot be separately conveyed from the primary Dwelling Unit. Accessory Residential Units are depicted on the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference as Unit Nos., 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 2 and 3 3. ARTICLE 2 USE RESTRICTIONS The use of the Lots and the Common Area shall be restricted in accordance with the following provisions in addition to all other covenants, conditions and restrictions herein contained. 2.1 Residential Use. The Lots and Dwelling Units shall be used for residential purposes only, except as specifically provided for in this Declaration. 2.2 Maintenance/Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain and repair his Dwelling Unit in a clean, sanitary and attractive condition. Each Owner shall ensure that no part of the Project is used for dumping/collection of trash or waste. In order to provide for repair or reconstruction following casualty damage, Owners shall carry such insurance coverage as required by the Bylaws of the Association. 2.3 Animals. No animals shall be maintained on any Lot without the permission of the Board; provided, however, that no more than two (2) generally recognized house pets may be so maintained if they are kept thereon solely as household pets for private use and not for commercial purposes. No animal shall be allowed to make an unreasonable amount of noise or otherwise to become a nuisance. No animals shall be permitted outside of the Lot of the Owner of said animal unless said animal is under the control of a responsible person by means of a leash or other reasonable restraint, which does not include verbal or sound restraints. Upon request of any Owner, the Board shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether for the purpose of this Section, a particular animal shall be considered a house pet or a nuisance. The Owner of any pet shall be responsible for cleaning up after said pet on any property within the Project. No structure for the care, housing or confinement of any house or yard pet shall be maintained so as to be visible from neighboring property. 2.4 Garages. Parking Garages for the following Dwelling Units are subject to a perpetual easement for parking as follows (as depicted on the Site Map at Exhibit"C"): 1. The garage for Dwelling Unit 10 is located within Dwelling Unit 27; 2. The garage for Dwelling Unit 11 is located within Dwelling Unit 26; 3. The garage for Dwelling Unit 14 is located within Dwelling Unit 25; 4. The garage for Dwelling Unit 15 is located within Dwelling Unit 17; 5. The garage for Dwelling Unit 19 is located within Dwelling Unit 24; 6. The garage for Dwelling Unit 20 is located within Dwelling Unit 23. 2.4.1. Grant of Easements for Parking. The Owners of Lots 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 (collectively "Grantor") by accepting title to a Dwelling Unit, hereby grant a perpetual easement to the Owners of Lots 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 respectively (collectively "Grantee"), the location of which is depicted in Exhibit "C" hereto, for parking and residential household DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 3 storage purposes. This perpetual easement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of Grantor, Grantee, and their respective successors and assigns subject to the terms herein. 2.4.2 Maintenance of Garage Doors. Maintenance of garage doors shall be the obligation of the respective user of such garage. Such maintenance is further subject to the party wall provisions of Article 10 herein. 2.4.3 Permitted Uses of Garages. Garages may be used for parking and customary storage of household items. Use of the garage as a residential dwelling, for any trade profession or business and/or for storage of hazardous substances, except those substances considered customary residential items such as paint and cleaning items, is expressly prohibited. 2.5 Parking and Storage of Vehicles. Garage doors shall remain closed unless in use. No vehicle of any type shall be parked or left on any portion of the Project other than within a Lot's garage or designated parking space/carport. Designated Owner and Guest parking is depicted on the attached Exhibit "C". Owners of Lots and/or its Tenants are prohibited from parking in designated guest parking space. All of the following vehicles and categories of vehicles shall be subject to the following additional restrictions of this section: (a) Any commercial vehicle, including a bus, or any vehicle which exceeds 12,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, or which has a wheelbase exceeding 133 inches; (b) Any farm vehicle or equipment; (c) Any boat; (d) Any trailer fitted or designated to be pulled by any other vehicle; (e) Any vehicle within the generally recognized category of recreational vehicle, including a camper or camper body which is or may be mounted upon a pick-up truck; (f) Any commercial-type vehicle including any pick-up truck or van on which any advertising is painted or otherwise displayed; and (g) Any vehicle which is inoperable. No vehicle described in subsections a through g above may be permanently or semi-permanently parked anywhere within the Project (including any driveway, guest parking, garage or yard area. Recreational vehicles may be permitted for temporary periods of not more than three (3) hours each, during a consecutive twenty-four (24) hour period for loading and unloading purposes, provided that such loading and unloading does not block access to driveways, designated parking spaces or Lots. No vehicle of any type (including regular passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles, or any other vehicle) shall be parked on any portion of the Project for the purpose of accomplishing repairs thereto or the reconstruction thereof, except for emergency repairs and then only to the extent necessary to enable movement of the vehicle. Violation of this prohibition DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 4 against repairing vehicles shall also constitute a nuisance. Any Owner who parks or permits the prohibited parking of any such vehicle on the Project shall be deemed to commit a nuisance and shall be subject to the penalties or sanctions adopted by the Board of Directors pursuant to the Bylaws. 2.6 Utility Service. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.10 herein, no lines, wires, antennae or other devices of any kind for the communication or transmission of electric current or power, including telephone, television and radio signals, shall be constructed, placed or maintained anywhere in or upon any Lot unless the same shall be contained in conduits or cables constructed, placed and maintained underground or concealed in, under or on buildings or other approved structures. 2.7 Temporary Occupancy. No trailer, basement of any incomplete building, tent, shack, garage, and no temporary building or structure of any kind shall be used at any time for a residence either temporary or permanent. Temporary buildings, trailers or structures may be used by Declarant during the sales and construction or improvement of Lots and the Common Area, but shall be removed within a reasonable time after the completion of construction within that portion of the Project. 2.8 Commercial Use. Unless expressly approved by the Board of Directors of the Association, no industry, business, trade, occupation or profession of any kind, whether commercial, religious, educational or otherwise, designed for profit or otherwise, shall be conducted, maintained or permitted on any part of the Project, except such as may be conducted, maintained or permitted by Declarant in connection with Declarant's general development plan for the Project and as specifically provided by this Declaration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Owners of Lots are hereby provided notice that the Project abuts Lot 1, as depicted on the Plat, which may, subject to approval by the City of Ashland, operate as a commercial use including but not limited to a Bed and Breakfast or Business Professional Office. 2.9 Trash Containers and Collection. All garbage and trash shall be placed and kept in covered containers. In no event shall such containers be maintained so as to be visible from neighboring property. All Owners shall subscribe to regular garbage pick-up services on a weekly basis, or such other periodic basis as the Board may determine. The Association, at its sole election, shall have the right to subscribe for such services on behalf of all Lot Owners. 2.10 Antennae. Except as provided in this section 2.10, no antenna for transmission or reception of radio, shortwave signals or any other form of electromagnetic radiation shall be erected, used or maintained outdoors, whether attached to a building or structure or otherwise. Satellite dishes or other antenna to receive video programming for transmission of television are permitted subject to the following: 1) Dishes may only be installed by the Owner(s) of the Lot. 2) The dish may not be installed on Association common area unless prior approval is obtained from the ACC. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 5 3) The Owner can be required to temporarily relocate, at the Owner(s) expenses, a dish anytime the Association needs to maintain or repair a given area. In such event, the Association shall not be responsible for any damage to the satellite dish. 4) The Owner agrees the Association shall be relieved of all responsibility for the satellite dish. 5) The Owner agrees to indemnify and hold the Association harmless for any damage to any portion of a structure or property which the Association is responsible for maintaining resulting from the installation of said satellite dish. 6) Dishes must be less than one meter in diameter. 2.11 Clothes Drying Facilities. No outside clotheslines or other outside clothes drying or airing facilities shall be maintained on any Lot. 2.12 Barbecues. There shall be no exterior fires in the Common Area. Barbecue fires are permitted solely on Lots, contained within receptacles designed for such purposes. 2.13 Machinery and Equipment. No machinery or equipment of any kind shall be placed, operated or maintained upon or adjacent to any Lot except such machinery or equipment, such as private workshop equipment, as is usual and customary in connection with the use or maintenance of a Dwelling Unit. 2.14 Diseases and Insects. No Owner shall permit anything or condition to exist upon his Lot which shall induce,breed, or harbor infectious plant diseases or noxious insects. 2.15 Restrictions on Further Subdivision. No Owner, except Declarant, may grant an easement or other interest in a Lot without the prior written approval of the Board. 2.16 Signs. No signs whatsoever (including without limitation, commercial, political, family "crest" or name signs, and all such similar signs) which are visible from neighboring Lots shall be erected or maintained on any Lot except: (a) Such signs as may be required by Iegal proceedings; (b) Such residential identification signs as are installed in the initial construction of the Dwelling Units; (c) During the time of construction of any residence or other improvement by Declarant,job and sales identification signs; (d) Not more than one 'Tor sale" sign having dimensions not to exceed eighteen(18) by twenty-four (24) inches, pursuant to the Rules of the Association, so long as the posts or standards for said signs do not damage or destroy lawns or plantings. However, the Board may cause the Association to install a common "for sale" identification sign(s) within the Common Area for the purpose of identifying all Lots which are "for sale". Following the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 6 installation of such sign(s), no for sale sign shall be allowed on any Lot pursuant to this Section 2.15 (d); and (e) Political signs for a period not to exceed 30-days prior to an election, or as otherwise allowed by local or state law. 2.17 Tenant Leases. No Dwelling Unit shall be rented or leased for a period of less than.thirty (30) continuous days at one time. All rental and lease agreements shall be in writing and shall comply with the provisions of the Bylaws. 2.18 Skate Boarding /Motorized Transportation Devices. Skate boarding or the operation of any motorized transportation device, excepting motor vehicles (as defined by Oregon law) and golf carts shall not be allowed within the Project. 2.19 Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall occur on any Lot nor shall anything be done thereon: which may be, or may become, an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 2.20 Fences. Fences adjacent to Common Area shall not exceed four (4) feet. All other fences shall be subject to the limitations specified by the architectural control committee (ACC). Fence permits are required for fences taller than 42"and comply with AMC 18.4.4.060. 