Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-10 Planning PACKET Planning Commission Meeting Agenda ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, December 10, 2024 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 the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports III.CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of Minutes a.October 22, 2024 IV.PUBLIC FORUM Note: To speak to an agenda item in person you must fill out a speaker request form at the meeting and will then be recognized by the Chair to provide your public testimony. Written testimony can be submitted in advance or in person at the meeting. If you wish to discuss an agenda item electronically, please contact PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us by December 10, 2024 to register to participate via Zoom. If you are interested in watching the meeting via Zoom, please utilize the following link: https://zoom.us/j/94447713936 V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054 SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tax lot 8600 of assessor’ map 39-1E-04- PDK Properties, LLC Taylored Elements Construction APPLICANT: DESCRIPTION: A request for outline plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision, and a request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application also includes a request for a variance to driveway width. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain Plan; ZONING: NM-MF; MAP: 39-1E-04-AD; TAX LOT: 8600, 4700, 7800 VI.OPEN DISCUSSION VII.ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting Date: January 14, 2025 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashlandoregon.gov. 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). Page 1 of 1 Total Page Number: 1 Total Page Number: 2 Planning CommissionMinutes 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 the public testimony may be limited by the Chair. October 22, 2024 STUDY SESSION DRAFT Minutes I.CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chair Knauer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioner Perkinson attended the meeting via Zoom. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Doug Knauer Brandon Goldman, Community Development Director Kerry KenCairn Derek Severson, Planning Manager Susan MacCracken Jain Aaron Anderson, Senior Planner Gregory Perkinson Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Russell Phillips Eric Herron Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lisa Verner Paula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Staff Announcements Community Development Director Brandon Goldman made the following announcement: The City Council will hold its annual Commission/Committee workplan presentations on December 16, 2024. This event will also be held to show the City’s appreciation for these volunteer groups. 2.Advisory Committee Liaison Reports Commissioner MacCracken Jain gave the following announcements regarding the Public Arts Advisory Committee (PAAC): The first plaque of the Playwrights Walk was installed in front of the Chamber of Commerce. The remaining donated plaques are under development and will be installed in the near future. The project to paint and beautify Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) boxes has begun. One was completed at the corner of Beach Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, and a second was completed at the corner of Walker Avenue and Siskiyou Boulevard. The former was painted by the Ashland High School, though it was recently vandalized and is undergoing renovation. Page 1 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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). Total Page Number: 3 Planning CommissionMinutes III.CONSENT AGENDA 1.Approval of Minutes a.October 8, 2024 Regular Meeting Commissioners Herron/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the consent agenda as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM – None V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2024-00050, 113 Pine Street Senior Planner Aaron Anderson noted that a non-substantive grammatical change was made to page 1 of the Findings. A correction was also made to section 3.1 of the Findings to accurately refer to the development as being “for a 3-unit performance standards subdivision” since the open space lot had been removed from the proposal. Commissioner MacCracken Jain noted that there appeared to be an incomplete sentence in section 2.7.1 of the Findings. Mr. Anderson responded that a period had been omitted from the end of the sentence and that this would be corrected in the final draft. Commissioners Perkinson/MacCracken Jain m/s to approve the Findings with the amendments suggested by staff and the correction made by Commissioner MacCracken Jain. Roll Call Vote: All AYES. Motion passed 6-0. VI.OTHER BUSINESS A.Climate Friendly Areas Adoption – Public Engagement Summery & Next Steps Mr. Goldman related how three consulting firms to assist with the development of the City’s Climate Friendly Areas (CFAs), and explained that the purpose of CFAs is to maximize development within established walkable areas. He explained that this work was initially due by December, 2024, but that the City requested and received a 6-month extension from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Page 2 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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). Total Page Number: 4 Planning CommissionMinutes Vice-Chair Knauer asked if the Commission should keep certain issues in mind during the presentation in order to assist the development process more effectively. Planning Manager Derek Severson responded that the following topics should be kept in mind during the presentation: whether to recommend that certain regulations be adopted through an overlay; the option of allowing additional height for projects with deed restricted affordable housing; whether the Transit Triangle Overlay should be eliminated; and the adoption of the Railroad Property and the Transit Triangle as CFAs. Consultant Team Presentation Scott Fregonese of 3J Consulting introduced market feedback specialists Becky Hewitt and Mackenzie Visser of ECOnorthwest, and Elizabeth Decker of Jet Planning who specializes in zoning code analysis. Mr. Fregonese provided a brief background on CFAs, noting their similarities to downtown and neighborhood centers, with a focus on walkable areas with a mix of residential, office, retail, and public uses, and an emphasis on multi-model transportation options. He described how CFAs could be developed, or be placed on currently developed areas, with a total residential capacity of 30% or more of a cities projected housing need. He added that cities can have more than one CFA. Mr. Fregonese stated that the areas chosen for consideration were the Transit Triangle, the Railroad Property, and the Croman Mill Site. He added that the Downtown area was briefly considered but was rejected due to its highly developed nature and lack of vacant land available, as well as its status as a Historic District on the National Register. He stated that CFAs are part of the state’s Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) program, which also included parking reform and updates to cities’ Transportation System Plan (TSP). Mr. Fregonese described the project overview, which would build on the Phase I CFA study, and include a code analysis, a market study, community engagement initiatives, and culminate with code adoption by June of 2025. Ms. Decker related how the three CFA candidates were reviewed through a code audit and market study, and the consultants concluded by recommending that the City focus on the Railroad Property and portions of the Transit Triangle. The team also developed code updates that would bring these proposed areas into CFA compliance, help inform the TSP, and align with the City’s long-term goals. Ms. Decker outlined the key CFA requirements that eligible cities must adopt: Allow multifamily residential (apartments or mixed-use) Allow townhouses Allow commercial, office, and civic uses Allow at least 50-foot building height Require at least a minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre Apply no maximum density Page 3 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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). Total Page Number: 5 Planning CommissionMinutes Ms. Decker reiterated that not all potential sites chosen for study need to be designated CFAs. The consultant team described the types of development and redevelopment that the Croman Mill Site, Railroad Property, and Transit Triangle could accommodate with the necessary code changes (see attachment #1). They outlined the public engagement process that the team has undertaken, which included presenting before various City Advisory Committees, hosting a public Open House on September 17, 2024, and concluding with a presentation to the Council on November 4, 2024. The team also conducted a survey to gauge public support for the designation of the selected sites as potential CFAs, and found that the public is in general favor of all sites. The consultant team offered the following preliminary and implementation recommendations: Move forward with designation of: Railroad Property: Near downtown, existing mix of development, significant gap o between existing zoning and potential development, further study height impacts Commercial portion of Transit Triangle: Aligns with intent for area, near SOU, need to o update existing overlay, limit changes within residential areas Address development goals for Croman Mill through master plan process in negotiation with applicant Do not include the Downtown as a CFA as it is largely developed and gains no benefit from CFA status Develop CFA Overlay zone to apply to selected areas: Repeal/replace existing Transit Triangle Overlay o Replace existing Residential Overlay in Railroad Property o Explore applicability of solar setbacks o Explore height bonuses for deed-restricted affordable housing in CFAs: Existing height and density bonuses to be allowed outright o Mostly superseded by bonuses in state statute o Discussion Vice-Chair Knauer introduced the following discussion items to help guide the conversation: Should the City adopt CFA regulations as a zone overlay or should new zones be created? The Commission agreed that the CFA changes should be adopted as an overlay in o order to have greater flexibility regarding land use. Should the City allow additional height allowances (five stories or more) for deed- restricted affordable housing? Vice-Chair Knauer noted that the City could explore state allowances for potential o adoption. There was agreement by the Commission that bonus height allowances in the existing code could have unintended consequences when combined with CFA guidelines. Page 4 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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). Total Page Number: 6 Planning CommissionMinutes Should the Transit Triangle overlay be eliminated if the Transit Triangle is selected as a CFA? The Commission agreed that the Transit Triangle overlay should be retained as some o portions of it would not be encompassed by the proposed CFA overlay. Should the Railroad Property and the Commercial areas of the Transit Triangle be designated as CFAs? The Commission recommended that the Railroad Property and the Commercial areas o of the Transit Triangle be designated as CFAs. The Commission discussed the omission of Downtown from CFA status and recommended that further study be done to determine its feasibility as one, provided that more funding can be obtained from DLCD to conduct said study. The Commission accepted the consultant team’s recommendation to exclude the Croman Mill Site at this time. VII.OPEN DISCUSSION Mr. Goldman reminded the Commission that the annual retreat would be taking place on November 7, 2024. The Commission will have lunch at the Phoodery in Phoenix before moving on to site visits. Commissioner MacCracken Jain requested that the Commission receive more information regarding the New Spirit Village development in the near future. Mr. Goldman described it as a new housing development done with the support of Proud Ground, which is an affordable housing land trust model being applied to the property. He stated that the City could ask Proud Ground to provide a presentation for the Commission and that the City could ask other land trusts about their current projects. VIII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Executive Assistant Page 5 of 5 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please email planning@ashland.or.us. 