2.21 Nonsmoking on Lots. The Association desires to ensure the peace and enjoyment of property owners within their Lots. To that end, smoking is prohibited anywhere within the Common Areas. In the event this provision is challenged in a court of law or other proceeding, the Board may, in its sole discretion, amend this Declaration without a vote of the members to delete this restriction, if it determines that it would be in the best interest of the Association to avoid such costs of defense. 2.22. Growing of Marijuana Prohibited. The Association desires to ensure the peace and enjoyment of property owners within their Lots and to reduce nuisance created from odors as a result of growing, cultivating and/or producing marijuana, and to protect the safety, welfare and benefit of existing and future Owners of Lots within the Project. To that end, all growth, cultivation and production of marijuana is prohibited within the Project, whether grown indoors or outdoors. In the event this provision is challenged in a court of law or other proceeding, the Board may, in its sole discretion, amend this Declaration without a vote of the members to delete this restriction, if it determines that it would be in the best interest of the Association to avoid such costs of defense. 2.23 Right of Inspection. Upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice (emergencies excepted) and during reasonable hours, any authorized member of the Board, or any authorized representative of the Board, shall have the right to enter upon and inspect the Lot and the exterior of the Dwelling Unit or any of the improvements thereon for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the provisions of these Restrictions, the Bylaws and the rules and regulations adopted by the Board, have been or are being complied with, and such persons shall not be deemed guilty of trespass by reason of such entry or inspection. If such inspection is made by the Architectural Committee upon authorization by the Board, a report shall be made to the Board which will DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 7 decide the action to be taken. These rights shall be exercised in such a manner as to reasonably minimize any adverse impact upon the Owner's right to enjoyment of his Lot. 2.24 Penalties for Violations. The Board may adopt a schedule of penalties which shall be imposed upon Owners for violations of the requirements and restrictions set forth in this Section 2, the remainder of this Declaration and the Bylaws of the Association. Following the adoption or revision of such schedule and at least thirty (30) days prior to the imposition of any penalties pursuant to such schedule, the Board shall cause a copy of the schedule to be mailed to all Owners. The penalties may be imposed with or without further notice as provided in the schedule of penalties. Penalties imposed for such violations shall constitute a Special Lot Assessment, as provided in Section 4.4. ARTICLE 3 ASSOCIATION 3.1 Organization. The Association is a nonprofit Oregon corporation charged with the duties and invested with the powers prescribed by law and set forth in the Articles, the Bylaws, and this Declaration. Neither the Articles nor Bylaws shall, for any reason, be amended or otherwise changed or interpreted so as to be inconsistent with this Declaration. In the event of any such inconsistency, the provisions of this Declaration shall prevail. The Board of Directors of the Association, and such officers as the Board may elect or appoint, shall conduct the affairs of the Association in accordance with the Articles and Bylaws as from time to time amended. 3.2 Subsidiary Associations. Nothing in this Declaration shall prevent the creation, by provision therefor in Supplemental Declarations, of subsidiary associations to assess, regulate, maintain or manage portions of the Real Property subject to such Supplemental Declarations or to own or control portions thereof for the common use or benefit of Lots in the portion of the Real Property subject to such Supplemental Declarations. 3.3 Membership, Each Owner shall be a Member of the Association and shall be entitled to one membership for each Lot owned. Each Member shall have the rights, duties and obligations set forth in this Declaration, the Articles, the Bylaws and the Association Rules, as the same may from time to time be amended. The membership of each Owner in the Association shall be appurtenant to the Lot giving rise to such membership, and shall not be assigned, transferred, pledged, conveyed or alienated in any way except upon the transfer of title to such Lot, and then only to the transferee of title thereto. Any transfer of title to a Lot shall operate automatically to transfer the membership in the Association appurtenant thereto to the new Owner thereof. For purposes of membership, the recording of a Iand sale contract or memorandum thereof shall constitute a transfer of the title to a Lot. 3.4 Voting. (a) Members Entitled to Vote. Only Members of the Association shall be entitled to vote. The voting privileges of each Class of Members shall be as provided herein. Any action by the Association which must have the approval of the Association membership before being undertaken shall expressly require the vote or written assent of a prescribed percentage of the total voting power of the Association, as more particularly stated within the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 8 Declaration. (1) Class A Members. Class A Members shall have one (1) vote for each Lot. When more than one person owns a single Lot, all Owners shall be members of the Association. However, the vote for each Lot must be cast as a unit, and fractional votes shall not be allowed. In the event that joint Owners are unable to agree among themselves as to how their vote or votes shall be cast, they shall lose their right to vote on the matter in question. If any Owner (or Owners) casts a vote representing a certain Lot, it will thereafter be conclusively presumed for all purposes that such Owner(s) was acting with the authority and consent of any other Owners of said Lot. The right to vote may not be severed or separated from the lot ownership to which it is appurtenant, and any sale, transfer, or conveyance of such Lot to a new Owner or Owners shall operate to transfer the appurtenant vote without the requirement of any express reference thereto. (2) Class B Member. The Class B Member shall be the Declarant, its successors and assigns. The Class B Member shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Lot in which it holds the interest required for membership as provided in Section 3.4(a) above. Class B membership shall be converted to Class A membership and shall forever cease to exist when seventy-five percent(75%) of the lots are conveyed to retail Owners other than Declarant. (b) Voting Procedures. Any vote may be cast in person or by proxy. All proxies shall be in writing, dated, signed by the Owners giving the proxy and filed with the Secretary before the commencement of any meeting. A proxy shall terminate one year after its date unless the proxy specifies a shorter term. Every proxy shall automatically cease upon the sale of the Lot by the Owner and upon the death or incapacity of the Member mho executed the proxy. (c) Declarant's Right To Vote. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, and except as provided in Section 8.3, any provision of this Declaration which provides for approval by a prescribed percentage of Members' votes, other than the Declarant, shall be effective and construed also to require the affirmative vote of a majority of the total votes of all Members, including the Declarant. (d) Suspension of Voting Rights. The voting rights of an Owner shall be suspended during such period as any assessment due hereunder from such Owner remains unpaid; provided, however, that the Board shall give any such Owner at least fifteen (15) days notice prior to such suspension, and such Owner shall be entitled to a hearing before the Board in accord with Section 3.20(b) of the Bylaws. 3.5 Initial Board of Directors. The initial Board shall be appointed by Declarant. Thereafter, the Board shall be elected as provided in the Bylaws. 3.6 Duties of the Association. The Association shall have the obligation and duty, subject to and in accordance with this Declaration, to do and perform the following acts for the benefit of its Members and for the maintenance and improvement of the Real Property. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 9 (a) Common Area and Lot Maintenance and Operation. To maintain and otherwise manage any Common Area after such property is conveyed or otherwise transferred to it, all other improvements located thereon, all easements for operation and maintenance purposes over the Common Area, and all easements for the benefit of Members of the Association within the Common Area. (b) To maintain and otherwise manage all Common Area landscaping including street trees. (c) To maintain and otherwise manage all driveways and guest parking facilities. (d) Utilities. To acquire, provide and/or pay for water, sewer, garbage disposal, refuse pickup, electrical, telephone, gas and other necessary utility services for the Common Area. (e) Other. To perform such other acts, whether or not expressly authorized by this Declaration, as may be reasonably necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Declaration and Association Rules. Each Owner hereby grants to the Association a non-exclusive easement of ingress and egress to that portion of his Lot as may be reasonably required by the Association to exercise or otherwise perform its duties under this Section 3.6. 3.7 Powers and Authority of the Association. Each Owner hereby grants to the Association a non-exclusive easement of ingress and egress to that portion of his Lot as may be reasonably required by the Association to exercise or otherwise perform its duties under this Section 3.6. 3.8 Powers and Authority of the Association. The Association shall have all of the powers of a nonprofit corporation organized under the General Non-profit Corporation Law of the State of Oregon, subject only to such limitations upon the exercise of such powers as are expressly set forth in the Articles, the Bylaws, or this Declaration. The Association shall have the power to do any and all lawful things which may be authorized, required or permitted to be done by the Association under this Declaration, the Articles and the Bylaws, and to do and perform any and all acts which may be necessary or proper for or incidental to the exercise of any of the express powers of the Association, including without limitation: (a) Assessments. To levy assessments on the Owners and to enforce payment of such assessments, all in accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5. (b) Right of Entry and Enforcement. To enter upon any Lot or the Common Area for the purpose of performing the duties of the Association set forth in Section 3.6, enforcing by peaceful means any of the provisions of this Declaration or maintaining or repairing any area required to be maintained by an Owner if for any reason whatsoever such Owner fails to maintain or repair such area. Such entrance upon a Lot shall be after twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice to the Owner; provided, however, that such entrance shall be permitted upon DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 10 consent of at least one Board member without any prior notice whatsoever in the event of an emergency. An emergency shall be deemed to exist when there is a condition causing peril or threat to persons or property. The Association shall also have the power and authority from time to time in its own name, on its own behalf or on behalf of any Owner or Owners who consent thereto, to commence and maintain actions and suits to restrain and enjoin any breach or threatened breach of this Declaration and to enforce, by mandatory injunction or otherwise, all of the provisions hereof. These rights shall be exercised in such a manner as to reasonably minimize any adverse impact upon the Owner's right to enjoyment of his Lot. (c) Easements and Rights-of-Way. To grant and convey to any third party easements and rights-of-way in, on, over and under the Common Area for the purpose of constructing, erecting, operating or maintaining thereon, therein or thereunder overhead or underground lines, cables, wires, conduits, or other devices for