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). Total Page Number: 7 Ashland Climate Friendly Areas Planning Commission Study Session October 22, 2024 Overview CFA & Project Team Introductions I. Background Scott Fregonese, 3J Consulting Candidate CFA Analysis II. Elizabeth Decker, Community Engagement JET Planning III. Becky Hewitt, Recommendations & IV. ECOnorthwest Discussion Mackenzie Visser, ECOnorthwest 22 Total Page Number: 8 CFA & Project Background 33 Background CFAs similar to downtowns and neighborhood centers: Walkable area with mix of residential, office, retails, services and public uses Multimodal transportation options 44 Total Page Number: 9 Background CFAs can be developed or developing areas CFA size determined by residential capacity: Must have capacity for 30% of the CityÔs projected housing needs (3,496 dwellings) Can be one or more CFAs 55 Potential Climate Friendly Areas Other three potential sites recommended for further analysis with the code development phase Downtown not based on development potential recommended as a CFA because it is largely built out and is a National Register Historic District 66 Total Page Number: 10 Background Climate Friendly & Equitable Communities (CFEC) program Climate Parking TSP Friendly ReformUpdate Areas 77 Project Overview Designate one Build on Phase 1 CFA Study or more Climate Code Analysis Friendly Areas (CFAs) and Market Study update zoning code and maps Community Engagement to implement Code Adoption (mid 2025) 88 Total Page Number: 11 Candidate CFA Analysis 99 Candidate CFAs Three sites under consideration as CFAs Reviewed through code audit and market study Designate one or more with updated zoning now, future consideration in TSP Ideally, designation advances City goals for the area(s) 1010 Total Page Number: 12 Key CFA Requirements Allow multifamily residential (apartments or mixed-use) Allow townhouses Allow commercial, office and civic uses Allow at least 50-foot building height Require at least a minimum density of 15 du/ac Apply no maximum density 1111 Residential Density CFAs must have a minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre and no maximum density 515253545556575 Single-unit detached 3- to 4-story multifamily with minimal landscaping Middle housing Garden-style apartments with surface parking 1212 Total Page Number: 13 Building Height CFAs must allow at least 50-foot-tall buildings 4 stories 15-30 feet20-30 feet ~35 feet SOU Dorms Townhouse Single Detached 3-story apartments 102030405060 4 stories4-9 stories 15-20 feet25-35 feet Elks Building Ashland Springs CottageMultiplex 1313 Railroad Property 1414 Total Page Number: 14 Code Analysis: Railroad Property Existing employment, residential zoning with district goals for a mix of uses; earlier Master Plan CFA implementation would require code changes to: Maintain apartment uses Introduce townhouse uses Expand commercial, office and civic uses Increase maximum height from 40 to at least 50 feet Introduce minimum density of 15 du/ac Remove current maximum density of 15 du/ac 1515 Market Considerations: Railroad Property Western side of the area could be attractive for multifamily, commercial, or mixed use Eastern side may also be desirable for single- detached or middle Vacant land is housing tucked farther back Railroad tracks can on the site, away create access barriers from through streets 1616 Total Page Number: 15 Transit Triangle 1717 Code Analysis: Transit Triangle Multiple overlays to support mix of walkable commercial, employment and residential development CFA implementation would require code changes to: Expand apartment uses in E-1 Introduce townhouse uses (beyond R-2 and R-3) Expand commercial, office and civic uses, especially in residential Increase maximum heights to 50 ft from 35-50 ft currently Increase minimum densities to at least 15 du/ac Remove current maximum densities (15-30+ du/ac) Consolidate some of the existing overlays to reduce complexity 1818 Total Page Number: 16 Market Considerations: Transit Triangle Central stretch of Ashland St could potentially support additional Visibility, standalone commercial, multifamily, proximity to SOU, or middle housing on underutilized and upgraded sites streetscape could create potential for commercial, multifamily, or mixed-use Area closer to I-5 redevelopment could be appealing for auto-oriented standalone commercial, flex, or (possibly) multifamily housing catering to Less busy southern stretch of Siskiyou Blvd commuters could have potential for multifamily and middle housing infill 1919 Croman Mill 2020 Total Page Number: 17 Code Analysis: Croman Mill Redevelopment planned to create mix of employment, recreation and residential options, limited commercial CFA implementation would require code changes to: Expand apartment uses Introduce townhouse uses district-wide Expand commercial, office and civic uses Increase maximum heights to 50 ft (currently 35-40 ft, remove bonus height structure) Introduce minimum densities of at least 15 du/ac Remove current maximum densities (15-60 du/ac) Align with pending land use application for district 2121 Market Considerations: Croman Mill Area could support a mix of single- and multifamily housing in a Could be master-planned demand for development light industrial near other industrial development Could be demand for commercial development closer to Siskiyou if part of a master plan 2222 Total Page Number: 18 Community Engagement & Preliminary Survey Results 2233 Community Engagement Advisory Committees, Planning Commission & Council September Ï November 2024 2024-0904 4:00 P.M. Historic Preservation Advisory Committee 2024-0912 5:30 P.M. Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee 2024-0919 6:00 P.M. Transportation Advisory Committee 2024-0926 4:00 P.M. Housing and Human Services Advisory Committee 2024-1003 4:00 P.M. Social Equity and Racial Justice Advisory Committee 2024-1022 7:00 P.M. Planning Commission Study Session 2024-1104 5:30 P.M. City Council Study Session 2424 Total Page Number: 19 Community Engagement Public Meeting/Open House September 17, 2024 Present Project Scope, Goals & Recommendations Code Audit Findings o Market Study Findings o Code Concepts o In-person and online, with 25-30 attendees Interest to learn more about CFAs generally and specific questions: Impacts of height in Railroad Property for solar, viewsheds o Whether promoting Croman Mill site would be detrimental to o downtown businesses How to incorporate equity and affordable housing into CFAs o 2525 Preliminary Survey Results (48 Responses) 10/22/2024 Do you support making the code changes and designating the Railroad Property as a CFA? 19% 8% 25% 46% 2% 2626 Total Page Number: 20 Preliminary Survey Results (48 Responses) 10/22/2024 Do you support making the code changes and designating the Transit Triangle as a CFA? 17% 17% 26% 38% 2% 2828 Preliminary Survey Results (48 Responses) 10/22/2024 Do you support making the code changes and designating the Croman Mill as a CFA? 27% 11% 15% 42% 5% 3030 Total Page Number: 21 Recommendations & Discussion 3322 Preliminary Recommendations Move forward with designation of: Railroad Property: Near downtown, existing mix of development, significant gap between existing zoning and potential development, further study height impacts Commercial portion of Transit Triangle: Aligns with intent for area, near SOU, need to update existing overlay, limit changes within residential areas Address development goals for Croman Mill through master plan process in negotiation with applicant is already developed, no benefit from CFA 3333 Total Page Number: 22 Implementation Recommendations Develop CFA Overlay zone to apply to selected areas: Repeal/replace existing Transit Triangle Overlay Replace existing Residential Overlay in Railroad Property Explore applicability of solar setbacks Explore height bonuses for deed-restricted affordable housing in CFAs: Existing height and density bonuses to be allowed outright Mostly superseded by bonuses in state statute 3434 Discussion Do you support the proposed CFAs or other CFA designations? What opportunities or concerns do you note specific to proposed CFAs? Other questions or priorities? 3535 Total Page Number: 23 Total Page Number: 24 Total Page Number: 25 Total Page Number: 26 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054 SUBJECT PROPERTY:Tax lot 8600 of assessor’ map 39-1E-04-AD OWNER: PDK Properties, LLC APPLICANT: Taylored Elements Construction DESCRIPTION: A request for outline plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision, and a request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application also includes a request for a variance to driveway width. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:North Mountain Plan; ZONING: NM-MF; MAP: 39-1E-04-AD;TAX LOT: 8600, 4700, 7800 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TuesdayDecember 10, 2024at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 27 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. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria are available online at “What’s Happening . Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable in my City” at https://gis.ashland.or.us/developmentproposals/ cost, if requested. Application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. 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 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 damages in circuit court. 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 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. If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 or aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us 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 I). OUTLINE PLAN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3) 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. 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, commonareas, and unbuildable areas. d.The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e.There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f.The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. g.The development complies with the Street Standards. . Common open space requirements h.The proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section18.4.4.070 may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section18.4.4.070if approved by the City of Ashland. 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). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 28 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. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) 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 Ordinancerequirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversitywithin 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 landscapingdesigns that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. VARIANCE 18.5.5.050 1. The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may besufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2. The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. 3. The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purposeand intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or land division approval previously granted to the applicant. NORTH MOUNTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION 18.3.5.030 Site Plan & Architectural Review Procedure C.Supplemental Approval Criteria.In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1.The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2.The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 51 Winburn Way Tel: 541.488.5305 Ashland, Oregon 97520 Fax: 541.552.2050 ashland.or.usTTY: 800.735.2900 Total Page Number: 29 Total Page Number: 30 Total Page Number: 31 Total Page Number: 32 ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Before the Planning Commission – December 10, 2024 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2024-00054 OWNER: CMK Development LLC APPLICANT: Taylored Elements LOCATION: 39-1E-04-AD Tax Lot 8600, 4700, 7800, & 4900 ZONE DESIGNATION: North Mountain Multi-Family (NM-MF) COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain ORDINANCE REFERENCES: 18.2.4 General Regulations for Base Zones 18.2.5 Standards for Residential Zones 18.3.5 North Mountain Neighborhood District 18.3.9Performance Standards Overlay 18.5.1General Review Procedures 18.5.2Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.6.1Definitions APPLICATION DATE: November 1, 2024 APPLICATION COMPLETE: November 15, 2024 PUBLIC NOTICE: November 19, 2024 MEETING DATE: December 10, 2024 120-DAY DEADLINE: March 1, 2025 PROPOSAL: A request for Outline Plan approval for a 15-lot Performance Standards Option (PSO) subdivision anda request for residential Site Design Review approval. The application also includes a request for a variancetodriveway widthas well asa request to remove a single non-hazard tree that is within a proposed building envelope. I.Introduction The property was created as lot-31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The property is zoned “North Mountain-Multi Family” (NM- MF) and isregulated by the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP). The NMNP is codified at Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 18.3.5, and applies to all properties within the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan area (adopted by Ordinance 2800 in April 1997). The AMCrequires that all applications involving the creation of three or more lots in the NMNP to be processed in accordance withAMC 18.3.9 the ‘Performance Standards Option and PSO Overlay’ chapter(see: AMC 18.3.5.040.K). There are two required steps to a PSO subdivision; firstOutline Plan, followed by Final Plan. For developments of fewer than ten lots, the Outline Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 116 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 33 Plan may be filed concurrently with the Final Plan, however for developments of ten or more lots, separate Outline Plan approval is mandatory prior to Final Plan. The code requires a type-1 land use action for Final Plan approval to ensure that there are findings of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan prior to construction and the recording of the final plat. The proposed PSO subdivision includes a total of 15-lots for residential development, ten of the lots are proposed for single-family residential (SFR) development, and fivelots for multifamily housing. The application includes a request for Site Design Review approval for four multifamily buildings with a total of 28-units of multi-family housing. Combined, this is a development density of 38 dwellings for the purposes of determining allowed density. In accordance with HB2001 and the adopted duplex standards at AMC 18.2.3.110 each of the SFR lots can be developed with two dwellings. 