the transmission of electricity for lighting, heating, power, telephone and other purposes, public sewers, storm water drains and pipes, water systems, sprinkling systems, water, heating and gas lines or pipes, cable TV lines, security system,lines and any similar public or quasi-public improvements or facilities. (d) Employment of Manager. To employ the services of a person or firm to manage the Common Area and the affairs of the Association ("the Manager") to the extent deemed advisable by the Board. To employ the services of such other personnel as the Board shall determine to be necessary or proper for the operation of the Common Area, whether such personnel are employed directly by the Association or are furnished by the Manager. (e) Services. To contract for materials and/or services for the Common Area or the Association. Any such service contract or management contract pursuant to Section 3.8(d) shall be subject to termination by either party without cause upon thirty (34) days notice in writing to the other party. (f) Rules. By a majority vote of the Board, and from time to time, to adopt, amend, enforce and repeal such rules and regulations as the Board shall determine to be necessary or proper for the operation of the Project ("the Association Rules"). The Association Rules shall govern the use of the Lots and the Common Area by any Owner, by the family of such Owner, or by any invitee, licensee or tenant of such Owner; provided, however, that the Association Rules may not discriminate among Owners and shall not be inconsistent with this Declaration, the Articles or Bylaws. A copy of the Association Rules as they may from time to time be adopted, amended or repealed, shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to each Owner. Upon such mailing or delivery, the Association Rules shall have the same force and effect as if set forth in and a part of this Declaration. The Association Rules shall not materially change the rights,preferences or privileges of any person, or the restrictions on any Lot, as herein set forth. ARTICLE 4 FUNDS AND ASSESSMENTS 4.1 Operating and Reserve Funds. The Association shall establish and maintain an operating fund into which shall be deposited all monies paid to the Association as regular, special and emergency Assessments and miscellaneous fees, and from which fund the Association shall make disbursements in the performance of its rights and duties as provided for DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 11 in this Declaration. The Association shall also establish and maintain a reserve fund for replacement of all items of common property which will normally require replacement, in whole or in part, in more than three (3) and less than thirty (30) years. The items may be identified in the reserve account as those which are insurable by a common carrier of all-purpose risk insurance. The operating fund and the reserve fund shall be kept in separate accounts. All expenses of the Association for its performance of its rights and duties under this Declaration shall be paid from the operating fund and the reserve fund and shall be shared among the Owners as provided for the payment of assessments in this Section 4. All profits of the Association shall be deposited in the operating fund and reserve fund as may be determined by the Board and shall be shared equally by the Owners. 4.2 Regular Assessments. Within forty-five (45) days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the Board shall estimate the costs and expenses to be incurred by the Association during such fiscal year in performing its rights and duties under this Declaration, which benefit the Association or all Owners, in general, as opposed to direct benefit to a Lot or the Owners of a Lot, including a reasonable provision for unanticipated expenses and replacements and less any anticipated surplus from the prior year's fund. Within thirty (30) days after adopting a proposed annual budget for the Association, the Board shall provide a summary of the budget to all Owners. The Board may not, without the vote or written assent of a majority of the voting power of the Association residing in members other than the Declarant, impose a regular annual assessment per Lot which is more than twenty percent (20%) greater than the regular assessment for the immediately preceding fiscal year. Such estimated amount shall be assessed to the Owners as provided in Section 4.5(a) herein. The amount per Lot so assessed to each Owner is called "the Regular Assessment." (a) Share of Assessments. Unless otherwise modified by the Board, Lot Owners shall be assessed a percent of regular annual assessments as follows: Lots 2-21 3.5%each Lots 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 & 27: 5% each 4.3 Special or Emergency Assessments. In addition to the Regular Assessments,the Board may levy during any fiscal year a Special or Emergency assessment applicable to that year only, for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction, reconstruction, repair of any common watered areas or utilities,unexpected repair or replacement of the Common Area, including the necessary fixtures and personal property related thereto, or any extraordinary expense not contemplated by this Declaration of whatsoever nature which results in a benefit to the Association or all Owners, in general, as opposed to a direct benefit to a Lot or the Owners of a Lot, provided that, in any fiscal year, the Board may not, without the vote or written assent of a majority of the voting power of the Association residing in members other than the Declarant levy Special or Emergency assessments to defray the costs of any action or undertaking on behalf of the Association which in the aggregate exceed five percent (5%) of the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 12 budgeted gross expenses of the Association for that fiscal year. No Special or Emergency assessment shall be levied with respect to the initial construction of the Common Area, it being understood that all such construction shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Declarant. Except as otherwise provided herein, Special and Emergency assessments shall be assessed to the Owners in such proportion as provided in Section 4.2(a) herein and shall be paid as the Board shall determine. The provisions herein with respect to Special and Emergency assessments do not apply in the case where the assessment against a member is a remedy utilized by the Board to reimburse the Association for costs incurred in bringing the Member and his Lot into compliance with the provisions of this Declaration or the Bylaws. 4.4 Reimbursement Assessments. The Board may levy, during any fiscal year, Reimbursement Assessments for the purpose of defraying all costs and expenses incurred by the Association for the repair or maintenance necessitated by the failure of an Owner or tenant to maintain a Dwelling Unit or Lot and by the failure or breach by an Owner of the provisions of this Declaration, Association Rules or Bylaws and for the purpose of imposing penalties for violations of the provisions of this Declaration as provided in Section 2.24. 4.5 Payment of Assessments. Each Owner shall be obligated to pay Regular Annual Assessments made pursuant to this Section 4 to the Association on or before the first day of January, in advance, or in such other manner as the Board shall designate. The Board shall provide each Owner with a statement of such assessment within thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, but shall not be obligated to provide monthly statements to any Owner thereafter. Special or Emergency Assessments and Special or Emergency Lot Assessments shall be payable in such manner as the Board shall designate. A delinquent payment on an assessment shall accrue interest at the rate of twelve (12%) per annum commencing ten(10) days following the due date of the payment. In addition, a late fee of$5.00 per month, for each month that the assessment is not paid shall be charged to cover administration expenses. Accrued interest and late fees shall be deemed part of the assessment. 4.6 Commencement of Assessments. The Regular Assessments shall commence upon the close of the sale of the first Lot to someone other than Declarant. The first Regular Assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in the fiscal year. The initial payment due with respect to a partial month from an Owner, other than Declarant, shall be prorated as of the close of escrow for the purchase of such Owner's Lot. All other assessments shall commence as the Board shall determine. The Association shall, within ten (10) days after demand and upon payment of a reasonable fee as determined by Resolution of the Board, furnish to an Owner a certificate signed by an officer of the Association stating whether assessments on his Lot have been paid. ARTICLE 5 ENFORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS 5.1 Covenant to Pay Assessments. Declarant covenants for each Lot owned, and each Owner, other than Declarant, by acceptance of a deed to a Lot, shall be deemed to covenant to pay assessments levied in accordance with Section 4. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 13 5.2 Enforcement. Each assessment levied hereunder shall be a separate, distinct and personal debt and obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time such assessment became due and payable. In the event of a default in payment of any such assessment, the Association may enforce each such obligation by any and all remedies provided by law. In the event the Association brings an action to enforce each such assessment obligation, any judgment rendered in any such action shall include a sum for reasonable attorneys' fees in such amount as the Court may adjudge against the defaulting Owner, including reasonable attorneys' fees on appeal. At any time when an assessment of any type provided for by this Declaration or an installment thereof is delinquent, the Association, by and through its Board or designated agent, may file a notice of lien in the deed records of Jackson County, Oregon, against the Owner and Lot to which the assessment pertains as provided by ORS 94.709. ARTICLE 6 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL 6.1 Membership: Appointment and Removal. The Architectural Control Committee ("ACC") shall consist of three (3) members,who shall be appointed by the Declarant. The Declarant shall appoint all of the initial members of the ACC and all replacements until one hundred percent (100%) of all Lots in the Development have been conveyed to Owners other than Declarant. Declarant may remove any member of the ACC at any time, and may appoint new members at any time. Declarant shall keep on file at its principal office, a list of names and addresses of the members of the ACC. Upon the expiration of the initial ACC, the owner shall take control of the ACC and appoint members pursuant to paragraph 6.8 hereof. 6.2 Action. Except as otherwise provided herein, any two (2) members of the ACC shall have the power to act on behalf of the ACC, without a public meeting. 6.3 Duties. It shall be the duty of the ACC to consider and act upon any and all proposals or plans submitted to it pursuant to the terms hereof, to insure that any painting or exterior coverings or improvements constructed, which shall also include landscaping and plantings, on the Project by anyone other than the Declarant conform to plans approved by the ACC. Except for the original construction of the Project by Declarant and except for purposes of proper maintenance and repair or as otherwise in this Declaration provided, it shall be prohibited to install, erect, attach, apply, paste, hinge, screw, nail, build, alter, plant, remove or construct any lighting, shades, railings, screens, awnings, patio covers, decorations, fences, sprinkler lines and heads, parking spaces, driveway aprons, and hedges, landscaping features, aerials, antennas, radio or television broadcasting or receiving devices, slabs, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, patios, balconies, driveways, carports, covered parking spaces, walls, fireplaces, solar panels, gutters and downspouts, or to make any change or otherwise alter (including any alteration in color), in any manner whatsoever the exterior of any Lot, Dwelling Unit, or upon any of the Common Areas within the Project or to remove or alter any windows or exterior doors of any Dwelling Unit or do anything which will materially increase the cost of operating or insuring the Association property or impair any easement, until the complete plans and specifications, showing the location, nature, shape, height, form of change (including, without Iimitation, any DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 14 other information specified by the Board of Directors) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to safety, the effect of any such alterations on the cost of maintaining and insuring the Association property and harmony of design, color and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography, by the ACC. All plans approved by the ACC shall conform to the Architectural Rules adopted by the ACC. 6.4 Architectural Rules. The Board may, from time to time, and in its sole and absolute discretion, adopt, amend and repeal rules and regulations, to be known as "Architectural Rules." Said Rules shall interpret and implement this Declaration by setting forth the standards and procedures for any Committee review and the Design guidelines for architecture design, placement of buildings, landscaping, color schemes, exterior finishes and materials and similar features which are recommended for use within the Project. 