1)North Mountain Neighborhood Plan (NMNP) The NMNPArea is approximately 53 acres and is located betweenInterstate-5 and Bear Creek and west of North Mountain Avenue. The Neighborhood Plan and related implementation standards were adopted by the City Council by Ordinance 2800 on April 2, 1997. Development located within the NMNP area is required to meet all applicable sections of AMC 18.3.5, except as otherwise allowed. The subject property is shown in dashed outline at right along with most of the NMNP area. This proposed subdivision will complete the northern portion of the NMNP area leaving only the 11-acre parcel to the south (tax lot #2800) to complete the implementation of the NMNP. 2)Background rd This is the 3 Phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision which began in 2018. The subject property is Lot 31 of Phase 2 andwas reserved for this final phase. The proposed subdivision will connect both Nandina Street and Patton Lane / Mountain Meadows Drive to create four blocks that have been identified previously as areas 4, 5, 6, and 7. Phase 1 was the extension of Kestrel Parkway and Stoneridge Ave., as well as the construction of Nandina Street. It consisted of 15 residential lots and was approved as Outline Plan PA-T2-2018- 00005 in December 2018 followed by Final Plan PA-T1-2019-00075 in November 2019. The final platwas recorded as CS23143 in September of 2020. The application also included Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 216 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 34 amendments to the NMNP to modify the street network and address the ‘Civic Space’ shown on the adopted map. A portion of the phase 1 plat is shown below. Phase 2 which consisted of the “cottage development” and was approved as Outline Plan PA-T2- 2020-00016 in March of 2020 followed by Final Plan PA-T1-2020-00113 in June of 2020. The final plat was recorded as CS23242 in December of 2020, and reserved lot 31 for phase 3. The plat is shown below. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 316 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 35 3)Site Description The subject property is Tax lot #8600 of Assessor Map 39-1E-04-AD, it does not presently have an assigned street address. The application also includes three tax lots owned by the City of Ashland; tax lot 4700 a 0.05 acre strip of land along the north, as well as tax lots 7800 & 4900 which are both ‘street plugs’ to be vacated. The property was created as lot-31 of Kestrel Park Phase II and was reserved for this final phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision. The property is 2.27 acres in size and slopes from east to west at approximately 15% and is zoned North Mountain Multi-Family(NM-MF). II.Project Proposal – Outline Plan Subdivision and Residential Site Design Review. 1)Performance Standards Option (PSO) Subdivision – Outline Plan Approval The North Mountain Neighborhood District regulations require that all applications involving the creation of three or more lots shall be processed under chapter 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option Overlay (AMC 18.3.5.040.K). The proposed subdivision, shown below, will create 15 new lots and connect Nandina and Patton Streets. Because of survey regulations regarding multi-phased subdivisions lot numbers need to be sequential through all phases. Because the parent lot was #31 of Phase 2, now the numbers for the 15 lots in Phase 3 are #32 through #46. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 416 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 36 The approval criteria for Outline Plan include eight items which are summarized as follows: 1)The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. 2)Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access. 3)The natural features, such as wetlands andlarge trees, are included in unbuildable areas. 4)The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed. 5)There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space. 6)The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards. 7)The development complies with the street standards. 8)The proposed development meets the common open space standards. The application includes detailed written responses to each of the approval criteria and design standards, and by their reference they are incorporated herein as if set out in full. Next, we briefly address each of the approval criteria, and any needed conditions of approval to demonstrate compliance with the applicablestandards. The first approval criterion is that “the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city.”This first approval criterion is all-encompassing allowing the Planning Commission to address all city standards, even outside of Chapter 18 of the AMC. The application materials explain that the proposal utilizes the Performance Standards Option Chapter 18.3.9, and that the development demonstrates compliance with the standards from AMC 18.3.9.050 – 18.3.9.080. The application materials emphasize that as a Performance Standards Options proposal, the application is not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth or setback standards of part 18.2. With the application materials fully considered staff concluded that findings can be made that all applicable ordinance requirements will be met. The second approval criterion is that “adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access.” Staff would reiterate that this is the third phase of the Kestrel Park Subdivision and that all city facilities were sized with the capacity for the third phase in mind. The application includes preliminary Civil Plans that illustrate the various city utilities including sewer, water and storm drainage.The plans indicate that the available utilities include eight-inch water and sewer mains, and twelve-inch storm drain. Staff has consulted with the engineering department in Public Works regarding the civil plans and have confirmed that the proposed infrastructure will meet all city standards, and that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development. Staff believe findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The third approval criterion is that “the natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, are included in unbuildable areas.” The previous phases of the subdivision have addressed flood plain and wetland areas. For this phase the subject property has no identified natural features or wetlands to consider with the exception of the single multi branched tree that is proposed for removal and is discussed further below. Staff believe findings can be made that this approval criterionismet. The fourth approval criterion is that “the development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed.” The subject property is surrounded by land that have already fully Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 516 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 37 developed. It is manifest that the proposed development will not prevent adjacent land from developing and that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The fifth approval criterion is that “there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of common open space.” The application discusses the existing HOA’s that have been formed from the earlier phases of the Kestrel Park, and further states that “The three phases are also tied together through monetary commitments (HOA Dues) for the maintenance of common areas and improvements such as the site’s wetlands, common spaces, park benches, park row vegetation and irrigation and street trees.” Staff conclude that the HOA provides sufficient evidence of the provisions for the ongoing maintenance for the common open space and that findings can be made that this approval criterion is met. The sixth approval criterion is that “the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards.” The application explains in detail that the Kestrel Park Subdivision has two zones, NM-R-1-7.5 and NM-MF with a minimum density requirement between 75% and 110% of each zone’s base density. The table (page 6 in the application findings) shows that with the dwelling units developed in previous phases the proposal is within the required / allowed density. During the application review staff became aware of an error in the area of the two different zones. This error was in the original 2018 application materials and has been carried forward without notice. There are two errors in the table as it underrepresents the land zoned NM-R-1-7.5 and overstates the land zoned NM-MF. Shown below is a screen capture from the City GIS clipping the NMNP zones and calculating the area of each zone in the Kestrel Park subdivision. Note that there is a small portion of the original portion the lot that was dedicatedas open space in phase 1 that is just outside of the NMNP zoning district which is why these values sum just short of the project size of 13.48 acres. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 616 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 38 The table below sets out the correct sizes of land for each zone per City GIS and the number of dwellings approved in each zone per phase. NM ZONENM-R-1-7.5NM-MF Acres4.594.16 Dwelling units per acre3.612 Base Density(acres x units per acre)16.5249.92 minimumdensity(x 0.75 –1.1)12.39–18.1837.44–54.91 Phase 1114 Phase 2 (Cottages)510 Total Dwellings (Phase 1 + 2)1614 Remaining Density from allowedmax2.1840.91 Proposed Phase 338 As stated above, the application is for 28 multi-family dwellings, and 10 lots for single family * housing. Combined these represent 38 dwelling units for the purposes of density for the subdivision which is less than the 40 which could be allowed. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The seventh approval criterion is that “the development complies with the street standards.” The preliminary civil plans provide cross sections showing proposed improvements that meet all of the NMNP street standards including park row, sidewalk as well as paved and ROW width. The only exception to this is a portion of Stoneridge which has a 46’ wide ROW. However, as the application makes clear, this was previously approved during the first phase of the subdivision. During the original Kestrel Park subdivision approval process, concerns were raised during public testimony that emergency access and evacuation routes were limited to the bridge on Mountain Avenue over Bear Creek or to indirect access via county roads to Oak Street, the Commission found that in response to similar concerns for previous development of the North Mountain Neighborhood, all properties were required to sign in favor of and agree to participate in a Local Improvement District (LID) for the future construction of a bridge across Bear Creek to connect Nevada Street to Oak Street. As such, a condition was included to require that all properties within the Kestrel Park Subdivision sign a similar agreement prior to signature of the final survey plat. The subject properties here are within the subdivision and are subject to that original condition which has been included below. Staff conclude that with the condition of approval findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The eighth and final approval criterion is that “the proposed development meets the common open space standards.” The application notes the following: “The Kestrel Park Subdivision is 13.48 acres in size of which 5.13 acres was dedicated as open space (Bear Creek Riparian Area) and another .7 acres was platted as private open space for the subdivision’s on-site wetlands and a couple of smaller landscape areas - located at various street corners as common neighborhood landscaping, for a total of 5.82 acres or roughly 43% of the subdivision’s acreage of which only 8% is required with Performance Standard Subdivisions and an additional 4% for Site Review * The application makes clear,and staff agree, that each of the 10 ‘single family’ lots may or may not build out with ARU’s or duplexes in accordance with HB2001 and COA Ord. 3229 § 3, 12/19/2023. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 716 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 39 applications. Additionally, each of the proposed multi-family units do include an additional 8% recreational space (porches/patios).” Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The NMNP also included Supplemental Approval Criteria that require that there is conformity with both the “general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation” as well as the “specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards.”The NMNP includes detailed Design standards for both roads and architectural design. The application states that the NMNP design standards are fully met and include detailed dimensions on the site plan showing that porches meet the correct size and that garages are appropriately setback from the front of the homes. The remainder of the architectural standards are discussed below under the Site Design Review approval criteria. As mentioned at the outset, the application includes a variance to driveway width from the NMNP standard. The NMNP standards requires 9’ driveways for single homes and allows 12’ for shared drives. The reason for the variance is a combination of driveway spacing standards and that Public Works will not allow nine-foot driveways. Instead, the application proposes 12’ driveway width (the public works minimum for a single lot) for the SFR lots, and 18’ driveway width for shared driveways. Staff believes that based on the topography that functionally a 12’ wide driveway can not effectively serve two – two car garages as there is not sufficient depth for the driveway to widen out. Staff believethat when one considers how cars have increased in size over the years, and the site topography that the proposal for 12’ driveways and 18’ for shared driveways can be supported. The approval criteria for the variance are discussed further below. Staff conclude with the approval of the variance that findings can be made that the Supplemental Approval Criteria criterion will be met. 2)Residential Site Design Review The applicability section of Site design review is provided at AMC 18.5.2.020.B and requires Site Design Review for both “Three or more dwelling units on a lot” as well as “Construction of attached (common wall) single-family dwellings” as is proposed here. The first criterion of approval 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.”PSO subdivisions are not required to meet the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setback standards of part 18.2, and other standards as specifically provided by AMC 18.3.9. By virtue of being a PSO development this approval criterion iseffectively not applicable.Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The second criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3).”The only applicable overlay zone is the North Mountain Neighborhood District at AMC 18.3.5 which governs all development in the NMNP area. Included in the NMNP standards are the Site Development and Design Standards at AMC Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 816 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 40 18.3.5.100. When printed these standards occupy 30 pages, so we do not address each item individually. That saidthe building elevations and renderings make clear that the architectural design requirements are clearly met as the proposed buildings features include covered porches, eves, and building offsets. The Site plans have dimensions shown that the three single family common wall buildings each include the required setback and offset for the garages as illustrated in AMC 18.3.5.100.A.4.a.Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The third criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided below.” Because the development is regulated by the NMNP many of the regulations in 18.4 are not in effect. AMC 18.3.5.020 provides in part that “where the provisions of this chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the provisions of the North Mountain Neighborhood district shall govern.” That said, the site plan clearly demonstrates that the driveway spacing meets or exceeds the 24’ requirement as well as details on recycling and refuse area. The application materials include a detailed landscaping plan showing that all portions of a lot not otherwise developed are to be landscaped. Staff conclude that findings can be made that this approval criterion will be met. The fourth criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities, and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property, and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property.”As discussed above the proposed street network and proposed City facilities have been sized specifically for the proposed density. The application includes detailed civil plans and staff are confident that findings can be made that this approval criterion has been met. The last criterion of approval for Site Design Review is that “The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsections below, are found to exist…”There are no exceptions requested to the above standards and staff is confident that findings can be made that this criterion of approval has been met. 3)Tree removal The application includes a request to remove what is described as a ‘multi stem’ cherry tree which is located in the proposed building envelope of the multi family housing. Staff have doubts about whether the proposed tree is regulated based on the photos and site visits. Based on the trees form it presents more like a shrub rather than a dominate trunk that then splits. The Tree Management Advisory Committee (MAC) reviewed the application also questioned if the proposed tree removal was in fact a regulated tree, while also unanimously recommending approval of the proposed removal. Based on the location the proposed removal meets the criteria of approval for removal as it is located within the building envelope. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 916 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 41 4)Variance As discussed above, the application includes a variance request to depart from the NMNP driveway standard of 9’ wide for single lot and 12’ for shared access. The Public Works standards provide both a minimum driveway width of 12’ and a maximum of 18’. Staff would note that vehicle size has increased over the years and would further note that a shared drive of 12’, which can then widen to a wider drive on the lot, only works when there is sufficient depth. Based on the topography and proposed lot layout the proposed 18’ shared drive is essentially meeting the standard of 9’ for each home. The variance is necessary because the public works standards do not allow a driveway as narrow as the code dictates. The 18’ is the minimum necessary when one considers that each lot would be allowed a 9’ driveway however the spacing won’t allow for it. The benefit of the 18’ shared drive reduces the curb cuts and allows for a majority of the block to be landscaped park row. Staff believe that the proposal provides an engaging streetscape while reducing curb cuts and support the variance to the NMNP standard. 5)Public Input Notice was posted at the property frontage and mailed to all properties within 200’ on November 19, 2024. On Friday 11/29 two public comment emails were received raising concerns about the proposed subdivision. Both emails raise concerns regarding the sufficiency of vehicle access to the apartment building in area 7, as well as concerns about the size of the parking areas. The second email also raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of the multifamily housing as it relates to the surrounding development. Staff would first note that the alley in question was created as a 16’ wide alley when the Plum Ridge Subdivision was created (see: CS 16571, PA2000-007), and the present proposal includes an additional dedication of 4 additional feet to meet the NMNP standards for alley width of 20’. Staff would highlight that AMC 18.3.5.040.D provides that “If an alley serves the site, access and egress for motor vehicles shall be to and from the alley. In such cases, curb openings along the street frontage are prohibited.” Staff would further note that AMC 18.3.5.100.C.3 which provides details on Street Types and Design standards in the NMNP states the following: “One of the most important features making up the neighborhood is the alley. Alleys allow parking to be located at the property’s rear and diminish the negative impact of garages proliferating along street frontages, reduces pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at curb-cuts, and reduces impervious hard surface. In addition, homes, instead of garages, fill the street frontages, providing maximum opportunity for social interaction…” Finally, Staff would note that the proposal only includes a total of six driveway curb cuts on street frontages for the entire proposal for all 38 dwelling units providing uninterrupted landscaped park row creating an engaging streetscape consistent with the rest of the NMNP area. With regard to the concern of street frontage for each lot. The email states that lots 43 and 44 lack street frontage, however it is clear that each of these lots have frontage on Patton Lane and Stoneridge Ave respectively. Next it is also clear that lot 38 does not have street frontage but is served by a multifamily parking area which will be required to have reciprocal access easements. It has long been common practice in performance subdivisions to allow the creation of lots not Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1016 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 42 meeting the minimum frontage standard provided that access can be provided over easements. In the alternative the lot could be reconfigured to have a flagpole touching the street frontage. Lastly, with regard to neighborhood compatibility staff first note that the proposed application is zoned multi-family and is required top meet a certain density as has been reviewed and approved in the previous phases of this subdivision. It is true that the size of the units in multi-family buildings is not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, but again staff would point out that the zoning to the east is single family, while the subject property is multi-family. Staff believe that the intent of the neighborhood compatibility is met as it relates to the architectural features of the proposed buildings. III.Procedural –Approval Criteria 1)Outline Plan AMC 18.3.9.040.A.3 provides the approval criteria and standards for Outline Plan approval: A.3 Approval criteria for Outline Plan. The planning commission shall approve the Outline Planwhen it finds all of the following criteria have been met: A.the development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the city. B.adequate key city facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a city facility to operate beyond capacity. C.the existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the common 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 common open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. F.the proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter. G.the development complies with the street standards. H.the proposed development meets the common open space standards established under section 18.4.4.070. Common open space requirements may be satisfied by public open space in accordance with section 18.4.4.070 if approved by the city of Ashland. 2)Supplemental Approval Criteria AMC 18.3.5.030.C provides the approval criteria and standards for development in the NMNP. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1116 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 43 C.Supplemental Approval Criteria. In addition to the criteria for approval required by other sections of this ordinance, applications within the NM district shall also meet all of the following criteria. 1.The application demonstrates conformity to the general design requirements of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan, including density, transportation, building design, and building orientation. 2.The application complies with the specific design requirements as provided in the North Mountain Neighborhood Design Standards. 3)Site Design Review AMC 18.5.2.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for Site Design Review: 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. 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, 2, or 3, 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; 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; or Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1216 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 44 3.There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3.090. 4)Tree Removal AMC 18.5.7.040 provides the approval criteria and standards for tree removal. 2.Tree That is Not a Hazard. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a.The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b.Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d.Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e.The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 5)Variance AMC 18.5.5.050 provides the approval criteria and standards for a variance. A. The approval authority through a Type I or Type II procedure, as applicable, may approve a variance upon finding that it meets all of the following criteria. 1.The variance is necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstances of the subject site, such as topography, natural features, adjacent development, or similar circumstances. A legal lot determination may be sufficient evidence of a hardship for purposes of approving a variance. 2.The variance is the minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstances related to the subject site. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1316 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 45 3.The proposal’s benefits will be greater than any negative impacts on the development of the adjacent uses and will further the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4.The need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or property owner. For example, the variance request does not arise as result of a property line adjustment or landdivision approval previously granted to the applicant. B. In granting a variance, the approval authority may impose conditions similar to those provided for conditional uses to protect the best interests of the surrounding property and property owners, the neighborhood, or the City as a whole. IV.Conclusion and Recommendations Staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve Outline Plan for the PSO subdivision including the requested variance to driveway width and the requested tree removal. Staff also recommend that The Planning Commission approve Site Design Review for the four proposed buildings in areas six and seven, and the three common wall single family homes. Ifthe Planning Commission approves the application, staff recommends including the following conditions of approval below: 1)That all proposals of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2)That allnew addresses shall be assigned by City of Ashland Planning Department. 3)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 driveway approaches, street improvements, utilities or any necessary encroachments. 4)That the properties within the project sign in favor and agree to participate in a local improvement district (LID) for future construction of the Nevada Street bridge across Bear Creek. The agreement shall be prepared by the City of Ashland and signed by the property owner prior to signature of the final survey plat. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by City ordinances and resolutions. 5)That a final Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028. 6)That the Final Plan application shall include: a.Final electric service, utility and civil plans including but not limited to the water, sewer, storm drainage, electric, street and driveway improvements shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Electric, and Public Works/Engineering Departments with the Final Plan submittal. The street Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1416 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 46 system plan shall include full street designs with cross-sections consistent with the City’s Street Design Standards for the proposed residential neighborhood streets and alleys, as approved. Street lights shall be included in keeping with city street light standards. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public facilities including the locations of water lines and meter sizes; fire hydrant; sanitary sewer lines, manholes and clean-out’s; storm drain lines and catch basins; and locations of all primary and secondary electric services including line locations, transformers (to scale), cabinets, meters and all other necessary equipment. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least visible from streets, while considering the access needs of the utility departments. Any required private or public utility easements shall be delineated on the civil plans. All civil infrastructure shall be installed by the applicants, inspected and approved prior to the signature of the final survey plat. b.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, street lights and all other necessary equipment. This plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Transformers and cabinets shall be located in areas least visible from streets and outside of the sidewalk corridor and vision clearance areas, while considering the access needs of the Electric Department. Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots within the applicable phase 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 Electric, Engineering, Building and Planning Departments prior to installation of facilities. c.A final storm drainage plan detailing 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. The storm drainage plan shall demonstrate that post-development peak flows are less than or equal to the pre-development peak flow for the site as a whole, and that storm water quality mitigation has been addressed through the final design. d.A final grading and erosion control plan. e.That the parking lot tree canopy plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist, and include certification that the plan is consistent with ANSI A300 standards. f.Calculations demonstrating that the proposed new lots have been designed to permit the location of a 21-foot high structure with a solar setback that does not exceed 50 percent of the lot’s north-south dimension based on Solar Standard A, or identification of a solar envelope for each lot which provides comparable solar access protections, as required in AMC 18.4.8.040 Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1516 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 47 g.That the requirements of the Ashland Fire Department relating to approved addressing; fire apparatus access, fire apparatus access approach, aerial ladder access, firefighter access pathways, and fire apparatus turn-around; fire hydrant distance, spacing and clearance; fire department work area; fire sprinklers; limitations on gates, fences or other access obstructions; and addressing standards for wildfire hazard areas including vegetation standards and limits on work during fire season shall be satisfactorily addressed in the Final Plan submittals. Fire Department requirements shall be included in the civil drawings. h.That draft CC&Rs for the Homeowner's Association shall be provided for review and approval of the Staff Advisor with the Final Plan submittal. The CC&R’s shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common use- improvements including driveway, open space, landscaping, utilities, and stormwater detention and drainage system, and shall include an operations and maintenance plan for the stormwater detention and drainage system. i.A fencing plan which demonstrates that all fencing shall be consistent with the provisions of the “Fences and Walls” requirements in AMC 18.4.4.060, and that fencing around common open space, except for deer fencing, shall not exceed four feet in height. Fencing limitations shall be noted in the subdivision CC&R’s. 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. 7)That a final survey plat shall be submitted within 18 months of Final Plan approval. Prior to submittal of the final subdivision survey plat for signature: a.All easements including but not limited to public and private utilities, public pedestrian and public bicycle access, drainage, irrigation and fire apparatus access shall be indicated on the final subdivision plat submittal for review by the Planning, Engineering, Building and Fire Departments. b.The final survey plat shall include the dedication of right-of-way necessary to accommodate the proposed street system. c.Subdivision infrastructure improvements including but not limited to utilities, driveways, streets and common area improvements shall be completed according to approved plans, inspected and approved. d.Irrigated street trees selected from the Recommended Street Tree Guide and planted according to city planting and spaces standards shall be planted along all street frontages pursuant to the proposed landscape plan, inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. e.Electric services shall be installed underground to serve all lots, inspected and approved. The final electric service plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Ashland Electric, Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to installation. f.That the sanitary sewer laterals and water services including connection with meters at the street shall be installed to serve all lots within the applicable phase, inspected and approved. Planning Action: PA-T2-2024-00054 Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report (aha) 1616 Owner:CMK Development LLCPage of Total Page Number: 48 Total Page Number: 49 Total Page Number: 50 From:Dennis Holeman To:Aaron Anderson Cc:Rich Kinsinger;David Runkel;"Jeff Thompson";"Cathy George";"Lee Bowman" Subject:Submittal of written testimony prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the Kestrel Park Phase III proposed development Date:Friday, November 29, 2024 11:26:48 AM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] Aaron, As you know, a group of Mountain Meadows residents that will be directly affected by the proposed Kestrel Park Phase III development have been meeting to examine possible consequences for our properties. We plan to attend the hearing on December 10th to discuss some concerns of ours. We understand we are to provide a written summary of the testimony we will give at the meeting. When must that information be in your hands? When I called your office this morning, the automated phone message indicated that you are out of the office today, presumably for the Thanksgiving four day weekend. One primary issue our group has identified is that Mariposa Court currently meets the Ashland Street Standards for an Alley to serve access to the garages for five Mountain Meadows homes that have their frontages on Plum Ridge Drive and Mountain Meadows Drive. However, it appears to us that Ashland’s standards for sole access to the proposed 12-unit over-under apartment building would call for a Neighborhood Street, rather than an Alley. There do not appear to be provisions in the Taylored Elements Construction proposal to upgrade Mariposa Court to the standards of a Neighborhood Street, in terms of the required pavement widths, curbs, sidewalks, etc., even assuming no provisions for street parking. Note particularly that the stub of the current Mariposa Court alley that connects the Alley to Plum Ridge Drive is constrained by the properties of 803 and 813 Plum Ridge Drive on both sides of the stub and cannot practically be widened. Please let us know what we need to get in your hands and when so our representative can speak at th the hearing on December 10 . Thanks very much, Dennis Holeman Chair, Mountain Meadows Emergency Preparedness and Safety Committee President, Plum Ridge Condominium Association 822 Plum Ridge Drive Ashland, OR 97520-9730 dennis.holeman@gmail.com 650-218-9501 (cell) Total Page Number: 51 From:REK To:Aaron Anderson Cc:Dennis Holeman;David Runkel;Jeff Thompson;Lee Bowman;Robert Tower;Cathy George Subject:Preliminary Testimony Regarding Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development Date:Friday, November 29, 2024 4:44:37 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] To: Ashland Planning Department, Aaron Anderson November 29,2024 Preliminary Written Testimony Regarding Kestrel Park Phase III Site Development Several owners of property in close proximity to the proposed Kestrel III development will testify both in writing and at the Planning Commission hearing on December 10th. We are in the process of preparing our detailed written testimony. It will be submitted as soon as it is ready and no later than at the hearing. This email submitted on November 29th, eleven days before the hearing, gives a brief overview of our issues as we see them at this time so that the Planning Department is aware of them. Insufficient access for the twelve apartment units at the top of Area 7. It is not appropriate to make Mariposa Court the sole access to these apartments. Chapter 18.3.5.100.C.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, North Mountain Neighborhood District describes an Alley as servicing the rear of a property to diminish use of the main access at property frontage. It also gives standards for the traffic lane plus clearances of an Alley which are not met in the project plans. Similar conflicts are found with the Ashland Street Standards. The current Alley cannot be converted into a Neighborhood Street because there is insufficient space to meet the required width. Other required features such as curbs and sidewalks cannot be accommodated. Appropriateness of the twelve apartment buildings to their surroundings We disagree with Finding 5 that these apartments are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood or the natural environment. The twelve apartments, all approximately 500 sq.ft., are proposed at a location which is closely surrounded by single-family homes of greater than 1500 sq.ft.. The disparity of design is enormous. Problems with the design of the twelve apartment units. All parking spaces are sized for compact cars putting a severe limitation on potential renters. The lower units have access only through an external flight of stairs encumbering all transport of goods in and out, including in emergencies, and not accommodating handicapped use. Limitations on Julian Court alley north of Area 6 and its extension to Area 5 The Julian Court Alley does meet the North Mountain Neighborhood District standard on width, but is the frontage street for Units 5,6,7 and 8 against that standard. The intended extension of that Alley westward becomes the sole access for Lot 43 and 44 violating the standard that an Alley serves as a back entrance for homes with a street frontage. Appropriateness of proposed homes on Lot 37 and Lot 38 to their surroundings We disagree with Finding 5 that these homes are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood or the natural environment. Dave Runkel Total Page Number: 52 Richard Kinsinger Dennis Holeman Lee Bowman Total Page Number: 53 Total Page Number: 54 Total Page Number: 55 Total Page Number: 56 ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT __ _______________________________________________________ Pursuing LEED® Certification? YES NO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Street Address 39 1E Assessor’s Map No. ____ __________________________________ Tax Lot(s) __________________________________ Zoning ___ _________________________________ Comp Plan Designation ___ _______________________ APPLICANT Name Phone E-Mail Address __ ____________________________________________ City __________________ Zip PROPERTY OWNER Name Phone E-Mail Address _ ____________________________________________________ City Zip SURVEYOR, ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, OTHER Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ Title _____________________Name ________________________________ Phone ___________________ E-Mail ________________________ Address ______________________________________________________________ City _________________________ Zip _______________ I hereby certify that the statements and information contained in this application, including the enclosed drawings and the required findings of fact, are in all respects, true and correct. I understand that all property pins must be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. I further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1)that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2)that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3)that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate; and further 4)that all structures or improvements are properly located on the ground. Failure in this regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being built in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. If I have any doubts, I am advised to seek competent professional advice and assistance. Applicant’s SignatureDate As owner of the property involved in this request, I have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property owner. Property Owner’s Signature (Date required) \[To be completed by City Staff\] Date Received Zoning Permit Type Filing Fee $ __________ OVER Total Page Number: 1 Page Number: 57 ZONING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICATION FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. PLANNING FEES FORM must be completed and signed by both applicant and property owner. FINDINGS OF FACT – Respond to the appropriate zoning requirements in the form of factual statements or findings of fact and supported by evidence. List the findings criteria and the evidence that supports it. Include information necessary to address all issues detailed in the Pre-Application Comment document. TRUE SCALE PDF DRAWINGS – Standard scale and formatted to print no larger than 11x17 inches. Include site plan, building elevations, parking and landscape details. FEE (Check, Charge or Cash) LEED® CERTIFICATION (optional) – Applicant’s wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps: Hiring and retaining a LEED® Accredited Professional as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and The LEED® checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. NOTE: Applications are accepted on a first come, first served basis. Applications will not be accepted without a complete application form signed by the applicant(s) AND property owner(s), all required materials and full payment. All applications received are reviewed for completeness by staff within 30 days from application date in accordance with ORS 227.178. The first