6.5 Application for Approval. Any Owner, except the Declarant and its designated agents,proposing to perform any work of any kind whatever which requires the prior approval of the ACC pursuant to any provision in this Declaration, shall apply to such ACC for approval by notifying the ACC in writing of the nature of the proposed work and furnishing construction plans and specifications, showing the nature, shape, height, materials, colors, and an elevation from curb level, together with detailed plans showing the proposed location of the same on the particular building. All of the foregoing information must be submitted to the ACC at least sixty days (60) prior to the commencement of any proposed construction. These plans must be stamped by the ACC prior to submitting to the City of Ashland for a building permit. Failure on the part of the ACC to act within said sixty-day (60)period shall be deemed an approval thereof. ACC will provide a written date of receipt to each plan. Any other architectural features will be approved or disapproved upon submission of plans to the ACC. Architectural elements, such as masonry, may be required to enhance the exterior elevations of the home. All approvals or disapprovals given under this Article III shall be in writing. The ACC's decision shall be final. 6.6 Inspection of Work. Inspection of work and correction of defects therein shall proceed as follows: (a) Upon the completion of any construction or reconstruction or the alteration or refinishing of the exterior of any improvements, or upon the completion of any other work for which approved plans are required under this Article, the Owner shall give written notice thereof to the ACC. (b) Within forty-five (45) days thereafter the ACC, or its duly authorized representatives, may inspect such improvement to determine whether it was constructed, reconstructed, altered or refinished to substantial compliance with the approved plans. If the ACC finds that such construction, reconstruction, alteration or refinishing was not done in substantial compliance with the approved plans, it shall notify the Owner in writing of such noncompliance, specifying particulars of noncompliance, and shall require the Owner to remedy such noncompliance. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 15 (c) If upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date of such notification, the Owner shall have failed to remedy such noncompliance, the Declarant, at its option, may either remove the noncomplying improvement or remedy the noncompliance, and the Owner shall reimburse the Declarant for all expenses incurred in connection therewith upon demand. (d) If for any reason the ACC fails to notify the Owner of any noncompliance within forty-five (45) days after receipt of said notice of completion from the Owner, the improvement shall be deemed to be in accordance with said approved plans. 6.7 Failure to Comply with ACC Requirements. Declarant intends that the ACC be for the benefit of the Owners of the Property, to ensure construction that is well-designed, attractive, and consistent throughout the community. As such, in the event an Owner fails to obtain approval prior to construction or reconstruction, and/or fails to construct in accordance with approved plans approved by the ACC, the Declarant or the Board may impose a penalty upon the Owner of up to $1,000.00 per day of each day that the construction continues or remains without approval or in violation of such approval. 6.8 Expiration. of ACC's Duties. The powers and duties of the initial ACC shall continue for one (1) year after completion of all of the residential construction and the sale of 100% percent of said Lots to Owners other than Declarant, or until ten (10) years from the date of this Declaration, whichever occurs first. At such time, the ACC shall call a meeting of the Owners for the purpose of turning over the ACC duties to Owners, other than Declarant, and for Owners to nominate three (3) new members to the ACC. At the time of turnover, the ACC will otherwise continue to operate under the rules stated in the Declaration, or as otherwise amended by Owners. 6.9 Non-Waiver. Consent by the ACC to any matter proposed to it and within its jurisdiction under these covenants shall not be deemed to constitute a precedent or waiver impairing its rights to withhold approval as to any similar matter thereafter proposed or submitted to it for its consent. 6.10 Liability. Neither the ACC nor any member thereof or their delegates shall be liable to the Association or to any Owner for any damage, loss or prejudice suffered or claimed on account of(a) the approval or disapproval of plans, drawings and specifications, whether or not defective, (b) the construction or performance of any work, whether or not pursuant to approved plans, drawings and specifications, (c) the development of any property within the Project or (d) the execution and filing of an estoppel certificate whether or not the facts therein are correct; provided, however, that such member has acted in good faith on the basis of such information as may be possessed by him/her. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, the ACC, or any member thereof, may, but is not required to, consult with or hear the views of the Association or any Owner with respect to any plans, drawings, specifications or any other proposal submitted to the ACC. Approval by the ACC does not mean said ACC is warranting or incurring any liability for the structural adequacy of the plans, drawings and specifications submitted to and approved by said ACC. Plans, specifications and drawings may require building permits and other entitlements from the appropriate governmental agencies. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 16 6.11 Fencing. Fence height for front, side and rear yards shall not exceed the following: Fences adjacent to Common Areas shall not exceed four (4) feet. This restriction shall not apply to those fences/walls abutting the east and west property lines of Lots 22 - 27. 6.12 Exterior Paint. The exterior building and paint colors shall be compatible with the surrounding areas and consistent with the application materials approved by the City of Ashland. Bright neon colors are prohibited. 6.13 Trees. The approved tree protection plan shall remain in full force and effect and deviations from said plan may be enforced by the City of Ashland. ARTICLE 7 PROPERTY RIGHTS AND EASEMENTS 7.1 Conveyance of Common Area. The Declaxant hereby covenants for itself, its successors and assigns, that, prior to or at the Turnover Meeting required by ORS 94.609, it will convey title to the Common Area of the Project to the Association, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, except the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein set forth, easements and utility rights-of-way then of record. All of the Common Area shall be for the use and benefit of the residents. 7.2 Easements in Common Area. Every Owner shall have a right and nonexclusive easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area and any easements shown on the final plat, a nonexclusive easement for ingress and egress over and through the Common Area, and a nonexclusive easement for parking and maneuvering as designated on the recorded maps of the Project. Such easements shall be appurtenant to the following: (a) The right of the Association to sell, transfer or encumber all or any portion of the Common Area to a person, firm or entity, whether public or private, and the right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority, or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Owners. No such sale, transfer, encumbrance or dedication shall be effective except upon the prior vote or written consent of Members representing sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the voting power of the Association and sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the voting power in members other than the Declarant;provided, however, that a dedication required by a governmental agency as a condition to a recording a final plat covering any portion of the Real Property shall require no such prior vote or written consent. 7.3 Matchline Easement on Lots. The Lots have shared or common use building elements and utilities that cross property lines, including, but not limited to: fire walls, foundations, structural sheathing, connectors,porches and porch coverings, decks, eaves and overhangs, roofing, flashing, rain gutters and downspouts, exterior finish materials, rain drains, footing drains, stormwater facilities, driveways, electrical lines, television cable and telephone lines that are shared or used in common or necessary for lateral stability or that cross common property Iines (hereinafter"Elements"). Declarant hereby declares on behalf of Owners DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 17 accepting title to Lots, their successors and assigns, for any part of the original Elements which encroach upon any other Lot, a valid easement for such encroachment and the maintenance thereof so long as it continues, shall and does exist. In the event any portion thereof is partially or totally destroyed and then rebuilt,minor encroachments of any parts of the structure or Elements due to construction shall be permitted and valid easements for such encroachments and the maintenance thereof shall exist. (a) Survey. Declarant has retained a surveyor to verify the location of common walls of the original construction in relation to property lines. The surveyor has determined that the interior wall line runs almost parallel to the property line as depicted in Exhibit "D" attached hereto. By accepting title to a Lot, each owner agrees it takes said lot subject to any minor encroachment and the easement therefore. 7.4 Encroachment Easement for Common Area. Declarant hereby declares on behalf of Owners, accepting title to Lots,their successors and assigns, a permanent encroachment easement for roof eaves and the maintenance thereof, which encroach upon Common Area in the Project. In the event any portion of an encroaching roof eave is partially or totally destroyed and then rebuilt, minor encroachments of any parts of the said roof eave due to construction shall be permitted and valid easements for such encroachments and the maintenance thereof shall exist. 7.5 Delegation. Any Owner may delegate his right of use and enjoyment to the Common Area to the members of his family or tenants who reside on his/her Lot. Tenants shall not have the right to further delegate the Owner's right to use and enjoy the Common Area. As to tenants, such Owner shall notify the Association in writing of such delegation and the names of such delegees. The rights and privileges of any delegee shall be in accordance with and subject to this Declaration; provided, however, that the Owner making such delegation (and his Lot) shall remain Iiable for the assessments herein provided for and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Declaration. 