fifteen COMPLETE applications submitted are processed at the next available Planning Commission meeting. ( Planning Commission meetings include the Hearings Board, which meets at 1:30 pm, or the full Planning Commission, which ). meets at 7:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month. Meetings are held at the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main St A notice of the project request will be sent to neighboring properties for their comments or concerns. If applicable, the application will also be reviewed by the Tree and/or Historic Commissions. Total Page Number: 2 Page Number: 58 “KESTREL PARK, PHASE 3” ST NOVEMBER 1, 2024 Total Page Number: 3 Page Number: 59 Total Page Number: 4 Page Number: 60 Note: With previously completed site plan studies, including design plans and infrastructure plans, the applicants had identified accessory units with each single family residence as a comprehensive approach to planning the subject property, however, the ultimate decision of including an accessory unit is dependent on the preferences of future home owners and not part of this application. Total Page Number: 5 Page Number: 61 Total Page Number: 6 Page Number: 62 Total Page Number: 7 Page Number: 63 - - 23.66*– 43.56** Permitted Density (Phase II – Areas 4 - 7 ) Minimum vs. Maximum Density: * Minimum Density: There are a total of 15 lots proposed, 10 of which are single family residences with “potential” accessory dwelling units. Accessory units are planned, but not guaranteed as explained below. However, the remaining 5 lots are to accommodate a total of 28 multi-family apartments. Combined with the single family parcels, the minimum density would be no less than 38 dwelling units. ** Maximum Density: As noted previously, the proposed 10 single family residences may or may not have accessory units, which will be determined based on the preference of the home owners. However, in a best case scenario, if all ten single family home owners chose to add an accessory residential unit, it Total Page Number: 8 Page Number: 64 would equate to 10 single family units, 10 accessory units, in addition to the 28 multi-family apartments (48 total). Note: It’s important for the applicant and consultants to convey to the decision makers as well as neighbors, accessory residential units are NOT subject to City review or approval, per recent State of Oregon land use decisions or density calculations per City Code (AMC 18.2.3.040 C.) However, the applicants contend the planning, design concepts and evaluation of potential infrastructure needs and potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood is simply thorough planning. In doing so, the applicantsbelieve the proposal is not only more capable of adapting over time (up front consideration of utility sizing, building codes, fire codes, etc.), but also is simply more transparent to all parties about possible outcomes. Total Page Number: 9 Page Number: 65 Note: As noted previously, the applicant has attempted to evaluate the Kestrel Park Subdivision in a comprehensive manner that helps evaluate building design, infrastructure capacity, parking and traffic impacts. In this specific case, only 38 units are proposed, but 48 units have been evaluated in the traffic study. Total Page Number: 10 Page Number: 66 Total Page Number: 11 Page Number: 67 2 Single Family Units * On-street parking is “public”and provided on one side of street,in this casealong the west side of Patton Laneand south side of Nandina Street. All on-street parking spaces are“public”spaces for anyone to use, but provide additional options for when demand occurs. Total Page Number: 12 Page Number: 68 6 Single Family Units *On-street parking is “public” and provided on one side of street, in this case, along the west side of Stoneridge Ave.,west side of Patton Laneand south side of Nandina Street. All on-street parking spaces are “public” spaces for anyone to use, but provide additional options for when demand occurs. Total Page Number: 13 Page Number: 69 16 Apartment Units *On-street parking is “public” and provided on one side of street, in this case, along thewest side of west side of Patton Laneand sough side of Nandina Street.. All on-street parking spaces are “public” spaces for anyone to use, but provide additional options for when demand occurs. Total Page Number: 14 Page Number: 70 2 Single Family Units & 12 Apartment Units * Parking is provided on one side of street, in this case, along the south side of Nandina Streetand west side of Patton Lane. All on-street parking spaces are “public” spaces for anyone to use, but provide additional options for when demand occurs.. Total Page Number: 15 Page Number: 71 Total Page Number: 16 Page Number: 72 findings of fact For clarity reasons, the following documentation has been formatted in “outline” form with the City’s BOLD approval criteria noted in font and the applicant’s response in font. Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. Total Page Number: 17 Page Number: 73 “is to allow an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; be aesthetically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood” Stressed energy efficiency, architectural creativity and innovation Used the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advantage: Provide for a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes: Provide for more efficient land use: Reduces the impact of development on the natural environment and neighborhood: Total Page Number: 18 Page Number: 74 Total Page Number: 19 Page Number: 75 Total Page Number: 20 Page Number: 76 Total Page Number: 21 Page Number: 77 Total Page Number: 22 Page Number: 78 Total Page Number: 23 Page Number: 79 Total Page Number: 24 Page Number: 80 Total Page Number: 25 Page Number: 81 Total Page Number: 26 Page Number: 82 Total Page Number: 27 Page Number: 83 Total Page Number: 28 Page Number: 84 Total Page Number: 29 Page Number: 85 Total Page Number: 30 Page Number: 86 Total Page Number: 31 Page Number: 87 “KESTREL PARK, PHASE 3” TH NOVEMBER 15,2024 Total Page Number: 32 Page Number: 88 Note: for clarity, the “width” referenced herein is NOT the driveway’s parking surfacearea, but the width of the driveway’sopening between the street and sidewalk. findings of fact For clarityreasons, the following documentationhas been formatted in “outline” form with the City’s BOLD approval criteria noted in font and the applicant’s response in font.Also, there are a number of responses that are repeated in order to ensure that the findings of fact are complete. Total Page Number: 33 Page Number: 89 Total Page Number: 34 Page Number: 90 Total Page Number: 35 Page Number: 91 Number: 92 Page Total Page Number: 36 Number: 93 OF 10 1 November 15, 2024 Site Plan DOWNSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside SITE PLAN - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total HARDSCAPE6578.43 S.F. (65.61%) HARDSCAPE14,230.41 (70.00%) (8) STUDIO (603.6 S.F.) APT.2ND STORY (6) STUDIO (400 S.F.) APARTMENTS (5) 1 BEDROOM (489.3 S.F.) APT(s) 1x6 = 6 1 BED (UNDER 500 S.F.): 1x6 = 6 (1) 1 BEDROOM (498.3 S.F.) APT 8 STANDARD, 8 COMPACT (8) 1 BEDROOM (363.1 S.F.) APT. 6 STANDARD, 6 COMPACT 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE UNITS OVER 500 S.F.8UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.8 UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.12 LOT SIZE20,328.2 S.F. UNITS OVER 500 S.F.2 LOT SIZE10026.0 S.F. 1 BED: 1.5x8 = 12 AREA 6 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (21) STUDIO: 1x8 = 8 AREA 7 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (13) (3047.7 FOOTPRINT) ACRE0.47 GROUND FLOOR ACRE0.43 BASEMENT LEVEL STUDIO: APARTMENTS APARTMENTS MAIN LEVEL PARKING ''' 000 UNIT 2 000 UNIT 6 111 ENCLOSURE ''' TRASH 000 999 ''' 000 UNIT 1 UNIT 2UNIT 3UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 6 888 UNIT 1 UNIT 5 ''' 000 LOT 37 777 ''' 000 666 ''' 000 LOT 36 555 LOT 38 ''' 000 garage garage LOT 34 LOT 35 444 ''' 000 333 ''' 000 222 H S A R T E R U S O L ''' C N 000 E 111 LOT 40 UNIT 14 UNIT 13 UNIT 10 LOT 39 UNIT 9 LOT 33 LOT 32 NN LOT 41 LOT 42 LOT 43 Showing Units at Main Level LOT 46 AREA 4 - UNIT COUNT: 2 garage garage LOT 45 ACRE0.19 LOT 44 Site Plan Scale: 1"=40' 2.27 ACRE / 48 UNIT DEVELOPMENT2.27 ACRE / 34 UNIT DEVELOPMENT2.27 ACRE / 48 UNIT DEVELOPMENT 111 AREA 5 - UNIT COUNT: 6 ACRE0.49 PAVEMENT LEGEND: BUILDING GARAGE PORCH Page Number: 37 Number: 94 OF 10 2 November 15, 2024 Site Plan UPSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside SITE PLAN - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total HARDSCAPE6578.43 S.F. (65.61%) HARDSCAPE14,230.41 (70.00%) (8) STUDIO (603.6 S.F.) APT.2ND STORY (6) STUDIO (400 S.F.) APARTMENTS (5) 1 BEDROOM (489.3 S.F.) APT(s) 1x6 = 6 1 BED (UNDER 500 S.F.): 1x6 = 6 (1) 1 BEDROOM (498.3 S.F.) APT 8 STANDARD, 8 COMPACT (8) 1 BEDROOM (363.1 S.F.) APT. 6 STANDARD, 6 COMPACT 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE UNITS OVER 500 S.F.8UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.8 UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.12 LOT SIZE20,328.2 S.F. UNITS OVER 500 S.F.2 LOT SIZE10026.0 S.F. 1 BED: 1.5x8 = 12 AREA 6 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (21) STUDIO: 1x8 = 8 AREA 7 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (13) (3047.7 FOOTPRINT) GROUND FLOOR ACRE0.47 ACRE0.43 BASEMENT LEVEL STUDIO: APARTMENTS APARTMENTS MAIN LEVEL PARKING UNIT 4 ''' 000 UNIT 8 000 111 ENCLOSURE ''' TRASH 000 999 ''' 000 UNIT 10 UNIT 7UNIT 12 UNIT 11 888 UNIT 8 UNIT 9 UNIT 3 ''' 000 LOT 37 UNIT 7 777 ''' 000 666 ''' 000 LOT 36 555 LOT 38 ''' 000 LOT 34 LOT 35 444 ''' 000 333 ''' 000 222 H S A R T E R U S O L C''' N 000 UNIT 16 E 111 LOT 40 UNIT 15 UNIT 12 UNIT 11 LOT 39 LOT 33 garage LOT 32 LOT 32 garage NN LOT 41 garage garage LOT 42 LOT 43 Showing Units at Lower Level LOT 46 AREA 4 - UNIT COUNT: 2 LOT 45 ACRE0.19 LOT 44 garage Site Plan Scale: 1"=40' 2.27 ACRE / 34 UNIT DEVELOPMENT 2 AREA 5 - UNIT COUNT: 6 ACRE0.49 PAVEMENT LEGEND: BUILDING GARAGE PORCH Page Number: 38 Number: 95 OF 10 3 November 15, 2024 Site Plan DOWNSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 4 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total 18'-0" 50' " 12 10'-4 40' "0-'5 EUP " 12 11'-9 E U P " 30' 0 - ' 0 LOT 33 1 6'-0" 20' LOT 32 10' NN 511.4 s.f. 0' " 0 - ' 0 1 584.3 s.f. 0.19 ACRES E U P " 0 - ' 5 PAVEMENT LEGEND: BUILDING GARAGE PORCH " 3 - ' 0 1 " 5 - ' 2 1 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2370.54 S.F. (52.94%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2311.25 S.F. (61.12%) LOT 32 - DOWNSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 511.4 s.f.LOT 33 - DOWNSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 584.3 s.f. TOTAL LOT AREA: 3781.60 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA: 4477.7 S.F. AREA 4 - UNIT COUNT: 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" Page Number: 39 Number: 96 OF 10 4 November 15, 2024 Site Plan UPSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 4 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total 18'-0" 50' 11'-0" " 10'-8" 12 16'-0" 6'-0 " 12 40' EUP "0-'5 5'-96'-0" " 1 2 20'-3" 11'-9 E 6'-0" " 1 2 U 15'-2 " P 1 2 27'-6 " 30' " 0 1 2 - 19'-10 ' 0 1 LOT 33 "0-'6 20' garage LOT 32 garage 10' NN 0' " 0 - ' 0 1 " 0 1 - ' 1 E 1 U P " 0 - ' 5 " 1 1 PAVEMENT - LEGEND: ' BUILDING 1 GARAGE 1 PORCH IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2370.54 S.F. (52.94%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2311.25 S.F. (61.12%) LOT 32 - UPSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 1188.5 s.f.LOT 33 - UPSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 1194.9 s.f. TOTAL LOT AREA: 3781.60 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA: 4477.7 S.F. AREA 4 - UNIT COUNT: 2 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" Page Number: 40 Number: 97 OF 10 5 November 15, 2024 Site Plan DOWNSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 5 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total BUILDING PORCH GARAGE PAVEMENT LEGEND: 12'-6" 13'-6" 8'-0" PUE 2 "7'-8 1 14'-0" . f . s 3 . 4 2 6 6 4 7'-5"10'-0"13'-0" 6'-0" T . f 5-'8 O" 0-'22 ." 8 s"0-' L 2 . 1 12'-0" 5 7 15'-6" 1 4 T O 6'-0" 5'-0" PUE L " 0 - ' 8 e g "0- 51 ' a 15'-0" r a g 23'-1" " 2 7-'32 1 3'-0" " " 0 0 - - ' ' 8 8 1 1 e 23'-1" g a r a 2 g "26'-9 15'-0" 1 15'-0" " 15'-6" 0 12'-0" - ' 8 6'-0" . f 7'-0" PUE . s .3 f .. s4 2 2 .6 1 5 5 4 7 7'-8" T 2 O 4 L T O 10'-0"10'-0" "5-'31 L 2045.00 S.F. (52.84%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: TOTAL LOT AREA: 3870.4 S.F. DOWN S. HEATED SPACE: 624.3 s.f. 11'-0" 10'-0" LOT 46: 2 1-21 ' 5'-0" " 5'-0" 6'-0" 2601.2 S.F. (67.83%) 1 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: TOTAL LOT AREA: 3835.00 S.F. 6'-0" DOWN S. HEATED SPACE: 624.3 s.f. " 11'-0" 1 2 11'-7 LOT 45: . f . 10'-0"10'-0" s 2 "8'-11 8 6 . 1 2315.8 S.F. (56.39%) f 4 . s 3 12'-0"3 4 8 11'-5"IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 5 T O 4 L 4 TOTAL LOT AREA: 4106.5 S.F. T O L DOWN S. HEATED SPACE: 583 s.f. 6'-0" LOT 44: " 1 2 883.5 S.F. (42.34%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 5 - ' 2 8 TOTAL LOT AREA: 2086.5 S.F. "8'-0 E N 1 1 I L Y T DOWN S. HEATED SPACE: 468 s.f. R E P O R P R LOT 43: E F F U B Y' 4 E 5'-0" L L A F O R2018.00 S.F. (57.63%) E T N E C IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: R E F F TOTAL LOT AREA: 3501.4 S.F. U B '12'-0" 4 DOWN S. HEATED SPACE: 751.2 s.f. LOT 42: 16'-0" 2017.3 S.F. (57.01%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: TOTAL LOT AREA: 3538.4 S.F. DOWN S. HEATED SPACE: 751.2 s.f. 50'40'30'20'10'0' LOT 41: AREA 5 - UNIT COUNT: 6 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 0.49 ACRES NN Page Number: 41 Number: 98 OF 10 6 November 15, 2024 Site Plan UPSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 5 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total BUILDING PORCH GARAGE PAVEMENT 12'-6" LEGEND: 13'-6" 8'-0" PUE 2 6'-0" "7'-8 1 14'-0" 2 "11'-10 1 . f . . s f . s 4 2 1 7'-5"10'-0"13'-0" . 