7.6 Utility Easements. Each Lot shall be conveyed to Owners, other than Declarant, and thereafter held by such Owners, their successors and assigns subject to any and all easements of record at the time of the initial conveyance of the particular Lot involved to an Owner other than Declarant for the use and benefit of the several authorized public and/or other utilities, including but not limited to, cable television, sanitary sewers, water, gas, and electrical and drainage easements, and no Owner shall damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of such utilities, or in any manner change the direction or flow of drainage channels in any such easements, or in any manner obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in any such easements. ARTICLE S DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 8.1 Limitations of Restrictions. Declarant.is undertaking the work of constructing residential units, and incidental improvements upon the Lots included within the Project. The completion of that work and the sale, rental and other disposal of said Dwelling Units is essential to the establishment and welfare of said property. In order that said work may be completed and DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 18 said property be established as a fully occupied community as rapidly as possible, nothing in these Restrictions shall be understood or construed to: (a) Prevent Declarant, its contractors, or subcontractors, from obtaining reasonable access over and across the Common Area of the Project or from doing on any Lot or any portion of the Project, whatever is reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the completion of said work; or (b) Prevent Declarant or its representatives from erecting, constructing and maintaining on any part or parts of the Project, such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business of completing said work and establishing said property as a residential community and disposing of the same in parcels by sale, lease, or otherwise; or (c) Prevent Declarant from conducting on any part of the Project, its business of completing said work and of establishing said property as a residential community and of disposing of said property in parcels or lots by sale, lease or otherwise, including the right to maintain model homes and sales offices; or (d) Prevent Declarant from maintaining such signs within the Project, as may be necessary for the sale, lease or disposition of the lots therein, including the right to maintain a sales and resale office in or on some portion of the Project owned by Declarant. 8.2 Declarant's Development Rights. Notwithstanding any other provision herein contained, Declarant expressly retains unalterable rights to develop the Project, in the manner deemed desirable by Declarant in Declarant's sole discretion, provided, however, that Declarant has or shall obtain governmental consents where required by law. This Declaration shall not in any manner constitute a limitation on Declarant's fee title rights to any of the Real Property prior to development hereunder, nor shall it impose any obligation on Declarant, or any other person or entity to improve or develop any of the Real Property. Upon development of all the Real Property Declarant shall have constructed or shall construct the following amenities: 1. Identification Signs 2. Landscaping 3. Lighting of Common Area 4. Mutual Access/Parking Areas 5. Children's Play Area 6. Recreational/Open Space Said amenities shall be constructed no later than the time when all Lots have been sold by Declarant. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 19 It is anticipated that development of the Real Property will extend over a period of time, and for that reason the Declarant shall retain the flexibility to develop the Real Property in the manner deemed best by Declarant in Declarant's sole discretion. Declarant's reserved rights shall include the power to restrict access to portions of the Common Area as reasonably necessary during the course of construction, and thereafter, for health, safety, privacy and security purposes, as deemed appropriate by Declarant. There shall be no limitation other than that imposed by appropriate governmental agencies having jurisdiction upon Declarant's rights to develop and sell the property in any manner deemed appropriate by Declarant. Nothing in this Declaration shall limit the right of Declarant to commence and complete construction of improvements to the Project or to alter the foregoing or the Lots or Common Area or to construct such additional improvements (including fencing) as Declarant deems advisable prior to the completion and sale of the entire Real Property. Declarant shall have a matchline easement over and across all boundary lines in the Common Areas for the purpose of adding or removing materials to insure that the boundary lines between the Common Areas and the Lots in the Project are appropriately aligned. Provided, however, except as otherwise provided herein, after completion, conveyance and acceptance by the Association of each parcel of the Common Area, it may be altered by Declarant only with approval of sixty-six and two- thirds percent(66 213%) of the Class A Members. Declarant may use any of the Lots within the Project owned by it for model home sites, sales offices, and parking therefor, and for any other purpose for which Declarant may use the Common Area as provided herein. Declarant may use any Dwellings Units owned by it as a temporary overnight residence and for promotional purposes in connection with its sales program. Declarant shall have the right and easement to enter upon, use and enjoy and designate and permit others (including without limitation, Declarant's agents, employees, representatives, contractors and prospective purchasers and lenders) to enter upon, use and enjoy the Common Area, including but not limited to, all streets, sidewalks, parking areas and open areas, for common driveway purposes, for drainage and encroachment purposes and for ingress to and egress from the Common Areas for the purpose of completing improvements thereon or for the performance of necessary repair work and for entry onto adjacent property in connection with the development of any additional phases of the overall project; provided, however, that the exercise of such right and easement shall not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the Common Area by the Members. Declarant reserves the right to alter its construction and development plans and designs as it deems appropriate, subject to applicable governmental approvals. The rights of Declarant under this Declaration may be assigned to any successor or successors to all or part of said entity's respective interests in the Real Property, by an express assignment incorporated in a recorded deed, option or lease, as the case may be, transferring such interest to such successor. This Declaration shall not limit the right of Declarant at any time prior to acquisition of title by a purchaser from Declarant to establish on any Lot additional licenses, reservations and rights-of- way to itself, to utility companies, or to others as may from time to time be reasonably necessary to the proper development and disposal of the Real Property. 8.3 Consent of Declarant to Amendments. Until Declarant shall sell all of the Lots DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 20 in the Project, no amendment to this Declaration shall be effective to curtail or eliminate Declarant's development rights set forth herein without Declarant's consent. ARTICLE 9 DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION 9.1 Insurance Proceeds Sufficient. In the event of damage or the partial destruction of any of the Common Area improvements in the Project, and if the available proceeds of the insurance carried pursuant to the Bylaws are sufficient to cover not less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the cost of repair or reconstruction thereof, the damaged or destroyed improvements shall be promptly repaired and rebuilt substantially in accordance with the original design and standard of construction of the damaged or destroyed improvement, unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of such damage or destruction, at a duly constituted meeting of the Association, Members representing seventy-five percent (75%) of the total voting power of the Association determine that such repair and reconstruction shall not take place. 9.2 Insurance Proceeds Insufficient. If the available proceeds of such insurance are less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the cost of repair or reconstruction, such repair or reconstruction may, nevertheless, take place if, within ninety (90) days from the date of such damage or destruction, Members representing fifty-one percent (51%) of the total voting power of the Association so elect at a duly constituted meeting of the Association. 9.3 Assessments. If the Members determine to rebuild, either pursuant to Section 9.1 or Section 9.2 above, each Owner shall be obligated to contribute such funds as may be necessary to pay his/her proportionate share of the cost of reconstruction, over and above the insurance proceeds. Such additional amount shall be assessed to each Owner in the manner provided in Section 4. 9.4 Failure to Rebuild. If rebuilding of the Common Areas shall not be authorized, either pursuant to Section 9.1 or Section 9.2, above, any available insurance proceeds shall be collected by the Association and used by the Association for such Common Area improvements, repair and other expenses associated with the Common Area as it shall deem appropriate. ARTICLE 10 PARTY WALL AND LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT AGREEMENT 101 Definition; General Rules of Law to Apply. Each wall that is built as a part of the original construction of two attached Dwelling Units, that divides two Dwelling Units, and that is placed on the dividing line between the two Dwelling Units shall constitute a Party Wall. Party Walls shall include the studs, blocking, insulation, cement and airspace lying between the wallboard of one Dwelling Unit and the wall board of the other Dwelling Unit sharing the wall. Party Walls shall not include the wallboard, paneling, shectrock,tiles, wallpaper and paint on the interior of the Party Wall, all of which shall be considered part of the Dwelling Unit and the maintenance of which shall be the responsibility of the Owner of the Dwelling Unit. General rules of law regarding Party Walls shall apply to the Party Walls of the two attached Dwelling Units to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Declaration. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 21 10.2 Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty. If a Party Wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty, the provisions of Sections 10.17, 10.18, and 10.19 of this Declaration shall apply with regard to repair or reconstruction of such Party Wall. 10.3 Weatherproofing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration, an Owner who by his or any of his occupants, guests, tenants, licensees, agents, or members of his family's negligent or willful act causes the Party Wall to be exposed to the elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements, subject, however, to reimbursement and/or contributions from available insurance policies. 10.4 Right to Contribution Runs with Land. The right of any Owner to contribution from any other Owner under this Declaration, together with the obligations of such other Owner to contribute to expenses related to a Party Wall, or as otherwise required by this Declaration, shall be appurtenant to the land and shall be binding upon such Owner's successors in title. 10.5 Sharing of Repair and Maintenance Costs and Expenses. The cost of repair and maintenance of a Party Wall shall be shared equally by the Owners whose Dwelling Units are divided by such Party Wall. 10.6 Utility Easements. Each Owner shall have an easement through the Party Wall for the purpose of installing, repairing, replacing or maintaining utility lines, wires, pipes and conduits. 10.7 Condemnation. In the event that all or any portion of a Party Wall, Dwelling Unit, attached Dwelling Units, and/or a Lot is appropriated as the result of condemnation or threat thereof, the following rule and guidelines shall apply: (a) Allocation of Condemnation Award. Any condemnation award received by the Owners with respect to a Party Wall, Dwelling Unit(s), or a Lot shall be allocated to the Owners in proportion to the diminution in fair market value incurred by them with respect to their respective Lots and Dwelling Units as a result of said condemnation. (b) Repair and Restoration. Any such condemnation award shall be used to repair and restore the Dwelling Unit(s), Party Wall, or Lot as such repair or restoration is feasible. (c) Retention of Rights. No provision of this Article shall be construed as negating the right of the individual Owners to such incidental relief as the law may provide as a result of the condemnation of a Party Wall, Dwelling Unit(s), Lot, or any portion of the foregoing. 