2 2 -'8 "5 1 6 0-'22 " "0-'8 6 1 6 1 4 4 T T O O L L 15'-6" 5'-0" PUE 15'-0" e g a r a 23'-1" g "7-'32 3'-0" " " 0 0 - - ' ' 8 8 1 1 e g a 23'-1" r a g 2 15'-0" 9-62 ' " 1 15'-6" . f . . f s . s 2 .7'-0" PUE 4 2 1 6 2 6 1 1 5 4 2 4 T O T 7'-8" O L L 10'-0"10'-0"14'-0" 13'-5" 2045.00 S.F. (52.84%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: TOTAL LOT AREA: 3870.4 S.F. " 10'-0" 12 11'-1 UP S. HEATED SPACE: 1662.2 s.f. "2 1-21 ' LOT 46: 1 6'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 2601.2 S.F. (67.83%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 11'-0" TOTAL LOT AREA: 3835.00 S.F. UP S. HEATED SPACE: 1662.2 s.f. 2 "8'-11 . f LOT 45: 10'-0"10'-0" 1. s 8 6 4 10'-6" . 3 11'-5" f . 4 s T 5 2315.8 S.F. (56.39%) O . 1 L 1 3 1 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 4 4 T O TOTAL LOT AREA: 4106.5 S.F. L UP S. HEATED SPACE: 1311.5 s.f. " LOT 44: 12 6'-0" 18'-5 883.5 S.F. (42.34%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: e g TOTAL LOT AREA: 2086.5 S.F. E N a I r L a Y 2 T g "8'-0 R EUP S. HEATED SPACE: 468 s.f. P 1 O R P R E F LOT 43: F U B Y' 4 E 5'-0" L L A F O R E 2018.00 S.F. (57.63%) T N E C IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: R E F F U TOTAL LOT AREA: 3501.4 S.F. B 12'-0" ' 4 UP S. HEATED SPACE: 1214 s.f. LOT 42: 16'-0" 2017.3 S.F. (57.01%) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: TOTAL LOT AREA: 3538.4 S.F. UP S. HEATED SPACE: 1214 s.f. 50'40'30'20'10'0' LOT 41: AREA 5 - UNIT COUNT: 6 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 0.49 ACRES NN Page Number: 42 Number: 99 OF 10 7 November 15, 2024 Site Plan DOWNSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 6 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total 6'-0" " 1 2 9'-11 TTCCAAPPMM OOCC 363.1 s.f.363.1 s.f. TCAPMOC UNIT 1UNIT 2 363.1 s.f. 12'-0" UNIT 5UNIT 6 8'-0" 5'-0" 363.1 s.f. HANDICAPHANDICAP 1'-0" PARKINGPARKING LOT 37 SPACE 4'-0" 22'-0" TT CCAAPPMMOOCC ACCESSACCESS 20'-0" HANDICAP TT LOT 38 CC AA TT CC PP MM AA PP OO MM CC OO CC " 0 24'-0" - ' 0 2 " 0 - ' 0 1 R H S " 1 A 1 R T E- ' 9 R U " S O 0 L C - N E' 0 1 E R U P TT CC " 0 AA - PP ' 8 MM OO CC LOT 40 363.1 s.f. TT UNIT 14 CC AA TT "PP CC 0 MM AA - OO 'PP 4 MM CC 363.1 s.f. 2 OO UNIT 13 CC 363.1 s.f. TT CC UNIT 10 AA PP MM CENTER OF ALLEY " 7 OO - CC 363.1 s.f. PROPERTY LINE ' 0 " 1 2 1 UNIT 9 " 6 4' BUFFER4' BUFFER -5 ' 0- ' LOT 39 16 E E UU PP " " 00 - - '' 55 " 2 1 " 7 - 1 ' 7 - ' 0 1 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 4198.40 S.F. (73.45%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 4073.96 S.F. (70.31%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2585.70 S.F. (68.87%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2625.80 S.F. (67.70%) (6) 1 BEDROOM (603.6 S.F.) APARTMENTS(2) 1 BEDROOM (600.5 S.F.) APARTMENTS (8) STUDIO (363.1 S.F.) APARTMENTS(2) STUDIO (362.2 S.F.) APARTMENTS TOTAL 13291.3 S.F. (65.4%) HARDSCAPE9268.8 S.F. (45.6%)4022.5 S.F. (19.8%) TOTAL LOT AREA: 5716.22 S.F.TOTAL LOT AREA: 5794.50 S.F.TOTAL LOT AREA: 3754.50 S.F.TOTAL LOT AREA: 3878.40 S.F. LOT SIZE20,328.2 S.F. (100%) 8 STANDARD, 8 COMPACT 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE UNITS OVER 500 S.F.8UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.8 1 BED: 1.5x8 = 12 AREA 6 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (21) TOTAL REQUIRED (20) STUDIO: 1x8 = 8 STRUCTURES ACRE0.47GROUND FLOOR LOT COVERAGE: PAVEMENT LEGEND:APARTMENTS BUILDING GARAGE 2ND STORY PORCH PARKINGLOT 37:LOT 38:LOT 39:LOT 40: Page Number: 43 100 OF 10 Number: 8 November 15, 2024 Site Plan UPSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 6 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total 6'-0" " 1 2 9'-11 603.6 s.f. 2 UNIT 3UNIT 4 "16'-11 603.6 s.f.603.6 s.f. 1 UNIT 7UNIT 8 13'-8" 2 " 11-'11 1 603.6 s.f. 8'-0" LOT 37 LOT 38 " 0 - ' 0 2 H S " A 0 R- T' E 0 R 1 U S O L C N E E 603.6 s.f. U UNIT 16 P " 0 - ' 8 600.5 s.f. LOT 40 UNIT 15 600.5 s.f. UNIT 12 603.6 s.f. UNIT 11 " " 2 CENTER OF ALLEY 1 7 - ' " 5 PROPERTY LINE 2 1 1 5 " - 6 ' 6 - 6 ' 0 4' BUFFER4' BUFFER - 2 ' 5 1 LOT 39 E U P " 0 - "' 5 " 9 " 2 8 1 - -' 7 ' 1 2 4 - ' 5 1 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 4198.40 S.F. (73.45%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 4073.96 S.F. (70.31%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2585.70 S.F. (68.87%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2625.80 S.F. (67.70%) (6) 1 BEDROOM (603.6 S.F.) APARTMENTS(2) 1 BEDROOM (600.5 S.F.) APARTMENTS (8) STUDIO (363.1 S.F.) APARTMENTS(2) STUDIO (362.2 S.F.) APARTMENTS TOTAL 13291.3 S.F. (65.4%) 4022.5 S.F. (19.8%) HARDSCAPE9268.8 S.F. (45.6%) TOTAL LOT AREA: 5716.22 S.F.TOTAL LOT AREA: 5794.50 S.F.TOTAL LOT AREA: 3754.50 S.F.TOTAL LOT AREA: 3878.40 S.F. LOT SIZE20,328.2 S.F. (100%) 8 STANDARD, 8 COMPACT 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE UNITS OVER 500 S.F.8UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.8 1 BED: 1.5x8 = 12 AREA 6 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (21) TOTAL REQUIRED (20) STUDIO: 1x8 = 8 STRUCTURES ACRE0.47GROUND FLOOR LOT COVERAGE: PAVEMENT LEGEND: BUILDING GARAGE APARTMENTS PORCH 2ND STORY PARKINGLOT 37:LOT 38:LOT 39:LOT 40: Page Number: 44 101 OF 10 9 Number: November 15, 2024 Site Plan DOWNSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 7 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total (6) STUDIO (400 S.F.+/-) APARTMENTS HARDSCAPE6578.43 S.F. (65.61%) (5) 1 BEDROOM (489.3 S.F.) APT(s) 1x6 = 6 1 BED (UNDER 500 S.F.): 1x6 = 6 (1) 1 BEDROOM (498.3 S.F.) APT 6 STANDARD, 6 COMPACT 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.14 UNITS OVER 500 S.F.2 LOT SIZE10026.0 S.F. AREA 7 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (13) (3047.7 FOOTPRINT) ACRE0.43 BASEMENT LEVEL STUDIO: PAVEMENT APARTMENTS LEGEND: BUILDING GARAGE MAIN LEVEL PORCH PARKING 22'-10" 22'-0" HANDICAPHANDICAP COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT 22'-4" ACCESS 16'-0" PARKING ENCLOSUREENCLOSURE SPACE 18'-0" TTTTTRASHTRASHTTTTTTTT CCCCCCCCCCCC AAAAAAAAAAAA PPPPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMMMM OOOOOOOOOOOO CCCCCCCCCCCC 505.5 s.f. 489.3 s.f. 489.3 s.f. 489.3 s.f. 489.3 s.f. 489.3 s.f. UNIT 12 10'-1" UNIT 11 5'-6" UNIT 4 UNIT 8 UNIT 7UNIT 3 6'-0" 10'-1" 9'-7" "" 00 -- '' 610'-0"610'-0" LOT 36 E U garage P garage 624.8 s.f. 624.8 s.f. " 0 LOT 34 - LOT 35 ' 5 "0 -'01"11-' 31 6'-0" 6'-0" " 15'-0"15'-0" 1 2 15'-11 6'-0"6'-0" 25'-0" " 1 2 22'-9 14'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-0" 10'-0" 15'-0" 0-'5 EUP " LEGEND: LOT 35 - DOWNSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 624.6 s.f.LOT 34 - DOWNSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 624.8 s.f. 9'-0" 50' 9'-0" 40' 30' AREA 7 - UNIT COUNT: 2 20' NN 10' 0' Page Number: 45 102 OF 10 10 Number: November 15, 2024 Site Plan UPSTAIRS Taylored Elements Kestrel Hillside AREA 7 - Client/Owner: S H E E T Page Total (6) STUDIO (400 S.F.+/-) APARTMENTS HARDSCAPE6578.43 S.F. (65.61%) (5) 1 BEDROOM (489.3 S.F.) APT(s) 1x6 = 6 1 BED (UNDER 500 S.F.): 1x6 = 6 (1) 1 BEDROOM (498.3 S.F.) APT 6 STANDARD, 6 COMPACT 1 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE UNITS UNDER 500 S.F.14 UNITS OVER 500 S.F.2 LOT SIZE10026.0 S.F. AREA 7 - UNIT COUNT TOTAL PROVIDED (13) (3047.7 FOOTPRINT) ACRE0.43 BASEMENT LEVEL STUDIO: PAVEMENT APARTMENTS LEGEND: BUILDING GARAGE MAIN LEVEL PORCH PARKING 22'-10" 22'-0" HANDICAPHANDICAP COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT 22'-4" ACCESS 16'-0" PARKING ENCLOSUREENCLOSURE SPACE 18'-0" TTTTTRASHTRASHTTTTTTTT CCCCCCCCCCCC AAAAAAAAAAAA PPPPPPPPPPPP MMMMMMMMMMMM OOOOOOOOOOOO CCCCCCCCCCCC 505.5 s.f. 489.3 s.f. 489.3 s.f.489.3 s.f. 11'-0"489.3 s.f. 489.3 s.f. 10'-1" UNIT 10 UNIT 2 UNIT 9 UNIT 6UNIT 5 UNIT 1 6'-0" 5'-2" 10'-1" 6'-0" 10'-0"10'-0" LOT 36 E U P 1662.2 s.f. 1662.2 s.f. " 0 -LOT 34 LOT 35 ' 5 "0-01 '"11-'31 6'-0" 6'-0" " 1 "2 1 2 15'-11 21'-9 -'5 EUP "0 50' 9'-0" IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2147.4 s.f. (47.4%)IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 2147.4 s.f. (47.4%) 9'-0" 40' LOT 35 - UPSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 1662.2 s.f.LOT 34 - UPSTAIRS HEATED SPACE: 1662.2 s.f. 30' 20' LOT SIZE: 4530.3 s.f.LOT SIZE: 4530.3 s.f. NN AREA 7 - UNIT COUNT: 2 10' 0' Page Number: 46 103 Number: Page Total October 30, 2024 - 11 x 17 Format - Over/Under Apartments & Townhouses Schematic Design CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE KESTREL PARK PHASE THREE THESE CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS & RENDERINGS ARE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © 2024 DE'ZIN LLC & LINDEMANN DESIGN LLC Page Number: 47 2 104 OF 29 October 30, 2024 Number: Conceptual Architecture EXTERIOR COLORS Elements Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total Page Number: 48 105 3 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 4 - LOTS 32-33 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. REAR VIEW AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 49 106 4 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 4 - LOTS 32-33 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, LOT 33 - PATTON LANE VIEW i.e., 50% subterranean. LOT 32 - REAR VIEW LOT 32 - PATTON LANE VIEW Page Number: 50 107 Number: 5 OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 4 - LOTS 32-33 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page 8' 1 Total 12 CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING East Elevation 8' North Elevation SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 5.5 West Elevation - Facing Patton Ln. 12 COMPOSITE SHINGLES HARDIE MULTI-GROOVE PANEL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF South Elevation - not to scale NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. 2ND LEVEL CEILING 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL 27'-11" "" 3434 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 Page Number: 51 108 6 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 43-44 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 52 109 7 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 43-44 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. LOT 44 - STONERIDGE AVENUE VIEW REAR VIEW LOT 43 - STONERIDGE AVENUE VIEW Page Number: 53 110 8 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 43-44 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Total COMPOSITE SHINGLES East Elevation South Elevation 5.5 12 STUCCO West Elevation - Facing Stoneridge STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2ND LEVEL CEILING NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 8' 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL "" 26'-7" 3434 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 i.e., 50% subterranean. 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 1 North Elevation 12 CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Page Number: 54 111 9 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL & PERSPECTIVES Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOT 45 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page STONERIDGE AVENUE VIEW Total AERIAL VIEW NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. REAR WINDOW VIEW STONERIDGE AVENUE VIEW ALLEY VIEW Page Number: 55 112 10 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOT 45 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Total North Elevation South Elevation 5.5 12 COMPOSITE SHINGLES STUCCO 2ND LEVEL CEILING NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 8' 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL "" 27'-0" 3434 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 i.e., 50% subterranean. 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' West Elevation - Facing Stoneridge 0 East Elevation Page Number: 56 113 11 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOT 40 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total PATTON LANE VIEW AERIAL VIEW NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, REAR VIEW i.e., 50% subterranean. PATTON LANE VIEW REAR VIEW Page Number: 57 114 12 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOT 40 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total COMPOSITE SHINGLES STUCCO West Elevation - Facing Patton Ln. East Elevation 5.5 12 CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING 2ND LEVEL CEILING NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 8' 2ND LEVEL STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 1ST LEVEL "" 25'-8" 3434 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 i.e., 50% subterranean. 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 North Elevation South Elevation 12 1 Page Number: 58 115 13 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 41-42 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 59 116 Number: 14 OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 41-42 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page LOT 41 - REAR VIEW Total NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. LOT 42 - PATTON LANE VIEW LOT 41 - PATTON LANE VIEW LOT 42 - REAR VIEW Page Number: 60 117 15 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 41-42 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING COMPOSITE SHINGLES West Elevation 5.5 North Elevation 12 HARDIE MULTI-GROOVE PANEL East Elevation - Facing Patton Ln. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2ND LEVEL CEILING NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 8' HARDIE MULTI-GROOVE PANEL 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL 27'-10" "" 33 44 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 i.e., 50% subterranean. 