10.8 Insurance of Dwelling Units. Each Owner of a Lot shall purchase and maintain insurance sufficient to cover any loss relating to the Lot and the Dwelling Unit thereon, including extended coverage for full replacement value of the Dwelling Unit. The insurance policy obtained by each Owner shall contain a provision whereby the insurer waives its right to any subrogation if such policy is reasonably available. Each Owner shall also purchase and maintain an insurance policy covering the Owner's interest in the Party Wall. Copies of such policies or DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 22 other appropriate evidence of such insurance coverage shall be forwarded to the other Owner of an adjoining Dwelling Unit at least ten (10) days before the expiration of all previous insurance. If an Owner fails to furnish a copy of an appropriate insurance policy or evidence thereof within the time required, the other Owner may procure such policy in his/her own name and charge the defaulting Owner the cost of the premium. 10.9 Maintenance of Dwelling Unit Common Expense Items; Easement. Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, the maintenance, repair, and replacement of Dwelling Unit Common Expense Items shall be the responsibility of all Owners of attached Dwelling Units and the cost of such maintenance, repair, and replacement shall be apportioned equally between said Owners. All Owners shall have an easement on the adjoining Owner's Dwelling Unit as is reasonably necessary to maintain, repair, inspect, and replace any Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item. 10.1.0 Procedure for Maintenance of Dwelling Unit Common Expense Items. When, in the reasonable opinion of an Owner, maintenance, repair or replacement of a Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item is needed, such Owner shall notify the other Owner(s) of such need and the Owners) together shall determine how to complete the work; if, however, such work is reasonably needed and an Owner refuses to proceed with such work, one Owner may complete such work, with the cost apportioned between all Owners in proportion to the benefit to the Dwelling Units. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such work benefits all Dwelling Units equally. Prior to completing work without the consent or approval of an Owner as set forth herein, the Owner completing the work shall provide the other Owner(s) with fifteen (15) days written notice of the Owner's intent to complete such work and charge that Owner for such work. The notice shall also state the anticipated cost of the planned improvement. In the event that the Association determines that maintenance, repair, or replacement of a Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item is needed, the Association shall notify all Owners of the attached Dwelling Units of such need and the Owners shall determine how to complete the work; if, however, such work is reasonably needed and the Owners refuse to proceed with such work, the Association may have such work completed, with the costs apportioned between said Owners in proportion to the benefit to the Dwelling Units. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that such work benefits the Dwelling Units equally. Prior to completing work without the consent or approval of the Owners as set forth herein, the Board shall provide the Owners with fifteen (15) days written notice of the Association's intent to complete such work and charge that Owners for such work. The notice shall also state the anticipated cost of the planned improvement. 10.10.1 Definition of Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item. Includes roofing, exterior painting, siding, and gutters. 10.10.2 Procedure for Painting Garage Doors. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10.12 herein, in the event the Owners of Units 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and/or 27 determine that painting of the buildings in which the Dwelling Units are located is necessary as a Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item, as provided herein, the Owners of Units 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, and 20 respectively as the case may be, may be charged a fee to repaint garage doors in an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00). Such assessment shall create a lien as provided in Section 10.14 herein if said Owner fails to pay the Grantor of the respective DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 23 easement the requisite painting fee. 10.11 Siding and Roofing. All siding on two (or more) attached Dwelling Units must be replaced at one time. Likewise, the entire roof of two (or more) attached Dwelling Units must be replaced at one time. The expense of maintenance, repair or replacement of the siding and/or roof shall be equally borne by the Owners of all attached Dwelling Units. 10.12 Owners' Individual Maintenance Responsibility. Landscaping behind or beside Dwelling Units not within the Common Area; fences behind or beside the Dwelling Units not within the Common Area; structural elements of the Dwelling Units, other than the party wall; garage doors and structural elements of and the garages; individual patio, porch or deck areas attached to a Dwelling Unit; and the interior elements of the Dwelling Units are not Dwelling Unit Common Expense Items. Each Owner shall be responsible for and shall bear the costs of maintaining, repairing and replacing the windows within his/her Dwelling Unit; the landscaping contained in the yard behind and beside said Dwelling Unit not within the Common Area; the fence or fences enclosing the yard behind and beside the Dwelling Unit; garage doors and structural elements of the garages; individual patio, porch or deck areas attached to a Dwelling Unit and structural elements of the Owner's Dwelling Unit, other than Dwelling Unit Common Expense Items. Such maintenance, repair, and replacement shall be done in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances and regulations and in a workmanlike manner. 10.13 Damage Caused by Owner. Any damage to Dwelling Unit Common Expense Items caused by the negligence or intentional act of an Owner, his/her family, invitees, or guests, shall be repaired by such Owner at such Owner's sole expense. 10.14 Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation for Assessments. Each Owner of a Dwelling Unit joined to another Dwelling Unit by a Party Wall, and each grantee of an easement for garage parking, by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not so expressed in such deed, shall be deemed to covenant and to agree to pay his share of the costs and expense of repair and maintenance of such Party Wall, Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item, and/or garage doors and garages. If an Owner fails to pay another Owner or the Board for such expenses or fails to reimburse another Owner for expenses already incurred, then all such costs and expenses, together with interest thereon accruing at a rate of twelve percent (12%)per annum, and all other costs, fees and charges allowed by law shall be a continuing lien and charge upon the Lot against which each such cost, expense, and repair is incurred. Such lien shall exist and be executed, recorded and foreclosed in the manner provided by law. No particular form of lien shall be required as long as it states the names of the parties, identifies the Lot affected, describes the repairs or improvements made, and states the amount of the obligation. Such lien shall be superior to all other liens except first mortgages, first trust deeds, or the vendor's lien of a land sale contract,property taxes, and other liens having priority as a matter of law. 10.15 Effect of Non-Payment of Maintenance Costs and Expenses by an Owner; Remedies. In addition to any other remedies provided herein an Owner may bring an action DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 24 provided by law against the Owner who is personally obligated to pay the same or may foreclose a lien upon the affected Lot. No action or judgment entered in an arbitration or court proceeding not seeking foreclosure therein shall be a waiver of the lien of the Owner. An Owner may not avoid liability for the maintenance costs and expenses provided for herein by not using a Party Wall, Common Expense Items, or abandoning their Lot or Dwelling Unit. 10.16 Insurance. Each Owner shall maintain liability insurance insuring such Owner for any injury to person or property occurring on the exterior portion of the Dwelling Unit or on any Lot incident to the ownership, maintenance, use, and control of any Dwelling Unit Common Expense Item or any easement area. 10.17 Damage or Destruction to Dwelling Units - Insurance Proceeds Sufficient to Cover Loss. In case of fire, casualty or any other damage or destruction to any Dwelling Unit(s), the proceeds of the Owner's or Owners' applicable insurance policy, if sufficient to pay for the repair or reconstruction of the Dwelling Unit(s), shall be applied to such reconstruction. 10.18 Damage or Destruction to Dwelling Unit - Insurance Proceeds Insufficient to Cover Loss. Subject to the other provisions of this Section 10.18, if the proceeds of the Owner's insurance policy are insufficient to pay for the repair or reconstruction of the damaged or destroyed Dwelling Unit(s), it shall, nonetheless, be promptly repaired. The proceeds of any Owner's or Owners' insurance policies shall be contributed to the repair or reconstruction costs of the Dwelling Unit(s) so insured, and each Owner shall be liable for his/her share of any such cost that is not paid for by insurance proceeds. 10.19 Architectural Changes After Damage or Destruction. Reconstruction of the damaged or destroyed Dwelling Unit(s), as used in Sections 10.17 and 10.18, means restoring the Dwelling Unit(s) to substantially the same condition and design in which it existed prior to the fire, casualty or disaster. In any event, any architectural changes shall conform to the Declaration, Architectural Rules, and any other rules or regulations promulgated by the ACC. 10.20 Enforcement of Party Wall Provisions. An Owner or the holder of any first mortgage, trust deed or land sale contract on any Lot shall have the right to enforce all of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, liens, and charges now or hereinafter imposed by any of the provisions of this Declaration as may pertain specifically to such parties or Owners against the Owner of the adjoining Dwelling Unit. Failure by any Owner or Mortgagee to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of his or its right to do so thereafter. ARTICLE 11 MORTGAGEE PROTECTION 11.1 Mortgages Permitted. Any Owner may encumber his/her Lot with Mortgages. 11.2 Subordination. Any lien created or claimed under the provisions of Oregon law or of this Declaration is expressly made subject and subordinate to the rights of any First Mortgage that encumbers any Lot or other portion of the Project, made in good faith and for value, and no such lien shall in any way defeat, invalidate, or impair the obligation or priority of DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 25 such First Mortgage unless the First Mortgagee expressly subordinates its interest, in writing, to such lien. 11.3 Effect of Breach. No breach of any provision of this Declaration shall invalidate the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions shall be binding on any Owner whose title is derived through foreclosure sale, trustee's sale, or otherwise. 11.4 Non-Curable Breach. No Mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot by foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure or assignment-in-lieu of foreclosure shall be obligated to cure any breach of this Declaration that is non-curable or of a type that is not practical or feasible to cure. 11.5 Right to Appear at Meetings. Any Mortgagee may appear at meetings of the Members and the Board. 11.6 Right to Furnish Information. Any Mortgagee may ftm ish information to the Board concerning the status of any Mortgage. 11.7 Right to Examine Books and Records, Etc. The Association shall make available to Owners, prospective purchasers and First Mortgagees, current copies of the Project Documents and the books, records and financial statements of the Association. "Available" means available for inspection, upon request, during normal business hours or under other reasonable circumstances. 11.8 Owners' Right to Ingress and Egress. There shall be no restriction upon any Owners' right of ingress and egress to his/her Lot, which right shall be perpetual and appurtenant to Lot Ownership. 11.9 First Mortgagee Assessment Liability. Any First Mortgagee who obtains title to a Lot pursuant to the remedies provided in the Mortgage or foreclosure of the Mortgage shall not be liable for such Lot's unpaid Assessments or Individual Charges which accrue prior to the acquisition of title to such Lot by the Mortgagee. 11.10 Distribution; Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds. No provision of the Project Documents shall give a Lot Owner, or any other party, priority over any rights of the First Mortgagee of the Lot pursuant to its Mortgage in the case of a distribution to such Lot Owner of insurance proceeds or condemnation awards for losses to or a taking of the Lot and/or Common Area. ARTICLE 12 AMENDMENTS Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, until the two (2) class voting structure of the Association is converted to one (1) class voting, this Declaration may be amended by an instrument in writing signed and acknowledged by the President and Secretary of the Association, certifying that such amendment has been approved by members representing at least DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 26 seventy-five percent (75%) of the total voting power of the Association, without regard to any special voting right reserved by the Declarant. Provided that, the percentage of the voting power necessary to amend a specific clause or provision shall not be less than the percentage of affirmative votes prescribed to tape action under said clause or provision. Provided further that, the Declarant shall have the power and authority to amend this Declaration when required by a governmental agency as a condition to obtaining a permit. ARTICLE 13 GENERAL PROVISIONS 13.1 Binding Effect; Term. The covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association, or any Owner,their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. 13.2 Nuisance. Every act or omission whereby any provision of this Declaration is violated in whole or in part is hereby declared to be a nuisance and may be enjoined or abated, whether the relief sought is negative or affirmative action, by Declarant, the Association or any Owner. 13.3 Violation of Law. Any violation of any state, municipal, or local law, ordinance or regulation, pertaining to the Ownership, occupation or use of the Project or any part thereof is hereby declared to be a violation of this Declaration and subject to any or all of the enforcement procedures set forth herein. 13.4 Condemnation of Common Area. If at any time all or any portion of any Common Area, or any interest therein, be taken for any public or quasi-public use, under any statute, by right of eminent domain or by private purchase in lieu of eminent domain, the entire award in condemnation shall be paid to the Association. Any such award to the Association shall be deposited into the operating fiend of the Association. No Owner shall be entitled to any portion of such award, and no Owner shall be entitled to participate as a party, or otherwise, in any proceedings relating to such condemnation, such right of participation being herein reverted exclusively to the Association, or other holder of the fee title which shall, in its name alone, represent the interests of all Lot Owners to the extent such Lot Owners have any interest. 13.5 Obligations of Owner. No Owner may avoid the burdens or obligations imposed on him/her by this Declaration through non-use of the Common Area or by abandonment of his Lot. Upon the conveyance, sale, assignment or other transfer of a Lot to a new Owner, the transferring Owner shall not be liable for any assessments levied with respect to such Lot after the date of such transfer, and no person, after the termination of his status as an Owner and prior to his again becoming an Owner, shall incur any of the obligations or enjoy any of the benefits of an Owner under this Declaration. 13.6 Notice of Sale. Within five (5) business days after the consummation of the sale of any Lot under circumstances whereby the transferee becomes an Owner thereof, the transferee shall notify the Association in writing of such sale. Such notification shall set forth (i) the name of the transferee and the transferor, (ii) the street address of the Lot purchased by the transferee, (iii) the transferee's mailing address, and (iv) the date of sale. Prior to receipt of such DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 27 notification, any and all communications required or permitted to be given by the Association, the Board or the ACC shall be deemed to be duly made and given to the transferee if duly and timely made and given to the transferor. 13.7 Notices. Any written notice or other documents relating to or required by this Declaration may be delivered either personally or by mail. If by mail, such notice or document shall be deemed to have been delivered and received five (5) calendar days after a copy thereof has been deposited in the United States postal service,postage prepaid, addressed as follows: (a) If to the Association, to the address designated by the Association as its principal office address in the Articles of Incorporation. (b) If to an Owner, to the address of any Lot owned, in whole or in part, by him/her or to any other address last furnished by an Owner to the Association: (c) If to Declarant: KDA Home, LLC 604 Fair Oaks Ct. Ashland, OR 97520 Provided, however, that any such address may be changed at any time by the party concerned by delivering a written notice of change of address to the Association. Each Owner of a Lot shall file the correct mailing address of such Owner with the Association, and shall promptly notify the Association in writing of any subsequent change of address. 13.8 Cumulative Remedies. Each remedy provided by this Declaration is cumulative and not exclusive. 13.9 Partial Invalidity. The invalidity or partial invalidity of any provision of this Declaration shall not affect the validity of enforceability of any other provision. 13.10 Number; Gender. The singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular unless the context requires the contrary, and the masculine, feminine and neuter shall each include the masculine, feminine or neuter, as the context requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the President and Secretary have executed this Declaration on behalf of the Members this day of , 2018. TEN SIXTY-EIGHT TOWNHOMES OWNERS' ASSOCIATION an Oregon nonprofit corporation By: LAZ AYALA, President By: , Secretary DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 28 STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF JACKSON ) , 2018 Personally appeared LAZ AYALA who, being duly sworn, did say that he is the President of TEN SIXTY-EIGHT OWNER'S ASSOCIATION and that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of said company and he acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ss. COUNTY OF JACKSON ) , 2018 Personally appeared who, being duly sworn, did say that *he/she* is the Secretary of TEN SIXTY-EIGHT OWNER'S ASSOCIATION and that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of said company and *he/she* acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Before me: Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: FAA I872SOECLARATION OF COVENANTS CONDITIONS ANP RESTRICTIONS CTt N SIXTY-EIGHT TOWNHOMES)DWX DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 29 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 30 EXHIBIT B BYLAWS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 31 EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS -Page 32 EXHIBIT D MATCHLINE EASMENT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS - Page 33 u�W z2 Q°s �Q ULUY Q O co (D C) lf�rr O � z az a 'w w � riy E a r CL � N � mumwrvuuuNuuuuu iui �j V Q r/ r /r/// rr��//iii///i a � ////� ��i/ LLI O W so z mml uuuuuuumuumiiRViUf Of iUwi Y o r/%///// jz . w ii f'r r r /� w�l,5.2; i� u u r %��i/ r z ......... ����� ? 'o / v r ARM/ o ; /%//i' �i�rr 17, %/' o E >, E w Z O s S � O cn n D Q �' 0 I � II III �I �r fr _ X Y u® e c v—n c R 3Z1_^I 31V— -- NI6=S N110w � Z�S XON uj � T n g $� Sot II Ddu a sm RPh s; S 3 3 X S s •or i 0. �J Z X 3✓S 3 } \ � � \r 1 ----- 8 --- —. g -T7 4 1 a I 'odd LLLL H Z c n— n No ry e.n V) Rd uj r C aw a n tl R DJ = V] O Cn oam "° o wco opOLL d a � oauoz � go5 I=— cNjQ (� o ow=z cv y,� a� o "'w� s w i v w w i m z U d Z ! vil w ° ° a m o O U) 0 Q y r%✓ and .r Cp w a oarcz. a�zo WSMa»aEr aU da"W16oog °-Cl) zw o C7 d fn H e� � o rsR `g 1 Q S 61 / 8 '1N"7 n d ao NI �'7 C N [if) Y� H 1 a xw I 7-i Ia � — — — a � a9 p Coll- LU �r I LU r I ;i all ,a :rcrrlli�� j� r.r,.i 'WJ9'I LLI I � IR m � / i �m III r o ' � a - t :t. JC} ,? Ldy (n rw LLI N m sf -cv / d w� ti, m J W / W I eF i, Jo= l =i ml �.ar �:a DoT y C4 ✓ `SIF 1 , ,rel r - �rr I w u< gifes- k e m �w J o � s Y w w 00 C/)0 .reo- � —L Jf '. �' ��� �.. w Vrp V a _ r ¢ r - - W +r J -- — w v, Qo z a i #r 1 CL w U r " _ flr 8 eC j O x y Q— g � zz N I, o a W O ��ll U ,J? mr— Ig I ' I o � me o IT b WS66 I i V 111 _ x _ n ry3F5fIN r�':, u (�, 'i r I $ I I � W I I w zo f z e w ........... .ti L" J � rm / - ve Alli I -- vi v E 0 —_.._.------- ¢A, -- �o. li 'I CO I Cl) Lli o 0 I _ w -- -- - } I � � � � '.I w Vr = CO dof J L Q, I g i z G/ 00 _ � I � " t 14 tea^ rc rr�r� L.. lo o_ s' w� pao r LL � m y w I ' z - " -- 11 � I s -- I _ L � I I cr lia _ I i�l W I w I I I _ I w I I II No I eg I �\ I 'odd O a Y Kl"•. 2= Zmw v 4 Y Y °m Z w w opOw w z o w a `n o z o„ g o y S th U w oo�o wq o4w Q�p,SF o a x x a a x m w w w ? l U d Z w 1 o ma5�° o <o h LL Z 0 Q ° k k w w a ry o a U 3 pOQ o a a v a a rc w o S d d N° z Cl) of° 0 5 rc°Jp °� °oo rv� a xzrvn�,,. 'ola m a w e w w a �, m$�I° o q�U` d(n IW— 1 ;7 1V.1 A b' �o N I b t N .. f) W 3p ! FBI ➢(➢S 5 �q fDy', i ladi,� �, :.� .a— III�I� r lo� � �ci a IL eii ( w II 1 -tom NIy w U,�I Lu I` .(7i it mfg g: N ®t Cil I m M%n l w u> x G ! [L Y W e } Y,r�r/Jr wna :9s z �' o W fir/ m a� ii I � tl U) w A S ✓ � Lill W Z w y LL i tJl _ W . �tl � N//% al / W 4 m,vu w U❑ Q ly I'',..... v Ln = ups I LU¢ a _ z �; ........ _ Q W z w N --- �— a I I 0 ® w wa --- C6 -� u N -- - .5 b --- -� w m w RD y LL m _ o �N _ LL me m m &E I I It, qw- \ O I — Q � � 35B9id to � '�83a5i�v m � o I j � I8e I Iq� y SII SII S!I'! i',,In __- AHgPNtf�3: Ia Iryl \ ... O E693L5`4W I \ y vn 0 II � z it i' Q s LLJ w 1 w r , w Iuia x " o ES if CO aI � w •- – – — � N "w do ew o� a o, ww i k — - -- i w Al 911 l � w SII j li I r ¢c I Ee f:�l� � �,� III _ .., u" :aa¢� n".�a�I ,1�• � I ? F m i w � _— 3�S'dtlINd0A9 p I I j O rsaaas I � I w I .. i i I r o' 74I � I y 0 v > I m m. -------- o.,. V pL� U J W co O z Z W 2 IL Z¢ CL J �— z 8s s a U) w w 4 }f 8$ Of J_ O z II w ?, -- 0- CC) � _ r LO Cb m g Im t r I hu � W N K r( � 9 or f 1'- _ 3 7 t Y O G { a } fill Q o I I u g a E I nn II i Q + I Fp4 . _ W m O I I 356aY� \III U .,...=,A. I III irv. I € I 8s If N� 1 1 s a � � 7 Z W °o P.Po x _ �� w w ea , a CO 0 rte. N s " col h o R m m � 0 0 N N�f z d w i i �re3ecaw '' ------ asssrscw --- ; w i �veo2 i � 1 I I W s 1 m Iill � _7 �, r- Y o r a w � ° //` N � 4 E O 3 i F — _ w rc N CO 5 w { W O¢. o� mi Q o LL _ co vc us a 3 m - y a oa tw a 0 / ma 0 = o ❑d � -�i I N I E n C ^.R I II HX W EL _ a F z U� — W J g' ca e � m 17 J. � w � v I I �� I I f III it 0 _ m6cP�aaEn o x533 pa'3mn O Q .pE yc nmm3uvi`mo Lf :P� Bw yS�veE- N(n 'ov �a� � 03 W Isac a a° o _ Aa o e C)LIJ Ir tm ZW a !� 11/tij I we G i — m z I ' _ o i 1 Z E= i� W < W w O U w o m= 0 — �- o o --- _ _ m U) w \ m�E / U) w ` i � 5va W O (D U I m _ 0] k �• � � a I`�z m j I I IIIII .O,L=.,S/L�3�VOS %i yl��p�l'll(7"1(�`0. LIOZ'bb'1d3S N003b0'0NV-lHSV'1332:US NIVIN 89UJo/I S]AOHNMOl1HDR-IJXIS-N3I 9 3d)vI ONia-iine J O I SNOIiVA313 '2 SNV Id a3SOdM:Jd (S NOliVA313 ON3'd),l NOIIVA3l3 H1f10S ______ _.... T __....... 6u!p,weoq snogl�vewaa "'- 6wpl Isued ' snoyl'a ao op (5 3d,LL'JOl9) a6ere6 peayiano NOLLVA3'13 kVAA3AR30/H-LHQN NOIIVAB 13 C3AV NIVINnom 1S` lauoggas 6uiPls P,eoq I a I snoylluau:ao 6ulpls laved snolNlueweo MIME �6w,pel leafs 4- Bps p�eoq \ nolNlu w Nluowao s / (paiap,uuds Rpn;"lsuoo'.ly 6 —sai6ulys� aq ol'6plq anlua)lelol';'s 9691. gomsodwgo NV1d'13A31 3010'8VO f 11 i ssa6'llun lad';'s G'L69 NV-ld"13A3]ON003S -- F—�-�-�? — Q' r- --+I- — --- N�� a3n311A - ..ols*::e:e IIIA I O I � ,ol,a>css ONINIO .,/ ONINIO W2!038 NOON 38 w 'uetl ,. uatl un , '7 osx o�ol .afi.ol ofn Y� H_Hv Z W 039 0 Z W 03H F) 1 7 I � ssa6`llun jad';'s 9'66b S 3dAl-Ntlld 13A31 02lIHl r� 4 �a u•�aid e ya @'�y a�20 d 6 (L L 4Z-ZOL-Cb9 Xed)898171,89-6b6 VIV`SNI-I10O 21 A2AVJ:i0311HMN S31NOH Vail 2AOd „0-,b =ub/6 :as 'd!} S3W0HNMOl1HOG AIXIS N31 3�j nSMON3 I. MJi NOIIVAalg 3alislBNOIIVA3131N021=1 ONIlOOd \ 'ONOO d330 NI 13S M4V11091331S MV3H 'dAl'S11VM 11Nn ` �A2dNOSVW"0NO0 I In \ JN13*dA0IH14 I i I I II I Io I� S1lVM A'dNOSVW 01031108 CNV / 11VM A2dNOSVW JNIlOOd / SSNUOOd 3132dON00 NI -ONOO NI 032dOHONV 'ONOO NI 13S ONV J 13S S1SOd 7331S 39(11 S31V0 2dOd S31ONV'11S'1N00 11VM 01031108 1SOd AAV3H NO N33'dOS•11S 'dAl'3WVNd'11S NO SBONIH 1331S 3JNIH 7/LXSXS'S'1 'JU3d'VO M/M 31V01331S ..9U£XS'£XS'£'S'1 03013M NO ONnH 31V0 7331S N` "ld NO2ddV 'ONOO NOIHl.9�,, °' — tit ,w-##,..