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 1 12 South Elevation Page Number: 61 118 16 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 6 - LOTS 37, 38, & 39 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total ALLEY VIEW AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 62 119 17 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 6 - LOT 37, 38, & 39 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total NANDINA STREET VIEW ALLEY & PATTON LANE VIEW NANDINA STREET VIEW Page Number: 63 120 18 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 6 - LOTS 37 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total North Elevation 5.5 East Elevation 12 STUCCO CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING COMPOSITE SHINGLES 12 1 2ND LEVEL CEILING STUCCO 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL 25'-11" "" METAL ROOF 3434 RIDGE STANDING SEAM 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 8' 8' South Elevation - Facing Nandina St. SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 West Elevation Page Number: 64 121 19 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 6 - LOTS 38 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total South Elevation 5.5 West Elevation 12 STUCCO CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING COMPOSITE SHINGLES 12 1 2ND LEVEL CEILING STUCCO 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL 25'-11" "" METAL ROOF 3434 RIDGE STANDING SEAM 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 8' 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" North Elevation - Facing Julian Ct. 4' 2' 0 East Elevation Page Number: 65 122 Number: 20 OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 6 - LOT 39 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total 5.5 South Elevation 12 West Elevation - Facing Patton Ln. East Elevation 12 COMPOSITE SHINGLES 1 METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM 2ND LEVEL CEILING 16' 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL 25'-11" "" 3434 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" 8' STUCCO 4' 2' 0 CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING North Elevation Page Number: 66 123 21 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 35 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 67 124 Number: 22 OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 35 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page NANDINA STREET VIEW Total NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. PATTON LANE VIEW PATTON LANE VIEW REAR VIEW Page Number: 68 125 23 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 35 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total 2ND LEVEL CEILING 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL "" " 1 23434 RIDGE HARDIE PLANK LAP SIDING 23'-919'-010'-00'-0" METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM COMPOSITE SHINGLES NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 8' i.e., 50% subterranean. 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 1 12 12 5.5 Page Number: 69 126 24 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOTS 34 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 70 127 25 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 34 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total SIDE VIEW NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. PATTON LANE VIEW PATTON LANE VIEW REAR VIEW Page Number: 71 128 26 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 34 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total 2ND LEVEL CEILING 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL "" 26'-7" 3434 RIDGE HARDIE PLANK LAP SIDING 19'-010'-00'-0" METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 8' COMPOSITE SHINGLES i.e., 50% subterranean. 8' SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" 4' 2' 0 1 12 12 5.5 Page Number: 72 129 27 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 AERIAL/OVERVIEW Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 36 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total AERIAL VIEW Page Number: 73 130 28 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 36 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, i.e., 50% subterranean. MARIPOSA COURT VIEW MARIPOSA COURT VIEW REAR VIEW Page Number: 74 131 29 Number: OF 29 October 30, 2024 ELEVATIONS Conceptual Architecture Elements AREA 7 - LOT 36 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page 5.5 Total West Elevation COMPOSITE SHINGLES 12 East Elevation - Facing Mariposa Ct. 1 12 South Elevation HARDIE MULTI-GROVE PANEL HARDIE TEXTURED PANEL 2ND LEVEL CEILING NOTE: Lower level is daylight basement, 16' 2ND LEVEL 1ST LEVEL "" 24'-5" 3434 RIDGE 0'-0" 19'-010'-0 SCALE: 3/32"=1'-0" i.e., 50% subterranean.8' 4' 2' 0 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF North Elevation CEMENTITIOUS LAP SIDING Page Number: 75 132 1 Number: OF 3 October 15, 2024 PLAN Fence Layout Elements AREA 4 - LOTS 31-32 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total ' 0 0 1 ' 0 9 ' 0 8 SCALE: 1"=30' ' 0 7 Lot 31 ' 0 6 N Lot 32 ' 0 5 ' 0 4 ' 0 3 ' 0 2 ' 0 1 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT FENCING WILL BE WHITE VINYL WITH FINAL OWNERS MAY CHOOSE TO REDUCE THE FENCING SCOPE AND HEIGHTS ARE AMOUNT OR HEIGHTS OF FENCING DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MAXIMUM ALLOWED CENTRAL RETAINING: UP TO 3'-6" TALL: UP TO 6' TALL: KEY: Page Number: 76 133 2 Number: OF 3 October 15, 2024 PLAN Fence Layout Elements AREA 5 - LOTS 33-37 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total ' 0 0 1 ' 0 9 ' 0 8 SCALE: 1"=30' ' 0 7 ' 0 6 N ' 0 5 ' 0 4 ' 0 Lot 37 3 ' 0 2 ' 0 1 Lot 36 Lot 36 Lot 33 Lot 34 Lot 35 FENCING WILL BE WHITE VINYL WITH FINAL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OWNERS MAY CHOOSE TO REDUCE THE FENCING SCOPE AND HEIGHTS ARE AMOUNT OR HEIGHTS OF FENCING DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MAXIMUM ALLOWED CENTRAL RETAINING: UP TO 3'-6" TALL: UP TO 6' TALL: KEY: Page Number: 77 134 3 Number: OF 3 October 15, 2024 PLAN Fence Layout Elements AREA 7 - LOTS 40-41 Kestrel Hillside Client/Owner: Taylored S H E E T Page Total ' 0 0 1 ' 0 9 ' 0 8 Lot 42 Lot 42Lot 42Lot 42 SCALE: 1"=30' Lot 42Lot 42 ' 0 7 ' 0 6 N ' 0 5 ' 0 4 ' Lot 41 Lot 40 0 3 ' 0 2 ' 0 1 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT FENCING WILL BE WHITE VINYL WITH FINAL OWNERS MAY CHOOSE TO REDUCE THE FENCING SCOPE AND HEIGHTS ARE AMOUNT OR HEIGHTS OF FENCING DESIGN TO BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MAXIMUM ALLOWED CENTRAL RETAINING: UP TO 3'-6" TALL: UP TO 6' TALL: KEY: Page Number: 78 135 Number: CITY OF ASHLAND - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page Total KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 3 VICINITY MAP C.4-C.5 E.1-E.5 F.1-F.2 C.1C.2C.3D.1D.2D.3 A.1A.2 T.1 B.1 PROJECT ASHLAND AREA SHEET INDEX UTILITY, SITE, LIGHTING, & SIGNING PLAN EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY NANDINA SECTIONS PATTON SECTIONS NORTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE NANDINA STREET CURB RETURNS GRADING PLAN PATTON LANE COVER SHEET LOCATION SECTIONS PROJECT DETAILS ALLEY 1 PLUM RIDGE DRIVE KESTREL PARK SUBDIVISON S LOT 35 W O D SYMBOLS SECTION 4, T. 39 S., R. 1 E., W.M.A . TC NAI LUJE M LOT 34 E CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS N ALLEY 2 V JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON I I A R D T N U TAX LOTS 900, 2000, 8600 O M LOT 32 T E E E N A LR CITY OF ASHLAND T N O T S T A P LOT 33 A N I ALLEY 1 D PHASE 3 LOCATED IN N 1 A N NEST BOX FOR ENAL E U N E NNIUQV A E G D I R E N O 15 T S 2 3 4 14 Y E 4 L L A 13 5 6 12 LEGEND 3 Y E L L 7 A 8 9 Y A W 10 K R A P K 11 E E R C R L E A R T S E K E B LINES CONTACT INFORMATION GENERAL NOTES Page Number: 79 136 Number: Page Total Page Number: 80 137 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total AREA DRAIN AND TEE DETAILAREA DRAIN AND TEE DETAIL CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATE WATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE STORM PRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTESPRIVATE SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES COMMON PRIVATE STORM WATER SERVICE TABLE CONSTRUCTION NOTES STREET LIGHT LOCATION TABLE NANDINA STREET PATTON LANE STREET LIGHTS LOT 35 XE .TC NAILUJ . LOT 34 G N N E I TIV A I S R T I X D N E U S W O M O D A E M E N A L N O T T A P LOT 32 T E E R T S A N I D ALLEY 1 N A N LOT 33 E U N E V A E G D I R E N XE ENAL NNIUQ . O T S LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 12 LOT 13 Page Number: 81 138 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE TABLE DRIVEWAY CENTER LINE CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS STORM DRAIN SERVICE LOCATION TABLE LOCATION TABLE LOCATION TABLE CONSTRUCTION NOTES CURVE TABLE ALIGNMENTS LOT 34 5 3 T O NANDINA STREET L PATTON LANE SEE SHEET C.2 PATTON LANE SEE SHEET C.2 3 3 T O L LOT 32 Page Number: 82 139 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION NOTES 5 3 T O L 2 3 T O L SANITARY SEWER SERVICE LOCATION TABLE PATTON LANE NANDINA STREET SEE SHEET C.1 NANDINA STREET SEE SHEET C.1 CURVE TABLE 4 3 T 3 O 3 L T O L 3 DRIVEWAY CENTER LINE . C 2 YT LOCATION TABLE E E E L H L A S E E S 3 . C 1 Y T E E LE LH A S E E S STORM DRAIN SERVICE WATER TABLE LOCATION TABLE Page Number: 83 140 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS STEEL LYNCH BASIN DETAIL CONSTRUCTION NOTES .TC NAILUJ .XE LOT 34 PATTON LANE SEE SHEET C.2 ALLEY 1 & 2 E N AL N OT TA P . XE 1 LOT 33 Y E L L A STORM DRAIN SERVICE LOCATION TABLE NNIUQ .XE ENAL E U N E V A E G D I R E N O T S CURVE TABLE Page Number: 84 141 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS CURVE TABLE ALIGNMENTS CONSTRUCTION NOTES E NAL NO TTA P T E E R T S A N I D N A N Page Number: 85 142 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION NOTES T E E R T S A N I D N A N EN AL N OTT AP CURVE TABLE ALIGNMENTS Page Number: 86 143 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 1 Y Total E L CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS L A E U N E V A E G D CONSTRUCTION NOTES I R E N O T S T E E R T S A N I D N A N E U N E V A E G D I R E N O T S CONSTRUCTION NOTES Page Number: 87 144 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS GEOTECHNICAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES: CONTOURS DIR MULP EVIRD EG LOT 35 XE .TC NAILUJ . LOT 34 N E IV A I R T D N U S W O M O D ALLEY 2 A E M E N A L N O LOT 32 T T A P T E E R T S A N I D ALLEY 1 N A N LOT 33 E U N E V A E G D I R E N O T S ENAL NNIUQ .XE LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 12 LOT 13 Page Number: 88 145 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS NANDINA - 46+50NANDINA - 48+50 NANDINA - 46+00NANDINA - 48+00 Page Number: 89 146 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS PATTON - 29+50PATTON - 31+50 PATTON - 29+00PATTON - 31+00 PATTON - 28+50PATTON - 30+50 Page Number: 90 147 Number: CITY OF ASHLAND - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN Total KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 VICINITY MAP E.1E.2E.3E.4E.5 ASHLAND PROJECT AREA DEMOLITION, CLEARING, GRADING & EXCAVATION STREETS, UTILITIES, VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION, & SHEET INDEX FINAL STABALIZATION GENERAL NOTES COVER SHEET DETAILS KESTREL PARK SUBDIVISON SECTION 4, T. 39 S., R. 1 E., W.M. JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON TAX LOTS 900, 2000, 8600 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN FOR LOT 35 CITY OF ASHLAND LOT 34 PHASE 3 LOCATED IN ALLEY 2 LOT 33 E N A L N O T T A P T E E R T S A N I LOT 32 D ALLEY 1 N A N E U N E V A E G D I R E N O T S Page Number: 91 148 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page POSSIBLE POLLUTANT-GENERATING ACTIVITIES KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY GRASSES AND PERMANENT AUTHORIZED NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES VEGETATIVE COVER GENERAL NOTES STANDARD NOTES FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS STRUCTURALLY AMENDED SOIL USED ON SITE: CERTIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS INSPECTOR: WITHIN 50' OF STATE SURFACE WATERS: PROJECT GREATER THAN 20 ACRES: NO PROJECT GREATER THAN 1 ACRE: YES CERTIFICATION: EXPERIENCE: NEAREST OFFICIAL RAIN GAUGE: TRAINING: RECEIVING WATER BODY: MINIMUM FREQUENCY BMPs WITH ESCP IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FORM 3. ESTIMATED DATE OF TEMPORARY OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED TELEPHONE: CONTROLS AND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT OF VEHICLES, AND FINAL ADDRESS: 1. ESTIMATED START DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN EACH NAME: END DATE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED POLLUTANT GENERATION 2. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STOP DATES OF CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION AND PROJECTED SCHEDULE FOR TEH FOLLOWING: 4. ESTIMATED DATE OF REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY STORMWATER WATER BODIES IMPACTED, INCLUDING 401, USAGE, DSL PERMIT EROSION CONTROL INSPECTION TABLE NATURAL BUFFER ZONE COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE: 303(D) CATEGORY 4/5 IMPAAIRMENT STATEMENT: AUTHORIZED NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGE: POLLUTANT GENERATING ACTIVITIES ON SITE: YEAR:MONTH #: PLANNED BUSINESS DAYS AND HOURS: ACTIVITIES IN EACH PORTION OF SITE. ESCP NARRATIVE FORM SPILL PREVENTION PROCEDURES: SEEDING NOTES: SITE CONDITION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: TYPE OF FILL MATERIAL: APPLICANT NAME: DISTURBED AREA: POSTION OF SITE: NAMES/NUMBERS: PROJECT NAME: LOT ACREAGE: LOCATION: NOTE: ACTIVITIES. ADDRESS: SITE SOIL: AREAS. BMPs Page Number: 92 149 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS RD EGDIR MULP EVI T E AILUJ .XE .TC N E R T S A N I D N A N N E I A V T I R N ALLEY 2 D U OS W M O D A E M E N A L N O T T A P ALLEY 1 E U N E V A E G D I R E N O T S XE ENAL NNIUQ . ESC CONSTRUCTION NOTES: STABILIZATION NOTE: CONTOURS Page Number: 93 150 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS RD EGDIR MULP EVI T E AILUJ .XE .TC N E R T S A N I D N A N N E I A V T I R N ALLEY 2 D U OS W M O D A E M E N A L N O T T A P ALLEY 1 E U N E V A E G D I R E N O T S XE ENAL NNIUQ . ESC CONSTRUCTION NOTES: STABILIZATION NOTE: CONTOURS Page Number: 94 151 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS Page Number: 95 152 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS Page Number: 96 153 Number: CITY OF MEDFORD - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Page KESTRAL PARK SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 Total CIVIL IMPROVEMENTS Page Number: 97 Page Number: 98 154 Number: Page Total