�>,•�„ � "k ` --- r S11VM A8NOSVW 01031108(INV SONI100d 31MION00 NI 135 S1SOd 1331S 39(1 " 'SNV2d1 AAV3HNO31VO13315 +sr Lrkx 11VMA24NOSVW A gr r '0N00 NI 03a0HONV r r r{l`,rd r S319NV'11S'1N00 1a NO S3JNIH 1331S d 3 r r a�u� , hum t r ONUOOM a 03013M NO 0Nf1H 'ONOO d330 NI 13 02dV11091331SMV3H ,irk 1 �� ,,, �.I / / 31VO1331S �3AI'80 d0 3NI1 - � 82dit0 t f€Ft^Mltk�r � ., r✓r ra��"��� s�v� s r ,��� ;,. 313210N00 SIHJ, \ \ A N \ D AASN1 \\ b)S12dV031OAO3N m 24NOSVWON00 \L", 'AlMl N01H1..9 SNIB HSVN13J2lVl 3-OZ lINn`7#'J018 -11VM 30VaV01N30Vf0V ssorasgas uo'e'o eq�V iS N V�ui, Belo'PUajqSv U0 i33diS N 1VVq iSVA 990 1LH913kLX1=SN9ij& IN 111hil 1 MA a mm=— I HIM RM z ideg n No! HINDU! I 1 2 luo 1hR oil imm N ." Ill 1I Hit 1HUMBRI Elul RUSH H M 11 pull 1 id 1 mmimul u, o 11-4, 1, jj L M adz € ion! 11011HIM Judi WIN 1 IUD I .ANN! H. WIN 1 1jull RM, IMMIRM I �Ivffi HIM 111 ll h IN ju1 1 hip 81 1111 ME HRI 111 110ma HIN P 1 Pulu tlk az III- h HARK H Ill mulum R HUI. 4 !Hung 11 'y I 1 0 ED L-j LE ED ED E= a ° SSOL-b931b5 uo6aa ue s $g' zosLs,o'wwal�wao O`P lU d € °B,aaslla >66z l3lalS NIVIN 1SV3 8901 uoilellnsuoJSUBIsaD'a,NaallyaV ade.,spue'\ .- . R6 x '� F€Ea,vr v Out u6isaa?JePi✓W """'"°""' 1H913,kiXIS NSl Hil, sauUGHtlUN n a ° s � Z L �=r Of ffi ag �$ w s z0 s� N, u 9�m o ® o aox li ao'Ee q 12 tj dl LL a m _ F � $ ;PSd -P as sw �s" Sa"' Ni IR -'E W � a a z =.m. ads=:ae. = E - - i! € ° E. 4 HRNHAtla NId•LNRDK HSROS g e _ III � � LL w I III 88 o e 9 � Y ,'• o U N II•�I � n I, v I- I II I � a 8 9 a �E w w III I _ I �" II a w s � F s - / M F n� � w C s � 4. 1, U y 1 4 � I s g r � 6 4 I o gg e any 4x 8 s I N€ y5 M o U 0 0 o y r z G e {}& =\J) ) 3 2 ac s & � :»43l:2ty : �_ = ; . :.7 La icc ■ § \ ( / � \ C14 > » E 0 _ CU o or Cf) \ ` \ CD \ 41 / 0 3E0 co _ k c 0 s . / vi 2 § { ® \Ef7 § }\\\} } - -- z --rE # () () () (\ \( 4\;/:!3\$; «)!f/#i\!±\ § { ® § } ) . s : / ° » § ! r . \ % § ! \ \ 'n = Cl) . o � . 2 . 0 \ \ .E _ \ � > . % m \ 2 t � c k \ 3 CD 4� » 2 k \ \ \ . � MCC C.3 § ) -- z B� - _ _ ) F (J � � #\{\))\{)\ }){\}()})I/ . . ■ « § ) ~ § } ) £ § « » a z ^ � 5 m \ 2 . $ 2 ~ � § 3 k \ } \ v a° Q s. m :F- < v ID N O N �Lb `o�= A u� c d a r t v 3 a m=} s rnE��. v c o ="o v = v V Lu l7 -n3aE�i�zav � a -aaa� � .9a ���.aa" 3 �nvr � � vx"ate • V O Q 7 � O � V O � _ � u a LL � ` LU W a LL d Z QO CO N a C \ � C 4 � Q � - o b N � X N w z 1 L J o z LL LL Z m N - z 4a 0 p rn — H Z o Q V a\i W w WLn 1— � Q � � N � Q Y - m N z O o J F N � N N [Q W C) Q CD ZD O Q � J • m N z O �a J � H N � i1! O •V y W CD W Z � 0 N 8 W � F N M 'y s.-6, I , ,���li✓.0 1 -� , ,�P 4a p• pM jir,p��1�wjIE Ir.Irons i��w-fir 'vim p�Ilr.jls L.Il.pilrwp�,ir+�y►.ptt.;ir�',N h+t it �I ! 1411.`�Ir�IM�_II I I i�lY 'v � Ir jli lir yr Ir►�Ir it irr,',_ I- N i I d :1 1- oLn Q Ln O Q Q J CL. • ILII m N z O � J D r C _ a � � � N W v~ a :cc oa G' e Nor yo�� waa °YSZJ "O Zz �o u r e a a - o u u u oil I u Dh� as'tR 5 3 w 5 O / Z€ Q Imii ciae��3 +;tiYs Z � i 2 zz z isszo ' dz 'o Gog�w „us + j Guz �a��zzz»g"off 78�5553dduwo IBatt-000$ m a 3I1N3AV NIV1Nf10W H1f10S I,I �, � a , o ISI pe II Y w a kks. w,o pw g —ozp < p Z m Z'dZg d m W < w W kW WWWW k Z w j I I I I I I I I I I V) Q LL'� �I li U ~ O s� iii - .li n h IN N :I, li ili "lil 0 ZOO �Z H� In N� 5 "0I e�eeac � hili a lily � V I I I I I I oI III ' X U IIS I .� d , I I I I I I I I uIII j H Y III - F I; d Pis l LU J33lllS __ u sW — x LL 'ice 'a •k ti� I I I gg o` �li� ¢3w� 3 ¢ �c wk ° o u�i� to h� a�� �� W of � � w 4jI^°:&�° c ¢¢ ��� °s � 6 C�ckimm3i °w¢n3e �Kv'3i ca<W Agaa �a ���' g NaW hyo ^gig O a r awe° ¢ �;�o _ AN g�>.sWm< m ;< � _ oxo e� eWz me i m� =�mW w o ag^ w a It ^„ °z�,o yFw a_°3 ¢C H�3J`$� z oma "3 'C= 8z° J€ o �° `s'w kms I—iS�Rpo',z' `•'°>z� _ _ ' 3 N�° m ¢ � w� � 8° -.'z€; 5 � ff 4F :€ p e=era _ k Q ,s° ye z«` wWm $� m o O ea° w �swpw yy w� �� m w W- 1- .z W fir` mb o� NWa i�^ c� _'spm E ,< _ °4 ° ° a �� ¢�� _ s _<gQ _ 4 e _ as ° a � x gip€ WW 0 01 � A dZ 11 x 3ul IN Hg W1 14h � Uis _ ° 3 ° ff � agxo�a �1.z-Ca5- 'Elio Hu a >LL N Z "moo oar �aW�w w° a�' og22o ? o° Wh o yu 11 ju ;==hh! u aE U aio 9<z lei; g$ :dam E�;�p-�k gaff ��=1m s ��`zz �<wzazO Z $ 1 �< <� zzsa _°- m lit o og��h g� �_Q � � � 'gW zap �°�"��=`" �a �o �W ti al s°lh,, w � �8o p g�w A°� �- � p! oa Mr Bud ou MIN iI R 0:61 ¢ <: m �doZz �it 1,21;€w O 0 PIN, PIN, zp0� ~ �IN ill W o ?�"� UUkkzd � do \ „;, iLLLiLL 00 ¢z i< kv UH OQ tl W ti O MAIN Z K€ r O w meM OU w ; p s e z°aa R Z° � J Wi w�� €W wi € .m m S Y_ � Q V Wa DS lilt U W M z HUN U `��a li i � € X0000 00 ONO �a ka i Ag Up Fp _ of F o - �''u F Sig n Z u Z v G �o 04 a Wwo mw oW i u u z� >< dZ z 3' m �z o adoo zg5Eas E < ;�� UHReB 00 O O OO uC00 w� W� i km 11 , 3nN3AV. Nlb1Nf10W H1f1T- - e Q� I trr�� �,exp w __ - � ___ �1 s 7777- j", - ��_�,y..,v II £ s� I' _ _ _ �x r � I I _ c T h� - _ �II II �I I,1 I I I alt i o—i i Wa li I Ip "Ik.i � m� I➢', I N s�sp �S III I�II 1 w 111111 ._ zN 9k R Q�wwi ?; � � w pF W3 III IIdI gl v p II II ���W�IIIII ID .Ili-, 0 Ir F m IB"1sas:ro:. < 11 , _ 133b1S� o F � — y mo wo �� a 4 o aa8 w ¢ zd ----------- 3M A ------3f1N3AV N,H7.N = H-Lnos Nanl a ear" 1' nanX"isaNOele .7 h I - I q I F "m , W \� n ow ,e,l I S _ -w \\}}NI N I aJ-SH'99+9 pp � ZZ 3 3 3 a,F, _V 'll - orr6� ,u aoc el �-o90+s 5 c7 y $'a'a3FNaN�'r -V u _ -- IIIQIQIQ n�N �� HJLHON u <F U L� t; i �V LU �u 3 N rrcF �r� rrr• �rre�� r�rrr cr\rn�rr�r• yrii\ o g = Sw 1 bz h B6 BB+61 V15, a ':NMM Zari J � k k ;n '� 83016[ U_ U 01 I � 4 i e U � o� Re a >J y4Oy U - wl- �O m sGo - H FOn f w — �? a `8 IY caQ� o m°w �a 0 Ij -• x"' � w x Fizz w --- 3nNEAV NlV-LNnO H-Lnos 3 CH I d im I as NJ ZF'666[ 1f 3N3AVd ON I - n Pia m UiLLL—L— z I = 00 g Rp, Zzs - r dun gm m 8 m m I =Z I yl I � V 3A d NHJ36 �; 1 4 5�133H5335 6� ``+ .9.3NI14S'Nbd o N to N F zz � d z �z o G - u T- b'P az 2O ZZ°-- 5¢ m - OOmm mo'm��aiQ 55$ 4J O� a 4 O � e w z za LL G F� €N e `IR �w Wis<`<im>i n� CJIRF� 457 M4 iWSI srrr,w rrarr, crrr UPr I I I II I 1 I U 1 I roaF o Qin F LLI i Wml W �N Q Im VIIII II — � 11 Sn ^p II'„ ..� O e1 II II -�I wl LLI £ill ~_III L � 3 Cl- I\I\ Id I•�, J� `a F- F .; 5w � o O ly rvill nl.: o� � y I �ce of -I - _ w .�, JI 1 of III a s I G p I I �P a� El 12 W� �133211S NI`dW 1Sb'311, z2z m� U a 4 Qe _ zZ \ } `, ! lz I ;_ - \( / !)!{ ,!`! \\� §/` t p . . . . , e L a\ u ° ) -- --- e ; ------ -- — - � i ( ) � � M � \ 9% O�q 22 \ `gs W a & zW w HP QoIV's €a z a� pE m om u?p�m3 ax i d i o ox` a gp `pw y am a �� opq zz Q ��ix Z z" ?=iu m z k. x z a ° �z due z i� dao z� o ` r� z"wa o e ZO o l m u w8zw m w �<y k.or �ahH, "miwzx c�� u I -- --— - ----------- ----- ----- -- ' 3flN3n'd Nlt/1NflOW HIfIOS { IV ------�--- 7 hill li h,., ' Ili I IJ as 5 Il l I lf ';�� I - 'tii I Iw n 1/1 ytly g iilll �I II i'il 1. iia. � ,�o II � l li ul l ill m a I Ziw - j3 -� �IIIaIY' � � ��' � IL � v~ili �II ilii I,I ��• / -1'� _l � I � i � , ii wi oll�ioil,,l � I m� � Q I _m � � ZI $ a mk _ l i I i 133b1Siw �1o1213W3 ' , I --------------------------- ----nL e:d. - w�� - ° g x x i W hm w w3 az` E a sw ��io w�" EF yF,h :g� Tl 3 ' Wo a� N a s ip w a w o w= a�a naw a mea o m pa g s a o og g` pC p ' > NN i;d`€o iyBdc��o}e ° � o� - z h�y zN III -- -- -- - III ---i-•--=� -I I*-' y °-- - ' -- ' -° '--- 4- -'-- - ' -----'---- --� 3nN3AV NIVINnow Hinos 4, zz LA Q 3 _ 1 I -HIll;j 1 - - imr 1 I 11 m m I II II I yl uµl lam; ' I III c,I III II li I IL l: ( IIII l 3 d II a I 11 e� l I II / R m B I II li Il��il'I _ -� I, z - 5 +Ill llil \ -- -- \w1 OU o \aq � .\w L W h I 133b1S JI71b3W3 — — —= I -- - --- �- ----- IIS j \ L §-- - N o � F w l 6 C 2 z Z H> V N ¢3 ova bun HEaS �$_ �E S °'Q ` p ei >m H tug PPNQ 4 sen �",� �G i'� z �� hNMI 11 Nw �a _,ap o8" sQe�; a 18 a o miQt luW�', E°'s oWa `,p hamQ ° Q hz_ ii w$ neo= $ w " =�x z spa W oz o a z opo' am! R � �� `� WWW °� .m `aw �_o� :x "1 N==� �gs �a zap 8„ a a c p"a ¢z age t 3 -� Z U d = H a Vim`: .°fpm mt BUN la s "��MIR' o �zz pig aW -¢" � - g�¢oW a'im;N °� a~s ��,30 zW rxi W �W w� °Y�m I � oaf w sus � N msa„ - 1: 1t� �� Q. �°, Wowlain 11 a gg 11 V 1q I'M 'IN NH! g poi up -ml w _ m- w m ea pnv'< _� � Mpg, zN°s� goz"mgp -9V N"I 'w o �sQ 8iW o'oe o = - s�chi by sow-, V p� ° �W. x ° W Oro nil, lot W� ps ms s §°a win WLL �qow � o Who w°� a w"a., 0 m °Q I" ;i Wh o .8 H sW - [ a€ Eat N,� n�a3s limpslag 5°s 2 ry V� m s H " 111 1 "gym a IPI jig Q E� W W tgW w� � 'Eno U °"� f� °�' o �� - Igo F 4 ��'azk�� �p�o w Hpw " b ' 1 11; °� 8"m o � W� a& � �.w g�Ep w is �p;�S ;o'e_� '9 !9 o� 8 �QON og � �w oaten ��a i �° 3 z all ���° "�� iia= € �? J�`1= JJPO 1 N m °o �� N � m��a �_w� °s��� ween', _ o sa a a aim - �� m Ell �' sa z� „p ",� _ gz Phu, ° ¢x. N z�> 7 g a=<� :W w o B oz m �" 6 0 m _ 3 q 1N 4" hu, n! !z :P o� , z o W a4 4a` xp"` v " I_ E �" c"n @�" M ooho � ,4 "°W a Ig h as use � 121 3 11 Jay ;11 to of ;I °��. §W �`�k � - I AT 6Q Q 6P O c"M w W N! a� < H 11 I�o.. `�'3" �e a ; 14 1! `� °� 3 sq�F^ Oi4 115! za< ��Q " z it 13 i" S g OR - OR ao�� IJ m� n z a nil � T� � ;� re off, � °i we � �= o,��°s °W��m �4 0°�¢ ❑ �a w 5 wog Vw mg H, 11 le _g 101 as � �°N� � - - o �< __ eoaNil 01o �i e Nsp d. s ` _ g E �g4 J Z n l9 a ?Ali!,it' l a 8 z5 k - ... 4 R el lell� R ae.�t4lt l _ � z E§e E� a99,'i sa lr o 0 �ias4 t i€ 11,GRg a IN p f c i 9 4FEe 7S A o i --'FJ 4 l ( �. /, �\\on it lit Z, Z' Him 71 it LU (L LU -T T 49 � 3f rel gog z LU 10 11 a M 'M LLI w wi t t z ui All , qq CO z 0 fL co it 9 I 1 9) K-110 A. "i (r -I 11In� Fj 3F a1"ay HN LLI LU LLI LL Li LL 11'�',ji - w LH cr) J. LLI R. '17 PA V H, z §€(3$i'::1 hi1 ¢ it uj H'u I z 1 R Lu Lb, ut Z V. 14 C) W lu z LU PIRO! 111 H in— If I i� .;j co.I fl �1-1-441 0 a- LU CID Milli; Cc 49? z iii Jr LU OR T IL ig z 0 LU L) z LU Lu LL LU LL �97 i w t Q Ml r LU LU z '00 < -j =n z Es Z� 2i ifflifill J < 7� z all LLJ IL R t! < FFFITI HIm LU a: LLI 0 z < 101 co 4F 'cn w CO R-PIffl LU j 110 H oil i. co qq Bps § sFp al z MAH II.- 0 LU C) Z LLI LLI LL LU 101, 1 1A .11, 0 LL wei INHIN I l A �Ih H IM - LU m I, i LHI iih < t VY E! s ,i 14 lz� ff LU NI i fl ;'M ZIP z < Ii f t L I t8 p€PP��= �p4E ii ' W � k�a U n\ w W t tl i p z 9 F;E i4a t _ m w a t E Pt PE z O U W � n � 0 0 P�a3 a f Z n U 4 aaz i w 5 5 t IU ' ry u na $ �itgg l411t E6E56 3X4q33F Ig � ¢ till, a it olen ~ of Z i/ �i sm-", gfl - z0 El z w li F j �o aO z 5. �y ° z � U ®J //i ao r�%/% Q m R s - � o d ®W V7 / % 3 w cry ° oa slomaa � mmw mmwmm a o 0.co ✓/71%%/% w ° q a ° � a I .- �'s rr dl ! S3ww I ,����( � � �uNsva�aosaaaastiu»aunuannani I �I';�f IM1�� —_ IV f•µ�..._� ,wl l %ri i iI I �I BY n� ., Wee � P L F mu�r rJ^I v bus; "n w � w m. s {saafBr'II ' :rM /li�txirr r;.rii 0 i — 0 W - �� ° � �, N oLl 66 _a ' 1 �{ w Imo'"$ ri✓ //�i f i/%i I/r° w aLLJ 1 /i % ��rio/ ✓a/ I� �I (j� �� C12 w o w - ntfllo�ii /� l f LU_ a uj J XMZ J W O „ ju f 4 w � Q n W w z LU I I SSOL-499-L45 ° 30SZ6 C';u od p44 0 uof)2dO`puLlgsv ^ ' 33 PCo6,ezisllaM465a I'l uoy211nsuoo pubis Cj'ampa7i4.vadCJspue'7 . i3E]HiS NIVA 1SV3 8901 1 °� oul uOisaa UaupEW saWOHtlQD1 1H0I]h1XIS NAI a V e � 9 _ z 33ggg oo Q � o hd&� � � ° N "R e O W s4=Wifl, Ill". m w w z zEE ,y�gEa a6 $8.E�.zsa9z 11J.1111 a`i' � € cz�. a:ee�:8e e�° rr�ede re eg. A E aR 59 " �R g� .E aRa 9.6 ga g U) E � q e NIL z 2u`e O P Y. Y a�R _111 es J $' a `e"C^ Ag�3a.,a$ tl• $g 181 �sdsg§T3� E smF o � M. ggags� � � Ikill fskl, LMU iRNYAtl ill NIVINflow H.Lf1OS r� I v,o d 3 S @ @ w 1 SE (n �ll /moi g Q CQ Z. W. LU 10 0 h z O _ 2 m L_ W 5 £g rrz sorross x_ p �.-• ZOSL6�O tulod le-0ua^ $ u069J®`puelusy A ��. \ PJ oB�ej sllaM bG6Z d � 1' `g's ly ua9ellnsuo�g uBisap a�Noai 4PJ'd aeps?ue'. " ° l33'diS I V I V V 19 1SV3 690 G u6iSa® eaep�� 1HOG uxiS N�li a o sawoHq � n a a c OF 8 g9 3 a w r U v� WP, 0 Z — – I.; A fY ry ""i -u w CO s � � TT 8 n yi f� y IIIc I aw w�j0, 1 i a i LL SSOL-b99-lbS S IOSL6 IOU dle ' UOE9.1p`pU13Jgs' Eli slaMb6fiZ II� �..1I7f(]]aes13E]p1S NIVW 1Sd38JOOul u6iSaa eaepunsawoHy®N 1HJI�J�IXIS N31 �s o n e a a 0 Oy F A Ow�b:b'n k'RRRRRRRRRRR _ammRRm Ohl - pp F £ n d F I I w fag gge�gs ,3 q $ 'g'a �S3 3 € 9 °. $., g" IJ fr" N w $`a H` Q !A ph in IMAM J IN a` HMI as g - x' €��y d i* € 8e NOW $��H HI z �= J a€�� �B� � �g�= ss -�m� ����.. � � � -�m �� � � 8��� �� lip; a 111$9�iIWg�11 e111�� ;PIN 1H���3�'9g9 '�g a$�x �'g x �s�a WHO a� g �P� �ga ����-$§mea � y ��s e3 F � €8��gs�� 83��5� �` 101 H lol � T m A g a Ian1111 r PHI MEN mE �� _ � 3f1NtlAtl NItlZNL1O YS ASROS Z €ip`ryp§�1 �® �_E���(gx�$x#� 88g '�faE" sic) � 9 e r a � null � � inn URE, o i c a E 1 Bing 1 � $�ae � ® IN IIIIe I frgINU11 � I&-� MH. a dry! IWA € 11 Ui S Z T� � o a = F- n 8€ q u p $ 3P fi F � 15 � i� ® N & & gx €g Ea 3 = 2 2 5 g��a aid �6� J �E OU on �- 3�a� _& .. - B i a - - Pilo-ups IL 0 I z